I won't bother.

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

1/1/2004 12:48:49 AM

Quote :

"For instance, explain why the second tower hit was the first to collapse. "

Um, placement, height, materials inside the building, change, more complete explosion, magical leprechauns . . . take your pick.

Quote :

"Furthermore, the second tower hit was hit on the corner of the building and much of the jet fuel exploded in the air, while the plane that crashed into the first tower hit crashed into the middle of the building. Why did the first tower to be hit not collapse first since it was 1)hit first and 2)was hit more directly? "

I have no direct, perfect answer. My guess is perhaps the second hit a more important support. I am not that type of engineer, and neither are you. Please read a reputable source about this and I am sure that it will answer your question.

1/1/2004 12:56:37 AM

You are so full of mother fucking shit.

Quote :

" 'Did you know that the World Trade Center towers were built and designed to withstand the impact of jet airliners? That is a fact. The towers stood for a long time after they hit, too. What do you say about that? "

Where is your mother fucking source? A saw a PBS special with an interview of the architect of the twin towers, and he explicity stated that he was once asked what would happen if a jet was crashed into the building and his reply was that he DID NOT KNOW. The reason why the mother fucking bulidings came down is because the steel support trusses fucking melted and the upper part of the building collapsed, this did not happen initialaly becuase the jet fuel fueled fire took time melt the metal.

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 1:01 AM. Reason : i]

Quote :

" "Partly right, partly wrong. There is no dispute that planes crashed into the towers. There is a dispute, however, as to what exactly caused the towers to collapse. For instance, explain why the second tower hit was the first to collapse. Furthermore, the second tower hit was hit on the corner of the building and much of the jet fuel exploded in the air, while the plane that crashed into the first tower hit crashed into the middle of the building. Why did the first tower to be hit not collapse first since it was 1)hit first and 2)was hit more directly?" "

-Becuase of where the plane hit, all that has happen is enough of the support trusses to melt.
-becuase a more direct hit likely spread the fire out, and the localized hit caused greater more localized damage, ideal for damaging crucial supports.

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 1:04 AM. Reason : fd]

1/1/2004 12:59:34 AM

Ding, ding, ding! I do believe we have a winner.

1/1/2004 1:05:09 AM

Quote :

"What IS clear from the evidence is that Flight 77 was not the 'aircraft' (ie, plane, missile, etc.) that hit the Pentagon. "

Really? What clear and definative evidence shows that it wasn't?

Quote :

"Then if a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, why did it not leave a hole in the building such as the planes did that hit the WTC?"

Different impact angle.

Quote :

" If the aircraft did not penetrate the building, the wreckage of the aircraft should be in front of the building."

I could have penetraced part way, With the angles that I would guess such a plane would fly into the building, it's not unreasonable to think it more or less burried it self into the ground just inside the building.

Quote :

"Where is the 100 tons of wreckage?"

See that picture on your website of the wreckage of a plane? Now imagine that having crashed and compressed in a 300+ MPH crash (think about what happens to a steel car). That plan could very easily have been compacted down into a small area. Most wrecks you see are of planes that more of less skidded to a halt on the ground as the pilots fought desperately to make the landing as safe as possible. That was not the case with this plane.

Quote :

"ncinerated, huh? In all the jet airliner crashes I have ever seen, there is always wreckage left behind...bodies, parts of the plane, etc. Can you explain why in this case the plane "incinerated"?....WHY?...Why this time? "

See above.

Quote :

"Did you know that the World Trade Center towers were built and designed to withstand the impact of jet airliners? That is a fa"

Not quite true. At the time they started building on the towers, it was designed to withstand the impact of a plane from that time era. Two very important things have changed since then:

1) Planes have gotten bigger. Much bigger

2) Asbestos usage was stopped.

Quote :

"The towers stood for a long time after they hit, too. What do you say about that? "

Don't know much about fires do you? Things don't always colapse when the fire is hottest (infact, most of the time it never does), it collapses after, after the structual integrity has been weekened.

Quote :

"I have read that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt stee"

Jet fuel alone may not, but there was a hell of a lot more in there other than jet fuel.

Quote :

"Furthermore, those towers fell long after the fire was at its hottest point. The fires were subsiding and then suddenly the towers collapsed. If it was the fire that caused the collapse, why did the collapse not occur earlier when the fire was the hottest? "

Because that's not the way most fires work. Please go watch a couple videos of firefighters putting out fires.

Quote :

"For instance, explain why the second tower hit was the first to collapse"

Short answer: because the two towers were not identical

Long answer: because any number of factors changes how a fire will affect the building including location of the building with respect to winds. key locations of fire, structural integrity of that part of the building, materials in the building. Etc etc etc

Quote :

"Furthermore, the second tower hit was hit on the corner of the building and much of the jet fuel exploded in the air, while the plane that crashed into the first tower hit crashed into the middle of the building. Why did the first tower to be hit not collapse first since it was 1)hit first and 2)was hit more directly? "

Build a tower of blocks. Now, take all the blocks out of a section of the corner on the tower extending rougly back to the middle. Now do it again and take the center blocks out and a few on the ends. Which do you think collapses first? I'm no structural engineer, but IIRC, most of a building's weight is in it's corners and walls.

1/1/2004 11:52:48 AM

Quote :

"At least I have provided evidence. And the best you can do is say the photograph is "distorted"?"

providing bull-shit evidence doesn't all of a sudden mean that you have a substantial case.

The simple fact of the matter is that the angle of those photos is not a good one to assess the damage to the front lawn. Who says that the impact on the ground had to have occurred within the bounds of that picture? Personally, I would think that if an aircraft, travelling at the supposed 250+MPH skipped or cartwheeled across the lawn, its impacts on the ground are likely to be more than 10-15 feet apart. Hell, throwing a frisbee at 15-20MPH off of concrete can yield more than that...
Thus, you don't really have any evidence. Just like showing pictures of part a group of people doesn't allow you to identify all of the group's members.

Quote :

"Those towers were designed and built to withstand a jet airliner impact. That is a fact."

And they DID withstand the impact of a jet airliner. If they didn't withstand the impact, they would have fallen over ON impact. Furthermore, as someone else mentioned, they were designed to the specs of a much smaller aircraft, yet performed admirably against a much larger aircraft. "That is a fact."

As for the jet fuel burning at too low of a temp to melt steel... guess what? I seriously doubt that the temp stayed at the temp of the jet fuel's burn. Certainly the heat of the fires would start adding up to equal the required temp to melt steel. And, as someone else said: "There was stuff other than jet fuel in there that was burning, too"

Finally, IIRC, didn't the second plane hit lower than the first? If that is the case, then this likely explains why the second tower collapsed first: The damaged sections had more load to bear in the second tower than the first...

and quit twisting words about conspiracy. thats basically what people do when they suddenly have nothing else to base their defense of something on. They just go twisting words and arguing over inconsequential bull-shit.

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/1/2004 1:23:21 PM

i clicked this thread hoping for entertainment...

thanks sali for not disappointing...

will you even vote in the 2004 elections?

1/1/2004 1:32:27 PM

Quote :

"This central region within the photo is considered by most researchers to have been the exact point of "ground zero"impact. Note how there is still glass in the windows above, covered in foam spray. Although impact from a large passenger plane is utterly out of the question, there is possible evidence that an open section of the bottom story was struck by a small unmanned drone aircraft or a missile that got in under the building. There was renovation work going on in this region of the Pentagon and sections of the bottom story were exposed and open. http://www.nzaif.com/pentagon/pentagon911.html"

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 9:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/1/2004 9:11:05 PM

Is there any evidence to suggest that that photo is of the impact point? It looks to me like it's to the left of the impact point. Notice how the wall is much more schorched on the right hand side? There is nothing at all to suggest that that photo is of the exact center of impact.

1/1/2004 9:20:59 PM

Here's a view of the crash area. You can see from this photo where the close-up photograph above is focussing on.

Also, notice the large cable spools on the ground in front of the building. Are we to assume that the '757' did not impact these cable spools?



[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/1/2004 9:30:09 PM

is there any evidence out there to suggest that salisburyboy isn't a complete tool?

1/1/2004 9:49:36 PM

Boy, I'd like to know which researchers think that close up is the center of impact. The majority of the smoke (and thus the concentration of burning material) is to the right of the area that is a close up, and the smoke is moving left to right in the wind.



[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 9:59 PM. Reason : immage]

1/1/2004 9:51:46 PM

and come on, salisbury, in this video, championed on your "unbiased website," one can clearly see a LARGE object hitting the pentagon. That object is no drone or missile...



[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 11:11 PM. Reason : mneh]

1/1/2004 11:10:44 PM

^^ interestingly enough, the portion on the right-hand side of the picture (the part circled) seems to look consistent with what you might expect from the impact of a wing... all the damage is relatively low, and it doesn't go in very far (as the wing would have been ripped right off by the impact)...

seems inconsistent with the assertations on the first page

1/1/2004 11:56:50 PM

for all we fucking know those windows are 8 inches thick because its the mother fucking pentagon

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 1:24 AM. Reason : fd]

1/2/2004 1:22:04 AM

The building was made with massive attacks from the Soviets in mind. It was reinforced with massive nuclear attacks in mind. This isn't a fucking strip mall, people, it's the closest thing to a fortress in the modern world. The glass, I imagine, is not your typical "well it goes with the vinyl siding and will save money on our energy bills" shit.

And I've yet to see anything resembling an explanation as to why, oh why, the government would be claiming that a plane hit the pentagon when a plane did not hit the pentagon.

Bear in mind that Salisburyboy's sources have said, among other things, that the USA is a puppet state of the Vatican, which also controls (unless I misread) the entire Islamic faith behind-the-scenes.

1/2/2004 1:31:09 AM

It makes no sense, becuase if the gov intentially flew planes into the WTC, they would have flow another plane into the pentagon and not told some lie. They would have had forever to plan it, so why fucking not just fly a plane into the pentagon? Why use a missile when and then just lie and hope people dont find out? The gov is smart enough to pull of the conspiracy but not just use a real fucking plane? This is the stupidest mother fucking thread in the mother fucking post-igotraped world.

1/2/2004 1:35:14 AM

Quote :

"Bear in mind that Salisburyboy's sources have said, among other things, that the USA is a puppet state of the Vatican, which also controls (unless I misread) the entire Islamic faith behind-the-scenes. --GrumpyGOP"

You would be wrong to assume that I believe everything that is on a website I have referenced.

As for what I believe, I think it is clear that the Vatican has tremendous influence on the governments of the world (including the United States). Revelation 17 says that the "Whore of Babylon" is that city which "reigns over the kings of the earth." On Islam, I have NOT seen evidence to show that the Vatican completely controls the Islamic faith. I have read that the Vatican was involved in the founding of the religion now known as "islam."


[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 12:51:29 PM

Evidence shows that (at least) 7 of the 19 "hijackers" were still alive after September 11, 2001:

Quote :

"Some of the men the FBI claims hijacked planes on Sept. 11 and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania are still alive. http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html"

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 1:30:30 PM

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that alleged 'hijacker' Waleed Alshehri is still alive and living in Morocco.

Quote :

"In a development that illustrates the difficulty of identifying those responsible for planning and executing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, one of the people originally named as one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11 is living in Morocco where he is training to be a pilot. On Friday, officials at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., said the FBI told school officials that the real Waleed Alshehri is alive and talked to U.S. officials in Morocco earlier last week. Alshehri, a native of Saudi Arabia, has been training "for at least the last six months," in Casablanca to become a pilot for a Moroccan carrier, an airline official told the AP on condition of anonymity. http://www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-nws-terr23.html"

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 1:45:20 PM

ARCHIVE of information relating to the events of September 11th, 2001...including evidence of prior knowledge by the government, CIA ties to bin Ladin, evidence of other times in history where governments have allowed their own nations to be attacked in order to accomplish certain objectives, and much more. Much of the evidence provided is gathered from "mainstream" newspapers and news organizations.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge#eve


[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 1:55:43 PM

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancelled September 11 flying plans day before: On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Sure they cancelled travel plans but I'm sure they at least went into work and that turned out to be a not so great idea too.

I don't see why you think these articles indicate some massive conspiracy. To me they just illustrate the slowness of the flow of information between departments and possible ineptitudes in the system, but nothing beyond that and certainly nothing sinister.

1/2/2004 2:13:51 PM

Here is an interesting and good point:

Quote :

"Didn’t it seem strange that we learned everything of the government version by the next day? Much has been learned about the attacks, yet the official version has never changed; it seems as though our government thinks the point moot since it used this excuse to pass unconstitutional laws and wage wars resulting in oil profits. http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html"

Why have we been given virtually no more information by the government about the events of 9-11-01 after the information given the day after the attack? The official story has not changed. The 19 suspected 'hijackers' were plastered on TV the very day after 9-11. Isn't it suspicious that they could "identify" all of the "hijackers" in such a short time? News organizations have reported that many of those accused 19 are still alive and are cleared from any involvement. Why has there been no further information from the FBI about the true "hijackers"?


[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 2:21:26 PM

I don't suppose that could be because in 24 hours you can do a lot of research. What do you think that the government just had one person looking at the information? They had hundreds of people checking data and trying to piece together what happened. Those people worked round the clock, and they gave the conclusions they came up with. As for no new information, what do you call the entire investigative report as ordered by congress into the events of 9/11? A bedtime story?

1/2/2004 2:29:01 PM

Visa thought my girlfriend spent over $800 in one day at 3 Winn Dixies in New Orleans but it sure as hell wasn't her. I don't se why the government wouldn't know pretty much everything that happened by the second day, I mean it was pretty self-explanatory. Passenger lists tell them who the terrorists are and if they happen to be fake identities then sure some of the people's names who are listed as the suspected hijackers would probably still be alive and we may never know the identity of the actual hijacker in the cockpit.

Had the US taken a week to release what happened on 9/11 then you would say it shouldn't have taken that long and obviously it did because they had to fabricate evidence and make sure it was all in place so we could continue to be fooled by the Zionist deceivers.

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 2:31:30 PM

Do you think it is impossible (or unlikely) that a government would attack its own citizens? Learn about "Operation Northwoods" (in which the U.S. government contemplated attacking American citizens and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext for a war against Cuba). Hitler burned down the "Reichstag" and blamed it on his political opponents. These are just 2 examples.

Fear is one of the most powerful emotions. It can be used by governments to gain public support to accomplish many, many things.

For more on this, see the video "9-11: The Road to Tyranny" at the following website. It has a 48 minute exerpt of the video that can be freely downloaded. http://www.infowars.com/videos.html

To download the film, click on the text "Watch 40 minutes of the 144 minute film" in a yellow box about 1/4 down the webpage I referenced above.


[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 2:40:01 PM

blame it on the jews.

1/2/2004 2:43:26 PM

Quote :

"in which the U.S. government contemplated attacking American citizens and blaming it on Cuba"

Key word there. We didn't actually do it. So just because a couple military officials in the early 60's came up with a crack pot plan that was rejected by the administration and then buried it (because of just how emabarrasing its notion was), you think the US government, the Vatican, and the Jews were all the co-conspirators of a faked terrorist attack on US targets causing thousands of deaths and billions of dollars lost... right.

You seriously are way too stressed/paranoid/misguided. I really do feel sorry for you.

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 2:51:14 PM

I never said anything in this thread about the Jews being co-conspirators in the 9-11-01 attacks. 'Israeli' Mossad may or may not have been involved, but I didn't say anything in this thread about the Jews being involved in the plot.

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2004 2:56:02 PM

Yes I do think it would be highly unlikely for OUR government to do that, especialy in an age where cameras record just about everything that happens. This isn't like during hitler's time when you could dress a couple people up, take some pictures and then bury the evidence. Cameras are all over, and so are people.

1/2/2004 2:56:27 PM

somebody should revoke sali's ability to use crazycode

1/2/2004 4:30:49 PM

those ultimately behind it:

the illuminati, the masons, the knights of columbus, and other secret societies that have controlled the world for centuries.

this was just another step towards a one-world government: scare the people.


not really though.

1/2/2004 4:49:40 PM

in this thread salisburyboy provided evidence that makes sense,
trying to prove him wrong by giving your opinion is idiotic.
say or show some facts that might prove him wrong
and never discredit an idea just becasue the person whos presnting it
is a nutcase, look at the facts, and judge the evidence provided,

and again, these ae important points to be considered

Quote :

"To label people who want to merely want to look into facts and try to understand things (in this case try to make sense of the highly suspect 'story' offered as the explanation for what happened on 9.11.01) as "conspiracy theorists" is misleading. The media has conditioned the masses to think of certain people who question the 'official story' by the government as "conspiracy theorists" (the connotation being that these people are 'wacko'). Conspiracies are common and have occured throughout human history. People routinely conspire to commit all sorts of crimes...including robbery and murder. We have laws against "conspiracy to commit murder", etc. Governments have been involved in conspiracies. The Nazis conspired to conquer Europe militarily. Still, there is a difference between developing a theory and investigating a situation to determine the facts. It would be rather foolish to think it is impossible that our own U.S. government could be involved in conspiracies. It would be more foolish to dismiss people as "wackos" for merely seeking to investigate a situation and determine the facts."

.

1/2/2004 5:03:55 PM

What reliable evidence did he provide?

[Edited on January 2, 2004 at 5:27 PM. Reason : adfasdf]

1/2/2004 5:20:35 PM

Quote :

"You would be wrong to assume that I believe everything that is on a website I have referenced. "

Oh, so this website is only right about the things you want to believe?

1/2/2004 6:06:08 PM

jesus christ.... lets compare hitler to bush again. sadam doest even come close.

1/2/2004 6:26:02 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so this website is only right about the things you want to believe?"

Pretty weak attempt to twist what I said. I never said that. I merely said that I don't agree with every single thing said on a website I referenced.

Nothing is right or wrong just because I (or any person) believes it. Something is right if it is supported by evidence or the authority of God.

[Edited on January 3, 2004 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2004 6:14:48 PM

Quote :

"Bear in mind that Salisburyboy's sources have said, among other things, that the USA is a puppet state of the Vatican, which also controls (unless I misread) the entire Islamic faith behind-the-scenes."

Quote :

"You would be wrong to assume that I believe everything that is on a website I have referenced. "

I am trying to demonstrate that you have a history of bringing sources of that outlandish nature to the debate table. Those parts you pick and choose to believe are irrelevant. A site that makes one such ridiculous claim is likely to have made other, equally silly ones. And a person who cites those sources seriously in debate once is likely to use similar piles of BS in the future.

1/3/2004 8:08:38 PM

to all of the people that think that the events of 9/11 happened as the govt says they did: it seems as though you are taking the information that you read in a newspaper or heard on the news as what actually happened. why can concrete facts not get you to think a little differently about the topic? do you love your government so much that you cant stand to think that they might be lying to you about some of the things that happened that day?

1/5/2004 1:09:26 PM

you know what's interesting, all salisbury-craziness aside? The united states had been in discussions with the taliban for quite a while about building an oil pipeline through afghanistan. Knowing full well that they were a dictatorial and repressive regime, the bush sr. admin negotiated with them nonetheless before they really came to power, as did the clinton admin in the beginning, about this pipeline.

However, the clinton admin, eventually realizing the extent of the taliban's horrors, pulled out of the relationship and said no to the pipeline deal - the taliban's major source of future income. They had been planning this and planning their budget around this deal for years. This was right near the end of clinton's second term, and as bush jr. came into power, the taliban was already pissed.

A few months later, mainly funded by the taliban and many, many saudi royals and businessmen (many of whom were related to bin-laden and also had interests in the deal... mainly through the carlyle group, partially run by the bush family and some of the bin ladens) several airliners were crashed into the united states in a terrorist attack.

Doesn't that make sense? That the whole thing was about money? Wars have been started for less. Whether or not this WAS the reason for the attack, the facts that I just presented are all true. Judge for yourself.

1/5/2004 1:40:41 PM

oh yes, the evil carlyle group

1/5/2004 1:42:53 PM

did i call the carlyle group evil? All I said was that there were several saudi royals and some bin ladens who had alot of money invested in that deal.

[Edited on January 5, 2004 at 1:44 PM. Reason : ,]

1/5/2004 1:44:34 PM

you didn't say anything about the saudi royals being in the carlyle group. only bushes and bin Ladens (bin Ladens have disowned Osama)

1/5/2004 1:46:32 PM

the saudi royals aren't part of carlyle - they're simply some others who had money invested in the pipeline.

Quote :

"bin Ladens have disowned Osama"

oh?

Quote :

"After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens. And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded. "

1/5/2004 1:49:27 PM

Quote :

"you know what's interesting, all salisbury-craziness aside"

Not talking directly to you DirtyGreek, but in general....it is unwise to discredit what someone says just because you don't like that person or because you disagree with that person. People should discredit a claim by examining the evidence that supports or does not support the claim. It would be more reasonable to merely doubt (not totally discredit) the validity of what someone says if it can be proven that they are an intentional liar.

I am not posting what I post for my own benefit or to be known on the wolf web. I am not posting it to decieve, either. In regards to this thread, I am posting what I post because I am interested in others knowing the truth. I am not saying that I have all the answers...but as in this instance, I think the evidence shows that the official government story may not be true....and I am merely trying to tell others about this and ask them to examine the evidence (and maybe then we can come to the truth).

1/5/2004 1:51:10 PM

i don't think you're crazy, man. I just think you post crazy stuff even more than i do - most of my posts are based in reality. I just don't think you go to enough pains to check out your sources.

I know people might say the same about me, but that's all I mean.

1/5/2004 1:52:53 PM

Does anyone remember that AirTran (I think) flight that crashed into the everglades? They found no parts bigger than a few inches and that was after no fire and impacting water/soft earth. The pentagon is a fucking radiation proof building with steel and cement walls. You'd have to be crazy if you think it's going to leave a nice little plane-shaped hole!

PS...Quoting shit from Moore and websites such as the ones I've seen here gets you an "F" in life

1/5/2004 2:41:39 PM

aww you mean i fail?

I guess the fact that all of moore's sources are noted, not to mention reputable, doesn't matter if you just hate him huh?

1/5/2004 2:52:21 PM

^^forget the hole for a second, where is/was any of the wreckage?

1/5/2004 3:10:18 PM

yup Greek, they have disowned him.

1/5/2004 3:11:10 PM