[windigo]

Ok. Several problems with this "plane hitting the pentagon" theory people seem to like parroting. As I stated in other posts, I have Hasmat fire training and I am trained TO respond to plane crashes.

1) Whatever hit the pentagon was to small and narrow to be a passenger jet. If you look at the picture of the hole you will find one with a fire truck parked in front of it. THE HOLE WAS BARELY BIGGER THAN THE TRUCK WAS LONG!! The wingspan on the type of plane they allenge hit the building is well over FOUR times the width of the hole......

2) The person that said the plane only passed 20 feet or less overhead is talking from fantasy land. The intake vortex from the planes engines would have pulled them in...... If not they would have been slingshoted several yard behind the plane's path. I've seen this affect an crash sites. No way a pedestrian could have been THAT close to a full throtle jet engine.

3) The "splash affect" of the impact of a plane usually sprays debris over a good hundred yards or so. In other word, the shrapnal along from the fusalage would have obliterated the building! If not then the jet fuel would have given a good napalm affect.

4) Where are the engines at ? Where are the wings ?? Where are the black boxes from ANY of the planes ?? Reinforced steel would NOT evaporate in the impact... It takes over 4000 degrees to melt reinforced steel. It takes nearly 9000 degrees to vaporize it! If jet engines evaporate in jet fuel fires, why are our planes not bursting into flames on the runway ?!?!

5) The black box is built out of some of the hardest materials we make. It can withstand nearly 7000 F and nearly 50 atmospheres of pressure. I have personally seen these thing being tested using flame, explosive, acid..... Anything short of shaped charges or fires over 9000F would even hurt these thing. Them saying the "vaporized" is total malarky.

I appoligize if my figures are a tad off. I didn't have the Hasmat materials spec infront of me when I wrote this.

[karen1977]

Watch Zeitgeist, Windigo, if you haven't already, im sure you'll find it interesting - i certainly did!
I agree 100% Warwick, about the cannabis situation. It has been vilified far and wide, but not many people know that it was hemp that helped us defeat the Spanish Armada; All the sails and ropes were hemp, During Henry VIII's reign, there were feilds and feilds for miles and miles; so much so that a lot of towns have hemp in their names - Hemel hempstead, Hempdon, etc, etc.
It was actually the monks who put a stop to it; they brewed alcoholic drink, they had the secret, they charged money for it - then on the other hand, you had a plant that grows easily and is widespread and above all - FREE - it's easy to see which had to go. And now look at the problems we have with alcohol in our society......Good move, monks; thanks a lot for that!
Noblefuse, this could be because your post was edited, but i don't really know what you're on about - it does seem to have a religious flavour, which generally leaves a bad taste in my mouth, so i'll just leave it at that.
And yes, Warwick, i do have a sore throat most of the time too, hahacoughsplutterhaha!

[windigo]

I have watched it and strongly recommend it to others. I would also recommend "freedom to facism" and "moneychanger" too.

Sorry I can't post the direct links yet but I will edit this post to fix this once I'm past my 5 days. For now replace (dot) with a period.You can locate these and many others at the following sites;

www (dot) freedocumentaries (dot) com
www (dot) sprword (dot) com
www (dot) rfid-666 (dot) com

There are literally hundreds of free documentaries on these sites. Zeitgeist is among them

[karen1977]

Thanks a lot for that, will check them out tomorrow, but i'm off to bed now - tired out!

[windigo]

Mistyped;

www (dot) freedocumentaries (dot) org

[Warwick]

Hmmm... this 'melted steel' argument is based on truth, but melting wasn't required to weaken the structure enough to cause collapse - in fact, even below 'dull red', the steel softens substantially, and the critical 'chassis' ot the WTC buildings wouldn't have needed to melt. The enormous impact of the top stories collapsing against the lower ones was just too much - note how the tower hit halfway down collapsed first, even though hit an hour of so after the first one?

As for the Pentagon, there is cctv security camera footage that shows the plane impacting, and a vast amount of aircraft debris was recovered... unless there has been an enormous, very risky disinformation campaign! I suppose the flight recorders were unimportant really, as it was pretty obvious what happened... even so, the chilling 'cockpit voice recording' from the fourth aircraft does exist, and (most unusually) has been released.

The unprecidentated scale of destruction at the WTC, with literally thousands of human bodies destroyed without trace, has never been seen before that day - and hopefully never will be again. The fires burned intensely for many days after the collapse, and may well have reached temperatures that would melt iron. Thermite leaves a very obvious chemical signature, large amounts of magnesium or aluminium oxide, which would have been detected for sure. The steel sections that remained after the collapse were the very bottom reinforcement sections of one tower, that hadn't been subject to heat, and were smashed way out of place by the thousands of tons of debris which fell on them.

I suppose it is conceivable that some enormously ambitious cover up and conspiracy *could* have taken place, but considering the enormous scale (and inctrdibly callois nature) of such an operation, I can't believe that even the Bush administration (with full Military, Media, Illuminato and Masonic support) would have even considered they might get away with it...?

[windigo]

A pancake collape would have toppled OVER not thru the building. The only way that happens is if the supporting collumns are cut with explosives. I know cause I've done the hazmat cleanup on demolition sites AND collapes. As for washington, no. There was nothing recovered that was larger than a suitcase.......from a jet........ It was the same in PA.

There is no way a commerical jet hit washington. A 180ft wingspan plane can NOT make a 67ft wide hole. I might be off on the figures but you can find the info at these sites.

www.freedocumentaries.org
www.sprword.com
www.rfid-666.com

You can't put a round peg inna square hole. I don't care how much the media jumpsup and down insisting it did.....

[windigo]

I don't know how to say this gently but the senerio of 9/11 were so "unprecedented" as you say that the deparment of defense, NORAD, NASAD and Mt. Weather were conducting war games on THAT day.......

Take a guess at what was the scenerio....

You are right if you guessed it was about commercial jetliners flying into buildings.

The same type of Lcoincidence happened there in england with the subway bombings. MI5 and MI6 just happened to be running simulations at the SAME time as the attack ?!?

[Warwick]

By 'unprecidented', I meant that no similatly tall buildings have (to my knowledge) ever suffered such a catastrophuc impact and subsequent fire before 9/11. Also, the WTC had a rather different structure to previous skyscrapers, using lightweight steel supports which were immensely strong, yet more vulnerable to heat damage. Here's what a chief firemen says about it...

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

I clearly remember watching it all unfolding in disbelief, after seeing the second plane go in live on TV during a newsflash... in years to come, I expect this will replace the Kennedy assasination in folklore as the "moment everyone remembered where they were/what they were doing"..
When the first tower collapsed, I remember thinking that something funny was going on ("that shouldn't have happened?"), and suspected some kind of demolition by a bomb. What I actually saw was the glass of the lower floors being blown out by impact and air pressute, as the floors above came crashing down in a kind of 'concertina' fashion. The buildings hadn't been designed to withstand that, and (like the firechief above) doubt they could have been, even if such a disaster was anticipated.

The impacts of the aircraft did of course substantially damage the internal support structure, cutting through beams and cutting off all access to the floors above. The WTC had never been designed to withstand such a massive and deliberate attack of course, and in the circumstances didn't do too badly - for a while.

This (independent and unbiased) account describes the technicak details well, and makes sense to me (an engineer, builder and phyeicist, who has dabbled in blacksmithing and demolition!)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

It also explains why there was no toppling, due to inertia. Just as well really!

One of the saddest aspects of these atrocities is the fact that we are still discussing it even now. I am certainly no government apologist or stooge Windigo, I want to know the truth just like you... the fact is, neither of us trusts or believes in out elected leaders rhese days. Worst of all, we have good grounds for being suspicious and mistrustful, which I certainly am of my (UK) government, as well as yours. The so-called 'security services' that both governments employ (and spend millions on) are not only devious, deceithul, ruthless and a law unto themselves, they are clearly incompetant... and of course unanswerable to justice. Our governments don't even trust them, see what happened to Tony Blair?

I do actually know someone who works at the Penragon, and she told me all about it shortly afterwards (with photos). She heard the plane, so I have no doubt it was an aircraft, though I appreciate your point. The building is very strongly constructed, and the plane barelled in at nearly the speed of sound, completely disintegrating amongst the forest of reinforced concrete pillars within.

If that wasn't the case, it beggars the question "where did that aircraft and its passengers go then?", as it hasn't been seen since, or the people on board. I daresay their relatives might be curious to know? This rather intersting site has a slightly different 'approach', which is well worth consideration I reckon..

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

I also suspected that the fourth aircraft had been shot down by a USAF fighter ket for some while, but it seems they couldn't even manage to get one off the deck in time... which is a good thing, I would hate to have been the pilot!

No, I see no mystery or conspiracy here - not in the details of the actual disasters anyway. Let's face it, the track record of the US government on 'security' is so poor, they'd not only never dare do such a thing, they'd surely have been found out before now? And, dislike them though I do, I don't think they would ever go quite that far, not on US soil anyway!

That isn't to say that there is nothing to be dubious or suspicious about however. I daresay there has been plenty of covering up, buck passing and excuse making amongst the 'intelligence communities', who singular;y failed in their duties both before and after 9/11. The targetting of Iraq was most bizarre, and obviously done to please powerful ' interested parties' rather than flush out Al Quaida.

As for what happened in England (and has happened since), that's the first I've heard about any MI5 & 6 activity on the day? They seldom even co-operate, never mind get involved in joint exercises... just as well really, as if they had, quite a few innocent passers by (anyone with a black moustache and suntan) would probably have been shot, to add to the death toll?

Everyone in London knew it was coming sooner or later, it even became one of our national 'blitz mentality' jokes. The Underground is such an obvious and vulnerable target, yet cannot really be avoidedby those who work in town. Only a couple of days before I had been through two of the stations affected, just like almost every other Londoner. I expect it will happen again... with or without MI5 and MI6. To be honest, I'm more worried about being shot by the Metropolitan Police than blown up by a fundamentalist... I have a moustache!

Grim Cheers
Warwick

[windigo]

Ok, let's call everything else in the equation of 9/11 a "coincidence". Just for arguements sake.

The fact remains that both the fight recorders AND the engines themselves would NOT "evaporate/disinigrate on impact"...... They are made out of pressure-treated titanium alloys. They are also "folded". This means layer after layer is put on top of eachother and then compressed. The substance I am taking about can take 9000±500F before it even heats up.... The fight recorders are made of some of the strongest materials we make and would "not" evaporate"........ Nor would the engines...

If the materials in the engines can vaporize at a mear 3000-4000F, why are our planes' engines not melting on the tarmac??? Simple answer. They are designed to withstand much, MUCH higher!!