TWA 800 and Google Earth

OK, did it, and it's hooey.

WTC 7 has been addressed elsewhere on this board. The article about WTC 1 and 2 supposes the structure of the towers makes it impossible for them to have collapsed without help from thermite explosives. Untrue.

The steel frame of the towers made the building, in effect, a hollow shell with floors "hung" within, allowing architects great freedom in interior design.

The building didn't "appear o move" when the plane hit it because (a) it was a shot from some distance away, (b) again, the construction of the building didn't so much "stop" the plane as it disintegrated it into component parts, dissipating the energy.

Once the heat from jet-fuel fires weakened the structure of some of the hanging floors above the fire, pancaking took place because the outer walls (the actual steel skeleton of the towers themselves) offered no real resistance. Debris and kinetic energy did the rest.

I wish people spent as much energy fighting injustice, feeding the hungry, and spreading the Gospel as they do looking for black helicopters and alien invasions. Ridiulous.

 

Okay so you saw it on tv, does that mean you are no longer under any obligation to post links to the available documentation and news articles you feel are sound or lend credence to your postion during a discussion here on BB?

 

http://www.twa800.com/index.htm </font>[/QUOTE]A missile expert said this HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How do I have the qualifications to say this?

Read my profile.

 

OK, did it, and it's hooey.

WTC 7 has been addressed elsewhere on this board. The article about WTC 1 and 2 supposes the structure of the towers makes it impossible for them to have collapsed without help from thermite explosives. Untrue.

The steel frame of the towers made the building, in effect, a hollow shell with floors "hung" within, allowing architects great freedom in interior design.

The building didn't "appear o move" when the plane hit it because (a) it was a shot from some distance away, (b) again, the construction of the building didn't so much "stop" the plane as it disintegrated it into component parts, dissipating the energy.

Once the heat from jet-fuel fires weakened the structure of some of the hanging floors above the fire, pancaking took place because the outer walls (the actual steel skeleton of the towers themselves) offered no real resistance. Debris and kinetic energy did the rest.

I wish people spent as much energy fighting injustice, feeding the hungry, and spreading the Gospel as they do looking for black helicopters and alien invasions. Ridiulous. </font>[/QUOTE]NO JOKE!!!

Obviously, they do not realize that thermite is NOT an explosive and it would take a LOT of thermite spread in a LOT of locations and a LOT of magnesium (to ignite it) at each location and THEN on top of this the thermite would probably weld more steal beams together than it melted.

 

FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System: RMP & Basic

Photos. FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System: RMP & Basic

Among other discrepancies, 40 deadly Stinger missiles shipped to the
Middle East during the Persian Gulf War could not be accounted for when
GAO visited military storage sites to check the inventory of handheld
missiles--the Stinger, Redeye, and Dragon. In all, inventory records
differed from GAO's physical count by thousands of missiles. The
military services do not know how many of these missiles they have in
their possession because they have not established systems to track the
missiles produced, fired, destroyed, sold, and transferred by serial
number. Lax military oversight and recordkeeping have left these
missiles, which are in demand by terrorists and drug dealers, vulnerable
to theft.

Inventory Management: Handheld Missiles Are Vulnerable to Theft and Undetected Losses

 

globalsecurity.com doesn't know squat. They are not a government agency or have military privileges. Give me a break Poncho, you're over your head!

 

That's only if you don't make any mention of the 46 massive steel uprights in the core of the building, which as I understand it is what the Discovery Channel and National Geographics chose to do when airing their documentaries. The old photos of the buildings being built clearly show them standing there.

You don't metion that any school kid with 5 or 10 minutes training and enough time on his hands could make thermite out in the garage, getting his hands on the magnesium would be the hardest part because of cost. This problem could be easily solved with access to enough cash.

 

globalsecurity.com doesn't know squat. They are not a government agency or have military privileges. Give me a break Poncho, you're over your head! </font>[/QUOTE]I'd say that if this is the best reponse you can give to refute this as evidence Phillip you may be in over your head and can only use ridicule to defend your position.

I'm trying to stay on topic LE.

 

Sorry but I have a security clearance and I'm NOT going to refute you except using "public" information; but, I bet I can do it with that alone.

So, let's see who is over their head. What altitude will you agree that the plane was when it was supposedly hit by your imaginary missile?

Secondly, what EXACTLY did the missile hit on the plane itself. WHERE did it hit?

Thirdly, where do you think the government stores it ammunition (bombs, missiles, etc.) and where do you think globalsecurity would obtain the information that any is missing? Please, be specific on your answers.

You say that I'm not responding to you, but how can I when all you do is point to pictures of missiles and conspiracy theory websites?

Let's discuss the facts and I'll nail your theory without violating one security rule.

 

Okay so you saw it on tv, does that mean you are no longer under any obligation to post links to the available documentation and news articles you feel are sound or lend credence to your postion during a discussion here on BB? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it does. Thanks.

Actually, I don't feel like linking to the obvious. maybe I will later, and maybe not.

 

Okay, let's go on the WTC too, Poncho. I'll enter the debate. Tell me exactly HOW and WHAT took those buildings down.

Don't point me to a website, tell me specifically what you think brought it down. What type of energetic material and how that material got there. (missile, planted by hand, etc.)

Also, tell me the exact time these "extra" things occurred based on the timing of both the jet penetrations and the building collapses (both buildings).

 

That's only if you don't make any mention of the 46 massive steel uprights in the core of the building, which as I understand it is what the Discovery Channel and National Geographics chose to do when airing their documentaries. The old photos of the buildings being built clearly show them standing there.[/quoteOh, you mean the elevator shafts? Kinetic energy and debris, remember? The elevator shafts supported/held the elevators, ponch, and just the elevators. In fact, watch the video of the second collapse and you'll see, for an instant, a bit of the elevator shaft over the debris cloud before it, too, collapses.

I don't know if you understand just how much energy is produced by a buildings the size of the WTC towers failing. That's a lot of steel, concrete, and sundry office furniture and supplies, and it all has to go somewhere when a few tons or so of concrete from the floor above hits it.

It just makes no sense, ponch. The video of each building collapse shows the obvious failure points at the entry/exit holes of the attacking aircraft. You're suggesting that the shadow conspiracy players knew the exact floor the planes would enter, placed thermite at exactly those points, and knew how and wen to set them of while remaining themselves unharmed from a few million cubic tons of falling debris.

No.

 

I also don't think Ponch realizes that the unique construction of using the building with a core, the way the WTC towers were built was an incredible step in technology of extra-tall towers, but it was also its down-fall when all of the fuel started burning and running through the structures.

Good point, tragic_pizza, also you don't mention how much energy was absorbed by the buildings as a direct and indirect result of the planes. Besides the fact that they weakened the entire structural integrity from the crash site on up. (Not to mention structural damage below that we can only speculate about due to the shock.

 

Ain'tcha got nuthin' ta say, Ponch? Or is it just lunch-time?

 

No one is asking you to violate anything Phillip. Just to give straight answers to questions and provide links to what you feel supports your positon instead of trying to paint everyone that asks the questions as looney tunes.

First of all Phillip, I never said a missile imaginary or otherwise hit this plane. I only posted links that show how shoulder fired missiles are designed to bring planes down. In a court of law that might be called introducing evidence.

Again I never claimed a missile hit this plane so why would I have to prove an allegation I never made?

I would think the military stores it's munitions in secure land based storage facilities on ships on patrol and other places. Storage doesn't seem to be the problem the GAO is addressing, it's the militaries inventory procedures that are in question. The GAO wants to know how thousands of missiles "went missing".

Global Security says it got its information from the United States Genereal Accounting Office, Letter Report, 09/16/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-100. Same place the Federation Of American Scientists got it. The GAO is the investigative arm of the United States congress. If you had read the GAO report you wouldn't have had to ask this question.

You have been responding right along Phillip. I just wish you could respond with more than ridicule and half truths like the above. I have linked to what some consider to be conspiracy websites that's true, it isn't true however that that is all I have ever linked too. Even the wildest conspiracy websites provide links to real information from real people that are experts in their fields and on many subjects. The MSM does not have a corner on the market of truth, not only that but the figures are showing that the MSM is losing it's market to the internet. Why do you think Murdock said,

SOURCE

Sounds good to me, how about we discuss the facts about 911 in a different thread? I don't want to hijack LE's thread and I am much more studied on 911 than this TWA 800 incident.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Ponchie, there's this thing called Occam's Razor. It states that, when opposing theories are presented to explain anything, the simplest is generally the correct.

Thus Occam is on my side, and the burden of proof is upon you.

When you can post something not from a tinfoil-hat site, we'll talk.

 

That would explain why Silverstein is planning to use the same construction technique in the new WTC 7 then eh? Maybe you should give Larry a call and voice these concerns to him. He can be reached at 212-490-0666.

 

Ya know Pizzie, for a guy that has jumped on people for using your screen name other than how it appears I would have thought you'd been the last person to use another's screen name in the same manner that you find so offensive.

Actually the burden of proof is on the authorities that claim the towers collapsed from impact and fire. So far they have only proven they can construct and agree on a story and televise documentaries that omit information and evidence then avoid any real discussion of the facts in the media.

I'm really trying to stay on topic LE.

 

That would explain why Silverstein is planning to use the same construction technique in the new WTC 7 then eh? Maybe you should give Larry a call and voice these concerns to him. He can be reached at 212-490-0666. </font>[/QUOTE]1. Posting phone numbers like that isn't cool.

2. If you want to build a tall building, your options are limited. WTC 1 and 2's construction lends itself to tall buildings. Period.

 

Ya know Pizzie, for a guy that has jumped on people for using your screen name other than how it appears I would have thought you'd been the last person to use another's screen name in the same manner that you find so offensive.

Actually the burden of proof is on the authorities that claim the towers collapsed from impact and fire. So far they have only proven they can construct and agree on a story and televise documentaries that omit information and evidence then avoid any real discussion of the facts in the media.

I'm really trying to stay on topic LE. </font>[/QUOTE]You missed the point completely. The simplest explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is that a large airliner, fully fueled, struck each tower, which collision and subsequent fire caused structural failure. Any opposing theories must validate themselves against this most simple and obvious.