100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 08/08/11 08:05 PM
|
|
What Kenny actually said:
Kenney: "We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site." So what do they mean by "Misspoke?" mis·speak (ms-spk) v. mis·spoke (-spk), mis·spo·ken (-spkn), mis·speak·ing, mis·speaks v.tr. To speak or pronounce incorrectly: The lead actor misspoke his lines. v.intr. To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly. Note: That does not exactly say that he was mistaken or that he lied. It means that he mistakenly stuck his foot in his mouth. Yep, it was a big mistake for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 08/08/11 09:03 PM
|
|
FEMA officials said Kenney, in the heat of the moment, misstated his team's arrival date. Kenney could not be reached for comment. I think he and his team should be questioned officially! What is wrong with people? Couldn't be reached for comment??? Unbelievable!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, it must have been the Illuminati right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Try a non-partisan, non-biased site. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Mon 08/08/11 10:29 PM
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. Unless a person knows what the dynamics of people's relationships with each other are, no one can answer a question like that. Maybe she was on that plane, maybe she wasn't. Maybe she died, maybe she didn't. Questions like that are not the ones you need to be asking. There are more important questions that have not been answered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. Unless a person knows what the dynamics of people's relationships with each other are, no one can answer a question like that. Maybe she was on that plane, maybe she wasn't. Maybe she died, maybe she didn't. Questions like that are not the ones you need to be asking. There are more important questions that have not been answered. Wow, they have proof of her two calls to her husband after the hijacking started. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Mon 08/08/11 11:13 PM
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. Unless a person knows what the dynamics of people's relationships with each other are, no one can answer a question like that. Maybe she was on that plane, maybe she wasn't. Maybe she died, maybe she didn't. Questions like that are not the ones you need to be asking. There are more important questions that have not been answered. Wow, they have proof of her two calls to her husband after the hijacking started. That's another topic, back at the time of 9-11, there was no way anyone could communicate back to someone on the ground by phone. So explain to me just how she could have called her husband given that? She couldn't have, which would mean someone isn't telling the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. Unless a person knows what the dynamics of people's relationships with each other are, no one can answer a question like that. Maybe she was on that plane, maybe she wasn't. Maybe she died, maybe she didn't. Questions like that are not the ones you need to be asking. There are more important questions that have not been answered. Wow, they have proof of her two calls to her husband after the hijacking started. That's another topic, back at the time of 9-11, there was no way anyone could communicate back to someone on the ground by phone. So explain to me just how she could have called her husband given that? She couldn't have, which would mean someone isn't telling the truth. With Cellphones, how SEVERAL passengers contacted loved ones after the hijackings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. Unless a person knows what the dynamics of people's relationships with each other are, no one can answer a question like that. Maybe she was on that plane, maybe she wasn't. Maybe she died, maybe she didn't. Questions like that are not the ones you need to be asking. There are more important questions that have not been answered. Wow, they have proof of her two calls to her husband after the hijacking started. That's another topic, back at the time of 9-11, there was no way anyone could communicate back to someone on the ground by phone. So explain to me just how she could have called her husband given that? She couldn't have, which would mean someone isn't telling the truth. More on this and more here: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html I can't even get any bars in Walsh Colorado to call Springfield, 30 miles away. LOL  If they really have 'proof' then where is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that, wasn't at least one politician warned NOT to fly on 9-11? I seem to recall that. You seem to recally wrong. Oh really? I give you exhibit A: http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q01_WhySomeWarned.htm Then why asn't a very close friend of President Bush's (The Solicitor General of the Untited States) warned then? His wife was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon! If President Bush was really behind it like you said he would protect his "Close" friends. Unless a person knows what the dynamics of people's relationships with each other are, no one can answer a question like that. Maybe she was on that plane, maybe she wasn't. Maybe she died, maybe she didn't. Questions like that are not the ones you need to be asking. There are more important questions that have not been answered. Wow, they have proof of her two calls to her husband after the hijacking started. That's another topic, back at the time of 9-11, there was no way anyone could communicate back to someone on the ground by phone. So explain to me just how she could have called her husband given that? She couldn't have, which would mean someone isn't telling the truth. With Cellphones, how SEVERAL passengers contacted loved ones after the hijackings. That's just it, they COULDN'T have been able to get service to the ground with them then! So the whole story falls apart right there! If they can't get service to the ground from that high in the air, how are they gonna contact anyone?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
esebulldog
on
Tue 08/09/11 12:13 AM
|
|
like a moth to a flame. just couldn't leave well enough alone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
volant7
on
Tue 08/09/11 01:27 AM
|
|
so have we figured out yet why the building that was hit 2nd collapsed
first and you can see what appears to be thermite pouring out of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I Jesse Ventura will kick your ssa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9mbotpeuJM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ORMuta4JCE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also the link you posted is not the official report that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE that Metalwing was referring to. I don't know what report that was, but it was done YEARS later. Try again. OK - the link I posted had all the references from several reports. Here they are again - with references. See the references this time. They have links in this article to all the reports and they all say that the planes and terrorists alone which brought the towers down and that there is no evidence whatsoever for any other explanation. http://architecture.about.com/od/disastersandcollapses/a/twintowerfall.htm Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11 Engineers tell why the World Trade Center twin towers collapsed By Jackie Craven, About.com Guide In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures. What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall? 1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building. 2. Heat from the Fires The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature. 3. Collapsing Floors Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled. But say it did, one would think such a horrible structeral failure would at the verry least warrent a seriouse evaluation of the building codes. One would have a hard time getting the jet fuel to burn at 1500 degrees in a non controled environment. If anything the fires were starved for air in an enclosed area. the higher end of the temp scale would probably involve the fuel being vaporized and mixed with air in a controled environment. basicly it was an open air burn, hardly the stuff to seriously weaken massive steel beams and supports. You can "doubt it" all you want all you have are irrational doubts and fears of the boogeyman. All the scientific evidence has been examined in excruciating detail and is quite clear in explaining all the observed facts and evidence of the collapse of all of the buildings.  Your doubts and fears and theories are based on no evidence and really have no basis. This is why it can safely be categorized as paranoia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for any response my post of the official report on why the towers fell. If it is not the official report printed in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press 9/13/01, then I am still waiting for someone to post a link to the official report. Metalwing's own peer review was critical of the original report and he seemed to agree (with me) that it was flawed. But now all I get is silence. From everyone who thinks the debunker show, which is the topic of this thread, was actually successful at debunking anything, good luck next time. Here are the official reports with references. http://architecture.about.com/od/disastersandcollapses/a/twintowerfall.htm Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11 Engineers tell why the World Trade Center twin towers collapsed By Jackie Craven, About.com Guide In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures. What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall? 1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building. 2. Heat from the Fires The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature. 3. Collapsing Floors Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled. Seriously? About.com? That is not an official report or even close to a government website. Like I said - "Read the references" About.com's synopsis is based on the list of official references which they give in their website article! I just cited the about.com article as a convenient place to find all the official reports. But for convenience I will copy and paste them here: (from the about.com synopsis) 911 Commission Report http://architecture.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=architecture&cdn=homegarden&tm=34&f=11&su=p284.12.336.ip_p504.1.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&st=8&zu=http%3A//www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm FEMA WTC Bldg Performance Study http://architecture.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=architecture&cdn=homegarden&tm=151&f=11&su=p284.12.336.ip_p504.1.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&st=8&zu=http%3A//www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm WTC and 911 Engineering Design Issues http://architecture.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=architecture&cdn=homegarden&tm=217&f=11&su=p284.12.336.ip_p504.1.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&st=8&zu=http%3A//www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf Truth about the WTC attacks http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842?page=4 NOVA PBS Segment World Trade Center Collapse http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here is the ASCE article too but it says all the same stuff
also in agreement with all the other people who have analyzed actual factual information about the collapse.. This is the one metalwing refers to I beliece... Abstract: This paper3 presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed. The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also the link you posted is not the official report that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE that Metalwing was referring to. I don't know what report that was, but it was done YEARS later. Try again. OK - the link I posted had all the references from several reports. Here they are again - with references. See the references this time. They have links in this article to all the reports and they all say that the planes and terrorists alone which brought the towers down and that there is no evidence whatsoever for any other explanation. http://architecture.about.com/od/disastersandcollapses/a/twintowerfall.htm Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11 Engineers tell why the World Trade Center twin towers collapsed By Jackie Craven, About.com Guide In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures. What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall? 1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building. 2. Heat from the Fires The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature. 3. Collapsing Floors Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled. But say it did, one would think such a horrible structeral failure would at the verry least warrent a seriouse evaluation of the building codes. One would have a hard time getting the jet fuel to burn at 1500 degrees in a non controled environment. If anything the fires were starved for air in an enclosed area. the higher end of the temp scale would probably involve the fuel being vaporized and mixed with air in a controled environment. basicly it was an open air burn, hardly the stuff to seriously weaken massive steel beams and supports. You can "doubt it" all you want all you have are irrational doubts and fears of the boogeyman. All the scientific evidence has been examined in excruciating detail and is quite clear in explaining all the observed facts and evidence of the collapse of all of the buildings. Your doubts and fears and theories are based on no evidence and really have no basis. This is why it can safely be categorized as paranoia. You play right into their hands when you buy their BS. They WANT you to think it's paranoia, hence terms like conspiracy theorists, or 9-11 truthers among others. That way if people think you're nuts, they won't investigate anything for themselves, and they'll keep their control. An educated populace is a dangerous populace, so they must keep us ignorant, and they've done a damn good job of it as evidenced by this thread. |
|
|
|
|
