| bigmack000 |
| lies all lies. all your posts are lies :P |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
| <insert anti-bigmack propaganda here> |
|
|
| snugs |
Hey, the moratorium on pointing out the obvious hasn't expired yet. Stop asking questions and start hating terrorists dammit! :mad:
:p |
|
|
| SketchifisT |
| meh all these theories. I think the pentagon was screwy but for the plan crashin into the south tower, do they care to explain what happend to the actually PLANE with people that died. Or all those people dont actually exist and the wreckage found at the site was all planted? Pentagon is a different story the Towers are not. Towers were 2 comercial air liners. |
|
|
| HeavyEarly87T |
I think it is all an X-Files episode or a MIB thing.
A huge distraction to keep us in the dark about the truth. |
|
|
| limecorrado |
| Interesting information. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
That's what I'm more concerned about. In order to "trade" these possible other planes for the commercial airliners the "terrorists" would have had to make that other plane and all of the passengers on it dissapear. Not an easy feat by any means.
The plane that crashed into the pentagon was confirmed by many people to not be an airliner and the wreckage supports their claims. What hit the pentagon was not an airliner.
People don't want to admit it and will call it crazy wacked out conspiracy theories, but is it so hard to believe that the U.S. gov't would kill a few thousand of their own people in order to set in motion a plan to become extremely isolationist and imperialistic? Don't let their conservative "churchgoing" bullshit blind you, the republican party in the U.S. is made up of a lot of evil people that use the word of god to spread their bullshit and hypocrisy.
I can think of some other groups that use god to ratify their actions. Do you know who they are? |
|
|
| SketchifisT |
The towers were hit by airliners. The pentagon was not its common knowledge. They allowed the trade centers to be hit thats is also knowledge that has come out. They were well aware of the actions the terroirist were goin to take and allowed them to do it because it allowed bush to make someone a bad guy instead of him.
It let him set his wheel in motion and he cant get blamed for it. The reason i dont believe the towers didn't have a plane hit it, was said above was people used cells phones and called home and so forth and they are dead and the planes wreckage was at ground zero. So unless the US destoryed the plane then transported the wreckage to New York when no one was looking then ill start to believe that it wasn't a airliner that hit the towers.
The reason most people believe the pentagon had something else hit iwas, there was another plane that was hi-jacked that never made it because the passengers fought back and it crashed landed in Pennsylvania so i belive they sent a missle or something to hit the pentagon to sum up there plans. Anyways i really dont care anymore because whats done is done. Maybe in 50-60 years when records are unsealed we can learn more real info instead of these theories. |
|
|
| BLK_LBL |
interesting.
Remotely-guided non-commercial planes carrying some sort of ammunition.
some pretty good photos also.
it blows my mind to think of this stuff. which is probably why this kindof information is not let out to the general public.
imagine billions of people with blown minds.
civil war much? |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by SketchifisT
The reason most people believe the pentagon had something else hit iwas, there was another plane that was hi-jacked that never made it because the passengers fought back and it crashed landed in Pennsylvania so i belive they sent a missle or something to hit the pentagon to sum up there plans.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...mp;siteid=50143 |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
People don't want to admit it and will call it crazy wacked out conspiracy theories, but is it so hard to believe that the U.S. gov't would kill a few thousand of their own people in order to set in motion a plan to become extremely isolationist and imperialistic?
The best part is that while people deny these kinds of things could ever take place the US government has declassified various past contingency plans of exactly the same nature.
Google "Operation Northwoods" for a start. |
|
|
| SketchifisT |
| thx snugs for the link |
|
|
| HeavyEarly87T |
| Somebody should make a version of the game "Risk" with this sort of stuff. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by SketchifisT
thx snugs for the link
Its amazing the stuff you can find with google and yahoo. :) |
|
|
| SketchifisT |
well for the most part i dont care, i know there something underlyin but all these theories are getting old. The issue with a lot of these theories is 3/4 of these people kept there mouths shut too long and now its alittle fishy that all this evidence arises only after they released info on the fact that US knew about the attacks ahead of time.
Like isaid i really dont care i find this all intrestin but until someone has some hard core proof that this true, like missles that hit a engine dont just cause smoke and a opening in the plane, It would cause the entire plane to go up in flames and smoke. So to me that seems more like ther ewas a bomb on the plane or something happend on the plane , maybe someone ripped open the emergency door and flew into the motor causin the motor to go thus causin smoke and the wind noise? Thats a theory and i like it, and i think that the fighter plane was there just incase it flew too close to the Pentagon or white house.
So there you go ima write a newspaper clippin out for that. Or maybe a bird got caught in the engine and when it exploded caused a hole in the plane. Fuck im good ishould do this for a living.
btw last bit was sarcasim, but i was just tryin to show how most of these theories are just someone thinkin stuff up. Yes there is something hidden but its not always exactly what we think it is. IF the f-14 shot down the plane they could easily defend it sayin they knew it was hijacked and did not want to have more people die from it crashin into something. SO why not tell the truth there? i really dont think they shot it down because at the time people were sayin why didn't they take the other planes out so they could have easily gotten away with it. I really dont think too heavily into it cause 1) i cant prove anything that will change the outcome so why bother, whatever ifind out wont stop the attack that already happend. but yeah whatever thx for the link i find it truely intrestin but i would rather know more about JFK then i would about 9-11. but anyways yeah |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by SketchifisT
The issue with a lot of these theories is 3/4 of these people kept there mouths shut too long and now its alittle fishy that all this evidence arises only after they released info on the fact that US knew about the attacks ahead of time.
umm, this stuff was all online within a week of 911... :dunno: |
|
|
| silverTEG |
i've done alot of reading etc. on these theories in the last year, all i can say is it all does not add up! there is a conspiracy.
as for the jets that hit the towers, the pictures show that the jets dont have windows, meaning they were not commercial airliners.
also the jets were different on the bottom, more like the military style boeing 757, than a commercial style. :dunno: |
|
|
| dc2696 |
for some reason I'm not surprised that 9/11 was some bullshit conspiracy plan for oil and whatever else ends up happening...remeber what mulder always said...
..."Trust no one..."
cool articles thought definately a good read. |
|
|
| SketchifisT |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
umm, this stuff was all online within a week of 911... :dunno:
yes a lot of this stuff was, but theres a lot of " new info " that im talkin about . Either way i believe theres a conspiracy but meh , i would like to know why they would kill so many , but meh. To me it doesn't seem logical to kill that many americans the point would have been made either way , but wutevs intrestin reads to say the least |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
I hesitate to post in this thread as my first post here, but I will.
I'm a pilot.
767-200s and for that matter any commercial Boeing aircraft before the 777 do not use any type of flight controls that will override any abrupt or non-standard maneuver. Unlike later Airbus aircraft (A320, 330, 340 and 380) and later Boeing aircraft (777, 787) 767s and 757s use pure hydraulic controls to fly. Absolutely no fly-by-wire on these birds. Fly-by-wire systems on the Airbus will override flight control inputs by the pilots. I believe an Airbus will not let the pilot bank an aircraft past 32 degrees without overriding the system.
You can barrel roll modern airliners. No problemo.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
Their conclusions state (and I quote)
"1. Comparing the profile of the Boeing that slammed into the South Tower with a 767-200, it seems that this was not the same plane that left Logan airport that fateful morning. It was switched. And if the plane was switched, then the "pilots" were switched too.
2. To judge by the strange manoeuvres before it hit, the flight computers must have been tampered with.
3. The plane banked sharply into the South Tower because it was about to miss it, even the best of pilots would have had a job hitting such a small target at 500 m.p.h.-- even an "eperienced" pilot like Mr Bush needed help landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Forget mucking about on a Cessna for a few hours. Autopilot and a beacon would have done the job, but then it would have gone straight in like a rudimentary guided missile."
So I start with number one. It is a Boeing 767-200. No question about it. Look at www.airliners.net and compare a 767-200 with a 767-300. You can easily tell that the plane that hit the South Tower is a -200. Also, you'll notice you can't really see in the windows of most passenger jets from the outside, especially from a good distance.
Number two I've covered. No 767 would have to be tampered with to fly like this. They can all do it. No computers to override, no software to change, just a good tug on the yoke.
Number three is just plain old bullshit and stupidity. 767s can easily do 500 mph at sea level. It probably wasn't. Wouldn't have to. You fly a plane into a building at 270-300 mph, and it'll still do some serious damage. The aircraft carrier comment is the stupidity. Landing a jet on an Aircraft Carrier is the hardest thing in aviation. To hit a moving target 300 feet long by 60 feet wide (the approximate dimensions of the landing area, not the ship itself) is a challenge for everybody in the Navy. Second of all, Bush was in the Air Force National Guard, and would have never landed on a carrier during his career. His Abraham Lincoln stunt is a testament to the technology and skill of the people that do it day in and day out.
The bumps and shapes on the plane? Angles and whatnot. The "bump" under the right wing root (shown in red on the righthand bottom of the third page) is nothing more that the fuselage bulge where the main landing gear are stowed.
Their conclusions suck too. If the plane wasn't the one that left Logan that morning (it was, radar tapes confirmed it) where the hell is the plane and the 100-odd people that were on it? Watch any good ol' plane crash vid and you'll see they do explode like that. That's what happens when your spark 240,000 lbs of Jet A1.
They say no one who's flown mere Cessna's can fly these things. I say BS again. It's the same principle. To slam a jet into a building, all you need is the yoke and pedals. No autopilot, FMC or anything else. The WTC is pretty damn big. Not hard to hit.
What happened on September 11th was a tragic attack, something I'll remember for the rest of my life. I think these "conspiracy theories" are a complete lack of respect for those that died, and those that are fighting and dying today (including our Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan)
I welcome comments on what turned out to be longer than I thought, so just post 'em here.
And if the government did set it up, all I have to say is one word:
Why? |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I welcome comments on what turned out to be longer than I thought, so just post 'em here.
And if the government did set it up, all I have to say is one word:
Why?
Good post! :thumbup:
Why? You want the short version or the long version? The short version would be along the lines of money, power, and perpetuation of a system and ideology established during the cold war.
I honestly don't know why people have focused so tightly on the planes when a 47 story office building is what really tells the tale. :)
 |
|
|
| HeavyEarly87T |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
Good post! :thumbup:
I honestly don't know why people have focused so tightly on the planes when a 47 story office building is what really tells the tale. :)
OK now what? Do tell. :eek: |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Don't you Bush blaming wacko's hate it when someone shows up with facts to kill all the lame conspiracy theories.
:thumbup: |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by HeavyEarly87T
OK now what? Do tell. :eek:
WTC7 was imploded. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
| You can see the windows blowing out in sequence in the WTC7 building, curiously like a planned demolition. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
You can see the windows blowing out in sequence in the WTC7 building, curiously like a planned demolition.
Silverstein admitted as much on camera. :dunno: |
|
|
| silverTEG |
one of the twins also was imploded, maybe both, cant remember right now, but you can see it blow floor by floor. interesting to watch, and for it to land in a pile like it did, how else would it do that?
maybe these buildings were built with the explosives in case of such acts or high rise fires as a safety thing, so the buildings wouldnt fall and take out more of manhattan. :dunno: |
|
|
| Casanova |
| why? good old fashioned scapegoating, war mongering, patriotism. All of a sudden an extremely unpopular president becomes the countries hero. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
| I highly doubt the President of the United States would murder 3,000 (keep in mind this is a lowball number. If it wasn't for the NYPD and FDNY, it would have been much, much higher) of his own citizens to go attack Afghanistan or get re-elected. |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
People will do some unthinkable things for Power.
Who says it was Bush? Bush is just a dumb pawn.
As for the towers being imploded, the heat from the jet fuel melted the support beams, so the buidling collapsed in on itself, each floor collapsing on the next. I don't buy that 'implosion' theory one bit. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
As for the towers being imploded, the heat from the jet fuel melted the support beams, so the buidling collapsed in on itself, each floor collapsing on the next. I don't buy that 'implosion' theory one bit.
So you would be a metallurgical or structural engineer? :dunno: |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
So you would be a metallurgical or structural engineer? :dunno:
He doesn't have to be. There's already been several technical documentaries on TV on how the twin towers failed. Some of the original building designers were even brought in to help explain and analyze it.
And the buildings were never designed (back in the early 70s) to withstand hits from planes as large as 767s. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
He doesn't have to be. There's already been several technical documentaries on TV on how the twin towers failed. Some of the original building designers were even brought in to help explain and analyze it.
And the buildings were never designed (back in the early 70s) to withstand hits from planes as large as 767s.
lol, it would probably help because if he was he wouldn't make a claim like that.
The problem with all the crap that gets regurgitated by people when they talk about the collapse is that 99% of them literally have no indepth understanding of what they are talking about. They just repeat whatever they've heard the most times.
Its hard to argue the issue of the two towers either way due to lack of real information (its all supposition and assumption). But suffice to say that you will get much farther with an argument for the collapse being caused by extensive damage to the inner core and outer columns of the towers with very limited heat yielding effects than you will by claiming the steel melted.
Now for fun try and come up with something to explain what happened to WTC7 and why FEMA found what they did in their metallurgical analysis. :)
Arguing with an Engineer is a lot like wrestling in the mud
with a pig. After a few hours, you realize the pig likes it. :p |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
| I was under the impression that WTC7 WAS imploded several days later... a quick reguritation on what happened to it? |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
lol, it would probably help because if he was he wouldn't make a claim like that.
The problem with all the crap that gets regurgitated by people when they talk about the collapse is that 99% of them literally have no indepth understanding of what they are talking about. They just repeat whatever they've heard the most times.
Its hard to argue the issue of the two towers either way due to lack of real information (its all supposition and assumption). But suffice to say that you will get much farther with an argument for the collapse being caused by extensive damage to the inner core and outer columns of the towers with very limited heat yielding effects than you will by claiming the steel melted.
Now for fun try and come up with something to explain what happened to WTC7 and why FEMA found what they did in their metallurgical analysis. :)
Arguing with an Engineer is a lot like wrestling in the mud
with a pig. After a few hours, you realize the pig likes it. :p
claim like what? All I said was I don't buy it.
the official story makes sense, you wouldn't think that structures in an office tower would be built to withstand the heat from burning jet fuel. When the beams collapsed and 30 stories came smashing down, it makes sense to me that the rest of the buioplding would collapse exactly like the WTC did, one floor after another.
i think to make a claim like the WT towers were "imploded" the onus of proof is on you, i've seen absolutely nothign to substanciate this theory
you can feel free to enlighten me... |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I was under the impression that WTC7 WAS imploded several days later... a quick reguritation on what happened to it?
www.google.com |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
Arguing with an Engineer ...
Are you referring to me? |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
claim like what? All I said was I don't buy it.
....uhhh wait a sec...just up the page there...what's it say...?
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
As for the towers being imploded, the heat from the jet fuel melted the support beams, so the buidling collapsed in on itself, each floor collapsing on the next.
so.....you post that the towers fell because burning jet fuel melted the steel and now you say that all you posted was "I don't buy it.".... :blink: ummmmm....you feeling ok or what?
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
the official story makes sense, you wouldn't think that structures in an office tower would be built to withstand the heat from burning jet fuel. When the beams collapsed and 30 stories came smashing down, it makes sense to me that the rest of the buioplding would collapse exactly like the WTC did, one floor after another.
i think to make a claim like the WT towers were "imploded" the onus of proof is on you, i've seen absolutely nothign to substanciate this theory
you can feel free to enlighten me...
....what thread have you been reading? You're talking about the fall of the towers but if you actually bothered to read what you quoted there you would have seen that I said:
"Its hard to argue the issue of the two towers either way due to lack of real information (its all supposition and assumption). But suffice to say that you will get much farther with an argument for the collapse being caused by extensive damage to the inner core and outer columns of the towers with very limited heat yielding effects than you will by claiming the steel melted."
I'm not debating the collapse of the two towers here because there is not enough information to form a conclusive argument one way or the other. I haven't claimed anywhere in this thread that the two towers were imploded, I've stated that WTC7 was imploded. :stickpoke |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Are you referring to me?
i didn't think so at the time..... but i could be wrong... :dunno: |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
i didn't think so at the time..... but i could be wrong... :dunno:
Well which "Engineer" did you feel you were arguing with then? |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Well which "Engineer" did you feel you were arguing with then?
...uhhhhhh, I was making a joke about myself. :blink: |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
...uhhhhhh, I was making a joke about myself. :blink:
Alrighty then... I thought you had been taking a stab at me. (Even though I contributed very little to this thread, and Civil/Structural is not my discipline anyway). |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Alrighty then... I thought you had been taking a stab at me. (Even though I contributed very little to this thread, and Civil/Structural is not my discipline anyway).
lol, stab at you? This ain't whyte ave. :p
ERTW :thumbup: |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
www.google.com
You like making me look like a total meathead, don't you... :asshole:
jk... |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
You like making me look like a total meathead, don't you... :asshole:
jk...
lol, come on, why would i want you to look like meathead?
(ok, now i'm just making myself look old)
:beer: |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
| We'll have to meet someday so I can whup that Cobra of yours.. :drama: |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
....uhhh wait a sec...just up the page there...what's it say...?
so.....you post that the towers fell because burning jet fuel melted the steel and now you say that all you posted was "I don't buy it.".... :blink: ummmmm....you feeling ok or what?
....what thread have you been reading? You're talking about the fall of the towers but if you actually bothered to read what you quoted there you would have seen that I said:
"Its hard to argue the issue of the two towers either way due to lack of real information (its all supposition and assumption). But suffice to say that you will get much farther with an argument for the collapse being caused by extensive damage to the inner core and outer columns of the towers with very limited heat yielding effects than you will by claiming the steel melted."
I'm not debating the collapse of the two towers here because there is not enough information to form a conclusive argument one way or the other. I haven't claimed anywhere in this thread that the two towers were imploded, I've stated that WTC7 was imploded. :stickpoke
oh ok...sorry for saying "melted"
maybe you can clarify exactly what "heat yielding effects" is supposed to mean :p |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
We'll have to meet someday so I can whup that Cobra of yours.. :drama:
You should have come out to our track day, we needed some more AWD guys. :thumbup: |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
oh ok...sorry for saying "melted"
maybe you can clarify exactly what "heat yielding effects" is supposed to mean :p
When you heat a metal you change its properties. The really short, abridged explanation is that when the temperature gets high enough the yield strength will start to drop and it will become more ductile. :)
Of course there are things like the time effects, temperature range, duration of heating, type of heating, etc, etc, etc to consider as well... :blink: |
|
|
| toyota_guy |
| im scared now this is some creepy shit |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
You should have come out to our track day, we needed some more AWD guys. :thumbup:
PM me with dates and I'll see if it works with my work sched.
And I'm kidding, my Talon isn't that fast yet. Waiting on a new turbo :) |
|
|
|
