Man, geggy is an endless source of BS. If what you are saying is not far fetched, geggy, then why would it be far fetched that flight school students could fly planes into the WTC? By "fly" I meant just that, not taking off or landing, just "flying". What is your basis on wich to judge if something is far fetched or not? It seems very loose, yet sometimes extremely tight... Much like your mouth when it is talking.
Loose Change
- Thread starter delphi_ote
- Start date
- Status
Man, geggy is an endless source of BS. If what you are saying is not far fetched, geggy, then why would it be far fetched that flight school students could fly planes into the WTC? By "fly" I meant just that, not taking off or landing, just "flying". What is your basis on wich to judge if something is far fetched or not? It seems very loose, yet sometimes extremely tight... Much like your mouth when it is talking.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
BTW I e-mailed Ben Chertoff at Popular Mechanics to get confirmation on something written about earlier.
HE IS NOT RELATED TO MICHAEL CHERTOFF (Secretary of Homeland Security)!
He wrote:
"Not cousins, brothers, father, or son."
This a very common myth supported by the CT crowd, and a major debunking point for the PM article. I was willing to believe they might be related (even though it really didn't effect the facts of the article), but still wanted to hear it from a better source.
You might want to pass that along to your pals, geggy.
HE IS NOT RELATED TO MICHAEL CHERTOFF (Secretary of Homeland Security)!
He wrote:
"Not cousins, brothers, father, or son."
This a very common myth supported by the CT crowd, and a major debunking point for the PM article. I was willing to believe they might be related (even though it really didn't effect the facts of the article), but still wanted to hear it from a better source.
You might want to pass that along to your pals, geggy.
Last edited:
Even if he had been, that absolutely doesn't mean anything. The same thing goes for the Bin Laden family, it's not because one has gone wacko that the entire family is. If someone in my family was a criminal, would it make me a criminal?
Jumping Yeshua bar Yusuf on a pogo stick! It didn't even occur to me that they'd get something that basic wrong. Once again my low expectations were not low enough.
They claim these events happened on September 11, 2001; maybe we should double-check that!
Belz...
Fiend God
Geggy, please pay attention to this post. You haven't replied much to my points in this thread.
Can you provide us with your reasoning, leading you to this conclusion (3 columns, max) ?
If the towers had been made entirely of steel and concrete, I'd agree. Don't forget the inflammable stuff INSIDE the buildings, however. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether that was hot enough to weaken the structure, but the fact remains that your contention above is false.
Those would be excellent questions if not for two points. Firstly, the fact that you assume your conclusion and ignore evidence to the contrary. As stated above, your claim that no more than 3 columns could have been damaged by the crash is unexplained, and you omit important data in your analysis of the fire's effect.
Secondly, at one point one has to consider motive: if they were going to use explosives to bring down the towers, then why did they crash airplanes into it ? Doesn't that complexify their efforts, considerably ? And if they only used explosives, why would they place demolition charges ? Wouldn't a single bomb do the trick ? They could detonate the bomb and blame a terrorist attack similar to the previous one.
I'd like you to answer that last one.
Yes it does. 43 brought up the very important point of radioactive fallout, which you can't avoid with a nuke. Also, nukes tend to result in quite a loud bang, not to mention a heat spike of considerable proportion. How do you explain the complete absence of anything remotely identifiable as nuclear-related ?
ETA: Spelling.
Can you provide us with your reasoning, leading you to this conclusion (3 columns, max) ?
If the towers had been made entirely of steel and concrete, I'd agree. Don't forget the inflammable stuff INSIDE the buildings, however. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether that was hot enough to weaken the structure, but the fact remains that your contention above is false.
Those would be excellent questions if not for two points. Firstly, the fact that you assume your conclusion and ignore evidence to the contrary. As stated above, your claim that no more than 3 columns could have been damaged by the crash is unexplained, and you omit important data in your analysis of the fire's effect.
Secondly, at one point one has to consider motive: if they were going to use explosives to bring down the towers, then why did they crash airplanes into it ? Doesn't that complexify their efforts, considerably ? And if they only used explosives, why would they place demolition charges ? Wouldn't a single bomb do the trick ? They could detonate the bomb and blame a terrorist attack similar to the previous one.
I'd like you to answer that last one.
Yes it does. 43 brought up the very important point of radioactive fallout, which you can't avoid with a nuke. Also, nukes tend to result in quite a loud bang, not to mention a heat spike of considerable proportion. How do you explain the complete absence of anything remotely identifiable as nuclear-related ?
ETA: Spelling.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
To be fair, tactical nukes (the small ones such as could be used in artillery shells, small bombs, and briefcase nukes) do leave residual radiation, but not at high levels or for long periods. I can't give actual numbers on this...I would suspect some residual radiation but I don't think it would be distinguishable from background at this point. There should have been evidence of some of the decay products in the rubble, though, and radiation immediately after the event (a few weeks to a few months) would have been measurable (although damaging dosages probably would have been limited to the immediate blast and shortly thereafter.
All of this is from memory, though. I'll see if I can verify my "educated wild-a$$ guesses" and post some links
Do you know what yield a "brief-case" nuke could have ?
Since even the Michael Chertoff thing turned out to be BS, let's see a cite for this. I agree that some amount of fuel exited the buildings and created large fireballs. I don't know how much fuel is required to create fireballs of the sizes observed. How much, geggy. Half the fuel? All of it? 10%? 74.375%? How much?Osama bin Laden's factotum said:
Belz...
Fiend God
To be fair, Pardalis, I do believe rule 8 applies to all languages.
Man, this is as good as this one:
You caught me there, sorry!
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I've said it before, given their track record, I'm not sure I would trust these guys if they told me it was raining, even if I were standing outside in the rain getting soaking wet.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Belz:
Last I read (which is a few years out of date, but shouldn't be off by much) a briefcase nuke would yeild about 1 Kiloton. This was based on some plans for some that we extracted from another nation's intelligence forces.
They wouldn't be that large of an explosion. If buried 6 levels down, the blast and flash could be contained, and fallout would be minimal to non-existent (it wouldn't throw it up far enough or fast enough). There would, however, be unusual isotopes from radioactive decay in the area of the blast, as well as the EMP pulse (which I'm not sure of the size on with a small warhead, possibly it might not be detectable at range either...although I would expect to see some effects, at least in the are around the towers).
Last I read (which is a few years out of date, but shouldn't be off by much) a briefcase nuke would yeild about 1 Kiloton. This was based on some plans for some that we extracted from another nation's intelligence forces.
They wouldn't be that large of an explosion. If buried 6 levels down, the blast and flash could be contained, and fallout would be minimal to non-existent (it wouldn't throw it up far enough or fast enough). There would, however, be unusual isotopes from radioactive decay in the area of the blast, as well as the EMP pulse (which I'm not sure of the size on with a small warhead, possibly it might not be detectable at range either...although I would expect to see some effects, at least in the are around the towers).
Ask him if there was molten steel at the Pentagon, too.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
money
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 577
geggy
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 598
Chertoff relations is bs or not...popular mechanics is still affiliated with the us government. DO you ever read their magazines? They'd usually cover and review fighter jets and weaponry machines. I'd like the full format of the email so i can show other "loosers". Before I reply to Belz i want to point out something relating to what we're talkin about...
This photograph was included in the FEMA report explaining the pancake theory and the problem is it does not explain how the column core failed...
Secondly, NIST reported that 11 columns core were severely damaged in the south tower while only 6 columns core were severed in the north tower. That is impossible because the plane flew right directly toward the center of the north tower. The north tower columns core at the impact hole were only half thick of the columns core in the imapct hole of the south tower. The NIST also manipulated and downsized the columns core in their desperated attempt to make pancaking theory sound more plausible.
True. I already did mentioned the fact office supplies and materials were on fire but by judging the size of the "inferno" and the color of the smoke billowing the towers, the heat was not as severe as the 1975 fire which came to 700 degrees c and was more intense.
From my point of view, sept 11 was staged as PSYOP to maximize shock and to juice up the adrenaline/emotional meter to a full scale. I thought the attack in NYC itself was very hollywood style, except for the fact it was real. The building implosion was also to maximize Silverstein's profit. But that is only from my point of view as i believe the buildings were deliberately imploded.
This photograph was included in the FEMA report explaining the pancake theory and the problem is it does not explain how the column core failed...
Secondly, NIST reported that 11 columns core were severely damaged in the south tower while only 6 columns core were severed in the north tower. That is impossible because the plane flew right directly toward the center of the north tower. The north tower columns core at the impact hole were only half thick of the columns core in the imapct hole of the south tower. The NIST also manipulated and downsized the columns core in their desperated attempt to make pancaking theory sound more plausible.
True. I already did mentioned the fact office supplies and materials were on fire but by judging the size of the "inferno" and the color of the smoke billowing the towers, the heat was not as severe as the 1975 fire which came to 700 degrees c and was more intense.
From my point of view, sept 11 was staged as PSYOP to maximize shock and to juice up the adrenaline/emotional meter to a full scale. I thought the attack in NYC itself was very hollywood style, except for the fact it was real. The building implosion was also to maximize Silverstein's profit. But that is only from my point of view as i believe the buildings were deliberately imploded.
Exactly. And you're dillusional so there goes your theory...
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
This is a serious question and I would like to you to think hard and answer it honestly.
Considering you have failed to provide any evidence for your theory, none what so ever, why should anyone take you seriously?
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2002
- Messages
- 879
Is English your native language? I've got to say, I'm not able to make much sense out of what you're saying.
So I'll ask once again - what was burning at such a high temp in 1975 that did not in 2001?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Oh my god, are you serious? That was one deception I hadn't even considered, since his being Michael's cousin seemed so irrelevant. The depths to which they'll stoop...
- Status