Willravel

Boy was I expecting a different post! I've not heard of this movie before (a bit before my time, as I was 1 when it came out), but I'll be sure to check it out. Is the movie as racy as people say?

Dilbert1234567

its really not that confusing when you go to real experts, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
they also link to purdue univercities computer simulations of the impact,

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/s...0sep02slow.gif
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/pape...gonVIS2003.mpg
The structure of the building literally tore the plane apart, not the other way around, like trying to shop a knife with a carrot, the carrot losses. The simulations are very good, they show how a plane could crash into the building and leave the damage experience by the building.

yeah, it can, it may be easier to push the window out of its frame then to destroy it, the windows are bullet and blast proof, blast proof means it will stop an explosive force from hurting people inside, rather then having the window shatter and spray the inside with glass, it deforms and pops out of its frame, sparing the people inside from the blast, and the shrapnel.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Seaver

I was talking about the EMS, Firemen, and police who rushed in. What Wil's conspiracy charge suggests is the very people who perpetrated it were part of the same group who sacrificed themselves.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Ch'i

I couldn't find his credentials.

Also, the first simulation indicates that the plane's wings were embeded into the side of the Pentagon, which is very contrary to the photos.

Willravel

I should go through this thread and make a big list of strawman arguments made on both sides to illustrate how people have trouble keeping their emotion from exaggerating and misstating in order to be right.

Seaver, not once in any of the threads on the whole web about 9/11 did I say that the firefighters, police officers, or emergency medical personel had anything to do with why or how the towers collapsed. I suggest you read my posts before trying to summerize what I have said.

Cynthetiq

not embedded but pulverized... light aluminium into reinforced concrete.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The engines were titanium, and the wings are designed to stand 700 mph winds for years.

Seaver

No, but your posted opinions that it was a government job makes them part of the same entity.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Ch'i

I don't even see scratch marks showing where the wings struck. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. You'd think even light aluminium would leave some sort of mark.

Willravel

Oh wow...I hadn't realized that! You mean to tell me that police officers work for the government? That means the DMV is in on it too!! I've been suspicous of them for YEARS!! They must be involved, because every part of the government knows what every other part of the government is up to! So the next time I go to renew my auto registration, I can ask how much I owe on my taxes this year, I can ask what troop deployment is like in Afghanistan, and I can ask what the budget for 2007 is going to look like, right? Because by your logic, all government knows what all government is doing. Maybe we should think even bigger. I'm in on it, because I'm a member of the same species as those who orchestrated 9/11!!! That also makes me responsible for the Holocaust, the invention of peanut butter, and the musical Chicago.

Boy oh boy are you reaching, Seaver. I'm afraid this time your reach is greater than your grasp.

Seaver

You're stretching what I said. They are employees of the government. You have a theory that the government was responsible, purposefully and maliciously bomb and level the WTC towers. By being an employee of the government, those people were part of the government. Therefore they are part of the same entity.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

I also say the government is responsible for the war in Iraq, do you think that includes police officers, firefighters, and EMS personel? Yeah, you're stretched way too thin here, Seaver.

I think you know that I'm not saying the rescue workers on 9/11 were in on some plot.

Dilbert1234567

I was not referring to the poster of the article, but of all the articles he sites as evidence. He does a good job of using several sources to support his statements

Watch the entire gif, its quite long; you only watched the first portion of it.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ch'i

I watched the whole thing, and it shows that the wings made an impact on the lower foundations which damaged them. This is contrary to the images of the crash.

Cynthetiq

reinforced concrete will be scratched by light aluminum? Then why would we bother making bunker busting munitions when airplane wings will do just some damage...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Dilbert1234567

i don’t see the contradiction, please post a picture that shows the contradiction you speak of.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

Again, the engines were not aluminum, they had large titanium parts that should have at least broken the window when hitting the building at 500 (?) mph.
Starting at frame 12, the wing breaks up and through the building breaking the supports. The wings, in the .gif pic, go through the wall. In reality, they didn't go through anything. Check this picture out:

Cynthetiq

again... I'm going to state that reinforced for bunkers will not be scratched or even dinged by titanium, aluminium or any other LIGHTLY packed or LIGHT density aircraft or material.

but the window wasn't HIT directly by those parts, what's so hard to see? why not suggest that windows far away on the left side didn't get damaged either? I mean look at a pitchers box and there's a SMALL space that a ball must travel through... using a paper target on a archery range, the flights going through the paper target don't rip through areas of the paper that don't make contact.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The exterior of the buiding is brick. Bricks will be damaged by an airplane engine moving 500+ mph, right? Or are we not even able to agree on that? If you need proof, I have an old broken golf club with a titanium shaft and some bricks. If I strike the brick with the golf club and it makes a scratch or chip, you put me on your christmas list. If not, then I put you on my christmas list. It's win/win.
The window was in the estimated flight path of the left engine. Please look over the evidence. There are pictures all over the internet, and even this thread, that confirm that fact.

Ch'i

if you want to believe that a 757 traveling at 500 mph could inflict hardly any damage on a building then believe that. the obvious discrepancies in the commision report, painfully low quality 4 frame videos, and our current administrations tendency of purposeful fallacy and lying is enough for me to believe that they are not giving us the full story. and enough for me to belive that a boeing 757 did not strike the pentagon.

Cynthetiq

ESTIMATED.. but not the ACTUAL, since the evidence points to the fact that an engine DID NOT hit the window. People wonder why it didn't hit the window. The fact is that it did NOT hit the window, plain and simple. No voodoo about it.

We can only agree on it if it was actually hit by it. the sillouhuette of a plane head on is very small, The area directly hit by it was severely damaged, but those that were not, no damage. Simple. Direct.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The estimated flight path is the only flight path available to the public. It's estimated based on the location of the hole, which is where the nose of the plane hit. Since we know where the nose hit, we know where the engines would have hit. When I say "estimated", it's only because we don't have the video to prove it. So where is your "ACTUAL" evidence coming from if the actual evidence is classified? Simple answer: no where. You're assuming you know the answer because you're assuming I'm wrong. The problem is that I'm right and you're ignoring me.

Would you care to post a link to the classified videos of the plane hitting the building?
The sillouhuette would have been he size of a Boeing 757-200. That's bigger than a bread box. The problem is that the hole is too small.

See?

Ustwo

Just thought I'd add this...

I suppose what angers me isn't that someone like will is so convinced of his own reality that all the real experts can't convince him other wise. Lots of people have strong opinions which they use absurd 'facts' to justify having.

Whats really disgusting, is that these lies and fabrications are being used against us by the enemies of the US to convince people that the US killed 3000 of its own people just to frame musslims. I expect terrorists and others who think of themselves as enemies of our country to lie. What I don't expect is for people in this country to help them by creating false yet plausable sounding theories for enemies of this country to use for their own agendas.

Will, just how does it feel being one of the tools used against the US?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ch'i

ustwo you need to self reflect. you have to understand that you sound as crazy to us as we do to you. you think torture is fine, we think your crazy; we think our government is ruthless, and possibly used the WTC attack as this administration's reichstag to incite a war and gain control, you think we're crazy.

i am very open to the idea of us being wrong, in fact i welcome it. i would like to believe that these arguments were only coincidental. but no one has been able to give an explaination for the holes in the facts. until those facts are legitimately rebuked i remain a loyal skeptic.

Dilbert1234567

They should release more video, absolutely, the government is way too restrictive on the information on the grounds of national security.

If you hit a normal brick and mortar building with a plane, the building will be smashed to bits, however, this building was designed to take an attack and survive, and it’s the military HQ for the United States of America, not some 2 bit radio shack. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand. It did what it’s designed to do, survive an attack.

i'm supprised it did as much damage as it did. i would have thought less.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ch'i

sorry, i was in a bad mood when i posted that, dilbert.

the commision report stated that several dozen support columns were knocked out. unless i have mistaken the pictures, i am at a loss as to how that could be factual.

Dilbert1234567

Yes dozens of columns were knocked out, but not in the front, the wings disintegrated virtually instantly after hitting (and went inside a bit) but the center of the plane did nock down support columns in its path deeper inside

Just because the administration used the aftermath to justify there goals, does not mean they orchestrated it.


your twisting his words...

Cynthetiq is saying there is a margin of error on the estimated path and the actual path, since we know where about the plane hit, we know about where it was going, however the plane could have theoretically been anywhere with in 5 to 20 feet (estimates pulled from arse, bottom line it is just an estimate, some where near the value given). A plane hitting a building is not as simple as a bullet hitting a paper target, on paper, you can see exactly where it hit, with a margin of error of less than a mm, when larger, malleable objects are involved, the error becomes larger, if the estimated path was off by a few inches, the window would have been missed, hell, the people estimating the path of the engine may be wrong, did they properly calculate the torque force applied by the deceleration of the plane as compared to the engine, since it was still attached, there would be one hell of a torsion force.

Ustwo, wonderful quote, I like how they truncate
To Where is the outrage on that gem? Oh I got some right here for all the web pages who quote Mike Walter as saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon, Do Some Fact Checking.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

fastom

The Pentagon "evidence" looks planted, where are both engines? They didn't burn up in the fire. How did some stuff vaporize yet other stuff is intact. What made that fairly big exit hole deep in the building... the schrapnel put there doesn't appear to have.

For what reason would the hotel and gas station tapes need to be seized right away? Why can't they be played?

What about cell company records showing the calls were made?
Why don't any Arabs appear with the passengers boarding the planes?
How is it that the government is certain of their identities within hours? Why haven't those been ammended when some turned up alive?

Dilbert1234567

A cruise missile could not account for the light poll damage, the damaged generator, and many other parts of the damage caused.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

You have absolutely no proof that it was planted, yet you say it as fact.


Some stupid quip about national security probably, they should be released. Still does not mean the government had anything to do with the attack.

Huh? Privacy issues for one, cell phone companies cant just give out personal information like that.

And how did you come to that conclusion?


Governmental incompetence?

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Cynthetiq

I'm not ignoring you and I don't think your are right or wrong. I'm stating that there isn't enough evidence to state that it's "right there under your nose if you'd just look". I'm with dilbert, you've taken many leaps of faith to justify your conclusions. I've not and won't.

I've stated that the estimated flight path is just that, estimated. While they can do simulations on computers and theoretical discussions, it doesn't change the reality of the scene itself. Damage was done over a wider area than what would be for a flightpath of a cruise missle. The hole is too small, yet when I look at the gaping hole in the WTC it seems too small also. IMO that's my own mind trying to "understand" and wrap itself around the idea that a plane hit the building.

I've witnessed a plane crash into a house, small 4-5 seater. House didn't look like anything hit it, but it was totally engulfed in flames. I know a plane hit it but there was little evidence of a plane hitting it and leaving a gaping hole. It was also damned hot standing across the street about 40 yards away. I visited the house again after they put out the fire and if I told someone that a plane hit it they would have called me a liar because there was no circumstantial evidence that ANYTHING hit it. It just looked like it was destroyed by a fire.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I guess you're unable to fight facts with facts. It's really too bad. I know that your smart, I've seen proof of that many times. You're unable to pull yourself from the realm of personal attacks long enough to actually discuss the subject at hand. I'm sure you're famailiar with the logical fallacy Ad hominem, where instead of arguing the facts, one replies to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. I'm also sure you know that a fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
I'm not going to be drawn into an appeal to pity or guilt by assosication fallacy, either. You know that if I believe what I believe that I think that the true bombers are probavbly using American's racism towards muslims to fool people into believing a lie, and that is rather bad. To suggest that I am helping terrorism, and that Bush is hindering it is more than an absurd attack. It's down right untrue. If I'm right, then I am helping the US. Bush has started a war of aggression in the middle East to stop terrorism, and global terrorism is on the rise in response to it. I think that we all know that the war in Iraq has done more for terrorism than I can ever do, and we know that has little to do with this thread.
I've never gone off on you the way you have gone off on me on numerous occasions.Questions like this show your true color. All I can say is that this is a classless move on your part. I'm not interested in getting into a war of personal attacks. If you have something usefull to add to this thread about the facts surrounding 9/11 and the individual's conclusions, be my guest. If not, then read the rules:
If you feel the urge to attack me or anyone else, show some restraint and hit the back button.


moving on...
As stated before, look at frame 12 through maybe 22 of your .gif picture. The left wing (left from the front) goes into the building. This is in opposition to the pictures take before the collapse. There was only one small hole , and I doubt the wings or tail would have simply folded in before hitting the outer brick. While I understand that the wings and tail might not have breached the walls, they should have done a great deal of damage to the brick. I'm assuming that the brick on the outside isn't a superbrick, because it was always described as normal brick in the releases. If you do have information I've not found yet, which is entirely possible, I'd love to read it. I like to have all the information so that my conclusions can be correct (not for the sake of argument, but for my own edification).

No, but motive and ability should be taken into account in an investigation. They had a motive, and they would be the only ones who had the means. It's not conclusive evidence, sue, but it is important.
Not at all. The "actual" vs. "estimated" evidence topic had to be squashed. There exists actual evidence, but it is not available to the public. What the non-CIA people out there can and have done is to use math and science to figure out what happened.
Considering the size of the hole, the margin of error is maybe a foot, which still puts the engine through the glass. Even if y some fluke the engine didn't hit the glass, there is not even a scratch on the wall outside that window. Airplane engine hits brick wall at 500+ mph and doesn't even scratch it? Highly doubtful.
Please don't put yourself on the same page as Ustwo. Eyewhitness testimony at the Pentagon is quite varied (everything from "it was a bomb!" to "it was a transport aircraft!"), and thus should be considered unreliable. If it were to be determined that a missle of some kind hit the pentagon, it would be best to rely on evidence taken from the pictures, testimony of the fire fighters and emergency workers (their testimony reads as being more reliable because they see fires and debris all the time, they were closer to the crash zone longer, and hey helped in clean up).

The holes created in the WTC towers are the size of planes. They are as long as the wingspan of the planes. The planes broke apart when hitting the WTC towers, of course, but they did manage to create perfect footprints on the outside of the buildings.

Much of the damage you see is due to a few things:
1) the hole This was punched inward, and was done so by an airborn projectile. The hole was approximately 18' across.
2) the outer walls Burned by fires, some windows broken outwards, probably by the explosion.
3) the inside Don't know. There are almot no pictures of the inside, and they are hard to make conclusions from.
4) the inner hole Created by the nose of the plane in the original report, then said to be the landing gear by Popular Mechanics. The firefighters and opther rescue workers have said they found no evidence of plane debris. That suggests that there wasn't a huge arm and wheel (rim) from an airplane, as that would be pretty obvious. It has also been suggested that the hole could have been created by a backhoe to gain access to fires. That ascertion does not prove or disprove either side of this, but if it's true it should be taken into account to get the whole picture.
Do you think that hot fire was enough to melt a computer monitor?

Dilbert1234567

Which engine are we talking about, the left or the right (when looking at the pentagon)?

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

Lookng at the pentagon (or the plane from the back) I mean the right one.

Cynthetiq

as far as the WTC footprints of the planes, different materials and strengths of those materials.

as far as the computer monitor melting? No because there were trees and other items just feet from the fire that raged within the confined space. If I were to compare them then the trees would have had to catch fire as well.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Ustwo

Most likely so we have less images of these...



Out there. I think the general feeling is that we don't want to turn 9/11 into a snuff film.

I wonder what explosion he jumped due to?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Penalty: arguing without evidence, begging the question.
-5 points

Dilbert1234567

That’s what I was hoping for.

The right engine stuck both a light pole on the road, and the generator outside of the pentagon. There are too many additional forces to calculate exactly where the engine would go, and just because it missed the window does not mean the plane does not exist.

If you were unaware, the generator was the cause of the huge explosion seen on the video at the impact, not just the airplane, it’s the generator.

Please watch the video in the article I posted a few times ago:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html


Further more, here is a new video I found of an f4 fighter slamming into a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph, the wall is designed to move back to absorbed some of the forces, if it had not the plane and wall would have suffered more damage:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...er_impact2.wmv

When a light aluminum plane hits a solid wall, it gets smashed to bits.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ch'i

I didn't say it did. I said the administration possibly used the attack to promote its own agendas.

Willravel

I'm suggesting that the lack of any evidence of wing, engine, or tail damage in brick does raise, in my mind, the question of why and/or how. If you can prove to me that an aluminum plane traveling at over 500 miles per hour will not scratch brick, then we can move on.
The generator was a small part of the explosion. A lot of it - I dare say most of it - was the expanding, igniting fuel.
Hey! I watched all the videos!
I don't know what material that wall was made from, but it clearly wasn't brick, and they also did not show what the wall looked like after the collission. I dare say that video is quite inconclusive when applied to the case of the Pentaqgon crash.

Dilbert1234567

I to do not say you did, however, I was making sure you did not imply it.


Well, the movie of the f4 was pretty conclusive, I’m sure it was scratched up, just like the pentagon was, the pictures of the pentagon just are not close enough to the wall to see scratches. Further more, the pentagon is not brick, it is reinforced concrete.
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm
This part of the site is regarding the original construction, it was upgraded shortly before the attacks too.

yes and no, I was not as clear as I should have been, most of the visible explosion was the generator, the planes fuel would have exploded at the site of impact and inside of the building, they were both were visible, I just don’t want you thinking that the huge explosion was only the plane.

the wall was reinforced concrete, just like the pentagon. Why do you think the pentagon is made from brick? Everything I have read states reinforced concrete, there was a shortage on steel during the war so the pentagon was made from reinforced concrete. Brick is a weak construction medium, and not suitable for a military installation.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen