| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 10 January 2004 06:40
 
|
 |
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Sat, 10 January 2004 17:34 |
*sigh*
Look up the phrase, "Occam's razor".
Planes flew into the Towers, and they fell down.
That's pretty much it.
It's not a conspiracy by the US government that results in thousands of US citizens being killed.
|
I think the resulting figure of people that died in the WTC is only around the 1000 mark, not as much as the media reported.
But why would the US government care about the mere 1000 citizen? They admit they have no prove of link of the terrorist network & Saddam, no real prove of Saddam's WMD, they couldn't prove Bin Ladan was the culpit of 911, but they sent the US troops into 2 was anyway, and killed thousands of innocents, including hundreds of US army officials, (including many more that wasn't disclosed)
They couldn't even try to prove the real cause of the collapse of the tower!
Problem with the majority is, they don't want to think backwards, and try to understand the facts, before deciding if they could accept the media's report, and they took the media report for granted, but why can't the government be behind all this? Is it because it's too big of a lie?
[Updated on: Sat, 10 January 2004 06:44]
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 10 January 2004 07:42
|
|
Some more errors I've noticed -
Yeah, they do, plenty of fuel, probably about 90,000 litres, where did they all go? You don't see much in tower 2 do you?
Whilst a 767/757 can carry that much fuel, they certainly would not have for a relatively short flight across the US. I'd guess maybe half that at best.
Also, if it was always planned to fly said planes into the Towers and they didn't have much fuel on board, how did this escape the notice of the crews, the refulers, the FMS (Flight Management System) computers, and the fuel gauges on the plane?
You could explain this by finding a pair of flight crew that were planning on commiting suicide, so they helped cover it all up.
In other words, the 'theory' of them hardly having any fuel on the planes is utterly rediculous.
I think the resulting figure of people that died in the WTC is only around the 1000 mark, not as much as the media reported.
Being as polite as I possibly can, this is likely to be the most f**king stupid thing you've posted yet, and you've posted some whoppers all right.
I'm not worked-up over anyone disagreeing with me, rather than simple physics & common sense seem to have been deliberatly ignored.
[Updated on: Sat, 10 January 2004 07:50]
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 10 January 2004 07:57
|
|
so... you're trying to say what?
a plane didn't hit tower 2?
you're stating all of these possible discrepencies, but none of them are leading toward any kind of support for any theory or argument... they're just a collection of intersting, largely unrelated points. And every time we prove a set of your points wrong, along come another set.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 10 January 2004 11:25
|
|
| Old School wrote on Sat, 10 January 2004 19:24 |
Any edged weapon be it a hunting knife or boxcutter can become lethal in seconds, how fast can you hit,slap or punch someone?
now do it with a boxcutter, Unless they're experienced in this situation or extremely lucky you just killed or seriously wounded them. Add the element of surprise and even an experienced person will need to be lucky to avoid serious injury
|
Thats a good point!
I like the "It was all a projection theory"
http://www.gallerize.com/Gallerize.News.htm
Premise a: The hole in the WTC south tower is considerably smaller than the alleged Boeing 767-200.
Premise b: The CNN video (and other videos by ABC, Spiegel TV etc.) show that the ENTIRE plane "glided" into the building.
Conclusion: Before the eyes of millions of people, the outer wings (at least a total of 30 feet), the tail rudder and the tail winglets of the alleged "airplane" flew through the steel perimeter wall of the WTC2 tower WITHOUT LEAVING A HOLE! Physics mandates us to believe: the alleged "airplane" was no solid object. It was a hologram! The Pentagon has "airborne holographic projector" technology mounted on a cruise missile, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.h tm (details were declared a military secret in 1994, more about this in my writings). The hole lets in a cruise missile which was flying inside a much bigger hologram, disguising it as a "hijacked passenger plane".
[Updated on: Sat, 10 January 2004 11:35]
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 10 January 2004 13:51
|
|
I've had another think about this thread, and I'm now convinced that gt20v is simply trolling for attention.
This crap that has been coming up, no-one with half a brain could possibly even consider it happening in reality.
I'll only make comments on aviation from here on, if anyone's interested any more.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 10 January 2004 16:04
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Sun, 11 January 2004 00:51 |
I've had another think about this thread, and I'm now convinced that gt20v is simply trolling for attention.
This crap that has been coming up, no-one with half a brain could possibly even consider it happening in reality.
I'll only make comments on aviation from here on, if anyone's interested any more.
|
High Five
Hate to say I told you soo.
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 11 January 2004 01:11
|
|
just had a little look at this thread....im not surprised that everone's against you. people love to make others look stupid and at the same time try to make themselves appear brilliant. Even if you make a valid point you will get a response like "grow up, youre an idiot"
The fact is that when this tower incident happend the U.S government was like "this is the best thing that could have happend"
they have no interst in giving us the full and true version of events..they have a lot of questions to answer and we will be a long time waiting.
they have a long history of interfering with things and killing inocent people to further their own political gains.
most people dont give a f..k anyway, theyre happy to have channel 9 or whatever shit media outlet tell them what to think (or not) and buy. - gee friends is on tv tonight and harvey norman has dvd's for $120.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 11 January 2004 02:15
|
|
|
interesting you say that, despite the number of people who have completely agreed that the media is, for the most part, largely unreliable
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 12 January 2004 05:43
|
|
| Quote: |
Whilst a 767/757 can carry that much fuel, they certainly would not have for a relatively short flight across the US. I'd guess maybe half that at best.
|
But that's not what we're told, we were told the plane was FULL of fuel because it have just taken off, either the media & government took a "guess" (which we're all against, right?), or they really know there's a lot of fuel in the plane??? OR the government is just trying to make the story sounds bigger!
| Quote: |
Add the element of surprise and even an experienced person will need to be lucky to avoid serious injury
|
Yes, but there's still a lot of people in this world that will try to fight it...
| Quote: |
In other words, the 'theory' of them hardly having any fuel on the planes is utterly rediculous
|
Which unless there's no plane in the first place... 
| Quote: |
a plane didn't hit tower 2?
|
I'm not dismissing this possibility either, look at CheevA's post
CheevA: Yeah, that was the link I was looking for about the hologram
| Quote: |
im not surprised that everone's against you. people love to make others look stupid and at the same time try to make themselves appear brilliant. Even if you make a valid point you will get a response like "grow up, youre an idiot"
|
chrisss: Yes you are very right, but in the end, they're the stupid one... 
Bill: You may find it surprising, but I remember reading an article about 1 year after the September incident, in the news article the Red Cross was telling there was "lack of" victim's family coming forth to claim their compensation funds, probably less than 1,000, there was a lot of important people that didn't go to work that morning, meeting locations moved, a lot of inside tradings, you really wonder how much people knew about this in advance, all WTC except WTC2 was evacuated after the WTC1 incident, but the people inside WTC2 was told to go back to their desk after the explosion in WTC1, so the victims are mostly what's in WTC2, and the passenger of the 4 planes which was killed some way or another, if only I could find the Red Cross article again.
| Quote: |
Most aircraft, especially large commercial American airlines have onboard phones you can use, built into the seats
|
Yeah, you need to enter your credit card details in there and wait for the validation, then enter the country code, area code, and phone number, and please wait while connecting etc...
| Quote: |
interesting read for the sensible, logical folk amongst us
|
Hi Ed: So how big IS the blast spike? There's no absolute reading of the magnitude, only the length of time?
And Ed: Thanks for posting the article about the steel, but did you understand it before posting it?? I'll give you an idea:
* At 550c, the steel retains 60% of the strength compared to if it was at
room temp. How much tolerance in the steel would they allow in a 100+ floor tower??
* The basic high temperature strength curve shown in Fig30 has been generated by testing a series of SMALL samples of steel in the laboratory, where the WHOLE of each test sample is at a UNIFORM temperature and is axially loaded
did you understand that???
* If a member is not uniformly heated, then when the hotter part of the section reaches it's limiting temp., will yield plastically & transfer load to cooler regoins of the section, which will still act elastically, Until temp. rises further, and the process continue etc.. until eventually the cool regions becomes SO HIGH that they eventually fails
How long and how much heat is needed? But that's not all..
* And if concrete is added, it protects the steel as well as act as a heat sink.
With all these characteristics, you will need a inferno that will continuely heat the huge steel beam, until the whole piece becomes so hot that it fails, where's the fire again?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?rea d=42511
If this story is true, why didn't we see it on the new? Is the government afraid that we will research more, if we saw it? They made a big fuss when they painted the Opera House... 
[Updated on: Mon, 12 January 2004 06:05]
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 12 January 2004 06:27
|
|
man, do i need to go find a 'bitch-slap' smiley or what
your persistent clingings to the most remote bits of dribble in order to raise ANY kind of validity issue within the rational statements posted thus far, is stupefying. and then you attempt to use these pitiful arguments with rational data, and extrapolate them as evidence to support some wild, hand-waving sensationalist crap.
yes, it was a lab sample test of an entire heated beam... so what?
do you KNOW the effect of spot heating as a stress riser in a loaded beam? NO
do you KNOW the loadings on the structural beams in the building? NO
do you have ANY data on temperatures withing the buildings? NO
do you have ANY data on lab validity testing? NO
yes concrete is an insulator... so what?
do you KNOW the functional structure of the building? NO
do you KNOW what percentage of any given beam length was encased in concrete? NO
do you KNOW the state of the beams and concrete at the time of the fire? NO
do you KNOW what the thickness of the concrete was? NO
do you KNOW what building fire standards were in use at the time of construction? NO
do you KNOW what air and exhaust flow circuits were established? NO
do you even know what kind of steel alloy was used? NO
secondly, the fact is there was NO blast spike. despite a truckload of anfos that took out 1/2 a building, there was no blast spike. and the data was recorded only 6km (mi?) away. on top of that, during the subsequent professional demolition, use of multiple small charges, again failed to demonstrate a seismic blast spike. yet you still maintain that, according to that seismic record you posted, some time INTO the seismic disturbance (ie after things started falling) some massive increase in activity is evidence for some kind of deliberate demolition.
as i said, you've presented ZERO data, but merely ask more and more pitiful questions of the existing, accepted data.
"any idiot can ask a question an intelligent person cannot answer"
HOW exactly does your mind work?
you have yet to present a coherent and logical argument to substantiate your imagination (or rather someone elses imagination which you are regurgitating)
here endeth my contributions to this thread.
[Updated on: Mon, 12 January 2004 06:39]
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 12 January 2004 09:29
|
|
| ed_ma61 wrote on Mon, 12 January 2004 17:27 |
HOW exactly does your mind work?
|
Ed, it doesn't. Please ignore this mindless cretin.
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 12 January 2004 09:43
|
|
stole my quote dave!
I spent the last half hour trying to remmeber that quote, 'cause if ever there was a time it applied, it was now!
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 02:24
|
|
| Quote: |
yes, it was a lab sample test of an entire heated beam... so what?
|
wtf? It's a lab sample test of a SMALL piece of sample
and why are you still going on about the effects of heat in a steel anyway? The only fire inside the WTC2 is a few desk and few pieces of paper, try and melt steel with that!
| Quote: |
despite a truckload of anfos that took out 1/2 a building, there was no blast spike.
|
And who said that? There is a blast spike, but so what? What's the magnitude of that compared to the WTC? You can't even show that, and you posted a link trying to tell us the bombing created a big spike, but how big? If there's no possible comparison, why waste your time posting the graph? Or did you think that was a valid argument, you tried to pretend that you understand the whole issues, but you are the real idiot even though you tried many times to prove you are smarter, at least I don't try to sound smart, but are just raising obvious questions that are in the stories, and any idiot would've noticed the obvious problems in the official story, but no, you try to retaliate with some invalid argument with less data than the official story, problem #1, there's no fire in the WTC2, but no, you goes on and explain how steel reacts to fire, ask what alloys is in the steel, what load on the steel like the builder never thought about giving a bit more tolerance, but DUH, there problem is there's no fire? Problem #2, The data shows there's huge spike before the collapse of the 2 towers, magnitude 17 times of when the plane shook the tower and brought it down, either there's no plane, or there's a lot of explosives, but no, you goes on and post another link telling us, there's also a blast spike in previous bombings, of coz there's spike, but how big?
If you think you're too smart to post, then you better DON'T post, because we're not here to argue as you thought, same as gianttomato, you're not even here to discuss, but instead just comes in every now and again to add flames, if you're a decent man, post somewhere else! 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 02:55
|
|
it's amazing how you can make judgements like taht about people you've never met.
it's also amazing that you think a force 17 times greater than a jet hitting the wtc would be required to bring it down. if they wqanted to hide it, which you assume they would, they'd use a controlled demolition of 1 floor, and that would be enough to get the momentum going, and would produce far less force than a jumbo hitting the towers.
Of course that said, it's a far more viable explanation than the farciacal "tomohawk missle with inbuilt hologram made to look like a jet" explanation.
and since the lack of logical argument is starting to get infuriating, I'm gonna join dave and ed.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 03:04
|
|
| Quote: |
they'd use a controlled demolition of 1 floor, and that would be enough to get the momentum going
|
So Draven, you really believe in the media's report, of how if 1 floor of the tower start collapsing, it is really enough to bring the tower down??? This momentum BS is made up by the media, otherwise that would be the method used by professional demolitions!
and the missile theory could be possible too, because I'm sure you remembered the sharp banking of the huge 757, followed by the disappearance of the 757 into the tower, you would have thought the engines which are mounted on the wings, would explode (you would at least see a bit of flame) on impact with the steel columns outside the tower, but the 757 really just "disappeared" into the tower, this theory could also explain the lack of fuel.
But I hope you don't really believe the "1 floor collapse, the whole tower will implode" theory, as if you do, you've been brainwashed by the media...
btw, what judgements did I make about what people?
[Updated on: Tue, 13 January 2004 03:06]
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 04:37
|
|
*sign*
Wasted words on the trolls, but for the edification of the others here -
But that's not what we're told, we were told the plane was FULL of fuel because it have just taken off, either the media & government took a "guess" (which we're all against, right?), or they really know there's a lot of fuel in the plane??? OR the government is just trying to make the story sounds bigger!
It takes about five & a bit hours to cross the US in a 767/757. They can carry a good ten hours of fuel.
So (Pay attention now) they did not have full tanks. We're only required to carry the fuel sufficient to do the flight plus 30 mins & 5%. (This varies with each airline, but such figures are common)
That's how I can up with the fuel figure I mentioned previous - It wasn't a random guess.
and the missile theory could be possible too,
WHAT missle 'theory'?
If a 767 was fired upon by any air-to-air missile, they simply cannot turn anything like fast enough to evade anything at all. They can in the movies, but real life is somewhat different.
I had a mate that flew IAI Westwinds (like a Learjet) on contract for the Air Force in Aus, as a mobile target for the F-18's to intercept on.
He said absolutely <i>everything</i> they tried failed when they tried to get away. There was nothing at all they could do to get the F-18's off their tail, even the movie tricks such as 'hitting the brakes and they'll fly right past us' rubbish.
An airliner is maybe 20% as manoeuverable as a Westwind.
IF you mean some other nutcase theory as to a missle hitting the Towers, there is the slight problem that no-one anywhere saw a missile. If such a theory exists, there is no way to co-ordinate the impact of the missile with the plane at the surface of the Tower, especially twice in a row.
Suffice to say both 'theories' are utter rubbich.
because I'm sure you remembered the sharp banking of the huge 757, followed by the disappearance of the 757 into the tower,
At 450-500kts a plane (doesn't matter what sort, physics is physics) will only turn at a couple of degrees per second. Not exactly a fast rate of turn considering that at such a rate it takes over two minutes to do a 360deg turn.
you would have thought the engines which are mounted on the wings, would explode
Why on earth would they 'explode'? They hold very little fuel and have almost no parts that will burn. True enough they have a great deal of kinetic energy stored in them from the rotating sections, but they will not make much of a flaming explosion as such.
this theory could also explain the lack of fuel.
Which has already been debunked completely. See above for that proof.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 04:49
|
|
actually, the reason demo teams use charges on multiple floors is to aid in their control of the fall, so that the building falls exactly how they want it. The more charges used, the less error there will be.
I'm sure you're also aware that the explosives are detonated in a short-delay sequence, so there would be no single blast spike as a result of that
the wtc would have, conservatively, 3 damaged floors. when one falls, the one under it, alreadyt damaged, would fall, and the one after that. By that time, you have 3 floors worth of energy falling, and I very much doubt that a single floor of the wtc could withstand that sort of energy.
[Updated on: Tue, 13 January 2004 04:51]
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 16:45
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Tue, 13 January 2004 15:37 |
they did not have full tanks.
|
So we are mislead by the media who told us it had full tanks?
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Tue, 13 January 2004 15:37 |
If a 767 was fired upon by any air-to-air missile, they simply cannot turn anything like fast enough to evade anything at all..... etc.etc.etc.
|
Didn't you see that a holographic image can be installed in a cruise missile, which projects itself as a missile? What the theory is trying to say is, the missile is the plane and the plane IS the cruise missile, this was invented in the 1994
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Tue, 13 January 2004 15:37 |
At 450-500kts a plane (doesn't matter what sort, physics is physics) will only turn at a couple of degrees per second. Not exactly a fast rate of turn considering that at such a rate it takes over two minutes to do a 360deg turn.
|
but the video shows a sharp bank before hitting WTC2, does it mean it's not a plane?
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Tue, 13 January 2004 15:37 |
Why on earth would they 'explode'?
|
sorry I should mean the part of the plane that holds the fuel, that should ignite on contact with the steel of the exterior of the building
So Draven, you believed you needed multiple charges to keep the demolition "error free" so as not to fall over itself, but you also believed that 2 planes hitting the 2 towers RANDOMLY, at 2 different places, would have demolished the 2 WTC perfectly?
[Updated on: Tue, 13 January 2004 16:47]
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 13 January 2004 23:59
|
|
|
as has already been mentioned on more than one occasion, the wtc demolitions were far from perfect, caused extensive damage to the surrounding buildings, and spread rubble over a massive area
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 00:01
|
|
|
I also like the way that as soon as a valid point is made (about, say, the effect of momentum of the fall of the building) that it's just ignored and on we move to the next item
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 01:01
|
|
I cant believe you guys are still responding to this thread.
GT20V is a CHUMP
He claims to have an open, well informed mind, But in reality is more a product of the misinformed media than anyone.
GT20V You have been had. You claim the US and allied governments have misled us all, but in reality you are the God of fabrication and regurgitation. YOU perpetuate the curse of mans greatest weakness - Pure uninformed speculation.
It will be the downfall of us all.
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 01:36
|
|
special ed dude.....please tell us more of your views of this "missinformed media".
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 03:22
|
|
What and perpetuate the shit, I dont pretend to know what happened, I prefer though to go with the findings of the mainstream media backed by common sense and the testimony of the engineers that built the wtc, these are aligned with my professional understanding of the topics discussed, if the events were not reasonably explained then I may look further. But they are so I wont.
GT20V do you work for a current affair ?
Shite of his quality is common place on ACA.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 03:57
|
|
So we are mislead by the media who told us it had full tanks?
True, the ignorant and the gullable would believe such a thing. It's just plain wrong, and the media know very little about aeroplanes.
Didn't you see that a holographic image can be installed in a cruise missile, which projects itself as a missile? What the theory is trying to say is, the missile is the plane and the plane IS the cruise missile, this was invented in the 1994
There is no such technology.
but the video shows a sharp bank before hitting WTC2, does it mean it's not a plane?
I did not infer that it wasn't.
sorry I should mean the part of the plane that holds the fuel, that should ignite on contact with the steel of the exterior of the building
Why would it? This isn't a Hollywood movie where massive explosions occur at the drop of a hat. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the fuel tank (the technical term for "the part of the plane that holds the fuel") remained basically intact as the wing went through the outer skin of the building, and then started to vent fuel as the tanks came apart inside the building.
I may well be wrong about that though.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 05:40
|
|
It was definitly the Martians, there is no other plausible explination.
(note EXTREME SARCASM.)
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 09:04
|
|
| draven wrote on Wed, 14 January 2004 11:01 |
I also like the way that as soon as a valid point is made (about, say, the effect of momentum of the fall of the building) that it's just ignored and on we move to the next item
|
How was it ignored, I'm telling you the momentum theory is full of shit, but you choose to believe in it because the media and their "experts" say it's possible, (for the floor to fall into itself so perfectly from 100+ levels to the ground level!) even though there's a picture (faked) showing the top of the tower tilting towards the left, you still believed the whole tower will collapse into itself perfectly, due to the momentum theory. (So there's no discussion about it!)
| Bill's quote |
There is no such technology
|
NO SUCH TECHNOLOGY??? See the link in the US army website! http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.h tm
| Bill's quote |
Why would it? This isn't a Hollywood movie where massive explosions occur at the drop of a hat. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the fuel tank (the technical term for "the part of the plane that holds the fuel") remained basically intact as the wing went through the outer skin of the building, and then started to vent fuel as the tanks came apart inside the building.
I may well be wrong about that though.
|
well, your guess is the fuel tank went through the steel tube without blowing up, my guess is, it's not possible for the tank to pass the outer steel barrier before blowing up, so who's right? My guess is, they are steel tubes, with the plane going at that velocity, it would've split the fuel tank in half, thus blowing it up.
And yeah, this is not a Hollywood movie, but it sure comes with Hollywood special effect doesn't it?
| Bill's quote |
and the media know very little about aeroplanes
|
But you believe in every else they say? So they know so little about planes, but they know so much about everything else? How can a mere "momentum" & "pancake" theory be trusted so easy by you which is otherwise supposed to be a smart person?
Special Ed: What's the flaming about? If you're not interested, stay away, don't start to get personal! 
[Updated on: Wed, 14 January 2004 09:08]
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 09:30
|
|
yeesssss.....
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/
"The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Ronald R.Fogleman, tasked the Air University at Maxwell AFB, AL to look 30 years into the future to identify the concepts, capabilities and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the 21st century.Study participants used a forecasting technique known as alternate futures to help them envision an array of future worlds in which the U.S. must be able to survive and prosper in the year 2025"
but my guess is this is all a cover, and all of the technologies are up and running...
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 09:35
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Wed, 14 January 2004 20:04 |
My guess is, they are steel tubes, with the plane going at that velocity, it would've split the fuel tank in half, thus blowing it up.
|
Have you ever seen someone put out a fire with petrol ?
It can be done quite easily if you understand the priciples involved. Which you obviously dont.
Also Just because a tank has ruptured does not mean it will instantly explode. nor does it mean that if some of it is alight that all of it will be instantly consumed in a massive explosion.
The pissy little fireball that came from the 2nd tower would have only burnt the small aount of fuel that had time to form an explosive mixture, ie. most probably a small percentage of the total. The rest would have coated/ flooded the damaged floors and then released vapour which could ignite fueling very hot fires for quite some time.
| gt20v wrote on Wed, 14 January 2004 20:04 |
How can a mere "momentum" & "pancake" theory be trusted so easy by you which is otherwise supposed to be a smart person?
|
Because these theories ARE plausible to intelligent people.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 09:39
|
|
I dont care what the media says about the momentum theory - I'm arguing based on physics!
even year 11 physics would give enough grounding to understand how it is a sensible theory. as each floor collapses, the momentum increases, as the mass of the falling structure increases, and by the time you're out of the damaged floors there is enough force to take out the undamaged floors.
and for what must be at least the fifth time, it was not a well controlled fall, and there was a large amount of damage to the surrounding area & buildings!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 14:49
|
|
NO SUCH TECHNOLOGY??? See the link in the US army website! http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.h tm
Firstly that the Air Force, not the Army.
Secondly, that's a theoretical device, not a real one.
As I wrote, no such technology exists.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 15:15
|
|
wow mr GT20V is still crapping on about WTC conspiracies?
its obvious that this dude isnt going to come close to understanding what happened, because some crazy bastard thought up a pretty story about pres. bush being the sole cause of everything gone wrong, ever... and the poor sod took the bait.. hook line and sinker
gt20v
for the safety of the human race, i urge you not to have children...
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 15:35
|
|
| Quote: |
The rest would have coated/ flooded the damaged floors and then released vapour which could ignite fueling very hot fires for quite some time.
|
So where is the very hot fire that burnt for quite some time in WTC2??
| Quote: |
Because these theories ARE plausible to intelligent people.
|
Which is the 95% of the people in this world?? Hmm... that figure rings a bell....
| Draven's Quote |
and by the time you're out of the damaged floors there is enough force to take out the undamaged floors
|
Then here's something for you to think about tonight, even if the theory of the momentum of the falling floors that's creating momentum to destroy the lower floors is true, even if that theory is right, where's the momentum that's destroying the centre solid steel + concrete foundation which is in the middle of the tower stuck right down into the ground, this is what the 95% of the world never thought about! Even if the momentum could strip off all the floors, but the middle solid column would've remained standing! Or at least remained in ONE piece, but no, it disappeared!
| Quote: |
there was a large amount of damage to the surrounding area & buildings
|
What you considered "large amount" of damage is actually NOWHERE near the damage that a disaster of an uncontrolled collapse would've caused by a 100+ floor building!
| Bill's quote |
that's a theoretical device
|
This along with plenty of projects have began in 1994, 10 years ago, in the last 10 years technology advanced the most it ever had in the past decades, in consumer technology, they are already able to project a 3D image in mid air as released a few years ago, the current technology of laser and optics are far more advanced than you think, imagine what classified technology have they got behind us, remember internet was invented decades before it came into public use, and projecting a holographic 3D image is already possible in the consumer world.
EDIT: These are some consumer products examples...
This looks slightly fake, but they can project any image
Here is another type..:
No, these m&m are actually FAKE!
http://www.optigone.com/http://www.optigone.com/blue_car2_small.jpg
Imagine what better technology the military's got? Do a search on the net, I'm sure there's better ones!
alwaysRA23: It won't make any difference if I have any children, because for civilisation to work, we need 95% of the people like you to be used by the government, and that's already working very well... 
[Updated on: Wed, 14 January 2004 15:48]
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 15:48
|
|
I'll hazard a guess that my understanding of physics is better than yours.
I'll also hazard a guess that the structural engineers writing reports on the collapse have a better understanding of physics than me. So I'm going to take their word for it, especially since it happens to be exactly in line with what I would expect to happen.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 22:03
|
|
Did you go back to the home page of that site to see that it is a HYPOTHETICAL discussion on future warfare, 25 years into the future in fact. This is not technology that exists today.
| Quote: |
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&f ile=article&sid=410
The Baghdad plan involved projecting a giant hologram over Iraq. This kind of projection requires a mirror behind it. The scale of the project dictated a mirror several kilometres across up in space. So far the largest mirror developed has been 30 metres wide and present versions are too small to produce a convincing image at ground level.
|
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 22:18
|
|
Interesting that those m&m's have a reflection, in my basic understanding of physics a holographic projection produces no reflection.
For that matter i didn't think it was possible to Photograph a hologram, as it is just an optical illusion designed to trick the human eye.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 14 January 2004 23:23
|
|
From the site that produced this image ->
"While often appearing in Science Fiction films, there is actually no such thing as true 3D Holographic Projection. Supposedly holographic projection technologies are just that....Science Fiction. In the movies, these life-sized illusions are simply film special effects that can not be repeated in the real world.
They use a translucent screen to project the image on to.
As I wrote above, this technology does not exist.
From the site that produced this image ->
It's done with a small gadget that only has a very limited veiwing area, and is also about ten times larger than the object it's showing.
Like this -> 
This is getting REALLY boring ....
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 00:33
|
|
Ok, GT20V, if you can explain to me how you can STOP a photon in mid air, then I will beleive you on that holographic thing.
Fact is, its impossible to stop light dead in its tracks.
It defies physics at its most basic level
As does your mind atm
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 01:06
|
|
| Quote: |
Interesting that those m&m's have a reflection, in my basic understanding of physics a holographic projection produces no reflection
|
Your basic understanding of physics is too basic, there's a lot of ways to produce holographic images.
And WHY isn't it possible to photograph a hologram??? Light is light, what you see is light, and if you can see it, you can photograph it!!
| Quote: |
Did you go back to the home page of that site to see that it is a HYPOTHETICAL discussion on future warfare, 25 years into the future in fact. This is not technology that exists today.
|
Did you go back to the site to find out the project started 1994 along with many other projects which was 10 years ago, think back 10 years ago. And you great little Intel 386!
| Quote: |
there is actually no such thing as true 3D Holographic Projection
|
Doesn't mean they can't produce a 3D holographic image that is enough to convince 95% of the people in the world!
From the same website:
Laser Magic Productions of Playa del Rey, California has developed a family of 3D projection technologies that accomplish the illusion of Holographic 3D Projection. By harnessing the unique capabilities of laser light, Holography and other optical technologies Laser Magic has developed several real-time technologies to project images into 3D space. These technologies are patented, patent pending or proprietary to Laser Magic.
You're not reading the whole story!
We can make life sized holograms of moving people and things. Pretty much any object or person can be captured in full moving 3D by our holographic processes.
As I'm saying, this is PUBLICLY available CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY, nothing classified, not military secrets. Imagine what military can develop,
And this "plane" doesn't need to look real! To appear less than 1 second around WTC, and I bet every single person would swear they saw a plane crash into the tower! Video & Sound & Pictures doesn't really count as evidence anymore! As we all know how simple the Hollywood effects are! The true "witnesses" don't get interviewed, they are harassed by FBIs, fireman recording tells there's no inferno in WTC, WTC2 workers are told to stay inside WTC2 after WTC1 blew up (so they can get killed?) but so much important information are covered up..
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
http://www.raven1.net/arkin.htm
Bush Admin is guilty
http://www.uspoliticstoday.com/news.php?nid=3889
Other interesting link.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=& Board=news_history&Number=1150587&page=&am p;view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=1#Post115058 7
911 Made Simple
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=& Board=news_members&Number=1167948&t=-1
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 01:07
|
|
GT20V,
if you would like to go through life thinking the government is using and abusing ur civil rights, thats up to you.
you clearly belong in an insane asylum, you have mental issues apon mental issues.
the simple fact of the matter is... the towers did fall. because a bloody great big plane flew into them..
No im not into physics, but i have thought about this subject alot,
now the way i think about it is.... a fuckin huge aeroplane blasted out a few floors.... with hi octane aviation type fuel spewing everywhere burning the shit outta everything..
NOW, because the plane didnt hit the very top of the building.. uve got.. say 20?? (prolly more than that) floors of wieght ontop of those few fucked up floors!
because the integrity of those few floors has been compromised buy geez i dunno... A FUCKIN HUGE JET PLANE running into the side of it....
with all the walls onfire, the roof on fire, and everything on fire... the wieght of those floors above has just come crashing down thru the floors below.... and there were a fair few floors coming down... how much do you think they would weigh? 20 tonnes? 200 tonnes? i dont know.. but thats a whole lotta building coming down fast... straight thru the fucked up floors below..
and well... the only thing thats going to stop all that mass from falling any further is going to be supermans dick, or the floor...
thats what happened... more or less.. no goverment conspiracies... no flying hologram... no demolition team.... thats what happened.. get over it.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 01:15
|
|
| Quote: |
how you can STOP a photon in mid air
|
There's still no prove of what light consist of, and light can be energy, it can be bent, it can be reflected, as below, the image doesn't even need to look real, it only need to decept the majority of "eye witnesses", news videos can be faked, real videos can be confiscated if the idiot eye witness is stupid enough to hand it to the media. This is a mass cover-up, there are too many possibilities, and theories, but more people is starting to realise the junk of the media and government's reports. Check out this link: http://www.uspoliticstoday.com/news.php?nid=3889
[Updated on: Thu, 15 January 2004 01:18]
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 01:19
|
|
what is this? gt20v's walking advertisement for other peoples websites... "oooh, a forum, somewhere i can spread my propoganda"
you remind me of the frickin lunatic clubs in the uni union...
yes yes, purport your argument, then add a few random links for the encouragable to feed upon. nice work.
im done with this
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 01:21
|
|
ahmen cruzsida,
the simple fact is.. GT20V is indeed a cock,
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 01:22
|
|
| alwaysRA23 wrote on Thu, 15 January 2004 12:07 |
now the way i think about it is.... a fuckin huge aeroplane blasted out a few floors.... with hi octane aviation type fuel spewing everywhere burning the shit outta everything..
with all the walls onfire, the roof on fire, and everything on fire...
|
You still don't friggen get it! THERE IS NO FUCKIN INFERNO IN THE WTC2!! You obviously have been in a cave for a while!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 03:35
|
|
|
we've been here before, we're going in circles
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 16:29
|
|
harassment of Mohamed Atta's neighbours, video interview of his girlfriend?
(You can dismiss this for no credibility)
http://www.madcowprod.com/indexbb.html
A News media in UK reporting the number of death are not as high as reported by US media
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,36 04,581167,00.html
Yes maybe this has been said many times, official investigation of the report tells us the collapse of the tower is due to high volume of jet fuel forming an inferno inside the towers, therefore virtually melting the steel support of the tower... WTC2 was hit last, with most fuels splashed outside the tower, eye witnesses and fireman on site told us there was no inferno in WTC2, only small fires, a few people walked out alive from the floors that the plane crashed into! They did not get vaporised, but the WTC2 ended up being the first to fall, so where is the inferno that caused the WTC2 to collapse?
Can't believe we have people that ignores this simple fact, and would rather direct personal attacks than researching the real truth, sore losers!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 15 January 2004 23:23
|
|
|
their totals of close to 3000 are a little more generous (and believable) than your suggestion of 1000
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 16 January 2004 01:42
|
|
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the real tragedy of September 11 attack on the WTC is that none of these conspiracy theory nutbags died and thus wouldn't have been able to post a bunch a crap on the internet to excite the more easily led and less scientifically rigorous amoung us. All this crap is just one junk theory supporting another to "prove" a third.
Holographic planes that bend the laws of physics? You would prefer to believe this than some rather basic chemistry and enginnering principles?
Are you sure they were holograms projected by cruise missiles? Perhaps they were simply UFO'S DISGUISED TO LOOK LIKE PLANES!! And their strange alien craft exploded in such a strange alien way to bring the towers down in they way they eventually collapsed!! Why do you continue to ignore this EVIDENCE!!! gt20v, you and those websites are hiding the REAL truth of ALIEN CONSPIRACIES. You are another government plant trying to throw us seekers of the truth off the scent!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 16 January 2004 04:01
|
|
| lumpy wrote on Fri, 16 January 2004 12:42 |
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the real tragedy of September 11 attack on the WTC is that none of these conspiracy theory nutbags died...
|
Wouldn't most of the people in the WTC be working, which I think makes it largely impossible for all these conspiracy theorists to be there at that time.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 16 January 2004 04:04
|
|
|
There appears to be a reflection immediately below the m&ms as we see them...hrmmm looks like a handfull of m&m's on a mirror to me.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 16 January 2004 04:13
|
|
| draven wrote on Fri, 16 January 2004 10:23 |
their totals of close to 3000 are a little more generous (and believable) than your suggestion of 1000
|
Yeah, sorry Draven, it's been a couple of years since I've read the article, it's a coincident that I've found it again, but obviously the media was exaggerating! And I thought it was important to bring it out.. (Total < 3000, compared to the <> 10,000 that the media told us!)
| Quote: |
Holographic planes that bend the laws of physics? You would prefer to believe this than some rather basic chemistry and enginnering principles?
|
Who said the holographic bent the law of physics? I said the plane doesn't need to look perfectly real, because 90% of people isn't looking up in the sky, and in that 10% of people that is looking in the sky, 95% of them would swear they saw a plane in that very short 1 second! (Even though they don't really know WHAT THEY SAW!) So how little people do they need to deceive?
People still can't accept something is wrong, after the FBI recovers the surviving the terrorist's passport from the plane that hit the WTC, no crash site in Pennsylvania except a bomb crater, no crash site in Pentagon, the lawn is untouched although we were told by "eye-witness" that the plane had first hit the ground, then into the building, causing no major damage! WTC2 collapsed first although there was no major fire, 2 plane hit the WTC and Bush continues to read to primary school students like nothing happened after his assistant notified him, and Bush said he thought it's an accident even though the weather was all clear (he should have at least left to investigate!), FBI releases names that are of people that is still alive, doesn't investigate further, but these terrorist names are not even in the flight passenger list!
When you have all these doubts, there's no way you can find the real truth, because it's obvious there's a cover up, so who's benefiting from this? Bin Laden said he wasn't behind it, but US government found the "smoking gun" of a confession video, with a Bin Laden that doesn't look like Bin Laden, the real BL wore a watch and no ring, but the confession video BL had a ring on! His complexion really dark, face is much fatter! It's 2 different people!
Bin Laden was a rich man, all rich man wants is either more money, or power, and the terror strike doesn't give him any of that! People are brainwashed into thinking that "extreme terrorist" would do anything! But they don't sacrifice for nothing, those terrorist that we were told that was on the flight were muslims that had history of drugs, womens and alcohol, I'm sure they won't be going to go to heaven!
While at all these times, who's making the money? US media is Israel owned, insider trading before 911, insurance premium enough to cover the buildings with money to spare, US reconstruction of Iraq (US is not letting many other country do this job!)
btw, I've found the insider trading article, it's also linked to the original UK media http://www.independent.co.uk/ , but the article has been archived, so you can only see the first 2 paragraphs, but here's the link of a copy of the article..
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/stocks- trades/9-11-trades.txt
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/stocks- trades/9-11-trading.txt
[Updated on: Fri, 16 January 2004 04:15]
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown, NSW, Austra...
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 16 January 2004 23:56
|
|
This is purley ridiclous.
You claim that the planes that ran into the WTC were a holographic projecton (esp tower 2 correct?).
I don't think the technology exists to the point where it is possible to be used in such a way. And IF the US government is so shady then why didn't they just get a readliy avialable plane and use that, why do to the expense of trying to fool everyone. It defies logic.
I personly think that 9/11 was the result of America's arogance and the incompetence of its multiple security agencies, that and the hate it has attaracted through its military opperations over the past 20 years.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 18 January 2004 03:16
|
|
| Camry_omega wrote on Sat, 17 January 2004 10:56 |
You claim that the planes that ran into the WTC were a holographic projecton (esp tower 2 correct?).
|
Sorry, I didn't claim it did, I said it was possible, there's a hundred possibilities, and I bring them out to suggest, because the way the plane "disappeared" inside the building without reaction, is a really suspicious sight.
| Quote: |
I don't think the technology exists to the point where it is possible to be used in such a way.
|
I don't think anyone except people in the top secret sector can answer this
| Quote: |
And IF the US government is so shady then why didn't they just get a readliy avialable plane and use that
|
It had been suggested before that the government used a military plane, disgusted it as a 757 (mould & paint it into the same colour and shape), had computer remote control from the ground etc. This is the second possibility
The third possibility is a 757 has been designed so it can be computer controlled from the ground up anyway, but the maneuver shown in the video seems too shift for a jumbo
| Quote: |
why do to the expense of trying to fool everyone. It defies logic.
|
What expense? The government is MAKING money, you citizens are the one losing money! By the time the Bush Administrations is gone, he'll be filthy rich! Politics is about themselves, not about YOU!
| Quote: |
I personly think that 9/11 was the result of America's arogance and the incompetence of its multiple security agencies, that and the hate it has attaracted through its military opperations over the past 20 years.
|
Yes & maybe, but doesn't matter where you are in the world, there's US spies, Bush knew 9/11 in advance! Maybe US had created hatred for themselves, but doesn't mean another country is able to pull such a stunt without US knowing! Bin Laden said he didn't mastermind it! And the evidence that Bush knew is surfacing everywhere as we speak.
|
|
|
| Pages (5):
[ 4 ]
|
  |
| Current Time:
Wed Apr 9 09:43:52 UTC 2025 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.018638134002686 seconds |
