where is the airliner crash debris in the 911 Pentagon attack?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by geistkiesel, Jun 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    how do you know the picture is of Geistkiesel? And what does your comment have to do with this thread?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
    I have heard this before. The top floors collapsed, compressing the floors below them which gave way catastrophically. Buildings are designed to hold a static weight, not the momentum of their weight falling on them. Thus the resistance which could have slowed the collapse was minimal. The difference between a free fall and a catastrophic collapse would be too small to measure. Furthermore, there was not the characteristic flash and shock wave of a detonation. There were puffs of smoke, but they are easily explained as the release of air pressure as the floors pancaked.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    So now you're not Geistkiesel?

    I guess we'll have to cancel the hit squad then.

    Given your predilection for..."alternative thinking", I thought you might enjoy this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Spider rears another point I forgot to address: the building did not free-fall. I've counted it too and it looks like about 13 seconds. The debris - which is in free-fall - hits the ground first. Ergo, the building is not in free fall.
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Secrecy is a myth. In Vietnam, for instance, none but the dullest of mins could miss the lies, deceptions and corruption associated with that war. There wasn't any secrecy. What the claim for secrecy offers the power brokers is a forum to to fabricate any set of facts limited only by their imaginations.

    The supposed repressed intelligence reports by GWB hinting strongloy that "terrorist aactivity was imminent, perhaps" merely justified the false claim that Isalmic Fundamentalists were resposnsible for 911. Even the Islamic world believed that suicide cadres perpetrated the 911 attacks. Iran, for instance, immediateluy denounced the attackes as "unnacceptable" and offered the full services of its govwernment in bringing the to the justice they deserve. GWB rudely refused this genuine offer.]]]been
    I know for a fact that Presidential candidate Senator John McCain from Arizona is aware of the discussions regarding the opposition to the official line. There was one poll that showed some 35% of the public believed in the domestic black bag scenario, yet we hear no discussions from any of the candidates on the issue of domestic terrorism. For those involved in this thread I find it difficult to take your arguments (most of you) as other than some concoction, and while it is not inconceivable that Geoffp and Buffalo Roam have neat little offices in the Pentagon Building (we'll use this a generic for some government affiliation) which would explain their motives, even their style and modus operandi, as purely private persons it is not immediatelly obvious or clear what motivates a refusal to demand what we the people are entitled to.

    Two mionths ago Al Gore reminded us of George's mistakes. So wjhat that we all know GWB was remniss in his duties? Gore can spread "global" fictions at will. Trusting Robert Redford proves Al Gore's 'warming' doesn't it?

    Geoffp has claimed his origin is from another land. Fine, the wars generated by the US have worlf wide implicationsa and the entirety of the world should be involved. But see the activity of the erstwhile prime minister from "Jolly Ol'. He claims his activity in supporting the war reflects his support for America in its time of toil and trouble. Tony Blair, as entertaining as he is, has mistaken his support of George Bush by equating this with support of the US.

    TB is just another jolly ol' war monger.

    The US dominates the UN, not with its moral superiority, nor the keeness of its political rhetoric, nor certainly by any overt recognizable profile as a country with an unblemished character of ratioanal, just, sane, even intelligent constitution. One cannot look at the corruption in the Florida election activity and hold this up to the world as a shining example of democaracy at work. The current US police in establishing democratic regimes in the various autocaratic countries has nothing to do with a sense of wanting to share with the people in those countries the bounties of democracy. The US political machinery is expert and adept at rigging elections with money, propaganda, bribery and so forth. Do not we have the best government that money can buy?

    So, Geoffp and your professional colleagues, how about a "Good point!" here.​
     
  9. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Which building?:shrug:
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
    Yes, the Bush administration is corrupt and incompetent. I think there was a cover-up of some sort, probably to cover their own asses. But what of the first Trade Center bombing? Was that planned by the Bush administration too? Most of those involved were prosecuted. Doesn't that prove Islamic terrorists want to and are capable of attacking us?

    What about the USS Cole? Was Clinton also involved in this conspiracy?
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Your first post wasn't really related to 9/11 evidence, so I'm circular-filing it with the rest of the information we already have on you.

    As for the building: the Two Towers. Either one.

    No, another world. I'm a Lizardoid. If you were comfortably ensconced in the, uh, "happy fun interrogation chair", I could take off my mask and show you.
     
  12. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    I heard lizardoids are bad ass dancers, is this true?
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    We would be, except for those damned lizard hips. Fucking evolution, can't catch a break.

    Now excuse me while I go lie on a heated rock after my big "World Takeover Lunch".
     
  14. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    now you know the rest of the story . . .

    how do you know the picture is of Geistkiesel? And what does your comment have to do with this thread?

    And let take a careful look at the Geoffp avatar that clearly shows him fully identifi8ed and recognizable, especially to that section of the 911 cabal charged with maintaining the big lies. Even though he pleas sincerity he is giving aid comfort to the enemies of the United States -- sincerity does not blunt the harm of that aid and comfort.

    Here is a well documented and organized link that exposes the fraud and/or incompetence of the 'official' NIST and FEMA commission reports re 911

    The rhetoric seen in Geoffp's and Spidergoat's replies to this thread are undocumented, arbitrary and useless as sources of information. The link above is free of the stylistic rhetoric of Geoffp's intention to insult and demean those that have an opposition point of vew to the dogmatic and fictionalized versions of officialdom. Must read.:shrug:​
     
  15. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
     
  16. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    :shrug:
    Do you consider the first trade center bombing on the same scale as 911? The persons who carried out that attack were incpapable of inflicting serious damage in their efforts, unlike the damage that the US mi8litary inflicks on Arab countries.

    What the fuck does does the USS Cole and Clinton have to do with this thread? Nothing, so why do you bring up this peripheral and useless bull shit?

    Do you consider the the anger and loathing that the some Islamic Fundamentalist have for our country is based on irrational and speculative reasoning? Do you actually believe that those targeting our country do so because we are so fucking good and pure in our hearts?
     
  17. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Only when properly attired in their tights, tutus and taffeta frilly things they seem to favor in private gatherings when engaging is "dance routines" that explain their resulting reputations as, "bad ass[es]". Some boys will be boys.
    :shrug:
     
  18. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    Why conspiracy theories?

    People would rather believe in a high-level conspiracy than to accept the plain fact that our governments are incompetent at their basic tasks and basically make it up as they go along.

    Government finds conspiracy theories are convenient for deflecting attention from some very fundamental and reasonable questions, like
    1. Exactly what kind of pilot skill did it take to fly the aircraft through their attacks, and where was that skill acquired?
    2. Why hasn't the stunning level of incompetence shown by multiple levels of government been met with firings and/or prosecutions?
    3. Was the WTC chosen as a target not so much because it was a symbolic target, but because it was the product of poor design and thus very vulnerable to attack?
    4. Where does the money used for the attacks lead back to?
    5. Why was the whole bin Laden family flown out of the country on 9/12?
    6. ?​
    It gives people a sense of power to "know" something that the vast majority of people are ignorant of. It allays their feelings of fear and uncertainty.​

    The only conspiracy theory I am willing to consider is that the government had some very specific warnings about 9/11 - that something was in the works for the fall of 2001, it was big, and it involved hijacking airplanes. I think that the decision-makers at the top - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, maybe one or two others - decided to allow the attack to occur for their own political advantage. This would be very easy to do, requiring only that they not try very hard to stop it. Their collusion by omission is also very difficult to prove. They may have been, and probably were, quite surprised by its actual nature and its stunning success. They were probably expecting a conventional hijacking, with planes sitting on runways for days and the occasional dead passenger tossed out on the tarmac while demands were being made. Or maybe they expected a hostage crisis, with a couple of planeloads of Americans flown to Baghdad or Teheran. Or perhaps they just thought terrorists were going to do a Lockerbie-style suicide bombing of a domestic flight. What they got was far beyond their expectations. Who would have predicted that such a harebrained scheme would actually succeed? Certainly not the terrorists, who obviously thought that they had to hijack four (and maybe more?) aircraft to insure that one would reach the target - instead they went three-for-four.

    But I digress. Conspiracy theories result from a search for meaning in an out-of-control world dominated by seemingly random events. Religion, by this definition, is actually a conspiracy theory. The advocate of the conspiracy theory senses his true powerlessness and is trying to shore up his worldview of authority figures who will act rationally, competently and in his best interests. He will give in on the "best interests" part in order to feel powerful through knowing the truth and in order to continue believing that those who hold the power know what the fuck they are doing.
     
  19. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    I can understand why people keep focusing on the apparent "lack" of aircraft debris (even though there are plenty of pictures of teeny-weenie aircraft parts). They are used to the "normal" crash sites that occurr usually on take-off or landing where the plane was moving at maybe 150mph. The plane debris is usually shredded and spread out all over the place, even at these low speeds.

    These planes impacted at 500 - 600 mph. Since the energy of impact is proportional to the square of the speed, an impact at 600mph is 36 times more energetic than one at 100mph. At these energies the interaction of the building structure and the plane structure was easily enough to leave almost zero recognizable plane parts.

    Here is a good example at just about the right speed too:

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5667/plane_crashes_into_concrete/
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2007
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087


    Oh come on. It's a cheesy computer webshot. Besides, it looks exactly like the picture we have on file of you, except that you're not wearing your Elvis t-shirt.

    Yes. I'm the one one the left.

    This is absurd beyond reckoning. I can as easily say the same thing.

    I will investigate your link. I hope it is up to par.

    You have not illustrated anything fictional about them. As for their "uselessness", are you now going to claim that a mysterious pole raises and lowers itself in the middle of the picture frame again?

    But they thought they were. They were ignorant. They learned from their error and came back to try again.

    Ah - they despise us then, for a reason...but could not possibly have been so enraged as to drive two planes into high rise towers. Of course.
     
  21. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Which way is up?



    Subject: Point of Evolution and Point of Departure of this Thread.

    To: Geoffp, Buffalo Roam and Spidergoat:

    Without any assumptions, one way or the other, regarding our collective propensity to tell the truth, as we know it, I have concluded that we all must agree on the answers I have provided to the following questions:

    1. Have we, from time to time, exchanged insults with varying levels of manifest wit?
    Answer: Yes.
    2. Have the exchanges of insult and other derogatory remarks had a direct bearing on the issue we have been discussing, to wit, the factual truth of the events occurring on 9/11/01?
    Answer: No.
    3. Have these peripheral remarks had any effect on the visitors, now numbering some 2400, regarding the acceptance of our opposing positions in the sense of these visitors believing, or tending to accept, one side or another?
    Answer: Possibly
    4. What is more significant regarding the truth of the matter, that both sides claim is within their exclusive domain, that the visitors accept one side or the other based on a) the rhetoric expressed in the exchange of derogatory remarks, or, b) the actual truth of the matter of the events of 9/11 when described in terms of what we individually and collectively believe occurred physically?
    Answer: b) with the possible exception that a) is preferable when one side or the other may have racked up points based purely on matters that include, bull shit, wit, personality, aggressiveness, dramatic showings of sincerity and that one side or the other may believe that any way the points are allotted is just as good as any other.
    5. Is the choice of b) preferred morally, politically, ethically, patriotically, pragmatically than answer b)?
    Answer: Yes
    6. Do all active participants of those contributing posts to this thread, including neutral or unexpressed visitors, all desire, deep down in their soul, regardless of how all participants may be judge by others, or by themselves, all sincerely desire actual best for the USA and the world, and all consciously, or unconsciously believe that what we singularly and individually are doing is being performed with a strong sense of our own honesty, or at the very least we all want to provide the best that we are capable of when participating in this thread?
    Answer: With the possible risk that some might have a response that is cynical, or expressive of a distrust of one or more participants’ motives, or may instinctively feel that the question is unfair, or biased, and is intended as establishing a self serving agenda for selfish and corrupt purposes, taking the question at face value, the answer is otherwise unconditionally and unambiguously Yes.
    7. Does a majority of the public generally accept or follow the conclusions of
    Geoffp, Buffalo Roam and Spidergoat?
    Answer: Yes
    8. Were the nature of the evolution of this thread to continue as historically developed is their any likelihood that one side or the other will, when realistically considered, cave in and surrender to the point of view of the other?
    Answer: No
    9. Do both sides have a, more or less, equal reservoir of source material available for presentation when attempting to justify or support their respective arguments?
    Answer: Yes, source materials are available in lugubrious quantities.

    Having presented this one sided tract, there is one more question. In general, when a matter is settled in the sense that a majority of those expressing concern, having an opinion, or believing a more or less identifiable position, is there any real value of engaging in debate if the ‘dogmatically accepted position’ is, predictably, invariant and cast in concrete? What I mean is, is it not reasonable, even demanded by a rational appraisal, that only if the position, now anchored in stainless steel, were to change, or significantly be altered in the sense that parameters contradictory to the prevailing view were digested, maintained and integrated as points of reference, would there be any reason to continue developing this thread, at least in he manner that we have been operating?

    Assuming that all see where this is going then is merely questioning the totality of the current US public policy, as seen in out discussions, by questioning those employees most likely to have some control and management of that policy, is merely questioning those individuals harmful per se? I mean, if the responses and results of this public investigation that both sides are committed to attack or defend against, result in a clear and relatively unambiguous finding that the “worst case scenario” that is observed by all, skeptics and believers, neocon and liberal, the holy and the hypocrites, the neutral and the activists, the curious and the blah, that whatever or wherever a revised direction of this thread takes us, that the worst fears and worst case is not a reasonably acceptable conclusion, then, would not the principle of, “no harm, no foul” apply”? If, on the other hand, our worst fear, or fears, are exposed or observed to be more than merely likely, and that indeed some gross foul practices are, in some manner, being perpetrated, by error, mistake, negligence or design, then is not there a very high probability that the current subject matter and topics of the current thread would effectively vaporize?​
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    GK, all the stuff you've brought is either false, misconstrued or coincidental. That's it.
     
  23. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page