Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was waiting for you to try and rebut this one:

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Where is the evidence that tells us exactly HOW LOW it flew over the ground?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The evidence is in the height of impact hole. The impact hole was at the bottom of the pentagon not the top somewhere around the first and second story. From this we can safely assume that the plane was somewhere within 10 feet give or take off the ground. Further evidence is in the alleged 5 cliped light poles. Since the plane cliped them we know that it was flying under them.

 

As for the speed of the plane. It was around 550 mph. Shouldn't the thrust alone tear up grass and ground?

I am now going to give you the absolute definitive answer why you are wrong about this, and why it is a bad assumption. I guarantee you that there shall be no wiggle room. Even if the airplane was skimming across the ground such that the engines were only inches off the grass, it is a bad assumption. And before I explain this to you I want to say that, if you are an honorable man, you will come back after this and admit your assumption is wrong and no longer even question why the grass was not scorched or even torn up. If you do NOT come back and admit this, I will continue to exhibit why your assumptions are poor. And it will just continue to make you look like an uninformed thinker.

What I am going to explain you may, or may not, already know. It is something I teach in my ARO 103 course which is Introduction to Aerospace Propulsion. You may know that all commercial aircraft these days (including a 757) are powered by what is called a High Bypass Turbofan Engine. If you understand what the word "bypass" means in relation to the design of such engines, you will know why it is unthinkable that a jet engine would scorch the grass, even if the engine is flying inches above the grass. I will now explain why.

 

In a high bypass turbofan engine there are actually TWO exhaust jets that come out of the back of the engine. These exhaust jets, if you are looking at the engine from the back, would form the shape of a donut. The "hole of the donut" is the exhaust from the "gas generator" portion of the engine. This is the part that goes through the combustor, and this is the part that is both very high speed and very high temperature. The "donut itself" (not the hole) represents the "bypass exhaust flow". It is common knowledge that the bypass flow does NOT pass thru a fuel atomizer and does NOT get combusted. Therefore its temperature is only slightly higher than the air that is ingested through the engine's intake, and its velocity is quite a bit slower than the "gas generator" exhaust.

 

What this means is that, even if the airplane was skimming such that the engines were even 1-2 INCHES off the grass, the grass would NEVER BE SCORCHED OR UPROOTED because the bypass flow acts as a "buffer" around the "gas generator" (high temp, high speed) engine exhaust. It PROTECTS the grass, essentially.

 

This is yet another example of why you make assumptions which you think are "inconsistencies", and in doing so you are revealing that you already have a conclusion in your mind (i.e. that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon). And yet, because you do not think like an aerospace engineer (perhaps you DID know about high bypass turbofans, but you did not think to reason why they would PREVENT grass from being burned) you made an incorrect assumption. I assure you, there are more situations just like this that are wrapped-up in your bad assumptions.

 

The choice is now yours. Your response to this will determine whether you are honorable or not, because I guarantee you there is no way for you to dispute this. It is a FACT of commercial aircraft engine design and operation. The readers of this thread are now going to see what kind of person you are. And they have already learned an important lesson about jet engines that PROVES why it is a bad idea to make assumptions like this.

 

What say you, titorite? I will not post another reply to you in this thread until I hear you address this and either admit this is a bad assumption, and agree the grass would not be scorched, or you continue your "campaign" to get people to make bad assumptions which lead to false conclusions.

 

RMT

 

edit: What follows is a NASA page that proves what I am saying about turbofan jet engine design is true:

 

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbfan.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

titorite- Start a new thread here (let's all stop jacking this one) and outline your problems with 911. List them and go into brief detail. No conjecture. Personally, I am on the fence as far as 911 goes- I think there is a conspiracy but it has nothing to do with the actual events of 911- it has to do with other things that 911 is a small part of. I think that the more we debate pointless 911 points, the deeper the real conspiracy gets buried. So let's try to get to the heart of the matter.

 

I also suggest you (and everyone else interested) do some real research:

 

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

 

I read that entire site a few years ago (took me a few weeks)- - that, along with several good documentaries (particulaly "Inside 911") is enough to convince anyone 911 went down as they say it did. I'd like to know what hasn't already been covered.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"OK

 

what about this:

 

Choppervideo: Missile or Drone hitting the pentagon on 911?"

 

your asking me? really? ok then...

 

i would like to enter into evidence exhibits a and b. :D

 

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_liaBfg2U&mode=related&search=

 

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

 

i am a firm believer that something fishy is up with 911. but, rmt has shown proof that certain things are not possible that conspiracy theorists believe. he has also proven, to me, that the twin towers were, in fact, brought down the way the government said.

 

now i have a question for rmt that should either end the pentagon debate, or fire it on up, depending on his answer.

 

rmt, in your proffesional opinion, do you believe that the pentagon was hit by a 757? was the hole indicative of a 757 crash?

 

judging from all of the wreckage, and eyewitness reports, i believe it was more than likely a 757.

 

this is another problem i have with conspiracy websites. i read that there was no wreckage, and that the only wreckage recovered was an engine that was not an engine from a 757. i also read that no light poles were hit, along with the question, "how can it come in at such a low angle and not hit any light poles?" then titorite posts a pic of one.

 

to me, it seems as if conspiracy theorists purposely overlook things to make others believe the same. this only creates dissent amongst americans.

 

what is the bigger question to me is, why would a man who was at one time, an ally to our government decide to destroy america? and why now? what was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak? the "holy war" bull really doesent cut it with me. i feel like there is a reason they did this, and i feel there is a reason the government does not tell us why. i also feel there is a reason iraq caught hell for it and afghanistan didnt. those are the things i would like to know.

 

btw, bush didnt help matters much by being an evil mofo.

 

just my opinion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Failed pilots preforming ace areonautical manuvers, etc. etc."

 

i have never flown a plane in my entire life, and i could easily fly that plane there. easily.

 

how do i know if ive never flown a plane? simple really. the same way i judge a corner in my car. ive never hit the corner before, but i know what my car can and cant do after experimenting with it. 30 minutes or less inside the plane and i know its handling characteristics inside and out, and its very simple. i'll put it like this, crashing into the pentagon would be easier to do than land on a runway, to me that is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would like to enter into evidence exhibits a and b.

FANTASTIC video finds, ruthless! Man, I really love Penn Gillette. And I must say, some of the things he says in that video about some of those "analysis-challenged" people are things that I am constantly thinking. I just love the way he said "eff you" to that guy who CLAIMS to have evidence that the planes were landed and the people are still alive! Listen to his words again. He actually says "the evidence we have".... but WHERE THE EFF IS THAT EVIDENCE? All it amounts to is heresay unless he can SHOW EVIDENCE.

The other video is also a great find, ruthless, because is shows PRECISELY how the "Loose Change" TRAITORS (and yes I can call them this because of their obvious doctoring of eyewitness testimony!) edit out crucial words that this witness gave wherein he admitted he saw not just an airplane, but and American Airlines airplane. These words are so important to indict the Loose Change TRAITORS that we should repeat that quote in words here---

 

Mike Walter of USA Today Live: "I saw this plane, a jet, this American Airlines jet coming, and I thought this doesn't add up, it's really low.... and I saw it, and it was LIKE a cruise missile WITH WINGS".

 

Now again, I will go back to what I told Rusty. Eyewitness accounts are not used as PRIMARY evidence. They are only useful as a means to SUPPORT the primary evidence, which is material evidence. So here we go:

 

MATERIAL EVIDENCE - The pieces of the airplane on the Pentagon lawn which clearly show a polished aluminum with at least white and red trim, including a piece that clearly has the red letter "c" on it that matches the word "American" on the side of the AA jet. (Not to mention other pieces of the jet found inside... engine or APU disk, landing gear, landing gear wheel, etc.)

 

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE - The eyewitness testimony given by Mr. Walter above.

 

Don't fall victim to the people who want you to make bad assumptions, ruthless. There is more than ample evidence that supports the story that it was an AA 757 that hit the Pentagon. I think you know that. And now you have me on record.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well folks, there you have it. a certified aerospace engineer proves that it was indeed a 757. if someone wants to say, "no rmt, your wrong." i have but one thing to say: prove it.

 

the only way rmt would lie about this is if the government was paying him off. the dude makes freaking planes!!! i mean, c'mon now, he's loaded if he makes planes, and obviously smart enough to make sound investments, so why would he need more money? he's got enough. ;)

 

btw, recall, why would you even think that footage was real? i'd like to make a statement, then a question. when taking high quality footage and then converting it to low quality, errors and corruption sometimes occur. meaning this video was converted to a lower quality.

 

why would someone want to lower the quality? gears turning yet? i hope. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say I am wrong about a question? Questions are not answers. I asked you if the exhast should of left scorch marks. I did not insist that it had to be so. you misread my posts. Please pay more attention...If it has a question mark at the end it IS a question. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk but you launched into this long diatribe about honor and my assumption and my uninformed opinion that are not facts when at the matter of hand I just asked a question? You answered it. Now I understand why the turbo props could not of scorched the grass because you answered my question albeit in a most "colorful" manner.

 

You can stop responding anytime you like. Although I do wish you would answer my other questions first. You picked the single one and ran with it because you knew your area of expertise...only you didn't quite seem to convay your understanding that I was not makeing statements. Questions.

 

So now can I hear you explaination for the fireball not burning the grass and why the larger chunks of wreckage show no carbon residue and the reason why and the car that got hit by the pole knocked over at 500+MPH only has a damaged windsheild???...I know you probably have a perfectly logical answer for the second question so if I can prioritize these remaining questions I'd like to hear your answers for the car and the fireball first as asked a post back.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say you could fly a plane within thrity minutes good enough to crash it into something...Could you navigate by sight without any Air traffic control assistence from Ohio to DC? Could you pull off the 5g 360 desent turn that flight 77 used to fly into the pentagon? Do you know where the transponder is in the cockpit of a 757 so you could turn it off?

 

You didn't learn to drive a car in 30 minutes despite playing such games as pole position or crusin usa.

 

And I am suprised you reference me saying that no light poles were hit when I clearly recanted on that statement and am currently trying to get RMT to comment on the light pole that smacked into a taxi causeing only windshield damage..but I welcome you to take a crack at it too..

 

Also I have not seen anyone address the collapse of wtc7..wanna be the first to have a go at it and explain to me why the solomon building fell?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"what is the bigger question to me is, why would a man who was at one time, an ally to our government decide to destroy america? and why now? what was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak? the "holy war" bull really doesent cut it with me. i feel like there is a reason they did this, and i feel there is a reason the government does not tell us why. i also feel there is a reason iraq caught hell for it and afghanistan didnt. those are the things i would like to know.

 

btw, bush didnt help matters much by being an evil mofo.

 

just my opinion.

A man being Osama Bin Laden?? You might recall when Operation Desert Shield was winding down, prior to Gulf War I. Osama Bin Laden was in Saudi Arabia at the time, and he offered the services of his mujadeen(sp)rebel fighters to the Saudi's - in order to push Saddam out of Kuwait. Osama felt this should be muslim battle to take up arms and fight Saddam and drive him out of Kuwait. Not only did the Saudi's turn him down, with a big fat NO: which infuriated him, but the reason why they did was because Bin Laden told them he didn't like the idea of allowing "infedels to set foot on Holy Ground". Of course, you realize in order to get into Saudi Arabia and set up shop to go to war with our coalition forces - the U.S had to grease the Saudi Royalty's palms.

Later - after the first failed WTC bombing and then the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen, acting on bad intelligence, then President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on what was thought to be Bin Ladens primary compound in Northern Afghanistan. Scores of people were killed, but Bin Laden and his key moogies weren't there - they'd been gone several hours. In fact, more than one foriegn spook agency had approached the Administration with an offer to get rid of Bin Laden. One of these was the Isreali Massada, they knew exactly where he was and were more than capable of doing the deed. Clinton backed away from the idea. Even though our own intelligence knew Bin Ladens whereabouts, and Clinton had a couple of opportunties to nail him at will - he was coming to the end of his 8 years in office, and figured he'd turn the whole mess over to the incoming Bush Administration.

 

An 8 year old probably knows more about foriegn policy than Dubya ever will. Plus Bush had two complete bungheads in Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld running the show. I really credit these two, more than Shrubhead for getting us into this quagmire. Speaking of which... you all see the recent tape, Cheney probably wishes had never seen daylight... the one where he says going into Iraq and diposing Hussein would be a mistake (for every reason we're there now - and we can't leave?) Great Job Dicky (What a complete idiot!)

 

Saddam was pretty much contained in Iraq, so he wasn't as big of an issue as he was made out to be by Bush II. People have also debated the issue as to whether or not Saddam was funding terrorist organizations such as Al Quaeda, but the truth was they wouldn't of survived long in Iraq - had Saddam remained in control, he'd of found out where they were in his country, had them rounded up and executed.

 

Through his connections in the Arab world - G H W Bush Sr and the Bin Ladens know one another. In fact, Osamas brother was here in the U.S in early Sept 2001 for some kind of a conference, in which Bush Sr was a senior board member and was also in attendance. Bin Laden and his family were flown out of the United States the day before commercial air travel was resumed domestically after 9/11 - for "safety concerns."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say I am wrong about a question? Questions are not answers. I asked you if the exhast should of left scorch marks. I did not insist that it had to be so. you misread my posts. Please pay more attention...

Let me assure you that I pay closer attention than you give me credit for... and it is comments exactly like this that appear snide and will cause me to raise my rhetoric to match yours. As I have said ad nauseum, my expertise in aircraft accidents demands that I pay very close attention to details. Now I would ask you to do the same, because the bold portion of your statement above does not reflect what I said. I never said you were wrong for asking a question. I said your assumptions were wrong. The fact that you felt that question needed to be asked and answered means there was an unstated assumption in your mind that the jet exhaust SHOULD HAVE scorched the ground.

Let me also admit that I respond to your posts not only for you, but for others. Unfortunately, I am using you as an example for others about how conspiracy theorists often work (I am not necessarily saying you, specifically, were doing this. But you can hardly deny that many do). Such conspiracy theorists "ask these questions" (like Alex Jones) expressly because there is an assumption behind them, and they want to indirectly plant that assumption in other people's minds, with absolutely NO consideration if that base assumption is even valid or not. This is one of Alex Jones' tactics. And then, when reasonable (and EDUCATED/experienced) people provide the answers that dispel the underlying assumptions (as I did with the turbofan/grass scorching question) people like Alex Jones (often at Ground Zero) do nothing but try to shout-down the people who are answering the questions!!! That is not only annoying, it is a disinformation tactic intended to try to discredit the actual answer that shows the assumption to be wrong.

 

I do give you credit for admitting that your assumption that the engine should have charred the grass was incorrect. You have shown yourself to be an honorable man, at least on this issue. Thank you.

 

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk but you launched into this long diatribe about honor and my assumption and my uninformed opinion that are not facts when at the matter of hand I just asked a question?

I understand, but as I said above, that diatribe was not only for you. It was to let people know that I can (and will) expose the bad assumptions that underly a great many of the "questions" that many conspiracy theorists float....and refuse to accept the reasonable answers from people who have the knowledge and experience to give the real answers. In most cases, this is the ONLY WAY you can wake people up to what many conspiracy theorists are doing (not saying you are always doing this, but I have seen evidence of you doing it in this thread).

 

Now I understand why the turbo props could not of scorched the grass because you answered my question albeit in a most "colorful" manner.

The colorful answer was, again, for the benefit of others. I am sorry if you felt offended by it, but it is necessary when (as an expert) I am met with obstinance by people who think they know better than I do in my area of expertise. And a request to you: Please try to get the technical terms correct. This is not a "knock" it is a request. It is not a "turbo prop". That is an entirely different jet+propeller engine design that is different from a turbofan. I have observed similar confusing of terms between you and my nephew Indazona (steel vs. iron). It does not help your argument, and it gives people openings to show you could very well be underinformed about that which you attempt to argue about.

 

So now can I hear you explaination for the fireball not burning the grass and why the larger chunks of wreckage show no carbon residue and the reason why and the car that got hit by the pole knocked over at 500+MPH only has a damaged windsheild???...I know you probably have a perfectly logical answer for the second question so if I can prioritize these remaining questions I'd like to hear your answers for the car and the fireball first as asked a post back.

I will. And I think you will again see that the underlying assumption that these things "should be so" is not a good one to make. I may not get to them tonight. However, I do not have to work tomorrow or for the rest of the Labor Day weekend. So I assure you I will address all three.

Perhaps we have reached a modicum of civility towards each other here. Now... I have another question: Since I have seen other conspiracy theorists floating the "question" (inconsistency, or so they think!) about the jet and no scorched grass, would I be able to count on you as an agent of truth to explain the REAL ANSWER to other "conspiracy theorists" that make this same point? Would you correct them and show them how this is NOT AN INCONSISTENCY, but rather it is totally consistent with the FACTS of turbfan engine design? You see, people like the guys who did Loose Change (and DELETED the comment from the eyewitness who said it was an American Airlines jet, only to use the "cruise missile with wings" part of his statement to make their point) are also ACTING AS LIARS in doing this. People need to be corrected, no matter which "side" they are on and no matter which version of 9-11 they believe....agreed?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go with more questions that are underpinned by bad assumptions. As we shall see, at least one is RIDICULOUS!

 

Could you navigate by sight without any Air traffic control assistence from Ohio to DC?

You would not need ATC to navigate, and you would not even need to do it by sight. All 757s have what is called a Flight Management System (FMS). In essence, it is the computerized aircraft navigator that you load the flight plan into and it displays it on the map display in the cockpit. I used to train people in the MD-11 simulator how to modify a flight plan right there in the cockpit. It is very easy, and you can train someone to do it in about 10 minutes if they know even a little about an airplane of that size. So again, this statement is bogus and conspiracy theorists should stop using it.

 

Could you pull off the 5g 360 desent turn that flight 77 used to fly into the pentagon?

This is the MOST BOGUS claim of all!!! I have already mentioned that while FIGHTERS are designed to be able to withstand up to 9 G's without breaking, there is NO WAY IN HELL that a 757 pulled 5 g's. PERIOD. IT DID NOT HAPPEN (take it to the bank and don't even bother trying to rebut, or you will find yourself in a worse position than the turbofan engine!). The FAA regulations ONLY require that a commercial passenger jet be capable of maneuvering UP TO a total of 2.5 G's. The structural designers will, of course, add a factor of safety to that. But let me assure you, that if a 757 pulled any more than 3 G's total, the wings would begin to shear off and that plane would come down immediately in pieces. Once again, this "5G" claim is BOGUS and I have summarily debunked it on several lists with many people who were believing it as true.

 

Do you know where the transponder is in the cockpit of a 757 so you could turn it off?

All airlines that operate an airplane have Aircraft Maintenance Manuals. These manuals have listings of every single circuit breaker on the airplane, along with pictures of the circuit breaker panels, for every single piece of electronic equipment. In addition, the circuit breaker panels in the cockpit are LABELED under each breaker as to what each breaker supplies power to. Here is just one example:

spacer.png

 

The transponder is typically marked as "ATC" on these panels, because their full name is "ATC Transponder". Sometimes they also use the nomenclature "XPDR". Suffice it to say, a group like Al Qaeda, which has adherents everywhere, could easily get access to the circuit breaker panel section of the 757 Maintenance Manual at some airline... it would not have to be American Airlines.

 

So can we agree that I have now debunked these 3 latest bogus claims that are floated all over the internet?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>A man being Osama Bin Laden?? You might recall when Operation Desert Shield was winding down, prior to Gulf War I. Osama Bin Laden was in Saudi Arabia at the time, and he offered the services of his mujadeen(sp)rebel fighters to the Saudi's - in order to push Saddam out of Kuwait. Osama felt this should be muslim battle to take up arms and fight Saddam and drive him out of Kuwait. Not only did the Saudi's turn him down, with a big fat NO: which infuriated him, but the reason why they did was because Bin Laden told them he didn't like the idea of allowing "infedels to set foot on Holy Ground". Of course, you realize in order to get into Saudi Arabia and set up shop to go to war with our coalition forces - the U.S had to grease the Saudi Royalty's palms.<

 

This is all well and good and makes for a good bedtime story. But the fact remains- there is a big difference between bad feelings/plotting against the USA and actually carrying out a plot against the USA and I feel this is the weakest link in any 911 conspiracy.

 

Osama was one of us. For a long time- a VERY long time. Osama may be one of us still- who knows what the heck all those classified and black documents really contain- good thing they lock them up for 60+ years or simply destroy them.

 

Attacking the USA is bringing the hammer that is the USA down on whoever attacked them and everyone around them as well. Everyone knows this- Osama definetly knew this- this is why 51% of the GDP is spent on military... to ensure that oil is bought with US dollars (see: OPEC).

 

You (the US government or any political power) may have a plan (for the future betterment of the USA), but all you lack is that little push- that sends someone like Osama off a cliff never to return: a factual event... a 911. And that is where "Spy Game" kicks in- who knows what the message was (or wasn't). A missed package, a cut off bank account or black smoke instead of white. THIS is where a 911 conspiracy truly lies- everything else is window dressing- designed to make us argue about whether or not they really were planes all while ignoring the more obvious truth- does it make sense and if so, how?

 

The only way Bush et.al's plan of securing the power of the US dollar in light of the emergence of the Euro was to stop anyone from selling oil for Euros (see: OPEC). Saddam started selling oil for Euros, several months later we invaded Iraq. The rest is history.

 

So keep arguing over whether or not 10,000 gallons of fuel can melt steel- this only draws attention away from the fact that 15 or the 19 hijakers were from Saudi Arabia, yet we never EVER investigated Saudi Arabia. Why? Why?!!!

 

Think!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/nyregion/31un.html?ref=world

 

This is exactly what I am talking about- THINK!

 

Now I am a Republican. This is no way means I support Bush because simply put, he is not a Republican- he is a Capitolist. But at least I can understand and appreciate what he is doing for the betterment of the US dollar, and US life in general.

 

I was confident that when we invaded Iraq we would find weapons of mass destruction- I may have even posted words back then to that effect (and I am too lazy to check) but the point remains: whether or not we actually find weapons of mass destruction, the fact remains: we WILL find weapons of mass destruction.

 

And yet here it is. A news story slipped in under the radar; a factual (and historically signifigant) event. "Saddam did have WMD after all".

 

Isn't it amazing that this came to light mere days after Rove and Gonzales left Bush behind to bite the dust? Isn't it an awfully convenient cover story to blanket everything that led up to now? Doesn't this innocuous story have a Karlrovian tinge to it- it's "exactly what we would hope we would find... at least enough to keep everything historically accurate"? Isn't it awfully convenient that days after Bush is left all alone to defend himself that we actually DO find WMD after all?

 

Am I the only one who thinks that, for the 1,000th time, events played themselves out as we thought they should?

 

This might be the heart of a 911 conspiracy is- 911 was sloppy and messy- there were explosions and guts and atomized concrete everywhere... it was real. Everything else around 911 has a surreal touch to it- almost as if everything played itself out as if it should. Like a bad novel. Like something conceived and played out before our eyes- for us to swallow.

 

This is why I look at the details, not the picture presented to me.

 

How do you sell a conspiracy? By presenting two conspiracies- the actual conspiracy itself, surrounded by meaningless details for everyone to dote over.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is all well and good and makes for a good bedtime story. But the fact remains- there is a big difference between bad feelings/plotting against the USA and actually carrying out a plot against the USA and I feel this is the weakest link in any 911 conspiracy. "

I agree with the entirety of your post. Theres more of an answer that can be found looking at the picture on a global scale - than just focusing on the whys and hows of 9/11. At the present time our Gov't considers the Saudi's to be friendlies (perhaps daddy Bush, told sonny boy "not to even go there...")

A bigger problem looming in our continued relations with Arabia forseeably - is instability in the region that we've created. This is threatening to light up the whole middle east. We invaded and occupied a sovreign nation without cause; who could blame the Saudi's for not being happy about it then, and they're still not happy now. I'm sure they feel just as decieved with our intentions- this time around, as the anti saddam folks did, after we withdrew from Iraq in G W I - and left them as fair game for Saddam to hunt down and kill off.

 

Its our foreign policy endeavors that have been nothing short of a road map to disaster, which paved the way to 9/11. We no longer have a Republic founded on the principles of Democracy. Where the framers set up the U.S on the priciple of a "gov't elected by the people, for the people" its all B***[censored] and has been a sham now for decades. We're a nation controlled by a "gov't elected by big corporations,for the pleasure of the powerful few." Eisenhowers fear of the "Miltary Industrial Complex" has given way and rise to Global Corporotism. (One World Government)

 

By my reckoning - Osama Bin Laden isn't the only "good guy - gone bad guy" we've had to do an about face and deal with in the last 20 odd years.

 

Bin Laden was considered "a friendly" back during the occupation of Afghanistan by Russia. Saddam Hussein was also considered "a friendly " during the Iraq/Iran conflict. We were supplying them with weapons, (conventional ordinance as well as biological) and satellite intelligence. Even Manuel Noriega (whose about due to be released from federal custody,) whom we put into power down in Nicaragua - was also considered "a friendly" at one point. Once these peoples heads got too big, we've come to realize we created a monster - we've needed to fix things. These are people we only deem as "friendlies" - as long as we (our Gov't) had an interest in the region is my take on it.

 

I know this is a rambling mess... I'm worn out. :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You say you could fly a plane within thrity minutes good enough to crash it into something...Could you navigate by sight without any Air traffic control assistence from Ohio to DC? Could you pull off the 5g 360 desent turn that flight 77 used to fly into the pentagon? Do you know where the transponder is in the cockpit of a 757 so you could turn it off?"

 

yes, yes, and yes if the plane could, in fact handle that. and yes, how hard do you think this wouldve been for me to do? seriously, this is a joke in its easiness. i mean no disrespect to the victims involved, but the people who pulled this off wasnt one of the brightest pages in the book. planes arent hard to fly at all, period. landings are kinda tough for the inexperienced, but the flyings easy as pie.

 

"You didn't learn to drive a car in 30 minutes despite playing such games as pole position or crusin usa"

 

wrong, within 30 minutes of learning to drive, i had my 74 chevy malibu station wagon flying around corners! :D

 

"And I am suprised you reference me saying that no light poles were hit when I clearly recanted on that statement and am currently trying to get RMT to comment on the light pole that smacked into a taxi causeing only windshield damage..but I welcome you to take a crack at it too.."

 

maybe the plane hit it, and since light poles arent really that heavy, only did minor damage to the car. and minor damage to the plane?

 

"Also I have not seen anyone address the collapse of wtc7..wanna be the first to have a go at it and explain to me why the solomon building fell?"

 

he told everyone it wasnt a collapse, it was a controlled demolition. now why, i do not know. i dont know how they were able to drop it so fast either. i never said there wasnt something fishy, but certain things i can say for sure didnt happen, thats all.

 

"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... yeah how much more convenient can it get. Bush is pretty much toast, but there were WMD's in IRAQ afterall, America... and they call that a "mission accomplished after 4 years, and 3,000+ soldiers dead and 29,000 wounded?? Who the f*** are they trying to fool with this insulting garbage.

 

Like you - I'm a republican. Yet - I've always voted for the person best qualified to hold various offices - including the President . I voted for G.W.Bush over Al Gore in 2000 believing it was time for change. I hate to be the messenger, but what change we got hasn't been beneficial to all - or amounted to jack squat IMO. Now I don't feel so bad about voting for Kerry in 2004, I'm just sorry he lost.

 

If this WMD story proves to be true - (and I doubt it is,) theres never going to be a way to fully corroborate it. Saddam is dead now - isn't that too bad- yet, talk about convenience.

 

On the otherhand, I can give a crap about Sen. Craig (R-ID) lying to the people of the state he represents, as well as a nation.( Mitt Romney has got to be one peed off man. This lying homophobic Ahole has put a dent in Romneys campaign efforts.) It matters a great deal to me when a U.S Sen is caught with his pants down (by police,) while trying to get a blowjob in the mens room at the airport in Minneapolis, Mn. Congress needs to wake up and hear something: People are getting sick of the lack of representation these so called elected officals give all of us. We have that right our federal taxes pay their salaries. I'm also sick of the hypocrisy exhibited by this clown. He's lied... and based on a preponderance of evidence thats obvious enough - what else has he lied about over the years to his constituents in his home state, people in this country?

 

Rather than answer that... he ought to resign now -or blow his brains out cuz his career is OVAHHHHHH.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you felt that question needed to be asked and answered means there was an unstated assumption in your mind that the jet exhaust SHOULD HAVE scorched the ground.

Great, now you are claiming to know whats in my mind. Well I did wonder about it ..why it wasn't so..or if it should of happened but didn't..and you answered the question. As for me correcting other people that make this assumption, how often do you think I engage in debate with other people of like minds? But yeah, sure, why not...If I see someone reference it I'll refer them to your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I agree with the entirety of your post. Theres more of an answer that can be found looking at the picture on a global scale - than just focusing on the whys and hows of 9/11. At the present time our Gov't considers the Saudi's to be friendlies<

 

I agree with this (and thanks!).

 

>A bigger problem looming in our continued relations with Arabia forseeably - is instability in the region that we've created. This is threatening to light up the whole middle east. We invaded and occupied a sovreign nation without cause; who could blame the Saudi's for not being happy about it then, and they're still not happy now. I'm sure they feel just as decieved with our intentions- this time around, as the anti saddam folks did, after we withdrew from Iraq in G W I - and left them as fair game for Saddam to hunt down and kill off.<

 

No- you're getting distracted.

 

I tried spelling this out several times (but it always gets too convoluted and lost and unpostable) and here I will try again- only this time I will post it.

 

A Eulogy for 911

 

1. World War 2. Europe was a disaster, the USA was victorious and unscathed.

 

2. The US agrees to rebuild Europe. We do this by supplying goods and services to Europe- stereos, clothes, cars, food and on and on- the goal is to rebuild Europe. They need it to successfully rebuild, we can make it (and profit from it). It works for both parties (this is why the 50's were "the good old days").

 

3. Europe needs our stuff but does not need the influx of US dollars (after all, American-made stuff is sold in US dollars- the goal is rebuilding, not dependence on a foreign curreny). As a result of Europe relying on the US (US dollar), they are buried in US dollars- this hurts their own economy.

 

4. How can these European countries get rid of US dollars without weakening their economy? By buying oil which they need regardless (get it?). The #1 thing ANY country absolutely needs to run is oil. Good thing US dollars and the US military is controlling oil- otherwise oil wouldn't safely get to where it needs to get to- otherwise they'd have no one else to give these US dollars to to (sic) get rid of them.

 

5. So- we protect the oil, print our own money, make our stuff, Europe buys our stuff, accumulates US dollars and gets rid of them by buying oil which they need anyway. We get our cut, they get their stuff. All fine and dandy- even Steven.

 

6. This brings us to today. Today Europe no longer needs our sneakers and microwaves and TVs- they make their own (or get them from a third world country like China, which has no real currency and is happy to get any business at all). They no longer have an influx of US dollars. But they still need oil, which you can only buy with US dollars (see: OPEC).

 

7. Ya see, as a result of the US supplying Europe for the past 70 years, a relationship has existed- a debtor/debtee relationship. It is the US' responsibility to outlay the cash to make the stuff (and run a negative deficit in the process) because Europe will eventually buy it all (and show a profit- this is how commerce works). For the past 70 years, America has been running as a deficit-economy... we had to- how else could we physically make the stuff to sell them? How else can you buy someTHING? It needs to first be a THING to sell.

 

8. Saddam was the fly in the ointment (see below). Up until Saddam, the only way Europe could get oil was with US dollars. This is why gas costs $4-6.00 a gallon in Europe (right down the block from the middle east) and much much less in America (on the other side of the world): it's because we control the oil. It's never been a problem because Europe was always looking to get rid of the incoming US dollars but now they don't need US dollars anymore.

 

9. Since it is a debtor/debtee relationship between the US and Europe, be definition, we end up on the short end of the stick- we must operate in the red... how else do you rebuild Europe after all?

 

9a. Saddam started selling oil for Euros. To those European nations, this is is triply beneficial:

 

A. Gas no longer will cost us $4-6.00 per gallon (because they cut OPEC and the US out). Gas is now $1.50 a gallon (ref: Afganistan pipeline).

 

B. We no longer have to convert monies from our flourishing (and now rebuilt) nations to US dollars to buy gas- buying gas no longer drains our treasuries (see: Euro).

 

C. We can do all of this while still retaining the debt owed to us by the US.

 

So as long as you can buy your oil from Saddam, you can have your cake and eat it too. You can then turn around and reduce the price of gas by 75% (imagine gas going from $3.00 a gallon to 75 cents), while no longer losing a chunk of your GNP (by converting it to dollars, to convert it to oil), and additionally- the US will end up STILL owing you billions and billions of dollars- your coffers will literally overflow with cash.

 

Oh, and PS- we just found out in the past decade or so that Iraq's oil reserves probably rival those of Saudi Arabia- roughly 330 bbl- enough to keep the US immersed in oil for the next 100 years.

 

This was the problem with Saddam.

 

The US has become the mafia of the world. What started as a honest, genuine attempt by the US to "rebuild the world" (and control the oil fields of the world in the process, to keep the wheels turning) has become The Sopranos- where if you want gas for your car, you first have to visit Uncle Sam.

 

Europe no longer needs the USA for anything. But they need oil, and the only way to get it is with US dollars. This is why the world hates us; this is the mentality that went into taking down Saddam- 911 was the tiniest part of a huge picture that involves our very way of life as Americans.

 

All nations have physical wealth- like Fort Knox. This physical wealth defines the economic viability of the country. (This is why the US can owe the world, yet own all the gold.) But there's only a few ways to define your country's wealth. Foremost among them is US dollars, which is the world economy. Now-rival to this is The Euro (which is the conglomeration of 15 nations under one currency which, in buying dollars, is larger than that of the US). There's also physical gold (but in actuality, 80% of the world's gold is in the US, mostly in West Point). There's also the yen and pound and so on, but the bottom line is the US dollar is the world's currency... it's "what all other countries in the world base their dollar against"; in gambling terms, we're "the house"... all nations have reserves of US dollars- they have to- to keep the oil flowing.

 

They're tangable, hard cash assets. Just as a bank is required to keep a % of its assets as actual cash, countries must also keep a "reserve" of hard currency in a fiat world economy (which, in oversimplified terms, is Bernake's job).

 

Well, in 2000, Saddam started selling oil for Euros, and also converted a portion of its reserves for Euros. In other words, he was "banking his faith in the integrity of the Euro"- and not the US dollar as much. He was taking Euros for oil and banking with/against Euros; he was poising himself to base his economy against the Euro, not the US dollar. He was closing the loop and cutting out the USA.

 

And he was encouraging other oil producing nations to do it too- and they were listening. "Why shut down your oil fields in August because OPEC tells you to? Why not keep them on and sell the surplus in Euros? You can get double the money in Euros too, and they have as many people as the US- their demand for oil is as large as the US'. Why shut them off- it's your land and your oil, isn't it? If OPEC wanted more oil they would say so- so why should we suffer because they want to control the US dollar?"

 

The US controls the world's supply of oil. They do this through OPEC- which is a conglomerate of oil producing nations. All oil producing nations agree to quotas- that means they pump until they've pumped enough then turn off the pumps. All oil producing nations, that is, except for Saudi Arabia- which controls its own output.

 

And since Saudi Arabia controls the output of oil (and you can only get oil in US dollars), Saudi Arabia by proxy controls the US dollar.

 

You see, the US made a deal with Saudi Arabia back in the 1940's. Saudi Arabia- with the world's largest cache of oil- agrees to sell oil only for US dollars and in exchange, Saudi Arabia gets infinite wealth* and protection from the strongest nation in the world.

 

*infinite wealth- since they control the output of oil, they control the US dollar. The US dollar is the world's currency. Their output affects the financial security of the world. Infinite wealth. This is why 15 of the 19 hijakers were Saudi but we never investigated or even considered Saudi Arabia as a suspect.

 

So here is Saddam with his OPEC quotas. And come mid-July, he's met his quota- time to turn off the pumps until January. And 1,000 miles away is Europe- starving for oil and paying double for it.

 

This is why we had to invade Iraq- everything else is window dressing- 911, Osama, planes or no planes, controlled demolitions etc. etc.. This is all about MONEY, and if we lose control of our money, America will simply implode-

 

How can a country that has a huge trade deficit (because they no longer need us to make their stuff) repay trillions of dollars in debt? We are one step away from a complete and total financial meltdown a thousand times worse than 1929. We're not that far away from "wheelbarrows of money to buy a loaf of bread" (SEE: recent US gold bonds).

 

Once Europe finds a way to get oil without buying it for US dollars, all that will be left is to pay the tab. And where is the USA- which no longer exports anything anymore, partly because they don't need our stuff and partly because China makes that stuff these days- going to come up with several trillion dollars? Once again: WE DON'T MAKE ANYTHING ANYMORE, WE CONSUME.

 

The casualties of 911- which historically continue to this day in Iraq with our boys- are all tragic heroes in an impossibly large series of events which historically can only be described as world shaping events- they truly are heroes and historical figures.

 

--------------------

 

THE FUTURE

 

There is only one of two possible future outcomes from these events. The more likely is another World War- the dollar vs the Euro, winner take all. If/as/when Europe evolves away from (traditional) oil, it will demand repayment of monies from the US (see: 1933). Eventually the debt will grow so large that any of an infinite number of trigger events will start world war three.

 

In this regard, Osama actually may be that trigger event, or a smaller trigger event that hopefully will prevent world war three. At that point, one side has to be 100% right and the other will have to be 100% wrong. This is where any 911 conspiracy lies- everything here encompasses that notion.

 

The less likely outcome is a peaceable solution- where everything gets worked out on equal terms (see: 1933). In a nutshell, Europe forgives the US of its debt and in exchange, the US allows oil for Euros. And the UN steps up and the US steps down its military. And everyone is happy.

 

But things rarely are worked out peacably.

 

PS- Re: the middle east. In 10 or 50 years, most of the oil will be gone. Those countries will face a financial meltdown (especially since there is no single currency). Those countries that invest their OPEC profits wisely today like Dubai, will end up ahead of the game when the oil runs out. Saudi Arabia will probably go down first- they're so ass backwards over there frankly it's embarrasing.

 

(This rant is in memory of Arnold Drake.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Yup thats right jmpet...I'm a time traveler..I traveled here to this timeline in 1979 via the wombasphere and I have no clue when I'll leave...Got any questions for me jmpet?

 

Even if you ignore the facts it doesn't change the truth.<

 

Yes- #1- can you please italicize your signature. It's one little line of html, it only takes 20 seconds.

 

I agree to your challenge- let's play 20 questions. I am willing to bet I can debunk you in 20 questions.

 

My obligation is to ask 20 questions to which I expect a succinct reply. I am allowed to redirect my questions as well as offset one answer with another to promote the succinct answering of a question (i.e. no ridicule). In other words, I expect straight answers.

 

After I ask 20 questions, I will post how you are a time travelling hoax, at which point you go away.

 

1. What is the wombasphere, how does it work and why don't you know when you'll leave?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, now your answering my replies to others...Still, I've done it myself. But could you answer my questions I really REALLY want answered some time?

 

This is the MOST BOGUS claim of all!!! I have already mentioned that while FIGHTERS are designed to be able to withstand up to 9 G's without breaking, there is NO WAY IN HELL that a 757 pulled 5 g's. PERIOD. IT DID NOT HAPPEN (take it to the bank and don't even bother trying to rebut, or you will find yourself in a worse position than the turbofan engine!). The FAA regulations ONLY require that a commercial passenger jet be capable of maneuvering UP TO a total of 2.5 G's. The structural designers will, of course, add a factor of safety to that. But let me assure you, that if a 757 pulled any more than 3 G's total, the wings would begin to shear off and that plane would come down immediately in pieces. Once again, this "5G" claim is BOGUS and I have summarily debunked it on several lists with many people who were believing it as true.

The following is the best source I could find. With your backround I was hopeing you could tell me how to calculate the Gs of flight 77 in this reported artical. The degree of the spiral I read somewhere was approx 320 degrees.

Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a 'downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

 

I actully agree with you and know myself that a 757s wings will shear right off under the strain of too many Gs but the above was reported and I could not find any reference to how many Gs flight 77 DID pull in the 911 final report or any reputable areospace website. Since the above is the best I can find I wanna do the math to figure out how many Gs the plane was under during the spiral descent.

 

So can we agree that I have now debunked these 3 latest bogus claims that are floated all over the internet?

Slow down... first I wanna do the math of the above. And second, Claims or not I was still addressing ruthless and his assumption that he can fly a 757 by himself across several states to crash into a target based on his experiance with microsoft flight simulator. I like his gusto but I think he is a tad bit over confident about his untested flying abilites.

I can concede what ever point you want here but if you would I'd still like the formula to calculate the G force of the plane descending with the numbers given.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...