|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2006 : 12:22:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dude: Why didn't you answer my question about how they could concluded their model would yield a complete collapse of the building without modeling the collapse? How can you accept a theory of collapse that never modeled the collapse and did not include the force of gravity in its calculations?
If that foot note is all you read, filtered through a paranoia filter, then I can absolutely understand how you can reach such a conclusion.
You cannot model a building's structural integrity and behaviour without taking the force of gravity into account. My conclusion is thus that you must have misinterpreted what you read. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 12:37:47 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 asked:
quote:
Why didn't you answer my question about how they could concluded their model would yield a complete collapse of the building without modeling the collapse?
They did not "model" the structural behavior of the building while it was collapsing because such a thing is not relevant to why/how the collapse was initiated. I also see nowhere that they conclude anything about yielding a "complete collapse", beyond the obvious idea that the weight of more than a dozen upper floors starting to fall would have serious consequences for every floor beneath them.
quote:
How can you accept a theory of collapse that never modeled the collapse and did not include the force of gravity in its calculations?
Your assertion that gravity is "not included" is false. The weight (weight being a function of mass and gravity, a concept you clearly do not understand) of the upper floors of the buildings features prominently in the explanation of how the collapse was initiated.
And, again, the behavior of the building while it was collapsing is not relevant to why it collapsed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 14:24:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo123 asked:
quote:
Why didn't you answer my question about how they could concluded their model would yield a complete collapse of the building without modeling the collapse?
quote:
They did not "model" the structural behavior of the building while it was collapsing because such a thing is not relevant to why/how the collapse was initiated.
Let me try this again... Why didn't you answer my question about how they could have concluded their model would yield a complete collapse of the building without modeling the collapse? Up until that day (and ever since that day) no steel framed building had completely collapsed due to any reason other than controlled demolition and earthquake.
How would they know if there "more severe" cases were severe enough to cause a complete collapse? Or weren't they trying to replicate that aspect of the events--you know, the aspect of the events that had never happened before in the history of engineering. Those scientist types--they just aren't curious... Heck, they only spent a few years doing all their tests on materials and building computer simulations. Why bother to see if their model would actually replicate what actually happened! Silly of me to want such a thing, I know.
quote:
I also see nowhere that they conclude anything about yielding a "complete collapse", beyond the obvious idea that the weight of more than a dozen upper floors starting to fall would have serious consequences for every floor beneath them.
Yes, that is interesting. Of course we all saw the buildings completely collapse into their respective basements. But NIST (as far as I recall) doesn't mention that--even though it was the single unique aspect of the events from a "science and technology" standpoint. How could they, of all the agencies exploring these events, miss that! Bunch of dingleberries, that's what they are...
quote:
How can you accept a theory of collapse that never modeled the collapse and did not include the force of gravity in its calculations?
quote:
Your assertion that gravity is "not included" is false.
Unclear, maybe. Gravity wasn't considered in modeling the collapse because the collapse was not modeled. In fact, later in the report NIST states "The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse (NIST Final Report, p. 144; emphasis added). They didn't even model the onset of the collapse.
quote:
The weight (weight being a function of mass and gravity, a concept you clearly do not understand) of the upper floors of the buildings features prominently in the explanation of how the collapse was initiated.
Yes, they do use gravity in their calcualtions of the behavior of the building prior to its complete collapse.
quote:
And, again, the behavior of the building while it was collapsing is not relevant to why it collapsed.
But is is relevant to why the buildings completely collapsed--like we all saw, and can still see photos of. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 17:11:43 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
Up until that day (and ever since that day) no steel framed building had completely collapsed due to any reason other than controlled demolition and earthquake.
And prior to that day no building of that size and type had ever had a fully loaded and feuled jumbojet flown into it either. A fact that renders your assertion meaningless.
quote:
you know, the aspect of the events that had never happened before in the history of engineering.
And, again, never has there been a fully loaded and feuled jumbo jet crashed into the side of such a building. Wrap your brain around that.
quote:
Why bother to see if their model would actually replicate what actually happened!
Their model is fine. Again, what happens after the collapse starts to occur is hardly relevant to how the collapse was initiated.
Maybe, in your twisted world, you think that having a dozen or more floors break off from the load bearing structures and fall wouldn't have consequences for the rest of the building that they are falling onto.
quote:
Of course we all saw the buildings completely collapse into their respective basements. But NIST (as far as I recall) doesn't mention that--even though it was the single unique aspect of the events from a "science and technology" standpoint. How could they, of all the agencies exploring these events, miss that! Bunch of dingleberries, that's what they are...
Your continued harping on the word "complete" makes you the dingleberry here. Your claim that "it was the single unique aspect of the events from a "science and technology" standpoint" is obviously nothing more than your own opinion and is rejected for the obvious straw-man it is.
quote:
In fact, later in the report NIST states "The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse (NIST Final Report, p. 144; emphasis added). They didn't even model the onset of the collapse.
Another straw-man by you, how shocking....
The NIST report clearly, to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, deals with the building behavior up to the initiation of the collapse.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
quote:
Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.
quote:
Yes, they do use gravity in their calcualtions of the behavior of the building prior to its complete collapse.
Sure, because the weight (a function of gravity and mass) of those falling floors overloaded the load-bearing capacity of the floors beneath them as they fell. In addidtion, the weight (a function of gravity and mass) increased along with the failure of each additional floor.
quote:
Dude said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, again, the behavior of the building while it was collapsing is not relevant to why it collapsed.
Then-ergo(lair)123 said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But is is relevant to why the buildings completely collapsed--like we all saw, and can still see photos of.
Only if you believe that the weight of dozens of falling floors, whose energy was directed towards the center of the building and down (because of how the collapse initiated) was insufficient to overload and destroy the load bearing structure of the building. A fairly delusional belief, if you have it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 18:09:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But is is relevant to why the buildings completely collapsed--like we all saw, and can still see photos of.
What constitutes a complete collapse of a building? 10% of the floors relatively intact? 5% of the floors intact? 1% of the floors intact?
A 110 floor building compacted so that each floor doesn't make more than a 30cm pile of rubble will still hypothetically make a 33 meter pile of rubble, which is as high as a 5 floor building and then some.
Not in the entire history of the world has such a large building been demolished. The potential energy of the uppermost 16 floors were awesome, and when they came down everything underneath was crushed.
When performing controlled demolitions, charges are not set off on every floor. Only the first, or first few to initiate the controlled collapse. The blast initiate the controlled collapse. Then nature takes its course: first gravity then inertia take care of the rest.
In the WTC case, structural failure due to heat and structural damage initiated the collapse. After that happened, gravity and inertia took care of the rest.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 20:05:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo123 said:
quote:
Up until that day (and ever since that day) no steel framed building had completely collapsed due to any reason other than controlled demolition and earthquake.
quote:
And prior to that day no building of that size and type had ever had a fully loaded and feuled jumbojet flown into it either. A fact that renders your assertion meaningless.
You keep calling them "fully loaded" planes. What evidence do you have that they were fully loaded? They certainly were not fully loaded with passangers. And they certainly weren't fully loaded with fuel. So what do you mean by "fully loaded?"
quote:
Why bother to see if their model would actually replicate what actually happened!
quote:
Their model is fine. Again, what happens after the collapse starts to occur is hardly relevant to how the collapse was initiated.
But how do you know it is a "fine" model? True, it was designed to model what could cause a building to become unstable and be poised to collapse. And what happened after it started to collapse had nothing to do with what happened before it collapsed. Although what happened before is relevant to what happened after, right? And what happened after was a complete collapse of the buildings. So it follows that for the model to be a "fine" model of the pre-collapse, it would have to accurately model the actual collapse--because if it couldn't accurately model the actual collapse, the pre-collapse inputs must have been wrong. Since the post-poise events were completely dependent on the pre-poise events, the only way to validate the pre-poise model is to see if it predicts the post-poise events accurately. But NIST doesn't report any post-poise modeling results. So we have no idea how accurate their model and subsequent simulations really are.
quote:
Maybe, in your twisted world, you think that having a dozen or more floors break off from the load bearing structures and fall wouldn't have consequences for the rest of the building that they are falling onto.
But that wasn't part of the NIST model. They only modeled up to, but not past, the point where the floors allegedly broke off their load-bearing structures. Any mention in the NIST Report of floors breaking off of their load-bearing structures is speculation on their part. At least according to NIST (p. 144).
quote:
Of course we all saw the buildings completely collapse into their respective basements. But NIST (as far as I recall) doesn't mention that--even though it was the single unique aspect of the events from a "science and technology" standpoint. How could they, of all the agencies exploring these events, miss that! Bunch of dingleberries, that's what they are...
quote:
Your continued harping on the word "complete" makes you the dingleberry here. Your claim that "it was the single unique aspect of the events from a "science and technology" standpoint" is obviously nothing more than your own opinion and is rejected for the obvious straw-man it is.
Your failure to acknowledge what we all saw at ground zero when the pulverized building materials (that weren't explained by the NIST model) cleared as a total collapse make you look like a stubborn brat.
quote:
In fact, later in the report NIST states "The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse (NIST Final Report, p. 144; emphasis added). They didn't even model the onset of the collapse.
quote:
Another straw-man by you, how shocking....
Okay. I'm thinking you don't really know what the term "strawman" means. Or are you suggesting that NIST is full of strawman arguments...?
quote:
The NIST report clearly, to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, deals with the building behavior up to the initiation of the collapse.
Yes. And your point is...?
quote:
Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.
That's a lot of effort to do half a job...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 23:35:31 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
You keep calling them "fully loaded" planes. What evidence do you have that they were fully loaded? They certainly were not fully loaded with passangers.
They weren't "fully loaded" with passengers, my use of the term is not precise... nor is it relevant. A jumbo jet was flown into the buildings, the number of people on board matters very little. As should be obvious to anyone. So what is your point on harping this issue?
quote:
And they certainly weren't fully loaded with fuel. So what do you mean by "fully loaded?"
So... planes prepped for their first flight of the morning, with cross country destinations, aren't loaded with fuel? Put down your crackpipe.
They may not have been loaded to their max fuel capacity, but they were certainly loaded with the full load called for by their flightplans. The very short jaunt from Boston to NYC wouldn't have used very much of it either. The planes were selected for their size and fuel load, obviously.
As for the rest of your delusion, read the FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 04:46:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But is is relevant to why the buildings completely collapsed--like we all saw, and can still see photos of.
quote:
What constitutes a complete collapse of a building? 10% of the floors relatively intact? 5% of the floors intact? 1% of the floors intact?
A 110 floor building compacted so that each floor doesn't make more than a 30cm pile of rubble will still hypothetically make a 33 meter pile of rubble, which is as high as a 5 floor building and then some.
And when 110 stories are left in ruins in the basement of the building it is a complete collapse. It's not about how tall the ruins are--it's about the ruins!
quote:
When performing controlled demolitions, charges are not set off on every floor. Only the first, or first few to initiate the controlled collapse.
That is simply not true. Watch the video of the stadium in Seattle coming down. There are also a series of explosions throughout the building.
quote:
The blast initiate the controlled collapse. Then nature takes its course: first gravity then inertia take care of the rest.
Along with the help of other explosions...
quote:
In the WTC case, structural failure due to heat and structural damage initiated the collapse. After that happened, gravity and inertia took care of the rest.
But NIST does not provide any evidence that gravity and inertia took care of the rest--because they didn't model "the rest."
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 05:03:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lying Dude
ergo123 said:
quote:
You keep calling them "fully loaded" planes. What evidence do you have that they were fully loaded? They certainly were not fully loaded with passangers.
quote:
They weren't "fully loaded" with passengers, my use of the term is not precise... nor is it relevant.
]
Then why do you use the phrase so frequently? Why continually bring imprecise, irrelevant language into the discussion?
quote:
And they certainly weren't fully loaded with fuel. So what do you mean by "fully loaded?"
quote:
So... planes prepped for their first flight of the morning, with cross country destinations, aren't loaded with fuel? Put down your crackpipe.
No. They only put the amount of fuel needed to get where they are going (plus some extra for a safety margin). Besides that, the planes took off from Boston. Flying from Boston to NYC consumes fuel...
quote:
They may not have been loaded to their max fuel capacity, but they were certainly loaded with the full load called for by their flightplans. The very short jaunt from Boston to NYC wouldn't have used very much of it either.
But there is no way they could be "fully" loaded... Your claim that they arre is just a lie...
quote:
The planes were selected for their size and fuel load, obviously.
And what evidence do you have for that claim? Or is that another one of the lies you tell yourself--and now us--to get yourself to believe the official conspiracy theory...?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 05:48:00 [Permalink]
|
What was the intended destination of the flights that hit the WTC towers?
Both were scheduled for Boston to LA....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
So how much fuel do you THINK they had? How much of that fuel was burned off going from Boston to NY? Answer: Full(or close to full) tanks and very little.
Really, you don't know shit about the events of this day, do you?
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
The 767 can fly 6,600 miles on 23,980gallons of jet fuel. Lets assume a minimum of fuel to go from Boston to LA is half that (aprox half the max range of the plane). So the planes had at least 12,000 gallons of fuel minus whatever it took to go the short distance from Boston to NYC. If you take the minimum fuel reserve mandated by federal regulation, and the distance from Boston to NYC, then the planed had to have had ,at a minimum, aprox half a tank when they impacted.
So I'll go ahead and retract the phrase "fully loaded" and replace it with this:
The planes were carrying a significant amount of fuel when they impacted the WTC towers. It seems obvious, from the huge variety of flights available to them, that the hijackers chose these planes specifically for the direction of their initial route of travel and the minimum amount of fuel they HAD to be carrying.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 08:13:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lying Dude
quote:
What was the intended destination of the flights that hit the WTC towers?
Both were scheduled for Boston to LA....
So how much fuel do you THINK they had? How much of that fuel was burned off going from Boston to NY? Answer: Full(or close to full) tanks and very little.
Really? Full or close to full? Then why do you go on to say later in the same post that they were likely about half-full? Can't you even make up your mind in the same post?!
And do you know when a plane gets the worst fuel milage? When it takes off, while climbing to high altitude and when flying at low altitude. SO the flight from Boston to NYC would have been the period of the flight when more fuel/mile would have been consumed.
quote:
The 767 can fly 6,600 miles on 23,980gallons of jet fuel. Lets assume a minimum of fuel to go from Boston to LA is half that (aprox half the max range of the plane). So the planes had at least 12,000 gallons of fuel minus whatever it took to go the short distance from Boston to NYC. If you take the minimum fuel reserve mandated by federal regulation, and the distance from Boston to NYC, then the planed had to have had ,at a minimum, aprox half a tank when they impacted.
Your claim that there had to have been a minimum of half a tank is: a) pure speculation on your part; and b) half the amount you claim it had in the beginning of your post.
quote:
So I'll go ahead and retract the phrase "fully loaded"...
As you should. Thank you.
quote:
and replace it with this:
The planes were carrying a significant amount of fuel when they impacted the WTC towers.
"Significant" in what way? Why not just leave the emotionally laden words out and say that you speculate the planes had X gallons of fuel on-board when they hit the towers?
quote:
It seems obvious, from the huge variety of flights available to them, that the hijackers chose these planes specifically for the direction of their initial route of travel and the minimum amount of fuel they HAD to be carrying.
It seems obvious to me that the NIST Report is a sham. Yet you don't accept such statements from me as being valid without evidence to support it. Why do you rely on what you think is obvious here and expect all of us to treat it as true without providing evidence to support your suspicion?
In reality, we don't know why those planes were chosen. But we could ask some of the "terrorists" that were supposedly on those planes--because British Intelligence reported seeing some of them walking around in Saudi Arabia after 9-11-01.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 08:36:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In reality, we don't know why those planes were chosen. But we could ask some of the "terrorists" that were supposedly on those planes--because British Intelligence reported seeing some of them walking around in Saudi Arabia after 9-11-01.
BWAAAAAAAAA.
Not this again. Holy shit you got to get up to date with your delusions. This is old crap that was shown to be irrelevent long ago.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 09:12:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
It seems obvious to me that the NIST Report is a sham.
Sham is an emotionally charged word, don't you think? Anyhow, with all of your objections, that was your position from the git-go. What evidence to you have that would lead us to a better explanation? Nothing? Frankly, even if there are mistakes in the NIST Report, that doesn't make it a shame. It only means mistakes were made. What exactly were those mistakes? How many mistakes were there? Why should we reject the conclusions of the NIST Report even if some mistakes were made? Why do you? (Oh yes, because it's a sham.)
quote:
ergo123:
Yet you don't accept such statements from me as being valid without evidence to support it.
And this differs from your approach, how? You have waved away the evidence that was offered to you. At least we look at your evidence, or would be willing to if you would provide any. But that isn't your mission here, now is it? Your claim to being open-minded is not supported by your posts. Your oft-stated search for the truth is the sham.
quote:
ergo123:
Why do you rely on what you think is obvious here and expect all of us to treat it as true without providing evidence to support your suspicion?
Those flights were clearly chosen because they were cross-country flights. OR was it just a coincidence that all of them were cross-country flights? Speculation? Ha! What that is, is an inconvenient fact for you. It still has to be considered in any evaluation of the events of 9/11 by anyone honestly trying to learn the truth. Instead, once again, you just wave away some more of the evidence.
At least you are consistent.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 10:48:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
It seems obvious to me that the NIST Report is a sham.
quote:
Sham is an emotionally charged word, don't you think? Anyhow, with all of your objections, that was your position from the git-go.
You got that backwards. I came to the conclusion that the NIST Report was a sham after reading it. I'd never heard of it until several days ago. Until then, I had only read the 911CR--which is even worse!
quote:
What evidence do you have that would lead us to a better explanation? Nothing?
You will see when I finish looking at all the evidence. Then, if I conclude it is valid, I'll present it here.
quote:
Frankly, even if there are mistakes in the NIST Report, that doesn't make it a shame. It only means mistakes were made. What exactly were those mistakes? How many mistakes were there? Why should we reject the conclusions of the NIST Report even if some mistakes were made? Why do you?
One of the biggest flaws in the NIST Report is that it covers such a narrow event window--that being from when the planes hit to when the buildings "were poised to collapse." As I have shown earlier, the events ater the collapses actually started are, if you believe the official story, completely determined by the events that made the buildings "poised to collapse." So, one clear way (if not the only way) to truly validate the simulations and the models they were built around would have been to let the simulations run past the "poised" phase and see if the same (or very similar in type and magnitude) set of events is simulated versus what actually happened. If NIST did this, they do not report having done it, nor do they show the results of such a simulation.
The most fearful among you will cling to "But their mission was only to explain what happened between impact of the planes and being poised to collapse."
The more brave thinkers will ask themselves--I wonder why such a restriction was put on the Investigative Team? After all, they modeled nearly 2 hours of material interactions for 1 tower and about an hour's worth for the other. Why not run the simulators to cover another 10 or 15 seconds and then use the results to either validate the earlier simulations or tweak them again to fit what was observed.
quote:
ergo123:
Why do you rely on what you think is obvious here and expect all of us to treat it as true without providing evidence to support your suspicion?
quote:
Those flights were clearly chosen because they were cross-country flights. OR was it just a coincidence that all of them were cross-country flights?
I really don't think you |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 10:55:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
In reality, we don't know why those planes were chosen. But we could ask some of the "terrorists" that were supposedly on those planes--because British Intelligence reported seeing some of them walking around in Saudi Arabia after 9-11-01.
BWAAAAAAAAA.
Not this again. Holy shit you got to get up to date with your delusions. This is old crap that was shown to be irrelevent long ago.
How was it shown to be irrelevant? Was it also shown to be untrue? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
