| Welcome to Star Wars Roleplay Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Report on 9/11 - My Conspiracy; My take on what happened. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2008, 04:03 PM (755 Views) | |
| Aidan | Jul 9 2008, 06:35 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
Again, how does this relate to your conspiracy theory?
Okay, fair enough. It was close to the ground when it smashed nose first into the pentagon... And even so, why couldn't have been close to the ground and still be at that angle? The proximity of the jet engines on the left wing would have been enough to blow over any objects on the ground.
There were approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on the planes when they hit. Now by your own sources (Source), they said that only 3,500 gallons of fuel would have been left after 3,000 being burnt in the initial explosions and the rest "just flowing away" (yeah). Anyway, 3,500 gallons of fuel is more than enough to cause a huge fire and the fire would have been fuelled by any objects in side, especially electrical equipment, which there would be plenty of in the WTC (i.e. computers, server clusters etc.).
No need for a shockwave. Only a fucking 100-ton plane travelling at high speed.. |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Jul 9 2008, 06:53 PM Post #17 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
That the government (or some one) took this gold? o.O
If you watch the only pictures released from the pentagon, you see some thing very low to the ground, and a smoke cloud behind it. If it was angled that much, it would be easily seen.
Jet fuel burns so fast, that it would all burn away before the actual building collapsed. I estimate that it would only take 20-30 minutes, out of 102, to burn all that gas.
The plane would make the building shake, but a kind of shake that knocks down shelves and such. Nothing that would shake actual fibrous material from the steel pole it was fastened to. |
![]() |
|
| Jordz | Jul 9 2008, 07:28 PM Post #18 |
|
Lyon Xyalis
![]()
|
^ I clicked that pentagon link of the photograph after the plane at hit it, why isn't the plane in that shot? yet all emergency services are there as if it's just happened? Also, I agree that the whole thing is a conspiracy and an inside job, all the evidence that says it's an inside job is clear, the government has not replied with anything to say that it's not a conspiracy apart from a few speeches from the president etc. I'm not an American, I live in the UK but I feel that many Americans know it was an inside job, but are ashamed to admitt their government would do something like this. |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Jul 9 2008, 07:30 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
That is a totally different conspiracy altogether. Has nothing to do with the actual attacks since they cannot be linked.
This comes purely down to human judgement and therefore cannot be used as valid evidence.
Estimation. No proof.
Weight of a Boeing 767-200ER (like the ones used in the attack): 179,170 kg Cruising Speed: 530mph Max. Cruising Speed: 568mph Now my instinct would suggest they would have maxed the speed of the plane, but for arguments sake, lets say they were travelling at regular cruising speed. F = ma Force = mass x acceleration The Force applied by the plane on impact = mass of the plane (i.e. divided by 9.8 (the effect of gravity) x acceleration of the plane Let the acceleration of the plane = 530mph due to the fact it is travelling at a constant speed therefore, a= v-u/t a= 530-530/∞ a= 0/∞ Acceleration is a constant. So if, F=ma F= 17,917(kg) x 530(mph) F= 9469010 Newtons This is more than enough force in my opinion to smash through the building.. But if you need more proof, then, F=PA Force= Pressure x Area How much of the force was exerted onto the building = Pressure (the force calculated above) x Area (the height x length of a Boeing 767-200ER) Force = 9469010(N) x 27.21(m; accurate to two decimal points) Force= 258386432(.1) Newtons ... Yeh. No way it could have busted through those steel supports. The supports were quite clearly damaged by the initial crash. Then the fire than followed softened the metal to such a degree that it could no longer support the several floors worth of solid steel and concrete. Now imagine the force gained by that considerable amount of weight falling the distance of about 6-8 floors. No amount of steel or concrete would be able to withstand it. And then it works like a chain reaction. Also it was stated that the inner area of the building had less/almost no fire protective material so the flames would have burned through the central supports much quicker and with much more ease. This mean that there was major structural instability. This is why you see the building almost cave in on itself before crashing downwards. |
![]() |
|
| Jordz | Jul 9 2008, 07:40 PM Post #20 |
|
Lyon Xyalis
![]()
|
on the phonecalls that were made - Phone calls Air phone calls and cell phone calls were placed from the hijacked planes. Conspiracy theorists say cell phone calls should either be impossible or rarely possible from commercial planes, and therefore the hijackings were staged and the phone calls were faked. After 911, cellular experts said that they were surprised calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They said that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground. Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations. Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during a flight. Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001 that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight." Based on a study he conducted in Canada in 2003 to determine whether and how well cell phones could be operated from aircraft, Canadian Mathematician A.K. Dewdney concluded that the chance of successful connections for the number of cell phone calls made from the planes used in the 9/11 attacks "can only be described as infinitesimal".[ Based on this, economist Michel Chossudovsky says that at least part of the 9/11 Commission Report chapter on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified that all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones. There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77 which American Airlines later confirmed did not have airphones fitted[citation needed]; two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. A conspiracy theory web site claims anomalies relating to the nature of the phone call transcripts. My View on them After the allegations of the alledged cell phone calls from the hijacked planes, a few months after this, a group of four people experimented with this allegation, and boared different types of aircraft from passenger planes, to millitary and all went at different heights, one went higher than the heights of the two planes that crashed into the towers and tried making phone calls, from their cellphones - It was impossible, another plane went to the exact height the planes flew at - the calls again were impossible, the military aircraft was the same, calls were impossible |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Jul 9 2008, 07:44 PM Post #21 |
![]()
|
Proof of this experiment? Also, if they used cellphones then they did not make use of the high-powered transmitting equipment that is within the aeroplanes which you link your cell phone to or which has its own phone attached. And if you are going to put forward a theory, at least put it in your own words or analyse each section of it thoroughly, don't just rip from Wikipedia. |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Jul 9 2008, 07:56 PM Post #22 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
I included it just for other information. -shrugs-
The only picture evidence provided shows that it is not flying at an angle - I'm pretty sure that's enough proof. Along with, the poles knocked down were to far apart from each other to be knocked down by the engines, it could only of been the wings. Sense an actual plane didn't hit the building, it was staged. (Notice, when planes hit poles going 553 Mph, they don't just fall over - they snap in half, rip apart, and go into pieces. Yet the ones in the pictures are all mostly in tact, just knocked over.)
Tada? Clickz |
![]() |
|
| Jordz | Jul 9 2008, 08:10 PM Post #23 |
|
Lyon Xyalis
![]()
|
I got the conspiracy on the cellphones from wiki - my own view is my own. |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Jul 9 2008, 08:10 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
If it was difficult to see whether the plane was angled, then it was difficult to tell exactly how it was flying.
Have you ever seen a jet engines power before? I will try to find some demonstration of it. The wake of the jet engines force would blow over the posts which therefore suggests that they were close enough to be affected but not close enough to be hit by the wings and therefore destroyed.
I lol'd. You cannot cite the work of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists as genuine evidence. There is not even any referencing of sources or bibliography. With regards to the Empire State Building, I have done my research now. Weight of B-25 Bomber that hit it (mass)= 1,500kg - Note that this is 10,000kg's less than the weight of a Boeing 767. Max. Cruising Speed: 275 mph Cruising Speed: 230mph - 100mph less than that of the Boeing 767. ... I don't even have to do the maths. Major scale down of area effect and force. Jordan, I was pointing that fact out. At least when you research, use it to write your own theory. Don't just plain copy+paste from someone else. |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Jul 9 2008, 08:54 PM Post #25 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
A new case. :DD The Madrid building Fire "There were no reported injuries except for three firefighters who suffered smoke inhalation and exhaustion. At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday." Just as hot as the max heat that jet engine fuel can burn! :DD |
![]() |
|
| Reid | Jul 9 2008, 08:55 PM Post #26 |
|
YOU ARE HERETICAL AND BLASPHEMOUS
![]()
|
To... post about this whole black box thing, I can't find any reliable sources saying that black boxes are impervious. It says that they can withstand being dunked 20k meters underwater or something. Yeah, my watch can resist water up to 5,000 meters. It is now unable to be destroyed in a high grade airplane crash. Wanna know where the flight data recorders (BLACK BOXES) are stored? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empennage Yes, that is likely to survive an intense kinetic force as the building returns millions of newtons of Force. BRILLIANT! ... lol |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Jul 9 2008, 09:07 PM Post #27 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
"It is also designed to withstand intense heat and pressure." Clickz There ya go reid. And Aidan, going back to what we were talking about;
From that picture, you came up with the hypothesis that the plane came in at an angle, just as that hole in the wall is an angle. Yet, as i have researched, it says originally, there was just a hole, and the building collapsed into that angle.
If the plane was angled, the white wing would be evident.
I think i've given enough evidence that the plane was flat against the ground when it crashed into the building. What happened to our more important subjects? You have still yet to disprove the following; Jet Fuel; They now say that "Jet fuel leaked down the stairs and elevators - thats how the fire started downstairs." Yet there was still enough to soften steel? Black boxes && passports; Several reports of 1-6 passports were found in tact. Yet reports of black boxes, which were created to withstand high pressure and heat, say that they were never found. (Implying that they were destroyed.) The video forged of Osama bin Laden. And new information; one other structure containing steel has been found, and it also melted. Clickz At 3:41 a.m a trunk filled with gas crashed under a bridge. Flames broke out, and at 4:02 a.m, the bridge collapsed. Now, the way i see it, that stretch of road weighs far less, and has a far less mass. Now, i don't know the exact calculations, but if you divide the width and height of WTC 2, by the width and height of the stretch of road, and then multiply the amount of time it took to turn that steel to melt, i'm sure you would get far over 58 minutes - in fact, i'm sure you would get past five times, even six, past the amount of time it took to melt the amount of steel in that stretch of road. I will look for some one who has done the actual math for all this. if i cannot find that, i will find the exact specifications of a road that long, wide, etc. |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Jul 10 2008, 03:42 AM Post #28 |
![]()
|
I am going to put all of my theory and research together today with a bibliography but for now I will tackle your last post.
We already discussed that on Msn and I accepted that there was no way it was angled as I saw the video of it crashing into the pentagon.
I covered this. In fact, I used evidence from one of your sources. Here is the evidence I put forth:
I also conceded on Msn that I could not provide sufficient evidence to disprove this theory. But this one piece of unnacounted evidence does not provide a support for the other evidence which I have disproven.
I disproved this theory on Msn. I pointed out the fact that the building was not hit by a passenger jet with 238 million Newtons of force... Thus no initial structural damage caused by a ONE HUNDRED TON PLANE. The mathematical formula you suggest at the end is false. The two do not correlate.
![]() Can you tell me who that is straight from the offset? No. Probably not. That is because it is a bad quality shot from a horrible angle. I think that makes it own point. |
![]() |
|
| Dan | Jul 10 2008, 05:25 AM Post #29 |
![]()
|
Someones to been watching to much southpark?![]() |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Jul 10 2008, 06:46 AM Post #30 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
Then how did a plane 160 ft. long plane, with a wing span of 160 feet aswell, made an initial hole that had had a 20 ft. width, and an exit hole, that had a 16-24 ft. diameter? How did the plane magically fit through that hole?
So, there was enough gas for the initial explosion, enough gas to drop down 78 floors through an elevator shaft, enough gas to go down the stairs and damage the floors below it, and enough gas to still, melt the steel? I don't think you get the "gas burns at a steady heat of 600 degrees C, if it is a steady source." If you think that the gas still softened the steel, how is it that, a firefighter made it up to the 78th floor, grabbed a man, and made it back to the lobby, unharmed. The 78th floor- which had the most intense flames. If it was anything above 300 degrees C, he wouldn't have been able to get anywhere close to the 78th floor.
Yet you don't deal with the facts; A black box which is created to withstand high pressure and heat, gets destroyed. A passport made out of paper doesn't. You have yet to explain how that works out.
Bad quality, bad angles, no matter what the reasoning, in the official video released to public, there are several things that "bad quality" and "bad angles" will never change. 1.) Osama is left handed, in the video he uses his right to write a letter. 2.) The Osama in the video is wearing a golden ring. Islamic religion forbids ] |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Et cetera · Next Topic » |











