9/11 Show some respect !!! - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

directfiesta · 03-29-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Wouldnt the U.N. know if it was one of their planes? This is the dumbest thing ever. How would disquising a plane as a U.N. plane work....

Grasping at straws folks. .lol

Easy answer : look who is the brilliant author of that plan ...

That should be enought to answer your question

Rochard · 03-29-2006, 10:23 AM

Has anyone read the 9/11 Commission report from cover to cover?

I'm starting to get tired of this. Does anyone honestly think that thousands of people - mostly government employees - can pull off something like this without someone leaking something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

#1 when a plane flies into restricted airspace or flies off its designted course and cant be reached fighter jets are dispatched. This isnt new , this was well before 9/11 , so i would like to hear from the guy whos JOB is to scramble the jets , and i would like to hear from the fighters themselves.

I'd imagine it's a very simple matter for a $60k a year to just scramble jets at a moment's notice because someone somewhere thinks something might be wrong. Not to mention I doubt anyone at this level would have the authority to just randomly shoot down jets filled with innocent passengers. Fuck, I sure don't want to be the one to have to make that decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

#2 the guy and company responsible for building wtc , i want to know why you said it would not fall and it did. simple question , people who worked in wtc felt safe because you told them it was safe, you fucked up , someone needs to be fired or change the way you build buildings.

This has been covered before. The building was made to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. If I recall correctly, after the planes hit the towers did in fact remain standing. It wasn't the impact of the crash that took the towers down, it was the resulting fire from tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that took the building down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

#3 the pentagon videos , where are they.. lets see them.

This is a valid question. However, chances are it would do nothing but start another round of further questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Anyone who doesnt think we deserve an explanation is lost in their own ignorance. I hope your family never has to be protected by the same people in charge of protecting us on 9/11, because you wont even be treated with enough respect to actually hear from them..

We've had an explanation, in fact, more than one. The 9/11 Commission Report was one and there have been others.

Any time there is an "event" (such as a car accident) that is witnessed by multiple people, everyone sees differnet things. And there will always be things that can't be explained.

But the notion that thousands of people have taken part in this and covered it up is just plain silly. Why would they do it - So the US can attack Afganistan?

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 10:38 AM

Has anyone read the 9/11 Commission report from cover to cover?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm starting to get tired of this. Does anyone honestly think that thousands of people - mostly government employees - can pull off something like this without someone leaking something?

im starting to get tired of people who cant read. Did ANYONE claim ANYTHING even close to what you just described ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'd imagine it's a very simple matter for a $60k a year to just scramble jets at a moment's notice because someone somewhere thinks something might be wrong. Not to mention I doubt anyone at this level would have the authority to just randomly shoot down jets filled with innocent passengers. Fuck, I sure don't want to be the one to have to make that decision.

I dont think anyone would shoot down random people either but the fact remains they did scramble jets on on numerous occasions BEFORE 9/11. They had a slower response during a real threat.. someone should be fired for that..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This has been covered before. The building was made to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. If I recall correctly, after the planes hit the towers did in fact remain standing. It wasn't the impact of the crash that took the towers down, it was the resulting fire from tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that took the building down.

I thought you said you read the report ? you obviously haven't , or you misundertood the physics..

The jet fuel by all accounts burned up well before the towers came down. Office material couldnt sustain a high enough heat to both melt the columns yet leave people directly in the impact zone unburned as it has been explained..

wtc7 couldnt even be explained in the official report and suggested further investigation be done to determine the cause

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is a valid question. However, chances are it would do nothing but start another round of further questions.

Thats the whole point of an investigation..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

We've had an explanation, in fact, more than one. The 9/11 Commission Report was one and there have been others.

Any time there is an "event" (such as a car accident) that is witnessed by multiple people, everyone sees differnet things. And there will always be things that can't be explained.

And the 9/11 commision was incomplete, its time to complete the unanswered questions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But the notion that thousands of people have taken part in this and covered it up is just plain silly. Why would they do it - So the US can attack Afganistan?

not ONE person has said anything even close to this.. where did you come to this conclusion .

even after CLEARLY explaining that this thread has NOTHING to do with WHO did 9/11 you somehow claim theres a notion of "thousands " of people being involved..

Phoenix · 03-29-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Has anyone read the 9/11 Commission report from cover to cover?

I'm starting to get tired of this. Does anyone honestly think that thousands of people - mostly government employees - can pull off something like this without someone leaking something?

I'd imagine it's a very simple matter for a $60k a year to just scramble jets at a moment's notice because someone somewhere thinks something might be wrong. Not to mention I doubt anyone at this level would have the authority to just randomly shoot down jets filled with innocent passengers. Fuck, I sure don't want to be the one to have to make that decision.

This has been covered before. The building was made to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. If I recall correctly, after the planes hit the towers did in fact remain standing. It wasn't the impact of the crash that took the towers down, it was the resulting fire from tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that took the building down.

This is a valid question. However, chances are it would do nothing but start another round of further questions.

We've had an explanation, in fact, more than one. The 9/11 Commission Report was one and there have been others.

Any time there is an "event" (such as a car accident) that is witnessed by multiple people, everyone sees differnet things. And there will always be things that can't be explained.

But the notion that thousands of people have taken part in this and covered it up is just plain silly. Why would they do it - So the US can attack Afganistan?

im sorry but its like you have ignored the tons and tons of scientific proof just to keep a cosy bead on your own version of reality.

jet fuel cant burn hot enough to melt steel.

they did it so they can build a pipe for oil...in fact the taliban had just left from turning down the oil pipe.....you people have no memory of events at all...unless they agree with your own personal reality

SuckOnThis · 03-29-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It wasn't the impact of the crash that took the towers down, it was the resulting fire from tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that took the building down.

It was not tens of thousands of gallons of fuel. A 767 fuel capacity is a little under 24,000 gallons, and they are not normally fueled to capacity on intercontinental flights. Most of the fuel was burned off in the explosion, and the fuel that wasnt would have burned itself off quickly.

If burning jet fuel was capable of melting metal why in the hell doesnt it burn the inner components of a jet engine?

stickyfingerz · 03-29-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Easy answer : look who is the brilliant author of that plan ...

That should be enought to answer your question

But wait I thought he was a diabolical Genius... A FUCKING GAIN wtf good would it have done to fake a U.N. plane getting shot down? The U.N. would say wait thats not our plane. Stupidest fucking shit ever. And make up your minds if he is an idiot, or out to rule the planet.

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

1. Dont play word games, even Democrats have declared "police actions" and such to skirt around the issue of who can and cannot send troops to battle. Fact is any President can and often does authorize military action without any oversight.

Wow! You should pick a side and stick with it.. You said in your last post,
".... (well we must be attacked of course)."
Word games? You're the one that referenced the link..

Quote:

2. Iraq violated UN security resolutions for years(on top of violating cease fire agreements with the USA as well)and there was an order AUTHORIZING the use of force against Iraq if it did not comply. Dont give me this shit about WMD because they didnt have to actually HAVE the WMD to violate the resolution, it also states that Iraq must not SEEK WMD either.

Funny how the UN violation is used as an excuse to attack, yet Bush can just ignore the UN's majority vote to send the inspectors back.
And he also ignored the 182-4 vote in favor of a Cuban resolution demanding the US end its unilateral and extra-territorial blockade.

I guess Bush is the only one that allowed to ignore the UN..

And when did I give you any shit about WMD? Never even brought up..

spanky part 2 · 03-29-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Has anyone read the 9/11 Commission report from cover to cover?

I'm starting to get tired of this. Does anyone honestly think that thousands of people - mostly government employees - can pull off something like this without someone leaking something?

I'd imagine it's a very simple matter for a $60k a year to just scramble jets at a moment's notice because someone somewhere thinks something might be wrong. Not to mention I doubt anyone at this level would have the authority to just randomly shoot down jets filled with innocent passengers. Fuck, I sure don't want to be the one to have to make that decision.

This has been covered before. The building was made to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. If I recall correctly, after the planes hit the towers did in fact remain standing. It wasn't the impact of the crash that took the towers down, it was the resulting fire from tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that took the building down.

This is a valid question. However, chances are it would do nothing but start another round of further questions.

We've had an explanation, in fact, more than one. The 9/11 Commission Report was one and there have been others.

Any time there is an "event" (such as a car accident) that is witnessed by multiple people, everyone sees differnet things. And there will always be things that can't be explained.

But the notion that thousands of people have taken part in this and covered it up is just plain silly. Why would they do it - So the US can attack Afganistan?

There is absolutely no trying to reason with some people Rochard. There will always be people that no matter what, there is a conspiracy. No matter how much information there is otherwise, they will always see it there way.

I for one having lived it, read the 9-11 report front to back. Most questions were answered. Basically we have been fucking these people so long, that the lashed out. Kind of like a nice dog that you kick every day, sooner or later it's gonna bite.I'm not saying we deserved it, but our foreign policies in this area of the world, have sucked for decades. There was a total and complete failure on the Bush admin to see the signs that something was coming. Then they used it as and excuse to start a war in Iraq, that the conservative think tanks had planned for years.

There has also been the covering of their asses afterwards. For an administration that said they were gonna bring honor and integrity to the white house, they sure have a hard time testifying under oath. They never testify under oath at all!

Anything beyond that is just plain folly, but like I said, some people need to live their lives in fear. It makes them feel important, as other parts of their lives have no meaning.

I will tell you this. Since making it thru 9-11 with my son, I spend every moment hugging him and my wife. I don't take shit from anyone anymore, and when I see someone spreading shit about that day, that literally knows nothing about it, I will call them on it every time.

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

There is absolutely no trying to reason with some people Rochard. There will always be people that no matter what, there is a conspiracy. No matter how much information there is otherwise, they will always see it there way.

there will always be people like yourself that dont understand what the word conspiracy means , i have stated it several times, you need to go look it up , your using the term out of context, seriously.. go learn something..

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

I for one having lived it, read the 9-11 report front to back. Most questions were answered.

you might be satisfied with having "most" of the questions answered because YOU LIVED , if it had been your son that died , do you think you would be OK with "most" of the questions being answered ? biggest attack on american soil since PH and you are satisfied with "most".. sorry but the rest of americans arent so easily appeased , i respect your right to be easily appeased , respect the families of those who have died to want the COMPLETE truth. not just parts of it.. the 9/11 report was inconclusive, if you had read it you would knopw that..

Dollarmansteve · 03-29-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

It was not tens of thousands of gallons of fuel. A 767 fuel capacity is a little under 24,000 gallons, and they are not normally fueled to capacity on intercontinental flights. Most of the fuel was burned off in the explosion, and the fuel that wasnt would have burned itself off quickly.

If burning jet fuel was capable of melting metal why in the hell doesnt it burn the inner components of a jet engine?

lol.. sorry, too easy. 24,000 = 2.4 x 10,000. So yeah.. it was 2.4 tens of thousands of gallons..

Also, please learn about how jet-engines function before using the [ /b ] command for such a statement.

And I think anyone who is really interested in 9/11 needs to read the 9/11 commission report, even if they disagree. To dismiss it as 'part of the conspiracy' or 'a bunch of crap written by beaurocrats' is ignorant.

Amazon link to 9/11 commission report

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 11:47 AM

hopefully this will put to silence once and for all , all the people who use the word conspiracy incorectly when referring to 9/11 because they are to lazy or stubborn to look it up themselves
-------------------------
CONSPIRACY ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sphahaha238;r-s)

Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
------------------------

What this means is JFK theories WERE conspiracy theories because they involved MORE than the official story of ONE guy. THUS any theory involving MORE than one person would be a conspiracy.

With 9/11 EVERY theory includes a conspiracy because even the official story is that MORE than ONE person was involved..

So 9/11 WAS a conspiracy using every available theory i have ever heard INCLUDING the official one..

So to all the misinformed people that keep spouting the same retard party line "it wasnt a conspiracy" your a moron. If it ISNT a conspiracy then your saying 1 person was involved or several people that didnt communicate with each other about the illegal plan..

Phoenix · 03-29-2006, 11:49 AM

give up on these people smokey

they refuse to see the truth...it doesnt sit well with them

stickyfingerz · 03-29-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

hopefully this will put to silence once and for all , all the people who use the word conspiracy incorectly when referring to 9/11 because they are to lazy or stubborn to look it up themselves
-------------------------
CONSPIRACY ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sphahaha238;r-s)

Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
------------------------

What this means is JFK theories WERE conspiracy theories because they involved MORE than the official story of ONE guy. THUS any theory involving MORE than one person would be a conspiracy.

With 9/11 EVERY theory includes a conspiracy because even the official story is that MORE than ONE person was involved..

So 9/11 WAS a conspiracy using every available theory i have ever heard INCLUDING the official one..

So to all the misinformed people that keep spouting the same retard party line "it wasnt a conspiracy" your a moron. If it ISNT a conspiracy then your saying 1 person was involved or several people that didnt communicate with each other about the illegal plan..

God thats dumb. A conspiracy is more than one person CONSPIRING to do something yes.

conspiracy

n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act [syn: confederacy] 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) [syn: cabal] 3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose [syn: confederacy]

There are many different definitions of it. Maybe you didnt know it, but many words have more than one meaning, and its often the context in which they are used that defines the intended meaning.

ForteCash · 03-29-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

intersting perspective..let us know when you take your head out of yor ass

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

And I think anyone who is really interested in 9/11 needs to read the 9/11 commission report, even if they disagree. To dismiss it as 'part of the conspiracy' or 'a bunch of crap written by beaurocrats' is ignorant.

nobody is claiming that or anything of the sort..

Ill explain , and since you say you have read the report you will understand.

The report itself states on NUMEROUS occasions the findings were INCONCLUSIVE or REQUIRED MORE INVESTIGATION.

All i am asking for is a CONCLUSION to the INVESTIGATIONS that were CLEARLY stated.. and to hold those accountable that neglected to do their job properly..

Thats not very hard to understand , and no reason why it shouldn't be done.

Dollarmansteve · 03-29-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

give up on these people smokey

they refuse to see the truth...it doesnt sit well with them

Now come on Brad.. would you at least agree that even you dont know 'the truth'? I dont think you can really say that you know all the events that happened prior, during and after 9/11.

..see you in phoenix

Quagmire · 03-29-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

2. Iraq violated UN security resolutions for years(on top of violating cease fire agreements with the USA as well)and there was an order AUTHORIZING the use of force against Iraq if it did not comply. Dont give me this shit about WMD because they didnt have to actually HAVE the WMD to violate the resolution, it also states that Iraq must not SEEK WMD either.

I don't want to get all up in your ass on this one, but do a search on Israel's violation of UN security resolutions. I don't recall seeing the USA ramming a foot up their ass and they HAVE nukes.

In fact the USA is in violation of UN security resolutions with its unauthorized actions against Iraq. the UN didn't sign off on this war.

They haven't brought any valid proof forward about Iraq working on its nuke program. of course then the WMD banner gets spread a little thin to cover other items. The WMD argument is pointless.

This all has nothing to do with 9/11, I just wanted to make the point.

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

There are many different definitions of it. Maybe you didnt know it, but many words have more than one meaning, and its often the context in which they are used that defines the intended meaning.

ok wheres the definition that means BUSH DID IT ?

Show me any definition that doesnt mean exactly what i said.. lol itsa funny you would try to argue a dictionary LOL

so explain to me ANY definition that wouldnt be INCLUSIVE of the official story ( of the hijackers )

i.e. in laymans terms explain to me how 9 hijackers conspiring to hijack planes ISNT a conspiracy..

Dollarmansteve · 03-29-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

nobody is claiming that or anything of the sort..

Ill explain , and since you say you have read the report you will understand.

The report itself states on NUMEROUS occasions the findings were INCONCLUSIVE or REQUIRED MORE INVESTIGATION.

All i am asking for is a CONCLUSION to the INVESTIGATIONS that were CLEARLY stated.. and to hold those accountable that neglected to do their job properly..

Thats not very hard to understand , and no reason why it shouldn't be done.

Yep, I agree with you. That wasnt directed to anyone in particular. All I was saying is that it should be required reading for anyone who is serious about investigating and questioning the events on 9/11.

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:04 PM

i find it awfully amusing that someone could seriouslt think that they can argue against a dictionary . sorry had to point that out..

stickyfingerz just posted 3 definitions all of them including the official story then tells me its about context . hahahha

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:08 PM

its not about context , well it is actually its about them being used in the WRONG context.

i.e. when someone says " anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy is an idiot" is wrong

when someone says " anyone who thinks BUSH was involed IN the conspiracy" is using it properly.

stickyfingerz · 03-29-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

ok wheres the definition that means BUSH DID IT ?

Show me any definition that doesnt mean exactly what i said.. lol itsa funny you would try to argue a dictionary LOL

so explain to me ANY definition that wouldnt be INCLUSIVE of the official story ( of the hijackers )

i.e. in laymans terms explain to me how 9 hijackers conspiring to hijack planes ISNT a conspiracy..

thats where my definition came from
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy

conspiracy

n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act [syn: confederacy] 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) [syn: cabal] 3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose [syn: confederacy]

Now to further the case. What is the movie Conspiracy Theory about? Is it about a group of people getting together and conspire to plant a flower garden? lol

SuckOnThis · 03-29-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

lol.. sorry, too easy. 24,000 = 2.4 x 10,000. So yeah.. it was 2.4 tens of thousands of gallons..

Okay dumbass, so the plane was fully loaded with fuel, none was used in the flight, and none burned in the explosion. You may be able to add 2+2, but you seem to have a problem with subtraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

Also, please learn about how jet-engines function before using the [ /b ] command for such a statement.

Lets hear your experience with jet engines. A good friend who is a mechanic at United made that statement to me.

FYI, it wasnt the [ /b ] command, it was the [ font ] command. Learn some html while you're at it.

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

thats where my definition came from
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy

conspiracy

n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act [syn: confederacy] 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) [syn: cabal] 3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose [syn: confederacy]

so your saying that none of those 3 definitions include hijackers planning to hijack planes..

what world are you living on ?

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:14 PM

Lets go over your points one by one

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act [syn: confederacy]

hmm hijackers planning on hijacking planes certainly couldnt fit that definition

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) [syn: cabal]

hmm hijackers planning on hijacking planes certainly couldnt fit that definition

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose [syn: confederacy]

hmm hijackers planning on hijacking planes certainly couldnt fit that definition

i want some of what stickfingerz is smokin bwahaha sorry but how old are you ?

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

It was not tens of thousands of gallons of fuel. A 767 fuel capacity is a little under 24,000 gallons, and they are not normally fueled to capacity on intercontinental flights. Most of the fuel was burned off in the explosion, and the fuel that wasnt would have burned itself off quickly.

If burning jet fuel was capable of melting metal why in the hell doesnt it burn the inner components of a jet engine?

This is one of several issues that some people refuse to address because it will interfere with their ability to yell, 'conspiracy theorist'..

The minimum temperature required to melt steel is about 2750 F..
The maximum temperature of any fuel, including jet fuel is about 1500 F ..

The fuel couldn't have melted the steel, but that matters not.. It still melted the steel and caused 3 buildings to free fall.. That's it.. no other possibilites..

Some folks just refuse to look at facts..

Splum · 03-29-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

The minimum temperature required to melt steel is about 2750 F.. The maximum temperature of any fuel, including jet fuel is about 1500 F .. Some folks just refuse to look at facts..

Here are your FACTS buddy
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Here are your FACTS buddy
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

did you happen to read the disclaimer on those FACTS
-----------------------------------
(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)
-----------------------------------

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:32 PM

how anyone could believe engineering "FACTS" based on assumptions made without even looking at the structure is insane. Dont you think you would want to maybe look at the steel beams to figure out what happened ? your telling me in LESS than 12 hours , without even looking at the debris they figured out the wtc collapse bwahaha, its one thing to discuss things amongst your partners its a whole different thing to publish them and refer to them in ANY way as facts

Splum · 03-29-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

did you happen to read the disclaimer on those FACTS
-----------------------------------
(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)
-----------------------------------

Dude isnt this what you wanted? You wanted people who actually KNOW about this shit to give thier opinion. That link did and if you notice he says this at the bottom of the page(obviously anticipating people like you):

The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.

Splum · 03-29-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

how anyone could believe engineering "FACTS" based on assumptions made without even looking at the structure is insane. Dont you think you would want to maybe look at the steel beams to figure out what happened ? your telling me in LESS than 12 hours , without even looking at the debris they figured out the wtc collapse bwahaha, its one thing to discuss things amongst your partners its a whole different thing to publish them and refer to them in ANY way as facts

They are civil engineers I would think they know a bit more about it than you or I do. Look its plain to see you dont believe jack shit from anyone so Im just gonne let you live in your happy little conspiracy world(kinda depressing if you ask me to think about that shit all the time).

SmokeyTheBear · 03-29-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

They are civil engineers I would think they know a bit more about it than you or I do. Look its plain to see you dont believe jack shit from anyone so Im just gonne let you live in your happy little conspiracy world(kinda depressing if you ask me to think about that shit all the time).

read what conspiracy means you dipshit , its more than just depressing you have gotten this far in this thread and haven't figured out how to use the word..

Its even more depressing to know your most likely capable of breeding.

I have a hard time believing you even read the article what you posted, he sums up the collapse in a paragraph.. ANY engineer who would make an assumption based on evidence he saw on tv is not fit to call himself an engineer PERIOD, anyone posting such an assumption as FACT is equally as inept.

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

There is absolutely no trying to reason with some people Rochard. There will always be people that no matter what, there is a conspiracy. No matter how much information there is otherwise, they will always see it there way.

The gov't says that an untrained pilot was able to manually fly a 60 ton 757 at several thousand feet, and at several hundred mph, descend at a rate to line up with the pentagon, fly over an interstate, then drop to just above the ground to enter the first floor..

Seasoned commercial pilots say it's impossible even with themselves at the wheel.. Yet that's the gov't story...

Do you see it the government's way?

And.. I've never yelled, 'conspiracy' .. I'm just saying that some of the government's findings are somewhat less that accurate..

Splum · 03-29-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Its even more depressing to know your most likely capable of breeding.

.

Dude fuck you, you just showed your true colors. Never once did I degrade you in my replies yet you have such uncontrolled teenage angst that you feel the only way to win an argument is to denigrate someone. You are an idiot in disguise trying to hide behind "innocent" questions and innuendo. You know damn well when posting this shit you would get opposing views, not only that but I am disgusted you show the people jumping like that, you even make sure its the only images you posted. Idiot.

Sexxxy Sites · 03-29-2006, 12:50 PM

There are "experts" and then there are "experts" but the keyword is consensus. There has been multiple investigations and there has been a ton of "experts" weigh in and while there is some disagreement among the "experts" (nothing new about this) the keyword is consensus. For SmokeytheBear (who appears to be no more than a board whore) and for those like him, if there were to be a 99% consensus he/they would still believe the 1% that place a sinister slant on their offer of expertise.

Sorry but I am just popping in. I have work that I am doing and don't have time to stay.

stickyfingerz · 03-29-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

The gov't says that an untrained pilot was able to manually fly a 60 ton 757 at several thousand feet, and at several hundred mph, descend at a rate to line up with the pentagon, fly over an interstate, then drop to just above the ground to enter the first floor..

Seasoned commercial pilots say it's impossible even with themselves at the wheel.. Yet that's the gov't story...

Do you see it the government's way?

And.. I've never yelled, 'conspiracy' .. I'm just saying that some of the government's findings are somewhat less that accurate..

Whoa just what in the fuck makes you think they were untrained? They trained on flight simulators. You can even do it at home on your computer. Ive got about 20 hours stick time on small cessna's and a longez. Its not brain surgery to fly a plane. No what I flew arent 757's and 767's, but just a few hours on a simulator would get someone flying. They didnt have to do the hard parts even which are take off and land. I love how you wackos do this little smooth suggestions which are far from true.

Sexxxy Sites · 03-29-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Dude fuck you, you just showed your true colors. Never once did I degrade you in my replies yet you have such uncontrolled teenage angst that you feel the only way to win an argument is to denigrate someone. You are an idiot in disguise trying to hide behind "innocent" questions and innuendo. You know damn well when posting this shit you would get opposing views, not only that but I am disgusted you show the people jumping like that, you even make sure its the only images you posted. Idiot.

You nailed it.

Sexxxy Sites · 03-29-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Whoa just what in the fuck makes you think they were untrained? They trained on flight simulators. You can even do it at home on your computer. Ive got about 20 hours stick time on small cessna's and a longez. Its not brain surgery to fly a plane. No what I flew arent 757's and 767's, but just a few hours on a simulator would get someone flying. They didnt have to do the hard parts even which are take off and land. I love how you wackos do this little smooth suggestions which are far from true.

Flying a small plane is no more difficult than driving a car. Once you learn to fly a small plane learning to fly a large plane (having practiced on a simulator and learning certain characteristics) is no more difficult than flying a small plane.

I am out of here.

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

They are civil engineers I would think they know a bit more about it than you or I do. ..

Do you mean these guys?

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers?. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing? The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

Or this guy?

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan?s analysis is that the probability that fires and damage (the ?official theory?) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

ThunderBalls · 03-29-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

They are civil engineers I would think they know a bit more about it than you or I do. Look its plain to see you dont believe jack shit from anyone so Im just gonne let you live in your happy little conspiracy world(kinda depressing if you ask me to think about that shit all the time).

And here are comments from fire engineers:

'respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.'

'Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.'

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...=131225 #EdOp

stickyfingerz · 03-29-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

Do you mean these guys?

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers?. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing? The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

Or this guy?

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan?s analysis is that the probability that fires and damage (the ?official theory?) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

Hmm now why didnt you link us to indymedia, or whatever wacko site you got that from?

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Here are your FACTS buddy
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

So much for your FACTS.. Buddy:

While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel...
Hmm.. I believe that's what I said.....

This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001
FACT???

It appears likely....
FACT????

It is possible that the blaze.......
FACT???

These conditions may have......
FACT???

....and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
FACT???? WRONG! They didn't pancake.. they freefell.. There is a difference..

Just like the 'official report' .. lots of "may have's" and, "could have's".. Hardly FACTS..

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Hmm now why didnt you link us to indymedia, or whatever wacko site you got that from?

Hmm.. another typical response from someone that keeps digging himself deeper..

You don't agree so it has to be a wacko site... gotta love it

stickyfingerz · 03-29-2006, 02:01 PM

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Just read that site. Excellent explanation there. If you cant understand what they wrote in simple terms, and accept it, you have issues.

Scootermuze · 03-29-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Whoa just what in the fuck makes you think they were untrained? They trained on flight simulators. You can even do it at home on your computer. Ive got about 20 hours stick time on small cessna's and a longez. Its not brain surgery to fly a plane. No what I flew arent 757's and 767's, but just a few hours on a simulator would get someone flying. They didnt have to do the hard parts even which are take off and land. I love how you wackos do this little smooth suggestions which are far from true.

Again.. you did yourself deeper....

These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172..

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how ?easy? it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the ?open sky?. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot..
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted ?hard? instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying ?blind?, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn?t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as ?IFR?, or Instrument Flight Rules.

Nila Sagadevan, aeronautical engineer, pilot.

He must be one of those wack jobs that doesn't know the truth..

But then you have your Microsoft 2000 flight simulator, so you are the authority...

KRL · 03-29-2006, 02:13 PM

So let's cut to the chase with all these conspiracy threads.

What's the bottom line and what's anybody going to do about it?

1. We'll never know.

2. Nothing.

That's the American way.

Linkster · 03-29-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Yes he actually can. Read up on it a bit. Has 90 days to even consult congress.

that is totally incorrect - he has 48 hours to consult with Congress as per the War Powers Act of 1973 - Congress then has 90 days to authorize it or the President has to remove whatever forces he inserted and congress would remove any financing of the action.

The real reason that no one has taken action on this one is because Congress was so mis-led by the Presidents advisors as the Iraqs seeking WMD and "the mushroom cloud terrorism" scenario, they all just signed off on it
Now if you want to get into the real conspiracy theories - a bunch of people out there believe that the Anthrax attack was designed to further that fear in congress to insure approval of the War powers - it doesnt help that since 9/11 at least 10 of the leading microbioligists in this country have either dissapeared or been found dead (in kinda mysterious circumstances like floating in the Miss River) - and all were the top researchers dealing with biological agents ranging from Anthrax to Flu virii

SuckOnThis · 03-29-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Whoa just what in the fuck makes you think they were untrained? They trained on flight simulators. You can even do it at home on your computer. Ive got about 20 hours stick time on small cessna's and a longez. Its not brain surgery to fly a plane. No what I flew arent 757's and 767's, but just a few hours on a simulator would get someone flying. They didnt have to do the hard parts even which are take off and land. I love how you wackos do this little smooth suggestions which are far from true.

Dear Stinkyfinger,

You've watched to many Airport movies. There is a big difference between flying a single prop Cessna 152 and a turbine Boeing jumbo jet.

First you think you can melt a spoon with a lighter and now you think you can fly a jumbo jet. I'm starting to believe you are clinically insane.

Thank you,
The Voice in Your Head

JasonB · 03-29-2006, 02:20 PM

im with you smokey. anyone who has done a bit of research will agree there are way too many unanswered questions. far more than you've pointed out here. imo the 9/11 commission was a joke. it IS the "conspiracy theory". just my $2c

satinmail · 03-29-2006, 02:23 PM

poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:S

03-29-2006, 11:47 AM	#61
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	hopefully this will put to silence once and for all , all the people who use the word conspiracy incorectly when referring to 9/11 because they are to lazy or stubborn to look it up themselves ------------------------- CONSPIRACY ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sphahaha238;r-s) Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. ------------------------ What this means is JFK theories WERE conspiracy theories because they involved MORE than the official story of ONE guy. THUS any theory involving MORE than one person would be a conspiracy. With 9/11 EVERY theory includes a conspiracy because even the official story is that MORE than ONE person was involved.. So 9/11 WAS a conspiracy using every available theory i have ever heard INCLUDING the official one.. So to all the misinformed people that keep spouting the same retard party line "it wasnt a conspiracy" your a moron. If it ISNT a conspiracy then your saying 1 person was involved or several people that didnt communicate with each other about the illegal plan.. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

03-29-2006, 11:49 AM	#62
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,462	give up on these people smokey they refuse to see the truth...it doesnt sit well with them __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

03-29-2006, 12:04 PM	#70
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	i find it awfully amusing that someone could seriouslt think that they can argue against a dictionary . sorry had to point that out.. stickyfingerz just posted 3 definitions all of them including the official story then tells me its about context . hahahha __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

03-29-2006, 12:08 PM	#71
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	its not about context , well it is actually its about them being used in the WRONG context. i.e. when someone says " anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy is an idiot" is wrong when someone says " anyone who thinks BUSH was involed IN the conspiracy" is using it properly. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

03-29-2006, 12:32 PM	#79
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	how anyone could believe engineering "FACTS" based on assumptions made without even looking at the structure is insane. Dont you think you would want to maybe look at the steel beams to figure out what happened ? your telling me in LESS than 12 hours , without even looking at the debris they figured out the wtc collapse bwahaha, its one thing to discuss things amongst your partners its a whole different thing to publish them and refer to them in ANY way as facts __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

03-29-2006, 12:50 PM	#85
Sexxxy Sites Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 851	There are "experts" and then there are "experts" but the keyword is consensus. There has been multiple investigations and there has been a ton of "experts" weigh in and while there is some disagreement among the "experts" (nothing new about this) the keyword is consensus. For SmokeytheBear (who appears to be no more than a board whore) and for those like him, if there were to be a 99% consensus he/they would still believe the 1% that place a sinister slant on their offer of expertise. Sorry but I am just popping in. I have work that I am doing and don't have time to stay.

03-29-2006, 02:01 PM	#94
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,984	http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml Just read that site. Excellent explanation there. If you cant understand what they wrote in simple terms, and accept it, you have issues.

03-29-2006, 02:13 PM	#96
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	So let's cut to the chase with all these conspiracy threads. What's the bottom line and what's anybody going to do about it? 1. We'll never know. 2. Nothing. That's the American way. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

03-29-2006, 02:20 PM	#99
JasonB Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,183	im with you smokey. anyone who has done a bit of research will agree there are way too many unanswered questions. far more than you've pointed out here. imo the 9/11 commission was a joke. it IS the "conspiracy theory". just my $2c

03-29-2006, 02:23 PM	#100
satinmail Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Tomorrow Posts: 1	poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :S __________________ Hola!