Defending the Truth

duncanmac · 03-20-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

Big deal if Washimgto was a Mason.Not everything is is connected to form a conspiracy.You take isolated events years apart and try to add them up to form a secret shadow government that is responsible for every evil known to man.
You say the introduction of jet fuel will not raise the temperature of a fire.Try to bend steel using a candle,then a propane torch,then use an oxyacetalene torch.Which one works?Different materials wil burn with different intensity and temperature.The flame of an oxyacetalene torch produces a much higher temperature than a propane torch.
My first thought when it became known that it was airliners running into the buildings was Bin Laden.I have watched that SOB declare war on the US at least 4 times since the early 90's and nothing was done back then to stop him.You also forget that he has taken credit for the attack.Or were his words translated wrong for the whole world to hear.

It is a big deal that Washington was a mason. When such a large portion of the leaders of the free world have been masons it is more than coincidence. Not to mention the head of the CIA, FBI and the formation of our system of laws. Conspiracy or not, this should be common knowledge for all Americans and the simple fact is that it is not. Most don't even know about the strange patterns in our nations capital. When the masons formed our system of government they planned it so power would bounce back and forth between the two parties (rep, dem) so power would remain centralized, yet make it seem like it was actually the will of the people being served.

The above still doesn't change the fact that no matter how much jet fuel you add to the mix it still couldn't cause the amount of heat necessary to bend steal.

As far as Bin Laden is concerned a relationship is well documented between Laden and the US when Russia was trying to invade Afghanistan in the late 80's. If you step outside your bubble of saftey for just a moment Duncanmac, and imagine that your home country might not have pure interests at heart, why couldn't Bin Laden have been part of the plan? The Bush family obviously flew all the Bin Laden's to saftey as soon as 9/11 happened... without even being questioned.

Nothing about 9/11 followed standard procedure, from a lack of fighter pilots being scrambled to the Bin Laden family being escorted out of the country without so much as a question being asked.

The amount of heat necessary is a lot less than you think.All it would take is a enough to weaken a few beams because the others were destroyed by the impact of the plane.The beams were not designed to withstand the amount of pressure on the number of beams that were not damaged by the impact.
Bush did not fly them out of the country.That was Richard Clarke,in his own words he said he did it on his own.This is the same Clarke that later blasted Bush for his own benefit.(I think he wrote a book).If he would have been "under orders"don't you think he would have said this after he left the administration?

hevusa · 03-20-2005, 08:57 PM

I've done more research on the fall of the towers and it seems very likely that the impact of the planes could have weakened the structure to collapse in on itself. I still don't think the fuel was the source of the collapse, more the impact itself sinse the bending temperature of steel is so high. But one thing puzzles me. If it was the impact of the planes why such a long delay for the towers to collapse? Wouldn't it have occurred shortly after impact?

phil achio · 03-24-2005, 05:18 PM

I didn't know the Bush administration built hired civil engineers to layout the city of washingtion to draw lines between buildings and trace streets to show a symbol and a reason to attack nations. This is amazing!

phil achio · 03-24-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

It does not add up.1+1=2 not 5.You make leaps of judgement based on theory and groundless,baseless accusations based on your hatred of a man you have never met.You are nothing if not predictable,well maybe pathetic.
The other skyscrapers did not have jet fuel fuelling the fire.Nor did they have support beams cut by the impact of a fucking plane filled with innocent fucking people.The beams below were not designed to take the kind of pressure delivered in an instant like the collaose of the upper floors.You can stand on a chair that is 25 years old,but if you jump on that same chair ,you still have the same weight on the chair but coming down with much more force and you will probably break that chair.
I said I don't know anything about WTC 7 so I cannot and will not comment on it.
All of our presidents were male,does that mean there is a conspiracy against women?
The only addition I see in your posts are
Theory+ConjecturexHatred=Crackpot

>The other skyscrapers did not have jet fuel fuelling the fire.Nor did they >have support beams cut by the impact of a fucking plane filled with >innocent fucking people.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

There are many red flags in the official story of September 11th that passed right by the vast majority of people. Not the least is that the official story was so quick to emerge. Within hours of the attack Osama bin Laden was presented as the prime suspect. His picture was repeatedly shown on TV alongside images of the devastation in Lower Manhattan, a technique known as Pavlovian conditioning. A list of most of the hijackers was presented within a day of the attack. Mohammed Atta was presented as the ringleader within hours. The curious building "collapses" in Manhattan were immediately claimed to be inevitable. The "case closed" technical paper about the building collapses was published on September 13th, two days after the attack.

Some of the other red flags include:

The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard operating procedures.
The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few visible flames.
The building collapses were presented as inevitable, even though such behavior was unheard of in steel structures.
Cellphones were said to have been used to make numerous calls from Flight 93, even though cell phones don't work from aircraft in normal flight.
Flight 93 was confidently portrayed as a crash due to a struggle, despite strong evidence it was shot down.
An extensive paper trail of the hijackers was found within hours of the attack. even though the same people had supposedly eluded authorities for years.
The same hijackers who pulled off aerobatic maneuvers with large jets were flight school flunkies who had never flown jets.
The FBI claimed that the passport from one of Flight 11's hijackers was found blocks from the towers (when the only other parts of the jetliner that penetrated the tower were a few pieces of landing gear).
Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.
1000 bodies vanished at Ground Zero, despite DNA identification procedures that could identify individuals from small fragments of bodies.
Flight 77 vanished at the pentagon, the 80 tons of aluminum, steel and bodies supposedly burning up.
The supposedly fanatically devout Muslim hijackers were fond of strip bars.
The video of Osama bin Laden that has him taking credit for the attack doesn't even look like him.

It just doesn't add up to me.

I don't know the temperature to incenerate a body, but it isn't that high, a lot lower than steel I can assure you, why would the government try and cover up the bodies? That is stupid, the flight did have people on it. I am in communications as my MOS in the Marines. Cell phones operate in a pretty much line of sight way, so when you are flying at 30000 feet (only five miles) you have basically unrestricted access to a number of towers. I have used a cell phone while flying in a private aircraft, the FCC doesn't want you using it because there is a remote possiblity that a phone could interfere with VORs (VHF Omnidirectional Range) a navigation system that is older but still in use, GPS is much better though. Also they have the aircall phones (or some catchy name for the phones on planes). I am sure that the reason that they could get a paper trail on these guys relatively quickly was due to the fact that they were more than likely on someone's watch list also on a flight roster. The flight school had turned them in because they only wanted to learn how to takeoff and manuvuer the planes, and not interested in landing. The reason that there wasn't much done to intercept the aircraft was, the air traffic controllers probably didn't know that they were hijacked, the way that the identify an aircraft is with a squak code with a transponder, they may have though that they had put in the wrong sqauk code or there could have been a screw up with the flight plan paper work. If you are hijacked you are supposed to squak 7500. I don't know exactly what happened with the air traffic controllers but there is a lot that probably didn't happen, that should have. The one big thing that your theory is missing is a motive. Going after Iraq is not a motive.

hevusa · 03-24-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil achio

I didn't know the Bush administration built hired civil engineers to layout the city of washingtion to draw lines between buildings and trace streets to show a symbol and a reason to attack nations. This is amazing!

I cannot believe someone in your position wouldn't take it more seriously.

You don't even know who you are fighting for.

hevusa · 03-24-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil achio

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

It does not add up.1+1=2 not 5.You make leaps of judgement based on theory and groundless,baseless accusations based on your hatred of a man you have never met.You are nothing if not predictable,well maybe pathetic.
The other skyscrapers did not have jet fuel fuelling the fire.Nor did they have support beams cut by the impact of a fucking plane filled with innocent fucking people.The beams below were not designed to take the kind of pressure delivered in an instant like the collaose of the upper floors.You can stand on a chair that is 25 years old,but if you jump on that same chair ,you still have the same weight on the chair but coming down with much more force and you will probably break that chair.
I said I don't know anything about WTC 7 so I cannot and will not comment on it.
All of our presidents were male,does that mean there is a conspiracy against women?
The only addition I see in your posts are
Theory+ConjecturexHatred=Crackpot

>The other skyscrapers did not have jet fuel fuelling the fire.Nor did they >have support beams cut by the impact of a fucking plane filled with >innocent fucking people.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

There are many red flags in the official story of September 11th that passed right by the vast majority of people. Not the least is that the official story was so quick to emerge. Within hours of the attack Osama bin Laden was presented as the prime suspect. His picture was repeatedly shown on TV alongside images of the devastation in Lower Manhattan, a technique known as Pavlovian conditioning. A list of most of the hijackers was presented within a day of the attack. Mohammed Atta was presented as the ringleader within hours. The curious building "collapses" in Manhattan were immediately claimed to be inevitable. The "case closed" technical paper about the building collapses was published on September 13th, two days after the attack.

Some of the other red flags include:

The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard operating procedures.
The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few visible flames.
The building collapses were presented as inevitable, even though such behavior was unheard of in steel structures.
Cellphones were said to have been used to make numerous calls from Flight 93, even though cell phones don't work from aircraft in normal flight.
Flight 93 was confidently portrayed as a crash due to a struggle, despite strong evidence it was shot down.
An extensive paper trail of the hijackers was found within hours of the attack. even though the same people had supposedly eluded authorities for years.
The same hijackers who pulled off aerobatic maneuvers with large jets were flight school flunkies who had never flown jets.
The FBI claimed that the passport from one of Flight 11's hijackers was found blocks from the towers (when the only other parts of the jetliner that penetrated the tower were a few pieces of landing gear).
Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.
1000 bodies vanished at Ground Zero, despite DNA identification procedures that could identify individuals from small fragments of bodies.
Flight 77 vanished at the pentagon, the 80 tons of aluminum, steel and bodies supposedly burning up.
The supposedly fanatically devout Muslim hijackers were fond of strip bars.
The video of Osama bin Laden that has him taking credit for the attack doesn't even look like him.

It just doesn't add up to me.

I don't know the temperature to incenerate a body, but it isn't that high, a lot lower than steel I can assure you, why would the government try and cover up the bodies? That is stupid, the flight did have people on it. I am in communications as my MOS in the Marines. Cell phones operate in a pretty much line of sight way, so when you are flying at 30000 feet (only five miles) you have basically unrestricted access to a number of towers. I have used a cell phone while flying in a private aircraft, the FCC doesn't want you using it because there is a remote possiblity that a phone could interfere with VORs (VHF Omnidirectional Range) a navigation system that is older but still in use, GPS is much better though. Also they have the aircall phones (or some catchy name for the phones on planes). I am sure that the reason that they could get a paper trail on these guys relatively quickly was due to the fact that they were more than likely on someone's watch list also on a flight roster. The flight school had turned them in because they only wanted to learn how to takeoff and manuvuer the planes, and not interested in landing. The reason that there wasn't much done to intercept the aircraft was, the air traffic controllers probably didn't know that they were hijacked, the way that the identify an aircraft is with a squak code with a transponder, they may have though that they had put in the wrong sqauk code or there could have been a screw up with the flight plan paper work. If you are hijacked you are supposed to squak 7500. I don't know exactly what happened with the air traffic controllers but there is a lot that probably didn't happen, that should have. The one big thing that your theory is missing is a motive. Going after Iraq is not a motive.

Motive? If 9/11 isn't the motive to control the middle east it certain'y isn't a good enough REASON to be there either.

Think of it this way... if a 400 billion dollar a year budget can't defend the pentagon, what the hell can we defend? No, that attack was meant to happen.

duncanmac · 03-29-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Think of it this way... if a 400 billion dollar a year budget can't defend the pentagon, what the hell can we defend? No, that attack was meant to happen.

You cannot comoletely protect a building in a society where we have the freedom to move about at will without showing "our papers"(see Nazi Germany).That is the reason "it wasmeant to happen".If you think that the govt.was involved you need to up the level of your meds.They are currently not working at the present dosage.

hevusa · 03-29-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

Quote:

Think of it this way... if a 400 billion dollar a year budget can't defend the pentagon, what the hell can we defend? No, that attack was meant to happen.

You cannot comoletely protect a building in a society where we have the freedom to move about at will without showing "our papers"(see Nazi Germany).That is the reason "it wasmeant to happen".If you think that the govt.was involved you need to up the level of your meds.They are currently not working at the present dosage.

So we should start showing our papers? With the patriot act it has already begun.

duncanmac · 03-29-2005, 11:46 PM

Ahhh,another typical trick,you take words out of context.I said

Quote:

You cannot comoletely protect a building in a society where we have the freedom to move about at will without showing "our papers"(see Nazi Germany).

The point being we have the freedom to move about without having to show "papers" like Nazi Germany was back in the late 30's early 40"s.

hevusa · 03-30-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

Ahhh,another typical trick,you take words out of context.I said

Quote:

You cannot comoletely protect a building in a society where we have the freedom to move about at will without showing "our papers"(see Nazi Germany).

The point being we have the freedom to move about without having to show "papers" like Nazi Germany was back in the late 30's early 40"s.

Not anymore.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode