Warrior General Games

Originally posted by wormser1971
This


So your "Yes" answer to the first question combined with your posting elsewhere means that you essentially believe that jihidists DID INDEED fly passenger planes into the building BUT it wasn't enough to take it down AND those in on it knew that ahead of time and had additional means in place to assist the demolition?

?

Originally posted by wormser1971
Why hundreds? The exercises simulating hijacking were approved high up, and anyone involved in those had no idea why they were approved. Why does it need to be hundreds for the alternative theory, but only 20 for the official theory?

First of all you would need a massive amount of people to setup this enormous demolition setup that you are talking about. Three WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. They would have to get access to major structural joints in both the core and exterior supports. They would have to place thermite 'box cutters' and c4 type explosives in a building that has 110 floors high. Do you have any clue to the enormity of that job? You would also have to setup explosives in a manner that tricked demo experts such as the people at demolition world who say there are no similarities to the collapses of the WTC buildings and a demolition collapse.

You would then need to work along with Al Qaeda which means that the CIA and military would be involved. With the Pentagon attack we are to believe that the military would also need to be involved and that the military would be out to murder their own people. You would also have to produce over 100 liars that claim to be eye witnesses to the Pentagon attack who saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

You would also have to produce hundreds of liars to say they were eye witnesses to the attack of the WTC and what went on in the building when the planes hit. You would also have to get firefighters to lie about smelling jet fuel and seeing fires in the elevator shafts caused by the jet fuel.

So we have multiple government agencies and hundreds of people working along with Al Qaeda operatives to murder thousands of Americans and fellow military officers according to you. Not only that but everyone involved would have to remain quiet.

Originally posted by baumusc
It would take hundreds of people to carry out what Gnosis and Wormser are suggesting. I'm not quite sure when you entered the conversation but as you can see it has been going on for a while now.

He is familiar with the story... You just don't like that he doesn't agree with either of us fully. There are problems with the official theory, and if you can't accept that, you are the problem! There are many problems with some of the truther theories as well. I point those out when I see them. I do not visit infowars. I do not visit rense. I am trying to get you to look at this objectively. I read every single thing you post, as well as all of your articles (which you do not. Read the shit you link for god's sake! Half of it is absurd!).

Plane engines do not liquify. Wings do not fold in behind an airplane to fit into a neat little hole. Explosions on the 24th floor of the towers makes no sense! Fireballs go up if there is no resistance. 3,500 gallons of fuel is not as much as you seem to be visualizing compared to the amount it actually is.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

So your "Yes" answer to the first question combined with your posting elsewhere means that you essentially believe that jihidists DID INDEED fly passenger planes into the building BUT it wasn't enough to take it down AND those in on it knew that ahead of time and had additional means in place to assist the demolition?

?

The first part is possible, but I refuse to say for sure. Second part, again, possible, But I can't say for sure. I can say that there is no way in this world that the airplane alone took down those buildings. There is no way that jet fuel caused every explosion in the building. There is no way that fire dropped building7. Explosives and thermite are much more plausible.

Originally posted by wormser1971
I can say that there is no way in this world that the airplane alone took down those buildings.

Stay focused with me here:


If you said yes (you did, in this thread) that you believe passenger planes were piloted into the buildings, but you also believe that "there is no way in the world they alone took down the buildings", then your de facto position is:

"Passenger planes were flown into the building AND the buildings themselves were pre-rigged to complete their destruction once the planes hit."


Doesn't one of your calmer voices ever read that position out loud and say to itself "That's rather crazy"?

Originally posted by wormser1971
He is familiar with the story... You just don't like that he doesn't agree with either of us fully. There are problems with the official theory, and if you can't accept that, you are the problem! There are many problems with some of the truther theories as well. I point those out when I see them. I do not visit infowars. I do not visit rense. I am trying to get you to look at this objectively. I read every single thing you post, as well as all of your articles (which you do not. Read the shit you link for god's sake! Half of it is absurd!).

Plane engines do not liquify. Wings do not fold in behind an airplane to fit into a neat little hole. Explosions on the 24th floor of the towers makes no sense! Fireballs go up if there is no resistance. 3,500 gallons of fuel is not as much as you seem to be visualizing compared to the amount it actually is.

Where do you get your 3,500 gallon number? A 767 holds 23,980 gallons of fuel. These were cross country flights and they had flown a minimal distance when they hit the WTC buildings. A 757, which hit the Pentagon, holds 11,489 gallons of fuel. I think the estimates of 3,500 gallons of fuel, wherever that is coming from, is low. There would probably be more in the neighborhood of 10,000 - 15,000 gallons of fuel on each 767.

The engines didn't liquify, they found them in the Pentagon structure as illustrated below. The Pentagon case is closed, it was a 757 that hit it and that 757 was flown by Al Qaeda operatives.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Stay focused with me here:


If you said yes (you did, in this thread) that you believe passenger planes were piloted into the buildings, but you also believe that "there is no way in the world they alone took down the buildings", then your de facto position is:

"Passenger planes were flown into the building AND the buildings themselves were pre-rigged to complete their destruction once the planes hit."


Doesn't one of your calmer voices ever read that position out loud and say to itself "That's rather crazy"?



It's not that crazy.

The entire fucking incident was crazy in the first place.

Originally posted by taurran
It's not that crazy.

The entire fucking incident was crazy in the first place.

The conspirators had a means, a motive, and total access to the buildings in question. It is and was entirely doable as we all witnessed.

Originally posted by Gnosis
The conspirators had a means, a motive, and total access to the buildings in question. It is and was entirely doable as we all witnessed.




then explain what did happen? Please. Just for laughs. We really want to know.

Originally posted by baumusc
Where do you get your 3,500 gallon number? A 767 holds 23,980 gallons of fuel. These were cross country flights and they had flown a minimal distance when they hit the WTC buildings. A 757, which hit the Pentagon, holds 11,489 gallons of fuel. I think the estimates of 3,500 gallons of fuel, wherever that is coming from, is low. There would probably be more in the neighborhood of 10,000 - 15,000 gallons of fuel on each 767.

The engines didn't liquify, they found them in the Pentagon structure as illustrated below. The Pentagon case is closed, it was a 757 that hit it and that 757 was flown by Al Qaeda operatives.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
From NIST... as well as FEMA... The planes were only partially fueled, because they never fill a plane unless absolutely necessary. It adds weight and would cause more fuel consumption. They both estimate that 10k gallons were on board at impact. The fireball consumed the majority of that fuel leaving only 3.5k gallons. Again... that is from NIST FEMA and all persons who understand that fuel burns and a fireball is the result. That is only the estimate if you look at the external fireball. This doesn't include the magical fireball that traveled DOWN the elevator shafts, filling approximately 1.5 million cubic feet of elevator shafts (Height x width x depth and here is the layout of the elevators http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg) You really never think about the size of these things when you make those claims of fire going down 900 feet, through elevators that don't even go to the lobby.

They found the engines inside the pentagon, even though they made no holes? You don't see the problem? And here is where you posted the claim of the plane turning to liquid

Originally posted by baumusc
This isn't true. You are taking dimensions of a 757 that is on the ground with its landing gear down. The 757 that hit the Pentagon clipped the ground and crashed into the Pentagon afterwards. Once again do you think if this were a vast US government and military conspiracy would they have ever released the video of the crashing jet that hit the building?

"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage." http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5117136&page=45

And as far as liquified parts... that was your source earlier. You post these sources... I tell you they are B.S. and you tell me I am crazy. How are you not realizing that the official story is wrong? Your sources are wrong all of the time! That garbage he descraibes was witnessed by nobody.,.. not seen on camera... and would have resulted in a tumbling object crashing and breaking up the whole way... not busting through a couple of rings of the pentagon!
I WILL POST SOME OF THE OFFICIAL STORY FOR YOU TO DIGEST... tHEY EVEN TELL YOU IN THEIR REPORT THAT WITHOUT CERTAIN UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS, THE BUILDING WOULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED!

First of my favorite NIST claims... it is a true statement that the buildings would not have collapsed unless the fireproofing was knocked off EVERYWHERE!
Originally posted by NIST

The buildings would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact
and the subsequent jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires, if the insulation had not been dislodged
or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact. The existing condition of the
insulation prior to aircraft impact and the
insulation thickness on the WTC floor system did
not play a significant role in in
itiating collapse on September 11, 2001. Page 409
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101279

In reference to the structures

Originally posted by NIST

The closely spaced columns, along with deep short spandrels, allowed a redistribution of
loads as a result of aircraft impact damage to the exterior wall.
•
Because there was effectively no wind on the morning of September 11, 2001, the capacity of
the exterior wall provided to accommodate design wind loads was available to carry
redistributed gravity loads.
•
The large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft
impact.
•
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101279 Page 326

Go to page 132 to see the damage estimates by NIST... but remember... that is the worst case scenario. If they use any other estimate the building did not collapse on simulation. This is the MAXIMUM number of damaged columns with the maximum damage done to each. If any of those columns were damaged less than they say, there was no collapse on simulation. And guess what? They cannot prove that the insulation was knocked off "widely" or how many columns were damaged and how severe... Those are both assumptions made.

Read the report! You are either scared too read it or too lazy... I read it and I am telling you, it is full of B.S. assumptions, and ignored evidence! It's simple!!!

Originally posted by Gnosis
The conspirators had a means, a motive, and total access to the buildings in question. It is and was entirely doable as we all witnessed.


Except there were no witnesses to your theory and hundreds of thousands to reality.

Originally posted by rams78110
Except there were no witnesses to your theory and hundreds of thousands to reality.



I suppose you always believe everything on the news without asking questions?

Originally posted by wormser1971
From NIST... as well as FEMA... The planes were only partially fueled, because they never fill a plane unless absolutely necessary. It adds weight and would cause more fuel consumption. They both estimate that 10k gallons were on board at impact. The fireball consumed the majority of that fuel leaving only 3.5k gallons. Again... that is from NIST FEMA and all persons who understand that fuel burns and a fireball is the result.

OK, so there was 10,000 gallons on impact. That makes more sense. Why is it that you guys believe some parts of the NIST report, like how much fuel burned on impact, but the other parts of the report you dismiss? It seems like you are taking liberties depending on the agenda you want to push.

One question Gnosis, do you still believe that those planes were remote controlled military 767's?

Originally posted by baumusc
OK, so there was 10,000 gallons on impact. That makes more sense. Why is it that you guys believe some parts of the NIST report, like how much fuel burned on impact, but the other parts of the report you dismiss? It seems like you are taking liberties depending on the agenda you want to push.

One question Gnosis, do you still believe that those planes were remote controlled military 767's?

The amount of fuel can be proven. There are no failed assumptions or math/science mistakes. The collapse is riddled with failure! Whether intentional or not, they are wrong in some aspects. Those aspects happen to be the most important parts of the claim that the buildings collapsed without assistance.

It doesn't matter if the planes were piloted by jihadists, remote control or wiley coyote! The collapse scenarios are not possible!