Safe Speed Forums

Linky
Has anyone seen this yet?

Asks some very hard questions I think.....

Thoughts anyone

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

I'll get back to you when eMule has done its thang!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Not the old 9/11 conspiracy theories.

They are a load of boar locks.

Here, this might help you see things straight.

Theories are not really postulated (not in the Michael Moore manner) - its more about a detailed examination of the events, and it asks some hard questions.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, probably as much as I will enjoy reading the PM link you posted

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

How do you know?


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

I frequent a number of other forums. The conspiracy theory sites cropped up shortly after the event and were discussed at length. There are plenty of other sites which point out the evidence which the conspiracy theorists conveniently ignore. The Popular Mechanics link seemed like a good one after a quick Google. I am sure if you took your time you'll find plenty more.

The conspiracy theorists rely on the fact that people will be taken in by them without making any further investigations. Pretty much the way the SCPs work. Luckily people like Paul are around who don't take things at face value.

Your argument is back to front. Most of the CT stuff is just that...shit! But if you take your time and decipher the 0.1% good stuff from that you will see credible (and incredible) arguments and real facts instead of Government spin.



This is EXACTLY the problem with the verbal diarrohea we are exposed to daily from the press. No one questions it, no one says "Why should we believe you?" Think about global warming or the camera spin, each and every other story from the press is in the very same context.

As soon as people are exposed to something that has an 'open minded' view on a subject they very quickly dismiss it as if trained to do so without even acknowledging it.

Regards


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

2Mb ADSL is too slow!!

The thang is done

2Mb should be fine, given a couple of days. I have both the director’s cut and the truncated TV version if you want them (both took around 24 hours to d/l).


Anyway, watching that 'documentary' raised many technical concerns:


The pentagon:

I have seen footage of a jet fighter striking a reinforced wall at speed – it turned into dust, literally atomising - no wreckage. This could go someway to explain the lack of wreckage at the site.

Regarding “The pentagon building performance report”: The plane would have struck the pentagon at a downward angle, not entered perfectly horizontally as per the simulation. The plane could simply have buried itself in the ground underneath the building.

“Is this an engine rotor from a Boeing 757?”
It looked like a compressor disk from the jet, obviously not the larger turbofan!

“its not a part from a RR engine that I’m familiar with”
But no comment of the fact is could have been from a P&W PW2000 engine? This was previously stated to be an alternative option


NYC

It’s impossible for ALL of that fuel to have ignited in one go – it instead burnt slowly. It’s possible that some of the unburnt fuel could have found a way to an unburning area, then flashed over, hence the subsequent explosions.

I have footage of when the towers started coming down (something conveniently neglected from the documentary ), there are no indications of explosions, just air/dust being displaced from the floors as it comes down. IMO, claims of controlled demolitions of the towers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Object on bottom of plane – perhaps the inexperienced pilot pressed a wrong button and opened a cargo door?

Those flashes when the planes enter the buildings could be anything. I also saw distinct flashes emanating from the atomising jet fighter footage.

“[The flash was] an explosive that would serve as a match to ignite the enormous amount of fuel that would be dispersed as soon as the plane hit the building”
Except the flash occurred (and ceased) before the fuel was dispersed?


Flight 93:

Flight 93 lands in Cleveland – I imagine a lot of planes were forced to land amid fears of further security scares, so was this one simple typo?



My opinion summarised:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Don't know much about airplane crashes but in a previous life I had to inspect a steel structure after a catastrophic fire in an oil terminal (not this last one I hasten to add). The damage was done because the heat expanded the steel so much the joints failed and were unable to take the weight of the structure above. As each floor came down so it over stressed the floor below. No explosion necessary.

I know that doesn't make the whole conspiracy wrong but if you accept one wrong fact how many others have you accepted?

Only my opinion of course.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I must admit I do like a good conspiracy theory, but I know that many are just that, interesting theories. It's just possible that what actually appeared to happen, did happen! I see no evidence in this case that really points to some kind of government plot.

Are there enough tin foil hats to go around?
Linky



Like Brockwood, I'm smart enough to know that metal under stress (like with the weight of half a skyscraper) will fail at a temperature lower than it's melting point.



Yeah well Judy, in my line of work, I just so happen to know something about building fire regulations. It is mandatory that the framework be treated such that it will withstand fire for 30 minutes; after that the building should be evacuated so there's no need to waste more money on larger treatments.

JREF forums are always good for this sort of discussion:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

One of my daily visits.

If any one ever says to watch the 'Loose Change' 911 video get a copy of Gravy's analysis of all the c**p thats in the video. Just shows what few minutes research can show up - shame the kids that made the video didn't spend a few extra minutes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56079

or should that read:
the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - howevers a jetliner over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide constructed from lightweight aluminum, and travelling at speed COULD fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon.

QED

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Smeggy, another against the 'demolition' thoery is that the WTC was predominantly truss work of a type with poor fire protection (it would fail current standards and was a type known to fail under fire conditions (it was assumed in the original calcs that it would suffer from the type or intensity of fire that would affect the truss work).

I used to work for an engineering consultancy, one of the fire engineers was on the investigation team, he gave a very good afternoon lecture on fire engineering.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Not to mention that as well as the burning fuel, there was also the heat from the impact itself and the burning material in the offices.