"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1

 

Alright, how's this? Where is the 'airplane' at the pentagon? Where is the 'airplane' ay Shanksville? Those are just TWO of the dozens of questions I have that have not been answered fully. I know that I piss YOU off, and I really do get a perverse satifaction out of that fact. Because I honestly believe that every single one of you here at ats that back the OS are fraudulent, I don't feel obligated to anyone to prove my authenticity. So, man up, and until I see ONE of you birds question something concrete about the official story, you can expect my disdain for your efforts.

Slow your roll there chief. I'm sure your questions about the planes have been answered 1000x over by now, but you just choose not to listen.

Where are the planes?? They're in pieces like you would expect after a high speed impact. There's more than enough photographic evidence and eyewitness corroboration, from both crash sites, to back that assertion up. I'm sure you've seen it all. You apparently don't care about it though since it doesn't fit with your view of what happened that day. Shocker.

I'm willing to put my life on it that you're in NO WAY able to positively show that planes did not crash at each of those locations. To do so you'll have to be able to discredit all the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts from both sites. Not to mention you'll have to show us why UAL and AA would lie about those flights. You'll have to account for why no one has come forward to say these flights never existed, OR landed somewhere else. You'd have to show how and why the FAA lied about those flights and the tracking info on them. You'll then have to decide what it was that exploded at these sites. Was it a missile? Fine, then you should be able to intelligently explain why not one person claims to have seen a missile being launched or flying through the skies. ETC ETC ETC...

This is just the tip of the iceberg...

You don't feel obligated to show your authenticity? Come on man, you can't call people frauds when you're the one making baseless and uncorroborated assertions that planes did not crash there. That's land of make believe type of stuff...

reply to post by PhotonEffect


engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out
2nd line.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out

2nd line.

So assertive of you. Are you an NTSB aviation expert? I'd point out too that landing gear tends to survive crashes also.

What I really meant to ask is: Are you suggesting that remnants of engines (or landing gear) were not found at each of these sites?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


911review.com...

C`MON ^^^^ that`s ^^^^ just pathetic.....

2nd

reply to post by randyvs

The 46 center columns are 46 reasons why the towers could not have fallen...

*randy*, those 46 columns were not solid, 1,000+ long pieces of solid steel. They were made from individual components, all designed to be "strong", to derive their structural load bearing capacity integrity primarily due to the gravitational force. One on top of the other, each column of steel.

And the rigidity was augmented of course by horizontal members too but, they were not designed to withstand side loads of that magnitude, when all that mass above lost its support on the exterior walls.

Those columns, the exterior, were crucial to the integrity of the whole building. You can see a video that shows some of the central columns still 'up', very briefly, but they cannot sustain themselves without the surround structures.

Look at the design drawings, and especially the way each component was connected to every other piece. that was the Achille's Heel of the Towers.

.....or, maybe more like the "Achille's Spine".....just as a person can break his back....or, the spine is fragile when the surrounding musculature is removed. Think of the Human skeleton, without all the tendons and sinews --- it cannot sustain itself.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

911review.com...

C`MON ^^^^ that`s ^^^^ just pathetic.....

2nd

So you say engines tend to survive plane crashes and back that up by providing photographic proof of your assertion. What's so pathetic about that?

reply to post by ProudBird


C`mon fella..... with your knowladge , surely you can take us through the collapse floor by floor and explain why the fires were so hot..... and why the smoke was black - indicating the fire was on its way out.

please ?? ive asked varemia but it looks like he isnt up to it .... are you all talk too ? or can you provide a step by step in depth explainaition ( including key preassure points , and temperatures required for fail ) of what happened on that day ?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out

2nd line.

So assertive of you. Are you an NTSB aviation expert? I'd point out too that landing gear tends to survive crashes also.

What I really meant to ask is: Are you suggesting that remnants of engines (or landing gear) were not found at each of these sites?

edit on 18-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.

I have yet to hear an explanation of what was under that blue tarp but then again it would all be a lie to keep covering up the evidence. IMO it was the remnants of a missile but not having been there all I have is my own conjecture. Why not give the people the evidence and end all the theories?

Maybe because the evidence shows guilt... in fact guilt is all too evident in everything done that day.

As to why nobody had come forward that they are still alive and were on that plane, doubtful any were left alive (dead men tell no tales) and it isn't out of the question that all the planes that supposedly were hijacked that day were fitted with gas to knock the people out first then remote controlled to fly into the buildings. That is my thinking and isnt based on anything but suspicion as to how liars carried out the attacks in the first place.
I don't rule anything out and particularly in attempts at covering up mass murder . What I do rule out is feigned innocence in the face of proven lies.

Once again, the link in my siggy shows the liars giving themselves away under closer scrutiny and if there were no lies and nothing to hide then why not grant an investigation by other than insiders with conflicts of interest or careers to further?

Plain and simple, lies do NOT stand up to scrutiny.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


look at the state of it ... that didnt "survive" the crash , i mean like - IN-TACT- yeah sure they look battered they lose a few little bits here and there but not to the point of recovering a few inches of the engine. That was faked , really really faked , and they cant deny it , their so called evidence defies logic.

it doesnt even look like a 757 engine.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by ProudBird

 

C`mon fella..... with your knowladge , surely you can take us through the collapse floor by floor and explain why the fires were so hot..... and why the smoke was black - indicating the fire was on its way out.

please ?? ive asked varemia but it looks like he isnt up to it .... are you all talk too ? or can you provide a step by step in depth explainaition ( including key preassure points , and temperatures required for fail ) of what happened on that day ?

Read this, please. The smoke color has nothing to do with whether it is oxygen-starved, only what is burning.

www.911myths.com...

In other words, checkmate.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.
Plain and simple, lies do NOT stand up to scrutiny.

The C-130 had just taken off from Andrews AFB which, as you may not be aware, is just 10 miles away - and it was already at 3K' altitude.

That must have been a pretty accurate drop from that height to put debris in between the C and B rings, inside the Pentagon, and outside on just the lawn...all without being seen by a single one of the hundred plus witnesses. Sound logical to you?

Who said all the plane at the Pentagon vaporized? I've never seen any official report to that effect, AND, the number of pics of the scene (both inside and outside of the building) say otherwise.

Now, what doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1
[more I know that I piss YOU off, and I really do get a perverse satifaction out of that fact. Because I honestly believe that every single one of you here at ats that back the OS are fraudulent, I don't feel obligated to anyone to prove my authenticity.

Thank you defining "troll" for us - superbly done!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by ProudBird

 

C`mon fella..... with your knowladge , surely you can take us through the collapse floor by floor and explain why the fires were so hot..... and why the smoke was black - indicating the fire was on its way out.

please ?? ive asked varemia but it looks like he isnt up to it .... are you all talk too ? or can you provide a step by step in depth explainaition ( including key preassure points , and temperatures required for fail ) of what happened on that day ?

Read this, please. The smoke color has nothing to do with whether it is oxygen-starved, only what is burning.

www.911myths.com...

In other words, checkmate.

how stupid do you think i am ? .... your actually going to go as low as to tell me black smoke coming from a fire which consists of wood paper and fabric, does not indicate its going out ?? ive been lighting fires and burning sh1te for over 10 years son , and given a choice of black or white smoke , i know which one i`d rather be breathing.

If the temperature from the fires was hot enough to melt steel, how were people standing in the areas of impact on the towers ? if it can melt steel it would make quick work out of flesh.

Any chance of that in depth explaination yet ?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
how stupid do you think i am ?

Honestly, at this point, you're pretty up there.

.... your actually going to go as low as to tell me black smoke coming from a fire which consists of wood paper and fabric, does not indicate its going out ?? ive been lighting fires and burning sh1te for over 10 years son , and given a choice of black or white smoke , i know which one i`d rather be breathing.

There was plastic. Plastic burns black.

If the temperature from the fires was hot enough to melt steel, how were people standing in the areas of impact on the towers ? if it can melt steel it would make quick work out of flesh.

Any chance of that in depth explaination yet ?

You seriously have to be told again that the fire didn't melt the steel? It weakened it, that's all.

reply to post by Varemia


plastic ? like ... i dunno .. lets say - 100 to 200 computers yeah ? a fair few plastic bins ? a few copiers , printers and so on ??produced ALL that black smoke ?

Kerosene burns black but burns for roughly 5 to 10 minutes sooooo ? Oo ?

what about the fireman who keyed in on the radio and said it was dying out ? was he lying too ? i guess he was also "up there" huh ?

Are you finnished dodging my request ? will you please shed some light on this amazing knowladge you hold ? an in depth floor by floor explaination which ties in with the laws of physics ? any chance of that at all ?

And the steel WAS melting , youve seen photos of it , and heard firemen describing it .... why are you continuing to ignore the facts ?

reply to post by ReptileRipper


It really doesn't matter how hot the fires were anyway, they couldn't get hot enough in an hour to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail...

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

reply to post by ANOK


i agree , i pointed out temperatures a few pages back, something which seems to be overlooked by alot of people.
2nd

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.
Plain and simple, lies do NOT stand up to scrutiny.

The C-130 had just taken off from Andrews AFB which, as you may not be aware, is just 10 miles away - and it was already at 3K' altitude.

That must have been a pretty accurate drop from that height to put debris in between the C and B rings, inside the Pentagon, and outside on just the lawn...all without being seen by a single one of the hundred plus witnesses. Sound logical to you?

Who said all the plane at the Pentagon vaporized? I've never seen any official report to that effect, AND, the number of pics of the scene (both inside and outside of the building) say otherwise.

Now, what doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

As someone who obviously has all the answers, address why the need to lie about anything if all was as the OS says it is?

Luckily we have your word on where the C130 came from, when it came from there, what it was doing climbing at a 10 mile distance (that is the visibility to horizon btw) and why it would appear to be climbing from the Pentagon viewpoint? In fact, I'll take that a step further and guess that any plane taking off from an airport will only appear to be climbing while it is in the vicinity and any distance added to the equation negates point of view as to flight attitude but again it is only my conjecture. Like it is only my conjecture that the Pentagon is a no-fly zone. Correct me if I'm wrong about where the actual flight path is from the nearest airport and perhaps we can determine just how much veracity your excuses have.

Easy enough hypothesis to test though, go to an airport and watch the planes at a distance and see if you can tell whether it is climbing or landing at a distance from you to the visible horizon and I would be willing to guess first that at that distance the dot you see isn't distinguishable and second that even direction of travel is difficult never mind altitude change.

But yet here we have your word that at ten miles away the plane which was readily identified at a distance of 10 miles, your words not mine, at ten miles was easy enough to determine its flight characteristic and heading? Why would it look like it was climbing from the Pentagon? That was what was reported, a C130 was seen climbing.

You claim the plane pieces were left behind as evidence then show us where that evidence is because I haven't seen it. I haven't seen the registration numbers off parts matching the jumbo-jet and yet that would be absolute proof it was the plane wouldn't it? Easy enough to provide if true wouldn't you think... but then if the actual plane were simply headed out to sea with all on-board unconscious or dead from a gassing then who knows how far that plane went out into the ocean before exhausting its fuel?

... never to be found as the plan intended. Seems to fit theory as readily as any other theory and as damaging as all the theories are then the easiest and prudent thing to do would be disclose the evidence and yet everything remains hidden and all we are left with is our own guessing as to what happened?

Why do you think that is if there were nothing to hide?


Again, my conjecture fits the theory as well as your excuses do, better in fact since we know people were murdered and a coverup has been ongoing. Deny the coverup if you wish, but listen to the audio linked in my siggy first. Lies are always easy to catch.

Are you so willing to bet your soul in bearing false witness?

you already had

reply to post by anoncoholic


Try again. I never said the plane was ten miles away. I said it's *starting point* was ten miles away (Andrews AFB - remember?). I never implied the plane was ten miles away when seen - you did.

While flight directly over the Pentagon is not supposed to happen - it happened every-single-day, particularly with prop driven cargo planes coming into National Airport.

Are you honestly telling us that you've *never* seen pics of the wreckage from the Pentagon attack? Is that what your comment about "no evidence" is supposed to mean?

Then there's the problem with the witnesses to the impact - literally dozens of them. Please explain these away - including those whose recounting of events don't precisely match the OS - but still saw the plane impact the building.

Bet my soul bearing false witness? Have you lost your grip?

reply to post by userid1

Then there's the problem with the witnesses to the impact - literally dozens of them.

136 have come forward to go on record. Of course, anyone who knows the area, knows how many cars are on the surrounding highways at that time of the morning on a weekday, when it's not a work holiday. So, many more simply saw it, but never went to the effort of being recorded for the historical account.

But, this thread really isn't about the Pentagon (although your points remain valid).

Speaking of eyewitnesses and the Towers in NYC.....there simply aren't any who have come forward to describe the sequentially occurring, loud Bang!, Bang!, Bang! and, bang!-bang!-bang!-bang!-bang!-bang!-bang!-bang! rapid-fire sounds that are present in a controlled demolition.

There are disjointed accounts from witnesses of hearing "explosions", but not in the style as above, not seen in CDs. Furthermore, these witnesses comprise only a handful, out of thousands in the immediate vicinty of the World Trade Center that morning.

Of course, the best "eyewitness" to the lack of controlled demo blasts is the mountain of video and audio footage.