RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible

RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 3:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 In March 2003, polls showed that 70% of Americans supported the Iraq war. The support only started to fall when the people found out the war wasn't going to be easy and that people will die. Well, when it was obvious that all the stories told to The People and Congress were 1/2 truths, misstatements and outright lies actually. quote: And 57 million people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 (54% of votes cast). That is more votes than any other president recieved in history. It is also the first time since 1988 that a candidate recieved a majority of total popular votes cast. Those results are meaningless. See my earlier messages. Since you cannot PROVE those numbers ( in a Fiscal Audit sense ) they're meaningless. quote: So Bush did have a mandate in 2004. With the gay hookers getting whitehouse access, he got a lot more Man Dates than just in 2004. Oh, and on what planet is 54% of made up numbers considered a mandate? What planet is 54% of a REAL VOTE considered a mandate? Sounds like he squeaked by, at best. ( But since the numbers are meaningless, let's not digress ) quote: The problem he ran into is what plagues every 2nd term president. The torture and lies caught up with him. That's why God hates George Bush, and God Hates America.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 10:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Agreed subject to the assumption that the vertical stabiliser remained intact and attached to the hull The why did you use the surfboard exmple to show how it would break off which was my point as well with the vertical stab? quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 5) We know that the only way the vertical stab could be inside the building is if it went through the wall. False. Explain How this is false. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 6) There is no hole above the fuselage hole therefore no vertical stab. could possibly be inside the building. False. Explain How this is false. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Not proven. Given my knowledge of physics, aircraft structure and construction and the comissioning of strike hardened facilties I would expect any such damage as to be to all intents and purposes invisible in any images I have seen. So then a plane can hit the pent and you will not see damage because it is strike hardened? getting a little silly here. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 9) Therefore there cannot be a vertical stab inside the building, there is no visible evidence of a vertical stab outside the building even within minutes of the crash and therefore a 757 nor any other comparable transport plane have hit the pentagon. Assumption that does not take into account any of the points I have labeled as false or not proven Well i have no reason to believe that i can prove anything to you as you may not be able to accept the obvious. You use the surboard example to show how it would snap off if used as a vert stab but wont allow that same theory for the vert stab of a 757. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Then why do you refuse steadfastly to answer questions that have been put you repeatedly? Which? quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Go for it, but you would earn far more respect from me if you would answer questions that are put to you that do not fit in with your pet theory. I have played fair and answered all of yours despite my obvious doubts as to any theory you are trying to put forward. i am not the one answering questions with "false", follow your notions with a statement as to how you feel it is "false" then i will respond. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy There IS NO THERMITE in a solid shot anti-tank round (heat). Just a nice big slug of copper (or depleted uranium if playing real nasty but due to density and rarity that is usually reservered for smaller calibre rounds). The only explosive other than the initial propellant is a small shaped charge to compress and direct the flow of the slug. i never said or implied there was thermite in the slug. i was describing the flow. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne ok elaborate on all your falses and maybes so i understand where you are coming from as to why its false then i will go down the list and debate them one by one if i disagree Real easy, no fancy physics regarding rotation and momentum, no need to research how much damage thin aluminium at speed does to a structural concrete beam, just prove there is no vertical stabilser close to the wall. Again there is no sign of damage on the wall from a vert stab. You talk like its tin foil at which point you fail the discussion. If you want to make a point then explain it, how heavy is the stab? How fast is it rotating? How heavy must it be to smugh those intensely hardened walls? Where was it found then? Hell prove it exists at all sleazy! My point is you are the one who needs to prove it exists, since you cannot seem to find it then i have no reason to believe that a 757 hit. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy No. We have one possible path, the dark green line that follows the original trajectory although as you will see later you are a little off with your estimate, the correct exit point is 4 & 5 windows from the footbridge. Momentum does not allow debris to make right angle turns Ok i redrew part of it. the white line is the path to the hole you like. So you want me to bileve that the plane followed that path? Where is the damage in the lightened part in ring 2 by the red question mark? Where is all that plane debris that they showed near it? How did that plane go through 2 exterior hardened and 16 interior walls to reach the inside of ring 3???? That was one hell of a bunker buster um i mean 757!!! The red shows the most likely path of magic plane since no damage was done to ring 2. (being sarcastic) as i was with the other lines that followed tha hall. So answer all these minor discrepancies please. Especially how a plane can go through 18 freaking walls. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagondamage9aa.jpg quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy up, there is vehicular access within the rings, that square hole is perfect for driving a golf cart in and out of from AE Drive ok good we agree the square hole is access drive. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Now we have 5-3, that leaves us with a discrepancy of two floors agree? Oddly enough, if you care to look into it at all you will find that the outer three rings of the pentagon were not seperate at all on the first two floors, that means that there would not be any visible damage in the form of entry/exit holes on ring two as debris only entered at the impact point and exited in ring 3, it never actually left the building! EDIT> Never actually left the building until the inner wall of ring 3! A link I believe I posted earlier http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 app 2/3 down the page shows structural damage, note the supporting columns in what you claim to be open space. Note how such areas are clearly labeled "two-story section" i have no idea what you are talking about here? i looked at those sat shots and aside from the quality sucks i do not see any damage in ring 2 if that is what you are saying. Now i am counting the impact ring as ring 1 if that is not clear. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Combustion cans and rotor discs http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Wheels http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml And for anyone techincal enough and likely to bring up the point - large jets and ground effect at high speed http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757? Why did nobody notice trucks dumping bits of 757 on the lawn and in the carpark whilst firetrucks were still spraying foam on the burning building? Who knocked over lamp poles just seconds prior to the impact? How? Who damaged the generator housing prior to impact? How? Why is structural damage consistent with impact from a few hundred tons at high speed and fire rather than any other alternative? the compressor rotor from a rb211 535 is 3.75 to 4 feet around. That one in the pent rotor pic is puny maybe 1/2 that size. That big long write up in you rlink lists j57 rotor specs right under the rb211 pics LMAO nice fake out play for someone glancing and not reading Why use a 757? Their reasoning of a certain choice of plane is irrelevant. Who cares! Where are these bits that are supposed to be there then? Pics? Pictures i have show upright lamp posts, had to be debris where is it? Do you have a video of the before and after of that generator damage? How is that pertinent? Here is one for you. How did a 757 go through the 8ft high wire coils that are within a few feet of the bulding without touching them to hit the building at ground level? So you feel its normal then for an aircraft to go through some 16 - 18 walls of an hardened reinforced building like the pentagon? How do you explain that? Why do we need a bunker busters if we can just use 757's to do the job? So where are the 200 passenger seats?

Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 10:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 In March 2003, polls showed that 70% of Americans supported the Iraq war. I will agree with this. quote: The support only started to fall when the people found out the war wasn't going to be easy and that people will die. Please provide some sort of empirical evidence to support this conclusion. I personally think this is your own personal belief and you will be incapable of providing such. There are any number of reasons people stopped supporting to war. The one which immediately comes to mind are things like a complete absence of WMDs in Iraq after being assured we knew where they were. quote: And 57 million people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 (54% of votes cast). That is more votes than any other president recieved in history. It is also the first time since 1988 that a candidate recieved a majority of total popular votes cast. Right, so you dismiss election fraud. Got it. quote: So Bush did have a mandate in 2004. The problem he ran into is what plagues every 2nd term president...it is never the same as the first term. He got too caught up in special interests. He was unable to keep together his 1st term cabinet. His own party is throwing him under the bus. And he can't get anything done with Congress. Again, your conclusion does not follow from your supporting evidence. What the hell is a mandate from an election that is being investigated in several states and was awarded to him by the Supreme Court after he and his minions flew plane loads of attorneys around pleading the case that THE VOTES SHOULD NOT BE RECOUNTED TO DETERMINE ACCURACY to the tune of 14 million dollars? quote: The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. His first term was very popular, he balanced the budget and rode a booming economy. But Clinton's second term was plagued with scandal after scandal. He was unable to make any progress with Congress on any issue. Reagan also had that problem. In his 2nd term, he was haunted by the Iran-Contra scandal. If you had done your homework, you would have discovered the despite what Bill Clinton did, he was hounded by a hostile congress who investigated each and everything he ever even considered doing. If you look at the congressional record, the number of congressional investigations filed against Monkeyboy and his administration is 0. Do the math. Sinergy edited to add a /

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne How did that plane go through 2 exterior hardened and 16 interior walls to reach the inside of ring 3???? So answer all these minor discrepancies please. Especially how a plane can go through 18 freaking walls. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagondamage9aa.jpg quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Now we have 5-3, that leaves us with a discrepancy of two floors agree? Oddly enough, if you care to look into it at all you will find that the outer three rings of the pentagon were not seperate at all on the first two floors, that means that there would not be any visible damage in the form of entry/exit holes on ring two as debris only entered at the impact point and exited in ring 3, it never actually left the building! EDIT> Never actually left the building until the inner wall of ring 3! i have no idea what you are talking about here? i looked at those sat shots and aside from the quality sucks i do not see any damage in ring 2 if that is what you are saying. Now i am counting the impact ring as ring 1 if that is not clear. Sleazy is correct. The open space between the three outer rings is not level earth, but the ceiling of the second floor. The object that struck the Pentagon passed below that ceiling. One of the witnesses that sleazy referred me to: Evey, Walker Lee: Internally, the Wedge One project included: complete demolition of existing facilities; significant abatement of hazardous materials (most notably, 28 million lbs. of asbestos-contaminated material was removed); installation of all new electrical, mechanical, plumbing and telecommunication systems within the existing floorplan; structural steel reinforcement; and replacement of all 1,282 windows in the section, including 386 blast-resistant units on the outermost "E Ring" and innermost "A Ring" of the building. All-new office space was created with an open space plan aimed at enhancing flexibility. So this section was carefully prepared for the impact. They even removed the asbestos to limit the risk to only this section. I do not know what is meant by "open office space", but it may mean that there were less walls than when the Pentagon was originally built. If so, then again: careful preparation.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 1:59:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Now we have 5-3, that leaves us with a discrepancy of two floors agree? Oddly enough, if you care to look into it at all you will find that the outer three rings of the pentagon were not seperate at all on the first two floors, that means that there would not be any visible damage in the form of entry/exit holes on ring two as debris only entered at the impact point and exited in ring 3, it never actually left the building! EDIT> Never actually left the building until the inner wall of ring 3! A link I believe I posted earlier http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 app 2/3 down the page shows structural damage, note the supporting columns in what you claim to be open space. Note how such areas are clearly labeled "two-story section" Interesting so there is a 2 story ring inbtween rings thus no damage can be seen. got it. Yep i just fingered it out. What a fucking farce!!!! Thanks for bring that to my attention, typical asce bullshit just like in wtc. The red squares indicate: Impacted, broken, missing, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function. You can see less red squares as you get closer to the exit hole in ring 3. You will also notice that the last red square is in the 2floor section and there are none in ring 3. So the energy is clearly dissapating to the point of plaster being knocked off the walls in ring 3. Then all of a sudden after not hurting anything on the way through ring 3 BLAMMM The ring 3 wall blows out!!!! If you look at the path of the debris flow as shown by asce you can see that whatever went through that wall first had to zig zag around all those yellow unscathed structural barriers where it mysteriously grew in force to blow the outer wall on the inner ring of ring 3. Chart: http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/asce-illus-2.gif from: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 Look at that drawing. Put it on your screen. Take a peice of paper and line it up in th ecenter of the exit wound, and then rotate it back and forth in the debris spray while keeping your finger on it at the exit wound to use as a pivot of rotation. Some how something managed to sneak around the yellow squares of very little damage and all of a sudden get energized and blow a big assed hole through the wall. For those who do not see the point, it would have had to blow out one or more of the yellow ones in its path unless of course we have another majik bullet like in the jfk case. Next problem. Look at the debri scatter around and outside that hole, neatly piled up LMFAO. Where is the chunk of "whatever" that was big enough to make such a huge hole? Those little aluminum parts on the ground blew that big assed hole in the wall? This is so sad its funny! Next look at the debris scatter. It looks like they just threw the shit around. If something big anough to blow that kind of a hole in the wall came plowing through there it would push the shit seen in the center of the hole on the inside of the bld outward and sideways not leave it scattered hap hazzardly around like is shown there. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagonbackholeexit21nv.jpg Nah theres no conspiracy there now is there. What a crock. Think i will send this info to the conspiracy kooks so they can read my script LOL

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 2:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Sorry, but an essential element of a Conspiracy is an unlawful act. American Heritage, for example: 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. So, you may want to use Conspiracy in a casual way, but it is incorrect. It is an essential element according to AHD, but not to others. If like me you used dictonary.com, you actually had to go right past the defintions I quoted to make yor point. quote: quote: On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :) Prove it. Show all work. Provide calculator tapes to support all computations. Can't do it, eh? That's the problem when elections are unauditable. They're untrustworthy, and aren't useful in proving anything. Did one person vote for the current incumbent and one of their policies? If so that is enough to validate my point, Unless of course you are seriously suggesting that every single person that voted did so against the current president, I think that argument would fail any statistical analysis. As for an auditable election, well then you run into the prospect of real abuse of power, the secret ballot exists for a very good reason I don't think you can PROVE even ONE person voted any particular way. The elections are a joke. But then again, I have 20 years of financial auditing and information security experience, so my perceptions may not be shared popularly. Statiscal probabilty is plenty proof for me, or are you seriously suggesting that every single one of the however many million votes cast in the last election were for the democrats? quote: Your PARIMUTUAL WAGERING ticket is more secure than your Vote. Maybe it would be if I had one

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 3:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Agreed subject to the assumption that the vertical stabiliser remained intact and attached to the hull The why did you use the surfboard exmple to show how it would break off which was my point as well with the vertical stab? Please quote in context, you were posting about there not being a hole above the 22' foot level, there would only be such a hole if the stabiliser remained intact and connected to the hull quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 5) We know that the only way the vertical stab could be inside the building is if it went through the wall. False. Explain How this is false. If you cannot agree that 2 + 3 = 5, there is no way on this earth I am going into rotational forces and momentum quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 6) There is no hole above the fuselage hole therefore no vertical stab. could possibly be inside the building. False. Explain How this is false. If you cannot agree that 2 + 3 = 5, there is no way on this earth I am going into rotational forces and momentum quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Not proven. Given my knowledge of physics, aircraft structure and construction and the comissioning of strike hardened facilties I would expect any such damage as to be to all intents and purposes invisible in any images I have seen. So then a plane can hit the pent and you will not see damage because it is strike hardened? getting a little silly here. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 9) Therefore there cannot be a vertical stab inside the building, there is no visible evidence of a vertical stab outside the building even within minutes of the crash and therefore a 757 nor any other comparable transport plane have hit the pentagon. Assumption that does not take into account any of the points I have labeled as false or not proven Well i have no reason to believe that i can prove anything to you as you may not be able to accept the obvious. You use the surboard example to show how it would snap off if used as a vert stab but wont allow that same theory for the vert stab of a 757. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Then why do you refuse steadfastly to answer questions that have been put you repeatedly? Which? POST 37 You mission should you choose to accept it........... Convince the gullible masses that an airliner (a boeing 757 belonging to american airlines for the sake of argument) has impacted a building well known to the public. Criteria 1. Collateral damage (military and civilian casualties) are expected and authourised, but should be kept to a reasonable limit 2. Secrecy is paramount. Nobody must ever let the truth out, that means ensuring that all conspirators, and planted witnesses if required, must stick to the official line until beyond their graves. Of course none should obviously show an increase in financial wealth that cannot be accounted for by means of network interview fees. It should not need saying that a number of unusual deaths or dissapearances are not a smart policy 3. Budget is to all intents and purposes is unlimited, however a $Xmillion budget would of course be more favourable than a budget of X x10 million dollars. Now seriously and logically, what is the most efficient way of producing the desired outcome? POST 46 Still eagerly awaiting a mission plan as outlined earlier. 48 Why not a 757? 53 Why an elaborate dis-information scam when you can just fly a 757 into a building cheaper, easier, less risk of leaks and achieve the desired end image? 56 If it wasnt a 757 what was it? 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? 60 Real, you really are missing my point WHY PULL AN ILLUSION IF YOU CAN DO IT FOR REAL? OK, now im actually bored of re-reading my own posts, but I think that should prove my point quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Go for it, but you would earn far more respect from me if you would answer questions that are put to you that do not fit in with your pet theory. I have played fair and answered all of yours despite my obvious doubts as to any theory you are trying to put forward. i am not the one answering questions with "false", follow your notions with a statement as to how you feel it is "false" then i will respond. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy There IS NO THERMITE in a solid shot anti-tank round (heat). Just a nice big slug of copper (or depleted uranium if playing real nasty but due to density and rarity that is usually reservered for smaller calibre rounds). The only explosive other than the initial propellant is a small shaped charge to compress and direct the flow of the slug. i never said or implied there was thermite in the slug. i was describing the flow. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne ok elaborate on all your falses and maybes so i understand where you are coming from as to why its false then i will go down the list and debate them one by one if i disagree Real easy, no fancy physics regarding rotation and momentum, no need to research how much damage thin aluminium at speed does to a structural concrete beam, just prove there is no vertical stabilser close to the wall. Again there is no sign of damage on the wall from a vert stab. You talk like its tin foil at which point you fail the discussion. If you want to make a point then explain it, how heavy is the stab? How fast is it rotating? How heavy must it be to smugh those intensely hardened walls? Where was it found then? Hell prove it exists at all sleazy! My point is you are the one who needs to prove it exists, since you cannot seem to find it then i have no reason to believe that a 757 hit. Incorrect, I have seen several pieces that do a damn good point of matching a 757 with the impact. You however are claiming that the abscence of one paritcular piece of assembly is not present is your smoking gun. Find me just one picture where a reasonable person could expect to see a vertical stabiliser but there is no such thing. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy No. We have one possible path, the dark green line that follows the original trajectory although as you will see later you are a little off with your estimate, the correct exit point is 4 & 5 windows from the footbridge. Momentum does not allow debris to make right angle turns Ok i redrew part of it. the white line is the path to the hole you like. So you want me to bileve that the plane followed that path? Where is the damage in the lightened part in ring 2 by the red question mark? The damage at this point is all internal as the building is two storys high at this point quote: Where is all that plane debris that they showed near it? Missing your point here quote: How did that plane go through 2 exterior hardened and 16 interior walls to reach the inside of ring 3???? One hardened wall, one weather wall. Being of a column design there is little "structure". Even the inner wall of ring 3 is there merely to keep weather out. quote: That was one hell of a bunker buster um i mean 757!!! The red shows the most likely path of magic plane since no damage was done to ring 2. (being sarcastic) as i was with the other lines that followed tha hall. So answer all these minor discrepancies please. Especially how a plane can go through 18 freaking walls. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagondamage9aa.jpg Debris at hole 1, go back to my post, read my justification, it appears to me that this picture was taken well into the clean up operation, I would not expect piles of debris to be left in place indefinately, a date of capture for the picture would be of assistance in determining this quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy up, there is vehicular access within the rings, that square hole is perfect for driving a golf cart in and out of from AE Drive ok good we agree the square hole is access drive. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Now we have 5-3, that leaves us with a discrepancy of two floors agree? Oddly enough, if you care to look into it at all you will find that the outer three rings of the pentagon were not seperate at all on the first two floors, that means that there would not be any visible damage in the form of entry/exit holes on ring two as debris only entered at the impact point and exited in ring 3, it never actually left the building! EDIT> Never actually left the building until the inner wall of ring 3! A link I believe I posted earlier http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 app 2/3 down the page shows structural damage, note the supporting columns in what you claim to be open space. Note how such areas are clearly labeled "two-story section" i have no idea what you are talking about here? i looked at those sat shots and aside from the quality sucks i do not see any damage in ring 2 if that is what you are saying. Now i am counting the impact ring as ring 1 if that is not clear. The only image i reffered to was app. 2/3 of the way down the page and showed a floor plan, ALL other images reffered to are YOURS quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Combustion cans and rotor discs http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Wheels http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml And for anyone techincal enough and likely to bring up the point - large jets and ground effect at high speed http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml *Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757?* Why did nobody notice trucks dumping bits of 757 on the lawn and in the carpark whilst firetrucks were still spraying foam on the burning building? Who knocked over lamp poles just seconds prior to the impact? How? Who damaged the generator housing prior to impact? How? Why is structural damage consistent with impact from a few hundred tons at high speed and fire rather than any other alternative? the compressor rotor from a rb211 535 is 3.75 to 4 feet around. That one in the pent rotor pic is puny maybe 1/2 that size. approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to *Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory* and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon. quote: That big long write up in you rlink lists j57 rotor specs right under the rb211 pics LMAO nice fake out play for someone glancing and not reading Nope, someone actually reading will see the page first justifies the case for RB211 engines and then goes on to analyse the claims of J57 and AE3007H quote: Why use a 757? Their reasoning of a certain choice of plane is irrelevant. Who cares! If its irrelevant wether it was a 757, an A3, a tomahawk, or whatever, why the freak are you making such a big deal about it not being a 757? quote: Where are these bits that are supposed to be there then? Pics? Pictures i have show upright lamp posts, had to be debris where is it? http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200027.html quote: Do you have a video of the before and after of that generator damage? How is that pertinent? Here is one for you. How did a 757 go through the 8ft high wire coils that are within a few feet of the bulding without touching them to hit the building at ground level? So you feel its normal then for an aircraft to go through some 16 - 18 walls of an hardened reinforced building like the pentagon? How do you explain that? Why do we need a bunker busters if we can just use 757's to do the job? So where are the 200 passenger seats?

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 6:46:40 AM)
"Statiscal probabilty is plenty proof for me, or are you seriously suggesting that every single one of the however many million votes cast in the last election were for the democrats?" I'm suggesting that no-one can possibly state with any level of reasonable accuracy what happened at all. Is a "Statistical Analysis" good enough for your bank statement every month?

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 9:12:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy 56 If it wasnt a 757 what was it? It was a 737. One of the witnesses that you referred me to was an aviation expert. He said that he thought he saw a 737. I know better than to dispute the testimony of an aviation expert. Another - a politician, Judy Biggert, so her testimony is suspect - said that she saw the remains of part of the tail. (Part of the upright stabilisator?) I accept her testimony, though. Some credible witnesses saw an airplane. Airplanes have a tail. So I expect a piece of tail to be among the debris. Edited to add: so we have at least two 737s involved (flights 77 and 175). Flight 93 probably also was a 737. Flight 11 is an unknown.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 9:17:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule It was a 737. One of the witnesses that you referred me to was an aviation expert. He said that he *thought* he saw a 737. I know better than to dispute the testimony of an aviation expert. Note the word I have emphasised. Makes a big difference to a statement.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 9:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Please quote in context, you were posting about there not being a hole above the 22' foot level, there would only be such a hole if the stabiliser remained intact and connected to the hull Well that is sorta right. It can certainly fragment and still go through the wall, all that is needed is enough mass to break the wall for it to get inside. So there would be a hole where it would have had to go through the wall in that example. There is no hole there isnt even impact damage above the holes for the red shaded area that we agreed on originally there for it simply cannot be inside the building unless someone cut it off and dragged it in behind the plane so it could fit into that short 20ft hole. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 5) We know that the only way the vertical stab could be inside the building is if it went through the wall. False. Explain How this is false. If you cannot agree that 2 + 3 = 5, there is no way on this earth I am going into rotational forces and momentum Hey all i am asking you to do is to explain your assertion. Accusing me of not being logical without explaining giving us your reasoning is just a diversion to avoid my point. So if there is a way the vert stab can get into the building without leaving a hole in the building do EXPLAIN it. Explain the sequence of events that would have to take place for that phenomeona to occur. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Which? POST 37 You mission should you choose to accept it........... Convince the gullible masses that an airliner (a boeing 757 belonging to american airlines for the sake of argument) has impacted a building well known to the public. Criteria 1. Collateral damage (military and civilian casualties) are expected and authourised, but should be kept to a reasonable limit 2. Secrecy is paramount. Nobody must ever let the truth out, that means ensuring that all conspirators, and planted witnesses if required, must stick to the official line until beyond their graves. Of course none should obviously show an increase in financial wealth that cannot be accounted for by means of network interview fees. It should not need saying that a number of unusual deaths or dissapearances are not a smart policy 3. Budget is to all intents and purposes is unlimited, however a $Xmillion budget would of course be more favourable than a budget of X x10 million dollars. Now seriously and logically, what is the most efficient way of producing the desired outcome? POST 46 Still eagerly awaiting a mission plan as outlined earlier. 48 Why not a 757? 53 Why an elaborate dis-information scam when you can just fly a 757 into a building cheaper, easier, less risk of leaks and achieve the desired end image? 56 If it wasnt a 757 what was it? 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? 60 Real, you really are missing my point WHY PULL AN ILLUSION IF YOU CAN DO IT FOR REAL? OK, now im actually bored of re-reading my own posts, but I think that should prove my point What does #1 mean? i am supposed to convince the public exactly why there will be damages? For your number 2, only till the main perps are dead. you claim to be in the biz but you do not talk like it sleazy. you should know all aspects of what it takes to successfully pull off a false flag operation. Its called compartmentalizing. etc etc... If someone looks like they will snitch they have an accident or commit suicide even tho they have everything to live for. Sure a smaller budget is more favorable. Try to blackmail for more than the agreed amount and see the answer for #2. i do not have a problem with your logic in that a 757 would be the most logical choice to look like a 757 done the deed, HOWEVER since when do these guys do things that are logical beyond the logic of a few insiders? Again you want me to second guess the devil and drag this into the murky grey of nowhere dancing land. i want to stick to what we can see and measure from the results of the crime. The mission plan is for you to explain in terms of non bush physics those questions you have avoided that i have asked you. Then we can go on to talk about other points we both have. You create the image of a 757 by saying its so. regardless if it is or not. i do not know what it was. i am only pointing out that unless i can find something that specifically illustrates it was a 757 i have no reason to believe it was in the light of the damage and asce report. An elaborate dis-information scheme would be used depending on intended purpose. Do you think i am foolish enough to believe the only purpose is to knock down a wall? There are always ulterior motives that again you are asking me to guess the mind of the devil and again asking me to go intot he murky depths of grey and guessing rather than stick that which we can see and analyse. WHY PULL AN ILLUSION IF YOU CAN DO IT FOR REAL, well i think i just answered this in triplicate. its simply not measureable and quantifiable and all guessing to go there. What do you expect to prove other than 50 pages of dancing with a question like that? i have no idea what possible likst of objectives they have had or motives and or which is the most heasible to carry it out. i do have damage data however that should match the governments claim that you so far have not answered the question i put to you about it. Ok i answered yours line item by line item, now you answer my questions of you. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Again there is no sign of damage on the wall from a vert stab. You talk like its tin foil at which point you fail the discussion. If you want to make a point then explain it, how heavy is the stab? How fast is it rotating? How heavy must it be to smugh those intensely hardened walls? Where was it found then? Hell prove it exists at all sleazy! My point is you are the one who needs to prove it exists, since you cannot seem to find it then i have no reason to believe that a 757 hit. Incorrect, I have seen several pieces that do a damn good point of matching a 757 with the impact. You however are claiming that the abscence of one paritcular piece of assembly is not present is your smoking gun. Find me just one picture where a reasonable person could expect to see a vertical stabiliser but there is no such thing. No that was just the first one, that you have failed to explain what happened to it, failure to reasonably explain what happened to it raises the question and lends credence to it never existing in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy The damage at this point is all internal as the building is two storys high at this point yup i got that now quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne How did that plane go through 2 exterior hardened and 16 interior walls to reach the inside of ring 3???? One hardened wall, one weather wall. Being of a column design there is little "structure". Even the inner wall of ring 3 is there merely to keep weather out. Interesting, for what its worth it has 3 layers of bricks. Thats pretty tough imo, maybe hot strike hardened but pretty tough. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Debris at hole 1, go back to my post, read my justification, it appears to me that this picture was taken well into the clean up operation, I would not expect piles of debris to be left in place indefinately, a date of capture for the picture would be of assistance in determining this So this pic was not released by the gov then to support their position? i thought it was? quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the compressor rotor from a rb211 535 is 3.75 to 4 feet around. That one in the pent rotor pic is puny maybe 1/2 that size. approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Well i am not quoting brassy's best guess for you. i called up rolls and asked them. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Why use a 757? Their reasoning of a certain choice of plane is irrelevant. Who cares! If its irrelevant wether it was a 757, an A3, a tomahawk, or whatever, why the freak are you making such a big deal about it not being a 757? Because they claim it was a 757 and i see little evidence to support that claim. Kool 1 knocked down pole, thanks for posting that i added it to my collection, but a tommy hawk or other smaller plane could knock down one pole too you know. Ok thats everything line item by line item that you listed. Now scroll back up to my post # 145 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=797554 where i analyse the asce report of the damage and we can add that to the mix by explaining how we can go from no damage in the debris path and magically get a blown out wall in the 3rd ring. While we are on the subject of missing aircraft debris there is not even one seat in any of the insde the building pics. Where did the over 200 seats disappear to? One other point they show those wheels and use that as proof that it was a 757, well i have bad news that boing uses that same wheel on many different planes. Now i didnt check out lockheed planes but i would not be surprised if they even used the same wheel on their stuff. So your mission is to answer my questions for now and explain the asce report which clearly shows that the ring 3 wall could not have blown out from the plane crash as they want us to believe!

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 9:30:46 AM)
Yes, I noticed that word, sleazy. It is a very important word. To me it indicates that under the pressure of contrary statements he started to doubt his own memory. Memory is very peculiar. If you never had a zit on your cheek and suddenly you have one, you may easily convince yourself that it always was there and your memory will yield to that opinion. I am not going to doubt an aviation expert. Not even if his sight was obscured by a heavy fog. Whenever Tweety says to himself: "I THOUGHT I saw a pussycat", I will wager that he indeed saw a pussycat. (Watch the cartoons: Tweety was always right.) I think that this aviation expert was rather brave, going against all pressure against him, and stating that he thought that he saw a 737 - in opposition of whatever everybody else was saying.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 3:55:28 PM)
Done here.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 5:29:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Done here. was that to me or rule or the thread?

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 6:03:41 PM)
Perhaps all three. He may not have to offer anything else useful to our individual investigations. He was kind enough to take the trouble to refer me to some pertinent sites and I appreciate that. Also he often said sensible things. I will not block his posts (at least as long as he uses legible font as he does now). His Achilles heel is his least hypothesis obsession. That renowned hypothesis is only valid when a case is clearcut and relatively simple. Verily: his efforts often did please me. I also appreciate his polite good-bye note to the thread or me or you or all three.

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 8:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Perhaps all three. He may not have to offer anything else useful to our individual investigations. He was kind enough to take the trouble to refer me to some pertinent sites and I appreciate that. Also he often said sensible things. I will not block his posts (at least as long as he uses legible font as he does now). His Achilles heel is his least hypothesis obsession. That renowned hypothesis is only valid when a case is clearcut and relatively simple. Verily: his efforts often did please me. I also appreciate his polite good-bye note to the thread or me or you or all three. I could never get over giving Condi Rice the credit for having the brains to pull something like all this off intentionally. All that was necessary was for Condi Rice to be EXACTLY what Condi Rice has ever been. A complete and total failure, The USA got a black eye. On the other hand, we showed Iraq, didn't we?

cyberdude611 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 9:24:22 PM)
Top scientists have debunked every single 9/11 conspiracy. Popular Mechanics magazine dedicated practically an entire issue going from one theory to the next basically shooting down the whole conspiracy. Every major event in history is followed by conspiracy theories. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1 Why is it that you people of the so-called "911 truth movement" cant provide any scientific evidence to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. YES! We already know the US Government didn't do anything to stop the attack. We also did nothing to stop the Japs from attacking Pearl Harbor. Our government has a very long history of not taking threats seriously. 9/11 could have been easily prevented, no doubt about that. However that doesnt mean that there was some conspiracy to make it happen.

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/30/2007 10:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Top scientists have debunked every single 9/11 conspiracy. Good for them. If ever I meet one of them and I do have lollypops on me, I will give him a lollypop and change his diaper. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Popular Mechanics magazine dedicated practically an entire issue going from one theory to the next basically shooting down the whole conspiracy. Good for them as well. How inconsiderate and criminally impertinent that such AUTHORITY is questioned, isn't it? Some people are as shocked as to be in need of hospitalization because of apoplexy. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Every major event in history is followed by conspiracy theories. Truly? Tsk, tsk. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Why is it that you people of the so-called "911 truth movement" Hey! I am not a part of any movement. I am just evidence obsessed Rule. Ah, you suspect that this movement is a conspiracy, not so? If so, then you by definition are a conspiracy theorist. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 cant provide any scientific evidence to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. Scientific evidence? You mean something like the condensation point of oxygen on the surface of the Moon? How about evidence pure and simple? As referred to in this thread by me, there is a credible expert witness who testifies that he saw a Boeing 737 headed for the Pentagon. Bite and chew on that. (I have plenty of other pure and simple evidence and I would have more if there was not such a heavy embargo on pertinent information.) quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 YES! We already know the US Government didn't do anything to stop the attack. We also did nothing to stop the Japs from attacking Pearl Harbor. Our government has a very long history of not taking threats seriously. 9/11 could have been easily prevented, no doubt about that. If your government is that stupid and if you are that smart, then why not are you president of the USA? Should be easy for someone who is able to read Popular Mechanics magazine. (Or can it be that the leaders of the most technologically and scientifically advanced superpower in the world are not truly as dumb as they pretend to be?) quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 However that doesnt mean that there was some conspiracy to make it happen. It is good that you have an opinion. Have fun. [;)]

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/31/2007 2:29:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I could never get over giving Condi Rice the credit for having the brains to pull something like all this off intentionally. All that was necessary was for Condi Rice to be EXACTLY what Condi Rice has ever been. A complete and total failure, The USA got a black eye. On the other hand, we showed Iraq, didn't we? It has never been about showing iraq. it has always been about getting the several trillion bucks in oil revenue from iraq, afghnistan and eyes pointed toward iran and literally the whole middle east. The brits get their new oil line for BP (bitish petroleum) in afgahnistan and the us gets their new oil line in iraq. But we better watch out because i am sure china is very nervous about our imperialism and this bullshit could lead war with china. China is doing a large arms buildup and has been for some time now. Why? Ahem! Yeh the us is starting to worry china, after all its a small world and china needs oil to power their industrial base too now dont they? So as far as failing the american way life, absolutely failed, as far as failing the NWO agenda, complete success as long as we dont blow ourselves all to hell in the process. People really need to watch the movie called "The Recruit" with Al Pacino. He trains a new CIA agent and the main theme of the movie is: "Nothing is what it appears to be: There is always a hiden agenda. Welcome to real government.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/31/2007 7:46:03 AM)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/asce-illus-2.gif Does anyone have a take on this? No one commented on it. My read is how did an object get past the no damage zone as shown in yellow to blow out a wall without blowing out everything inbetween? The way i read it is that there has to be a path of destruction that can be followed from the beginning to the end without interuption. (red squares) The undamaged yellow 2 or sometimes 3 in a row are blocking the last red form the hole in ring 3 wall. Notice how you can see a clear path the of destruction prior to that. That is you can connect the dots. That is until you get to ring 3 then you lose the connection yet the hole is there LOL Does anyone else feel this is just a weeee bit suspicious? Or does it confirm my belief that there is something really fishy going on here?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875