latest finding on flight 93 crashsite: already had its "wingscars"

[alien autopsy]

heres a pic of the 1994 usgs aerial photo, with an inset image of the crash site:
notice the wingscars already there, in 1994. (http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7836/shanksville1994flight93wu1.jpg)

heres some pics of the crater, blown directly in the middle of the "wingscars" on 9-11:

1 (http://www.unitedflight93.com/image/crater-flight93.jpg)
2 (http://bp0.blogger.com/_FvJfy4jyO8Y/ReHwlZJApjI/AAAAAAAAAAY/DGjf0BVvUUU/s1600-h/shanksville.jpg)
3 (http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/imgs/crater1.jpg)
and this great image (http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/4-UA93/altboeing/pacrasho.jpg)

they literally placed a bomb in the middle of the "wingscars" and blew it up.

[alien autopsy]

the scar was not a natural feature of the landscape, the crashsite was actually an abandoned strip mine.

[EN[i]GMA]

Really now.

You'll believe anything.

[YoungRemy]

i didnt read the article because im not really interested in it. i know why you posted it, i disagree with what you're saying...

:D

[Carlos]

yeah must say it's not really all that convincing.. although the slice, and the hole do appear to be created from different mechanisms.... but looks can be deceiving :rolleyes:

... but what is absolutely glaring is there is literally nothing even slightly resembling plane wreckage. Not even small pieces of torn/shreded aluminium. Let alone a fin, engine, or anything else you see at every other pane wreck ever ever ever..

But flight 93 throws up less clear contradictions with the official story, than the other 3 flights, or the destruction of the twin towers..


suggest looking at the molten metal 'flowing like a foundry' underneath the pile of the towers: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s)

As Popular Mechanics rightly say a hydrocarbon fire cannot reach temps high enough to melt steel.. and as the fire within the twin towers was a hydrocarbon fire then we should not find molten metal in the pile.

Therefore there needs to be some other mechanism that will create temps hot enough to melt steel. Very very simple science and logic..

Remy or Enigma this surely can't be brushed aside - it is of clear importance why it was not investigated by NIST - let alone why they try to deny it's existence?
As proper and thorough investigation of all evidence leads you to the right conclusions, missing vital evidence, or worse denying it, shows the NIST investigation to be incomplete at best.

[yeahwho]

You know to the casual observer those wing marks look suspiciously like sled marks.

1 (http://www.santaslettersandgifts.com/images/AKphotogal/sleighandkidsbig.jpg)
2 (http://www.papasanta.com/sleighlights.jpg)
3 (http://www.scalzi.com/spock_kirk_mccoy.jpg)
and this great image (http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2005/on%20the%20job%20hazard.JPG)

[Whatitis]

Black and white photos are cool. Give it such a vintage look. That photo MUST be old.

[EN[i]GMA]

... but what is absolutely glaring is there is literally nothing even slightly resembling plane wreckage. Not even small pieces of torn/shreded aluminium. Let alone a fin, engine, or anything else you see at every other pane wreck ever ever ever..

Yeah. It is kind of strange.

Really.

But what's even more strange is that it is strange. Let me explain.

If they flew two planes into the Twin Towers, and they in total hijacked four planes (as I don't think anyone really denies; surely none on your team is that crazy...) then what they did they do with the other two?

Well flew them to Wright-Pat and liquidated the passengers. Whatever.

Point being, why NOT just fly that plane into the ground? If you can fly a plane into a building, you can surely fly one INTO THE GROUND. I could manage that.

That would be the EASIEST part of the plot, drilling a plane into a field in Pennsylvania. And you're telling me they faked THAT? They just blew a hole in the ground, beside a crevice in the ground, and decided to tell us a plane hit there? And they don't even bother to strew plane parts like they did at the Pentagon, which was hit by a missile, right? What, did they RUN OUT OF PARTS?

WHY?

What would be LESS central to the plot than this?

I guess you think they blew it out of the sky. Is that the theory we're going with, then? Well, you'd still have a wreckage site like this. A missile doesn't completely obliterate a plane. There would would still be debris landing, large bits of fuselage, etc.

Nothing here makes sense IF you posit a conspiracy. It's just mystifying.


But flight 93 throws up less clear contradictions with the official story, than the other 3 flights, or the destruction of the twin towers..

suggest looking at the molten metal 'flowing like a foundry' underneath the pile of the towers: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s)

Since my audio is currently borked at the moment, I couldn't hear any of that.

Suffice it to say, I don't think metal was "flowing like a foundry."

I don't even think that's common in demolititions. Surely they don't use enough thermite/semtex/whatever to turn the building into a river of molten metal, they use just enough to sever the core, and no more.


As Popular Mechanics rightly say a hydrocarbon fire cannot reach temps high enough to melt steel.. and as the fire within the twin towers was a hydrocarbon fire then we should not find molten metal in the pile.

Therefore there needs to be some other mechanism that will create temps hot enough to melt steel. Very very simple science and logic..

OK.

"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. "

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Sounds plausible to me, because you wouldn't expect "rivers" of molten steel in a controlled demolition scenario.

They were finding this molten steel usually weeks later. Plenty of time for something else to melt the steel other than the original explosion. And if heat in the wreckage weren't sufficient to produce or sustain molten steel, it wouldn't be found weeks later, would it?

The wreckage had to be hot as hell for those weeks, hot enough to melt steel over a period of time. Fires, explosions, friction, pressure, etc. It's not hard to imagine there being intense temperatures in the rubble.

But on the other hand, if the molten metal were produced solely in the collapse, and if the pile of rubble weren't hot enough to create or sustain molten steel, then we wouldn't have found ANY weeks later, as the reports indicate.

See? Pretty simple.

Molten steel, even if kept hot by most standards, will solidify to vary degrees. So it has to be hot enough in there to keep it molten. What temperature does that require? 2500 degrees F, I'm reading from the internet? OK. So that means that once it gets UNDER 2500 degrees, it will unmelt. It'll solidify.

It'll still be pliable, obviously, but it won't be liquid.

So what's your story? That there was LIQUID STEEL in the wreckage? OK. That proves only that temperatures in the wreckage were over 2500 DF. But that wouldn't be expected under a demolition. The thermite/semtex/C4/whatever goes off, destroys the supports, and that's it. The demolition would have no had no long term effect on the heat of acres and acres, hundreds of feet high, of debris. How much explosive do you think they used, kilotons?

Unless, of course, the wreckage in a building like this just IS this hot even weeks later, which of course obviates the controlled demolition hypothesis and demonstrates that steel COULD in fact be there sans explosives.

But I really doubt that there was MOLTEN steel, or at least much of it. Probably there was just weak, melted, twisted steel that was still hot and pliable. It doesn't have to be 2500 degrees for that to be the case.

So there.

15 minutes of thought, internet searching, and writing has easily disproven this canard of yours.

Trust me, I've considered your position. Thoroughly. It's nonsense, I assure you.

None of it makes any sense.


Remy or Enigma this surely can't be brushed aside - it is of clear importance why it was not investigated by NIST - let alone why they try to deny it's existence?
As proper and thorough investigation of all evidence leads you to the right conclusions, missing vital evidence, or worse denying it, shows the NIST investigation to be incomplete at best.

Maybe.

But I don't think any report would ever satisfy you, or certainly others like you.

[yeahwho]

GMA;1582411']

So there.

15 minutes of thought, internet searching, and writing has easily disproven this canard of yours.

Trust me, I've considered your position. Thoroughly. It's nonsense, I assure you.

None of it makes any sense.



Maybe.

But I don't think any report would ever satisfy you, or certainly others like you.

What part of 9/11 really happened? Any of it or was it all an illusion? Carlos, you and alien autopsy should start up a traveling magic show, you guys are experts at figuring out illusions.

[alien autopsy]

pretty darned amazing that the plane crashed exactly in the rut shown in the 1994 USGS photo.

when you looka t photos of other crashes, they look absolutely nothing like shanksville. there is very little debris in shanksville. i guess the plane must have incinerated just like the pentagon plane did.

good work goons.

[EN[i]GMA]

pretty darned amazing that the plane crashed exactly in the rut shown in the 1994 USGS photo.

"Pretty amazing that plane crashed right by that ONE PARTICULAR TREE, huh? There are billions of trees on earth, and the plane crashed next to THAT ONE RIGHT THERE? What are the odds of that? 1 in a billion. Therefore it must be a conspiracy!"


when you looka t photos of other crashes, they look absolutely nothing like shanksville. there is very little debris in shanksville. i guess the plane must have incinerated just like the pentagon plane did.

good work goons.

Why would they hijack a fourth plane just so they could NOT crash it?

What's the purpose here?

Wouldn't it have been easier TO crash the damn plane into the ground at Shanksville? That would be have been:

a) easier
b) made more sense
c) been impossible for you to disprove (an entire plane's worth of debris in a field is hard to discount)

etc.

Instead what do you think they did with the plane? Flew it to Wright-Pat and then set up a bomb there? WHY?! So they could then release a bunch of obvious pictures of a bomb crater which would blow the entire conspiracy wide open as soon as some super-sleuth on the internet gets it into his head to look?

Durr.

That doesn't make one God damn bit of sense, does it?

So then why did they do it?

Why not just CRASH THE FUCKING PLANE into the ground like any sensible person would have done?

[Schmeltz]

This thread is getting funnier by the minute! (y)

[yeahwho]

They were traveling at 596 MPH on impact. Most of what happened that day was recorded from phone calls (Verizon airfones) and just like flight 77 this was a Boeing 757. Both personal cell phones and Verizon airfones document the chaos that ensued on board the flight.

Once again at the price of intruding into the families who've exhausted not only every avenue into the investigation of how this happened, you also have forgotten they lost their Mothers, Fathers, Sons and Daughters. The relatives all listened to the blackbox recorders which were recovered from the wreckage. The transcripts were released to the public.

A very sobering case. Surprisingly most plane wreck sites have larger pieces of debris than the Shanksville site but not all. The difference with this particular flight is it is being piloted by terrorists whose main goal is to turn the jet into a missile, a weapon of destruction. Usually, in 99.9% of plane accidents the plane is being piloted by somebody who regards the plane as a life saving tool, not a missile, so they attempt to make the best of the ordeal.

[YoungRemy]

don't get them started on phone calls, yeahwho. not to mention the blackbox and passenger manifests.

these people are VERY GOOD at clicking websites and/or copying and pasting. we CAN'T beat them. their blogging/youtube skills are FAR SUPERIOR to ours.

here's Carlos reminiding us of the molten steel argument.
Carlos was actually in Ground Zero on top of the rubble.

[Whatitis]

Carlos was actually in Ground Zero on top of the rubble.

I knew it!

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/roephoto/tourist-772730.jpg

[alien autopsy]

lol. look at all you guys getting all riled up and defensive! it is comedy!

fact of the matter, is that the plane crashed in the same exact rut, exactly in the middle that is pictured in the 1994 USGS aerial survey photo!

that is pretty much undeniable right?

another amazing coincidence on 9-11. Viva america(y)

[YoungRemy]

nothing you have been rambling on and on about can be described as "fact of the matter"

it is all pure speculation, and people have stopped listening.

you keep fighting the good fight.

where are you posting from again?

just curious.

[EN[i]GMA]

lol. look at all you guys getting all riled up and defensive! it is comedy!

Yes, me mocking you for being wrong is pretty funny. For me at least.

But that doesn't mean I'm not serious.


fact of the matter, is that the plane crashed in the same exact rut, exactly in the middle that is pictured in the 1994 USGS aerial survey photo!

I'm sure before they conducted this conspiracy they sent some guy into the field to look for a place with a rut in the ground for them to plant a bomb in so that they could NOT crash a plane there, but instead fly it to Wright-Patterson air-force base, liquidate the passengers, synthesize their voice patterns, plant DNA evidence at the crash site, concoct an elaborate crash narrative to broadcast on the news, brainwash the dozens of people who saw the plane at various points along the way, etc., just so they could forget to strew a bunch of plane parts in the area like they did 200 miles away at the Pentagon so, 5 years later, some internet know-it-all could look up a picture taken 15 years ago and go "Aha!" and blow their whole plot to bits in a bout of proletarian ingenuity. I can hear picture it now, as one of the members of the Tri-Lateral IllumaNAFTA Superhighway Commission hits upon this thread while monitoring your web surfing habits: *facepalm* "I TOLD those guys they should have just crashed the plane there, but NOOOO, they had a BETTER Idea!"

that is pretty much undeniable right?


another amazing coincidence on 9-11. Viva america(y)

Something's amazing, but I don't think you know what it is yet.

[alien autopsy]

keep dancing around the point tossing accusations and injecting conspiracy theories which have absolutely nothing to do with the photographs i have posted.

the 1994 USGS map shows the rut that flight 93 crashed in...

all im saying is that its really coincidental that the plane crashed in that rut...look at it again!

now thats amazing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s)

[alien autopsy]

side note:

its funny how voraciously people defend the "official story".

i promise, there will be more to come! stay tuned:) cant hide the truth forever.

[Whatitis]

Here's something very interesting about that 'scar' photo. See the trees in the lower right hand side of the red square? See the shadows of the trees projecting towards a '10 o'clock' direction? Now look at the 'scar'. Its is light on the right side of it and dark on the left side. That would indecate it would be more of a mound and not a depression. Then go back to the crash photos and you see a depression.

What I'm really trying to say is, you're wrong! Whoever came with this lame photo is wrong!

Officially debunked!

[Whatitis]

.....and another thing. Look at the angle of the 'scar' compared to the road. Compare that angle to the angle of the wing depression to the road. Quite different if you take a real good look at it.

[yeahwho]

Debris was scattered over a 3 to 4 mile radius from impact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guEqg1SdMpE&feature=related). Nothing larger than a phone book was found. Here are some black op agents co-opting the media to fool the world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU8XcQwsTdM&eurl=http://www.pahighways.com/features/shanksville.html).

[Carlos]

Yeah. It is kind of strange.Enigma hold that thought, because all your other speculation is essentially meaningless and un-fruitful. All we can go on is the empirical data - which shows n sign of a plane crash.. so we need proper answers (like dozens of family members are still asking for)
...



Suffice it to say, I don't think metal was "flowing like a foundry."as for you 15 minutes of reserach and debunking the molten metal it again shows your pre-disposition to start with a theory and then create a hypothesis that suits it - but without paying any attention to the data or basic science..

First you deny witnes testimony from numerous credible sources; from rescue workers to the head of the clean up operation from Control Demolition, that they could identify molten metal. Not to mention images of red/white hot metal being pulled out..

Then you pull up NISTs reply to frequently asked quetions (coool - thanks so much) - which firstly says it didn't existed (the same thing you seem to be doing..
Then they do something even more amazing - suggest that a hydrocarbon smuldering pile could somehow get hot enough to melt steel - this is physically impossible (as you have just researched)..

so in other words your resting you whole debunking on your assumption that there wasn't molten metal... lol .. yeah debunking like that does only take 15 mins :rolleyes:

again as to exactly why or how it got there, we need proper answers.


Trust me, I've considered your position. Thoroughly. It's nonsense, I assure you.you see this very statement shows your clear inability to assess the situation objectively - as you seem far too egotistical to admit to yourself you may just be wrong..

go right back to your first thought!! Yeah. It is kind of strange.

[yeahwho]

Focus on Flight 93 and give me the names of the family members still wanting more information from that particular investigation.

Focus, Flight 93, 44 people dead. Focus and lay out the names of the family members who lost somebody on that flight who wants more information

[Documad]

I'm confused. The government shot the plane down someplace without leaving a trace but then bombed a different farm field because it happened to have a ditch in it?

[Bob]

I'm confused. The government shot the plane down someplace without leaving a trace but then bombed a different farm field because it happened to have a ditch in it?

no no no it...the plane crashed in...no i mean it didn't...well i mean you can see from the pictures that...well i mean "wing scars" and...here's a picture A PICTURE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE YOU'RE A LAWYER YOU SHOULD RESPECT THAT AND...do you really, i mean REALLY mean to sit there and tell me that you actually believe that a plane crashed right there, RIGHT THERE where...wing scars?

huh? do you? you stooge

[yeahwho]

Here's something very interesting about that 'scar' photo. See the trees in the lower right hand side of the red square? See the shadows of the trees projecting towards a '10 o'clock' direction? Now look at the 'scar'. Its is light on the right side of it and dark on the left side. That would indecate it would be more of a mound and not a depression. Then go back to the crash photos and you see a depression.

What I'm really trying to say is, you're wrong! Whoever came with this lame photo is wrong!

Officially debunked!

.....and another thing. Look at the angle of the 'scar' compared to the road. Compare that angle to the angle of the wing depression to the road. Quite different if you take a real good look at it.

Quit trying to simplify this with logic.

[Schmeltz]

The funniest part is the use of an apparent coincidence - the simple fact of its alleged occurrence - as an implied unassailable challenge to the official account, without any supporting information offered at all... followed by the typical accusations of egoism and willful ignorance on the part of anyone who dares to point out the insubstantiality of the "evidence" provided.

You cannot make this shit up.

[Carlos]

The funniest part is the use of an apparent coincidence - the simple fact of its alleged occurrence - as an implied unassailable challenge to the official account, without any supporting information offered at all...

yeah Alien this is a weak aspect (I am open to the possibility) however the photograps are not conclusive on their own.


followed by the typical accusations of egoism and willful ignorance on the part of anyone who dares to point out the insubstantiality of the "evidence" provided.


think you may be construing things somewhat: I mentioned that I feared Enigma to be like most people - their ego gets in the way of objectivity... this was in relation to the molten metal, as he made a post trying to debunk it, and not in relation to the 'scar' photos..

.. but you fail as always to talk about substance schmeltz. You like to give out an air of intellectual elitism - but refuse to enter into an intellectual discussion of the details in any way; on the basis that the subject is somehow below you... amusing to say the least :D

..Surely with your great intellect you can see the the logic that - if something is witnessed (empirically verified) then there must be some mechaism for it's existence. So the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, there must be some other mechanism for this being witenssed. Extremely basic science and logic that needs answering, not ignoring, then denying, then trying to make up physics by saying the smuldering pile might be able to produce molten metal - like NIST has.

[DroppinScience]

Autopsy and Carlos, you are the board's biggest clowns.

Keep it up! (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

Enigma hold that thought, because all your other speculation is essentially meaningless and un-fruitful. All we can go on is the empirical data - which shows n sign of a plane crash.. so we need proper answers (like dozens of family members are still asking for)

Yes, but then where did the plane go? Did in ninja-vanish into nothingness?

An "answer" that produces more difficult questions then it answers is no answer at all.

Either a plane crashed there, and the story we have is (roughly) accurate, or a plane didn't, in which case we have to come up with some other chain of events to explain the relevant facts.

And this is where you and your ilk utterly fail: you contrive some nonsense fiction, stuck together with chewing gum and ductape and expect the rest of us to accept it as gospel.

What "empirical data" (is there any other kind of data...) do you have? Some pictures? That's it?

You have some pictures that you say looks like a bomb went off, not a plane crash.

This is the extent of your vaunted "empirical data." In that case I have some "empirical data" that proves the existence of the Loch Ness monster.


as for you 15 minutes of reserach and debunking the molten metal it again shows your pre-disposition to start with a theory and then create a hypothesis that suits it - but without paying any attention to the data or basic science..

Wait, you're talking about ME here?


First you deny witnes testimony from numerous credible sources; from rescue workers to the head of the clean up operation from Control Demolition, that they could identify molten metal. Not to mention images of red/white hot metal being pulled out..

I said I was skeptical. Witnesses are wrong all the time.

For example, how do they know it was molten STEEL and not some other molten metal with a lower melting point?

You can't just accept witness testimony at face value or else you'd be forced to believe every religion was true, that ghosts are real, that bigfoot is real, etc.

This may be no problem for you, as I think you're gullible, but it's not something I'm comfortable with.


Then you pull up NISTs reply to frequently asked quetions (coool - thanks so much) - which firstly says it didn't existed (the same thing you seem to be doing..
Then they do something even more amazing - suggest that a hydrocarbon smuldering pile could somehow get hot enough to melt steel - this is physically impossible (as you have just researched)..

You (expectedly) miss the relevant part of my post.

If the smoldering pile wasn't hot enough to melt metal THERE WOULD BE NO MELTED METAL THERE.

Let's go through this:

Charges go off, rupturing the support beams and melting some of the steel, causing the building to collapse.

OK. That could have happened, I guess.

But here's where your theory falls apart: as soon as this metal got under its melting point, it would solidify. That's what a melting point it.

So for the rescue workers to find "molten steel" at the site WEEKS LATER is conclusive proof that the site itself was hot enough to melt steel, even wakes later, which contradicts the idea that this melted steel was caused by the initial explosion.

If nothing in the pile got over, say, 2000 degrees F, there would have been no melted steel. The melted steel's heat would dissipate and solidify, certainly before several weeks had passed.

So that molten steel was found there WEEKS LATER conclusively demonstrates that something the pile was hot enough to produce and sustain melted metal for weeks. But the demolition wouldn't accomplish this, because it's near instantaneous. The charge goes off, severs the metal, and that's it.

See?


so in other words your resting you whole debunking on your assumption that there wasn't molten metal... lol .. yeah debunking like that does only take 15 mins :rolleyes:

No. Only a complete moron could read my post and gather that assumption from it.

In fact I was asserting the opposite: There WAS molten metal there, weeks later, and this DISPROVES your hypothesis, because if the pile weren't hot enough by itself to melt steel, there would have been no melted steel there days or weeks later.

Steel doesn't just magically stay liquid once it's there, it's heat dissipates quickly.

Even if you assume that the pile, say, was "only" 1500 Degrees F, or 2000 degrees F, enough heat would dissipate from the 3000 Degree melted steel to solidify it in no time at all. Surely no more than a few days.

So the fact that there WAS metal there (if we go on this assumption, as I have no problem doing) absolutely demonstrates that, weeks later, the pile was hot enough to sustain melted steel.


again as to exactly why or how it got there, we need proper answers.

you see this very statement shows your clear inability to assess the situation objectively - as you seem far too egotistical to admit to yourself you may just be wrong..

go right back to your first thought!!

I might be wrong. But I think it fair likelier that you are. I mean, you can't even seem to comprehend what I'm saying. You literally had no idea what my point was, and it was quite clear.

[EN[i]GMA]

yeah Alien this is a weak aspect (I am open to the possibility) however the photograps are not conclusive on their own.

Nice to see you admit that.

Now what evidence beyond those pictures do you have?


think you may be construing things somewhat: I mentioned that I feared Enigma to be like most people - their ego gets in the way of objectivity... this was in relation to the molten metal, as he made a post trying to debunk it, and not in relation to the 'scar' photos..

I successfully debunked your explanation for it.

The controlled demolition hypothesis cannot explain the existence of molten steel at the site weeks later. It explains it no better than the "accepted" theory.


.. but you fail as always to talk about substance schmeltz. You like to give out an air of intellectual elitism - but refuse to enter into an intellectual discussion of the details in any way; on the basis that the subject is somehow below you... amusing to say the least :D

Schmeltz is, no doubt, several times smarter than you are.


..Surely with your great intellect you can see the the logic that - if something is witnessed (empirically verified) then there must be some mechaism for it's existence.

You think eyewitness accounts "empirically verify" (note: putting the word "empirically" into everything you say doesn't, in fact, make it empirical) anything?

Ha.


So the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, there must be some other mechanism for this being witenssed. Extremely basic science and logic that needs answering, not ignoring, then denying, then trying to make up physics by saying the smuldering pile might be able to produce molten metal - like NIST has.

Yes, and more importantly, a hydrocarbon fire can't sustain melted metal either, because once the metal gets below its melting point, it solidifies. It's still pliable, obviously, but not "molten."

So then how was there molten metal there *weeks later*? Saying that there was molten metal there at the time of blast does you no good, because that would have surely solidified quickly in the cool environment of a hydrocarbon fire, right?

[yeahwho]

Everything brought up about flight 93 by alien autopsy (who is just repeating an internet conspiracy site) is wrong. Has that been established here?

I now would like to ascertain from Carlos the names of the families that are related to the victims of those who died on flight 93 who still want more information on where the plane really crashed.

I find it callous, irresponsible and immorally wrong to exploit family members for these nefarious claims.

This whole thread and others like it creep me out for two reasons, how wrong they are factually and how wrong they are morally. The families of these victims did more than just a little soul searching and investigation into that days events. I am pretty fucking sure they're not reading this thread and saying to themselves, "Wingscars" I didn't investigate "Wingscars". I have to register and pm Carlos and alien autopsy right away and get more "Wingscar" data.

Empirical dumbasses

[Carlos]

GMA;1582872']Yes, but then where did the plane go? Did in ninja-vanish into nothingness?

I really have no idea - as there is no evidence in any way shape or form to suggest where it went - including the field in shanksville. Again I will not just believe something unless it has at least a shred of grounding in reality.

GMA;1582872'] An "answer" that produces more difficult questions then it answers is no answer at all.

er very poetic, however logic dictates that this in fact sometimes the case - because if something cannot be so, then it must be something else - even if it may not be clear exactly how it came to be.

GMA;1582872'] Either a plane crashed there, and the story we have is (roughly) accurate, or a plane didn't, in which case we have to come up with some other chain of events to explain the relevant facts.

And this is where you and your ilk utterly fail: you contrive some nonsense fiction, stuck together with chewing gum and ductape and expect the rest of us to accept it as gospel.

again - i have never, and will never 'contrive some fiction' as I have admitted clearly that I do not know what happened to it. And the fact that you pre-judge anything we say based on our 'ilk' again goes to show your complete lack of obectivity in the subject, to assess each item based on it scientific merit.


GMA;1582872']
I said I was skeptical. Witnesses are wrong all the time.

well yeah but when you have so many saying exactly the same thing (http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/why-was-there-molten-metal-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911/) - then to assume they are all wrong, without supporting this with anything except speculation, seems to be a belief stuck together with chewing gum and ductape.. :rolleyes:

GMA;1582872'] For example, how do they know it was molten STEEL and not some other molten metal with a lower melting point?
well you yourself said the statements say days or even weeks after the initial collapse - any lower melting point metal also solidifies quicker.

not to mention such clear statements as: Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures. [New York Times, 11/29/2001 (http://prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.h tml)] a hydrocarbon fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel, let alone evaporate it!!

GMA;1582872'] You can't just accept witness testimony at face value or else you'd be forced to believe every religion was true, that ghosts are real, that bigfoot is real, etc.

again your absolutely right.. but at some point we all 'accept' a consensus of reality based on a collective experience, especially when these people are professionals in the area of observation - i.e Structural engineers, control demolitions experts and also firemen/rescue workers.


GMA;1582872']
You (expectedly) miss the relevant part of my post.

If the smoldering pile wasn't hot enough to melt metal THERE WOULD BE NO MELTED METAL THERE.

Let's go through this:

Charges go off, rupturing the support beams and melting some of the steel, causing the building to collapse.

OK. That could have happened, I guess.

But here's where your theory falls apart: as soon as this metal got under its melting point, it would solidify. That's what a melting point it.

So for the rescue workers to find "molten steel" at the site WEEKS LATER is conclusive proof that the site itself was hot enough to melt steel, even wakes later, which contradicts the idea that this melted steel was caused by the initial explosion.

If nothing in the pile got over, say, 2000 degrees F, there would have been no melted steel. The melted steel's heat would dissipate and solidify, certainly before several weeks had passed.

So that molten steel was found there WEEKS LATER conclusively demonstrates that something the pile was hot enough to produce and sustain melted metal for weeks. But the demolition wouldn't accomplish this, because it's near instantaneous. The charge goes off, severs the metal, and that's it.

See?.....

Steel doesn't just magically stay liquid once it's there, it's heat dissipates quickly.

Even if you assume that the pile, say, was "only" 1500 Degrees F, or 2000 degrees F, enough heat would dissipate from the 3000 Degree melted steel to solidify it in no time at all. Surely no more than a few days.

So the fact that there WAS metal there (if we go on this assumption, as I have no problem doing) absolutely demonstrates that, weeks later, the pile was hot enough to sustain melted steel.

I might be wrong. But I think it fair likelier that you are. I mean, you can't even seem to comprehend what I'm saying. You literally had no idea what my point was, and it was quite clear.


lol... yeah I assure you I fully 'got' your point to start with..

Firstly I again will admit I do not know what exactly casused the molten metal to be there, and that is my essential point: we need to know the mechanism that created such temps.

However your line or argument fails again on basic physics (indeed on your own point) - there is no naturally occuring thermodynamic quality which could be produced by an inert pile of metal, rubble and dust. Things don't get hotter unless you put more energy in.. and so there is no possibility of the pile 'creating' the molten metal.

And so your whole position falls back on your basic assumption - that the observation by numerous experts is actually incorect - based on nothing but your belief system about our such 'ilk' .

I will as you appear to be so eager to get me to, speculate for a breif moment, as I fear you will unhappy until I do. If thermate or some other military grade incendary was used, then it would have produced tons of molten metal - which in a confined space (therefore not much thermal convection) would not solidify for some time (possibly weeks), unlike what you assume.

again this is speculation, but seems as it's your prefered method of reason. However it shows a plausible scenario that explains the empirical data observed. Unlike the speculative theory from yourself that 'something' in the pile was able to heat up to blast furnace temps without any other energy input.. totally ungrounded in the empirical data, and everything we know about thermodynamics.

But going back to basic principles this is something that needs to be established beyond any doubt. Not speculated about.
----

I now would like to ascertain from Carlos the names of the families that are related to the victims of those who died on flight 93 who still want more information on where the plane really crashed.yeahwho at what point did I specifically mention the relatives of flight 93?
Not to mention this seems to be a somewhat immature argument, as there are clearly numerous family member that are outraged at the cover-up - I suggest you watch this doc made by them (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481)
It's as if you somehow place more importance on the realtives of flight 93 than others that lost loveones, maybe that could be seen as being creepy too?

[YoungRemy]

slow down Carlos, there are just too many videos with ominous sounding music for me to take in at this moment...

you are just reaching all over the place, grasping anything from thin air you can hold on to.

have you considered that everyone here has heard every theory, read every article/blog, watched every ominous sounding video there is?

we've heard it all, if it's not molten steel, it's charged explosives, if it's not charged explosives, it's the hole in the field in Shanksville. if it's not the hole in the field in Shanksville, it's the size of the hole in the Pentagon. if it's not the size of the hole in the Pentagon, it's the phone calls from the air. if it's not the phone calls from the air, it's the passenger manifests. if it's not the passenger manifests, it's the WTC 7 collapse. if it's not the WTC 7 collapse, it's the ......

Viva Internet Blogging!

[Carlos]

slow down Carlos, there are just too many videos with ominous sounding music for me to take in at this moment...

well I only linked to 1 video (which seeing a I posted it 5 mins ago you couldn't have watched) which is about the realtives struggle to get answers, and I find it fucking disgusting you show such disregard for - based on it's music (unbelievable objectivity again)

have you considered that everyone here has heard every theory, read every article/blog, watched every ominous sounding video there is?

no, because you and the other 'debunkers' show a complete lack of the basic information time and time again.

we've heard it all, if it's not molten steel, it's charged explosives, if it's not charged explosives, it's the hole in the field in Shanksville. if it's not the hole in the field in Shanksville, it's the size of the hole in the Pentagon. if it's not the size of the hole in the Pentagon, it's the phone calls from the air. if it's not the phone calls from the air, it's the passenger manifests. if it's not the passenger manifests, it's the WTC 7 collapse. if it's not the WTC 7 collapse, it's the ......

.. your point, other than there are dozens of reasons to question the official version?

At least Enigma is willing to engage in a meanigul discusion of details - of which I am grateful!

the rest of you - it's a just bang gang of ignorant assumptions and labelling..

[Bob]

i'm still completely lost on why the conspiracy would require a controlled demolition of the buildings (which surely runs the significant risk of being noticed?) in addition to faking a hijacking and flying two 747s full of jet fuel into the buildings (which surely, we can safely say did in fact happen, even if you refuse to believe that that is the reason the buildings fell?)

and then, even though the conspirators obviously had access to fakely hijacked 747s, they decided to shoot a missile into the pentagon, and then pull off a jedi mind trick against the world (including the residents of D.C. who surely would have witnessed it) to fool them into thinking it was a plane? why did it need to be a missile? wouldn't a plane have worked, too?

and then in addition to all that needless theatricism, the masterminds faked the hijacking of a fourth plane and faked its crashing into the ground in the middle of nowhere? why on earth would you bother to do that? what did that do? couldn't they have just used a real plane, wouldn't that have been simpler?

this is the conspiracy that we're being asked to probe?

[EN[i]GMA]

I really have no idea - as there is no evidence in any way shape or form to suggest where it went - including the field in shanksville. Again I will not just believe something unless it has at least a shred of grounding in reality.

Alright. There's no evidence at all to suggest what happened to it OTHER THAN that it hit the ground and totally disintegrated.

See, if all the explantions are bad -- as they are in this case -- you have to (tentatively) accept the least bad one.

Until you can (positively) give me another scenario to (tentatively) accept, you've got nothing but an assertion of doubt. But that's not worth anything.

Who are you to say that a plane crash couldn't produce what we saw in Shanksville? Maybe it was unique and highly improbable. But until you can give me some more scenarios with which to compare this probability, I'm forced, by the evidence, to conclude that the standard story is (largely) correct.

Why?

See, while you don't like to be associated with the idea (because even you recognize how fucking idiotic it is) by asserting that a plane didn't crash there, you ARE in fact asserting that a plane crash was faked there. And we have hard evidence of people on that plane calling loved ones and reporting what was happening. So we know that the real plane did crash SOMEWHERE. Or it was faked. So then what happened to the passangers?

These are things you can't ignore, no matter how much you want to if. IF the official story is wrong, then you HAVE to explain all of those things to satisfaction.


er very poetic, however logic dictates that this in fact sometimes the case - because if something cannot be so, then it must be something else - even if it may not be clear exactly how it came to be.

Yes, it may be "something else", like this:

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Open your mind.


again - i have never, and will never 'contrive some fiction' as I have admitted clearly that I do not know what happened to it. And the fact that you pre-judge anything we say based on our 'ilk' again goes to show your complete lack of obectivity in the subject, to assess each item based on it scientific merit.

What "scientific merit"? What scientific claims have you made?


well yeah but when you have so many saying exactly the same thing (http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/why-was-there-molten-metal-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911/) - then to assume they are all wrong, without supporting this with anything except speculation, seems to be a belief stuck together with chewing gum and ductape.. :rolleyes:


Millions, quite literally, if people will insist to you, vehemently, that they talk to God.

Thousands, tens of thousands maybe, of people alive today will swear up and down that this man can perform miracles, and that they've seen him do so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Convinced of anything? What evidence do you have for doubting them?


well you yourself said the statements say days or even weeks after the initial collapse - any lower melting point metal also solidifies quicker.

not to mention such clear statements as: a hydrocarbon fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel, let alone evaporate it!!

OK. Then what did produce it?


again your absolutely right.. but at some point we all 'accept' a consensus of reality based on a collective experience, especially when these people are professionals in the area of observation - i.e Structural engineers, control demolitions experts and also firemen/rescue workers.


Yes.


lol... yeah I assure you I fully 'got' your point to start with..

Then you must have ignored it on purpose.


Firstly I again will admit I do not know what exactly casused the molten metal to be there, and that is my essential point: we need to know the mechanism that created such temps.

Maybe we'll never know. Maybe it's a mystery.


However your line or argument fails again on basic physics (indeed on your own point) - there is no naturally occuring thermodynamic quality which could be produced by an inert pile of metal, rubble and dust. Things don't get hotter unless you put more energy in.. and so there is no possibility of the pile 'creating' the molten metal.

OK.

So name me one other possible scenario that COULD account for molten steel, and watch as I use this exact same objection to prove THAT theory wrong.

Controlled demolition, for instance, is ruled out by this very logic.


And so your whole position falls back on your basic assumption - that the observation by numerous experts is actually incorect - based on nothing but your belief system about our such 'ilk' .

How many "experts" saw molten steel there? Firemen aren't "experts", remember.

How did they know it was steel, and not some other metal?


I will as you appear to be so eager to get me to, speculate for a breif moment, as I fear you will unhappy until I do.

No, I want you to, so I can rip it to shreds.

If thermate or some other military grade incendary was used, then it would have produced tons of molten metal - which in a confined space (therefore not much thermal convection) would not solidify for some time (possibly weeks), unlike what you assume.

Why would it produce "tons" of molten steel? How much thermite do you think is necessary to take down a building that's already structurally weakened?

There doesn't need to be convection, simple heat transference from the materials, over days and weeks, is enough to dissipate any abnormally high temperatures.

What was the rest of the pile? What was the highest recorded temperature in the WTC rubble? Wasn't it only like 1500 degrees? Remember, they used thermal sensors to see how hot the rubble was. You Truthers use this as evidence that the rubble wasn't hot enough to produce molten steel.

But guess what?

If there "tons" of molten steel just sitting there smoldering it 3000 degrees, it would have shown up on the thermal imagery.

But no such thing happened, did it?

So you're wrong. Such massive pockets intensely hot stuff would, first of all, cool quickly. 3000 degrees surrounded by 1500 IS a drastic heat differential. That's more of a difference, in degrees, then an ice cube in, say, a glass of tap water. Notice how easily heat transfers there? Same principle.

So yes, it would have cooled down, unless large parts of the rubble were themselves hot enough to produce or sustain molten steel.

Furthermore, we have evidence that no part of the building was hot enough to sustain steel, so just where WAS this tonnage of molten metal?


again this is speculation, but seems as it's your prefered method of reason.

Yes. Speculating about things is how we form hypotheses that we can test.

However it shows a plausible scenario that explains the empirical data observed. Unlike the speculative theory from yourself that 'something' in the pile was able to heat up to blast furnace temps without any other energy input.. totally ungrounded in the empirical data, and everything we know about thermodynamics.

"A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain.""

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

There's an explanation of how it could have "just happened" in the rubble, with no need to break the laws of physics.

So then who's the one with the closed mind?


But going back to basic principles this is something that needs to be established beyond any doubt. Not speculated about.


Science is accomplished only through speculation backed up by logic and research.

But you can't even seem to get passed the speculation part.

[Lyman Zerga]

fuck knows

[yeahwho]

I was correct about the phones on flight 77 and I am correct about the relatives of victims on flight 93. Carlos will never admit that though, either will alien autopsy. They either have me on ignore or realize that I'm focused primarily on the first lie told to get attention for the Steven E. Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones) version of the WTC collapse. His early retirement from Brigham Young University probably has more to do with him retaining his pension before actually being fired. His idea of peer review doesn't quite pass the acid test. Some of the brightest minds in material science and metallurgy (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) have studied the collapse of the WTC, but as usual because these studies have been peer reviewed the conspiracy fans ignore their findings.

The 911 Press for Truth film is actually as close to anything semi-quasi factual. It asks alot of questions and includes the Jersey Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls) who I respect.

Though the Jersey Girls were and are very critical of the government on 911, they've never jump to the conclusions that have been presented here on this thread. Their's was a criticism of the glacial speed the government reacted and investigated their own part in the day.

The Jersey Widows testified for hearing led by congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on July 22, 2005[8] In Lorie Auken's statement she said this of the 9/11 Commission Report:

And finally, without compromising our national security, it would have reported all of its findings, with its redactions blacked out and submitted to the American people. In essence, the Commission could have produced a final product where the resulting conclusions and recommendations could be trusted. Instead, at the end of the day, what we got were some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people. Violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon.

One such statement is that 9/11 was a ‘failure of imagination’. A failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6th, 2001, PDB entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States’, leads on several 9/11 hijackers including Alhazmi, Almihdhar and Marwan Al-Shehhi, warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix Memo warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca at the RFU at the FBI, 9/11 was truly a failure alright.

[alien autopsy]

so sure of the "truth" in here:)

[YoungRemy]

so sure of the "truth" in here:)

how old are you and where are you posting from?

[yeahwho]

so sure of the "truth" in here:)
What do you mean? That response is silly, what exactly do you mean? I'm more than just a little interested in truth. Factual claims are fascinating, the facts when presented in a concise matter are wonderful.

Truth is not always included in the facts, fact is not one of the relatives of the victims of flight 93 has publicly asked for more evidence of how, where or why the plane their family member died on happened. Truth is they would like more of an explanation as to why our government ignored warnings of this inevitable day. But the fact that the plane crashed into the ground at appx. 596 MPH at the very location in Shanksville Pennsylvania
(http://www.pahighways.com/features/shanksville.html) where the so called "Wingscars (http://www.google.com/search?q=Wingscars&sitesearch=&sa=N&tab=vw)" (which is a new term just made up out of some morons ass) has never been contested by any family member. Do you ever ask yourself, Why?

The truth is you don't even give a shit enough to understand the reason "Why". It is because the plane actually did exactly as the investigation said it did.

Thomas W. Eagar has your ilk nailed, he is an engineering professor at MIT, 911 conspiracy theorist's "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories embody a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.


So anyway because this is an accurate post with actual facts posted in it and those pesky facts inhibit your beliefs of what truth is, I'm pretty sure you'll never in your lifetime come up with one relative who actually went through the pain and misery of losing a Son, Daughter, Mother or Father to jump on this Flight 93 "wingscar" theory with you, not because of a neglect of the "no stone unturned theory", but mainly because being willfully ignorant of the evidence found at that sight probably degrades the history of their families.

But go ahead, it's a free country and nobody is going to try and stop you from being the way you are, that doesn't mean that others who are not as "willfully ignorant" as you will not respond to your claims freely and willfully too.

[alien autopsy]

oh youngremy...bike racks, 3 oclock?




shanksville looked absolutely nothing like a plane crash site.

and the crashsite itself actually looks like a bombed out hole in the ground with wreckage scatterd over a large distance sporadically and in tiny peices....oh wait, thats right, this plane kind of incinerated too because it was going really fast when it hit the ground.

i guess you guys are right! phew, im glad thats over with.

[alien autopsy]

and theres yeahwho trying to make anyone who questions the "truth" insecure and seem like disrespectful evildoers. i dont really see how anything i said is dishonoring anyone other than those who wrote the bullshit 9-11 commission report.

that 9-11 commission report dishonors every single american because it plays the american public who defends it as fools. it is inadequate, inaccurate, and full of bullshit. id wipe my ass with it if i had to.

[alien autopsy]

willfully ignorant:rolleyes:

[Bob]

i'm still confused about the motive for all this though. i mean, entertaining your theories, joining you on the limb, this, as far as i've been able to follow, is what you seem to believe happened

1) the 9/11 conspiracy pretended to (or actually?) hijack two 747s full of jet fuel and slammed them into the world trade center (there's no disputing that two 747's hit the towers, right? or are you disputing that?)

2) after slamming said planes into said towers, the conspirators then executed a controlled demolition of the two largest buildings in america (/the world?); a feat which surely would have required quite a bit of setting up, a fair amount of manpower, and a fair amount of risk of getting caught (did they do a controlled demolition of tower #7 on top of that, too? i admit, i really haven't been paying attention to that theory)

3) the conspirators then hit the pentagon with a missile, doing little in the way of significant damage. they then fooled the world into thinking it was another 747 even though it was actually a missile (despite the conspirators' demonstrated access to real 747's)

4) the conspirators then faked a fourth 747 crashing into the middle of nowhere

i know this is just a repeat of my earlier post but nobody answered it and i figured maybe it was because it wasn't organized enough? i'm not sure.

anyway why would anyone, ever, execute the plan i just delineated? if you're going to fake the world's most tragic terrorist attack, surely you don't make it so needlessly complex?

[DroppinScience]

Bob, stop being so willfully ignorant! You can't handle the truth! Stop being such a pawn of the system, maaaaaaaaaaan.

[YoungRemy]

oh youngremy...bike racks, 3 oclock?


no thanks. I think it matters though. how old were you on September 11th, 2001? Where in the world were you and where are you posting from now?

It's a genuine question to put things into context.

Sixth period should be over soon, though.... hopefully I'll hear back from you.

[yeahwho]

and theres yeahwho trying to make anyone who questions the "truth" insecure and seem like disrespectful evildoers. i dont really see how anything i said is dishonoring anyone other than those who wrote the bullshit 9-11 commission report.

I never once have used the word "dishonor" nor am I saying you don't have any right to believe in what you want to believe in, I find it immoral that you do not think the family victims didn't do enough research into the deaths of their kids, parents and spouses. Carlos went on to say family members are still searching for what really happened that day. None of the flight 93 relatives have asked where the government hid their families. None of them asked where the plane really is. Not one.

I've never quoted the 9-11 commission report in any of my posts other than to criticize it.

I also have never used the term "evildoer".

"evildoers" are too intelligent to believe the fantasies you've put forth.

you are in the category of "not too bright".

[alien autopsy]

you both are ridiculous.

[yeahwho]

better than being not too bright

[alien autopsy]

true, but not as bad as being a total fucking idiot:p

[alien autopsy]

Bob, my "motive" for looking at other evidence and remaining open to new findings regarding 9-11 is this:

9-11 was used, and continues to be used to justify a never ending war on terror. and its like a domino effect. the more disruption and bombing we cause in the middle east the more terror there will be, and the more excuses we will have to be over there fulfilling PNACS mission.

there are so many inconsistencies- as one would expect- with the official story, and so many lies that have been told since then, not only inregard to 9-11, by the administration and "heads" of our agencies.

in my opinion, to not be curious and skeptical is to be dead on the matter. how can you trust a government who commissioned the 9-11 report, when they totally flat out lied to us, sending us to war because iraq had supposed weapons of mass destruction...was harboring terrorists...was befriending Osama...how can we trust anything the administration puts out there.

but of course, if you go back in history, you see that this is nothing new. lies have perpetuated us into WW2, into vietnam...into the hostile take overs of south and central american countries, pacific and carribbean islands etc...

its politics.

so, from the moment the second plane hit, and then the pentagon...then the afghanistan and iraq wars....i have been skeptical. how can you not be?

so my position is- be open to the fact that there might be liars who are running this country. listen the quotes of members of the 9-11 commission and other heads of our government who openly say that the 9-11 commission was set up to fail, to decieve. and then look at the evidence objectively.

there is very clearly a lack of open mindedness on this board about 9-11, and its sad.

[alien autopsy]

and if the day comes that the truth regarding 9-11 is released, and we see that it was all bullshit, and it cost so many lives, and hurt our economies, and the security of generations to come....the outrage would for once, cause real change in this country. that is why it is so important.

[EN[i]GMA]

Bob, my "motive" for looking at other evidence and remaining open to new findings regarding 9-11 is this:

9-11 was used, and continues to be used to justify a never ending war on terror. and its like a domino effect. the more disruption and bombing we cause in the middle east the more terror there will be, and the more excuses we will have to be over there fulfilling PNACS mission.

But I oppose "the war on terror" (as it's currently being conducted) AND believe (roughly) the "official" story.

So it's not a necessary connection at all. All kinds of anti-war individuals, Noam Chomsky notably, believe in the 'official story' and still are vehemently opposed to US occupation of the Middle East.

Why don't you respect that position?

You people attack me as if I'm some kind of traitor, some rabid neo-con, when really I agree you on most issues relating to post-9/11 policy.

So really what difference does it make what my position on 9/11 is? I'm fully opposed to nearly everything the US government does already. It's not as if I'm OK with all its missteps now, and would be persuaded if 9/11 turned out to be shame. No, I'd feel roughly the same as I do now on nearly every issue.


there are so many inconsistencies- as one would expect- with the official story, and so many lies that have been told since then, not only inregard to 9-11, by the administration and "heads" of our agencies.

Of course there are inconsistencies. Don't tell me you think the 9/11 commission report should be the first and only document in history to bring up no problems.

That's just you being unreasonable.


in my opinion, to not be curious and skeptical is to be dead on the matter. how can you trust a government who commissioned the 9-11 report, when they totally flat out lied to us, sending us to war because iraq had supposed weapons of mass destruction...was harboring terrorists...was befriending Osama...how can we trust anything the administration puts out there.

All of this stuff is true REGARDLESS of how 9/11 happened.

Why can't you see that?

Listen. Get off your high horse. You don't some special place in the opposition to US imperialism just because you have abnormally bad powers of perception.

Shouldn't it tell you something that I easily see through ALL of those lies and misdirections, and yet I'm not one smallest bit convinced by your 9/11 canard?

That I fault US policy day and day out for the stupidity I see both here and abroad? That I'm anything but a friend of this nation and its government? That I oppose patriotism? That I oppose militarization?

You have me pinned as some kind of obedient government stooge. That just isn't the case. So your act is wearing thin. I don't think that anyone who has posted in this thread could be labeled a supporter of this government.

So then what's your quarrel with us?


but of course, if you go back in history, you see that this is nothing new. lies have perpetuated us into WW2, into vietnam...into the hostile take overs of south and central american countries, pacific and carribbean islands etc...

Yes, and lies brought us to Iraq and, to a degree, Afghanistan.

The pattern is the same.

That's why you're wrong. They don't need terrorist conspiracies; just lying works well enough.

It worked for Iraq. They didn't ever pin 9/11 on Iraq. They insinuated a connection, yes, but that's not the same as blaming it on Iraq.

And yet still they got 90-something percent support for the war.

Clinton got support to bomb Iraq.

Bush I did.

It's not hard. It doesn't REQUIRE a conspiracy, it just requires a complicit public and media.

The same thing is happening with Iran now.


its politics.

so, from the moment the second plane hit, and then the pentagon...then the afghanistan and iraq wars....i have been skeptical. how can you not be?

I am.

How can you be such a pompous prick as to think that only your line of thought (which is on its face fictional and silly) is "skepticism"?

You're only skeptical in the sense that solipsists are skeptical. It's a mockery of skepticism. You aren't the least bit skeptical about the 9/11 Truth movement and its motives, for example.

"They're just after the truth!"

That's naivete.

That's blind ignorance.


so my position is- be open to the fact that there might be liars who are running this country.

Yes, and you're not even open to the fact there might be liars in your own movement.

So how skeptical are you? How do you know you aren't being taken for a ride by some other fools more gullible than you are?

listen the quotes of members of the 9-11 commission and other heads of our government who openly say that the 9-11 commission was set up to fail, to decieve. and then look at the evidence objectively.

there is very clearly a lack of open mindedness on this board about 9-11, and its sad.

There is a lack of open-mindedness on the issue, but I think it's more from your side.

I've never seen anything from any of you that at all resembles free, independent thought.

[alien autopsy]

But I oppose "the war on terror" (as it's currently being conducted) AND believe (roughly) the "official" story.

So it's not a necessary connection at all. All kinds of anti-war individuals, Noam Chomsky notably, believe in the 'official story' and still are vehemently opposed to US occupation of the Middle East.


and thats fine. everybody is different, everybody has a right to their opinion. i choose to make a connection between the war on terror and 9-11 because we justify the war on terror with 9-11. i question anyone who full-on believes every single shred of conclusion that the comission came up with because the 9-11 commissioners themselves (the ones who wrote the book) have come out publicly and said that they were set up to fail. kean and hamilton have written books, op-ed peices and spoken outrightly against their own findings. so i sort of cant help but laugh when people just take it all as truth.

and buddy, im not attacking you, im not attacking anyone but remy and yeahwho who are calling me names and flinging insults in my direction beacuse of what i believe in.

All of this stuff is true REGARDLESS of how 9/11 happened.

Why can't you see that?

Listen. Get off your high horse. You don't some special place in the opposition to US imperialism just because you have abnormally bad powers of perception.

Shouldn't it tell you something that I easily see through ALL of those lies and misdirections, and yet I'm not one smallest bit convinced by your 9/11 canard?

That I fault US policy day and day out for the stupidity I see both here and abroad? That I'm anything but a friend of this nation and its government? That I oppose patriotism? That I oppose militarization?

You have me pinned as some kind of obedient government stooge. That just isn't the case. So your act is wearing thin. I don't think that anyone who has posted in this thread could be labeled a supporter of this government.

So then what's your quarrel with us?

lol. im glad you see through all the garbage and are totally unequivicably aware of the truth. who's on the high-horse? i dont care if you are government stooge or not. i dont think i have ever called you that actually. i dont know where you are getting it from.

i dont sit here and tell people that if they dont believe in what i am saying, they are stooges, or clowns, or idiots, or wrong. i will defend my points, and if someone wants to call me out, i will enter debate with them...but im fine with the fact you dont agree with me. im just presenting the evidence. i have been and remain, quite passive in all of this.

LOL

and the rest of what you have written is just totally abrasive and disrespectful. its funny that you tell me im on a high horse and that i am this and that. its totally laughable. look at how hyperactive and explosive you are in all of this! i have this mental image of you sweating in front of your keyboard twitching and slamming down on the keys as you type. take it easy man. i dont care what the 9-11 truth movement stands for, i dont care what those who are against the 9-11 truth movement stand for. i dont care what chomsky stands for, or anyone else. i can trust only my own judgement, and will only defend my points with things that catch my eye as truthful or interesting. just take it easy, relax on all the stereotypes and insults...relax on reacting. its unhealthy to be so angry.

[alien autopsy]

and you dont have to get offensive and defensive....

its just me here, typing what i feel and believe.

and its just you over there, typing and getting your panties in a bunch.

its no big deal.

[yeahwho]

and buddy, im not attacking you, im not attacking anyone but remy and yeahwho who are calling me names and flinging insults in my direction beacuse of what i believe in. [/B]

uh, you've never provided any factual information on wingscars. Carlos never provided one name of a relative of somebody who died on flight 93's crash who is considering the hijacking and consequent Shanksville site as a pre-fabricated lie.

I sort of doubt if I'm or anybody else on this thread besides Carlos and yourself are being sanctimonious, you both are basically telling us a lie about wingscars and family members then continuing to perpetuate the story.

I'm not sorry if you feel like your being picked on. If you have not enough common sense or internal dignity to understand that hearts and minds much more involved than yourself have covered this ground (it is 2008) then you deserve every volley thrown your way.

[YoungRemy]

aa-

did I call you a name or hurl an insult at you? I simply asked how old you are, and you keep dodging the question. like I have explained, I think it is important to the discussion.

where were you on 9/11? how old were you then? how old are you now?

and did you know anyone who died or lost anyone on 9/11?

it's incredibly sanctimonious of you to say that it is "sick" that this board doesn't have an open mind. this board has finally come around to how ridiculous the notion of hanging on to every new theory you hear.

besides, your posts lack the real research needed to prove to me or anyone else who has stuck around to watch you and Carlos go in circles trying to actually convince anyone to "open their minds"

is the blackbox recording from Flight 93 an entire sham, too? were the tales of phone calls made from Flight 93 completely fabricated as well?


do you believe Flight 93 was even hijacked?

[YoungRemy]

comments like these are really what makes me want to sit down and do the REAL research

true, but not as bad as being a total fucking idiot:p

you both are ridiculous.

willfully ignorant:rolleyes:



good work goons.

[yeahwho]

I think my compassion and tolerance level for the complete lack of facts in these claims of conspiracy has been expired for several years now.

I feel compelled to respond to these moronic claims mainly out of human dignity and history. No matter how many times you point out the inconsistencies and complete lies being thrown at you... they keep coming back at you with something completely so far off topic that obviously the truth was never the motive for the original posting.

The funniest argument is to keep an open mind. To what?

Excluding the hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead; the number of immediate victims totaled 2,998, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians.

This gives me pause, it makes me think perhaps the story is a lot larger than wingscars, missiles, controlled demolitions. Something else was happening that day, I wonder what it was. Keep an open mind and someday alien autopsy and Carlos, maybe both of you may be able figure it out.

[alien autopsy]

uh, you've never provided any factual information on wingscars. Carlos never provided one name of a relative of somebody who died on flight 93's crash who is considering the hijacking and consequent Shanksville site as a pre-fabricated lie.

I sort of doubt if I'm or anybody else on this thread besides Carlos and yourself are being sanctimonious, you both are basically telling us a lie about wingscars and family members then continuing to perpetuate the story.

I'm not sorry if you feel like your being picked on. If you have not enough common sense or internal dignity to understand that hearts and minds much more involved than yourself have covered this ground (it is 2008) then you deserve every volley thrown your way.

first off, you always drift into these strange arguments...

asking about the wingscars- i dont really get what you are after here. i showed pics of the crashsite and the USGS 1994 aerial survey photo, both showing the wingscars. from the crash location. the landscape feature (probably manmade, left over from the strip mine that once operated there) was present in 1994, and was bombed out on september 11th to make it look like a plane crash. however, the wreckage and the nature of the crashsite suggest that this was unlike any other plane crash site ever in history. that is why the government stated the plane was incinerated upon impact, or vaporized...

and again with the family members of 9-11. its like we shouldnt question the "truth" or stories we are told because someone, somewhere is affected by it, or has a loved one who died in it.

why do you question the iraq war? dont you know there are families out there trying to support their loved ones who are fighting there? what gives you the right! some nerve you have! lol

why does a family member of a flight 93 victim have to say anything about it at all. its like no matter what we talk about regarding 9-11 you have to bring up the family members! why cant you just leave them out of this yeahwho. have some respect and let them grieve. lol.

in fact, you can look up the testimonies and eyewitness accounts of the shanksville residents...there are some very interesting descriptions of the days events.

[alien autopsy]

the question of how old i am or was on 9-11 has nothing to do with anything. does it? im interested to know why its important in relation to the information i provided.

yes, yeahwho, something bigger happened that day. the war on terror began. and this marked a huge event in american history. our country will never be the same.

[yeahwho]

first off, you always drift into these strange arguments...

asking about the wingscars- i dont really get what you are after here. i showed pics of the crashsite and the USGS 1994 aerial survey photo, both showing the wingscars. from the crash location. the landscape feature (probably manmade, left over from the strip mine that once operated there) was present in 1994, and was bombed out on september 11th to make it look like a plane crash. however, the wreckage and the nature of the crashsite suggest that this was unlike any other plane crash site ever in history. that is why the government stated the plane was incinerated upon impact, orvaporized...

and again with the family members of 9-11. its like we shouldnt question the "truth" or stories we are told because someone, somewhere is affected by it, or has a loved one who died in it.

why do you question the iraq war? dont you know there are families out there trying to support their loved ones who are fighting there? what gives you the right! some nerve you have! lol

why does a family member of a flight 93 victim have to say anything about it at all. its like no matter what we talk about regarding 9-11 you have to bring up the family members! why cant you just leave them out of this yeahwho. have some respect and let them grieve. lol.

in fact, you can look up the testimonies and eyewitness accounts of the shanksville residents...there are some very interesting descriptions of the days events.

There are no two identical plane crash sites in history.

The marvels of modern science conclude that a an aluminum fuselage carrying 11,000 gallons of fuel and traveling 596 MPH vertically into the ground explodes upon impact.

The families have conducted exhaustive time and research into the deaths of their Sons, Daughters, Mothers and Fathers. Are you ignorant, they do count in every aspect of your debate, to exclude them is the poorest form of investigation I could think of. It's like saying the surviving families of the holocaust victims don't count. You must be daft. Think about it a little longer and a lot harder. Truly how self serving is this conspiracy movement of yours?

The Iraq War family thing makes no sense, your losing me on that one.

I did look up testimonies of eyewitness accounts of the shanksville residents, rather than say as you do, there are some very interesting descriptions of the days events, I actually posted links to their accounts.... in an attempt to present facts.

[alien autopsy]

the only family members involved in the investigation that i know of are the wives, husbands sons and daughters who fought with all their effort, against the largest of tides to get the 9-11 commission going.

i am not trying to self service myself on anything regarding 9-11. please enlighten me as to what my motivations are.

[EN[i]GMA]

and thats fine. everybody is different, everybody has a right to their opinion. i choose to make a connection between the war on terror and 9-11 because we justify the war on terror with 9-11. i question anyone who full-on believes every single shred of conclusion that the comission came up with because the 9-11 commissioners themselves (the ones who wrote the book) have come out publicly and said that they were set up to fail. kean and hamilton have written books, op-ed peices and spoken outrightly against their own findings. so i sort of cant help but laugh when people just take it all as truth.

I don't accept "all" the findings.

Do Kean and Hamilton think the entire thing was a giant hoax? Or are their concerns more that there some smaller omissions and overlooked issues?


and buddy, im not attacking you, im not attacking anyone but remy and yeahwho who are calling me names and flinging insults in my direction beacuse of what i believe in.

As if you aren't doing the same. You seem to just make snide comments about how idiotic everyone is for not believing this conspiracy nonsense.


lol. im glad you see through all the garbage and are totally unequivicably aware of the truth. who's on the high-horse? i dont care if you are government stooge or not. i dont think i have ever called you that actually. i dont know where you are getting it from.

It's a generalization.

It's clear you, Carlos, and the rest of the Truthers on the board don't even take time to consider my objections, or anyone elses.


i dont sit here and tell people that if they dont believe in what i am saying, they are stooges, or clowns, or idiots, or wrong. i will defend my points, and if someone wants to call me out, i will enter debate with them...but im fine with the fact you dont agree with me. im just presenting the evidence. i have been and remain, quite passive in all of this.

So you don't think we're wrong? Numerous people have responded, quite well, to the silliness of your explanation.

What good reason do you have for supposing that the plane couldn't have exploded on impact, for example?


LOL

and the rest of what you have written is just totally abrasive and disrespectful.

Well I don't respect your opinion, so why should I write as if I do?

I don't dislike you; I'm not angry at you. But I think your views are silly. Creationist silly. Flat earth silly.


its funny that you tell me im on a high horse and that i am this and that. its totally laughable. look at how hyperactive and explosive you are in all of this! i have this mental image of you sweating in front of your keyboard twitching and slamming down on the keys as you type. take it easy man. i dont care what the 9-11 truth movement stands for, i dont care what those who are against the 9-11 truth movement stand for. i dont care what chomsky stands for, or anyone else. i can trust only my own judgement, and will only defend my points with things that catch my eye as truthful or interesting. just take it easy, relax on all the stereotypes and insults...relax on reacting. its unhealthy to be so angry.

Think what you will. I'm not angry with you, I just think your beliefs are stupid.

But you're in good company: I think that about a lot of beliefs.

That said, me being an abrasive asshole doesn't make me wrong. You being wishy-washy and non-committal doesn't make you right.

All I ask is that you try to live up to the standards of free thought that you espouse. You don't seem to do that. You certainly haven't taken much time to consider my position, or the "official" position, or anyone else's.

You just discount it out of hand.

[yeahwho]

the only family members involved in the investigation that i know of are the wives, husbands sons and daughters who fought with all their effort, against the largest of tides to get the 9-11 commission going.

i am not trying to self service myself on anything regarding 9-11. please enlighten me as to what my motivations are.

When somebody in your family is murdered come back here and tell me how little you were interested in finding out what the investigation turns up.

In fact why don't you email these people and see how they respond (http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/) to your ongonig investigation of how their spouses, children, brothers, sisters and parents came to an abrupt death on 9/11.

[Bob]

Bob, my "motive" for looking at other evidence and remaining open to new findings regarding 9-11 is this:


that wasn't my question. i wasn't asking what your motive for questioning the evidence was, i was asking what motive the alleged conspirators could have had to make this 9/11 plot so fiendishly and unnecessarily complex when really, even if it were a conspiracy, it would have been a whole lot easier to just actually hijack two 747s and crash them into buildings.

maybe carlos knows

the question of how old i am or was on 9-11 has nothing to do with anything. does it? im interested to know why its important in relation to the information i provided.

yes, yeahwho, something bigger happened that day. the war on terror began. and this marked a huge event in american history. our country will never be the same.

i'm not going to attempt to convince you that it's important in relation to the posts you're making, but me, i'm just downright curious

[alien autopsy]

im 17 years old

[alien autopsy]

wait no! im 35! and my best friend died in the south tower

[alien autopsy]

yeahwho, you seem to assume that there are no family members of those who died on september 11th who question the official story...

[yeahwho]

yeahwho, you seem to assume that there are no family members of those who died on september 11th who question the official story...

I don't care how old you are, not being very good at reading comprehension is not age discriminate. Your must be completely yanking our chains.

You haven't proved anything other than the fact your absolutely wrong. The wingscar theory is "shit" pure and simple.

Just like last time, you've posted an completely made up story, your also bringing up everything but facts. Then your making claims about our take on 911.

The level of debate is my facts versus your insane rant with no facts.

I know without a doubt there is nobody related to anyone (outside perhaps the actual hijackers families) on flight 93 who thinks the plane crashed elsewhere than Shanksville PA. It isn't an assumption, it's a fact. That is why your having so much trouble convincing us, we already have heard this bullshit over and over on this site, you just registered here at the beginning of the year.... your theories suck. The people who posted them before you sucked. The people who come after you with these theories will suck.

Sorry that your so easily duped by the internet.

Do some counterpointing, checkout peer review sites independent of the 911 commission, start here (http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm) and work your way (http://www.jod911.com/) through the serious business end (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html)of the event.

We are officially done, I now have put you on ignore.

[alien autopsy]

lol

[alien autopsy]

its kinda sad, but its kind of a relief too :rolleyes: