The official story is that the cone of the "757" that hit the Pentagon penetrated was what penetrated 3 rings of the building. That is impossible, because the cone was made out of a weak carbon-fiber material.

Quote :

"The problem here is that the nose cone of a Boeing 757 is made of carbon-fibre (like fibreglass); there is no metal nose cone on a 757. An average strength man (or strong woman) could make mincemeat of a 757 nose cone in about 15 minutes with nothing more than a light axe or a sledgehammer - the same cannot be said of the outer wall of the Pentagon. Punching through stone façade and 2 exterior concrete and brick walls, 4 or more interior poured concrete walls, and a poured concrete floor, to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers is out of the question. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 10:16:02 AM

Summary of the official government story:

Quote :

"In summary, the DoD claims: 1) the Boeing did a 4.5 g. turn to descend from 7500 feet in 1 1/2 minutes (even though the Boeing flight control software won't allow more than 1.5 g. turn), 2) hit the side of the Pentagon with pin-point-precision (even though the pilot Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna) 3) where the wings peeled back so it could fit through an 8 m. hole (even though the Boeing is 13.6 m. high, 47.3 m. long, with a wingspan of 38 m. and a cockpit 3.5 m.) 4) leaving no significant debris outside (not even the engines which are mounted on shear-off bolts, and are largely made of titanium) 5) where that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire (which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.) 6) except for the nose (made of fiberglass) punched through a total of about 3-4 m. of steel reinforced concrete to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 10:19:28 AM

Quote :

"--The original Pentagon press conferences said there was no significant sized debris from an airliner."

Yes, no significant sized, IOW no shell. If you fly a fucking plane into a building like the pentagon it's going to get torn up and blown up into very small pieces. There was plenty of debris.

Quote :

"--There is insufficient debris on the lawn of the Pentagon for it to have been the crash of a Boeing 757. "

Insufficient according to who? The site author? And why would all the debris be on the lawn? The damn plane flew into the building, and as tough as the building is, that's a lot of kinetic energy that can put the plane INTO the building.

Quote :

"--The upright cable spools are independent proof in their own right that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. "

Because the spools HAD to fall over for a plane to have crashed into the pentagon right? How many 757s has the author flown into the pentagon with upright cable spools on the lawn that he would know what happened? I count two upright spools, al the others are knocked over or braced against other debris. Likewise, the spool did not have to have finished in a fallen over position. They can roll and land upright.

Quote :

"--The debris is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757. "

Really? How many 757 crashes has he seen? And given the angle of that picture, it's not exactly a good picture for determining the ammount of debris.

Quote :

"--The debris is consistent with the crash of a small jet aircraft, or possibly an unmanned AV if it were capable of launching a "bunker-buster" missile."

So how come the spools didn't fall over if a smaller jet hit the pentagon? And if a bunker buster was fired, why was the roof of all the rings affected still intact?

Quote :

"--At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris. "

At first glance, what about second and third glance? And how much debris from teh plane itself did you really expect to see on the otherside of THREE rings?

Quote :

"--The sole piece of crash debris purporting to be from a Boeing 757 was probably planted as it comes from the wrong side of the plane. "

That's rich, "the wrong side". Tell me, when pulling debris from a wreck what is the "right side" of the wreck?

Quote :

"--Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel. "

No shit? You mean investigator took wreckage to do analysis on? Investigators do their job? SAY IT AINT SO!

Quote :

"Also worrying is that some of the photos of the debris removal work at the Pentagon long after the attack indicate that they are taking against contamination, perhaps because of the presence of Depleted Uranium. "

errr, granted I'm no expert on haz-mat procedures for the military, but the WHO has shown that DU does not give off sufficient radiation to contaminate an area. Likewise, given the fact that there were 4 organized hijackings, I think the military was taking no chances that something else might have been there as well. And out of curiosity, where are this photos of removal work?

Quote :

"Kerosene fires do not burn hot. Only high explosive and shaped charges generate huge amount of heat, and depleted uranium (DU) is a incendiary that is added to warheads to increase their penetrating ability. "

Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first FIRE DOES NOT BURN HOT.

Quote :

"The problem here is that the nose cone of a Boeing 757 is made of carbon-fibre (like fibreglass)"

Really? It's made out of a fibreglass like material? Not according to what I've read:

Quote :

"The Boeing 757 is a cantilever low-wing aircraft in all-metal construction which is available in 9 different versions."

http://www.flybernhard.de/b757_e.htm

Quote :

"1) the Boeing did a 4.5 g. turn to descend from 7500 feet in 1 1/2 minutes (even though the Boeing flight control software won't allow more than 1.5 g. turn), "

Where does the author get his information about a 1.5g limit on turning, I see nothing in the limits section provided here http://www.757.org.uk/limits/index.html

Quote :

") hit the side of the Pentagon with pin-point-precision (even though the pilot Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna) "

What pinpoint precision? he flew the plane at a fucking building, it's not that hard.

Quote :

"3) where the wings peeled back so it could fit through an 8 m. hole (even though the Boeing is 13.6 m. high, 47.3 m. long, with a wingspan of 38 m. and a cockpit 3.5 m.) "

Is this 8m hole the same one that was the "center of impact" in your last round of evidence?

Quote :

"4) leaving no significant debris outside (not even the engines which are mounted on shear-off bolts, and are largely made of titanium) "

Given my experience with shear bolts, I would certainly hope that the engines aren't mounted with them. And yes, when you fly a plane INTO a fucking building, the debris tends to be INSIDE. Imagine that.

Quote :

") where that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire (which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.) "

Most of the plane was consumed, other parts were destroyed (flying into concrete walls tends to do that) and for the 8th fucking time THE FUEL WAS NOT THE ONLY FUCKING THING THAT BURNED.

Quote :

") except for the nose (made of fiberglass) punched through a total of about 3-4 m. of steel reinforced concrete to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers. "

So where is this picture?

1/14/2004 12:10:48 PM

salisburyboy is pwnt.

go home bitch.

1/14/2004 12:19:15 PM

hahahahahahaha....gg

i also like how the author seems to think that fiberglass and carbon-fiber are the same damn thing

1/14/2004 1:09:04 PM

dude, DU is not a flammable material. We use DU in things like the CIWS to penetrate missiles. There is absolutely no flammable properties in that metal.

1/14/2004 1:24:59 PM

Quote :

"salisburyboy is pwnt."

Quote :

"go home bitch."

No.

1/14/2004 2:22:04 PM

Quote :

"There was plenty of debris --1337 b4k4"

Really? Debris that can be seen? I haven't seen a substantial amount of debris in any photograpshs. Here is what James Schwartz, assistant chief of the Arlington County Fire Department, states at the September 14th Pentagon press conference (from the Dept. of Defense website....quotation is near the very bottom of the linked transcript):

Quote :

"Q: Have they been able to tell you, when they got to that part, whether or not there were any, you know, recognizable elements that an aircraft itself had crashed into the building, or is it all pretty much vaporized? Are there are any -- is there a tail, is there a wing, is there anything there? Schwartz: I certainly would not use the term "vaporized," but there's not a lot of the aircraft that is recognizable at all. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09142001_t914irby.html"

If you say that there is still "debris" from a 757 at the Pentagon but it is just so small that you can't see it, you are just ASSUMING that it is there. You are taking that upon faith because there is no evidence I am aware of that these "small pieces" of the aircraft were ever seen in the rubble at the Pentagon.

To prove something you need evidence. I have not seen the evidence of 100 ton Boeing 757 in the debris. If you say that most of this supposed 757 just "vaporized", then this is the first time this has occured in the history of aviation.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 2:30:53 PM

Quote :

"Really? It's made out of a fibreglass like material? Not according to what I've read: --1337 b4k4"

Quote :

""The Boeing 757 is a cantilever low-wing aircraft in all-metal construction which is available in 9 different versions.""

Oh, so 1337 b4k4, I assume you take that to mean that EVERY SINGLE component of a Boeing 757 is made of metal? (including the windshield, the seats, the furnishings, etc.) Your source does not specifically state that the nose cone is made of metal.


[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 2:41:32 PM

jesus salisbury

youve had your ass handed to you.

youre a fucking idiot

go home

bye

1/14/2004 2:46:12 PM

Quote :

"youve had your ass handed to you."

No, I haven't. The above rebuttal does not explain away the problems in the official story.

1/14/2004 2:48:24 PM

nor does your story give an accurate explanation.

the shit youre spewing is just as bad as you think the official story is.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 2:51 PM. Reason : i suck at english]

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 2:51 PM. Reason : really badly]

1/14/2004 2:50:24 PM

Quote :

"the shit youre spewing is just as bad as you think the official story is."

The evidence speaks for itself. The official story is a joke. The evidence does not support the official government story. The evidence supports what I am saying, which is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

1/14/2004 2:52:33 PM

Quote :

"So how come the spools didn't fall over if a smaller jet hit the pentagon? ---1337 b4k4"

So, are you trying to tell me that a smaller fighter jet was more likely to knock the cable spools over than a Boeing 757 (which is much, much bigger)?

That's a joke.

A small fighter jet would be much less likely to knock over the spools, while a 757 would be much more likely to knock over the spools (because it is huge). Therefore, looking only at this evidence, it is more likely that a smaller "plane" hit the Pentagon than a large plane such as Boeing 757.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ..]

1/14/2004 2:56:17 PM

Quote :

""--At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris. " "

Quote :

"At first glance, what about second and third glance? And how much debris from teh plane itself did you really expect to see on the otherside of THREE rings? --1337 b4k4"

SOME evidence of whatever hit the Pentagon HAS to be there because something penetrated 3 rings of the Pentagon (and ended its penetration at that point). The author of the first quote above is making the point that there is no evidence of debris of an airliner (ie, there is ZERO evidence of an airliner) at the exit hole of the 3rd ring (no matter how many glances you take, I presume).

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 3:02:59 PM

Quote :

""--Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel. ""

Quote :

"No shit? You mean investigator took wreckage to do analysis on? Investigators do their job? SAY IT AINT SO! --1337 b4k4"

The author of the website was perhaps not clear enough here. I am quite sure he is referring to the fact that some of the evidence was taken away from the Pentagon by Air Force personnel in a concealed manner. On another website, I saw photos of personnel taking away a large object, but the object was under a large blue tarp. I am sure this is what the author was referring to.

1/14/2004 3:09:10 PM

Quote :

"errr, granted I'm no expert on haz-mat procedures for the military, but the WHO has shown that DU does not give off sufficient radiation to contaminate an area. Likewise, given the fact that there were 4 organized hijackings, I think the military was taking no chances that something else might have been there as well. And out of curiosity, where are this photos of removal work? ---1337 b4k4"

That may be the "opinion" or "claim" of the WHO, but I have read that Depleted Uranium does give off sufficient radiation to contaminate an area present a health hazard. This is radioactive material we are talking about. There is evidence to suggest that the extensive use of DU rounds in the first Gulf War was the cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome" that many U.S. troops had.

On the photographs of the removal work, I would like to see some myself. If I find any, I will try to remember to post them here.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 3:14:00 PM

Quote :

""Kerosene fires do not burn hot. Only high explosive and shaped charges generate huge amount of heat, and depleted uranium (DU) is a incendiary that is added to warheads to increase their penetrating ability. "

Quote :

"Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first FIRE DOES NOT BURN HOT. --1337 b4k4 "

Are you trying to discredit the substance of the author's argument merely because he did not articulate himself the best he could have?

The author of the website could have chosen better wording, but the point he was trying to make is this: a kerosene (similar to jet fuel) fire does not burn hot enough to account for the explosion that occured at the Pentagon. The photographs of the explosion at the Pentagon show that the explosion was very hot, much too hot to be that of merely jet fuel.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 3:20:27 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "1) the Boeing did a 4.5 g. turn to descend from 7500 feet in 1 1/2 minutes (even though the Boeing flight control software won't allow more than 1.5 g. turn)"

Quote :

"Where does the author get his information about a 1.5g limit on turning, I see nothing in the limits section provided here http://www.757.org.uk/limits/index.html ---1337 b4k4"

Just because your source does not mention the limit on g-forces for the Boeing 757 does not mean that the aircraft does not have a limit. Your source does not contradict the information I provided.

1/14/2004 3:24:04 PM

Quote :

"...hit the side of the Pentagon with pin-point-precision (even though the pilot Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna) "

Quote :

"What pinpoint precision? he flew the plane at a fucking building, it's not that hard. ---1337 b4k4"

You are making it sound as if it is easy to fly a 757. I don't have any personal experience in flying a 757, but I hear that it takes a lot of skill. People have to study and train intensively to be capable of flying planes such as a 757. Furthermore, the aircraft that hit the Pentagon is known (from the aircraft control and radar evidence) to have descended and manuevered in a manner that a 757 is not typically flown (and in some cases in ways that a 757 cannot...see g-force limit reference). If this Hanjour was not trained sufficiently to fly a 757, how likely is it that he actually flew a 757, much less that he flew a 757 with the skill that was required by the "aircraft" that hit the Pentagon?

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 3:30:35 PM

Quote :

" where that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire (which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.) "

Quote :

"Most of the plane was consumed, other parts were destroyed (flying into concrete walls tends to do that) and for the 8th fucking time THE FUEL WAS NOT THE ONLY FUCKING THING THAT BURNED. --1337 b4k4"

So if the jet fuel was not what "consumed the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon", what was it? Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to vaporize 100 tons of aircraft. Was it the office paper and computers inside the pentagon that provided the fuel to vaporize a Boeing 757?

1/14/2004 3:37:25 PM

Ok, Salisbury boy, learn to do it all in one post.

Quote :

"Really? Debris that can be seen? I haven't seen a substantial amount of debris in any photograpshs."

You're not looking hard enough, here let me help you:

http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/

Quote :

"Schwartz: I certainly would not use the term "vaporized," but there's not a lot of the aircraft that is recognizable at all. "

IOW, there isn't a lot of the aircraft that we can identify as being part of a certain section. Not Recognizeable != Not there

Quote :

"If you say that there is still "debris" from a 757 at the Pentagon but it is just so small that you can't see it"

It's not so small you can't see it, it's so small/damaged/twisted/burned that it is not easy to identify what part of the plane you are looking at.

Quote :

"you are just ASSUMING that it is there. You are taking that upon faith because there is no evidence I am aware of that these "small pieces" of the aircraft were ever seen in the rubble at the Pentagon"

Not on faith. It's there. In the pictures above, in pictures you've provided and in the pictures on the sites you link to. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they require one to selectively ignore things.

Quote :

"Oh, so 1337 b4k4, I assume you take that to mean that EVERY SINGLE component of a Boeing 757 is made of metal?"

No not at all. When you describe a vehicle as all metal construction, you mean that the body of the vehicle is all metal. Example: A Honda Element is not all metal construction. A 1989 Chevy blazer is.

Quote :

"Your source does not specifically state that the nose cone is made of metal. "

And you haven't provided any source that says it isn't.

Quote :

"Therefore, looking only at this evidence, it is more likely that a smaller "plane" hit the Pentagon than a large plane such as Boeing 757. "

This is why you are not a detective, and neither are the authors of these sites. Because you can't selectively choose which evidence you want to consider.

Quote :

"SOME evidence of whatever hit the Pentagon HAS to be there because something penetrated 3 rings of the Pentagon (and ended its penetration at that point). The author of the first quote above is making the point that there is no evidence of debris of an airliner (ie, there is ZERO evidence of an airliner) at the exit hole of the 3rd ring (no matter how many glances you take, I presume)."

Yet you quoted another source that said the nose made it through and landed conveniently for the phtographers SO WHICH IS IT? DID IT GO THROUGH OR NOT? . And here's a hint, the plane exploded, what penetrated the 3rd ring did not have to be the plane, it could have been something that was turned into a projectile by the explosion.

Quote :

"The author of the website was perhaps not clear enough here. I am quite sure he is referring to the fact that some of the evidence was taken away from the Pentagon by Air Force personnel in a concealed manner. On another website, I saw photos of personnel taking away a large object, but the object was under a large blue tarp. I am sure this is what the author was referring to."

OMG the coroners take dead bodies away under sheets THEY MUST BE PART OF A COVERUP THE PERSON ISNT" REALLY DEAD.

They take evidence out under tarps and such to protect them from the elements and from the media. They do it in every crime scene. Law enforcement does not like the media getting in the way and takeing pictures. And how about you dig up this photo for us so that we know you aren't talking out of your ass.

Quote :

"That may be the "opinion" or "claim" of the WHO, but I have read that Depleted Uranium does give off sufficient radiation to contaminate an area present a health hazard. This is radioactive material we are talking about. There is evidence to suggest that the extensive use of DU rounds in the first Gulf War was the cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome" that many U.S. troops had. "

It's not the OPINION of the WHO, it is a conclusion based on YEARS OF RESEARCH on the Gulf War and Kosovo, here educate yourself

http://216.239.41.104/u/who?q=cache:hNaxsfKtx6QJ:<a href="http://www.who.int/gb/EB_WHA/PDF/WHA54/ea5419a1.pdf+Depleted+Uranium&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">http://216.239.41.104/u/who?q=cache:hNaxsfKtx6QJ:http://www.who.int/gb/EB_WHA/PDF/WHA54/ea5419a1.pdf+Depleted+Uranium&hl=en&ie=UTF-8</a>

Quote :

"The author of the website could have chosen better wording, but the point he was trying to make is this: a kerosene (similar to jet fuel) fire does not burn hot enough to account for the explosion that occured at the Pentagon. The photographs of the explosion at the Pentagon show that the explosion was very hot, much too hot to be that of merely jet fuel."

I said it before, I will say it again, JET FUEL WAS NOT THE ONLY THING BURNING AT THE PENTAGON THAT DAY. And he says nothing about the heat of the explosion, only the fire. And still provides no evidence.

Quote :

"Just because your source does not mention the limit on g-forces for the Boeing 757 does not mean that the aircraft does not have a limit. Your source does not contradict the information I provided"

My source lists operational instructions AND LIMITS on the 757 INCLUDING software limits. Untill you find me a real source that says otherwise, my source says there is no such limit.

Quote :

"You are making it sound as if it is easy to fly a 757. I don't have any personal experience in flying a 757, but I hear that it takes a lot of skill. People have to study and train intensively to be capable of flying planes such as a 757. Furthermore, the aircraft that hit the Pentagon is known (from the aircraft control and radar evidence) to have descended and manuevered in a manner that a 757 is not typically flown (and in some cases in ways that a 757 cannot...see g-force limit reference). If this Hanjour was not trained sufficiently to fly a 757, how likely is it that he actually flew a 757, much less that he flew a 757 with the skill that was required by the "aircraft" that hit the Pentagon? "

It takes yearsof training to learn to fly the plane correctly. I'll give you a hint, Mr. Hani had no interest in landing that plane safely. It doesn't take a lot of skill to point a plane in a given direction.

In particular reference to flying in a way that is not typicaly done, could that possibly be because he didn't know how to properly fly the plane? I bet you it is.

Quote :

"So if the jet fuel was not what "consumed the Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon", what was it? Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to vaporize 100 tons of aircraft. Was it the office paper and computers inside the pentagon that provided the fuel to vaporize a Boeing 757? "

It was the fact that the plane flew into concrete walls. Look idiot, 99% of planes do not crash into solid walls, they hit the ground and skid, that's why a lot of wreckage is left. When something hits another solid object as directly as that plane hit the pentagon, all of the kinetic energy has to go somewheres, and it goes into crushing the plane. The same thing happens to a bullet and a bullet proof vest. At high speeds, objects gain and loose different properties. For example, if you fell out of a plane from 10,000 feet, it wouldn't matter if you landed in water or on land because the surface tension in the water will make you go splat, despite the fact that normaly you would penetrate the water without damage to yourself.

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 4:08 PM. Reason : sdafgf]

1/14/2004 4:03:31 PM

HAHAHAHA...those pictures just OWNED THE FUCK OUT OF YOU!!!!

What, no whitty response to my claim that DU doesn't burn? Come on, fine one place where DU burns? As a gunnery officer, I can tell you, first hand, that it does not burn...I have used it daily for years and am fine - you god dman comspiracy fucks need to shut the fuck up

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 4:40:40 PM

Just to throw in my own stuff:

Engineer Paul Boutin take a look at the pentagon conspiracy http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

Perdue University engineers say a 757 could have done the damage http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

Link to the simulations http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

And here are some more debris pics I found http://www.thebaka.com/911pics

1/14/2004 7:57:30 PM

Quote :

"you god dman comspiracy fucks need to shut the fuck up --goalielax "

I take it then that you agree with Bush that we should "never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" regarding the events of September 11th? Do you suggest that those who question the joke that is the official version of 9/11 be silenced or detained?

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2004 9:51:02 PM

The supposed "pilot" and hijacker of American Airlines Flight 77 that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon was not listed on the flight manifest for AA Flight 77 because he may not have had a ticket for the flight. (per the Washington Post) Was he really on Flight 77?

Quote :

"Hani Hanjour Obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999 from the Federal Aviation Administration. The license expired six months later because he failed to complete a required medical exam. In 1996, he received flight training for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., but did not finish the course because his instructors thought he was not proficient enough. He listed his address as a post office box in Taife, Saudi Arabia, but he also has been linked to addresses in San Diego and Hollywood, Fla. His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ..]

1/14/2004 10:07:47 PM

On the collapse of WTC 7:

Quote :

"At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition. A video of the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center shows the perfect controlled demolition of WTC 7. WTC 7 was 2 blocks away from WTC1/2, and was only superficially hit by debris when 1 and 2 collapsed as you can readily see from the starting point of the video. At 5:22 p.m., over six hours after WTC 1 and 2 "collapsed", WTC 7 came down in a free fall. The Official Story in the press is that diesel fuel reservoirs for backup power generators at Guilliani's Emergency Command Center in the building exploded and brought the resulting fire brought the building down, even though there has never been a case on record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings, and that there were only very small fires in progress when the building "collapsed." Not to mention that, as any one with the slightest technical background knows, diesel at normal pressure is non-explosive and barely flammable. According to the House so-called investigation: Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue. In other words: no reason. The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml"

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ..]

1/14/2004 10:17:45 PM

I see you've taken to ignoring anything that doesn't support your theory, as evidenced by not having any responses to any of the information provided to you.

Quote :

"His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket. "

or because he may have had a fake ticket, or even get this he might have used a FAKE NAME! HOLY SHIT INTELLIGENCE!!!!!

Quote :

"nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier"

Really? So you mean to tell me the same site the published this immage:



showing the buildings ARROUND AND OF EQUAL OR GREATER DISTANCE FROM THE TOWERS suffered SEVERE STURCTURAL DAMAGE but miraculously WTC 7 somehow escaped the damage? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

Quote :

" even though there has never been a case on record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings"

there has also never been on record a large passenger jet crashing into a building, does that mean that it didn't happne?

[Edited on January 14, 2004 at 10:44 PM. Reason : afgaf]

1/14/2004 10:42:15 PM

FEMA's report on the collapse of WTC 7 does not offer an explanation for the cause of the collapse of the building with any conviction, leading us to believe that the cause of the collapse is still a "question" (at least to FEMA, it appears to be a question...if you take them at their word).

Quote :

"FEMA’s report is filled with rampant speculation and hypothetical scenarios. Throughout it are weasel-words such as “appears” and “apparently”. The tone is set in the first paragraph. It says that the “performance of” World Trade Center 7’s collapse is “of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing [Twin] towers.” Overall, very little of this report is stated with conviction. FEMA's nonchalance about WTC-7’s collapse is stunning. Structural failures of this magnitude do not normally take place. With the two-year anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center arriving, the subject of WTC-7's odd disintegration is due some scrutiny by the liberal US media. To name just one, does Z Magazine believe that we now live in an era when tall steel buildings can collapse in large cities without any significant discussion of why? Even George Orwell might have trouble imagining that scenario. http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4"

One has to wonder why very little media attention has been given to the question of why WTC 7 collapsed. This pervades the entire subject of the events of 9-11. Seven or so of the supposed "hijackers" have been found to be alive...why has the media not covered this more and informed us of investigations to find out who the "real hijackers" are? It is as if it is not an issue of importance to the government or the media.

[Edited on January 15, 2004 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ..]

1/15/2004 3:37:29 PM

Why do we not hear of our troops in Libyria? Why don't we hear of Afganistan anymore? Because it doesn't sell. The media isn't your watch dog, it's a business. And here's a thought for you, you will find very few government reports that do not use appears and apparently in their statements because the government doesn't like making definative statements. Also, there is no guarantee. They can't say for sure that that's what caused it because THEY DON"T KNOW FOR SURE.

And are you planning on replying to anything or are you just going to keep copying and pasting?

1/15/2004 3:44:38 PM

Quote :

"nd are you planning on replying to anything or are you just going to keep copying and pasting? "

You can't offer a rebuttal to something if there is no substance with which to back your claim.

1/15/2004 3:47:49 PM

Quote :

"They can't say for sure that that's what caused it because THEY DON"T KNOW FOR SURE. --1337 b4k4 "

Then I suppose you agree with the government that we don't know why WTC 7 collapsed? Do you agree, then, that explosives may have brought down WTC 7? Is that a possible explanation?

Quote :

"You can't offer a rebuttal to something if there is no substance with which to back your claim. ---msb2ncsu"

I have offered rebuttals to 1337 b4k4's comments. I guess you missed them. See above on this page of the thread. I don't need to respond to all his comments because they don't validate the government story. The evidence speaks for itself. The official government story on 9/11 is what has little to no substance to support it.


[Edited on January 15, 2004 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ..]

1/15/2004 3:48:27 PM

Quote :

"Is that a possible explanation?"

About as plausible as the notion that the Mars probes were not making contact because large subterranean alien beings were coming up from below and capturing/destroying them.

Quote :

"I have offered rebuttals to 1337 b4k4's comments."

Rebuttals, yes. Rebuttals with viable and plausible theories, no.

[Edited on January 15, 2004 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2004 3:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Is that a possible explanation?"

Quote :

"It's also possible that semptember 11 attacks were done by martians, as ordered by Bush, under the command of the black islamic quarter of the jewish sect of the roman catholic church which is recieving radio signals from the illuminati by a metal rod in the pope's dick. "

Quote :

"Then I suppose you agree with the government that we don't know why WTC 7 collapsed?"

Yes, I do agree. We don't know for sure. We never will know for sure. But the evidence points to fire and structural damage. The only evidence you have is a video showing the back side falling in a manner similar to a definition. Well, here's another piece of info for you to chew on, when buildings collapse, they usualy collapse in a downward manner, most of them don't topple over to one side nor do they explode outward.

Quote :

"I have offered rebuttals to 1337 b4k4's comments"

You've cut and pasted sites, and then when people question your sources, you say you don't believe everything on those sites. So we don't know what you believe, so unless you make statements, and then give specific evidence, you're not giving rebuttles.

Quote :

"they don't validate the government story"

How do they not? The government story says X happened, you show "evidence" that claims that Y happened, I show evendence that says that X did happen, not Y. So how does that not support the government story?

Quote :

"The evidence speaks for itself. The official government story on 9/11 is what has little to no substance to support it. "

The "evidence" doesn't speak for itself BECAUSE YOU HAvEN"T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE.

1/15/2004 4:43:26 PM

Quote :

"YOU HAvEN"T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE ---1337 b4k4"

That's a nice one....good joke.

1/15/2004 11:13:15 PM

^ No joke, truth.

You've provided grainy, low resolution tiny or otherwise unclear photos and animations

False pictures

Misleading pictures

and sites so full of holes, you could park al sharpton and his entire lunch buffet in side.

What evidence have you provided? You don't even believe the sites you cite.

1/15/2004 11:24:39 PM

pwnt

1/15/2004 11:38:28 PM

Quote :

"unclear photos and animations, False pictures, Misleading pictures ---1337 b4k4"

This is funny stuff. Please....continue.

Quote :

"You don't even believe the sites you cite. ---1337 b4k4"

Now you are misrepresenting what I have said. What I said is that I don't always believe every single thing that may be on a website I have referenced. I agree with most of what is on the websites I have referenced, but don't always agree with 100% of what a website might say. No person agrees 100% with any other person.

Really, man.....that was pretty weak.

Quote :

"pwnt --Shrimp"

You wish. Wish all you want, wishing doesn't necessarily make something come true.....and it certainly won't fill in all the holes in the official government story on 9/11. The official story is a joke. Anyone who carefully looks at the evidence and isn't hiding their head in the sand can see that.

[Edited on January 15, 2004 at 11:54 PM. Reason : ..]

1/15/2004 11:47:52 PM

Omg, ahahaha! salisburybot has started attacking others for being baseless. Oh, thats rich. Here is his response to reason: "Oh, that is rich. Evidence! How ridiculous!"

1/16/2004 12:01:29 AM

Quote :

"You wish"

I don't have to. When someone refutes you and all you can pull off is some weak-ass sarcasm, you're done.

1/16/2004 12:11:51 AM

Quote :

"When someone refutes you... ---Shrimp"

You may think they have "refuted" me, but they haven't. I haven't seen anyone prove the official government "story" in this thread. It's not gonna happen.

[Edited on January 16, 2004 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ..]

1/16/2004 12:14:53 AM

Quote :

"This is funny stuff. Please....continue."

Do you really want me to catagorize all your pictures? Let's be honest here, you haven't givne a clear photo once that I can recall. And when a noted physicist and engineer says that the pictures from one of your sources is misleading because it's a bad angle and the overlay is wrong, I tend to believe them more than I beleive you.

Quote :

"and it certainly won't fill in all the holes in the official government story on 9/11. The official story is a joke. Anyone who carefully looks at the evidence and isn't hiding their head in the sand can see that. "

Half of the whole you pointed out don't exist, and the rest is explained by simple physics (or modeled physics by people much smarter than you)

Quote :

"You may think they have "refuted" me, but they haven't. I haven't seen anyone prove the official government "story" in this thread. It's not gonna happen."

Quote :

"re·fute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-fyt) tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll. "

You have been refuted. Many times. You've been shown wrong many time. untill you provide REAL evidence this thread is hereby over.

[Edited on January 16, 2004 at 12:18 AM. Reason : sgh]

1/16/2004 12:16:20 AM

Quote :

"because the cone was made out of a weak carbon-fiber material"

Carbon Fiber is stronger than steal and lighter than fiberglass. Not weak.

1/16/2004 1:05:30 AM

I wasn't going to get in on this thread, b/c I haven't read the entire thing, just page 8 mostly. Anyway, as for

Quote :

" as any one with the slightest technical background knows, diesel at normal pressure is non-explosive and barely flammable. --salisburyboy"

It's called a B.L.E.V.E. Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion
Even rookie firemen know about it.

Quote :

"A BLEVE is a type of pressure-release explosion that occurs when liquefied gases, which are stored in containers at temperatures above their boiling points, are exposed to the atmosphere, causing rapid vaporization. This happens when a container fails. A BLEVE can occur when flame impinges on the tank shell at a point or points above the liquid level of the tank's contents, or when a tank shell is corroded or gouged. The heat from the fire causes the metal to weaken and fail as the internal pressure increases, and liquid-to-vapor expansion provides the energy that creates cracks in the container, causing the container to fail, and propels pieces of the container outward. The result is the mixing of vapor and air that results in the characteristic fireball that occurs when the fire ignites the vapor. During the process, the container's pressure relief valve operates, creating a large vertical torch and a screaming noise. http://www.nfpa.org/Research/FireInvestigation/Articles/BLEVEKillsTwo/bleve_kills_two.asp"

Quote :

"FEMA’s report is filled with rampant speculation and hypothetical scenarios. Throughout it are weasel-words such as “appears” and “apparently”. The tone is set in the first paragraph. It says that the “performance of” World Trade Center 7’s collapse is “of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing [Twin] towers.” Overall, very little of this report is stated with conviction."

Anyone who has done any government work always writes reports with "approximately's", etc. Read any police report. Government workers will not state something with "convictions" because thoser reports are to be "just the facts" they are not experts who can give opinions as to how something happened. They will not put themselves in such a position as to have to testify as to something they are not experts on.

1/16/2004 6:29:38 AM

Information on "Patriot Acts" (or, rather Antipatriot Acts) 1 and 2:

Quote :

"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control. ...The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship. I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants the government and its private agents total immunity. http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm"

If you think it is unlikely or impossilbe that our government could be advancing towards a totalitarian state, consider it again. Throughout history, the wealthy and powerful have desired to rule over the masses (and it has occured all throughout history). The founders of the United States were fleeing this same type of powerful, centralized, abusive government and the U.S. Constitution was set up to allow only a federal government of limited powers, while the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect individuals from abuses by the federal government (ie, preserve their God-given freedoms from the power of government).

[Edited on January 16, 2004 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ..]

1/16/2004 3:19:44 PM

So the Pentagon was destroyed with a Patriot Act missile?

1/16/2004 3:37:42 PM

ok everything i've read in this thread has been related to Sept 11, 2001. now what the hell does the patriot act have anythin to do with this thread? maybe i'm missin somethin.

1/16/2004 3:38:08 PM

I think it's cool when you have something going really fast (like wood splinters in a tornado) they can puncture objects hard then them... like a brick wall

1/16/2004 3:39:55 PM

Quote :

"ok everything i've read in this thread has been related to Sept 11, 2001. now what the hell does the patriot act have anythin to do with this thread? maybe i'm missin somethin. "

The "Patriot Act" was passed in the days just following September 11th (ie, within 2-3 days after Sept. 11, 2001). It was rammed through Congress. No debate was allowed on it. Members of Congress were pressured to vote for it and told that if they didn't pass it "they would be responsible for the next terrorist attack." The Act is a massive document and could not have been written in the time between the attack and its passage. This document was conceived and drafted well before the attacks.

It is entirely likely that the events of 9-11-01 were done by the government (or with the complicity of the government) as a pretext to passing the "Patriot Act." This is not unpredented in history. Hitler burned down the Reichstag (German legislative building) and blamed it on his political opponents....this event was then used to enable the passage of laws that turned the government of Germany into a dictatorship lead by Hitler.

[Edited on January 16, 2004 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ...]

1/16/2004 3:45:17 PM

^ so wait, correct me if i'm wrong. u think that the events of 9/11/01 were perpetrated by the US government to justify the patriot act being used after those events?

1/16/2004 3:48:39 PM