Message boards :
Politics :
911 Anomalies
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 . . . 30 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
We're moving forward and onward bobby, Sorry bobby but the conversation has taken a turn, Where are the planes? Sometimes things get boring so I present things I think are interesting to people, and myself at that moment. I'll get back to the rest when it motivates me. You can attack me for it but I won't be able to make you happy right now. In the mean time we're having a conversation and your kinda ruining it for us. . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
I'm confused. I'm not confused... ;) . It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
We're moving forward and onward bobby, Just so long as I understand the rules, none when it comes to your assertion of "no rules to free speech", or requesting further details from me, but you may choose to move the discussion at tangents whenever you please overlooking that prior to your doing so others had requested further information. When I ask for answers it's "boring" and ruins it for others, when you do it's "interesting". My apologies, perhaps that comes from entering into a debate with an "expert" (though I make no claim to be). If I don't answer a question it's called side stepping, when you don't it's moving the conversation forward, maybe Jeffrey is right and we are living in an Orwellian world of doublespeak. Pity that the masters of this new language are the ones trying to show us the "Truth". I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
Fickle, Your obviously not going anywhere and I'm not here to please or be directed by you. This is a civilian discussion and bound by no rules. It's course is it's own and will not be side tracked on command. . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Fickle, In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, you can't make this stuff up, folks. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
Where are the planes? Simple question for those hard set on the "official" story. . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
maybe Jeffrey is right and we are living in an Orwellian world of doublespeak. Two + Two = Five ... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
maybe Jeffrey is right and we are living in an Orwellian world of doublespeak. Nice one Jeffrey! . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Where are the planes? I told you: Two were shattered to bits as they flew into the World Trade Center. One was destroyed as it cratered into a field, the other was destroyed as it smashed into a bomb-resistant, reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. Simple question for those hard set on the "official" story. And the answer is so simple that even those with reading comprehension problems can figure it out. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
Sorry Rush but planes don't lose all their mass when they crash, They spread it. They want us to believe fuel fires caused the towers to fall but the plane that crashed into the field didn't even leave a camp fire? In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, "You can't make this stuff up, folks." Or can you? . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Sorry Rush but planes don't lose all their mass when they crash, No one said they did lose all their mass because they didn't. The planes, as a result of deliberate and intentional destruction, suffered catastrophic disassembly, i.e., they were shattered something like glass. You have to remember, these four planes didn't just crash. They didn't have the benefit of the cockpit crew fighting like hell to save it, and by extension themselves and the passengers. Au contraire, these four planes had idiots using as much speed and power as the plane could muster in order to compound the damage and destruction as much as possible. For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall. Why is it any surprise that planes that were intentionally destroyed in such ways are broken into much smaller pieces than usual? I mean, look at that Swissair(?) MD-11 that crashed into the ocean in 1997(?). Those pilots were trying to save it and all it hit was water, and it was STILL virtually shattered. They spread it. They want us to believe fuel fires caused the towers to fall but the plane that crashed into the field didn't even leave a camp fire? Wow, you mean thousands of pounds of JP(4?) concentrated in a relatively small area inside a building full of flammable debris will do significantly more damage than that same amount of fuel blown out and diluted over who knows how much open field? Why is that any surprise? In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, "You can't make this stuff up, folks." I don't know if you are making it up, but it is interesting watching you stumble around to find a theory. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
planes has flown to the mountains and they have been in much bigger pieces, i don´t know or care what happened in pentagon or field somewhere, but aluminium does not shatter like glass. |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
No one said they did lose all their mass because they didn't. The planes, as a result of deliberate and intentional destruction, suffered catastrophic disassembly, i.e., they were shattered something like glass. No "glass" in the impact crater? You have to remember, these four planes didn't just crash. They didn't have the benefit of the cockpit crew fighting like hell to save it, and by extension themselves and the passengers. Au contraire, these four planes had idiots using as much speed and power as the plane could muster in order to compound the damage and destruction as much as possible. Same with the supposed vertical dive into the field. Yet no fuel residue or burn mark? For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall. Show us the video. Why is it any surprise that planes that were intentionally destroyed in such ways are broken into much smaller pieces than usual? I mean, look at that Swissair(?) MD-11 that crashed into the ocean in 1997(?). Those pilots were trying to save it and all it hit was water, and it was STILL virtually shattered. Your rusty on your fluid dynamics. But do you mean this crash into the Atlantic? Swissair MD-11 111 They had enough to make a jig saw puzzle left and retrieved the pieces from the ocean? Wow, you mean thousands of pounds of JP(4?) concentrated in a relatively small area inside a building full of flammable debris will do significantly more damage than that same amount of fuel blown out and diluted over who knows how much open field? Burning fuel diluting? And leaving no evidence of fire? No bodies? No chairs? No polymers? I don't know if you are making it up, but it is interesting watching you stumble around to find a theory. I'm examining the "official" story. If it looks made up... it not my fault. . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
No one said they did lose all their mass because they didn't. The planes, as a result of deliberate and intentional destruction, suffered catastrophic disassembly, i.e., they were shattered something like glass. No, read carefully. "...shattered something like glass." It's a simile as evidenced by the word "like." You have to remember, these four planes didn't just crash. They didn't have the benefit of the cockpit crew fighting like hell to save it, and by extension themselves and the passengers. Au contraire, these four planes had idiots using as much speed and power as the plane could muster in order to compound the damage and destruction as much as possible. I'm sure there was fuel residue all over the place. I don't know how much burn there was or wasn't. For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall. Jeebus. It doesn't get any easier than this. First hit on Google. The narrator notes it "atomizes." Why is it any surprise that planes that were intentionally destroyed in such ways are broken into much smaller pieces than usual? I mean, look at that Swissair(?) MD-11 that crashed into the ocean in 1997(?). Those pilots were trying to save it and all it hit was water, and it was STILL virtually shattered. No, I was making the point that the plane hit WATER, and NOT concrete, and it STILL shattered. But do you mean this crash into the Atlantic? Sure, because, like I said, the pilots were fighting like hell to SAVE the plane, not trying like hell to do as much damage as possible. Here: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w19980902.htm is a pic of the cockpit, note that those pieces were shattered into bits. Wow, you mean thousands of pounds of JP(4?) concentrated in a relatively small area inside a building full of flammable debris will do significantly more damage than that same amount of fuel blown out and diluted over who knows how much open field? Sure. Look here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html. No evidence of fire, bodies, chairs at a number of those sites. Notice, some of those planes are PULVERIZED even though their pilots were doing all that they could to save them. Is it any stretch that the damage to the planes (bodies, seats, "polymers" (heh)) is substantially greater when the pilot is doing all that he can to DESTROY the plane? I don't know if you are making it up, but it is interesting watching you stumble around to find a theory. Like I said, it is funny to watch. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
Wow... Causing confusion is your middle name. Note the quotes I responded to and what they were referring to. After all... you made them... I meant show us one of the 80 something videos the FBI confiscated and round filed of the "plane" hitting the 'Pentagon'. Your first hit on google was for not. Much like your argument. Lawsuits to Obtain Videos You proved my point for me on that last link. lol. "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
Why is that any surprise? Sure. Look here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html. No evidence of fire, bodies, chairs at a number of those sites. Notice, some of those planes are PULVERIZED even though their pilots were doing all that they could to save them. Is it any stretch that the damage to the planes (bodies, seats, "polymers" (heh)) is substantially greater when the pilot is doing all that he can to DESTROY the plane? none of those planes were "pulverized" as you can see from pictures, even couple which were taken from kilometers up, you see still many parts of plane which are really big pieces of plane, on some of pictures you should see more if the picture would have been taken from different angle. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Nice finds, Rush. If MrGray wanted videos that the FBI supposedly confiscated, he should have said so to begin with. No, he just said, vaguely, show us the video. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
MrGray Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 |
Let's look at the instant replay: Rush said -> For the Pentagon, that wasn't a plane that a pilot tried to set down on a freeway, using as much control as the pilot had left, moving as slow as he possible, that just happened to hit a building. That plane was flown as fast and hard as possible, directly and intentionally into a bomb-resistant and blast-reinforced building. Net result? It literally shattered--just like the test video of the plane hitting the concrete wall. I said -> Show us the video. Scroll down 3 posts to see lawsuits for the "supposed" videos, Sarge... Do I need to make a Power Point presentation for you guys? :D . "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
See emphasis. Let's look at the instant replay: Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Fickle, You are so funny MrGray, fickle likely to change, esp. due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable Could not have described your behavior any better in this thread. Let me see how many unanswered questions I made where your response was to change the subject. We seemed to do well until we started talking about thermite, when I asked for evidence of its use in controlled demolition, after a little too and fro you changed the subject to a discussion about my background. When I tried to steer it back, you persisted with questioning my motives. We then moved on to the planes that flew into WTC 1 and 2 perhaps being something other than passenger aircraft. When I posted a link to a very clear picture, you suggested I was suffering from "cognitive disonance", again turning the subject onto me. I asked you to speculate where the idea of something other than passenger planes would lead, and you pretty much refused. After a little back and forth with Rush, I asked about Larry Silverstein's involvement, no direct response, but a side step into a discussion about a hassle free zone. You posted a link to the latest Loose Change video, I responded with a couple of criticisms. Rather than address the criticisms you suggested it was my pain that lead me to feel the way I do. You say I missed a lot when I talked of one fireman in the Loose Change video, when I ask for time offset details, no response. Then you accused Sarge and myself of side-stepping into denial and I posted and reposted several of my previously unaswered questions, following which you quickly to change the subject to the attack on the Pentagon and United 93. Rather than be deflected again, I've tried to keep on the previous track, even though doing so may be "boring". There was plenty of discussion regarding the Pentagon and United 93 two years ago, when you started a 9/11 thread. I have no issue in talking about them again, but I would rather you address the points I've raised than ignore them and move onto other issues. Is it so much to ask? If there are "no rules" then surely I am at liberty to do so. Or are there only rules for what I can post and none for you? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.