9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[look again]

Quick Q: could you explain how all the invisible explosives were invisibly installed by invisible operatives who were quite happy to go along with the mass slaughter of their own citizens and have ne'er issued a peep about it since, please?

There are many sick people in this World.

Oh, and could you explain what these invisible explosives were made of please?

Seeing as they were invisible I never got to see them, but from observing the explosive nature of the collapses, I reckon they were incredibly powerful.

And finally, could you elaborate why you think you know more about the structural integrity of the buildings than the guy who built then?

I have shown how he stated in an interview, which supports the claims of another expert, who worked in the WTC, that the towers were designed to withstand a fully-loaded 707, bring run into the building.

What happened then, was that you tried to completely ignore the evidence I presented, despite the fact it was from the BBC.

 

[editor]

There are many sick people in this World.

FFS. Is this the best you can do?

I have shown how he stated in an interview, which supports the claims of another expert, who worked in the WTC, that the towers were designed to withstand a fully-loaded 707, bring run into the building.

No they were not, you fucking idiot. Get your head out of the sand and stop swallowing the brainless bullshit you read on idiotic loon sites for the terminally gullible.

There's no tall skyscraper on earth designed to completely withstand the impact of a fully loaded, large passenger aircraft stuffed full of fuel intentionally smashing into a tower at high speed.

“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.

However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significant higher weight, or mass, and traveling at substantially higher speeds.

The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767- 200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.” (FEMA WTC Study, Chapter 1, 1-17)

 

[snadge]

Fucking great, now we have "invisible" people that do naughty things with "incedibly powerful" explosives.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Ke = 1/2MV^2.

ie moving at 2-3x the speed means that they carry 4-9x the kinetic energy of what the towers were designed to survive.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Worth a gander

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Worth a gander

Now you tell me, i wasted all that time typing when there was a better resource already around

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Glad to be of service.

 

[look again]

FFS. Is this the best you can do?

If you are looking for evidence of the exact same thing happening before, then look at this rare footage from the Oklahoma bombing.



There was unexploded devices in the building.

No they were not, you fucking idiot. Get your head out of the sand and stop swallowing the brainless bullshit you read on idiotic loon sites for the terminally gullible.

The BBC is now an idiotic loon site?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

NARRATOR: The Trade Center's designers tried to anticipate every possible disaster. The towers were the first skyscrapers ever built explicitly to survive the impact of a plane.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the, our largest aeroplane of its time, the, the Boeing 707. That is to take this jet aeroplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.

The discovery channel is also a fruitloop site now aswell?



"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet airliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,... this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." - Frank De Martini.

There's no tall skyscraper on earth designed to completely withstand the impact of a fully loaded, large passenger aircraft stuffed full of fuel intentionally smashing into a tower at high speed.

Not anymore there isn't.

The airliners that hit the towers weren't fully-loaded with fuel either.

 

[Loki]

The airliners that hit the towers weren't fully-loaded with fuel either.

My understanding is that all the flights picked were long distance flights, eg. to LA specifically so that they would have lots of fuel. None of the flights was a local hop.

 

[editor]

The BBC is now an idiotic loon site?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

NARRATOR: The Trade Center's designers tried to anticipate every possible disaster. The towers were the first skyscrapers ever built explicitly to survive the impact of a plane.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the, our largest aeroplane of its time, the, the Boeing 707. That is to take this jet aeroplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.

Classic dishonest fruitloopery in action! Take a quote out of context and then try and distort its meaning!

Here's the rest of the interview that you 'forgot' to mention:

NARRATOR: The jet fuel ignited paper, carpets and plastics. It spread a huge fire across all six floors where the plane had hit. The extent of the fire was something the designers had never anticipated.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered...

LESLIE ROBERTSON: I think the structures were stalwart but they were not that stalwart. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that, with that event, nothing, nothing, so I, I, I didn't know whether they would fall or not fall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

More expert testimony for you to ignore:

Experts say no building could survive such damage
http://www.poly.edu/polypress/no_bldg.cfm

"There isn't anything particularly vulnerable about it," said Aine Brazil of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers in New York, a structural engineering firm that worked on the Petronas Towers, the world's largest buildings, in Malaysia.

Buildings are simply not designed to withstand "the extreme levels of heat that would be found in the situation with the amount of jet fuel and the explosion that occurred," Ms. Brazil said.
http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/believed_tobe_safe.htm

 

[editor]

...and here's the words of the Chief Architect proving that Look Again is indeed so wrong that even Mr Wrong would have to correct him:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires...

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

There we have it. Absolute proof that the towers were not intended to withstand the impact of the jets on 9/11.

 

[WouldBe]

...and here's the words of the Chief Architect proving that Look Again is indeed so wrong that even Mr Wrong would have to correct him:
There we have it. Absolute proof that the towers were not intended to withstand the impact of the jets on 9/11.

Sorry Ed that quote can't possibly be right. There's no mention of pixies or holograms.

 

[editor]

Sorry Ed that quote can't possibly be right. There's no mention of pixies or holograms.

I didn't take into account the invisible explosives or the magic, do-everything "military technology" either.

 

[pk]

He's got you there, "look again".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My first look into this thread. I didn't realize it was a conspiraloon thread.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

My first look into this thread. I didn't realize it was a conspiraloon thread.

Does this mean we'll be seeing more, or less of you then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Does this mean we'll be seeing more, or less of you then?

None of me.

 

[fela fan]

Sorry, who "invented" UFOs, please?

Elements of the US population.

 

[fela fan]

Doh.

Except that to place the explosives you would need to remove panels / insulation around the steel.

This would require either the panels to mysteriously float about the room then back into place or for the panels to turn invisible which would make the steel work visible. Either of which would be obvious to anyone in the vacinity.

Oops.

I was being sarcastic. Editor talks about invisible operatives and invisible explosives and asks how they could be planted.

I say that if they are all invisible, very easy to plant without being discovered. In other words, that's the answer to getting the explosives in place. No one can see them.

Very clever these americans, all that invisible paint and the such like.

 

[fela fan]

He's got you there, "look again".

Not so sure about that, this bit seems very dogdy:

"With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered..."

They say they tried to think of every possible thing that might cause problems, managed to think about planes, the biggest at the time, crashing into the buildings, then he says they didn't consider the fuel load, and, get this, he didn't 'know how it could have been considered'!!!

Amazing, they consider everything, then he says how could they have considered the fuel load of the plane that they had considered.

It's only proof in editor's eyes, since the levels of proof he needs are extremely simple.

 

[editor]

Elements of the US population.

You claimed that "they" worked together to "invent UFOs" as part of a "plan" to "conveniently hide the various bullshit stinkings."

Could you be a little more specific as to who 'they' are please, and elaborate on how UFOs relate to the collapse of WTC7 and describe in detail which "elements of the US population" worked together to hatch this most curious plot?

 

[RaverDrew]

If they'd thought about a plane crashing into the building, surely they would have considered it having fuel in ?

Did they think some giant was gonna throw into the building like a paper airplane ?

 

[editor]

Not so sure about that, this bit seems very dogdy:

That'll be because they Robertson - not being gifted with your remarkable hindsight - clearly hadn't considered the prospect of a large, speeding plane intentionally smashing into the towers at extreme high speed.

But there again, he's already explained that in some detail, so I guess you're having trouble accepting the fact that the architect of the WTC actually knows what he's talking about.

It's only proof in editor's eyes, since the levels of proof he needs are extremely simple.

My 'proof' is in the well documented, first-hand, expert analysis of the bloke who designed the towers and the man who quite probably knows more about them than any other person alive.

Where's yours?

 

[editor]

If they'd thought about a plane crashing into the building, surely they would have considered it having fuel in ?

Oh for fuck's sake. Can't you read what he's said - I've posted it up enough times.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4986479&postcount=782
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4986843&postcount=790



Or do you just like to butt in with clueless, unresearched comments for the fun of it?

 

[RaverDrew]

Oh for fuck's sake. Can't you read what he's said - I've posted it up enough times.



Or do you just like to butt in with clueless comments for the fun of it?

Fucking hell sense of humour bypass.

Did you really think I was trying to seriously suggest that a giant threw the planes into the twin towers ?

 

[editor]

Fucking hell sense of humour bypass.

Er, and which bit was I responding to?

Sorry mate, but you've now got a bit of a history of charging in here with daft claims you haven't bothered to look up and it only makes things worse.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Did you really think I was trying to seriously suggest that a giant threw the planes into the twin towers ?

Would be very cool.

Seriously, why the fuck are these loonies allowed on here? And second, why do people argue with them through about 20 pages?

 

[RaverDrew]

Er, and which bit was I responding to?

Sorry mate, but you've now got a bit of a history of charging in here with daft claims you haven't bothered to look up and it only makes things worse.

I'm expressing my personal opinion thanks, I did read your previous posts on the matter.

I was merely commenting, (which surely you must agree with) that if they made the claim that the building could withstand a 707 crash, it seems a bit shortsighted and daft of em to not consider the fuel.

Please note, I'm not saying that I'm skeptical in anyway about it, merely that it's a bit of an amusing and daft mistake that they forgot to even think about it.

anyway sorry if I've dragged things off topic briefly

 

[look again]

My understanding is that all the flights picked were long distance flights, eg. to LA specifically so that they would have lots of fuel. None of the flights was a local hop.

Officially the planes had only 10,000 gallons of fuel on board at the time of impact, which is less than half of 24,000 gallons, a full fuel tank.

 

[look again]

That'll be because they Robertson - not being gifted with your remarkable hindsight - clearly hadn't considered the prospect of a large, speeding plane intentionally smashing into the towers at extreme high speed.

Yes they did, and all your arm waving is not going to change the fact.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the, our largest aeroplane of its time, the, the Boeing 707.That is to take this jet aeroplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.

Which part of that statement is unambiguous?

But there again, he's already explained that in some detail, so I guess you're having trouble accepting the fact that the architect of the WTC actually knows what he's talking about.

I agree, he explained perfectly well how the towers were desinged to withstand the impact of the largest airliner at the time, which was then confirmed by Frank De Martini, another well qualified expert.