Could Vancouver 2010 be the next 9/11?

[rawfuls]

Maybe, or I just might be a dumbo.
I'll look into it after I finish building my friends computer.

[zeropointbug]

Reshift, maybe it was a mistake to bring up Vancouver obviously... but it's just that I feel that something might be brewing, I live in Canada, I don't want anything to happen, and I hope nothing happens. Did you take a look at that link in the first post? It lists all the suspicious activity going on around there. Our Parliament has been prorogued, what for??! What are they expecting? They refuse to give any reason for it, and it is in effect until just after the games are done, IIRC, March 3rd.

[redshift]

Yes. One tower was hit in the late 70s, I can't pull up info on it.

Yeah ZP I understand your concern. A lot of it is disinfo, and misinfo. Two different things. But between the two there is valid info, always. The problem with most semi-serious researchers, is they lack the discernment to see beyond the sensationalist and fall for the extremes. That's why there's always two polar opposing main sides, and two sides who are somewhat in agreement, on the hows, but maybe not the whys, for example.

I love this country, and according to MY Constitution, questioning the facts and history IS what makes a patriot.

[PBO]

Wasn't the Chrysler building or the Empire State building hit by a small plane?

Your the same dumbasses who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

[zeropointbug]

Come on Freezbyte enough with the language. Come one Freebyte, do some research.

[nativepaul]

I don't think tinfoil is enough, I have an upside down colander on my head and a pencil up each nostril.

[Krawlin]

Does RCM have a "Most Retarded Thread Award"? If so, this one wins by a long shot. Congrats for being an "email-originated conspiracy theory believing dumbass."

[TexasSP]

Best I could do for you krawlin:

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by redshift

Yes. One tower was hit in the late 70s, I can't pull up info on it.

Yeah ZP I understand your concern. A lot of it is disinfo, and misinfo. Two different things. But between the two there is valid info, always. The problem with most semi-serious researchers, is they lack the discernment to see beyond the sensationalist and fall for the extremes. That's why there's always two polar opposing main sides, and two sides who are somewhat in agreement, on the hows, but maybe not the whys, for example.

I love this country, and according to MY Constitution, questioning the facts and history IS what makes a patriot.

That's exactly right.

This thread is done I take it, no one has two brain cells to put together an intelligent mature sentence anymore... I should have remembered that you can't discuss science with a die hard Christian. All they can do is side track and simply ignore the real issue. So all I can say is have fun with that, and good luck.

Cheers

[redshift]

Well this morning I got the lobotomy I was scheduled for. No longer will I be bothered by pesky 'facts' or 'truth'. To further shield myself from reality, I had an extra-thick foil cap installed. Now I know that everything I read in school is 100% true, and I also know that I would never be lied to by anyone! I also realize I did not have a good grasp on physics. I can't understand how I ever doubted that rocks float, etc. After I awoke from surgery, Santa was at my side. He reassured me that all was well, and told me he only had a few minutes before he had to leave to meet up with the Easter Bunny.

I am in a happy place now

[JThiessen]

Freeze - clean it up man.

The towers did not collapse due to the impact of the planes. The superheated fire melted the structural steel support beams (which ended up exposed due to the impact's). This fire was "superheated" due to the large amount of jet fuel (remember, the planes had basically just taken off, so they were full of fuel. Once those structural beams melted, the weight of 40+ storied of building above the impact zone combined with a classis case of gravity (not a conspiracy - its real) and you get what looked like a stand building demo.

If you cant understand how a fire can do this - go get a torch set and play with some steel for a bit. As for "lack of Aircraft parts" - study the melting points of steel as opposed to the materials used in airplanes.

Pyroclastic cloud - DUH! That's exactly the effect you'd get with a fire like they had and the forces involved with a collapse of that magnitude. Under that kind of weight and pressure, the steel beams were heating to incredible temperatures as they came down. Try bending a paper clip until it breaks - feel that small warm spot right where it breaks? Same thing except on a magnitude that most people really cant fathom.

#7 was hit by debris and damaged enough that it was cheaper to take it down than it was to rebuild it.

et engines look very similar inside structurally inside... and btw, I bet they didn't tell you that the engine debris was WAY to small to be from a 757.

The types of aircraft reported were initially wrong - but the reports by late in the day got them correct. How do I know - I've spent the last 20 years designing and building those exact airplanes. I can tell a 757 from a 767. And by the way, please tell me the size difference in the engines on a 757 vs a 767. Hint - this is a trick question.....

There is NOTHING about the destruction that defies any engineering logic. Dont believe me - go get a degree in some form of structural engineering, or 10+ years of experience in some form of industry that deals with structural materials, THEN come back with your argument. Now at the ripe old age of 19, you need to take some of your own advice, and quit looking for ways to connect your percieved conspiracy and random events. Its been my experience that people who want to connect events to support a belief can and will find ways to do this. You shot down Texas belief in God (wrongly), and yet you'd probably be the first to tell him that his logic in connecting Biblical profecy (i know I spelled that wrong) with current events is completely off base and without logic. People of all beliefs do this same thing every day - can they all be wrong at the same time???

[redshift]

"#7 was hit by debris and damaged enough that it was cheaper to take it down than it was to rebuild it."

Yes indeed, and while it was on fire, crews rushed to load it up with explosives, so they could neatly bring it down at around 5 the same day, that's service!

Maybe your aircraft expertise can explain how an F-16, capable of Mach 1.5, is limited to 400-500 mph when in pursuit of multiple rogue airliners. I guess they didn't want to break windows, or maybe the jets weren't "firing on all eight". Bad batch af avgas is my guess. Well they did manage to get one of four...

JT I do respect you, but please don't play the 'degree' game, as if 4 years of extra education makes anyone a god in their chosen field.

I know college grads who can barely flip a burger.

[JThiessen]

Originally Posted by redshift

Yes indeed, and while it was on fire, crews rushed to load it up with explosives, so they could neatly bring it down at around 5 the same day, that's service!

Maybe your aircraft expertise can explain how an F-16, capable of Mach 1.5, is limited to 400-500 mph when in pursuit of multiple rogue airliners. I guess they didn't want to break windows, or maybe the jets weren't "firing on all eight". Bad batch af avgas is my guess. Well they did manage to get one of four...

JT I do respect you, but please don't play the 'degree' game, as if 4 years of extra education makes anyone a god in their chosen field.

I know college grads who can barely flip a burger.

I really dont know where you guys are getting that someone blew up #7. Cant even start to depate that one.

F-16's, and other planes, were limited by policy, not by capability. And there was no order to shoot down anything. The order to get F-16's up in the air was not given in time for any of the 4 crashes. The chain of events and information flow on what was happening just didn't support that occuring. And I for one would not order a shot down of a commercial plane, no matter the consquences. And exactly which plane got shot down? The one in Philly? It nose dived into the ground. Go do more research on similar plane crashes - there haven't been many, but there were a few. If it had been shot down, you would have had a debris field miles long, not a single hole in the groung.

Notice, I also said "or 10+ years of experience" - it was meant more for ZP. He's throwing out "facts" regarding things that at his age and level of experience, he would have no clue wether they were right or wrong. I would never play the "I'm better just because" card. Not my style. But there is a very valid reason in industry for an education and/or experience. I too would ship half the guys I work with to McD's.