|
NewbSaibot:
I am a student pilot and next time i go up i will try to remember to use a cell-phone in flight. I fly at around 4000 ft, pretty similar to the article you linked to from some other cross country flyer who claims he could get no signal at all, i'll message you on the results.
compare the video at 1:09:07: the pilot there had a success rate of 25% in 4000ft. and that in a plane that doesn't shield the signals, which in itself something the video doesn't even mention. The filmmakers argue that the cruising altitude of 20000ft alone is enough to make a series of phone calls that are perfectly audible and noise free impossible, which is something I agree 100% with.
Let alone their alternative theory, that the cia snuck out in about 30 seconds with a truck and threw a bunch of fake street lamps on the ground, and picked up the real ones which were chopped in half, firmly secured to the ground? And that none of the thousands of wide eyed spectators all watching by now saw this? The same ones who say they actually saw the plane strike the building itself?
you got the alternative theory wrong: the video makes suggests that a Tomahawk Missile hit the Pentagon. It doesn't have wings, that why the light poes weren't even touched, it went right through.
|
they show photo's with the light poles laying on the ground scattered accross the freeway. A tomahawk missile is ridiculous. Most military missiles are a combination of c4 or some other high "non-flammable" explosive. Despite what you see in the movies, when c4 detonates it does not create a big red orange fireball. Whatever blew up at the pentagon was obviously a fuel based explosive.
|
errr, what you say is in favor of the video's argumentation. because there was no red orange fireball at the pentagon. compare the video at 26:40. it was a silvery flash.
moreover eyewitnessed explicitly mentioned a strong smell or cordite, which supports the theory of a cruise missile.
and about the light poles: they do suggest that someone pulled them out of the ground and laid them on the road to make it look like a plane hit them. so yeah, that sounds weird. but just that isn't enough to refute their theory.
|
even if the top parts of the towers collapsed due to weakened steel, that doesn't explain why the top ~20 floors collapsing would be able to push down ~80 floors with healthy steel as quickly and neatly as it did. the bottom ~80 floors were still healthy steel/concrete. i would not think it possible to collapse all of that so neatly and at nearly freefall speeds. you'd think the top ~20 floors would hit the intact portion of the tower and fall to the side or at least slow down and cause more of a mess.
|
On March 04 2006 00:23 a-game wrote:
even if the top parts of the towers collapsed due to weakened steel, that doesn't explain why the top ~20 floors collapsing would be able to push down ~80 floors with healthy steel as quickly and neatly as it did. the bottom ~80 floors were still healthy steel/concrete. i would not think it possible to collapse all of that so neatly and at nearly freefall speeds. you'd think the top ~20 floors would hit the intact portion of the tower and fall to the side or at least slow down and cause more of a mess.
The explanation is simple. Quoting the article:
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
|
no i'm sorry we're talking about 80 floors of reinforced steel and concrete structured to support 80 floors of extreme tonnage. if 20% of the tower falls on 80% of the tower then in my opinion the collision would be a slow and painful one, considering the bottom 80% was still fully intact and built to hold up extreme tonnage i can't see how it would simply crumple like paper. this thing wasn't built out of aluminum folks, i'd really like to see a better explanation for how it was pancaked like that. it seems much more logical to me that the bottom 80% would put up more of a fight than it did.
|
The only two things I've found about cell phones on flight 93 (because I'm lazy and a shitty researcher):
1. Sometime before the crash there was a documented 911 call from a lavatory on flight 93.
2. Whether the passengers on the planes used the air phones or cell phones isn't well documented.
I dunno, plus, the mountains of other information other people have found has killed my motivation to do anything.
NoobSaibot is a fucking hero.
|
|
|
so you want to refute the video's version of the events by showing a website that refutes ANOTHER theory of the events by presenting facts that the video puts into question (e.g. compare the video at 20:20). what a weak attempt at making a point. what pisses me off is that you act as if it's all obvious (Ok, seriously...) but have nothing to add because as you say you're too lazy to do some research.
Next comes your "if the people on the planes used cell phones or not isn't well documented" line. If that's true, then why is it that the video has an audio recording of one call (which is downloadable here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm ) and shows transcripts of another 10 calls? I guess you were either unable to find more info or just didn't care. This is what I got after 10 minutes on Google:
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSAttack010916/16_week-sun.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/
All these articles clearly state that passengers made phone calls from the highjacked planes, which is all that matters.
|
On March 03 2006 23:01 distant_voice wrote:
errr, what you say is in favor of the video's argumentation. because there was no red orange fireball at the pentagon. compare the video at 26:40. it was a silvery flash.
moreover eyewitnessed explicitly mentioned a strong smell or cordite, which supports the theory of a cruise missile.
and about the light poles: they do suggest that someone pulled them out of the ground and laid them on the road to make it look like a plane hit them. so yeah, that sounds weird. but just that isn't enough to refute their theory. What do you mean no fireball? The video released by the pentagon which actually shows the explosion taking place was no different than the ones from the planes which hit the WTC. I remember the loose change video talking about this silvery flash, to which i saw none. They showed a screen cap from some other angle of a secondary explosion or something of a much smaller fireball of sorts. But even then the cordite theory doesnt hold, because cordite is not a flame producing explosive either! Further more, cordite is not a high explosive used to blow things up, it is a detonator. And it is certainly not used in any tomahawk missile. Which brings to question, why were people smelling cordite? Ok, raise of hands again people, anyone here know what cordite smells like? No? Then how the hell do a couple of news reporters and random schmucks on the street do? "Oh i immediately knew i was smelling cordite" said Emma May Lewis, owner of the local bagel shop.
As far as light poles go, you say the complete and total implausibility and damn near impossibility of someone to place phony light poles on the ground (and remove the existing one's, i doubt that's an easy job) all within a minute or so of time, completely undetected, is not enough to refute their mystery as to what happened? Im sorry, but it is not my or anyone else's job to refute their story, especially when they have no story. It is not our responsibility to disprove the wild and baseless claims of a few college kids making a movie, it is their responsibility to prove their own theories, end of story.
|
U GUYS ARE RIDICULOUS. Seriously, blablabla (insert out of the ass claims acting all arrogant). If you don't admit that you're a retard. What I present are facts. (insert some more claims) I don't have to prove anything. If you can't prove that the light in the fridge is out when you close the door don't say anything, it's not my responsibility to prove anything, everybody knows the light's on. And that is a fact. Period. End of story. And if you prove me otherwise I'll post a follow up that reads
No sorry, I just can believe that. The light IS on, even though it's just my gut feeling and I have no proof at all. Neither do you. haha. gg no re
(this isn't all directed at NewbSaibot, but isn't there a possibility we can discuss that without suggesting that the opponent is mentally disabled, claiming he's irrational or spoiling the discussion otherwise? If you seriously want to discuss, cut the arrogant tone, else, just let this thread die.)
|
On March 04 2006 09:04 distant_voice wrote:so you want to refute the video's version of the events by showing a website that refutes ANOTHER theory of the events by presenting facts that the video puts into question (e.g. compare the video at 20:20). what a weak attempt at making a point. what pisses me off is that you act as if it's all obvious (Ok, seriously...) but have nothing to add because as you say you're too lazy to do some research. Next comes your "if the people on the planes used cell phones or not isn't well documented" line. If that's true, then why is it that the video has an audio recording of one call (which is downloadable here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm ) and shows transcripts of another 10 calls? I guess you were either unable to find more info or just didn't care. This is what I got after 10 minutes on Google: http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSAttack010916/16_week-sun.htmlhttp://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/All these articles clearly state that passengers made phone calls from the highjacked planes, which is all that matters.
The snopes thing doesn't matter relative to the video. It still refutes a number of claims about a missile hitting the pentagon and shows that a plane did indeed hit.
Your thing about the cell phones makes no sense. The difference between cell phones and air phone calls is rather huge in the discussion.
|
On March 04 2006 09:07 NewbSaibot wrote:
What do you mean no fireball? The video released by the pentagon which actually shows the explosion taking place was no different than the ones from the planes which hit the WTC. I remember the loose change video talking about this silvery flash, to which i saw none. They showed a screen cap from some other angle of a secondary explosion or something of a much smaller fireball of sorts.
secondary explosion? where'd you get that? if you didn't see a silvery flash, an eye-witness saw one. watch the video.
But even then the cordite theory doesnt hold, because cordite is not a flame producing explosive either! Further more, cordite is not a high explosive used to blow things up, it is a detonator. And it is certainly not used in any tomahawk missile. Which brings to question, why were people smelling cordite? Ok, raise of hands again people, anyone here know what cordite smells like? No? Then how the hell do a couple of news reporters and random schmucks on the street do? "Oh i immediately knew i was smelling cordite" said Emma May Lewis, owner of the local bagel shop.
I quote from the video: "A number of mililtary personell of the Pentagon specifically mention the smelling cordite." not Emma May Lewis. the film brings up the names Don Perkal and Gilah Goldsmith.
Cordite is not in Cruise Missiles? Quote from Wikipedia:
Cordite is a smokeless propellant explosive made by combining two high explosives: nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. It has commonly been used in firearms since the early 20th Century. It also found use in solid fuel rockets.
Solid fuel rockets... I assume that they're quite similar to Cruise Missiles, but I might be wrong here. Enlighten me if you know better than me.
|
On March 01 2006 17:50 eG)HeavenS wrote:
what about the osama bin laden video where he uses his right hand to write a letter when he's supposedly left handed. And the fact that hes wearing a ring in the video which is prohibited by islam ? I dunno if it is true or not, all i know is they present some really, really convincing evidence like the plane not being able to make the turn, the no wreckage by the pentagon, the confiscated and not released tapes from the fbi. The debunking site said alot of interesting things too though.
|
On March 04 2006 09:23 DTDominion wrote:
Your thing about the cell phones makes no sense. The difference between cell phones and air phone calls is rather huge in the discussion.
yeah like usual I make no sense. look here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/
They herded passengers to the back of the plane, apparently leaving them unguarded, where they began making a plan and at least 30 more phone calls.
what you suggest is that all 30 calls were made from the air phone right? looks like everyone took turns calling their families after being herded to the back of the plane. It's rather improbable don't you think?
and your snopes-link doesn't even mention a missile.
|
On March 04 2006 09:19 distant_voice wrote:
U GUYS ARE RIDICULOUS. Seriously, blablabla (insert out of the ass claims acting all arrogant). If you don't admit that you're a retard. What I present are facts. (insert some more claims) I don't have to prove anything. If you can't prove that the light in the fridge is out when you close the door don't say anything, it's not my responsibility to prove anything, everybody knows the light's on. And that is a fact. Period. End of story. And if you prove me otherwise I'll post a follow up that reads
No sorry, I just can believe that. The light IS on, even though it's just my gut feeling and I have no proof at all. Neither do you. haha. gg no re
(this isn't all directed at NewbSaibot, but isn't there a possibility we can discuss that without suggesting that the opponent is mentally disabled, claiming he's irrational or spoiling the discussion otherwise? If you seriously want to discuss, cut the arrogant tone, else, just let this thread die.) Wtf, chill. Let me recap:
We have two stories:
1) A jet airplane crashes into the pentagon, knocking over several light poles on its way, and creating a massive fireball on impact.
2) A missile hits the pentagon, the cia drives out in trucks and promptly removes 4-6 light poles and lays them on the ground to prove an airplane hit them without anybody seeing it, plants some small amounts of phony airplane wreckage at the crash site, and detonates a few thousand gallons of kerosene with cordite, among some other explosive (as this would not be enough to significantly damage the building).
Now someone decides to stand with story #2. To do this, they must present a reasonable and convincing argument to support it, other wise why should i believe it?
|
if the plane that hit the pentagon did tear down any light poles, how come its wings weren't clipped off by the poles like the it happene to some other plane in a similar incident.
|
no one said any explosives were set off haha, were talking about a fucking missle here. Im POSITIVE a missile is able to do that amount of damage. O and thanks for pointing out that it knocked over 4-6 light poles. 4-6 poles are enough to clip off the wings before the plane even hit the pentagon. In the other plane-knocking-down-light poles incident, i believe it only took two.
|
On March 04 2006 09:38 distant_voice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2006 09:23 DTDominion wrote:
Your thing about the cell phones makes no sense. The difference between cell phones and air phone calls is rather huge in the discussion. yeah like usual I make no sense. look here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/Show nested quote +They herded passengers to the back of the plane, apparently leaving them unguarded, where they began making a plan and at least 30 more phone calls. what you suggest is that all 30 calls were made from the air phone right? looks like everyone took turns calling their families after being herded to the back of the plane. It's rather improbable don't you think? and your snopes-link doesn't even mention a missile.
Obviously I don't think it was airphone, but in the context of this discussion it's still something that needs to be considered.
Still though, when logically thought out, I think you do eventually reach the obvious conclusion that it was either cell phone or faked.
True, it takes the angle of the truck, not the missile, but that still doesn't change the fact that it presents massive amounts of evidence that it WAS a plane.
|
distant_voice, yea i missed the part about the military personnel themselves claiming to smell cordite. As for eye-witness accounts, for the few which claim they saw a silvery flash, a lot more claim they saw a jet of some sort, or at least a missile. For anyone to see a silvery flash at all, they would have had to have been looking directly at the impact site to see what happened. As such, they should have also seen what hit it, i mean it only makes sense. Whether or not they can tell the difference between a commuter jet, airliner, or cruise missile is irrelevant, none of the people who saw a flash mention they saw anything fly into the building at all. They seem to think it was a bomb planted internally or something. You see all these various and wild contradictions? I mean, obviously they cant all be right, which means some of these people are REALLY REALLY wrong about what they saw. People are fickle like that, and as a result, i hardly ever believe what they say. Everyone always see's something different, therefore exclude them entirely from the facts, because they are too confusing. Instead, focus on what you have, evidence, tangible factual evidence, not what some guy said.
A tomahawk missile uses a mini jet engine to fly, not solid fuel (which would be like a toy rocket or one fired from a jet). Tomahawk missiles fly very far and as a result need a more effecient propulsion system, whereas solid fuel rockets are built for speed and short distance. If any missile hit the pentagon a tomahawk would be the best choice, it is slow flying, very accurate, and designed for that purpose. Yet there is relatively little reason to believe one actually hit the pentagon, at least if you factor in what i mention in my previous post. Remember, a tomahawk missile would not produce a large fireball on impact, so if a missile did indeed strike, it had to have been followed up with the burn off of a large quantity of fuel, like a few hundred barrels of gasoline somewhere in the building. I just dont see a reason to believe this.
The osama tape, and everything in heavens post is all quite interesting, to which i can offer no comment on. I think they are all very good questions and observances, most of which need to be answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
