Originally posted by WHY AYEI guess the planes crashing into them were a figment of everyone's imagination right?🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Does the majority of americans still blame Osama Bin Laden for this heinous deceit, or have they awoke from their sleepy ignorance and accepted that it was obviously an inside job and as one physics professor stated 'The most ambitious psychological operation of all time.'
How can the world be duped as it has been with so little resistance?
www.911truth.org/
Originally posted by WHY AYEThe point of the post was that your reference to reality seems to stop just a few inches below the surface, while seething below is more than you can comprehend.
Does 'others' include yourself?
On a global scale, things are more complex than your linear thoughts and postings allow.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOn a political scale things are usually far more simple than
The point of the post was that your reference to reality seems to stop just a few inches below the surface, while seething below is more than you can comprehend.
On a global scale, things are more complex than your linear thoughts and postings allow.
we are led to believe.
If you want people to believe something, a good
tactic is to make the contrary unbelievably simple.
the mechanisms for recourse had no-doubt been
hypothesised before the event.
The question is not who did it but why were the
conditions in place for it to occur?
I been researching this some
Here is a conspiracy video about 9-11, its about an hour long, but very interesting with lots of video coverage
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change
here are some links to research too
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html
These simulations agreed with the answer they were designed to produce. This doesn't mean that we can predict with certainty how such a structure will collapse
I do not believe that our goverment had anything to do with this, I also read the book "Lets Roll" and with the all the evidence it gave, I see no possable way that this was caused by our goverment. I challenge you to read it.
As for the video, all of the apparent anomalies in the WTC footage can be explained given our understanding of shock waves in materials. I don't know if the video was modified but none of the phenomena surprise me or need missiles or planted explosives to explain. The breaking of glass ahead of the arrival of the nose of the jet, the damage from spall in the lobby after the initial impact, the ejecta from the building racing ahead of the collapsing front (that gave the appearance of explosions), can all be explained and are consistent with the physics. Some good people, NIST and The Livermore Software Company, have performed the simulations.
As for the Pentagon and the fourth crash, I found the video presentation to be very "selective" with the information it presented. I don't know enough about them to comment.
for example, the video says how strong a jet engine is, and how they shouldve found the jet engines etc. A jet turbine is like a bomb when running---extremely high RPM and will disinergrate --destroy itself on impact. In fact , aircraft have been lost by turbine blade failure.
This just shows that conspirast dont count all varables, just like the moon conspirest didnt know that shadows in space are goofy
Originally posted by flyUnityI can tell you for a fact that a jet engine will not destroy itself on impact - one landed just down the road from my house in Lockerbie in 1988. Granted it had been blown off the plane, but it would still have been running when it hit the ground. It made a huge hole - about the size of two volvo cars. They're designed to withstand shredding birds - ala the infamous turkey gun tests.
I been researching this some
Here is a conspiracy video about 9-11, its about an hour long, but very interesting with lots of video coverage
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change
here are some links to research too
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html
These simulations agreed with ...[text shortened]... ont count all varables, just like the moon conspirest didnt know that shadows in space are goofy
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell it depends on many varibles, such as how much power is being supplied to it etc, Im sure that the jet engine that landed by you was probaly close to an idle, (Setting it to an idle is first thing you do when in an emergency like that) besides, if it was blown off the plane, that cuts the fuel from it.
I can tell you for a fact that a jet engine will not destroy itself on impact - one landed just down the road from my house in Lockerbie in 1988. Granted it had been blown off the plane, but it would still have been running when it hit the ground. It made a huge hole - about the size of two volvo cars. They're designed to withstand shredding birds - ala the infamous turkey gun tests.
When they did the "Chicken test" they threw a live chicken into the air intake, and on earlier jet engines, they had drastic results when the turbins couldnt take it. Slamming into a building is way more then a chicken test, I just studied all this last semester, and when theres a jet engine exploding, you dont want to be around!
Originally posted by flyUnityWell, the pilots on Pan Am 103 never knew that there was any emergency - the plane blew up from a bomb. They would not have throttled back (which is not to say that the engines would have been at full power - they were over land, and would not have been at maximum thrust). Likewise, it landed about 2 KM from the fuselage crash site - if we assume it was travelling at 1000 KM / Hr as the plane would have been it would have hit the ground within 5 seconds of the explosion - not much time for the engine to slow down or stop (indeed it should contine to run for a second or so after separation whilst the remaining fuel was used up).
Well it depends on many varibles, such as how much power is being supplied to it etc, Im sure that the jet engine that landed by you was probaly close to an idle, (Setting it to an idle is first thing you do when in an emergency like that) besides, if it was blown off the plane, that cuts the fuel from it.
When they did the "Chicken test" they threw a ...[text shortened]... died all this last semester, and when theres a jet engine exploding, you dont want to be around!
wrt to the chicken / turkey / duck cannon, the unfortunate, but happily dead, chook is fired into an engine running at full speed at approximately 180 mph. If the engine cannot run safely for another 20 minutes it fails the test. Likewise, the final test of the day is to strap explosive charges inside the engine and detonate them whilst the engine is running at full power. The engine casing must be able to hold the disintegrating engine pieces, or again, the engine fails the test.
(http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_170b.html - not the best peer reviewed article, but i''m sure it has some substance)
The point is not to pass any judgement on whether any individuals from the US govt were in any way involved in the Sept 11th attacks (personally I just think that they capatilised on the situation), but merely to point out that a jet engine is really, really hard!
Originally posted by scottishinnza 747 usually at cruises at 65% power (If I remember corectly) according to my flight simulater, a 747 goes from 65% power to shutdown in 5 sec, (7 sec with 75% power) thats not to say that the fuel was cut the instant it it blew up, but my guess is that the engine was almost idle, if not already dead.
Well, the pilots on Pan Am 103 never knew that there was any emergency - the plane blew up from a bomb. They would not have throttled back (which is not to say that the engines would have been at full power - they were over land, and would not have been at maximum thrust). Likewise, it landed about 2 KM from the fuselage crash site - if we assume it w ...[text shortened]... capatilised on the situation), but merely to point out that a jet engine is really, really hard!
You may be right though, looking at how tough them engines are, I cant see how they can completly disinagrate. Im begining to wonder 😲
Im not convinced the goverment had anything to do with this though, They wouldnt be able to cover it up this good.
Sasquatch - I'm not an expert in this arena, and I haven't assembled detailed computer analyses. However, I am a licensed professional engineer, who has had access to published information about the towers in boring trade magazines that the general populace probably hasn't seen. I have a couple questions/points for you to consider and perhaps respond to:
1 - There is clear video evidence of the second plane hitting the second tower (we've all seen the videos, I think). While I haven't seen actual video of the first plane hitting tower 1, I think we have enough eye witness evidence to conclude that occurred as well, and we can conclude fairly effectively where it hit. There is pretty clear video evidence that the towers began to collapse at or very near the point of impact of the planes - i.e., they didn't collapse at the bottom like controlled building demolitions typically happen. Do you think the sneaky controlled demolition experts could have been so good as to rig their explosives right at the point of impact of the plane? Do you think they were standing by to come in and rig their explosives immediately after impact? Do you think they could have successfully gotten in, rigged the explosives, and gotten out undetected, particularly with the second tower that was hit, since the place was crawling with police and fire fighters at the time?
2 - As I understand it, several neighboring buildings were struck by debris from the towers when they collapsed, and indeed that was the ultimate cause of several additional buildings going down. That would tend to bring into question your assertion that the buildings collapsed into themselves. Indeed, as I recall (and it's been a long time since I've watched video of the collapse), while the building intially appear to be collapsing straight down, in the latter stages, there does appear to be some off-axis collapse. So perhaps your entire assertion regarding the way they collapsed is in error.
3 - A number of published reports have studied the towers' collapse and come to much different conclusions than you and your buddies. If your data is so conclusive, why not publish it? There are certainly plenty of anti-Bush, government-conspiracy publications out there that would at least consider your study. One of the purposes of publishing is to allow others to critique your work and see if they can help you identify if you've overlooked anything in your analysis. It's pretty easy to stand back and say, "Hey, I did a study, and that can't happen the way they say it did," and not let people review your analysis; but it doesn't pass the sniff test if you won't let people examine your work.
Folks - there is video of at least one of the jet engines coming out the back side of the tower just after impact.... Some of the really solid parts of the plane (like the engines), went right through the building - unless they hit the solid core of the building, there was little resistance to their passage in one side and out the other.
Go back and look at the video tapes - you'll see stuff flying out the back side of the building. There are also photos out there of the remains of a jet engine laying in the street where it landed.
Originally posted by The PlumberThey also have the first jet on video, Its not a clear clip, but you can
1 - While I haven't seen actual video of the first plane hitting tower 1, I think we have enough eye witness evidence to conclude that occurred as well, and we can conclude fairly effectively where it hit.
clearly see that it is a plane. I agree totaly with you on your posts
