PhD Kevin Barrett in an interview with Russia Today RT about who really did 9/11

reply to post by okbmd

how many firemen were in the building when that statement was made again?

I asked you this since
the excuse for silverstien's comment that the statement was made in reference to the firemen in the building
again
how many firemaen wrer in the building when silverstein made the comment?
tic toc tic toc
*sigh * no answer
I'm on my second cup of coffee and bored with you...goodnight

So, in your opinion:

Conspiracy Theory / Independent Invtestigation / Grassroots Journalism = non credible


Corporate Media Controlled / Hearst Corp / News Corp / Profit driven = credible

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by backinblack

 

The picture you have displayed obscures the view with smoke, spewing foam, and a fire truck. I'm sure you would not have selected that picture on purpose now, would you? Because that would be disingenuous... And you just want to find out the truth and all.

Well, here is a better picture:



See where the two firefighters are standing, next to the two by the fire truck? It is just to the right and above them (it is also above to spool that is sitting on it's side). There is fire burning in the hole, and substantial damage around it.

Here is another one taken shortly after the crash, and the hole is right about the suited man:



That view is a little obscured, I will grant you that. So here is one, actually from a conspiracy theory website, that highlights the damage and where the plane went in. There are even arrows pointing to where the hole is, directly above the spools (but not really, due to the angle):



Big hole, huh?

Wanna know something funny? All of these pictures were deliberately taken from Conspiracy Theory websites

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
So, in your opinion:

Conspiracy Theory / Independent Invtestigation / Grassroots Journalism = non credible


Corporate Media Controlled / Hearst Corp / News Corp / Profit driven = credible

I don't remember making that statement, so no... That is not my opinion.

reply to post by SL55T0T0


Well, first...nice picture. Looks like you once worked for an airline (or friend did?) Funny, ME TOO!

Now.....can't see much, but if memory serves, I recall, oh ten-fifteen years back an America West Boeing 757 (now "USAir, post-merger) with a paint scheme a bit like that....was it the ASU Cardinals scheme?? If I recall.....

Ship number....905? 904?? (I never really memorized their airplane numbers....jump-seated plenty of time, when I commuted from PHX-EWR for work. BOY, did that suck!!....so know they were in the 900-ish range....)

(EDIT here....like I said, the paint scheme clues are vague....so I looked again at the N1 fan blades. They are wrong for the Rolls Royce engine...since those British things turn "backwards", compared to Pratt and Whitney. Clockwise, when viewed from behind (like most American piston engines, too). C/Cwise for R/R, from behind. So, that's a P&W engine. ALSO, the center hub, duh!! Giveaway too. AND the P2T2 sensor (a Pressure/Temperature sensor)....that little thing hanging out in front of the fan? At about the 12-o'clock position? If I remember, R/R had two of those, different position......)

More EDIT:

FOUND a great photo, haven't run across before. American AIrlines B-757, with the R/R engine...undergoing an engine change in maintentance hangar. Note, the forward (intake shroud) part of the nacelle is removed, already, in this shot. (The side cowling doors, that hinge open, are attached to the pylon):



You can see the distinctness of the fan, and the center hub. I missed that, it was so easy, first time 'round! (Years off from flying, does it to you!!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, that out of the way, let's see what you wrote:

....and nothing on either side,please dont try to insult out intelligence by saying the wings conveniently folded neatly just because they said or wrote so..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e213b1bd9aba.jpg[/atsimg]

No, NO ONE (except certain people in the "truth movement", who like to make ridiculous claims (--[straw men]-- to knock down)....it is called "argument from incredulity" (or "ridicule"). NO ONE claims the wings "folded back". As I said, that particular chestnut was originally spewed by a "truther", mockingly. Later, it has been misidentified as coming from rational, thinking people...who know better.

No, the airframe shattered, was destroyed, broke up, pick an adjective or phrase, upon impact with the exterior of the Pentagon. Even the rather strong Main Spars. Of course, the Keel Beam is installed longitudinally, so it punched in, with the rest of the debris.

Speaking of debris...ah, the engines. IF either of t hose blokes in the photo is you, then this means that YOU (like me) have been up close and personal, around an actual Boeing 757, and its engine. IF SO, then are you not fibbing a bit?? Because, IF you have seen them up close, then you know (as well as I) about their actual internal structure, and arrangement....and all the many pieces that they are made from, some quite fragile, when subjected to forces they weren't designed to resist.

Oh, wait....picture worth a thousand words, right? I happen to have some, to illustrate:

Cut-away drawing of the RB211-535 engine, on its pylon, attached to the wing, and in its nacelle (or "cowling")
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4da6667674f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Same engine that AAL 77 had installed, same engine that MY airline flies on its B-757s. (I can't remember, honestly, that far back about America West...Pratts or R/R? I'll look it up....yes, R/R. Airplanes acquired after Northwest bought Republic Airlines, and NW had majority P&W engines in it's fleet...so they sold the six or so B-757s, with the R/R engines....).

SO, the picture. In YOUR photo, of course, it is looking at the big ole' N1 fan.....you can see the core of the engine that actually sits behind the fan (the outer portion of the fan provides the majority of the thrust...it's just a big ole' multi-bladed propeller). The engine core is not very large, nor of very great diameter.

Another image to ponder:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9d34a84af70.jpg[/atsimg]

When those engines hit, they began to immediately self-destruct....like shrapnel, every rotating part was flung outward, with great force. Individual pieces, NOT one big hunk of metal, at its stated dry (or even wet) weight.

Also, look at the angle of impact. More reason that the effect of the engines' mass was deflected, and dispersed, as they broke apart, and were flung apart........

reply to post by Judge_Holden


I don't know anything about the magazine other than that it's a pop sci magazine, I would hardly use it to debunk a 911 conspiracy. (You're a little touchy about Zionism to be honest.) But yes, you basically just made a scene on my thread and didn't leave any meaningful content.

reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp


If you do not know much about the magazine, then I am not exactly sure why you went out of your way to put it down. Popular Mechanics is actually commended by the scientific community, as many acclaimed individuals (scholars, doctors, biologists, etc.) are contributing editors to the magazine; it isn't some pseudoscience rag. Skeptic Magazine is another example of a highly regarded magazine that has gone out of it's way to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I do have a problem with SOME anti-Zionists, simply because I have personally met, read work from, and/or watched debates including anti-Zionists who displayed a despicable, shameful, and disgusting amount of anti-Semitism. Does that mean that I believe you to be an anti-Semite? Absolutely not. However, there are too many of them within the movement for me to be comfortable. One poster within your thread displayed that vileness, and I decided to call him out on it.

Is that a problem? I don't think so. My comment was promptly removed, however it had such an effect on you that you felt the need to go out of your way, enter a non-related thread, and post a comment directed at me. I bet you did not take the time to read the entirety of this thread before posting, and you most likely did it in order to "get back" at me personally. If that is your perogative, fine. But it sure isn't civil or mature.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


I just happen to be here and see you spewing forth more biased information. It's my prerogative to express myself wherever I feel necessary. And your comment was directed at the entire thread, not the individual user. Don't lie.

reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp


But your Zionist information isn't biased, is it?

OK.

And it was not directed to the entire thread. It was calling out one particular poster. You read it.

reply to post by Judge_Holden

Wanna know something funny? All of these pictures were deliberately taken from Conspiracy Theory websites

Wanna know something even funnier? They still don't show a 75' hole..
Heck, the Pentagon is only 77' hight so gives a good perspective...

BTW, I liked the bit in link about the wings sort of liquified and seeped into the building, or some such crap..

reply to post by weedwhacker

When those engines hit, they began to immediately self-destruct....like shrapnel, every rotating part was flung outward, with great force. Individual pieces, NOT one big hunk of metal, at its stated dry (or even wet) weight.

Also, look at the angle of impact. More reason that the effect of the engines' mass was deflected, and dispersed, as they broke apart, and were flung apart........

lol, I needed a laugh..The planes wings hit with such force that they liquified but the engines bounced off the walls?? Now thats funny..

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4-37 specs:
Type: turbofan engine
Length: 198,2 in (5035,9 mm)
Width: 89,6 in (2276 mm)
Dry weight: 7603Lb (3449 kg)
Maximum thrust (continuous) 35205 Lbf (156,6 Kn)

www.flickr.com...
So roughly 7' across and weighing 3500kg, traveling at 500mph and they just bounced off??
I'd love someone to work out the force them engines must have exerted on that wall..
Ohh and don't forget they were still powered up...

reply to post by Judge_Holden


No it's not biased, as I clearly state that it's a response to recent anti-Islamic threads. Not to mention that the videos are factual, not made up kkk nonsense. Stop whining.

reply to post by Judge_Holden



...

reply to post by weedwhacker

NO ONE claims the wings "folded back". As I said, that particular chestnut was originally spewed by a "truther", mockingly.

Sorry Weed but the "wings folded back" came from Mike Walters who was sitting in a car in front of the Pentagon.

MIKE WALTER: "I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball."

He did say It and thats what the truthers picked up on. They ignore the rest of his testamony.

Here's a photo I came across you might have some use for:



Download it and use it often.

reply to post by backinblack

Wanna know something even funnier? They still don't show a 75' hole.. Heck, the Pentagon is only 77' hight so gives a good perspective...

Sheesh.

The 75 foot hole refers to it's length. Not it's height.

reply to post by waypastvne


Awwww, come on! The Troofers know those plane parts were put there by the CIA/FBI/Homeland Security/the President himself!

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by backinblack

 

Wanna know something even funnier? They still don't show a 75' hole.. Heck, the Pentagon is only 77' hight so gives a good perspective...

Sheesh.

The 75 foot hole refers to it's length. Not it's height.

Mate, I'm not stupid..I did say that is good for PERSPECTIVE....
Now show me the 75' WIDE hole...Aint seen one yet...

reply to post by SL55T0T0


Still getting the hang of navigating around this site. I am fairly new to ATS but not new to the secrets and corruption and lies that have been ongoing in USA for some years if not from its beginning of their country. I am thinking that it is obvious that there is no possible way they , and i am not talking about fire fighters because they dont demo buildings, but the demo companies could set up the required explosives in that short of time and confusion to take down that building so perfect like that. I dont care what anybody says ,since common sense tells us this , plus any demolition expert will tell you the same thing. Nice try zionist jew. By the way, almost nobody i know up here in my neck of the woods in Canada believes anything coming out of Washington. Like i say to people, how can you trust the american govt after they kill off all the good people and presidents who try and do the right thing or tell the truth.Our own govt is just a puppet to yours.They just arent as violent.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by backinblack

 

Here is a link for you: Pentagon Hole Debunked

In case you choose not to read it, here is a quote from the article:

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

I understand that probably won't do it for you, as Popular Mechanics is a bit of a sore spot for Troofers. A Jew must run the magazine, or something...

Then where are those wings sir ?
or did they just evaperate like all the other planes ? where in all the photos taken on that day
of the pentacon, are those wings sir ?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SL55T0T0

 

Well, first...nice picture. Looks like you once worked for an airline (or friend did?) Funny, ME TOO!

Now.....can't see much, but if memory serves, I recall, oh ten-fifteen years back an America West Boeing 757 (now "USAir, post-merger) with a paint scheme a bit like that....was it the ASU Cardinals scheme?? If I recall.....

Ship number....905? 904?? (I never really memorized their airplane numbers....jump-seated plenty of time, when I commuted from PHX-EWR for work. BOY, did that suck!!....so know they were in the 900-ish range....)

(EDIT here....like I said, the paint scheme clues are vague....so I looked again at the N1 fan blades. They are wrong for the Rolls Royce engine...since those British things turn "backwards", compared to Pratt and Whitney. Clockwise, when viewed from behind (like most American piston engines, too). C/Cwise for R/R, from behind. So, that's a P&W engine. ALSO, the center hub, duh!! Giveaway too. AND the P2T2 sensor (a Pressure/Temperature sensor)....that little thing hanging out in front of the fan? At about the 12-o'clock position? If I remember, R/R had two of those, different position......)

More EDIT:

FOUND a great photo, haven't run across before. American AIrlines B-757, with the R/R engine...undergoing an engine change in maintentance hangar. Note, the forward (intake shroud) part of the nacelle is removed, already, in this shot. (The side cowling doors, that hinge open, are attached to the pylon):



You can see the distinctness of the fan, and the center hub. I missed that, it was so easy, first time 'round! (Years off from flying, does it to you!!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, that out of the way, let's see what you wrote:

....and nothing on either side,please dont try to insult out intelligence by saying the wings conveniently folded neatly just because they said or wrote so..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e213b1bd9aba.jpg[/atsimg]

No, NO ONE (except certain people in the "truth movement", who like to make ridiculous claims (--[straw men]-- to knock down)....it is called "argument from incredulity" (or "ridicule"). NO ONE claims the wings "folded back". As I said, that particular chestnut was originally spewed by a "truther", mockingly. Later, it has been misidentified as coming from rational, thinking people...who know better.

No, the airframe shattered, was destroyed, broke up, pick an adjective or phrase, upon impact with the exterior of the Pentagon. Even the rather strong Main Spars. Of course, the Keel Beam is installed longitudinally, so it punched in, with the rest of the debris.

Speaking of debris...ah, the engines. IF either of t hose blokes in the photo is you, then this means that YOU (like me) have been up close and personal, around an actual Boeing 757, and its engine. IF SO, then are you not fibbing a bit?? Because, IF you have seen them up close, then you know (as well as I) about their actual internal structure, and arrangement....and all the many pieces that they are made from, some quite fragile, when subjected to forces they weren't designed to resist.

Oh, wait....picture worth a thousand words, right? I happen to have some, to illustrate:

Cut-away drawing of the RB211-535 engine, on its pylon, attached to the wing, and in its nacelle (or "cowling")
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4da6667674f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Same engine that AAL 77 had installed, same engine that MY airline flies on its B-757s. (I can't remember, honestly, that far back about America West...Pratts or R/R? I'll look it up....yes, R/R. Airplanes acquired after Northwest bought Republic Airlines, and NW had majority P&W engines in it's fleet...so they sold the six or so B-757s, with the R/R engines....).

SO, the picture. In YOUR photo, of course, it is looking at the big ole' N1 fan.....you can see the core of the engine that actually sits behind the fan (the outer portion of the fan provides the majority of the thrust...it's just a big ole' multi-bladed propeller). The engine core is not very large, nor of very great diameter.

Another image to ponder:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9d34a84af70.jpg[/atsimg]

When those engines hit, they began to immediately self-destruct....like shrapnel, every rotating part was flung outward, with great force. Individual pieces, NOT one big hunk of metal, at its stated dry (or even wet) weight.

Also, look at the angle of impact. More reason that the effect of the engines' mass was deflected, and dispersed, as they broke apart, and were flung apart........

edit on 27 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

I dont know who they but i bet both of them are wondering why there werent 3 holes on the building before it collapsed...

reply to post by backinblack


Astonishing, someone gave you a star, when you wrote a post, claiming I said something, when in fact it seems to have been poor reading comprehension on your part. Now, unless you find, in my post, the SPECIFIC words where I wrote:

....lol, I needed a laugh..The planes wings hit with such force that they liquified....

And, those bold words, emphasised to be exact here....WHERE did I write that? Find the post, and quote me, or else realize that you have displayed a TYPICAL "truther" tactic. Know what it is??

Here's another example:

....but the engines bounced off the walls?? Now thats funny...

The underlined, and bold part there. WHERE did I say that? Find, and post my exact quotes.

Is it possible you read, yet not understand? OR, as per the "tactic" I mentioned earlier....is THAT your game???

One or the other. Fess up to poor reading comprehension; or else you MUST admit a determined effort to alter intent, and spin the results to your liking. Disgusting, if the latter, wouldn't you agree???

I expect this display, here, to be a record of the shenanigans that are in constant use, by those who cling to this "inside-job" 9/11 fantasy...so desperate are they??