MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:48 am

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I think this man does raise some interesting points. And he's certainly highly qualified.



Can anyone document any real wrongs in his essay, excepting the (to me, somewhat snide) implicit suggestions that there are 2 757s and 2 767s that were supposedly destroyed, and yet might be around somewhere?
 
TPASXM787
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:31 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:57 am

This guy and the asshole from CU must be good friends.

So what were the aircraft that crashed (that we have all seen over and over again and my cousin witnessed in person?)

Sure looked like a 757 and a 767 to me.

Only a extremist would suggest that the government is behind this. Doesn't this guy have anything better to do...as much of a genius as Bush is, I'm sure he and the boys sat in the Oval Office and said wow, I've got an idea! Let's blow up the WTC and kill 3,000 people! Cabinet: What a great f*cking idea!

Come on.
This is the Last Stop.
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:05 am

"A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1."

The UA 767 hit the WTC in a bank, so the whole aircraft went into the tower. HAd it hit wings level, the ends of the wings might have been torn off, but Im not sure. Also, what about the video showing the aircraft impact the tower? And the people that never returned home that day? Where are they?


"Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site."

Give me a break...the aircraft hit at hundreds of miles per hour...it isnt going to make a hole in the shape of the plane like a cartoon. Its going to essentially be completley destroyed upon impact. Look at UA flt. 93...how much of that crash was recognizeable?

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not."

How many of those buildings had jet-A adding to the fires?

"If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up."

Never mind the 2749 people who didnt return home that day, or the 4 aircraft no longer flying, or the pilots and Flight Attendants, or the passengers on board. If the WTC was all demolition, where are the people on the aircraft, and the crews and pax?

I think this guy is nuts, perhaps just trying to get attention or  stirthepot .

[Edited 2005-06-11 20:10:07]
Life is better when you surf.
 
Delta717
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 8:56 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:06 am

George W. Bush is too dumb to think up a plan this complex.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:08 am

Thread Title: Tell Me Why This WTC Collpase Conjecture Is Wrong

Firstly, because it was posted to LewRockwell.com.

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
I'm not into conspiracy theories

Then why post this drivel.

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
but I think this man does raise some interesting points.

I think the author is off his rocker.

Every couple months some fruit loop comes up with a theory about how no planes hit anything and how we bombed our own buildings and how planes disappeared and all the passengers are hidden in a bunker in a desert somewhere and on and on and on.

It's preposterous.

The fact that you even read this noise doesn't bode well for you.

Good day.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6058
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:25 am

Quoting Futureualpilot (Reply 2):
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not."

I won't bother going to the site to see if he even mentions the fireproofing that was either a) non-existing or b) completely torn off the steel pillars inside each tower. Take a steel bar, put a weight on top of it & engulf the whole thing in flames - I'm ready to take a bet that the steel bar will bend at some point & eventually snap once the weight on top is too big. And then you're dealing with an avalance of mass going, down on the steel bars on the floors below increasing the stress to a point where they snap and so forth.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:36 am

That website seems to be more interested in selling books instead of producing new evidence.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:05 am

Quoting Delta717 (Reply 3):
George W. Bush is too dumb to think up a plan this complex.

But Dick Cheney and Karl Rove aren't?

Quote:
From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower.

This guy is totally WHACKED!!! How many different angles showed both engines of both planes going into the towers? As a matter of fact I'm positive that there was engine debris all over the place (maybe not from that one). However, the consideration by this moron should have been that the engine went down with the building and disintegrated. Why would we 'hide' an engine in this scenario? The fact he points to the reg as being valid shows he's desperately grasping at straws..
This space intentionally left blank
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:19 am

You of all people, MD90, should keep quiet about this kind of stuff...FBI anyone?
Go big or go home
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6058
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:21 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 7):
But Dick Cheney and Karl Rove aren't?

To be honest - no planning was needed for this one. It was all a matter of ignoring all the information that was given to them (such as the now infamous PDB), and letting things take their course.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:26 am

Quoting CPH-R" class=quote target=_blank>CPH-R (Reply 9):
It was all a matter of ignoring all the information that was given to them

Yup, just like Slick Willie did, huh CPH-R?  sarcastic 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:28 am


To be honest - no planning was needed for this one. It was all a matter of ignoring all the information that was given to them (such as the now infamous PDB), and letting things take their course.


Hindsight is always 20/20, and the previous administration had many of the same warnings and opportunities to apprehend those responible. They are not accountable, nor is current administration, and saying otherwise is just taking advantage of facts we now know, which were not known then.

Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
bravo7e7
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:43 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:40 am

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 9):

To be honest - no planning was needed for this one. It was all a matter of ignoring all the information that was given to them (such as the now infamous PDB), and letting things take their course.

No shit Sherlock! You must work for Scotland Yards. Anyway, I did not see you post this back in May of 2001 when you joined. What gives?
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:15 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
Thread Title: Tell Me Why This WTC Collpase Conjecture Is Wrong

Firstly, because it was posted to LewRockwell.com.

Anything from LewRockwell should be dismissed out of hand. The guy is a kook of the highest order. He is no different than the kooks on the DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground. They all believe in the wildest conspiracy theories and usually try to blame the President for every problem in the world today.

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 9):
To be honest - no planning was needed for this one. It was all a matter of ignoring all the information that was given to them (such as the now infamous PDB), and letting things take their course.

Did you every read the PDB that you're babbling about? It was the same one that the 9-11 commission whined about because they thought it was the smoking gun they could use to blame the President. It was nothing but generalized information that did not mention anything specific and there is no way anyone could have realized from "Osama wants to attack the U.S." meant that a few weeks later some jihad crazy Islamists would fly airliners into buildings. Of course don't let reality get in the way of your hated for President Bush.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:35 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Yup, just like Slick Willie did,

How many Tomahawk missions did George senior authorize with the intent to kill bin laden? 0 hummm
Mr. Lie about a BJ boy... 1

I think I'll stick with the liar on this one..
This space intentionally left blank
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:42 am

Quoting B757300 (Reply 13):
Anything from LewRockwell should be dismissed out of hand. The guy is a kook of the highest order.

Gee, ya think so!?  crazy 

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):
How many Tomahawk missions did George senior authorize with the intent to kill bin laden? 0 hummm
Mr. Lie about a BJ boy... 1

I think I'll stick with the liar on this one..

And Teddy, your point?

Wow, one whole cruise missile . . . man, he really outdid himself huh!  sarcastic 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
TPASXM787
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:31 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:47 am

Wow, one whole cruise missile . . . man, he really outdid himself huh!

>>Come on now, ANC. Those were expensive. He was busy ....errrrrr....balancing the budget....  sarcastic 
This is the Last Stop.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:43 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
Wow, one whole cruise missile

It's one more then GW's DADDY did so I think you need to give it up... Speaking of which how's GW's search for Bin Laden going???
This space intentionally left blank
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:47 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
It's one more then GW's DADDY did so I think you need to give it up..

You still need to make a point, Teddy . . . give it another shot.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
Speaking of which how's GW's search for Bin Laden going

OBL is rotting under some rubble in a cave somewhere. Produce something to the contrary that says he's alive and well . . . and getting his dialysis . . . and I might believe differently.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:42 am

HAVE A READ!!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

My name is Daniel Higgins, and i live in the United Kindgom.

I have just read some comments in this web site, and was wondering if u could answer a few quick questions. I dont expect a reply, but some stuff in there really got me a bit annoyed and was wondering if u could help me sort my mind out.

1)In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. My question here is [From the video i have seen,and i was watching it live, and from many different angles on other TV stations, there is no way that the planes (both of them) would have in any way missed hitting the towers totaly. The first one impacted with such force as it was coming in low from a dive that of course there would have been very little debri as it would have been tataly destroyed when it hit the tower. Can u answer that for me as im having alot of trouble with it

2)The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground
[Well this is do not understand at all??? Im known by my friends as being a bit morbid and love good mystery when a plane crashes, even have quiet good collection of books on the matter,and look at a few websites now and again. If a plane, full of fuel,nose dives into solid ground, of course there is going to be hardly anything left of it. If u look at sites on air crashes, u will see there have been loads of crashes where there is just a scary on the ground, and very little left of the plane. Some examples from just one book, look them up (6oct1955 UAL DC4 REG N30062)(ALLEGHENY AIRLINES DC9 9 SEP1969 REG N988VJ)(aeromexico dc9 31aug1986 reg xa-jed) and many others. These are just some from a book i have that show pics (AVIATION DISASTERS by David Gero (ISBN number 1-85260-379-8) so you can see what im on about

3)You mention a few times that the towers collapse was unexpected. I doubt when the towers were first built anyone in there right mind would think a group of terrorists intent on casuing harm would ON PURPOSE fly a few jets into the sides of the building full of fuel as both had taken off within minites of each other from local NYC airports. How knows what was going on on those floors at the impact. Yes we saw smoke, yes we saw holes, but did we see inside, and the damage done when the planes sliced into the sides,at speeds in excess of 300mph.

Im an avid Aviation lover, and the happenings on that day greatly affected me, as did it to the whole world (nearly)

I can not, even under the worst leader ever) see a president or leader ORDER, that a number of buildings with people in them be demolised (how can a demolition crew setup without other people noticing by the way) and that 4 planes full of people by crashed (or moved to secure locations and never seen again) How do u account for all the calls from loved ones, the flt attendents on the AA flt, and numerous other flts that paid credit to there jobs by beingc alm and helping as best they could.

You may think im some strange 24 year old brit with nothing else to do but annoy, but i would be very happy if u could answer some of the points you have made in this website.

I dontthink i will get a response from you, but it would be nice to get something back, even its a sorry, no comment.

I await your reply

Daniel Higgins
Manchester, United Kingdom


RIGHT, I AM SO ANNOYED AT ALL THIS CRAP SAID THATI HAVE SENT HIM A EMAIL FROM THE LINK IN THE WEBSITE. NOW AWAITING A RESPONSE. DONT THINK I WILL GET ONE, BUT IM SO ANNOYED RIGHT NOW HAD TO DO SOMETHING

Trekster
Where does the time go???
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:12 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
You still need to make a point, Teddy

Two points
1. only women call me 'teddy'
2. From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050527.html
"In Pakistan, one of Osama Bin Laden's senior terrorist leaders, a man named al-Libbi, was brought to justice."

Now I KNOW Georgie has language issues, but how can we arrest/"Bring to justice" someone who is "one of Osama Bin Laden's senior terrorist leaders" if Osama is Dead?

If Osama's so "dead", why are we still looking for him?
This space intentionally left blank
 
BMIFlyer
Posts: 8065
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:11 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:47 am

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 5):
Take a steel bar, put a weight on top of it & engulf the whole thing in flames - I'm ready to take a bet that the steel bar will bend at some point & eventually snap once the weight on top is too big. And then you're dealing with an avalance of mass going, down on the steel bars on the floors below increasing the stress to a point where they snap and so forth.

That is correct yes.

Quoting Trekster (Reply 19):

Good email! Big grin



Lee
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:56 am

Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 8):
You of all people, MD90, should keep quiet about this kind of stuff...FBI anyone?

If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:56 am

Doubt i will get a reply at all,

But relived a lot of tension after reading that drival  

EDIT: Just re-read the email, a few spelling mistakes in there, was so annoyed did not re-read it,just copied it here and sent lol

[Edited 2005-06-12 03:03:06]
Where does the time go???
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:07 am

I hate it when non-engineers try to pick apart forensic engineering reports. It is clear they, including this idiot, no nothing. He seems to be under the impression that steel is some magical material that won't ever fail.

He lost me at "I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11." I find that pretty satisfying, so he is right, it is just as satisfying.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:28 am

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
Can anyone document any real wrongs in his essay

Easily.

But why bother?

In nearly every paragraph he makes very questionable assertions. Without even having an engineering education I could shred this stuff, almost line by line. My response would run fifty screens however.

It is just silly crap.

And the number one rebuttal: WE ALL SAW THE PLANES FLY INTO THE TOWERS!!!
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:47 pm

Ill make a question I hope you can give me the answer.

We know the horrendous attacks of that dreadful day, we know that the smoldering fire and the structural damage teared down the towers, everything was reduced to dust and bits and pieces, then explain how they could recover the passport of the alleged terrorist muslim pilots (notice the adjetives), in a record time? Pin point in a matter of hours exactly the names of the people who was behind the whole deal?

I am no conspiracy theorist but man that is fishy!
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:26 pm

This stuff REALLY pisses me off. And the thing I hate about these people that believe this crap is, when you don't agree with them, they say you just don't want to accept it or don't want to be informed. UGHHHH I seriously get SOOO fired up over this. I had to deal with this stuff frequently at work. Some guys would bring in these videos explaining these conspiracy theories and play them over and over trying to brainwash us all into accepting them as true.

The ridiculous claims these guys I worked with emphasize:

-The planes that hit the towers were not carrying passengers because you can't see any windows on them from the videos. heh...

-Never in the history of man, has a building collapsed because of being hit by airplanes. Hmm...how many buildings in the history of man were intentionally flown into at hundreds of mph full of fuel??

-The buildings had to have been assisted in collapsing by way of controlled demolition. Because some shmuck on one of these videos says the buildings fell in ways similar to controlled demolition using explosives, then it must have happened that way right? Because propaganda is gospel right?  Yeah sure

I'm so sick of this crap. Even my bro is getting into this stuff and is like, well it makes you think and we will never know... I find it totally disrespectful to all that died on 9/11. And all the people I know personally that support these theories (such as the guys I used to work with) all hate Bush with a passion. I call it desperation...these claims are so outrageous that it makes them look desperate for ways to pin this all on Bush and our gov't.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:28 pm

I also think it's rather stupid of him to try and deny that aircraft hit the towers.

But why did WTC 7 collapse, since it wasn't hit by any aircraft and it only had minor fire damage?
 
Springbok747
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:33 pm

What a load of crap. Looks like this dude doesn't have anything better to do in his spare time.

Nice e-mail there Trekster Big grin Wonder if you'll ever get a reply though!
אני תומך בישראל
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:28 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):
How many Tomahawk missions did George senior authorize with the intent to kill bin laden? 0 hummm
Mr. Lie about a BJ boy... 1

You do realize that all that cruise missile ended up destroying was a pharmaceutical plant right?  Yeah sure

Hindsight is 20/20...all of America's complacency is responsible for the hijackers having an easy go at us on 9/11, not any one administration...so your point is crap, moot, and nonexistent. Give the partisan bullshit a rest...particularly on an event that was meant as an attack on all of America..."red" or "blue".

Quoting B757300 (Reply 13):
It was the same one that the 9-11 commission whined about because they thought it was the smoking gun they could use to blame the President. It was nothing but generalized information that did not mention anything specific and there is no way anyone could have realized from "Osama wants to attack the U.S." meant that a few weeks later some jihad crazy Islamists would fly airliners into buildings. Of course don't let reality get in the way of your hated for President Bush.

Gee, don't let reality get in the way of your obsessive love of the man.  Yeah sure The 9-11 commission was doing what any independent investigative body would do...ask hard questions...not to sink the President, but to find all the flaws in US Government and society that allowed for such a heinous act to be committed against us and then come up with suggestions on how to prevent such an act from occuring again. That's all. Get over this victim bullshit and grow a backbone!

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6058
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:44 pm

Quoting BRAVO7E7 (Reply 12):
No shit Sherlock! You must work for Scotland Yards. Anyway, I did not see you post this back in May of 2001 when you joined. What gives?

Gee, perhaps pbecause the PDB, with the interesting title "Terroists determined to strike the US", a) wasn't made until august 2001 & b) wasn't released until a few years later.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6058
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wr

Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:54 pm

Quoting B757300 (Reply 13):
Did you every read the PDB that you're babbling about? It was the same one that the 9-11 commission whined about because they thought it was the smoking gun they could use to blame the President. It was nothing but generalized information that did not mention anything specific and there is no way anyone could have realized from "Osama wants to attack the U.S." meant that a few weeks later some jihad crazy Islamists would fly airliners into buildings. Of course don't let reality get in the way of your hated for President Bush.

..Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef..

..Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a (undisclosed) service.

Al'Qa'ida members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks...

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (undisclosed) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft...

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York

All emphasizes are mine.

EDIT: Forgot to add - I don't think Bush or any of his cronies ignored the above on purpose, just that they're grossly incompetent  Smile

[Edited 2005-06-12 13:05:18]
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:24 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I think this man does raise some interesting points. And he's certainly highly qualified.



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 28):
But why did WTC 7 collapse, since it wasn't hit by any aircraft and it only had minor fire damage?

MD90,

Welcome to my disrespected users list.  irked 


Fire is what actually brought this building down as well. There was a large kerosene fuel tank under the building to power it for power outages or whatever. The colapses unfortunately ignited this tank and the super heated fire compromised the buildings structure just like the towers.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
ozguy
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:35 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:03 am

This paper comes in a close second for the biggest load of sh*t ever made award. The only thing I can think of that was more ambiguous was that stupid powerpoint trying to disprove that the white house was hit by a plane on September 11. Do you guys remember the one? It had all those pictures of the hole that made it look as though it was only big enough for a truck bomb to have made and claimed that no plane parts had been found, despite the fact that there are photos of the tail in pieces on the front lawns of the building...

I just don't get these people that write this stuff. Do they honestly believe their work is correct? And why would you publish a work like that under your name when there are so many people that can prove you wrong? Last time dad went to the pentagon for some meeting he got into a conversation with one of your colonels and he actually showed him some of the shots that he'd taken from inside the building with a few very obvious pieces of airliner scattered throughout the wreckage. These were taken with his own camera and wouldn't have been altered in any way and surely if he had taken some pictures like this many more people would have to...

Just don't understand,

Cheers,
OzGuy
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:15 am

MD90,

Better yet, read fact in stead of fiction.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...ce/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Get to page 5 for the real WTC 7 explanation.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Espion007
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:29 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wr

Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:28 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 28):
But why did WTC 7 collapse, since it wasn't hit by any aircraft and it only had minor fire damage?

Ive been to the WTC site twice and WTC 7 is pretty damn close. It would be impossible for it not to be covered in the burning debris from the other towers.
Snakes on a Plane!
 
Guest

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:45 am

Quoting TPASXM787 (Reply 16):
Wow, one whole cruise missile . . . man, he really outdid himself huh!

Yes he did actually. He had credible evidence of OBL's location and made a long distance strike, not putting our troops in harms way because it wasn't nessessary. Bush did the same thing right before the BS (Gulf II) war when they thought they knew where Saddam was.

And I seem to remember after Clinton's ordered cruise missile strike, the right wing bashing Clinton for going after Bin Laden, because he was "trying to distract the country's attention from Monicagate". But I'm sure you forgot that part, or have an excuse.  Wink

>>Come on now, ANC. Those were expensive. He was busy ....errrrrr....balancing the budget....[/quote]

Which he did quite nicely I might add before Bush pissed it all away with a bullshit war.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
Speaking of which how's GW's search for Bin Laden going???

It's not! George "isn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden". He said so himself! The President of the United States is "not concerned" about the man who killed 3000 innocent citizens on our home soil. How comforting! What happened to "wanted: dead or alive"?

It's simply breathtaking the collective ignorance of those of you who re elected him.

B
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:57 am

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 37):
Yes he did actually. He had credible evidence of OBL's location and made a long distance strike, not putting our troops in harms way because it wasn't nessessary.

Look, NonRevKing, this poor attempt to defend a Pres Clinton's attempt to strike OBL is laughable at best. . . on flippin missile at a target thousands of miles away that perhaps may hold the bad guy . . . on the off chance he didn't go out for Pizza and a beer and he's still there after a day or so when intel was fresh? C'Mon, no chance you're that gullible or ignorant?

A Delta Strike Team would have been better suited to the job.

Technology is fine, Cruise Missiles and all, but can never, ever replace the eyes and ears and talents of a living, breathing person . . . no matter how "smart" the hard drive might be.

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 37):
And I seem to remember after Clinton's ordered cruise missile strike, the right wing bashing Clinton for going after Bin Laden, because he was "trying to distract the country's attention from Monicagate".

I would agree that Monicagate was horsecrap. No ones business but Slick Willie's, the Scheister Attorney turned Senator he's married to and the Fat Ass Bimbo performing said courtesy to then PotUS.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:43 am

Quoting OzGuy (Reply 34):
The only thing I can think of that was more ambiguous was that stupid powerpoint trying to disprove that the white house was hit by a plane on September 11.

No offense OzGuy, but that powerpoint was correct.  Wink The White House didn't get a scratch on 9/11. Seriously, I know you're referring to that Pentagon one "Can you find the Boeing?" with the Hitler speech for a sound track. I agree, uninformed, uneducated slobs make this shit up. I guess all those engineers who have told the public what happened don't count for shit in their little play-worlds of conspiracy theories and black helicopters.  Yeah sure

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:55 am

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 39):
I guess all those engineers who have told the public what happened don't count for shit in their little play-worlds of conspiracy theories and black helicopters.

And don't forget the black souped up Chevy Caprices also . . . Gotta have them ya know  sarcastic 

Quoting OzGuy (Reply 34):
The only thing I can think of that was more ambiguous was that stupid powerpoint

I may be mistaken and if so, apologies to whomever - but I think it was MD90 that posted a link for that particular video driveling  redflag  also. Simply laughable at best. I closed the link as soon as I heard Hitler doing the monologue already knowing that whatever I was seeing was obvious and utter  redflag .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:19 am

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

Gee, you think maybe because two aircraft weighing over 150 TONS carrying nearly 100,000 bls of Jet A-1 traveling at an estimated 450-500 mph had something to do with it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


 banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead 

DON'T DO DRUGS PEOPLE!! THIS IS WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU DO!!!!!!
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:25 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 38):
ook, NonRevKing, this poor attempt to defend a Pres Clinton's attempt to strike OBL is laughable at best. . . on flippin missile at a target thousands of miles away that perhaps may hold the bad guy . . . on the off chance he didn't go out for Pizza and a beer and he's still there after a day or so when intel was fresh? C'Mon, no chance you're that gullible or ignorant?

If I remember correctly, after Somalia, it was highly unpopular with the American public to risk the lives of soldiers and it has been argued that an unmanned missile can do the job at a much lower risk. I think Clinton didn´t want to risk having an American casualty dragged through some third world streets by a mob again.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:37 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 42):
If I remember correctly, after Somalia, it was highly unpopular with the American public to risk the lives of soldiers

You're only 75% correct, Jan. It was highly unpopular with the American public to risk the lives of soldiers unnecessarily. Had Clinton and the Administration listened to General Garrison on the ground in Somalia and sent some Armor as he requested, the author of Black Hawk Down would have had a much different book to publish; Shughart and his companion would likely still be alive; and the situation would have turned out much differently.

It's unfortunate, today and yesterday (and likely tomorrow) that the chairwarmers and pencil pushers still cannot understand that the eyes, ears and brains on the ground know more than they know about a tactical/strategic situation.  banghead 

This is a topic for another thread however . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:24 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 41):
Gee, you think maybe because two aircraft weighing over 150 TONS carrying nearly 100,000 bls of Jet A-1 traveling at an estimated 450-500 mph had something to do with it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Judging from the resulting damage, and the heat of burning Jet-A, the towers should not have collapsed. They were designed with 600% redundant strength. And they certainly shouldn't have looked like they were freefalling when they each did collapse. Such destruction would only be caused by properly placed explosives. Additionally, it has been documented that other skyscrapers have withstood far more serious damage and burned for many hours with more intense fires, and yet never collapsed.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 29):
Nice e-mail there Trekster Big grin Wonder if you'll ever get a reply though!

I've sent a few e-mails to various writers on lewrockwell.com, and I've always gotten a reply.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 30):
The 9-11 commission was doing what any independent investigative body would do...ask hard questions

Independent? They asked hard questions? ROTFLMAO!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 40):
but I think it was MD90 that posted a link for that particular video driveling

No, of course that wasn't me. Thanks for the smear attempt, though.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:32 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):

Maybe this one does deserve the WTC 'shock' picture I used (by accident) on another thread...
This space intentionally left blank
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:35 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
No, of course that wasn't me. Thanks for the smear attempt, though.

First, you could have posted the ENTIRE quote, as I did apologize in advance as I couldn't remember exactly where the link came from . . . it does fit your modus operandi however (and that luncatic Rockwell's). . . so why not take credit for it anyway?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
Judging from the resulting damage, and the heat of burning Jet-A, the towers should not have collapsed. They were designed with 600% redundant strength. And they certainly shouldn't have looked like they were freefalling when they each did collapse. Such destruction would only be caused by properly placed explosives. Additionally, it has been documented that other skyscrapers have withstood far more serious damage and burned for many hours with more intense fires, and yet never collapsed.

Anything to prove this commentary, other than the purely  redflag  crap you've tossed up here to date?

I suppose, with your thinking, the Pentagon shouldn't have suffered any damage at all, huh? I mean, afterall, a big, strong granite building with thick exterior walls should have simply crumbled a B757 like so much of a Coke Can! Right?! Ohhhh, wait, that's right, I completely forgot, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, my friend Lacey Ivory isn't dead, he's being held in a secret location in the desert, we blew up our own military headquarters with a Cruise Missile, nowwwww I remember. WTF was I possibly thinking.???  sarcastic  crazy  banghead  hissyfit  redflag 

Rockwell and his bunch of kooks surely have you  hypnotized  don't they?
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:46 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
Judging from the resulting damage, and the heat of burning Jet-A, the towers should not have collapsed. They were designed with 600% redundant strength. And they certainly shouldn't have looked like they were freefalling when they each did collapse. Such destruction would only be caused by properly placed explosives.



My God man, you actually believe this tripe?!

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
Additionally, it has been documented that other skyscrapers have withstood far more serious damage and burned for many hours with more intense fires, and yet never collapsed.

OK,
A) - more damage possibly, holding as much weight? No.
B) - others having fires that burned longer - sure. Fueled by Jet A1? No. Have you ever been near a fire fueled by Jet A1 slick?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
They were designed with 600% redundant strength. And they certainly shouldn't have looked like they were freefalling when they each did collapse. Such destruction would only be caused by properly placed explosives.

So not only do you know everything about 9/11, you're a structural engineer to boot?

I'm sorry man, you are just a nieve kid that has suffered the fate of many others your age. Somebody gets your attention with something interesting, allbeit bull*%$#, you hear it long enough and you start to believe it.

You have become one of those poor victims. Good luck MD90, I hope you pull the wool off your eyes soon.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:26 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
Judging from the resulting damage, and the heat of burning Jet-A, the towers should not have collapsed. They were designed with 600% redundant strength. And they certainly shouldn't have looked like they were freefalling when they each did collapse. Such destruction would only be caused by properly placed explosives. Additionally, it has been documented that other skyscrapers have withstood far more serious damage and burned for many hours with more intense fires, and yet never collapsed.

And just how the hell were those explosives placed!? Do you have any idea what it takes to prep a building for demolition!? Oh, I get it, the evil Democrats had the charges placed there during construction.  Yeah sure The buildings were designed to withstand the IMPACT of a 707. Noone ever figured the temperature of the Jet-A FIRE...especially with the amount of fuel carried in a 767-200ER. Steel at that temperature will begin to warp and fail...and remember, the planes did not impact the very top floors but rather many floors below. You still have the weight, (and the "600% redundant strength") compressing the now fire engulfed steel structure below. With the WTC exterior skeletal design, the innerds (consisting of floors and concrete) began to collapse first...that's why you see what looks like the explosion of charges coming out from below the impact site genius...the structure was imploding above, and when that heavy debris smacked into a previously undamaged floor, it doesn't take a physics degree to figure out that that avalanche of dust is going to have to go somewhere...like blasting through the windows...and eventually through that floor itself, and onto the next one, and the next...finally pullling the exterior frame down with it.

Next, the towers did NOT fall onto their footprints like the dumbshit in your article says...if they did, WTC 3,4,5,6 would still be standing as would WTC 7. And 1 Liberty Plaza would not have been condemned.

Tell ya what chief...how about you let the structural engineers who actually understand a thing or two about building dynamics, and the aeronautical engineers who understand more about what a steel and concrete building will do to the engines of a 767 do their work. Kapish?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 44):
Independent? They asked hard questions? ROTFLMAO!

Oh, you're right...the 9-11 Commission was completely staffed with Democrats and other evil liberal conspirators who not only perpetrated the 9/11 attacks but were also seeking to bring down the noble Bush Presidency under orders from Osama Bin Laden himself.  Yeah sure

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
j.mo
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: Tell Me Why This WTC Collapse Conjecture Is Wrong

Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:53 am

TedTAce,

Iraq is supposed to divert your attention (and 100,000+ troops) away from the War on Terrorism and the search for Osama.

Pay attention.  Wink

Jeremy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests