T APLUS 22 wrote on Sun, 04 January 2004 22:21

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.. .....ETC..ETC...

I can't even believe anyone would've replied to this offensive tasteless pointless piece of post... feel sorry for you, after all this is the "Outhouse"


alwaysRA23: I'm pretty worried about the pic that you posted with the tower tilted, I know that pic was the "official" footage, but if that pic is true, there's no way that huge piece of concrete tilted on its side, would have landed 40 floors below without shattering into pieces and destroying everything.

ed_ma61:

Quote:

you're an idiot that just satisfied me so much more than writing pages of basic engineering principles

THERE'S NO WAY I WILL BE ABLE TO IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE ANY SMARTER...

Tell me what can counter the effects of the huge tower's potential energy, into not tilting into its side if it was THAT damaged by the second plane hit at the corner (as the media reports) , even the dome/stadium needed huge reinforcement to keep the thing round.. so if the corner was that damaged, it should have tilted right to that corner, but it didn't...


BUT ED: YOU STILL DON'T GET THE POINT, the media's and expert's explaination of the tower's collapse is due to the high temp burning of the jet fuel, but obviously #2 tower is has been treated way differently with all the jet fuel splashed OUTSIDE the tower, but it was the #2 tower to fall first, now SMART BOY, THINK, what is the credibility of the media's report????

Can someone at least digest the point I made in red text????

Come on guys, T APLUS 22 IS WAY OFF TOPIC, can people just ignore him???

[Updated on: Sun, 04 January 2004 17:12]

alwaysRA23 wrote on Mon, 05 January 2004 12:08

i dont agree with the bit where america had to go and kick some ass because they hadnt done anything since they got beaten at Vietnam? if i read wrong please let us know. what a bout the golf war? or all the peacekeeping tours in places like somalia? surely you cant be serious, oh if i hear someone say OH IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL, im gunna tear my hear out

Somalia wasn't a victory. The US pulled out at the first sign of danger.

:: Somalia 1993 ::
When the UN voted to intervene in Somalia, the US voted for the operation. However, after the shit storm that was Somalia, Clinton said "The UN should learn to say NO" In reference to getting involved in the first place. Boutros Boutros Ghali who was the head of the UN at the time, said the UN doesn't "say" anything, the member states vote and the UN only takes their direction.

3 October 1993, on a mission to capture two of General Aideed's Lieutenants, US Forces where ambushed by Somalian militia and their air support is downed. The next day, 4 October, UN forces in the form of US and Pakistani armour rolls in and pulls the surviving US Rangers and Delta Force from the shit storm. After losing 18 US soldiers, and killing over 1,000 Somalians the US Rangers and Delta Force retreated to safe ground. After that, the US lost its taste for war, and withdrew from Somalia.

15 October 1993, US Soldiers start being withdrawn from Somalia and within a month have completely withdrawn. Once the US had withdrawn the UN no longer had enough support to stay in Somalia, and by March of 1995 the United Nations had completed its withdrawal from Somalia.

Rwandan Hutus were so impressed with how easily the US crumbled that they decided to murder 10 Belgian UN Peacekeepers who were protecting the prime minister of Rwanda, Uwilingiyimana (also murdered) - this was deliberately done to effect the same result as in Somalia - and it worked, the Belgians withdrew.

===

18 July 1995, at a breakfast meeting Clinton states "The United States can't be a punching bag in the world anymore."
Dick Morris, Clinton's poll taker said "Bosnia had become a metaphor for Clinton's weakness."
French President Chirac said when asked whether America's reluctance to send troops into Bosnia was undermining the US leadership "There is no leader of the Atlantic alliance."
Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at Kings College, University of London told the Washington Post "I don't remember a time where there was so much scorn for American policy. You don't find anyone here who thinks the US is acting properly. We're told that what we're doing isn't good enough, but there's no attempt to help us."

That sounds to me like there wasn't much faith in the US forces as a dominant power. They never followed through. In Iraq the first time they never found Saddam... so they kinda just... gave up. Somalia is described above. There are many other battles like this, but I can't be bothered researching it all for you, go have a look for yourself.

[Updated on: Mon, 05 January 2004 13:31]

[Updated on: Mon, 05 January 2004 14:19]

not to mention the damage done by a big fuckn plane comeing to a dead stop in the side

its obvious planes took down the towers

i think a few people here have not met enough crazy middle eastern dudes!

Allan

You see this is exactly what i mean, say what you want to say, but say it in a tastefull way, Allan...i have nothing against you giving your oppinion, but from how im reading it, to you it is sort of a joke, remember that to other it is a serious issue, think about the fact that you might be talking to somone who lost there dad, or there friend, because we dont know who are on these forums....be tastefull, be respectfull to the people who died...
MEL

[Updated on: Mon, 05 January 2004 23:15]

[Updated on: Tue, 06 January 2004 06:14]

Quote:

So who are they? Are they just media clowns or real aviation experts? Name them and their report.

So you mean a world-wide published report explaining the collapse of the 2 tower doesn't have any credibility?? That's good, because that's what I'm getting at, but why don't they research any further? As this topic have caused 2 wars and killed thousands of Americans and thousands more of people of other nation. Doesn't anyone want to know the real answer why the tower fell? Or does it really not matter??

Quote:

They were designed to take a 707 hitting them at about 200kts odd

YEAH, SORRY I JUST READ IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND WAS ABOUT TO CHANGE IT... it IS a 707, but was told it carried more fuel, but how fast can they travel??


T APLUS 22: Sorry, I wasn't even going to reply your message, because you never have a clue, you are posting a long and pointless but offensive post, full of rubbish, flaming people with no explaination of your point, I think we rather you stay away from the post in the first place..

try to explain why the air will rush up the stairway, after the initial explosion, air would have been pushed outwards, with a short period where the reaction will pull some air back, but soon it will reach equilbrilium again, and the combustion of the materials will continue to expand and push air around it outwards, the heat wave may start to burn other things around it, but nothing will cause more air to rush to the fuel, so it will not burn at a temp. much higher than a normal fire, at least not inside a pretty much closed building, if it was in a jungle or in the football field, it would've been different as there's plenty of air around.

Quote:

And bill...umm, was it a typo or is Fuel really bloody heavy. 75.4 ltrs weighs 57 tonnes?

So you reckon 75.4 litres of fuel that you mentioned is enough to fly a plane? You'd be lucky to get to Brisbane with your TA22..

yeah, and no, your offensive pointless post didn't offend me, don't be too worried...

[Updated on: Tue, 06 January 2004 12:02]

gt20v wrote on Tue, 06 January 2004 23:04

hi Bill, read this article, I'm sure you have a very good knowledge about plane communication and tell me if this guy is making any sense... http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/unanswered.html

From that site -
No ones knows what happened because EIGHT ( indestructible black boxes (2 on each flight) were destroyed or reportedly damaged beyond possible restoration. Guess that is why they are referred to as indestructible.

By who? No-one in the aviation industry has ever said they're indestructable. True enough they're down the back of the plane (pic on my site - http://www.billzilla.org/blackbox.jpg - as the rear of the plane is most likely to be intact after an accident. They're also very tough and have comprehensive criteria that they have to pass to be acceptable to be fitted to a plane.
But having tens of thousands of hard rubble collapse onto them is a big call. I also doubt that the one that hit the ground without hitting a building was intact due to the speed, but they may have got something from it.
The article conveniently neglects to mention that the power to the FDR's (Aussie invention, 1953 by CSIRO) & CVR's (Cockpit Voice Recorders) was cut by the terrorists pulling the circuit breakers, so they recorded no useful information anyway for the last half hour or so of the flights.



We have been told that seven cell phone calls were made from the planes. Not ONE of the callers described the hijackers as Arabic, Saudi, Muslin, Iranian or anyone from the Middle East. Barbara Olson, writer, author, investigative reporter, famous commentator, attorney, and wife of the Solicitor General of the United States (Mr. Olson being George W's lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore), did not describe the hijackers to him as being from the middle east. She was trained to be observant and mentally record details, yet there has been no report that she described the hijackers at all. Are we to believe she didn't describe them, or did she describe them and we just aren't being told? And if we aren't being told, is it because her description doesn't match the profile being fed to us?

I'll try to only comment on aviation info, but this one I'l make a quick comment on anyway.
What are the exact transcripts of the conversations?
People are notoriously very bad at remembering things when under pressure. An example is a woman who was raped. She didn't panic though, and took the time to make a bit effort to remember the face of her attacker.
In a line-up later on where he was present, she picked a person that did not resemble her attacker at all.
There's not really enough reliable information on the phone calls to make a judgement on what really happened.



Do you really think that a few 120 pound middle-easterners overtook eight pilots, and their crew members and passengers, using razor-blade boxcutters? Do you really think a commercial pilot would give up his plane under threat from ANYONE with a boxcutter?

Yes, actually. Up until that day we were trained to co-operate with them and not antagonise them at all. We're also not soldiers, we're pilots.
We're certainly not Bruce Willis in a movie!
They also killed (according to the unreliable phone calls) a couple of Flight Attendants to reinforce the point that they were going to take the cockpit regardless of what the pilots were going to try.
They were trained & highly motivated & dedicated mercenaries against totally unaware members of the public.


How many hijackings have you ever heard of where the hijackers brought their own pilot? And four times in one day?

None, because it's never been tried before - duh!
If it had, we would have had different procedures to follow to stop them
We certainly do now, and anyone trying to get into the cockpit will find it rather difficult.
There's the problem of one of the pilots having a wife or girlfriend as a Flight Attendant, but that's part of the risk we accept in the job.


And if you were going to do this deed, wouldn't you have a driver's license in your own name, get your pilot's license in your own name, and leave your calling card everywhere you went, being rude and obnoxious so everyone would notice you?

Guess who's never worked in the Middle-East .... !
Pretty normal for some of them over there. Not the norm, but I've seen it too many times.


Explain to me how all of the defense systems were disabled?

What 'defense systems'?
The only offensive thing we have on-board is the catering.


How did four planes, that were not on their computerized flight paths, fly around for more than an hour and a half without alarms going off all over the place?

Uh, they did.



When their altitudes and positions CEASED TO BE VISIBLE ON RADAR, why weren't people (air traffic controllers) alarmed?

Uh, they were.


As close as Boston and Dulles are to D.C., why would disappearing planes NOT be a cause for alarm? Why was it more than an hour AFTER the WTC crashes that fighters were scrambled? Was the Air Force sleeping at 7:45 AM on a Tuesday morning when the planes were supposedly hijacked, and deviated from their designated flight paths?

Because that's the speed of beaurocracy. The thought that they'd better be damnwell right if they shot down a plane that wasn't taken by the terrorists as well.
The US, like most countries, is set up to react to intruders from outside the country, not inside. The fighters were - correct me if I'm wrong - also Nation Gaurd, not regular Air Force. I'm not sure if those guys are on 24 hour alert or not. It may well take the weekend warriors nearly an hour to get the fighter up & running from no warning at all.
I have personally driven all over Amberley Air Force Base, near Ipswich, for a good 20 minutes before I was stopped and asked WTF I was doing. (I was watch a practice for an air display for the World Expo 88 in Brissy) That's a typical level of alert in a military base when there's no threat.


Are we supposed to believe that when a transponder is turned OFF that no one is alerted that the plane is no longer being tracked by altitude; and that such a thing could occur to four planes almost simultaneously in the same geographical region, dangerously close to the seat of government, and NO ONE was alerting the media, the defense department, or anyone?

The planes were still being tracked by primary, not SSR. (Secondary Survailance Radar) and there was still doubt as to their intentions. Up until 11-9-2000, every terrorist has always made the crew land at an airport and then make demands. There was no warning that the first two were going to fly into a couple of buildings. There's typically no TV in the radar control rooms as no distractions are allowed. No doubt someone else in the building would have seen the reports on TV, but it perhaps wasn't until the second plane hit that the intentions were really clear.
The level of confusion ramps up very quikly when you increase the number of people in events like that, especially when the 'bad guys' don't play to the rules, as it were.


I have talked to three pilots who have told me in their own words and understandings that what we are being told happened, could NOT possibly have happened.

Ask another three, or three hundred, and they'll give a completely different answer. I suspect that he asked a lot of pilots, and came up with a total of three that fitted the answer he was after.


And 110 story buildings do NOT collapse because a plane hits them. The second plane nearly missed the building, only going through the corner. Most of the fuel burned in an outside explosion.

As has probably been mentioned, the Towers were not 'normal' buildings. They were built with a strong central core and skin, so that they could have a lot of floor space and little in the way of intruding supports for the floors to reduce office space. This made them susceptable to damage to the skin & core.
Also, the entry point of the second plane looked reasonably close the centre of the face of that side to me, though the exit point was about 75% along the opposite side.
Pretty far from the 'corner'.


The refined Kerosene (a/k/a jet fuel) burned up fairly quickly.

Except the fuel that we couldn't see.


The stuff burning from that point on was desks, paper, plastics, carpet, etc.

And people. We burn as well.


6 tubular steel columns in the center of the building designed SPECIFICALLY to keep the building from collapsing if hit by a Boeing 707 that, because it was older and less efficient, carried MORE fuel that the 757 and 767 that hit the towers

There's that 707 again ...
I don't have the figures of the two plane handy, but I doubt very much that a 707 could carry anywhere near as much fuel as a 767 could. Perhaps the 707 Super 60, compared to a 767-100, but again how does the write know how much fuel the planes were carrying anyway?
A 747-400 can carry 171 tonnes, but it doesn't mean that it is. In flying the 747 for nearly six years, I have had full tanks once only, and that was a special request.


And 53 minutes after Tower 2 was hit the tower just imploded because it was on fire? Yeah right! I discussed this with a structural engineer who investigated a HOTEL in Los Angeles that he said was 30 stories and it burned from the ground floor up. It burned for nearly a week. The fire totally destroyed everything on all 30 floors. The estimated temperatures were 2200 degrees because of the natural gas and other fuel that was the catalyst for the fire. The concrete and infrastructure did not budge. It cost more than a million dollars to TEAR IT DOWN. The 30 floors above the first floor did NOT cave in on the first floor when the support structure go hot. And he reviewed the architecture on the WTC and said the type of steel and the type of construction for the WTC was double the strength of the LA hotel.

It wouldn't have been in such a fine state if it had a ~140 tonne plane travelling at 500kts hit it, and dump a good forty tonnes odd of fuel into it.


The strength of the WTC towers was in the 6 Tubular Steel Columns in the CENTER of the buildings, not the steel structure on the outside like most construction.

AS I wrote above, the skin was an integral part of the structure of the Towers. They could lose a fair bit of it without degrading the structure though.


The buildings were literally, according to the builder, designed NOT to pancake in the event of a Boeing 707 crashing into them.

We'll never know, because they were hit with a good ten times the force they were designed for originally.
It's like having an engine redlined at 6,000rpm rev to about 20,000rpm and expecting it to hold together.
Just not going to happen ....

[Updated on: Tue, 06 January 2004 12:59]

Quote:

gee that was a fucking clever comment to make wasn't it?

Quote:

Apart from your English/grammar of the standard of a year eight student

good boy T APUS 22, keep swearing and keep flaming, but I still think you are the one with 8 year old standard because you can't even type out what I've posted properly, with words in the wrong order, and wrong words in the wrong place,

eg:

Quote:

MY QUOTE: I think we rather you stay away from the post in the first place..

Quote:

YOUR QUOTE: "I think we rather you stay away from the point in the first place"

like you don't know where the point is to the point where point what post?
If you're that low to start complaining about other people's wording, at least you should make sure your quote from other people is correct and get your typing right, if you get it all wrong yourself, don't you feel stupid?

Quote:

Why is it you don't want me around? Afraid I will prove you wrong

No, the simple reason is you aren't even providing any help in the discussion, but instead, jumps in and flames everybody..

I apoligised because I misunderstood and thought the statement was directed at me, but later found out it was a question directed at Bill, I apoligised for the ethics in myself that doesn't exist in you.

Quote

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.

you jump in, swear the hell off, complain about how people is speculating, don't you understand it's a discussion?

You're saying nothing constructive, nothing to do with the discussion, and tries to tell people they're stupid from post #1,




Anyway, I better just ignore you as it's wasting too much space in the thread...

anybody want to look at this link?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

OR EVEN THIS, if you have a lot of time...
http://www.public-action.com/911/hvideo.html


titled: YOU ARE LOOKING AT A US GOVERNMENT LIE

So who believes Bin Laden is behind Sept 11? And who doesn't?

[Updated on: Tue, 06 January 2004 16:28]