A new theory on 9/11?

[ABCwarrior]

You're not seriously suggesting that US let Pearl Harbour happen

Yep....coincidentally not a single aircraft carrier in the area, just a load of old past their sell by date ships which were as expendable as their crews clearly were...

 

[wobs]

Good, stuff Wobs.
I saw a small hole in a massively reinforced fortress- caused by a flying aluminium tube, whose engines, wings and tail, after somehow not breaking off outside the building but folding in and following each other neatly into the hole for convenience, then vapourised in the swirling vortex of this "new physics"....

Amazing....

Assuming you're on about the pentagon, this has been explained many times all ready. And the Pentagon was not a fortress, it was an office building, albiet a reinforced concrete one.

The physics has been explained before by not just NIST, but independent academics. And don't forget the evidence of all that debris and body parts (which have shown through DNA to be the passengers).

Oh, and don't also forget the FDR was recovered among other things:

The evidence refuting missile claims includes airplane debris including Flight 77's black boxes,[120] the nose cone, landing gear,[121] an airplane tire,[122] and an intact cockpit seat[123] were observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77 were indeed found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis.[124] Many eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Further, Flight 77 passengers made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been hijacked. For example, passenger Renee May called her mother to tell her that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. Another passenger named Barbara Olson called her husband (U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson) and said that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[8][112][125][126]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_Pentagon

 

[ABCwarrior]

What Roosevelt was in the plane too? one of the main issues that JW had with the NIST report was that they were commissioned to explain how the towers "collapsed", ie the full event- this they bypassed choosing only to investigate what happened UP TO THE POINT OF(SEEMING)COLLAPSE....because they couldn't explain how it REALLY happened...
I mean FFS they constructed two identical working floors to those in the WTC 1/2, and under even more favourable conditions(more heat, longer time) they could not get them to even start to buckle....

The whole official account is just lies piled upon lies and mistruths, but then I'd never expect a shill to accept that

 

[Alarm]

And you have a full and provable account otherwise?
Or is it all conjecture ( Too, as you imply).

 

[joinerjohn]

I mean FFS they constructed two identical working floors to those in the WTC 1/2, and under even more favourable conditions(more heat, longer time) they could not get them to even start to buckle....

Did they also put the same weight on top of these floors that was atop the actual floors where the planes hit? Hmm I very much doubt it. Had both planes crashed into the topmost floors, I reckon the twin towers would still be standing.
As it was WTC1 had 12 -16 floors above the damaged floors (94 -98 ) and WTC2 had 26-32 floors above the damaged floors.(78 -84) That's quite a bit of weight for the damaged structures to hold up.

PS can you link to a site detailing the reconstructed floors they experimented with?

 

[ABCwarrior]

From 2006's "Improbable Collapse"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W37g_uLYNs

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

Bottom line anyway for me is the sheer impossibility of a mainly aluminium plane completely disappearing into a building, cutting through massive steel columns. It just can't happen. Part of it might have gone through a window but the rest of it would not.
More laws of physics melting away with the steel eh?

 

[ABCwarrior]

Here's an article by Kevin Ryan himself:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html

 

[namsag]

Wobs have you actually read the story of the liberty because by your comment you clearly havent.
Friendly fire ???? un marked israeli jets and gunboats attacking a clearly marked american ship in international waters for 90 MINUTES which also involved machine gunning people in life rafts which is against all international war laws. With an order coming from the white house not to rescue them and forcing rescue jets to turn back.
Dont talk sh#te this was not a mistake it was to allow the yanks in with Egypt getting the blame.




Am i seriously suggesting they knew about pearl harbour no the evidence is saying it and i choose to agree with it .

Eh how did it put them back coincidentally for some reason their main ships and carriers where put out to sea days before hand leaving mainly old and second line ships in dock.They lost 11 ships which was a tiny part of there naval forces.which numbered around 800 at the time

The japanese won one sea battle (java sea)6 months after Pearl the first major sea battle took place at the coral sea which is regarded as a technical victory for the US and a month later they won the massive battle of Midway.And Japan never won another battle. So can you explain how pearl harbour put the US bacK

 

[alumni]

Bottom line anyway for me is the sheer impossibility of a mainly aluminium plane completely disappearing into a building, cutting through massive steel columns. It just can't happen. Part of it might have gone through a window but the rest of it would not.
More laws of physics melting away with the steel eh?

So you'll have no problem explaining exactly why then.

 

[wobs]

Here's an article by Kevin Ryan himself:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html[/QUOTE]
A water tester who got fired for spouting CT nonesense (lies):

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

Your appeals to authority become even more bizarre.

 

[wobs]

What Roosevelt was in the plane too? one of the main issues that JW had with the NIST report was that they were commissioned to explain how the towers "collapsed", ie the full event- this they bypassed choosing only to investigate what happened UP TO THE POINT OF(SEEMING)COLLAPSE....because they couldn't explain how it REALLY happened...

Strawman argument. It set out to see what caused the collpase. Which they did.

Once the collapse started, nothing could have stopped it. Phrases like "shock loads" spring to mind.
See here for a brief discussion (nearly halfway down):
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

I mean FFS they constructed two identical working floors to those in the WTC 1/2, and under even more favourable conditions(more heat, longer time) they could not get them to even start to buckle....

See here for NIST summary (in FAQ) on this:

28. Why didn’t NIST conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?

For studying the impact on a 110-story building by an actual Boeing 767 aircraft, a full-scale test was not feasible. For a test to capture the response of the towers as a system, it would have been necessary to construct a test assembly that included the core columns, exterior columns, floors and hat truss. Even to replicate experimentally the response of the floors near and above the impact zones would have required test assemblies of about 20 stories for WTC 1 and 30 stories for WTC 2. No facility exists to conduct such a test, either with fire or in the absence of fire; and, indeed, such tests are not conducted in current engineering practice.

Therefore, NIST relied on high-fidelity finite element modeling of the aircraft impact event and subsequent fires. The analyses were calibrated against the observed structural response of the towers upon impact (videos, photographs, and physical evidence) and the evolution of the ensuing fires.

NIST did not conduct reduced-scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.

Furthermore, fire test facilities with the capability to apply arbitrary fire exposures (in contrast to the standard time-temperature exposure) and arbitrary loads to structural components did not exist in the United States at the time of the investigation. Even had such a facility been existent, each large-scale structural fire test would have evaluated only a single set of conditions, e.g., structural system, fire exposure, amount of fireproofing, etc. Even a modest parametric series of such tests would have been prohibitively expensive.

NIST did conduct full-scale fire tests of single and multiple workstations. These tests were of sufficient size to properly capture the combustion physics. These tests established burning histories, mass burning rates, and heat release rates. The results were used to validate the fire dynamics calculations for fire growth and spread (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5E). NIST also conducted full-scale fire tests exposing insulated and bare structural elements to real fires to validate the fire and thermal modeling approaches (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5B).

Meanwhile, you say buckling steel work? What, like this:

-WTC5
So steel can not only buckle through heat, but can be ripped apart during a collapse.
Edit: Full report on WTC5 here (which is interesting, as it shows more steel deformation due to fire):
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-042907-214619/unrestricted/LaMalva.pdf
-Note that there was fire crews tackling this fire, but not WTC7, WTC1, WTC2. It was later demolished of course (pulled down with cables).

 

[wobs]

Bottom line anyway for me is the sheer impossibility of a mainly aluminium plane completely disappearing into a building, cutting through massive steel columns. It just can't happen. Part of it might have gone through a window but the rest of it would not.
More laws of physics melting away with the steel eh?

And yet it did. We all saw it. Planes went into the towers, made big holes, caused fires. Towers collapsed. Any questions?

They were going rather fast, and so had a lot of energy to apply to said steelwork. Maybe if we fire something soft at you at 500mph you might feel differently.

 

[wobs]

Wobs have you actually read the story of the liberty because by your comment you clearly havent.
Friendly fire ???? un marked israeli jets and gunboats attacking a clearly marked american ship in international waters for 90 MINUTES which also involved machine gunning people in life rafts which is against all international war laws. With an order coming from the white house not to rescue them and forcing rescue jets to turn back.
Dont talk sh#te this was not a mistake it was to allow the yanks in with Egypt getting the blame.

Yes I have read into it.
As I said, both countries investigated, and Israel said "ok, my bad", and paid reperations. They admitted fault. In no way can one say they did it to blame someone else, as we clearly can see they didn't.
It was a war zone, and the ship was not where they were meant to be (due to lack of communication).

The crew claim they could see Israeli spotter pilots etc, but then British have said similar about US pilots in friendly fire incidents.

Am i seriously suggesting they knew about pearl harbour no the evidence is saying it and i choose to agree with it .

Eh how did it put them back coincidentally for some reason their main ships and carriers where put out to sea days before hand leaving mainly old and second line ships in dock.They lost 11 ships which was a tiny part of there naval forces.which numbered around 800 at the time

The japanese won one sea battle (java sea)6 months after Pearl the first major sea battle took place at the coral sea which is regarded as a technical victory for the US and a month later they won the massive battle of Midway.And Japan never won another battle. So can you explain how pearl harbour put the US bacK

They lost ships and men. This puts you back militarily. There is no real benefit to allowing the Japs to do this.

Like I said, there were communication failures for both Liberty, and Pearl Harbour. Nothing new.

See here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/
With references to full investigation into Pearl Harbour.

 

[namsag]

OH get real friendly fire does not go on for 90 minutes with radio communication going on for the entire length of the attack.
And the only reason the isreali`s apologized is because they failed to achieve what they set out to do ie sink the ship and kill every survivor hence machine gunning life rafts .Which as i have said is against the law even in wartime
If they had succeeded the egyptians would have been blamed because why would our allies the Isreali`s do this to us.



No real benefit to allowing the japanese to do this that is even funnier the US was dying to get into the war for the money that could be made which europe was still paying for till recently.
But due to the large German and Italian population within the country they would never have got away with jumpin in to help the Allies .
So they allowed the attack .
Losing that amount of men and ships does not set you back when you have the Military machine the US had ( and within months they had a thousand more ships so in affect it spurred them on in strength) you clearly have not got a clue about military tatics .
There is an old saying lose the battle to win the war and has been used many times in conflict.
And the US used it to great affect to make a lot of money and power

China lost hundreds of thousand in the Korean war did it weaken them NO they had a massive army that just absorbed the loses till they affectively won and UN went for peace .

 

[ABCwarrior]

And yet it did. We all saw it. Planes went into the towers, made big holes, caused fires. Towers collapsed. Any questions?

Still doesn't explain the bogus footage showing the nose of one of the alleged planes exiting the other side of the building does it? If there were any planes, more like internal explosions to create the "Roadrunner" imprint and faked footage afterwards. One of the towers was "videoed" with the plane coming in from the side horizontally, the same tower was also filmed from the opposite side with the alleged plane coming towards it- an this time it was in a rather rapid descent immediately prior to the alleged impact.
So, if these raging infernos that caused the so-called collapses were that bad, why were there so many people in the towers photographed looking out from the supposed impact zones?
It's all a major psy-op, maximum shock and awe and it worked brilliantly I'll give it that.

As for that Nutty Physics link, what a patronising c*nt and a nice skirt around the "collapse" of building 7 yet again. His rather simplistic idea that to start a middle eastern war it would have been so much easier to fake finding the WMD's rather than stage an attack like this also is total bull. If they'd done that then sure they'd have got a reason to steal the oil, but it would not have facilitated the losses of freedom foisted upon the population(Homeland Security/Patriot Act/Renditions and torture...)back in Uncle Sam would it? Oh but they're all just coincidences after all....

And as for the

What complexity? You put 19 guys on four airliners on the same day armed with box cutters, after first giving a few of them enough flight training to allow them to perform some rudimentary maneuvers

Like the Pentagon strike with a manoeuvre that has been deemed utterly impossible to experienced commercial airline pilots, let alone a crap one, and also by many military pilots who say this manoeuvre is also impossible to pull off in a fighter jet....

So, shall we start a book on what false flag operation will be next for Iran for being in the Axis Of Evil(Ie not under IMF control)?