<< <i> There is overwhelming physical evidence that shows it wasn't a plane that did the damage to the pentagon, as there is overwhelming evidence that shows it wasn't the jets slamming into the towers that brought them down.
I guess this 'attack' is this generation's JFK assasination - lots of theories, while the truth will never be truly known. >>
I cant believe I just read this.
Axhole, can you please provide me with one shred of your claimed " overwhelming" evidence that shows the jets slamming into the towers wasnt what brought them down ? I mean this in all seriousness, since I was across the east river at the time in Brooklyn heights watching everything in person, including the tower falling which killed a family member of mine, so I would really like to get to the bottom of this. It would seem that your evidence would help myself and many others. I know my best friend who works for Duetch bank and was sitting next to the building when it collapsed would also be interested in your insight, since the only thing he noticed were people landing feet from him who had jumped from dozens of stories up to escape the burning and clearly structurally damaged building. I am sure that knowing the towers were brought down by reasons other than the plane crashing and subsequent structural damage would help ease his often restless mind when reliving those images in his head at night.
If you cannot provide myself and others here with your overwhelming evidence then I respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to return.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
Axhole, can you please provide me with one shred of your claimed " overwhelming" evidence that shows the jets slamming into the towers wasnt what brought them down ? I mean this in all seriousness, since I was across the east river at the time in Brooklyn heights watching everything in person, including the tower falling which killed a family member of mine, so I would really like to get to the bottom of this. It would seem that your evidence would help myself and many others. I know my best friend who works for Duetch bank and was sitting next to the building when it collapsed would also be interested in your insight, since the only thing he noticed were people landing feet from him who had jumped from dozens of stories up to escape the burning and clearly structurally damaged building. I am sure that knowing the towers were brought down by reasons other than the plane crashing and subsequent structural damage would help ease his often restless mind when reliving those images in his head at night.
If you cannot provide myself and others here with your overwhelming evidence then I respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to return. >>
sorry Bri, axtell cannot provide any evidence.. it's just another one of her many schizophrenic delusions..
<< <i> There is overwhelming physical evidence that shows it wasn't a plane that did the damage to the pentagon, as there is overwhelming evidence that shows it wasn't the jets slamming into the towers that brought them down.
I guess this 'attack' is this generation's JFK assasination - lots of theories, while the truth will never be truly known. >>
I cant believe I just read this.
Axhole, can you please provide me with one shred of your claimed " overwhelming" evidence that shows the jets slamming into the towers wasnt what brought them down ? I mean this in all seriousness, since I was across the east river at the time in Brooklyn heights watching everything in person, including the tower falling which killed a family member of mine, so I would really like to get to the bottom of this. It would seem that your evidence would help myself and many others. I know my best friend who works for Duetch bank and was sitting next to the building when it collapsed would also be interested in your insight, since the only thing he noticed were people landing feet from him who had jumped from dozens of stories up to escape the burning and clearly structurally damaged building. I am sure that knowing the towers were brought down by reasons other than the plane crashing and subsequent structural damage would help ease his often restless mind when reliving those images in his head at night.
If you cannot provide myself and others here with your overwhelming evidence then I respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to return. >>
Booyah! That post deserved another run.
On that day I sat in my office fielding calls from people who had family members in the WTC area. One was a mother with a daughter at Deutcshe Bank. She later called back and said her daughter had escaped on a boat to Staten Island.
In the next few weeks I made travel arrangements for about two dozen families to fly to NYC and Virginia, with the Red Cross footing the bill.
One need to only look at the damage on the interior ring, and the damage done to the outside wall, to prove to anyone willing to look that it sure as hell wasn't a plane that flew into the bulding. Throw in the lack of windows being shattered, lack of plane debris, and no damage to the lawn, and the 'official' story of a jumbo jet slamming into the pentagon seems more and more shady.
-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer. -most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first -the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo -numerous reports by civilians and police and fire reported bright flashes and secondary explosions just prior to the towers collapsing -the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors.
I am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor.
-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer. -most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first -the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo -numerous reports by civilians and police and fire reported bright flashes and secondary explosions just prior to the towers collapsing -the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors.
I am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor. >>
so your viewpoints are your "own".. what happened to all the engineers you know?
and please list the "other steel high-rise buildings" that you mention..
I have listed the buildings that were ravaged with fires much hotter and burned longer than the WTC ones on the first page of this very thread. I know you are awfully weak from a long night, but please, lift your finger to the 'page 1' button, and read for yourself.
the same link I listed on page one will list plenty of engineer support for the inconsistencies in the official story of what happened.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go enjoy the beautiful california weather on this sunday morning. Enjoy the message board!
-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer. -most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first -the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo -numerous reports by civilians and police and fire reported bright flashes and secondary explosions just prior to the towers collapsing -the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors.
I am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor. >>
In response to what you have now accepted and admitted as your feelings on the subject rather than fact,
No high rise building has EVER been on fire due to a fully fueled jet crashing into it Most of the fuel did NOT in fact explode out of the building as you have claimed A building of that height which is perfectly straight will always fall straight down unless impacted with great force from the side ( not opinion, just physics) Despite your phantom claims of civilians and civil workers who reported bright flashes prior to the collapse, there are real, actual people who were there and saw nothing to substantiate your claim other than the fact that random bursts occured that would be consistent with a highly fueled fire finding pockets of oxygen or other gases found within the structure. The building fell at a speed consistent with that of a building that had been damaged to that degree structurally, meaning the weight of the upper floors could, despite what you feel is fact, compact the lower levels in a near instantanious manner.
I too am sorry. Sorry that you choose to make a mockery of an event that you were not here for, did not witness, were not impacted by, and have no clue regarding any facts or specifics of. I am also very sorry to all those who were impacted by it and have genuine respect for it who have to listen and be subjected to the mindless rantings of an ignorant person such as yourself. In conclusion I again respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to be seen or heard from again.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
You did not originally post that this was your "opinion", you said that there was "overwhelming evidence" - where is it? If your entirely uninformed opinions about metallurgy and structural engineering are all of the evidence, then just say that it is your opinion despite a lack of evidence. Of course, saying that would make you look like a loon but it would have the advantage of being the truth.
You posted that engineers said that there was "no possible way" that the planes caused the towers to fall; you keep referencing the engineers you posted earlier, but those engineers very clearly did not say what you keep saying they did. You even admit in a different thread that one of the engineers you "quoted" does not support your opinion. A lady would admit her mistake and get past this, but you refuse - you, Axtell, are no lady.
You keep using the phrase "like a controlled demo" which can only mean that you have some knowledge of what a controlled demo of a 1,000 foot tall building looks like. On what prior controlled demo are you basing your statement? If you have no knowledge of what a controlled demo of a 1,000 foot tall building looks like (and you don't because you can't) then stop pretending that you do.
Are you privy to evidence that the White House is not? If so, then please forward it to them. If not, the only possible implication of your posts is that the White House is deceiving us all about what happened on 9/11; and the only possible reason that they would do that is to protect whoever is responsible for the demolition of the towers. Whether someone in the White House knew before the demolition took place or not is unimportant - they are either guilty of the murders themselves, or in conspiring to cover up the identities of the killers. Either would be felonies, if not capital offenses.
To make unfounded accusations of murder - even, perhaps especially, when you are unable or unwilling to name any plausible suspect or even motive is irresponsible and ought to be beneath even you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer. >>
Those buildings did not have the external steel load bearing construction like the WTC. The outer walls of the WTC bore the load, transferred from the steel floor trusses. Other buildings that are not nearly as high have a steel girder skeleton using many more girders and interior columns.
<< <i>-most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first >>
This has been explained. The second plane took out the inner load bearing core, causing more initial damage than the first tower. You also have to take into account the overwhelming quantity of combustible material in the building. The fuel was just tinder. The building contents caused the most fire and heat.
<< <i>-the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo >>
Wrong. You were not there, did not see the aftermath, nor studied the debris. Me, I can still smell it. The buildings did not fall straight down.
<< <i>the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors. >>
Again attributed to the type of construction. Floors had fallen inside before you saw the collapse. The external skin kept the building up. When the load became too great the building fell. A good example of the external skin is the famouse picture of the one piece of wall about two stories high that has been saved. This replaced the normal girder skeleton and was as tall as the building. Check out the history of how the building was made. Freefall? Tell that to the people there.
<< <i> am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor. >>
Comments
i think im gonna make a thread devoted to axtells delusionary, hypocritical and schizophrenic posts..
Axtell -
I would like to hear your theory on the Katrina response.
Did Bush do the fly over because he did not care or was it an even more intentional move?
Did the Federal government slow the response purposely for largely racial reasons?
Tell us your view.
<< <i>
There is overwhelming physical evidence that shows it wasn't a plane that did the damage to the pentagon, as there is overwhelming evidence that shows it wasn't the jets slamming into the towers that brought them down.
I guess this 'attack' is this generation's JFK assasination - lots of theories, while the truth will never be truly known. >>
I cant believe I just read this.
Axhole, can you please provide me with one shred of your claimed " overwhelming" evidence that shows the jets slamming into the towers wasnt what brought them down ? I mean this in all seriousness, since I was across the east river at the time in Brooklyn heights watching everything in person, including the tower falling which killed a family member of mine, so I would really like to get to the bottom of this. It would seem that your evidence would help myself and many others. I know my best friend who works for Duetch bank and was sitting next to the building when it collapsed would also be interested in your insight, since the only thing he noticed were people landing feet from him who had jumped from dozens of stories up to escape the burning and clearly structurally damaged building. I am sure that knowing the towers were brought down by reasons other than the plane crashing and subsequent structural damage would help ease his often restless mind when reliving those images in his head at night.
If you cannot provide myself and others here with your overwhelming evidence then I respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to return.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>I cant believe I just read this.
Axhole, can you please provide me with one shred of your claimed " overwhelming" evidence that shows the jets slamming into the towers wasnt what brought them down ? I mean this in all seriousness, since I was across the east river at the time in Brooklyn heights watching everything in person, including the tower falling which killed a family member of mine, so I would really like to get to the bottom of this. It would seem that your evidence would help myself and many others. I know my best friend who works for Duetch bank and was sitting next to the building when it collapsed would also be interested in your insight, since the only thing he noticed were people landing feet from him who had jumped from dozens of stories up to escape the burning and clearly structurally damaged building. I am sure that knowing the towers were brought down by reasons other than the plane crashing and subsequent structural damage would help ease his often restless mind when reliving those images in his head at night.
If you cannot provide myself and others here with your overwhelming evidence then I respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to return. >>
sorry Bri, axtell cannot provide any evidence.. it's just another one of her many schizophrenic delusions..
<< <i>
<< <i>
There is overwhelming physical evidence that shows it wasn't a plane that did the damage to the pentagon, as there is overwhelming evidence that shows it wasn't the jets slamming into the towers that brought them down.
I guess this 'attack' is this generation's JFK assasination - lots of theories, while the truth will never be truly known. >>
I cant believe I just read this.
Axhole, can you please provide me with one shred of your claimed " overwhelming" evidence that shows the jets slamming into the towers wasnt what brought them down ? I mean this in all seriousness, since I was across the east river at the time in Brooklyn heights watching everything in person, including the tower falling which killed a family member of mine, so I would really like to get to the bottom of this. It would seem that your evidence would help myself and many others. I know my best friend who works for Duetch bank and was sitting next to the building when it collapsed would also be interested in your insight, since the only thing he noticed were people landing feet from him who had jumped from dozens of stories up to escape the burning and clearly structurally damaged building. I am sure that knowing the towers were brought down by reasons other than the plane crashing and subsequent structural damage would help ease his often restless mind when reliving those images in his head at night.
If you cannot provide myself and others here with your overwhelming evidence then I respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to return. >>
Booyah! That post deserved another run.
On that day I sat in my office fielding calls from people who had family members in the WTC area. One was a mother with a daughter at Deutcshe Bank. She later called back and said her daughter had escaped on a boat to Staten Island.
In the next few weeks I made travel arrangements for about two dozen families to fly to NYC and Virginia, with the Red Cross footing the bill.
Thanks for the post.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Ax, maybe my question and subsequent story was unclear, so let me ask again. What overwhelming proof do you have regarding the TWIN TOWERS ? >>
she will avoid answering you at all costs..
my feelings are my own, but some of them include:
-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer.
-most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first
-the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo
-numerous reports by civilians and police and fire reported bright flashes and secondary explosions just prior to the towers collapsing
-the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors.
I am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor.
<< <i>bri-
my feelings are my own, but some of them include:
-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer.
-most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first
-the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo
-numerous reports by civilians and police and fire reported bright flashes and secondary explosions just prior to the towers collapsing
-the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors.
I am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor. >>
so your viewpoints are your "own".. what happened to all the engineers you know?
and please list the "other steel high-rise buildings" that you mention..
I have listed the buildings that were ravaged with fires much hotter and burned longer than the WTC ones on the first page of this very thread. I know you are awfully weak from a long night, but please, lift your finger to the 'page 1' button, and read for yourself.
the same link I listed on page one will list plenty of engineer support for the inconsistencies in the official story of what happened.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go enjoy the beautiful california weather on this sunday morning. Enjoy the message board!
<< <i>bri-
my feelings are my own, but some of them include:
-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer.
-most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first
-the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo
-numerous reports by civilians and police and fire reported bright flashes and secondary explosions just prior to the towers collapsing
-the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors.
I am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor. >>
In response to what you have now accepted and admitted as your feelings on the subject rather than fact,
No high rise building has EVER been on fire due to a fully fueled jet crashing into it
Most of the fuel did NOT in fact explode out of the building as you have claimed
A building of that height which is perfectly straight will always fall straight down unless impacted with great force from the side ( not opinion, just physics)
Despite your phantom claims of civilians and civil workers who reported bright flashes prior to the collapse, there are real, actual people who were there and saw nothing to substantiate your claim other than the fact that random bursts occured that would be consistent with a highly fueled fire finding pockets of oxygen or other gases found within the structure.
The building fell at a speed consistent with that of a building that had been damaged to that degree structurally, meaning the weight of the upper floors could, despite what you feel is fact, compact the lower levels in a near instantanious manner.
I too am sorry. Sorry that you choose to make a mockery of an event that you were not here for, did not witness, were not impacted by, and have no clue regarding any facts or specifics of. I am also very sorry to all those who were impacted by it and have genuine respect for it who have to listen and be subjected to the mindless rantings of an ignorant person such as yourself. In conclusion I again respectfully ask that you fade away into oblivion never to be seen or heard from again.
-- Yogi Berra
Steve
You did not originally post that this was your "opinion", you said that there was "overwhelming evidence" - where is it? If your entirely uninformed opinions about metallurgy and structural engineering are all of the evidence, then just say that it is your opinion despite a lack of evidence. Of course, saying that would make you look like a loon but it would have the advantage of being the truth.
You posted that engineers said that there was "no possible way" that the planes caused the towers to fall; you keep referencing the engineers you posted earlier, but those engineers very clearly did not say what you keep saying they did. You even admit in a different thread that one of the engineers you "quoted" does not support your opinion. A lady would admit her mistake and get past this, but you refuse - you, Axtell, are no lady.
You keep using the phrase "like a controlled demo" which can only mean that you have some knowledge of what a controlled demo of a 1,000 foot tall building looks like. On what prior controlled demo are you basing your statement? If you have no knowledge of what a controlled demo of a 1,000 foot tall building looks like (and you don't because you can't) then stop pretending that you do.
Are you privy to evidence that the White House is not? If so, then please forward it to them. If not, the only possible implication of your posts is that the White House is deceiving us all about what happened on 9/11; and the only possible reason that they would do that is to protect whoever is responsible for the demolition of the towers. Whether someone in the White House knew before the demolition took place or not is unimportant - they are either guilty of the murders themselves, or in conspiring to cover up the identities of the killers. Either would be felonies, if not capital offenses.
To make unfounded accusations of murder - even, perhaps especially, when you are unable or unwilling to name any plausible suspect or even motive is irresponsible and ought to be beneath even you.
<< <i>-no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, besides the 2 towers, even ones as tall as the WTC and ones that burned much much longer. >>
Those buildings did not have the external steel load bearing construction like the WTC. The outer walls of the WTC bore the load, transferred from the steel floor trusses. Other buildings that are not nearly as high have a steel girder skeleton using many more girders and interior columns.
<< <i>-most of the fuel (which is sought to be the reason the fires burned so intense) exploded out of the building on the second impact, yet that building fell first >>
This has been explained. The second plane took out the inner load bearing core, causing more initial damage than the first tower. You also have to take into account the overwhelming quantity of combustible material in the building. The fuel was just tinder. The building contents caused the most fire and heat.
<< <i>-the 2 buildings fell in perfect place, just like a controlled demo >>
Wrong. You were not there, did not see the aftermath, nor studied the debris. Me, I can still smell it. The buildings did not fall straight down.
<< <i>the speed at which the towers fell was freefall speed, which indicates there was no substructure in place. If the fires did cause the building to fall, it would have met resistance on the way down by those floors not impacted. However, the speed in which they fell is freefall speed, and there is no slowdown as the upper, supposedly weakened floors compacted the lower, 'intact' floors. >>
Again attributed to the type of construction. Floors had fallen inside before you saw the collapse. The external skin kept the building up. When the load became too great the building fell. A good example of the external skin is the famouse picture of the one piece of wall about two stories high that has been saved. This replaced the normal girder skeleton and was as tall as the building. Check out the history of how the building was made. Freefall? Tell that to the people there.
<< <i> am sorry that my viewpoints from the evidence at hand is so alarming for you all. I am sorry that I look at these inconsistencies and get worried. I am sorry that you can't accept that someone owns a differing viewpoint on the most tragic event since pearl harbor. >>
Too late to pander.