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

by **stickdog99** » Mon May 01, 2006 5:14 am

I'm trying to figure out why I should care if I think that planes really hit the WTC towers or not. Why? Unless you can find an article that PROVES this, what good does this do? It sounds wacky, seems counter-intuitive and attacks one of the few official 9/11 stories that appears to be credible. Why choose this line of attack to get people to question 9/11, regardless of its possible (but unlikely) merit? I mean, I really don't want to waste my time on this unless I understand why. Assuming 9/11 was staged, why would they risk not flying planes into the WTC towers? I mean, it's downtown NYC, and you can't control who is videotaping the action, watching on radar, etc. In any case, if it's just speculation, why highlight it when there are so many more compelling questions, discrepancies and anomalies? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 5/1/06 7:00 am

by **NavnDansk** » Mon May 01, 2006 7:12 am

in Europe that had been hit by a plane. The text said that there were a few - small number- of large buildings in Europe that had been hit by planes, either that had been hijacked or just accidents. There may have been more than one photo, but the one I remember was a sort of crescent shape and though not a skyscraper, it looked like a large building seen from above that had a large chunk taken out but at least half the building remained. I wonder why comparison shots of the few building othr than those on 911 who were hit by planes (and I don't discount the no planes theory but think drones and CD more probable) are not shown more often. I rarely go to 911 sites, after a few hours, several days, enough to show that the official version is a lie. Sibyl Edmonds question on Congress.org "Why did NORAD stand down? Don't we have an Air Force any more?" is haunting and with the DU article on the conservatism of the Air Force along with articles on Congress.org by those in the Air Force who are not born again Christians being forced out despite their experience being needed is a hummm thought. There was a photo on a DU thread that broke the rules and showed a photo of the WTC from a distance and it looked like the debris was shooting straight up into the air and the comments were about the possiblity of a hydrogen bomb in the basement. The thread on the missing $200 billion in gold bars interests me very much and I would like to look at the links as I just read through the articles and think I took a quick look at the PBS site with the photos of gold bars. I can never find RI threads that I mean to revisit and check out the links. Sibyl Edmonds had mentioned theft of gold and price fixing of gold being one of the motivations for 911 in an interview on her site <a href="http://www.JustACitizen.com">www.JustACitizen.com</a> and she has a petition to ungag her and unredact her 911 Commission testimony.

by **NavnDansk** » Mon May 01, 2006 7:30 am

brother of President Kennedy was somehow involved with drones in WWII and RI posters several times have alluded to technology being discovered and used long before the public is made aware of it.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:40 am

Stickdog, I can understand your lack of interest in this question. I guess I misspoke myself about just "morbid curiosity". In the last five years I have learned many dismal facts about how people here and all over the world were being not just manipulated, but perceptually controlled in subtle and not so subtle ways, from our "elections" to what we eat, the drugs we take, to what we read and, alas, even what we think. I resent it. 9-11 has made me especially furious as I watch all the good hearted and decent people believe this tripe. I want to know how and to what extent our perceptions were manipulated and manufactured that day. I'm looking at every single possible factor. I am afraid that faked plane video is indeed one possible factor. I say POSSIBLE. In Jeff's threads and from many posters here, I see concepts much more outlandish and bizarre run up the flag pole, and no one accuses them of thought crimes. Poison is routinely put in our water and people think it is "good for them". The president tells us he will "help" the victims of Katrina and they are murdered and disappeared; no one seems to notice. Our elections are transparent shams and mainstream media pretends it's all above board. Why not faked planes? Seems possible to me. But hey, I'm really not set in this idea. Just hoping someone else would actually read the article and respond to the facts, diagrams and photo evidence presented. So far, I haven't seen much response to Spooked's actual material....

by **nomo** » Mon May 01, 2006 2:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So far, I haven't seen much response to Spooked's actual material....<hr></blockquote> Because it's a waste of time. The planes were there. Fact. Now, what most people don't realize, is that these purpoted TOWERS themselves never actually existed! I mean, the evidence is compelling. Have you been to this so-called "ground zero" location? There's nothing THERE!! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

by **robertdreed** » Mon May 01, 2006 4:12 pm

<a href="http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/redherring.gif">www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-g...erring.gif</a>

by **OpLan** » Mon May 01, 2006 11:59 pm

<a href="http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=24pg.jpg"><img src="http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3138/24pg.th.jpg"/></a> From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijlmerramp" target="top">Wikipedia</a> "A fuse pin on engine 3 sheared inappropriately due to corrosion, leaving the pod to tilt up and right due to gyroscopic forces, knocking engine 4 off the wing too. A China Airlines 747-200F freighter was brought down by the same causes in December 1991. The crew remained unaware of the extent of the damage, being unable to see the wing. After circling twice the plane returned to the airport and attempted to land. During the approach the flaps were extended, which apparently rendered the plane uncontrollable. At 18h35 the heavily loaded plane crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of apartments." (The cargo is probably enough to start another thread) "amongst other things: bullets, spare parts for AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, spare parts for Patriot missiles and 190 litres of dimethyl methylphosphonate. Dimethyl methylphosphonate is not classified as toxic, but is harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin; it is a Chemical Weapons Convention schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the Israel Institute for Biological Research under a U.S. Department of Commerce licence. After the disaster, there were rumours that the Israeli secret service had tried to recover some of the cargo, or the flight recording boxes. The plane, like all Boeing 747s at that time, also contained about 400 kg of depleted uranium as trim weight in the tail, a fact unknown during the recovery effort. The flight recording boxes were never found." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=oplan>OpLan</A> at: 5/3/06 6:02 pm

by **Infernal Optimist** » Wed May 03, 2006 12:05 pm

I'm agnostic about the existance of planes, but, other than attacking DBD has anybody addressed any of the anomolies from Spooked's article? 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. No, according to DreamsEnd, if you'd been going faster that truck would have sliced right through that tree. See any anomolies now?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed May 03, 2006 12:43 pm

If the airplanes had been doing 40 mph on impact, they'd have been totalled, too. If the the truck had been doing nearly 600 mph like flight 175 what do you think the tree would look like? See any anomolies now? No, I see velocity, mass and momentum.

by **StarmanSkye** » Wed May 03, 2006 1:28 pm

Velocity, mass and momentum; Precisemente'. The same phenomenon could/would be seen with a human body and a concrete-block wall. At speeds under 100 mph, a human body would splatter against a concrete wall, but at close to 600 mph the mass/momentum kinetic energy of a human body would shatter a concrete wall as it disintegrated. The operative word here isn't 'slice', but rather more like 'explosive penetration.' Likewise -- a large bird when struck by an aircraft at 500+ mph can shatter a plane's reinforced cockpit window, or destroy the engine's nearly-indestructable titanium-alloy turbine blades. That's one reason why commercial planes don't fly at cruising speed below 10,000 ft. where most birds fly. Flesh and bone may be relatively fragile, but they are still mass which acquires tremendous kinetic energy potential at high velocity. Starman

by **Infernal Optimist** » Wed May 03, 2006 2:19 pm

See any anomolies now? No, I see velocity, mass and momentum You miss the point, Jeff. You need to come up with a scenario where the truck goes all the way through the tree without slowing down. If the the truck had been doing nearly 600 mph like flight 175 what do you think the tree would look like? There would have been a nice clean truck-shaped hole in the tree and the truck would have been relatively intact </snort>

by **nomo** » Wed May 03, 2006 2:35 pm

There would have been a nice clean truck-shaped hole in the tree and the truck would have been relatively intact There was no truck. There was no tree. Why do you continue to believe that ridiculous official theory?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed May 03, 2006 3:06 pm

and if a piece of ALUMINUM had been going 600 miles per hour it would have simply crumbled up and fallen to the ground next to the tree. Just as it should have when it hit solid steel and cement. And a hollow aluminum tube would have EXPLODED. TRUCKS ARE DENSER THAN TREES. STEEL AND CEMENT ARE MUCH DENSE THAN ALUMINUM, NO MATTER WHAT SPEED THEY ARE GOING AT.

by **Dreams End** » Wed May 03, 2006 3:28 pm

Nice physics. Anyway, let's do the math. I don't know what kind of truck you were driving so I'll pick a pretty heavy one. Looks like a Ford F150 is about 6000 lbs. Let's see how fast it would have to go to equal the kinetic energy of a 767 going...is 500 mph fair? I'm using 255,000 lbs as the weight of the plane. So, we have .5*6000*V^2 = .5*300,000*500^2 (The maximum takeoff weight of a 767 is close to 400,000 lbs. People, of which there weren't a full load on board) only account for a tenth of that weight. Fuel and the plane itself account for the rest. Hence, 300,000 lbs is a low estimate.) That gives us 3000V^2=37,500,000,000 So dividing by 3000 and taking the square root we get: 3535. So yes, I'd expect a hole in the tree (well tree would topple first) similar to what happened with the plane if your car were going 3500 mph. Glad you survived, but the two don't compare.

by **Infernal Optimist** » Wed May 03, 2006 4:43 pm

You keep ignoring a couple of things: 1. The relative densities of the things colliding. There's a reason they use depleted uranium in the tips of armor-piercing shells (besides the fact that they're looking for a good use for it). It's dense. Maybe they should just use hollow aluminum shells and up the muzzle velocity. Who knew? 2. The strange asymmetry in the damage. I don't expect the less dense object to punch a hole in the more dense object while remaining intact. A video at Spooked's shows the plane hitting one side of the building, travelling through the core, and popping out the other side before exploding. This makes no sense. It doesn't matter if you shoot a chicken at a brick wall at 600mph or shoot a brick wall at a chicken at 600mph. The chicken's going to come out of the collision the worst, even if there is damage to the brick wall due to the energy of the collision. In this case, the brick wall is the core of the building. The outside of the building is more like a sieve - steel beams and concrete floors.

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

Re: who and why

I saw a 911 site long ago that had a photo of a building

I read a post long ago that said that Joseph Kennedy

Stickdog's lack of interest.

Re: Stickdog's lack of interest.

lack of interest in

Re: el al 1862

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Who is online