9/11 conspiracy theorists unite - Page 27 - GoFuckYourself.com

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Oh come on, there are STILL people out there who believe it was not a plane flying into the Pentagon? You have to be fucking kidding me?

You saw it? I'd settle for a few pics of it and would love some video.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Oh come on, there are STILL people out there who believe it was not a plane flying into the Pentagon? You have to be fucking kidding me?

clearly damage from a large aircraft. if you didn't know what happened that day and someone showed you these photos, would your first thought be that it got hit by a 757? it's obvious that it got hit by something but not a 757.

Rochard · 05-07-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

clearly damage from a large aircraft. if you didn't know what happened that day and someone showed you these photos, would your first thought be that it got hit by a 757? it's obvious that it got hit by something but not a 757.

You need to put this into context here. This image makes it look like it took out a section of a warehouse, which is far from the truth. The Pentagon is the largest building in the world.

The reality is this is a strong building, made up of huge blocks of concrete - and it wasn't hollow (like the WTC LOL). The plane totally destroyed an entire section of one ring, and sliced through two other rings. The plane traveled through five hundred feet of concrete and steel.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You need to put this into context here. This image makes it look like it took out a section of a warehouse, which is far from the truth. The Pentagon is the largest building in the world.

The reality is this is a strong building, made up of huge blocks of concrete - and it wasn't hollow (like the WTC LOL). The plane totally destroyed an entire section of one ring, and sliced through two other rings. The plane traveled through five hundred feet of concrete and steel.

why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

epitome · 05-07-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

Have you been to the Pentagon? There are no stores around it. Just lots and lots of parking lots that seem to go on forever. Before 9/11 you could practically drive up to the front door of the Pentagon.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

Please explain all the pictures with plane debris. I can't believe i'm even asking this.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 10:58 PM

Actually, don't even bother. It will be the same old retarded shit you idiots been saying for the last 10 years.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Have you been to the Pentagon? There are no stores around it. Just lots and lots of parking lots that seem to go on forever. Before 9/11 you could practically drive up to the front door of the Pentagon.

buildings with cameras that were in the "flight path".

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:01 PM

The Pentagon didn't release videos showing it was a plane. Therefore it must've been a missile.
- The truther

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:02 PM

Dgraves, where did the plane and all it's passengers go if it didn't fly into the Pentagon? And why replace a plane on its way there with a missile.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:04 PM

The truther:
Yes, the American government flew planes into their own buildings.
No, they didn't fly a plane into the Pentagon. They made it dissapear and sent a missile instead.
I know this because the Pentagon didn't show it was a plane. Fuck the witnesses and the plane wreckage found in and around the building. Not relevant.
Yes, that makes perfect sense in my little fantasy world.

epitome · 05-07-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

buildings with cameras that were in the "flight path".

All the people that were sitting on GW Parkway and other area highways that saw it are lying, too?

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Funny how i post this picture to make fun of truthers and they don't even get it that they are doing exactly that.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

All the people that were sitting on GW Parkway and other area highways that saw it are lying, too?

Yes obviously they were part of the conspiracy. They actually were there to quickly plant plane debris in and around the Pentagon seconds after the missile hit the building.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:09 PM

The truther:
No video it was a plane = evidence it was a plane.
Pictures of plane debris in and around the Pentagon = not evidence it was a plane.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:11 PM

Amazing how everything has to be a conspiracy. I mean it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever anymore. There were no hijackers, the American government flew into their own towers. And at the same time it's impossible one of those planes flew into the Pentagon. These people are just so fucking batshit crazy. Any form is logic is completely non existant.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Please explain all the pictures with plane debris. I can't believe i'm even asking this.

i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact. are we expected to believe that's all the government has? everyone agrees it's a stout building with some important shit in it and it's a prime target for an attack. the government isn't concerned about security costs so you know that building is loaded with all kinds of surveillance equipment so why not show any other angle. at least something other than crappy "now you see it, now you don't" stills from a parking lot gate camera.

i doubt anyone would attack my gym but if they did, they would have multiple video angles of the event. surrounding buildings would even have some angles of it.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact.

God, this is just too much...

Fuck the plane debris, not important, who cares. Right?

On ignore, i can't handle this insanity anymore. Bye retardboy.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:15 PM

I think this one sentence sums up this whole thread and the insanity of truthers in general and why you never can win from them:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact.

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:18 PM

You read it right. The pictures of plane debris is "just a theory". The PICTURES are just a theory. The debris itself also does not matter. That doesn't mean anything. It's better to completely ignore the pictures and the debris. It simply has to be a missile because the Pentagon has not shown us it was a plane through video. Period.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to the truther. Not ONE moment of doubt when thinking this way. This logic will actually be picked up by another truther and be repeated on another forum.

Like i said, there is no way of winning from this kind of thinking. Impossible.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

All the people that were sitting on GW Parkway and other area highways that saw it are lying, too?

and dozens of people heard timed explosions from inside the towers before they collapsed but i guess we pick and chose which witnesses we want to believe.

epitome · 05-07-2012, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

and dozens of people heard timed explosions from inside the towers before they collapsed but i guess we pick and chose which witnesses we want to believe.

Dozens out of how many thousands?

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

You read it right. The pictures of plane debris is "just a theory". The PICTURES are just a theory. The debris itself also does not matter. That doesn't mean anything. It's better to completely ignore the pictures and the debris. It simply has to be a missile because the Pentagon has not shown us it was a plane through video. Period.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to the truther. Not ONE moment of doubt when thinking this way. This logic will actually be picked up by another truther and be repeated on another forum.

Like i said, there is no way of winning from this kind of thinking. Impossible.

"winning"? there's nothing to "win", it's already been won and the mission was a success. if a group of american terrorists went to another country and attacked it, would that country go to war with us over the attack?

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Dozens out of how many thousands?

Ofcourse there are explosions after a huge fucking plane flies into a huge fucking building.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Dozens out of how many thousands?

dozens that were interviewed. no one knows for sure what others heard or saw. none of us were there so we just have to go by evidence.

if a dirty cop committed a crime and he was in charge of the investigation, how do you think the crime scene would look?

Dirty F · 05-07-2012, 11:30 PM

Look, a piece of the landing gear INSIDE the Pentagon. But hey, to the truther that is NOT important. This is "just a theory" and can be ignored. This is no evidence whatsoever. This does not mean a plane flew into the Pentagon. The fact that the Pentagon didn't release a video of a plane hitting the building however IS evidence that a missile was used.

Makes total sense in the fucked up fantasy world of the truther.

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Ofcourse there are explosions after a huge fucking plane flies into a huge fucking building.

really? timed explosions?

oddly enough it was just like a demo job.

looks exactly like a demo job + sounds exactly like a demo job = no way it can be a demo job?

dgraves · 05-07-2012, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Look, a piece of the landing gear INSIDE the Pentagon. But hey, to the truther that is NOT important. This is "just a theory" and can be ignored. This is no evidence whatsoever. This does not mean a plane flew into the Pentagon. The fact that the Pentagon didn't release a video of a plane hitting the building however IS evidence that a missile was used.

Makes total sense in the fucked up fantasy world of the truther.

they also found the passports of the terrorists in the tower debris. how about that compelling evidence! maybe they should start covering buildings with passport material to keep them from burning.

hold onto that evidence but haul away all the steel and melt it down as quickly as possible.

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You don't get it.

Let's say you were standing 10 feet away from any building as it fell apart. You would see pieces flying and falling all over the place: To the left, to the right, in front of and behind you. It would look like a cloud of debris.

Yes. Huge segments flew laterally away from the building at speeds that could only be accounted for by an external agent, such as an explosive.

Those movements cannot be accounted for by gravitationally driven, "organic" collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Now imagine yourself a few miles away. It would appear to you that the building is falling straight down because from your point of view, it is. There's nothing to the left or to the right, or in front or behind.

There was plenty pluming out from a distance. Nothing that could be accounted for by a gravity-collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

The same analogy applies to anything. From a distance a snowflake looks like a single white dot. But under a microscope it is a highly detailed structure.

Under the microscope, WTC dust was highly detailed evidence of incendiaries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

All of the up-close footage I have seen (and you have seen) looks like a cloud of frame-enveloping debris. All of the distant cameras look like a straight-down fall.

A gravity-driven collapse, or "pancake" collapse, does not produce a "cloud" or dust on the level of the WTC destructions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Even a true controlled demolition looks like a cloud of debris up close.

You're correct. A controlled demolition produces powdered, obliterated debris in cloud like formations because of the external agents such as explosives and incendiaries used to bring the building down. An "organic", gravity-driven collapse will not to such an extent...

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You are looking at the visual "evidence" and seeing only what you want to see, discounting everything else and / or finding excuses for things that do not fit your version of what happened. You are not truly skeptical, and you're not approaching this from a scientific or fact-finding point of view. Instead like most other conspiracy theorists you are looking for "evidence" that proves your pre conceived notions only.

Tisk tisk.

I'm acknowledging scientifically validated evidence and don't care for uncorroborated theories in this case - I don't have a "versin" of what happened. The government version/s simply don't carry any evidentiary weight for their theory to be considered .

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

The term "Vertically" would mean absolutely no movement on the X or Y axis of any component of the building. Any video of the collapse clearly shows debris going on all directions outward from the building.

Uh, vertical descent is y-axis movement.

The videos show a building imploding due to external agents removing the paths of most resistance from the vertical movement of the undamaged segments above the damaged segments down into and through the majority of the undamaged building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

It is not against all probability because it did not fall "perfectly, vertically".

Imagine yourself closer to the explosion, and you'll see that your statement is not valid and should be removed from any future arguments.

You say to "imagine yourself closer to the explosion" when in fact you subscribe to the "organic collapse" theory indicating there were no explosions or external, incendiary or explosive influences on the buildings' falls.

Be consistent?

:D

sperbonzo · 05-08-2012, 07:31 AM

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You cannot dismiss speed because it does not fit with your view of the "Facts".

These planes aren't built to go this fast at these altitudes. The speed factor obviously shouldn't be dismissed, but the 9/11 Commission version goes against basic physics and Boeing specs on engine performance at sea-level...

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Just because some pilots disagree doesn't mean they are right. Radar and GPS data make it easy to know the speed.

It does when they're the only ones pronouncing themselves on the matter, and the remainder of the pilot community keeps their mouths shut because of career-fear.

The problem is that GPS data hasn't been released. The ground radar lost each plane at crucial points in their bizarre trajectories.

And the speeds were never confirmed by the FAA or any agency because they could not corroborate the government story.

It's irrelevant - whether they were travelling at 300mph or 600mph, the damage at this point would be similar, and the buildings were designed to take it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Exactly how many supporting beams have to be wiped out before it would infect the integrity of the building?

Based on projections and design, a lot more than 7 to 15% (worst case scenario).

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Oscillation did not destroy the buildings. Projections did not include the melting of steal beams.

No, oscillation was built-in to prevent building shattering.

Projections would not include "melting of steal [sic] beams" because airline fuel could not cause that particular occurrence, as has been proven in countless skyscraper fires, including a major WTC fire in 1996, and the fact that the steel is used exactly because normal fires cannot affect the beams. The WTC fires, 2011 and 1996, were considered "normal fires".

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

WTC was built in the 1960's before computer aided design. There was no possible way to simulate a plane crashing into it, let alone render it and the damage due to fire, especially in any great detail. "Projections" at the time, while I'm sure based on the best engineers at the time, were nothing more than good guesses.

Steel has been used for thousands of years. The Industrial revolution, which started in the 1700s, eventually introduced steel frame construction for buildings whose main advantage above the obvious solidity and stability was its resistance to fire.

Building built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and into the present day and age have been always built with airliner crashes considered, using science as a way to simulate a plane crash. The same science that informs "computer aided design" - which in no way provides advantages in technical and forensic forecasts.

The damage and resistance "due to fire" was absolutely considered by Underwriters Laboratories before they approved the steel, using science established for centuries and never, until 9/11, contradicted in any way. Computer simulations are much more fallible than science, as the NIST simulations could prove if they weren't kept classified to "protect national security".

Projections at the time were based in science as they have been for at least 200 years and were in no way "good guesses".

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

The amount of energy at floor level was 5 x 10^11 Joules. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf . More than enough energy to crash through the basement and destroy everything.

At which floor?

And was it enough to disrupt the molecular structure of every beam on every floor above and below the impacts to completely compromise their integrity? Please...

"D

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

Because in 2001, it wasn't common to video cameras everywhere like they do now. When they did, they were inside focused on theft and rarely outside. Security at the Pentagon wasn't too concerned about security on the outside, but instead security on the inside.

What's the big deal about releasing video from local stores? Chances are nothing at all. All of these businesses were most likely far enough away from the Pentagon that they didn't show much at all. But rest assured, the truthers will find something like a flash of light and call it proof that it wasn't a plane, but a missile.

If you want to see the video that badly, why hot request it under the freedom of information act? That's how they released the Pentagon video, which showed nothing of interest to anyone.

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

buildings with cameras that were in the "flight path".

And all of those cameras were pointed up at the sky watching airplanes, right?

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

and dozens of people heard timed explosions from inside the towers before they collapsed but i guess we pick and chose which witnesses we want to believe.

And why does this come as a surprise to anyone? Your talking about a building that was a city into itself, a city of fifty thousand people. These buildings had their power supplies, back up generators, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in the event it needed to generate it's own power. Fireballs traveled down elevator shafts from the point of impact all the way to the basement. Of course there was explosions - there was a huge fire.

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

they also found the passports of the terrorists in the tower debris. how about that compelling evidence! maybe they should start covering buildings with passport material to keep them from burning.

hold onto that evidence but haul away all the steel and melt it down as quickly as possible.

How many millions of pieces of paper survived the impact and the fire? Seems to me like entire sheets of paper were falling out from the debris.

As for the steel and most of the debris that had little importance, what are we supposed do with it? Store it for the next forty years? What do you think they do with airplanes after crashes? They spread them out in a big warehouse, try to piece together what happened, and then.... They get rid of it. Once the investigation is done that's that. They don't store the debris for the next forty years.

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Of course speed matters.

If you ram your car into a brick wall at 10mph, you'll dent your car. Ram it at 60mph and your going right through it. A plan hitting a building at 300mph does a certain amount of damage, and a plane hitting a building at twice that speed does a lot more damage.

Of course it makes a difference. But the difference here is not 600%.

The difference between the actual probable speed and the reported speed of the airliners is a niggle, not really pertinent, just further evidence of the self-evident and admitted fallacies of the 9/11 Commission report...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Not at all. A few hours of flight training and I'm pretty sure anyone can do it.

Ok, now you're being ridiculous. There is a very huge window of qualification for even Cessna pilots, let alone commercial jet pilots...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No, not at all. The steel was already bent, twisted, mangled, and damaged. Undamaged steel beams not under stress will start bend at between 600-800 degrees. The steel in the WTC was subjected to the same temp, but was damaged and under stress - a lot of stress.

SOME of the steel was damaged and/or compromised. This was accounted for.

You're referring to degrees celsius, which is not the same at all. 800 celsius is 1472 ºF. Read the NIST report. Non of the temps got that high for more than a few seconds, IF they did...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

There is no "single" version the government is putting out. There are multiple agencies and multiple private companies that have done investigations, and have come up with multiple reasons for the fall of the towers.

Please point out the divergencies? The government (ie. NIST) claims that super-heating somehow caused support columns to expand rather than weaken/soften in the case of WTC7, but that softening/weakening caused these supports to pull in the external supports in the case of the towers...

Either way, they couldn't and didn't account for the differences in reported temperatures, actual temperatures, and the subsequent collapse. They simply did not report on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And you think we should do what? Store it until the end of time? Your talking about millions of tons of debris. Where would you store it? And how much would it cost? And why? We've been over the debris, and most of it was sent off to various agencies, private and government, for testing. Multiple investigations was done, answers were handed out, and it's over.

Most of it was NOT sent off to various agencies. Only certain authorized representatives from certain authorized agencies were allowed to look at the debris. Most of the debris was not authorized to be removed for investigation. Read up on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The buildings were in fact no designed to withstand such impacts or the resulting fires.

Please provide your sources for this? In fact, the buildings were in every way designed to withstand not just such impacts but multiple impacts of the sort, and especially the fires...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

They were designed to withstand impacts from smaller planes at lower speeds that hit the towers by accident - not by someone intentionally ramming the buildings at 600mph.

The planes they used in their projections were larger and/or heavier than the planes that actually hit the WTC - because less aluminum and more steel was used in those at the time. You can't even find sources for that useless and false claim...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

From one of your friends: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...res/steel.html

They claim that steel will melt at 800 degrees. That is, of course, undamaged steel not under any pressure or stress. The fire was between 600-800 degrees... More than enough to cause the steel to bend or melt.

Again, these are scientists and scientists use centigrade, not Fahrenheit, for their science.

Review your considerations....

:D

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The reality is this is a strong building, made up of huge blocks of concrete - and it wasn't hollow (like the WTC LOL). The plane totally destroyed an entire section of one ring, and sliced through two other rings. The plane traveled through five hundred feet of concrete and steel.

This was the strongest, recently renovated section of the Pentagon.

The plane didn't slice through anything.

According to official reports, the soft, hollow aluminum tip of the plane's nose punched through this re-inforced section, and the rest of the plane somehow folded itself into a 16-foot diameter entry hole to vaporize most of its contents against all expectations.

It did not destroy "an entire section of one ring" at all.

I have no idea what did this or how a regular aluminum airliner did this. I just don't buy the Pentagon bullshit.

:D

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Have you been to the Pentagon? There are no stores around it. Just lots and lots of parking lots that seem to go on forever. Before 9/11 you could practically drive up to the front door of the Pentagon.

There are/were gas stations, hotels and convenience stores. They all had cameras. The employees of the Holiday Inn who saw the video were apparently speechless, and warned by the FBI to STFU about what they saw before the agency appropriated all the recordings - of all the commerces around the Pentagon...

:D

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Ok, now you're being ridiculous. There is a very huge window of qualification for even Cessna pilots, let alone commercial jet pilots...

Anyone can fly an airplane without any training at all. It's just a difference between a car and an 18 wheeler - both have gas (throttle) and a steering wheel (stick). Once you learn how to drive a car, you can drive an 18 wheeler.

It's not much different with an airplane. Anyone can do it:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/u...plane?_s=PM:US

And it's not like these guys didn't have flight training? They had months worth.

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Because in 2001, it wasn't common to video cameras everywhere like they do now. When they did, they were inside focused on theft and rarely outside. Security at the Pentagon wasn't too concerned about security on the outside, but instead security on the inside.

This is not true. The Pentagon and other government buildings, as well as commercial places such as the local Holiday Inn, all had cameras, and perimeter cams pointed outside the establishments. Why would the FBI care to confiscate them all otherwise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

What's the big deal about releasing video from local stores? Chances are nothing at all. All of these businesses were most likely far enough away from the Pentagon that they didn't show much at all. But rest assured, the truthers will find something like a flash of light and call it proof that it wasn't a plane, but a missile.

Again, many and most of these commercial establishments like gas stations were Pentagon-only employee spots.

Each had out-pointing cameras.

Each had their recordings confiscated - within fifteen minutes of the impact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

If you want to see the video that badly, why hot request it under the freedom of information act? That's how they released the Pentagon video, which showed nothing of interest to anyone.

The FOIA requests for these videos didn't produce any results. The Pentagon released their five-frame parking-entrance glimpse after pressure from the public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And all of those cameras were pointed up at the sky watching airplanes, right?

Nope. They were pointed inward for obvious security reasons and outward to the Pentagon for further security reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And why does this come as a surprise to anyone? Your talking about a building that was a city into itself, a city of fifty thousand people. These buildings had their power supplies, back up generators, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in the event it needed to generate it's own power. Fireballs traveled down elevator shafts from the point of impact all the way to the basement. Of course there was explosions - there was a huge fire.

The fireballs that supposedly travelled down the elevator shafts have not been accredited with any damage to the ground lobby.

Regardless, even if they didn't just damage the sky-lobbies, and made it to the basement, they wouldn't have the force to compromise the basement supports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

How many millions of pieces of paper survived the impact and the fire? Seems to me like entire sheets of paper were falling out from the debris.

Only after the collapse began. Before this there's no realistic consideration as to why flammable materials from inside the aircraft could have survived the impact fuel explosion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

As for the steel and most of the debris that had little importance, what are we supposed do with it? Store it for the next forty years? What do you think they do with airplanes after crashes? They spread them out in a big warehouse, try to piece together what happened, and then.... They get rid of it. Once the investigation is done that's that. They don't store the debris for the next forty years.

Since they did not conduct forensic investigations in the cases of the WTC buildings and crashes, they would have to keep the evidence (from a scene which was qualified by the FBI as a crime scene) for as long as it was required...

:D

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Anyone can fly an airplane without any training at all. It's just a difference between a car and an 18 wheeler - both have gas (throttle) and a steering wheel (stick). Once you learn how to drive a car, you can drive an 18 wheeler.

It's not much different with an airplane. Anyone can do it:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/u...plane?_s=PM:US

And it's not like these guys didn't have flight training? They had months worth.

According to trained, experienced pilots, the maneuvers were extraordinary, not possible with commercial airliners, though *possible* with jet fighters, and even at that with highly trained and experienced pilots.

According to all accounts, none of the pilots had any ability or experience - this from their instructors at the Florida flight schools where they "trained".

ONE of the supposed hijackers was an ex-military trained pilot. And he was supposedly not at the controls, though how they determined that is up to their magical crystal ball that determined any of the hijackers were aboard any of the flights in the first place...

:D

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The fireballs that supposedly travelled down the elevator shafts have not been accredited with any damage to the ground lobby.

There really wasn't anything in the ground lobby - it was really just a vast open space. Maybe a few minor things caught fire, but that was either quickly burned out or put out. While it was enough to burn people, it was nothing but granite and windows.

But being as fireball traveled down to the ground level, it must have hit the basement levels too. Everything under the sun was in the basement. Air conditioning transformers, entire power plants, tens of thousands of gallons of oil....

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

According to trained, experienced pilots, the maneuvers were extraordinary, not possible with commercial airliners, though *possible* with jet fighters, and even at that with highly trained and experienced pilots.

According to all accounts, none of the pilots had any ability or experience - this from their instructors at the Florida flight schools where they "trained".

ONE of the supposed hijackers was an ex-military trained pilot. And he was supposedly not at the controls, though how they determined that is up to their magical crystal ball that determined any of the hijackers were aboard any of the flights in the first place...

:D

This is stupid. It's well documented that the terrorists had flight training. Some of them at military bases.

It's not nearly as difficult as people play it out to be. I've got no training, and I've flown an airplane....

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is stupid. It's well documented that the terrorists had flight training. Some of them at military bases.

It's not nearly as difficult as people play it out to be. I've got no training, and I've flown an airplane....

It's well documented that they were registered and attempted flight training, however they were not accredited or given any sort of compiance or license because they were terrible pilots...

:D

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

There really wasn't anything in the ground lobby - it was really just a vast open space. Maybe a few minor things caught fire, but that was either quickly burned out or put out. While it was enough to burn people, it was nothing but granite and windows.

But being as fireball traveled down to the ground level, it must have hit the basement levels too. Everything under the sun was in the basement. Air conditioning transformers, entire power plants, tens of thousands of gallons of oil....

A fireball is not an explosive event, even if it did make it to the bottom of the shaft it wouldn't have the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces, let alone the walls and columns in the basement...

:D

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

It's well documented that they were registered and attempted flight training, however they were not accredited or given any sort of compiance or license because they were terrible pilots...

:D

Just because you fail to get your driver's license doesn't mean you can't drive a car.

It's not difficult at all.

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

A fireball is not an explosive event, even if it did make it to the bottom of the shaft it wouldn't have the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces, let alone the walls and columns in the basement...

:D

A fireball is in fact an explosive event. It's a fucking exploding ball of fire.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

I didn't say anything about walls or columns in the basement. However, a fireball would do a huge amount of damage to an air conditioning unit, transformer, generator, and tens of thousands of gallons of oil located in the basement.

You already know the fireball traveled all the way down to the lobby and lower levels; This is documented. If you can't see the damage that can be done in the lower levels by a fireball of this size, well, your retarded.

MediaGuy · 05-08-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Just because you fail to get your driver's license doesn't mean you can't drive a car.

It's not difficult at all.

Well the performance reports of all these flight school trainees was that they could barely pilot a Cessna off the ground, in the air, or back...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

A fireball is in fact an explosive event. It's a fucking exploding ball of fire.

This is where you're wrong. The air pressure requirements and factors with an explosion aren't the same as a ball of gas igniting.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I didn't say anything about walls or columns in the basement. However, a fireball would do a huge amount of damage to an air conditioning unit, transformer, generator, and tens of thousands of gallons of oil located in the basement.

Scorched air conditioning units wouldn't destroy the foundations of the buildings or even blow off marble wall tiles in the lobbies...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You already know the fireball traveled all the way down to the lobby and lower levels; This is documented. If you can't see the damage that can be done in the lower levels by a fireball of this size, well, your retarded.

Actually, the fireballs are not documented as you say. Their existence is conjectured because of the people who were burned by them. But the explosive consequences like the blown off marble wall tiles cannot be accounted by the fireballs alone...

:D

Rochard · 05-08-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Well the performance reports of all these flight school trainees was that they could barely pilot a Cessna off the ground, in the air, or back...

They didn't need to land or take off. Any jackass can hold a stick and turn a plane left or right. I did it with about thirty seconds of instruction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

This is where you're wrong. The air pressure requirements and factors with an explosion aren't the same as a ball of gas igniting.

The entire building was pressurized. You launch a fireball into that environment, and it's going to be a party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Scorched air conditioning units wouldn't destroy the foundations of the buildings or even blow off marble wall tiles in the lobbies...

So your saying that shooting flame at transformers and tends of thousands of gallons of oil won't cause further explosions?

And no one is saying anything about marble walls and titles except for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually, the fireballs are not documented as you say. Their existence is conjectured because of the people who were burned by them.

So people getting burned by fireballs is not proof of a fireball. It's proof that they magically got burned for no reason at all.

Good one.

dgraves · 05-08-2012, 03:17 PM

it's an interesting topic but pointless to argue, much like religion. you either believe one story or the other. those who believe it was an inside job are labelled as "paranoid freaks" and those who believe it was an actual terrorist attack are labelled as "blind sheep". in either case, the government was counting on us and we didn't let them down.

i bet the reports would be considerably different if the exact same attack happened in Iraq and they blamed it on american terrorists.

05-07-2012, 11:18 PM	#1320
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	You read it right. The pictures of plane debris is "just a theory". The PICTURES are just a theory. The debris itself also does not matter. That doesn't mean anything. It's better to completely ignore the pictures and the debris. It simply has to be a missile because the Pentagon has not shown us it was a plane through video. Period. Yes, this makes perfect sense to the truther. Not ONE moment of doubt when thinking this way. This logic will actually be picked up by another truther and be repeated on another forum. Like i said, there is no way of winning from this kind of thinking. Impossible. Last edited by Dirty F; 05-07-2012 at 11:20 PM..

05-07-2012, 11:30 PM	#1326
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Look, a piece of the landing gear INSIDE the Pentagon. But hey, to the truther that is NOT important. This is "just a theory" and can be ignored. This is no evidence whatsoever. This does not mean a plane flew into the Pentagon. The fact that the Pentagon didn't release a video of a plane hitting the building however IS evidence that a missile was used. Makes total sense in the fucked up fantasy world of the truther. Last edited by Dirty F; 05-07-2012 at 11:35 PM..

05-08-2012, 07:31 AM	#1330
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,739	__________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

05-08-2012, 03:17 PM	#1350
dgraves Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 2,283	it's an interesting topic but pointless to argue, much like religion. you either believe one story or the other. those who believe it was an inside job are labelled as "paranoid freaks" and those who believe it was an actual terrorist attack are labelled as "blind sheep". in either case, the government was counting on us and we didn't let them down. i bet the reports would be considerably different if the exact same attack happened in Iraq and they blamed it on american terrorists. __________________ Gloryhole Swallow \| Cumpsters \| Spy Tug \| Cum Clinic \| Chica's Place

05-07-2012, 10:58 PM	#1307
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Actually, don't even bother. It will be the same old retarded shit you idiots been saying for the last 10 years.

05-07-2012, 11:01 PM	#1309
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	The Pentagon didn't release videos showing it was a plane. Therefore it must've been a missile. - The truther

05-07-2012, 11:02 PM	#1310
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Dgraves, where did the plane and all it's passengers go if it didn't fly into the Pentagon? And why replace a plane on its way there with a missile.

05-07-2012, 11:04 PM	#1311
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	The truther: Yes, the American government flew planes into their own buildings. No, they didn't fly a plane into the Pentagon. They made it dissapear and sent a missile instead. I know this because the Pentagon didn't show it was a plane. Fuck the witnesses and the plane wreckage found in and around the building. Not relevant. Yes, that makes perfect sense in my little fantasy world.

05-07-2012, 11:09 PM	#1315
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	The truther: No video it was a plane = evidence it was a plane. Pictures of plane debris in and around the Pentagon = not evidence it was a plane.

05-07-2012, 11:11 PM	#1316
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Amazing how everything has to be a conspiracy. I mean it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever anymore. There were no hijackers, the American government flew into their own towers. And at the same time it's impossible one of those planes flew into the Pentagon. These people are just so fucking batshit crazy. Any form is logic is completely non existant.