-
Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. To become a full member ( £5.90 a year ) simply click on your user name near the top on the right I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )
F
frenchuk
Guest
Oh yes Rob, it is possible. But then again I might be wrong - releasing the footage would prove all of us paranoid sick in the head that we are just that. They ceased the tapes from all those places within hours of the crash - for that they were very organised. Until they do that I can't help thinking that they're hiding something - but then again, I would, since I'm paranoid. People hiding things from us doesn't mean they are withdawing information from us, they're just toying with us. No? So why are they doing it?R2B2 said:
R
R2B2
Guest
Tbh - I don't know. But, having said that, I don't think it's delicately balancing on what the tapes may show anyway. We've got a security cctv still from the camera that is far closer than the others and the picture is not good. Are pics from camera's farther away going to be any better? It's doubtful.
In these two threads there have been a lot of conspiracy theory points examined and offered alternative explanations..... something that hasn't happened the other way around, it must be said.
It's a bit one way traffic if you ask me........
I've got some VERY interesting information to post. Will post asap, can't for a little while, about half hour.
In these two threads there have been a lot of conspiracy theory points examined and offered alternative explanations..... something that hasn't happened the other way around, it must be said.
It's a bit one way traffic if you ask me........
I've got some VERY interesting information to post. Will post asap, can't for a little while, about half hour.
R
R2B2
Guest
Not interested, don't wanna really research it. I read the message you're conveying though.Wolfie said:
Would it have any effect on the outcome off this debate? Nope, thought not
N
nitehawk
Guest
R2B2 said:
I really regret mentioning that those few individuals were silenced, it was a generalisation based on something I read which I was later unable to validate.
However, the report refered to in NoBBy's video clip (about the letter sent by Kevin Ryan) is indicative of the treatment of persons who went against the official story. Ryan was fired after sending a letter to a Dr. Gayle concerning the results of a report compiled to provide a detailed explanation as to why the WTC towers 1 & 2 fell. Shortly after sending this letter, Kevin Ryan was indeed sacked - this is not a fabricated incident.
Ryan claimed that the "expert" testimony in the official report was highly inaccurate and that if the data was to be held as true then it would have serious implications for building design and fire safety in general. Basically he argued that the fires were nowhere near the claimed 2000 deg F and that even if they had been burning at 2000 deg, the quality of the steel used in the twin towers construction wouldn't have structurally failed.
But yeah, I guess all the live feeds were doctored, the firemen where previously out of work actors given their big break and the Bush administration are not the most fcuk witted, evil cnuts on the face of the planet - Cheney, Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice et al are there for the good of the people and thank God for them all, America and indeed the World can sleep well knowing that such altruistic idols are there to protect us all
Can't wait til Schwarzenegger's in power, the west will really kick arse and real life will be just like in the movies....... Wait a minute !!
.
R
R2B2
Guest
Fair enough, I won't refer to it again.nitehawk said:
nitehawk said:
Mmmmm, thing is, it was nothing to do with the quality of the steel; the quality of the steel has never been in question, AFAIK. It was the quality of the fire protection material that was in question, in particular - the application of it.
DB on CBR1100XX
Official BASH referee !
Wolfie said:
YOU may have seen 9/11 on film only - thousands saw 9/11 first hand, for real: most of the poor fuckers died watching it ! Plenty were left to recount the tale.
What about the poor bastards making their last calls from mobiles whilst on board - No, don't tell me: a number of CIA/FBI agents making hoax calls at exactly the right time to the right relatives with clever electronics to make their voices sound like the recipients' loved ones - Now THERE's a conspiracy worth looking at..................................Jeez!!
R
R2B2
Guest
Bombs and dust
Quite by chance I saw an interesting documentary on Discovery last night, I had no idea it was coming on but it turned out to be very timely. This prog was not about the conspiracy or the politics of such but simply about how the towers were built, the method of construction, and the effects of a jet fuel fire on that construction.
It unwittingly provided some of the most feasible and likely alternative suggestions that we have seen in this debate so far, and finally dispels what's left of the demolition theories once and for all.
The docu focused on the "tube" style of design for steel constructed buildings where there are prefabricated sections of steel around the outside of the building and steel columns up the centre (around the lift shafts and stairwells), which are linked together by the floors. The floors were also prefabricated - they comprised of sections based on the Trestle design. This was done to save weight and to quicken overall construction. The design consisted of two triangular forms of zig-zag type lightweight steel tubes (a bit like the triangular design you see in the stages and light Gantry's at rock concerts etc) laid parallel to each other and overlaid with a sheet of thin material to make a floor section. This was then bolted at either end to the central columns and the outer columns of the building via surprisingly small "L" shaped lugs. Many of these floor sections were then laid side by side all around the centre columns providing an open plan floorspace of one acre in area. It was this linking of the inner and outer columns by the floor sections that gave the building it's strength. Without the linking (cross bracing effectively) the building would have little strength. The floor sections were then covered with four inches of concrete. It was these trestle based floor sections that were hugely instrumental in the collapse of the towers.
All of the tubing in the floor sections, as well as the columns, were sprayed with fire protection foam to a depth of one and a half inches. This was calculated by the architect to provide adequate protection in the event of fire. In 1995, and again later, an independent architect (Roger Morse) was called upon to do a survey of the fire protection measures in place at the towers. On entering the hollow space under the floors he found sections of the fireproofing foam far to thin (poor application) and large sections had simply dropped off the tubing. This was due to the foam being sprayed onto the tubes while they were affected by a covering of dusty surface rust. The foam had simply not stuck properly. There was photo's shown of Roger Morse pointing out the missing foam on the exposed metalwork of the floor trestles.
When the planes struck the building a number of columns were taken out but the strong design held up. The fuel fire followed and the exposed parts of the floor trestles were weakened by the heat and bent, causing the floors to sag. This in turn bent the L shaped lugs until they snapped off the columns. The entire floor area then dropped onto the floor below. The outer columns could not support the weight of the floors above the crash site and they gave way and the visual collapse started. What was not seen from the outside of the towers was the floor collapse sequence was always several floors ahead of the outer collapse. It was the collapsing floors pulling on the outer lugs that pulled the outside of the building inwards creating the implosion effect.
These events were backed up by Prof Eduardo Kausel who had access to the scrap site and filmed the bent lugs on the outer columns (some were still attached but the bolts on the floor side had snapped). There were bent sections of centre columns, also pulled by the floors as they dropped. There was nothing wrong with the steel but there was an uncalculated sequence of events started by the sagging of the trestle floors. The design had allowed for "normal" fire (the foam application) but hadn't allowed for the additional heat from jet fuel and chunks of foam missing.
Prof Jonathan Bartlett from one of the UK universities built a model of the trestle floors complete with foam and missing foam bits. They loaded it to simulate the conditions in the tower and then introduced fire from underneath. It was frightening how quickly the exposed part of the trestle bent and sagged, even though the temp was way below the melting temp of the steel.
It was established that steel doesn't have to be at anywhere near it's melting temperature to give way when under load. It very much depends on the load factor. An experiment was shown which was carried out by one of the UK fire departments. Using a redundant steel constructed building they equipped it to replicate typical office space and then set a fire. With only the typical office furniture, paper, computers, cabling etc being present there was enough heat to bend and warp substantial steel girders and bearers. It was pointed out that the heat in the towers would be much more severe with the addition of jet fuel.
The firemen talked of boom-boom-boom as the building collapsed and, quote, "as if there were detonations". This was the sound of the inner floors striking one another (one of them even gesticulated with his hands the action of the floors coming down - a perfect description of what was actually happening!) They were ahead of the outer collapse and caused large volumes of air to be ejected from the building from wherever it could - highlighted in the video as being demolition charges??
The video narrator described the mess in the lower lobby. Quote - "elevator doors were missing, the marble was missing off some of the walls, the west windows were all gone, broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was all gone"..... Later, dispelling the possibility of fuel coming down the lift shafts causing fire he says, quote - "However, there is no soot, no fire, no fuel residue. Instead, the entire lobby is is coated with a fine dust which is a signature of high explosives"
Now, back to the documentary, enter a WTC employee - an elevator operator who helped people out of the building. He was in the lower lobby and described the sight pretty much the same - except the causes were very different!! He explained that some of the elevator cables were severed in the crash (there were express elevators that ran the whole height of the building) and that the elevators came crashing down. They came down at tremendous speed and there were huge impacts as they hit the bottom of the shafts. The doors were blown off and they struck the walls breaking the marble! There was broken glass everywhere and everybody was covered in dust! He witnessed this in the making.
So it's fairly unarguable that the lobby damage was caused by the falling lifts and not explosives as the video would have you believe. At the end of the day, the employee was there - the video makers were not! But they have used the same evidence to blatantly mislead, even lie. They obviously didn't reckon on this employee getting into a documentary for all to see. They're not really very bright are they?
I'll say it again. The more you watch this video - the more the alternative answers come to the fore and make more logical sense. It's extraordinary the lengths these people will go to mislead.
Quite by chance I saw an interesting documentary on Discovery last night, I had no idea it was coming on but it turned out to be very timely. This prog was not about the conspiracy or the politics of such but simply about how the towers were built, the method of construction, and the effects of a jet fuel fire on that construction.
It unwittingly provided some of the most feasible and likely alternative suggestions that we have seen in this debate so far, and finally dispels what's left of the demolition theories once and for all.
The docu focused on the "tube" style of design for steel constructed buildings where there are prefabricated sections of steel around the outside of the building and steel columns up the centre (around the lift shafts and stairwells), which are linked together by the floors. The floors were also prefabricated - they comprised of sections based on the Trestle design. This was done to save weight and to quicken overall construction. The design consisted of two triangular forms of zig-zag type lightweight steel tubes (a bit like the triangular design you see in the stages and light Gantry's at rock concerts etc) laid parallel to each other and overlaid with a sheet of thin material to make a floor section. This was then bolted at either end to the central columns and the outer columns of the building via surprisingly small "L" shaped lugs. Many of these floor sections were then laid side by side all around the centre columns providing an open plan floorspace of one acre in area. It was this linking of the inner and outer columns by the floor sections that gave the building it's strength. Without the linking (cross bracing effectively) the building would have little strength. The floor sections were then covered with four inches of concrete. It was these trestle based floor sections that were hugely instrumental in the collapse of the towers.
All of the tubing in the floor sections, as well as the columns, were sprayed with fire protection foam to a depth of one and a half inches. This was calculated by the architect to provide adequate protection in the event of fire. In 1995, and again later, an independent architect (Roger Morse) was called upon to do a survey of the fire protection measures in place at the towers. On entering the hollow space under the floors he found sections of the fireproofing foam far to thin (poor application) and large sections had simply dropped off the tubing. This was due to the foam being sprayed onto the tubes while they were affected by a covering of dusty surface rust. The foam had simply not stuck properly. There was photo's shown of Roger Morse pointing out the missing foam on the exposed metalwork of the floor trestles.
When the planes struck the building a number of columns were taken out but the strong design held up. The fuel fire followed and the exposed parts of the floor trestles were weakened by the heat and bent, causing the floors to sag. This in turn bent the L shaped lugs until they snapped off the columns. The entire floor area then dropped onto the floor below. The outer columns could not support the weight of the floors above the crash site and they gave way and the visual collapse started. What was not seen from the outside of the towers was the floor collapse sequence was always several floors ahead of the outer collapse. It was the collapsing floors pulling on the outer lugs that pulled the outside of the building inwards creating the implosion effect.
These events were backed up by Prof Eduardo Kausel who had access to the scrap site and filmed the bent lugs on the outer columns (some were still attached but the bolts on the floor side had snapped). There were bent sections of centre columns, also pulled by the floors as they dropped. There was nothing wrong with the steel but there was an uncalculated sequence of events started by the sagging of the trestle floors. The design had allowed for "normal" fire (the foam application) but hadn't allowed for the additional heat from jet fuel and chunks of foam missing.
Prof Jonathan Bartlett from one of the UK universities built a model of the trestle floors complete with foam and missing foam bits. They loaded it to simulate the conditions in the tower and then introduced fire from underneath. It was frightening how quickly the exposed part of the trestle bent and sagged, even though the temp was way below the melting temp of the steel.
It was established that steel doesn't have to be at anywhere near it's melting temperature to give way when under load. It very much depends on the load factor. An experiment was shown which was carried out by one of the UK fire departments. Using a redundant steel constructed building they equipped it to replicate typical office space and then set a fire. With only the typical office furniture, paper, computers, cabling etc being present there was enough heat to bend and warp substantial steel girders and bearers. It was pointed out that the heat in the towers would be much more severe with the addition of jet fuel.
The firemen talked of boom-boom-boom as the building collapsed and, quote, "as if there were detonations". This was the sound of the inner floors striking one another (one of them even gesticulated with his hands the action of the floors coming down - a perfect description of what was actually happening!) They were ahead of the outer collapse and caused large volumes of air to be ejected from the building from wherever it could - highlighted in the video as being demolition charges??
The video narrator described the mess in the lower lobby. Quote - "elevator doors were missing, the marble was missing off some of the walls, the west windows were all gone, broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was all gone"..... Later, dispelling the possibility of fuel coming down the lift shafts causing fire he says, quote - "However, there is no soot, no fire, no fuel residue. Instead, the entire lobby is is coated with a fine dust which is a signature of high explosives"
Now, back to the documentary, enter a WTC employee - an elevator operator who helped people out of the building. He was in the lower lobby and described the sight pretty much the same - except the causes were very different!! He explained that some of the elevator cables were severed in the crash (there were express elevators that ran the whole height of the building) and that the elevators came crashing down. They came down at tremendous speed and there were huge impacts as they hit the bottom of the shafts. The doors were blown off and they struck the walls breaking the marble! There was broken glass everywhere and everybody was covered in dust! He witnessed this in the making.
So it's fairly unarguable that the lobby damage was caused by the falling lifts and not explosives as the video would have you believe. At the end of the day, the employee was there - the video makers were not! But they have used the same evidence to blatantly mislead, even lie. They obviously didn't reckon on this employee getting into a documentary for all to see. They're not really very bright are they?
I'll say it again. The more you watch this video - the more the alternative answers come to the fore and make more logical sense. It's extraordinary the lengths these people will go to mislead.
Last edited by a moderator:
ianrobbo1
good looking AND modest
Rob I saw that documentary months ago, well before this thread started!! I assumed it had been seen by all so passed no comment, :dunno: having now been informed that you and maybe some of the other "posters" on this thread had NOT seen it,I will now come out and say that in my opinion the "conspiracy" theory is well up alongside that of Elvis working at safeways!! I would however say that no doubt the "security services" ARE covering stuff up, but NOT the actual acts of destruction!! :dunno: more like their prior knowledge, and lack of action to prevent such an atrocious act, or maybe to allow it to happen, to bring on the "next" phase of "the plan" :dunno:
N
NoBBy
Guest
ianrobbo1 said:
I think this is very true, it took them no time at all to be on their case. But now doubt some will say that they let them do if for their own ends
But one thing has alway struck me. Why if you want to make the biggest splash possible did they fly into the towers before 9am. Do it a bit later and they would have killed 10's thousands more??????????
F
frenchuk
Guest
A lot of interesting words - yet no one has addressed my posts 77 and 78 in the other thread or what I raised in my two previous posts. Oh, and show me the tapes. You've got nothing to hide, you release more than a very fuzzy picture. Employees at the hotel said the footage from their CCTV was clear and not showing a commercial airliner. Show us those tapes to shut them up, simple!
R
R2B2
Guest
Confusing!
:dunno: :dunno:
Just a few posts ago you were saying eyewitnesses count for nothing? :dunno:
:dunno: :dunno:
Just a few posts ago you were saying eyewitnesses count for nothing? :dunno:
F
frenchuk
Guest
Wrong - I said:
"Witnesses? Believe me Rob, you can find as many witnesses as you want for them to say whatever you want when you have the means to persuade them, so those witnesses count for nothing"
That was referring to the 'doctored' witness accounts that miraculously appeared few days after the events. Any way, easy way to shut up people who want the truth: don't hide anything. You hide something, you're guilty of something, full stop. No tape? they lie about something. Simple, really.
"Witnesses? Believe me Rob, you can find as many witnesses as you want for them to say whatever you want when you have the means to persuade them, so those witnesses count for nothing"
That was referring to the 'doctored' witness accounts that miraculously appeared few days after the events. Any way, easy way to shut up people who want the truth: don't hide anything. You hide something, you're guilty of something, full stop. No tape? they lie about something. Simple, really.
OK FrenchUK, I'll play the game even though I feel like Marvin the Paranoid Android....... here am I .....brain the size of a plant and they want me to open the door...:}
Looking briefly at the stuff you referred back to in the pevious thread.
I've looked at that wonderful conspiracy site you've used as source.
There are lots of statements being made but without anything I'd say is really verifiable. You're key evidence from there is the photos, the report of their authenticity and the newspaper quotes which is what the site has used for most of it's corroboration/source.
1. Photos - they're rubbish I'm afraid (my opinion of course). It's my belief they've been doctored. One of them shows annother protrubence at the starboard rear of the aircraft similar to the one at the front starboard. Annother one seems to show a fierce fire on the nose of an a/c as it's impacts the windows of the building - again my opinion but I wouldn't expect flames until the wings or possible front of the centre fuel tank made impact. And again, like it or not there's no way the a/c were carrying anything where it's claimed. Other photos on that site seem to actually re-inforce this as I could see at least one where the side of a/c is much clearer and shows no indication of anything odd.
2. The report which claims to verify the photos and the object shown. This report is attributed to a professor for whom I can find no published works anywhere. Although the report claims to be authored by him there are no statements or quotes to be found anywhere actually made by him. All that seems to exist is the conspiracy site saying that he's said this and the web page with the report. There doens't seem to be anything making clear what his competence is to carry out the authentication on the photos. The education establishment for which it's said he works is actually a school which teaches computer/IT skills...... the filters that have been "applied" are nothing more than what you can do with photoediting kit. What exactly does a photo giving an embossed concrete effect supposed to prove??? Oh and the web site containing the report contains nothing indicating it's part of educational establishment domain where he's supposed to work.
3. Finally the newspaper reports which are given such credence appear to come from a Columbian newspaper..... eh!!!!!!!!!!
As I've said before. I trust my own knowledge and common sense in subjects before I'd accept either unattributable or unverifiable evidence. Please don't forget that all students are taught religiously that the web should never be used for primary evidence for any report/investigation process as it's so susceptible to corruption. Anyone can publish on the web and call themselves who they want and you just can't verify either the identity, the validity of the data or the qualification claimed.
I could create a web page, claim it was by Steven Hawking and make all sorts of claims - would it be credible for someone then to use that as evidence that anything I stated was worth a jot??
Well that's said my piece then..... basically the paranoid android says I trust it's a rubbish claim but you believe what you want to..... now back to the answer of life the universe and everything......... oh and those boring doors with personalitys.
R#?
Looking briefly at the stuff you referred back to in the pevious thread.
I've looked at that wonderful conspiracy site you've used as source.
There are lots of statements being made but without anything I'd say is really verifiable. You're key evidence from there is the photos, the report of their authenticity and the newspaper quotes which is what the site has used for most of it's corroboration/source.
1. Photos - they're rubbish I'm afraid (my opinion of course). It's my belief they've been doctored. One of them shows annother protrubence at the starboard rear of the aircraft similar to the one at the front starboard. Annother one seems to show a fierce fire on the nose of an a/c as it's impacts the windows of the building - again my opinion but I wouldn't expect flames until the wings or possible front of the centre fuel tank made impact. And again, like it or not there's no way the a/c were carrying anything where it's claimed. Other photos on that site seem to actually re-inforce this as I could see at least one where the side of a/c is much clearer and shows no indication of anything odd.
2. The report which claims to verify the photos and the object shown. This report is attributed to a professor for whom I can find no published works anywhere. Although the report claims to be authored by him there are no statements or quotes to be found anywhere actually made by him. All that seems to exist is the conspiracy site saying that he's said this and the web page with the report. There doens't seem to be anything making clear what his competence is to carry out the authentication on the photos. The education establishment for which it's said he works is actually a school which teaches computer/IT skills...... the filters that have been "applied" are nothing more than what you can do with photoediting kit. What exactly does a photo giving an embossed concrete effect supposed to prove??? Oh and the web site containing the report contains nothing indicating it's part of educational establishment domain where he's supposed to work.
3. Finally the newspaper reports which are given such credence appear to come from a Columbian newspaper..... eh!!!!!!!!!!
As I've said before. I trust my own knowledge and common sense in subjects before I'd accept either unattributable or unverifiable evidence. Please don't forget that all students are taught religiously that the web should never be used for primary evidence for any report/investigation process as it's so susceptible to corruption. Anyone can publish on the web and call themselves who they want and you just can't verify either the identity, the validity of the data or the qualification claimed.
I could create a web page, claim it was by Steven Hawking and make all sorts of claims - would it be credible for someone then to use that as evidence that anything I stated was worth a jot??
Well that's said my piece then..... basically the paranoid android says I trust it's a rubbish claim but you believe what you want to..... now back to the answer of life the universe and everything......... oh and those boring doors with personalitys.
R#?
Last edited:
R
R2B2
Guest
Pierre......
I'm trying to follow this mate, honest! Witnesses always emerge in the days after any event :dunno: :dunno: There's nothing miraculous about that...
So how do we distinguish between doctored witness accounts and straight witness accounts? At the moment you seem to be saying witnesses against the conspiracy are doctored whilst those on the side of the conspiracy are not :dunno: How do you tell which ones are the honest, or un-coerced ones? What methods or rules do you apply to help you decide?
I've absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the named public eyewitnesses who saw the Boeing crash into the Pentagon are genuine. If they weren't, sections of the media, especially the foreign media, would have hounded them forever. And no - not all media are controlled..... that is simply spy film stuff!
Seriously though, most of the claims and points made by the propaganda/conspiracy sites have now been shown to have a more feasible and logical alternative answer or explanation. There isn't much left holding any water now. A few scrappy little meaningless things is all that seems to remain. There are probably just as feasible explanations for them too... it's just that they haven't been uncovered yet. For example, - we didn't have an alternative explanation for the supposed "high explosives" dust in the lobby until this WTC employee popped up in a completely unrelated documentary and unwittingly provided the real reason, at the same time showing this video up for what it really is!
Flying instructions left in car? When I was a student pilot I always arrived at the airport early, parked up & sat in the car while I re-read/revised from the flight manual and my notes immediately before going in for the next flight briefing. I only took what was necessary and left the rest in the car [true btw, I was learning to fly!!]
Koran left in the car? Perhaps he simply didn't want to appear to draw attention to himself while boarding the plane clutching the Koran. He was going to die in the next hour so carrying it with him was probably the last thing on his mind.
These two very minor and virtually insignificant points certainly don't make the conspiracy we're expected to believe....... but the words I've added do show that there are other perfectly feasible alternative explanations, even if these two of mine above are the wrong ones.
I'm trying to follow this mate, honest! Witnesses always emerge in the days after any event :dunno: :dunno: There's nothing miraculous about that...
So how do we distinguish between doctored witness accounts and straight witness accounts? At the moment you seem to be saying witnesses against the conspiracy are doctored whilst those on the side of the conspiracy are not :dunno: How do you tell which ones are the honest, or un-coerced ones? What methods or rules do you apply to help you decide?
I've absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the named public eyewitnesses who saw the Boeing crash into the Pentagon are genuine. If they weren't, sections of the media, especially the foreign media, would have hounded them forever. And no - not all media are controlled..... that is simply spy film stuff!
Seriously though, most of the claims and points made by the propaganda/conspiracy sites have now been shown to have a more feasible and logical alternative answer or explanation. There isn't much left holding any water now. A few scrappy little meaningless things is all that seems to remain. There are probably just as feasible explanations for them too... it's just that they haven't been uncovered yet. For example, - we didn't have an alternative explanation for the supposed "high explosives" dust in the lobby until this WTC employee popped up in a completely unrelated documentary and unwittingly provided the real reason, at the same time showing this video up for what it really is!
Flying instructions left in car? When I was a student pilot I always arrived at the airport early, parked up & sat in the car while I re-read/revised from the flight manual and my notes immediately before going in for the next flight briefing. I only took what was necessary and left the rest in the car [true btw, I was learning to fly!!]
Koran left in the car? Perhaps he simply didn't want to appear to draw attention to himself while boarding the plane clutching the Koran. He was going to die in the next hour so carrying it with him was probably the last thing on his mind.
These two very minor and virtually insignificant points certainly don't make the conspiracy we're expected to believe....... but the words I've added do show that there are other perfectly feasible alternative explanations, even if these two of mine above are the wrong ones.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
R2B2
Guest
Did you do the carpets too? Cos I could see in some of the photo's that there was holes in them....... must've been a bomb eh?
F
frenchuk
Guest
First witnesses that came immediately after crash mentioned... oh fuck it, you can read it all in the links provided if you want. Besides, let's say there were genuine witnesses who think they viewed a 757, others who genuinely believe they saw something smaller, why give more importance to the ones who believe one or the other? Bottom line is, there's no denying there's a discrepancy - so why? THAT would be interesting to know... Oh, I know, I have the solution: release the footage! :bang:
No footage, many people will continue to believe that us gov is lying and that witnesses for 'something else' are the real proper witnesses - simple!!!
As for experts, there will always be experts rubishing other experts. One thing for sure, pictures were NOT doctored - look at the history of them. So if it LOOKS doctored but is not, that means there is something there which shouldn't be. So what is it?
"And no - not all media are controlled..... that is simply spy film stuff!" I work in the industry and believe me - it is not.
No footage, many people will continue to believe that us gov is lying and that witnesses for 'something else' are the real proper witnesses - simple!!!
As for experts, there will always be experts rubishing other experts. One thing for sure, pictures were NOT doctored - look at the history of them. So if it LOOKS doctored but is not, that means there is something there which shouldn't be. So what is it?
"And no - not all media are controlled..... that is simply spy film stuff!" I work in the industry and believe me - it is not.
OK M8 but come on, your'e turn to play the game...... who is this professor and why is his opinion relevent?? As it stands the "expert opinion" referred to may as well be a comment from wallace & grommit's "curse of the ware rabbit - or as it's called in France Le Lune Rabbite (I think I've spelt it OK?)frenchuk said:
And why is it that the Columbian press are so important?
Come on frenchuk, you've challenged the "official" view quoting these sources as evidence. If the sources are no more reliable than Arthur Daley making a comment over a pint then where does that leave the conspiracy theory.
As for witnesses, ask three people what happened at an incidnet and you'll proly get three different answers.
OK, frenchuk. Here is some additional stuff which is from an aviation industry forum. While It is opinion there are some links refered to and as you will see some of those peeps appear to have connections with some who either died or helped on the day.
Quote:
I've seen the sites that list supposedly what is "wrong" with the story. They show complete ignorrance of the matters they address. Remember you are addressing a sceptical audiance who know what they are talking about. Post your evidence, but don't be offended if it doesn't stand up.
The worst was their great triumphant piece of evidence: the complaint that they can't see much of an airliner outside the Pentagon in post-impact photos. As if it would hit and slide down the wall like Wile E. Coyote. Compare to the site of another incident, a high-speed jet accident where the first on the scene "thought a cessna light aircraft had crashed" there was so little wreckage on the surface.
I have a dear friend that was involved in the crime scene search there....did some of the bagging and tagging of body parts and other evidence.
He has never said anything to suggest other than the account as published in the 911 commission report.
Nice video though that raises good questions.
One question I ask.....if buildings do not eat airplanes as they suggest...we have video of the two airplanes striking the WTC buildings...particularly the second aircraft. Did not the WTC building eat those two as well?
Oh god, not that again. Obviously written by someone who hasn't seen what happens when you crash an aluminium tube into the ground at high speed
This video of an F4 being propelled into a concrete wall at the Sandia National Laboratories test site will give you conspiracy thoerists some idea of what happens to an aircraft when it hits something solid at high speed.
How strange. A concrete wall EATS a plane?!
Shows the rest of the photos that were left out of the video....clearly shows aircraft parts inside and outside the building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html
A Northwest Airlines MD-80/DC-9 hit a 1930's style railroad bridge when it crashed on takeoff in the late 1980's. I flew a news crew in hours later and got a good look at the site from 100' up on landing. It stunned me that no large parts were left, just small pieces of debris. A year later I rode by the same bridge. It wasn't even scratched, maybe just the graffiti burned off.
Flash forward a few years. After spending a few years flying the exact same 757 that hit the Pentagon, I can tell you that not much of it would survive a high speed impact with the reinforced concrete and steel of any structure, let alone one design to withstand impacts like the Pentagon.
Reading this regurgitated bile doesn't get any easier over time after watching the planes you've flown used in an unprecedented slaughter after spending so many happy days in them in the past. While it is still the internet, one can always hope that when some of these delusional posters realize they're wrong, they walk out in front of a speeding train or truck.
Suggest you take a look at some of the photos in the links posted above then You will clearly see several aircraft parts that fit both type (757 parts) and airline (coloured panels).
Strange how there are lots of photos around that do clearly show aircraft wreckage, both big bits and small debris, yet all the conspiracy sites somehow fail to use them
To all the conspiracists out there, if it wasn't American Airlines flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, where did AA77 and all the crew and pax go?
One of my colleagues was on AA11. Every time I think about 9/11, I think about her, on that airplane.
These conspiracy theorist fools really tick me off.
Fortunately I don't know any of these theorists. I'd be sorely tempted to do something I might enjoy, but would regret later.
Friend of mine was looking out of his window opposite the Pentagon and watched the ac inpact. There is no doubt in my mind that he was telling the truth. I served with him on ops and would trust him with my life.
One of the flukes of this incident....is the portion of the Pentagon that got hit had just recently been given an upgrade to the structure and exterior to enhance its ability to withstand an attack. The windows were blast proof and the exterior wall had been improved to withstand bomb blasts. The wonderfully 'old-fashioned' over-designed structure of the Pentagon behaved more or less exactly as expected structually IIRC, and did comprehensivly 'eat' the 757 and at the same time contain the conflagration in a relatively small area, with consequently higher temps than in an 'open' impact site. Possibly that's why there's not an awful lot left of the ally a/c structure?
To the conspiracy theory nutters. Was this C-130 crew part of the conspiracy theory? To TIGs, yes those are Boeing 757 parts.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.o...airguardmuseum/
There are those on the "left" and on the fringes of sanity that will challenge anything and more importantly everything the government has to say. The one is right and proper the other is not worthy of comment.
The Flight Attendant I knew that died was a real person...had a real family...and is gone.....I want to know how this wonderful young woman was recruited into a conspiracy and create such pain with her leaving.....I would guess that makes her a suicide bomber then. I assure you anyone making that assertion best make it anonymously on the internet because it will not be received well if done in person....I will gladly kick some sense into that person at that point.
My colleague was one of the happiest persons I've met. She laughed in the face of the typical Dilbertisms common in large US corporations. No matter how bad it was, she was always smiling.
She was a passenger on AA 11.
To the idiot conspiracy theorists: you should not have stopped taking your meds.
Quote:
I've seen the sites that list supposedly what is "wrong" with the story. They show complete ignorrance of the matters they address. Remember you are addressing a sceptical audiance who know what they are talking about. Post your evidence, but don't be offended if it doesn't stand up.
The worst was their great triumphant piece of evidence: the complaint that they can't see much of an airliner outside the Pentagon in post-impact photos. As if it would hit and slide down the wall like Wile E. Coyote. Compare to the site of another incident, a high-speed jet accident where the first on the scene "thought a cessna light aircraft had crashed" there was so little wreckage on the surface.
I have a dear friend that was involved in the crime scene search there....did some of the bagging and tagging of body parts and other evidence.
He has never said anything to suggest other than the account as published in the 911 commission report.
Nice video though that raises good questions.
One question I ask.....if buildings do not eat airplanes as they suggest...we have video of the two airplanes striking the WTC buildings...particularly the second aircraft. Did not the WTC building eat those two as well?
Oh god, not that again. Obviously written by someone who hasn't seen what happens when you crash an aluminium tube into the ground at high speed
This video of an F4 being propelled into a concrete wall at the Sandia National Laboratories test site will give you conspiracy thoerists some idea of what happens to an aircraft when it hits something solid at high speed.
How strange. A concrete wall EATS a plane?!
Shows the rest of the photos that were left out of the video....clearly shows aircraft parts inside and outside the building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html
A Northwest Airlines MD-80/DC-9 hit a 1930's style railroad bridge when it crashed on takeoff in the late 1980's. I flew a news crew in hours later and got a good look at the site from 100' up on landing. It stunned me that no large parts were left, just small pieces of debris. A year later I rode by the same bridge. It wasn't even scratched, maybe just the graffiti burned off.
Flash forward a few years. After spending a few years flying the exact same 757 that hit the Pentagon, I can tell you that not much of it would survive a high speed impact with the reinforced concrete and steel of any structure, let alone one design to withstand impacts like the Pentagon.
Reading this regurgitated bile doesn't get any easier over time after watching the planes you've flown used in an unprecedented slaughter after spending so many happy days in them in the past. While it is still the internet, one can always hope that when some of these delusional posters realize they're wrong, they walk out in front of a speeding train or truck.
Suggest you take a look at some of the photos in the links posted above then You will clearly see several aircraft parts that fit both type (757 parts) and airline (coloured panels).
Strange how there are lots of photos around that do clearly show aircraft wreckage, both big bits and small debris, yet all the conspiracy sites somehow fail to use them
To all the conspiracists out there, if it wasn't American Airlines flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, where did AA77 and all the crew and pax go?
One of my colleagues was on AA11. Every time I think about 9/11, I think about her, on that airplane.
These conspiracy theorist fools really tick me off.
Fortunately I don't know any of these theorists. I'd be sorely tempted to do something I might enjoy, but would regret later.
Friend of mine was looking out of his window opposite the Pentagon and watched the ac inpact. There is no doubt in my mind that he was telling the truth. I served with him on ops and would trust him with my life.
One of the flukes of this incident....is the portion of the Pentagon that got hit had just recently been given an upgrade to the structure and exterior to enhance its ability to withstand an attack. The windows were blast proof and the exterior wall had been improved to withstand bomb blasts. The wonderfully 'old-fashioned' over-designed structure of the Pentagon behaved more or less exactly as expected structually IIRC, and did comprehensivly 'eat' the 757 and at the same time contain the conflagration in a relatively small area, with consequently higher temps than in an 'open' impact site. Possibly that's why there's not an awful lot left of the ally a/c structure?
To the conspiracy theory nutters. Was this C-130 crew part of the conspiracy theory? To TIGs, yes those are Boeing 757 parts.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.o...airguardmuseum/
There are those on the "left" and on the fringes of sanity that will challenge anything and more importantly everything the government has to say. The one is right and proper the other is not worthy of comment.
The Flight Attendant I knew that died was a real person...had a real family...and is gone.....I want to know how this wonderful young woman was recruited into a conspiracy and create such pain with her leaving.....I would guess that makes her a suicide bomber then. I assure you anyone making that assertion best make it anonymously on the internet because it will not be received well if done in person....I will gladly kick some sense into that person at that point.
My colleague was one of the happiest persons I've met. She laughed in the face of the typical Dilbertisms common in large US corporations. No matter how bad it was, she was always smiling.
She was a passenger on AA 11.
To the idiot conspiracy theorists: you should not have stopped taking your meds.