quade 3 #26 August 22, 2002 Yeah, I think we're on the same page. We're both looking at it from a logistical stand point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #27 August 22, 2002 Devils lawyer Quote It's kinda hard to make a missle look like a jet. Especially when so many people had so many cameras that captured the second impact -- LIVE on TV. He says (and I have heard this already) a missle hit the pentagon... There is not a single picture, or any footage of the pentagon strike... Also, it is true that the damage to the pentagon is not consistent with a plane crash. QuoteIt would simply be impossible to fake something like that on this scale. Hey if someone can plan an attack this large and pull it off without the USA figuring out first... than I would bet my last dollar that the US government could pull it off and cover it up just as quickly. It really wouldn't take that many people... And eyewitnesses would say the same thing they said anyway. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #28 August 22, 2002 QuoteAlso, it is true that the damage to the pentagon is not consistent with a plane crash. Except of course, for all those airplane parts laying around. Not to mention that it was tracked on radar.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #29 August 22, 2002 You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time. That is sufficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #30 August 22, 2002 Except of course, for all those airplane parts laying around. Not to mention that it was tracked on radar. ------------- Pfft...I minor detail... :) -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #31 August 22, 2002 I always figured that after JFK had his fling with Marilyn Monroe, that it was too upsetting for Joe DiMaggio. Joe was known for bringing flowers to her grave each week for a long time. The grassy knoll gunman may have been Joe seeking his retribution. (This is just a theory.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JeanJeanie 0 #32 August 22, 2002 because it IS all a conspiracy!!!!!!! jeanjeanie~~We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly~~MLK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #33 August 23, 2002 Quote Except of course, for all those airplane parts laying around. Not to mention that it was tracked on radar. heheh... that's the problem here dude. There were too few pieces of Aircraft found to be consistent with a 757 crash into the building. Check out the pics here http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm. The plane is travelling a minimum of 200mph when it goes in and only damages the outter ring? It is 15 yards high, the building is 26 yards high and the upper floors are not hit (remember the upper floors fell down later?) This means that it's wings were level when it struck the building... But the wingspan of that plane is some 42 yards where the damaged area of the building is half that width... So look at one of the last shots where they have superimposed the red jet.. it is to scale, this is the only way the aircraft would "fit" to match the damage... so where are the WINGS?! Obviously the small scraps of metal they did find do not amount to a two large 757 wings! As far as being tracked on radar... ??? There telling you it was a plane... did you track it on radar? Just give it a moments thought... a missle means a weapon was somehow allowed to be used against us... not just a crumby trick! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #34 August 23, 2002 >The plane is travelling a minimum of 200mph when it goes in and only damages the outter ring? That section of the building had just undergone upgrades to make it more resistant to a bomb attack. Also with the plane think of it as a big crumple zone on a car... compression impact minimizes the amount of affected damage to a building. The rest of the pictures can be explained http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #35 August 23, 2002 Phree, Anyone that really believes the conspiracy theories would hardly believe any debunking presented at Snopes. "Evidence" is only such if one is willing to believe it, which they aren't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,453 #36 August 23, 2002 >heheh... that's the problem here dude. There were too few pieces of > Aircraft found to be consistent with a 757 crash into the building. Seen many aircraft crashes? After our 206 crashed, the wreckage fit under a tarp the size of a small car. Aircraft are strong, but there's a whole lot of empty space and thin gauge metal in those wings. When they disintegrate they look more like sheets of crumpled paper than aircraft components. After the Avianca 707 crash near my house several years ago, I was amazed at how much debris was completely pulverized. Bits of chairs, glass, nylon, metal scraps, blown over an acre. And that wasn't even a high speed impact! >The plane is travelling a minimum of 200mph when it goes in and > only damages the outter ring? Yep! A B-29 ran into the Empire State Building years ago at about 100mph and there was almost no damage to the structure. (Lots of fire damage though.) Buildings are orders of magnitude stronger than airplanes. Heck, two skyscrapers withstood the impacts of fully fueled jumbo jets at over 200 mph - it was the fire, not the impact, that brought down the WTC. >But the wingspan of that plane is some 42 yards where the damaged > area of the building is half that width... Did you imagine there would be a 757 silhouette in the building afterwards, like the silhouette Bugs Bunny leaves when he runs through a wall? I've found that when things like that happen (a car runs into a building for example) the hole left doesn't look anything like the car. Sometimes it's larger - heck, sometimes it's _smaller_. We had an SUV run into the brick wall of a bank back in NY. About a third of the SUV actually managed to squeeze in through a 4'x6' hole in the wall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #37 August 23, 2002 QuoteBut the wingspan of that plane is some 42 yards where the damaged > area of the building is half that width... Also....IIRC the jet actually struck the ground BEFORE hitting the building. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudseeder 0 #38 August 24, 2002 " Can sombebody please explain to me why whenever something bad happens in the U.S., there's some whack-job out there that has to blow it into a mind-numbingly stupid conspiracy theory? " Paul , can you explain how two different buildings, impacted at different angles, speeds and by different loads, at different levels , each fell as if by a designed implosion? Did you notice the nearly vertical descent of the radio tower on one of the buildings? Paul, If the collapse of either tower was due to an impact,.. wouldn't you expect at least one of them to topple somewhat sideways? But no Paul, each of them fell nearly perfectly vertical, like a planned implosion. Conspiracy? As painful as it may be for many of us, watch the buildings and especially the radio tower fall again. Conspiracy certainly can not be ruled out. Any engineers here care to explain how two buildings struck by aircraft in differing angles of attack would fall in almost exactly the same vertical direction? Thanks, Cloudseeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #39 August 24, 2002 Actually... this one is easy to explain... and has been demonstrated a bunch on TV. The planes are not what brought the towers down.. the fires are. The fires were burning long enough and since they were basically Jat A fueled... they burned really hot and made the supporting superstructure weak. The weight of the floors on top of the weakened floors caused the floor to collapse. The energy created by having 15 stories fall 12 feet was enough to blow out the layer below that, then the momentem of the weight of 16 stories made the next floor collapse. This continued all the way till the top floor impacted on the ground and dispursed the energy into the ground. You can actually watch the videos in slow motion and watch the floors give out one at a time while the top 15 (below the fire) or so are whole untill they are swollowed by the dust cloud. It was quoted on the one story I watched that there was nothing that could have stoped the floors from giving out once the first 2 had given out... the train was at full speed and unstoppable then. A demo expert said that he would have used a similar tech nique to take down the buildings of letting its own weight carry it straight down by blowing out a top layer then wait till the momentem caught up to a lower layer then blow that one out. There are a lot of reasons why the metal superstructre gave out so easly... the fire retartent was not applied on the upper level to the main supports due to expense in the construction. There are more reasons but the main ones are also the elevator shafts acted as chemneys and pulled cold air up to the fire to stoke it more and make it burn hotter and spread to the lower levels and weaken those levels.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #40 August 24, 2002 Don -- Last time I checked, gravity worked pretty much straight down. Since the structural steel of the building's floors seems to have melted as a result of the fire -- not of the impact -- it only seems logical they'd pretty much fall straight down. It appears as each floor collapsed upon the next, it created a shock wave that continued to accelerate the collapse faster on the inside of the building than the structure on the outside of the building. Actually, if you look at THIS web site they can explain it in far better terms than I and you'll see that the design of the WTC towers actually would have helped to contain the falling debris and helped to keep it falling straight down. However, there is one photo on the web site that shows that the top of one of the towers did seem to slide off to the side a bit as it got nearer to the ground. HERE is another web site with even more detail. Actually, this web site has a -slightly- different explaination that supports that the majority of the damage did, in fact, come from the force of the impacts and the fires were but the final straw as it were. Sorry, but I can provide you with no excellent entertainment on this topic.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #41 August 24, 2002 Hi, Cloudseeder (what an interesting moniker...) In the interest of learning something, can you explain how it wasn't the fire and design/structure and lack of fire retardant whacamacallit on the top floors? And what supports that theory? Personally, I agree with Paul and Phree, but am willing to listen to your opinion, as well. Ciels and Pinks- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chickenhawk420 0 #42 August 24, 2002 oops, if you read the article i think monsieur jack ass was saying the the towers were remote controlled planes and the pentagon a missile. Hey i thought it was down to ET beings from the sigma delta belta bubblegum quadrant 40000 miles left at europa, 20000 straight on past starbucks (yes they're getting everywhere), parking round the back as disabled spaces only at the front. Goddamn aliens and there highly explosive superdense mutant hotdogs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #43 August 24, 2002 Sorry I missed that little point, but doesn't that make his theory even more silly? If we could pull off flying two remote control jets into the WTC, then why would we have opted to send a missile into the Pentagon? It just doesn't make sense. Also, what happened to the people that were supposed to be on the plane that would have hit the Pentagon or the WTC for that matter? Also, what happened in Pennsylvania? Was that supposed to be a missile, a normal jet or a remote controlled jet? I think the guy is just trying to sell books by playing on the gullibility of others, which I normally wouldn't have an issue with it was about UFOs or elvs or something. But I think this crosses a line.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudseeder 0 #44 August 24, 2002 Quote"Don -- Last time I checked, gravity worked pretty much straight down. Since the structural steel of the building's floors seems to have melted as a result of the fire -- not of the impact -- it only seems logical they'd pretty much fall straight down. " Umm ... Paul, from which source do you get your data? My sources seem to believe that the fire damage would have been minimal and certainly not of a high enough degree to cause a catastrophic failure of the steel beams. " However, there is one photo on the web site that shows that the top of one of the towers did seem to slide off to the side a bit as it got nearer to the ground. " And look at that pic a little more closely. http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf figure 12. Do you believe that is an actual pic or has it been doctored a bit? Notice the impact area and the direction the building topples. Isn't that strange? The building collapses opposite the missing columns? I was watching live video at the time. I don't remember the video looking like that pic.If the historical pic is doctored would you agree that there may be a conspiracy? Thanks Paul, Don Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #45 August 24, 2002 QuotePaul, from which source do you get your data? My sources seem to believe that the fire damage would have been minimal and certainly not of a high enough degree to cause a catastrophic failure of the steel beams And I believe the HERA site addresses that issue quite well. Since I have no reason to believe the photos were doctored in any way shape or form, I believe the burden of proof that they were doctored would rest on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. QuoteIf the historical pic is doctored would you agree that there may be a conspiracy? Maybe, but the conspriacy theorists would have to prove it. My guess is that any false proof they might offer would be quickly dealt with by whomever took the original photos or has the original negatives.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Cloudseeder 0 #46 August 24, 2002 "In the interest of learning something, can you explain how it wasn't the fire and design/structure and lack of fire retardant whacamacallit on the top floors? And what supports that theory? Sure Michelle, the fact is that the fire just wasn't that hot. There can be no doubt that the attack on the South tower(the second hit) expelled the majority of the fuel payload outside the building as that aircraft hit on an angle to the face and basically just took out the corner. Interesting to me that the building which took the slightest impact, the building which sustained only a *glancing blow* , the building which recieved the least amount of Jet A payload to fuel a fire was the first to collapse! And the collapse was straight down. 110 stories straight down! No twisting, no tilting, just straight down. Do you really believe , Michelle, that asymetrical forces of events such as an impact or a fire could cause all of the supporting structural steel to give way at exactly the same moment in time? Two different structures with two different and distinct impact profiles each falling straight down? Because without any twisting or toppling of either of the the "twinn towers" during their demolition, the supporting columns would necessarily have failed at the exact same moment in time. We both know that isn't very likely considering the method of attack which we witnessed. No Michelle, others reponding have eaten up the * media/ government play*. They haven't bothered to think it through. I guess that is the easier way to go. Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings Michelle, Don "Treetop" Jardine a.k.a Cloud Seeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #47 August 24, 2002 QuoteInteresting to me that the building which took the slightest impact, the building which sustained only a *glancing blow* , the building which recieved the least amount of Jet A payload to fuel a fire was the first to collapse! To call it a "glancing blow" is really pushing it. Again, I refer you to the HERA site. The web site actually has two very well written papers on the subject. One was written a few days after the attack and the other to make a few modifications to the theories after a couple months of reflection. Perhaps your time would be better spent asking about conspiracy theories to the author of the papers?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Cloudseeder 0 #48 August 24, 2002 "Since I have no reason to believe the photos were doctored in any way shape or form, I believe the burden of proof that they were doctored would rest on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. " Well sure that is where the burden of proof lies but look at the photo again. Do you believe that the photo is legite? The top of the building toppling away from the corner supports which were taken out? If a corner of the building was taken out wouldn't you expect the building to fall toward that corner? After an extensive search of the internet I've not been able to find video of the Towers collapse! Can you find working links to those videos? Any help would be appreciated. If video of the collapse has been systematically swept off the internet, would you agree that there is a conspiracy? "Treetop" a.k.a. Cloud Seeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lummy 4 #49 August 24, 2002 discovery did a really interesting special on the Collapse of the WTC including some good animations using the design specs and CADD. I'm going from memory of a show I saw 6 months ago, but IIRC the way the towers were designed, the floors were basically like suspended ceilings with the weight being distributed to the exterior walls, (The elevator shafts being centrally located had a a part to play in it but I can't remember that connection) Once one of the floors collapsed (from the fire) it became a domino effect with the lower floors, each collapsing. Oh,! REMEMBER the elevator connection, Since there was little support in the middle of the floor, played two roles in the tragedy. The first major role lends itself to the suspended ceiling and no supports distributed throughout the structure. Secondkly the planes had nothing to stop it once it was inside until the elevator shafts. The Elevator shafts helped distribute unignited fuel and the explosion just afterwards to subesequent floors. Since the empty shell (exterior walls)still had the upper floors and nothing to distribute the weight exept for straight down, it collapsed under it owns weight... It was a really well done program.I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Cloudseeder 0 #50 August 24, 2002 "To call it a "glancing blow" is really pushing it." Well Paul, considering the well aligned mid- face perpendicular strike of the first 767 into the North Tower , the strike to the South Tower could only be described as a "glancing blow" . It's obvious that the pilot of the plane which impacted the South Tower never penetrated the building to the mid core of structural columns. His payload of fuel was mostly thrown outside the building as seen in the fireballs on many photo websites. It is obvious that his strike was not nearly as well placed as the pilots' who attacked the North Tower. Interestingly enough , the South Tower collapsed long before the North Towers' collapse. Care to explain that or provide a link to any civil or structural engineer who attempts to explain that? Thanks , Cloud Seeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
quade 3 #45 August 24, 2002 QuotePaul, from which source do you get your data? My sources seem to believe that the fire damage would have been minimal and certainly not of a high enough degree to cause a catastrophic failure of the steel beams And I believe the HERA site addresses that issue quite well. Since I have no reason to believe the photos were doctored in any way shape or form, I believe the burden of proof that they were doctored would rest on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. QuoteIf the historical pic is doctored would you agree that there may be a conspiracy? Maybe, but the conspriacy theorists would have to prove it. My guess is that any false proof they might offer would be quickly dealt with by whomever took the original photos or has the original negatives.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudseeder 0 #46 August 24, 2002 "In the interest of learning something, can you explain how it wasn't the fire and design/structure and lack of fire retardant whacamacallit on the top floors? And what supports that theory? Sure Michelle, the fact is that the fire just wasn't that hot. There can be no doubt that the attack on the South tower(the second hit) expelled the majority of the fuel payload outside the building as that aircraft hit on an angle to the face and basically just took out the corner. Interesting to me that the building which took the slightest impact, the building which sustained only a *glancing blow* , the building which recieved the least amount of Jet A payload to fuel a fire was the first to collapse! And the collapse was straight down. 110 stories straight down! No twisting, no tilting, just straight down. Do you really believe , Michelle, that asymetrical forces of events such as an impact or a fire could cause all of the supporting structural steel to give way at exactly the same moment in time? Two different structures with two different and distinct impact profiles each falling straight down? Because without any twisting or toppling of either of the the "twinn towers" during their demolition, the supporting columns would necessarily have failed at the exact same moment in time. We both know that isn't very likely considering the method of attack which we witnessed. No Michelle, others reponding have eaten up the * media/ government play*. They haven't bothered to think it through. I guess that is the easier way to go. Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings Michelle, Don "Treetop" Jardine a.k.a Cloud Seeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #47 August 24, 2002 QuoteInteresting to me that the building which took the slightest impact, the building which sustained only a *glancing blow* , the building which recieved the least amount of Jet A payload to fuel a fire was the first to collapse! To call it a "glancing blow" is really pushing it. Again, I refer you to the HERA site. The web site actually has two very well written papers on the subject. One was written a few days after the attack and the other to make a few modifications to the theories after a couple months of reflection. Perhaps your time would be better spent asking about conspiracy theories to the author of the papers?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudseeder 0 #48 August 24, 2002 "Since I have no reason to believe the photos were doctored in any way shape or form, I believe the burden of proof that they were doctored would rest on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. " Well sure that is where the burden of proof lies but look at the photo again. Do you believe that the photo is legite? The top of the building toppling away from the corner supports which were taken out? If a corner of the building was taken out wouldn't you expect the building to fall toward that corner? After an extensive search of the internet I've not been able to find video of the Towers collapse! Can you find working links to those videos? Any help would be appreciated. If video of the collapse has been systematically swept off the internet, would you agree that there is a conspiracy? "Treetop" a.k.a. Cloud Seeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #49 August 24, 2002 discovery did a really interesting special on the Collapse of the WTC including some good animations using the design specs and CADD. I'm going from memory of a show I saw 6 months ago, but IIRC the way the towers were designed, the floors were basically like suspended ceilings with the weight being distributed to the exterior walls, (The elevator shafts being centrally located had a a part to play in it but I can't remember that connection) Once one of the floors collapsed (from the fire) it became a domino effect with the lower floors, each collapsing. Oh,! REMEMBER the elevator connection, Since there was little support in the middle of the floor, played two roles in the tragedy. The first major role lends itself to the suspended ceiling and no supports distributed throughout the structure. Secondkly the planes had nothing to stop it once it was inside until the elevator shafts. The Elevator shafts helped distribute unignited fuel and the explosion just afterwards to subesequent floors. Since the empty shell (exterior walls)still had the upper floors and nothing to distribute the weight exept for straight down, it collapsed under it owns weight... It was a really well done program.I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudseeder 0 #50 August 24, 2002 "To call it a "glancing blow" is really pushing it." Well Paul, considering the well aligned mid- face perpendicular strike of the first 767 into the North Tower , the strike to the South Tower could only be described as a "glancing blow" . It's obvious that the pilot of the plane which impacted the South Tower never penetrated the building to the mid core of structural columns. His payload of fuel was mostly thrown outside the building as seen in the fireballs on many photo websites. It is obvious that his strike was not nearly as well placed as the pilots' who attacked the North Tower. Interestingly enough , the South Tower collapsed long before the North Towers' collapse. Care to explain that or provide a link to any civil or structural engineer who attempts to explain that? Thanks , Cloud Seeder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
