Roscoe wrote:i think the whole org has watched that damn video..its been posted 100 times...


Some of you guys are rediculous. I think you are taking ur anger twords bush and turning it into all of this was a massive conspirisy.


I belive heavily in gov't coverups. I belive it @!#$ i bet alot of you have never heard of. But this is bull @!#$. I mean get @!#$ real. If someone actually cared to spend the time making a @!#$ video they could make one showing the exzact opposite of this guys video with facts to back it up...people can twist things any way they want...

They have made videos proclaiming the oposite of what this guy states. i dont no as though I agree with him but it is interesting to see how people can "SPIN" a story to suit their needs. Our goverment does it daily then releases the information to the reporters and they call it news. For me this video does raise a lot of questions mostly surrounding the flights at the Pentagon and in PA. Although the whole thing about the records at the SEC going bye bye are pretty convienent I must say. Our goverment has a lot more information than they are sharing with us. If it wouldnt damage their story then why not release the info they have and lay this thing to rest finally? The one answer that comes to mind is that they dont want to because it would damage their "SPIN" on how it happened.

Jackalope wrote:Right up the street from my work there was a fire in a paper recycling plant. Now I'm sure we can all agree paper does not burn NEAR as hot as Jet Fuel. Now the steel beams that supported the roof of that building BUCKLED from the heat and just the weight of its own roof. Now imagine burning jet fuel around steel beams but this time lets add the weight of all those other floors above it. When the steel beams buckled the floors from above collapsed down onto the floor below. No bomb, No missle, no demolision team just a plane full of fuel. Stop being silly you know damn good and well what happened, every time some nimrod brings this CRAP up it dishonors the memory of all those that died that day. All I can say is shame on anyone for doing that.

Holy @!#$ call CNN we agree on something Jackalope


- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new

Oh for the love of God does this need to come up again...I mean seriously...like other memebers have said, people bring up the same thing, and we all say the same thing, it doesnt matter, what happened happened.

If you are so paranoid now, I would hate to see what you guys would be like over in Sudan or in Columbia, where private armys of drug lords run the country, and if you say anything against them, they WILL kill you.

And Regan set up the seige in Tehran just to get elected right?

Also, just to clear things up...Americans are @!#$ retarded, i mean most people dont know a damn thing and are more willing to latch on to some parnoid propaganda than just taking what their given...most of the time I would like to know more...but arguing over what might have been or the famed "what if" questions get us no where...if we should be discussing anything it should be politics that are going to affect us tomorrow, not things that happended yesterday.

For example, we should be discussing the possible future of the state if Israel, and if Sharon is unable to come back, or in a lesser state, what will that mean for peace in the middle east? Will that increase or decrease the number of insugents in Iraq? Becauase they would rather fight for the Holy Land than for Baghdad.

Fighting over this is pointless and just wastes bandwith, I mean you can bash Bush all you want, and thats your God given right, but come on. You have to deal with him for another, what, 6-8 months? Just @!#$ deal with it, becuase the Democrats are probably gonna win the White House, and then we can start this all over again, but with a different presedent.

Oh BTW, GAM once again you set your self on an even higher rung on the ladder of org arguments...and everyone else that shot this post full of holes

just my 2 cents

Quote:

You have to deal with him for another, what, 6-8 months?

Lol doesnt he have another 2 years?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I'm trying to start ish, I'm just asking for clarification, don't take this the wrong way Hahahaha

Hahahaha wrote:The firefighters said they had two isolated fires and only needed two lines to put them out.

What floor were they on?

one report has them on the 78th floor, another on the 80th, either way very near the impact zone

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

I also saw the thing on discovery and it made sense until I saw the explosions registered 2.0 on the ricter scale, and that debis was thrown upward and outward.

Up and out? Was this pre-collapse? What tower?

Yes, pre collapse (those guys were sadly unable to communicate after the collapse RIP) the North Tower I believe. If I remember right they are informed of the south tower collapse in the transcript. Yes during the collaspes (right at the beginning) you can see debris moving upward and outward. I can understand some outward movement, but upward would involve some pretty interesting forces.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

On top of that the thermal hotspots after the colapse do not line up with the molten steel in the basement, indicating a fire of at least 3000 deg.F with no such combustables present.

What composition was the metal? If the metal was molten (not plastic), the sudden pressure that built up during the initial failure, the fall and then final settling and compacting would possibly explain that... due to the debris, you couldn't really see where each column support landed or how it might have twisted.

I cannot answer that.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
We can speculate, but really, there hasn't been a skyscraper yet that has had total failure, and none have been brought down (to my knowledge) yet in any controlled experiment, so there isn't a model that I know of that exists to predict how the tower would fall if detonated from within, or from total failure of all load-bearing members.

Also, one thing I have to ask is: if this were in fact a controlled demolition, how did the top floors of (WTC South? It had the antennae on it) one of the buildings manage to stay intact during the fall only to collapse on impact? {/quote]

All the charges were placed lower? I do not know.. Why though did it fall straight down when it was clearly falling to the side initially unless the structure underneith it dropped straight down and away from it?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

It has all the markings of high explosives.

I'd like to see the GCMS composite analyses before I agree with that.

Quote:

The white powdered concrete, the evidence of extremely high temps (maybe thermite), etc..

The Fire Marshall's report didn't mention any trace or explosives residues found.

Agreed

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

The time to fall is signifigant as well. It fell at the speed of gravity, unimpeeded, no resistance at all. On top of the, the firefighters saying that the fire was mostly out, and not indicating any concern about structural integrity in their radio conversations.

Again, on what floor, and from what I remember seeing, there was accelleration in the initial failures, which indicated that there was some resistance. I'm only going by memory, mind you.

78 thru 80, they said this just before the other tower collapsed, they lost power and the objective became getting people out of the building quickly.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

Your kerosene heater could never heat such a large space to the maximum flame temperature it can acheive, same with the interior of the buildings. I don't believe that the heat was insolated considering the huge gaping holes and the smoke pouring out.

Pressurised kerosene acts differently than vaporised kerosene. If you look at the initial impact, there was a large fireball immediately proceeding the impact of the wings, and that would have been the pressurised cabin air spewing out. Also, you have to know that the oxygen systems onboard the aircraft (the little yellow facemasks that drop down after a drop in pressure) would have acted as a consistant accelerant (the chemicals don't react to fire, but when they react to eachother, they produce oxygen). The chemical, when spent, leaves a white and grey powered substance. The same thing was found in the debris of the ValueJet liner that crashed in the Florida Everglades... the original thought was high explosives, but it was ruled out... that was my original thought when you mentioned the powdered concrete.

That would be plausible except that it only appears immediately before the collapse and there is literally tones of it. I believe it is powdered concrete.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

I don't know if 875 is hot enough to soften the steel framework, but I do know it took 3000 deg to produce the molten steel found in the basement.

The load-bearing members in the basement are a different formulation of steel in the basements... usually higher Manganese content if I remember correctly.

Quote:

I also know that the building was built much like a screen in a window.

I may be wrong about WTC 1 & 2, but most sky scrapers have an internal "spine" column set, and the floors are "hung" off that spine (of course, there's the exterior and secondary supports). If you knock out the central spine, you'll topple the building.

I cannot answer about the metalugy involved in building trusses etc. but I do know the WTC 1 and 2 where a suspention from the outside members to the inner core, built in 40 story sections that were structurally isolated from each other buy huge bulkheads. The ouside acted like a frame that the central bits hung on. That is the only thing that can support the idea of a telescoping collapse, that does not expain in any way the collapse of tower 7 which was the more conventional central skeleton type construction.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

You can poke holes in it, but it still supports itself. It was designed that way on purpose, to withstand a 707 impact. I also know that no other building of this type has ever colapsed due to fire, yet 3 did that day. I know that 1 and 2 had renforced bulkhead type floors space throughout the structure to be able to support the entire structure above and that they should have at least slowed the collapse but it fell unimpeeded.

Again, the determination wasn't fire, it was rapid failure due to metal fatigue (with aggrivating factors). Also, there hasn't been another building (with the exception of the Empire State building in the 40's) that has had a large aircraft collision. The floors that WTC 1 & 2 had were prone to failure in fire.

That "fact" is in despute currently with many engineers saying that the floors would not have failed in the manner described in the official reports, stating that the fire was not hot enough to distort the metals that were used in this construction. I can only take their word for it.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:


I cannot tell you what all this means, only that there is much more than meets the eye going on here.

True, but in my mind, the only thing sinister that went on was in the actions of the 19 terrorists. We don't yet know what happened in full, I mean, down to the actual beam breakage... Once we know that, we'll be able to figure it out, but that's going to be a long time in coming IMHO.

Funny but 9 of the "highjackers" have turned up alive and well after 9/11

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

Interesting that contractors had unimpeeded access to the building for the previous two weeks because of a combination of renovations and a security system failure. Why was FEMA practicing right off long island? Why was there a test of the FIA systems that day with 22 reported highjackings because of a symultanious drill (test)?

I think that it's possible that there is a bunch of coincidences... I mean, look at it like this:
FEMA would have been working with the FAA for the drill, because, any aircraft downing is immediately under their jurisdiction, Long Island would have been easier to work in than NYC proper.

Also, if you figure that 50,000 people worked in the WTC complexes at any one time, I can't see a small town not having a few repair people or renovations happening at some time. It's not like you'll see a small army of people descend on the tower with little bags of blasting caps, and det-cord.

Fine enough about FEMA but why would a known terrorist target have no working security cameras for a period of two weeks? That seems excessive to me.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

There are too many things that don't add up.

How did an airliner that vapourized while making a 16 foot entry hole also make a 16 foot exit hole? And leave behind parts that belong to a different type of aircraft?

PAX

The parts, I haven't heard about, but, its not inconcievable that the aircraft was ferrying them to another point... it is done in the industry... a check of the cargo manifest should sort that out.

And the exit hole on the opposite side was the displaced materials and energy from the
impact. If you want to illustrate, think of a 3" thick piece of ballistic glass (bulletproof for lack of a better word), that has no polycarbonate film on the compartment side... fire a high velocity round into the glass, and you get a transfer of energy that forces some of the inner side of the glass into the compartment side. Now, use that idea, but instead of a bullet, you have a 767, and instead of ballistic glass, you have the WTC. Because of the speed of the projectile, and the fact that the interior of the building is more open than walled, you have debris that acts like very light density filler... it absorbs the energy of the impact and tends to move in the same direction of the blast. it's not inconcievable.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

It's an interesting read, but I'm not buying all of it... I'm of the mind that if someone wanted to pull that kind of a stunt, there would have had to have been horrendous amounts of OPSEC breeches. You can't keep that magnitude of a job under wraps, also the amount of explosives required to do that much of a job would have made a VERY big blip on the NSA's radar... they track that kind of thing. I think, personally, the cause of the collapses are there, but because of rescue/recovery efforts, and the fact that the building collapsed, there's not going to be a clear cut resolution for this disaster.

Sorry for the long ass post BTW.

No appology needed, I'm scepticle off all the information presented by all sides. See "911 Eyewitness" for some very interesting video shot from across the Hudson. At this point I rule out only the impossible.

PAX

Quote:

You have to deal with him for another, what, 6-8 months?

3 loooong years left with him.

Quote:

If you are so paranoid now, I would hate to see what you guys would be like over in Sudan or in Columbia, where private armys of drug lords run the country, and if you say anything against them, they WILL kill you.

well if i lived there and was raised to believe all that then yea i wouldnt be questioning anything. but you know what, i live in the damn United States of America and i can feel any damn way i want about anything. i can question authority and the country as a whole has the right to oust the president.

Also i like how the conspiracy can be shot down. maybe everyone isnt connected the way i said, like with Osama telling Bush to do something, but i think something is up with that. especially when Clinton was in office and could have killed him in the desert but didnt.

jackalope> how do you justify saying that about the victims and the victims families? im not ashamed. i jsut want to know the truth and the peoples families should know the truth too. Something fishy is going on. the US Govt should be ashamed.


<img src="http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/jiggaman/personal_pic.jpg">

PEOPLE ARE DEAD EITHER WAY @!#$ HOW THEY DIED HONOR THEM FOR HAVING BEEN KILLED EITHER WAY IT WASN"T THEIR CHOICE TO DIE THAT DAY WETHER AT THE HANDS OF BUSH OR BIN LADEN, fire reacts differently in different enviroments but as a gneral note as a fire fighter i was talk anything after 10 mins under fully involed conditions runs the risk of colapse add in a catalyst like compressed oxygen to a jet fuel fire and jet fuel will burn even hotter not to mention all the other contents in the room once it hits 1000 degrees @!#$ goes downill in a hurry, thats also when a room completly ignites (flash point)

OLD NEWS

This was released over 5 months ago to military personnel

EcotecSS wrote:PEOPLE ARE DEAD EITHER WAY @!#$ HOW THEY DIED HONOR THEM FOR HAVING BEEN KILLED EITHER WAY IT WASN"T THEIR CHOICE TO DIE THAT DAY WETHER AT THE HANDS OF BUSH OR BIN LADEN, fire reacts differently in different enviroments but as a gneral note as a fire fighter i was talk anything after 10 mins under fully involed conditions runs the risk of colapse add in a catalyst like compressed oxygen to a jet fuel fire and jet fuel will burn even hotter not to mention all the other contents in the room once it hits 1000 degrees @!#$ goes downill in a hurry, thats also when a room completly ignites (flash point)

Again, both firefighter communications and the thick black smoke indicate that the fire was not burning efficiently, IE: not that hot. Thick black smoke comes from fires that are dead or dying, being subdued or smothered in some way. The blackness of the smoke indicates large amounts of unburned hydrocarbons. When your cars puffs black, it's not burning efficiently, it's running rich. This fire was starved for oxygen, by the look of it, and the firefighters that were at the 78th floor (maybe as high as the 80th) said that they had two isolated fires that would be contained by two lines. That is not a raging inferno that they describe.

Many object have a much lower flash point. That doesn't matter as a less than 1000 deg fire is less than 1/3 of the melting point of the steel involved, and only half of what is required to cause it to glow (soften?).

If the fire was hot enough to fatique the structural members then what was burning aside from office furnature and jet fuel (neither burns hot enough to do the job). The oxygen stored on the aircraft went up in the initial impact explosion along with most of the fuel, so it'll have to be something else. Maybe the aircraft aluminum caught, but I doubt that.

knowing the truth is important for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there are more buildings of this type around, and if they do collapse due to fire, the conditions must be known in order to prevent future disaster. The truth as to why so many were killed wouldn't hurt either.

PAX

Damn Rob we agree? Yes by all mans call CNN. Oh crap we agree again!

CSK, The reason I say your all dishonoring the memories of those poor dead people is because you guys refuse to let them rest in peace. You have NONE, ZIP, ZERO, ZILTCH for real proof but yet you insist on this fools errand of trying to prove something
THAT NEVER HAPPENED !!!

Please just let our dead rest in peace.

Oh and as for the absurd claim that some of the terrorists were still alive, Did it ever occur to anyone else that it was someone with the same name! Dear God people let it go! How many David Smiths do you suppose are around? Well how do we know if Abdool isn't a popular name over there? Give it a rest.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Alumium when in sheet form is not readily ignitable powder the stuff and watch the #$@# out. Thermite is a combination of aluminum and rust powders that when ignited burn rapidly at 2000+ degrees for a good period of time. A lot of metals actually react or can be broken down by fluids like Kerosene. The construction of the towers themselves is much like that of a chimney without a hole at the top for the dangerous heat and gases to escape. This could allow for increased temperatures above the impact point and chemical reactions between the smoke biproducts (acids can be produced in fires) and the metal structure work of the building. It is completely plausable that the impact that removed some of the structure itself weakening the exterior framework of the building plus the insuing fires caused caused a catastrophic failure of the building itself. The south tower I believe was hit second and colapsed first but could possibly be atributed to the fact that the plane hit more of the corner of the building makeing it weaker to start than that of the first tower to be struck. The incident at the Pentagon and in PA are more questionable for me. I dont know about you guys but I would rather hear that our goverment shot down a civilian aircraft to protect the population from an attack such as the one on the WTC. The attack on the pentagon seems strange considering that there are tapes that could quickly discount the attack on the Pentagon that havent been released yet bothers me.

wow, so much stupid in one thread. stop grasping at straws for conspiracies, there was one about how it was handled afterwards, but not about what happened. A plane hit the pentagon, yes. the towers collapsed because they were hit by planes, yes. No, there were no explosives planted in the towers... All of you watch too much Michael Moore


._____________________________.
hostis humani generis - Causa latet vis est notissima
You have been banned from posting on this site as of 2005-12-11 18:21:36. This ban will expire 2005-12-18 18:21:36 Pacific Time.

Reason: Your comment about Grim Raven's wife was completely uncalled for and way over the top.
My other car is a boat. Supermotors
Free FlatScreens, IT WORKS!

Grimor wrote:wow, so much stupid in one thread. stop grasping at straws for conspiracies, there was one about how it was handled afterwards, but not about what happened. A plane hit the pentagon, yes. the towers collapsed because they were hit by planes, yes. No, there were no explosives planted in the towers... All of you watch too much Michael Moore

No kidding uh? God almighty the dopes here..

/\ /\ /\ I'm just greatful to have some inteligent people actualy be in agreement with me.
There is rampent stupidity on the loose in this thread.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Quote:

/\ /\ /\ I'm just greatful to have some inteligent people actualy be in agreement with me.There is rampent stupidity on the loose in this thread.

I like how its stupid because you say so. because you dont feel the same way as others. its just funny that no ones believes that the government would be involved in a conspiracy. yep, because that idea is soooooooo far fecthed, it has never happened in the past.

I do not think it is prudent to not ask the questions. These buildings were designed to withstand this type of impact, granted from a slightly smaller aircraft, but engineering standards usually allow for doubling loads, meaning that if it could take the impact of one 707 on paper, it could likely handle two of them in reality.

To be fair, there is little evidence to support the idea that the planes did bring the buildings down. I'm not saying that the fires caused by the impacts did not set off some chain of events that caused the collapse, I am saying that a simple kerosene fire did not do it. It just doesn't add up.

I am not looking for a conspiracy, nor did I try to pin anything on anyone. I have simply questioned what brought the buildings down. Towers one and two colapsing is easier to believe because frankly there are no buildings of that stature to compare with. Tower 76 though is a different story. There are many examples of buildings the same constuction, the same hight or higher, and they are able to burn for ages without collapse. If the fuel store detonated bringing the building down why did it fall so nice and flat instead of blowing a corner off or heaving the roof upward?

Why was the steel sold as scrap before anyone was able to look at it?

How is it that so many can die and the investigation leaving much unsatisfied is closed ? WHy did so many people report hearing explosions and the seismographs pick up vibration that was larger than the impacts (2.0) just before the collapse. The rumble of the collapse had about half of the sound pressure of these audable "explosions" that people reported.

When so many experts in the field disagree, the investigation needs to continue.

Of the 9 "highjackers" that were spotted alive since, 8 of them have been photographed, they arte indeed the people in question. How did 7 of 8 flight recorders end up destroyed? I have done work for companies that build black boxes for locomotives and I can tell you, the impact and fire could not destroy them, so what really happened? They can handle over 3000 deg for more than an hour, they can withstand 3000G impacts. 3000! that's huge! They are acid resistant, water proff, fire resistant, and shock isolated. They are tough little numbers.

There are a lot of questions, and the most troubling thing to me is that nobody in a position to actually do anything about it is asking? Only engineers, and videographers seem to be making inquiries.

PAX

Quote:

There are a lot of questions, and the most troubling thing to me is that nobody in a position to actually do anything about it is asking? Only engineers, and videographers seem to be making inquiries.

This actually makes me feel better than the goverment looking into to it. Sad to say but the truth.

No, Its not stupid because I say so, rather because there is NO evidence that can support your claims. They are made up and then you get pissy when you are challenged.

PROOVE the govt had a hand in it, PROOVE Bin Laden is best buddies with Bush, PROOVE this was a giant ENRON cover up, PROOVE who blew up the buildings,
PROOVE where all those people went that got on the planes, PROOVE were flown by remote controll, PROOVE who fired the missle at the Pentagon, PROOVE where it was fired from, PROOVE where all the workers inside the Pentagon went, PROOVE that the plane in PA was shot down, PROOVE where all those people went, PROOVE how on Earth a cover up of this magnatude could be kept quiet for so long.

PROOF, PROOF, PROOF. You have NONE. You have dream like ideas that are so wild and fanciful you may as well be dreaming.

Its Great that you question things and can think for yourselves but COME ON THINK
already! Maybe it can't be PROOVED because it didn't happen the way you think it did.
Remember the simpliest answer is 99% of the time the correct one.


Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:No, Its not stupid because I say so, rather because there is NO evidence that can support your claims. They are made up and then you get pissy when you are challenged.

PROOVE the govt had a hand in it, PROOVE Bin Laden is best buddies with Bush, PROOVE this was a giant ENRON cover up, PROOVE who blew up the buildings,
PROOVE where all those people went that got on the planes, PROOVE were flown by remote controll, PROOVE who fired the missle at the Pentagon, PROOVE where it was fired from, PROOVE where all the workers inside the Pentagon went, PROOVE that the plane in PA was shot down, PROOVE where all those people went, PROOVE how on Earth a cover up of this magnatude could be kept quiet for so long.

PROOF, PROOF, PROOF. You have NONE. You have dream like ideas that are so wild and fanciful you may as well be dreaming.

Its Great that you question things and can think for yourselves but COME ON THINK
already! Maybe it can't be PROOVED because it didn't happen the way you think it did.
Remember the simpliest answer is 99% of the time the correct one.

There are covert missions carried out by the military daily in all parts of the world that will never be heard of or found out about. The fact is that the conspiracy theories exist because there have been enough questions raised by a number of people who are qualified enough to raise these questions. I am sorry but I have to agree that a passenger jet of the size we are talking about here dont just disapear into thin air vaporize or scatter the way it was portrayed to have in PA. The claim an 8 mile scatter zone for that particular crash. Eight miles is a huge expanse when you think about it. The only way that something would be able to scatter that far would be if it were destroyed in mid air at a reasonable altitude. How many plane crashes have you seen where a large part of the body of a the aircraft hasnt been seen or recovered? Where are the wings of the plane that crashed into the pentagon. There is no wing shape damage done to that building. The planes that entered the WTC left wing shaped holes. I will give you that the Pentagon is a more fortified structure than the WTC was but the wings should have been outside of the building. I would think the wings on this type of aircraft would sheer off rather than colapse back on themselves if they were met with that type of construction. What about the pages missing out of the 9/11 commission report? I forget the exact number but these pages were never published for even members of the goverment to see. We are quick to discount our goverments involvement with this type of action based on the fact we dont believe it could happen. There are goverments around the world that have done and continue to do things as evil or worse than what is being portryaed to be done by our goverment in this instance. The fact is that the goverment knows more than they are letting the people know in doing so they are the ones inciting people to perpetuate these kinds of beliefs

Those are interesting points you raise but they are not PROOF. Proof would be a guy saying he saw a van fire a missle at the pentagon. Proof would be ANYBODY at all in any kind of a capasity to actualy know saying that any of those things were done. Saddly none of that exists. There is more proof the U.F.O.'s exist then is provided by this drivel that you insist on believeing is true.

As for the pentagons plane. If you look in the pictures on different sites you can clearly see the remains of the wings and even a piece of landing gear. I've posted links to these sites twice now and I will not do it a third time.

I know the govt does all kinds of shady @!#$ but come on guys, damn!




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jack: There's lots of evidence, but it hasn't been either uncovered or contextualised, yet. It takes a long time to figure out what exactly happened, most aircraft collisions take 1-2 years to reconstruct a single plane to glean evidence to explain what happened. With 9/11/01, we're looking at 2 aircraft, 7 buildings, and about a million and a half tons of debris.

Compounded by the fact that there are missing pieces now (the building metal and concrete aggregate), the entire story of how the building went down my not be known. Look at it like this: a shaped charge would leave a tell-tale spattering of molten metal that is distinct from a cutting torch's heat... but, if the building members have been reformed or smelted at a foundry, that evidence is gone.

I'm not lending a lot of weight to the theories either, but, there's enough evidence to support the postulates, but not yet enough to prove the theory...








Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

How about thqat an object that is 9 feet across and 12 feet long made of 6 tons of titanium cannot hit a wall at 500 MPH without leraving a mark (referring to a single turbo fan engine). How about the fact that if something is destroyed on impact then it cannot continue to punch holes through renforced concrete, especially having an exit hole the same size as the initial impact after travelling through a cumulative 9 feet of bunker type wall.

Why are the poles that were knocked down by the approaching arcraft facing the wrong way, as if they blew away from the Pentagon. Why are they sheered at the base and not bent at the top? Just seems odd.

Why were the only engine parts found at the crash scene a plate and bearring set from an engine belonging to a much smaller SAAB jet and not the claimed large boeing jet? Why were no boeing engine parts found (Rolls Royce), but instead military spec Pratt and Whitney engine parts were found? Parts that could be from a SAAB jet (mentioned earlier) or the very same engine as used in a tomahawk cruise missle?

The damage to the building is inconsistant, the eyewitness reports are inconsistant, the actions of the investigators are strange, and the refusal to release even 4 seconds of tape that would confirm the official story will not be re3leased even though that's all it would take to stop all the speculation. Heck, they just need a couple still shots of the impact, that's all it would take.

My biggest concern regarding the Pentagon is that the question of what hit could be so easily answered, and yet they are not doing it. Is it deception or distraction? Are people so focussed on the impact that they are totally missing something else?

I come to no conclusions, just ask valid, lucid questions.

PAX

hey jackalope, why dont you prove that all those things you listed are not true?

Not to say that this happened, but I dispise it when people say "You could not cover up an operation of this size" Oh yes you can, and it's been done. That is a mjor reason for compartmentalized intelligence in the first place. No player nos who the other players are, or the entire game plan.

Think of the Manhatten project. over 10 000 people involved, maybe 5 that knew everything. Nobody leaked it until trinity was detonated.

Coverups of massive scale can be achieved and have been in the past.

PAX