[QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
^^ the figures ive seen are 550 mph. [/QUOTEso according to the theory of relativity the planes hit the buildings at 550mphs. HMMM wouldn't that not be enough force to knock a building down? So, the theory that there might have been some bombs in the building don't sould so far fetched.....

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid [QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ^^ the figures ive seen are 550 mph. [/QUOTEso according to the theory of relativity the planes hit the buildings at 550mphs. HMMM wouldn't that not be enough force to knock a building down? So, the theory that there might have been some bombs in the building don't sould so far fetched.....

ok, i see where youre heading.

but the theory of relativity doesnt really apply here

the planes alone did not bring the towers down. the structural damage combined with the fires is what did it.

ask any conspiracy theorist to explain exactly which bombs were used to bring the towers down. they love to answer "thermite" but the reasons why it couldnt have been thermite are long and distinguished.

pop over to debunking 911.com if you have any specific queries. it really does provide a wealth of info and why the whole 911 conspiracy is just ridiculous.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Does anybody know how fast were the planes going when they hit the WTC?

If the flight data recorders were found, examined to have retrievable data, then they can answer those questions.

People just telling you that they were cruising at 500MPH is not proof.

The proof is in those black boxes. Airspeed, direction, air pressure, cabin pressure, temperature, pitch, yaw, roll, autopilot status, etc. are all in those flight data recorders.

___________________

First, I don't think the impact from an airplane is what caused the buildings to collapse--unless you want to argue that the buildings tipped over. More likely the huge explosion, damaged structure and massive full tanks of highly combustible jet fuel caused enough weakness to allow for a breach and a floor collapse that only gained momentum as each subsequent floor became an even more massive downward force?

If you want to really be serious about a conspiracy you must be prepared to entertain other exogenous possibilities and circumstances. Perhaps the people on the floors not immediately impacted by the airplanes caused incredibly strong floor rumbling and vibration in their panic--screaming, running and jumping about--that they actually "shook" the buildings down (though certainly not on purpose). Or has anyone done any work on the effects of the buildings' fire prevention systems (water based sprinklers) and their usefulness/effectiveness on jet fuel based fires? Water shouldn't be used extinguish a kerosene fire if it has already ignited (I imagine it could spread like burning streams of fire within the runoff of the sprinkler system). Check out this wicked primer on kerosene brought to you by your good ole co-conspirators at Valero energy. Muahahahaa...

quote:

Flammable Liquid. Use dry chemical, foam or carbon dioxide to extinguish the fire. Consult foam manufacturer for appropriate media, application rates and water/foam ratio. Water can be used to cool fire- exposed containers, structures and to protect personnel. If a leak or spill has not ignited, ventilate area and use water spray to disperse gas or vapor and to protect personnel attempting to stop a leak. Use water to flush spills away from sources of ignition. Do not flush down public sewers. Collect contaminated fire fighting water separately. It must not enter the sewage system. Dike area of fire to prevent product run-off. Decontaminate emergency personnel and equipment with soap and water. Flammable liquid and vapor. Vapor may cause flash fire. Vapors may accumulate in low or confined areas, travel considerable distance to source of ignition and flash back. Runoff to sewer may create fire or explosion hazard.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me! Of course it also answers the question of why some people might've heard secondary explosions and other near, n'est-ce pas?

Or maybe the wind simply blew the towers down down because of that damned proverbial butterfly in China.

In the very least the conspiracy theorist must entertain all of these possible but certainly plausible variables and/or alternative theories. Probably quite a few more.

You know, the buildings exhibited structural weakness (i.e. the "break point" of the collapse) was right around where the planes hit--logically. Were the hijackers so good that they could hit the exact location of the explosions to correctly pull-off the illusion?

In my world: Commercial airliners flown directly into large structures at high speeds = massive impact forces and big explosions and spreading of high-temperature fires to multiple floors x time = structural attrition/degradation = collapse.

Or maybe you need to see some of it again. In one of the clips near the end, Dan Rather is narrating and you can see the second plane hit. Check out the speed of the plane--it is in a clear dive pattern towards the tower. Maximum damage.



Or this one--you can actually see the breach forming as debris starts to crumble off the building as it starts to give way. The rest is mathematic.




And with respect to the Pentagon--I recently saw one of the pilot's wives on TV. She'd love to know where her husband is. Along with a lot of other families and relatives. (I'd also like to know if I need to start questioning an eye witness that I am related to.)


p.s. As I was taught it, Relativity really only matters at speeds at or near the speed of light.

Last edited by Shakka on Sep-13-2006 at 00:22

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Agreed. If you're going to post articles, at least have an opinion or a leading question associated with it to discuss. This whole conspiracy surrounding 9/11 has been beaten like a dead horse if you're not aware pharos. However, being that you don't post a lot in here, I don't expect you to know that unless of course you haven't read ANY conspiracy threads on the first page...why not add it there? What's the point of yet another separate conspiracy thread if you've got nothing new to add, let alone nothing to add other than some random article any one of us could have googled...

So basically, you two are justifying your worthless posts (which contain no opinions) by pointing out someone else's passing of information without making personal statements on it.

It's possible he isn't sure yet... it's possible he wants to see what you all to say before he makes an educated decision.

Don't be a hypocrite and put down someone elses post on basis of content, when their post content is much more valuable than yours.

As for me? I don't know if 9/11 was necessarily the government actively causing it.

I do, however, believe thoroughly that the government's ineptitude and blind-eye tactics certainly allowed it to happen, and you can see just as well as I the way they have abused it in the last five years.

Here's a video I have never seen.

http://media.revver.com/broadcast/59686/video.mov

haha! this is such a little theory!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby So basically, you two are justifying your worthless posts (which contain no opinions) by pointing out someone else's passing of information without making personal statements on it. It's possible he isn't sure yet... it's possible he wants to see what you all to say before he makes an educated decision. Don't be a hypocrite and put down someone elses post on basis of content, when their post content is much more valuable than yours.

I agree, I do appear hyprocritical yes, however you missed our point.

When posting baseless arguements and articles it's annoying because there's a million websites with a million opinions of this nature.
Why not at least try to start a debate based on the information they provided?
If they're unsure, they could at least say so, and why not post it in an existing thread of that ilk anyways?
It's not like we don't have 10 other threads filled with CTs here...

meh...I'm rambling now...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686

This is a link to the newest video footage. I posted it only because when the second plane hit the tower the woman recording says, "It was a military plane". Actually there were two seperate people, the person recording and another in the background. They both say it and you can hear them agree with each other. Unfortunately it appears the camera was off and we can only see the immediate aftermath of it hitting the tower and not the actual plane.

You can move the position slider to just beyond the first "Rate:" star below the video. Quicktime doesn't show you the minute position of the video you're in.

Discuss?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686 This is a link to the newest video footage. I posted it only because when the second plane hit the tower the woman recording says, "It was a military plane". Actually there were two seperate people, the person recording and another in the background. They both say it and you can hear them agree with each other. Discuss?

I recently watched this video too (I thought I had posted it in a thread). I too heard her say it was a military plane. However, she was filming from a long ways away and if you watch some of the footage from the networks (i.e. I was watching CNBC the morning it happened). It's quite obvious from other footage that they were commercial airliners that hit the buildings. This is just how conspiracy theories get propogated, Josh.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I recently watched this video too (I thought I had posted it in a thread). I too heard her say it was a military plane. However, she was filming from a long ways away and if you watch some of the footage from the networks (i.e. I was watching CNBC the morning it happened). It's quite obvious from other footage that they were commercial airliners that hit the buildings. This is just how conspiracy theories get propogated, Josh.

Minutes following the plane crashes into the twin towers the journalists on tv were reporting it was apparently civilian airplanes ..


So really ... it wasn't a boeing! I heard it on tv !


Back to the main subject a very large number of these theories are based on things which did not take place such as security measures which would have gone underway under normal conditions had their not been a "government involvement" ( the Thierry Meyssan theories are huge on that ).

One thing many people fail to realize:
An absence of proof does not constitute a proof of absentia.