Ok folks you be the judge.This theory is not so whacky is it

[Dreams End]

I think I should be easy on you because you may have a learning disability. Or are you truly saying "I want people to respond to these points but if they make their responses too long I don't want to read them." If you can only read short paragraphs in Bush fashion and don't want to wade through lots of technical details I would look at some other aspect of 9/11 than the physics...as this is very complex. I don't claim to be an expert by any means. I readily admit that the physics involved in various aspects of the tower collapses is beyond me. Someone claimed, for example, that the amount of kinetic energy which expanded the dust cloud is far more than the collapse of a building could create. I have no idea if that's true, as I don't know the physics that well. But Ke=1/2mv^2 you learn in grade school. So seeing a plane smash into the outside of a building at high speed, I'm not surprised (i.e. don't claim it "violates the laws of physics") when the plane punches through the wall.<br><br><br>And please explain this logic:<br><br>Not believing the "no planes" hypothesis = accepting all of the official 9/11 story.<br><br>Things I question about the official story include:<br><br>The stand-down and failure to scramble planes<br>The alleged lack of foreknowledge<br>The warnings to Willie Brown and John Ashcroft about flying planes (which, by the way, would suggest that whoever was giving the warnings didn't know WHICH planes would be hijacked or exactly when)<br>The visit to the US by the Pakistani Intel chief at just that moment<br>The hustling out of the country of various bin Laden family members in the wake of 9/11<br>The various intel connections within Muslim extremist groups<br>The relation of Marvin Bush to the company that provided security for the World Trade Centers as well as the airports from which the planes were hijacked<br>The whole connection, via the Venice flight school, etc, of the drug/intel/alleged hijackers.<br>The ties between Osama and the CIA going back to the mujahadeen vs. USSR<br>The various companies who benefitted from the ensuing war, such as halliburton and their ties to the people who decided we should go to war<br>And I'm even open to the controlled demolition hypothesis, though I slink around here with that view given the really shoddy arguments made (often, not always) on its behalf. I still think 3 out of 3 buildings is the sort of coincidence that smacks of, well, non-coincidence. <br><br>When I see a non-plane hypothesis and the failure by those who promote it, to even address the most rudimentary physics questions, it looks to me like the sort of theory put out so people can attack 9/11 truth theorists as non-credible. <br><br>Now, here's some advice. If you want to post on this in the future and don't have time to rebut counterarguments...simply say that you don't have time...and STOP WHINING THAT NO ONE RESPONDS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT. <p></p><i></i>

[StarmanSkye]

DBD said:<br><br>"For a specific example of Starman's style (I believe it is called spamming) go to the thread on Conyers and Boxer supporting the attack on Iran and read his latest offering. It is an exercise in nothingness looks like to me. What do you think?"<br><br>There you go again -- I honestly think you can't help yourself.<br>What's so bizarre is that you can cop such such a self-rightous dis- atttiude when I genuinely LIKE you and often appreciate your contributions. I can only imagine with what contempt you are held by folks who DON'T like you.<br><br>Despite my effort to remain upbeat and constructive and engaged -- yet here you are unselfconsciously maligning me on the basis of my STYLE fer chrissakes, even going WAAAY off-topic, off-thread (a real no-no, as if civil courtesy mattered at all) -- Note, you didn't offer even ONE substantive rebuttal on a point of issue. <br>NONE. Nada. Zero. -0-<br><br>Man, whatta real piece of work -- so obsessed with your own POV you don't hesitate to shit on, get all snarky and pissy and eager to disparage others on the thinnest of 'disagreement' pretexts, ie., opinions.<br><br>And jeez, it isn't like YOU weren't the VERY FIRST to associate 'wacky' with this no-plane theory in the very subject header. I have to laugh -- that is SO bizarre, accusing others for what YOU set the whole tone for.<br><br>I guess my contribution to Conyers and Boxer's support for bombing was a *bit* over your head, eh? Ya' know, I was responding to Sepka's comment -- or DID you even bother to read it? But HOW could you be so dense to not *get* that I was talking about the national inability to acknowledge the US's hypocrisy, as in the rush to use to use war as one-size-fits-all solution to 'problems' largely created by US policy? Did I use too many 'big' words? (See the 'tone' your stylistic 'criticism' encourages?)<br><br>But -- GodDAMN-- How DARE you accuse me --or anyone-- of spamming?<br>(I deleted what I said -here- as an emotional outburst and not constructive. But take it that my regard for you fell quite a bit.)<br><br>Are you keen to paint youself into a lonely corner as some kind of romanticized maligned 'truth' martyr? Is THAT what this is all about? As DE pointed out -- You seem determined to make the most specious, knee-jerk, oversimplistic conclusions -- ie., anyone who disagrees with the no-plane thesis is automatically an official-theory true-believer. That's just as offensive as claiming you didn't have 'time' to review detailed commentary debate on your previous threads and then insulting people for not responding in-depth on this most recent one.<br><br>I REALLY don't understand why you insist on insults and fomenting diviseness and bitterness -- You're wittingly-or-not providing a classic example of watering-down solidarity among peace advocates, sowing rancor and taking offense where none was intended.<br><br>But I don't take your rude arrogance personally -- I prefer to think you're suffering self-induced anxiety and stress. You're losing sight of who the real enemy is with your contemptuous and digressive slamming.<br><br>So, I hope you get better if not well soon.<br>It would be helpful if you stayed on-issue.<br>An apology to this board would be a step in the right direction.<br>At least, if you want to salvage your credibility.<br><br>Re: your bizarre insinuation that I like others uphold the official theory because we're skeptical about some aspects of alternative 911 claims --<br>WoW-- You're WAAAY-off base; <br>Where do you even get-off saying such a dumb thing?<br><br>Do you wonder people resent your self-obsessed infatuation when you claim such unwarranted, unsupportable crap? How can anyone take you seriously, you're spending your rep and good-will like you can't wait to be unburdoned of 'em.<br><br>Starman <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starmanskye>StarmanSkye</A> at: 4/30/06 3:41 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I don't take back a thing about your style. It is verbose and has little content, plus you are preaching to the choir, for the main part. I can't imagain anyone here really sincerely promotes the idea we bomb Iran? If they do, perhaps they are just here to promote the gov. <br>l still haven't figured out where you stand and 9-11. You aren't very clear about it. Perhaps you could explain.... <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Thanks for clarifying your stand on 9-11. I am glad that we have so many points in common, as I too question all these anamolies. What confounds me about the plane and its entry hole would require you to go to the above posted article by Spooked and look at said entry hole with superimposed diagram of the plane. The fuselage does not fit into the hole, yet the wings actually damage and in most cases cut cleanly through huge girders. How does almuminum cleanly and neatly cut steel And why<br> doesn't the fuselage fit <br> into the hole? There are many such points made in this article which I doubt very much you bothered to read since you already made up your mind. I am not really talking about physics here, which I only got a "c" in, in college. I'm talking about common sense. Does the so called pilot of this flight perform impossible manuevers while flying at the absolute operational speed limit? Yes<br>he does. Does the heaviest part of the plane fit into the hole where it would have had to go? No it does not. etc etc.But are you really interested in these details? I doubt it very much. <p></p><i></i>

[StarmanSkye]

DBD said:<br>"I don't take back a thing about your style. It is verbose and has little content, plus you are preaching to the choir, for the main part. I can't imagain anyone here really sincerely promotes the idea we bomb Iran? If they do, perhaps they are just here to promote the gov. <br>l still haven't figured out where you stand and 9-11. You aren't very clear about it. Perhaps you could explain.... "<br><br><br><br><br><br>How childish and churlish and petty.<br><br>Is that 'clear' enough for you?<br><br>Your off-topic, off-thread character-assassination was not only rude but totally uncalled-for, showing contempt for the forum. <br><br>At the very least, I think you owe the forum an apology.<br><br>Why should I spend an extra minute responding to one of your questions? As far as I'm concerned, you started this whole pissing-contest by claiming because I was skeptical about CD at the WTC towers I was necessarily a shill for the media.<br><br>I lost a good measure of respect for you when you didn't respond to my calling-you onnit.<br><br>I 'get' that while you expect folks to suspend their judgement and give your comments and concerns a rigorous sounding, you aren't willing to reciprocate. As by your dismissive description of previous thread-discussion as being nothing but 'people blasting away'. I addressed many of your points on a very detailed basis -- I don't accept your judgement they don't make sense. It's evident your discussion is limited to a superficial fixation on appearances.<br><br>In the absence of assurances to the contrary -- I guess I must accept your disparagement as being at least somewhat personal.<br><br>Starman<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Still no stand on 9-11? Well, so much for that. Guess that topic doesn't interest you. Oh well. But one thing for sure, all that other stuff you're ranting about doesn't interest me...so adios amigo. <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Way to go, team..<br><br>Who needs Bad Guys when we can settle for each other? <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

yeah, way to go,<br>if something seems ridiculous to you then what better than an attack on the intellectual faculties of the poster,<br>anyway, found this interesting snippet on wiki<br><br>On the morning of <b>December 1, 1984,</b> a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con...onstration</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>one of the things i have a problem with is when people say, look at this phto of the plane going in, it shouldnt look like that,<br>and i think, how the hell would anyone know what it should look like,<br>it is interesting that on the very few instances of planes hitting buildings large chunks of plane are left<br><br>December 6, 2005, Iranian Air Force C-130 crash in Tehran<br>Iason Sowden of Global Radio News in Tehran said there were reports of charred bodies on the ground near the crash site. Sowden also said that one wing of the plane was lying in front of the building.<br><br>Saturday, July 28, 1945, U.S. Army B-25 hits Empie state building<br>The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high.<br>bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

A B-25 is nowhere near the size of what was alledgedly flown into the WTC:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.b25.net/b25slnfs.JPG" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>What speed was that plane doing, btw? Does anyone know? <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

The point about pieces of the plane sticking out of buildings is compelling. Especially so, since as Spooked points out, the plane the purportedly hit the South tower was very long. By the time its front end had smashed into the extremely solidly built, major load supporting inner steel girders, the tail would still be sticking out the entry hole. These girders would have slowed the progress of the rest of the plane, if not stopped it completely. Instead the tail of the plane continues to slide smoothly into the building, not even losing any velocity, as if the major steel construct in the center of the building was just thin air--- Though the official version has the plane disintegrating inside the building....hmmmm. Am I the only one besides Spooked that thinks this is odd? <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

its not really the size so much as the size relative to the hole it creates,<br>the b-25 has a wingspan of 20m and a height of 4.8,<br>it was tilting back to try and fly over when it hit the building,<br>the hole was 6m wide and 6.5m high,<br><br>what does this tell me? fuck knows<br><br>personally the photos of the second plane crash site in the wtc look to me exactly as i would expect them to look if a 757 had hit,<br><br>and if nasa were test flying remote controlled airliners in 1984 it would seem far easier to me to just do that than to try and visually fake a plane hitting a building <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Man, inertia's a real bitch..Take the B-25 for example. One point to consider:<br><br>The pilot that crashed that plane *probably* did everything he could to minimize the damage that he knew the collision would cause.<br><br>This means he probably decelerated as much as he was able.<br><br>The WTC collision was the exact opposite; they collided at a max speed.<br><br>The bullet example is simplistic and compelling. I survived a head on collision with a tree doing about 40 mph. The truck was totalled, but I walked away. Had I been driving even a little faster, I'd be dead.<br><br>Why is this simple aspect of pyhsics so hard to acknowledge? At some point, you have to ask yourself what the reason would be that the most outrageous unbelievable explanations are found to be the most attractive to some people..<br><br>Isn't there enough innuendo and intrigue without it? <br><br>I really wish that focus on <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WHO</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WHY</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> had even a fraction of the energy spent on it that the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>HOW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> does.. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I agree that the idea that they "faked" a plane hit on the surface is completely ludicrous and improbably fantastic. Nonetheless, there is the question: Wouldn't the inner core of the WTC building have stopped the plane? It would seem that the answer would simply have to be "yes". Even a plane like that couldn't have penetrated the core. Yet, despite this, the plane just keeps on going in when it should have been stopped dead or at least substantially slowed to a near halt when impacting the core, by the time the tail enters the building. That is what Spooked is saying, or am I wrong about that? <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

seem simple to me. As in any crime, who benefited from all this? Not the "arabs" not the Afghans, certainly not the Iraqis, and most decidedly not the oppressed classes in Palestine. Whose profits have more than tripled? Haliburton. Whose net worth has doubled? Exxon. Bush is associated with one of these companies and Cheney is associated with the other. Oil companies defense industry all just booming away. And who is paying? we are. Hey this is a no brainer. Why waste time on it. The elite needed 9-11 to complete the destruction of the middle class. <br>I don't know why I am interested in the HOW. Just morbid curiousity, I guess. <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I don't know why I am interested in the HOW. Just morbid curiousity, I guess.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You're not the only guitly person of indulging in this, but man, seriously, it's got to be gotten past and and attention shifted towards something more appropriate. Yeah, it's great fun to sit and speculate endlessly on why this happened the way it did, but without several degrees in physics and architecture, it's a waste of time.<br><br>I don't think the REAL psy-op was 9/11, I think the real one started afterwards when everyone started doing the 'how is that possible' thing..It's the most severe distraction in the entire 9/11 experience, and don't think for a minute that it's not calculated and appreictaed by the guilty parties..<br><br>Thousands were murdered. A country was waylaid, and exploited in an overt neocon coup..<br><br>These are the important issues, not whether or not a missle hit the Pentagon, as intriguing as it is..It's just a siren song, and goddamn, it works..All these highly intellegent members here, all the conflict between you all over irrellevant details we can never answer..<br><br>For the sake of those killed and those in the world that will suffer from what changes(deliberate or otherwise) 9/11 brought, we need to place these arguments behind us and shift towards establishing accountability. <p></p><i></i>