ae911truth.org

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

how did I attack your post? I asked for proof. the problem is, you seem to believe, just because you say something, it becomes proof.

then you asked a question and I answered it. where is the attack?

I must have confused it with one of your snarky little brainless posts in another thread.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I must have confused it with one of your snarky little brainless posts in another thread.

kinda like this one?

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Oh, but they found more than one passport and, as well and an "in perfect condition" official boogeyman "terrorist" bandanna. Not even dirty. The passports were also in near perfect condition.

Look at what was found and at the condition of it before commenting on it.

this is what I asked you to prove.

guess what. just because roland the magnificent says something, doesnt make it fact. k ?

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

this is what I asked you to prove.

guess what. just because roland the magnificent says something, doesnt make it fact. k ?

From the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546927.stm

Passport discovery

Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble earlier discovered a passport belonging to one of the suspected hijackers a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.

New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said investigators would probably be unable to identify the hijackers, because there were unlikely to be enough of their remains left to test.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

From the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546927.stm

Passport discovery

Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble earlier discovered a passport belonging to one of the suspected hijackers a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.

New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said investigators would probably be unable to identify the hijackers, because there were unlikely to be enough of their remains left to test.

yea I can google 9/11 passports too. im asking about the perfect condition crap he was talking about.

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I can google 9/11 passports too. im asking about the perfect condition crap he was talking about.

Well whether it was in perfect condition or had been slighty singed i still find it a little odd to say the least.

I think you are splitting hairs. For the sake of it. I can't see the point.

What are your thoughts on the passport being found and the ID card i think it was at the pentagon. Plus the supposed fingerprints?

facepollution

jlew24asu wrote:

who said the plane vaporized? and yes, the guy was said to be a crappy pilot and somehow managed to crash the plane into the building. shocking.

who said I believe the findings? what I do believe from the "official" report is al queda was responsible the attacks and the planes caused wtc 1 and 2 to come down.

Ok, so what makes you believe it was Al Qaeda? And what makes you believe it was the plane crashes themselves that made the towers fall down?

Oh, and the fact that no large parts of the plane were found is where the vaporization theory comes from.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

Well whether it was in perfect condition or had been slighty singed i still find it a little odd to say the least.

I think you are splitting hairs. For the sake of it. I can't see the point.

What are your thoughts on the passport being found and the ID card i think it was at the pentagon. Plus the supposed fingerprints?

I only ask because he said it. he is the one making the claim that a few things were found in perfect condition. I'm calling his bullshit thats all.

I think its possible to find a passport. albeit highly unlikely. fingerprints? no, I would say impossible. although I havent read that from any "official report"

jlew24asu

facepollution wrote:

Ok, so what makes you believe it was Al Qaeda?

so I take you dont believe they wre involved? I'll start with the Hamburg cell from Germany.

The Hamburg cell was, according to U.S. and German intelligence agencies, a group of radical Islamists that included students who eventually came to be key operatives in the 9/11 attacks. Important members included Mohamed Atta al Sayed, who led the four hijacking teams in 2001 and piloted American Airlines Flight 11; Ramzi Binalshibh, who conspired with the other three members but was unable to enter the United States; and Marwan al-Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175. Less important members included Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Mounir el Motassadeq, and Abdelghani Mzoudi. Ziad Jarrah, another prominent 9/11 hijacker, is also sometimes listed in the Hamburg cell.

how about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He confessed to being the mastermind behind the attacks.

shall I go on?

facepollution wrote:

And what makes you believe it was the plane crashes themselves that made the towers fall down?

common sense.

facepollution wrote:

Oh, and the fact that no large parts of the plane were found is where the vaporization theory comes from.

sure there were. there was a good website out there that showed many pictures but I dont have time to look for it...here is a photo

http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1/flight77piece6.jpg

facepollution

jlew24asu wrote:

so I take you dont believe they wre involved? I'll start with the Hamburg cell from Germany.

The Hamburg cell was, according to U.S. and German intelligence agencies, a group of radical Islamists that included students who eventually came to be key operatives in the 9/11 attacks. Important members included Mohamed Atta al Sayed, who led the four hijacking teams in 2001 and piloted American Airlines Flight 11; Ramzi Binalshibh, who conspired with the other three members but was unable to enter the United States; and Marwan al-Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175. Less important members included Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Mounir el Motassadeq, and Abdelghani Mzoudi. Ziad Jarrah, another prominent 9/11 hijacker, is also sometimes listed in the Hamburg cell.

how about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He confessed to being the mastermind behind the attacks.

shall I go on?]

Information provided by the ever-reliable US government, the same people who persisted in claiming there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, when they fully well knew there wasn't.

jlew24asu wrote:

common sense.

well not really, since even the architects that designed them, have said it was built to withstand such attacks.

jlew24asu wrote:

sure there were. there was a good website out there that showed many pictures but I dont have time to look for it...here is a photo

http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1/flight77piece6.jpg

Haha, possibly your funniest post - I said LARGE parts - I could pick that shit up with my bare hands!

jeffbr

facepollution wrote:

well not really, since even the architects that designed them, have said it was built to withstand such attacks.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

"Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained."

facepollution

jeffbr wrote:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

"Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained."

That's an opinion of what 'could' have happened, that's not the same as the people who designed it saying, it was built to withstand such an attack. Plus as a lot of people believe, the vast majority of the jet fuel burnt out in the huge fireballs that were created when the planes hit - and looking at the footage, that does stand to reason. Why would some of the fuel remain and burn at a steady rate inside the building, weakening the steel work, while the rest was projected out in a fireball? If it's flamable, it's going to burn rapidly in such circumstances.

jlew24asu

facepollution wrote:

Information provided by the ever-reliable US government, the same people who persisted in claiming there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, when they fully well knew there wasn't.

I dont know what to tell you. the information I just provided can be verified by several different sources from all around the world.

facepollution wrote:

well not really, since even the architects that designed them, have said it was built to withstand such attacks.

they were built to withstand a plane that was smaller. and how about this, the design actually failed. very big planes, traveling at high amount of speed, filled to the rim with jet fuel, is going to cause alot of damage.

facepollution wrote:

Haha, possibly your funniest post - I said LARGE parts - I could pick that shit up with my bare hands!

according to you, the plane vaporized. was this piece planted? like the bloody glove?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

this is what I asked you to prove.

guess what. just because roland the magnificent says something, doesnt make it fact. k ?

Your basic level of intellectual discourse is what I find lacking. Boring actually.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Your basic level of intellectual discourse is what I find lacking. Boring actually.

so you wont back up your claim that perfect condition stuff of the highjackers was found? got it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

this is what I asked you to prove.

guess what. just because roland the magnificent says something, doesnt make it fact. k ?

Why does anyone have to prove existing facts that you don't want to bother learning about anyways?

If you knew what you were talking about a little more, it might be worth the time...but ultimately....not really.

You always wind up being a snippy little asshole every time.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why does anyone have to prove existing facts that you don't want to bother learning about anyways?

If you knew what you were talking about a little more, it might be worth the time...but ultimately....not really.

You always wind up being a snippy little asshole every time.

I have looked all over the net I cant find proof of what you are saying. you say they are facts? how do you know? at least when I have something to say I back the shit up.

jeffbr

facepollution wrote:

That's an opinion of what 'could' have happened, that's not the same as the people who designed it saying, it was built to withstand such an attack.

True. But the designers of the Ford Pinto didn't plan on the gas tank exploding. There was a design flaw. The designers of the o-ring in the shuttle thought they'd done a good job. A design flaw caused the shuttle to explode. MIT engineers said there was a key design ommission.

facepollution wrote:

Plus as a lot of people believe, the vast majority of the jet fuel burnt out in the huge fireballs that were created when the planes hit - and looking at the footage, that does stand to reason. Why would some of the fuel remain and burn at a steady rate inside the building, weakening the steel work, while the rest was projected out in a fireball? If it's flamable, it's going to burn rapidly in such circumstances.

And a lot of people believe (including the above MIT civil engineers) that the jet fuel caused the fire to burn at an incredibly high temp for 105 minutes. Much more than just a flash in the pan.

jamtemplechains

wow...this is AWESOME! with a heated 9/11 conspiracy thread posted, what?...a week ago? yeah, this is just what we needed. because we all know anybody on either side of this argument is going to change their mind....look, i've made it clear on the last thread where i stand, but the fact of the matter is this: simply and entirely because these conspiracy theories exist, and are by some minute modicum SLIGHTLY CONCEIVABLE, there are going to be people--yes, even credible scholars and experts--who are wholly convinced by them. and because the u.s government and several investigations have declared a different scenario that is slightly more scientifically plausible, there are obviously going to be a lot of people who are taken with this side of the argument. but honestly, for the love of jesus h. christ, can we drop the 9/11 conspiracy shit? has there REALLY been anything substancial contributed in this thread that wasn't contributed on the last one? WOW! a website with professor mcwhogivesafuck saying it surely just HAD To be a controlled demolition!! HOLY SHIT! a link with a little video made by some random engineer who said it was DEFINITELY the planes that brought the towers down! big fucking deal, everybody's got a thousand different websites with "facts" about what happened, and everybody who disagrees with them have a thousand different reasons why those websites aren't credible. glad to see this debate is making such marked progress!!

Bushleaguer28

facepollution wrote:

Ok, so what makes you believe it was Al Qaeda? And what makes you believe it was the plane crashes themselves that made the towers fall down?

Oh, and the fact that no large parts of the plane were found is where the vaporization theory comes from.

havent you seen the numerous bin laden videos including the most recent one where he basically says the men that flew the planes did so under his command - or do you think him and bush are in cahoots as well?