Very good points SEbasic... I agree with you on both. The twin towers engineer even SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED THE TOWERS TO WITHSTAND MULTIPLE PLANE CRASHES just like these!
Instead of spamming this thread with BS information from BS sources, can you atleast come up with a theory behind such act? Describe in details how it was possible to make a fake-attack.
Are you referring to me? If you are I suggest you read my post again and look at the sources for the information I gathered and read the information provided. I have yet to read a post from you where you have attempted to research or look into any of this information. If you want to join in, please make an effort. Thanks.
::uts Latehorn on Ignore::: Edit: Oh, and for the record ~ 9 of them *didn't* (Suicide bombers tend to be dead) ~ read my post...
SEBasic, you present some challenging arguments. Because of the indepth nature, I'll pick a few off at a time. On the surface, without additional information, it might indeed seem odd. It may be that 9/11 conspiracy sites reaching for book sales and profits are not interested in information that counters their assertions. My impression from reading several of these type of sites is that they claim to spend exhaustive hours researching, yet fail to discover some of the very basics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri Further information regarding the BBC report: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html Further, from the same article:
I put yo-yo on ignore for now. He was more than willing to initially enter a debate, until I debunked his molten metal jibberish. After that, he wanted to take his ball and go home and resort back to the lazy way of lobbing out half a dozen questions at a time without any effort on his part. I've never put anyone on ignore and it's only temporary. Since you've demonstrated a willingness to put forth effort in a reasonable debate and he has demostrated he will not, I see him as nothing more than a cheerleader for you at this point, piggy backing off the effort you are willing to put forward, that he is not. More later.
Damn good idea! Latehorn is my first Ignored poster on any forum, ever. GTech, how about you answer the direct question of Rob ... and myself?
My apologies, it seemed so trivial. Do I beleive 100%? I've seen nothing to suggest that 19 hijackers did not cause the damage, destruction and cost of lives on 9/11. The evidence is overwhelming, the research and time put into it is massive. I also do not believe it is a story being sold. The selling of stories, quite literally with book sales and web sites chocked full of ads, are coming from the conspiracy sites. I don't think there is any question who is selling and who is looking to profit from those sales as well as finding 15 minutes of fame. It raises the question of why, when virtually everything they assert has been debunked as lies, are there people still willing to give them credence? How many lies must be debunked, before those buying into the "conspiracies" wake up and start demanding answers to questions from conspirators in the same manner the conspirators demand from the investigation? It's almost an endless process. Here's a video. This, this and this are lies. Ok, lets move on to something else. Here they are. This, this and this are lies. Ok, lets move on. Like robots, when one is debunked, move on to the next and the next and the next. At some point, one might expect the people perpetuating these notions to examine the very facts they are offering with the same degree they are attemping to prove 9/11 was an inside job. I'm not seeing that though. What I am willing to do, is debate the issue. Rather that offering a closed mind and dismissing things, I'm willing to do the research to counter the rediculous claims conspirators are leading others to believe. This, even despite the overwhelming evidence that exists, still some think that there is some little gem that will prove bin laden's own admission false. Hope that clears it up.
A few observations from the comparison. One, they are comparing a 767-200, not a 767-223ER, which is heavier, and carriers a hell of a lot more fuel. Next, the 767 while close in length and wingspan, is a "wide body" jet, much like the Airbus 310 it was meant to compete with. If you view a 707 from the nose and a 767-223ER, you will note a considerably larger/wider fuselage on the 767. I wonder why these points are not made in this comparison? I wonder also, why they chose to ignore the actual model, and instead used a standard 1978 767-200 spec? Well it is quite obvious. Either way, I have my doubts about the 707. I would imagine that a fully fueled 707 would probably have the same affect, which is carnage and destruction. Some of the reasons the Empire State survived the B-25 crash back in 1945 where the building is almost entirely CONCRETE! The Twin Towers were not, to save on weight. They were mainly steel/aluminum and glass. The floor trusses were not even solid. They were thin steel open trusses with a light coating of a light weight fire proof material at the time. The buildings were strong, but not strong enough to with stand two large fully fueled aircraft hitting them. I watched it happen live on television nearly 5 years ago, and remember it quite well.
What story is that exactly? I was alive that day, and witnessed it. I don't need much more than that.
Really? Where did you find this factoid? No other building was constructed like the WTC. That is to say that the floors themselves were the structural strength member of the building, yet they were also the weakest part of the building. Take four dowel pegs (3' long) and a couple 4x4 inch square blocks. Drill a hole in each of the 4 corners of each 4x4 square block and insert a dowel in each one. Do this, top and bottom. Then start piling books on top of the structure. Tell at what point it fails and why. Do the same thing, except this time, attach cross members at 1" intervals along the vertical part of the structure. Start stacking books again. It does not take a rocket scientist or a structural engineer to understand some basic principles of physics. Most of your research is flawed. Read on Empire State is composed concrete, limestone, granite, and trimmed with chrome-nickel steel. It is a heavy, strong/solid building. It is hardly worth comparing. Might want to rethink your assertions here. The B52's first flight was on April 15th, 1952. Is time travel now part of the conspiracy theories? The plane was a B25. I've flown in one. It could hardly take out a house. It's about 50' long, weighs around 20k. Your theory is flawed. No, we cannot. A B52 never struck the Empire State. Did you read this? Apparently not. Being hit by the equivalent of a Cesnna 421? No, of course not. How can liberals get away with making up crap, by distorting the truth, altering facts, and traveling through time to places and events that could never possibly have occurred.. Someone answer that brain buster? I am starting to understand why you said you do not like to get involved in discussions like these. Not really. If I believed everything someone made up as fact, I guess it might strike me as odd. But I can think and reason for myself. I don't need the assistance of those who think they know better. Nothing unusual there. Happens all the time No miracle. You would be surprised the things you will find completely intact after some catastrophic disaster. Hell, that meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, destroyed most all life on earth, yet we are finding intact Dinosaur skeletons all the time. Wow, that is a real miracle. It's pretty easy to do when your initial assertions are completely flawed. That makes everything else you have said a complete waste of time. No, no personal insults. Just some observations. You need to present some facts first. Do that, and some of us might believe some of what you have to say. Without facts, it's kind of hard to do. This includes distorted or flawed facts as well.
Oliver cited sources, mia. You're just farting. When was the last time you cited a source or referenced a "fact?" You just have insults for people. And telling someone that they're wrong and saying "case closed!" isn't a "fact", duuuude. You realize that it wasn't actually the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs, right? he he he!
So dowel pegs, dinosaurs and an alleged meteor impact prove the case for 911 exactly as stated by the official line? Magical, explosion and fireproof passports that are found amidst the chaos of two 110-storey office buildings among the billions of sheets of paper, books and other office materials; jets performing manouvers that experienced fighter pilots have stated publicly that they couldn't do; demolition-perfect 'drops' of not one, not two, but three buildings; the passenger jet that can fly over the lawn of the Pentagon and crash into the building without leaving a scrap of metal on the grass ... Yeah, right. Everyone who thinks 911 was a put-up job is a nutcase.
The case for 9/11 has long been proved. Ignoring that volume of evidence, and looking for things that do not exist is what is taking place today. And as I noted just a few posts ago, when one thing is discredited, it moves right to the next, and the next and the next. Rarely ever, if any mention of the evidence to discredit the latest assertion. All with the hopes that while everything else has been discredited, there might be some glimmer of hope that *just something* out there might could prove otherwise. At what point, do those that suggest it's an inside job, start demanding facts and answers from those who put forth these ridiculous claims to mislead them? How many more must be discredited, before someone says "hmm, this stuff on these sites are crap?" Does questioning supposed *facts* only pertain to the government?
The sources he cited are what I used to debunk his post. Simply reading the first sentence of the article would have saved you the post. From Oliver's own post, (he cited an About.Com article): http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm If someone here would actually read the article rather than posting links. I could post links to cite sources for facts I made up too all day long, but I am not making this up, or anything else I have posted for that matter. He posted a claim that a B52 struck the Empire State building. I posted a claim that the B52 did not fly until 1952. The first sentence of the article at http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm states: "On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lt. Colonel William Smith was piloting a U.S. Army B-25 bomber through New York City." Hmm... 1945. It seems to me that it came before, 1952. I could be wrong about that. I could cite a source to prove it. But why, it is common sense. Here's a source for you. First Flight of B52 "April 15, 1952". From: http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b52.html the MAKER OF THE AIRCRAFT in question. Now, again, these, mythological sources you claim he cited are? Where is the source for the claim that a B52 hit the Empire State building? I know of know such occurrence. Nothing insulting there. Case is pretty much closed on that one. How can you possibly claim that an aircraft that had not yet been flown or built struck the Empire State Building? Again, I used the source that was cited. I did not realize I had to re-cite a source that was cited, which I read through. Now, I already knew it was a B25, but I did take the time to read through the article anyway. I take the assumption he just reversed the 25 for a 52, then went off looking up stats on the 52. With flawed information like that (even via a simple mistake), it is easy to see how these "conspiracy theories" and false truths get so blown out of proportion. All it takes is one error in the scientific method to completely negate the original hypothesis. If that is insulting, I guess I am just the king of insulters. So again, from: http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm No one knows for sure what killed the dinosaurs. I was being facetious.
Mia, First, you have not cited sources or proof of your claims ~ hardly a valid argument [except I posted the year of the crash wrong, not exacty a an act that makes what I am saying wrong] Secondly, You are rude. I believe I am being respectful in this *debate* and have not thrown any personal insult toward any member of the forum. Please revaluate your manner toward me and I feel it is unjustified and petty. G-Tech, Thanks for posting the information. It's late here and I'd like to crash out, but I will continue this tomorrow with both of you, unless you continue to speak like a spoilt child mia.