| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 22 December 2003 08:56
|
 |
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm
have anyone done some good physics, and is it true that a 757 can't fly below certain altitude at 300 knots due to aerodynamic reasons??
|
|
|
Location:
I wanna go Hawaiiiiii.......
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 22 December 2003 13:32
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Tue, 02 December 2003 12:05 |
but dude, how fast are you travelling when you get close to the runway? and before you land on the runway? less than 20 knots
|
So they're not flying just before they land ?
A controlled plummet maybe?
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 22 December 2003 14:11
|
|
sorry I may have confused you as the article was too big... I was actually referring to this...
| Quote: |
Add the aerodynamic issue of "Ground Effect." A high-speed wing would create a compression layer between the wing and the ground. The wing could NOT descend into that "Ground Effect" region, without being in a pronounced dive - which is an impossibility - relative to the "official" story.
|
the "media" said the 757 was travelling at 300 knots, so if there's such thing as the "Ground Effect" then what is the minimum altitude that is possible for the plane to be travelling?
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 22 December 2003 14:14
|
|
| Special Ed wrote on Tue, 23 December 2003 00:32 |
So they're not flying just before they land ?
A controlled plummet maybe?
|
hope you weren't trying to make fun of the topic, but the speed of the plane before it was landing must be too low to cause such problems
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 22 December 2003 22:11
|
|
I read most of that page... the guy sounds like he's full of shit to me.
He doesn't offer any more real proof than the videos I watched *live* while the event was happening. I know what I saw, and he's trying to refute it.
I reckon he's just got nothing better to bitch about.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 22 December 2003 22:18
|
|
One of the biggest things that convinces me that it cannot be a conspiracy is the stories not from the media, but from the people who were there and saw the whole thing. I know a guy who was there for a conference at the Hilton (i think that's what it is) that was just at the base of the towers. He told me his story, and you could really tell it had affected him deeply.
When he desribed the planes HITTING the towers and such (which he saw with his eyes) and desribed the horror of people burning to death around him as they got showered with plane fuel, the horror of realising that those weren't bit of the building, but people falling out of the top windows etc etc, there was NO DOUBT that the planes actually hit.
And quite frankly, you may be entitled to your opinion, and fair enough I respect that, but honestly, you are flogging a dead horse and it's starting to piss me off.
[Updated on: Mon, 22 December 2003 22:19]
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 13:06
|
|
Of course the WTC is a tragady,but really the govt needed an exuse to go to war on the middle east and that provided it.
In my opinion they knew about it and let it happen just so they could go to war and get the oil supplies for themselves.
Just like i think the us knew about the bali bombing but didn't warn anyone to shore up Aus waning support for the war on terror.
Also looked at several articles on the pentagon hit and there definatly was no plane as far as i'm concerned.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and thats mine.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 13:16
|
|
|
They didn't just go to war for oil. There are other reasons. But for none of the reasons they have stated... well not directly. They don't care about the Iraqi people, and there are no weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 13:24
|
|
funny how bush has had to steadily retreat from "they have wmd and are ready to launch them now" to what is now "they may have had plans to acquire wmd at a future date"
I wonder how many people he thinks he's really fooling?
he used a lie to effectively invade and occupy a country.
sure, saddam was an evil bastard and I'm gald he's out of power, but that does not excuse the invasion & occupation of another country... something america has avoided avidly since the cold war.. and you'd think someone would learn from vietnam.... anyone know if they're still averaging losing 1 american soldier a day?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 13:39
|
|
Nam is the reason they did this. Think about it, since Nam, America has been avoid conflicts like the plague. You do that too long, and people start to think your piss weak. America needed to invade some countries as a show of force. Afghanistan and Iraq just happened to be convenient targets without many powerful friends.
There are plenty of violet countries that have weapons of mass destruction, including nukes. Does America invade them? No. Why? 'cuz those countries, no matter how oppressive, are on Americas 'side'. America, or rather the CIA has funded fascist governments overthrowing democratic governments, 'cuz the democratic government didn't let America just walk all over them.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 15:06
|
|
| Caledwvech wrote on Tue, 23 December 2003 09:18 |
I know a guy who was there for a conference at the Hilton (i think that's what it is) that was just at the base of the towers. He told me his story, and you could really tell it had affected him deeply.
|
WTF? Who said there wasn't any plane at the WTC? Of coz there is, I think you're missing the point, the guy is trying to prove that there's no plane at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania man...
But back to the original question, is it true that there is a certain minimum altitude when a plane is flying 300 knots because of the so called "compression layer"???
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 15:09
|
|
| Shraka wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 00:39 |
There are plenty of violet countries that have weapons of mass destruction, including nukes. Does America invade them? No. Why? 'cuz those countries, no matter how oppressive, are on Americas 'side'.
|
North Korea wasn't at US's side, and they clearly declare they have nuclear and will make more nuclear weapon, right after US invaded Afhan and planning their invasion into Iraq, but why didn't US invade North Korea???? It's because of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, what's the point of invading North Korea? No money there!
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 15:11
|
|
| Shraka wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 00:16 |
They didn't just go to war for oil. There are other reasons. But for none of the reasons they have stated... well not directly. They don't care about the Iraqi people, and there are no weapons of mass destruction.
|
I reckon Jnr Bush's reason for invasion of Iraq is fairly personnal!  Coz Snr Bush failed in the 90s, so now US has got more power and money, and Iraq is not as strong as it was in the 90s, so it's a good time to do it! 
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 15:16
|
|
| M.J.H wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 00:06 |
Of course the WTC is a tragady,but really the govt needed an exuse to go to war on the middle east and that provided it.
In my opinion they knew about it and let it happen just so they could go to war and get the oil supplies for themselves.
Just like i think the us knew about the bali bombing but didn't warn anyone to shore up Aus waning support for the war on terror.
Also looked at several articles on the pentagon hit and there definatly was no plane as far as i'm concerned.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and thats mine.
|
It's a tragedy, but we will never know who is the REAL terrorist...
Good that you agree there's no plane at the Pentagon, but the next obvious question is: "Where's the 757 that was hi-jacked that was reported by our "TRUSTWORTHY" media to have crashed into the Pentagon?" Now the media and the US knows something but they're not telling us..
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 21:06
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Mon, 22 December 2003 19:56 |
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm
have anyone done some good physics, and is it true that a 757 can't fly below certain altitude at 300 knots due to aerodynamic reasons??
|
Absolute rot.
You can fly as low as you like.
Bill S, 747 pilot.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 22:14
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 02:06 |
| Caledwvech wrote on Tue, 23 December 2003 09:18 |
I know a guy who was there for a conference at the Hilton (i think that's what it is) that was just at the base of the towers. He told me his story, and you could really tell it had affected him deeply.
|
WTF? Who said there wasn't any plane at the WTC? Of coz there is, I think you're missing the point, the guy is trying to prove that there's no plane at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania man...
But back to the original question, is it true that there is a certain minimum altitude when a plane is flying 300 knots because of the so called "compression layer"???
|
Ok fair enough. I was talking in relation to the last thread where it was trying to be proven that it's almost impossible to fly a jet at that speed into a building of that size, and was therefore very unlikely that it did happen. My bad. 
In regards to the "compression layer". No. That is not the case. You can most definitely fly a plane at any level (except for maybe on the ground  ) at any speed. Planes are my hobby, and I have studied them A LOT.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 02:29
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 02:09 |
North Korea wasn't at US's side, and they clearly declare they have nuclear and will make more nuclear weapon, right after US invaded Afhan and planning their invasion into Iraq, but why didn't US invade North Korea???? It's because of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, what's the point of invading North Korea? No money there!
|
Also, they probably would have lost. I think you will find that North Korea has friends in powerfull places, whereas Iraq and Afganistan do not. Also, I think you will find that North Korea lets America get away with a lot more than some other countries do.
As for flying a 747 at any altetude at any speed. I'm sure it would be more dificult to fly a 747 at low altetude at 300 knots than an intermediate pilot could muster.
September 11th was a tregedy for Americans... September 11th 1973, and South Americans that is. Read More.
[Updated on: Wed, 24 December 2003 02:42]
|
|
|
Location:
Brisvegas
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 04:41
|
|
| Quote: |
have anyone done some good physics, and is it true that a 757 can't fly below certain altitude at 300 knots due to aerodynamic reasons??
|
ground effect is somewhere in the vicinity of 100ft but its definition by nature is buoyancy...at that level the current of air being generated by the plane and it being so low the air hits the ground and heads straight back up towards the plane forcing it higher from the ground
the only reason i could think of why a plane couldn't fly below a certain altitude at a certain speed would be due to the engines stalling not for aerodynamics...that level obviously differs depending on the plane...not sure what it would be for a 747
where's bill sherwood when you need him 
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 05:39
|
|
| Caledwvech wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 09:14 |
Ok fair enough. I was talking in relation to the last thread where it was trying to be proven that it's almost impossible to fly a jet at that speed into a building of that size, and was therefore very unlikely that it did happen. My bad.
|
nah, last time I mentioned it's really hard to believe any un-experienced pilot will be able to pull that stunt, we were suspecting it was remote computer controls that overrided the man control, and the 60 degree turn that the plane did before hitting tower #2 cannot be done without overridding the computer because the normal 757 wouldn't have allowed such turns (the on-board safety computer won't let you do it, maximum angle was 30 degree or something)
the funny thing is 7 of the named "suicide terrorist" came forward to the media to say they are still alive! But no FBI or CIA found it interesting enough to investigate further...
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 10:30
|
|
Ground effect starts at no set height, but as a general rule about half the wingspan of the plane.
The 747 I fly has a wingspan of 196', so at about 100' the air pressure under the wing starts to build up slowly.
Now the problem - not that there is any - is that no matter how fast the plane is going the wing only has to make the same amount of lift to keep it up flying level in the air. No matter if you're doing 150kts or 400 kts.
So the pressure differential as such will be much the same at any speed.
As I wrote above, it's a load of bovine excrement ...
|
|
|
Location:
The Eastwood MASSIVE !
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 11:22
|
|
This is better
11/9/02 - WTC attack
12/10/03 - Bali bombing
13/11/04 - STAY THE FUCK HOME.....
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 13:09
|
|
747s are actually amazing machines. A pilot friend of mine (don't talk to him much anymore) said a friend of his was flying a 747, and the fucked the landing due to smog (I think this was at what, tokyo? I dunno). Anyway, they pulled some kinda amazing maneuver and landed the plane relatively safely. The thing is, the 747 is only designed to take about 1/2 the G forces they pulled when taking the emergency landing before it supposedly starts to fall apart. So yeah, I dunno about the computer thing.
Then again, this is one of those "A friend of a friend" things, and may not be accurate due to bad memory and exaggeration.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 17:57
|
|
| DiZ_ wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 22:22 |
This is better
11/9/02 - WTC attack
12/10/03 - Bali bombing
13/11/04 - STAY THE FUCK HOME.....
|
what the??? You got the year wrong...
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 25 December 2003 17:59
|
|
so Bill when you were learning to fly, do you learn to fly in really low altitude too?
Nope, that's a separate tick on the licence. Though the bit just after takeoff & just before landing comes with the job. 
I'm trying to imagine a huge plane flying at ground level around 10 feet high at 300 knots, but can only imagine how much wind and dust it would throw, if at all that it is possible to fly in that low altitude, it would have blown everything away?
It's make a hell of a racket, and the over-pressure would do a fair bit of damage to soft objects below the wing as it passed over them. Eg, people, etc. It would give buildings & so on a good shake, but that's about all.
but does it mean it's already near impossible to reach 50 feet? Since at 100 feet it's already starting to produce resistance?
As I wrote above, you could fly as low as you like, as fast as you like.
Have a read of Chuck Yeager's autobiography: He writes about flying a P-51 Mustang in the US during WW2 so low along the side of a road at full power that when driving home later that day, he could see the prop marks in the sand on the edge of the road.
That's low.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 23:33
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Fri, 26 December 2003 04:59 |
Have a read of Chuck Yeager's autobiography: He writes about flying a P-51 Mustang in the US during WW2 so low along the side of a road at full power that when driving home later that day, he could see the prop marks in the sand on the edge of the road.
That's low.
|
mr yeager had more balls than most other pilots of that era tho...
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 08:01
|
|
ps - he was also a surgeon.... 
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Wed, 31 December 2003 15:43
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Fri, 26 December 2003 04:59 |
As I wrote above, you could fly as low as you like, as fast as you like.
Have a read of Chuck Yeager's autobiography: He writes about flying a P-51 Mustang in the US during WW2 so low along the side of a road at full power that when driving home later that day, he could see the prop marks in the sand on the edge of the road.
|
But when you said full power, how fast is that? 300 knots?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Thu, 01 January 2004 04:32
|
|
|
I'm not sure, but probably a little faster than that I'd say.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 02 January 2004 03:06
|
|
People look towards the wtc too much on the s11 tradjedy but barely even look at the pentagon. I find it very hard to beleive that a full jet can just disintergrate. That the initial impact on the pentagon was very very small from the outside, its like a bomb went off on the inside yet the fuel from the jet would have been in teh wings and would of exploded on the outside of the pentagon, the grass in front of the pentagon where the supposed explosion took place is nice and green, not even a hint of heat exposed to it.
It would have also take a great amount of skill to pilot a jet of that size into the side of a building at such a high speed.
I'm convinced without a doubt that the pentagon attack was not done by terrorists, and since its linked wiht the wtc i doubt that too.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/seismic-wave-24.gif
This is a seismic graph that shows what happend for the duration of the buildings.
the first row shows the two impacts,
the 3rd row shows the collaps of the 2nd building that was hit, the 4th row shows the collaps of the 1st building that was hit.
Notice that just before these two impacts that there is a significant amount of seismic activity. Like a bomb going off.
If u have a stack of legos and u knoced out one of the major ones u would expect them to all fall and lead up to a big thud. This is the opposite for the wtc buildings.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hole_inner_ring.jpg not the type of a whole ud expect from a jet
It's agreed officialy by the us government that the pentagon an the wtc towers attack were both part of the same operation. The wtc attack actually does look quite plausable (except for that big shockwave before the building fell, and no it wasn't the aeroplane impact either). But as for the pentagon attack that just makes no sense at all.
The grass infront of the pentagon had NO markings on it at all, no debree, no burns.
The windows on the front wall of the building hadn't even broken, surely a big aeroplane would at least be able to break a window.
The impact whole is significantly smaller than teh width of the fuselarge.
There was no damage from the wings.
The impact occured on the first floor, yet very little damage had occurd on the ground or upper floors, Planes a big things, they make big holes when they hit stuff but this one didn't.
THe alleged pilot was an amature who was said to be unable to fly a cessna 172 solo, how did he pilot the jet into the building with such great accuracy into the pentagon without even scorching the ground infront of it?
Strangely enough the pentagon attack wasn't anywhere near as publicized as the wtc attack... wonder why :/ ?
All this stuff adds up if you really do think about it and not just brush it off as absolute bs. Serously think about it and apply a logical explanation that involes a passenger jet. I doubt you can
If they are linked and the pentagon attack does look extremely suss then doesn't that tell you that the wtc attack was quite suspiscious?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 02 January 2004 13:37
|
|
It would have also take a great amount of skill to pilot a jet of that size into the side of a building at such a high speed.
Not a lot of skill at all.
I can teach you how to do it right here, without even flying a plane at all.
Just put a dot on the windscreen, right in front of your eyes, with a marker pen.
Put the dot on whatever you want to hit, and if it's a non-moving 'target' then if you have a reasonably steady hand you will hit the target.
The reason there's little damge outside the building is because the plane was travelling at about 800km/h odd. All the force is pretty much going to go one way and not turn 180deg to go the other way.
There's no mystery, sorry.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Fri, 02 January 2004 16:34
|
|
| Intensevil wrote on Fri, 02 January 2004 14:06 |
the first row shows the two impacts,
the 3rd row shows the collaps of the 2nd building that was hit, the 4th row shows the collaps of the 1st building that was hit.
|
Intensevil: You've just brought up an important point too, as the impact on the second tower was minor compared to the first, and also the impact on the second building was off centre where most of the jet fuel have splashed outside the building instead of being burnt inside the building, but in the end the second building and fallen BEFORE the first building which is supposed to be more damaged with the jet fuel, so... where's the logic?
| Quote: |
Just put a dot on the windscreen, right in front of your eyes, with a marker pen.
Put the dot on whatever you want to hit, and if it's a non-moving 'target' then if you have a reasonably steady hand you will hit the target.
|
But this steady hand is a big ask at that situation even for an extreme terrorist...
| Quote: |
The reason there's little damge outside the building is because the plane was travelling at about 800km/h odd. All the force is pretty much going to go one way and not turn 180deg to go the other way.
|
I don't quite understand what you mean here, but it's also a bit suspicious to have said the plane have hit an unoccupied area of the Pentagon which is being renovated, the "extreme terrorist" that is protrayed in the media, and also Bill's explaination of the "simplicity" of hitting where-ever the pilot wishes to, then why didn't they dive straight down into the middle of the Pentagon where it would cause maximum damage, why pull such a difficult stunt just to try to hit the lower floor of a Pentagon that is un-occupied? And with such skills not to damage anything but the wall (the lawn and cable spool etc. already makes the story obviously clear)
I don't think there's a need to argue that a plane actually hit the Pentagon, because there's none.
But think about the first point where the 2nd tower fell before the 1st, about how the 3rd tower also fell without reasons (shockwave? BS!) Also how the twin-tower changed hands weeks before Sept11, with a new huge insurance policy, how (un-confirmed) there is huge amount of options trading days before Sept11, how US had troops ready for Afhan before Sept 11 happened, but in the end this is just a pointless discussion as even if the news tells us tomorrow that Bush did all of it, there's still nothing that can be done about it... 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 03 January 2004 06:04
|
|
Good grief, conspiracy people, they're so gullable ....
The second tower falling before the first is very easy to understand - The plane hit it a lot further down than the first, so there is a LOT more weight above the damaged section, so the damaged section would fail first on that second building.
Also, the second plane was travelling a lot faster than the first one, which did a lot more mechanical damage.
The reason the third tower fell is because if you get a building that's a hundred-dd stories tall collapsing in a few seconds, it won't fall into a neat pile it'll spread out and do it pretty quickly. Many thousands of tonnes of hard concrete & metal would have gone sideways (the towers didn't go down exactly vertically) and so it's not surprising at all that a lot of debris hit another building, and thus damaged it to the point that it too fell down.
If a plane hit vertically in the centre of the Pentagon, there would be almost no damage at all. Have you seen how large the place is? The inner walls are quite some distance from the central courtyard, and there possibly could be some incidental damage. Have a look at some crash sites - When a plane hit vertically there's usually not much left other than a small hole.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 03 January 2004 07:14
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Sat, 03 January 2004 17:04 |
Good grief, conspiracy people, they're so gullable ....
The second tower falling before the first is very easy to understand - The plane hit it a lot further down than the first, so there is a LOT more weight above the damaged section, so the damaged section would fail first on that second building.
Also, the second plane was travelling a lot faster than the first one, which did a lot more mechanical damage.
The reason the third tower fell is because if you get a building that's a hundred-dd stories tall collapsing in a few seconds, it won't fall into a neat pile it'll spread out and do it pretty quickly. Many thousands of tonnes of hard concrete & metal would have gone sideways (the towers didn't go down exactly vertically) and so it's not surprising at all that a lot of debris hit another building, and thus damaged it to the point that it too fell down.
|
I must say it's a very good try of imagining what happened, but I really wonder if you know anything about physics at all, no offense here, but that explaination is really a big miss!
yes the plane of the second tower really did travel faster, but it actually missed the centre and hit the corner of the building, with the majority of the jet fuel splashed outside the building, which immediately contradicts the theory presented by the media, because their explaination of the collapse was that the high temp. of the jet fuel had melted the tower's steel support and caused the tower to collapsed.
now your theory suggests that the tower was hit much lower with more speed into the 2nd tower, if your theory is, there is more weight pushing down onto the building, thus creating the collapse EARLIER than the 1st tower, first your theory contradicts the "experts" of the bullshit media, second problem is if this extra weight does make any difference, try building a building with cards or legos, and just take out the corner, tell me where the tower will fall?
But it is state of the art twin tower, if a corner was taken out, the opposite foundation would not even have moved.
and your explaination of the third tower is even more wild, the power of the 2 falling WTC that destroyed the 3rd tower wasn't even enough damage other buildings??? There is no recorded information about any damages to the towers around them, not even shatter windows and/or glass.
again no offense, but I really hope you think hard about what you were saying, and hope you find some sense there..
[Updated on: Sat, 03 January 2004 07:18]
|
|
|
Location:
Melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 03 January 2004 07:25
|
|
|
if the conspiracies were real, the u.s. would know you know .. and u would have been taken out by agents jay and s. bob who r from the dark side of mars
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 03 January 2004 07:34
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Sat, 03 January 2004 17:04 |
The second tower falling before the first is very easy to understand - The plane hit it a lot further down than the first, so there is a LOT more weight above the damaged section, so the damaged section would fail first on that second building.
|
no bill, wrong wrong wrong... #2 fell becaus the FBI weakened the interal steel superstructure the previous week as part of the combined effort to demolish the joint.
the building next door also fell as a result of the prior FBI training activities on superstructure demoltion, weakening it to the point of spontaneous collapse with the forces involved with the TT collapse.
yeash!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 03 January 2004 18:56
|
|
Sorry gt20v, it looks like you've already made your mind up.
Ed was right, the whole thing never happened, it's all a bunch of special effects by hollywoord, to promot a new movie.
Just believe whatever you like.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sat, 03 January 2004 23:47
|
|
now Bill, maybe you understand why I opted out of this discussion
I was actually watching it when it happened live, and on at least 2 occasions, it was mentioned that there was severe damage to at least 1 building near the wtc, and minor damage to several others. hence the other bulding collapsing.
and think for a moment. if it really was a conspiracy, you dont think they would have made the first tower to get hit collapse first? If the US govt is really as all powerfulk & smart as conspiracy theorists give them credit for, then there would be no cause for the conspiracy theories
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 04:43
|
|
i dont think you can say that the third building fell because of some crazy conspiracy...
i mean can you imagine wat the impact of 2 jumbo jets flying the massive super structures would do to the foundations of near by buildings..
let along the force of the buildings actually crashing to the ground....
i mean, how many tonnes of building fell to the ground from a pretty decent hieght as well...
im suprized more buildings in the surrounding areas were not dammaged to a further extent.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 09:54
|
|
| LiL_MiC wrote on Sat, 03 January 2004 18:25 |
if the conspiracies were real, the u.s. would know you know .. and u would have been taken out by agents jay and s. bob who r from the dark side of mars
|
you have a point here, but the US would only care about people that is able to make a difference, if you research carefully, there was houses that were raided and people silenced, some whisle blower had to seek asylum in Canada. But it's very obvious that I am not someone that could make a difference, so I'm safe...
| Quote: |
im suprized more buildings in the surrounding areas were not dammaged to a further extent.
|
of coz not, because the 3 trade centre buildings were under "controlled" demolition, the building "imploded" into itself, thus it would not have caused any major damage to other buildings, usually such stunt would need scarfolding around the building, but in this case it's impossible, thus there is still some lose stones thrown around the place...
but think of the chances of 3 buildings falling over itself naturally, and all 3 buildings did not tip over anything and damage anything else, as I said earlier, combine all this "coincidents" and try to work out the possibility of all these events happening ALL at once, someone give me a rough figure, of the possibility of this happening?
Bill: From your reply it looks like you didn't rethink about how naive your post at Sat, 03 January 2004 17:04 was. And you think you should be a well respected air pilot.
Draven: Every "smart" criminal will try to offend and try not to leave any trails behind, but I can tell you, the smartest one will always make a stupid mistake, think about my point, I won't be surprised if they pressed the detonation button in the wrong order and shit themselve, but the media will alway cover it up.
yesterday's news was saying how FBI have a list of terrorist that they think is planning another terrorist attack, but what is their credibility? They haven't even explained why the 8 named terrorist of the Sept 11 is still alive and walking!! And the story just got silenced, you tell me nothing is wrong? Think about this one too..
Look at the current situation in US, Australians wanting to enter USA will now need to apply a VISA, they have to declare every previous offenses no matter how bad the offense was, including drink driving, including shop lifting, fingerprints will be scanned, records kept in computer system and tracked etc.etc. It is a pure invasion of privacy, not including the order of raiding your house anytime they feel like, phone tapping etc. This is the NEW WORLD ORDER, Bush is there controlling every person in this world, and he's laughing while you guys are there hating muslims and fearing terrorism, who is the one that is gaining the most benefits? Bin Ladan? I think not.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 11:21
|
|
I just think its great how people all over the world, and on this thread seem to know what it is that People are thinking..? So undoubtedly. Like what the real motive was..of anything remotly involved with S11. How people somehow profess to know what was behind the attacks...what G.Bush's actions are all about..Just the way in general they say things when really they know.........FUCK ALL, so just shut the fuck up coz you make yourself look like a opinionated nob, with nothing better to do then bullshit to make your voice sound knowlegable and mature. When all your doing is....speculating. Fact is, you don't know why it happend really? do you? were you on the plane(s)? where you in the room(s) when the descisions were made?(either the terrorist/americans) No, i doubt that very much.
Of course some people on here have spoken only the truth such as: Caledwvech, and that is to be respected. I haven't bothered reading alot of the other posts, coz i have no doubt its full of rubbish comments such as "its all about the oil" once again, you don't know that do you? So its about time people put their ideas on the table, and left them at that, IDEAS.
"Bush is there controlling every person in this world" anyone with any serious intelligence on the topic knows that the president of the United states of america is more of a front man than anything.... A figure head, just like our head of state. He signs the declorations and such, He doesn't write them. He as so many advisors it makes the victorian government look quite healthy in refernece to their ridiculous payroll reciepts.
Good night. Oh and I can't wait for some Rebuttals to this. Go ahead, make my day.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 11:27
|
|
|
Yes, lets not put our two cents in 'cuz we are the unwashed masses and don't deserve a say.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 11:39
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 08:06 |
You can fly as low as you like.
Bill S, 747 pilot.
|
Unless theres a world trade tower in the road! cant have any fun and be an extreamist anymore!
Allan
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 12:05
|
|
| T APLUS 22 wrote on Sun, 04 January 2004 22:48 |
Hope that wasn't in reply to me coz I've met you and you seemed like a nice bloke and I'd hate to rip you to shreds on here if it wasn't.
But if it was then it would be a good idea to read it again and read all of it!, then make sure you understand what you have read before making another unnecessary unintelligent obviously sarcastic reply again. (I'm sure someones told you that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit) I wont spell out why it was unnecessary as reading my post properly should make things clearer.
|
Okay, yes they are just mostly ideas and speculation, but it's rather rude to just go off at everyone for forgetting to put "IMHO" at the start of their posts.
But I do apologize for not reading your post all the way though. You know how it is sometimes.
I'm sure most people here realize that their comments are based on a large amount of speculation.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 12:27
|
|
so.... because we speak our minds, voice our opinions, and try to use our knowledge to back up our arguments, we are... "opinionated nob... bullshit to make your voice sound knowlegable and mature"?
I would suggest it's less mature to stick your head in the sand and not voice an opinion at all. This has been, for the most part, a fairly level headed argument between people of differing opinions - nothing more, nothing less. I would also suggest that plenty of the people taking part in this discussion dont need to try and make themselves sound mature, becuase they are (take the 747 pilot, for example (Bill))
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 13:03
|
|
oooooooookay,
i watched the WTC thing LIVE on tv that morning,
i watched the towers collapes LIVE on tv that morning,
where thousands of people sitting at their desks died, and you'd call it a controlled implosion...
clearly you can see the top half of the thing breaking off at the middle...
oh yeah really controlled
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 13:07
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to side with alwaysRA23 here... to say it was a controlled imposion is a bit... Lets just say idiotic.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 13:17
|
|
i can honestly say that ive never said a word in insult on these forums YET,
but im finding it hard to believe that this guy is saying all this shit,
next thing you know he will be saying that the bali bomb was set by the australian army...
and that timor was just a beer party...
pull your head in mate, or stop reading the tabloids..
maybe you should start reading into the muffin that looks like jessus or something,
/end rant
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 13:54
|
|
Draven: my comments were quite obviously (I thought) aimed at the people that claimed to know what they were talking about. When it was also quite obviously speculation being put across as the 'way it is'.
Like these examples:
"This is the NEW WORLD ORDER, Bush is there controlling every person in this world, and he's laughing while you guys are there hating muslims and fearing terrorism"
"Nam is the reason they did this. Think about it, since Nam, America has been avoid conflicts like the plague. You do that too long, and people start to think your piss weak. America needed to invade some countries as a show of force. Afghanistan and Iraq just happened to be convenient targets without many powerful friends."
"and there are no weapons of mass destruction"
"but really the govt needed an exuse to go to war on the middle east and that provided it"
just some small excerts of the thread. Comments made by people who have no real knowledge to make the comments.
I belive I said this also, which kinda refutes the claim that I "went off at everyone":
"Of course some people on here have spoken only the truth such as: Caledwvech, and that is to be respected"
But as said, and as was made clear in the original post, it was aimed at the people who made comments based on their own opinions.
In a quick cross reference I don't believe Bill Sherwood made any comments toward the reasons behind the attacks, on america and on foreign soil by the americans..so how is it that my first post had anything to do with him? or the others who spoke about mechanics of the building collapses. How did I claim that bill (example only) was attempting to make himself sound mature? (Hell I'd be halfway through my flight training with RAAF if I wasn't too tall and failed the entrance solely based on that, so I have respect for bill being a pilot and read his posts with the notion that I may learn something from him.
But yes everyone has a right to their opinion, anyone who knows me knows I voice that right all the time...But As My Opinion. Not trying to pass my opinion off as the truth. When done so in the realm of an argument it is pathetic, shows weakness in research, destroys credibility and the very action I was lashing out at.
"I just think its great how people all over the world, and on this thread seem to know what it is that People are thinking..? " The opening statement outlining my argument. Again this in no way relates to the posts made by people reguarding facts and the mechanics as previously mentioned.
"I would suggest it's less mature to stick your head in the sand and not voice an opinion at all"
If this line was used in rebuttal to the comments I made, well you may have not understood my message. (if not then no offence) I don't believe it to be an act of immaturaty, its not related to called someone immature because they don't want to voice their opinion, some people just don't care to. I quite clearly encouraged the voicing of opinions too.
As for this:
"so.... because we speak our minds, voice our opinions, and try to use our knowledge to back up our arguments, we are..." I don't remember making that statement. Nowhere in my post did I say that speaking your mind, voicing your opinions and trying to use knowledge to back up your arguments made you .. "opinionated nob... bullshit to make your voice sound knowlegable and mature"?
Maybe you assumed thats what I said...but once again I am asking did you read it? All of it? If yes, then maybe you didn't understand it, but remember this..Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups. I don't remember where I heard it, but even if I did steal it from a movie its TRUE. So simply put, don't assume things, like you assumed thats what I meant. If you didn't understand what I had said; then ask.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 14:19
|
|
I (incorrectly) assuming you were having a dig at the majority of poeple posting, not the minority... sorry
I'm well known for making assumptions... I'm just usually right about them :\
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 14:20
|
|
|
*waits for the people in white coats to come and drag someone away and not worryed about it being me!*
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 14:24
|
|
|
not gonna be me... I tell the poeple in white coats who to drag away
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 14:29
|
|
|
i was refering to the long confused post before you!
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 14:34
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Sat, 03 January 2004 18:14 |
try building a building with cards or legos, and just take out the corner, tell me where the tower will fall?
|
you're an idiot
that just satisfied me so much more than writing pages of basic engineering principles
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 14:46
|
|
| Allan wrote on Mon, 05 January 2004 01:20 |
*waits for the people in white coats to come and drag someone away and not worryed about it being me!*
"i was refering to the long confused post before you! "
|
Hey allan, Just because you didn't understand it don't mean its not sane or it doesn't make sense!
I don't claim to say what I write is easy to read..and given that twice my words have been mis-interpreted you may have a point about it being confusing. Or maybe the mis-interpretations are not my fault but due to the lacking of others?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: September 11 Conspiracies... :P
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 15:12
|
|
If you don't like the topic T APLUS 22, don't post on it.
There are more reasons for all the circumstances surrounding S11 and the counter attacks than we can possibly ever understand even if people DIDN'T try to cover things up. We are just posting our views on various aspects of it, some are simply feeling we have, other posts are more researched theories. I would apreciate you not yelling at people for simply airing their oppinions... no matter how radical they may seem to you.
|
|
|
