WTC7 again.

[fred]

The answer to the first question is, yes.

The answer to the second question is that I suggest you make a careful study of the minute differences between the Pentagon Building and the WTC Towers. The differences in the buildings are only slight but, with a careful study, are noticeable.
To assist you in the endeavour I suggest you look at the differences prior to 9/11.

That the buildings were different I don't dispute but Washington is in the same universe as New York isn't it? I mean the same basic laws of physics should apply equally to both.

[JAWS]

That the buildings were different I don't dispute but Washington is in the same universe as New York isn't it? I mean the same basic laws of physics should apply equally to both.

Yes, and that accounts for the differences of what happened to them. The laws of physics remain the same, the buildings are completely different so the end results are completely different.
For two completely different buildings built to completely different specifications to end up with exactly the same results the laws of physics would have to behave differently in each case. For objects of such size, science, as far as I am aware, has not discovered a state of physics which would behave in two such different ways.
At least in this world that is but I'm not certain about in other parts of the Universe, even this one.
If two very different buildings constructed in very different ways from very different materials had reacted in identical ways then there would have been a lot of Scientists doing a lot of re-writing of Text Books.

[fred]

Yes, and that accounts for the differences of what happened to them. The laws of physics remain the same, the buildings are completely different so the end results are completely different.

Well yes, the results were completely different. The largest part of the contents of one found was half a telephone keypad, and in the other the pages of a book inches from the impact wern't even singed.

Don't you think that's rather a large difference for your explanation?

[JAWS]

Well yes, the results were completely different. The largest part of the contents of one found was half a telephone keypad, and in the other the pages of a book inches from the impact wern't even singed.

Don't you think that's rather a large difference for your explanation?

So presumably you are claiming that the book "proves" that no explosion took place near it. Not more conveniently "passing demolition men", surely not!

[JAWS]

Roy, sorry for the cut and paste from sites that deal with people suffering from silicosis. I bow to you obviously superior medical expertise. Unfortunately I have not obtained a Degree in Law nor have I obtained a Degree in Medicine and spent many years gaining sufficient expertise to become a Consultant in the development of various stages of lung diseases. Personally I bow to the expertise of those who do have such expertise.
In view of your obviously superior knowledge to all those involved on the whole of Medical Science I will not bother to challenge your total denigration of the subject.
I rather think your assertions on that matter provides sufficient information.

As for the pulverised concrete I have no doubt that there are numerous websites claiming 99% pulverisation just as there are numerous websites claiming just about everything imaginable and many outlandish claims about every aspect of 9/11.

For those who wonder what on earth pathocrats are the following site provides some insight. It proves most enlightening about what we are meant to believe.
I found it hard to swallow the concept of the Bilderberg Group conspiring to take over the World, this one goes a whole massive leap further :-

Pathocracy is a disease of great social movements followed by entire societies, nations, and empires. In the course of human history, it has affected social, political, and religious movements as well as the accompanying ideologies… and turned them into caricatures of themselves…. This occurred as a result of the … participation of pathological agents in a pathodynamically similar process. That explains why all the pathocracies of the world are, and have been, so similar in their essential properties.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/12/330019.html

In other words, “Everybody, everywhere is out to control YOU!” Somehow I seem to remember being told before this that, apart from the knowledgeable few, the whole of humanity was made up of pathetically apathetic morons who were being led by the nose by some secret group or other.
Hell, even my Doctor is trying to take over the World now. I must remember to be nice to him next time I see him in case he succeeds. You never know, he might even tell me how I can do the same as well!
It’s all so reminiscent of ideas I have heard before but for the life of me I can’t remember who it was.
One word of warning - Watch out people, they’re coming to take you away!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf ?
That site has also been pointed out some time ago as well.

It’s all so reminiscent of ideas I have heard before on the board but for the life of me I can’t remember who it was who posted them.
One word of warning - Watch out people, they’re coming to get you!

[darkman]

Coming to take me away haha!
Coming to take me awa ah hah!

Did you google that roy?

[JAWS]

Try quoting what I actually posted and not what you would like it to have been! Once again, the tendency to deliberately misread things in furtherance of the "Cause" raises it's head again. It seems to be rather endemic when it comes to providing fuel for Conspiracies.

With respect to "paranoia", I would suggest you take a close look at your last paragraph in Post 555 and the comments therein.

[Tristan]

The answer to the first question is, yes.

The answer to the second question is that I suggest you make a careful study of the minute differences between the Pentagon Building and the WTC Towers. The differences in the buildings are only slight but, with a careful study, are noticeable.
To assist you in the endeavour I suggest you look at the differences prior to 9/11.

Sorry I have not followed a lot of this but wasn't the Pentagon supposed to be hit by a plane as well?

[JAWS]

Not prior to 9/11, unless there was a "Cover-up" over that as well and the building didn't actually exist on 9/11. Perhaps that would be better "proof" of a White House Cover-up than most of the others being suggested.

"White House" fools public into believing that a building called "The Pentagon" actually exists. Millions convinced they have seen it!"

[George Brims]

I am confused, very confused. You and the 9/11 commission are telling me that a plane hitting a building has so much destructive force that it will reduce not only the building hit to dust and twisted metal but also another building two blocks away which wasn't hit by a plane.

Another building was hit on 9/11, the Pentagon, here are some photos of the impact area. If you can explain away the massive destruction of the WTC by plane impact how do you explain how little damage was done to the Pentagon?

OK first of all no-one ever said the planes hitting the twin towers had enough "destructive force" to destroy them - they were not a pile of bairn's blocks to be knocked over. The energy that reduced them to a pile of rubble - a huge pile of rubble, and a lot of dust too - was all the energy that was put in to piling all that stuff up into large towers in the first place. Gravity, man, gravity!

Next, WTC7 was nowhere near two blocks away from either tower. A N-S block is 50 yards and an E-W block is 100 in Manhattan. And it wasn't reduced to rubble and dust in the way the towers were, rather it suffered a major collapse but without as much in-built energy to be released, and mostly because of fire.

The Pentagon on the other hand suffered much less catastrophic damage because it is practically solid reinforced concrete and only 5 stories high.

Also in a later post you made a point about that unburned book on a lectern. That book was exposed when the damaged areas were pulled down by demo crews for rebuilding. Just ask the people who barely escaped if there was any lack of heat anywhere near the impact.

[George Brims]

Very suspect indeed that a hijacker not even competent to fly a Cesna on reaching the Pentagon instead of ramming right into Rumsfelds office did a turn which made experienced pilots envious so he could hit a part of the Pentagon which was almost empty apart from records of where $2.1 trillion dollars vanished to.

Here we have a perfect example of the warped thinking of the typical conspiracy theorist.

1. Introduce a "fact" that undercuts the official story, that isn't even a fact, but would be damn fishy if it was - actually string together a few in one long sentence.

For instance "not even competent to fly a Cessna" - the pilot of the Pentagon plane may not have been great but he had taken flying lessons (BTW I have talked to pilots of both the B-2 stealth bomber and the Lockheed Galaxy transport and both said their machines were easier to fly than a Cessna - size does not equal difficulty).

And then "a turn which made experienced pilots envious" - all I have read about that turn was that it was a very shaky one and it was a miracle he didn't side-slip it into the ground.

2. End the sentence with a "fact" not relevant at all to the fact of the event, and which no-one except the initiates of the sacred conspiracy sites has heard before, but which casts doubt on the "establishment".

"almost empty apart from records of where $2.1 trillion dollars vanished to" - funny no-one has ever mentioned these records or demanded to know where the backup copies were kept. Now I only kept one copy of the stuff I filed for my income taxes last week and might be in a bind if the house burned down and I got audited this year, but 2.1 *trillion* bucks, and only one set of documentation?

[JAWS]

Now George Brims, stop introducing logic and common sense into the Thread. The pretty picture fred posted was meant to show the difference between a five story, recently reinforced building and buildings which were, at one time, the tallest in the World.
I think the book is supposed to prove something but I'm not sure exactly what.
Personally I think it was put there specially for the Photograph to give the Conspiracy Merchants something to feed off. I don't know who put it there but they certainly succeeded in their aim.

[fred]

Here we have a perfect example of the warped thinking of the typical conspiracy theorist.

1. Introduce a "fact" that undercuts the official story, that isn't even a fact, but would be damn fishy if it was - actually string together a few in one long sentence.

For instance "not even competent to fly a Cessna" - the pilot of the Pentagon plane may not have been great but he had taken flying lessons (BTW I have talked to pilots of both the B-2 stealth bomber and the Lockheed Galaxy transport and both said their machines were easier to fly than a Cessna - size does not equal difficulty).

And then "a turn which made experienced pilots envious" - all I have read about that turn was that it was a very shaky one and it was a miracle he didn't side-slip it into the ground.

Well now I've read a bit more than that because I have read the Pilots for Truth website. Pilots for Truth are a group of proffessional pilots who are saying just one thing, the official version of events just does not make any sense. They offer no alternate theories, cast no blame, they just say the official version can not be true.

So we have Scholars for Truth, very emminent academics, saying that the physics of the WTC collapse just do not add up and we have a group of proffessional pilots saying that the official analysis of the flight data recorders just does not add up.

As what else happened on 9/11 3,000 people were murdered, there is no doubt of that. Have the American government proven their case for who was responsible beyond all reasonable doubt? Not even close, there are a lot of highly qualified people saying their evidence is seriously flawed, even a layman can see that the official story from start to finish is just too fantastic to be true. What do the people you label "conspiracy theorists" want? Just one thing, what the family of just one person murdered in a back alley in New York would get, a full and indipendent investigation, the evidence, all the evidence examined impartially and a judgement given by impartial members of the judiciary not politicians.

Why are you and the American government so affraid for this to happen? Why did they spend $40 million on deciding if Clinton got a blowjob and only $15 million on the murder of 3,000 people?

[George Brims]

Forgive me for being skeptical here, but I have little trust in any "XXX for Truth" activist group. If "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" hadn't taken such an active part in the last election, we might have had a much different Current Occupant at that big mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[fred]

Forgive me for being skeptical here, but I have little trust in any "XXX for Truth" activist group. If "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" hadn't taken such an active part in the last election, we might have had a much different Current Occupant at that big mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Saying that because one organisation with "xxx for Truth" as a title were a bunch of partisan barefaced liars all organisations with "xxx for Truth" as a title are partisan barefaced liars is a totally illogical argument.

I don't judge everyone who's name is George by the one who occupies that big mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Rheghead]

Well now I've read a bit more than that because I have read the Pilots for Truth website. Pilots for Truth are a group of proffessional pilots who are saying just one thing, the official version of events just does not make any sense. They offer no alternate theories, cast no blame, they just say the official version can not be true.

Well it just goes to show that no matter how well qualified you are you still are qualified to give misinformation, except it just sounds more technical/plausible.

The climate change debate is a classic parrallel example of this.

How simple can it really be to crash a plane into the WTC?

[fred]

How simple can it really be to crash a plane into the WTC?

First you have to get onto the plane, as a known terrorist that shouldn't be easy.

Then you have to manage to hijack the plane armed with nothing more than box cutters.

If you manage to get that far then you have to fly the plane to New York without picking up a fighter escort, that is near impossible. The standard procedure whenever a plane is hijacked is to scramble a few jets to keep it company, in the case of the WTC the jets would have been flying to meet the hijacked planes not chasing them so should have been there in plenty of time.

[Rheghead]

First you have to get onto the plane, as a known terrorist that shouldn't be easy.

Then you have to manage to hijack the plane armed with nothing more than box cutters.

If you manage to get that far then you have to fly the plane to New York without picking up a fighter escort, that is near impossible. The standard procedure whenever a plane is hijacked is to scramble a few jets to keep it company, in the case of the WTC the jets would have been flying to meet the hijacked planes not chasing them so should have been there in plenty of time.

Yeah that is now but what about pre 9/11?

[scotsboy]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here Fred, but why do you accept that they only had Box Cutters - but very little else.........or are you intimating that they had MORE than just box cutters?

[fred]

Yeah that is now but what about pre 9/11?

That was pre 9/11.