 |
search this site: search the web: |
This was not a terroist attack so much from without, but more of a terrorist attack from within. For those who doubt this, check the video coverage and secondary explosions are shown well after the planes struck the towers.
by Alien_Invader on Sun Jun 20, 04 11:07am
[+]
None of the above. It's a human thing, the need to put answers to questions that can never fully be answered.
by Truthseeker013 on Sun Jun 20, 04 2:10pm
[+]
Watch the videoes from news coverage that clearly show the explosive charges going off round the building and you'll no why the towers fell (straight down) Plus burning jet fuel doesn't melt steel. And the fires were almost out when the towers fell.
by cretin_slap on Mon Jun 21, 04 8:10am
[+]
cretin_slut also believes in the Easter Bunny! jack fate seems to want to deny the existence of pretty conclusive proof that the twin towers were demolished. Try debating me, jack, you imbecile.
by cretin_slap on Tue Jun 22, 04 5:18am
[+]
Just in case anybody still believes the bullshit cover story, this might make you think a bit. In 2001 before the 9/11 attacks 62 aircarft had been intercepted by Air Force fighter interceptor jets, and usually within 10 to 15 minutes of going off course. Yet bizarrely, on 9/11 four commercial jets were highjacked off course for about one and a half hours before the last one crashed into the most highly protected building in the world (the Pentagon) yet no jet intercepted it in time.
by cretin_slap on Wed Jun 23, 04 11:53am
[+]
And Guest_a888b says this despite the facts laid out by Guest_a201e. That just isn't going to work any more, Guest_a888b.
by cretin_slap on Thu Jun 24, 04 5:39am
[+]
The jews, those damn jews, they put more than 400 elephants in the top floor of both buildings, knowing that the extra weight would bring the buildings down. Then Elvis tried to climb the stairs in both buildings, and that old fat dead rock star, he was just too much weight for the buildings to take. jappy can't refute the facts that are mentioned about 9/11 so resorts to childish ridicule. Four planes were supposedly hi-jacked on 9/11 and none were intercepted even after an hour an and a half after the first one was reported. What kind of defence against terrorism is that?
by cretin_slap on Mon Jun 28, 04 8:35am
[+]
look what it did for Bush :p the story of silberstein is quite astonishing- certanly everything is explaniable as a mere coincidence- But we don't feel so young everyday. Someday we feel old, very old. Check this link and read the brief story: http://globalfire.tv /nj /03en /jews /wtc-silverstein.htm oops, sorry guys, i just realized that the link above belongs to a website of a neo-nazist club 'for jewish studies'. Suddendly I feel young back again... One plane with a bit of burning fuel does not make a building that size turn to rubble. Come on. Use your brains.
by cretin_slap on Fri Aug 06, 04 7:32am
[+]
check out physics911.org there was not enough latent energy in the jet fuel to cause heat to rise high enough to melt the steel of the central pillars. Yes. Burning aircraft fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt the steel core of those buildings. It is a scientific impossibility rather than a conspiracy theory.
by cretin_slap on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:35am
[+]
I am perplexed by the lack of common sense here, do you honestly know the damage that is done by a plane of that size, carrying 57,285 gallons of highly flammable jet fuel (in gallons, this is nearly three times the amount you would find in a typical home swimming pool), weighing in at roughly 750,000 lbs, 231 ft feet long, 211 feet wide, 63 feet high, flying at .95 Mach (more than 600 mph). jappy. Aircraft fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt a building's steel core. It cannot. It is impossible. To suggest that burning aircraft fuel could have melted the WTC's steel core is completely wrong. jappy, you must accept the truth. Burning aircraft fuel can never melt steel. Ever. Besides, there are many videos on the net that clearly show the explosives going off round the buldings just before they plummeted straight down.
by cretin_slap on Wed Sep 22, 04 6:05am
[+]
What are you people talking about? Steel melts at about 1500C. Flames from most flammable gases have an temperature between 1800 - 2200C. And if you look at the videos, the towers didn't collapse from explosions. The weight of the buildings 'above' where the fires occured caused the steel to buckle, most likely 'before' the steel melted. They collapsed from the top down, like dominoes. When steel heats up it loses its strength. Pressure from the floors above can also play a role in increasing the temperature of the steel. But none of that matters...the reason the towers collapsed is because PLANES FLEW INTO THEM. 1# The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 51 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767." 2# The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire. 3# The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better. 4# Even a layman with no explosives background should be able to see all this. But many specialists in the explosives and structural engineering have also made this observation and commented on these inconsistencies. After the WTC collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque Journal. He stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices must have been placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said, "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points. One of the things that terrorists are noted for is a diversionary attack and a secondary device." 5# Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." Now this whole controversy between the "melted steel" scenario and the detonation scenario is one that could be very easily resolved. All we have to do is dig up the steel beams and examine each and everyone of them. If an explosive device caused the steel to fail, there will be tell-tale indications for the engineers to see. But if it was intense heat that caused the steel to "melt" or "buckle", there will be tell-tale signs of that as well. All we have to do to put an end to this controversy is to closely examine the steel. Right? Thanks to New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them! Much of the steel was recycled in America, but an additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - which immediately shipped the WTCÂ’s steel to China and India for recycling before any investigators could have a chance to examine it! AMAZING! The largest criminal investigation in history and the investigators weren't even permitted to see the most important evidence of all - the steel! It's called nitpicking. Lotsa people do it. This is just the most tasteless example of it. by Guest_2bf3e on Sep 30, 2004 Oh wow! What a refutal. Geez you're lame! I used to work at an airport fueling jets. Tell ya what... no passenger jet I know of can carry 750K lbs. of fuel. Etended range 767s can carry a maximum of about 24,000 (shorter range versions about 16,000) gallons of Jet A, which has a typical density of about 1.68. Jet A is less explosive than mogas, but once it is ignited, it burns hotter and longer. If you throw a lit cigarette into an uncovered container of Jet A, the cigarette will be snuffed out. If you cover the container for a period and throw the cigarette in while removing the cover, the fuel will ignite. For people who don't understand neither physics, nor the properties of fuel, it is easy to suggest Hollywood fantasy conspiracy theories. For people who don't understand neither physics, nor the properties of fuel, it is easy to suggest Hollywood fantasy conspiracy theories. by TheDoof on Oct 17, 2004 Oh you mean like a bunch of Arabs trained on Cessnas to fly great big passenger jets with more skill than pilots with many years of experience? Or do you mean like the weird idea that a laminated paper passport could survive completely unsinged and undamaged in any way the sort of explosion that vapourizes a big passenger jet? Or do you mean that really crazy silly idea that burning aviation fuel can melt steel girders without getting the temperature any higher that it does in your steel kerosene heater? Or how about the weird theory that when tall buildings get hit by big passenger jetsm, such buildings will collapse very tidily straight-DOWN without the slightest variation, even though demolition experts have to struggle and make careful calculations to acheive this same result. I guess all those demolition experts should just give using carefully placed explosives and just ram jets into buildings instead???
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Sat Oct 30, 04 7:57am
[+]
For people who don't understand neither physics, nor the properties of fuel, it is easy to suggest Hollywood fantasy conspiracy theories. by TheDoof on Oct 17, 2004 Oh you mean like a bunch of Arabs trained on Cessnas to fly great big passenger jets with more skill than pilots with many years of experience? Or do you mean like the weird idea that a laminated paper passport could survive completely unsinged and undamaged in any way the sort of explosion that vapourizes a big passenger jet? Or do you mean that really crazy silly idea that burning aviation fuel can melt steel girders without getting the temperature any higher that it does in your steel kerosene heater? Or how about the weird theory that when tall buildings get hit by big passenger jetsm, such buildings will collapse very tidily straight-DOWN without the slightest variation, even though demolition experts have to struggle and make careful calculations to acheive this same result. I guess all those demolition experts should just give-up using carefully placed explosives and just ram jets into buildings instead???
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Sat Oct 30, 04 7:59am
[+]
Would there be evidence that explosives were used to bring down those buildings if that were the case? Of course there would. What a stupid theory.
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 06, 04 3:52pm
[+]
Think about what explosives will do to metal support beams vs prolong heatting. A blind person could spot the difference. You guys really need to find another hobby. Defending conspiracy theories isn't your bag.
by ClosetIguana on Tue Dec 07, 04 4:25pm
[+]
Anonymous I don't think you understand what you are asking the public to believe. Do you understand that the numerous steel support beams that had been "cut by explosive charges" is something that is very OBVIOUS to notice. It leaves a very distint mark. It doesn't need to be examined under a microscope to be noticed. Are you comprehending this? Crews working on the sight would have spotted it even easier. Thousand upon thousands of people working at the site, truckers trucking the material way, media, etc etc wouldn't have seen it. Where are these people? Killed by the CIA? What are you asking people to believe?
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 09, 04 12:20pm
[+]
(punctuation correction) Thousand upon thousands of people working at the site, truckers trucking the material way, media, etc etc wouldn't have seen it? <--
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 09, 04 12:57pm
[+]
Do you understand that the numerous steel support beams that had been "cut by explosive charges" is something that is very OBVIOUS to notice. It leaves a very distint mark. It doesn't need to be examined under a microscope to be noticed. Are you comprehending this? by ClosetIguana on Dec 09, 2004 How many common normal people who have never before seen steel beams destroyed by explosives in their entire lives (such as the vast majority) would be able to recognize the difference, hmmm? 1 in tens of thousands maybe? This excuse of yours fails utterly from lack of real commonsense, and your continued pushing of the US government's "Arabs did it" conspiracy theory shows that you lack commonsense. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 51 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767." The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now! After the WTC collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque Journal. He stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices must have been placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said: It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points. Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." The steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them! A media darling and lifelong supporter of Israel, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made sure that the "smoking gun" evidence was destroyed and right quick too. Much of the steel was recycled in America, but an additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - then shipped the WTCÂ’s steel to China and India for recycling! (from China Radio English Edition - "New York's Metals Management is among the firms taking steel from the huge project to clear Ground Zero. The company says it has bought 70,000 tons of scrap from the ruined twin towers. Some of the scrap has been shipped across the Pacific to Asian, including China and India. Among the consignments of scrap are the "very dense" steel girders from Ground Zero, which could finally yield 250,000 to 400,000 tons of scrap for recycling.") The largest criminal investigation in history and the investigators weren't even permitted to see the most important evidence of all - the steel! Many of the most respected engineers in the country complained not only about the recycling, but also about the Federal government's suffocating control of their investigation. On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse: "Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with BUREACRATIC RESTRICTIIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, EXAMINING THE DISASTER SITE, AND REQUESTING CRUCIAL INFORMATION like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments." Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York CityÂ’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center." 'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001) 'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators//NYDailyNews Numanx "How many common normal people who have never before seen steel beams destroyed by explosives in their entire lives (such as the vast majority) would be able to recognize the difference, hmmm?" EVERYONE would notice the difference! Just because you haven't seen one before don't concluded that it's not possible to notice the difference. Furthermore, as I mentioned, those construction crew workers that are very experience with the clean up after a demolition would spot it even easier. And there were thousands of these workers working there over the course of years! Your theory is nuts.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 3:40pm
[+]
Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 51 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767." And those building did withstand a direct hit. That's not what brought them down remember?
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 3:42pm
[+]
"After the WTC collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque Journal. He stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices must have been placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said: It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points." And I could quote you hundreds that say what is commonly believed.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 3:45pm
[+]
"Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." How many of these people even know what the sound of a bomb going off sounds like? It could easily have been confused with the sound of the floor smashing into each other. The time-line is basically the same.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 3:48pm
[+]
"The steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them! A media darling and lifelong supporter of Israel, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made sure that the "smoking gun" evidence was destroyed and right quick too. Much of the steel was recycled in America, but an additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - then shipped the WTCÂ’s steel to China and India for recycling! (from China Radio English Edition - "New York's Metals Management is among the firms taking steel from the huge project to clear Ground Zero. The company says it has bought 70,000 tons of scrap from the ruined twin towers. Some of the scrap has been shipped across the Pacific to Asian, including China and India. Among the consignments of scrap are the "very dense" steel girders from Ground Zero, which could finally yield 250,000 to 400,000 tons of scrap for recycling.") " As I mentioned if explosive were attached to any of those numerous beams it would not go unnoticed. Explosives attached to beams look different than beam that didn't have explosives attached to them. Are you comprohending this? If you or I had to compare a beam that had explosives attached to it and one that didn't... You're not getting it are you?
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:09pm
[+]
"'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators" Do you want to list off sources that say it was? I'm sure I can find more that back the offical reason than you can with this conspirisy.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:12pm
[+]
"The largest criminal investigation ........like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments." Are you concluding that these distress call may have found people saying explosions are going off? Have any fireman personell ever may this claim? They were there right?
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:20pm
[+]
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York CityÂ’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center." It must have been planted explosives! You got me! Lol
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:22pm
[+]
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times Sure, but doesn't therefor mean explosives were set.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:23pm
[+]
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001) by Numanx on Dec 10, 2004 Again, this proves nothing. 'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators AS I mentioned before I can find you sources saying the opposite. Here's one I found without trying At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses its strength and "turns to Play-doh," said engineer Ted Krauthammer, of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes. "I was surprised and horrified to see them collapse," said Brooklyn-born physicist Frank Moscatelli of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:30pm
[+]
Of the hundreds of firefights/ police/ emergency personell/ workers of WTC - How many heard explosives going off? A few you said above right. Why just a few. Explosives not loud enough? You know, you are really doing a disservice to those easily spun by misinformation.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 4:41pm
[+]
At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses its strength and "turns to Play-doh," said engineer Ted Krauthammer, of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004 That's a nice theory but for one teensy-wincy little problem; investigators found that the steel did not even reach 250C in temperature, let alone 500+. The initial jet fuel was consumed after no more than 10 minutes, the 60,000 thousand or more tons of steel would have taken weeks to superheat to weaken steel, and there are numerous indicators of relative coolness in the Twin Towers on 9-11-1 such as; - jumpers (not scalded, no more than 200 Fahrenheit) - survivors who placed emergency calls from the top floors (up till collapse, detailed) - thermogram of WTC2 facade at 9:18 a.m. (100 Celsius - water boiling point only) - firemen nearly at collapse time above 70th floor of WTC2: no major fires - over 400 computer hard drives recovered (Convar, a German company - not over 250 Celsius) - computers recorded financial transactions seconds before each collapse - dark smoldering smoke color - no air flicker - hardly any fires visible from outside until collapse time (very graphic) - hundreds of people who managed to flee from the Twin Towers - no major fires - not one shroud of "weakened steel" is ever presented despite clear crystal structure - media push belief structure versus facts that cannot be forged (such as steel) - 1.5 million tons of tell-tale debris from the WTC bombing were stolen & destroyed - millions of unsinged papers did survive the "BS-TV fire inferno" - high-rise fires do not cause collapses and never have, apart from 9-11. 'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times Sure, but doesn't therefor mean explosives were set. by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004 But it does show a blatant coverup. As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes. by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004 So, have you told any demoliton engineers of this wonderfully effective and cheaper technique of making buildings collapse straight-down? Using the magical properties that you ascribe to burning jet-fuel in that even if it only burns for 10 minutes at 250 Celsius, it can weaken a steel high-rise building in such a way that a PERFECT STRAIGHT-DOWN collapse is achieved; not once, but again and again! Wow! Amazing! You could put them all out of business! Now that I know that according to you that such a temperature is enough to weaken steel maybe we should tell everyone not to make any lamb-roast in their steel ovens or their steel oven might will fall apart because of *weakened* steel. Here's a recipe for a delicious roast lamb that according to you is too dangerous to cook in my oven; 3 lbs. of your favorite cut of lamb 1 head of cabbage 3 large carrots 3 medium potatoes 1 medium onion 2 long hot peppers 2 T lard or drippings Place lamb in a heavy roasting dish with a cover. Place carrots, potatoes, and onion around the lamb. Cut the head of cabbage into 6 pieces and also place it around the lamb. Place the hot peppers on top of the lamb. Cover and let steam until done. Do not take the cover off unless necessary. Let roast in a 250 Deg. Celsius oven for 2-1/2 hrs. Serves six. Of the hundreds of firefights/ police/ emergency personell/ workers of WTC - How many heard explosives going off?by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004 Actually quite a few did. I have 30mb of transcripts in pdf format copied onto several HDs. Exceprt from an interview with Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro; The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. “There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer. The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said. They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. At this point the only overt damage to the building was the plane crash some 95 floors above, which could not have caused violent explosions underground. Since the towers were anchored at the base to the bedrock the shaking caused by the crash would have been greatest close to the crash site, getting progressively weaker as it approached the rigid attachment at the bottom. Yet the underground damage he describes can not have been the result of a mere shaking - nothing short of an explosion could reduce the contents of a machine shop to rubble. Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. The damage to the parking garage and lobby of the North Tower SIMULTANEOUS with the first plane impact are also indicative of the effects of high explosives, with widespread blast damage and fine dust covering the entire scene. As some of the firemen said, the lobby looked like the plane had hit the lobby, blown-out windows and a fine dry dust covering the entire lobby, very much the signature of high explosives. Numanx So of the hundreds of people within ear shot of the "explosives" how many heard it?
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 10, 04 11:58pm
[+]
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York CityÂ’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center." It must have been planted explosives! You got me! Lol by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004 The point in that quote is that there has been a DELIBERATE coverup. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001) by Numanx on Dec 10, 2004 Again, this proves nothing. by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004 Yes it does, it shows a coverup again. Numanx So of the hundreds of people within ear shot of the "explosives" how many heard it? by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004 You're repeating the same excuse like a mantra - have you no brain to come up with a different excuse. Your excuse died a long time, and yes people did hear the explosions and there are witnesses to them. I've already mentioned a few above. but you just repeat the same old excuse without reading. Do you realize your posts make to different claims? 1 that explosives brought down the buildings the other when the planes hit (oddly enough) lol!
by ClosetIguana on Sat Dec 11, 04 12:22am
[+]
... then again you probably believe there are numerous bombs going off at different times.
by ClosetIguana on Sat Dec 11, 04 12:24am
[+]
Do you realize your posts make to different claims? 1 that explosives brought down the buildings the other when the planes hit (oddly enough) lol! by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004 Read them again since you've obviously having problems, since I'm not making two different claims at all and never have. The first explosions at the base of the WTC north and south towers were at the same time, simultaneously with the impact of the planes hitting them above. Probably this was to use the plane's impacts into upper floors to distract people from teh noise of the explosions that occured UNDERGROUND. he sound and shaking of these explosions are reported by those people who were in underground carpark and sub-basment levels of the buildings. Is that clear to you now? The damage shown on the video with very first firemen entering the North Tower lobby due to explosions as well. ...then again you probably believe that 250C will *weaken* the steel in your steel oven and make it too dangerous to use for making roast lamb. Numanx I'm still waiting for your response of why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions? How can people not notice explosions that would be required to take down those buildings? And how none of those numerous construction crew members noticed any beams that had explosives attached to them over the course of years.
by ClosetIguana on Sat Dec 11, 04 12:25pm
[+]
I'm still waiting for your response of why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions? How can people not notice explosions that would be required to take down those buildings? by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004 No, you're not waiting for my response since you are simply repeating the same excuse like it's a mgic chant. Read above; there were witnesses there (and I've mentioned them by name already!) who heard the explosions in the sub-basement and there is video evidence of explosives having been used such as the news video from the very first firemen to enter the North Tower lobby (shattered, destroyed windows and concrete dust everywhere). I am not going to constantly repeat myself, and anyone who wants to, can read what I've already posted. And how none of those numerous construction crew members noticed any beams that had explosives attached to them over the course of years. by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004 Really? So now you are making stuff up. I never mentioned any such a thing. So, ClosetIguana, are you still pretending that temoperatures of only 250C for only ten minutes or so (the time it took the jet-fuel to burn out) is going to be enough to turn your steel oven to *weaken* the steel and turn your steel gas-oven to playdough? Seriously, that isn't even hot long enough to cook a roast lamb properly. PBS Nova - Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective Eagar: We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant. NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns? Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1200°F or 1300°F. Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 12, 04 2:37pm
[+]
Continued.. NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse. Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 12, 04 2:39pm
[+]
Continued ...as a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination. NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure? Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F. NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam? Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire. But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor. If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 12, 04 2:40pm
[+]
NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel? Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold. Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link. NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall. Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 12, 04 2:42pm
[+]
Numanx The reason why I keep asking you "in a magical shant" why hundred and hundred of people didn't hear any explosion going off is because you haven't answered it. And how none of those numerous construction crew members noticed any beams that had explosives attached to them over the course of years. by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004 Really? So now you are making stuff up. I never mentioned any such a thing. by Numanx on Dec 11, 2004 Huh? What I'm asking is why the hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them (which is something that doesn't need to be seen under a microscope). Still waiting for answers for these 2 questions.
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 12, 04 2:48pm
[+]
Huh? What I'm asking is why the hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them (which is something that doesn't need to be seen under a microscope). Still waiting for answers for these 2 questions. by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004 Since I never made up any such theory, maybe you should ask the person who did. I have never even mentioned it here - only you have. Are you still trying to trying come up with BS excuses? So now you say I mentioned things that I did not. I really am not following you with this " I never made up any such theory." What theory are you talking about? I'm simplu asking a question. Why didn't hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them? And why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions?
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 12, 04 6:46pm
[+]
I really am not following you with this " I never made up any such theory." What theory are you talking about? I'm simplu asking a question. Why didn't hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them? by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004 Wtf are you going on about? Lost a brain cell somewhere? I never mentioned any such thing as explosives being hidden for a years or whatever - only you have. If you want an answer for that one, go elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with me. Why don't they simply look at the steel, and find out how the towers fell? That is the simplest, and most obvious solution.
by cretin_slap on Mon Dec 13, 04 7:10am
[+]
And why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions? by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004 First aircraft impact -BOOM!!! Where do you think people were looking? UPWARD, which is a great distraction with all that noise to hide underground explosions as well, to weaken the building structures. There were witnesses underground who heard these underground explosions and saw the wreckage caused by them. I've already mentioned witnesses by name; read what they report. In the early news reports that weren't repeated there were plenty of reports of explosions down at the base of the buildings, underground. When the buildings came down people would initially blame the planes, as you do, but examination afterwards shows up glaring inconsistencies. The pyroclastic expansion of the cloud is too fast. Numerous other problems besides those that I have already mentioned. If a large building is collapsing it would make loud noises which could be mistaken for BOMBS by people in a panic. As the upper floors collapses internally they would have forced air, fire and debris outwards, which could be mistaken for CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS by sad, deluded, no-job, web-surfing, no-girlfriend, Star Trek-loving, monkey spanking retards.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Dec 13, 04 7:24am
[+]
The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1200°F or 1300°F. by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004 According to further studies, it is very unlikely that the temperatures went any higher than 250C. The temperatures recorded thermographically outside on the window glass never went above 100C. On top of this, the transcripts from the firemen who reached the floors above the 80-85+ level were that the fuel fires had all died out and there was only smoldering - this is also shown by the colour of the smoke. The materials that were studied, like burning on parts of the walls that investigators managed to study showed that tmperatures also probably never went above 250C. Of course, if the US government really wants to lay the conspiracy theories to rest then they should provide some of those steel beams - lots of them from the core - to be tested properly by independent investigators. Ooops, they can't do that can they, BECAUSE THEY SOLD IT ALL TO BE RECYCLED BEFORE ANYONE COULD STUDY IT!!! So sad, now everyone is going to be REALLY SUSPICIOUS and what's the odds that when the time is right, some smart entrepreneurial type has managed to keep a whole lot of those incriminating steel beams somewhere (if I know the Chinese, that's what somebody over there would've done) to use at a later date. That's the problem with outsourcing, you can never know if the other guy is going to keep the lid on it. (700,00o tons sent to China of all places - how can they believe that they can trust the Chinese?? There's bound to be at least one smart business type stashing a few beams away - all really suspect looking ones, thinking he could make a few bucks out of it later on) Why don't they simply look at the steel, and find out how the towers fell? That is the simplest, and most obvious solution. by cretin_slap on Dec 13, 2004 LMAO - of course, they can't do that, so they can't lay the suspicions to rest - because they tried to destroy all the evidence as fast they could (. Ha! could be mistaken for CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS by sad, deluded, no-job, web-surfing, no-girlfriend, Star Trek-loving, monkey spanking retards. by wideheadofknowledge on Dec 13, 2004 Thats nice, but I doubt that has anything at all to do with underground explosions that witnesseed heard BELOW GROUND at the exact moment as the planes hitting near the tops of the buildings. Nor does it apply as an excuse for the damage in the North Tower lobby, or what firemen reported; Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." So do plan to apply your excuse to firemen as well? What of the video evidence as well? I also doubt that many of those witnesses, such as the firefighters and the workers below ground, who heard the explosions were "sad, deluded, no-job, web-surfing, no-girlfriend, Star Trek-loving, monkey spanking retards." That description might apply to you possibly... The reply above was to wideheadofknowledge for his silly little, and very innane insult of 13 December 2004. Numanx "Wtf are you going on about? Lost a brain cell somewhere? I never mentioned any such thing as explosives being hidden for a years or whatever - only you have. If you want an answer for that one, go elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with me." What am I talking about? What are you talking about? Nobody is making the claim that bombs were on the beams for a years! I'm talking about the hundreds of construction crew members that were working at the site never after 911 (they weren't working they prior) never noticed any beams that had explosives detonated on them.
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 13, 04 8:53am
[+]
never after 911 (they weren't working they prior. Rewrite- After 911 (they weren't working there prior
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 13, 04 8:55am
[+]
Numanx Do you believe the explosives went off just before the tower came down? If so, why didn't most people hear them?
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 13, 04 9:07am
[+]
^didn't sign in
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 13, 04 12:42pm
[+]
Couldn't sign-in on that particular PC - it's an old one and the Windows XP service pack 2 seems to have played merry havoc with the way IE works on it. Kevin Ryan (an executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center) seriously questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. - From an email to Dr Frank Gayle (director of the government team) The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. NOTICE it was pnly 250C (500F). Numanx You keep on repeating the temperature never got above 250 c. But some of the aluminum from the aircraft was found partly melted hence it had to have gotten to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. Disagree? If so please explain away as you did the other questions I've asked.
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 13, 04 5:48pm
[+]
A little bit of science I learnt in high school; hitting a steel nail with a hammer actually melts parts of the nail. Same thing happens when a bullet fired from a rifle hits a steel plate - at the impact point, the metal is also melted - When the metal can no longer conduct heat away at the rate at which it is generated, the temperature will increase in the plastically strained zone. The heat is generated from the transfer of the energy of the impact to the metal. This would especially explain any component melting in engine parts and likely strain points on the airframe and wings. The fireball that resulted from the jet-fuel was triggered by these momentary temperature spikes on parts of the airframe - spikes hot enough on those parts to set the fuel alight (it's not like planes are always rigged with detonators to make nice fireballs). The vapourising jet-fuel of the fireball mostly went out and upward - and that's what's expected to do. It didn't create any kind of roaring high-temperature inferno inside the buildings. Brian Clark, one of the few survivors from above the aircraft impact level in WTC 2 said this of the fires he saw whilst coming down the stairwell: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." The New York Fire department tapes reveal that there were only small fires Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." Ladder 15: "Floor 78?". Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here." The story of Stanley Praimnath who was feet away from the plane impact on WTC 2: "As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere." So, ClosetIguana, why do you think there were huge hot pools of molten steel, 70 feet underground and an enormously high energy spike at the BEGINNING od each tower's collapse, 9 TO 10 SECONDS BEFORE the building collapses actually hit the ground? Those molten pools of steel lasted 100 days despite huge amounts of water being used to cool them down. They certainly weren't created by burning jet-fuel, there was nowhere near enough. It seems very unlikely it was thermite bombs as well; 22,000 tons of thermite would've been required to melt that much steel, and they would have to be lot hotter than that to stay molten for such a long period of time. You're not going come up with some ridiculous excuse about burning jet-fuel in an environment lacking in oxygen for it to burn being more effective than 22,000 tons of thermite are you? I'd love to answer you question. Could you post a link from a reputable new source (BBC PBS) etc where I can read this story. All I can find one this comes from websites like "rumourmill.com".
by ClosetIguana on Wed Dec 15, 04 7:28pm
[+]
It is actually from the BBC website - that's where I originally copied the relevant webpages from about the seismic activity and the pools of molten steel. Even if the pages are no longer there, there would be numerous copies elsewhere. Why is it that Bushwankers always claim "I can't find it, therefore it doesn't exist!" when it's pretty obvious that you are not going to bother looking up something that destroys your own argument. You can't come up with a reasonable answer can you for why those molten pools of steel were still hot enough to start fires 3 months after the towers came down and explain the incredibly powerful energy spikes in the seismic readings can you? So you're fishing for a distraction instead. Have you tried the roast lamb in your steel oven yet, or are you still afraid of *playdoh-fication* of the steel of the oven making it too dangerous after only ten minutes despite the fact that most people can cook roast lamb for an hour without problems with the steel of the oven getting playdo-ed (!?) oh, cretin slap I hope your kidding, but thousands dead isn't really that funny Numanx Not believing in conspiracy theories doesn't make me a Bush supporter. Actually I think he's one of the worst presidents America has ever had (including Nixon). 2. Could you do me a favor and post that BBC link? That way I could respond to the story.
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 16, 04 1:59pm
[+]
BTW your conparision between a building and an oven is ridiculious. Don't believe me ask an engineer. There's no comparing.
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 16, 04 2:10pm
[+]
but thousands dead isn't really that funny by everygirl on Dec 16, 2004 No, it's definitely not funny. Thousands of people killed by a callous and cruel hoax. There were definitely bombs in those buildings. The whole evnt stinks of coverup; 1)what was the US Airforce doing that day? Twiddling their thumbs? It took them over 1 1/2 hours to respond yet on every other occassion it only took 15 minutes to inercept a rogue plane. 2) All those cellphone calls that were so strange; like guys callingf their mothers and intrpducing themselves by their FULL NAMES to their own mothers - no way! Then they hangup before any further questions can be asked. Also the it's almost impossible to get a cellphone call to link from an aircraft at such altitudes, but "somehow" anyone could do it, and we're supposed to believe that hijackers wouldn't have tried to stop them??? It's simply not credible. 3) Lots of witnesses mentioned the explosions as the WTC towers came down, and many firemen in NY who saw them go down said it looked like a controlled demolition and so did the demolition experts. There's just too many things about the whole event that are just way too suspicious. I could go on all day about them, but I don't have the time. The only people I've met who think the WTC towers came down simply because of plnaes crashing into them are online, nobody I've met in RL in the past two years believes that story. Bush's govt wanted an excuse for a war, and the Israeli govt wanted to get rid of Iraq. Everything this US Bush govt has said has turned out to be a lie. Meteor7 ...and the only place I've heard about the WTC being brought down by explosives is online. This is where I heard that bin Ladin would be caputed by the U.S fall election (which I'm sure most of you conspiracy theorist believed but will never now own up to believing).
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 16, 04 5:03pm
[+]
A question to you conspiracy theorist... Why do you think that media outlets around the world haven't reported what you're claiming? The conspiracy theorist have better investigators? The CIA has theatened their families lives if they tell "the truth".
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 16, 04 5:13pm
[+]
** karma ** (conspiracy theorists)
by ClosetIguana on Thu Dec 16, 04 5:21pm
[+]
** karma ** A question to you conspiracy theorist... Why do you think that media outlets around the world haven't reported what you're claiming? The conspiracy theorist have better investigators? The CIA has theatened their families lives if they tell "the truth". by ClosetIguana on Dec 16, 2004 LOL. Actually, the speculation about the WTC and the whole 911 event being a hoax to get the USA into a war that the Bush administration wanted, has been rife in the commercial newsmedia in Japan, and throughout Asia. The Japanese national broadcaster, NHK has been the only news media organisation that hasnt mentioned it. The others just continue these days as if the whole event was a nasty hoax and react to all US media reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, and 911 related events with a great deal of scepticism. Even the government broadcaster (representing the Japanese government oppinion) will sometimes say things like "In the US media report they say this, of course its a blatant lie; here is what we have been able to discern of the real situation by intelligent analysis from many other sources instead". 2. Could you do me a favor and post that BBC link? That way I could respond to the story. by ClosetIguana on Dec 16, 2004 How come you cant look for it yourself? Just put the following into a search engine; WTC, "molten steel", pools, BBC, "70 feet". keep fine tuning it until you find it. The seismic data is even easier to find. Surely you know how to use a search engine! I've noticed that a few people on here use that tactic, Numanx. They ask you to explain it then trash it. It prevents other people from finding out for themselves. Don't hold out for Closet Iguana to suddenly come round to your point of view. He wants you to come back with as many facts as you can so he can dismissively trash them. Anyone who does not know the facts will assume that Closet knows what he's talking about.
by cretin_slap on Fri Dec 17, 04 8:50am
[+]
cretin_slap Hey all I'm asking is for your conspiracy theorists to back up your claims. You have no problem post reems and reems of stuff from those conspiracy theorists websites but can't post from reputible sites? What gives?
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 17, 04 9:06am
[+]
Numanx Tried your recommendations (and only came up with those conspirisy theory websites reporting BBC made the report (like you guys). On BBC's website I put that in the search and guess what? There was no match. Surprised? I'm not.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 17, 04 9:23am
[+]
If this BBC story existed it would have been MAJOR news and other news services would have picked it up. But no the only place you can find it is on conspirisy websites. Funny how that works.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 17, 04 9:55am
[+]
If this BBC story existed it would have been MAJOR news and other news services would have picked it up. But no the only place you can find it is on conspirisy websites. Funny how that works. by ClosetIguana on Dec 17, 2004 Maybe because YOU were only looking on *conspirisy* websites - I also found copies of the report on metallurgy and engineering websites. Most other people would fine-tune tehri search a bit, and type a few exceptions (and it helps a lot if you can spell "C O N S P I R A C Y"). So, perhaps you really don't know how to use a seacrh engine properly. I don't see why you think seismic data would be major news; most peopkle don't care about dry reports. On most of the other stuff, well at the time they were reported, the USA was preparing to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age - so that kind of hogged the news a lot. "Pools of molten steel" aren't as interesting as actual wars. Oh yes, and despite your BS, the BBC story exists. I copied the original page, and THERE ARE copies of that page elsewhere online that should be easy enough to find! What's the matter? Do you really need other people to LOOK FOR YOU? Don't hold out for Closet Iguana to suddenly come round to your point of view. by cretin_slap on Dec 17, 2004 I'm not really talking to ClosetIguana in truth - I'm posting my cooments for the audience. Maybe I should mention naked schoolgirls and foot fetishes to get more attention :) Numanx You didn't think to check to see if the story was true before claiming the BBC wrote it, did you? LOL! Well you're not the first Numanx. No harm. At least you hang around and let me take apart your arguements unlike by cretin_slap that always takes off. That guy believes all sorts of "C O N S P I R A C Y" theories. BTW thanks for pointing out my spelling mistakes. Did you want me to take apart your "seismic data"? If so, I really want you to first try and answer - why most people never reported these "explosions" going off. Come on be creative!
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 17, 04 5:32pm
[+]
** karma ** 2) All those cellphone calls that were so strange; like guys callingf their mothers and intrpducing themselves by their FULL NAMES to their own mothers - no way! Then they hangup before any further questions can be asked. Also the it's almost impossible to get a cellphone call to link from an aircraft at such altitudes, but "somehow" anyone could do it, and we're supposed to believe that hijackers wouldn't have tried to stop them??? It's simply not credible. Meteor I am WARNING YOU! On this one, you better shut the fuck up!! As I mentioned in another post, my cousin was on Flight 93 and I can tell you, his wife did get a call from him...DO NOT FUCK WITH ME ON THIS ONE! If you want to blow your shitty conspiracy theories around go ahead, but if you mouth off and question the phone calls that these people and my cousin made the instant before they died, then I swear, I hope you burn in hell! My cousin DID NOT hang up before any questions. He told his wife exactly what was happening. He told her the plane and been hijacked becuase they did not know about the planes hitting into buildings. When he called back, he did know from another passnger...he talked to his wife for at least 7 -10 minutes. NO ONE was making him or the others say anything. And, genius, of course you can make cell phone calls from a plane?! For someone who acts like he knows so much, you'd know that it is all over the news that airlines are considering allowing passengers to use cell phones in flight. You're an ass man and I hope fate comes back to bite you in the ass for putting this crap out there and dishonoring people who lost their lives. Did you want me to take apart your "seismic data"? by ClosetIguana on Dec 17, 2004 No, I prefer experts to do it - and it's been analysed pretty well already. I don't see why you could reasonably be having any trouble finding it; are you sure that you know how to use a search engine properly? I'm not going to do your secretarial work for you. At least you hang around and let me take apart your arguements .... by ClosetIguana on Dec 17, 2004 You must be a deluded optimist, because so far you haven't been able to support your own arguments very well at all - you must be using the freeper handbook. Numanx I know exactly where you got that info from the same sites you got the info about bombs being planted in the WTC. LOL. Keep up the good journalism tactics there Numanx!
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 17, 04 11:43pm
[+]
patch22us I'm sorry to hear that story about your relative.
by ClosetIguana on Fri Dec 17, 04 11:46pm
[+]
(to meteor7) And, genius, of course you can make cell phone calls from a plane?! by patch22us on Dec 17, 2004 But the odds are excceedingly small of getting any kind of reliable connection without an onboard relay - which all the aircraft *hijacked* at the time lacked. It's not impossible to get a cellphone connection, just extremely umlikely, especially when flying over an area with very, very few cellphone relays, and even more ulikely for so many calls at the same time in such circumstances to make a connection. I know exactly where you got that info from the same sites you got the info about bombs being planted in the WTC. LOL. Keep up the good journalism tactics there Numanx! by ClosetIguana on Dec 18, 2004 Now you're trying to say that the BBC, Asia Times Online, Japan Today, Sydney Morning Herald, and numerous others are spurious sources of news??? What do you propose; Fox "news" only? Sorry, but I prefer diversity of sources and credibility over "USA, USA, Rah-rah-rah" sort of rubbish. My cousin DID NOT hang up before any questions. He told his wife exactly what was happening. He told her the plane and been hijacked becuase they did not know about the planes hitting into buildings. When he called back, he did know from another passnger...he talked to his wife for at least 7 -10 minutes. NO ONE was making him or the others say anything. by patch22us on Dec 17, 2004 Oh sure, we're supposed to believe that this *cousin* chatted merrily away on a cellphone for several minutes without any of these *hijackers* getting annoyed and stopping him. What was happening on that plane, did the *hijackers* just say "Hey everyone, we installed a cellphone relay while we were hijacking the plane, so go ahead and make LOTS of cellphone calls so that EVERYONE knows we're coming, so that the US Airforce hurries up a bit and intercepts us - we noticed that they're taking a REALLY LONG TIME to do anything even though on EVERY OTHER OCCASSION it only took them 15 minutes to intercept a rogue plane! Gee, I wonder what's taking those guys so long to DO SOMETHING! Could somebody please call their husband in the Justice Dept so that it all sounds a bit more credible!". Imagine the scene, dozens of people standing around having a cellphone calling party while *hijackers* do NOTHING at all. Weird, huh? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing happening in a hijacking before? Say, patch22us and ClosetIguana, do you guys have any links to a real, uncensored, complete recording from ANY ONE of those EIGHT blackboxes on those planes (two each plane) something with real proof that the planes were hijacked? dishonoring people who lost their lives. by patch22us on Dec 17, 2004 This is such a typical ploy from freepers and Bushwankers, "Think about the dead, don't dishonor them" sort of crap as an excuse for not being able to come up with ANY REAL PROOF. Numanx talks about real proof but when you ask for it he can't back-up his claims. Speaking of which: KWAME HOLMAN: With chilling audio tapes of the hijackers confronting their victims as a back drop, the 9/11 Commission painted a portrait of confusion and poor official communication throughout the frenzied morning of Sept. 11 2001. In the final day of hearings, the commission staff reported on the response by the Federal Aviation Administration and the military's North American Defense Command or NORAD. The staff said neither agency was prepared to react to hijacked planes that would become weapons. PHILIP ZELIKOW: In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that, one, the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear. Two, there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command and, three, the hijacking would take the traditional form, not a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile. On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen. What ensued was the hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced. KWAME HOLMAN: The staff played air traffic control recordings of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, destined to strike the first world trade center tower. This is believed to be hijacker Mohammed Atta. HIJACKER: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try and make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves. KWAME HOLMAN: It was the day's first indication to air traffic controllers that a hijacking was underway. The staff said controllers alerted FAA headquarters of a possible hijacking, but were told by the FAA officer on duty that an emergency conference call already was underway. However, the Boston-based controllers of Flight 11 were not satisfied military help was on the way and called the Northeast Air Defense Sector, or NEADS
by ClosetIguana on Sat Dec 18, 04 1:11am
[+]
Numanx talks about real proof but when you ask for it he can't back-up his claims. by ClosetIguana on Dec 18, 2004 Spreading more lies then? So, what happened to those 8 blackbox flight recorders? In the final day of hearings, the commission staff reported on the response by the Federal Aviation Administration and the military's North American Defense Command or NORAD. The staff said neither agency was prepared to react to hijacked planes that would become weapons. by ClosetIguana on 17 Dec, 2004 Really that is so completely unbelievable! They had ABSOLUTELY NO TROUBLE AT ALL reacting to rogue planes and having them intercepted by the US Airforce within a quarter-hour on every other occassion! KWAME HOLMAN: The staff played air traffic control recordings of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, destined to strike the first world trade center tower. This is believed to be hijacker Mohammed Atta. HIJACKER: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try and make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves. Posted by ClosetIguana on 18 Dec, 2004 Great, so we can listen to the cockpit flight recorders then to confirm this? Otherwise it means nothing. Besides, Mohammed Atta wasn't on that plane, and 7 of the supposed *hijackers* were still alive well after the event according to the BBC. NY firemen discussing the explosions: Fireman1: Floor by floor it started popping out... Fireman2: It was almost like they had detonators… Fireman1: Yeah, detonators… Fireman2: …planted to take down the building. boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…. Fireman1: All the way down. I was watching it and running.. NBC Reporter Pat Dawson on the morning of 9-11: ...The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York told me that...er...he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact was, he thinks, may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building...er... so that's what we have been told by...erm...Albert Turi who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he told me that just moments ago. Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower: The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby: We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it STOPPED. Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes... (APPARENTLY IT WASN'T HOT ENOUGH TO BOTHER HER EITHER) Awful lot of witnesses around to say that there was no horribly deadly super-hot, aluminium-melting, steel-softening inferno anywhere near where those planes hit those buildings. (see above) ClosetIguana, I just did a bit of checking for that BBC webpage that I mentioned - Yes, it's still there. However, I also did a search for it on one of my older PCs, and the BBC webpage would not display properly except for the logo. I therefore apologise for assuming that you didn't search properly, as it appears that on some PCs at least, the BBC webpage in question doesn't display correctly - but it is definitely still online and available. Perhaps you can use a different browser to see it. It was edited and changed however from the original. Numanx Maybe your right, maybe it's just my browser. I'm sure someone reading this has tried to find the BBC link and can't. Surely someone out there has the right browswer. So post the link for them. (Why do I get the feeling you'll come up with another excuse why you can't post it).
by ClosetIguana on Sat Dec 18, 04 2:06pm
[+]
^ I don't know if you could tell I was being scarastic or not but I was. The BBC's website could only be viewed by certain people, come on, you can do better than that. www.bbc.co.uk
by ClosetIguana on Sat Dec 18, 04 2:27pm
[+]
The Captain called the Sergeant in. "Sarge, I just got a telegram that Private Jones' mother died yesterday. Better go tell him and send him in to see me." So the Sergeant calls for his morning formation and lines up all the troops. "LISTEN UP MEN" ,says the Sergeant. "JOHNSON, , report to the mess hall for KP. Smith, report to Personnel to sign some papers. THE REST OF YOU MEN REPORT TO THE MOTOR POOL FOR MAINTENANCE. Oh by the way, Jones, your mother died, report to the commander." Later that day the Captain called the Sergeant into his office. "Hey, Sarge, that was a pretty cold way to inform Jones his mother died. Couldn't you be a bit more tactful, next time?" "Yes, sir," answered the Sarge. A few months later, the Captain called the Sergeant in again with, "Sarge, I just got a telegram that Private McGrath's mother died. You'd better go tell him and send him in to see me. This time be more tactful." So the Sergeant calls for his morning formation. OK MEN. . FALL IN AND LISTEN UP Everybody with a mother, take two steps forward." "WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU"RE DOING , Mc GRATH"
by bigmonkeynuts on Sat Dec 18, 04 2:56pm
[+]
"WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED?" BBC and the Asia Times 9/11 2001 "On some air bases the Air Force is on one side of the field and civilian aircraft use the other side of the field, with the control tower in the middle. One day the tower received a call from an aircraft asking, "What time is it?" The tower responded, "Who is calling?" The aircraft replied, "What difference does it make?" The tower replied "It makes a lot of difference. If it is an American Airlines flight, it is 3 o'clock. If it is an Air Force plane, it is 1500 hours. If it is a Navy aircraft, it is 6 bells. If it is an Army aircraft, the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 3. If it is a Marine Corps aircraft, it's Thursday afternoon and 120 minutes to "Happy Hour."
by bigmonkeynuts on Sat Dec 18, 04 3:03pm
[+]
^ I don't know if you could tell I was being scarastic or not but I was. The BBC's website could only be viewed by certain people, come on, you can do better than that. www.bbc.co.uk by ClosetIguana on Dec 18, 2004 You're not very good at sarcasm, and quite possibly there are cultural differences that get in the way. I did not say that the BBC website could only be viewed by certain people, I only said that that particular webpage could not be viewed properly by everyone. It is an old webpage, and since it was posted originally back on the 20th Sept, 2001, there have been many changes in the functionality of the IE Browser (Microsoft lost a court-case over patent-rights and had to change a few things). Perhaps you aren't very computer-savvy, but there are many websites maintained by even the largest media corporations that are not properly viewable on all browsers and on all PCs. Oh, and no, I am not going to look it up for you. But if you are planning to look for it, the article is in the sci-tech section - and it has been edited (just on a brief look, half the relevant tables have been removed and great chunks of the writing were removed too). There are plenty of copies of the data from the original page available on other sites, surely if you can't find/see the BBC webpage properly you can see one of the copies instead. Look for a copy of the original unedited page if possible - there's a lot more detail and pretty graphics. In relation to the video of the firefighters entering the lobby of one of the WTC towers, and finding the place all smashed up as if a bomb had exploded down there, (and not just a plane hitting the uppper floors), there was another witness to that explosion; Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. ok get ready to dump all your silly vicious attacks on me - but i have to wonder - if someone wanted to set off a bomb (or 2 or 3 or however many some of you are claiming it took) -- why not just set the damn bomb off and take the credit/blame for it rather than staging the whole aircraft thing complete with all the documented activity assiciated and occuring up to years prior to this event. What? the bombs wouldn't have been enough - they needed to stage a whole exploding aircraft scenario besides. I'm not saying there is not more to this whole story than we will ever be told in our lifetime -- because history tells us there always is. But try to be rational and realistic (maybe even watch NOVA now and then) -- flying aircraft into the Trade Centers just to cover up bomb explosions is just a little far-fetched. ok get ready to dump all your silly vicious attacks on me - but i have to wonder - if someone wanted to set off a bomb (or 2 or 3 or however many some of you are claiming it took) -- why not just set the damn bomb off and take the credit/blame for it rather than staging the whole aircraft thing ... by coalchild on Dec 18, 2004 Very simple explanation. Because it would be impossible to set-off a controlled demolition like the destruction of the WTC towers were, with explosives on every critical point (not just 2-3), and really masssive ones in the basement supports and still make it look like a terrorist attack. By having *hijacked* planes crashing into the buildings, the blame seems to go onto the supposed terrorists and at the same time distracts from the other deliberately set explosions. In any case, as has been shown, the damage from the planes was not enough to take down those buildings, the "inferno" that suposedly weakened the structure of the buildings didn't exist but was only lower temperature smaller fires which many survivors and some firemen witnessed, the temperatures were no higher than 250C and so the claims of an "inferno" are shown to be a thin tissue of badly thought out lies. The seismic data alone shows that there were extremely powerful explosions underground that destroyed the supports of the towers. Read the previous comments, look it up on the net. and by the way - losts of things explode - maybe they even sound like bombs - when a building and its contentsa re subjected to intens heat and pressure. by Anonymous on Dec 18, 2004 Duh! We all know this. But random explosions do not take down buildings in any way remininscent of a controlled demolition; Explosives have to be carefully emplaced to ensure such a straight-down collapse instead of a side-ways fall. Calculations have to be made, and knowledge of the building's design must be carefully studied. On top of which, there was no intense heat (rather the opposite to what you mention) - read what the survivors say - and the analysis shows temperatures were relatively low, the fires very nearly extinguished, and all the fuel already gone. And by the way the towers WENT STRAIGHT-DOWN they were controlled demolitions. The lame excuse that gravity would make them go straight-down is BS, since if demolitions experts could simply rely on gravity alone, then they'd be out of a job wouldn't they? But try to be rational and realistic (maybe even watch NOVA now and then) -- flying aircraft into the Trade Centers just to cover up bomb explosions is just a little far-fetched. by coalchild on Dec 18, 2004 Apparently the people who don't believe such a simple BS story are more realistic, and a lot more knowledgeable than you. There is nothing far-fetched about using a distraction in any kind of military attack, and there is nothing far-fetched about governments lying to their citizens (the US government is notorious for it, but have you ever heard of a truly honest government?). There is also nothing far-fetched about lying to start a war, it has happened. There is nothing far-fetched about attacks on national icons and blaming somebody else to instigate a violent reaction against a scapegoat. There is nothing far-fetched about bombs in the WTC, as it's been done before. There is nothing far-fetched about planes being used as weapons by diving them into things. There is nothing far-fetched about masquerades and coverups. Besides, it matters not about your claims of "such & such" being far-fetched, the evidence mounts, and the coverup is unravelling - just as the Bush Administration's lies about WMD in Iraq have unravelled. All I know is Bush PRAISED THE LORD when those planes hit the towers!! :D (and I'm not just bs'ing, I KNOW he did, you know it too) Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. by Numanx on Dec 18, 2004 Funny Numanx, JUST LIKE METEOR7, you never, ever post where you get these "news" stories from YOU MAKE THEM UP! Post your source dude. Let us all go to the same place you found these "accounts" from people on the scene that day? We live here. i don't recally any of those news stories you post. POST THEM NOW! And you and Meteor7 (who is you), never explain WHY those hijackers would have flown those plains into the WTC and the Pentagon. Did the U.S. government pay them in your opinion? And why would we blow the buildings up with explosives? The plane attacks alone would have been enought to kill people? And did they also have explosives already planted in the Pentagon? The White House too, if it had been hit, as it is assumed to have been a target. These are questions you never reply to. Why? because you can't because your theory is based on anti-Americanism plain and simple. Get out of the house for a while and do something in the light of day, instead of sitting at your computer day-in and day-out! Say, patch22us and ClosetIguana, do you guys have any links to a real, uncensored, complete recording from ANY ONE of those EIGHT blackboxes on those planes (two each plane) something with real proof that the planes were hijacked? by Numanx on Dec 18, 2004 Yes, if you had read my previous post, you would know that my cousin was killed on Flight 93 (his name is not really your business). So, yea, they were highjacked, that much I know to be FACT! Say, patch22us and ClosetIguana, do you guys have any links to a real, uncensored, complete recording from ANY ONE of those EIGHT blackboxes on those planes (two each plane) something with real proof that the planes were hijacked? by Numanx on Dec 18, 2004 Oh, and umm, well his wife and my aunt and uncle were able to listen to the recorded moments just before their plane went down in the field and well, I think that his wife and his parents would know their sons voice and what was going on. Not to mention that he was able to call his wife from the plane...the hijackers were in the front. You know, to now suggest that the planes were not hijacked is just sick and twisted. What the fuck do you know? You know jack shit dude! You are going to regret this type of talk Numanx, of that I'm sure. You will regret it because people like you are sick, twisted psychopaths who need serious help. You know nothing about fact because you live in a world of self-importance in which you are an expert on everything. The sad, cold reality is, you are really knowlegable about nothing. Numanx I don't want to rub your nose in this any longer. Anyone reading this can see why you need to make excuses why you can't post the BBC link. I've taken apart your "BBC story". Do you want me to take apart your theory regarding "seismic data" next? Or would you rather me take apart any others? You seem like you probably believe the "Pentagon was hit by a missile" crap too. Your choice.
by ClosetIguana on Sun Dec 19, 04 11:16pm
[+]
For those interested in finding the BBC website I posted it on Numanx's public messages. Numanx next?
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 20, 04 12:30am
[+]
WTC. Obvious demolition. Anyone who thinks that burning airplane fuel can melt steel building supports is out of their mind.
by cretin_slap on Mon Dec 20, 04 3:40am
[+]
You are going to regret this type of talk Numanx, of that I'm sure. How are you going to be sure, patch? Was that a threat?
by cretin_slap on Mon Dec 20, 04 8:11am
[+]
You are going to regret this type of talk Numanx, of that I'm sure. How are you going to be sure, patch? Was that a threat? by cretin_slap on Dec 20, 2004 Threat? How could I threaten someone on a web-site, who I don't even know, who is thousands of miles away?? It was a friendly piece of advice based on the fact that I believe he is truly dishonoring all those who lost their lives. He has a right to his opinions, but he does not back them up with any credible sources and does not site any specific evidence that others can examine for themselves. Instead, he tells those of us who don't support his theories that we are idiots and that we are brainwashed, etc. The same with you: I asked you to site where you get your "information," but you chose not to. Fair enough that you are under no obligation to do so, but likewise, I am therefore under no obligation to even consider those views that would be classified as conspiracy theories. You can't stop us using this site to put across our views, patch. Most people now realise that they were lied to about 9/11. It's only the really stubborn ones that still buy the government's lies.
by cretin_slap on Mon Dec 20, 04 8:30am
[+]
You can't stop us using this site to put across our views, patch. Most people now realise that they were lied to about 9/11. It's only the really stubborn ones that still buy the government's lies. by cretin_slap on Dec 20, 2004 ok, sure. Sounds good. Keeping telling yourself that and keep writing it with the hope it will become true. You guys are like the Ministers of Dis-information in Nazi Germany and like in Iraq under Saddam. Thanks for your words of wisdom and insight! LMFAO!! OH AN NUMANX, BELOW IS THE REAL NEWS STORY. NOTICE HOW YOUR VERSION LEAVES OUT THAT THE FIREBALL CAME DOWN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. Sort of blows your bombs in the lower levels theory. Tell us, why did you leave this out!?!? Of course a fireball came DOWN the elevator shaft because the planes hit at the top of the building. It is from NY1.com Here is the actual quote. Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. For those interested in finding the BBC website I posted it on Numanx's public messages. Numanx next? by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 Wrong webpage. I posted the one I meant, but it is not the original version; you'll have to look elsewhere for that. cretin_slap Read Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT above if you need a better understanding of what went on. If you question anything on there let me know. Numanx Care to post the BBC link where 7 of the hijackers were still alive. Seems like conspiracy theorists like to claim the BBC reported this stuff. LOL. Do you ever check your facts before making the claims? Apparently not, you believe bombs brought down the WTC.
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 20, 04 9:19am
[+]
you never, ever post where you get these "news" stories from YOU MAKE THEM UP! Post your source dude. Let us all go to the same place you found these "accounts" from people on the scene that day? We live here. i don't recally any of those news stories you post. POST THEM NOW! by patch22us on 20 Dec, 2004 Well, I expect you are quite capable of doing your own research, so why should I do your work for you? No, I don't make them up. I've gotten haertily sick of freeper idiots saying "post your source" then replying with insults instead of reasoned intelligent arguments after all the hard work for finding that information, but yet they rarely can do any real research of their own. So, go and do your own damn hard work. All you have to do is type down some of the relevant details (such as the names of witnesses) into a search engine. You can do that without having your hand held can't you? Afterall, you seem to want me to post a source, but don't apply the same rule to yourself. Oh, and umm, well his wife and my aunt and uncle were able to listen to the recorded moments , bla, bla, bla,..by patch22us on 20 Dec, 2004 No names? Not very credible story then. I've posted names of witnesses, their stories can be checked. Your little story just seems to become more embellished as time goes on doesn't it, losing more and more credibility. Come, who are they, what are their names, then I can check them - I have sources besides the internet to find out things. Yes, if you had read my previous post, you would know that my cousin was killed on Flight 93 (his name is not really your business). So, yea, they were highjacked, that much I know to be FACT! by patch22us on Dec 19, 2004 Maybe it's not a fact at all. You haven't mentioned even a name, so why should anyone believe you. Funny thing when a whole lot of people died that day, a whole lot more people also got involved, but some of us want to find out the truth and get the real culprits, not the scapegoats. So, basically big deal, you claim your cousin died, hey I knew a lot of people who worked at the WTC and they all died too. Just because you CLAIM that your cousin died on flight 93, doesn't add to your credibility and the way you keep embellishing the story is rapidly reducing your credibility to zero. Go ahead, add some more pretty colours to the story. Care to post the BBC link where 7 of the hijackers were still alive. Seems like conspiracy theorists like to claim the BBC reported this stuff. LOL. Do you ever check your facts before making the claims? Apparently not, you believe bombs brought down the WTC. by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 1 - bombs did bring the WTC towers, you haven't been able to show otherwise. 2 - The BBC did indeed report the story of the 7 of 19 hijackers still being alive. 1 of them has since disappeared, but the other 6 still are alive at this time as far as I can acertain. Here the links; BBC - http: / / news.bbc.co.uk / 1 / hi / world / middle_east / 1559151.stm http: // news.independent.co.uk / world/middle_east / story.jsp?story=94438 http: // www.portal.telegraph.co.uk / news / main.jhtml?xml= / news / 2001 / 09 / 23 / widen23.xml Don't forget to remove the spaces. Care to post the BBC link where 7 of the hijackers were still alive. Seems like conspiracy theorists like to claim the BBC reported this stuff. LOL. Do you ever check your facts before making the claims? by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 Time to eat your shorts, ClosetIguana. but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft. by patch22us on Dec 20, 2004 Since he was in the lobby at the time, how is he supposed to SEE a fireball roaring down the elevator shaft? X-ray vision perhaps? He wouldn't be able to tell which direction it was coming from, up or down. All he'd know is that he was hit by the fireball from an explosion. The bit about the "down" or "up" was added in later, and is not what he himself said about the situation since he can't see through concrete walls - can you? You seem like you probably believe the "Pentagon was hit by a missile" crap too. Your choice. by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 I actually have a pretty good idea of what the Pentagon was hit by, and big passenger jets don't fit through tiny little 16ft wide holes. Amazing how that green lawn was completely unmarked, isn't it? Say, patch22us and ClosetIguana, do you guys have any links to a real, uncensored, complete recording from ANY ONE of those EIGHT blackboxes on those planes (two each plane) something with real proof that the planes were hijacked? by Numanx on Dec 18, 2004 Yes, if you had read my previous post, you would know that my cousin was killed on Flight 93 (his name is not really your business). So, yea, they were highjacked, that much I know to be FACT! by patch22us on Dec 19, 2004 You didn't answer the question. Go ahead, try again. Something real this time. Numanx The Independent and the Telegraph? Has the BBC changed it's name? The BBC report says several of the highjackers several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. Is that the same saying that the airplanes weren't highjacked? BTW I noticed you were pretty quite about the BBC story of September 20, 2001. Funny that it didn't mention anything about molten steel found underneath the WTC.
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 20, 04 11:44am
[+]
Numanx Why am I not surprised you believe a missile hit the Pentagon. So you don't believe an aircraft hit the Pentagon or you don't believe only an aircraft hit the Pentagon? (similar to your bombs in the WTC theory).
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 20, 04 11:49am
[+]
You didn't answer the question. Go ahead, try again. Something real this time. by Numanx on Dec 20, 2004 Well of course I don't. I have no clue as to the links to the black boxes. But you feel justified in denying that actual family members listened to the recordings? Why is that no real enough for you?? Do you ever have trouble sleeping at night? I have not read one credible posting from you. The one news story you posted, you intentionally deleted a key part of it, then you totally NEGATE your own source by writing "Since he was in the lobby at the time, how is he supposed to SEE a fireball roaring down the elevator shaft? X-ray vision perhaps? He wouldn't be able to tell which direction it was coming from, up or down." That makes no sense. And no, I'm not going to tell you my cousin's name. You can belive it or not. He had literally just had a baby girl a few months earlier. You can figure it out. You're just made because when someone does have a REAL connection, it drives you nuts becuase you know you don't. I could not care less what you think of my relation to this person or if you doubt it. Your opinion on that is irrelevant. What does shock me though is your nasty, venemous attitude. It is obvious you have NO respect for people and I wonder, is this how you react to people who lost a loved one? Dude, you are truly a sick person. The bit about the "down" or "up" was added in later, and is not what he himself said about the situation since he can't see through concrete walls - can you? by Numanx on Dec 20, 2004 Oh, so now NY1.com, a reputable news service, added in something AFTER you used them as a quote. Mmmm, did they add it in in the passed day or so?? Interesting that now you got caught manipulating a news story and to cover yourself, you say that NY1 News added it in. Mmmm, all part of the great conspircay?? Just because you CLAIM that your cousin died on flight 93, doesn't add to your credibility and the way you keep embellishing the story is rapidly reducing your credibility to zero. Go ahead, add some more pretty colours to the story. by Numanx on Dec 20, 2004 Oh, but you are stupid! I am so very sorry to say that, but it is true. No evidence and you are asked for it, so how do you reply to people "why should I do your research for you." Great. In my posts, if I site a NEWS fact, I indicate where I got the quote/fact. And again, the my cousin is family and therefore, off limits to sick freaks like you. There is no need to know his name. You can read any number of quotes by the families of that flight and it should not matter which one he was because he became news due to a terrorist attack. He did not seek it...it was handed to him and his family by cold blooded murders. And then people like you seek to tarnish their memory with stupid theories that have no basis (of if they do, you never tell us where you get your information). Dude, you lie. http: // news.independent.co.uk / world/middle_east / story.jsp?story=94438 Umm, Nu, this story is so old. The pilot in question was a victim of identity theft. We know about this. The pilot in question was interviewed and it was determined that the REAl hijacker had stolen his identity (you do know that hijackers tend to do stuff like that, right? Especially when they want to take flying lessons, get onto planes, etc??) Great source. You may want to actually post a source that is about something accurate when trying to shore up yours lies. Closet and all SANE users in this thread. I have an idea. Lets please just leave this ballot now and not engage Numanx, Meteor7 or Cretin_slap any more. I think they are one and the same anyway. If we ignore them, they may just fizzle out. I've been letting myself get caught up in their insanity because it is personal now based on Numanx. But I think we should just never answer them in any way. We know they are liars and sadistic freaks, so lets leave it at that. Deal? , bla, by patch22us on Dec 20, 2004 Ah, so you subscribe to the strange delusion that somebody getting a few flying lessons is going to be able to pilot a great big passenger jet with more skill than pilots who have been flying them for years. you do know that hijackers tend to do stuff like that, right? Especially when they want to take flying lessons, bla, by patch22us on Dec 20, 2004 Ah, so you subscribe to the strange delusion that somebody getting a few flying lessons is going to be able to pilot a great big passenger jet with more skill than pilots who have been flying them for years. The pilot in question was a victim of identity theft. We know about this. by patch22us on Dec 20, 2004 So, considering that at least some of the hijackers were not who the US government claimed them to be, then where is the real evidence that any of them were arabs, or even existed at all? Since he was in the lobby at the time, how is he supposed to SEE a fireball roaring down the elevator shaft? X-ray vision perhaps? He wouldn't be able to tell which direction it was coming from, up or down. That makes no sense. by patch22us on Dec 20, 2004 So NOW you think the guy had X-ray vision too! Wow! Do you have this wonderous ability? How common is it? Can you SEE THROUGH CONCRETE WALLS?! "And again, the my cousin is family and therefore, off limits to sick freaks like you. There is no need to know his name." "Oh, and umm, well his wife and my aunt and uncle were able to listen to the recorded moments" "You can belive it or not. He had literally just had a baby girl a few months earlier." by patch22us on Dec 20, 2004 It is well known for habitual liars to embellish a story in a futile attempt to give it more credibility than it really deserves. I knew people who died that day too, now bring something REAL. Your attempt to use cheap emotional "heart-string" stuff is not only extraneous to the argument, it means absolutelyy nothing to me. You already showed your statements about this *cousin* as unbelievable when you stated that *he* chatted away for 7-10 minutes WITHOUT ANY INTERRUPTION during a hijacking by terrorists who, no doubt, would prefer to keep their intentions secret. Your claims become even more ridiculous when it's taken into accound how extremely difficult it is to get any kind of cellphone connection from a passenger jet in flight at cruising altitude. Why am I not surprised you believe a missile hit the Pentagon. by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 I didn't say that I believed it was a missile. I only said that it is not believabe for a great big passenger jet to fit through a 16ft wide hole, and that wonderful green lawn is amazingly unmarked isn't? Not a single mark of any kind to show that a plane crashed there. Must be an indestructible super-lawn. Do you always have this problem dealing with reality, ClosetIguana? Do you really believe that a great big passenger jet hitting the side of a building is only going to make a hole MUCH SMALLER then the width of the plane itself, and that the green lawn outside the Pentagon is some super-lawn that never gets damaged during plane crashes? Do you want me to take apart your theory regarding "seismic data" next? by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 and so now you also claim to be an expert seismologist! This is getting better and better! :) Btw, have either one of you (or isthere only one of you? Afterall, you both post at the same time like a tag-team - that's pretty damn suspicious, neh?)..anyway have either one of you tried making that roast lamb recipe yet, or are you still claiming that 250C over only ten minutes (too short a time to cook the lamb roast) will result in *playdoh-ification* of the steel that your oven is made of?! Deal patch22us. You can't reason with crazy people.
by ClosetIguana on Mon Dec 20, 04 6:07pm
[+]
Lets please just leave this ballot now and not engage Numanx, Meteor7 or Cretin_slap any more. I think they are one and the same anyway. Just goes to show how little you know, patch. Do you really believe that these three users are the same person? Be my guest. Leave this ballot. My theory is that you are only here moaning because we are here telling people the truth as we see it. We have every right to do this, even if it upsets people who believe differently to us.
by cretin_slap on Tue Dec 21, 04 3:40am
[+]
Deal patch22us. You can't reason with crazy people. by ClosetIguana on Dec 20, 2004 Yes, run away, run away because you can't come up with anything to prove the silly "Arabs did it" conspiracy theory. Recently Popular Mechanics had an article that supposedly debunks the 911 Truth Movement (without calling it by that name), generally citing as proof a set of hoaxes which even most 911 sceptics never accepted and easily showed were hoaxes, but PM glaringly ignores real evidence that is well documented from the mainstream press (a partial list): * the numerous warnings from US allies that 9/11 was about to happen and warnings provided to a few not to fly or get out of the way * the "plane into building" CIA / National Reconnaissance Office war game in Virginia on 9/11 and the NORAD "live fly" exercises that were also conducted on 9/11 * the fighter planes sent the wrong way from Norfolk (over the Atlantic, instead of toward DC). 9/11 was a cloudless day, and this scramble happened after the towers were hit (but before the Pentagon) - what's their excuse? (even the official 9/11 commission report mentions this, but without providing an explanation) * stock trades a few days before 9/11 betting the value of American and United Airlines would drop * the fact that attack on the Pentagon hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon -- something a terrorist would not have chosen (or been able) to do. Two of the photos that PM used to debunk"conspiracy theorists" were from the website questions questions.net, a 9/11 truth website that has done excellent work to debunk hoaxes used to distract from real evidence. Popular Mechanics claims that 9/11 skeptics all support the fake claims, but most don't - as proven by PM's use of photos from "questions questions." The PM article mentions NONE of the other features of the collapses that indicate controlled demolition, such as: The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry, The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel. The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction. The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers' volumes -- more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions. The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble. The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away. The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence. Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses. The article implies that skeptics' criticism of the official account that fires weakened the towers' structures is based on the erroneous assumption that the official story requires that the fires melted the steel. In fact the fire-melts-steel claim was first introduced by apologists for the official story on the day of the attack, by no less than a structural engineer. The article cites 911review.org, a site that promotes discrediting ideas but purports to speak for the 9/11 skeptics' community. The article simply repeats the site's claim that "the video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to fire, but rather a controlled demolition," without directing the reader to where they can see videos, such as on WTC7.net. The article makes no mention of the facts that skeptics most often cite as evidence that the collapse was a controlled demolition: The building collapsed with precisely vertical fashion. The building collapsed at almost the rate of free-fall. The building collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble. The article lets NIST's Shyam Sunder sell the "progressive collapse" of Building 7: "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse. The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a "section" could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The far-flung debris field of the Flight 93 crash site along with the eyewitness accounts make a strong case that the plane was shot down. The article takes on this issue by first citing an article on Rense.com that makes the unsubstantiated claim that "the main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site." It then argues that engine parts being found 300 yards from the main site is reasonable for a simple crash, because airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, states parts could bounce that far "when you have high velocities, 500 mph or more." This theory is at odds with the eyewitness reports that the plane plummeted almost straight down, such as the following: He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes. He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone." Meteor7 How did find out where Popular Mechanics got it's photos from?
by ClosetIguana on Mon Mar 14, 05 5:11pm
[+]
Also if that airplane didn't slam into the Pentagon where did it go? This was a register flight with real people in it and real people waiting for them upon arrival. I'm looking forward to your answer but I don't expect I'll get one.
by ClosetIguana on Wed Mar 16, 05 12:18am
[+]
la...la...la
by hotshot2393 on Thu Mar 17, 05 7:42am
[+]
Also if that airplane didn't slam into the Pentagon where did it go? This was a register flight with real people in it and real people waiting for them upon arrival. I'm looking forward to your answer but I don't expect I'll get one. by ClosetIguana on Mar 16, 2005 There was a plane crash in Colorado that day too, and the news it of it got quickly squelched. What happened to those people, huh? The claim about the big passenger plane hitting the Pentagon doesn't work either. No pictures of plane wreckage except for ONE fuselage from a different class of passenger jet with the door on the wrong side; plus it looks like it was specially dumped there to mislead people. On the entire grassy lawn outside the Pentagon there wasn't even the slightest mark of any kind of crash. Despite Popular Mechanics "explanation", the hole made in the Pentagon is still too small for a large passenger plane and if the wings folded up and the plane got compressed then where is the debris? Nobody but an idiot is going to believe that it simply vapourised into thin air! It's a bit like someone claiming to the cops that a semi-trailer crashed into their house, but there's no mark on their lawn, and the size of the hole is barely big enough for a motorbike, and the only peice of "debris" is from completely diffent kind of truck with all the wrong paint markings. Then their excuse to the cops is when asked, "Where's the rest of the truck?", is to say, "Oh, it vapourised!"
by Coldcircuit on Sun Apr 17, 05 8:31pm
[+]
As to where those people went, do you knwo of any of them personally, or have you just relied on the "official story" and some witnesses on TV that you have never met, and wouldn't know if they were actors or not. Ihis sort of propaganda and coverup has been done before. Fake witnesses are nothing new.
by Coldcircuit on Sun Apr 17, 05 8:41pm
[+]
Coldcircuit You know just because you read something from these conspiracy theorists websites doesn't make it so. Have you considered researching who those people were on that flight? But I guess you think those people, the friends the family members are all part of this grand conspiracy right? And by the way if you're interested in seeing more than 1 photo of the pentagon plane wreckage it not that hard to find either. I've found 10 so far. Type in pentagon fire under googles images. BTW I love your explaining that someone planted the wreckage without anybody noticing. Hilarious!
by ClosetIguana on Mon Apr 18, 05 10:21pm
[+]
typo^ (explanation)
by ClosetIguana on Tue Apr 19, 05 12:28am
[+]
Most of that debris you mention isn't clearly identifiable as coming from a plane. Perhaps you can provide a link to a site which does. There's also the little problem that more than a few of those names on the passenger lists are of people who apparently never existed. Only SIX (6) of the names on Flight 93 show up in the Social Security Death Index and NONE are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. Basically being non-existent persons, they don't have relatives who need to apply for compensation. Todd Beamer is also one of those who according to the Social Security Administration is still alive - or at least not dead yet. Larry King interviewed Lisa Beamer, wife of Todd Beamer on 8/23/02. King: So you feel Todd is somewhere now? Beamer: Absolutely. Todd is still alive.
by Coldcircuit on Sat Apr 30, 05 9:10pm
[+]
Among the names on the Flight 77 passenger list, these 43 names are NOT on the Social Security Death Index David Charlebois, Washington Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine. (42 listed, none died in 2001 per SS Death Index) Bernard Brown, Washington. Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland Asia Cottom, Washington James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland Rodney Dickens, Washington Eddie Dillard (None listed under Eddie, one listed under Edward who died 4 March 2001) Charles Droz Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland (wife Leslie and two daughters, Zoe and Dana - none of them are listed in the SSDI) Joe Ferguson, Washington (one died on 9-10-2001, born 9-19-1980, issued in California) Dee Flagg (checked all (65) surnames "Flagg", none died on 9-11-2001, Wilson Flagg only person listed who died on that date.) Richard Gabriel (None listed who died on 9-11-2001) Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia. (No one surnamed "Jack" died on 9-11-2001, checked 129 entries for surname "Jack") Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia Yvonne Kennedy Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia.(None listed who died on 9-11-2001, checked 89 surnames "Khan") Karen A. Kincaid, 40,. married to Peter Batacan. ( No listing in SS Death Index for Karen Kincaid, no listing for Karen Batacan) Norma Langsteuerle Dong Lee Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California Barbara Olson, 45 Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland John Sammartino .(None listed in SS Death Index who died in 2001) Diane Simmons .(None listed in SS Death Index who died in 2001) George Simmons ( 4 listed for "George Simmons" but none listed in SS Death Index who died on 9-11-2001) Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California (No :Mari-Rae" listed in SS Death Index, 2 listings for "Sopper" who died in 2001, none on 9-11-2001) Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York Hilda Taylor, Washington (None listed who died on 9-11-2001 in SS Death Index) Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia. (None listed who died on 9-11-2001 in SS Death Index) Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland was traveling with her husband, Charles Falkenberg, 45, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3 (None listed under "Leslie Whittington", none listed under Leslie Falkenberg in SS Death Index) Shuyin Yang (None listed who died in 2001 in SS Death Index) Yuguag Zheng (None listed who died in 2001 in SS Death Index) As I said, NONE of these people on on the SSDI as having died. We can'r even be sure that they ever really existed.
by Coldcircuit on Sat Apr 30, 05 10:26pm
[+]
Coldcircuit ... . Have you considered researching who those people were on that flight? ...by ClosetIguana on Apr 18, 2005 LOL - I think you shouldn't have dared him to do so. :) He just blew you away! I found this too; On all the planes together, only 21.25% are listed on the Social Security Death Index as having died. The 9-11 Victims Compensation Final Report contains an interesting fact. According to the report, 98% of all the people who suffered a loss on 9-11 took the fund money. But... on Flight 93, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. on Flight 11, only 3 are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. on Flight 77, only 5 are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. on Flight 175, only 3 are on the 9=11 Compensation Fund list. Considering that the minimum payout was $250,000 and the average payout was $1,8 MILLION dollars, it's not surprising that the relatives of 98% of the people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks applied to the 9-11 Compensation Fund, so why is it that only the relatives of a mere 11 people from ALL OF THE FLIGHTS applied for compensation. Don't the rest like money or something??? Were they already too rich to care??? Nearly 80% of the names listed for passengers on all the flights aren't even listed on the Social Security Death Index. It seems a large number of the people listed on the passenger lists don't really exist. Only 11 of them are probably real, and it's easy to hide 11 people. Not exactly. Ellen Mariani, wife of Louis Mariani, decided not to take the payoff from the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund and so Louis isn't on the list although he listed in the SSDI as dead (unlike so many names of people who didn't exist, and didn't die). She hired a lawyer, Phil Berg, and sued GW Bush and company instead. She and her lawyer have publicly stated that she is the only relative of all the people listed on passenger list for flight 175 that they have been able to find; none others apparently exist.
by Coldcircuit on Sun May 01, 05 6:16am
[+]
Coldcircuit You know just because you read something from these conspiracy theorists websites doesn't make it so. Have you considered researching who those people were on that flight? But I guess you think those people, the friends the family members are all part of this grand conspiracy right?ClosetIguana on Apr 18, 2005 No, I just went and checked and found that most of them apparently have no real identity and never existed. I've also found that according to the FAA, flight 11 and flight 77 never took off that day. No flights by those planes were scheduled that day.
by Coldcircuit on Sun May 01, 05 6:32am
[+]
I must suppose that only flight 93 and flight 175 were real, and something very nasty happened to some of the people. But nothing happened to most of them - because most of them never existed.
by Coldcircuit on Sun May 01, 05 6:34am
[+]
Coldcircuit Thanks for the list of people but unforturnately most of those names you listed never were on that flight. How did you confirm that the people that were on these offical list weren't on the Social Security Death Index? My guess is you are going to one of these consiracy websites again. Or do you know their SSN #s? Now here's the list of people that were on that flight and a bit of their background: AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard. CREW Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot. David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. "He was handsome and happy and very centered," his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. "His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day." Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son. Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis. Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis. Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant. PASSENGERS Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine. Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California. M.J. Booth Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society. Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc. William Caswell Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society. Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. Asia was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society. James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington. He was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society. Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society. Eddie Dillard Charles Droz Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas. Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp., a software engineering firm. He worked on data systems for NASA and also developed data systems for the study of global and regional environmental issues. Falkenburg was traveling with his wife, Leslie Whittingham, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham. Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham. Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach program in Washington. He was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. A Mississippi native, he joined the society in 1987. "Joe Feguson's final hours at the Geographic reveal the depth of his commitment to one of the things he really loved," said John Fahey Jr., the society's president. "Joe was here at the office until late Monday evening preparing for this trip. It was his goal to make this trip perfect in every way." Wilson "Bud" Flagg of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot. Dee Flagg Richard Gabriel Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm. Stanley Hall, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department. Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc., a wireless data and messaging company. Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society. She was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. Society President John Fahey Jr. said one of his fondest memories of Judge is a voice mail she and a colleague once left him while they were rafting the Monkey River in Belize. "This was quintessential Ann -- living life to the fullest and wanting to share it with others," he said. Chandler Keller, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California. Yvonne Kennedy Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia was a nonprofit organization manager. Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. She joined the firm in 1993 and was part of the its telecommunications practice. She was married to Peter Batacan. Norma Langsteuerle Dong Lee Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, was the associate director of clinical research for a biotech firm. Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, was president and chief executive officer of Work-Life Benefits, a consultation and referral service. He was married and had two children. Newton was on his way back to Orange County to retrieve his family's yellow Labrador, who had been left behind until they could settle into their new home in Arlington, Virginia. Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN and was married to U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. She twice called her husband as the plane was being hijacked and described some details, including that the attackers were armed with knives. She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday. She worked as an investigator for the House Government Reform Committee in the mid-1990s and later worked on the staff of Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles. Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer. Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems. Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme, a biotechnology firm. She was from Great Falls, Virginia, and was married to Stephen Push. She worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on developing a new policy governing cellular therapies, announced in 1997. She also worked on other major health-care legislation. Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, was a tax and business lawyer. John Sammartino Diane Simmons George Simmons Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, was a women's gymnastics coach at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She had just gotten the post August 31 and was making the trip to California to start work. Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York. Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society. Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia. Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland. The professor of public policy at Georgetown University in Washington was traveling with her husband, Charles Falkenberg, 45, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. They were traveling to Los Angeles to catch a connection to Australia. Whittington had been named a visiting fellow at Australian National University in Canberra. John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland. Vicki Yancey Shuyin Yang Yuguag Zheng
by ClosetIguana on Sun May 01, 05 4:33pm
[+]
Coldcircuit "I've also found that according to the FAA, flight 11 and flight 77 never took off that day. No flights by those planes were scheduled that day." So you don't believe the FAA notified NORAD that Flight 77 has been hijacked?
by ClosetIguana on Sun May 01, 05 4:54pm
[+]
How did you confirm that the people that were on these offical list weren't on the Social Security Death Index? by ClosetIguana on May 01, 2005 I also checked the SSDI to confirm. They have a website you know. Then I checked every other passenger list from those flights that I could find. And you know what? An amazing number of these people not only aren't officially dead, they also have no relatives bothering to claim compensation, and most of them have no real evidence of ever having existed. Can you prove that the Social Security Administration is wrong on 80% of the names? Can you prove that the vast majority of these people are so rich they didn't need the average $1.8 million dollar payout? Go ahead. Prove that ALL OF THEM ARE REAL!
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 6:24am
[+]
"I've also found that according to the FAA, flight 11 and flight 77 never took off that day. No flights by those planes were scheduled that day." So you don't believe the FAA notified NORAD that Flight 77 has been hijacked? by ClosetIguana on May 01, 2005 I didn't say that. Traffic controllers from the FAA may indeed have, and probably did alert NORAD that there was a hijacking of Flight 77. But at the same time, according the FAA, there was no Flight 77 or Flight 11 scheduled that day. The traffic controllers and FFA staff who alerted NORAD of a hijacking did so as soon as they were told of a hijacking - but they didn't, and weren't likely to, check whether there was a flight 77 or flight 11 scheduled to fly that day. One would normally assume that if you're being told off a hijacking that the plane really is what it is said to be, but civil air traffic controllers only see transponder codes on their screens, not real plane identities. Somebody uses a different transponder code, or a plane is claimed to be something else other than a passenger plane, they'd have little hope of being able immediately tell. However, in the case of Flight 77, the air traffic controllers move and fly on their screens in such a way that they thought at first that it must be a fignter-plane. They really thought that it was. Read up on it. Read about Hanni Majour the Wonder Pilot. Type "wonder pilot" into Google and you'll find loads on it.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 6:36am
[+]
You listed the same people on flight 77 that did. Except that I only listed the ones who are apparently still alive according to USA's Social Security Administration. The Social Security Death Index is generally a few months behind the real world in being updated, but it's been over THREE YEARS since the claimed and unprovable "deaths" and still the vast majority of names have had nobody turn up claiming to be a relative. The 9-11 Victims Compensation Final Report contains an interesting fact. According to the report, 98% of all the people who suffered a loss on 9-11 took the fund money. but... on Flight 93, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. on Flight 11, only 3 are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. on Flight 77, only 5 are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. on Flight 175, only 3 are on the 9=11 Compensation Fund list. Prove to us that they are real.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 6:43am
[+]
The cellphone calls don't prove the existence of most of these people either. Only 13 calls in total, and considering that only 12 people had relatives to claim some kind of compensation or legal claim (11 on the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund list, plus Ellen Mariani who decided to sue instead), then the existence of all of the others is suspect. Examining the cellphone and airphone calls it's found that at least some of them, and maybe all of them, are fake. # At 8:21 am American 11 flight attendant, Amy Sweeney, called American Airlines ground manager Michael Woodward and spoke calmly to him for 25 minutes. until the plane crashed. Woodward took notes during the conversation and has yet to testify publicly. (ABC News, 7/18/02). = She's on the phone 25 minutes and the mythical terrorists did nothing at all??? # Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham." = Who the hell calls their own mother and introduces themselves by their full name??? # A person claiming to be Todd Beamer, talked to GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson “Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said.......(The Pittsburg Channel, 1.38pm, September 16, 2001) = Why would Beamer prefer to talk to a stranger than to someone in his own family? He's also on the phone for 13 minutes, and again the mythical terrorists did nothing about it. Notice that his wife, Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had "allegedly" called. No evidence at all that it really was Todd Beamer making the call. Todd Beamer, btw, is not listed as dead on the SSDI. There are enormous problems with the credibility of the claimed call by Barbara Olson to her husband as well. 0915-0930 AM, (very approximately since there is no record of the calls); Barbara Olson places two calls to her husband (she was his 3rd wife.), US Solicitor General Theodore Olson, supposedly to tell him that Flight 77 (the plane she is claimed to be on) has been hijacked. After the first call, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson notifies the Justice Department. 1) * According to the story, she called her husband on an airphone on a collect call because she didn't have a credit card on her (a nice excuse for avoiding a phone record turning up). But, not only can't an airphone be used without a valid credit card (it has to swiped through the slot), you can't even take the handset off the cradle until the credit card is swiped through...because it's locked to stop it flying around accidentally during any turtbulence. So how did she make the call without lifting the handset? 2) There are no other witnesses to this call taking place. Neither is there any record of the call being made. 3) Barbara Olson is also not listed in the Social Security Death Index as having died. If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Most people would be in deep shock, I'm sure. About the last thing on your mind would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop” - but that's exactly what the US Solcitor General Theodore Olson did. Theodore Olson doesn't seem to worry overmuch about lying either; Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out." (March 21, 2002, p.A35, the Washington Post article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland)
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 6:58am
[+]
Coldcircuit Thanks for the list of people but unforturnately most of those names you listed never were on that flight. by ClosetIguana on May 01, 2005 Which ones? The 45 people who are listed on the passenger list but didn't die according to the Social Security Administration? Or can you point out exactly which ones that you mean were never on that flight? By name, I mean. The I want you to prove that all those people that you claim to be on that flight actually existed. Please do.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 7:07am
[+]
Thanks for the list of people but unforturnately most of those names you listed never were on that flight. by ClosetIguana on May 01, 2005 I think that is EXACTLY the same point that Coldcircuit is trying to make. You gave the official list, Cc had already posted which of those people on that list (check the names, they're the same) who were not in the SSDI as being dead. There are many others who noticed the same thing, even two years ago. It's been stated many times. The only new detail is that the 911 Victims Compensation Fund that includes those names who *apparently* had relatives who applied for the money. I wouldn't knock back 1.8 million dollars, I doubt many normal people would. It is very strange that when Ellen Mariani and her lawyer started looking into flight 175 that they found that she was only the relative of all those people. Very strange and very suspicious. I want proof that all those other names are real names too - because it looks as if nearly 80% of those names are fictional, their little titbit biographies are fictional, their jobs are fictional, they never existed. That's why there were no bodies. Every plane crash before and after 911 there have been bodies, so where are the bodies, ClosetIguana? Are you going to repeat the bush-shill lie about them being "vapourized"? Well that's just bullshit. Coldcircuit I couldn't help but notice you ignored my question about confirming names.I'd really love to confirm those names for you as you've done. Please send me Social security number Michele Heidenberger since it's a name that on both of our lists.
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 10:58am
[+]
Please send me the social security number for Michele Heidenberger since it's a name that's on both of our lists.
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 11:06am
[+]
Admit it. All those people who aren't on the SSDI as having died, and who didn't have relatives to claim compensation - well, you can't prove that they exist can you?
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 12:01pm
[+]
No Michele Heidenberger is listed on the SSDI as having died on Sept 11, 2001. She's also not on the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund list. These others from flight 77 are on the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund list; William Caswell Ian Gray Leonard Taylor Eddie Dillard (who is also not dead yet according to the SSDI) John Sammartino (who is also on not dead yet according to the SSDI) I guess she doesn't really have any relatives either. The claim of husband (unnamed), daughter (unnamed), and son (unnamed) seems to be all fake. Fake names don't need to make compensation claims.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 12:31pm
[+]
Coldcircuit I'm going to take apart each of your arguements 1 at a time because I don't think you are looking at the information critically. First the list of names you have given. Where di you get those names? I got mine from the Assoicated Press. After this please let me know that since you have you visited to the SSDI's website how did you confirm she died the date you gave. Meaning what did you enter as her SSN #?
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 12:45pm
[+]
Give me any SSN # of any of the people that we both share as peoples that are "claimed" to be on that flight. "check whether there was a flight 77 or flight 11 scheduled to fly that day." Was the flight scheduled to fly or did it actually fly are two different statements. But first I'm still waiting to see where you got those names because are names list is almost completely different.
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 2:30pm
[+]
But first I'm still waiting to see where you got those names because are names list is almost completely different. by ClosetIguana on May 02, 2005 Which names are different? Tell me, or stop lying.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 6:40pm
[+]
Don't actually need an SSN to check the SSDI when you can check their names and places that they are claimed to have lived at. Just for example, John Sammartino who is on the passenger list (read your one, he's there) and also among those not on the SSDI as having died. According to the SSDI, no one by the name of John Sammartino died in the year 2001. There are many like this. 45 names on flight 77 alone.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 6:57pm
[+]
The only thing that gives credibility to John Sammartino being dead regardless of what the Social Security Death Index says is that somebody applied to 9-11 Victims Compensation FunCompensation for that name. But what about all those other names where they are not listed as dead, and NOBODY came forward to claim compensation, even though it was a minimum $250,000 pay-off? There are too few compensation claims, and very little real evidence of most of those names being of real people. Face it, ClosetIguana, you can't prove that ALL OF THEM are REAL. I'm not saying that they're all fake names, btw, just most of them.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 7:10pm
[+]
You can't prove that all those cellphone and airphone calls were real either.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 7:49pm
[+]
So by your analogy everyone that was on the planes that flew into the WTC are on the Social Security Death Index and had a claim was made on their behalf on the compassion fund, correct? Go to the victims list and start plugging in names and tell me what you've found.
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 8:26pm
[+]
(compensation)
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 8:27pm
[+]
NASA does more than spaceships, they also pioneered the remote control of airliners. * Before the final flight on December 1, 1984, more than four years of effort passed trying to set-up final impact conditions * NASA Dryden developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 to fly as a drone aircraft * The 15 flights had 15 takeoffs, 14 landings and a larger number of approaches to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site under remote control. * On the final flight (No. 15) with no crew, all fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds of AMK and the remotely-piloted aircraft landed on Rogers Dry Lakebed in an area prepared with posts to test the effectiveness of the AMK in a controlled impact. * The CID, which some wags called the Crash in the Desert, was spectacular with a large fireball enveloping and burning the B-720 aircraft. Keep in mind they landed it successfully 14 times before they finally crashed it.
by Coldcircuit on Mon May 02, 05 10:13pm
[+]
I'm not following you on the remote control aircraft aircraft theory. Won't the pilots radio the FAA and say they've lost control of the planes?
by ClosetIguana on Mon May 02, 05 11:46pm
[+]
Why should they? It seems very suspiciously like there were no pilots or crew or anyone else on those planes. Remote controlled means they were flown by pilots who were not on the planes. It seems that the passenger lists and crew list, the lists of the victims that were supposed to be on the planes are filled with the names of people who can't be proven to exist - leaving only a little more than a dozen people who have a provably real existence. The planes could've been (and it's beginning to appear that they were) completely empty. When you asked, "What happened to all the people then?" = the answer is nothing. Most of them never existed. The names appear to be mostly fakes. No pilots on the planes. Cellphone calls that were impossible and unbelievable. Airphone calls that are also unprovable and suspiciously too long (upto 25 minutes and the mythical hijackers did nothing? Come on, that's ridiculous!). It's all scientifically impossible for burning kerosene and office materials to reach high enough temperatures to "play-doh" the steel of a huge building; no fire had ever, before or since, caused a steel-framed building to collapse. It's silly to claim that some special magical fantastically impossible exception changed the laws of physics on that one single day. Demolition charges were heard and felt by hundreds of witnesses. It was on TV at the time you know. You can see it on video. There are too many people who have publicly come forward and mention "explosions" and the collapse of the towers was IDENTICAL that that of a controlled demolition. To say otherwise it is deception and delusion - because it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the buildings to have been brought down in the way that the "official" story says. (We all know about the USA govt's version of truth - it means lying all the time, like they did about the Niger Documents, mobile biowarfare labs and WMDs in Iraq). Cockpit voice record could've been easily faked, and same with any radio transmission. No blackboxes were found - damn good way to hide what really was flying those planes. Just as part of a theory, I'd say that who ever did those attacks had to have military knowhow and equipment. They had to know about the activities planned that day by the FAA and military and FEMA. They didn't necessarily need to be able to influence them, or have power over those events, but they did have to know about them. Whoever was behind these attacks had to have the backing & support of a national government level to a major extent. It could've been an attack by a foreign nation's intelligence agencies, but they had to have a lot of money and a lot of people. They had to have insiders as well. It certainly wasn't some guy hiding in a cave.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 5:16am
[+]
But the FAA radioed to each of the planes relaying different flight information. But I guess you're going to say that the messages never came from the aircraft right? To me, hijacking seems quit a bit easier than your scenario.
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 10:11am
[+]
Hijacking four planes at the same time in a coordinated effort and being sucessful in taking control of the planes without a single crewmember in the cockpits being able to press the buttons alerting that there's been a hijacking is a bit optimistic on the odds don't you think? Four times in a row?! That's pushing the odds into the astronomical isn't it? I mean, seriously, you expect us to believe that in every one of four seperate hijackings, the hijackers were so incredibly fantastically fast that they could get into the cockpits and take control of the planes without a single one of the crew able to press the buttons to alert the FAA? Just as silly as thinking that somebody can chat on the phone for 25 minutes without any of these mythical hijackers stopping her! The whole things is ridiculous! Besides, it was definitely explosives that brought down the WTC towers, and there's no proof that most of those names on the passenger & crew lists are anything other than fictional. Only a dozen or so seem to be real. What about the rest?
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 10:26am
[+]
Coldcircuit So where did these radio controlled planes come from? Do you believe they departed from the same airports as suggested without anyone noticing them? Or did they fly from somewhere else without the FAA noticing them?
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 1:35pm
[+]
You mention "radio controlled" as if you're talking about some kind of toyplane, where as I'm talking about the type of sophisticated but quite feasible use of remote control like that used for piloting a large passenger jet in the NASA Dryden experiments of 1984, 20 years ago. Of course, in 2001 it would've been even easier to do. Two of the flights, 11 and 77, were not scheduled that day according to FAA records and the Bureau of Transport. They weren't cancelled, they weren't delayed, they were simply were not scheduled to fly on that day. They were otherwise regular flights - just not that day. Aviation records from the FAA show that although UA 175 existed as a flight, unlike AA 77 or AA 11, the plane to which this flight was assigned - N612UA - is still registered and valid. In other words, it never crashed. So we don't know where it went, but we do know that it didn't hit the WTC. UA 93 - alleged to have crashed in PA. Like UA 175, this was a bona fide flight, but curiously, the plane - N591UA - is also still registered as valid. FAA records do show the planes to which AA11 and 77 were allegedly assigned - N334AA and N644AA as destroyed - but strangely, not until Jan 14 2002.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 4:14pm
[+]
One thing I haven't figured out. Do you believe the people listed above are real people or fictitious? If real, why wouldn't their family and friends know when they died?
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 4:31pm
[+]
Numerous military exercises, war games and anti-terrorism drills were scheduled for Sept 11, 2001. FAA and NORAD tracking radar were unable to identify real aircraft from simulated war game aircraft. I mention only only the 3 most relevant (that I've learned of) below, but there were many other major exercises in progess that day.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 4:53pm
[+]
One thing I haven't figured out. Do you believe the people listed above are real people or fictitious? If real, why wouldn't their family and friends know when they died? by ClosetIguana on May 03, 2005 Are you a bot? I've already answered that question. What family and friends? Of all the names listed for passengers & crew on those planes, ONLY 11 OF THEM are on the 9-11 Victims Compesnsation Fund list. Despite the fact that apart from these planes, 98% of victims EVERYWHERE ELSE had payouts to relatives of nearly 2 million dollars. Apart from these payouts, ONLY 1 relatives has decided to sue instead ot taking the payout. So we are left with hundreds of names without any existing relatives, and no evidence that these names ever existed as real people.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 5:06pm
[+]
OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN; simulated hijacked planes in the northeastern U.S. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40 am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words were, "It must be part of the exercise."
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 5:08pm
[+]
BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II; referred to by Rudolph Giuliani in his public testimony to the 9-11 Commission (no transcript has been released to the public). FEMA arrived in New York City on September 10th to set up a command post at Pier 29 to prepare for a biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. As a result, The FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Team was in place on 9-11.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 5:09pm
[+]
John Fulton, CIA, gave a presentation at a Law Enforcement Seminar on June 6, 2002 that on the morning of September 11th 2001, he and his team at the CIA were running a preplanned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 5:10pm
[+]
During these activities it would've been easy for planes that were claimed to be part of these exercises to take-off & land & be flown around. As I said, considering the timing of the attacks and how they were achieved, at the very least, whichever group was behind them had to know that these exercises were planned that day. There's your solution to how the planes could've been flown remote controlled with little notice.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 5:12pm
[+]
"So we are left with hundreds of names without any existing relatives, and no evidence that these names ever existed as real people." OK can you give me some names from the list that aren't real.
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 6:44pm
[+]
Or are you saying none of those names are real? Because surely if one of those people are real then that flight exists.
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 6:46pm
[+]
For example Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School Washington. If that person wasn't real would the school know about it?
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 6:56pm
[+]
re-write If that person wasn't real wouldn't the school know about it?
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 7:00pm
[+]
How about the flight crew? Is United Airline unware of these people? You see where this is going right?
by ClosetIguana on Tue May 03, 05 7:11pm
[+]
Or are you saying none of those names are real? Because surely if one of those people are real then that flight exists. by ClosetIguana on May 03, 2005 No, because if only a fraction of those people are real, the flight does not exist. The majority have to be real. Only a mere dozen or so have a provable existence. That's enough to fill a minibus. I also didn't say that none of those names are real, only the vast majority. It's easy to hide or disguise what happened to a dozen people. The numbers of existing relatives is too small to be credible. Come on, only the relatives of a mere 11 people were willing to accept the average payout of $1,800,000, and only one person sued. What about the rest? Are they all so incredibly rich that they don't need the money? In all the other cases, 98% of the named victims have relatives, but you expect us to believe that almost nobody on the planes did? Look at the case of Michele Heidenberger for example; she's supposed to have a husband (unnamed), and two children (both unnamed), and despite this, they have they provable existence. They aren't on the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund list, and according to the Social Security Death Index, she didn't die. If she's really dead, wouldn't they have wanted the money? They didn't even bother to sue. I doubt that they ever existed. They're fictional. You mention Sarah Clark. Well, according to the SSDI nobody by the name of Sarah Clark died that day. No relatives have come forward to claim the minimum $250,000 payout. According to the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund list, only 5 people among all those "names" had relatives. No other relatives turned up to sue. NONE. maybe a "Sarah Clark" did work as a teacher and died, it's a common name, but she didn't die on that day, and so she wasn't on that plane. Were the any survivors to vouch that she was really on that plane and saw her? No? Funny that, everyone is supposed to have died and so no witnesses to what really happened as the planes had nobody on them. There's also then no evidence that she was ever on that plane. Anyone got pictures of the boarding passes that can be independently authenticated? Anybody got security video of her boarding the plane with a date & time stamp liek real security videos have (not like the fake ones that have been widely spread so far)?
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 10:16pm
[+]
How about the flight crew? Is United Airline unware of these people? You see where this is going right? by ClosetIguana on May 03, 2005 Yes, you're getting nowhere and can't prove that most of these people really exist. As you might be aware already, United Airlines has refused to release any list of all their employees puiblicly despite repeated requests, and they're are not going to. They have a lot of employees, so most people are going to say when they hear that "such and such" worked in the same huge corporation, they're going to say, "Oh really, I haven't heard of him, never met him".
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 10:25pm
[+]
CORRECTED (damn I wish these pages had an edit feature); Look at the case of Michele Heidenberger for example; she's supposed to have a husband (unnamed), and two children (both unnamed), and despite this, they have NO provable existence. They aren't on the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund list, and according to the Social Security Death Index, she didn't die. If she's really dead, wouldn't they have wanted the money? They didn't even bother to sue. I doubt that they ever existed. They're fictional.
by Coldcircuit on Tue May 03, 05 10:30pm
[+]
I never said that ALL of the names on the lists of passengers & crew are fake, just the vast majority of them. You picked a name not on the the list I posted, so it's invalid as an argument. Paul Ambrose is dead according to the SSDI, but what about those other 45 passengers & crew who aren't listed as dead? What happened? Did they ever board the plane? Did they ever exist? If you want to disprove what I'm saying, you have to go through the list and prove that all of them are names of real people who really were on those planes, because there's very little evidence most of those people ever existed. |