Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Worth a read, from a more factual perspective.
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
all these points the guy on the vid is bringing up....i can honestly answer everyone with a rational answer, im laughin at this vid
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
all these points the guy on the vid is bringing up....i can honestly answer everyone with a rational answer, im laughin at this vid
ok, perhaps you can help me clear up a few things i dont get...
1) How did the steel melt, when the predicted temps inside the building (with buring jet fuel) we're no more than 1000. Steel melts at approx 2800 faran.
2)How did the solid titanium jet engines which so called hit the pentigon, not only melt, but vapourise
3) how come when they searched the pentagon after the crash, the only thing recovered was a turbine which was actually alot smaller than the 757?
Also, why did the manufactures of the american 757s claim that the turbine was nothing that would have fitted the 757s?
As for that site nath, you can clearly see those wheels are different! look at them for god sakes
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
They arent from the same plane mate Just wheels from a plane used to show what they are.
Also is that the onlty fault you have with that website? The wheels?
I'm not going to even bother trying to convince you. We are allowed to believe in what ever we like.
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
They arent from the same plane mate Just wheels from a plane used to show what they are.
Also is that the onlty fault you have with that website? The wheels?
I'm not going to even bother trying to convince you. We are allowed to believe in what ever we like.
Im not saying i believe all of it in the video, as im sure alot of it can be written off.
But theres alot which dont add up to me, possibly too much to ignore... the science, live witness reports etc.
I didnt read the website, as im half asleep and dont have the enthuasm to read much.
But i am downloading the Second Edition to that film, in dvd quality, just to see what else can be said.
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Thats cool mate.
I just found that website more believable than that vid, thats all.
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
omg people are buying this crap?
they try to claim the planes that his the WTC had something attached to the underside which shot missiles? WTF he contradicts this later on by saying hwo they have the lists of names etc of the peopel who were on those planes...when a passenegr flight is in the air, it is tracked the entire time, no way could it land, fit any form of weapon to the underside and take off without being spotted, and if however it was a different plane, then where did the original flights go? just disapear and suddenly be replaced by 3 new jets, which of course as we all knwo are very easy to get a hold off, my local nissan dealer has a few in  get real!
had the plane been taken down else where to get 'weapons' fitted, think all the crew and passengers would just sit calmy? fk that!
Just face it, this planet is headin for war, theyre plenty terrorists out there, look at london bombings, and there will be more....people are just too scared to realise the truth and therefore are trying to make up an explanation to protect themselves
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
eye witnesses? one of three things:
1) people paid to say that
2) people jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon
3) typical americans doing anything to get on TV
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
you still didnt answer those questions tho?
Witness being paid by who?
i think too many people heard/saw too much for them all to lie about the same thing?
As they we're at the scene anyway, im sure any reported and every reporter would have wanted to interview them about what they saw/heard. I dont think it occured to the witnesses at the time what they we're implying?
I can agree slightly about the planes, it does seem odd. But if im right in thinking about the passenger list, its not Alex jones who has/made up the passenger list, its someone from the government who has it?
One possible thing is its a list of nobodies?
Couple of others you could anser too then if you know it all:
1) why did the building fall down so quickly (within the hour) when previously all the other building that has burnt down in the same context all lasted for around 20 hours?
2) why did the CIA/government tell Norad (who mange the air traffic) that they was having a training exercise that day, and going to pretend that a 757 was going to crash into the WTC? bit more of a coincidence aint it?
3) for some aparent reason, building 7 (wtc) also caught fire, susposedly from the crash of the planes (although unlikely, but i could accept that). When the fire was immediately spotted, firefighters rushed to the scene, about to enter, but got pulled away and told to leave it, moments later it they decided to carry out a controlled destruction and pull the building down, and it fell exactly like the other 2....
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
why is it so hard to believe?
Hitler did it as soon as he was elected (attacked his own parliment building, and declared war, and vowed to his country not to stand down to someone who does that to them).
Some of the things are slightly dodgy there though,
the buildings sub parking, and ground level being completely ruined (subway carpark being reduced to rubble) after a plane had hit 60 or so floors above.
If the plane crash had actually reduced thick concrete walls to rubble, how come it did not ruin the floors at the same time (as the floors was also solid concrete).
The stainless steel actually melting, when if there was a fire, it wouldnt even reach half the temp required to melt the steel.
Also the plane than hit the pentagon? (yeah right!), the lawn was in perfect condition, the lamposts bent back the opposite way...
Also, how come none of the cars we're blown off the highway when the plane 'scrapped' over the top of them? at that distance, the jet engines would have overturned them several times.
I suspect alot of it can be ruled out due to other things, but those things above are facts which cant be argued.
i love this bit proving you wrong.
" the flashes before the plane hits the buildings...."
ok so a very dodgy looking garden shed video reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and you believe there were flashes?? i think you will find that there were no flashes.
"the buildings sub parking, and ground level being completely ruined (subway carpark being reduced to rubble)"
i guess thats what happens when thousands of tonnes of concrete lands on it
"Also the plane than hit the pentagon? (yeah right!), the lawn was in perfect condition, the lamposts bent back the opposite way...
Also, how come none of the cars we're blown off the highway when the plane 'scrapped' over the top of them? at that distance, the jet engines would have overturned them several times."
Aircraft was flown into the side, it did not even touch the ground before it hit, and the engines would have almost certainly been idling, however they would have been pitched up to about 30degrees so any jetwash would not affect objects on the ground.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jules
Cybermonkey - some times people find it easier or more comforting to believe in smoke and mirrors than accept the truth that is staring them in the face as it's just easier and less disturbing - I guess it's like a comfort thing.
Whilst I'm not saying that goverments worldwide don't cover things up or twist things to suit tham (as they undeniably do) you can't believe every conspiricy theory that comes up with every major incident - notice that you don't see these kind of theorys about small, minor news storys? It's only done on the huge storys for maximum impact/rumour mongering.
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Jules]
thankyou!! someone else with a brain other than me and nath who uses their brain 
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
quote:
Originally posted by Jules
Cybermonkey - some times people find it easier or more comforting to believe in smoke and mirrors than accept the truth that is staring them in the face as it's just easier and less disturbing - I guess it's like a comfort thing.
Whilst I'm not saying that goverments worldwide don't cover things up or twist things to suit tham (as they undeniably do) you can't believe every conspiricy theory that comes up with every major incident - notice that you don't see these kind of theorys about small, minor news storys? It's only done on the huge storys for maximum impact/rumour mongering.
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Jules]
thankyou!! someone else with a brain other than me and nath who uses their brain
amen to that my friend
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Oh and Lynny.........
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
all these points the guy on the vid is bringing up....i can honestly answer everyone with a rational answer, im laughin at this vid
ok, perhaps you can help me clear up a few things i dont get...
1) How did the steel melt, when the predicted temps inside the building (with buring jet fuel) we're no more than 1000. Steel melts at approx 2800 faran.
2)How did the solid titanium jet engines which so called hit the pentigon, not only melt, but vapourise
3) how come when they searched the pentagon after the crash, the only thing recovered was a turbine which was actually alot smaller than the 757?
Also, why did the manufactures of the american 757s claim that the turbine was nothing that would have fitted the 757s?
As for that site nath, you can clearly see those wheels are different! look at them for god sakes
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Bart]
oooh ooooh more 
"1) How did the steel melt, when the predicted temps inside the building (with buring jet fuel) we're no more than 1000. Steel melts at approx 2800 faran."
A) jet fuel (kerosene) contains TEL, tetra-ethyl-lead to incrase its flash point, jet fuel burns extremely hot, far higher than 1000 degrees i can tell you that much off the top of my head. it didnt need to melt the steel, only weaken it sufficiently in enough places to cause the building to become unstable.
"2)How did the solid titanium jet engines which so called hit the pentigon, not only melt, but vapourise"
Rolls Royce RB211-535 engines do not use titanium parts, they briefly tested titanium tipped fan blades, but these proved ineffective when using titanium billet with hardened steel. Note, both engines had actually punched through 3 layers of the Pentagon, and were found inside.
"3) how come when they searched the pentagon after the crash, the only thing recovered was a turbine which was actually alot smaller than the 757?
Also, why did the manufactures of the american 757s claim that the turbine was nothing that would have fitted the 757s?"
haha where do i start. they recovered a turbine, which is also known as an aircraft engine, and in the pictures i have seen, it looked like an RB211 to me. they are a lot smaller than they seem once all the fragile aluminum shell has been taken off and the a/c packs removed. the entire unit from fan blades through to the compressor blades at the back will only be 7-8ft long.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
sorry and lynny
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Go Cybermonkey!
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
ok conspiracy lovers, can you please please tell me how you hide an American Airlines 757 without the aviation world from noticing please?
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
i love this bit proving you wrong.
how have you proved me wrong?
" the flashes before the plane hits the buildings...."
ok so a very dodgy looking garden shed video reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and you believe there were flashes?? i think you will find that there were no flashes.
these are 4 images from 4 different reporters, not one dodgy put together video
"the buildings sub parking, and ground level being completely ruined (subway carpark being reduced to rubble)"
i guess thats what happens when thousands of tonnes of concrete lands on it
no, listen to the video properly, the part of the sub level (base) has been reduced to rubble before the collapse.
The two men then made their way to the parking garage, but it was practically demolished, no walls, just rubble. how come right at the bottom of the building was left in rubble, thick concrete walls was demolished, yet the floors inbetween was intact?
"Also the plane than hit the pentagon? (yeah right!), the lawn was in perfect condition, the lamposts bent back the opposite way...
Also, how come none of the cars we're blown off the highway when the plane 'scrapped' over the top of them? at that distance, the jet engines would have overturned them several times."
Aircraft was flown into the side, it did not even touch the ground before it hit, and the engines would have almost certainly been idling, however they would have been pitched up to about 30degrees so any jetwash would not affect objects on the ground.
in the government report, and on TV the specifically mentioned the plane sliding along the floor
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
i love this bit proving you wrong.
how have you proved me wrong?
" the flashes before the plane hits the buildings...."
ok so a very dodgy looking garden shed video reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and you believe there were flashes?? i think you will find that there were no flashes.
these are 4 images from 4 different reporters, not one dodgy put together video
In all the images and video i have seen of the aircraft crashing into the towers, i do not see flashes. only in that stoopid put-together-with-sellotape video you lot love so much. what are the flashes meant to be anyway?? rockets firing??
"the buildings sub parking, and ground level being completely ruined (subway carpark being reduced to rubble)"
i guess thats what happens when thousands of tonnes of concrete lands on it
no, listen to the video properly, the part of the sub level (base) has been reduced to rubble before the collapse.
The two men then made their way to the parking garage, but it was practically demolished, no walls, just rubble. how come right at the bottom of the building was left in rubble, thick concrete walls was demolished, yet the floors inbetween was intact?
i dont get it? the sub level car parks are material, but not essential to the buildings stability, the core and foundations go down perhaps 100ft.
"Also the plane than hit the pentagon? (yeah right!), the lawn was in perfect condition, the lamposts bent back the opposite way...
Also, how come none of the cars we're blown off the highway when the plane 'scrapped' over the top of them? at that distance, the jet engines would have overturned them several times."
Aircraft was flown into the side, it did not even touch the ground before it hit, and the engines would have almost certainly been idling, however they would have been pitched up to about 30degrees so any jetwash would not affect objects on the ground.
in the government report, and on TV the specifically mentioned the plane sliding along the floor
perhaps the tail struck the ground as it hit the building? i remember seeing scuff marks on the lawn anyway...
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Cybermonkey]
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Ok this is getting hard to read now
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
said himself on the vid that something of a fair size was removed from the pentagon, could be anything, major part of the plane perhaps?
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by lynny_sxi]
|
James_DT
Member
Registered: 9th Apr 04
Location: Cambridgeshire
User status: Offline
|
Is this the same crackpot conspiracy video that was posted on here before? It's completely stupid, and really only made for a) Americans and b) fools who believe such crap. It's nearly as bad as www.johntitor.com
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
will be either of the engines, or the front or rear bulkhead
|
