ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 57 of 417
« First < 7475354555657 5859606167107157 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>911 was an inside job.
Taco John 12:06 AM 02-09-2006
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.
[Reply]
penchief 01:38 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Not considered proof by any means.

You are a fraud.
What are you basing your assessment on?
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 01:46 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by penchief:
What are you basing your assessment on?
Read his posts. He claims alot but has nothing to back up his claims.

Seems like anytime I've tried the same tactic there was a pile on begging for links to my data.

B_A provides no such links.

I figured if I can be a fraud because I don't post links it must be a board standard.
[Reply]
penchief 02:11 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Read his posts. He claims alot but has nothing to back up his claims.

Seems like anytime I've tried the same tactic there was a pile on begging for links to my data.

B_A provides no such links.

I figured if I can be a fraud because I don't post links it must be a board standard.
I am not subscribing to any theory at this point. I only ask because it does seem that some of the evidence is very compelling. Combined with the track record of this administration, I think it is equally unbelievable to suggest that everything is exactly as this administration wishes us to believe as it is to believe that this adminstration was involved in a conspiracy.

My personal belief is that there is enough evidence to suggest that 9/11 was preventable. Combined with this administration's over-the-top penchant for secrecy and their obscene use of the terrorism threat to impose an unpopular domestic agenda, I believe that fair-minded people have no choice but to remain open-minded.
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 02:20 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by penchief:
I am not subscribing to any theory at this point. I only ask because it does seem that some of the evidence is very compelling. Combined with the track record of this administration, I think it is equally unbelievable to suggest that everything is exactly as this administration wishes us to believe as it is to believe that this adminstration was involved in a conspiracy.

My personal belief is that there is enough evidence to suggest that 9/11 was preventable. Combined with this administration's over-the-top penchant for secrecy and their obscene use of the terrorism threat to impose an unpopular domestic agenda, I believe that fair-minded people have no choice but to remain open-minded.
I was ask him for his evidence. I've not seen anything that can be treated as credible evidence only speculation.
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 02:23 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by :
Read his posts. He claims alot but has nothing to back up his claims.

Seems like anytime I've tried the same tactic there was a pile on begging for links to my data.

B_A provides no such links.
I figured if I can be a fraud because I don't post links it must be a board standard.

bullshit. there are either links or pics to everything i've talked about.

It's because of ****tards like you that this gov't has been able to manipulate people in this country so easily. Like I said before, I could piss on your head and you'd believe it's raining as long as the weatherman said so...haha
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 02:24 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
bullshit. there are either links or pics to everything i've talked about.

It's because of ****tards like you that this gov't has been able to manipulate people in this country so easily.
Virtually all of the links in this thread are of a dubious nature. It never ceases to amaze me how you people will take something and run with it without the slightest knowledge of where the information came from nor whether it is even physically possible for some of the stuff to happen.

Simply amazing!
[Reply]
penchief 02:41 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Virtually all of the links in this thread are of a dubious nature. It never ceases to amaze me how you people will take something and run with it without the slightest knowledge of where the information came from nor whether it is even physically possible for some of the stuff to happen.

Simply amazing!
My point is that it would be very easy for you to discredit those pictures. Some of that evidence is very compelling. Based on photos that supposedly were taken during or shortly after 9/11, all of which are recognizable, it is difficult to fully believe the party line when using one's own logic.

If the actual pictures of those events defy logic the burden is on you to explain how those things which don't make sense actually occurred. I am open-minded to both sides of this debate but it seems like some people are using their critical thinking abilities to support their skepticism while others are merely resorting to denial without providing any contradictory evidence.

If you are going to fit someone else for a tin foil hat you would be more credible if you provided more than just accusations or insinuations.
[Reply]
banyon 02:54 PM 02-16-2006
More scholars jump on board
[Reply]
patteeu 03:13 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Now wait a minute... Isn't Logical a plane engineer? I thought I remember someone saying he worked for Boeing or something (am I wrong?)

Hey Jim... Your analysis of the plane engines and their relative lack of damage to the building please?
As a plane engineer who used to work for the company now called Boeing (I worked for McDonnell Douglas before the two merged), I can assure you that most plane engineers who work for Boeing don't have the expertise to answer your question with any real authority.
[Reply]
Taco John 03:43 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by patteeu:
As a plane engineer who used to work for the company now called Boeing (I worked for McDonnell Douglas before the two merged), I can assure you that most plane engineers who work for Boeing don't have the expertise to answer your question with any real authority.

Really? You're telling me that an airplane engineer couldn't answer a question about whether or not a pair of 747 engines would damage a window pane, or even bust through a brick wall?
[Reply]
Taco John 03:48 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by banyon:
More scholars jump on board


Nice find...


Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks.

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed.

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires.

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact.

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing.

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite.

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles.

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction.

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon.

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
[Reply]
Hydrae 06:36 PM 02-16-2006
This has indeed been a most entertaining thread, thanks Taco! :-)

As to Tom continually acting like there are a handful of conspiracy nuts behind the questions about 9/11, I just would like to point out the HUGE number of publications that have come out on this issue. What did one of the articles posted here say (I am not going back over 700+ posts to find the specific quote) that there have been over 600 books on this subject? This is not a few crackpots in Montana (sorry Bwana, not referring to you :-) ), this is a lot of people with unanswered questions.

I still say that this could all be quieted simply by releasing those videos from around the Pentagon. Until this simple request is heeded, the conspiracy people will continue to get a lot of recognition as shown by the large number of replies to this thread. Is there anything to all of this? I don't know but I have honestly not been shown anything to tell me there is not.
[Reply]
Logical 07:07 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Now wait a minute... Isn't Logical a plane engineer? I thought I remember someone saying he worked for Boeing or something (am I wrong?)

Hey Jim... Your analysis of the plane engines and their relative lack of damage to the building please?
I was an electrical engineer who did work for Boeing Military. You are thinking Gaz who is a Liasion Engineer who works for the Commercial Airplane portion of Boeing in Wichita.

As to patteeu's assertion, it is both correct and incorrect. At Boeing there are 100s of engineers and few of them would work on the aircraft structure. However any of the aircraft structural/mechanical engineers could give an accurate assessment of the approximate damage expected to occur to a building from an aircraft engine crashing into it at over 200 mph. For that matter it does not take an engineer to figure out that an engine 78.5 inches in diameter if it was the PW2000 version that weighs in at 1000s of pounds is going to punch quite a whole in a concrete structure. The fuselage of the plane is just over 12 feet in diameter. An airliner is made of very lightweight material except for the engines so the collapse of the fuselage upon impact is not at all hard to imagine. However due the large distance between the engines and the fuselage the chances that three holes would not have been produced by an impact at those speeds are infitesimally small. The facts are the wings would have been sheared away from the fuselage and the each engines forward momentum would have it slamming into the building in three distinct locations. Truth is I have never seen a good picture of the building that would let you tell if three such impact locations were in fact made.
[Reply]
Joe Seahawk 07:27 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Nice find...


Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day?
Hmm, I'm no structural engineer but I would guess that a 60 ton aircraft loaded with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel slamming into the building at 500+ mph may have had something to do with that.. :-)

I could say that In the history of structural engineering no building has ever remained standing after a 60 ton aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel slammed into it at 500+ mph
[Reply]
Logical 08:42 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
I agreed with you until you said that the video doesn't talk about the fake Bin Laden tape, which is inaccurate. The tape does raise that question, by posing the same pictures TJ has issued more than once in this forum, particularly this thread.

Other than that, :-)
Thanks for the clarification. I have read so much and watched like 5 different videos as a result of searches related to this thread I could be starting to interchange them.
[Reply]
Page 57 of 417
« First < 7475354555657 5859606167107157 > Last »
Up