|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
because you also want to see a 'pattern' - its inbred in us Classic |
Quote:
Look at this video. Looks like soup to me: http://www.compfused.com/directlink/458 |
Jenga pieces are solid. A building is mostly empty space. They are completely dissimilar.
[QUOTE=StuartD]1. Ever played Janga? When something falls, it has a very slight chance of falling pancake style... much less 3 times in one day. And no, not many people have watched a 100 story building fall... but many engineers have tested what would happen via simulation, and they have watched small buildings fall. Adding a few floors doesn't suddenly change the laws of physics. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
They would have to close down EVERY section of the WTC to plant the explosives and then they would have to hide thousands of pounds of explosives and hundreds of miles of cable. Seems like this would be hard to me. The WTC was hit by a plane filled with fuel at 300mph. This is significantly more damage than just fire.
Quote:
|
They would have to close down EVERY section of the WTC to plant the explosives and then they would have to hide thousands of pounds of explosives and hundreds of miles of cable. Seems like this would be hard to me. The WTC was hit by a plane filled with fuel at 300mph. This is significantly more damage than just fire.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
on one hand a plane can hardly make a mark on a small building yet completely demolish 3 huge buildings designed for the specific purpose of withstanding TWO planes hitting EACH tower ? .. And none of that matters either , all that matters is theres enough questions to warrant a real investigation , and that the majority of americans support that.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
We know that citgo gas had a camera pointed directly at impact it was confiscated and widely reported in the news. we also know sheraton had a video and employees verify the video cameras were recording and pointing at the impact , we also know the dept of highways had a camera pointed at the impact as it was ont he internet for a short time ( the angle not the video itself ) and anyone naive enough to think the pentagon has nothing better than a grainy skippy little clip of the plane hitting , needs to lower their medication :1orglaugh |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think you are referring to video showing his head jerking backwards after geting shot. A head does jerk towards the point of impact because the brains spraying out the front act as a propellant forcing the head the opposite direction. Shoot a water melon with a rifle. The watermelon will fly towards you. There was an episode on Myth busters about this.
[QUOTE=wonton]Everyone here is unfortunately missing the point. Arguing about scientific questions (planes, missles, controlled demolitions) is exactly the kind of technical confusion that the powers-that-be want. Think of it this way - for over 40 years we have had a piece of film (Zapruder) that offers SCREAMING PROOF that President Kennedy was shot in the front, and not in the back of the head by some lone gunman. And what good has that concrete piece of evidence done? The Warren Commission simply rolled out paid scientific shill after scientific shill, even going so far as to present a cockamamie MAGIC BULLET THEORY, a totally outlandish explanation to counteract the obvious. And in the past 40 years, an ENTIRE INDUSTRY in the media has been formed all to convince you of one thing: [QUOTE] |
Quote:
To me the logical thing to do would be put out the fire in WTC 7 and salvage what you can out of it afterwards. Not implode it on purpose with everything in it while you have a major catastrophe going on with the towers. Makes no sense to me. Does it to you? |
Actually setting explosives for controlled demolition takes days not hours.
But on 9/11 the laws of physics do not apply. |
Quote:
Are windows black? Go back to trying to burn metal with a lighter :1orglaugh |
Quote:
Now if you're about to suggest that the sweep of the wings permitted them to fold back into the fuselage, don't forget the speed at impact... Wings break when they hit buildings.. http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/strike.jpeg |
If ya'll get tired of discussing the wtc/pentagon stuff, maybe we can discuss the 13 cell phone calls that were made from Flight 93 which was flying at 40,000 feet when the calls started coming in..
"The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999) Cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever. But 13 calls made it through at 40,000 ft... kewl eh? :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It could be the explosion from the plane impact venting at that point. It could be the coffee machine but there is no 'explanation'. You want an explanation because you are convinced that it was bomb and you want someone to confirm it. Any other possibility is met with bluster. You want this so bad it warps your thinking. I know why. Its comforting for you. Not everything is black and white. There is no grand plan. Just lots of little plans executed with varying degress of competence. And in the world shit just occaisionally happens and sometimes there is no reason or explanation. And remember the simplest and mst obvious explanation is usually the one to go with. As a species we tend to ignore this hence why we invented religion 'to explain everything'. Now we invent conspiracy theories. Oh and the majority of Americans may want an 'explanation' but only because they need comforting. Besides a majority of Americans voted for Bush so its hardly helping your case. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I neither recommend or endorse the following site, but it does have some good info on how the Pentagon was constructed, as well as photos of the plane debris, damage, etc. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html There is another link to "Architecture Week" which talks about some building upgrades done at the Pentagon, that you all may find interesting. http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html |
Quote:
It was a cruise missle. The elevation needed for a 757 or any large jet would have been needed to be damn near flat for at least a mile for it to level off and hit the lower floors like that piss poor vid clip shows. A cruise missle on the other hand can do that easy. |
Quote:
- fire burning features - plane folding wings - missiles - 500 mph - burning spoons ( :1orglaugh ) You probably were referring to " Shittyfingerzdotnet " ... I only sometimes give info ( with backup info ) on certain activities of your beloved administration... So please, quote me. If you were just able to read, I even posted above that I do not " buy " the actual conspiracy theory that ' Bush did it ' .. just a little above. But naturally, you wont , you will just jibble stupid comments like most of you do here ...:321GFY |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nice to see the pentagon had some upgrades, the wtc towers were contructed to withstand MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS into EACH of them. The pentagon appears to have had some upgrades , none that include defense against multiple commercial airliners crashing into them.. So to sum up , buildings that are constructed to withstand MULTIPLE commercial airline strikes , disintegrate from half the damage estimated , and buildings NOT designed to withstand ANY commercial airliners end up basically unscathed.. gee that makes sense.. im sure the pentagon was built especially well , but dont try to say it isnt a good comparison, it is THE comparison of all comparisons.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
and as I've stated before.. I'm not saying that I think Bush did it, or had anything to do with it.. I just see and read too many things from experts that contradict the gov't findings.. and.. I've just been spending my lazy day on here to carry on the type of discussion that usually leads to nowhere... But it's been entertaining.. :) |
Quote:
The coffee machine is actually humour on my part. A novel concept I know. Next time I will make it the water cooler planted by Bush timed to explode at the moment of impact and drown anyone in a 5 yard radius. And experts are like lawyers they will give you their informed opinion based on who is signing their checks. Besides who are you kidding. Unless the 'experts' come up with something you agree with you will dismiss them as 'stooges of Bush and his lackeys' You are not after the truth - just someone to validate your theories. Your need for this 'comfort blanket' borders on the psychotic Seek help Buy more tinfoil |
Quote:
As usual, .... ronbotx dissapears when asked to ' put up ...' :1orglaugh |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123