5 of 10
5
11. September 2001: Both Flight 77 and Flight 93 were shot down over the Atlantic Ocean ?
Posted: 22 May 2006 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 20 May 2006 08:11 PM

Hi Smerk,

You’d feel differently about 911 if you’d accept that the towers were hit by cargo planes.  After all, Fox News reported that “flight 175” had no windows.  There were plenty of eyewitnesses.  They weren’t hallucinating.

Inquisitor

Inquisitor - 21 May 2006 02:13 AM

Unless you believe that CNN altered the footage shown on the 911 video that can be ordered by the general public, the planes’ dimensions can’t be disputed.
If I were holding a ruler next to a model airplane,  you wouldn’t try to dispute its size.  The former towers’ widths are known.

If that’s true, then show us.

You’d feel differently about 911 if you’d accept that the towers were hit by cargo planes.

Ah, yes, if we make a lot of baseless assumptions, then we could prove anything, couldn’t we?  If we simply accept that it was flying saucers that hit the buildings, then we can make a good case that the Martians attacked us!

I always love how these people insist that the government has the resources, the power, the knowledge, and the intelligence to come up with this whole plan and to mysteriously switch airplanes in midair (despite all the radars and everything) and to send in their magical stealth ninjas to fill a bunch of offices with special explosives (under the very noses of the office staff) that can survive the direct hit of a fuel-filled aircraft without damage, and in so many other ways to defy probability and the very laws of physics.  But then they claim that the very same government would be stupid enough to send in aircraft that look nothing like the airliners (even though the aircraft would be seen by thousands, and would doubtless be caught on camera).

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 20 May 2006 08:11 PM

After all, Fox News reported that “flight 175” had no windows.

Actually, the Fox News reporter was several miles away from the WTC, and saw an airplane fly overhead.  He never saw the airplane hit anything.  Also, he said that the airplane was clearly not painted in the United Airlines colours, while the airplane in the pictures clearly is.  So either whatever airplane he saw was some other aircraft, or else he’s a terrible observer.

And the wreckage in the building includes parts of the fuselage that do have windows in them.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.  Not only were the fires not hot enough to melt steel, even if they had been, the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.

I don’t feel that the firefighters who witnessed the implosions were liars.  Note that they weren’t allowed to testify at the 911 “hearings.”  The 911 Commision was complicated by many conflicts of interest.

I didn’t say anything about aliens or changing planes in mid-air.

WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed.  Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7682
Joined  2005-06-05
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 07:15 PM

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.  Not only were the fires not hot enough to melt steel, even if they had been, the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.

If only life was as simple as conspiracy theorists would have us believe….you state that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel and then, simplistically draw the conclusion that of course, the fires were then not the cause of the WTC collapse.

The failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

You also state that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints…you state this as though it somehow proves your arguments which really confuses me.

First, the buildings did not collapse at free fall speed, it would have taken 8 seconds for the collapse at that speed and in actuality it took ten seconds and furthermore a 500,000 ton structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. 

Here is some excellent information though I am sure you will say it’s all part of the plot
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 Signature 

FOLLANSBEE, WV; Having been alerted to the coming apocalypse at a recent church service, 6-year-old Julie Strand decided she needed to live for today and immediately stuck a peanut M & M up her left nostril.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Chuck,

Give me one example of a steel beam building that suddenly collapsed due to just a fire (prior to the alleged 911 collapses due to fires).  There was a steel building with a fire so hot the windows melted yet it didn’t collapse.

You didn’t address the firefighters’ witnessing the series of explosions.  Those men in “In Plane Site” weren’t actors.

What’s also fishy is that the the alleged hijackers who lived in San Diego had drivers licenses and bank accounts in their real names.  They were even in the phone book!  Yet we’re supposed to believe they slipped through the FBI’s fingers.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7682
Joined  2005-06-05

Yes, I did not address the eyewitness reports as it is my experience that eyewitness accounts are the least reliable type of evidence and rarely need rebuttal.

As far as your statement that no other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire…..once again, you are being overly simplistic, no one is trying to say that the fire, and only the fire was the cause of collapse.

Several factors contributed to the collapse including the initial impact and subsequent inneffectiveness of the fire proof foam which some speculate was actually blown off the steel at the time of impact.

Tell you what, you remove the fire proofing from a 500,000 ton tower, crash a fuel filled jet into it and lets see what happens.

On your last point, don’t expect me to defend the FBI.

 Signature 

FOLLANSBEE, WV; Having been alerted to the coming apocalypse at a recent church service, 6-year-old Julie Strand decided she needed to live for today and immediately stuck a peanut M & M up her left nostril.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2005-11-27
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 07:15 PM

WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed.  Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.

Inquisitor

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 06:15 AM

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

Inquisitor


Then why did it fall down?

 Signature 

Always remember, “Boss is just double SOB backwards”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 07:15 PM

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.

First, on what evidence are you claiming that no windows were melted?  All the pictures I can see are at too great a distance and have too much smoke in the way to see the condition of the windows clearly.  Secondly, what were the windows made of?  There are plenty of glass-like substances that have better heat tolerances than many metals, and it’s not like they would have been supporting any real weight, either.  Third, who says that there needed to be temperatures high enough to melt steel?  All you need is for the temperature to be enough to soften or distemper the metal.  There was a large fuel fire after the airplane hit, and that would have produced enough heat for the metal to warp (I’ve seen plenty of buildings that burned down just from ordinary fires, and that had their metal beams warped by that amount of heat).  Or are you trying to say that there was no fire, and that all the flames and smoke that all the eyewitnesses and cameras saw was just special effects?

the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.

And they didn’t.  And what does this have to do with anything?

I didn’t say anything about aliens or changing planes in mid-air.

Not about aliens, no, but you did about them changing airplanes.

WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed.  Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.

Here’s what Silverstein apparently said:  “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

After the building was already on fire, they decided to go in, place explosives, and knock it down (they had something like eight hours in which to do so, since the building didn’t finally fall until late afternoon).  They openly talked about it and planned it, which means that it had nothing to do with any sort of a conspiracy.  Also, if it was only on fire, why would they decide to pull it down?  If the fire wasn’t enough to do major structural damage to the building, then it would make more sense to just leave the building there and repair what would be mainly cosmetic damage.  But they decided to pull it, which meant that they thought that the fire alone was enough to destroy the building, and so they wanted to destroy it before the fire did so that it would fall in a less dangerous way.  So really, what Silverstein is saying is that 1) the fires alone were enough to make the buildings fall, and 2) the fall of the building had nothing to do with any sort of government conspiracy.

So, what does this have to do with the airplanes hitting the other towers, or the Pentagon, or crashing in Pennsylvania, and how does this do anything to “prove” a conspiracy by anyone other than the terrorists?

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 08:20 PM

Give me one example of a steel beam building that suddenly collapsed due to just a fire (prior to the alleged 911 collapses due to fires).  There was a steel building with a fire so hot the windows melted yet it didn’t collapse.

Give me one example of one of the World Trade Center buildings being hit by a fuel-filled Boeing and not falling down.  Not many buildings (if any) are built in the exact same manner as the WTC buildings, nor have many buildings had a 767 slam into them at high speed.  The only event that can compare to the airliner striking the first building was the other airliner striking the second building. . .and in both cases, the building fell.  So, this means that in all known similar incidents, the results were the same.

You didn’t address the firefighters’ witnessing the series of explosions.  Those men in “In Plane Site” weren’t actors.

I’m not going to buy some DVD that uses lots of flawed reasoning to try to support some weird claims, so I can’t tell what firefighters you’re referring to or exactly what they say.  I do know that a number of people saw, as the buildings were falling, things that looked like explosions. . .which is exactly what you would expect to see if a building was falling in on itself.

If there were explosives there, then they would have had to be able to survive a direct hit by a Boeing and the resulting fireball (after all, the “explosions” took place a while after the crash).  Also, as you yourself already pointed out, there wasn’t any way to put the explosives in place.

What’s also fishy is that the the alleged hijackers who lived in San Diego had drivers licenses and bank accounts in their real names.  They were even in the phone book!  Yet we’re supposed to believe they slipped through the FBI’s fingers.

Plenty of other people do the same.  The FBI is made of people, not superhuman psychics.  And again, if this was some sort of big government conspiracy, don’t you think that they would have been slightly more careful about covering up the official records on the hijackers?

sandwich maker - 22 May 2006 09:16 PM

Then why did it fall down?

Termites, obviously.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 11:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Softened steel could not have accounted for the speed at which they fell.  The beams would have had to have snapped all the way down (a series of snaps).  You don’t even need a physics degree to tell what happened.

Your asking if I perhaps I don’t believe there were fires was way out of line.

Inquistitor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 11:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

As far as accessing the buildings is concerned, intelligence agencies have tremendous power.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 11:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

You folks are truly great, you know?

This thread is an excellent example of why I have come to love this website.

While I certainly have my own opinions on 911, and the comments made by various individuals, the wonderful thing that I see is that everyone is being polite, respectful, thoughtful, and also sincere.

Not to mention informative!

And, of course, entertaining!

Thanks, everyone!


Dan the Happy Observer

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 10
5