View Full Version : The Truth behind the 9/11 pentagon rumor
PhsycoTimmay
11-09-2004, 02:16
There was a post earlier on here I think, about the rumor, but I cant find it.
Anyways, as most of you know the rumor, that it wasnt a boing 747 that flew into the pentagon, it was some stupid jet, take a look at this
This puts out the rumor (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)
That kills it...I hate rumors, bunch of BS
I am not sure what you're trying to say, Timmay. But the thought that the US government staged this is ridiculous.
PhsycoTimmay
11-09-2004, 02:25
It may be, but also the idea that it wasnt a boing 747 that went into it, and some stupid jet is just freakin stupid as well....
Its boeing. And yes, this site was posted in the argument.
PhsycoTimmay
11-09-2004, 02:32
Oh, thanks th, I wasnt sure, and couldnt find the other thread..
BOEING..now that I can spell it right ;)
Steel_Avatar
11-09-2004, 02:37
Boingy boingy boingy?
PhsycoTimmay
11-09-2004, 02:41
Boingy boingy boingy?
Exactly...
10 chars..
The smoke-screen succeeds once again. Fools. Muhaha :evil:
It was a 757 not a 747. The 747 is older and larger than the 757.
When you grow up in Seattle, you learn these things. Jet city represent.
{KOW}Spazed
11-09-2004, 04:14
It was a 757 not a 747. The 747 is older and larger than the 757.
When you grow up in Seattle, you learn these things. Jet city represent.Yeah but can you tell the difference between 30 BBQ sauces just by smell?
Either way, it was a big *** plane.
Cloud_Walker
11-09-2004, 23:19
Boeing 747
Specifications:
Boeing 747-400 is available in passenger, combi freighter and domestic configurations. Two pilot digital flight deck.
Up to 524 passengers.
Wing Span 64.67 m (212 ft 2in).
Range up to 8400 mi (13,400km)
Gross weight 800,000 to 870,000 lb
Boeing 757
Specifications:
Boeing 757-200 is an intermediate range passenger aircraft.
Two, Four cabin crew and up to 239 passengers.
Wing Span 38.05 m (124.83 ft).
Cruise speed 950 km/h (590) mph.
weight empty from 57,970 kg (127,800 lb).
Quite a difference.
Metallica
12-09-2004, 01:55
I still don't trust the government, and I still firmly believe Bush either knew beforehand or he ordered the attack.
Heh heh... I was at the pentagon about 2 weeks before 9/11 and our guide said a few weird things o.O, at least about the area that was being "heavily renovated"
Steve_Kow
12-09-2004, 02:43
and I still firmly believe Bush either knew beforehand or he ordered the attack.
One thing that I find amazing about the "anti-bush" camp is their ability to make Bush out to be incredibly incompetent and simultaneously capable to pulling something like that off, without a single "whistle blower" stepping forward.
Steel_Avatar
12-09-2004, 03:53
Agreed. Either he's a simpering chimp, or he's a political and military mastermind. He can't be both. So please, make up your minds.
DemBonez
12-09-2004, 04:38
One thing that I find amazing about the "anti-bush" camp is their ability to make Bush out to be incredibly incompetent and simultaneously capable to pulling something like that off, without a single "whistle blower" stepping forward.
There's a difference between pulling off a plan like that and not knowing what words mean. A plan to this extent would most likely take huge portion of the government to be involved, meaning it's not all Bush at the head. I find it ridiculous to suggest the government would attack it's own country, expecially when 2 planes crashed into 2 buildings previously. What gain is there from attacking the pentagon as well? It seems relatively forgotten compared to the WTC anyways.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 04:44
Heh heh... I was at the pentagon about 2 weeks before 9/11 and our guide said a few weird things o.O, at least about the area that was being "heavily renovated"It was being renovated. They were updating the internal network to faster computers/lines. To replace the miles and miles of cable in the floors/walls/ceiling things had to be knocked down and rebuilt. Going from a coaxle network to a multi gigabit fiber optic network can take quite a bit of work. The Pentagon is old and needed the upgrade.
Before you start alluding to the government setting up an attack on its own people you should at least get your facts straight.
Nothing gets me going like uninformed people that put forth their own biased and utterly insane view and refuse to change their idea when presented with actual fact. (not saying you are/did do this Deciet, you just reminded me of people that do that sometimes. . . *grumble*)
DemBonez
12-09-2004, 04:51
Before you start alluding to the government setting up an attack on its own people you should at least get your facts straight.
Nothing gets me going like uninformed people that put forth their own biased and utterly insane view and refuse to change their idea when presented with actual fact. (not saying you are/did do this Deciet, you just reminded me of people that do that sometimes. . . *grumble*)
Why is it that everyone here expresses their view then spends the next 20 minutes backtracking as to not offend the person in question? I'm not saying you are doing it, just that a lot of people here continually back track after they made a statement opposing [said poster]. :uhhuh:
Damascus
12-09-2004, 04:52
How come none of these conspiracies never actually say what it was if it wasn't a plane?
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 04:54
Why is it that everyone here expresses their view then spends the next 20 minutes backtracking as to not offend the person in question? I'm not saying you are doing it, just that a lot of people here continually back track after they made a statement opposing [said poster]. :uhhuh:Well for one thing he hadn't been presented with the facts so he couldln't have really done it now could he?
Another thing that bothers me is when people don't actually look at the situation and see if the information actually applies to it. . . not saying that you did that here though.
Metallica
12-09-2004, 05:58
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
Also, the Israeli Mossad knew about the attack beforehand and didn't warn the FBI, so much for an ally huh.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 06:26
http://physics911.org/net
Basically, if you believe in science, you have to disbelieve the government's cover. Mostly this is about the towers collapsing, tho.
Steel_Avatar
12-09-2004, 06:27
From the same website. (http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol10pg) Call me when you actually have a reputable source.
:rolleyes:
Steel_Avatar
12-09-2004, 06:31
http://physics911.org/net
Basically, if you believe in science, you have to disbelieve the government's cover. Mostly this is about the towers collapsing, tho.
As someone who does believe in science, show me where the science is.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 06:33
From the same website. (http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol10pg) Call me when you actually have a reputable source.
:rolleyes:
Um, dude... that is some scary ****, I have heard it before, researched it... there is definitely evidence. That isn't something to smirk about, and discount the site, though i have never snooped around the site so i have no idea about of its accuracy.
Metallica
12-09-2004, 06:36
From the same website. (http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol10pg) Call me when you actually have a reputable source.
:rolleyes:
Right, because whenever the evidence does not pertain to your interest or use it to your advantage it must be wrong. Face it, like it or not, it wasn't the arab terrorists, it was a conspiracy to kill those 3000 innocent lives. For what motive? We can't be 100% sure, only time will tell.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 06:36
Several things in science on the site... I kinda provided the link so you could read it yourself if you had any notion of learning a different perspective on this. As a veteran of many of these on many different boards, I hold ZERO hope that I can ever convince someone that their misconceptions about 9/11 are indeed false.
Here, I will give you just one little tidbit of science from there... Every nearby seismic readings facility (call it what you will) registered a sharp spike right before the buildings came down... common sense and science dictate that it would grow to a peak, not start with a sharp spike like it was some demolition....
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 06:40
common sense and science dictate that it would grow to a peak, not start with a sharp spike like it was some demolition....
Except that it was exactly like a demolition. Large explosives and then critical support failure. It took a little longer, but it works the same.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 06:41
Right, because whenever the evidence does not pertain to your interest or use it to your advantage it must be wrong. Face it, like it or not, it wasn't the arab terrorists, it was a conspiracy to kill those 3000 innocent lives. For what motive? We can't be 100% sure, only time will tell.
Metallica: you know the reason. To establish a more globalization-friendly, corporate empire across the globe, where corporations are government, if not in name at least in power. This happened for oil, money, power, and greed.
Like, duh. We are feeling the vice on our freedoms, we see global corp.'s continue to grow in power and wealth due to favorable actions by world governments under their control, and we the people are very powerless to stop anything.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 06:43
Except that it was exactly like a demolition. Large explosives and then critical support failure. It took a little longer, but it works the same.
Yea, um, if you recall, the planes hit like 30 mins before they fell... that spike was nothing compared to what was felt when the towers were made to begin to fall.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 06:48
Yea, um, if you recall, the planes hit like 30 mins before they fell... that spike was nothing compared to what was felt when the towers were made to begin to fall.Oh your right, the fires burning the insulation around the supportbeams and the fact that it takes a while for a beam to collapse after it reaches a critical load don't matter.
And if you sit here and think for a minute. The planes hit a tower, that tower is attached to ground, but not very well. The vibrations in the tower would be absorbed by the things inside the building(most notably the anti-quake system in the roof) and not sent into the ground. When the towers fell they collapsed at the lowest point first(Support beams in teh basement) This would send shocks DIRECTLY into the ground causeing a much bigger reading.
Don't any of you watch the History or Discovery channels?
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 07:05
I am not a physicist, I actually dropped Phys II cuz it sucked so hard. But I bet, if you wanted to read this argument from the scientist perspective, you would check out the site. But I know you dont want to know, or refuse to allow a chance of a possibility that maybe something else happened.
Something else like.... maybe since the planes hit the 120>X>70 th floor (lol), that it should have, maybe, done something else than fall straight down? Maybe sense it was superheated at the top, it should have fallen over or something? I am not going to argue with terms that eluded me in college, but if you are trying to tell me you have a phys PhD, then by all means, say so. Here is a thought though... if you had your finger on a button that would bring it down, and there was imminent danger of it falling over onto thousands more bystanders/buildings, MAYBE you press the button and sacrifice the firemen inside to save the ones outside.
Maybe that's what happened. A little less sinister than some would have you believe, but a choice none the less I would not want broadcast all over the dam country. "I chose to kill those firemen and save 1000s of people and millions of dollars." (enraged idiot mass mob lighting torches, lawsuits, bla bla bla)
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 07:16
I am not a physicist, I actually dropped Phys II cuz it sucked so hard. But I bet, if you wanted to read this argument from the scientist perspective, you would check out the site. But I know you dont want to know, or refuse to allow a chance of a possibility that maybe something else happened.
Something else like.... maybe since the planes hit the 120>X>70 th floor (lol), that it should have, maybe, done something else than fall straight down? Maybe sense it was superheated at the top, it should have fallen over or something? I am not going to argue with terms that eluded me in college, but if you are trying to tell me you have a phys PhD, then by all means, say so. Here is a thought though... if you had your finger on a button that would bring it down, and there was imminent danger of it falling over onto thousands more bystanders/buildings, MAYBE you press the button and sacrifice the firemen inside to save the ones outside.
Maybe that's what happened. A little less sinister than some would have you believe, but a choice none the less I would not want broadcast all over the dam country. "I chose to kill those firemen and save 1000s of people and millions of dollars." (enraged idiot mass mob lighting torches, lawsuits, bla bla bla)
Don't have a physics phd or anything. I do have a good grasp on how things will react in the world around me, but I don't know the math behind it yet(Taking physics next year and two classes in grade 12) I have watched and read a lot of things about the towers and understand why they fell and how they fell.
Yes, I would sacrifice the people inside to save those outside.
My question to you is where the hell did the explosives from from? Firemen don't put them in there, they weren't there from construction. The terrorists didn't put them there. How exactly does the button of yours work? I am at a loss as to how this works.
adamfgt78
12-09-2004, 07:25
Don't have a physics phd or anything. I do have a good grasp on how things will react in the world around me, but I don't know the math behind it yet(Taking physics next year and two classes in grade 12) I have watched and read a lot of things about the towers and understand why they fell and how they fell.
Yes, I would sacrifice the people inside to save those outside.
My question to you is where the hell did the explosives from from? Firemen don't put them in there, they weren't there from construction. The terrorists didn't put them there. How exactly does the button of yours work? I am at a loss as to how this works.
C'mon man, its all obvious,maaaannn. [/hippy voice]
The brain-washed evil media just made up all the so-called "facts" in those multiple documentaries to fool the American people. If you want to get the real facts you've got to read the alternate media; Like The Globe and The National Inquirer.
The bombs were planted in the building because the gov't was planning on blowing them up in the near future anyhow and then conspiring to blame it on Arab terrorists so that we could go to war. The real terrorists just happened to beat them to the punch. It's all a gov't conspiracy, man.
[/sarcasm]
Steel_Avatar
12-09-2004, 07:35
Right, because whenever the evidence does not pertain to your interest or use it to your advantage it must be wrong. Face it, like it or not, it wasn't the arab terrorists, it was a conspiracy to kill those 3000 innocent lives. For what motive? We can't be 100% sure, only time will tell.
Isn't that exactly what you're doing? The popular conclusions aren't to your satisfaction, so they must be wrong and your views must be right?
We've both seen the same data, and come to different conclusions. Surprise surprise, some how I'm the one who's wrong :rolleyes:
Several things in science on the site... I kinda provided the link so you could read it yourself if you had any notion of learning a different perspective on this. As a veteran of many of these on many different boards, I hold ZERO hope that I can ever convince someone that their misconceptions about 9/11 are indeed false.
Here, I will give you just one little tidbit of science from there... Every nearby seismic readings facility (call it what you will) registered a sharp spike right before the buildings came down... common sense and science dictate that it would grow to a peak, not start with a sharp spike like it was some demolition....
Where does science say that? Could you provide some sort of proof? Have you proven that the collapse was not similar to a demolition?
Pointing to a long and relatively unreference article is not a logical argument. It's more the equivalent of waving your hands really fast and hoping no one will notice that there's no substance. I say unreferenced because you can hardly claim that a source which happens to be hosted on the same site is a credible piece of work.
If the science is so incredibly damning as you claim, why have we not seen any of the so-called 'articles' in any major journal?
But no, since I'm a skeptic, and I'm not buying your fantastical claims right away, I must be stupid / a member of the conspiracy / a sheep / whatever. Right?
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 07:40
But no, since I'm a skeptic, and I'm not buying your fantastical claims right away, I must be stupid / a member of the conspiracy / a sheep / whatever. Right?
Welcome to the flock.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 08:05
Have you proven that the collapse was not similar to a demolition?
Besides the fact that sentence only made sense in your head, it is not the place for science to prove, but to disprove. Hence the wild speculation on the site on how to put all the pieces together.
Why would explosives be in the building? Here ya go: becuz they were in on it. Becuz they wanted to go to war. Becuz it is our destiny! lol. Or how long do you really think it takes to setup a charge? It isnt rocket science.
The world is going to come to head on the last of the oil in the next 10 years... it makes sense to use our "superpower-ness" nation to impose our will and predilection on who gets that oil. Of course, we can't do it without provocation, so wala! 9/11. There is so much background knowledge necessary for anyone who really wants to understand this stuff that is a MUST READ; a skeptical beginner has no chance on gaining comprehension about these events on a global level. Sadly, I know no one who hasnt read it wants to.
So, how about you stop treating me like I'm trying to convince you its a conspiracy? How about, I have a side with facts and evidence, and you have a side that has words and "commissions." (partisan maniacal laugh) I know you would like to just pass it off, but what do we really have to go on? Do we have complete trust in what the president, the government tells us?
About the site, "It's more the equivalent of waving your hands really fast and hoping no one will notice that there's no substance."... yep, you didnt look through it. i didnt and dont expect you to. Why would you want to? It is there, but it takes reading and time. Pls, do not give up your time, it will be in vain, becuz you are looking only for a flaw, and not looking at the possible validity of an argument.
I mean, you saw it on television already. It has to be true. (wag the dog reference, for the uninformed)
Steel_Avatar
12-09-2004, 08:15
In this case, it is up to YOU and science to prove, since you made the claim.
Why would explosives NOT be in the building? Here ya go: becuz they were NOT in on it.
I see how this works now! I say stuff, and you accept it at face value! Oh, now it's easy :rolleyes:
You have a side with conjecture and speculation. I don't have a side except that I believe you're off your rocker. Where is the evidence? Where are the facts? Do you think, for example, that a professor would be impressed if you wrote a paper and just quoted the entirety of Plato's Republic, mumbling vague words about how, "It's in there somewhere, YOU go read it."
Yeah, right :rolleyes:
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 08:19
Why would explosives be in the building? Here ya go: becuz they were in on it. Becuz they wanted to go to war. Becuz it is our destiny! lol. Or how long do you really think it takes to setup a charge? It isnt rocket science.
Yes, it is so simple to set up a charge to make a buidling fall straight down. They don't require degrees for it or anything and it doesn't take days to set them up when they demo a building for real.
Honestly if you want me to act like you aren't trying to convince me it is some big conspiracy stop making it out to be one! Learn to spell. And finally that site you linked to was a load of pure crap. Anyone can write a ******** theory and post it on the net. I read it and I bet Steel did too, it was full flaws and doesn't even stay consistant with itself.
You aren't even refuting what we are saying you are putting up a bunch of questions trying to get us to fall into a trap that will utimatly make you look like a fool. You haven't proven a single thing yet you are asking we tell you exactly how it all happened despite saying you couldn't understand it if someone did.
adamfgt78
12-09-2004, 08:19
Have you proven that the collapse was not similar to a demolition?
Besides the fact that sentence only made sense in your head, it is not the place for science to prove, but to disprove.
A huge plane crashes into a building. The building collapses. Isn't the logical first step to assume that the plane crash caused the building to collapse and then work from there to investigate other possible causes?
What you are saying is that if a plane crashes into a building and it collapses, we are to assume that the building collapsed not because of the plane, but because of explosives (which we have no reason to believe were even planted on the site). How does this make sense to you?
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 08:22
If the science is so incredibly damning as you claim, why have we not seen any of the so-called 'articles' in any major journal?
But no, since I'm a skeptic, and I'm not buying your fantastical claims right away, I must be stupid / a member of the conspiracy / a sheep / whatever. Right?
You can be whatever you want. I am not one of those that try to make someone who has simply been deceived into a giant ignoramus/sheep/whatever. I give you, it is very hard to get these facts across to anyone, quadruple-million times as hard when they are not interested in the least even if it was true.
WHY? WHY? WHY???
There are many, many reasons..... Let's start simple. Just one place can't come out with this. It would have to come out together to gain credence. If only one did it, competitors would jump on it and the brave journal would be decried. More than one would never do it, becuz these journals are businesses owned by businesses run by other businesses. There is simply no way these corporate bosses would allow something like this to be printed. For the above reasons, and more.
What would widespread dispersion and accreditation (word? lol) do to this world/society/country? I can not imagine a populace so cowed it would not react somehow, most likely with violence that a government would treat its constituents so. I mean, this would bring down GOVERNMENT here as we know it. There is no profit in anarchy. We are talking huge probabilities of riots, revolts, violent protests/repercussions, and an economy in turmoil.
Here is a similar situation which may help communicate what I am trying to say, that these facts implicate something that is unspeakable. How about someone proved there was no God, of any kind. Work with me here, lol. If you could prove there was no higher power, no heaven/hell, nothing to religion at all, many things would start happening. Without having to fear an eternity in hell, how many people would keep their actions in check? How many people would lose purpose and become aimless, useless individuals when their whole foundation has crashed to the ground? The proof that there was no God would never come out, ever, and it shouldnt. People have a right to happiness, and religion is like opium. Billions of dollars go to churches, temples, X religion.... there are as many reasons about this as there are of the above... the truth can not be told, it is too damaging to everything and everyone.
Back to sanity begins NOW
Well, anyway, that long spiel may serve me no good, but it is fun theorizing. It is just the fundamental idea that there are some things that masses of people can not know. MIB style, a person is smart, people are dumb ignorant and prone to violence (i havent seen that flick in ages).
BLA BLA BLA! LET ME GO TO BED
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 08:30
Yes, it is so simple to set up a charge to make a buidling fall straight down. They don't require degrees for it or anything and it doesn't take days to set them up when they demo a building for real
Actually, they already had all that **** done back in the first WTC.. but that is a hole 'nother can of worms, ROFL.
Learn to spell
It may be my communications assistant background there... I dont misspell, but i do use shortcuts that use to be auto corrected at work, but here... well, I think you can understand it, you can let me off the hook for my "becuz's", lol. I can tell I am getting somewhere when you turn the focus from ideas to grammar. :cheesy:
You aren't even refuting what we are saying you are putting up a bunch of questions trying to get us to fall into a trap that will utimatly make you look like a fool. You haven't proven a single thing yet you are asking we tell you exactly how it all happened despite saying you couldn't understand it if someone did. I find this very funny, becuz it is also what you are doing. The only thing is, we are taking different things for granted. I dont see you proving your side to me. I mean, what are you going to prove it with? Words? How am I supposed to play scientist here and show you analytical data when you wouldnt understand it anyways. Let's see something from you??
Oh, wait. Thats becuz that side doesnt have to. It's the governments side. :winner:
The shere incompetence and or stubborness is.... wow.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 08:32
You can be whatever you want. I am not one of those that try to make someone who has simply been deceived into a giant ignoramus/sheep/whatever. I give you, it is very hard to get these facts across to anyone, quadruple-million times as hard when they are not interested in the least even if it was true.
WHY? WHY? WHY???
There are many, many reasons..... Let's start simple. Just one place can't come out with this. It would have to come out together to gain credence. If only one did it, competitors would jump on it and the brave journal would be decried. More than one would never do it, becuz these journals are businesses owned by businesses run by other businesses. There is simply no way these corporate bosses would allow something like this to be printed. For the above reasons, and more.
What would widespread dispersion and accreditation (word? lol) do to this world/society/country? I can not imagine a populace so cowed it would not react somehow, most likely with violence that a government would treat its constituents so. I mean, this would bring down GOVERNMENT here as we know it. There is no profit in anarchy. We are talking huge probabilities of riots, revolts, violent protests/repercussions, and an economy in turmoil.
Here is a similar situation which may help communicate what I am trying to say, that these facts implicate something that is unspeakable. How about someone proved there was no God, of any kind. Work with me here, lol. If you could prove there was no higher power, no heaven/hell, nothing to religion at all, many things would start happening. Without having to fear an eternity in hell, how many people would keep their actions in check? How many people would lose purpose and become aimless, useless individuals when their whole foundation has crashed to the ground? The proof that there was no God would never come out, ever, and it shouldnt. People have a right to happiness, and religion is like opium. Billions of dollars go to churches, temples, X religion.... there are as many reasons about this as there are of the above... the truth can not be told, it is too damaging to everything and everyone.
Back to sanity begins NOW
Well, anyway, that long spiel may serve me no good, but it is fun theorizing. It is just the fundamental idea that there are some things that masses of people can not know. MIB style, a person is smart, people are dumb ignorant and prone to violence (i havent seen that flick in ages).
BLA BLA BLA! LET ME GO TO BED
So it would bring down the government so no one will put it out, yet the credible site you linked to had the balls to put it out. . . hmmm
It would come out that there was no God if someone proved it. The problem is God/heaven/hell aren't the only reason people are good. Anarchy doesn't work in any way, society would crumble and that is something that people wouldn't stand for. Same with the government falling, a new one would be put in place in less than a month to restore order. Don't be ignorant, if we didn't have a government it wouldn't be long until we were taken over and one was put in place.
The bolded line doesn't help your arguement much does it?
Anyone else see a returned bannee here? Hellfire maybe?
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 08:44
Actually, they already had all that **** done back in the first WTC.. but that is a hole 'nother can of worms, ROFL.
Learn to spell
It may be my communications assistant background there... I dont misspell, but i do use shortcuts that use to be auto corrected at work, but here... well, I think you can understand it, you can let me off the hook for my "becuz's", lol. I can tell I am getting somewhere when you turn the focus from ideas to grammar. :cheesy:
I find this very funny, becuz it is also what you are doing. The only thing is, we are taking different things for granted. I dont see you proving your side to me. I mean, what are you going to prove it with? Words? How am I supposed to play scientist here and show you analytical data when you wouldnt understand it anyways. Let's see something from you??
Oh, wait. Thats becuz that side doesnt have to. It's the governments side. :winner:
Placing a van full of C4 in front of a building and setting it off is far from setting up the dual charge format in a layout that would demo a building in a proper fall. Every single beam would have to be first 'cut' but a stick of K-bar and then blown out of place by dynamite. The 'cut' would have to be done in less than .5 seconds and the blowing would have to be done in less than 2 seconds. This would require multiple starting charges and miles of cable. Trying to compensate for the gaping hole in the side of the building and factoring in the weakend structure do to fire would be next to impossible, we don't have math that could do it.
I don't care if you have a communications degree, you aren't using anything that comes across like it. I could have a black belt in every martial art and still get the crap beaten out of me if I don't use it. I am also going to call BS on the 'shortcuts' being edited out. The way you are going it would take just as long to fix your paper as it would to write the ill contrived thing. Also it is still a misspelling if you do it on purpose. . .
I don't think you know how a debate works, first you say something and then back it up. The other side then does the same for their arguement. If you just start claiming what sounds like pure horse **** then you better back it up. Otherwise I am content with using logic only against it. When you prove your side I will bring up links that support my logic. So far you have claimed a bunch of things and told us that you don't undersatnd physics so if we showed you the math and reasons why your theory wouldn't work you wouldn't be able to understand it. I have explained in clear English why it wouldn't work and you still refuse to believe it. If I posted a link it would be in words too, so I guess that rules that out. Or if I posted one with the math you wouldn't get it so that too is out.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 08:47
Why would someone like me be banned? Actually, I was just plain DougTheHead before the great forum crash of, what, oct 02? I finally registered again.
Do you guys think I have the answers? Why would I? If I did, wouldn't I write a book or do talk shows or something? I am just a guy who has seen and (mostly) believes what others can not. I just try to make sense of it. Of course I am theorizing. I dont have the government to tell me what to think on this side.
Wheee, staying up late and posting is awesome. Oh, did you guys remember? I dont want to convince you. I am not a missionary. Believe what you want to, man, peace between us, but personally, I believe that absolute power has indeed corrupted absolutely. The fact that I am only getting responses like "more proof" and "ur dumb" dont discourage me from this side I have chosen. I want your proof, and your intelligent responses, which I must say, have been lacking. nya. nya.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 08:51
Placing a van full of C4 in front of a building and setting it off is far from setting up the dual charge format in a layout that would demo a building in a proper fall. Every single beam would have to be first 'cut' but a stick of K-bar and then blown out of place by dynamite. The 'cut' would have to be done in less than .5 seconds and the blowing would have to be done in less than 2 seconds. This would require multiple starting charges and miles of cable. Trying to compensate for the gaping hole in the side of the building and factoring in the weakend structure do to fire would be next to impossible, we don't have math that could do it.
OK, first, a communications assistant is the title given to the guys on the Relay (state) TTY calls. Many shortcuts are used. I mean, we are supposed to type at the speed of a normal person talking, we need the shortcuts. A little assuming took you a long way there.
For the quote, you just said it yourself. HOW IN THE HELL COULD IT HAVE COME DOWN SO GOD DAM PERFECT? IT GOT HIT BY A PLANE! Does anything ring in your head there? Look at how it fell, and tell me, 'oh, a plane musta knocked it STRAIGHT DOWN.'
SO, tell me in, in "PLAIN ENGLISH" what happened? Becuz until then, with me believing my side just as much as you believe your own, I will only use logic to dispute you.
There.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 08:55
Why would someone like me be banned? Actually, I was just plain DougTheHead before the great forum crash of, what, oct 02? I finally registered again.
Do you guys think I have the answers? Why would I? If I did, wouldn't I write a book or do talk shows or something? I am just a guy who has seen and (mostly) believes what others can not. I just try to make sense of it. Of course I am theorizing. I dont have the government to tell me what to think on this side.
Wheee, staying up late and posting is awesome. Oh, did you guys remember? I dont want to convince you. I am not a missionary. Believe what you want to, man, peace between us, but personally, I believe that absolute power has indeed corrupted absolutely. The fact that I am only getting responses like "more proof" and "ur dumb" dont discourage me from this side I have chosen. I want your proof, and your intelligent responses, which I must say, have been lacking. nya. nya.
Because they companies wouldn't let you publish your book or go on TV, it would bring down the government!
What have I said that the government has told me to say? I am saying your side has some major flaws and I have pointed them out. There is no possible way they explosives could have been in those buildings. If you would have stuck with "The government set up 9/11!!!" and had some circumstantial evidence to back it up you would have more ground to stand on. But no, you went and made some elaborate scheme that couldn't be pulled off in a million years without the aid of gravelings.
As I said, I don't need proof yet. You so far haven't even set up a basic workable theory and are asking for proof from me when you haven't even plugged the holes on your side? Have you ever won an arguement? Ever? Oh wait I can't believe what you say after all they are just words. . .I want the math to prove it!
A plain hit the side of the WTC center. The metals melted, the top of the building then collapsed to the bottom. The bottom couldn't support that sudden weight and crashed down to the bottom.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 09:02
A plain hit the side of the WTC center. The metals melted, the top of the building then collapsed to the bottom. The bottom couldn't support that sudden weight and crashed down to the bottom.
So, all metal support beams throught that floor melted at the exact same time. One side didnt melt and pull it that way. They all melted happily together.
Makes perfect sense.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 09:05
OK, first, a communications assistant is the title given to the guys on the Relay (state) TTY calls. Many shortcuts are used. I mean, we are supposed to type at the speed of a normal person talking, we need the shortcuts. A little assuming took you a long way there.
For the quote, you just said it yourself. HOW IN THE HELL COULD IT HAVE COME DOWN SO GOD DAM PERFECT? IT GOT HIT BY A PLANE! Does anything ring in your head there? Look at how it fell, and tell me, 'oh, a plane musta knocked it STRAIGHT DOWN.'
SO, tell me in, in "PLAIN ENGLISH" what happened? Becuz until then, with me believing my side just as much as you believe your own, I will only use logic to dispute you.
There.
'Communications assistant' is a very broad term, my mom was one for 10 years and she wrote articles to put into the company memos and wrote grants for lab research. You not defining what you do was the problem.
That would be like me saying I am in "Design", you have no idea what kind of design.
The plane could have knocked it down do to the layout of the beams and how they were damaged. If you bothered to look it up you would know that both towers fell inward and didn't fall straight down. This was a design feature that was built in in case a plane ever hit the towers. Yes, that's right the towers were built to take a plane hit. They were built to take the biggest plane at the time, which was much smaller than a 747. The main support beams were in the center of the building protecting them from the intial impact, this also freed up the needed room to make the buildings profitable. Using the standard layout where beams are placed in a grid there would have been so many walls that each floor would have more wall than floorspace. If the building would have been demoed then the mechanism used to make the buildings fall inward would have been useless, because of the knock out effect of the explosives. Only when a slow structure failure such as one caused by a fire and big hole would the buildings fall inward. Gravity at its best.
Yes, much more sense than the government trying to kill 3000 citizens of their own nation.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 09:08
Oh, to the dude having a {Kow}... they could have been there if someone knew what was happening. There is stuff in there, like these were'nt the actual flights, but dummy jets with added explosives... they were auto-pilot/laser-guided to hit such a small target... Many things, many that I can not come to terms to accept. You might think I just believe everything I read, but it is not the case. There is no way I can communicate the depths to which I have studied the global chess game that brought this event about. Try The Grand Chessboard, written by a former NSA, that says in 5 years, we will be at war over there to control the oil, and 3 years later, voila!
Anyway, I think I have kept to a central argument here, that science can disprove the planes knocked the buildings down by themselves. Other stuff is just theory, unprovable ATM, but we can work with it. If you will limit yourself to my central theme, you dont have to accept the explosives at all; just get to the point where you see 2 sides, a plane wins building side, and a plane w/help wins building.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 09:08
Yes, much more sense than the government trying to kill 3000 citizens of their own nation.Damn, th you beat me to it.
I am off to bed(watch when I say I am going to do something I do it too!). I will finish knocking down(no pun intended) your arguement in the morning.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 09:09
That would be like me saying I am in "Design", you have no idea what kind of design.
It would only be like that if I was a moron and used it against you, not knowing exactly what you did.
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 09:11
Yes, much more sense than the government trying to kill 3000 citizens of their own nation.
Guy, guy guy.. (gal?) anyway...
The purpose wasnt to kill 3000 citizens... the purpose was to go to war! If you have to break a few eggs, you dont cry about it...
SaroDarksbane
12-09-2004, 09:14
Gonna bother to refute Kow's claim of the tower's construction?
DougTheHead2
12-09-2004, 09:20
lol, actually i hadnt even read that yet. It's a pretty good argument there. It doesnt answer the seismic reading argument, several others that we will get into tomorrow, if you agree to a truce for the moment.
See, I'll be the guy that can respect good arguments. But 1 good argument is not going to win the war here. There are many suspect things around 9/11, and not just if the planes by themselves brought them down (I'm not convinced, btw, but I recognize you have a point.)
SaroDarksbane
12-09-2004, 09:25
lol, actually i hadnt even read that yet. It's a pretty good argument there. It doesnt answer the seismic reading argument, several others that we will get into tomorrow, if you agree to a truce for the moment.
See, I'll be the guy that can respect good arguments. But 1 good argument is not going to win the war here. There are many suspect things around 9/11, and not just if the planes by themselves brought them down (I'm not convinced, btw, but I recognize you have a point.)
Not my point. :)
I think Kow's on the right path, however.
Ill Composition
12-09-2004, 11:41
It doesnt answer the seismic reading argument,
Do you have any articles or seismographical evidence that shows that a spike on nearby seismographs happened at a time that might insinuate some kind of demolition? Because otherwise I'm disinclined to believe that theory, and believe the one that "the man" has been telling me.
Draconis
12-09-2004, 14:46
Anyway, I think I have kept to a central argument here, that science can disprove the planes knocked the buildings down by themselves. Other stuff is just theory, unprovable ATM, but we can work with it. If you will limit yourself to my central theme, you dont have to accept the explosives at all; just get to the point where you see 2 sides, a plane wins building side, and a plane w/help wins building.
The idea that the planes 'knocked the buildings down' by themselves or otherwise is faintly ludicrous. The planes had nothing like the mass or velocity to do anything of the sort, and the impact was cushioned by the 'crumpling' of both the sides of the buildings and the planes themselves. What took the buildings down was massive amounts of burning kerosene pouring down the internal steel supports, warping them to the point where the structure was incapable of supporting it's own weight. As for the vertical collapse, you might want to go work out just how immensely difficult it would be to collapse towers of that size anything but vertically. You'd need to apply immense force to one side, far beyond that of a plane crash. If the tower started to collapse on one side more than the other, any overhang would, I'd expect, tend to shear off vertically rather than cause a 'domino' collapse. But really, the towers were far too massive to do anything but collapse in on themselves.
common sense and science dictate that it would grow to a peak, not start with a sharp spike like it was some demolition....
Your 'argument' is total ********, and that's being very kind.
the data from Lamont (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html)
words explaining the data (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm)
oooh, more words? (http://www.geotimes.org/dec01/WebExtra123.html)
If you want me to explain anything further, I will.
{KOW}Spazed
12-09-2004, 18:52
Not my point. :)
I think Kow's on the right path, however.Thank you thank you. :lady:
lol, actually i hadnt even read that yet. It's a pretty good argument there. It doesnt answer the seismic reading argument, several others that we will get into tomorrow, if you agree to a truce for the moment.
See, I'll be the guy that can respect good arguments. But 1 good argument is not going to win the war here. There are many suspect things around 9/11, and not just if the planes by themselves brought them down (I'm not convinced, btw, but I recognize you have a point.)
I never once said that the planes took the towers down. I said they caused major damage to the structure and started fires that were near 1,800 degrees. The fire is what really brought the towers down. If the fires would have been put out the towers would still be there and most likely would have been repaired.
As for one arguement not winning the war. . .that goes for both sides. I will keep putting up my side as long as you are putting up yours. I have pointed out the major flaws and Mac even posted sites saying how your side is incorrect. If I were you I would take another side.
ok, lets thing about this: the colapse began in the area that was on fire. If the colapse was caused by explosives that measn that the explosives must have been:
a: in place on the levels that were on fire
b: detonated on the levels that were on fire
Now, A is pretty easy since the explosives would have been in place prior to the plane strikes. All you would have to do is sheild them from heat (many explosives such as C4 don't explode from heat alone anyway. They need heat and pressure)
B gets a bit tricky. Lets assume that the explosives used a regular wired detonation system. We now have the need for additional protection of the wiring. Since people would also generally notice a bunch of people installing new highly heat sheilded wires up 70 stories of office space we can assume that they used wireless technology.
This presents it's own problems. First, both the reciever and the detonation device will require power. The battery would require additional heat sheilding since it will be subject to bursting at high temps. The sheilding material would also have to allow radio frequencies through since the explosives would have to be detonated. The signal would also have to be able to reach all sides of the building at once. This is basically an impossible task.
Now, if the Govt. were trying to kill a bunch of people to start a war then why not just cut some key supports to weaken the structure enough to fall when a plane hit it? We know this didn't happen since it would eb impact triggered and thus immediately follow the strike.
If the Govt. just relied on heat triggered explosions then it would actaully be more likely to fall unevenly since the steel in the far side would not be as weak as if it had to wait until the hot side to actually melt and fail.
Also, it would mean that the govt. not only knew about the planes but also exactly where on the towers they would hit. Yet another planning factor
Take all of this together and we can rule out planned explosives as a reason why the building fell the way it was supposed to.
Metallica
12-09-2004, 21:17
Isn't that exactly what you're doing? The popular conclusions aren't to your satisfaction, so they must be wrong and your views must be right?
We've both seen the same data, and come to different conclusions. Surprise surprise, some how I'm the one who's wrong :rolleyes:
Good, admiting your mistake is the first step towards learning the truth.
TurdFergusen
12-09-2004, 23:27
Wow, I thought arguing about the legitimacy of the Pentagon attack was ridiculous. Arguing about the attack on the WTC is just, well, ludicrous. If you believe in science, you should probably believe in logic, and hopefully, using logic, you come to that conclusion, that you're full of ****
<Mind Control> Now get me a beer </Mind Control>
SO, tell me in, in "PLAIN ENGLISH" what happened? Becuz until then, with me believing my side just as much as you believe your own, I will only use logic to dispute you.
Well, since you're using logic, please in "plane" (Haha) english, logically explain to me what is more logical, and why. A group of terrorists hijacked two planes and crashed them into the WTC (a veteran of terroist attack), which resulted in its destruction. Or, the government crashed two planes into the WTC, and then detonated pre-set explosives, which resulted in its destruction.
Wow, I thought arguing about the legitimacy of the Pentagon attack was ridiculous. Arguing about the attack on the WTC is just, well, ludicrous. If you believe in science, you should probably believe in logic, and hopefully, using logic, you come to that conclusion, that you're full of ****
<Mind Control> Now get me a beer </Mind Control>
won't work, I got my AFDB (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html)
Steel_Avatar
13-09-2004, 01:46
Good, admiting your mistake is the first step towards learning the truth.
You don't honestly expect me to dignify this with an answer.
Metallica
13-09-2004, 02:09
You don't honestly expect me to dignify this with an answer.
Nope, because you never do. All you do is put :rolleyes:
Metallica is just flamebaiting, he doesn't have any evidence but he prefers to inflame people by making ludicrous claims and then not backing them up.
He's asking for a banning.
Nope, because you never do. All you do is put :rolleyes:
Metallica,
If you want to contribute to the discussion then feel free. But if you want to start an arguement, do it elsewhere.
I found www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon to be interesting....
Metallica
13-09-2004, 05:35
Metallica is just flamebaiting, he doesn't have any evidence but he prefers to inflame people by making ludicrous claims and then not backing them up.
He's asking for a banning.
Wow, so now you're being a compulsive liar here also. I guess protestwarrior isn't enough for you huh? If you read the thread, I've shown tons of evidence, it is you who are refusing to open your eyes to the truth. I'm done with it, I don't care about banning, I haven't been posting regularly in this forum for a year now.
Steve_Kow
13-09-2004, 06:24
I suppose we're lucky that we have actual video footage of the planes crashing into the towers, else we'd have yet another point to debate...
Steel_Avatar
13-09-2004, 06:25
No way dude! That footage is fake! The MAN hired Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic to produce those videos! Don't fall for the tricks man!
PS, the buildings didn't fall straight down. Or are you forgetting the 11 or so buildings around the 2 towers that were nearly completely destroyed? That certainly doesn't happen in a planned demolition...
-Oser
I don't understand why anyone's even responding to this Metallica guy. If you ignore him, he'll go away. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.