Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 85088	2007-11-29 09:40:00	Controversial poll..	russell108 (7499)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
616377	2007-11-29 18:42:00	Thanks man. I was just going to breach all kinds of F1 policies by going of my nut, but you did it right.	Biggles (121)
616378	2007-11-29 19:10:00	Well now - after reading all this, I have to look at the poll results. At 8.06 PF1 time or at 8.50 MyTime the answer has to be... Yes and No Ken :thumbs:	kenj (9738)
616379	2007-11-29 19:11:00	You mean, someone cares?	Roscoe (6288)
616380	2007-11-29 19:31:00	Don't forget the Philidelphia Experiment :waughh: We made it disappear and reappear, but with very little control	bob_doe_nz (92)
616381	2007-11-30 00:11:00	Never attribute to reason/conspiracy that which can adequately/easily ascribed to stupidity	johcar (6283)
616382	2007-11-30 04:15:00	It was definitely an inside job, IMO. Too much stuff doesn't add up. I think thermite was used to weaken the foundations of WTC 1 and 2. White hot metal was found underground months after the collapse. Nothing I am aware of on earth will stay that hot for that long, apart from thermite, or something melted by thermite. And underground? Wtf? The fire was ON TOP of the collapsed buildings, not under them. There should have been millions of tons of rubble between the ground and the fire. The towers didn't stay standing long enough for a fire to burn down the elevator shafts, even so, no shafts went from the bottom to the top without a break. There shouldn't have been any fire down the bottom of the towers. Tower 7, it shouldn't have fallen, and what was in between WTC 2 and WTC 7? One of the biggest hoards of gold in the world, in a tunnel linking the two buildings. In 2001/2002 I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours trying come to a definite decision on what happened. The moment the first tower fell, I was apprehensive. Because it shouldn't have fallen. It was designed to withstand that impact. And burning jet fuel causing steel to melt? Pull the other one. Thermite does that, not jet fuel. I could go on for hours, lol, I think the whole thing was a load of bull crap, and I also have a social life. :p Screw the social life. This is far more interesting. Also the pentagon. There is a snowflakes chance in hell that a large Boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon. Vapourised. Sure sure. There was nothing left of it apart from an engine and a small bit of a wing...and no damage on the building apart from one small round hole. No wings.	wratterus (105)
616383	2007-11-30 05:53:00	It was definitely an inside job, IMO . Too much stuff doesn't add up . I think thermite was used to weaken the foundations of WTC 1 and 2 . White hot metal was found underground months after the collapse . Nothing I am aware of on earth will stay that hot for that long, apart from thermite, or something melted by thermite . And underground? Wtf? The fire was ON TOP of the collapsed buildings, not under them . There should have been millions of tons of rubble between the ground and the fire . The towers didn't stay standing long enough for a fire to burn down the elevator shafts, even so, no shafts went from the bottom to the top without a break . There shouldn't have been any fire down the bottom of the towers . Tower 7, it shouldn't have fallen, and what was in between WTC 2 and WTC 7? One of the biggest hoards of gold in the world, in a tunnel linking the two buildings . In 2001/2002 I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours trying come to a definite decision on what happened . The moment the first tower fell, I was apprehensive . Because it shouldn't have fallen . It was designed to withstand that impact . And burning jet fuel causing steel to melt? Pull the other one . Thermite does that, not jet fuel . I could go on for hours, lol, I think the whole thing was a load of bull crap, and I also have a social life . :p Screw the social life . This is far more interesting . Also the pentagon . There is a snowflakes chance in hell that a large Boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon . Vapourised . Sure sure . There was nothing left of it apart from an engine and a small bit of a wing . . . and no damage on the building apart from one small round hole . No wings . I agree . The Pentagon part: You cannot get a stray sparrow into the airspace of that building . . . not without a fighter response immediately . That building is so heavily protected that there's no way a big ol' jet plane got into the airspace and never got challenged or shot down . There were people interviewed who said they saw a small, low tailed plane that was making a buzzing noise flying in the area just moments before the "attack" . The plane that went down in the field (Pennsylvania?) was likely taken over by the passengers as they tried to not die (a noble idea) . . . and it was crashed into the field to cover the act of it being (possibly?) the plane to hit the White House . I believe, that like ALL the aircraft, this one was being remote-controlled from the ground . The plane that was to hit the Pentagon, was taken out to sea and ditched with all passengers aboard . The two that hit the towers were, I believe, also remote controlled . . even if the "terrorists" were trained, they could not be trusted to perform and the remote control was the ultimate tool . The adjustment to the flight path was so obvious . . it appeared to me that the change was a last moment turn to hit the building(s) at a more full impact . This is conducive to being remote controlled . I flew RC aircraft too long to NOT recognize a last moment attitude or course change to get on track . The change was accompanied with some radical ailerons and rudder . . . and those planes are NOT flown with rudder at those sort of speeds . Most pilots just leave the rudder alone once in the air . Turns are accomplished by ailerons and elevators . It's hard to get a pilot to use the rudder once flying . . . I know . The day of the tower hits, a certain number of . . shall we say . . . banking people in the international money business . . . were told to not go to the office that day . Hmmmm? The very low number of deaths at ground zero were surprising to me; if the offices were full as they should have been at that hour, then the death toll would be about 6 times higher . . . . somehow, but for the ones who conveniently got the day off . The heat on the tower structural beams was so intense that there's been a cover up concerning the so-called girder sprayed-on thermal insulation . Somehow, there is a lot of flap that it wasn't applied correctly . . . but the heat made the girders glow white hot as shown in spectrometry tests to them after the fact . The molecules in the steel were all annealed . . stress relieved and their modulus was reset . . . and that takes too much heat . . heat that could not be generated by jet fuel . Maybe some white phosphorus? The deaths of the firemen and police and rescue workers was just from a circus and comedy of errors .	SurferJoe46 (51)
616384	2007-11-30 06:02:00	What the hell are you people taking today, you have completely lost all sense of reason. Remote controlled airliners SJ - your posts are usually quite intelligent but you have lost all credibility with this one.	Safari (3993)
616385	2007-11-30 06:34:00	I flew RC aircraft too long to NOT recognize a last moment attitude or course change to get on track. The change was accompanied with some radical ailerons and rudder...and those planes are NOT flown with rudder at those sort of speeds. Most pilots just leave the rudder alone once in the air. Turns are accomplished by ailerons and elevators. It's hard to get a pilot to use the rudder once flying...I know. Are you saying that adverse yaw is not a problem on a heavy? That the pilots you know would rather fly an uncoordinated turn once flying?	Deane F (8204)
616386	2007-11-30 06:56:00	I can not believe 5 People voted yes. How appalled I am at those results. http://www.debunking911.com/ This is just as stupid as the conspiracy theory that man didn’t land on the moon.	radium (8645)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17