Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 113388	2010-10-17 09:09:00	A couple of "difficult" questions	mOOseCaNNoN (13319)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1145676	2010-10-19 04:59:00	001's points have always been the downfall of these theories. Made even less likely as a result of Metlas point.	Cicero (40)
1145677	2010-10-19 05:02:00	A good summary here (www.axiomatica.org) :P	SoniKalien (792)
1145678	2010-10-19 06:01:00	I think what he was meaning was these vids aren't for the people who have a closed mind on such matters. :thanks	mOOseCaNNoN (13319)
1145679	2010-10-19 22:46:00	A good summary here (www.axiomatica.org) :P Actually its not. Its a biased summary, picking facts that suit a preconceived arguement, & distorting the truth Come on mate, try & have an open mind. Its so easy to find real explanations www.popularmechanics.com eg no.4 4- Woman in impact hole of the North Tower disproves official story So they are trying to say there was no raging fire "but not hot enough to singe her hair?" FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. 6- United 93 crash site does not add up Your site gives No mention of eyewitness accounts OF PEOPLE WHO WERE AT THE CRASH SITE "one would expect to find in a typical plane crash like wings, cockpit or large fuselage pieces" "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur. "Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site." Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater—not 6 miles—easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. The actual claim by residents was debree was found 1.5miles away, NOT 6.	1101 (13337)
1145680	2010-10-19 23:13:00	FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. And a NIST report says that out of all the samples tested, they didn't find any steel that had been exposed to more than 250 deg. Or something like that.. And yes I do have an open mind - I like to think about both sides of the argument, but after all the 'evidence' present, I cannot accept the 'official' explanation. There are too many holes and flaws.	SoniKalien (792)
1145681	2010-10-20 01:34:00	And a NIST report says that out of all the samples tested, they didn't find any steel that had been exposed to more than 250 deg . Or something like that . . Have you tried reading the NIST summary on 9/11? - try here ( . com/?q=9%2F11+nist+report+into+wtc+steel" target="_blank">lmgtfy . com) if you can't find it . . . :rolleyes: Seems pretty thorough, plus they do mention reports of molten aluminium . So in the end, what seems more likely? a few well-funded religious extremists mange to pull off this huge, terrifying act - probably one that will only work once, as a direct consequence of it happening - but not too difficult with a bit of planning if you have enough adherents willing to die if required . or thousands of people are killed with the complicit knowledge of tens or hundreds of US-government-backed agents acting in absolute secrecy for the last 9 years due their [nearly - thanks to all the internet conspiracy theorists] watertight alibi provided by Al-Qaeda & [nearly?] all of the physical evidence hundreds of eye witnesses to a daytime "plane crash" in Washington DC are somehow mistaken as to the difference between a US cruise missile & a Boeing 757 passenger plane	MushHead (10626)
1145682	2010-10-20 03:36:00	So in the end, what seems more likely? a few well-funded religious extremists mange to pull off this huge, terrifying act - probably one that will only work once, as a direct consequence of it happening - but not too difficult with a bit of planning if you have enough adherents willing to die if required. ..with the obvious concequences being that said religious extremists would obviously be provoking a massive attack on themselves. Are they really that stupid? or thousands of people are killed with the complicit knowledge of tens or hundreds of US-government-backed agents acting in absolute secrecy for the last 9 years due their [nearly - thanks to all the internet conspiracy theorists] watertight alibi provided by Al-Qaeda & [nearly?] all of the physical evidence hundreds of eye witnesses to a daytime "plane crash" in Washington DC are somehow mistaken as to the difference between a US cruise missile & a Boeing 757 passenger plane Physical evidence has been disputed quite widely by engineers and scientists. Why was the rubble carted away so quickly? Why has there never been a thorough independent investigation allowed? Why, more recently, have explosives particles been found in the dust? Bush etc needed an excuse to invade, since the WMD team turned up nothing. Motives are speculation of course. However the US has more motives than the Taliban. I find it more believable that a massive well-funded, highly organized, organisation pulled off a stunt to rile up their own public followers, giving excuse to implement new extreme laws, and invading a country or two. I also find it more believable that the US had the resources to do this, I find it hard to believe that a bunch of religious nutters who commonly dwell in caves managed to pull this off. It's not the statements or evidence that sway my views - it's the unanswered questions - there's too many of them.	SoniKalien (792)
1145683	2010-10-21 20:49:00	The big unanswered question for me is how so many people seem to be ready to believe that there is some sort of ultra-secret, virtually omnipotent, evil US agency in existence that is behind all these sorts of things, but all the evidence seems to point to the fact that the US govt is at least as incompetent & dysfunctional as many others. That's just the biggest question, but I have unanswered questions about 9/11 too, such as: why bother to demolish the WTC? the damage done was likely to be enough that the buildings & probably many of the surrounding ones would have to have been substantially rebuilt, if not demolished anyway & the amount of death & disruption would be great enough to get the point across. Where were the demolition charges placed in the Pentagon, or in wherever the target of Flight 93 was? since when was rust & aluminium considered explosive residue (or nano-engineered thermite demolition fuel, if some sites are to be given credence)? Doesn't anyone realise that throwing 50 or 60 tons of aluminium at a steel-framed (& I bet aluminium-containing) building & igniting just might result in a lot of iron & aluminium residue (oh, right, NIST said something about this)? After all, thermite reaction is simply rust plus aluminium (usually powdered & mixed to get surface area up), ignited at ~900C. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was actual thermite reactions triggered in small scale in the general conflagration. Methinks a lot of people take the movies too seriously...	MushHead (10626)
1 2 3