Too bad you don't have all that great knowledge for your business ..... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh


IBILL !!!! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

You mean the story where a bunch of wacko terrorists that hate us and our country took over planes and crashed them into buildings with one failing and crashing instead into a field? What is sooo unbelieveable about that? Box cutters were not checked for post 911. Cockpit doors didnt even lock securely. We didnt have air marshalls on hardly any flights. You make us out to be nuts. If you REALLY think the government is trying to snare you into its evil web, you've got bigger issues than I thought.

Yup another reason the site is not up, and infact never went live. That was almost a year ago. I was doing it all with no guidence. If you think all I do is that site you are a fuckin fool. lol That was my first learning project. Laugh while you can directcumfiesta. :1orglaugh

From the experts:

A devil's advocate might bring up the fire that burned inside the building for approximately seven minutes before being extinguished. Although the colour temperature of the fire appears too bright for kerosene (i.e., jet fuel), we will invoke the White House interpretation of events, as mentioned earlier. Kerosene burns at approximately 860 degrees celsius in ambient air and less in a confined space where the fire tends to use up oxygen. (ASCE 2003)

Fireball From Initial Hole in Pentagon, or secondary explosion?

Could such a fire have destroyed both wings to the point of near invisibility? The simplest answer is that the left wing was exposed to fire only near the wing root, the more distal portions being completely beyond the reach of flames or heat sufficient to melt the aluminum, let alone to burn it. The window frames to the left of the initial hole are all intact, so any heat radiated from the fires in the building would have had to come through the windows to the outside, largely missing any sections of wing that might have been lying outside them.

At six meters from the fire, even under direct exposure, the heat would have been insufficient to raise the temperature of the aluminum skin much above 500 C, well below the melting temperature of aluminum, namely 660 C (NASA 2003).

In other words, it would have been a physical impossibility for any portion of the port wing beyond about four meters from the fire to be melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by it. Thus, at least 16 m (52' 6") of that wing ought to have remained (and to have been clearly visible) on the left of the entrance hole. In fact, no such debris appears in any of the pictures taken of the Pentagon that morning.

A. K. Dewdney, mathematician/computer scientist
G. W. Longspaugh, aerospace engineer

Can't believe how thick headed some of you guys are.

Just look at this video. Its a jet landing at normal speed that comes in at too sharp an angle. Look how easily the entire tail section of the plane just pops
off.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+crash&pl=true

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

http://www.thebigt.com/verizon.jpg

ROLF

This all gets better by the hour.

So now Flt. 93 is stashed away somewhere...perhaps parked next to the 5 navy Avenger bombers from Flight 19 that disappeared in the supposed Bermuda Triangle years ago?

The passengers and crew are being comfortably housed in the same hangar they used as a soundstage to shoot the faked moon landings?

Someone bring Mulder outta retirement, would you? We've got a dousie on our hands this time!

Thanks for the entertainment. This makes my cable ISP bill this month worth every penny. :thumbsup

I'm not getting into this but this video is interesting.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/planewall.html

So instead of letting them die on the plane they killed them some other way in some other place? WHY? Seems stupid. Well we are talking about Bush. Anyways yur theory is shit. Passengers call family members while the highjacking was going on or was that faked too?

Yep.. popped right off at normal speed.. and that plane was being flown by a pro...
Wonder why the tail didn't pop off of the 757.. or the 55' wings.. or anything apparently because a single explosion burned up the wings, body, tail, engines.. yada yada...
Don't forget.. the object hit at about a 45 degree angle, which means the starboard wing would have hit first which would have slung the plane enough to snap off the tail section.. (determined by experts)

In that you're the authority.. explain how a guy that couldn't fly (per his instructor) manually maneuvered a 60 ton 757 into position, then over an interstate very near the bldg., then drop and level off to to enter the building without hitting the ground prior to entry.. all while traveling at several hundred mph..
Commercial pilots with years of experience have said there's no way it could be done by even the most seasoned pilots..

Damn those thick headed pilots!

Fifty........

How many videos do you need to see dude?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...rash&p l=true

Ok.. planes cause fires when they crash.. Is that what you're trying to show me?

Now show me one of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.. Oh.. I forgot.. all of those recordings were confiscated.. Sure would like to know why..

So far you haven't answered anything.. Just showing videos of plane crashes in totally unrelated scenarios..
But then I have no answers either..
Just asking questions that nobody seems to be able to answer..

And showing your videos certainly didn't answer the question in my last post..
But the experts did.. I guess they haven't seen those videos that I'm sure would change their minds..