Osama Bin Laden

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date

Do you believe he is dead ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Originally posted by Ardross@Sep 20 2005, 01:02 PM
Ah yes the conveniently issued tape just before the " terrorism " election in which Bin Laden appeared with his beard freshly soaked in Grecian 2000.
Click to expand...
Oh, so now you remember that there were videotapes post-2001 but you'd like to claim that this one was a fake?

Fair enough, the CIA and the State Department say that the tape is authentic. They know better in Yorkshire.
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Sep 20 2005, 01:23 PM
That's sounds more sinister than it was meant to. Quoting from the song.
Click to expand...
Thank God for that Melendez. I really thought I had upset you. :)
 
And is the concoction of such a tape shortly before a presidential election where Bus was relying heavily on his anti terrorism war beyond the CIA ?

The arrival of that tape was amazingly convenient for Bush.
 
You should take up story writing. Mind you, Euronymous will beat you to it - he thinks that the CIA flew the planes into the twin towers.
 
Thats unfair Brian. Euro didnt say CIA, so it could have been the FBI, NAACP, NFL,MLB or The Daughters of The American Revolution.

I think it was NASA myself.
 
Not at all - though I do think with all the expertise at their disposal if they had directed the tape they would have whitened the beard...
 
Some questions:

1) I find it interesting that the terrorists' passports were still found in the WTC wreckage, and were obviously legible, yet the fire-proof safes that contained the black boxes of the planes were lost in the fires and wreckage.

2) How many bodies of airline passengers were recovered at each crash site? Particularly the Pentagon and flight 93? Where are the black boxes ? Where are the communications with the ATC tower ? Where are the radar tracking records of the planes ?

3) Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.

My question is: WAS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOUGHT DOWN IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

For some answers see www.nerdcities.com/guardian

4)Why did WTC building number 7 (I believe it was) collapse as well as 1 and 2, yet was never hit by an airplane? Do we really think that fire fell from 80 floors and hit the building (even though heat rises) and caught it on fire with such intensity that it too fell straight down? Are we to think that a large, strong building can't take falling cement and metal without totally collapsing?


http://www.rense.com/Datapages/inv911.html
 
:lol:

The CIA and State Dept declared as genuine the audio tape later declared by the Swiss lab to be fake .

It was a very senior US army official in Afghanistan who shortly after leaving the US for an international position who disclosed the existence of evidence of Bin Laden's death - on Radio 5 I think .
 
If Osama bin Laden had ceased to be, George would have been on network TV doing his best John Wayne look and asking for the constitution to be changed to allow a third, fourth and even a fifth term
 
Euronymous, let me guess, they faked the crash into the Pentagon too? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Euro, your flight and airplane data is compelling, but you have overlooked an important fact.

The 767 has a much pointier nose than the 707.
 
Originally posted by an capall@Sep 20 2005, 07:05 PM
Euro, your flight and airplane data is compelling, but you have overlooked an important fact.

The 767 has a much pointier nose than the 707.
Click to expand...
Oh fcuk, all that work wasted :cry:
 
I tend to agree that if they really thought he was dead, the Bush administration would be trumpeting the fact.

In reality, I reckon he's probably laughing his socks off hiding somewhere miles away from where people are looking for him. Come to think of it, he's probably lodging in a hut in the Louisiana swamps! :lol:
 
Back
Top