Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3599)	10/25/2003 5:20:16 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

That is a very revealing site. What I found that has me puzzling is the short clip of the fireman explaining that there were no parts of anything in the whole structure. Desks, chairs, computers, everything an office should have were never found out of 2 buildings, 110 floors each. There should have been pieces everywhere. He said it was all turned to dust. Even demolitian could not do that IMO. What could turn 2 enormous buildings and everything in it to dust?? And also the pancaking floor theory is debunked very well. The internal steel structure that the stairways and elevators were in was very very strong and would have been there standing with the floors from the building at it's feet if that happened. Structurally it was impossible for the internal steel columns to collapse as they did without demolitian. hmmm...that site is getting so many hits I can't get into it right now. I bet everyone is downloading those movie clips as I did.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3599)	10/26/2003 5:53:50 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

it is amazing that all of the garbage was reprinted from one of french web pages started with the following picture misternet.org in order for french to believe that it was plane terrorist had to land the plane and then carefully run it into Pentagon so everything would be properly aligned for a landed plane amazing how many idiots like yourself and sidney are actually believe that crap BTW since we are on the topic of physics, what did you study in school?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3599)	10/26/2003 9:54:03 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

IMO, the so called "analysis" on that one leaves a lot to be desired. Assuming the plane was close to the center of the fireball shown in various photos, the point of impact was at or near the top of the building. If the plane had hit at the attitude in the photo simulation, the roof and probably at least the top floor would have remained intact. Instead, what the photos show is 5 floors squashed on top of each other, which is consistent with the point of impact suggested by the fireball. In addition, there is no available information to suggest the plane came in on a flat level glide. On the contrary, all reports suggest the plane made a radical maneuver and dove on the Pentagon. I think the basic problem these guys are having is, "Why didn't the wings fall off like they do in a Hollywood movie?". The idea that in real life, wings hold up the airplane and are designed to stay attached, never appears to have crossed their minds. The shape of the hole, the fireball, and eye witness reports, pretty much confirms the plane came in on a steep decent and the wings were canted at something like a 30-50 degree angle. In that configuration, the hole is plenty big enough for a 757. As far as the site's "Operation Pearl" is concerned, it isn't even laughable. It's sad. The "logic" sounds like Baby Huey on LSD. The planes landed and dropped off the passengers so they could get on another plane that crashed someplace else? The first thing those passengers would want to do is call someone to to tell them they would be late. Herding them against their will would take a fair number of folks with guns, who would likely be noticed. This supposedly happened at an airport large enough to handle jumbo jets? Without anyone noticing? Give me a break!!! Then someone takes the now empty jets and crashes them in the ocean? Hitting water at several hundred miles an hour is just like hitting concrete at several hundred miles an hour. There would have been wreckage washing up on beaches all over the world. The sad part is the original source of that particular theory started out with some reasonably solid research. As I recall, evidence of missing frames from the tape released by the Pentagon, and photographic evidence of what may have been high explosives, was fairly coherent. The two main problems with the small airplane theory is the necessary absurdity of trying to explain where the big airplanes went, while trying to explain why someone with enough control over the big planes to make them disappear without a trace would need to make the substitution in the first place. Wouldn't someone with enough control over the jets to crash them in the ocean, or hide them by any means flights of fancy can imagine, skip all that foolishness and just use them to hit buildings instead?