GravityAddicts 0 #26 March 30, 2004 LMAO Ohh my GOD is a conspiracy!!!!!! Ruuuunnn!!!! I knew it!!! nice <------------> Gravity Addict #3; Hispa #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #27 April 5, 2004 QuoteChris, Have you seen any detailed reports on the 4th plane crash ? I remember reading about one of the engines being pretty far from the rest of the debris, and other details indicating that plane didn't come down in one piece. Would any passenger actions take it apart in mid-air or would you rather think of it being shot down ? bsbd! Yuri. Overspeed structural failure. No missile necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #28 April 5, 2004 QuoteImage 3.jpg shows that the fire-fighters are clearly trying to cover up the evidence of a simple office fire by spraying the entire scene with some liquid developed by the government to not only put out fires but destroy evidence. Do you see what's happening to your tax dollars? Yes, they are using that new chemical. Very errosive. Dy-hydra Oxide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #29 April 5, 2004 When I read this article, and even before the Snoops response to it, it is clear that this French Explanation is absolutly bullcrap. Seriously, Diverdriver said it the best, let's stop promoting this garbage, and we REALLY shouldn't need Snoops to prove this theory wrong. Seems to me a lack of common sense and a desire to start fights...=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #30 April 5, 2004 QuoteOverspeed structural failure. No missile necessary. Chris, What must one of those 737-200's go through for an overspeed structural failure? Can it happen through engine force alone, or are agressive manuevers needed to cause this kind of damage? I understand that the wings on those aircraft are rating to flex 30 feet up or down without a structural failure, what would it really take to get it to snap? Blue Skies, Edited for spelling mistakes Only...=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #31 April 5, 2004 QuoteWhat must one of those 737-200's go through for an overspeed structural failure? Can it happen through engine force alone, or are agressive manuevers needed to cause this kind of damage? I understand that the wings on those aircraft are rating to flex 30 feet up or down without a structural failure, what would it really take to get it to snap? Blue Skies, Edited for spelling mistakes Only... Actually I don't know if that's the case. I know the terrorists put the plane into a dive to keep the passengers from regaining control. The plane started out above 30K but don't know where the dive started from. It's quite possible they went way over redline. I dunno. It's a very likely scenario rather than a "our boys shot him down" theory. When the AA Airbus crashed soon after 9/11 the engines came off that plane too. After the vertical stabilizer snapped the aircraft vibrated violently enough to get the engines to depart their mounts. And that wasn't even high speed.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #32 April 5, 2004 "Yes, they are using that new chemical. Very errosive. Dy-hydra Oxide." Oooh, I could wax technical about the corrosive properties of the AFFF required to fight large liquid fuelled fires of this type, but that would make me sound like a geek....-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #33 April 5, 2004 Quote"Yes, they are using that new chemical. Very errosive. Dy-hydra Oxide." Oooh, I could wax technical about the corrosive properties of the AFFF required to fight large liquid fuelled fires of this type, but that would make me sound like a geek.... Eh, go ahead. We already know you're a geek. And also, I know they weren't using water to put out the fuel fire. I just like saying Dy-hydra Oxide instead of saying "water". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #34 April 5, 2004 Chris, Thanks for the reply. Very insightful!=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #35 April 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteOverspeed structural failure. No missile necessary. Chris, What must one of those 737-200's go through for an overspeed structural failure? Can it happen through engine force alone, or are agressive manuevers needed to cause this kind of damage? I understand that the wings on those aircraft are rating to flex 30 feet up or down without a structural failure, what would it really take to get it to snap? Blue Skies, Edited for spelling mistakes Only... Kind of curious about this myself. I have seen the footage that guy in the 707 doing the barrel roll back when Boeing introduced it to the public; and that was FACTORY AUTHORIZED over a boat race. I would have thought that would cause a failure as well?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,442 #36 April 5, 2004 >Kind of curious about this myself. I have seen the footage that guy > in the 707 doing the barrel roll back when Boeing introduced it to > the public; and that was FACTORY AUTHORIZED over a boat race. >I would have thought that would cause a failure as well? Aerobatics, especially barrel rolls and inside loops, can be performed in such a way as to put minimum stress on the aircraft. Both can be performed in aircraft without inverted fuel and oil systems, since they can be done while maintaining positive G loadings. (BTW as I recall the test pilot in question got a lot of flack from his superiors for that stunt.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #37 April 5, 2004 QuoteKind of curious about this myself. I have seen the footage that guy in the 707 doing the barrel roll back when Boeing introduced it to the public; and that was FACTORY AUTHORIZED over a boat race. I would have thought that would cause a failure as well? Actually, the pilot of that plane did so without authorization (he got bitched out something fierce). I saw an interview with that pilot and he cited that the plane maintained 1.0G through the whole loop. I remember some initial "conspiracy" theories about "was there a plane or not?" at the Pentagon. One of the newscasts showed footage of a parking camera which was pointed in the direction of the side that was hit. It was on a timed exposure, so you didn't see the plane, but you see the very beginning of the explosion, then a 5-15 second delay showing the explosion more "developed". There was an obvious lack of "building" debris being "blown out", which is what would have happend if there was a "planted" explosive.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #38 April 6, 2004 Quote Well, not exactly. Snopes, as I've said many times in the past, is not the official authority on anything, despite popular belief. Unfortunatly, there are some posters on here (not you) who use Snopes instead of common sense and intelligence. I'm all for having objective analysis of every source, but did you have any specific disagreements with Snopes about this event? It sounded very resonable and logically backed up to me.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #39 April 6, 2004 Huh; I stand corrected. Ballsy move to pull a barrel roll in an airliner as it's being shown to the public for the first time in a fly-by. I am surprised he kept his job."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #40 April 6, 2004 QuoteHuh; I stand corrected. Ballsy move to pull a barrel roll in an airliner as it's being shown to the public for the first time in a fly-by. I am surprised he kept his job. IIRC, not only did he keep his job, but I believe he flew multiple other promotional/first time flights for Boeing for many years. Of course, in the interview, you see the pilot revisiting how he had to "squirm" his way out of the fire. Of course, nowadays, dozens of people would lose jobs for stuff like that...too bad. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #41 April 6, 2004 Yeah, funny, isn't it? You wonder where we would be in this society if people were comfortable in taking risks without having to worry so much about "the blame game"..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #42 April 7, 2004 I believe that Tex Johnston said that he practiced that barrel roll over the Puget Sound/Pacific before doing it over the hydroplane races. A big barrel roll like that is not a high stress maneuver. Envelope protection on the modern Airbus fly-by-wire jets would not allow you to roll the plane. What a shame. Maybe an ATP rated for 'buses' can tell us if there is a "direct" mode on the FBW system that would inhibit the envelope protection. A pilot of a Boeing 777 however, does have the ability to roll/invert/overstress the airplane without disabling the normal control laws. The FBW system on that beautiful bird would just require the pilot to use more control input (force) than usual.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #43 April 7, 2004 QuoteI'm all for having objective analysis of every source, but did you have any specific disagreements with Snopes about this event? It sounded very resonable and logically backed up to me. Snopes is indeed correct on this matter. In regards to my statement, I find it laughable that some people run to Snopes to see if something is true or not. It's hysterical. The sheep goes BAAAHHHHHH!!!!! They're worse than your political party zombies. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #44 April 27, 2006 Quotehttp://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm I swear my husband searches for this stuff... but seriously.. can you find the boeing? I never thought of it before, but never did see an actual plane... check this one out, then Jenniferwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperboy357 0 #45 April 27, 2006 This garbage has been posted on here before. It's upsetting to realize that people actually believe this conspiracy theory bull. But if that's what you want to believe I guess it's fine with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #46 April 27, 2006 QuoteQuotehttp://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm I swear my husband searches for this stuff... but seriously.. can you find the boeing? I never thought of it before, but never did see an actual plane... check this one out, then Jennifer Your bullshit filter is not working. Your first instinct should be to not believe the conspiracy theory website lies, and do a search looking for all of the information out there that dispells those wackos, it is easily obtained - they address all the major points made by the nutjobs. Here is a start for you: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htmPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aram208 0 #47 April 28, 2006 >>Your first instinct should be to not believe the conspiracy First instinct should be to analyze everything you hear from both conspiracy theorists and the government. I saw the "Loose change" and do not agree with 70% of it, but that does not mean that I fully trust the government official report. An excerpt from the article (about the missing wings): ==================================== the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. ==================================== .. sorry but I do not buy this. This is a building with reinforced walls that absorbed the impact and somehow portions of wings are going through !?!?! Ok, fine, wings are destroyed but where is the tale ? did it go through too ? In most (if not all big plain crashes) the tail survives. Also, next time you are on a plane at cruising speed and altitude - try to make a cell phone call .. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I believe that whatever happened is not what we were told. I have questions but no answers. Mere mortals are not allowed to know the truth .. this could lead to a panic. A quote from "Man in Black" that I like - "..one person is smart, people are dumb". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 April 28, 2006 Wings are a lot stronger and more reinforced than the tail... if the wings were destroyed, what makes you think the tail wouldn't be? You also cant really compare any of the 9/11 events to "normal" plane crashes. In a "normal" crash, the pilot is trying to pancake the plane in on it's belly as slow and easy as possible - which was obviously not the case on 9/11.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 April 28, 2006 QuoteWings are a lot stronger and more reinforced than the tail... if the wings were destroyed, what makes you think the tail wouldn't be? You also cant really compare any of the 9/11 events to "normal" plane crashes. In a "normal" crash, the pilot is trying to pancake the plane in on it's belly as slow and easy as possible - which was obviously not the case on 9/11. It's also possible the wings penetrated the fusilage as they folded back on impact. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 April 28, 2006 QuoteIt's also possible the wings penetrated the fusilage as they folded back on impact.- GM - wake up and smell the coffee. The space aliens took the wreckage under direction of the CIA. That's why the Oscar Meyer corporation is trying to cover it up via their corps of laser carrying operatives stationed in the Appalachians. If you are carrying a penny, the government has your DNA on file. Why do think they keep 'em in circulation? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
