9/11

PolyNewbie · February 23, 2007

Black Dog:That's not what he said.

Thats exactly what he said. He explained that they later dug up the plane and were able to find all the bodies.

Its in the Democracy Now archives.

Well, when a plane strikes the ground at 500 miles an hour, flying almost straight down, there typically isn't much visible above ground

So the plane must have been buried if it wasn't above ground. Unless it bounced and ended up on Jupiter or something.

Planes don't bury them selves underground. They are not strong enough to go through dirt and rock. You need a tunneling machine for that and planes are nothing like tunneling machines.

Black Dog · February 23, 2007

Thats exactly what he said. He explained that they later dug up the plane and were able to find all the bodies.

You're lying. The quote I provided was from Democracy Now's transcript of the debate. Here's the link.

And here is the relevant quote, in full:

JAMES MEIGS: You know, that clip is really interesting, because it shows how slickly made this film is, how compelling it is at asking a series of sort of hanging questions and putting some spooky music behind it and making it sound as if someone’s covering up these facts. But a brave researcher can dig down and put all the pieces together. In fact, there's answers to all those questions.
If you look at the sources that were used throughout that clip, they’re all things that came up in the first day or two after the attacks. In some cases, somebody is standing across the field and saying, “I don't see a plane.” Well, when a plane strikes the ground at 500 miles an hour, flying almost straight down, there typically isn't much visible above ground.

They also quote the coroner in the Shanksville area. We talked to the coroner. He had the horrific job of collecting the body parts and cataloging and performing all the necessary tests. Those bodies were identified. The plane wreckage in the pieces -- the tiny pieces it was in after it had hit the ground was, you know, collected from the hole, cataloged.

And the black box was recovered. And we know what went on, because of the records of the voice cockpit recorder, and in this case, quite a few phone calls from the aircraft itself to various people on the ground. So we know a lot of what happened on Flight 93.

The film is alleging that no plane crashed there at all. The people were sent off somewhere to somehow be disposed of. If you are going to allege something so far beyond what a huge body of evidence would suggest is the truth, then you do need to pull together some evidence. And so, we fully support asking questions and being skeptical, but if you’re going to ask questions, you also have to look for the answers. And when you get answers, you can't ignore them.

So the plane must have been buried if it wasn't above ground. Unless it bounced and ended up on Jupiter or something.
Planes don't bury them selves underground. They are not strong enough to go through dirt and rock. You need a tunneling machine for that and planes are nothing like tunneling machines.

OMFG. You've made some ridiculous statements before, but this one is up there. Look: take a heavy weight and drop it off the roof onto the lawn. Chances are, it will leave an indentation or depression in the ground. Now, imagine that weight is a jetliner travelling straight down at 500 miles and hour. What kind of indentation do you think it would leave?

Let's go back to Meigs: "There typically isn't much visible above ground." Does that mean the plane burrowed into thee ground? No. He's quite clearly saying the plane hit, left a crater, and that's where you'd find the wreckage and bodies.

"Tunnelling machines." Jesus. :rolleyes:

But let';s step back for a second:

I think flight 93 was shot down because Rumsfeld accidentally said so and from the evidence

Why would they shoot down a plane they hijacked as part of their conspiracy?

PolyNewbie · February 23, 2007

Black Dog:You've made some ridiculous statements before, but this one is up there. Look: take a heavy weight and drop it off the roof onto the lawn. Chances are, it will leave an indentation or depression in the ground. Now, imagine that weight is a jetliner travelling straight down at 500 miles and hour. What kind of indentation do you think it would leave?

Given the fact that its a hollow super light & thin aluminum tube - not much. Airplanes don't bury themselves underground when they crash. I can imagine the engines making an indentation but not going completely underground.

Black Dog:Why would they shoot down a plane they hijacked as part of their conspiracy?

It may be that a fighter jock didn't follow orders and shot it down. At least thats what I have heard.

Anyways, nothing definitive can come out of debating the Pentagon crash or the Pennslyvania crash. You can see 911 was an inside job by seeing how wtc7 collapsed indentically to a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition.

Black Dog · February 23, 2007

Given the fact that its a hollow super light & thin aluminum tube - not much. Airplanes don't bury themselves underground when they crash. I can imagine the engines making an indentation but not going completely underground.

So where'd the big frigging crater come from? Even the Losse Change boys acknowledge the existence of the crater.

It may be that a fighter jock didn't follow orders and shot it down. At least thats what I have heard.

You're telling me that the government could plan and execute mulitiple fake hijackings, wire three buildings for controlled demolition, but couldn't control one fighter jock? Besides, where'd he come from? Weren't they told to stand down?

Anyways, nothing definitive can come out of debating the Pentagon crash or the Pennslyvania crash. You can see 911 was an inside job by seeing how wtc7 collapsed indentically to a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition.

Ah, changing the subject again.

Canadian Blue · February 24, 2007

Black Dog, don't you see the truth. The truth is that the truth is much too logical, thus we shouldn't believe the truth as the truth doesn't fit the facts, but the other truth is apparently the truth, due to the speculation of one heretical Lyndon Larouche fan.

PolyNewbie · February 24, 2007

Anyways, nothing definitive can come out of debating the Pentagon crash or the Pennslyvania crash. You can see 911 was an inside job by seeing how wtc7 collapsed indentically to a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition.

They also quote the coroner in the Shanksville area. We talked to the coroner. He had the horrific job of collecting the body parts and cataloging and performing all the necessary tests. Those bodies were identified. The plane wreckage in the pieces -- the tiny pieces it was in after it had hit the ground was, you know, collected from the hole, cataloged.

I've got a bridge in brooklyn for sale....but it, like that plane,would never fit in that hole.

jbg · February 24, 2007

How do you think the rest of us feel about you after over 1200 posts in this thread?
a) a little sick of hearing from a self proclaimed expert.

b ) a little sick of hearing from a self proclaimed expert.

c) a little sick of hearing from a self proclaimed expert.

d) all of the above.

Instead of "practice makes perfect", it's now "repetition makes perfect".

PolyNewbie · February 24, 2007

jbg:Instead of "practice makes perfect", it's now "repetition makes perfect".

How is that ? Where am I repeating myself without being asked ? I have to repeat myself with Riverwind, after 20 or so posts the message starts to sink in. Notice no more Riverwind style physics.

Tell me something, since you haven't added a single thing to this debate and have put silly comments in that show you have the mental accuity of a 10 year old, why don't you anser one question:

How can you ignore the molten metal evidence and the high heat in the ground after the collapses of wtc1 & 2 when we know for a fact that jet fuel doesn't burn that hot ? To believe the official version you must completely ignore that factual evidence.

PolyNewbie · February 24, 2007

CanadianBlue:The truth is that the truth is much too logical, thus we shouldn't believe the truth as the truth doesn't fit the facts,

What is your explanation for the molten metal and the hot spots around the towers after the collapses when we know burning fuel doesn't melt metal ?

Which particular fact is being ignored ? Can you name just one fact that supports the official version ? Is there any evidence that supports the official version ?

PolyNewbie · February 24, 2007

stignasty:How do you think the rest of us feel about you after over 1200 posts in this thread?

I think you probably feel bad and its getting harder and harder to actually believe that 911 wasn't an inside job for two reasons (1) No evidence supports the official version (2) There is piles of circimstantial and physical evidence that shows 911 was an inside job.

stignasty · February 25, 2007

I think you probably feel bad and its getting harder and harder to actually believe that 911 wasn't an inside job for two reasons (1) No evidence supports the official version (2) There is piles of circimstantial and physical evidence that shows 911 was an inside job.

Well, you're wrong again.

Riverwind · February 25, 2007

What is your explanation for the molten metal and the hot spots around the towers after the collapses when we know burning fuel doesn't melt metal?

Fires trapped in closed spaces act like a forge. The trapped heat in the rubble could have easily have melted metal.

Which particular fact is being ignored ? Can you name just one fact that supports the official version ? Is there any evidence that supports the official version ?

Yes. The collapse of both buildings started exactly at the point of impact. This fact alone rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition because it would be impossible to predict where the planes would hit and wire a building to start a collapse at exactly that point.

jbg · February 25, 2007

jbg:Instead of "practice makes perfect", it's now "repetition makes perfect".

How is that ? Where am I repeating myself without being asked ? I have to repeat myself with Riverwind, after 20 or so posts the message starts to sink in. Notice no more Riverwind style physics.

Tell me something, since you haven't added a single thing to this debate and have put silly comments in that show you have the mental accuity of a 10 year old, why don't you anser one question:

How can you ignore the molten metal evidence and the high heat in the ground after the collapses of wtc1 & 2 when we know for a fact that jet fuel doesn't burn that hot ? To believe the official version you must completely ignore that factual evidence.

There's lots of evidence, including lots of people seeing the second plane hit the WTC, seeing the Pentagon attack, and the crash of Flight 93. Your arguments are silly and baseless.

PolyNewbie · February 25, 2007

jbg:There's lots of evidence, including lots of people seeing the second plane hit the WTC, seeing the Pentagon attack, and the crash of Flight 93. Your arguments are silly and baseless.

No one is really argueing that planes didn't hit the towers or the Pentagon. It's pointless to consider - it doesn't matter if people think a plane hit the Pentagon or not. Physical evidence of the twin towers shows the official explanation to be impossible. There is physical evidence of demolition as well as many witnesses describing explosions. The explosions start before the tower begins to collapse.

How do you explain the molten metal and the hot spots at the towers ?

You have a very simple and convenient way to look at the world that shows you to be very simple minded. The whole "us or them" mentality is a simple one. Reality is never this simple.

PolyNewbie · February 25, 2007

Riverwind:Fires trapped in closed spaces act like a forge. The trapped heat in the rubble could have easily have melted metal.

So if you had a hot piece of steel that was being heated by a fuel fire the temperature of the steel would exceed that of the burning fuel if it was in an enclosed space ? Fuel doen't burn hot enough to melt steel.

Riverwind:Yes. The collapse of both buildings started exactly at the point of impact. This fact alone rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition because it would be impossible to predict where the planes would hit and wire a building to start a collapse at exactly that point.

I think they could (1) know exactly where the planes would hit if they were programmed and flown automatically (2) They could change the initiation point of the collapse if necessary quite easily and allow for different impact points.

PolyNewbie · February 26, 2007

A BBC clip reporting that building 7 had collapsed a full 20 minutes before the collapse.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=14...4824&q=Building 7 BBC

And Larry Silversteins comments - think about it.

Look at this link (not for 'hockey pucks') before they snatch it.

Black Dog · February 26, 2007

Anyways, nothing definitive can come out of debating the Pentagon crash or the Pennslyvania crash.

Yeah, we heard you the first 25 times. But you're wrong. What about the phone calls: you've no evidence that the phone calls from passengers and crew members indicating the plane shad been hijacked were faked. Thus, your whole story collapses. And it doesn't even look like a controlled demolition.

Riverwind · February 26, 2007

How is that ? Where am I repeating myself without being asked ? I have to repeat myself with Riverwind, after 20 or so posts the message starts to sink in. Notice no more Riverwind style physics.

I stopped arging with you about phsyics because you refused to answer the question. When I back you in a corner leave you with no rational choice but to admit that you are wrong you respond with insults and try to change the topic.

The facts remain: a building cannot topple over if it does not have a pivot point that can exert a force on it. If part of a structure is damaged the load will redistribute to the other supports and overload them. THe result is a building has only one place to go: straight down. Tipping over is physically impossible unless there was some large outside force that could impact enough momentum.

PolyNewbie · February 26, 2007

Now building 7 doesn't look like a controlled demolition 8-)

Building 7 Collapse videos on this page

Here are the characteristics of controled demolitions:

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

So Black Dog, how is it that building 7 collapse does not look like a controlled demolition ?

When I say that the Pentagon and Pennslyvania crashes are a waste of time I mean that there is strong evidence that 911 was an inside job and can win an arguemnt based just on the facts of this but we have definitive proof - the collapses in NY.

That above video I posted is already being removed.

Canadian Blue · February 26, 2007

Now building 7 doesn't look like a controlled demolition 8-)
Building 7 Collapse videos on this page

Here are the characteristics of controled demolitions:

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Shouldn't their be massive bangs, along with flashes of light. Strange how even demolition experts seem to believe this theory is BS.

When I say that the Pentagon and Pennslyvania crashes are a waste of time I mean that there is strong evidence that 911 was an inside job and can win an arguemnt based just on the facts of this but we have definitive proof - the collapses in NY.

That doesn't prove anything, since 99% of the experts disagree with you, or don't want to waste their time with theories which have come from paranoid conspiracy nuts. As well that doesn't prove anything, since you haven't been able to prove anything on here with the exception of what some college dropouts saw on TV and decided to make observations with no scientific or engineering expertise.

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

But let me guess, they were all paid off by the CIA right...

Which is why this debate is futile, because all of the people who know what they are talking about, are always being told by people who don't know what they are talking about, that they were simply paid off by the CIA.

PolyNewbie · February 26, 2007

Its funny to hear how you guys argue this.

Soon you will be saying "OK OK 911 was an inside job but thats OK too because it happened 6 years ago and its time to forget it".

The woman is standing there reporting building 7 collapse before it collapses. The video shows wtc7 standing in the background !!!

Canadian Blue · February 26, 2007

Well, apparently common sense and rationality are foreign to you.

Riverwind · February 26, 2007

So Black Dog, how is it that building 7 collapse does not look like a controlled demolition ?

Just because it looks like a demolition when observed from certain angles does not mean is was a controlled demolition. That is basic logic. If you want to make the case that it was a controlled demolition then you need more than inconclusive obsevations. You need to produce statements from the people who participated in planning and setting up the demolition. The fact that no one has come forward after 6 years strongly suggests that there no such people exist.

PolyNewbie · February 26, 2007

Riverwind:You need to produce statements from the people who participated in planning and setting up the demolition.

WOW. Why have courts ?

Black Dog · February 26, 2007

The woman is standing there reporting building 7 collapse before it collapses. The video shows wtc7 standing in the background !!!

And what does that prove, exactly? Classic truthe rtactic: key in on some random and insignificant thing (like a reporters goof up in the midst of the day's chaos) or a single word or phrase ("buried," "pull," "Mark Bingham.") and build a fantastical scenario around them while ignoring the holes in the story that you could fly a 757 through (ie. "I have no idea how the Pentagon attacks and Flight 93 crash tie into my conspiracy narrative so I'll just ignore it and focus on something I saw on YouTube.")