911 News for Graham S1 and other conspiracy loons.....
18-05-2006, 03:23 PM
#81
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Matt J
Originally Posted by MWF
Would be interesting to here how a missile could have knocked over a bunch of lamposts on it's way towards the Pentagon.
18-05-2006, 03:30 PM
#82
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MWF
Originally Posted by Matt J
Originally Posted by MWF
Would be interesting to here how a missile could have knocked over a bunch of lamposts on it's way towards the Pentagon.
Don't base any of this around the facts available at this time - use conjecture, plus a few scenes from Holywood action adventure movies as a reference, and job's a good 'un!
18-05-2006, 03:39 PM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by MWF
Originally Posted by Matt J
Originally Posted by MWF
Would be interesting to here how a missile could have knocked over a bunch of lamposts on it's way towards the Pentagon.
Rich, have a look at one of the links I posted, plenty of qualified people on there with facts, right up your street
amazes me the amount of people calling us all loons with no facts, when the facts the US government are giving for the events that day are even more unbelievable
Thats right folks, all that concrete in the WTC was turned to dust by the building collapsing, you'd expect a building like that to leave at least some traces of concrete chunks/boulders hey?
What about the official facts for WTC7? the collapse they cant explain, in they're words "the only explanation we come up with is not realistic enough to consider" so they dont knwo why that came down, didnt even bother to find out!
18-05-2006, 03:44 PM
#85
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Originally Posted by MWF
Originally Posted by Matt J
Originally Posted by MWF
Would be interesting to here how a missile could have knocked over a bunch of lamposts on it's way towards the Pentagon.
Don't base any of this around the facts available at this time - use conjecture, plus a few scenes from Holywood action adventure movies as a reference, and job's a good 'un!
You are indeed right, why am I wasting my time.
I guess the only real question is, why would anyone with any sense choose to fake a plane hitting something with a missile? I mean how would you guarantee that nobody would see it or just so happen to film it and prove the whole think was a hoax?
It's just totally ilogical in it's concept.
Genuinely interesting article here for people who can tie their own shoelaces. And by that I mean the Popular Mechanics bit.
http://911review.com/pm/markup/
18-05-2006, 03:50 PM
#86
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Matt J
Originally Posted by MWF
Originally Posted by Matt J
Originally Posted by MWF
Would be interesting to here how a missile could have knocked over a bunch of lamposts on it's way towards the Pentagon.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...es/p_taxi3.jpg
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...images/car.jpg
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...ages/1_vid.jpg
18-05-2006, 03:52 PM
#87
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-05-2006, 03:53 PM
#88
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My problem is the standpoint.
Don't get me wrong - I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, BUT I don't see why it's a case of the "conspiracy is correct", instead of being "this is why it's correct".
I need evidence, not embittered ex-govt officials with motive....
Don't get me wrong - I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, BUT I don't see why it's a case of the "conspiracy is correct", instead of being "this is why it's correct".
I need evidence, not embittered ex-govt officials with motive....
18-05-2006, 03:55 PM
#89
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RichardPON
My problem is the standpoint.
Don't get me wrong - I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, BUT I don't see why it's a case of the "conspiracy is correct", instead of being "this is why it's correct".
I need evidence, not embittered ex-govt officials with motive....
Don't get me wrong - I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, BUT I don't see why it's a case of the "conspiracy is correct", instead of being "this is why it's correct".
I need evidence, not embittered ex-govt officials with motive....
As well all know we will never find out
18-05-2006, 05:04 PM
#91
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a new documentry the other day on JFK. It used computer modelling of the whole event to disprove the 'magic bullet theory' as in Oliver Stones movie. That whole magic bullet theory and multiple shooters was based on a number of factors - chiefly being the open mike on a cops bike. They thought he was in a different place than he was so the shot echoed creating the sound of another shot. The angles of the shot were proven to be right using the computer model, the height the pres was sitting at etc.
My point being that - a little information is a bad thing! Unless you're a professional engineering analyst you can't possibly say the damage 2 multi-million ton buildings falling to the floor would have or the manner in which they'd fail. You need alot of engineering knowledge and alot of analysis. Most of the people on here shouting 'Conspiracy' havent a clue what they're talking about in civil engineering terms and because they dont understand it in terms of raw phsyics they seek to explain it in terms that they do understand - controlled demolition and the like.
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
Its human nature to be curious and to seek explanations but at some point you have to jsut accept that whilst not understanding the raw phsyics of it you wont have yourself an answer. if you seek that answer outside the realms of engineering you'll end up in fanstasy paranoia land.
Having said that there's nothing to preclude the US from say - allowing Bin Laden to organise these attacks in order to justify their later actions but to be honest the world is just alot more random than that.
My point being that - a little information is a bad thing! Unless you're a professional engineering analyst you can't possibly say the damage 2 multi-million ton buildings falling to the floor would have or the manner in which they'd fail. You need alot of engineering knowledge and alot of analysis. Most of the people on here shouting 'Conspiracy' havent a clue what they're talking about in civil engineering terms and because they dont understand it in terms of raw phsyics they seek to explain it in terms that they do understand - controlled demolition and the like.
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
Its human nature to be curious and to seek explanations but at some point you have to jsut accept that whilst not understanding the raw phsyics of it you wont have yourself an answer. if you seek that answer outside the realms of engineering you'll end up in fanstasy paranoia land.
Having said that there's nothing to preclude the US from say - allowing Bin Laden to organise these attacks in order to justify their later actions but to be honest the world is just alot more random than that.
18-05-2006, 05:08 PM
#92
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keith B
I saw a new documentry the other day on JFK. It used computer modelling of the whole event to disprove the 'magic bullet theory' as in Oliver Stones movie. That whole magic bullet theory and multiple shooters was based on a number of factors - chiefly being the open mike on a cops bike. They thought he was in a different place than he was so the shot echoed creating the sound of another shot. The angles of the shot were proven to be right using the computer model, the height the pres was sitting at etc.
My point being that - a little information is a bad thing! Unless you're a professional engineering analyst you can't possibly say the damage 2 multi-million ton buildings falling to the floor would have or the manner in which they'd fail. You need alot of engineering knowledge and alot of analysis. Most of the people on here shouting 'Conspiracy' havent a clue what they're talking about in civil engineering terms and because they dont understand it in terms of raw phsyics they seek to explain it in terms that they do understand - controlled demolition and the like.
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
Its human nature to be curious and to seek explanations but at some point you have to jsut accept that whilst not understanding the raw phsyics of it you wont have yourself an answer. if you seek that answer outside the realms of engineering you'll end up in fanstasy paranoia land.
Having said that there's nothing to preclude the US from say - allowing Bin Laden to organise these attacks in order to justify their later actions but to be honest the world is just alot more random than that.
My point being that - a little information is a bad thing! Unless you're a professional engineering analyst you can't possibly say the damage 2 multi-million ton buildings falling to the floor would have or the manner in which they'd fail. You need alot of engineering knowledge and alot of analysis. Most of the people on here shouting 'Conspiracy' havent a clue what they're talking about in civil engineering terms and because they dont understand it in terms of raw phsyics they seek to explain it in terms that they do understand - controlled demolition and the like.
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
Its human nature to be curious and to seek explanations but at some point you have to jsut accept that whilst not understanding the raw phsyics of it you wont have yourself an answer. if you seek that answer outside the realms of engineering you'll end up in fanstasy paranoia land.
Having said that there's nothing to preclude the US from say - allowing Bin Laden to organise these attacks in order to justify their later actions but to be honest the world is just alot more random than that.
the JFK and Moonlanding conspiracies are ideal examples of what happens when you let conspiracy theorists fester over tiny bits of information they don't understand.
18-05-2006, 05:37 PM
#94
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keith B
My point being that - a little information is a bad thing! Unless you're a professional engineering analyst you can't possibly say the damage 2 multi-million ton buildings falling to the floor would have or the manner in which they'd fail. You need alot of engineering knowledge and alot of analysis. Most of the people on here shouting 'Conspiracy' havent a clue what they're talking about in civil engineering terms and because they dont understand it in terms of raw phsyics they seek to explain it in terms that they do understand - controlled demolition and the like.
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
Its human nature to be curious and to seek explanations but at some point you have to jsut accept that whilst not understanding the raw phsyics of it you wont have yourself an answer. if you seek that answer outside the realms of engineering you'll end up in fanstasy paranoia land.
Having said that there's nothing to preclude the US from say - allowing Bin Laden to organise these attacks in order to justify their later actions but to be honest the world is just alot more random than that.
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
Its human nature to be curious and to seek explanations but at some point you have to jsut accept that whilst not understanding the raw phsyics of it you wont have yourself an answer. if you seek that answer outside the realms of engineering you'll end up in fanstasy paranoia land.
Having said that there's nothing to preclude the US from say - allowing Bin Laden to organise these attacks in order to justify their later actions but to be honest the world is just alot more random than that.
Great post
18-05-2006, 05:47 PM
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Keith B
When this topic first came up on PF the most common thing mentioned was the way the towers collapsed but soon as it was explained about the flooring truss desing of WTC1 and 2 and the removal of heat proofing etc hardly anyone mentions it but moves on to the next thing they dont understand.
you're right, I'm not qualified in physics or laws of nature or building collapse, which is why I read/listen to people who are, that link I posted earlier has more than one qualified person in the above fields explaining why what happended to the buildings shouldnt of happened, is that not what you lot complain about? people making decisions without the knowledge to back it up, and yet when I post links to people who ARE qualified to speak its not good enough, WTF
18-05-2006, 05:55 PM
#96
PassionFord Post Whore!!
An Aeroplane that is airborn leaves a vapor trail because of the engine heat and the cold air,hence the vapor trail.
When a plane takes of a vapor trail is very rarely seen even at the end of the run way where the engines are usually at 80-90% of their power,but still no vapour trail,even though theres a massive amount of heat.
A vapor trail is Aproximately 50-100 yards behind an airborn plane.
In this animated film of the 5 frames realeased you will see a vapor trail directly behind the "aeroplane",2 things are wrong with this, 1)The plane is too low to produce a vapor trail even at 500mph 2)IF it is a vapor trail its too near to the aeroplane.
Could it be a missile which leaves a small smoke trail regardless?
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/Pent...morig.gif.html
your thourghts?
In this frame you will see the "vapor trail" look closely and you will see its in a zig zag formation,vapor trails are straight ,as you would expect because of the aeroplane speed,However a missile,if this is the case,needs almost constantly to correct its self due to wind,target possitioning etc, Hence the slight zig zag movement of the smoke.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/Pent...camf1.jpg.html
your thourghts?
When a plane takes of a vapor trail is very rarely seen even at the end of the run way where the engines are usually at 80-90% of their power,but still no vapour trail,even though theres a massive amount of heat.
A vapor trail is Aproximately 50-100 yards behind an airborn plane.
In this animated film of the 5 frames realeased you will see a vapor trail directly behind the "aeroplane",2 things are wrong with this, 1)The plane is too low to produce a vapor trail even at 500mph 2)IF it is a vapor trail its too near to the aeroplane.
Could it be a missile which leaves a small smoke trail regardless?
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/Pent...morig.gif.html
your thourghts?
In this frame you will see the "vapor trail" look closely and you will see its in a zig zag formation,vapor trails are straight ,as you would expect because of the aeroplane speed,However a missile,if this is the case,needs almost constantly to correct its self due to wind,target possitioning etc, Hence the slight zig zag movement of the smoke.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/Pent...camf1.jpg.html
your thourghts?
18-05-2006, 06:05 PM
#97
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RichPON - I know you always agree with me, you just dont realise you do! LOL!
st3v3 - I doubt its a vapor trial as such. I would guess its either debris from hitting the trees and lamp posts, hydraulic fluid from the damage to the wings from the aforementioned obstacles, or fuel from the wings from the impact damage. I find it more likely though that the terrorist pilot put the engines to full throttle and its just an inefficient burn as the engines are never given 100% throttle in normal service. My point being is that there's a lot of things it could be and from some crappy CCTV footage and without knowledge of aviation technology and 1st hand viewing of what the plane had hit on the ground prior to hitting the building we jsut dont know - but hey it could just be some photo-shopped in 'vapor' LMAO!
st3v3 - I doubt its a vapor trial as such. I would guess its either debris from hitting the trees and lamp posts, hydraulic fluid from the damage to the wings from the aforementioned obstacles, or fuel from the wings from the impact damage. I find it more likely though that the terrorist pilot put the engines to full throttle and its just an inefficient burn as the engines are never given 100% throttle in normal service. My point being is that there's a lot of things it could be and from some crappy CCTV footage and without knowledge of aviation technology and 1st hand viewing of what the plane had hit on the ground prior to hitting the building we jsut dont know - but hey it could just be some photo-shopped in 'vapor' LMAO!
18-05-2006, 06:14 PM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Keith B
we jsut dont know - but hey it could just be some photo-shopped in 'vapor' LMAO!
18-05-2006, 06:33 PM
#99
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admitting I'm not an expert in accident damage or avionics is an admission not a contradiction. I am a professional engineer however.
18-05-2006, 06:34 PM
#100
PassionFord Post Whore!!
i have one more question,
The terrorist pilot of the plane that crashed in to the pentigon,apparently had not had that much training and thier instrctors had thought they were prety crap.
If this is the case how did they mangage to fly a 747 Aeroplane xx amount of feet off the floor and not manage to crash?? The hole in the front of the pentagon was quite low to the ground.
To do this you would need to be a very very good pilot to do this with an airliner you need a miracle and more than a couple of weeks tuition.
The usa government have released this footage for another reason,hell knows what for though.
The terrorist pilot of the plane that crashed in to the pentigon,apparently had not had that much training and thier instrctors had thought they were prety crap.
If this is the case how did they mangage to fly a 747 Aeroplane xx amount of feet off the floor and not manage to crash?? The hole in the front of the pentagon was quite low to the ground.
To do this you would need to be a very very good pilot to do this with an airliner you need a miracle and more than a couple of weeks tuition.
The usa government have released this footage for another reason,hell knows what for though.
18-05-2006, 06:40 PM
#101
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by st3v3
i have one more question,
The terrorist pilot of the plane that crashed in to the pentigon,apparently had not had that much training and thier instrctors had thought they were prety crap.
If this is the case how did they mangage to fly a 747 Aeroplane xx amount of feet off the floor and not manage to crash?? The hole in the front of the pentagon was quite low to the ground.
To do this you would need to be a very very good pilot to do this with an airliner you need a miracle and more than a couple of weeks tuition.
The usa government have released this footage for another reason,hell knows what for though.
The terrorist pilot of the plane that crashed in to the pentigon,apparently had not had that much training and thier instrctors had thought they were prety crap.
If this is the case how did they mangage to fly a 747 Aeroplane xx amount of feet off the floor and not manage to crash?? The hole in the front of the pentagon was quite low to the ground.
To do this you would need to be a very very good pilot to do this with an airliner you need a miracle and more than a couple of weeks tuition.
The usa government have released this footage for another reason,hell knows what for though.
18-05-2006, 08:41 PM
#102
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bexhill, East Sussex
Posts: 1,789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Matt J
...and how convenient that all the steel fell in 30 foot lengths ready to be loaded up onto wagons, wagons that belonged to a company called controlled demolitions btw 
Believing all this conjecture is the same as believing that there are hidden messages in old rock records when played backwards - if you look or listen closely enough at anything you will see or hear the things you want to see or hear!
Andy
18-05-2006, 08:57 PM
#103
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 6,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happended to the passengers who phoned their loved ones? They just made it up, or were prepped to disappear leaving their lives and children/family behind for what? America could have done Iraq without 911. Why has no one come forward, must be 100s of people involved to pull it off, make a billion in tv/media fees for their story with proof
18-05-2006, 09:12 PM
#104
Part of the Furniture
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amazing that people can disregard evidence while clutching to these nutball conspiracy theories
Facts
1, hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a AA boeing 757 hit the pentagon
2, AA boeing 757 parts were found in the pentagon, including the nose wheel landing gear strut, a wheel hub, part of the nosecone, sections of the engine and more.
3, the actual approach of the 757 could have been flown by an amateur pilot, this confirmed by 757 pilots
4, knocked down lamp posts a lot wider than any missile
photos have been released of the wreckage and the lamp posts for years but doing any google search etc they can be hard to find because of the amount of conspiracy sites
Facts
1, hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a AA boeing 757 hit the pentagon
2, AA boeing 757 parts were found in the pentagon, including the nose wheel landing gear strut, a wheel hub, part of the nosecone, sections of the engine and more.
3, the actual approach of the 757 could have been flown by an amateur pilot, this confirmed by 757 pilots
4, knocked down lamp posts a lot wider than any missile
photos have been released of the wreckage and the lamp posts for years but doing any google search etc they can be hard to find because of the amount of conspiracy sites
19-05-2006, 11:28 AM
#105
Wanna be whore...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently this sign was put up inside the Pentagon on the 10th
Oh and there's some boeing parts that have been high lighted as well, wounder how they got there?
Oh and there's some boeing parts that have been high lighted as well, wounder how they got there?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lukeeboy149
General Car Related Discussion.
4
22-08-2015 04:29 PM