The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> The fires at the Pentagon and WTC burned so intense that human bone
> was melted - at that temperature just about everything is obliterated.
Just like at the WTC. But apparently a terrorists passport still survived?
I'm not saying I believe the official line OR the conspiracy theory, but there does seem to me to be much that doesn't add up, even from what I believe to be a logical point of view.
I've just been reading about the collapse of each tower and the theories surrounding that.
Now I'm no expert, but I KNOW that to safely demolish a building, you have to set charges in exactly the right place.
Yet two practically identical towers are hit in two different places, above their centre, by aircraft. Yet both fall "safely" straight downwards, causing relatively little damage to the areas around them.
Maybe it is just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me. I even commented on it at the time, how "lucky" they were that they didn't fall over sideways. That was as I was watching it live on TV, before the remotest idea of "conspiracy theory" had been mentioned by anyone, anywhere.
> The fires at the Pentagon and WTC burned so intense that human bone
> was melted - at that temperature just about everything is obliterated.
Just like at the WTC. But apparently a terrorists passport still survived?
I'm not saying I believe the official line OR the conspiracy theory, but there does seem to me to be much that doesn't add up, even from what I believe to be a logical point of view.
I've just been reading about the collapse of each tower and the theories surrounding that.
Now I'm no expert, but I KNOW that to safely demolish a building, you have to set charges in exactly the right place.
Yet two practically identical towers are hit in two different places, above their centre, by aircraft. Yet both fall "safely" straight downwards, causing relatively little damage to the areas around them.
Maybe it is just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me. I even commented on it at the time, how "lucky" they were that they didn't fall over sideways. That was as I was watching it live on TV, before the remotest idea of "conspiracy theory" had been mentioned by anyone, anywhere.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Everything except passports? ;^D
Y'know why? The explosion from the impact. Look at any air disaster - small items survive because they are thrown out by the blast. On (very) rare occasions small children have survived a crash which killed everyone else because the blast carried them out of the plane, it's rare, but it happens - did a month back though I forget where the crash was.
> Everything except passports? ;^D
Y'know why? The explosion from the impact. Look at any air disaster - small items survive because they are thrown out by the blast. On (very) rare occasions small children have survived a crash which killed everyone else because the blast carried them out of the plane, it's rare, but it happens - did a month back though I forget where the crash was.
Belldandy wrote:
> The fires at
> the Pentagon and WTC burned so intense that human bone was melted -
> at that temperature just about everything is obliterated.
Everything except passports? ;^D
> The fires at
> the Pentagon and WTC burned so intense that human bone was melted -
> at that temperature just about everything is obliterated.
Everything except passports? ;^D
The lack of wreckage was pretty consistent with other instances of planes colliding when nearly fully fuelled (as they all were that day).
Most air crashes produce large amounts of wreckage because they disintegrate midair- an explosion rips them apart and physics does the rest. Remember that the plane did not explode, it collided, and I'm betting no one in the industry crash tests planes into buildings because we all know what happens "KABLAM!". The fires at the Pentagon and WTC burned so intense that human bone was melted - at that temperature just about everything is obliterated.
The F16 theory is quite literally stupid. It'd have to be Air Force but the responsibility for airspace lies with the Air National Guard - who scrambled fighters that day. The f16 is also not a stealth plane, it couldn't avoid being radar tracked by ATC and air national guard if it wanted to. Add to that that the airbases mentioned in that website are under near constant watch by aviation enthusiasts - you couldn't sneak anything in or out if you tried.
Further, purchasing and outfitting the planes to be remote controlled would be expensive, contrary to popular belief it's not that easy to hide where money goes in the military anymore - even black budgets have oversight now.
Most air crashes produce large amounts of wreckage because they disintegrate midair- an explosion rips them apart and physics does the rest. Remember that the plane did not explode, it collided, and I'm betting no one in the industry crash tests planes into buildings because we all know what happens "KABLAM!". The fires at the Pentagon and WTC burned so intense that human bone was melted - at that temperature just about everything is obliterated.
The F16 theory is quite literally stupid. It'd have to be Air Force but the responsibility for airspace lies with the Air National Guard - who scrambled fighters that day. The f16 is also not a stealth plane, it couldn't avoid being radar tracked by ATC and air national guard if it wanted to. Add to that that the airbases mentioned in that website are under near constant watch by aviation enthusiasts - you couldn't sneak anything in or out if you tried.
Further, purchasing and outfitting the planes to be remote controlled would be expensive, contrary to popular belief it's not that easy to hide where money goes in the military anymore - even black budgets have oversight now.
The lack of wreckage at the Pentagon has always puzzled me.
Surely even the those who laugh hardest at conspiracy thoerists must think that is strange?
Planes are regularly crashed and made to explode in testing, but they never totally disintegrate.
Surely even the those who laugh hardest at conspiracy thoerists must think that is strange?
Planes are regularly crashed and made to explode in testing, but they never totally disintegrate.
Skarra wrote:
> To be fair, its much easier to see the difference between a 737 and a
> single engine pleasure craft.
If they were the same (or reasonably similar) shape, but different sizes, then I disagree, it'd still be very tough to be accurate.
Especially since if you see something which looks a lot like a specific type of air craft, you're hardly going to take any extra time to try to guage the scale as accurately as possible - if you see what looks like an aircraft of a certain known size, which could plausably from thequality of visual information you receive be that size, then you assume is the expected size.
> Did you hear. NASA today said, there was once water on Mars, but No
> Sign Of Life.
The aliens wouldn't go to all that trouble just to be discovered now. They're highly evolved (sorry Forest Fan ;^) ) into creatures of excellent hide and seek abilities.
They make our olympic hide and seek team look like elepants in a fridge.
> To be fair, its much easier to see the difference between a 737 and a
> single engine pleasure craft.
If they were the same (or reasonably similar) shape, but different sizes, then I disagree, it'd still be very tough to be accurate.
Especially since if you see something which looks a lot like a specific type of air craft, you're hardly going to take any extra time to try to guage the scale as accurately as possible - if you see what looks like an aircraft of a certain known size, which could plausably from thequality of visual information you receive be that size, then you assume is the expected size.
> Did you hear. NASA today said, there was once water on Mars, but No
> Sign Of Life.
The aliens wouldn't go to all that trouble just to be discovered now. They're highly evolved (sorry Forest Fan ;^) ) into creatures of excellent hide and seek abilities.
They make our olympic hide and seek team look like elepants in a fridge.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> For example, there was a program on 4 about a UFO hoax, where they
> sent up a fake saucer about 20ft across. The eye witnesses gave it
> absolutely vastly different estimates of its size.
> So really, the visual verification doesn't mean much at all.
To be fair, its much easier to see the difference between a 737 and a single engine pleasure craft.
> I image technically they mean at an increasingly shallow angle close
> to ground level by the time it was about it hit.
> And I'm sure the aviation fuel wouldn't have been too hard to fake.
Perhaps not hard to fake, but what about quantity.
> Anyway, it was aliens that blew up the WTC, they did it to distract
> US resources from the space race, so that we don't find their colony
> on mars.
> They broke that first mars lander too.
> ;^)
Did you hear. NASA today said, there was once water on Mars, but No Sign Of Life.
> For example, there was a program on 4 about a UFO hoax, where they
> sent up a fake saucer about 20ft across. The eye witnesses gave it
> absolutely vastly different estimates of its size.
> So really, the visual verification doesn't mean much at all.
To be fair, its much easier to see the difference between a 737 and a single engine pleasure craft.
> I image technically they mean at an increasingly shallow angle close
> to ground level by the time it was about it hit.
> And I'm sure the aviation fuel wouldn't have been too hard to fake.
Perhaps not hard to fake, but what about quantity.
> Anyway, it was aliens that blew up the WTC, they did it to distract
> US resources from the space race, so that we don't find their colony
> on mars.
> They broke that first mars lander too.
> ;^)
Did you hear. NASA today said, there was once water on Mars, but No Sign Of Life.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> The country doesn't give a crap about me, just my National Insurance
> contribution and tax ££'s.
I'm sure it does. I mean, at very least you're a voter. If nothing else, they try to keep you sweet for your vote.
> I am a number, like everyone else. An easily replaceable part of a
> colossal machine. I don't particularly believe in what this machine
> is doing.
The Government doesn't see us as expendable. Thats why they spend a load of time, money and effort into protecting us.
> The country doesn't give a crap about me, just my National Insurance
> contribution and tax ££'s.
I'm sure it does. I mean, at very least you're a voter. If nothing else, they try to keep you sweet for your vote.
> I am a number, like everyone else. An easily replaceable part of a
> colossal machine. I don't particularly believe in what this machine
> is doing.
The Government doesn't see us as expendable. Thats why they spend a load of time, money and effort into protecting us.
Fair enough.
You make a stong argument, they make a strong argument. I'm not really so bothered to debate it.
Apathy:
I'm usually as apathetic as the next bloke (see above? :^D ), but I remember some quote I read.
To paraphrase -
'Apathists say a small group of people committed to a cause can't change things? That's all that ever has.'
Seems like a fair point. If only I was in a small group that believed in something :^S
You make a stong argument, they make a strong argument. I'm not really so bothered to debate it.
Apathy:
I'm usually as apathetic as the next bloke (see above? :^D ), but I remember some quote I read.
To paraphrase -
'Apathists say a small group of people committed to a cause can't change things? That's all that ever has.'
Seems like a fair point. If only I was in a small group that believed in something :^S
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> It's very difficult to accurately estimate scale at such a distance.
> A smaller plane or a missile 'dressed up' as the supposed plane would
> have given the same visual effect.
CCTV footage of the Pentagon impact clearly shows a massive object hitting the building - a missile would have barely registered due to it's speed, there is also no way a missile could cause the intense fire (which melted many of the dead beyond existence) that the aviation fuel caused. You also cannot dress up a missile - they're designed to be perfectly balanced as they are designed, not to be the centre of a DIY project.
There's also the fact that the mobile phone calls to relatives, and the intelligence from foreign agencies after the attack, and the recovery of the bodies of some of the passengers which were recovered and used to reconstruct what we think happened, as well as the black box recordings of which fragments have been made public. For instance, only a month ago it was released that the recordings show that on the planes which hit the WTC a gas was released that caused breathing difficulties, the stewardesses were restrained and had their throats slit to cower the passengers.
You cannot fake this much information, and get every government in the world to go along with it.
> I image technically they mean at an increasingly shallow angle close
> to ground level by the time it was about it hit.
> And I'm sure the aviation fuel wouldn't have been too hard to fake.
>
> Again, I'm not saying I buy the theory, just that the technical
> details hold some water, as being *possible*.
I disagree, the technical details only hold water if no one questions them at all. The whole thing is crap
> It's very difficult to accurately estimate scale at such a distance.
> A smaller plane or a missile 'dressed up' as the supposed plane would
> have given the same visual effect.
CCTV footage of the Pentagon impact clearly shows a massive object hitting the building - a missile would have barely registered due to it's speed, there is also no way a missile could cause the intense fire (which melted many of the dead beyond existence) that the aviation fuel caused. You also cannot dress up a missile - they're designed to be perfectly balanced as they are designed, not to be the centre of a DIY project.
There's also the fact that the mobile phone calls to relatives, and the intelligence from foreign agencies after the attack, and the recovery of the bodies of some of the passengers which were recovered and used to reconstruct what we think happened, as well as the black box recordings of which fragments have been made public. For instance, only a month ago it was released that the recordings show that on the planes which hit the WTC a gas was released that caused breathing difficulties, the stewardesses were restrained and had their throats slit to cower the passengers.
You cannot fake this much information, and get every government in the world to go along with it.
> I image technically they mean at an increasingly shallow angle close
> to ground level by the time it was about it hit.
> And I'm sure the aviation fuel wouldn't have been too hard to fake.
>
> Again, I'm not saying I buy the theory, just that the technical
> details hold some water, as being *possible*.
I disagree, the technical details only hold water if no one questions them at all. The whole thing is crap
Page: