everyone needs to see this

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

if the designers planned for planes striking the building, they accounted for that in their design, i'm going to guess that they did it with "fully laden 757's" (carrying coconuts, obviously, although we may not know where they got the coconuts) since most of the time they do those kinds of tests with the worst case scenario. do i need to hear, explicitly, "the ensuing fire would not be enough to bring them down"? i don't. i'm also going to guess that they took into account that the fully laden, fast moving, 757 would burst into flames when it struck the building.

You are demonstrably wrong in so many ways. For now, I'll simply leave you with the thought that the 757 did not yet exist when the twin towers were constructed. That's some top quality research you've done there champ! Keep on thinking outside the box!

Honestly dude, I don't think you could possibly realise just how ridiculous you sound when you are on the one hand accusing people of swallowing the government story without any critical thought while on the other hand you are blindly accepting the conspiracy theorist version based on statements that you haven't even heard people say but assume were said and then just edited out of the movie for some unknown reason. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

It's time to stop 'guessing' and start doing the research that you all claim the film has inspired you to do.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ExAFO 0]

If two 757s were carrying the coconut at the time...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[RackJR 0]

jesus dude we weren't getting around in horse and carriage when they built the towers. large planes have existed for a while now. i'm sure they didn't do their calculations with a 206 hitting the side. i'll get back to you on exactly when the 757 hit the air, and when the towers were constructed, but maybe you can allow that although that specific plane was (perhaps, i don't know for sure) not in existence then, we still had some big aircraft out there. i'm sure you'd like me to believe you when you say that it didn't exist, but you're not offering production or erection dates, either. they weren't asking themselves if the building could withstand being hit by a swallow (african or european).

I'M NOT SAYING I ACCEPT ANY OF THE THEORY'S. i'm saying it made me question what i do believe, or what is possible. it made me think about whether i had simply accepted what was put in front of me, or thought about it on my own. nowhere have i claimed to do any research on my own. i will now, for the first time, say that i have read the bible, the epic of gilgamesh, and many many other books involving religious mythology, and knew many of the religious aspects of the movie before i watched it. the fact that the movie was, IMO, spot on with that subject, did lend credence, IMO, for the rest of the film. since watching it, i have done some very simple research. for instance, googling "plane crash pentagon" will get you many videos and still picture options. i couldn't find ONE that didn't make an attempt to denounce the 9/11 report. ( i only looked for about 45 minutes, and maybe 15 different links). lemme know what research you've done, instead of just insulting me for being tragic.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

i'll get back to you on exactly when the 757 hit the air, and when the towers were constructed,

No need, I know them. I've done my research, now its your turn to do yours.

Quote

but maybe you can allow that although that specific plane was (perhaps, i don't know for sure) not in existence then, we still had some big aircraft out there.

Of course, I'm simply holding it up as the most glaring example of your enormous lack of knowledge on the subject. It is quite frankly ridiculous for you to be going around accusing people of being sheeple when you are making so, so many massive assumptions on the subject without bothering to do the slightest bit of research.

Quote

I'M NOT SAYING I ACCEPT ANY OF THE THEORY'S. i'm saying it made me question what i do believe, or what is possible. it made me think about whether i had simply accepted what was put in front of me, or thought about it on my own. nowhere have i claimed to do any research on my own.

Then maybe you should.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is... do some fucking research.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RackJR 0]

good job, ignoring the rest.

an enormous lack of knowledge. hmm. yes i don't know the specific dates. but i do know we had big aircraft. is that enormous? or maybe you being a little over dramatic, so that your point seems more important?

and i still don't see you listing the dates. or citing any of the research that you might have done. but i guess it's easier to ignore that, and insult everyone else, huh?

it's amazing to me the amount of insulting people are willing to do, when their belief systems are threatened. maybe it brings them back to balance, or restores their faith, or makes them feel like they have the answers again. gotta get back to that comfortable, safe place where things make sense. we don't want the thought police coming by. a simple post about a movie that proposes alternate possibilities, designed IMO to challenge mainstream thought, can generate so much emotion. i'd rather stick with the monty python guys.

i started doing some research. i will continue to do that. a friend introduced me to the movie, and i found it compelling. i tried to do the same. how that bothers you so deeply is beyond me. how it inspires so much criticism is also beyond me. i guess fear is a powerful thing.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

an enormous lack of knowledge. hmm. yes i don't know the specific dates. but i do know we had big aircraft. is that enormous?

Not knowing that the 757 was over a decade away from rolling out when the Towers were open for business is indicative of a fairly severe lack of facts - especially in the middle of a paragraph you devoted to bragging about how much you have assumed about the design process of the buildings.

Quote

and i still don't see you listing the dates. or citing any of the research that you might have done. but i guess it's easier to ignore that, and insult everyone else, huh?

I'm trying to encourage you to do some deeper research of your own. It'll take you less than 5 minutes of googling to get the dates of construction/ roll out. You could even just do them both on Wikipedia.

Quote

i started doing some research. i will continue to do that. a friend introduced me to the movie, and i found it compelling. i tried to do the same. how that bothers you so deeply is beyond me. how it inspires so much criticism is also beyond me. i guess fear is a powerful thing.

I want you to do some research. If you look back, the things that I have strongly reacted to in your posts are the (erroneous) assumptions that you have admitted that you have made.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,541]

I don't believe the government was responsible for 9/11. If nothing else, I have no confidence in their ability to keep it a secret among all those people.

That said, those 5 minutes of research in wikipedia, while they do confirm that the 757 wasn't produced until 10 years after the WTC was opened, also indicate that the aircraft that was supposedly (no documentation has been found) used for strike modeling was assumed at roughly 8,000 lbs less -- that's not a huge difference. However, additional differences were in the assumed speed (well over twice as fast -- in fact, three times as fast for WTC2). Also, the original studies didn't take into account the fire implications of all that fuel.

So -- quit quibbling on the date of the airplane. Point it out, then attack the rest. There's plenty to attack. Just from wikipedia, I found stuff on the fire design and plenty else that makes it seem quite possible that the building was perfectly capable of collapsing from the impact.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

So -- quit quibbling on the date of the airplane.

As I said, I simply pointed it out as indicative of a general lack of knowledge and faulty assumptions - faulty assumptions that include what you just spelled out about the speed of the aircraft and the ensuing fires.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nanook 1]

Quote

have YOU been to ground zero?

Well, hours after the attack we were within visual sight. The dust and smoke plumes and other buildings made it hard to see anything when I was looking at the mess from the bridge wing's binoculars. But I don't think that even if I was anywhere near the buildings I would be able to come to the conclusion that the Govt did it based on what I have seen.

Quote

read The Epic Of Gilgamesh? studied anything about Horus or the zodiac or the origins of religious mythology?

Yes. Definitely. I'm not big on the Supreme being stuff and did a lot of research. I didn't go the way of bigoted theism-hating a lot of non tolerant Athiests go, but I did study.

Quote

done any research into the federal banking institutions?

Yes. I went to College for it.

Quote

read the 9/11 commission report?

You got me here. I only glanced at it. I have a blind faith in the Govt's ability to not keep a secret and screw things up on a regular basis. the report is not my pillar of truth; my experience working in, with, and for the govt is.

Quote

to sum up, have you simply swallowed the governments version of what happened, and now sit back and criticize people who actually have gone out and done independent research?

Sure. Why not? do you simply run the stop sign because you don't believe what Govt's trying to tell you? Is the traffic safety report missing some facts

Quote

but usually goes over better if you're not mispelling a bunch of shit in your attack.

Did I misspell "teh" again?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[RackJR 0]

according to wikipedia, it was two boeing 767's that struck the two towers, not 757, as you listed. everything that follows is also from wikipedia. those planes (767's) have a fuel capacity of either 62.2 or 91 cubic meters of fuel, and also depending on model, a weight of 176,000 lbs to 229,000 lbs. max speed of 568 mph, but at a 35,000ft altitude. the 707, first produced in the 50's and continued service through the 70's, had model weights ranging from 222,000lbs to 333,600 lbs. (that's heavier, right?), and only listed cruising speed of around 600mph (altitude not specified). plane struck tower 1 going 440mph. tower 2 540mph. FEMA modeled the crash with a plane weighing 263k lbs and flying at 180 mph. also cited was the White paper, published Feb 3 1964, a 21000 page study using a Boeing 707 with 83 cubic meters of fuel flying at 600 mph (faster than either plane hit the towers), which concluded the plane impact could not bring down the tower, although they did not study the effects of the jet fuel fire or fire from the building contents.

the pancake theory of collapse, accepted by most engineers, has also been criticized for not taking into account the reistance from the lower floors, which could have slowed or even prevented total collapse. instead what was observed was very little, if any, resistance and a near freefall collapse.

building 7 has still not had any study published in any scientific journal concerning the reasons for it's collapse.

NIST admitted that their findings were limited due to scarcity of physical evidence. they do conclude the pancake theory is what triggered the collapse of the impacted floors, but their model was static rather than dynamic, and therefore did not talk about events after the initial collapse of the impacted floors. their conclusions have been criticized by peers even at the time of publishing, including one professor of fire protection from the university of maryland who called their spoilation of steel theory (from the jet fuel burning) a "gross error" that NIST should have themselves openly criticized.

the neutrality of the article has been challenged, and that debate is ongoing.

so gee, i guess that was an enormous error on my part. the plane they modeled was heavier and flew faster. experts in the field cannot agree.

keep calling me a moron dude.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[nanook 1]

according to the Boeing website the 767's max takeoff weight is 395,000 450,000 lbs, almost 100,000 pounds heavier than the largest 707

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[RackJR 0]

sorry that's correct. mtow 333.6k lbs for the 707, 450k lbs mtow for the 767. actual weight for the aircraft that hit the towers i have not yet found.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[RackJR 0]

the aircraft listed as hitting the towers was a 767-200. 3 different models of 767-200, but the lightest had a mtow of 315,000 lbs, heaviest 395,000 lbs. i have not seen a separate manifest as of yet for how many people were on each plane individually, but i have seen the total of 157 including crew from both planes, so neither plane was at or near capacity. the lightest model 767-200 has 181 seats, the heaviest 255 seats.
i did not see in the citing of the White report whether the 707 used to model the impact was fully loaded with passengers. again, i am going to assume that they would use the worst case scenario, but i'll freely admit that's only my assumption. wikipedia states each 767 dispursed 38 cubic meters of jet fuel into the towers, and the White report indicated the 707 dispursed 87 cubic meters (model).

Say what you mean. Do what you say.