Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

what... huh? said:

My time is short guys... I will get back to all of your replies.

On the woman standing in the hole...

While not the safest place to stand, it would be one of the coolest. That hole was feeding the majority of the 7 story blaze with oxygen. Air would be sucking past there creating a pretty cool vacuum. The fire itself was over 3 stories above. I would expect that she eventually jumped before the building collapsed as the fire engulfed the areas around her. I don't have time to research now... but that would be my guess. I mean... there is molten metal spitting out that one corner on the other side... please stop arguing that the fire wasn't hot.

Heat rises. Fire consumes oxygen. A tunnel feeding a fire above with oxygen will be cooled.

bbl with more.

Click to expand...

Ummm no, thats not how it works, if air were being sucked in it would suck her inside. Large fires can create huge winds. In California the grass fire caused winds in excess of 80 MPH in some areas. Also there is no where for all the massive heat ( Must be in excess of 2900F to melt) to escape. As has already been proven by you with your gas tanker fire the beams only deformed they did not melt into liquid. So if we have liquid metal pouring out of the other side we either have a fire that is hotter than possible, or thermite has melted the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. the fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. Wow anyone who thinks regular fire can melt steel is living in fantasy land. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. How many steel buildings must I show with fires MUCH MUCH more severe than the 911 fires, yet you still claim that these buildings somehow got so hot that they melted and disintegrated before our very eyes.

As far as evacuation of WTC7. well fucking DUH. you never leave people in a burning building if they can get out. Of course they evacuated, it had nothing to do with a possible collapse. it had all to do with the fact there are giant skyscrapers falling all around you and the fucking building is on fire. I don't know about where you live, buit where Im from the firefighters get everyone out of burning buildings first before anything else. I would like to see a link of the facts showing the commanders evacing the building only because they thought it would fall, and NOT because its in a danger zone or on fire. Ridiculous claim.

Every building in a 2 block area was evacuated, not because they thought they were gonna fall either. Wonder why? Guess.

Even if the top floors fell because of structural problems. the top might have fallen over and off, but it certainly does not have enough force to crush the building below, it should have fallen over and off while leaving the building below the crash area completely intact.

As far as WTC 7. its unexpalinable by the govt why it fell. Why is that? They can find a way to explain the impossible for the towers, but are totally stumped by this one? What Gives?

Im not going to post on this anymore, its stupid to think those buildings just "fell" down. They were made to come down and NO PERSON NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS ARGUMENT WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.

Those buildings were demoed, those people were murdered and the world lives under the Lie of it all. It was done on purpose to further an agenda, an agenda that will take a few more years to come to full fruition but it will come and it will not be good.

Tell a Lie long enough and people will be convinced it is the truth. We learned that from the Nazis, and I can tell it is true, there are certainly plenty of people who let themselves be deceived by the Gubbermint.

NoDrama said:

Even if the top floors fell because of structural problems. the top might have fallen over and off, but it certainly does not have enough force to crush the building below, it should have fallen over and off while leaving the building below the crash area completely intact.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Case fuckin closed!

Heat rises, fire rises. There is no way to damage the lower floors, and dont give us tha jet fuel or kenetic energy bullshit. U even said it urself!! "Melted steel pouring out the other side". REGULAR(dirty burn) FIRE CAN NOT MELT STEEL!

Anyone stupid enough to believe 80 floors of concrete and steel BELOW the crash site can be reduced to pieces small enough to fit on a flatbed in mere seconds is a fool! Yall still believe in the Tooth Fairy as well?


Ima bounce out with NoDrama on this one. Its like trying to teach 2nd graders trigonometry... U need to seriously take the blind fold off. Peace out and have fun gettin brainwashed by the media and gubbermint.

"Im the puppet master, playing with your life" -hedPE

NoDrama said:

Im not going to post on this anymore, its stupid to think those buildings just "fell" down. They were made to come down and NO PERSON NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS ARGUMENT WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.

Click to expand...

Dude, I don't think the official report is accurate either, but I think this is a critical mistake on your part. You have to be open to ALL the data available.

Help be part of the solution for progress, this kind of attitude just makes you look like a little kid throwing a tantrum, I don't mean that to be offensive, I know exactly how you feel, like the evidence is so clear it's frustrating coming back in everytime and reposting the same stuff over and over, trust me man, I get it. But think about how annoying it is from the other side, they do the same stuff, there's a few examples on this thread already about guys on the right, defending the official report with just as much frustration as you have. It's equal, the way to get past that shit is forget about personal attacks and all that other pointless bullshit that the 911 discussion automatically brings to the table, pretend your talking to a robot that doesn't have any emotions, or an emotionless child when you explain your views on 911.

Just like when you talk about religion, this is a touchy subject, if you include personal attacks it just gets ugly and always ends up exactly where it started, epicly pointless everytime.

So I just hope you take that into consideration.

No disrespect.

NoDrama said:

Ok lets go with your theory then shall we.

If the plane vaporizes on impact, then why do we find parts of the airplane, some of them out in the streets and on top of other buildings? Also, if it were to vaporize then lets summarize what would happen to the buildings, lets use a quote from the article you linked shall we?...."Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact."

What is more dense Mr high school physics dude? Steel or concrete? Steel of course! Not even a comparison. So your plane hitting an even more dense object should have vaporized even more completely, but FUCK NO that didn't happen. shit some of the terrorists passports were found out in the street, they are only made of paper and they fucking survived? You saw the pics of airplane parts I linked, makes your vaporized airplane theory kinda disproven right there don't it? And if the concrete was undamaged then by god the fucking building sure as shit should not have disintegrated in mid air now should it?

Do you see what this is making your kinetic energy theory look like? a Laughing stock, No One here except you thinks the plane hit with so much kinetic force that it melted the building. Your kinetic energy theory is not only absurd but an affront to common sensibilities.

Click to expand...

You just keep on making assumptions don't you. Stop making assumptions and maybe you will understand more. I never said that the plane melted the building. I said that the plane impact imparted significant heat to the building and proved it. If you look at the video there are parts of the plane that do not make contact with a solid object and they survive. Where the plane impacted the building vaporization.. An engine could have easily not hit a support and simply plowed in one side of the building and out the other.. You said that the concrete slab is more dense and then go on to say how undamaged it was. You cannot have it both ways. Yes the concrete slab is more dense but the jet was many times larger. We could aregue the small details all day the the fact oof the matter is that you are wrong. The plane imparted siginificant energy/heat to the building and I have proved it. You can say no all day but untill you provide me with scientific links that are from unbiased sources, you are just attacking me because you do not like the fact that I am right and your consipracy theory that you hold so dear is bullshit.

Im done here, I do not have the capability to convince someone that is emotionally invested into being right about something that most americans believe is bullshit. And if you are going to quote polls or some BS, listen: If Americans truely thought the government did this, we the people would dismantle it. Period.

PadawanBater said:

Dude, I don't think the official report is accurate either, but I think this is a critical mistake on your part. You have to be open to ALL the data available.

Help be part of the solution for progress, this kind of attitude just makes you look like a little kid throwing a tantrum, I don't mean that to be offensive, I know exactly how you feel, like the evidence is so clear it's frustrating coming back in everytime and reposting the same stuff over and over, trust me man, I get it. But think about how annoying it is from the other side, they do the same stuff, there's a few examples on this thread already about guys on the right, defending the official report with just as much frustration as you have. It's equal, the way to get past that shit is forget about personal attacks and all that other pointless bullshit that the 911 discussion automatically brings to the table, pretend your talking to a robot that doesn't have any emotions, or an emotionless child when you explain your views on 911.

Just like when you talk about religion, this is a touchy subject, if you include personal attacks it just gets ugly and always ends up exactly where it started, epicly pointless everytime.

So I just hope you take that into consideration.

No disrespect.

Click to expand...

Plus rep! Great post. Its not an attack

olosto said:

I never said that the plane melted the building. I said that the plane impact imparted significant heat to the building and proved it.

Click to expand...

You didn't prove anything ... you only think you did ... but it doesn't add up so we disregarded it ... and will continue to do so.

olosto said:

If you look at the video there are parts of the plane that do not make contact with a solid object and they survive.

Click to expand...

Complete and total nonsense ... and No already explained why ...

olosto said:

Where the plane impacted the building vaporization.. An engine could have easily not hit a support and simply plowed in one side of the building and out the other..

Click to expand...

Again pure nonsense ... you are simply grasping at straws ... and not making it I might add. As far as we are concerned this is another bogus argument few accept or buy.

olosto said:

You said that the concrete slab is more dense and then go on to say how undamaged it was.

Click to expand...

It's not both ways you just what to imply that as part of your double talk. Even though you have tried several post you can't confuse the issue. At least to those with eyes that can see.

olosto said:

Yes the concrete slab is more dense but the jet was many times larger. We could aregue the small details all day the the fact oof the matter is that you are wrong.

Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious to most of us that you are the one that is wrong ... and continue to be so.

olosto said:

The plane imparted siginificant energy/heat to the building and I have proved it.

Click to expand...

No you haven't proven anything ... just like No said ... this is a bogus argument and will not be accepted ... when you bring it up again you will get the same response ... bogus argument ...we have dismissed it as such.

olosto said:

You can say no all day but untill you provide me with scientific links

Click to expand...

Been there done that ... if you can't accept them too bad. We really don't care.

olosto said:

that are from unbiased sources,

Click to expand...

Been there done this too ... most can see the evidence is clear ... it's really not important that you see it ... it's pretty clear the brain washed can't see it even when it bites them on the ass.

olosto said:

you are just attacking me because you do not like the fact that I am right and your consipracy theory that you hold so dear is bullshit.

Click to expand...

No we attack you because you hand out a bunch of shit and we are calling you on it ... nothing more ... I told you I will not let you get away with any of the bullshit ... and it's the government cock and bull story that only a few brainwashed people buy ... you couldn't prove the government's bullshit is true ... and you never will. At least not for those that have half a brain and can see.

olosto said:

Im done here,

Click to expand...

You were done when you started tried to hand us a ration of shit.

olosto said:

I do not have the capability to convince someone that is emotionally invested into being right about something that most americans believe is bullshit.

Click to expand...

Here is an excellent example of how you spew out shit ... I've ask you before to show us a poll where most american believe 911 was an inside job is bullshit ... you haven't produced it because there isn't any. So when you make clearly false statements like this, it's very easy to disregard anything you say.

olosto said:

And if you are going to quote polls or some BS, listen: If Americans truely thought the government did this, we the people would dismantle it. Period.

Click to expand...

Or really? ... and what do you call the familes of the victims? What do you call all those engineers along with a great many other calling for a new investigation... they are not dismantling it? .... see another bullshit argument of yours blown ... your bullshit theories have been debunked ... by me and others ... it will no longer be looked at or accepted as a valid argument ... if you continue to post the same bullshit you will get the same response.

Who is this "we" shit you talk of.. You are crazy.. lol

olosto said:

Who is this "we" shit you talk of.. You are crazy.. lol

Click to expand...

I am apart of this "we". i don't believe everything the government tells me. false flags are used all the time.. i was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about the Iranian government "staging" an event to win over their people...

WE STAGED... WE WON OVER OUR PEOPLE

why would other countries do it and not ours? it's all just a game...

olosto said:

Who is this "we" shit you talk of.. You are crazy.. lol

Click to expand...

Umm everyone else but you, even the government believers stay away from the friction/kinetic energy theory. So that basically leaves you standing there alone.

I don't believe the official report. There are way too many more questions to answer to even think it's a closed case...

That's not to say the government planned it, but I don't think there's any doubt they failed to act an unprecidented amount that day, the next question would be if anyone in our government knew anything about the attacks before they took place...

... to that question, I think it's a clear yes. To me, that makes 911 a domestic act of terrorism that needs further investigation. That's really what it comes down to.

NoDrama said:

Ummm no, thats not how it works, if air were being sucked in it would suck her inside. Large fires can create huge winds. In California the grass fire caused winds in excess of 80 MPH in some areas. Also there is no where for all the massive heat ( Must be in excess of 2900F to melt) to escape.

Click to expand...

So... you think you can estimate the draw of vacuum of a fire being fed on all sides through asymmetric holes. Awesome. You win armchair forensic science engineer of the year. You sir, rock harder than Dokken.

NoDrama said:

As has already been proven by you with your gas tanker fire the beams only deformed they did not melt into liquid. So if we have liquid metal pouring out of the other side we either have a fire that is hotter than possible, or thermite has melted the steel.

Click to expand...

It's aluminum.

NoDrama said:

The fires are not capable of melting the steel. the fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that... you keep not demonstrating it. You keep ignoring the gas fire 1/3 the size with less combustible material... that melted the steel.

NoDrama said:

Wow anyone who thinks regular fire can melt steel is living in fantasy land.

Click to expand...

So... the wtc fires were "regular" fires... and the truck fire wasn't? Is that your meaning?

NoDrama said:

The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. How many steel buildings must I show with fires MUCH MUCH more severe than the 911 fires, yet you still claim that these buildings somehow got so hot that they melted and disintegrated before our very eyes.

Click to expand...

Dude... show me one that was hit with a 767.

Here is the thing... you don't understand what 43kj/kg of energy can do. You just aren't going to. I am not going to be able to ever convince you of the unique problems with this unique experience.

You will show me pictures of the hotel fire which didn't cause it to fall in its own footprint. You do not mention that the building was mostly empty/under construction. You show the dramatic pictures of a cool fire and say "FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL" 800 times... Ok.



Looks like the steel is deformed all over to me. Why is that?

An empty building a few floors tall... with deformed steel.

No jet slamming into the thing. No 20,000 gallons of jet fuel. No oppressive weight several times its own size falling from above. No office furniture... nowhere near the miles of cabling, etc. Just a shell... and some walls... and yet...

NoDrama said:

As far as evacuation of WTC7. well fucking DUH. you never leave people in a burning building if they can get out. Of course they evacuated, it had nothing to do with a possible collapse. it had all to do with the fact there are giant skyscrapers falling all around you and the fucking building is on fire. I don't know about where you live, buit where Im from the firefighters get everyone out of burning buildings first before anything else. I would like to see a link of the facts showing the commanders evacing the building only because they thought it would fall, and NOT because its in a danger zone or on fire. Ridiculous claim.

Click to expand...

I assume you aren't talking to me here... I never mentioned evacuation. I said they pulled rescue from the area because it was unstable and going to come down.

NoDrama said:

Even if the top floors fell because of structural problems. the top might have fallen over and off, but it certainly does not have enough force to crush the building below, it should have fallen over and off while leaving the building below the crash area completely intact.

Click to expand...

The day you drop a 20 story building on top of an 80 story one from 5 floors you can wage this argument... otherwise you are simply saying "nuh uh", which just isn't solid enough.

NoDrama said:

As far as WTC 7. its unexpalinable by the govt why it fell. Why is that? They can find a way to explain the impossible for the towers, but are totally stumped by this one? What Gives?

Click to expand...

It is hard work. There is no crystal ball. They didn't "give you a story". They said... we tried and failed to come up with an answer. The amount of prep time just to pull this off and they didn't have a "reason" in their back pockets? WTF? Either they are in on it or they aren't. Either they are feeding you shit or they aren't. Did they just waste all their imagination on planning the event?

NoDrama said:

Im not going to post on this anymore, its stupid to think those buildings just "fell" down.

Click to expand...

Wanna know what's stupid?

NoDrama said:

They were made to come down and NO PERSON NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS ARGUMENT WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.

Click to expand...

That. Pretty cut and dry really. You don't care about the truth. You need this more.

Look... I'd smoke with any of you. I've smoked with bigger assholes than all of you... hell I do that smoking alone. I would drink beers and argue whatever. This gets personal on either side because of the gravity of the tragedy. Try to keep it light. Try to keep it in perspective.

I'm not from the government. I'm not here to help you. I am not an idiot. I am not gullible. I just disagree. It is easy to demonize or in some way attribute a handicap to people of differing opinion... because a competent rational person, with no vested interest who disagrees with you threatens your belief system more than what you think is your worst nightmare. It is easy to say "yer stupid". It will be harder to prove me so.

BTW... nano thermite has a MUCH lower ignition temp requirement.

what... huh? said:

Look... I'd smoke with any of you. I've smoked with bigger assholes than all of you... hell I do that smoking alone. I would drink beers and argue whatever. This gets personal on either side because of the gravity of the tragedy. Try to keep it light. Try to keep it in perspective.

I'm not from the government. I'm not here to help you. I am not an idiot. I am not gullible. I just disagree. It is easy to demonize or in some way attribute a handicap to people of differing opinion... because a competent rational person, with no vested interest who disagrees with you threatens your belief system more than what you think is your worst nightmare. It is easy to say "yer stupid". It will be harder to prove me so.

BTW... nano thermite has a MUCH lower ignition temp requirement.

Click to expand...

agreed.. No need to be a prick.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

It's all there. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't correct. Each floor could sustain 1,300 tons more than its own weight. 15 to 30 floors weighed quite a bit more.

Primarily the problems would be here... with the angle clips.



The building was designed to take lateral forces to withstand hurricane winds... not survive impact from 30 stories dropping on it. It was designed not to move in the wind. Big wind. It would fall straight down, because it was on steel rails... designed to resist devastating winds from any direction. That is why it fell down.

I know... I didn't expect it to fall that way either...




You understand, each of those floors is an acre. Acres of concrete falling... really try and understand the magnitude of that on a floor that can sustain less than twice its own weight.


BTW... the best reason for sticking with WTC 1&2, is that they are pre-requisites for 7. If I dispel that myth... for the most part... when I get to 7 I have a complete case.

Sick of that bridge yet? Now that you get the relevance?

"You will be... you will be..."
-Yoda

I didn't say I could estimate the draw, but you obviously alluded to it when you said it must have been good enough to keep the 3000F temps from making her burst into flames.

Molten aluminum is silver in color when it is melted. NOT GLOWING RED HOT! And if you try and say "well its aluminum with other glowing things in it"you can save your breath.

Your gas fire was not sprayed all over the place and then lit up to create a huge ball of flame, basically burning 95% of the fuel up in 1 instant of time. I want to know just how long do you suppose the fires in the towers were being fueled by JET A? In your bridge link the beams did not melt, they only deformed. Remember your picture you originally posted? you said it was melted metal on the ground? Yeah that's not melted metal buddy,its water from having the fire put out. Molten steel does not look all silvery and mirror finished at all. Also the truck fire was very concentrated, the fuel was being held in a container so therefore the ignition source and therefor heat source were very concentrated. This is not like the WTC buildings at all now is it? And even if it did melt 6 beams, so what, there are 100,000 more its going to need to melt also to cause the buildings to disintegrate like that.
What oppressive weight is pushing down on the building? Its been dealing with that weight under huge wind loads for decades now, why did it all of a sudden get heavier? Don't tell me that lightweight plane caused it, cuz Olosto already "proved" that they disintegrated, and disintegrated stuff doesn't weigh anything. If anything the load got lighter, there was less building to hold up.

Thats not deformation you see there, that how the building was designed, And its not being used so much to refute the towers fires so much as WTC building 7. They are nearly the same size, although the Mandarin is not built quite as heavy duty as the Salomon Bros Building. Lets not forget to mention the fireworks factory that caused the fires in the first place. the building was under construction and it was not full of office furniture. But gunpowder burns hotter than paper and if you would have checked my links I already addressed this issue anyway. And even if it were deformed, that isn't really what happened to the towers is it? They don't deform at all, they just disintegrate in mid air. You should really try reading more of the articles you find, you would have found out that the "kink"in the building is a design feature and that there was a fireworks factory in the building. Your "After" picture is the same building, the only difference is the soot marks and loss of windows. Give it a coat of paint and it will look good as new. No deformation at all, none.

I could have sworn you said they were evacuated, my bad. regardless they did not "Know" it was going to fall, they could only speculate.

I don't have a skyscraper play set to prove my theory do I? But neither do you to disprove it.

You will believe a story where all sorts of inconsistencies abound, but when it comes time to explain the most compelling evidence of inside job, your willing to accept" We don't know"?. If they can send a man to the fucking moon and back, and supposedly figure out how 2 buildings were brought down by planes when it really isn't possible but they have no explanation at all for this one? Might as well be an admission of guilt. Or at the very least incompetence. And if they are incompetent then their explanation for the 2 towers must be at fault also.

I hope your government takes good care of you, I'm sure you know and believe they will.


Your picture shows a nice outer column, the outer columns are not what supports the weight of the building. The CORE SUPPORTS THE BUILDING, not the outside walls. Lets also not forget The floor structure was then installed between the outer perimeter wall and the inner core. The floors also came in pre-assembled sections, consisting of 32-inch-deep (81-cm) trusses topped with a corrugated metal surface. Concrete was then poured over the top and tile was installed. The floors are primarily made of steel, not concrete.

It was designed to not move in the wind eh? http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm................"In the end, they designed the towers so they could sway about 3 feet in either direction. To minimize the sway sensation, they installed about 10,000 visco-elastic dampers between support columns and floor trusses throughout the building. The special visco-elastic material in these dampers could move somewhat, but it would snap back to its original shape. In other words, it could give a little and then return to its initial position, absorbing much of the shock of the building's swaying motion".

I guess 6 feet of movement isn't movement at all eh?


In your article it states that NIST was able to do a metallurgical analysis of the steel, what they fail to mention is that the analysis was not done on the actual WTC steel, as all of it was recycled before any entity could test it. No instead they just took structural steel and then came up with a theory that would explain how it all went down. The government has proven time and time again that they are incompetent, anything the government touches gets screwed up. 911 is very politically charged also, and if any of them had said it was an inside job, well im sure they all would have lost their jobs.


All of these theories of yours do nothing to explain WTC#7 Salomon Bros building. No plane hit, no fires that engulfed any part of a floor, you can try to make it a prerequisite, but its not relevant. Since the gubbermint can't come up with an explanation I am assuming you also cannot come up with one. And the fires and the hole in the side aren't enough to do that. A gasoline fed fire is a completely different animal from a desk and paper fire.

"I'm not afraid". -Luke Skywalker

Your Yoda quote is one of my favorites in all of moviedom, love the Empire Strikes Back!! Who knew a Muppet could have such a short but powerful line.

NoDrama said:

Your gas fire was not sprayed all over the place and then lit up to create a huge ball of flame, basically burning 95% of the fuel up in 1 instant of time. I want to know just how long do you suppose the fires in the towers were being fueled by JET A?

Click to expand...

This is another assumption on your part with no science or experts to back it up. As long as you make assumptions, were going to have problems....

I submit that the gas took much longer than an instant. Here in Cali we goto the desert and set things on fire..alot. I can tell you that a gallon of gas poured over the shed will last a long time. The shed was in ashes while pools of gas were still on fire.

I also submit, tho i have no proof, that there was not sufficient surface area (remember its not the gas that burns but the fumes...), to instantly ignite thousands of pounds of fuel instantaniously. It just does not happen that way. Watch some plane crashes where the plane burns for quite some time after the crash. Happens all the time..

I guess this is what you guys are advocating eh?
(Taken from another board, but it fits perfectly)

Bush: I`m an idiot who can barely read or write but I have a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists tried to blow up the buildings once, why don`t we just blow them up and blame it on the terrorists?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President you don`t understand. It`s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves, plant the bombs, and make it look like exploding planes that brought the buildings down.
That way we involve more people, stand a greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!
Cheney: Of course just toppling the twin towers will never be enough. We will never get a war mandate if we just topple the twin towers, we also need to shoot a missile at the Pentagon, and then obviously we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.
Rumsfeld: Yeah it goes without saying the public outrage won`t be enough without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Cheney: And the Pentagon crash--we have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it was a cruise missile..
Bush: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
Cheney: Because it`s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane.
Bush: But aren't`t we using two planes on the Twin Towers?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile and say it was a plane because it`s sneakier that way.
Bush: Duh...O.K.
Rumsfeld: The other good thing about saying it was a passenger jet, is that way we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a missing crew and plane.

And then apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a self-serving paean/memoir to her "dead husband", again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

olosto said:

This is another assumption on your part with no science or experts to back it up. As long as you make assumptions, were going to have problems....

I submit that the gas took much longer than an instant. Here in Cali we goto the desert and set things on fire..alot. I can tell you that a gallon of gas poured over the shed will last a long time. The shed was in ashes while pools of gas were still on fire.

I also submit, tho i have no proof, that there was not sufficient surface area (remember its not the gas that burns but the fumes...), to instantly ignite thousands of pounds of fuel instantaniously. It just does not happen that way. Watch some plane crashes where the plane burns for quite some time after the crash. Happens all the time..

Click to expand...

pretty sure the reason a plane keeps on burning is because its on fire, not because of the fuel. Surely you aren't advocating that things only burn if they are doused with fuel? Passenger seats are made of fabric, lots of burnable plastics too, lets not forget the baggage and all the wiring that has combustible insulation. these are the things you see burning after a crash, not the fuel. Go ahead and douse something out in the desert with Jet A, which is totally different than gasoline BTW. Take a good 2 gallon cider vinegar jar made of glass and make it into a GIANT Molotov cocktail. Now heres the important thing, make sure you hurl that thing at near 500 MPH to get the correct effect. Take a chronograph watch and time how long the flames stay on fire. Do this about 20 times and get back to us on your timed results. You get anything close to 50+ minutes of burn time? Cuz if you don't get 50 minutes or more then it kind of disproves your theory that the fuel is what created the ultra hot fire. You don't really have to throw it that fast, hell you can just pour it all over, just make sure you are timing it. I bet you don't even get burn times of 10 minutes.

Antidisestablishmentarian said:

I guess this is what you guys are advocating eh?
(Taken from another board, but it fits perfectly)

Bush: I`m an idiot who can barely read or write but I have a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists tried to blow up the buildings once, why don`t we just blow them up and blame it on the terrorists?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President you don`t understand. It`s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves, plant the bombs, and make it look like exploding planes that brought the buildings down.
That way we involve more people, stand a greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!
Cheney: Of course just toppling the twin towers will never be enough. We will never get a war mandate if we just topple the twin towers, we also need to shoot a missile at the Pentagon, and then obviously we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.
Rumsfeld: Yeah it goes without saying the public outrage won`t be enough without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Cheney: And the Pentagon crash--we have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it was a cruise missile..
Bush: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
Cheney: Because it`s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane.
Bush: But aren't`t we using two planes on the Twin Towers?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile and say it was a plane because it`s sneakier that way.
Bush: Duh...O.K.
Rumsfeld: The other good thing about saying it was a passenger jet, is that way we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a missing crew and plane.

And then apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a self-serving paean/memoir to her "dead husband", again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

Click to expand...

Wow I would say your guess is way off, I highly doubt thats the way it went LOL, Bush can barely read or write huh? Or is that the way you say he wasn't the smartest pres we ever had? Because I can certainly agree with that statement.