RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible

RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If it wasnt a 757 what was it? I have no idea what hit the Pentagon. The only thing that I do know is that it was not a 757. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy How do you create the image of a 757 striking the building bearing in mind the need to guarantee no leaks ever without actually doing so? Go and ask a magician or for that matter any con man that is doing time in prison. Doing magic tricks is easy for some people. I seem to recall that I once saw a bit of British televison in which a magician made an entire airplane standing in a field disappear. (I guess he did it with mirrors...) You are leak-obsessed. It is simple: you use sticks and carrots. Talk and you die and your relatives die. Keep your mouth shut and you get money and a job promotion and other bonusses. Leaks are not as much of a problem as you think.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy In short, things break off! that was my whole point, we should be looking at a tail laying on the ground in front of the building but there is none you see! Does that piss you off? It pisses me off! unspeakably pisses me off, and moreso when people buy into it as real!

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Real, you rally are missing my point WHY PULL AN ILLUSION IF YOU CAN DO IT FOR REAL? I dont think he is missing your point, sleazy. You can lead a person to knowledge but you cannot make them think. Sinergy

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:08:57 PM)
Coulda sure fooled me, I have asked that self same question many times, in different ways and am yet to recieve any form of answer other than he appears to prefer the idea of being lied to above logical thought

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:15:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 3). My metallurgy data sheet claims aluminum does not support combustion. Burning, from the standpoint of a welder, is heating something hot enough for it to hook up with oxygen atoms. Technically, you can burn anything if you get it hot enough. Thank you for admitting you dont understand how a mass hitting another mass at a significant difference in relative velocities generates a certain amount of energy. Sinergy Well i dont think i admitted that but two masses colliding in the terms we are talking about here dissipate energy, they do not generate engergy. Is there a point you are trying to make? Because i am not sure how your statement applies to this problem? Unless you are trying to say that the object was flying fast enough to generate enough heat that metal oxidation occurred and it vaporized. i would buy that at about mach 15 plus maybe into the side of a rock mountain.

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Coulda sure fooled me, I have asked that self same question many times, in different ways and am yet to recieve any form of answer other than he appears to prefer the idea of being lied to above logical thought That is why I gave up trying to have a rational conversation with him pages or threads ago. Simply repeating sound bite information from conspiracy theorist web sites, and being unable to cognitively explain what they mean, is something I find tedious. I spend most of my time when I think something is true going "dude, what if Im wrong?" But that is just me and I could be wrong.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If it wasnt a 757 what was it? ok even shorter.... we really do not need to know at this point. The reason being is that it proves the whole government position is wrong, flat out lies and therefore a conspiracy on some level.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:20:29 PM)
Sinergy, I must admit, in my line of work it pays to look at every avenue and question everything at least once for many reasons. But mainly I think its a fun way to pass a night shift if they can come up with something vaguely like a rational explanation for a while, the poor guy would have a lot more respect from me even if i do disagree if he would actually answer points I have rasied. I know he threatened to bring up 7/7 once but I never heard a peep about after I informed him I play excercises with that sort of scenario regularly :) edited to address an individual

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:23:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If it wasnt a 757 what was it? ok even shorter.... we really do not need to know at this point. The reason being is that it proves the whole government position is wrong, flat out lies and therefore a conspiracy on some level. Grammatical correction. YOU do not need to know. I need alternative evidence to discount a 757 If it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck and is painted in AA colours it sure as hell aint very likely to be an elephant

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Real, you really are missing my point WHY PULL AN ILLUSION IF YOU CAN DO IT FOR REAL? edited for carp sellping you are asking me why in a manner in that i have to second guess those assholes.... that of course unlike simple math is putting my dick on the chopping block LOL First we need to determine what was used. if it was a tommyhawk then i could only guess they wanted to test that new part of the building. Doing it in the first place will create the synthetic terror for americans to wave their flags and go war. it worked and we went to war.

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:30:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 3). My metallurgy data sheet claims aluminum does not support combustion. Burning, from the standpoint of a welder, is heating something hot enough for it to hook up with oxygen atoms. Technically, you can burn anything if you get it hot enough. Thank you for admitting you dont understand how a mass hitting another mass at a significant difference in relative velocities generates a certain amount of energy. Sinergy Well i dont think i admitted that but two masses colliding in the terms we are talking about here dissipate energy, they do not generate engergy. Is there a point you are trying to make? Because i am not sure how your statement applies to this problem? Unless you are trying to say that the object was flying fast enough to generate enough heat that metal oxidation occurred and it vaporized. i would buy that at about mach 15 plus maybe into the side of a rock mountain. Ok. The formula, best I can remember after 20+ years ago, is force equals mass times the square of accelleration. I only remember the delta of acceleration from top to 0, rather than the delta as x goes to 0. Force equals mass of the jet plane multiplied by 600mph - 0 mph (velocity of the pentagon) squared Plane goes boom. 600 mph squared. This creates energy. Energy is dissipated in heat, seismic tremors, sound. I am not sure what the formula is. Throw in a bunch of jet fuel. The metal which has to melt would be aluminum. I have one for you. The current anti-tank RPG used against us in Iraq relies on an propellant and an ignitor to melt copper. The molten copper, at the velocity of the copper, is able to pierce hardened steel armor. Copper melts at a significantly lower temperature than hardened steel. Yet these can pierce the armor of and take out Bradleys, etc. So to throw the question back at you, Realone, how can a metal that burns at a lower temperature ignite a metal that burns at a higher temperature? The point I am trying to make, RealOne, is that you need to do more of your own research on how things work before you repeat (in a Pavlovian sense) the things you read on an internet web site. As has been pointed out, it has been theorized that if you gave a billion monkeys a billion typerwriters, one of them would write Hamlet. The internet proves this is untrue. Sinergy

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck and is painted in AA colours it sure as hell aint very likely to be an elephant If looks like a 757 to eye witnesses, leaves bits of 757 scattered around.......... go on you must be smart enough to follow the logic there

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:34:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Say four hundred thousand dollars per plane. Say one million dollars for two. Why two? are we now disputing the number of impacts? If so I am off this thread You asked for: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s + crew/remote systems + two tomahawk type weapons? Two smaller planes, possibly 727's, for flights 93 and 175; two other flying objects of unknown, but much smaller nature for flights 11 and 77. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy + two tomahawk type weapons? quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I do not know what them other two flying objects were. Tomahawks in any case cost six hunderd thousand dollars a piece. Cheap! I think perhaps we are not having the same conversation here Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Again I wonder why two aircraft are now part of the picture, again this adds to my suspicion that you may have only read the last handful of posts and even then missed important words like "pentagon" I checked. You are mistaken. (Though I did not read some of the posts of one participant, as I have blocked the posts of that participant. What I did read of that participant, I read in quotes by other people.) quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Edited to add, why pay millions to start a new life and risk blabbing? just pay the damn compensation for deaths quote: ORIGINAL: RuleWhat deaths? The 64 you mentioned! There was nobody alive on board any of the two planes that did not hit the Pentagon. Nor was was there anybody alive on board whatever did hit the Pentagon. Perhaps there were some frozen corpses on board the plane that hit that field in Pennsylvania or on whatever hit the Pentagon, but I have yet to see evidence of such corpses.

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:40:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Though I did not read some of the posts of one participant, as I have blocked the posts of that participant. What I did read of that participant, I read in quotes by other people.) This is why I dont block people. Forwarned is forearmed. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Sinergy, I must admit, in my line of work it pays to look at every avenue and question everything at least once for many reasons. But mainly I think its a fun way to pass a night shift if they can come up with something vaguely like a rational explanation for a while, the poor guy would have a lot more respect from me even if i do disagree if he would actually answer points I have rasied. I know he threatened to bring up 7/7 once but I never heard a peep about after I informed him I play excercises with that sort of scenario regularly :) edited to address an individual My entire previous career was to look at something and think "what is my backup plan when (or if) that breaks or is screwed up." So I taught my brain to look at things and figure out what my Plan B would be. Sinergy

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Say four hundred thousand dollars per plane. Say one million dollars for two. Why two? are we now disputing the number of impacts? If so I am off this thread You asked for: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s + crew/remote systems + two tomahawk type weapons? Two smaller planes, possibly 727's, for flights 93 and 175; two other flying objects of unknown, but much smaller nature for flights 11 and 77. Aha, things become a little clearer now. I only reffered to two aircraft because you did :) Flight 77 and the pentagon is the only impact site under discussion at the moment, hope this clarifies matters a little quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy + two tomahawk type weapons? quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I do not know what them other two flying objects were. Tomahawks in any case cost six hunderd thousand dollars a piece. Cheap! I think perhaps we are not having the same conversation here Quite. again, I think I clarified this point, it seem you were refering to the wtc, where the thread was concentrating solely on the pentagon except for a comment I made re a certain academic quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Again I wonder why two aircraft are now part of the picture, again this adds to my suspicion that you may have only read the last handful of posts and even then missed important words like "pentagon" I checked. You are mistaken. (Though I did not read some of the posts of one participant, as I have blocked the posts of that participant. What I did read of that participant, I read in quotes by other people.) Hopefully we are all on the same page now :)

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Coulda sure fooled me, I have asked that self same question many times, in different ways and am yet to recieve any form of answer other than he appears to prefer the idea of being lied to above logical thought That is why I gave up trying to have a rational conversation with him pages or threads ago. Simply repeating sound bite information from conspiracy theorist web sites, and being unable to cognitively explain what they mean, is something I find tedious. I spend most of my time when I think something is true going "dude, what if Im wrong?" But that is just me and I could be wrong. Interesting. Here i thought the tail was my original, did someone else put that on a web site? you know sinergy you have not brought up one single point in here other than your generating energy theory which franly is backwards. If your point was and i say again that the plane evaporated at mach ,5 i am sorry but that is simply not possible. Not even close. If i missed it it was only because i did not want correct you on the dissipation issue and frankly i cant imagine any educated person buying into the so fast it evaporated line. For you sleazy again, you want me to second guess the devil. That is irrelevant to whether of not a 757 did in fact crash into that building or not. The only think i set out to illustrate is that on very simplistic terms it could not have been a transport plane. what it was, and what the reason were are irrelevant and i am not the one who argued it was relevant. Its not. i am sorry if this is disturbing, the shit can gets smellier and i can continue with more extremely simple issues regarding the pentagon if you like. If you think i am happy you are wrong. like i said it pisses me off immensely.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Sinergy, I must admit, in my line of work it pays to look at every avenue and question everything at least once for many reasons. But mainly I think its a fun way to pass a night shift if they can come up with something vaguely like a rational explanation for a while, the poor guy would have a lot more respect from me even if i do disagree if he would actually answer points I have rasied. I know he threatened to bring up 7/7 once but I never heard a peep about after I informed him I play excercises with that sort of scenario regularly :) edited to address an individual My entire previous career was to look at something and think "what is my backup plan when (or if) that breaks or is screwed up." So I taught my brain to look at things and figure out what my Plan B would be. Sinergy I know exactly where you are coming from, contingency planning and worst case scenarios are part of daily life in this office. Along with data and intelligence analysis, politics from local to a world level, so things like this I approach from a viewpoint far removed from the norm

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:58:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne you know sinergy you have not brought up one single point in here other than your generating energy theory which franly is backwards. If your point was and i say again that the plane evaporated at mach ,5 i am sorry but that is simply not possible. Not even close. Fair enough, RealOne. I understand that everything I have said is backwards and incorrect. So please enlighten me as to how a copper RPG can penetrate hardened steel tank armor. Sinergy p.s. I never said evaporated. Popular Mechanics stated that the metal from the force of impact was in more of a liquid form than a solid form. Evaporated means it is a "vapor" or gas.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 7:05:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If it wasnt a 757 what was it? ok even shorter.... we really do not need to know at this point. The reason being is that it proves the whole government position is wrong, flat out lies and therefore a conspiracy on some level. Grammatical correction. YOU do not need to know. I need alternative evidence to discount a 757 If it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck and is painted in AA colours it sure as hell aint very likely to be an elephant Well whats the point? you first need to refute me on the tail issue. you used the example of the surfboard breaking off so i know that you understand the problem. You gave me and yourself the answer there. The problem i gave you simply cannot be both ways at the same time. It either broke off or went through and into the building. i did what i told you i would do and if you have another alternative to the only two i can come up with regarding the tail theory then lets go over it before going off in 50 other directions and getting nothing accomplished at all.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125