Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
quillius

9/11

349 posts in this topic

on what basis do you disagree with "strikingly similar"?

Their thermite (Fig 24) has a potassium peak, neither WTC sample does. The two WTC samples (Figs 25,26) differ quite a bit, only one has a titanium and sulphur peaks and the oxygen/iron ratios are widely different. The thermite sample thus doesn't match either WTC sample.

there will be variation because these are residues of violent reactions.

how much similarity would you expect there to be when comparing residues of different nanothermite blends?

That is a point the authors should have considered before claiming a match.

you suggest it be compared with?

Anything likely to be present in the building. Surface treatments would be a good place to start.

The whole point is that the burden of proof is on the authors to prove thermite. They have made no effort at all to rule out alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The demolition setup of the three WTC buildings could not be achieved by a group of terrorists, no matter how determined they might be. Such an operation requires expertise, high-tech and innovative equipment, not to mention sufficient periods of unimpeded access to the internal building structure. It is not possible that terrorists could secure all of these requirements without detection.

Equally, no-one has explained how "inside job" conspirators could do it either. Lack of loud noises immediatelt before collapse rules out high explosives, the postulated thermite has yet to be shown to be feasible, and no traces of a demolition were found by the thousands of peoples involved in the clean-up.

Your problem in understanding the engineering details of how the collapses occurred pale into insignificance when compare with the total lack of evidence for controlled demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see that you also find the flaws with some conspiracy theories....if there was just one I am sure it would be taken more seriously, something I was trying to achieve with this thread, basically similar to UFO/ET the sheer volume and proven hoaxes just muddy the water, which I think is also the case here.

Yes, there are some ideas out there that I think, after researching them, are completely unrealistic – holograms, directed energy weapons, missiles impacting the buildings, mini-nukes, etc. Fortunately these suggestions are not widespread or supported by the majority of the truth movement. I agree it would be better to have a single theory but without a thorough investigation to answer outstanding questions I can’t see it happening.

With regards to the explosives, I say it didnt entirely work because there is so much doubt as to what really happened and who was behind it which means IMO that it didnt work...at least they have not got away with it yet....(if the government had any involvement that is)

There are many glaring discrepancies and oddities that together reveal the demolition of the WTC buildings but some would rather make excuses than seek definitive answers. The Israeli intelligence agents who were arrested on the scene on 9/11 for celebrating the building collapses, and then having sniffer dogs react as if they detected explosive residues in the men’s van, nearly gave the game away on their own.

Also I understand your point with regards to just explosives would bring too much attention to the wrong place. However I then think why not just have the planes then? They would have doen enough damage to justify a response...maybe not as big a justification but surely this would have been a much safer option as far as keeping fewer elements to the conspiracy that can be found out?

I’m not sure that hundreds of victims and millions of dollars worth of repairs to the WTC buildings would have provided the justification needed for a long War on Terror. The thousands of deaths and permanent reminder through sudden removal of the landmark buildings guaranteed public support for years to come and which continues indirectly to this day.

There is the secondary issue that necessary removal of asbestos in the towers to meet building codes had been estimated in the worst case to cost in the double-digit $ billions (more than the buildings were worth). This would have been far more costly to the owners than the ongoing rebuild project which has turned out to be largely funded by the taxpayer and insurance payouts. The Port Authority had been trying unsuccessfully to claim on their insurance to have the asbestos problem fixed for years before 9/11 and obviously with the buildings now destroyed this was finally granted in a roundabout way.

The required “new Pearl Harbor” was fashioned along with removal of the asbestos problem in one fell swoop – this would not have been the case had only the planes impacted and the buildings not been demolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their thermite (Fig 24) has a potassium peak, neither WTC sample does. The two WTC samples (Figs 25,26) differ quite a bit, only one has a titanium and sulphur peaks and the oxygen/iron ratios are widely different. The thermite sample thus doesn't match either WTC sample.

there is obviously going to be surface contamination on the wtc chips as well as having a significant grey layer consisting of iron and oxygen not present on the commercial thermite. differences are to be expected between different formulations with different additives, but these differences are not significant enough to rule out thermite. they don't match but they are generally similar enough to be consistent with thermite. I've seen you argue that yellow is silver so i don't expect agreement on this.

That is a point the authors should have considered before claiming a match.

they did not claim a match, they claimed similarity and they did consider variabilty between residue spheres - reference 5 in the paper.

Anything likely to be present in the building.

such as?

it is ridiculous to suggest that everything in the building be analysed.

specifically what alternatives are there to thermite that have not been ruled out by the tests?

what is your best guess at an alternative?

Surface treatments would be a good place to start.
they did consider surface treatments, it's documented in the paper.
The whole point is that the burden of proof is on the authors to prove thermite.

you made the claim that there were alternatives to be considered. the burden is on you to specify what alternatives you are talking about, or concede you cannot think of any.

They have made no effort at all to rule out alternatives.
That is just not true, they analysed and ruled out obvious candidates, it is documented in the paper and detailed here:

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325

what chemical reaction produces molten elemental iron from iron-oxide?

if you can answer this question we might be able to make some progress with suggesting alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is obviously going to be surface contamination on the wtc chips as well as having a significant grey layer consisting of iron and oxygen not present on the commercial thermite. differences are to be expected between different formulations with different additives, but these differences are not significant enough to rule out thermite. they don't match but they are generally similar enough to be consistent with thermite. I've seen you argue that yellow is silver so i don't expect agreement on this.

So a lot of difference is to be expected, therefore a lack of a really good match is proof? Ye gods.

they did not claim a match, they claimed similarity and they did consider variabilty between residue spheres - reference 5 in the paper.

So when they say "...we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite" they are not actually claiming anything?

such as?

it is ridiculous to suggest that everything in the building be analysed.

specifically what alternatives are there to thermite that have not been ruled out by the tests?

what is your best guess at an alternative?

Possibly some sort of fire-protection layer. That would have a better heat resistance than ordinary primer.

they did consider surface treatments, it's documented in the paper.

They mention paint, they don't say whether it's the same stuff that's on the buildings.

you made the claim that there were alternatives to be considered. the burden is on you to specify what alternatives you are talking about, or concede you cannot think of any.

Any surface treatment known to be present in the buildings would be a start. The stuff is obviously something that comes in thin layers, so a bonding agent is another alternative.

That is just not true, they analysed and ruled out obvious candidates, it is documented in the paper and detailed here:

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325

So the zinc and chromium constituents of primer are there initially, but are dissolved away by a paint solvent. How is that ruling out everything else?

what chemical reaction produces molten elemental iron from iron-oxide?

Don't you know?

Perhaps you could answer a question of mine. If the stuff was thermite, how much damage would such a thin layer do to structural steel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what was it then?

2- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what struck the lamp poles?

3- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did the eyewitnesses who had identified a Boeing from AA saw?

4- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?

5- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, how could the DNAs be recovered?

If the recovery of the DNAs was faked:

* Do you say that the laboratories which analyzed the DNA falsified the data?

* Do you say that the victims and the terrorists' families were in on it?

* Do you say that the employees of the laboratories falsified the data?

* Do you say that those who redacted the report falsified the data?

* Do you say that the laboratories merely lied instead?

* How could the bodies of the passengers, still trapped on their seats, be found?

* How can you explain that the damage made exactly matches the dimensions of a Boeing 757?

Questions to Flight 77 deniers

1- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what was it then?

2- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what struck the lamp poles?

3- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did the eyewitnesses who had identified a Boeing from AA saw?

4- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?

5- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, how could the DNAs be recovered?

If the recovery of the DNAs was faked:

* Do you say that the laboratories which analyzed the DNA falsified the data?

* Do you say that the victims and the terrorists' families were in on it?

* Do you say that the employees of the laboratories falsified the data?

* Do you say that those who redacted the report falsified the data?

* Do you say that the laboratories merely lied instead?

Then:

* How could the bodies of the passengers, still trapped on their seats, be found?

* How can you explain that the damage made exactly matches the dimensions of a Boeing 757?

* Do you say that these organizations are shills?

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

* Do you say that AA lied about the existence of the plane?

* Do you say that the FAA lied about the existence of the plane?

* Do you say that if AA doesn't have any flight numbered 77 since September 2001, its purpose is to make us to have the illusion that the flight existed?

* Among the identified eyewitnesses, do you say they are just liars?

* What are the objective points to say that the debris do NOT belong to the plane (An answer other than "I guess that these debris are too small/large" is needed) ?

* What are the objective points to say that a plane could not do the damage (An answer other than "I guess that this crash is too incredible to make such a thing blahblahblah" is needed) ?

* Do you think there's another plane which landed somewhere else to bring the passengers in a secret place in order to do something EEEEEVIL?

* Do you think the plane flew over the Pentagon?

* The FDR indicates that the plane was still in contact with the air traffic controllers, even if the pirates turned the transponder off. Do you say that the FDR which is available on the Internet is faked?

* What are the objective points to deny that the hostages inside the planes say through their phones that it had been hijacked by terrorists?

* What are the objective points to deny the FBI investigation (An answer other than "The FBI always hide something to us, honest citizens lolololol" is needed)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a lot of difference is to be expected, therefore a lack of a really good match is proof? Ye gods.

yes some differences in the reacted RESIDUE is to be expected. these differences are accounted for. the RESIDUE is consistent with thermite residue.

they did not claim a match, they claimed similarity and they did consider variabilty between residue spheres - reference 5 in the paper.
So when they say "...we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite" they are not actually claiming anything?

they are not talking about the reacted RESIDUE here, they are talking about the UNREACTED RED substance - from the paper "6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.".

I think you have not read the paper.

Possibly some sort of fire-protection layer. That would have a better heat resistance than ordinary primer.
a fire protection layer that yields 1500 celcius when you heat it to 400 celcius? what sort of fire protection is that?

so instead of using a fire protection layer with fire protection properties, they used a fire protection substance with thermite properties? sounds like you agree with the authors.

They mention paint, they don't say whether it's the same stuff that's on the buildings.

The red Tnemec paint on the building has 20% zinc, there was no zinc in the red substance, so its not Tnemec.

Any surface treatment known to be present in the buildings would be a start. The stuff is obviously something that comes in thin layers, so a bonding agent is another alternative.

can you suggest a specific or type of bonding agent that matches any of the characteristics of this material other than its speculated thickness.

So the zinc and chromium constituents of primer are there initially, but are dissolved away by a paint solvent. How is that ruling out everything else?

there was NO zinc or chromium inside the chips - "Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise"

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325

so it is not primer paint.

Don't you know?

no I don't know any other reaction that produces molten elemental iron from iron-oxide other than a thermite reaction. do you know of any reaction?

Perhaps you could answer a question of mine. If the stuff was thermite, how much damage would such a thin layer do to structural steel?

that would depend on how thick it was with respect to the thickness of the steel.

if it was applied to the trusses instead of fireproofing as you suggested then the stuff would be thicker than the steel, but why speculate about how it was used when it should not have been there in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions to Flight 77 deniers

Hello Agent X, long time no see :)

I have no choice but to be a “Flight 77 denier” with the current level of evidence available. I find every one of the questions to be either a strawman or misplaced; I can answer negative to practically all of them.

The first question for instance…

1- If AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what was it then?

Who is the onus on to answer this question?

It is the official story that claims Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon and therefore burden of proof rests with the official investigation. It is not necessary for anyone to prove what it wasn’t before it has been proven what is was. Over nine years later and we are still waiting for an official investigation to do that.

  • No FDR serial number for Flight 77.
  • No aircraft part serial numbers for Flight 77.
  • No record of custody for passenger DNA samples for Flight 77.
  • No complete radar track for Flight 77.

Together these facts are unprecedented in all previous air crash investigations.

The existing evidence that we do have can only lead to the conclusion that a plane impacted the Pentagon. The identity and origin of the plane is requiring of further evidence that has not yet seen light of day for one reason or another.

I ask in counter to your question, without using your imagination to fill in the above mentioned gaps, how do you know it was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon?

Further than that, there were no bodies found of passengers still trapped in their seats – this is simply not true. There were no shills or liars included in the organisations listed – they were not required. Speculative questions such as where Flight 77 went and the phone calls from air stewardesses can be answered, though are not so important as the question above.

There have been two wars based off the public support generated from 9/11 so I sincerely hope your next post provides conclusive evidence of the identity of the aircraft that impacted the Pentagon…

… but I know it won’t; there isn’t any.

If you really want the “Flight 77 deniers” to go away then you should be supporting a new investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes some differences in the reacted RESIDUE is to be expected. these differences are accounted for. the RESIDUE is consistent with thermite residue.

Differences are differences, they don't support claims of a match.

they are not talking about the reacted RESIDUE here, they are talking about the UNREACTED RED substance - from the paper "6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.".

I think you have not read the paper.

Whatever they are talking about, they are claiming thermite.

a fire protection layer that yields 1500 celcius when you heat it to 400 celcius? what sort of fire protection is that?

so instead of using a fire protection layer with fire protection properties, they used a fire protection substance with thermite properties? sounds like you agree with the authors.

Curious that you think the low ignition temperature rules out fire protection, but not thermite. How does that work?

If there's some low-ig-point material present, it will heat up whatever else is there.

The red Tnemec paint on the building has 20% zinc, there was no zinc in the red substance, so its not Tnemec.

Was there only one type of primer used at the site?

can you suggest a specific or type of bonding agent that matches any of the characteristics of this material other than its speculated thickness.

It's the authors' burden of proof to rule out alternatives to thermite, not mine.

there was NO zinc or chromium inside the chips - "Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise"

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325

so it is not primer paint.

So it's not one particular type of primer paint.

no I don't know any other reaction that produces molten elemental iron from iron-oxide other than a thermite reaction. do you know of any reaction?

You really don't know how iron is produced from oxide? It's 3000-year-old technology.

that would depend on how thick it was with respect to the thickness of the steel.

if it was applied to the trusses instead of fireproofing as you suggested then the stuff would be thicker than the steel, but why speculate about how it was used when it should not have been there in the first place.

If you are claiming that the stuff is thick, then there are a lot more building materials that need to be compared. However, it isn't thick, read the paper.

However, I was looking for an answer to the question, not just some speculation.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the authors' burden of proof to rule out alternatives to thermite, not mine.

burden of proof is on the one making the claim. you claimed there are alternatives, that is your claim so burden of proof is on you to state what you are talking about. anyone can make unsubstantiated claims that there are alternative explanations about anything, but science doesn't work that way, its about the strength of evidence. you have claimed there is no evidence which is not true. you are stuck in a black and white mindset where you regard absolute proof as the only evidence, when what is being said is that the evidence is strong enough to warrant an investigation.

You really don't know how iron is produced from oxide? It's 3000-year-old technology.

at 430 degress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Agent X, long time no see :)

I have no choice but to be a “Flight 77 denier” with the current level of evidence available. I find every one of the questions to be either a strawman or misplaced; I can answer negative to practically all of them.

The first question for instance…

Who is the onus on to answer this question?

It is the official story that claims Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon and therefore burden of proof rests with the official investigation. It is not necessary for anyone to prove what it wasn’t before it has been proven what is was. Over nine years later and we are still waiting for an official investigation to do that.

  • No FDR serial number for Flight 77.
  • No aircraft part serial numbers for Flight 77.
  • No record of custody for passenger DNA samples for Flight 77.
  • No complete radar track for Flight 77.

Together these facts are unprecedented in all previous air crash investigations.

The existing evidence that we do have can only lead to the conclusion that a plane impacted the Pentagon. The identity and origin of the plane is requiring of further evidence that has not yet seen light of day for one reason or another.

I ask in counter to your question, without using your imagination to fill in the above mentioned gaps, how do you know it was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon?

Further than that, there were no bodies found of passengers still trapped in their seats – this is simply not true. There were no shills or liars included in the organisations listed – they were not required. Speculative questions such as where Flight 77 went and the phone calls from air stewardesses can be answered, though are not so important as the question above.

There have been two wars based off the public support generated from 9/11 so I sincerely hope your next post provides conclusive evidence of the identity of the aircraft that impacted the Pentagon…

… but I know it won’t; there isn’t any.

If you really want the “Flight 77 deniers” to go away then you should be supporting a new investigation.

And that's what makes you a denier.

The official investigation is fine, you just refuse to believe, no matter what the real evidence says.

And the real investigation is just fine. The onus is on you to prove using credible means that your claims actually happened. Which I know you'll never do because you people know you're in the wrong.

And before we go any further with your fraudlent claims, I'm putting you on ignore.

Edited by Agent X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's what makes you a denier.

The official investigation is fine, you just refuse to believe, no matter what the real evidence says.

And the real investigation is just fine. The onus is on you to prove using credible means that your claims actually happened. Which I know you'll never do because you people know you're in the wrong.

And before we go any further with your fraudlent claims, I'm putting you on ignore.

If you understand the claim at the most basic level, it is that no one knows with certainty the identity of what impacted the Pentagon – this is all that can be concluded based on the available evidence. I invited you to provide specific evidence as to the identity of what impacted the Pentagon and you failed to do so, further reinforcing this conclusion.

The official investigation did not look into the identity of what impacted the Pentagon, certainly nothing approaching the level of previous air crash investigations and nothing is “fine” about having to fill the gaps with speculation.

As for fraudulent claims…

You are the one spreading sick lies that, “bodies of the passengers, still trapped on their seats” were found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

three targets : wtc + pentagon. ABC Succinctly put though!

a) militant islamic jihadists

b ) spent years planning, learnt to fly planes, managed to hit TWO targets (Twin Towers)

c) to punish America for it's activities in the Middle East (and to promote Global Islam)

Re the details...what I think is in my thread here

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=191892

:tu:

Edited by Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

burden of proof is on the one making the claim. you claimed there are alternatives, that is your claim so burden of proof is on you to state what you are talking about. anyone can make unsubstantiated claims that there are alternative explanations about anything, but science doesn't work that way, its about the strength of evidence. you have claimed there is no evidence which is not true. you are stuck in a black and white mindset where you regard absolute proof as the only evidence, when what is being said is that the evidence is strong enough to warrant an investigation.

They get chemicals that are common in everyday life, showing a none too good chemical match to thermite, they don't even show that the stuff is exothermic, yet they clain it is thermite. How is that science? If they claim thermite, the onus is on them to show that they have ruled out alternatives.

at 430 degress?

Thermite at 430 deg?

Without the missing test in a vacuum or an inert gas, the most likely explanation is that what ignites is a carbon compound burning in air. Once it ignites it heats the sample rapidly, causing additional reactions to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one spreading sick lies that, “bodies of the passengers, still trapped on their seats” were found.

There is actually at least one such report, though not from the most reliable of sources (Rense.com):

I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats.

http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually at least one such report, though not from the most reliable of sources (Rense.com):

I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats.

http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm

I have seen the report.

An incredible claim for obvious reasons and “not from the most reliable of sources”.

So your point?

When a near one hundred tonne aluminium, steel and titanium aircraft impacts a reinforced concrete building at over 500mph and explodes, reducing it entirely to twisted and burnt debris small enough to be picked up by hand, with extremely few of those pieces even identifiable…

parody_debris_1.jpg

… you don’t then find a recognisable human body still strapped to a recognisable passenger seat.

It is a lie.

There were a number of photographs of victims provided as evidence during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. These would have been Pentagon employees caught on the periphery of the impact and/or blast. Any sign of passengers still strapped to their seats are conspicuously absent for good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well where to start. somehow 19 terrorists hijacked planes with Fricken Box Cutters. yea im sorry but how many people are on a plane? those guys are not going to cut everyone on board. sorry, if they have a hostage, one sliced throat to save hundreds sounds logical to me! but they are not flying those planes into anything! so that story by itself is BS. Now on this one day. All of our air defense was grounded. these "terrorists" with box cutters flew 2 planes into the towers, and one which we never saw, hit the pentagon. now do some basic math here. 2 planes hit 2 towers, Yet 3 fell! Building 7 fell and was never EVER hit by a plane. yet it fell the same way at the same speed (7 seconds) as the other 2 towers. Now they say that fire melted steel and yadayada. first time in history that fire brought down skyscrapers. also first time in history the black boxes from the planes were never found!! these big indestructible boxes, yet they were able to find bone fragments and match dna to victims!!!??? right ok.......Now back to the air defense being grounded. The worst Attack in our history and we had NOTHING in the air to attempt to prevent this!? one of the first things Bush did before going public with his speech about us being attacked, was get bin ladens family on a plane and out of the country! the only plane that flew that day. also, they had memos as far back as may saying that the towers were going to be attacked. and they did nothing! then you get bush who says we are going to invade iraq. when we found out prior that it was saudies whom attacked us. why go to iraq? they had nothing to do with the attacks. then its about these weapons of mass destruction that they NEVER found. I like how we still cant get Bin laden. a 6'6 sick, dying arab and we cant get him after almost 10 years!! If you go to the FBI's web sight Bin laden is on the top of the most wanted terrorist list. of all the things hes done, 9/11 is the only thing hes not listed for! when asked about this, the fbi stated that they did NOT have enough evidence to indite him for 9/11! so pretty much bin laden is an escape goat, a boogie man so to speak, to keep us all in fear of "terrorists" attacking america. which we have not had any other attacks since 9/11 BTW. You know how much they spent on the whitewater investigation, just to find out the president (clinton) cheated on his wife?? 14 million dollars! How much did they spend on the investigation of 9/11?? 4 Million dollars!!!! that to me says they had no real intentions of doing a serious truthful investigation on 9/11. especially after Rudy Giovanni sent all the steel from the towers over to china 72 hours after the attacks, before anyone could test it. the biggest hoot to me is how did building 7 fall without being hit? they said fires caused all 3 towers to fall. well when the planes hit all the jet fuel exploded. so carpet burning,zerox, furniture, etc....that was enough to take down the towers?? BS!!! our government has done false flag operations before. JFK,vietnam, Martin luther King jr. just to name a few. the gulf of tonkan was a lie. thats what took us into the vietnam war. so whats 3 buildings and 3,000 people to the government? nothing when its all part of a bigger picture. yet people believe everything they are told. from the media to the politicians, instead of using their brains and common sense.

Edited by Silverbane81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your point?

That you accused someone of "spreading sick lies" without really investigating the source. Such an accusation merits at the very least clarification from the fireman who was quoted on rense.com. Your typically flawed understanding of physics isn't sufficient to dismiss the claim, there have been many examples of "freak" survivals of objects in aircraft crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That you accused someone of "spreading sick lies" without really investigating the source. Such an accusation merits at the very least clarification from the fireman who was quoted on rense.com. Your typically flawed understanding of physics isn't sufficient to dismiss the claim, there have been many examples of "freak" survivals of objects in aircraft crashes.

Again, I was aware of the source which has been around for years.

The report has no bearing on the validity of the claim – it must be judged on its merits, not simply the fact it appeared in the media. The story of Tania Head is a good example as to why. The complete incredibility of the particular unsupported claim discussed gives confidence that it is a lie, one that is being spread online.

I think your point is you believe that a passenger may have been found “still strapped to one of the seats”. But no, not even you really believe that was the case… it is just another of the unfounded claims you would like to believe because it suits your preconception and gives you a reason to quibble.

If through preference you choose to believe that a human body can survive a 500mph impact into a steel-reinforced concrete building which reduced the aircraft to its component pieces, along with the resultant explosion and fire, then it says far more about your version of physics than mine.

You would do well to start applying the second of your signature quotes.

What science allows the above claim to be remotely possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well where to start. somehow 19 terrorists hijacked planes with Fricken Box Cutters. yea im sorry but how many people are on a plane? those guys are not going to cut everyone on board. sorry, if they have a hostage, one sliced throat to save hundreds sounds logical to me! but they are not flying those planes into anything! so that story by itself is BS.

Before that day the vast majority of hijackings involved taking the plane to a country friendly to them and releasing the hostages when their demands were met. How would the passengers at that time know it was going to be different?

one of the first things Bush did before going public with his speech about us being attacked, was get bin ladens family on a plane and out of the country! the only plane that flew that day.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

http://www.911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

They didn't leave the country until the 20th, NINE DAYS later, after air traffic had resumed. This was also AFTER they submitted to voluntary questioning. They could have avoided it all by driving to Canada and flying home from there but they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Silverbane, you might want to be careful in how you portray some of your points as frenat highlights above.

I do think this part of your post is near on the money though…

then you get bush who says we are going to invade iraq. when we found out prior that it was saudies whom attacked us. why go to iraq? they had nothing to do with the attacks. then its about these weapons of mass destruction that they NEVER found. I like how we still cant get Bin laden. a 6'6 sick, dying arab and we cant get him after almost 10 years!! If you go to the FBI's web sight Bin laden is on the top of the most wanted terrorist list. of all the things hes done, 9/11 is the only thing hes not listed for! when asked about this, the fbi stated that they did NOT have enough evidence to indite him for 9/11! so pretty much bin laden is an escape goat, a boogie man so to speak, to keep us all in fear of "terrorists" attacking america. which we have not had any other attacks since 9/11 BTW. You know how much they spent on the whitewater investigation, just to find out the president (clinton) cheated on his wife?? 14 million dollars! How much did they spend on the investigation of 9/11?? 4 Million dollars!!!! that to me says they had no real intentions of doing a serious truthful investigation on 9/11.

These are good points.

I did come up with different figures for the investigations (NIST received $23m for the WTC investigation on top of the Commission funding and some estimates put the cost of investigating the Lewinsky scandal at $40m) but your point still stands. Bush was opposed to any investigation of 9/11 and even the poor excuse of a report we do have came about only under heavy pressure from the public and victims’ families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If through preference you choose to believe that a human body can survive a 500mph impact into a steel-reinforced concrete building which reduced the aircraft to its component pieces, along with the resultant explosion and fire, then it says far more about your version of physics than mine.

So your version of physics means that this sort of thing is completely impossible?

http://listverse.com/2008/06/18/top-10-sole-survivors-of-a-plane-crash/

Here's how the physics works for the Pentagon case. The wing root structure, which is the strongest part of the aircraft, does the main work of breaking a hole through the building. A passenger aft of the wing could fly down this hole and be slowed down over a much longer distance than would be the case when hitting something solid while still at 500 mph. At that speed survival is very unlikely, but there could indeed be enough of a body left to be identifiable. You can't just say it is impossible, because an aircraft crash is a complex structural event which leads to some parts surviving better than others. For instance, parts from the aft section of the aircraft could be slowed relatively gently by encountering spilt fuel which has already stopped. Look how often an aircraft wreckage includes an almost undamaged tail section, because the tail undergoes much lower deceleration than the nose.

Flight 77 wasn't a case where every part of the aircraft stopped abruptly, as in flying into a mountain.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your version of physics means that this sort of thing is completely impossible?

http://listverse.com/2008/06/18/top-10-sole-survivors-of-a-plane-crash/

The link contains no reference to a 500mph impact directly into a steel-reinforced concrete building that reduced the aircraft to its component pieces. The stories are of course well within the bounds of physics... but not a good comparison to the case at hand.

  • Martin Farkas escaped because he was in the aircraft lavatory, “which received little damage”.
    Did the alleged Flight 77 lavatory receive little damage you think?
  • James Polehinke was involved in a low speed crash where the plane hadn’t even taken off.
    Is this similar to the alleged Flight 77?
  • Vesna Vulovic was found laying half inside and half outside of the aircraft, i.e. a portion of the plane was intact.
    Was any section of the alleged Flight 77 left intact?
  • There is indication that all of the other survivors were thrown clear of the impact into a more open area – Foye Roberts landed in the Australian bush, Erika Delgado on a mound of seaweed and George Lamson into an open highway.
    So where was the open area within the masonry and steel confines of the Pentagon?

In making this incredible claim you need to provide much stronger evidence – something comparable at least.

Here's how the physics works for the Pentagon case. The wing root structure, which is the strongest part of the aircraft, does the main work of breaking a hole through the building. A passenger aft of the wing could fly down this hole and be slowed down over a much longer distance than would be the case when hitting something solid while still at 500 mph. At that speed survival is very unlikely, but there could indeed be enough of a body left to be identifiable. You can't just say it is impossible, because an aircraft crash is a complex structural event which leads to some parts surviving better than others. For instance, parts from the aft section of the aircraft could be slowed relatively gently by encountering spilt fuel which has already stopped. Look how often an aircraft wreckage includes an almost undamaged tail section, because the tail undergoes much lower deceleration than the nose.

Even ejected outside of the aircraft fuselage, how much of a distance do you think there was to slow down into within the Pentagon? There is going to be a wall or a pillar or a ceiling in extremely short order which will either turn a human body into a bloody smear or else stop the seat with such force it will tear the body apart… followed by the explosive shockwave, the building caving in and severe fire.

Haven’t you bothered to look at the photographs?

The whole plane from the nose cone to the tail was disintegrated.

There was practically nothing left!

Especially no passengers still strapped to seats.

I’ll leave you to your imagination and what you would prefer to believe, once again.

There is no reasoning with your faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link contains no reference to a 500mph impact directly into a steel-reinforced concrete building that reduced the aircraft to its component pieces. The stories are of course well within the bounds of physics... but not a good comparison to the case at hand.

The link simply demonstrates that some small region of an aircraft involved in a crash or a fire can be survivable when the rest is not. An aircraft crash is sufficiently complex for that to happen. This is the point you seem unable to grasp.

Even ejected outside of the aircraft fuselage, how much of a distance do you think there was to slow down into within the Pentagon? There is going to be a wall or a pillar or a ceiling in extremely short order which will either turn a human body into a bloody smear or else stop the seat with such force it will tear the body apart… followed by the explosive shockwave, the building caving in and severe fire.

Once again, you take the line that what goes for most of the aircraft must go for all of it. There were certainly indentifiable parts of the aircraft remaining after the crash, including an engine core and wheels, so your claim that the aircraft was reduced to small pieces is obviously incorrect.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyingswan, I hope Q24 returns to respond to you. However, I have to ask whats the point of your most recent posts here? Your argument seems to be on full tilt.

No bodies in seats. This is the point you "fail to understand".

I assume you are still defending the official story. Although, the avenue you have chosen to do so is to argue that what didn't happen could have happened under completely different circumstances. Ok.... and the point is?

How about I suggest that the terrorists actually survived the pentagon strike, fled the scene and are still on the loose? I mean, check out this link (you might recognize it) -

http://listverse.com/2008/06/18/top-10-sole-survivors-of-a-plane-crash/

People survive plane crashes all the time, its a proven fact, it could happen.....

Now, in line with your argument about the bodies in seats, you must agree to JUST the possibility that the terrorists survived the pentagon strike. It didn't happen BUT via your argument you must agree that it is possible. Thanks in advance :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.