First SkiBum and I seem to share the same mindset/opinions.
Just because the people who set up sites like the ones listed here and for that matter the posters on ATS do not share the opinions of the mainstream
does not mean that they cannot try and seek what they believe to be the truth for themselves.
I myself believe that there is something wrong with the explanation released by the US Government regarding the events leading up to and including the
attacks of 911, am i a nut? Perhaps but it is my right to look at evidence in the public domain and express an opinion,to Deny Ignorance if you
will,and if someone dissagrees with my ideas then i can respect that.
But to debunk and call people crazy because they dont agree with what you believe to be right Patriot is wrong and uncalled for.
I never called anyone a NUT, you are entitled to your opinion, thats what makes this world go round. Its good that you are exploring different ways
this could have went down cause you are not comfortable with what you are being told. Vigilance is always good esp in the times we live in. Again I
didnt call anyone crazy, laughable maybe but not crazy. I dont know how you blew what i said this much out of context. I was simply looking for solid
proof by credible people to back up claims from all these various places, is all.
Secondly Janus, the links you posted were better than most but still absolutly nothing conclusive. The first one was the best but there was no
conclusion, only said that more tests were to follow. I understand that you nor I are exprerts on this subject matter. I cannot speak for you, but I
have immersed myself in aeronautics since i was a young kid (doesnt make me an expert but just via the knowledge i have gaind along the way i can
dispute some bogus claims. I also have a background in engineering (not in civil) BUT, know a decent amount about, construction, fireproofing,
trusses, and the melting point of steel, and the combustion temperatures of that jet fuel, pressure testing of concrete etc. which i fall back on any
time somone makes these claims. If i thought somthing was suspicious in a related field that i knew nothing about, I would surely not make blind
guesses as to what was happen and spread the to the world about how I am right, even if it LOOKED that way. Looks can be decieving.
As far as the binladen family being taken out of this country... well its publically known that the binladen family had 50+ kids (or somwhere around
there) Osama was just one of them.... he was a outcast of that family. That fam being as big as it is, some settled in the US now since they are
wealthy well connected ppl, and Bin Laden was their last name.. tell me you wouldnt drop a deuce in your pants if america just got attacked by your
radical brother and ppl want vengence... of course you would want to be escorted out of the country with the quickness.
all you have to do is look at the frame by frame versions of the film shot by CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc., all were shot from different angles, all show
that the planes were armed aircraft, not commerical airliners. I have been asking for over 6 months for anyone to show that the films were fake. NO
takers. As for a little bit of history....
Armed commercial aircraft.. Right. why because "you cant see the windows" or "its carrying a pod under it". The windows were probably all closed,
because that usually protocal when a plane gets hijacked. The pod idea was discussed on another thread.. gota find it.. and logical conclusions
yeilded that it was normal part of the aircrafts structure. WHY would they be armed? they could load the bays with explosives, WHY would they shoot a
missle RIGHT into the building before hitting it? Furthermore, if you calim that these were military planes, WHAT KIND of military planes? Give me
model numbers. Those look like civilian aircraft to me, and NOT military aircraft by any means. the fog of war can be very deceptive, make you see
things that you dont. AND even IF the gov was gonna attack WTC you think theyd really do it with military aircraft.. you really think that you
guys(the ppl claiming this) would be the first to notice it? You think that NO ONE in the city that saw the planes would think.. hmm WHY is a USAF
plane crashing into the WTC...? THINK about it if the gov was planningthis.. or at least if I was the gov planning this and was gonna fake it like a
hijacking ID AT LEAST USE CIVI PLANES... i think the gov can get their hands on 737's if they really wanted to it wouldnt be that hard. OK enough of
On to the next bizzaro fact.
-at least 3 camera angles recording a flash on the outside of the tower just before the nose of the 2nd plane hit
-1 camera recording a flash before the first plane hit the tower
Planes often have antenna extending from their nose a couple of feet. Also have oxygen rich canisters in the nose of the airplane..push the antenna
into the cannesters at a high rate of speed and bam .. ive seen the "evidence" and the flash is AS the plane hits not moments before it hits. BIG
No terrorists took credit for September 11th, that's another lie that has become "fact" because of our media. There is one video of Osama Bin Laden
laughing about the attacks, but he doesn't say anything that would lead anyone to believe that Al Qaeda was responsible.
Im going to really trying to refrain from going apesh*it on that one... Didnt you see the video of OBL prasing the work, saying that even he didnt
think the towers would come down that the were hoping for at most lots of loss of life and large fires. HOW ON EARTH can you make that claim... really
the motto of this site is deny ignorance not promote it. How come no one else said anything about that.. you dont really believe that do you???
I dont wanna quote slanks whole post but what he said was again, not informed. We have got to understand that this fire in the WTC was NOT a normal
fire. Let me put it this way. If i workd in the WTC and light a trash can on fire, that fire spread like crazy It still wouldnt burn half as hot as it
was burning on 9/11. The intence heat from the jet fuel made the fire proofing on the support beams and trusses nonexistant. Building support beams by
fire code, do not have to withstand that type of stress/temperature. When the planners were making the building they planned for a plane (of the
60-70s era) hitting it but not the intence heat that would result if a plane topped of with jet fuel would hit the towers. The temps of fires in that
skyscraper link that slank posted due to conditions was no more than 1000F and thats a very liberal estimate. When you guys figure out at what temp
industrial steel which was as thick as the WTC's starts to melt/twist/bend/giveway, nd what temp aircraft fires burn at ill be waiting here. Remember
also to keep in mind the TONS of building above the fire zones that are weighing in on the stressed out steel. Furthermore the design of the WTC
buildings since there were no main support beams running down the bulding (most of the structural static support was provided throgugh the innovative
use of the buildings skin frame, and trusses) This was NOT the best platform for a fire of that magnitude. Should i keep going???
[edit on 20-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]