No, you're the guy who won't accept the testamony of the guy who actually tested the steel used in those buildings.

Which one of us is being silly here...

Web sites that refute (like popular mechanics) or the guy who tested the steel itself. Hmm, sworn affidafid vs. popular magazine.. Hmmm.. Tough one eh?

You're done because facts always win.

PAX

Wow this turned in yet another long and same old @!#$ different day, 9/11 govt. behind it all.

Look people the people the govt. employs arent stupid, they didnt just recruit them from being a Burger King cashier yesterday.

You think if they did 9/11, they would leave any trace of them doing it? So some moron without a job can type it up on some cheap ass internet site.

The article and everyone like it, is just grabbing at straws, there is no arguement here.

The govt. didnt do 9/11, @!#$ if you believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale if your interested.






- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new

If you believe they didn't at LEAST know about it before hand and shouldn't be held accountable for their screw-ups, Keep voting Republican.

Seriously, though, there are WAY too many nagging things, loose ends, little evidenciary anomalies... they add up.

I'm leaning still towards abject incompetance at the highest levels of Government in the US, if there were misdoings by Americans, the government (all three branches) at best complicit through inaction.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Asking questions about anomalies is not the same as saying the government did it. Not even close.

Suggesting that people in government may have had foreknowledge is not the same as saying they did it or the gov. did it either.

Kinda like Pearl Harbour. Nobody is suggesting the attack came from the US, we all know they were Japanese aircraft. We also know that the attack was known, about two weeks before it came and they let it happen in order to get into the war. Public opinion was against getting involved in WWII (after all the WWI experience was so great), so they sanctioned Japan, then set up an oil embargo and when Japan retailiated they did nothing to stop it.

Sound familiar at all?

I'm not saying that's what happened here either, only that it's a possiblity and that something funny was up with the air defence that day.

It's also odd that the security systems at WTC were not working for 2 weeks before the attack. It was GWB's brother's last day as head of security. The bomb sniffing dogs were removed a few days before. Hmmm.. Now that's odd.

PAX

Ok HAHA lets compare shall we? Your sworn statements made by "some official" or the actually names of those people listed in the PM article. Which holds more weight? Hmm your "anonymous experts" or PM who lists all the credentials of the leading people in each field of question. Looks to me that PM wins and your conspiracy theory is shot full of holes. You say the truth wins? Well to quote Jack, " YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH! " You'd rather live in a delusional world of fantasy where you need only say something and label yourself an "expert" for it to be valid, But you have nothing other then your word that your an expert. Now until you can come up with some HARD EVIDENCE to any of these hair brained theories then I hate to burst your bubble that they mean NOTHING AT ALL !!! You may as well say you know Santa Clause did it with his flying reindeer. Then YOU get mad when I shoot holes thru everything you bring of with science and fact! This is just the Internet man chill!! Don't get mad at me if your the one so easily fooled but these wackos! If you get mad at anyone it should be yourself for being so gullible and naive. For the love of God man snap out of it! There was no massive govt. cover up. No military conspiracy to kill us all. There is NO PROOF OF ANY OF THESE WILD CLAIMS !! Now I've said it before and I'll say it again, You as someone who wishes to challenge conventional wisdom and facts must be able to PROVE what you say is true. As the challenger the burden of proof rests squally on YOUR SHOULDERS and not the rest of the worlds. We don't have to PROVE any of it because it was proved and we all watched it live! You say bombs brought down the buildings? Fine PROVE it. You say a missile hit the Pentagon? Fine PROVE it. You say a military fighter shoot down the plane in PA? Fine PROVE it. You say the military and govt were behind the WHOLE thing? Fine PROVE it. You find any proof any real proof to say otherwise and I'm man enough to say if I'm wrong and I'll be the very first to apologize that I ever doubted you or any of your info.

So there you go HAHA you have your challenge go find some real proof some hard evidence to support your claims. When and if you ever find any feel free to PM and let me know so I can come here and make a full and public apology. But this is my last post on this topic as its gotten WAY out of hand.

Call me when you have the proof because without proof you have nothing.






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

There you go with the distraction tactic again.

I never made any such claims.

Sworn statements are Not anonymous.


Here is a piece.

"we know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require samples to be exposed to tempertures around 2000 Deg. F for serveral hours. And, as we all agree that the steel applied met those standards."

"Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of around 3000deg.F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000Deg.F would melt the high grade steel used in those buildings makes no sence at all."

"This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this certainly was not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those buildings."
- Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Labratories.

Then there are the numerous fire reports from the fire fighters that were on scene. But of course their testimony is not good to you either.

Now you are a self declaired expert on intercepts and whatnot as well. I'll rely on the controllers and pilots to know how the systems work, thanks anyway.

I have never suggested a gov. plot to "kill us all". I never suggested a government plot at all.
I never said a missle hit the pentagone. Only that something hit the it, and the engines are missing.
I never said a military craft shot down the flight over Penn. But if they did, it would be the only military operation that went right that day. If they did take it down, good for them, they did their job and possibly saved some lives.

More curious woiuld be the fact that the tail numbers for flight 83 showed up in illinois later that day. Could have been an administatrative mistake though, don't know.
Interesting that none of the flights involved in the 9/11 attacks had filed flight plans, nor were scheduled to fly.. Hmmm... I wonder about that.Why would soldiers at the pentagone say they smelled cordite?
Why would fighfighters in the WTC complex say they heard bombs (along with many others).
How is it that those buildings were brought down by fire.. Never in history has a building of that type collapsed due to fire.

How is it that they fell in under 10 seconds? How did WTC7 fall in 4.5 seconds?

These are valid questions. As far as telling me to chill out, well, I'm not the one freeking out. I'm just asking questions.

Why was my aquaintence shot 7 times by police serviing a warrant? Allegedly a complaint of assult from a Doctor that nobody can find. In fact it seems the doctor never existed. Why was the warrent never actually entered into evidence? Why has nobody seen it at all? 1 head shot, 5 to the torso (one throiugh and through) and one to the belly. I have many questions about that too.. Would you care to fill me in on how his murder was justified, you seem to know everything about everything and seem to be able to follow along with whatever plan the "officials" have for you.

You are a re-bunker, you've been found out. Why don't you just admit that someone is paying you to stand on your soapbox and espose the "officail story".

If the founding fathers of you country never questioned the "official story" would there even be a USA? You should think about that fact that people do crappy things all the time. When they have enourmous influence, money and resource, the ability to be crappy is magnified.

You don't find it one bit odd regarding the security at the WTC prior to the attacks? Not even a little wierd?

How about the fact that the guy who "owned" the buildings payed $200million to get them, but recieved $3.5 billion in insurance claims (after trying to get $7billion). You don't find that odd at all?

I gotta ask what is wrong with you. You don't want any questions to be asked about this situation at all, and yet we are all expected to foot the bill. Well screw that, I wanna know what happened. I wanna know why the evidence was destroyed. I wanna know how the laws of physics were broken when the buildings fell (or were they completely unimpeded). I wanna know why firefighters said the fires were under control and that they heard bombs. I wanna know how it is that other such incidents, with much larger fires did not result in collapse.

Maybe there was a signifigant structural flaw that we need to discover. Maybe there was a plot. I don't know. What I do know is that it just simply doesn't add up.

I am certainly not the only person saying this.

PAX

Quote:

108th fighter wing in swanton OH spun up F16's that weren't on alert in 16 minutes)?

Our 180th pilots are really good, in fact they just got back from Iraq a few months back. My only complaint about them is their low flyover manuevers when they're pushing close to the speed of sound especially when there's a low cloud ceiling talk about deafening. Before any douchbags flame me yes I'd rather have the safety of America than my hearing.

Quote:

There was no massive govt. cover up.

Yeah there was by the FBI, CIA and other gov't run security operations to cover there own asses after the news media got a hold of info that they knew about the attacks beforehand and didn't do much of anything to prevent it.

Jack: If you watch the video, and read the links, The statements are actually credited, all. They aren't from some nameless entity.

I work in forensics (you know this), I have to deal in absolutes... so I'm not going to arse around with you here. I have a serious question, and this was what really made me think seriously about what the hell happened:

At the pentagon site, is it not just a little bit odd that a blast that >VAPORISED< huge chunks of an aircraft that was comprised of parts that burned up at about 3000 degrees F, left behind 189 bodies, 184 of which could be identified by DNA?

Before you answer... the Human body cremates between 1400-2100 degrees, and DNA is not viable for identification (You can't even determine sex after 300 degrees internal) after about 500 degrees core temperature the strands literally break up and crisp.

Now, either there was some miraculous way that the bodies are being preserved (I'm talking parting of the Red Sea type miracle) or something hinkey is afoot.

This is called a schism in the evidence, there is a disconnect between what was physically possible, and what is being told to the public at large, and what happened. No Police Force or Medical Examiner would even think of releasing information like this. Your average highschool student that is at least semi-alert and knowledgeable would have figured this out. This is DISinformation.

I don't trust the information that is being given out because it doesn't hash with physics.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

hen YOU get mad when I shoot holes thru everything you bring of with science and fact!

I have yet to see you shoot any holes into any of the proof provided by that video. If you can I'd be glad to hear it and don't get so upset man, it's a discussion.


03z24

The whole supersonic over CONUS is bogus. In an emergency pilots are going to go full-military power (afterburner) to get someplace. Wether it be over the desert of New Mexico, or NYC.

As far as not needing to to catch an airliner going .91Mach, say your friend is driving at 91mph and you are at a dead stop. Trying to catch him by matching his speed or doing 95 mph is'nt going to happen or it will take forever.

And the Pentagon: NO WAY IN HELL IT WAS AN AIRPLANE! A huge airliner does not make a 16 foot diameter hole in a building. Want proof, World Trade Center 1 & 2. I know it wasn't a concrete building, but it was made of some pretty strong steel!

I've launched an airplane on alert (gassed, armed, ready-to-fly) in 12 minutes. In fact that was counting arming and them taking off. If an aircraft is set up for alert and has live munitions on board, it may take 6-20 minutes to get it off the ground. If you have to spin one up, you're looking at 30-45 on a good day with no hang ups. (This is my opinion and does not constitute the actual times the Air Force can safely launch an alert sortie.)

A couple problems there with your logic.

Fist off, fuill "military power" means full throttle, no afterburner. At least in every simulator I've flown (a few). "Military" power refers to power produced by the turbine.

The other situation.. "try catching your friend" scenerio is flawed because in a car, you must follow the road, and you are assuming the chase starts from behind the target. What if there were 10 of you spread along the path of the target.. Could you catch your friend then.. Yes absolutely, especially if you have radar and can predict his path.. You "start" in front of him.. Easy enough.

You do realize that they fliy CAP missions right.. If they did have to scramble it can be done quickly (as you pointed out), but consider that they are already in the air most of the time...

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:A couple problems there with your logic.

Fist off, fuill "military power" means full throttle, no afterburner. At least in every simulator I've flown (a few). "Military" power refers to power produced by the turbine.

The other situation.. "try catching your friend" scenerio is flawed because in a car, you must follow the road, and you are assuming the chase starts from behind the target. What if there were 10 of you spread along the path of the target.. Could you catch your friend then.. Yes absolutely, especially if you have radar and can predict his path.. You "start" in front of him.. Easy enough.

You do realize that they fliy CAP missions right.. If they did have to scramble it can be done quickly (as you pointed out), but consider that they are already in the air most of the time...

PAX

Sorry, the aircraft I worked on didn't have AB.

The scenario I proposed was something I thought everyone here could understand since I am unsure how many pilots we have on the board. The problem with starting in front of your foe is what if there are numerous contacts that are considered hostile? Even if there are 10 A/C, what if there are 50 contacts? Pre-9/11 CAP missions weren't flown as often as they were post-9/11 to my knowledge.

This is not a hostile contact. It would be easily identified on radar and would be an unknown. The initial intercept is to access not to destroy. They would come alongside the jetliner and try to guide it or force it down.

knocking it down is a last resort.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:This is not a hostile contact. It would be easily identified on radar and would be an unknown. The initial intercept is to access not to destroy. They would come alongside the jetliner and try to guide it or force it down.

knocking it down is a last resort.

PAX

Any aircraft that deviates from it's intended flight path is concidered hostile until contact is made. So I agree that the inital intercept is to asses the situation.

What happend on 9-11 was chaos. At any given time there are at least 50 flights over CONUS (Continental U.S.). All of them are giving out transponder signals. If there is a report that "we have hijacked planes" and that is it, it's going to be like finding a needle (or needles in this case) in a haystack. Once the A/C have been identified for sure then the intercepts can go off the transponders to pinpoint locations. Only after they have the transponder info can they go after the right aircraft. Then yes, knocking it down would be the last resort. It can be made easier if the pilot is able to punch in the "Hi-Jacked" Transponder code, but if someone knows what it is and how to change it, it's not going to matter much.

We can go back and forth all day but opinons are like buttholes. Everyone has one and they all stink. The truth is out there. Will we ever find out, probably not. I'm not sure our Great-Great-Grandchildren will even know.

Hahahaha I worked in a RAPCON facility for 10 years while in the Air Force. I can tell you from first hand experience that when an aircraft looses it's transponder, it is very difficult to see the raw video return of the aircraft if there are many other aircraft in the area. The primary return can get lost if the plane is making a turn, going at a slower rate and even flying below a certain altitude. If the transponder went out or was shut off, and that corridor is heavy with aircraft, it would have been almost next to impossible to pick out the raw video return from that aircraft.
Since you posted your "experience" with radar, here is mine, 10 years as a Radar Technician in the US Air Force.




98 Z24

RIP Specks

^^^ how heavy would a civillian corridor have to be to lose track of an aircraft that is not transmitting it's transponder signal?

Also, not to impune your experience at all, but when was the last time you manned a terminal? I only ask because the US's Civillian radar sets have been upgraded several times in the last 15 years to allow for better tracking of flights due to increased load, so I would expect the USAF would have had these previously as well.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

^ ^ ^ ^ Gam he works for NASA currently flying satalites in space.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

That's beside the point Jack.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Yes the rocket scientist who watches radar all day long while flying satalites around in space for NASA and relying on transponder signals to see exactly where they are because you can lose them on regular radar sometimes doesn't have a clue as to what hes talking about. ROTFLMAO. Oh that was a good one I needed that Gam thaks man. ( as I wipe a tear from my eye. )






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote: Yes the rocket scientist who watches radar all day long while flying satalites around in space for NASA and relying on transponder signals to see exactly where they are because you can lose them on regular radar sometimes doesn't have a clue as to what hes talking about. ROTFLMAO. Oh that was a good one I needed that Gam thaks man. ( as I wipe a tear from my eye. )

Don't be dumb. They are completely different systems.

Besides, you are not scanning the entire US looking for the planes, you are looking at one corridor. Next, they are the radar contact with no transponder signal.. Smart hijackers would change the transponder but these guys shut it off.

This is all moot anyway as the real question is not "why didn't they find them" the real question is why didn't they react at all? See the difference?

They did not even look, they did not scramble, they did nothing at all for at least 45 minutes. That is what's in question.

Away from the distraction and on to the real question please.

PAX

Ok, If you say so. Gary how dare you pretend to know how radar actualy works! HAHA is right! Just because you work with some of the most advanced types of tracking systems in thee whole world does not make you an expert on what happens if a transponder goes off line. I mean come on Gary! Geez! Just because you've been doing this for years and years doesn't give you the right to impune HAHA's best guess and therioes and lake of first hand knowledge. I'm sure HAHA knows best and if he says you can instantly pick out 4 planes out of the estimated 500 or so that are in the sky criss crossing at differnt ever changeing altitudes and courses then you of all people someone who does this EVERY day should know hes right. I mean whats all your years of experence with many different types of radar and tracking systems VS. HAHA's theroies?




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

And in case you can't figure it out by yourself yes that was sarcasm at its best.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Gam, even with newer equipment, trying to follow a raw radar return is very difficult with a heavy civilian corridor. The areas around an airport are very congested and that is why they came up with the secondary radar, which is the transponder.
A corridor only has to have about 20 aircraft before it is on the verge of getting next to impossible to follow a raw radar return.



98 Z24

RIP Specks

We're dealing with the U.S. and foreign governments here...if you think that the populace didn't get a complete pants-downer you're as naieve as Greg Brady.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Thanks, Terry. I guess I am just a 'scope dope'!! I guess all the time I worked on the radar and now on satellites doesn't mean anything. Guess I just sat there and watched everyone else do the work!! Wait, that is what I did. I was an NCO in the military and told everyone else how to do stuff.


98 Z24

RIP Specks