TWA 800 and Google Earth

[poncho]

1. Posting phone numbers like that isn't cool.

It's posted on Silverstein's website. Call the number and tell him it isn't cool. Don't worry about that 666 it's probably just a coincidence.

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.

Let's see this technique is blamed for the complete collapse of three buildings in downtown Manhatten and the deaths of 3,000 people so sure thing it's the safest and sanest bet to build another in the same place the same way.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1. Posting phone numbers like that isn't cool.

It's posted on Silverstein's website. Call the number and tell him it isn't cool. Don't worry about that 666 it's probably just a coincidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Lots of numbers in San Antonio begin that way. Are they all in on it?

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.

Let's see this technique is blamed for the complete collapse of three buildings in downtown Manhatten and the deaths of 3,000 people so sure thing it's the safest and sanest bet to build another in the same place the same way. [/QUOTE]Because large aircraft are always flying into builings, right?

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No I didn't miss the point at all, I just don't except the simple easy answers because they don't add up.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1. Posting phone numbers like that isn't cool.

It's posted on Silverstein's website. Call the number and tell him it isn't cool. Don't worry about that 666 it's probably just a coincidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Lots of numbers in San Antonio begin that way. Are they all in on it?

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.

Let's see this technique is blamed for the complete collapse of three buildings in downtown Manhatten and the deaths of 3,000 people so sure thing it's the safest and sanest bet to build another in the same place the same way. </font>[/QUOTE]Because large aircraft are always flying into builings, right? [/QUOTE]


Well, not into buildings that were designed from the begining to withstand a direct hit from a large plane and redistribute the load in case of structurual damage anyway.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No I didn't miss the point at all, I just don't except the simple easy answers because they don't add up. </font>[/QUOTE]There's a difference between answers not adding up and you not wanting the answers to add up.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1. Posting phone numbers like that isn't cool.

It's posted on Silverstein's website. Call the number and tell him it isn't cool. Don't worry about that 666 it's probably just a coincidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Lots of numbers in San Antonio begin that way. Are they all in on it?

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.

Let's see this technique is blamed for the complete collapse of three buildings in downtown Manhatten and the deaths of 3,000 people so sure thing it's the safest and sanest bet to build another in the same place the same way. </font>[/QUOTE]Because large aircraft are always flying into builings, right? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, not into buildings that were designed from the begining to withstand a direct hit from a large plane and redistribute the load in case of structurual damage anyway. [/QUOTE]
It's common knowledge that the towers in question were built to withstand impact from the largest aircraft in common usage at the time it was built - the Boeing 737. It's also common knowledge that the planes used to attack the buildings were markedly larger.

 

[poncho]

So give us some answers and we'll do some addition together. But in a different thread we're really eating up LE's thread now. Sorry LE.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by poncho:
So give us some answers and we'll do some addition together. But in a different thread we're really eating up LE's thread now. Sorry LE.

Start it and I'm there, but I've given you answers already and you don't like them.

 

[poncho]

This is looking like it go on for awhile so suggest we start another thread and let LE have her topic discussed in this one. You can bring up all these points there TP. Is it okay to refer to you as TP?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Yes. Go ahead.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by poncho:
So give us some answers and we'll do some addition together. But in a different thread we're really eating up LE's thread now. Sorry LE.

It's okay. I'm probably one of the few people on here who believe TWA800 is a coverup/conspiracy anyway.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well, I for one accept the possibility that it is, simply because there are believable and legitimate eyewitnesses that something may have happened. Also, if it was an act of terrorism, if it can be covered up, then the terrorists don't really win the big prize of creating terror.

 

[Phillip]

Care to discuss the situation?

Let's start with altitude and speed of the aircraft. Please provide the:

1. Speed aircraft was at when struck.

2. Altitude aircraft was at when struck.

3. Vector of plane at strike. (Climbing at 1000 feet per minutes, descending at 500 fpm, etc.)

4. Where, exactly did missile HIT the aircraft.

5. How much of the plane was recovered. Were engines included. Black box? 50% of fuselage, etc.

We'll discuss this to see if it is likely that a weapon was used. I will not hold my beliefs as a bias during this discussion.

 

[LadyEagle]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/12/210218.shtml