Originally posted by scaramoosh Erm Iraq was a scapegoat, jut like Poland was when Germany invaded.
Kind of comparing Apples and Telephones there. We'd already fought against Iraq over a decade before 9/11. To say "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Terrorist Ties" were an excuse like Poland was would probably be a little more apt. Poland wasn't ruled by a leader who was slaughtering 100s of 1000s of his own people just for disagreeing with him.
Funny you use those analogies, though. People had no issue with us attacking Hitler and the German Army when they were slaughtering jews, but it's somehow different when Saddam is doing the very same thing to his own people for being a different schism?
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Marchus There was a lot there that was kind of questionable, i'd have to see the documents or at least photos myself to believe something like Bin Laden being in our custody days before the attacks, i'm sure he wouldn't really be afraid to mention it if he had been. I'm mostly concerned with things that should be impossible, like the two towers collapsing from those impacts at the upper levels. Even if somehow an excess of jet fuel had leaked all the way to the basement of the building, in the midst of what was supposed to be a raging inferno, it couldn't have melted the supports and definently not in a way that would cause the buildings to collapse so neatly. Then the minor damage at the Pentagon in retrospect, there's no way a 757 hit anywhere near there, unless there's a magical titanium reinforced lawn there that can withstand heat even jet engines can't. Phone calls at 32000 feet, Flight 93's complete dissapearance. Black Boxes apparently disintegrating while bodies and paper documents remain intact. It was also strange that those flights had been off course for so long and had even gone through restricted airspace without getting shot down. Any pilot would be well aware way beforehand what would happen if they did go flying around the Pentagon, and the hi-jackers, alive or dead, were supposed to be trained and licensed. Why would they go through with the plan knowing that by all means it would fail before they got anywhere near the WTC/Pentagon? Was way too convenient that our forces were unavailable for just that day. How would anyone but our own government be able to get that kind of information? If Al Qaeda had really infiltrated us so far I would think there would have been a lot more happening these past 4 years. Those are things you really can't lie about, the current explanations are refuted by the evidence.
The only parts here I am going to comment on are highlighted above in red. I drove past the Pentagon 2 day after the attacks. Surrounded by S.A.M. armed Humvee's and all. I am not sure where YOU didn't see the damage to a building designed to withstand direct bomb blasts or the char outside and around the area but I most certainly did.
Just in case you've forgotten what it looked like. I'd also like to state that I have 16 friends that work to this day on Independence Ave and around the Kennedy Center that WATCHED the plane slam into the building. So unless the Government has moved beyond "Wagging the Dog" and making up fake media reals to the point that they borrowed little silver tubes from Wil Smith and Tommy Lee Jones and flashing them at people till they can change what they thought they saw...it happened.
As for phone calls at 32k feet you've lost me here completely. Are you saying you don't think they could have happened? Or that you do. I've personally used the built-in satelite phones to make calls while on cross country trips ( 'bout the only complaint I could make about those calls was the fact that I had to sell 2 arms and half a leg to fun them ). Modern commercial airliners have one HUGE antenae running down the length of the body so I don't see how a cell phone COULDN'T work even if it were a personal motorola. They do ask you turn those off for a reason...
*EDIT: I also had to comment on the portion that you spoke about "restricted airspace". We'll speak ONLY about the Pentagon right now to make it easier. I can tell you've NEVER been to D.C. or you would know that Reagan Airport is directly across the Potomac from D.C. and maybe...2-3 miles to the East of the Pentagon. Planes fly in and around that area ALL the time. At that time the ONLY "restricted" area for flight was north of the Potomac. The amount of time ANY plane moving around roughly 450 m.p.h. would take to enter into airspace around the Pentagon it would be only a matter of seconds before it impacted. At that time there were not regular fighter patrols over that area. Military forces and weapons still only react with a certain amount of speed...
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
They ask you to turn them off because they're afraid it will interfere with their equipment, there's no research behind it, but that would be the reason. And taking a second look around the strange manner of the conversations is actually explained too, they do work, just not very well.
And i've seen what it looked like, it's still not consistent for the size of the thing crashing into it. A 757 is not a bomb, that's another hundred tons of reinforced metal, packed with jet fuel, travelling at speeds in excess of 400 mph. And in most places all it appeared to do was singe the outside and break some windows. Like something maybe a bomb would do. There's a large problem with your photo in that it was taken three days afterwards. The scenery has completely changed when compared to those taken by the Associated Press, those photos that show the grass still intact and objects sitting around outside of the building without any trace of an actual plane. It even looks like they've already begun reconstruction, which would involve removing damaged portions, correct?
And about the WTC planes again, the idea is that a flights went off course for 30+ minutes to go land in Reagan Airport and nobody thought it was at all suspicious until after they'd already been hit, is your take then? I almost forgot, that please keep in mind, that by the time flight 77 was hi-jacked, and went off course, flight 11 had already hit the WTC.
Malachi, at the very beginning of all your blue text, you tried to correct someones text. Funny thing is you made it incorrect.
He was right with "your" You were wrong with "you're". You're = you are.
learn2spell
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Marchus They ask you to turn them off because they're afraid it will interfere with their equipment, there's no research behind it, but that would be the reason. And taking a second look around the strange manner of the conversations is actually explained too, they do work, just not very well. And i've seen what it looked like, it's still not consistent for the size of the thing crashing into it. A 757 is not a bomb, that's another hundred tons of reinforced metal, packed with jet fuel, travelling at speeds in excess of 400 mph. And in most places all it appeared to do was singe the outside and break some windows. Like something maybe a bomb would do. There's a large problem with your photo in that it was taken three days afterwards. The scenery has completely changed when compared to those taken by the Associated Press, those photos that show the grass still intact and objects sitting around outside of the building without any trace of an actual plane. It even looks like they've already begun reconstruction, which would involve removing damaged portions, correct? And about the WTC planes again, the idea is that a flights went off course for 30+ minutes to go land in Reagan Airport and nobody thought it was at all suspicious until after they'd already been hit, is your take then?
The plane that hit the Pentagon came in at a high angle. Most of it's force was pushed inwards into the multi-layered building. The insides of the Pentagon were burned beyond belief in several areas. The photo I showed you should allow you extrapolate the angle at which it hit. Had it hit at an angle that it would have affect the ( very limited ) lawn in front it would not have been able to penetrate as far into the inner layers as it did. Keep in mind, that photo I showed you was Popular Mechanics. If you want to back track it a bit you can read the entire arcticle in which phsysists go on on the same points I am. Again, as I said above, I have 16 eye witness friends and co-workers who watched the plane slam into the building. Unless the MIBs are erasing people's memories now THAT is undisputed fact.
As for the planes at the WTC, what did THEY have to do with Reagan National Airport? They left John F. Kennedy and were intended to land in LAX or other locations across the otherside of the country. Hence why they were fully loaded with fuel for a long, non-stop, cross-country flight. If they were intended for Reagan National they would've have needed the full fuel load outs. The amount of time it would take to hit the WTC from LaGuardia or JFK airports would be a matter of moments at the speeds they were travelling. The ONLY plane that was off course for such a long time ended up as a crater in Pennsylvania. Now, I will agree with you that the missing black box issue is a little interesting but there are dozens of reasons why some of that information may have been hidden.
I'd be wondering how so many people let themselves be held hostage with bix cutters more than most of the "unsual" circumstances. Some things may have been kept from public knowledge strictly so they didn't announce on the news "This is how you can attack us in detail and make it work." That would be much like those police shows that catch meth labs in action and blank/bleep out the recipe portions before airing the footage. Sure, that's creative editing but do you REALLY think that kind of information should be made any more available to the public than it already is?
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by AlexAmore Malachi, at the very beginning of all your blue text, you tried to correct someones text. Funny thing is you made it incorrect. He was right with "your" You were wrong with "you're". You're = you are. learn2spell
Yoohoo. Are we reading? When he said "your simply wrong" that was incorrect. THAT was what I was correcting. Let's do this slowly for the peanut gallery. What sounds correct to you?
"You are simply wrong" which would be contracted to "You're simply wrong"
or
"Your simply wrong" which would infere that I own simply wrong.
You're = contraction of You Are
Your = possessive.
You're not reading what I am typing thoroughly, but your opinions are your own. Proper uses just for you to maintain as examples.
"Learn to read."
Edit: I will clarify this for you so it's easier to digest. Quoted from his post:
malachi 1975 - i couldnt read your entire post as it was longer than the bible. but i read the first points about oil and i totally disagree, your simply wrong.
Green means proper usage. Red means improper. Before you stop to insult someone you may at least want to check yourself before. We're also not talking about a simple typo. We're all guilty of that. The improper uses of the words "you're" and "your" are a quirk of mine.
Now you know...
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Okay I thought you were talking about the first "your".
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Funny you use those analogies, though. People had no issue with us attacking Hitler and the German Army when they were slaughtering jews, but it's somehow different when Saddam is doing the very same thing to his own people for being a different schism?
Lame attempt at trying to draw a comparison to justify the American Conquest at Iraq.
We didn't attack the Germans because they were slaughtering the Jews. Hell, no one was attacking the Germans because they were slaughtering Jews.
Everyone was attacking them because Hitler was a madman that wanted to rule the world, and no one likes to be a slave.
Funny you use those analogies, though. People had no issue with us attacking Hitler and the German Army when they were slaughtering jews, but it's somehow different when Saddam is doing the very same thing to his own people for being a different schism?
Lame attempt at trying to draw a comparison to justify the American Conquest at Iraq.
We didn't attack the Germans because they were slaughtering the Jews. Hell, no one was attacking the Germans because they were slaughtering Jews.
Everyone was attacking them because Hitler was a madman that wanted to rule the world, and no one likes to be a slave.
In other words, it was self defense.
Last I checked Hitler didn't launch a single attack against the U.S. before we entered WWII. Tojo did, sure, but not Hitler. It would have even been hard for him to attack us openly even if he HAD succeeded in taking most of Europe.
The attack on Hitler by the U.S. was not Self-Defense. Self-Defense means he would have had to been attacking us in the first place. Now pre-emptive would fit more aptly. Yes, we attacked Hitler pre-emptively to avoid a problem in the future. I am trying to see the difference between attacking Hitler to avoid a problem in the future and attacking Saddam to preven't a problem in the future. The idiot that Saddam was he even made verbal threats about defeating the U.S. and the like when we were in Afghanistan going directly after Al Queda. How was Saddam NOT a future threat?
Yes, Hitler was a megalomaniac wanting to rule the whole world. Saddam may not openly admit he wants to run the whole world but I doubt he would turn it down if it were handed to him. In the end though BOTH Hitler and Saddam were slaughtering civilians for their race/creed/religion. Unless you can tell me you think Saddam was a GREAT leader I really don't get your defense at all.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by daeandor Carnac the Magnificent places his head against the monitor: Answer: Locks quickly. Question: What is a thread on MMORPG.com that focuses on 9/11 conspiracty theories?
Can't be too quickly since it's been going on since yesterday. Though, you get UBER brownie points for quoting the Mighty Carnac :P
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
They did say that it hit the Pentagon at ground level, and skidded across the lawn probably to explain the posts and all knocked down along the way. Maybe they changed the story now, I dunno. I can't argue with an impact, but everything would be solved if they'd show what it was like on the inside at the very least. >>
I mentioned that flight 11 had already hit the WTC because another hi-jacking just minutes after that should have set some kind of cranks turning don't you think? The only flight that wasn't out of FAA contact for more than 30 minutes was 175, that one was confirmed about 20 minutes(8:44) before it hit, which was still 30+ minutes before flight 77 hit the pentagon. Flight 11 was confirmed at 8:14 and hit around 8:46. Flight 77 was confirmed around 8:50 and hit around 9:35. They had to have had some kind of advance knowledge about our training exercises, and the Coordinators absence, to think they could pull it off without military interference.
They did say that it hit the Pentagon at ground level, and skidded across the lawn probably to explain the posts and all knocked down along the way. Maybe they changed the story now, I dunno. I can't argue with an impact, but everything would be solved if they'd show what it was like on the inside at the very least. >>
I mentioned that flight 11 had already hit the WTC because another hi-jacking just minutes after that should have set some kind of cranks turning don't you think? The only flight that wasn't out of FAA contact for more than 30 minutes was 175, that one was confirmed about 20 minutes(8:44) before it hit, which was still 30+ minutes before flight 77 hit the pentagon. Flight 11 was confirmed at 8:14 and hit around 8:46. Flight 77 was confirmed around 8:50 and hit around 9:35. They had to have had some kind of advance knowledge about our training exercises, and the Coordinators absence, to think they could pull it off without military interference.
Last I checked Hitler didn't launch a single attack against the U.S. before we entered WWII. Tojo did, sure, but not Hitler. It would have even been hard for him to attack us openly even if he HAD succeeded in taking most of Europe.
Ahrm...The axis attacked us, whatever way you want to spin it. Hitler may not have used his own Germanic soldiers, but his comrades in arms did the strike.
The attack on Hitler by the U.S. was not Self-Defense. Self-Defense means he would have had to been attacking us in the first place. Now pre-emptive would fit more aptly. Yes, we attacked Hitler pre-emptively to avoid a problem in the future. I am trying to see the difference between attacking Hitler to avoid a problem in the future and attacking Saddam to preven't a problem in the future. The idiot that Saddam was he even made verbal threats about defeating the U.S. and the like when we were in Afghanistan going directly after Al Queda. How was Saddam NOT a future threat?
Pre-emptive, inadvertently, is self-defense. He wanted the whole world, if he took out Europe, sooner or later he'd take out america. Maybe the best wording would be pre-emptive self defense. Although he made no previous openly direct assaults, only a complete ass would not be able to see future "mishaps".
Saddam was a blowhard. Alot of those middle-eastern dictators/extremist's are. They talk about how the US is the devil, and they're going to get theirs, but they never seem to pull it off. Osama keeps on blowin his trumpet saying that he's going to blow up US cities...Still hasn't.
Saddam would have been a future threat if he had the weapons to pull it off. He didn't. It was a lie by the US, or gross mis-speculation: Whichever it being, there was no real reason to take him out, other than he was a bastard.
Yes, Hitler was a megalomaniac wanting to rule the whole world. Saddam may not openly admit he wants to run the whole world but I doubt he would turn it down if it were handed to him. In the end though BOTH Hitler and Saddam were slaughtering civilians for their race/creed/religion. Unless you can tell me you think Saddam was a GREAT leader I really don't get your defense at all.
How many people do you know that would turn down the opportunity for ultimate power? It's human nature to want power. Some just lose all ethics and morals in their attempt to achieve it.
And plenty of crazy dictators in africa slaughter people for the same reason.
And then we got our buddies in Saudi Arabia that violently are against things like Christianity, or anything "non-islam."
And I don't think "good leadership" has anything to do with it. I don't think Bush is a good leader.
Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam was a bastard. But the US are a bunch of flaming hypocrites for picking him to make their bitch, but then keeping these friendly relations with places like Saudi Arabia.
I watch a lot of 9/11 documentaries. This one is very informative. With documents and Interviews, the facts presented are more true, than the other speculations of what really happened.
Nice video, very informative.. had some info in it that I was not aware of. What shocks me the most is how most people believe that it's normal for the those buildings to have fallen neatly down like that!
Have played: UO, WOW, COH/V, EQ2 Currently playing: Age of Conan (EU)
Nice video, very informative.. had some info in it that I was not aware of. What shocks me the most is how most people believe that it's normal for the those buildings to have fallen neatly down like that!
How did the Twin Towers fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they crashed into the floors below. With the weight of the plunging floors accelerating, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the Twin Towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, they were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
Could the World Trade Center have been made stronger?
In a report produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and other organizations, experts concluded that no skyscraper could have withstood the impact of the terrorist airplanes. Further, the experts warned that it would not be "technically feasible" to design a building that could survive this type of terrorist attack. Instead, engineers and architects are suggesting that we focus our efforts on designing better warning and evacuation systems so that we can save more people inside the buildings.
Survivors from inside the WTC report hearing explosions. A few were prior service and heard detonations. A lot of skyscrapers have burned, some almost completly and only these have fallen due to it.
Jet fuel is a fast fire. It is not napalm. It flashes and is consumed within seconds of being exposed to air and heat. Office furniture and other things are all that maintained the fire.
Firefighters made it to the floors with the fire and could have defeated the fire ' with two lines ' this means two fire hoses could have extinguished the fire.
The ground shook with the explosions. Do not confuse a plane impact with an explosion. Explosives have a distinct sound and fires have another all of thier own.
I may not buy into all the assertions of the video linked originally. I can tell you that we have not been given enough information and the evidence is being systematically eliminated. Time will eventually bury this into obscurity.
Have you watched the video katee? If not - do so. Then post.
Why do people have to believe that everything is a conspiracy? What can you possibly say to the families that have lost loved ones in this event? No nation on this planet comes close to what the United States represents. The fact that you are allowed to publish these half truths and innuendos is proof of the free society that you seem to enjoy. Remember this government is based on "WE THE PEOPLE", not like most of the world. The United States is the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on the planet. War mongering American's please! We were attacked. Should we have been better prepared certainly, do we have plans certainly, but to state that we planned 9-11, please! To conclude the american government is "We THE PEOPLE". if you don't like the government then vote a different one in, it's as simple as that.
If Bush purposedly caused 9/11 I'm sure he'd commit suicide quickly there after the shock. No amount of anti-d's could keep a person afloat with that much blood on his hands. Bush, I agree is more simply minded on things but, he is a competent man.
All these controversial videos are being made now because the majority of the U.S.'s memory is slowly deterioating and, politically it's a way to induce anarchy among Americans. I guess, that's what is called stage two of the terrorist's plan to undermine America.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth - That question is less stupid but, you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Comments
Kind of comparing Apples and Telephones there. We'd already fought against Iraq over a decade before 9/11. To say "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Terrorist Ties" were an excuse like Poland was would probably be a little more apt. Poland wasn't ruled by a leader who was slaughtering 100s of 1000s of his own people just for disagreeing with him.
Funny you use those analogies, though. People had no issue with us attacking Hitler and the German Army when they were slaughtering jews, but it's somehow different when Saddam is doing the very same thing to his own people for being a different schism?
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
The only parts here I am going to comment on are highlighted above in red. I drove past the Pentagon 2 day after the attacks. Surrounded by S.A.M. armed Humvee's and all. I am not sure where YOU didn't see the damage to a building designed to withstand direct bomb blasts or the char outside and around the area but I most certainly did.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=493542&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EHQ+ATTACK%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Taken+three+days+after+9%2F11%2C+this+photo+shows+the+extent+of+the+damage+to+the+Pentagon%2C+consistent+with+a+fiery+plane+crash.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+DEPARTMENT+OF+DEFENSE
Just in case you've forgotten what it looked like. I'd also like to state that I have 16 friends that work to this day on Independence Ave and around the Kennedy Center that WATCHED the plane slam into the building. So unless the Government has moved beyond "Wagging the Dog" and making up fake media reals to the point that they borrowed little silver tubes from Wil Smith and Tommy Lee Jones and flashing them at people till they can change what they thought they saw...it happened.
As for phone calls at 32k feet you've lost me here completely. Are you saying you don't think they could have happened? Or that you do. I've personally used the built-in satelite phones to make calls while on cross country trips ( 'bout the only complaint I could make about those calls was the fact that I had to sell 2 arms and half a leg to fun them ). Modern commercial airliners have one HUGE antenae running down the length of the body so I don't see how a cell phone COULDN'T work even if it were a personal motorola. They do ask you turn those off for a reason...
*EDIT: I also had to comment on the portion that you spoke about "restricted airspace". We'll speak ONLY about the Pentagon right now to make it easier. I can tell you've NEVER been to D.C. or you would know that Reagan Airport is directly across the Potomac from D.C. and maybe...2-3 miles to the East of the Pentagon. Planes fly in and around that area ALL the time. At that time the ONLY "restricted" area for flight was north of the Potomac. The amount of time ANY plane moving around roughly 450 m.p.h. would take to enter into airspace around the Pentagon it would be only a matter of seconds before it impacted. At that time there were not regular fighter patrols over that area. Military forces and weapons still only react with a certain amount of speed...
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
They ask you to turn them off because they're afraid it will interfere with their equipment, there's no research behind it, but that would be the reason. And taking a second look around the strange manner of the conversations is actually explained too, they do work, just not very well.
And i've seen what it looked like, it's still not consistent for the size of the thing crashing into it. A 757 is not a bomb, that's another hundred tons of reinforced metal, packed with jet fuel, travelling at speeds in excess of 400 mph. And in most places all it appeared to do was singe the outside and break some windows. Like something maybe a bomb would do. There's a large problem with your photo in that it was taken three days afterwards. The scenery has completely changed when compared to those taken by the Associated Press, those photos that show the grass still intact and objects sitting around outside of the building without any trace of an actual plane. It even looks like they've already begun reconstruction, which would involve removing damaged portions, correct?
And about the WTC planes again, the idea is that a flights went off course for 30+ minutes to go land in Reagan Airport and nobody thought it was at all suspicious until after they'd already been hit, is your take then? I almost forgot, that please keep in mind, that by the time flight 77 was hi-jacked, and went off course, flight 11 had already hit the WTC.
Malachi, at the very beginning of all your blue text, you tried to correct someones text. Funny thing is you made it incorrect.
He was right with "your"
You were wrong with "you're". You're = you are.
learn2spell
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
The plane that hit the Pentagon came in at a high angle. Most of it's force was pushed inwards into the multi-layered building. The insides of the Pentagon were burned beyond belief in several areas. The photo I showed you should allow you extrapolate the angle at which it hit. Had it hit at an angle that it would have affect the ( very limited ) lawn in front it would not have been able to penetrate as far into the inner layers as it did. Keep in mind, that photo I showed you was Popular Mechanics. If you want to back track it a bit you can read the entire arcticle in which phsysists go on on the same points I am. Again, as I said above, I have 16 eye witness friends and co-workers who watched the plane slam into the building. Unless the MIBs are erasing people's memories now THAT is undisputed fact.
As for the planes at the WTC, what did THEY have to do with Reagan National Airport? They left John F. Kennedy and were intended to land in LAX or other locations across the otherside of the country. Hence why they were fully loaded with fuel for a long, non-stop, cross-country flight. If they were intended for Reagan National they would've have needed the full fuel load outs. The amount of time it would take to hit the WTC from LaGuardia or JFK airports would be a matter of moments at the speeds they were travelling. The ONLY plane that was off course for such a long time ended up as a crater in Pennsylvania. Now, I will agree with you that the missing black box issue is a little interesting but there are dozens of reasons why some of that information may have been hidden.
I'd be wondering how so many people let themselves be held hostage with bix cutters more than most of the "unsual" circumstances. Some things may have been kept from public knowledge strictly so they didn't announce on the news "This is how you can attack us in detail and make it work." That would be much like those police shows that catch meth labs in action and blank/bleep out the recipe portions before airing the footage. Sure, that's creative editing but do you REALLY think that kind of information should be made any more available to the public than it already is?
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Yoohoo. Are we reading? When he said "your simply wrong" that was incorrect. THAT was what I was correcting. Let's do this slowly for the peanut gallery. What sounds correct to you?
"You are simply wrong" which would be contracted to "You're simply wrong"
or
"Your simply wrong" which would infere that I own simply wrong.
You're = contraction of You Are
Your = possessive.
You're not reading what I am typing thoroughly, but your opinions are your own. Proper uses just for you to maintain as examples.
"Learn to read."
Edit: I will clarify this for you so it's easier to digest. Quoted from his post:
malachi 1975 - i couldnt read your entire post as it was longer than the bible. but i read the first points about oil and i totally disagree, your simply wrong.
Green means proper usage. Red means improper. Before you stop to insult someone you may at least want to check yourself before. We're also not talking about a simple typo. We're all guilty of that. The improper uses of the words "you're" and "your" are a quirk of mine.
Now you know...
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Okay I thought you were talking about the first "your".
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Lame attempt at trying to draw a comparison to justify the American Conquest at Iraq.
We didn't attack the Germans because they were slaughtering the Jews. Hell, no one was attacking the Germans because they were slaughtering Jews.
Everyone was attacking them because Hitler was a madman that wanted to rule the world, and no one likes to be a slave.
In other words, it was self defense.
Carnac the Magnificent places his head against the monitor:
Answer: Locks quickly.
Question: What is a thread on MMORPG.com that focuses on 9/11 conspiracty theories?
Lame attempt at trying to draw a comparison to justify the American Conquest at Iraq.
We didn't attack the Germans because they were slaughtering the Jews. Hell, no one was attacking the Germans because they were slaughtering Jews.
Everyone was attacking them because Hitler was a madman that wanted to rule the world, and no one likes to be a slave.
In other words, it was self defense.
Last I checked Hitler didn't launch a single attack against the U.S. before we entered WWII. Tojo did, sure, but not Hitler. It would have even been hard for him to attack us openly even if he HAD succeeded in taking most of Europe.
The attack on Hitler by the U.S. was not Self-Defense. Self-Defense means he would have had to been attacking us in the first place. Now pre-emptive would fit more aptly. Yes, we attacked Hitler pre-emptively to avoid a problem in the future. I am trying to see the difference between attacking Hitler to avoid a problem in the future and attacking Saddam to preven't a problem in the future. The idiot that Saddam was he even made verbal threats about defeating the U.S. and the like when we were in Afghanistan going directly after Al Queda. How was Saddam NOT a future threat?
Yes, Hitler was a megalomaniac wanting to rule the whole world. Saddam may not openly admit he wants to run the whole world but I doubt he would turn it down if it were handed to him. In the end though BOTH Hitler and Saddam were slaughtering civilians for their race/creed/religion. Unless you can tell me you think Saddam was a GREAT leader I really don't get your defense at all.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
"May a sick yak leave a gift in your sock drawer."
They did say that it hit the Pentagon at ground level, and skidded across the lawn probably to explain the posts and all knocked down along the way. Maybe they changed the story now, I dunno. I can't argue with an impact, but everything would be solved if they'd show what it was like on the inside at the very least. >>
I mentioned that flight 11 had already hit the WTC because another hi-jacking just minutes after that should have set some kind of cranks turning don't you think? The only flight that wasn't out of FAA contact for more than 30 minutes was 175, that one was confirmed about 20 minutes(8:44) before it hit, which was still 30+ minutes before flight 77 hit the pentagon. Flight 11 was confirmed at 8:14 and hit around 8:46. Flight 77 was confirmed around 8:50 and hit around 9:35. They had to have had some kind of advance knowledge about our training exercises, and the Coordinators absence, to think they could pull it off without military interference.
They did say that it hit the Pentagon at ground level, and skidded across the lawn probably to explain the posts and all knocked down along the way. Maybe they changed the story now, I dunno. I can't argue with an impact, but everything would be solved if they'd show what it was like on the inside at the very least. >>
I mentioned that flight 11 had already hit the WTC because another hi-jacking just minutes after that should have set some kind of cranks turning don't you think? The only flight that wasn't out of FAA contact for more than 30 minutes was 175, that one was confirmed about 20 minutes(8:44) before it hit, which was still 30+ minutes before flight 77 hit the pentagon. Flight 11 was confirmed at 8:14 and hit around 8:46. Flight 77 was confirmed around 8:50 and hit around 9:35. They had to have had some kind of advance knowledge about our training exercises, and the Coordinators absence, to think they could pull it off without military interference.
ive seen more believable presentations on how man really has not stepped foot on the moon, honestly.
Hurry up.... Clock is ticking
well forum people
post this video link anywhere you can cause i think that might be the only way EVER get anything done
all of us can agree there are a host of questions that surrounded that fateful day
just do what you can to help get us some answers
Nice video, very informative.. had some info in it that I was not aware of. What shocks me the most is how most people believe that it's normal for the those buildings to have fallen neatly down like that!
Have played:
UO, WOW, COH/V, EQ2
Currently playing:
Age of Conan (EU)
How did the Twin Towers fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist PlanesWhen Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they crashed into the floors below. With the weight of the plunging floors accelerating, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the Twin Towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, they were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.Could the World Trade Center have been made stronger?
In a report produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and other organizations, experts concluded that no skyscraper could have withstood the impact of the terrorist airplanes. Further, the experts warned that it would not be "technically feasible" to design a building that could survive this type of terrorist attack. Instead, engineers and architects are suggesting that we focus our efforts on designing better warning and evacuation systems so that we can save more people inside the buildings.Survivors from inside the WTC report hearing explosions. A few were prior service and heard detonations. A lot of skyscrapers have burned, some almost completly and only these have fallen due to it.
Jet fuel is a fast fire. It is not napalm. It flashes and is consumed within seconds of being exposed to air and heat. Office furniture and other things are all that maintained the fire.
Firefighters made it to the floors with the fire and could have defeated the fire ' with two lines ' this means two fire hoses could have extinguished the fire.
The ground shook with the explosions. Do not confuse a plane impact with an explosion. Explosives have a distinct sound and fires have another all of thier own.
I may not buy into all the assertions of the video linked originally. I can tell you that we have not been given enough information and the evidence is being systematically eliminated. Time will eventually bury this into obscurity.
Have you watched the video katee? If not - do so. Then post.
dp
If Bush purposedly caused 9/11 I'm sure he'd commit suicide quickly there after the shock. No amount of anti-d's could keep a person afloat with that much blood on his hands. Bush, I agree is more simply minded on things but, he is a competent man.
All these controversial videos are being made now because the majority of the U.S.'s memory is slowly deterioating and, politically it's a way to induce anarchy among Americans. I guess, that's what is called stage two of the terrorist's plan to undermine America.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth - That question is less stupid but, you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.