911 Pentagon Video Released

[Prometheus]

Your conclusions are hopelessly stupid... if you bother rereading YOUR link you would find:
a. they have some theories that as scientists they would want to test
b. there is no evidence, suggestion, implication, innuendo regarding a conspiracy involving nuclear weapons

Ok, tell me which scientist has tested the official versions? None. By that reasoning YOUR conclusions are hopelessly stupid.

You have demonstrated a complete lack of logical capacity (as demonstrated by the "JFK is a conspiracy, so therefore this is a consipracy" line of thought) and now further establish that with your "if scientists don't know exactly how something works to the minutest detail it must therefore mean it is a conpspiracy" line of thought. Here is a hint, dimwit: scientists like to scientifically prove things false or true.... they don't sit around like conspiracy kooks thinking up fantasies when they have realistic candidates to test.

Yes, I am discussing points in this thread- not in LGs thread - because that is what I want to do - if that is so offensive to you, go fack yourself.

Ok, now we're back at the childish name-calling.

 

[Prometheus]

Oh so security camera's and other credible eye witnesses lied? Give me a break. And since nothing like this happened before, all you are saying is purely speculation and not based on any sort of evidence.

How would we know if we are not able to see the footage. All footage was confiscated and we have only been shown three or five frame "videos" released by the government. Where's the footage showing the "crash" you claim everyone witnessed? Show it to us. You claimed it's there.

 

[kilo39]

ignacio
From MIT Civil Engineering dept .... who are scientists:

Quote:
three-step failure mechanism that occurred at different scales of the two WTC towers.
1. The impact of the plane at one or several floors of the WTC: The building was designed for the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft, and the towers did indeed withstand the impact and the following explosion which may have destroyed one or more floors. This destruction should have locally reduced the resistance of the columns in the core (and eventually also at the perimeter) to buckling. Even so, the resistance was strong enough to carry the loads of the upper floors for approximately one hour.
2. The failure of the impacted floor system: The explosion following the impact may have destroyed some of the thermal insulation around the steel columns. The 60 tons of flaming jet fuel easily raised temperatures to 1,500° F or more. Exposed to such intense and prolonged heat, structural steel loses rigidity and strength. This may have caused a reduction of the buckling force of the connected 2-3 floor structural system. The column-bracing system was subjected to the load of the top floors. After about 60 minutes, local buckling of the columns became inevitable. Compared to a ductile failure, the floor system failed in a brittle way, explosively releasing the energy stored in the system. The tower with the higher load above the impacted level collapsed first, but both towers showed almost the same failure mechanism.
3. Dynamic crash of the remaining structure: The failure of the 2-3 floor system set a 25- to 30-floor mass free-falling onto the 80- to 85-floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure below. The impact of this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher than the buckling load of the columns below, which to this point may had been largely undamaged, and may have ultimately caused the explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers. Similar to a car smashing into a wall, the towers crashed into the ground with an almost free-fall velocity.

Shall I take this apart for you piece by piece or do you see the idiocy of your own posts (and your own experts?)

 

[ignacio]

Was JFK a conspiracy or not - in your eyes?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Without the invective and troll language please.

Ok - now that I have your attention - does that WFI link that you sent in any way substantiate your conspiracy theory? Since we are being nice, a simple yes or no will do.

 

[ignacio]

Shall I take this apart for you piece by piece or do you see the idiocy of your own posts (and your own experts?)

Yeah - MAY because that is what you get when you aren't there yourself with all of your scientific equipment. Would you prefer DID?? Scientfic theories are just that - they KNOW their own limitations... HENCE the MAY. Why do they call it the theory of the big bang? Or theory of evolution? Instead of the FACT of either? The conclusions above propose what happened based on their best scientfiic judgement. Keep digging...

 

[ignacio]

Ok, tell me which scientist has tested the official versions? None. By that reasoning YOUR conclusions are hopelessly stupid.

Ummmm... as the previously posted link describes, MIT did model the collapses. See- being scientists - that don't just make stuff up. That is kilo's scientific method.

 

[ignacio]

What happened to the truce? So we see that along with the rest of your aforementioned shortcomings, you can't even keep a truce... pathetic.

That goes to prove your mentality of not listening to anybody else, except for yourself. When you get over your inflated ego, then add something except basing your entire argument on what somebody from MIT said.

I will start contributing once I get back from my girlfriends house

Two fantasies in one line! Where is kilo to research this gf consipracy?

 

[Nom Chompsky]

How would we know if we are not able to see the footage. All footage was confiscated and we have only been shown three or five frame "videos" released by the government. Where's the footage showing the "crash" you claim everyone witnessed? Show it to us. You claimed it's there.

Here are nice big pictures from the video security camera's:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html (yes it's released by govt. but I said security camera's captured it - here's the evidence)

Some of those promoting the no plane stories insult the eyewitnesses by claiming they are unreliable, had a poor view of the events, or are in great disagreement (when they were not). It is interesting that there weren't any witnesses who saw a truck bomb, a missile, a global hawk, an F-15 or a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards. Some people got a very good view of it, others had a brief glimpse.

Witnesses seeing plane: lots Witnesses seeing anything else: 0

Case proven.

 

[ignacio]

Witnesses seeing plane: lots Witnesses seeing anything else: 0

Case proven.

You would think so - but their main argument with all of this is that everyone was paid/mind-controlled/killed off... the scientists, witnesses, programmers, weapons-experts, FEMA/FBI/local authorities. So basically nobody who supports the official version can be trusted.
Now,where is that rolls eyes option again...

 

[kilo39]

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Ok - now that I have your attention - does that WFI link that you sent in any way substantiate your conspiracy theory? Since we are being nice, a simple yes or no will do.

I remind you - yet again - that it is me getting YOUR attention - not the other way around.

people 0, conspiracy kooks 1

Regarding JFK - no- it is not irrelevant to this discussion. It is germane. Are you prepared to continuance the possibility at all? It goes to credibility (of your perspective.)

Regarding WFI. No. It is one element in a puzzle. A thinking persons puzzle that is. And by that statement you can pretty much count yourself out. Await an answer on JFK.

 

[ignacio]

I remind you - yet again - that it is me getting YOUR attention - not the other way around.
people 0, conspiracy kooks 1

At least you are proud.

Regarding JFK - no- it is not irrelevant to this discussion. It is germane. Are you prepared to continuance the possibility at all? It goes to credibility (of your perspective.)

It is not in the slightest bit germane! What - your theory can't stand on its own, it somehow needs the JFK conspiracy? Stick to the topic.... surely you can provide facts that can stand on their own whether I believe in a JFK conspiracy or the easter bunny for that matter.

Regarding WFI. No. It is one element in a puzzle. A thinking persons puzzle that is. And by that statement you can pretty much count yourself out. Await an answer on JFK.

Was it that hard to say no? Excellent... now that we are playing nicely, let us see your next bit of evidence that I would be happy to debunk.

 

[Prometheus]

Here are nice big pictures from the video security camera's:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html (yes it's released by govt. but I said security camera's captured it - here's the evidence)

LOL. I said footage, not photos from freeze frame "videos" in one second intervals showing only one frame before the explosion on which no plane is visible. Unless you count that speck of dirt which is there even after the explosion.

Quote:
"We extracted pairs of frames, one from each clip, for various times, to make the following table"

Keywords indicate manufacturing of evidence. That "evidence" will never make it into a court so why should we accept it? This is disinformation.

Witnesses seeing plane: lots Witnesses seeing anything else: 0

Case proven.

Witnesses seeing plane: ?
Witnesses seeing something else: lots

Case NOT proven by a long shot.

 

[Prometheus]

Yeah - MAY because that is what you get when you aren't there yourself with all of your scientific equipment. Would you prefer DID?? Scientfic theories are just that - they KNOW their own limitations... HENCE the MAY. Why do they call it the theory of the big bang? Or theory of evolution? Instead of the FACT of either? The conclusions above propose what happened based on their best scientfiic judgement. Keep digging...

MAY=long shot

As it has been pointed out here the heat from the jet fuel isn't sufficient to compromise the structure in the ten minutes in burned. Thereafter it's only burning office equipment and other combustables which the boulding was designed to withstand. I haven't seen any of these official sites taking into account heat conduction through the steel structure. Any heat that it was exposed too would have been carried away through an effectively infinit heat diversion system if you take into account the size of the building in relation to the fire.

So we have two holes in the theory now. One where the heat by itself isn't enough to melt the steel and one where that heat would be carried away by conduction so as to effectively being neutralised as the designers probably intended. So what substance can cause a heat that is extreme enough to cause damage to steel before it can be conducted away?

 

[kilo39]

Okay ignacio - once again I am going to tell you to get some respect.

That is kilo's scientific method

Where is kilo to research this gf consipracy?

Was it that hard to say no? Excellent... now that we are playing nicely, let us see your next bit of evidence that I would be happy to debunk.

Once again - really - isn't this tiresome. My constant banging of your head against the wall - and you still don't get it. I am the one DEBUNKING YOU - not the other way around. I have just debunked your latest MIT report (on a straight read - never mind in depth) - but as usual - you are the one debunking me. Shall we continue to keep score? As it is - debunkers are way in front - considering the "quality" of your supposed "experts" information.

This is before I read your weasel excuses:

Yeah - MAY because that is what you get when you aren't there yourself with all of your scientific equipment. Would you prefer DID?? Scientfic theories are just that - they KNOW their own limitations... HENCE the MAY. Why do they call it the theory of the big bang? Or theory of evolution? Instead of the FACT of either? The conclusions above propose what happened based on their best scientfiic judgement. Keep digging...

You tell me to keep digging. Phut Based on the quality of the posts and your responses why should I bother.

 

[mooK]

Kilo, stop taking this personally mate! We're on a forum, this flaming is all part of the good fun! Instead of complaining about it like a wet bag get your hands dirty!

Anyway, I think this thread should have a poll: Who's doing the real debunking? Ignacio or Kilo39?

My vote goes to Ignacio! Ignacio takes the lead! Ignacio 1 - 0 Kilo39

*makes some popcorn*

 

[Prometheus]

You would think so - but their main argument with all of this is that everyone was paid/mind-controlled/killed off... the scientists, witnesses, programmers, weapons-experts, FEMA/FBI/local authorities. So basically nobody who supports the official version can be trusted.
Now,where is that rolls eyes option again...

No! That was the debunkers suggestion, NOT ours.

It is not in the slightest bit germane! What - your theory can't stand on its own, it somehow needs the JFK conspiracy? Stick to the topic.... surely you can provide facts that can stand on their own whether I believe in a JFK conspiracy or the easter bunny for that matter.

Says the person that wants to debate stuff not having anything to do with the pentagon video. Now where is that roll eyes option?

Was it that hard to say no? Excellent... now that we are playing nicely, let us see your next bit of evidence that I would be happy to debunk.

Umm, believe what you want.

 

[mooK]

Prometheus, do you go to the same cocaine dealer as Kilo39? It seems like you guys have a good thing going here!

 

[kilo39]

ignacio
It is not in the slightest bit germane! What - your theory can't stand on its own, it somehow needs the JFK conspiracy? Stick to the topic.... surely you can provide facts that can stand on their own whether I believe in a JFK conspiracy or the easter bunny for that matter.

No - it is germane. This thread (without looking at the beginning) is about the authenticity of the evidence. It is germane insofar as considering the possibilities for one conspiracy - gives some credence to considering the possibilities of another.

I did not say that my theory (or musings) couldn't stand on their own - you jumping to conclusions again - based on vapour. So - from your post I gather that JFK died from the magic bullet. ??? Or - shall we just skip over that one (the assassination - on American soil - of a president) - and move onto the rest - that firm territory of your experts, my experts. The difference between you and I - is I get some comprehension from the words - instead of just blabbering like a blind mouse. The Party Line.

 

[ignacio]

Okay ignacio - once again I am going to tell you to get some respect.

Why should I? You are a clown...

That is kilo's scientific method

Where is kilo to research this gf consipracy?

Was it that hard to say no? Excellent... now that we are playing nicely, let us see your next bit of evidence that I would be happy to debunk.

Once again - really - isn't this tiresome. My constant banging of your head against the wall - and you still don't get it. I am the one DEBUNKING YOU - not the other way around. I have just debunked your latest MIT report (on a straight read - never mind in depth) - but as usual - you are the one debunking me. Shall we continue to keep score? As it is - debunkers are way in front - considering the "quality" of your supposed "experts" information.

This is before I read your weasel excuses:

Yeah - MAY because that is what you get when you aren't there yourself with all of your scientific equipment. Would you prefer DID?? Scientfic theories are just that - they KNOW their own limitations... HENCE the MAY. Why do they call it the theory of the big bang? Or theory of evolution? Instead of the FACT of either? The conclusions above propose what happened based on their best scientfiic judgement. Keep digging...

You tell me to keep digging. Phut Based on the quality of the posts and your responses why should I bother.

Did you not just admit that the WTI story is a bust in terms of supporting your conspiracy? And that means you are somehow debunking me?!

Yes - may - because they were not there, so they come up with theories that they scientifically test. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[kilo39]

Kilo, stop taking this personally mate! We're on a forum, this flaming is all part of the good fun! Instead of complaining about it like a wet bag get your hands dirty!

Anyway, I think this thread should have a poll: Who's doing the real debunking? Ignacio or Kilo39?

My vote goes to Ignacio! Ignacio takes the lead! Ignacio 1 - 0 Kilo39

*makes some popcorn*

mooK - I am the one posting 'evidence' here; I am the one doing the debunking - my primary debunk:

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

This is over an above any logic - review: fuel load, length of burn, weight bearing, structure, sprinkler system, scale - etc. And note - I brought this information to the fore; previous to this we were dealing with ignacio's esteemed information - which in the end result - is/was worth zip - up to and including his last MIT "thinking scientists" report.

And we haven't even begun to get to the meat. But I constantly have ignacio - genius that he is - calling kook - and how he is debunking. Then - to top it all - I have your scoreline - Uum, excuse me, are you paying attention at all?