Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

[CrackerJax]

So you think using the B-52 into the empire state building is some sort of damning evidence????//

ur out of ur depth too.

 

[Keenly]

i respond to a claim you make and thats the response you give?


your not even paying attention to whats going on anymore, just trolling every post and disagreeing with anything we say

 

[Katatawnic]

now to get to the point yes you are right about getting rid of the fuel and such. however the wings would have separated at time of impact. even if they were full of fuel. witch makes it hard to believe about the extra fuel burning. there was a big explosion at time of impact that carried through to the other side. witch would have taken a lot of fuel. also the faster the plane is going the harder the impact the more pressure the plane has to endure.

(Separated wings or not aside, this just brings me back to the same thing RE: the repeated claims that the fuel wasn't enough to bring down the towers.) The fact is that the planes were bombs, pure and simple. Doesn't matter how much fuel was burned on impact, or how much was able to spread throughout the buildings. The gigantic bombs exploded in these buildings, which caused tremendous fires, which rapidly spread, which led to destruction of the buildings. What is so difficult to understand about this?!

Back to the wings, how do you know they would have separated? Further, the more speed at which something is traveling, the less time there would be for anything to be able to separate. (This makes sense to me, anyhow. I'm no physicist, and can't prove it. And I could be wrong. It simply makes sense.)

Did the terrorists KNOW that the towers would fall? Probably not.... but they knew the carnage and SYMBOLISM would be MASSIVE. The towers dropping was icing on the cake.... but not necessary.

I typed out a comment last night stating just this, but didn't bother posting it because I expected to be ordered to issue proof.

now we are just saving face and getting innocent kids killed, so someone can make a fortune off of it.

You mean like this?

[youtube]JvkeXRXjYxk[/youtube]

CAPTION: "As we were en route, we tossed tootsie rolls, toys and water to kids running along side our vehicle. No matter where you go, no matter where you live, kids are still kids."


[youtube]VqHqLinyv_4[/youtube]

CAPTION: "tossed these little girl some bottled water after giving them some munchies "


[youtube]5kLDdXkpjkI[/youtube]

CAPTION: "While waiting to leave the post on a convoy mission, we tossed some munchies to two young Iraqi girls outside the fence."

Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, he plunged through the 34th Street side of the building wreaking havoc. The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.

You're seriously comparing a B-25 to a 747?!? And a fire in the basement to an inferno burning throughout an entire building?!?

 

[CrackerJax]

i respond to a claim you make and thats the response you give?


your not even paying attention to whats going on anymore, just trolling every post and disagreeing with anything we say

I responded to your logic ... ur out of ur depth.

The B-52 is not even comparable. The structures of the WTT and the Empire state building aren't even close. Completely different technology and architecture/engineering.

Think it through a bit.

 

[RickWhite]

What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.

And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet.

But really, why is this still going on? We have proved that there has been a thorough investigation. We have proved that every part of these arguments is BS. We have proved that all the sources posted by the truthers have zero credibility. At this point I fail to see how any reasonable person still can not see the forest for the trees.

All the so called evidence posted by the truthers comes from the same tiny group of nuts and they have all been discredited. Just because GR keeps shouting childish lies and posting bogus evidence doesn't mean there is truth to it. I DEMONSTRATED on no uncertain terms that everything GR posts is fake. This is proved by the fact that none of it is published in any credible journal. What more proof do you need?

I think if God himself came down from the heavens and told you it was not a conspiracy you guys would argue with him.

 

[maxamus1]

Katatawnic you have taken some of my words wrong. so to start with i am talking about our troops dieing, our young children. about the fires i have posted about this in other threads if you want go and look if not oh-well. second. if the wings would have separated at time of impact it would have damaged the buildings differently. which would have some kind of impact on the way the buildings would have fell.

 

[maxamus1]

What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.



you brought it up not me.





And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet.




i am not arguing this, but what i am saying is that it would have damaged the building differently which would impact the way the building fell.





But really, why is this still going on? We have proved that there has been a thorough investigation. We have proved that every part of these arguments is BS. We have proved that all the sources posted by the truthers have zero credibility. At this point I fail to see how any reasonable person still can not see the forest for the trees.


and so have other on the my side. you chose not to believe them. you say we are not creditable and we say the same to you.




All the so called evidence posted by the truthers comes from the same tiny group of nuts and they have all been discredited. Just because GR keeps shouting childish lies and posting bogus evidence doesn't mean there is truth to it. I DEMONSTRATED on no uncertain terms that everything GR posts is fake. This is proved by the fact that none of it is published in any credible journal. What more proof do you need?


why don't they publish it? maybe, because if they did and more ppl woke up to the fact that our government could do something like this war would break out.




I think if God himself came down from the heavens and told you it was not a conspiracy you guys would argue with him.

what if he came down and said we were right, i am sure you would argue with him too.

 

[RickWhite]

Katatawnic you have taken some of my words wrong. so to start with i am talking about our troops dieing, our young children. about the fires i have posted about this in other threads if you want go and look if not oh-well. second. if the wings would have separated at time of impact it would have damaged the buildings differently. which would have some kind of impact on the way the buildings would have fell.

Man come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have got to know that you are not qualified to make such an assumption. Do you really think you can use your intuition to reconstruct how the damage would have occurred? Does this really make sense to you? Does it really?

The way physics works (I have a physics background) is exactly this. An object in motion remains in motion until met by an opposing force of equal or greater value.

The wings had considerable mass and enough strength to hold the weigh of the plane and its passengers. Now if you consider that the wing is one big lever, you see that the base is quite strong.

The mass of the plane traveling very fast meets with the beams. Presumably the wings, which carry their own mass, wrapped around the beams much like a car around a telephone pole. The entire mass of he wings and a great deal of the plane's mass is transfered to the small contact area on the beams. The beams sheer as do the wings (presumably) but the sheered pieces keep moving and act like canon balls passing through the building and ripping off the fireproofing from large areas of the beams. At the same time copious amounts of fuel are dumped into the building igniting several floors.

The fire heats the beams until they have only a fraction of their normal strength. Also, because this particular design has long beams, the fire heats them unevenly and causes them to warp. This warping literally pulls the beams apart. his combined with the damage from the plane and the weakened steel causes the many floors above the wound to fall. Once this happens the momentum pancakes subsequent floors and the mass snowballs. What is so hard to understand?

 

[Katatawnic]

Katatawnic you have taken some of my words wrong. so to start with i am talking about our troops dieing, our young children. about the fires i have posted about this in other threads if you want go and look if not oh-well. second. if the wings would have separated at time of impact it would have damaged the buildings differently. which would have some kind of impact on the way the buildings would have fell.

Then you should have said our soldiers. Many of whom, by the way, are far from kids. My fiance turned 41 while deployed to Iraq, and many of his comrades were also quite grown men. Those were his videos, BTW. He told me over the phone about all the kids they encountered while on their convoys and the food, water, toys, etc., they'd toss to them, and I asked him to record whatever he could.

Just because I don't reply to every post doesn't mean I haven't read these long, exhaustive threads in their entirety. Most often I don't bother posting. The drama is quite unnecessary and unwanted, and I don't feel like getting drawn into it. I've gone through this argument more than enough with one of my sons, and he gets terribly pissed off that my mom and I refuse to discuss his conspiracy theories with him anymore... because we don't like drama and arguing. It's not worth it.

what if he came down and said we were right, i am sure you would argue with him too.

If God came down and said anything I'd believe she exists, and would certainly believe whatever she says.

Do you really think you can use your intuition to reconstruct how the damage would have occurred? Does this really make sense to you? Does it really?

The way physics works (I have a physics background) is exactly this. An object in motion remains in motion until met by an opposing force of equal or greater value.

What is so hard to understand?

Apparently it is.

 

[maxamus1]

i was going to bed before i read this. rick you proved my point. read what you wrote and apply it to what i have wrote over and over again.also do you believe you are qulified to make such an asumption? what makes you beter than me? to katatawnic their are a lot of young kids in this war. you are upset with me because you took what i wrote the wrong way. because your fiance is older you forget about our young men and women, and yes their is a lot of them in the military. as far as god being a he or she i don't care. i am sure there are many ppl on here that will argue that with you, but i will not. lastly, he wrote (what is so hard to understand ?) not is that so hard to understand. slow down a lil bit before you post.

 

[CrackerJax]

He understands physics for one thing.... you obviously do not. The buildings beam are static. The plane is coming in at 500 mph...... what do you think happens? It isn't a roadrunner / wiley coyote cartoon. Those wings were coming in fast and HEAVY. What do you think is coming out the other side of the buildings? that's the momentum pushing debris , people and plane. 500 mph is awfully fast. You have no idea.

 

[NoDrama]

(Separated wings or not aside, this just brings me back to the same thing RE: the repeated claims that the fuel wasn't enough to bring down the towers.) The fact is that the planes were bombs, pure and simple. Doesn't matter how much fuel was burned on impact, or how much was able to spread throughout the buildings. The gigantic bombs exploded in these buildings, which caused tremendous fires, which rapidly spread, which led to destruction of the buildings. What is so difficult to understand about this?!

Back to the wings, how do you know they would have separated? Further, the more speed at which something is traveling, the less time there would be for anything to be able to separate. (This makes sense to me, anyhow. I'm no physicist, and can't prove it. And I could be wrong. It simply makes sense.)



I typed out a comment last night stating just this, but didn't bother posting it because I expected to be ordered to issue proof.



You mean like this?



CAPTION: "As we were en route, we tossed tootsie rolls, toys and water to kids running along side our vehicle. No matter where you go, no matter where you live, kids are still kids."




CAPTION: "tossed these little girl some bottled water after giving them some munchies "



CAPTION: "While waiting to leave the post on a convoy mission, we tossed some munchies to two young Iraqi girls outside the fence."



You're seriously comparing a B-25 to a 747?!? And a fire in the basement to an inferno burning throughout an entire building?!?

I take issue with your whole post. First of all the plane is not a BOMB, its more like a big Molotov cocktail. Since there is no pressurized fuel you have no explosion all you have is burning fuel splattered everywhere. To say it is the same as a bomb means that you haven't any actual experience with bombs or fuel fires, nor a good grasp of the physical principles involved with flames and explosives.

Your right when you said your no physicist, by your logic a bullet could never penetrate anything because it is moving so fast the object cannot separate or get out of the way. FWIW 600 MPH is not fast at all, the space shuttle flies at over 10,000 MPH getting into the upper atmosphere of earth. By your logic the craft would explode due to the air molecules not being able to get out of the way. It makes no sense at all, how you can claim it does is beyond me.

No one is saying that soldiers are running around gunning down children in the street. What they are referring to is the bombing of buildings where these children are either inside or nearby. Of course they claim that Al quaeda and the Taliban plant those children there and hide behind them, but I don't believe that, children are sacred to Muslims.

Im not sure if you figured this out yet or not, but there was no inferno in the buildings, the fires were localized to less than 10% of the building, hardly an inferno. There have been many pictures posted of real infernos, where the whole building is entirely consumed and burned for DAYS and yet still they do not fall. Your towers burned for less than 90 minutes and completely collapsed every section into pieces and fell into its own footprint. A building that was only marginally hit by falling debris and had less than 1% of the building on fire also just collapsed, also a steel building. Yet a building that had the whole of tower #2 fall upon it had 19 intact floors, with pictures still hanging on the walls in the lobby. Too many "Perfect Storm" Coincidences for me.

 

[NoDrama]

I responded to your logic ... ur out of ur depth.

The B-52 is not even comparable. The structures of the WTT and the Empire state building aren't even close. Completely different technology and architecture/engineering.

Think it through a bit.

But yet many of you claim that a burning fuel truck and a bridge are the perfect evidence of your melt and collapse theory. Im afraid the Empire State Building and a B-52 bomber have far far more in common with the WTC towers than a bridge and a truck.

 

[NoDrama]

What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.

Straw Man argument.

And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet.

Not even close, if you break something up you have already lessened it's impact because you have slowed its speed a considerable amount. A BB traveling at the speed of light would NOT disintegrate the planet, your way way out there buddy. LOL I would LOVE to see you prove that one without making yourself look like a fool.

But really, why is this still going on? We have proved that there has been a thorough investigation. We have proved that every part of these arguments is BS. We have proved that all the sources posted by the truthers have zero credibility. At this point I fail to see how any reasonable person still can not see the forest for the trees.

You haven't proven anything Ricky, all you've done is argue with no evidence and no proof of anything. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The evidence speaks for itself, you do not.

All the so called evidence posted by the truthers comes from the same tiny group of nuts and they have all been discredited. Just because GR keeps shouting childish lies and posting bogus evidence doesn't mean there is truth to it. I DEMONSTRATED on no uncertain terms that everything GR posts is fake. This is proved by the fact that none of it is published in any credible journal. What more proof do you need?

I think if God himself came down from the heavens and told you it was not a conspiracy you guys would argue with him.

The truth movement is not "Tiny" for every Truther out there there are 10 more silent ones sitting at home.

If god himself came down then I would believe whatever he told me, but since that will NEVER happen I am safe to voice my opinions and evidence as I see fit, regardless of whether you think it has merit or not. FWIW I doubt the boiling of water is in any journal, yet we don't say that boiling water is fake do we? And if the criteria is that in order for anything to be real it must be published in a scientific journal then i guess we can get rid of all religions now can't we and God and All sorts of things.

Smoke em if you got em!

 

[NoDrama]

The way physics works (I have a physics background) is exactly this.

You do NOT have a Physics background and it is apparent. Besides its just a logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Just because you took Physical Science in High School does not qualify you.

 

[CrackerJax]

But yet many of you claim that a burning fuel truck and a bridge are the perfect evidence of your melt and collapse theory. Im afraid the Empire State Building and a B-52 bomber have far far more in common with the WTC towers than a bridge and a truck.

No, even using UR analogy of the fuel truck and bridge is closer to the empire state and WTT.

High temps caused the beams to become brittle. Not unlike fuel truck and bridge beams.

The B-52 is pitifully small compared to the Empire state building and was carrying a fraction of fuel compared to the two jets on 9/11. It was also going much much slower.

One need only use a small bit of common sense to see that the aircraft were fully capable of taking down the towers.

Only the most unpatriotic and mistrusting of fringe elements will EVER believe something as CONVOLUTED as the 9/11 truthers theory.

Occams razor always reveals the truth. 9/11 conspiracy fails that test miserably.

 

[fdd2blk]

[youtube]xp9852hq0W0[/youtube]

 

[CrackerJax]

Man, ur not kidding....

 

[NoDrama]

High temps caused the beams to become brittle. Not unlike fuel truck and bridge beams.

So now the fire made them brittle? I thought you all said that the fires melted or otherwise caused the steel to lose its rigidity and thats whqat caused all the floors below to do the same thing. Now its brittle steel eh? Can you at least keep your story straight.

The B-52 is pitifully small compared to the Empire state building and was carrying a fraction of fuel compared to the two jets on 9/11. It was also going much much slower.

One need only use a small bit of common sense to see that the aircraft were fully capable of taking down the towers.

The planes that crashed into the towers were also pitifully small compared to the building. At least the B-52 had AVGAS in it, probably 100 octane points above jet fuel which makes the fuel much much more volatile.

Only the most unpatriotic and mistrusting of fringe elements will EVER believe something as CONVOLUTED as the 9/11 truthers theory.

Occams razor always reveals the truth. 9/11 conspiracy fails that test miserably.

Occam's razor is not a theory of absolutes as you state it is, it is a guideline.

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!"


No where does it say that the simplest explanation is always 100% correct, rather that it is usually the case.

And calling anyone who believes in the 911 conspiracy as unpatriotic really burns my ass. I have been fired upon by foreign combatants, you can't say the same, Im more patriotic than you are.

 

[Katatawnic]

to katatawnic their are a lot of young kids in this war. you are upset with me because you took what i wrote the wrong way. because your fiance is older you forget about our young men and women, and yes their is a lot of them in the military. as far as god being a he or she i don't care. i am sure there are many ppl on here that will argue that with you, but i will not. lastly, he wrote (what is so hard to understand ?) not is that so hard to understand. slow down a lil bit before you post.

You're assuming I was upset, not to mention why I may have been upset. Responding does not equate being upset. If it did, then I could tell you that you're "just upset" each time you respond to a post.

When one says "innocent kids are being killed" then later comes back and says, "I meant our soldiers," most others will consider that back peddling. Had you clarified "our young soldiers" in your initial assertion, the chances of others taking what you said the wrong way would have greatly diminished. I read the words in front of me, not between the lines or what they might have meant.

Stating that I'm "forgetting" our young soldiers is also a tremendous assumption. I didn't say, nor imply, that "all" or even "most" of our soldiers are more mature. I said that many are. Twist words much?

My referring to God as a "she" was just me being facetious. Lighten up. That's what I was doing.

As far as slowing down before I post... practice what you preach. Had you done so, perhaps you wouldn't have told me what I'm feeling and why, but instead would have read what I said without exaggerating and twisting it. What "upsets" me is others telling me what I think and feel. I am the only authority on that subject.

Portraying our soldiers (young or old) as victims ("innocent kids" were your exact words) is quite a stretch. Everyone in the military either has been in since before these wars began and have voluntarily reenlisted, or else they have voluntarily enlisted after the fact. Anyone enlisting in the military knows that the chances of going to one of these wars at least once are quite high. Yet they still choose to enlist. If there were an active draft, this would be entirely different. BTW, I personally know several soldiers who not only have been deployed to the Middle East more than once, but volunteered to go rather than receiving orders. The only reason my fiance hasn't and won't volunteer to go again is because he's sworn to me that he'll never volunteer to go to war, because of what it does to me.

I take issue with your whole post. First of all the plane is not a BOMB, its more like a big Molotov cocktail. Since there is no pressurized fuel you have no explosion all you have is burning fuel splattered everywhere. To say it is the same as a bomb means that you haven't any actual experience with bombs or fuel fires, nor a good grasp of the physical principles involved with flames and explosives.

Molotov cocktail: a crude bomb made of a bottle filled with a flammable liquid (as gasoline) and usually fitted with a wick (as a saturated rag) that is ignited just before the bottle is hurled

Interesting. It's defined as a "crude" bomb.

Planes crashed into the buildings and went BOOM. What does a bomb do? Go POOF? So what we saw that morning, and what the videos show to this day, of the planes' impacts weren't explosions? Granted, I should have said they were like bombs. However, I don't see you picking apart the atrocious grammar of those with whom you agree, nor their weak analogies.

Your right when you said your no physicist, by your logic a bullet could never penetrate anything because it is moving so fast the object cannot separate or get out of the way. FWIW 600 MPH is not fast at all, the space shuttle flies at over 10,000 MPH getting into the upper atmosphere of earth. By your logic the craft would explode due to the air molecules not being able to get out of the way. It makes no sense at all, how you can claim it does is beyond me.

I did not once say "cannot" separate. I conjectured as to possibly why the planes' wings didn't separate immediately upon impact. Further, "penetrate" and "separate" are completely different, as you fully know. Of course the planes, and the wings, penetrated the buildings. This is a no-brainer. My "logic" was quite flawed RE: the what little explanation I could give RE: speed and the separation of wings (or anything else), which I pretty much said by stating that I could be wrong. I made it clear I was only conjecturing.

Your entire "by your logic" diatribe was a straw man. Don't call 'em if you're gonna make 'em. (See my "straw man" comment below.)

No one is saying that soldiers are running around gunning down children in the street. What they are referring to is the bombing of buildings where these children are either inside or nearby. Of course they claim that Al quaeda and the Taliban plant those children there and hide behind them, but I don't believe that, children are sacred to Muslims.

I take it you haven't been deployed to Iraq, have you? You've no idea what they do and don't use as shields. Muslims also hold Mosques sacred, yet they hide in them knowing that we respect that sacredness and bank on us not bombing or otherwise coming after them.

What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.

Straw Man argument.

I see, so you guys show a completely different incident to "prove" your argument, but when someone else asks if one incident negates others like it, it's a straw man. I laugh at all the "straw man" retorts, because most often when one makes said accusation, one follows with a straw man of one's own.

Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The evidence speaks for itself, you do not.

Funny, that's what we say, as well.

If god himself came down then I would believe whatever he told me, but since that will NEVER happen I am safe to voice my opinions and evidence as I see fit, regardless of whether you think it has merit or not.

Pot, meet Kettle. I rest my case.

FWIW I doubt the boiling of water is in any journal, yet we don't say that boiling water is fake do we? And if the criteria is that in order for anything to be real it must be published in a scientific journal then i guess we can get rid of all religions now can't we and God and All sorts of things.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/11/1/103/
I can't access the journal, as I'm not a paying member of IOP and I'm not going to purchase the sucker. But it exists.



This is exactly what I meant earlier about not bothering to post or discuss these things often due to needless drama and arguing. Twisting someone's words, telling others what they think and feel, pointing out to others that their "logic is flawed" when they stated themselves that they don't know what they're talking about and made it clear they're only conjecturing, etc., is nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing. Unnecessary drama. Further, these tactics are nothing more than deflecting.

Not to mention, in my attempt to address these ad hominems, my multi-quoting post now appears much like GrowRebel's posts. Which I now rarely bother reading. "Too bad, so sad" has gotten a bit old.

I'll go back to lurking for a while, perhaps making a joking remark here and there. I've been reading this thread for entertainment, not to argue. I've got a family and a partner if I want to have arguments.