QFEKingSnake wrote:
I dont think anyone but idiots would listen to this man
You're right - we can put this conspiracy theory to rest, because everything else Bush has done has been going so well, this would be the single glaring example of incompetence in his entire tenure.fadedsteve wrote:
Who ever thinks the 9/11 shit was staged is. . . . HIGH!!!! Yea, I am sure that Bush wanted the economy to go in the shits right after he was elected, and throw his country in WWIII!! Yep thats a brilliant master plan!!
Must be that famed right wing consipiracy. . .
All Bush haters can blow me!!
A plane is made of metal and carries fuel. Fuel burns. Plane crashes, catches fire, melts metal. No " large parts to identify as a boeing aircraft." Pentagon is a different story, it is a fortress. You drive a van into a bunker and what happens to the van? BOOM. And about the turn, it was as you said "allegdly" like that. Not fact. Don't state it as such. How do you know about Boeing engines? Are you an aerospace engineer with a minor in fuel logistics in GE turbofan engines? The tower wasn't destroyed in the lower support of the building, it was destroyed in the upper supports, have you not seen videos? Imagine a giant tower of Jinga blocks, take out the middle and what happens, the ENTIRE BUILDING FALLS DOWN.jonsimon wrote:
In the field there were no large parts to identify as a boeing aircraft. The same goes for the pentagon. The turn was allegedly at high speeds and involved a sharp turn with a significant change in altitude, the engines on a boeing would have stalled. As for taking the towers down, a plane will not destroy a skyscraper by striking it at the top. Jet fuel cannot melt steel without sustained flow of fuel. A plane cannot destroy the lower support system of a skyscraper by hitting the top, and even the support system at the top would only be partially damaged. In final, a boeing will not take down a skyscraper on its own.
I love how everybody is an expert on terrorism now. Instead of basing your entire argument on a selectively edited, misleading, and erronius video, how about you check out real sources? Enclosed below is a starting point.jonsimon wrote:
In the field there were no large parts to identify as a boeing aircraft. The same goes for the pentagon. The turn was allegedly at high speeds and involved a sharp turn with a significant change in altitude, the engines on a boeing would have stalled. As for taking the towers down, a plane will not destroy a skyscraper by striking it at the top. Jet fuel cannot melt steel without sustained flow of fuel. A plane cannot destroy the lower support system of a skyscraper by hitting the top, and even the support system at the top would only be partially damaged. In final, a boeing will not take down a skyscraper on its own.
Last edited by horny_trojan (2006-08-07 20:34:48)
I'm glad to do the job trojan. lol.horny_trojan wrote:
I know its been posted above but apparently you didn't even bother to peruse it before posting your ill-formed opinions. I would normally debunk each of the points you make above, but ill let these guys do it for me.
What i didnt type that are you on crack?horny_trojan wrote:
Its called terrorism. Check it outSealXo wrote:
Besides, the conspiracy theory presented by the government is more far fetched. "20 men, 1 far across seas, coordinated over a long period of time and hijacked 4 planes, 2 magically took down sky scrapers, 1 magically disappeared in a field, and another magically disappeared in the pentagon after making a physically impossible turn. The hijacking was conducted with boxcutters, and the entirety of each of the boeings passenger body was not able to apprehend this small group of barely armed men."
Talk about far fetched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Apparently its been going on for decades now
Count.venom wrote:
After seeing the video theres no question the amercian goverment did this to make gain. Plain and simple don't you think its suss why bin hasnt been found yet, How hard is it to find one man. Of course people are going to disigree on this subject but these people who disigree are the ones who keep bush in office and in the real world the dumb out mass the smart. Reason why people are getting more evidence agianst there goverment is its more easy to get information today than it is in the old days.
I'll do him one better...LivelyToaster wrote:
^^ please find a razer blade and slit your wrists so the world will be rid of your stupidity
Last edited by BigmacK192 (2006-08-07 21:27:51)
Have you done yourself a favor yet. . . . and scratched off your Kerry/Edwards sticker off your car?? cause if you havent, now would be a good time!!!The_Shipbuilder wrote:
You're right - we can put this conspiracy theory to rest, because everything else Bush has done has been going so well, this would be the single glaring example of incompetence in his entire tenure.fadedsteve wrote:
Who ever thinks the 9/11 shit was staged is. . . . HIGH!!!! Yea, I am sure that Bush wanted the economy to go in the shits right after he was elected, and throw his country in WWIII!! Yep thats a brilliant master plan!!
Must be that famed right wing consipiracy. . .
All Bush haters can blow me!!
Looks like every single American poll in existence - including Fox - has a majority of Americans disapproving of the job he's doing.
Not to mention that Americans age 18-24 also think he's doing a crap job. 53% disapprove of Bush vs 20% approving.
So judging from the polls, I'd say you're going to get a looooooot of blow jobs my friend. But I guess that's really the only reason anyone would actually defend the Cheney/Rove/Rumsf... oops sorry I mean "Bush" administration.
By the way, want to congratulate Bush on setting a new record... most vacation time ever taken by a president! He's surpassed Reagan... even though Reagan was in office for eight full years! And just think - Bush has got well over 2 years left to go!
"Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term."
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-08-07 21:29:09)
Last edited by cyborg_ninja-117 (2006-08-07 21:35:58)
Ok so you just have to light steel on fire now with kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) and it will melt?BigmacK192 wrote:
A plane is made of metal and carries fuel. Fuel burns. Plane crashes, catches fire, melts metal.
There is no question that the turn was impossible for a 767. It was a 270 degree dive at 7000 feet per minute. The air traffic controllers have said that while it was happening they were sure it was a military aircraft as civilian aircraft could not pull off such a manoeuver.BigmacK192 wrote:
And about the turn, it was as you said "allegdly" like that. Not fact. Don't state it as such. How do you know about Boeing engines? Are you an aerospace engineer with a minor in fuel logistics in GE turbofan engines?
The World Trade Center Towers were not made of giant Jenga blocks. They had 47 massive steel pillars at the core, surrounded in concrete and held together by an intensely strong web of steel. They were the two strongest buildings on earth. Each tower could support the weight of five more towers on top of it.BigmacK192 wrote:
The tower wasn't destroyed in the lower support of the building, it was destroyed in the upper supports, have you not seen videos? Imagine a giant tower of Jinga blocks, take out the middle and what happens, the ENTIRE BUILDING FALLS DOWN.
What about Building 7?BigmacK192 wrote:
In final, a Boeing can, and did take down a building, all on its own.
Thats a pretty hefty ASSUMPTION everything is possible, and your arguement about no wreckage is bullshit, you've been watching too many @*(&#@ videos. Get your head out of your ass.jonsimon wrote:
A plane cannot destroy the lower support system of a skyscraper by hitting the top, and even the support system at the top would only be partially damaged. In final, a boeing will not take down a skyscraper on its own.
A jet is but a glorified blowtorch. Jet fuel is much more flamable than kerosene, and with the impact to the building, and the fires, the steel supports MELTED.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Ok so you just have to light steel on fire now with kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) and it will melt?BigmacK192 wrote:
A plane is made of metal and carries fuel. Fuel burns. Plane crashes, catches fire, melts metal.There is no question that the turn was impossible for a 767. It was a 270 degree dive at 7000 feet per minute. The air traffic controllers have said that while it was happening they were sure it was a military aircraft as civilian aircraft could not pull off such a manoeuver.BigmacK192 wrote:
And about the turn, it was as you said "allegdly" like that. Not fact. Don't state it as such. How do you know about Boeing engines? Are you an aerospace engineer with a minor in fuel logistics in GE turbofan engines?The World Trade Center Towers were not made of giant Jenga blocks. They had 47 massive steel pillars at the core, surrounded in concrete and held together by an intensely strong web of steel. They were the two strongest buildings on earth. Each tower could support the weight of five more towers on top of it.BigmacK192 wrote:
The tower wasn't destroyed in the lower support of the building, it was destroyed in the upper supports, have you not seen videos? Imagine a giant tower of Jinga blocks, take out the middle and what happens, the ENTIRE BUILDING FALLS DOWN.What about Building 7?BigmacK192 wrote:
In final, a Boeing can, and did take down a building, all on its own.
word. jetfuel burns a hell lot stronger...AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Thats a pretty hefty ASSUMPTION everything is possible, and your arguement about no wreckage is bullshit, you've been watching too many @*(&#@ videos. Get your head out of your ass.jonsimon wrote:
A plane cannot destroy the lower support system of a skyscraper by hitting the top, and even the support system at the top would only be partially damaged. In final, a boeing will not take down a skyscraper on its own.
i aswell enjoy the awesome power of applesauce... but never really understood how it ended up in a tag-team with porkchopskr@cker wrote:
I am 29 years old and love my applesauce
You know this how? You just assume jet fuel must burn so much hotter because hey its a jet. Jets go fast so the fuel must be hot. Jet fuel is not much more flammable than kerosene. Jet fuel is kerosene. Look it up.BigmacK192 wrote:
Jet fuel is much more flamable than kerosene