Posts by Bic-B@ll

mazy i remember you pointing this out like 2 years ago

Quote from Minotauro

I dont get it, what does that picture say? Did you see the pictures of streetlights that the plane broke while flying over? If it wasnt a plane, what was it? A 100ft thick missile? And the ppl driving on the freeway saw the plane as well, and all the ppl inside the plane went missing so where are they? Where did the plane go if it didnt hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers? What did the airtraffic controllers see on their radars? What broke the streetlamps, and how did the plane pieces get inside the Pentagon? 2 planes were caught on camera crashing into buildings,1 hit a field, guess what crashed into the Pentagon.

1) the tree is intact

2) there are intact windows on the left and on the right

3) Where's the tail ?

Quote from RD

The "dumb" terrorists had the same flighttraining as other "dumb" pilots who are now actually flying planes.

No. As far as I know they had never flought real planes before, just simulators. The WTC is easy to hit but the pentagon ? To hit such a short building you need at least landing experience, and if I recall the guy from the flight school said that they never really cared about taking off and landing while training. All they wanted to know was how to keep the plane flying.

the tree, is really far away, adjacent to the highway:

http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-1 ... _12_01.jpg

the plane, came into the building from a 45 degree angle

http://media.popularmechanics.com/image ... 001-lg.jpg

something like the picture here, you can see the trees off to the left

[Blocked Image: http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/pentagon_navy_command.gif]

[Blocked Image: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/impact757.gif]

the tail is made of aluminum. i went camping once and made a kind of big fire, we threw some cans in and they melted immediately. Now imagine a plane flying at 400mph, filled with fuel, crashing into a hard building.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/8.jpg heres a good picture of the crash area

stuff about the hole in the pentagon

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/impact.html

oh, and you should read this:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

I myself was in 8th grade at the time, in science class. Someone told me that a plane crashed into the WTC, other than that I had no idea what happened. The school refused to let the teachers turn the tv on or even say anything, I didn't know they had fallen down until 9th period. My dad worked in the WTC, he was in 1 Penn Plaza that day for some training.

Edit: Agreed, Nexus is fucking retarded.

as for the passport thing: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.htm

though i'm not too sure if the passport thing really happened

mino: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

wolf: becuase the pentagon was not even half as tall, much wider, and was built with a shitton of cement/steel. that building's exterior is composed of balconys, windows, and doors. the pentagon was semi-bombproof

again, see:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

make sure the origin is above the track, in the middle

Quote

* It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire. The following examples are generally cited in regards to this claim: the Caracas Tower (2004), One Meridian Plaza (1991), First Interstate Bank (1988) and 1 New York Plaza (1970), as illustrated here. The fire at the Madrid Windsor Tower has recently put more focus on this topic. In February 2005, this 32-story building burned for nearly 24 hours resulting in a partial collapse. In the aftermath, authorities observed how the steel portions involved in the fire had, in fact, collapsed. [16]). However, the Windsor Tower was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel alone, and thus, is not a close comparison to the WTC towers. While all tall buildings have differences in design and materials, all steel framed high rise buildings must follow common standards of building code specifications for resisting fire [17] and other events which could result in structural failures.Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. [18] The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:

* Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)

* Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)

* National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

* American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)

* Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)

* Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)

Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also noted that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[19]. Though this report said there was no such evidence, physicist Steven E. Jones(Professor of Physics, Brigham-Young University), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.[20] Prof. Jones does not have a bachelor or advanced degree in engineering, is not a trained structural engineer, and has never worked as an engineer. [21]

The FEMA and NIST reports have not resolved all disagreements among engineers. In 2005 New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One was titled Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed, in which a party claims "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact". Another quote from the article states "WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings." (WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation). Other articles have been titled All this work is just the start, Calls to reopen Cardington for post 9/11 fire tests rejected and Huge investigation but questions remain [22].

In 2005 fire engineers B. Lane and S. Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. However there is no evidence in NIST�s preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modelling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modelling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."

Display More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_consp ... l_collapse

it doesn't say they are his colleagues.

yay, two people read his paper and said it was probable. they are looking at it from a physics and engineering perspective. id agree too, i bet the towers would fall down if laced with explosives.

fletch makes me feel warm on the inside

i think your vision is being shrowded by his phd in physics. fine, he has a physics phd, did you see anything in that presentation that went beyond highschool physics? every point in there has been made in some random 9/11 video on the internet. it looks like he pretty much took them all and made a bigass powerpoint presentation and wrote a paper.

look what some other professors wrote

"A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"."

"The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]"

what's the new theory?

edit: what the fuck, every time i make a large post on these forums it is the last one on the page

edit 2: on melting steel: http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

i happened to have the same discussion about 9/11 in another forum about a month ago.

about the building collapsing as if it were an explosion:

the way the building was constructed was that it relied heavily on an external support structure in addition to support columns in the center of the building. you can see in pictures the building was just vertical lines of windows and steel. the vertical pieces of steel held the outside of the building. when the top floors dislodged a few after gigantic fucking planes hit into them, they were added to the weight of the floor below, which couldn't handle 2x the weight, so that floor gave. ad so it went on like dominoes. all the floors crashed down the tube of the exterior structure. that is why there are pictures like this:

[Blocked Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t…WTC-remnant.jpg]

see this: http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html

towards the end of the video, the guy talks about the fact that other buildings weren't affected. that is bullshit.

[Blocked Image: http://www.tenantwise.com/wtc/wtc_map_large.gif]

that banker's trust building directly to the south is a big sky scraper. it was so heavily damaged that is has to be taken down. because it has asbestos and other shit in it, it has to be taken down piece by piece, it has a gigantic veil over it currently.

i have quite a few links on this stuff:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 explains a lot about pentagon

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308 this goes into huge detail about the pentagon planes, a big argument.discussion

http://911review.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y popular mechanics thing about many of the main counter points

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm snopes article about the pentagon

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html about the parts and hole in the pentagon

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.htm crazy shit

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ose+change the video the whole discussion was about

http://www.last.fm/user/bicball/

i've seen about 15 of these things that all have the same facts, i'm pretty confident that terrorists did it with planes. not to say that there isn't some sketchy stuff.

neat, although there should be copious amounts of blood

(i gave blood today )

you just put the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny back into my head for another week

that guy kinda looks like me

i had something like that maybe 8 years ago, it was pretty neat, but got old fast and broke pretty quick. i'm sure the new stuff is better though

you could have at least written it in spanish D:

i love ben and jerry's

(cherry garcia waffle cone ftw)

i demand pic of zee polar bear

now make her a ninja