Topic awaiting preservation: September 11th and the Bush Administration: (Page 1 of 3)

quote:

---

Why 9/11 was not prevented is one of the most critical questions in current times, because answers may well reveal to more people than ever before, the true nature of the U.S. corporate global empire ? the most extensive and most destructive in human history. Newspapers across the U.S. called for an investigation into Bush's lies about the reason for war on Iraq. While it is relatively easy for the American people to accept deception for the killing of the Arab people in distant lands, few people will be as accepting if it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities against its own people.

The evidence I present in this article suggests that the most plausible explanation of the events surrounding September 11, 2001, is that the Bush Administration was complicit in the terrorist attacks and has orchestrated its cover-up. The sources cited contain extensive detailed information, additional sources, and analysis beyond what is possible to provide in this summary. I hope that this information will incite public outrage leading to full accountability.

---

http://physics911.org/net/

Why is there always a cover up...or at least...why is there always someone claiming there's a cover up?

Aliens.

Australians.

because there is... there always is... you have too much faith in your authorities... you obviously more faith then some of the religeous people here. ...the evidence just does not fit the stories your being fed... if people can't be bothered to analyze the data.. and would rather stuff their faces and watch TV.. then hey.. let them carry on.

quote:

---

it is relatively easy for the American people to accept deception for the killing of the (Arab) people in distant lands

---

...like the man said.. there's plenty of living proof.

quote:

---

because there is... there always is... you have too much faith in your authorities... you obviously more faith then some of the religeous people here. ...the evidence just does not fit the stories your being fed... if people can't be bothered to analyze the data.. and would rather stuff their faces and watch TV.. then hey.. let them carry on.

---

No offense, but has it ever occurred to you that you're just seeing phantoms in every shadow? I seem to remember you posting another "conspiracy site" here not too long ago. "There always is" a conspiracy? That's ridiculous. Do I think that the government always tells us the truth? No. Do I think that everything is a government cover-up? Again, no.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

Oh, I know the story that we're being fed isn't true, but that doesn't make it a cover up...they aren't exactly going out of their way to make sure that no one beleives the truth or that the truth stays hidden. As Michael Moore says in his book 'Dude, Where's My Country?'

quote:

---

The Bush Administration seems to be operating under old adage of 'if you tell a lie enough times, it will eventually become the truth'

---

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory Suho.. I think it's a plain old down dirty lie. It's not paranoia.. it's just human nature for those in power to bee corrupt liars. All those recent presidents are guilty of something or other. This period in history is unique an unique things are happeneing.

The whole of America has just washed over the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found and many many people on this forum were adamant that they would be found and that they DEFINATELY existed.. and that it would be just a matter of time. Well All these people are silent now and say absolutely nothing. They wew all completely wrong and carry on like nothing happened. That kinda sucks don't you think. I remember all the debates in here too Suho... all the confidence and assurity expressed. What a load of bollocks. So don't expect me to believe these indidviduals opinions now. The American dream has become "The Americans Dreamng". Dream on. It has to happen this way. Prophecy says so.



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 11-30-2003).]

I totally agree Suho.

Can I ask you Xpirex...do you think Hilary C*****n made a fool of herself on the Today Show claiming the blowie wowie her husband got was a right wing conspiracy ?
As far as I could tell, a wing had nothing to do with it

Any whooo...what Suho said.

quote:

---

Complicity cannot be discounted on the claim that no country would do this to its own citizens, because such past events are documented. The previously classified ?Operation Northwoods? document reveals that in 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens, and blaming it on Cuba in order to justify a war to overthrow Fidel Castro. The plans were never implemented, but were given approval signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff and its chairman, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer. The plan included several options, such as killing Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and staging simulations of planes being shot down. (19)

A more recent example is the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King Jr. as described in detail by Attorney William Peppers in his book Act of State (2001). In 1999, after seventy witnesses provided unimpeachable evidence it took the jury only one hour to determine that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, the local Memphis police, and organized crime figures from New Orleans and Memphis plotted to murder King. The very fact of the trial itself was buried by corporate media.

Far from being an unprecedented shocker, government complicity in 9/11 would build on an august and cynical tradition. It is the oldest trick in the book, dating at least back to Nero's burning of Rome. In 1933, after Hitler came to power, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag (Parliament) building and blamed it on the Communists to justify abolition of civil liberties and the imposition of Nazi rule. They also staged the ?Polish? attack on a German radio station to ?justify? their invasion of Poland. Other examples of citizens being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor bombardment (which President Roosevelt not only knew about beforehand but helped provoke), the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin attack, and the staging of the Kuwaiti incubator-babies incident. Bush Sr. also lied about Iraqi tanks massed on the Saudi Arabian border prepared to invade ? ground reconnaissance and satellite photos showed no tanks there. Each of these deceptions served to rally popular support for a war of aggression.

The Bush Administration is clearly capable of creating or allowing such atrocities to occur. Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush family is not a newcomer to melding political and business interests; they obtained their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush, was Hitler's banker in New York, until Franklin D. Roosevelt confiscated his holdings during World War II using the Trading With The Enemy Act. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega ? who had been laundering money and abetting drug shipments for the CIA ? as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of reestablishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also now clearly demonstrated that the current Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.

While the focus of this article is on 9/11 and the Bush Administration, it is incumbent to reiterate that this atrocity must be viewed in the contexts of a long history of U.S. imperial expansion. The Bushgang may be more bellicose and aggressive than previous administrations in recent history. Some of Bush's critics claim that this preemptive strike against Iraq is unprecedented. However, this war is more accurately described as a war of conquest, which is by no means unprecedented. The historical account is undeniable; the European invaders did not stop on the west coast of North America but continued to the Philippines and beyond.

Lies, Secrecy and Cover-Up
There has never been a single event in the history of the U.S. republic which has received more media coverage. Moreover, there were 2952 people killed in the 2001 World Trade Center attacks, more civilian deaths on a single day than at any other time. In spite of the unprecedented magnitude of death and destruction in New York City on 9/11/01, the U.S. Government spent only $600,000 for its single study of the causes for the WTC Buildings' collapses. Compare this to the $40 million that was spent for investigation of Bill C*****n's activities with Monica Lewinksy in 1988-1999 and the only rational conclusion is that there is no desire on the part of the Bush Administration for the public to know the truth about 9/11.

The lies of the Bush Administration are numerous and currently many of them are well publicized including President Bush's claim that he saw on TV one of the planes crashing into the tower before any video was ever shown. This was just one of Bush's seven different ?recalls? of the events on September 11th. The statements of the FAA, NORAD, the Air Force Pilots and Traffic Controllers conflict, contradict known facts and defy reason. In spite of this deliberate deception, the mass media have made very little of the fact that from the beginning, the Bush Administration has vigorously attempted to thwart any investigation into the circumstances of an attack that killed more U.S. civilians on a single day than any other act of violence perpetrated on U.S. soil.

Airline crashes are routinely investigated with great thoroughness, and the results released to the public. By contrast, the Bush Administration has barred virtually any release of information about 9/11. For nearly six months, it blocked congressional hearings and rejected calls for a special commission of inquiry. The White House finally worked out a deal with the Democratic and Republican congressional leaders to consign the investigation to hearings held jointly by the House and Senate intelligence committees but continued its intimidations.

---

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=23




[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 11-30-2003).]

quote:

---

the only rational conclusion is that there is no desire on the part of the Bush Administration for the public to know the truth about 9/11.

---

{{edit - ok.....I see you changed your quote. I guess that must be part of some cover-up! You don't want the asylumites to know the truth?! You're spoonfeeding these complacent people lies and they don't even know it! }}

Wrong.

The rational conclusion from that information is that the republicans wanted more than anything to be able to hang c*****n over something stupid, and that the american public loves a soap opera.

=)


When it comes to things like beleiving the government, you're preaching to the choir in a place like this.

But as suho said, you see *everything* as a fucking conspiracy, or as america being the bad guy, and as everyone in world other than yourself being blind and stupid.

It'd be refreshing if every once in a while you slowed down enough to look at things rationally, rather than just whipping out a bunch of meaningless quotes from around the conspiracy net.

I mean christ....just yesterday you were ready to blow a gasket about the big "bribe google" conspiracy....



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 11-30-2003).]

No I did not change the post.. I just added to it, but it makes sense as I know your a war monger too.. I remember all your posts... but I forget you used to work for the same people...its all the same people.. you have been 'processed' too..

Still, not a fucking word from any of you about all your bloody rants about those weopons of mass destruction.. How easily you skip over all that information without a burp!... That in itself is bloody bizzarre and abnormal ...go ahead just try and mock me, point the finger of derrision, like I give a dam. It's your home.. you swim in it.



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 11-30-2003).]

OK Xpirex...cool your jets...

Neither myself, counterfeitbacon, Rameses Niblik the Third, Shiiizzzam, Suho or DL-44 were people (to the best of my knowledge) saying that we KNEW that there were weapons there...in fact, personally I've never beleived they were there at all...I've never trusted the Bush Administration or anything to do with them...either of the Bush administrations.

So...calm down and think of who you might be directing your comments at before you start throwing accusations around...ok?

[This message has been edited by Skaarjj (edited 11-30-2003).]

quote:

---

Neither myself, counterfeitbacon, Rameses Niblik the Third, Shiiizzzam, Suho or DL-44 were people (to the best of my knowledge) saying that we KNEW that there were weapons there...in fact, personally I've never beleived they were there at all...I've never trusted the Bush Administration or anything to do with them...either of the Bush administrations.

---

I was. On the basis that there were recorded amount of WMD found back in '98 that were never accounted for. That STILL aren't accounted for. Xpirex talks of "us" glossing over the WMD not being found issue while he and "others" blatently ignore the KNOWN quantities that were found before the inspectors were kicked out in the first place. We went in to find the WMD or evidence of their destruction. Saddam refused to provide proof of their destruction or to turn over what we already KNEW was there. By no means does this mean i trust that that is the ONLY reason we went into Iraq. Nor that what is happening in Iraq is going spectacularily well. There are things that can be done better and they aren't being done that way. There isn't much I can do until election time, which I am avidly awaiting. I continue to hold to my belief that the government is there to do what is best for my country. Read that again... "what is BEST for my country" I didn't say right. Someday I hope the two are the same thing. Why was 9/11 not stopped? Because it couldn't be. It still can't be. Given enough time and ingenuity there is a way around every system of security.

quote:

---

the true nature of the U.S. corporate global empire ? the most extensive and most destructive in human history

---

This is a highly misleading quote. Most extensive and destructive in comparison to who and at what time. We are the most capable. by default that makes us capable of far more than anyone else has been capable of before. If Ghengis Khan had the weapons we have today we'd all be speaking mongolian in a wasteland of nuclear wreckage. Have a little perspective.

Xpirex: I'm not sure what you want here - you point us to one site which, as far as alternative interpretations of 911, is distinctly unconvincing and some of the material is fanciful and/or has been addressed already online. For some reason reading "Applying basic scientific principles" always makes me reach for the crankometer

I'm unconvinced that the US administration could have had an active role in 911 (it would have involved the complicity of hundreds if not thousands of people and the less people who are in on your consipracy the better) but the events were not only 'convenient' for them but also part of plans they laid down earlier (if you looked through the many threads in this forum over the last few years you will find a wealth of discussion on this topic).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

but it makes sense as I know your a war monger too

---

No, actually I am, and have been, against the war in iraq.

quote:

---

your bloody rants about those weopons of mass destruction

---

Nope, not me.

I don't know what it is you're recollecting, but.....you've obviously got me confused with someone else.

I used to work for "them"?

Who the fuck are "they" and what kind of work did I do for them....????

Just because I refuse to jump on every conspiracy theory that presents itself doesn't make me "processed" nor complacent or blind or whatever else you choose to call it that makes you feel better.

As GD noted, a little bit of realistic perspective to all your nonsense (you know, the stuff you blindly and complacently spoon-feed yourself from all these sites on the internet, that you don't bother cross referencing or actually trying to check the legitimacy of...you know, the ones that have "processed" you...) would go a long way toward a more realistic understanding of things.

Zpirex: These conspiracy theories are of interest (if only from a sociological persepctive) but you should be wary about actually believing in them. They are like 'join the dot' puzzles without the numbers - you can draw an impressive and convincing picture but does it have any relationship to what it actually is?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Is this a purposeful syntax error?

quote:

---

you obviously more faith then some of the religeous people here.

---

Was this error made on purpose to confuse the issue and propogate your own agenda? Perhaps by distracting the reader, you hope the confusion will allow readers to believe in your conspiracy about the conspiracy.

Or, more nefariously, are you a CIA troll trying to portray the conspiracy believers as zealots whose emotions are so caught up in the mystery, they cant write coherently. Thereby making the conspiracy buffs unbelievable.

Which is it? Are you a zealot or a troll?




_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

quote:

---

I used to work for "them"?

Who the fuck are "they" and what kind of work did I do for them....????

Just because I refuse to jump on every conspiracy theory that presents itself doesn't make me "processed" nor complacent or blind or whatever else you choose to call it that makes you feel better.

---

Ooh! A denial of involvemnet with the "they", "them", an obvious technique of subterfuge. You cant prove your not one of "them" so you must be one of "them". I like that. That's exactly what a Knight of Malta would do...

Hmmm, definitely some evil is afoot here in the Asylum.

I think xpirex and dl-44 are secret CIA moles... planted here to create smokescreen threads. The focus becomes the arguement and the whole of the truth is obfuscated in vitriol and purty cuss words.

Damn moles... anyone got a ferret?

_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

Xpirex: OK, you've had your outburst. Can we be rational now? As others before me have pointed out, you have been flinging mud without any consideration for your targets. At least get your facts straight before you make accusations.

Now, I try to keep my cool, but it really aggravates me when people accuse me of being things I'm not. You apparently don't know the first thing about me if you think I'm a war monger, or that I carried on about the WMD in Iraq. All I said was that you seem to have a tendency to see higher-power conspiracies in everything.

I don't think I can really add anything more of value to this thread, so I guess that's it.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

quote:

---

.. you have been 'processed' too..

---

ROFL

That has to be the funniest thing I've heard since Maynard telling Michael Jackon jokes on stage....

This guy sounds like someone who took The Matrix way too seriously, a regular Dale Gribble .


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

I can't add much to what has already been said about conspiracy theories. I agree that one has to be very wary at taking them at face value and to do so is intellectually sloppy.

WMD? I'm sure I was one of the people you had in mind, X. Yes me, "Bigamus". If you've been reading the Iraq threads, you will already know that I have not been silent about this issue. I am not going to waste my time retyping anything here because if you really want to know what I think about WMD then *and* now then do some homework, then and only then should you throw around your insults. If you weren't referring to me specifically in your accusation, then disregard this paragraph.

quote:

---

prophecy says so

---

AND THERE IT IS AGAIN!!! When will you ever explain this??? I have pleaded with you on several occasions to do so and now I'm going to call you a hypocrite. If you expect people to step up to the plate about their support of WMD in Iraq then I'm going to hold you to explaining once and for all what prophecy you are referring to.

. . : slicePuzzle

"Saddam refused to provide proof of their destruction or to turn over what we already KNEW was there."

And it's Saddams responsibility to provide this proof, why? To the best of my knowledge, if Iraq asks us for information about our nuclear arsenal, we don't have to do a damned thing. And we'd probably laugh at them. Sure, maybe they're a "rogue country", so they need to be checked, but aren't we a rogue country to them? After all, we're still not quite through shooting holes in their civilian homes quite yet.

As for conspiracy theories and such.. Both sides seem to think that the other is not thinking in a logical and coherent manner. Why aren't both trains of thought rational? I can certainly see that because WMD's haven't been found in Iraq yet, there is reason for suspicion that the Bush administration has been lying to us. It's not the first time something like that has happened. On the other hand, is it reasonable to assume that maybe the WMD's really are still there, and just really well hidden, and that Bush and co were telling the truth? Sure.

You all give each others theories and opinions about what the Bush administration is doing less credit than they deserve, and resort to mud-slinging to resolve it. We can't really know what's going on in there for now, and maybe we won't ever. But take your side, and vote in your elections to reflect what you think. Sometimes we just need to leave it at that.

Myself, I tend more towards the first train of thought I mentioned, primarily because I've seen exactly what Bush's economic plans / tax cuts for the rich have done to the country, and I'm not going to *not* keep my eye on someone who has done that, and has the potential to screw it up even worse. After all, this is our country, not his. (Well, his also in the sense that it is "ours".)

/rant.

-Xel

i don't know what particular prophecy X is refering to, and i might be a bit rusty on my bible study and interpretation, but as i recall, prophecy says that the river euphrates will be dried up to make way for the kings of the east. leading to armageddon. i'm probably being vague here. couldn't this not necessarily mean the actual drying up of water, but of the area being (i can't think of the word i need here) inert? or incapable of resitance (or possibly even compliance with) the advance of the kings of the east(whatever they may be)? and if god is god, as he says in his word, he uses whoever he chooses to accomplish his own purposes. be it the good guys for bad purposes, or the bad guys for good purposes.

did that make any sense?


ed: one thing the bible does say that i agree with, is to pray for peace (who you pray to doesn't concern me) or if you don't believe or pray, at least you can you can hope for it.

*hehe - laughs at the UnknownComic and the power of ed

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 12-04-2003).]

Nope, You are an Intellectual Whore please report for processing here; http://www.intellectualwhores.com/forum/index.php

_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

grrrr I feel so angry now...
thanks for posting the site, Xpirex...

and to the nonbelievers... there always IS a conspiracy... u live in it... its like... thinking the earth is flat cuz u're right on it. if u lift up above, u see its really round...

Would you care to share with me how I could lift myself above?

Yeah....but if you dig down deep into a bunch of shit, all you see around you is shit.


And if you beleive the conspiracy theories at face value, you're every bit as bad as the "processed" sheep that you rail so hard and so long about.

You accept at face value what you *want* to believe, with no regard for actual truth while you assault "middle america" for doing the same thing.

Taking the other side of a counterfiet coin doesn't change things guys.

Wake up and THINK for a change.

I did... many times...

and that site presented some facts which add to the idea.

and u can lift urself up by going into politics or just high up enough to know wtf is really going on.
And I dont believe EVERY theory there is as long as I like the way it sounds. I just try not to believe the crap media gives u if it smells like crap.


[edit]
damn.. do u really think there's as much to the world as CNN and FOX tells you ?! I hope u dont, cuz if u do, I can call u a retard and not take it back.
There are 2 kinds of consp. theories: ones that are made up by crazed up lunatics, and the ones that are sent into the world by someone who's been laid off and is pissed to the point where he uncovers the secrets, or someone who simply Realizes that CNN is not enough, and looks deeper into things and finds contradictions and ambiguities; latter being the site abovementioned. One slide show of the pentagon coverup is amazingly detailed and convincing (to me atleast).

U cant just say "ahh its another conspiracy theory,,, its all horseshit why should I even bother looking at it." well u could, and u'll live happier. Ignorance is bliss after all, but for some reason I think that ppl who actually read this forum try to get beyond ignorance, and give things a thought. I know DL-44 has other views, for reasons not known to me.

and whatever, I dont care if ubelieve it or not, youre to judge the facts you're presented with.



[This message has been edited by asptamer (edited 12-04-2003).]

asptamer, the problem with the conspiracy mentality is that the theories being pushed can be molded and shaped to *any* set of facts you have. You can never be wrong because there are always plenty of facts to explain the foregone conclusion.

There are people who do this on both sides of the political spectrum. Remember Vince Foster and how C*****n had him killed and made it look like a suicide? Remember how chlorinated water was a communist plot? Those are two right wing examples and there are plenty left wing ones too. This is about a lack of critical thinking.

. . : slicePuzzle

asptamer:

quote:

---

There are 2 kinds of consp. theories: ones that are made up by crazed up lunatics, and the ones that are sent into the world by someone who's been laid off and is pissed to the point where he uncovers the secrets, or someone who simply Realizes that CNN is not enough, and looks deeper into things and finds contradictions and ambiguities; latter being the site abovementioned.

---

I'm afraid you nearly have it but it is:

1. When insiders spill the beans.

2. When people heap together opinion, facts, speculation, etc. to come up with their version of the truth. They may indeed be lunatics but more often than not they are ordinary concerned people who follow one line of speculation to its conclusion. The above site is one of these. They present speculation, back of the envelope sums and theories that have been disproved long ago as fact.

I'm not against the idea that the US administration may have been complicit in the events of 911 I just find it unlikely (as I have said how many people would need to be in on this?) - if you are concerned about this then by all means campaign for an open invesitigation into events (esp. as a lot of conspiracy theories on 911 are lacking in actual facts). What you should be more concerned about is the US adminstration's use of these events to enact plans they developed years ago and in the way they are clamping down on your freedoms and using the war on terror as an excuse to attack foreign countries. Although still a little speculative and 'grey' there are far mor facts to support this kind of thing.

[edit: Typos - damn db's fat fingers!! Where is he anyway?]

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Asp - here's a novel idea: read what I said rather than just spitting out more nonsense about what you would like to beleive about me

AS I said, what you are doing is exactly what you accuse the rst of the world of - accepting what is given to you.

You yell about people who just believe what CNN gives them (which, by the way, is very beleiveable, and presents more fact and argument for it's side than that joke of a site posted above....), but here you are doing the same fucking thing with sites like these.

You've consistently done this - you jump and yell about how blind and stupid everyone for beleiving something (things which they've not even given any indication that they do in fact believe) and then you pull one web source out of your ass to quote from and hail as the "real" truth...

No, I don't live and breath by CNN and Fox.

I look to a multitiude of sources for news and info, and I take it all with a grain of salt.

Theories by pissed off people who got fired are no more credible than those by media outlets who are told what to say.

quote:

---

Taking the other side of a counterfeit coin doesn't change things guys.

---

I REALLY like that sentence. I agree with you wholeheartedly, DL.

AssTamer - You are entitled to your opinion and your beliefs about other people's opinions. You can't present them as the only answer that makes sense, nor can you discard other people opinions because they don't agree with your assessment of what's going on. It doesn't make people who don't agree with you idiots any more than it makes you an idiot. Your reaction and presentation to sites such as this DOES make you act like an ass. So settle down, talk coherently, and present some real reasons for believing what you post. Spitting out someone elses words means nothing. I want to know WHY you believe what you believe. I can't know that without YOUR words instead of someone elses.

having just viewed the 'slide show' asptamer posted from the physics911.org site...I'd like to point out:

my, my, my...for someone claiming to be revealing the true physics and facts about the plane hitting the pentagon, this guy/girl/nutcase cannot get their facts straight...for example

quote:

---

white explosion -- like explosive, not jet fuel

---

OK...quick lesson on the physics of explosions and fire. Different elements, when combusted, burn with different colours. These colours indicate the temperature it is burning at, with temeperature ranging from the low spectrum with reds, yellows and oranges (well, in order red, orange, yellow), up through blue, ranging into white (although a white-hot fire is difficult to achieve and requires a highly controlled burn, like the firebox of a steam locomotive). But that is combusted, not exploded. There is a difference.

An explosion is achieved by containing any level of combustion in a significantly compressed space compared to the normal area taken up by it's combustion (flame). You can make a whole lot of things go bang by having them in a compressed space and then combusting them quickly. Wheat Farmers all over the world who store silos of flour on their property know never to even let a spark near the silo becuase if that flour combusts inside that silo? Well....let's just say you don't want to be within 100 meters of it (which is why the silos are also always built quite a distance from any other buildings).

Compressing a combustable element, as we now know, and then putting fire to it will make it explode, but let's examine an explosion for a moment shall we? An explosion, unlike a fire, does not require the source and principal fuel to remain for it's entire life-span. An explosion amplifies the energy produced in combustion enough that the combustion action happening does not happen with a fuel source for any significant amount of time, and instead feeds off the amplified energy of the combustion and the oxygen around it. Now, there was a key word in that sentence: Energy. Energy is the lifeblood of the universe, without it there would be no air, no light, no heat. Heat is energy, and energy is what an explosion has alot of. I mentioned earlier that the colour of an explosion is determined by the heat of its combustion, so the above statement from the physics911.org site is erroneous. Jet Fuel is a highly combustible substance, it has to be to create enough thrust and enough of a vortex to be able to make an 82 ton lump of metal soar through the air. This high combustion (ie: high heat) index, when compressed in the wing-tanks of a jet-airliner (which contain no oxygen, just the fumes of evaporated fuel, effectivley totally vacuum compressing it) means that when it explodes you get one hell of a bang, and an explosion flame colour of, you guessed it, white.

Now, I had a link to a site a while back that took all this supposed 'evidence' of how a plane never really hit the pentagon and put it to the test, with aviation and explosives experts looking it over and reporting on it. I can't find that anymore, becuase my favourites got lost in my recent reinstallation. I found it in response to the last time a conspiracy site like this was posted. It wasn't this site, it wasa side scrolling affair. Does anyone remember it?

Yes, I remember that site. It was posted here not oo long ago....lemme see if I can dig it up....


{edit - this is the thread:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/001040.html

This is the other "conspiracy" site:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

And this is the debunking site:
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-04-2003).]

nice reply, skaarjj, I'll give u the explosion thing since maybe u know more about physics of explosion than I do, but u took that one argument and wrote a whole essay about how it does not mean that it was not a Boeing that slammed into the pentagon,

but the author of that slide show puts a lot more emphasis on the size of the hole made by the "boeing," and according to the data presented theres no way it could be made by an airplane of that size (once again, according to the author). U think u could elaborate as vividly on that?

[edit] oh.. and what about the lack of details/evidence about the crash such as videos and pieces of the airplane, and most importantly, the bodies. Although I wasnt there and cannot say for sure it was so, but the author describes (and gives pictures of) and obvious coverup operation. Why are there so many videos of planes hitting WTC and none of Pentagon? I think all these and other aspects should be carefully examined and not ignored...

... looked over the site posted by DL, nevermind the hole-size question... these "experts" seem to have an answer to anything. Although

quote:

---

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

---

those "probably" sound like he's not really sure, just making guesses.... and about stuff not penetrating buildings? no pictures show recognizable parts of a boeing.... so that takes care of that I think...

But then again... everything can be covered up and all witness accounts rendered erroneous if you're paid to do so, just like a conspiracy site like that can be funded by someone else...

So Im going to pull out of this discussion since like I said many times before, there's no way to know what has really happened... for us mortals that is.




[This message has been edited by asptamer (edited 12-04-2003).]

Doesn't the conspiracy site say that it can't be the big plane because only 5 columns are destroyed?

I read somewhere that instead of 5, there were 13 columns destroyed.

If the original conspiracy is built on erroneous data, doesnt't that make its conclusions erroneous?

_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

There is a difference between impact destruction and being pulled down by the weight of the rest of the building. From what it sounds like the building was hit at ground level. That's the worst place for it to take structural damage. Everything in an inverted pyramid from the point of impact would start to disintegrate. Buildings are structural systems. any significant portion of that sytem gets damaged and the building falls down. 5 columns on that part of the building is probably... Hmmm... half of the structural support for that size of floor on that wing. If it was thirteen columns... I'm stunned that whole fifth of the building didn't collapse. Trust me... I work in architecture... it doesn't really take much to knock a building over.



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 12-05-2003).]

OK then asptamer...one other thing on the physics of an explosion versus the pentagon then. There was several thing about the pentagon's contruction that the writer of that article failed to mention. Yes, the outer wall is basically a veneer, but the floors aren't. Tripple steel reinforced concrete, and the support pillars (wow there's alot of them) are concrete, brick and a solid steel core. It takes one hell of an explosion to wpie one of those out, and if you look at what the media is saying many of them were wiped out or otherwise severly weakened. Evidence supporting this is the gradual collapse of several floors around the area of impact.

Now, the outer hull of a boeing 757 is not as thick as the writer of that article would like to have you believe. 2cm of aluminium (approximatly, it alters depending on time of manufacture of the aircraft as specifications are constantly changed, but it averages to this) is all that seperates you from the world outside, that and tick glas and the interior of the plane.

There's a very good reason why

1. There was very little debris on the lawn; and
2. the size of the impact hole didn't include the total height of the vertical tailplane and the width of the wings.

When the wings and tailplane of an air-plane hit a heavily reinforced building, they shear off and fold in on themselves. That's all there is to it. They're surfaces that are made to cut through the air and create a difference in air pressure above and below themselves, not cut steel. The reason there was so little debris on the lawn was that most of it ended up inside the building itself and penetrating it right from the E-ring to the C-ring. That's where your bleed off of kinetic energy comes from. The kinetic energy of an object, given it's mass and velocity is calculated by

Ek = 0.5 * M * V^2

so, Given 0.5 as a constant:

M = 82000 Kg
V = 167.64 m/s

So we have Ek = 0.5 * 82000 * 167.64^2 = 1.15222995 × 10^09, or 1,152,229,950 Joules of Kinetic energy

That is a hell of a lot of energy right there, and serves to explain why anything that wasn't solidly a part of the superstructure broke off to the point where it could fit through. As it hit more and more walls and reinforced contrete it bled large parts of that energy off, but that that point it had managed to penetrate 200 meters or so of office spaces and reinforced floors and walls.

The reaon the holes coming out the other side got progressivly smaller was becuase as the plane progressed and lost kinetic energy it also lost physics size as it left parts of itself behind. Probably all that owuld have been left at the end would have been the heavy, solid nose cone, althought the sensitive instruments inside would have been shredded by this time, the code itself is not aluminium. It's steel, and there off bring the centre of gravity to the centre of the wings so that the plane can fly without putting undue stress on the outer parts of its structure.

There asptamer...there's an answer to most of that article, all about 'why wre the holes so small if a plane hit them?'

Now, be quiet...I'm going to bed.

Oh, and one other thing, on the lack of photographical evidence of the planes coming in and hitting the pentagon?

Is there footage of the first plane hitting the WTC? Nope...no one knew it was going ot happen, so no one was filming. The same here at the pentagon. No one knew that a plane was going to fly into the building, so why would they have been filming it and taking photos? The lack of photographical evidence only serves to prove that no ones was filming, no that it didn't happen.