WTC 7? - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: WTC 7?
Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:28 AM on j-body.org
BTW: Maddox is an utter douche bag... Take him seriously at your own peril.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.



Re: WTC 7?
Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:59 PM on j-body.org
jackalope, you say that all of GAM's questions were answered so riddle me this
why is it that the plane that supposedly crashed into the pentagon just disappeared??
an object that large can just vanish! there is a reason the parking lot tapes were taken and thats cuz they would prove a plane never hit the pentagon. i dont care how fast it was moving, the wreckage would still be there, yet it wasnt. where did it go?
i agree with GAM, i'm not saying we did it to ouselves, but they arent telling us a lot of what really happened. and to answer your question about why they wouldnt take out the one kid who made the video, think about that for a moment. say this kid was onto something and then he just vanished. gee wouldnt you thne tend to believe that he was onto someting and thats why they got him? them killing him would validate he theories.
so please before you believe every load of horse@!#$ the gov't feeds you, use some common sense and realize that they've been lieing to us for years now and will continue to do so for years to come



Re: WTC 7?
Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:35 PM on j-body.org
not trying to stir the nest but ......













Re: WTC 7?
Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:21 PM on j-body.org
umm yea ok, wheres the wreckage?? and how the hell did that no parking sign survive with not even a scratch?? there are things other than planes that can make big holes in buildings. also if a plane crashed into that building, why are all the light poles intact?? if a plane made the hole in the last pic, it woulda taken out the light poles on its way down
thanx for posting proof for my side makes my job much easier!



Re: WTC 7?
Friday, March 09, 2007 9:15 AM on j-body.org
LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:umm yea ok, wheres the wreckage??


You obviously don't know exactly what your looking at in those pics, do you ?

The two last pictures show some of wreckage from the plane, the last picture is the gaping hole left
on the other side of the impact area. NOT THE POINT of impact !

LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:and how the hell did that no parking sign survive with not even a scratch??


Don't forget the section of the pentagon that was hit was being renovated, reinforced and upgraded to be more blast resistant. so the mere fact that the simple sign survived at the end of the point of impact proves nothing to hardin your case.

LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:also if a plane crashed into that building, why are all the light poles intact??

You see 2 pictures and automatically assume that those light poles should be on the ground ? lmao..
the pictures where taken a little further down from the area where the plane flew in and shows the amount
of fuel dumped and burning off several minutes after impact .

LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:if a plane made the hole in the last pic, it woulda taken out the light poles on its way down thanx for posting proof for my side makes my job much easier!


This is your job ?


Re: WTC 7?
Friday, March 09, 2007 3:28 PM on j-body.org
Well, I'll say this much: there's 2 big inconsistencies with the pentagon that I see.

If the aircraft touched down before it hit the building, why aren't there cut marks on the lawn from where the engines and fuselage made contact?
If the aircraft was flying so low it took out a couple of light standards (in the 9/11 report), where are the light standards and why did they not shear off or at least embed into the wing? The light standards in the area weren't up to newer federal crash regulations (where they break off at the bottom bolts in event of a collision) and the last time something like that happened, the light standard quite literally clipped the outer wing off.

The wing attachment strong points were never recovered from the Pentagon (at least, there's been no reconstruction that I'm aware of), and the NTSB hasn't used the recovered aircraft debris to reconstruct the aircrafts that hit the buildings and the PA field.

Why is this? In every incidence of an aircraft accident in the USA, NTSB has been mandated to recover as much of the debris as possible, and find out what happened to the airframe in detail. In this case, it is going to become part and parcel of the FEMA building failure evaluation.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: WTC 7?
Friday, March 09, 2007 7:56 PM on j-body.org
GAM i understand where you are coming from .. but i leaning more in the other direction
as far as the attack on the Pentupagon goes.

Quote:

If the aircraft touched down before it hit the building, why aren't there cut marks on the lawn from where the engines and fuselage made contact?


okay now here comes my " what if "...

What If : the plane manage flying between the pole standards either by luck or skill
at the location of it's flight path ? not an impossibility .... correct ?

and at what point do you imagine the wing made contact in the ground ? having no
reference to that i can only imagine it was closer to the point of impact and was partially
buried under heavy debris and water saturation ..

more pics below to ponder .



That's a big@ss fuel explosion if you ask me ... missile explosion ? i highly doubt that some how.

i have more pics but i follow up with these just for now ..



this again is where part of the landing gear, not the fuselage, managed to punch a hole in the E wall .

and finally a better picture of the parts planted by secret agents while 100's of drivers stopped on the
highway never witnessed ..



oh wait, i forgot, they've started painting cruise missiles like commercial airliners



Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:14 PM on j-body.org
ummm i see no plane in the pic labeled plane



Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:52 PM on j-body.org
It wasn't there... Or if it was, it was moving so fast (ie faster than a jet liner can go, look at the mathematical link in one of my previous posts or here: http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/math_geometry.html) it was breaking the speed of sound by about 6 times... at the slowest.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: WTC 7?
Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:30 PM on j-body.org
If its on the internet, it has to be true.



Re: WTC 7?
Friday, March 16, 2007 3:39 AM on j-body.org
In the second fram, marked impact, you can see some kind of trail. I seriously doubt that is jet exhaust, it is extremely low. I think it may be dust kicked up by something. If it was a jetliner then it had to be on the ground at some point. Back to the lawn questions... If it was something moving at extremely high speed (it would have to be to cover the entire field of view in 1 frame (actually faster than the camera shutter), then it could kick up dust without touching the ground. Scale is difficult to determine in the pic, but to me it seems something relativly small (certainly not jetliner sized) and very, very fast just went through the scene.

What is it? I don't know. I don't think it's an enormous aircraft travelling at 500MPH or so, as the official story tells us.
It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

PAX

Re: WTC 7?
Sunday, March 18, 2007 8:42 AM on j-body.org
EzTrip wrote:the last picture is the gaping hole left
on the other side of the impact area. NOT THE POINT of impact !


So are you sayin the plane hit the pentagon from the inside? and penetrated thru every layer to the outside where the parking lot is? I'd be interested in know more of this amazing anomoly.


-Chris

Re: WTC 7?
Sunday, March 18, 2007 5:28 PM on j-body.org
IamRascal wrote:
EzTrip wrote:the last picture is the gaping hole left
on the other side of the impact area. NOT THE POINT of impact !


So are you sayin the plane hit the pentagon from the inside? and penetrated thru every layer to the outside where the parking lot is? I'd be interested in know more of this amazing anomoly.


Nah, he's trying to say that the pic is the inside of the first outer "ring"... so in the greenspace between the 1st and 2nd rings... except that there wouldn't be a no parking sign there, so...

Someone else said already... that pic is what the landing gear did, not the fuselage... but hey, you probably read that already...





Re: WTC 7?
Monday, March 19, 2007 8:18 AM on j-body.org
Why the hell did they clean up all the debris before any investigation could be done? Also they would not even let the structral engineer into the site before the evidence wall all gone.

I was trying to download the new james bond movie and i ended up getting a 9/11 type movie that made me belive that the government is resopnsoble for this. I will post it on my file front so that every one that wants to see it can it is very intresting, And if all the info they present is true then there no way that terrorist commited this act.



Re: WTC 7?
Monday, March 19, 2007 4:00 PM on j-body.org
GAM, that link did't work for me, ?


first off a 757 is not a huge jet,in fact : The 757 is a midsized commercial airliner designed for short haul and

medium haul routes.



The 757-200 dimensions:
Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)
Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)
Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)
Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)
Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce RB211-535C turbofans,
or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN (43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs,
or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN

(42,600lb) PW2043s.
Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200


so you see it real only stands 13 ft high. but it weighs almost the same as a locomotive. do some physics on
that.

Now let's take into consideration the mentioning of light poles .. i did a little research about that, and look
what i found intrestingly enough. expand your browser or download the whole picture.



below is Lloyd England's taxicab that was hit by part of that lightpole as Flight 77 passed low over

Washington Boulevard .



His own recollection of what happened . http://www.nbc4.com/news/8988021/detail.html




those of you asking about wreckage, or lack there of, you just might want to reconsider your postion.

steven c wrote:Why the hell did they clean up all the debris before any investigation could be done? Also they would not even let the

structral engineer into the site before the evidence wall all gone.


yes it's true the Goverment scrambled to clean up the mess, it only proves to me that there embarassment of it all
took center stage at first.

i find it almost ironic enough to believe information was leaked at some point about the upcoming,
fact that on that day it was slated for : Multiple war games and the sky-monitoring NRO was emptied
out during the attack for a drill Operations Vigilant Warrior/Guardian which involved hijacking scenarios.

now how is getting caught with your pants down all of a sudden not an embarssment to American Goverment
or it's people ?


more pictures below, for those apologists that see everything in brail, sorry there are no jet parts. ... lmfa@y





GAM wrote:The wing attachment strong points were never recovered from the Pentagon (at least, there's

been no reconstruction that I'm aware of), and the NTSB hasn't used the recovered aircraft debris to

reconstruct the aircrafts that hit the buildings and the PA field.

Why is this? In every incidence of an aircraft accident in the USA, NTSB has been mandated to recover as

much of the debris as possible, and find out what happened to the airframe in detail. In this case, it is going

to become part and parcel of the FEMA building failure evaluation.


you can thank the FBI for that one.

I've found out that the NTSB only managed to file reports detailing information of the four commandeered
flights, based on a combination of air traffic control recordings and, in the case of United Flight 93, the
plane's flight data recorder. these reports have been hidden from the public view for years.

Even today, the entries in the NTSB database for the 9/11/2001 crashes state:
Quote:

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material
generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or
open a public docket.


however that viel was lifted from the reports in August 2006 when they were published by the National Security
Archive on the George Washington University website, gwu.edu. The release consists of eight PDF
documents listed on the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 196.

now for those wondering about ground effect and backwash .. if the jet was picthed at just 10degress nose down
ground effect would be null as any pilot worth an once of spit would know ! and as for backwash ... all these
people below are gonna die ....



laughing.



Re: WTC 7?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:45 PM on j-body.org
Jackalope wrote:Heres another awesome link for those seeking the "truth" problem is that when your shown the truth you choose to ignore it and continue to insist on the half truths and BS that your gulable enough to believe is actauly the truth and you can't understand why you get laughed at! Amazing, simply amazing! Anyway enjoy the link, its clear you didn't even look at the first one I posted. Funny you insist you want the truth but when its shown to you dismiss it. Pretty weird huh?

I dare you to read this!


Usually Maddox offers a good point of view and can put up a good argument, but that was EXTREMELY weak.

The one that Jackalope posted was a VERY interesting read, it actually doesn't belittle people, including the Avery dude who came up with loose change. All Maddox does is come up
with weak points and belittle anybody who thinks otherwise. That makes for a boring read sometimes when you want to see an opinion on a serious topic.



Re: WTC 7?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:49 AM on j-body.org
The problem I see is that the same assumptions and self promoting BS that causes problems with "loose Change" are present in his response.

Number one, the US government has shut people up, but never after they blow the wistle. If they are removed after the testamony is out, it only serves to further the wistleblowers story. If Avery turned up dead, 10000 people would shout that as proof he was right.

Number two, the US government does not have the ability to monitor evry electronic communication in the world. That is an outright lie, or at least, unresearched.

PAX
Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:11 AM on j-body.org
Here's an interesting tid-bit.

The BBC announced that WTC7 had collapsed 23 minutes before it happened. There's footage of them announcing it with the building still standing over the reporter's shoulder.

Hmmm... Press release got out early?

If it was an unexpected collapse due to fire, how did they know 23 minutes in advance?

Search youtube BBC+WTC7. That should get you tons of hits. Very curious.

PAX
Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:37 AM on j-body.org
Ez trip: I think I had meant to encapsulate it in parenthesis, but didn't put a space after the end.... http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/math_geometry.html

Hahahaha: BBC hasn't divulged why it messed up... Someone might have mistaken one of the main complex buildings for 7. I don't know for certain (I'm not proffering truth either), but it's interesting... someone had their crystal ball working.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:59 AM on j-body.org
They noticed their mistake partway through the broadcast by the look of it too.

The cystal clear satalite link was lost about 4 minutes before the actual collapse. Funny that.

They repeated the name of the building and the WTC7 reference many times. If they mistook it for
a different building, it was whoever wrote the script, and they made the error many times repeatedly.
They new the location by accident too, the distance from WTC1 and WTC2 as well as the fact that it
had sustained light damage from the earlier collapses.

One another note. Why was the bunker from the 28th floor completely destroyed? Why didn't at least that
part of the building slow the collapse?

PAX
Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:21 PM on j-body.org
*yawn*


Are we really going over this AGAIN?





'02 S-10 ZR-2 & '89 Mustang LX Hatch
My car: http://videos.streetfire.net/video/4478be41-8f79-402a-85f1-98f3013c716f.htm


Re: WTC 7?
Saturday, April 07, 2007 11:59 PM on j-body.org
Would you like a cookie if we do?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: WTC 7?
Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:45 AM on j-body.org
You don't find it interesting that someone may have had fore-knowledge that WTC7
(the only building to collapse with "fire" as the only cause in the report, the damage was not listed as a cause)
was going to fall at 26 minutes (correcting my earlier 23 minutes) ahead of the "unexpected" event?

You don't find it curious that the guy who invested 15 million walked away with over 4.6 billion in
insurance payoffs?

You don't find it interesting that the building that housed the FBI, CIA and many other high security offices
fell at near free-fall speed even though it had a hardened bunker on the 23rd (correcting my earlier 28th)
floor?

Now whatch the other collapses again, in slow motion or whatever it takes, and notice
that lower floors are falling BEFORE the upper floors impact. Notice the destruction
happeneing in front of the collapsing zone. Wonder what happened to the 47 central
columns? I do.

PAX
Re: WTC 7?
Sunday, April 08, 2007 12:34 PM on j-body.org
I still say the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes are very questionable...

If a plane crashed into the Pentagon, where are the wings? There is nowhere near enough debris there to add up to a fully loaded 757...

Same for Pennsylvania. A plane full of people crashes into a field in the middle of nowhere and all that exists to show it is a barren crater the size of a school bus?

Very questionable, IMO....



Re: WTC 7?
Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:09 PM on j-body.org
I can't believe you people are so gullible... read a little bit of crap someone invents about this whole tragedy, and because you don't know the full story, or the rest of the information the crap-poster left out, you believe it...

Here, take a look at some real pictures... first result I found of a Google search... not hard to find stuff about this!!

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

If you REALLY think that this:



Was the ONLY damage in the Pentagon caused by the airplane going in... you're a TOTAL IDIOT! that's the other side, where it came OUT... simple, stupid.

The BBC announced that WTC7 collapsed before it actually had... OMG, the media got something wrong?? NEVER!! That's just like when Fox announced that Gore had taken Florida in 2000, and therefore had won the election... so... everyone else followed suit... then later, everyone had to apologize... remember that? Here's a thought for ya... BBC announced it early... because being a quarter of the way around the globe, they mis-interpreted what was going on.... I remember that day pretty well.... the media knew very early that the WTC7 was going to collapse (hours, in fact, before it did collapse...) because of the damage it had sustained... If you REALLY think that the media couldn't have screwed up and announced it early.... well.... you're the type of gullible idiot that makes crap threads like this all over the internet.

If you find anything "questionable" do some research, and don't believe the crap that's been spewed forth (by people not doing their research) in this thread.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread now... it's a total waste of time.





Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search