• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

some new wtc/911 footage

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
10,992
263
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
You are an absolute fool

Edit- after thinking about your post a little more, I just feel sorry for you now, sorry about calling you a fool.
 

poMONKey

Senior member
Nov 11, 2002
382
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.
the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....

Wrong, it was built to withstand a 707 strike.
707 is much smaller than a 767.

I believe the bomber that hit the empire state building was either a B-24 or B26. Both of which are very small and travel much slower than a 767.

you may have a case if it was a B52 flying at full speed. Of course forgetting the two buildings were built differently and in completely different era's.

Edit: It was a B-25 that hit the empire state building.

Dimensions of the B-25

Length 52 ft
Winspan 67 ft
Loaded Weight 31,000 pounds
Max Speed 275mph

Dimensions of the 767-200
Length 159 ft
Winspan 156 ft
Loaded Weight 310,000 pounds
Max Speed 540mph

Somebody should know their physics and can calculate the differences in force both planes bring to the impact zone to show what a foolish comparison this is.
didnt say anything about comparing the 767 vs B-25 thing, just was pointing out that another tall building had been hit and didnt collapse. I was talking about the 707 and the 767... and while on that topic, the size diff between the 707 and the 767 is 14 feet... not a big diff at all. those 767 ( tankers or not ) were not fueled for transcontinental flight, so less weight AND they werent flying at or close to top speed.

take your time and actually read what I've written, or stay out...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
Here's the thing, and there is really no getting around it. Something happened on 9/11 that brought down those towers and hit the Pentagon and set that field on fire. Rhetoric and "looking pas the BS and fear" and all that other bullshit are NOT what is going to find out what happened. What IS going to figure it out is science and logic, and like it or not, they are NOT on your side. I'm about the last person who would defend the Bush administration, the Bush supporters in this thread will tell you that, but my opinion here makes no difference either...what happened, happened, and there is really nothing to be gained by rejecting science and reason just because you WANT something to be true.

I've wasted way too much of my life arguing this with people totally unwilling to listen, but I WILL ask you to really step back and think about this in terms of the big picture...does it really make sense? The "wrong plane" argument assumes that the government was able to set-up (and cover up) this vast conspiracy and perfectly willing to kill thousands of Americans in cold blood...but apparently didn't think it was worth the effort to get the right plane. That makes no sense at all, no matter how many photographic comparisons and random people you interview. You people are getting so lost in the details (that you CLEARLY don't understand) that you never back up and think about it in terms of the big picture. That will make a difference in your outlook, even if you understand engineering so poorly that you think it makes sense to compare planes hitting the Empire State Building and planes hitting the WTC towers. Really, just do yourself a favor and just THINK.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.
the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....

Wrong, it was built to withstand a 707 strike.
707 is much smaller than a 767.

I believe the bomber that hit the empire state building was either a B-24 or B26. Both of which are very small and travel much slower than a 767.

you may have a case if it was a B52 flying at full speed. Of course forgetting the two buildings were built differently and in completely different era's.

Edit: It was a B-25 that hit the empire state building.

Dimensions of the B-25

Length 52 ft
Winspan 67 ft
Loaded Weight 31,000 pounds
Max Speed 275mph

Dimensions of the 767-200
Length 159 ft
Winspan 156 ft
Loaded Weight 310,000 pounds
Max Speed 540mph

Somebody should know their physics and can calculate the differences in force both planes bring to the impact zone to show what a foolish comparison this is.
didnt say anything about comparing the 767 vs B-25 thing, just was pointing out that another tall building had been hit and didnt collapse. I was talking about the 707 and the 767... and while on that topic, the size diff between the 707 and the 767 is 14 feet... not a big diff at all. those 767 ( tankers or not ) were not fueled for transcontinental flight, so less weight AND they werent flying at or close to top speed.

take your time and actually read what I've written, or stay out...
The WTC towers and the Empire State Building are about as different as structures can be, the fact that they are both "tall buildings" does not make your comparison a valid one.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
I'm not "dissing your bent", I think you are a complete tin-foil moron! :thumbsup:

As far as your schooling, after reading your grammar, spelling, and logic - I'm guessing that's still quite a work in progress for you...not going well I see.

Rock on dude!
Some of the greatest minds of our time couldn't do simple math or spell worth ******.

Nobody has to prove you wrong. History has done that already.
 

poMONKey

Senior member
Nov 11, 2002
382
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
Here's the thing, and there is really no getting around it. Something happened on 9/11 that brought down those towers and hit the Pentagon and set that field on fire. Rhetoric and "looking pas the BS and fear" and all that other bullshit are NOT what is going to find out what happened. What IS going to figure it out is science and logic, and like it or not, they are NOT on your side. I'm about the last person who would defend the Bush administration, the Bush supporters in this thread will tell you that, but my opinion here makes no difference either...what happened, happened, and there is really nothing to be gained by rejecting science and reason just because you WANT something to be true.

I've wasted way too much of my life arguing this with people totally unwilling to listen, but I WILL ask you to really step back and think about this in terms of the big picture...does it really make sense? The "wrong plane" argument assumes that the government was able to set-up (and cover up) this vast conspiracy and perfectly willing to kill thousands of Americans in cold blood...but apparently didn't think it was worth the effort to get the right plane. That makes no sense at all, no matter how many photographic comparisons and random people you interview. You people are getting so lost in the details (that you CLEARLY don't understand) that you never back up and think about it in terms of the big picture. That will make a difference in your outlook, even if you understand engineering so poorly that you think it makes sense to compare planes hitting the Empire State Building and planes hitting the WTC towers. Really, just do yourself a favor and just THINK.
you think science and logic will somehow swoop in and save the day without details ( that have been spelled out numerous times by engineers and demo experts ).... and you guys think Im an idiot.... contradict yourself a little more.

what IS the big picture, step-back boy? that you dont agree with another theory? too bad you've spent half your life trying to illuminate the rest of "you people"... what a waste.
 

poMONKey

Senior member
Nov 11, 2002
382
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.
the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....

Wrong, it was built to withstand a 707 strike.
707 is much smaller than a 767.

I believe the bomber that hit the empire state building was either a B-24 or B26. Both of which are very small and travel much slower than a 767.

you may have a case if it was a B52 flying at full speed. Of course forgetting the two buildings were built differently and in completely different era's.

Edit: It was a B-25 that hit the empire state building.

Dimensions of the B-25

Length 52 ft
Winspan 67 ft
Loaded Weight 31,000 pounds
Max Speed 275mph

Dimensions of the 767-200
Length 159 ft
Winspan 156 ft
Loaded Weight 310,000 pounds
Max Speed 540mph

Somebody should know their physics and can calculate the differences in force both planes bring to the impact zone to show what a foolish comparison this is.
didnt say anything about comparing the 767 vs B-25 thing, just was pointing out that another tall building had been hit and didnt collapse. I was talking about the 707 and the 767... and while on that topic, the size diff between the 707 and the 767 is 14 feet... not a big diff at all. those 767 ( tankers or not ) were not fueled for transcontinental flight, so less weight AND they werent flying at or close to top speed.

take your time and actually read what I've written, or stay out...
The WTC towers and the Empire State Building are about as different as structures can be, the fact that they are both "tall buildings" does not make your comparison a valid one.
yeah... the WTC was built better

tin-foil moron out ~
 

poMONKey

Senior member
Nov 11, 2002
382
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize


I'm not "dissing your bent", I think you are a complete tin-foil moron! :thumbsup:

As far as your schooling, after reading your grammar, spelling, and logic - I'm guessing that's still quite a work in progress for you...not going well I see.

:) ****** off bitch...
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Did your voice crack when you posted that, mr. first chest hair?

OK I'm going to take a different angle on this. I've given up playing logical whack-a-mole long ago, but perhaps I can show how foolish (and you can show me how brilliant) you are in another way.

1) Speaking of great minds, can you accept that some of the most brilliant minds in the world are physicists, scientists, coders, mathemeticians, etc.? If so, go to #2

2) Do you accept that science is about proof, and that the most brilliant minds referenced in #1 set forth theories, and then do everything they can to try and disprove them, to eventually find a proof? If so, go to #3

3) Now, let's take a single aspect of your theory, just one. But I want YOU to take that aspect and come up with every piece of logic and evidence AGAINST it you can think of. Do this honestly and POST IT. MY theory is, You probably will stop here...but if by some miracle if you didn't, commence to #4.

4) Now, weigh this against every piece of logic and evidence for this aspect of this theory. Knock them up against #3. This is the fun part for you...so go to #5

5) Can you honestly say that the evidence and logic for #3 outweighs that for #4?

Who wants to take odds that neither Mr. Coy Tinfoil Canadian Troll nor Foley-Page-wanna-be tinfoil-E-thug will take me up on this?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
490
126
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: Rangoric
Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.
/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.
the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....

Wrong, it was built to withstand a 707 strike.
707 is much smaller than a 767.

I believe the bomber that hit the empire state building was either a B-24 or B26. Both of which are very small and travel much slower than a 767.

you may have a case if it was a B52 flying at full speed. Of course forgetting the two buildings were built differently and in completely different era's.

Edit: It was a B-25 that hit the empire state building.

Dimensions of the B-25

Length 52 ft
Winspan 67 ft
Loaded Weight 31,000 pounds
Max Speed 275mph

Dimensions of the 767-200
Length 159 ft
Winspan 156 ft
Loaded Weight 310,000 pounds
Max Speed 540mph

Somebody should know their physics and can calculate the differences in force both planes bring to the impact zone to show what a foolish comparison this is.
didnt say anything about comparing the 767 vs B-25 thing, just was pointing out that another tall building had been hit and didnt collapse. I was talking about the 707 and the 767... and while on that topic, the size diff between the 707 and the 767 is 14 feet... not a big diff at all. those 767 ( tankers or not ) were not fueled for transcontinental flight, so less weight AND they werent flying at or close to top speed.

take your time and actually read what I've written, or stay out...

But you brought up the B-25 to show another building was hit by a plane and didnt collapse. The comparison was invalid.

The weight difference between the 707 and 767 is over double. The 707 is 146,000 pounds, half the weight of the 767-200.

The 767s were flying from Boston to LA. The max range of the 767-200 is ~3900 miles, the distance between Boston and LA is 2300 miles. You can bet your bottom dollar they were about 75% capacity based on the requirement to fly 1 hour aloft past the destination airport. And yes they wre near their top speed for that altitude.
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
It was a KC-767 being remote piloted with shourded missile canopy tipped with a flash flame missle to shock and awe effect for the pyschological effect.
I guess the theory goes, the 100,000 pounds of fuel wasnt enough, the military had to add missiles to the thing.

Seriously, stop and listen to yourselves for a second.

I laughed at that BS too. My favorite was the "shrowded missle canopy tipped with a "flash flame missle""

Riddle me this: If "many" eye witnesses said they saw a military plane, and the theory behind this site is that it was a military version of a 767, when did everyone in NYC suddenly become an aviation expert who can distinguish between a civilian and military 767?

"Oh my God, a passenger plane just crashed into to WTC."

"No, no, no. It was a cleary a military version of a 767. In the 2 seconds that I saw it before it hit the tower, I clearly distinguished, from 1000 feet away, its shrowded missle canopy as it was firing its flash flame missles."


 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Did your voice crack when you posted that, mr. first chest hair?

OK I'm going to take a different angle on this. I've given up playing logical whack-a-mole long ago, but perhaps I can show how foolish (and you can show me how brilliant) you are in another way.

1) Speaking of great minds, can you accept that some of the most brilliant minds in the world are physicists, scientists, coders, mathemeticians, etc.? If so, go to #2

2) Do you accept that science is about proof, and that the most brilliant minds referenced in #1 set forth theories, and then do everything they can to try and disprove them, to eventually find a proof? If so, go to #3

3) Now, let's take a single aspect of your theory, just one. But I want YOU to take that aspect and come up with every piece of logic and evidence AGAINST it you can think of. Do this honestly and POST IT. MY theory is, You probably will stop here...but if by some miracle if you didn't, commence to #4.

4) Now, weigh this against every piece of logic and evidence for this aspect of this theory. Knock them up against #3. This is the fun part for you...so go to #5

5) Can you honestly say that the evidence and logic for #3 outweighs that for #4?

Who wants to take odds that neither Mr. Coy Tinfoil Canadian Troll nor Foley-Page-wanna-be tinfoil-E-thug will take me up on this?
Talking to me? You looking for me to prove that some of the greatest minds of our time were poor at simple things in every day life like spelling and basic math?

EDIT: An observation; I think spelling has jack sh!t to do with IQ (knowledge based) and probably wasn't deemed important by many of these people. The level that these people were thinking at made their minds work so fast and at such level that simple math problems bored them to death and they lost the skills necessary to do it well. I may be wrong.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Take a peek at this. I don't normally post conspiracy sites but they seem to work off of logic that makes sense to me.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/

I burned up the last few hours pouring over it. It is the most logical explaination I have found that makes sense as far as websites go.

I don't know if it's true. How can I. I do know the offical story is total BS for a fact. I listed my reasons elsewhere and no reason for me to go over that unless asked.

My opinion of the site is that it's possible and plausable. Is it fancy made up BS to fool people? Maybe, but usually I can smell the BS mixed in with truth. I haven't had that feeling yet and I usually do on other conspiracy sites or BS/stupid theories like the pod under the plane. Makes me wonder if they put that sh!t out as a government OP or people are just that stupid.

I do know that some of the offical data used to prove the flights didn't even exist has since been yanked from the DOT website. Not just the data but the entire database of flights ever recorded by DOT. An hour on the DOT site left me without being able to find the flight data for 9/11. They appear to no longer list specific flights and only go back to 2003 or I have been looking in the wrong place.

Having worked for government, and still do indirectly, I know they don't throw this information away. It just doesn't happen. Ever. It is possible that they decided to no longer make it available to the public. I cannot find a logical innocent reason to explain why.

Government doesn't do something out of the blue. Everything has a specific RFC (Request For Change) which results in a RFS (Request For Service or SOW (Statement Of Work) or equivalent and backed up by sound reason to carry out such work. So some reason must exist and it has to make sense. If it says they are taking it down to decomission it it's total BS. If that's the case then where is the replacement? If you can come up with a reasonable explaination as to why it was taken down then you can impress the heck out of me.

I would love to see these documents through an FOI (Freedom Of Information) request. Although I don't want to end up on some black list for doing so.

Assuming for a second that the flights didn't even exist and the planes were actually fake images (possibly superimposed on something else or didn't exist at all) you must account for the passengers.

This might explain what happend:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane/index.htm

Truth? I don't know but if I have time in the next few days I can apply alchemize's 5 point against the site and see what I can come up with. His 5 points are very much reasonable and if I smelled any BS I wouldn't even bother doing it.

Ultimately it all comes down to what you can account for vs what you cannot account for. It won't necessarily be 100% right regardless of doing this. Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth.

My side is still in flux and working it out.

Their side is a known lie and I only need to give a single heavily documented fact agreed to by all sides in the debate to prove it.

The truth? Good question.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,275
2,973
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: poMONKey
Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!
I'm not "dissing your bent", I think you are a complete tin-foil moron! :thumbsup:

As far as your schooling, after reading your grammar, spelling, and logic - I'm guessing that's still quite a work in progress for you...not going well I see.

Rock on dude!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::t:thumbsup:humbsup;:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,275
2,973
126
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: alchemize
Did your voice crack when you posted that, mr. first chest hair?

OK I'm going to take a different angle on this. I've given up playing logical whack-a-mole long ago, but perhaps I can show how foolish (and you can show me how brilliant) you are in another way.

1) Speaking of great minds, can you accept that some of the most brilliant minds in the world are physicists, scientists, coders, mathemeticians, etc.? If so, go to #2

2) Do you accept that science is about proof, and that the most brilliant minds referenced in #1 set forth theories, and then do everything they can to try and disprove them, to eventually find a proof? If so, go to #3

3) Now, let's take a single aspect of your theory, just one. But I want YOU to take that aspect and come up with every piece of logic and evidence AGAINST it you can think of. Do this honestly and POST IT. MY theory is, You probably will stop here...but if by some miracle if you didn't, commence to #4.

4) Now, weigh this against every piece of logic and evidence for this aspect of this theory. Knock them up against #3. This is the fun part for you...so go to #5

5) Can you honestly say that the evidence and logic for #3 outweighs that for #4?

Who wants to take odds that neither Mr. Coy Tinfoil Canadian Troll nor Foley-Page-wanna-be tinfoil-E-thug will take me up on this?
Talking to me? You looking for me to prove that some of the greatest minds of our time were poor at simple things in every day life like spelling and basic math?

EDIT: An observation; I think spelling has jack sh!t to do with IQ (knowledge based) and probably wasn't deemed important by many of these people. The level that these people were thinking at made their minds work so fast and at such level that simple math problems bored them to death and they lost the skills necessary to do it well. I may be wrong.
I have come to pity pople who actually believe there was a conspiracy.....
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
10,992
263
126
Originally posted by: Aelius
Take a peek at this. I don't normally post conspiracy sites but they seem to work off of logic that makes sense to me.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/

I burned up the last few hours pouring over it. It is the most logical explaination I have found that makes sense as far as websites go.

I don't know if it's true. How can I. I do know the offical story is total BS for a fact. I listed my reasons elsewhere and no reason for me to go over that unless asked.

My opinion of the site is that it's possible and plausable. Is it fancy made up BS to fool people? Maybe, but usually I can smell the BS mixed in with truth. I haven't had that feeling yet and I usually do on other conspiracy sites or BS/stupid theories like the pod under the plane. Makes me wonder if they put that sh!t out as a government OP or people are just that stupid.

I do know that some of the offical data used to prove the flights didn't even exist has since been yanked from the DOT website. Not just the data but the entire database of flights ever recorded by DOT. An hour on the DOT site left me without being able to find the flight data for 9/11. They appear to no longer list specific flights and only go back to 2003 or I have been looking in the wrong place.

Having worked for government, and still do indirectly, I know they don't throw this information away. It just doesn't happen. Ever. It is possible that they decided to no longer make it available to the public. I cannot find a logical innocent reason to explain why.

Government doesn't do something out of the blue. Everything has a specific RFC (Request For Change) which results in a RFS (Request For Service or SOW (Statement Of Work) or equivalent and backed up by sound reason to carry out such work. So some reason must exist and it has to make sense. If it says they are taking it down to decomission it it's total BS. If that's the case then where is the replacement? If you can come up with a reasonable explaination as to why it was taken down then you can impress the heck out of me.

I would love to see these documents through an FOI (Freedom Of Information) request. Although I don't want to end up on some black list for doing so.

Assuming for a second that the flights didn't even exist and the planes were actually fake images (possibly superimposed on something else or didn't exist at all) you must account for the passengers.

This might explain what happend:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane/index.htm

Truth? I don't know but if I have time in the next few days I can apply alchemize's 5 point against the site and see what I can come up with. His 5 points are very much reasonable and if I smelled any BS I wouldn't even bother doing it.

Ultimately it all comes down to what you can account for vs what you cannot account for. It won't necessarily be 100% right regardless of doing this. Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth.

My side is still in flux and working it out.

Their side is a known lie and I only need to give a single heavily documented fact agreed to by all sides in the debate to prove it.

The truth? Good question.
thewebfairy.com?

Yea, sounds real credible.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Aelius
Talking to me? You looking for me to prove that some of the greatest minds of our time were poor at simple things in every day life like spelling and basic math?

EDIT: An observation; I think spelling has jack sh!t to do with IQ (knowledge based) and probably wasn't deemed important by many of these people. The level that these people were thinking at made their minds work so fast and at such level that simple math problems bored them to death and they lost the skills necessary to do it well. I may be wrong.
Guess I can now call myself a great mind since I can't spell :)
BTW: Despite my poor spelling I have a very high IQ and am considered a "word warrior" by one IQ test site. Spelling words and knowing what they mean are very different things.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Um.....


Are the planes that DID take off WITH real people on them still flying about? I think not.. I think they encountered buildings... sadly!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Occam's razor:
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
or
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
What is simpler... 19 crazy terrorist that have been waging a war against us for 20+ year hijacked 4 planes and flew them into buildings.
or
The government needing a way to get us into a war in order to further the military industrial complex concocted a plan that would do such a thing.
So they arranged for four plane loads of people to disappear.
Then replaced one of the planes with a fully fueled military plane which fired a missile which left no smoke behind it into the WTC and then crashed the plane right behind it, oh forgot the plane was remote controlled as well.
They also flew some kind of fighter jet into the Pentagon, although it sure looked bigger in that security video I saw. And of course not one of the 5 million plus people who live in the DC area talked about seeing a fighter jet that day near the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, two of the tallest and largest buildings in the world had been rigged with tons of explosives that were set to go off by remote control. But they were special explosives that were fire proof as there is no evidence any of them went off early, and instead all of them fired exactly as they were planned to do, even thought the buildings had immense fire and debris damage.
And just to make sure the America was ready to go to war the rigged up WTC 7 as well so it too would collapse.
Then on the day of 9-11 CIA impersonators who sounded just like people such as Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Edward Felt and Jeremy Glick made various calls to friends, family and 911 operators talking about their plane being hijacked and their planes to "fight back" (Little know fact, the phrase ?Let?s roll? was test marketed to focus groups all over the country before hand.)
The CIA impersonations also fooled the New York and Washington DC area air traffic controllers into thinking that the airplanes had been hijacked via a sophisticated method of fake air messages. We all thought that one of pilots left his mic on when he was taken out of the seat, but really that was a planned tape recording by a middle eastern sounding man in order to enrage American even more.

Did I leave anything out? Oh yea, this whole MASSIVE conspiracy has been the most tightly controlled plan in the history of the planet since over 5 years later not ONE person involved in the plan has said a word of it to anyone.

Oh yea? all the evidence about hijackers taking flight school lessons and such had to be created as well. So the CIA hired Middle Eastern men to attend flight school and ask such crazy questions as to rouse the suspicion of their teachers.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
First deal with the missing Commercial Airliners... find them or account for them THEN move on to the next step... IF not the commercial airliners then what hit the buildings... Why on earth speculate when you know 4 commercial planes took off... you know that to be factual... NOW FIND THEM>>>> first... :)

Edit: bldg 7 is a different story... that baffles me..
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Just watched the video. It is amazing and very sad. Very high quality taken from the 33rd floor of an apartment building. You can only see the first tower to be hit, the second one is behind it. When the second tower is hit you can only see some of the smoke and flames from the impact.

One thing to note is that in the first 10 mins of the tape you can see how the fire spread from just the point of impact up to all the upper floors, very fast too. You also get a very good view of the HUGE hole in the side of tower 1. No doubt that is where to collapse started. Anyone who knows how it was built knows that the outside walls hold up the floors. With a hole that big it was just a matter of time before that floor lost its strength and fell, once one floor went the rest followed. Watching it fall you can actually see the Radio tower near the end of the fall, looks like it took nearly 30 seconds for the whole tower to fall. Starts at 19:40 when the guy says "oh my god" and at 20:07 you can still see the dark radio tower falling. So much for the "free falling" theory.

Just amazing, worth the download.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Did somebody diss my bent?:|

Edit: 19 gang members stole 4 planes and crashed them. What's so hard to believe about that?
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: alchemize
Did your voice crack when you posted that, mr. first chest hair?

OK I'm going to take a different angle on this. I've given up playing logical whack-a-mole long ago, but perhaps I can show how foolish (and you can show me how brilliant) you are in another way.

1) Speaking of great minds, can you accept that some of the most brilliant minds in the world are physicists, scientists, coders, mathemeticians, etc.? If so, go to #2

2) Do you accept that science is about proof, and that the most brilliant minds referenced in #1 set forth theories, and then do everything they can to try and disprove them, to eventually find a proof? If so, go to #3

3) Now, let's take a single aspect of your theory, just one. But I want YOU to take that aspect and come up with every piece of logic and evidence AGAINST it you can think of. Do this honestly and POST IT. MY theory is, You probably will stop here...but if by some miracle if you didn't, commence to #4.

4) Now, weigh this against every piece of logic and evidence for this aspect of this theory. Knock them up against #3. This is the fun part for you...so go to #5

5) Can you honestly say that the evidence and logic for #3 outweighs that for #4?

Who wants to take odds that neither Mr. Coy Tinfoil Canadian Troll nor Foley-Page-wanna-be tinfoil-E-thug will take me up on this?
Talking to me? You looking for me to prove that some of the greatest minds of our time were poor at simple things in every day life like spelling and basic math?

EDIT: An observation; I think spelling has jack sh!t to do with IQ (knowledge based) and probably wasn't deemed important by many of these people. The level that these people were thinking at made their minds work so fast and at such level that simple math problems bored them to death and they lost the skills necessary to do it well. I may be wrong.
I have come to pity pople who actually believe there was a conspiracy.....
Whatever makes you sleep well at night bro.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aelius
Talking to me? You looking for me to prove that some of the greatest minds of our time were poor at simple things in every day life like spelling and basic math?

EDIT: An observation; I think spelling has jack sh!t to do with IQ (knowledge based) and probably wasn't deemed important by many of these people. The level that these people were thinking at made their minds work so fast and at such level that simple math problems bored them to death and they lost the skills necessary to do it well. I may be wrong.
Guess I can now call myself a great mind since I can't spell :)
BTW: Despite my poor spelling I have a very high IQ and am considered a "word warrior" by one IQ test site. Spelling words and knowing what they mean are very different things.
Spelling words and knowing what they mean are both knowledge and therefore have sweet FA to do with IQ.

IQ tests and IQ sites primarily test your level of knowledge. Not your IQ.

I'm not saying you don't have a very high IQ. I'm simply saying those tests/sites are utter BS.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aelius
Take a peek at this. I don't normally post conspiracy sites but they seem to work off of logic that makes sense to me.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/

I burned up the last few hours pouring over it. It is the most logical explaination I have found that makes sense as far as websites go.

I don't know if it's true. How can I. I do know the offical story is total BS for a fact. I listed my reasons elsewhere and no reason for me to go over that unless asked.

My opinion of the site is that it's possible and plausable. Is it fancy made up BS to fool people? Maybe, but usually I can smell the BS mixed in with truth. I haven't had that feeling yet and I usually do on other conspiracy sites or BS/stupid theories like the pod under the plane. Makes me wonder if they put that sh!t out as a government OP or people are just that stupid.

I do know that some of the offical data used to prove the flights didn't even exist has since been yanked from the DOT website. Not just the data but the entire database of flights ever recorded by DOT. An hour on the DOT site left me without being able to find the flight data for 9/11. They appear to no longer list specific flights and only go back to 2003 or I have been looking in the wrong place.

Having worked for government, and still do indirectly, I know they don't throw this information away. It just doesn't happen. Ever. It is possible that they decided to no longer make it available to the public. I cannot find a logical innocent reason to explain why.

Government doesn't do something out of the blue. Everything has a specific RFC (Request For Change) which results in a RFS (Request For Service or SOW (Statement Of Work) or equivalent and backed up by sound reason to carry out such work. So some reason must exist and it has to make sense. If it says they are taking it down to decomission it it's total BS. If that's the case then where is the replacement? If you can come up with a reasonable explaination as to why it was taken down then you can impress the heck out of me.

I would love to see these documents through an FOI (Freedom Of Information) request. Although I don't want to end up on some black list for doing so.

Assuming for a second that the flights didn't even exist and the planes were actually fake images (possibly superimposed on something else or didn't exist at all) you must account for the passengers.

This might explain what happend:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane/index.htm

Truth? I don't know but if I have time in the next few days I can apply alchemize's 5 point against the site and see what I can come up with. His 5 points are very much reasonable and if I smelled any BS I wouldn't even bother doing it.

Ultimately it all comes down to what you can account for vs what you cannot account for. It won't necessarily be 100% right regardless of doing this. Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth.

My side is still in flux and working it out.

Their side is a known lie and I only need to give a single heavily documented fact agreed to by all sides in the debate to prove it.

The truth? Good question.
thewebfairy.com?

Yea, sounds real credible.
There's something called critical thinking. May wish to experience what it's like to use it sometime. Especially on a subject that impacts everyone regardless of country.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY