Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/1/2006 9:27:16 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
check this photo out...

It has the shape of an engine. The corresponding one on the other wing is hidden by the fuselage of the plane.
 
How many engines was that plane supposed to have?


2 rolls

i guess that is raising lots of controversy because that can be seen apparently on 2 witnesses videos and not on the official dvd that julianno released...  interesting


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/1/2006 11:03:21 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
Yes, I looked at the plane specs in the link http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html  that you kindly provided in post 126. The Boeing 767 has two engines. Rolls & Royce engines? Yet in the photograph we see an unusual third object the same apparent size as an engine in an unusual location on the right wing near the fuselage. This proves that this plane was not a normal Boeing 767.
 
My conclusion is that it is a pod that enabled the plane to be flown by remote control it is in an ideal location to do so, near the engines and wing-flaps. The cockpit presumably had no functional instruments at all.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/1/2006 11:08:43 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
I don't know what it is, but if it was an empty aircraft, then I see no reason to put the remote control gear in a visible pod, when they have the whole inside of the airplane for it

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/1/2006 11:33:13 PM   
lofa


Posts: 34
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: US 6&34&83 (McCook,NE)
Status: offline
seems my government is getting the most benefit out of terrorism. finding permissions to war, in defiance (continued) of the Christian doctrine of dying to spread the WORD;
finding reasons to surrender my freedoms for me, (stated this way because I am expected to comply, like it or not)!!
Of course there is a conspiracy and there are conspiracies. One is to gain our souls and that taker knows each of us and laughs that we are persuaded of his non-existence. And those conspiracies which consider us just faceless numbers to be moved for their own ends, grist for the mill and meat for the grinder.
And the power circles are so full of themselves and so corrupted that until the trumpet sounds there is only belief.
GR8 DAYS2ALL

(in reply to sissifytoserve)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 12:34:45 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

in defiance (continued) of the Christian doctrine of dying to spread the WORD

Hmmm, I know of no such Christian doctrine. And even if there was such a doctrine, then surely the government has no business following it. The seperation of church and state and the concept of religious freedom are the basic foundations of the US.


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to lofa)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 12:42:08 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
I don't know what it is, but if it was an empty aircraft, then I see no reason to put the remote control gear in a visible pod, when they have the whole inside of the airplane for it

Quite. That is a reasonable and valid objection. I suspect that the reason for the outside pod is that it is easier to communicate with a pod outside a cage of Faraday - i.e. outside the fuselage - than to communicate with a remote control pod inside such a cage. That is practical from an engineering point of view.

Also such type of attachments are standard in military type aircraft - like bomb attachments and camera attachments for example. So an engineer would see this as an easy solution. (I am not saying that it was a military airplane, just that wing attachments are a common technology.)

There are some other questions, though: does this type of plane have tail rudders, and how did this pod control the air-flap and engine on the other wing? Did wires go through the plane to the other wing, or did the wires from the pod to the other wing simply go below the belly of the plane?

It is only thanks to camera's that we know of the existence of this pod. The engineers presumably assumed that any witnesses would either not recall this feature or would adjust their testimony to the specifications of the plane.

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) a bright spot and molten flow on floor 80 of WTC2 near the corner. Is that the fire we were discussing? They interpret it as molten aluminium from the fuselage of Flight 175. I do not believe them. Why would any such material be stuck against the ceiling instead of obeying the law of gravity?

< Message edited by Rule -- 11/2/2006 1:30:05 AM >

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 1:47:26 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
Patriots or Al-Qaeda Operatives?

Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions For years, researchers of the 9/11 attack have built a case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers primarily on the basis of one body of evidence: the scores of photographs and videos of the Towers coming down. Whereas authorities were unable to prevent the circulation of this visual evidence, they successfully suppressed the largest body of eyewitness evidence for nearly four years. That body is a collection of hundreds of "oral histories" 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, many of whom witnessed some aspect of the total destruction of the Twin Towers. The vast majority of these accounts remained suppressed by the city until the New York Times won a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the City of New York in 2005, and announced the release of the records on August 8, 2005. The newspaper published the accounts in the form of PDF documents. 56   A perusal of some excerpts of these accounts containing recollections of the sights, sounds, and immediate observations of the destruction of the Twin Towers suggests the reason the city fought to keep them suppressed: the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] ... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28] The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6] We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202] But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53] we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.
Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11] You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was.
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) ... and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
...
I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] .. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8] It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.) Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) ... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.
Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.) I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.) Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
...
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] ... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.
Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.
James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running.
Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91] As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18] When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino
Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.) I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.
Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31] At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that.
Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook.
Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.) I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above.
Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.) Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder ...
John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.
Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.) I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.
Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.) And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.
Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) ... it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.
Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) ... that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us ...
these are just a handful of firefighters and emergency workers on the sight when it colllapsed and seen and heard it first hand.  there are many more of people whos testimonies all match that include people from all walks of life...

This makes it pretty difficult for me to buy into the methane or broken gas line theory being the explosion that brought the buildings down.  a gas and methane explosion would be a one time deal and worst case burn off the end of the severed pipe after the explosion.

Its rare to get 2 people that give identical or even close testimony and here there are numerous all siting nearly identical accounts of the incident.  i vote them in as patriots.

http://www.911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 1:51:37 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
it flies in the face of logic to attach  charges OR SET NEAR to the exoskeleton instead of the core to implode the fucking thing, but then that rules out thermite, it is not explosive in that manner, in and of itself.

Each floor was falling down in free fall. So there was no implosion nor pancaking. Yet the concrete floors crumbled instantaneously, indicating enormous resistance against applied forces - those must have been multiple explosions per floor. If you want to suggest pancaking, as well as to remove the perimeter skeleton, then you have to emplace explosives both against the core as well as against the outer skeleton.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Oxygen is easy to come by.........they had the following sources for chimneys, the cabling corners, the huge basement connections into the sewers (possible source of much methane) and cabling tunnels (possible source of natural gas) and the elevators and central core.............

Seems to me that there were plenty of holes in the sides of the building

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Evidence of the connection (agreed not the additional sources of underground fuel) -- If I remember correctly manhole covers were blown off for several blocks around those buildings on the explosion part.

Due to the air in the buildings being compressed as they collapsed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The smoke/debris staying low and billowy (the volcanic theory) is another red herring, walk down the streets of the city that time of year and you will see that the air around tall buildings (especially fearsome in winter) will want to bounce you off the sidewalk it comes down so hard..............

Yes, I think that it is just stuff falling down. It has nothing to do with downdrafts.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
My question was more generally posed, it was directed at the 9/11 conspiracy believers in general, not specifically at you.

That is an improper way to discuss anything as it will only give rise to misunderstandings. It is best to be specific, to the point and to limit oneself to one subject only. (This is a long post as I want to avoid double posts.)
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
"blast" furnaces... since you knew very well what these were, why did you ask for some evidence of their existence.

He asked for evidence that the towers functioned as blast furnaces. Such evidence does not exist as the fires were relatively cool.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
And as for my repeated closing statement, you did not call Rule on it when he used it to simply browbeat somebody who disagreed with him, I assume you feel it is entirely appropriate to use it. However, if you do feel it is inappropriate, then kindly explain to me why you did not mention it when Rule first used the line? Can anybody say "double standard"?

I enjoy being quoted, but the difference is that I used the statement appropriately and justified its use later when challenged, whereas you use it inappropriately.

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
I do not believe that al-qaeda was responsible for the WTC disaster because the US government says so (I am not a US citizen, as a foreigner I have quite a good understanding of the US government's ability to lie), I believe it for two reasons:

1. It fits all the facts better than any other scenario. It also satisfies Ockham's razor...it fits without having to do all the mental gymnastics involved in the conspiracy theories.

2. The al-qaeda spokesmen have admitted that they were behind it.

Good for you. Some of us, though, are not satisfied by your reasons.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
I will readily concede that it is entirely possible that Bush & Co. were well aware of the impending attack and did nothing to stop it, hell I will even concede that they (or at least parts of the administration) were in on the whole thing right from the start. Myself, I don't believe that the buildings were supposed to come down, not in the plans of the islamicists, nor in the minds of their american co-conspirators (if any existed), but that, as so often happens when any plan is implemented in the real world,something went terribly wrong.

If they were not supposed to come down, they would still be standing. R1 already has pointed out that the towers were designed to tolerate several simultaneous impacts by airplanes - and WTC7 was never hit by an airplane. 
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
If you see your government as a sinsiter enemy, capable of executing, what even you must admit, would have to be a vast, globe-spanning conspiracy involving thousands, if not tens of thousands, of conspirators, then you have a far higher estimate of the capabilities of the US governments covert operations capabilities than is justified by the present record, or that of the past.

That is the 3rd reason I don't accept the conspiracy theories, they are simply beyond the capability of the US government's covert agencies to pull off without fucking them up.

They are able to invade and conquer Afghanistan and Iraq and murder nearly a million people in those two countries at the other side of the world, but they are not able to demolish three buildings and murder about 2500 people in their own country? I suspect that I have noticed some incongruity here...
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
It is not blind reliance on Government reports or spin that brings me to believe that it was indeed a bunch of fundamentalist muslims acting at the behest of OBL that carried out the attacks pretty much in the manner they are said to have done. It is that rarest of human attributes: common sense.

Everybody has common sense, some more than others. In this it resembles the nature of noses: some noses are larger than other noses.

< Message edited by Rule -- 11/2/2006 2:37:04 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 2:57:01 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
One poster seems to claim that there were no bodies on the planes that crashed into the WTC.
As other posters on these fora seem to know people who knew people on those planes i find that argument weak.

I did not say that the people on the lists of passengers did and do not exist. I said that there is no credible evidence that they nor the crew nor the highjackers were aboard those four flying objects.

 
It was Sinergy who said his former girlfriend was a good friend of one of the airflight attendants on one of the planes and of her family and that the airport crew saw her board that plane, but later he withdrew that story entirely. Frankly, I suspect that he made it up.
 
I know of no other posters in this thread to have claimed to have known people allegedly being aboard the airplanes. Nor is that pertinent to my statement, because knowing one of those people does not prove that the person in question was aboard one of those alleged planes. I know hundreds of people and not one of them as far as I know can be proven to have been aboard one of those four flying objects on 9 / 11 2001.

< Message edited by Rule -- 11/2/2006 2:59:27 AM >

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 3:03:42 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
Reading this thread I'm beginning to think I've been beamed up by aliens and I'm now living in a parallel universe.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 3:19:14 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
Since you guys can't prove me wrong, I think it was aliens who did it, since you can't prove I am wrong, I must be right?

Some people believe in the flying spaghetti monster from outer space. Did you perhaps observe a patch of spaghetti sauce on the streets of New York that day?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
I think Bush and most of those around him deserve to be hung as traitors but to imagine that gang of morons conceiving and executing a plan to mine four buildings with explosives, thermite, and god knows whatever else, all without being detected is horsehit.

I don't even think they could get them to go off on the same day.

If they are as stupid as you suppose, then why are you not the president of the USA? You should win an election easily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
And bottom line is WHY?

Perhaps to make a profit and to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
So they can then secretly offload passengers somewhere?

There is no credible evidence that anyone was aboard those four flying objects. Why offload passengers that are not there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
These people wouldn't care if 100,000 Americans died today as long as their profits were protected,

Quite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
why would they go through such an elaborate conspiracy when Al Queda was working overtime to do it for them. 

You refer to that guy in a cave? There is no credible evidence that connects him to the attack in any other capacity than as the fall guy to shoulder all the blame.


< Message edited by Rule -- 11/2/2006 3:25:03 AM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 3:37:38 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
Jeez Rule. The reason for the collapse of the WTC has been discussed endlessly by architects and engineers in just about all respected journals all over the world. If there was something fishy about it, why isn't there a queue of professionals telling us its collapse was a planned demolition? If they are all so stupid as to be taken in by the official version, perhaps none of us should trust going into a building over two stories ever again.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 4:11:45 AM   
Subbrina


Posts: 4
Joined: 10/10/2004
Status: offline
I've read just about everything I could find about 9/11.  I have of course tried to be as open as possible to both sides.  My Opinion after taking in as much information as I possibly could is that our government was involved.  If you LOOK at everything with an open mind I cannot see how anyone could view it otherwise. IMO

Why are we in Iraq?  The president himself says in interviews that Saddam Hussein was not EVER suspected of commiting the attacks upon the towers nor did they at that time Suspect that Bin Laden was in Iraq.  They attacked Iraq because Supposedly there were WMD's in Iraq but NONE were ever found and he finally recounted that.  That information came out of the Presidents OWN mouth, it is not speculation nor suspicion nor opinion it is FACT.

So...We are still occupying Iraq, and yet just how many Men in Al-Qaeda are behind bars?  Just how many of them have gone to trial?  Why is our goverment focusing on Iraq and NOT on actually finding Bin Laden and his followers?

Please..do some reading.

Please dont put down others for thier opinions.  It is okay for all of us to disagree but suggesting that some may be idiots because they believe differently is just wrong. (IMHO) 

Also...where are the facts that stand behind the Goverments story?  Where are the parts to the plane that hit the pentagon?  Why were some of the parts shown in photographs NOT parts that would be on the type of plane that supposedly hit?  Why do first hand accounts from people outside claim to have seen a smaller plane fly over the pentagon and then Hear what sounded like a bomb?   Jet fuel burns very quickly, so how and why did the building get so hot that the metal colapsed causing the building to come down, and why did the main frame not still stand even at ground zero?  Why did these buildings look so different from other buildings that have pancaked as in why were they reduced to dust?  Why do the firefighters say they heard numerous explosions after the fire was almost out and on floors were there was NO fire?  Why do people at ground zero say they could hear explosions at lower lvls of the building?  Why did a man on the 8th floor while traveling down the stairs out of the building say that there was an explosion below his feet?  Why did building 7 come down when it was not hit and after interviews from the owner he in his own words said the building was "pulled"?  What does "pulled" mean? And why did it only take them hours to "Pull" a building in a manner that wont take out other buildings and leaves the least damage what usually takes weeks to months to prepare for?  Why if you look closely at video tape of the buildings moments before they come down do you see smoke and debris coming from the BOTTOM of the building instead of the top?  Why when after an hour after the first hit was the plane that hit the pentagon or the plane that was taken over by its passengers NOT shot down after communication was broken and BOTH planes were flying OFF course and 2 planes had already hit the towers?  That goes against ALL standard practices that the military have shown in the past.  Are you telling me there is no airforce or fighter planes near the pentagon?  There are too many unanswered and once again IMHO evidence that proves that the story coming out of our white house is not the correct story.  I dont know what happened.  What I do believe is that our goverment has lied to us.  Since I believe they have lied I can only form my own opinion from the facts.  The fact is that our president has lied to us repeatedly, which is well documented (and no im not going to run around on the net and find proof for you, as most americans already realize he has lied to everyone on numerous occasions).  The fact is that almost 3000 people died in a horrific well planned out and excuted attack.  The fact is that there is substantial evidence that leads to Al Qaeda involvment and Pakistan involvment.  The fact is that nothing by our military was done correctly on that day to prevent further loss of life after they knew there were hijacked planes.  The fact is that we are in a country and took out their leader when he was not involved in 9/11.  (That fact my friend comes from  your own blushing while he is saying it and stuttering president)  The fact is our goverment nor military is taking No action, non what-so-ever at this time towards Pakistan when there is proof that they funded Al-Qaeda.  The fact list could go on and on.. 


(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 4:27:56 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
You don't need 9/11 to see why the US is in Iraq, you just have to read the Document For The New American Century.

(in reply to Subbrina)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 5:14:28 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Kindly explain to me why every single "eyewitness" who says it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon is credible, yet those "eyewitnesses" who say it was a plane are automatically deemed to be liars.

I can, but I won't. I am willing to discuss information that other people have uncovered and publicized, but I will not discuss information that I have discovered and that is not yet publicized.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Why is it that the people who claim to have had family members die on the planes that crashed into the buildings are clearly government stooges who are operating under false identities,

They are operating under false identities? That is news to me. Would you please supply a reference, so I can read up about this claim?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
and the folks who say there is no proof the dead folks existed

That also is news to me. I would like a reference for that claim too.

(Frankly, I ask for references because these claims about false identities and that the dead people never existed according to the people and folks that you refer to are so very astounding that I suspect that you made them up.)

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 6:13:56 AM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
One poster seems to claim that there were no bodies on the planes that crashed into the WTC.Flight 11
As other posters on these fora seem to know people who knew people on those planes i find that argument weak.

I did not say that the people on the lists of passengers did and do not exist. I said that there is no credible evidence that they nor the crew nor the highjackers were aboard those four flying objects.

I suppose that's going to depend on what you accept as "credible evidence."  Is a wife seeing her husband walk down the jetway and seeing the plane taxi away enough?

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 6:21:04 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Ok, fellas..I am afraid I am gonna have to call tinfoil on this motherfucker, right here.


since it appears there is general aggreement that it is the size and shape of another engine attached to the undercarraige..........then the only slingshot capable of launching that would be the arches in St. Louis...............so all we need to do is find a huge rubber band in somebodies desk drawer in the white house and we have our man........................

There is no way an object of that size would clear the ground, the running gear would be several feet off the ground------------and there is no anomaly in the undercarraige (as far as can be poorly seen) that indicates a doubling of the landing gear in that picture... something else afoot there, if it was seen in two other videos, do you have the link?

Additionally, if we go back to the squirting yellow gob.............and a close up is viewed we dont see the pixel distortion of that magnitude, but in this one the inset pixels are out of magnitude so that it is less clear than the finger purported to be the loch ness monster (which I believe in) of the thirties...................

I believe that to be an amaturish hoax picture as it stands, barring further and clearer evidence.

Ron  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 6:56:22 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef
I suppose that's going to depend on what you accept as "credible evidence."

A couple of days ago I said a corpse with matching dental and DNA, but last night I discovered that one of them died some time before that day - unless there were two people with that same name - so today even a corpse will not convince me any more.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Is a wife seeing her husband walk down the jetway and seeing the plane taxi away enough?

lol. You are funny. Now be serious, please?
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
since it appears there is general agreement that it is the size and shape of another engine attached to the undercarriage...

That is a misunderstanding. Did you not look at the photograph? The pod is attached to the right wing, not to the undercarriage or belly of the plane. So there is no problem in taking off.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Additionally, if we go back to the squirting yellow gob.............and a close up is viewed we dont see the pixel distortion of that magnitude, but in this one the inset pixels are out of magnitude so that it is less clear than the finger purported to be the loch ness monster (which I believe in) of the thirties...................

I believe that to be an amaturish hoax picture as it stands, barring further and clearer evidence.

Well, the NIST report that I quoted appears to describe this yellow gob, so I have no reason to doubt that. They explained it away to fit their preconceived notion, but I do not believe their interpretation.

< Message edited by Rule -- 11/2/2006 7:30:41 AM >

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 7:49:05 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Let me assume for a moment, that the buildings were deliberately demolished by some cause other than the impact of aircraft, and for some motive other than to provide grounds for military adventure and domestic repression.

What government/security agencies had offices within those buildings? What function do those agencies have? If the buildings were demolished secondary to the airborne attack, were they demolished for some reason of national security? Housing such agencies, were the buildings in fact ready equipped with demolition charges in place for just this purpose?

Were the buildings ready fitted with demolition charges in place, put there by the buildings' owners against some future situation when the insurance on the buildings might be preferable to the rental income from the offices thereof?

Did such pre-fitted charges simply go off incidentally as a result of the airborne attack and its proximate and secondary damage effects?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 11/2/2006 8:45:33 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef
Is a wife seeing her husband walk down the jetway and seeing the plane taxi away enough?


lol. You are funny. Now be serious, please?


What on earth is funny about her statement? Apparently you don't find that eyewitness testimony to be dredible, praytell why not?
What happened to the people who got onto those planes then?


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094