9/11 conspiracy debate

[GPXchick]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

[nodrog]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

oh, I thought it was the two giant fucken planes that parked in them that might of had something to do with it.

[FlangMasterJ]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

Come to think of it......

237841

[ellipsis]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

...and the bunkers the germans built on the somme were poured with cement supplied by a british company....hmmm..

[Jantar]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.
Actually, only the top stories fell at freefall speed, the lower ones concertina'd at a slightly lower rate. all consistant with the type of collapse one would expect from a destroyed skeleton on a high rise structure.

It is fully explained by the aircraft crashing into them.

[shrub]

oh, I thought it was the two giant fucken planes that parked in them that might of had something to do with it.

Nah, coincidence. A bunch of arabs stole some planes and planned to do a bit of a low level pass over New York - probably to impress some women - but they couldn't fly very well and ended up hitting the twin towers by accident - just as the CIA were blowing up the buildings.

My guess is nobody told them about target fixation, so ultimately it's Katman's fault.

[JimO]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

really?? look what a little shake did to the CTV building in ChCh, imagine the weight of those floors above where the planes hit, it falls from above the impact site, when buildings are demolished they blow the bottom of them out and the weight from above does the work

[motor_mayhem]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.


Actually, only the top stories fell at freefall speed, the lower ones concertina'd at a slightly lower rate. all consistant with the type of collapse one would expect from a destroyed skeleton on a high rise structure.

It is fully explained by the aircraft crashing into them.

GPX - way off base, Buildings can be built with the reinforcing on the inside or the outside, and the twin towers were built with the reinforcing on the outside (those long metal rails running down it you see in all the old pictures). When the jet liners hit the buildings, the fuel burnt at such a heat, as well as all the bars that had been taken out, most of the rest melted so the building lost all it's reinforcement.

[Bikemad]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day QUESTION MARK? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved FULLSTOP. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter FULLSTOP. FULLSTOP.
fixed that for ya FULLSTOP.

[Oblivion]

really?? look what a little shake did to the CTV building in ChCh, imagine the weight of those floors above where the planes hit, it falls from above the impact site, when buildings are demolished they blow the bottom of them out and the weight from above does the work

Its like using Karate to break stone pavers. :yes:

[avgas]

GPX - way off base, Buildings can be built with the reinforcing on the inside or the outside, and the twin towers were built with the reinforcing on the outside (those long metal rails running down it you see in all the old pictures). When the jet liners hit the buildings, the fuel burnt at such a heat, as well as all the bars that had been taken out, most of the rest melted so the building lost all it's reinforcement.
I am still yet to see a single structural engineer explain why it didn't tip.......
My years of failing at the game Jenga tell me that stuff like that always tips. My qualifications tell me nothing better due to large partaking of alcohol during statics and dynamics lectures.

[racefactory]

Actually, only the top stories fell at freefall speed, the lower ones concertina'd at a slightly lower rate. all consistant with the type of collapse one would expect from a destroyed skeleton on a high rise structure.

It is fully explained by the aircraft crashing into them.

In order to have the structure collapse like it did you would have to cut the beams at the very bottom not unlike the method used in a controlled demolition where the beams are cut on a diagonal. You can see this for yourself on the photos of the core beam remnants- they have been cut on a diagonal causing molten metal to sit around the edges... molten metal far higher in temperature than any jet fuel.

Not buying into all the collusion rubbish but there is something that doesn't add up...

[jazfender]

Bullshit, any engineer knows it's a controlled demolition.

You an engineer bro?

[Jantar]

Bullshit, any engineer knows it's a controlled demolition.

The core beam structure of those towers could survive multiple plane impacts, ......
Except those buildings didn't have a core beam structure, they were a skeletal beam structure.

Where did you you get your engineering qualifications?

[scumdog]

Bullshit, any engineer knows it's a controlled demolition.
Just a casual observer can notice the buildings do not fall like physics would depict in that situation. Not buying into all the collusion rubbish but there is something that doesn't add up...

The guy on the grassy knoll did it... :yes:

[racefactory]

Except those buildings didn't have a core beam structure, they were a skeletal beam structure.

Where did you you get your engineering qualifications?

I got it from the Botch Engineering institute.

[Jantar]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.
I believe that this http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm debunks the freefall theory.

[Oakie]

Freefall didn't particularly worry me. What did was how the hell do you get enough explosive rigged in an inhabited building even half that tall to drop it without anyone noticing . The answer of course is you can't and the figures in the article prove just how ludicrous the suggestion was.

As an aside though, at work we have an ex special forces soldier who fought in the Balkans war. (Bosnian). He was telling me the other day that he showed the footage of the towers coming down to a special forces friend of his (explosives expert) who had never seen the footage and his first reaction was to ask who had done the demolition as it did look very much like a controlled demo. Looks can be deceiving I guess.

[mashman]

I could accept 1 building collapsing like that. But 3? There is also the news story with the reporter commenting that building 7 had collapsed, where you could clearly see it over her shoulder in the background. They report what they're told to report. None of it adds up and it has to be the fluke of the century for 3 buildings to fall without demolishing those around it. Just my take though.

[Virago]

Bullshit, any engineer knows it's a controlled demolition...

The beauty of the internet is that any moron can declare themselves to be an authoritative engineer...

[PrincessBandit]

The guy on the grassy knoll did it... :yes:

Did you say the grassy Noel?

[ducatilover]

Did you say the grassy Noel?

I thought it said greasy knob....:sick:

[onearmedbandit]

I could accept 1 building collapsing like that. But 3? There is also the news story with the reporter commenting that building 7 had collapsed, where you could clearly see it over her shoulder in the background. They report what they're told to report. None of it adds up and it has to be the fluke of the century for 3 buildings to fall without demolishing those around it. Just my take though.

Soooo, what would you have expected to have happened instead when two airliners hit them?

[Laava]

http://funpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/all-present-theories-conspiracy.jpg

[mashman]

Soooo, what would you have expected to have happened instead when two airliners hit them?

I would have expected the aircraft fuselage to have gone clean through the buildings to start with. I haven't seen any footage that shows that and it confuses me. As for the buildings, I just find it very difficult to accept that 3 building dropped straight down when the supporting structure should have been able to hold the weight of the building above, enough to stagger the fall anyway. I base that assumption on the buildings having carried the above floor weights for a number of years. Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.

You?

[Jantar]

I would have expected the aircraft fuselage to have gone clean through the buildings to start with. I haven't seen any footage that shows that and it confuses me.

Have you ever looked at the construction of an aircraft fuselage? It is a very flimsy construction and relies on its complete shape and structure for its strength. It only requires a small deformation and the whole thing will crumple up. I would have been very suprised had any of the fuselage continued right through the building. However I would also have been extremely suprised if the engines didn't carry right through. Oh! they did.


As for the buildings, I just find it very difficult to accept that 3 building dropped straight down when the supporting structure should have been able to hold the weight of the building above, enough to stagger the fall anyway. I base that assumption on the buildings having carried the above floor weights for a number of years. Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.

You?

Well, the buildings didn't fall quite as straight down as you seem to imply. Have a look at this photo of the Tower 2 collapse and note the top section. http://www.debunking911.com/

Now consider that it wasn't just the weight of the top floors that caused the lower ones to collapse for Towers 1 and 2, it was the impact from the floors above. It wasn't just a stable weight, but a weight hitting at 90% of freefall speed.

Tower 7 is a different story and is at least partly due to design fault. But see http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf for a peer revied study of its collapse.

[shrub]

Have you ever looked at the construction of an aircraft fuselage? It is a very flimsy construction and relies on its complete shape and structure for its strength. It only requires a small deformation and the whole thing will crumple up. I would have been very suprised had any of the fuselage continued right through the building. However I would also have been extremely suprised if the engines didn't carry right through. Oh! they did.

Many years ago I earned my living fixing aeroplanes (RNZAF), and they are made of an aluminium alloy and are NOT designed to withstand frontal impacts - in fact their nose cones are usually made of very light fibreglass. When they hit buildings they crumple, but the energy of a 160 tonne object travelling at around 500 mph is off the scale. And when you set alight to around 60,000 litres of jet fuel (kerosene) things get really ugly. Jet fuel burns relatively slowly compared to petrol, so instead of a big old WHOOSH it's a big old whoooooooooooooooosh, and metal gets hot and soft, concrete cracks and buildings fall down.

Which they did.

Now as for the involvement of the CIA etc, I am a cynical fuck and I reckon TPTB turned a few blind eyes because it worked for them, just like I reckon Osama could have been taken out years ago - do you honestly think the best equipped secret service in the universe took 10 years to find him?

[dangerous]

The guy on the grassy knoll did it... :yes:

and its no wonder you never made it to 'inspector' :shutup:


I would have expected the aircraft fuselage to have gone clean through the buildings to start with. I haven't seen any footage that shows that and it confuses me. As for the buildings, I just find it very difficult to accept that 3 building dropped straight down when the supporting structure should have been able to hold the weight of the building above, enough to stagger the fall anyway. I base that assumption on the buildings having carried the above floor weights for a number of years. Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.


so you also believe ther was a bomb in the CTV building chch then?
re Jantar's comment about fuselarges, agreed

The 16 floors of stairs thats 32 sets of stairs in the forsife barr building calopsed and compressed below ground level, no bombs involved... buildings arnt designed to carry the waight of the floor above letalone 2 foolrs, 3 floors etc.
what a farking crock a shit this bomb theory is, why bother with the effort of hijacking if all ya needed to do was hide a bomb.

[YellowDog]

what a farking crock a shit this bomb theory is, why bother with the effort of hijacking if all ya needed to do was hide a bomb.

Films make money - That's why!

Their Hollywood sponsors wanted ALL the action, without the need for additional special effects.

:facepalm:

[NighthawkNZ]

It was them damn Aliems I tell you them pesky damn Aliems... Its always the Aliems

[oneofsix]

It was them damn Aliems I tell you them pesky damn Aliems... Its always the Aliems

Is that them outer-space ones or the spaced out ones, or dem from over the border

[Laava]

Now as for the involvement of the CIA etc, I am a cynical fuck and I reckon - do you honestly think the best equipped secret service in the universe took 10 years to find him?

Don't put them on too big a pedestal, remember that the country was led by GW Bush, a big fuckin moron if ever there was one.

[shrub]

Don't put them on too big a pedestal, remember that the country was led by GW Bush, a big fuckin moron if ever there was one.

No, that's a reflection of human beings and democracy - people voted for Winston Peters, Peter Dunne and Rodney Hide too.

I have a brilliant book by a chap called Richard Clarke who was Clinton's terrorism czar. When George Dubbyabush took over he held a briefing and said words to the effect of "there is a group called Al Qaeda led by a nasty chap called OBL and they really have it in for us. At some stage they will have a shot at fucking our shit up.

He wrote that when he first briefed Condy Rice on Al-Qaeda on January 2001 "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." She then downgraded the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism which meant he was demoted and it sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. Clarke's memos stopped going to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

Then on September 11 2001...

That same year a mate of mine was doing his Masters in Political Science and wanted to study terrorism. He reckoned Al Qaeda were going to be a major player and his supervisor told him to focus on Palestine instead.

[allycatz]

Documentary on Nat Geo looked extensively into why the twin towers failed even after the planes hit, as they had been designed to take the hit of an aircraft (one already had, albeit a small one), being so high. The buildings were designed in such a way as to reduce sway and the floors literally rested on shelf like brackets. Tests of the metal, holding those brackets, showed an inferior substance/weld held those brackets and were not as heat resistent as was originally designed. Thus, when the temp rose from the fire, the floors concertinered.

Reading conspiracy theory books, I've have always wondered if the planes were aimed as high as they were, with the intention that the buildings were designed to stay upright and thus affecting only the top floors. That, and the timing of the hits so early in the morning when later on in the day there would of been so many more people inside.

[MisterD]

I have a brilliant book by a chap called Richard Clarke who was Clinton's terrorism czar. When George Dubbyabush took over he held a briefing and said words to the effect of "there is a group called Al Qaeda led by a nasty chap called OBL and they really have it in for us. At some stage they will have a shot at fucking our shit up.

Imagine if Clinton had had the balls to commit troops to get him rather than just lob a couple of hopeful Tomahawks into Afganistan...

There's probably one of those alternative histories in that, what if the missles had got him? No GW second term, therefore no Obama?

[cbfb]

Now as for the involvement of the CIA etc, I am a cynical fuck and I reckon TPTB turned a few blind eyes because it worked for them, just like I reckon Osama could have been taken out years ago - do you honestly think the best equipped secret service in the universe took 10 years to find him?


I have a brilliant book by a chap called Richard Clarke who was Clinton's terrorism czar. When George Dubbyabush took over he held a briefing and said words to the effect of "there is a group called Al Qaeda led by a nasty chap called OBL and they really have it in for us. At some stage they will have a shot at fucking our shit up.

He wrote that when he first briefed Condy Rice on Al-Qaeda on January 2001 "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." She then downgraded the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism which meant he was demoted and it sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. Clarke's memos stopped going to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

I was listening to the National programme on the way home last night, about 5ish, they had a guy on whose name I forget but was an ex CIA bigwig. Apparently he had briefed Clinton 9 or 10 times to say that they were able to capture Bin Laden, but Clinton refused. Didn't go into reasons why but you have to wonder how much of this could have been avoided.

And I don't know if anyone else is suspicious of this, but no pictures have come out that I've seen and the body (of Bin Laden) has been dumped out at sea - so we've only got Obama's word to go on so far.

[mashman]

Have you ever looked at the construction of an aircraft fuselage? It is a very flimsy construction and relies on its complete shape and structure for its strength. It only requires a small deformation and the whole thing will crumple up. I would have been very suprised had any of the fuselage continued right through the building. However I would also have been extremely suprised if the engines didn't carry right through. Oh! they did.


I've never looked at close quaters, well not behind the inner skin, and I take your point that it's a flimsy construction etc... It's just that of all of the pictures of aircraft crashes I've seen, which granted isn't a whole lot, there has always been something left of the fuselage. Pitting a weight of a plane against some windows, some desks and partitions, doesn't lead me to think that the fuselage would have disintegrated. That doesn't mean it wasn't the case :). I just find it hard to accept is all.



Well, the buildings didn't fall quite as straight down as you seem to imply. Have a look at this photo of the Tower 2 collapse and note the top section. http://www.debunking911.com/

Now consider that it wasn't just the weight of the top floors that caused the lower ones to collapse for Towers 1 and 2, it was the impact from the floors above. It wasn't just a stable weight, but a weight hitting at 90% of freefall speed.

Tower 7 is a different story and is at least partly due to design fault. But see http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf for a peer revied study of its collapse.

To a certain degree the first picture on you debunking site leaves me even more confused. It looks as though the top floors started to drop, hit the solid floors below and then started to tilt off... so why did the rest concertina given that the weight wasn't dropping on top of the floors below, but falling off it. Again, not saying it isn't possible, I just don't see that being the case. Especially not for 3 buildings.

It's only my opinion and the simple questions don't seem to have been answered to my satisfaction, let alone the weakening of a corner column (79) of an "irregular" shaped building causing a critical failure of every other support column allowing a vertical collapse. My limited engineering is likely the block :yes:, so given what I know (which isn't much) I choose to believe that 3 buildings falling vertically, especially the big ones, doesn't add up. Or was just HUGELY fortunate.

[oneofsix]

Pitting a weight of a plane against some windows, some desks and partitions, doesn't lead me to think that the fuselage would have disintegrated.
Take into account the construction of the buildings. They were a bit unique and most of the strength was in the center column. This plus the heat of the fire helps. The construction also caused the demolition type collapse as the heat weakened the central support structure everything collapses inward.

[Matt Bleck]

but wait there's more.... they catch the guy who's the mastermind of it all, shot him and then bury him at sea................ ummm......... :facepalm:

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2011/4/29/a3e5648b-6715-4aae-88b9-5fa9f80e7253_thumb.jpeg

[oneofsix]

but wait there's more.... they catch the guy who's the mastermind of it all, shot him and then bury him at sea................ ummm......... :facepalm:

but he wasn't the master mind, he was the face, political leader.
Zawahri has been the brains behind bin Laden and his al Qaeda network and is now expected to be the leader
Buried at sea therefore no shrines as a rallying point

[mashman]

Take into account the construction of the buildings. They were a bit unique and most of the strength was in the center column. This plus the heat of the fire helps. The construction also caused the demolition type collapse as the heat weakened the central support structure everything collapses inward.

The first picture of the debunking site shows the top of tower 2 falling off, not collapsing inwards. If there's no pressure on the centre column, because the floors above are falling off not down, then why the collapse of the floors below?

[oneofsix]

The first picture of the debunking site shows the top of tower 2 falling off, not collapsing inwards. If there's no pressure on the centre column, because the floors above are falling off not down, then why the collapse of the floors below?

I will have to check that particular debunk theory but the one I saw had the center column, in layman's terms, melting and dragging everything inward. Those top floors could be the rubble that eventually does for building 7.

[DEATH_INC.]

I think the fuselage bit is easy, take into account the height of the fuselage and the distance between 2 floors....see if you can get it through at 800kmh :blink:

[avgas]

Where did you you get your engineering qualifications?
When did you get your ICI explosives and demolitions tickets???

[nodrog]

I think the fuselage bit is easy, take into account the height of the fuselage and the distance between 2 floors....see if you can get it through at 800kmh :blink:

I blame David Copperfield.

[Quasievil]

Fuck some of you lot are sensationalistic conspiritists of the highest order.

Of course the fucking planes took it down,if "they" where wanting to bring the buildings down why bother throwing 2 planes full of people at it that could open them up to the scrutiny of the Kiwibiker plonkers , why not just plant a bigger bomb in the undergroung carpark like they did once before, you think "they" did that to just make the show look bigger and better..........stoopid bastards:yes:

Bloody terrorists flew plane loads of people into the towers and killed fuck loads of innocents ,end of story , get over it


dickheads lol

[mashman]

I think the fuselage bit is easy, take into account the height of the fuselage and the distance between 2 floors....see if you can get it through at 800kmh :blink:

Fair point...

[oneofsix]

Fuck some of you lot are sensationalistic conspiritists of the highest order.

Of course the fucking planes took it down,if "they" where wanting to bring the buildings down why bother throwing 2 planes full of people at it that could open them up to the scrutiny of the Kiwibiker plonkers , why not just plant a bigger bomb in the undergroung carpark like they did once before, you think "they" did that to just make the show look bigger and better..........stoopid bastards:yes:

Bloody terrorists flew plane loads of people into the towers and killed fuck loads of innocents ,end of story , get over it


dickheads lol

you missed a big point there Quasievil. Hollywood had to delay the release of Spiderman whilst they reshot a sequence where they had had spidey spinning a web between the towers. Now there is no way the USA would have dared spoil the release of a Hollywood 'block baster' by deliberately bringing the towers down themselves. :innocent:

[Quasievil]

you missed a big point there Quasievil. Hollywood had to delay the release of Spiderman whilst they reshot a sequence where they had had spidey spinning a web between the towers. Now there is no way the USA would have dared spoil the release of a Hollywood 'block baster' by deliberately bringing the towers down themselves. :innocent:

Yes they would the east coasts thinks the west coast are a bunch of dickheads, which is fairly accurate in my opinion.

[avgas]

I blame David Copperfield.
Is it wrong that I laughed at the thought of DC making the WTC disappear?
I mean imagine in, he thows up a curtain, then opens it to what we call ground zero.

Sick, but funny in the worst kinda way.http://ll-media.tmz.com/2007/10/22/copperfieldbig-1.jpg

[oneofsix]

Yes they would the east coasts thinks the west coast are a bunch of dickheads, which is fairly accurate in my opinion.

yeah but its East coast that provides a lot of the money they would have been wasting. And isn't New York on the east coast, guess there wasn't anything on the west coast worth destroying to make big enough statement.

[Insanity_rules]

In order to have the structure collapse like it did you would have to cut the beams at the very bottom not unlike the method used in a controlled demolition where the beams are cut on a diagonal. You can see this for yourself on the photos of the core beam remnants- they have been cut on a diagonal causing molten metal to sit around the edges... molten metal far higher in temperature than any jet fuel.

Not buying into all the collusion rubbish but there is something that doesn't add up...

I see no one has mentioned the 1993 car bomb that went off in the underground carpark, that more than likely weakened the sub structure somewhat. Geez guys put your tinfoil hats away now eh?

[nodrog]

Is it wrong that I laughed at the thought of DC making the WTC disappear?
I mean imagine in, he thows up a curtain, then opens it to what we call ground zero.

Sick, but funny in the worst kinda way.http://ll-media.tmz.com/2007/10/22/copperfieldbig-1.jpg

No, you got it wrong, he just made the planes disappear.

Pee Wee Herman planted the bombs.

[avgas]

No, you got it wrong, he just made the planes disappear.
Pee Wee Herman planted the bombs.
And this is why we need to fix depression in the world.
Heal the world people

[nodrog]

And this is why we need to fix depression in the world.
Heal the world people

thanks, you just reminded me of something i needed to do. :yes:

[Oscar]

Documentary on Nat Geo looked extensively into why the twin towers failed even after the planes hit, as they had been designed to take the hit of an aircraft (one already had, albeit a small one), being so high. The buildings were designed in such a way as to reduce sway and the floors literally rested on shelf like brackets. Tests of the metal, holding those brackets, showed an inferior substance/weld held those brackets and were not as heat resistent as was originally designed. Thus, when the temp rose from the fire, the floors concertinered.

Reading conspiracy theory books, I've have always wondered if the planes were aimed as high as they were, with the intention that the buildings were designed to stay upright and thus affecting only the top floors. That, and the timing of the hits so early in the morning when later on in the day there would of been so many more people inside.

The Towers were designed to withstand a 707 hitting at cruising speed (it was a requirement due to the B25 hitting the Empire State Building during WW2).

The problem was that 1) the planes hit the buildings with the throttles to the stops (about 20% faster), and that b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

[Crasherfromwayback]

b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

Which I reckon we can forgive them for...

[oneofsix]

The Towers were designed to withstand a 707 hitting at cruising speed (it was a requirement due to the B25 hitting the Empire State Building during WW2).

The problem was that 1) the planes hit the buildings with the throttles to the stops (about 20% faster), and that b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

and the 747s were much bigger and carried much more gas than the 707, the 707s were the biggest around when the buildings were designed.

[NighthawkNZ]

Is that them outer-space ones or the spaced out ones, or dem from over the border


Take your pick... :)

[Quasievil]

and the 747s were much bigger and carried much more gas than the 707, the 707s were the biggest around when the buildings were designed.

( I will do it) What 747 are you talking about ?

[Oscar]

and the 747s were much bigger and carried much more gas than the 707, the 707s were the biggest around when the buildings were designed.

The planes that hit the towers were both 767's, which are slightly heavier than 707's, but nowhere near a 747.

[Oscar]

Which I reckon we can forgive them for...

Oh yeah, but the heat generated pretty much fucked the structral integrity of the already damaged structure.

[oneofsix]

The planes that hit the towers were both 767's, which are slightly heavier than 707's, but nowhere near a 747.

my bad - sorry :facepalm:

[Paul in NZ]

The Towers were designed to withstand a 707 hitting at cruising speed (it was a requirement due to the B25 hitting the Empire State Building during WW2).

The problem was that 1) the planes hit the buildings with the throttles to the stops (about 20% faster), and that b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

Another factor was the construction. Rather than being steel reinforced concrete it was steel with fire retardant (think concrete) sprayed over it. The impact knocked a lot of that off....

[Oscar]

my bad - sorry :facepalm:

You shouldn't apologise for not being a train spotter...:yes:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Oh yeah, but the heat generated pretty much fucked the structral integrity of the already damaged structure.

Oh for sure. But pretty hard to see that one coming!

[Oscar]

Another factor was the construction. Rather than being steel reinforced concrete it was steel with fire retardant (think concrete) sprayed over it. The impact knocked a lot of that off....

I seem to recall there was some problem with the way the floors were attached to the central core as well.

[Str8 Jacket]

I am loving the tag; Trump to ask for DNA cert!! :rofl:

[MSTRS]

Think, too, that the planes were tilted on final approach to ensure impact damage to maximum number of floors at once.

[Banditbandit]

Granted many collapsing floors add extra weight, but how much more? Enough to allow the building to drop like it was on rails? I just can't see that happening, unless it was an utter fluke.

You?

OK ... the building has an exoskeleton - the rails running up the building which are clearly visible in the pictures. The floors are supported on beams bolted (yes, bolted) to the exoskeleton.

The New York Fire Brigade warned about this type of structure before 9/11 - as they believed the floors would collapse in much the way it actually did.

As the planes added weight to the floors and the heat melted the supporting beams the floors collapsed onto each other - adding weight and casuing more to collapse - so the building came down.

Now, the floor beams are inside the exoskelaton, which is strong enough to keep the flooring material inside the exoskelaton as it falls - hence the building falls straight down inside the exoskeleton, which collapses after the floor fall past it as it is no longer strong enough to stand upright.

Not hard to explain at all ...

[shrub]

OK ... the building has an exoskeleton - the rails running up the building which are clearly visible in the pictures. The floors are supported on beams bolted (yes, bolted) to the exoskeleton.

The New York Fire Brigade warned about this type of structure before 9/11 - as they believed the floors would collapse in much the way it actually did.

As the planes added weight to the floors and the heat melted the supporting beams the floors collapsed onto each other - adding weight and casuing more to collapse - so the building came down.

Now, the floor beams are inside the exoskelaton, which is strong enough to keep the flooring material inside the exoskelaton as it falls - hence the building falls straight down inside the exoskeleton, which collapses after the floor fall past it as it is no longer strong enough to stand upright.

Not hard to explain at all ...

I still blame Katman

[Jantar]

When did you get your ICI explosives and demolitions tickets???
DoL course 1973

[avgas]

DoL course 1973
Not MoW? 10char

[jasonu]

who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. Fullstop.

dickhead!!!

[Jantar]

Not MoW? 10char
No, the instructor may have been MoW, but the course was organised through the DoL after one of their inspectors didn't like us carrying gelignite, diesel and detonators in the same vehicle.

[marty]

and the 747s were much bigger and carried much more gas than the 707, the 707s were the biggest around when the buildings were designed.

OMG do some research boys.

1. Airliners are powered by JetA1 - kerosene basically. Much higher flash point and burns for much longer and slower than avgas.

2. They weren't 747's - 767-200's actually - quite a bit smaller than 74's

[Oblivion]

No, the instructor may have been MoW, but the course was organised through the DoL after one of their inspectors didn't like us carrying gelignite, diesel and detonators in the same vehicle.

Isn't that half the fun?

[Oblivion]

OMG do some research boys.

1. Airliners are powered by JetA1 - kerosene basically. Much higher flash point and burns for much longer and slower than avgas.

2. They weren't 747's - 767-200's actually - quite a bit smaller than 74's

How about you just tell them to build towers with Jenga and get them to crash a plane into the side of it?

Saves a truckload of arguing :innocent:

Who doesn't like Jenga? :sunny:

[scumdog]

Who plantd the bombs in those 3 buildings that day? Lest we forget 9/11 had an inside hand involved. Buildings don't fall at freefall speed without having the path cleared below the falling matter. FULLSTOP.

Wottafuckinloadofshit...:facepalm:

[Woodman]

So how many towers fell down? I thought there was just 2?

[ducatilover]

So how many towers fell down? I thought there was just 2?

Three, towers 1 and 2 then tower 7.

[pete376403]

They didn't find much of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, either...

[Oscar]

They didn't find much of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, either...

Yes they did.

http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/debris/db_Pentagon_Debris_181s.jpg

This bits even got part of the airline logo on it:
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/757-americanlogo.jpg

[Oscar]

Three, towers 1 and 2 then tower 7.

The others (3,4,5 & 6) were so badly damaged that they had to be demolished.

[shrub]

Yes they did.

This bits even got part of the airline logo on it:

Looks to me like part of a Suzuki Katana

[MIXONE]

The Don will tell us the truth when he gets the top job.:yes:

[Maki]

Let me see, we are supposed to believe that a steel frame building, WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed because some debris hit it? (This was announced on the BBC BEFORE it actually happened.) Steel frame buildings can burn, untill all that is left standing is the steel frame. This has happened many times. Spontaneous collapse due to debris only appears to have happened once, if you believe that "conspiracy". (The owner of WTC7, Silverstein, actually admitted that it had been demolished, "pulled" in his exact wording but sheep would rather believe in their theories.)

We are supposed to believe that $2.3 trillion USD disappeared from the Pentagon budget just before 911 and no one knows what happened to it, as announced by Donald Rumsfeld. Now I wonder, could Bin Laden some how have gotten his grubby hands on that money to finance his terror? If you can believe some of this other stuff I am sure you can believe that.

War games/exercises were being run on 911 by they US government that totaly confused air traffic control and air defenses. You are expected to believe that this was a coincidence, or maybe you think Bin Laden used mind controll to organize and cause US governement officials to conduct the exercises at a convenient time...

Hi tech airliners were navigated at high speed, at times through manouvers that were outside their design envelope by incompetents who could hardly land a Cessna (experienced pilots acknowledge that this is impossible, but sheep don't believe in "conspiracy theories" so this is what MUST have happened).

The whole operation was run from a cave in Afghanistan.

Amazingly most sheep believe what they are supposed to believe. That makes them very easy to control and eventually slaughter... Mmmmm, lamb chops...

[Jantar]

You obviously haven't looked at the details very well.


Let me see, we are supposed to believe that a steel frame building, WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed because some debris hit it? (This was announced on the BBC BEFORE it actually happened.)

This is a myth. None of the buildings collapsed at free fall speed as evidenced by the video footage showing debris falling faster than the buildings. It was not announced on BBC before the event. The BBC anounced it after the event, but showed footage of the collapse while they were announcing it.



Steel frame buildings can burn, untill all that is left standing is the steel frame. This has happened many times. Spontaneous collapse due to debris only appears to have happened once, if you believe that "conspiracy". (The owner of WTC7, Silverstein, actually admitted that it had been demolished, "pulled" in his exact wording but sheep would rather believe in their theories.)

What was "pulled" wasn't the building, it was the fire fighters who were in danger who were pulled out. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."



We are supposed to believe that $2.3 trillion USD disappeared from the Pentagon budget just before 911 and no one knows what happened to it, as announced by Donald Rumsfeld. Now I wonder, could Bin Laden some how have gotten his grubby hands on that money to finance his terror? If you can believe some of this other stuff I am sure you can believe that.

War games/exercises were being run on 911 by they US government that totaly confused air traffic control and air defenses. You are expected to believe that this was a coincidence, or maybe you think Bin Laden used mind controll to organize and cause US governement officials to conduct the exercises at a convenient time...

Hi tech airliners were navigated at high speed, at times through manouvers that were outside their design envelope by incompetents who could hardly land a Cessna (experienced pilots acknowledge that this is impossible, but sheep don't believe in "conspiracy theories" so this is what MUST have happened).

The whole operation was run from a cave in Afghanistan.

Amazingly most sheep believe what they are supposed to believe. That makes them very easy to control and eventually slaughter... Mmmmm, lamb chops...

These claims are news to me. Do you have a reference?

[Maki]

"These claims are news to me. Do you have a reference?"

There are plenty out there if you want to find them. If you care about the truth, find it for yourself. You won't believe me or my references anyway and neither should you, any more than you believe the official nonsense being circulated about 911...

Everything I mentioned is common knowledge, reported by the mainstream media. I wonder how thngs like the 2.3 trillion dollars missing could have bypassed the brains of so many...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
"according to some estimates we can not track 2.3 trillion dollars."

This might also interest you:

http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html
"He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.


“I’m sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal.”
According to Hordon, air emergencies requiring scrambles, or “flushes,” from fighter jets occur 50 to 150 times a year.


“It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d flush aircraft, get the B-52’s up, get the tankers up, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters as well. They were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.”

[Maki]

With respect to the capability of the aircraft and pilots, don't take my word for it, listen to some real pilots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHLiMl7u8R0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=related

Experienced airline pilots could NOT hit the buildings unless they slowed down to almost landing speeds. But of course you believe that Osamas minions with no large aircraft flight experience hit those buildings at speeds outside the performance envelope of the aircraft...

Like I said, some will believe whatever they are wanted to believe. It has been proven time and time again...

[Jantar]

....
Experienced airline pilots could NOT hit the buildings unless they slowed down to almost landing speeds. But of course you believe that Osamas minions with no large aircraft flight experience hit those buildings at speeds outside the performance envelope of the aircraft...
...


Well, as we have seen the aircraft hit the buildings at cruising speed, and experienced airline pilots couldn't do it, how did it happen?

[Usarka]

There was some spooky shit with the London bombings.

An ex-senior scotland yard anti-terrorist guy had a private company dealing with terrorist threats for companies. On the very same day they were running a rehearsal excercise for a company in which the same tube stations were bombed. Obviously they were well placed to react quickly to the bombings and minimise casualties.

Watch the article. I originally heard this on a BBC interview - they pulled it from their website very shortly afterwards and it was no where to be found until Al Jazeera replayed it.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JKvkhe3rqtc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Dadpole]

Like I said, some will believe whatever they are wanted to believe. It has been proven time and time again...

And it has also been proven that some believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden. Their reason for lack of any evidence can only be explained by a conspiracy by the "Authorities"

[NighthawkNZ]

Well, as we have seen the aircraft hit the buildings at cruising speed, and experienced airline pilots couldn't do it, how did it happen?

Remote control...??? :blink: damn aliems I tells yah

[oneofsix]

Well, as we have seen the aircraft hit the buildings at cruising speed, and experienced airline pilots couldn't do it, how did it happen?

This statement jars. Since when do experienced pilots aim planes at civilian buildings? I've seen footage of missiles and bombs being aimed at and hitting much smaller buildings during war and whilst the aimer was in an aircraft avoiding attack so why would you think that some one who was dedicated to their mission wouldn't be able to aim a plan at a building at cruising speed? You can see they didn't get it perfect as they were still turning, adjusting, when they hit. There is even reports that the first one hit too high for where they were meant to hit.
And don't forget the plane the crashed in the field. What is the conspiracy theory on that one?

[jonbuoy]

With respect to the capability of the aircraft and pilots, don't take my word for it, listen to some real pilots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHLiMl7u8R0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=related

Experienced airline pilots could NOT hit the buildings unless they slowed down to almost landing speeds. But of course you believe that Osamas minions with no large aircraft flight experience hit those buildings at speeds outside the performance envelope of the aircraft...

Like I said, some will believe whatever they are wanted to believe. It has been proven time and time again...

I´m surprised pilots have said that - I wouldn´t say they were small targets to hit.

[jonbuoy]

I´ll be this guy could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGJxhNOAWA&feature=related

[BoristheBiter]

"These claims are news to me. Do you have a reference?"

There are plenty out there if you want to find them. If you care about the truth, find it for yourself. You won't believe me or my references anyway and neither should you, any more than you believe the official nonsense being circulated about 911...
”

This is the typical answer from anyone that just believes dumb shit.

Put up or shut up.

I have flown planes quite a few times, mostly all Cessna's, and can't say i have had any problem putting them where i want to go. Its a matter of scale, the bigger the plane the longer it takes to maneuver.
If you line up from miles out like these did there are only a few changes needed.
So if pilots are saying this can't be done I want to know who they are so i can choose not to let someone, that clearly can't fly a plane, fly.

So you carry on being a sheep and believe that the US killed thousands of their own people just so they could invade another country go right ahead, put your tinfoil hat, hide in the cupboard and wait for Dem aliens

[MSTRS]

Well, as we have seen the aircraft hit the buildings at cruising speed, and experienced airline pilots couldn't do it, how did it happen?

Experienced drivers in manual cars can't, or find it extremely difficult, to make them 'bunny hop'...

[Edbear]

This is the typical answer from anyone that just believes dumb shit.

Put up or shut up.

I have flown planes quite a few times, mostly all Cessna's, and can't say i have had any problem putting them where i want to go. Its a matter of scale, the bigger the plane the longer it takes to maneuver.
If you line up from miles out like these did there are only a few changes needed.
So if pilots are saying this can't be done I want to know who they are so i can choose not to let someone, that clearly can't fly a plane, fly.

So you carry on being a sheep and believe that the US killed thousands of their own people just so they could invade another country go right ahead, put your tinfoil hat, hide in the cupboard and wait for Dem aliens

As it was, one of them nearly missed completely, you can see how hard he was turning, (for a large plane that would equate almost to a handbrake slide), to actually hit the building at all. The first one got it square on and you can see from the flight path, he had it well lined up from a long way back.

The one that hit the Pentagon wasn't dead accurate either although he may have hit the gorund deliberately, these plane are not Cessna's let alone helicopters and small movements/adjustments just don't happen.

What people need to remember is that "evidence" put up by conspiracy theorists is designed to convince people they are right and can hardly be objective. The explanation above about why the buildings collapsed as they did is not only correct but too obvious for some to see.

We may never know for sure exactly how much the Governmental agencies did know and the same is true about the killing of Osama, but there was no deliberate demolition of the one of the USA's proudest complexes and the hub of major US business world-wide. The WTC was a status symbol, a treasure of the USA, and to destroy that was a blow that even Al Qaeda wasn't sure it could do but was exctatic at the unexpected and so dramatic success!

If the US Govt. wanted to make an excuse to attack they didn't have to do much at all and any minor incident would have sufficed. You don't blow up your own temple and kill your own people...

[Oscar]

Let me see, we are supposed to believe that a steel frame building, WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed because some debris hit it? (This was announced on the BBC BEFORE it actually happened.) Steel frame buildings can burn, untill all that is left standing is the steel frame. This has happened many times. Spontaneous collapse due to debris only appears to have happened once, if you believe that "conspiracy". (The owner of WTC7, Silverstein, actually admitted that it had been demolished, "pulled" in his exact wording but sheep would rather believe in their theories.)

We are supposed to believe that $2.3 trillion USD disappeared from the Pentagon budget just before 911 and no one knows what happened to it, as announced by Donald Rumsfeld. Now I wonder, could Bin Laden some how have gotten his grubby hands on that money to finance his terror? If you can believe some of this other stuff I am sure you can believe that.

War games/exercises were being run on 911 by they US government that totaly confused air traffic control and air defenses. You are expected to believe that this was a coincidence, or maybe you think Bin Laden used mind controll to organize and cause US governement officials to conduct the exercises at a convenient time...

Hi tech airliners were navigated at high speed, at times through manouvers that were outside their design envelope by incompetents who could hardly land a Cessna (experienced pilots acknowledge that this is impossible, but sheep don't believe in "conspiracy theories" so this is what MUST have happened).

The whole operation was run from a cave in Afghanistan.

Amazingly most sheep believe what they are supposed to believe. That makes them very easy to control and eventually slaughter... Mmmmm, lamb chops...

So are telling us that a Government that couldn't hide the fact that its President got a blowjob in the Whitehouse is gonna pull off a conspiracy involving the murder of almost 3,000 of it's own citizens and the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property?

Step away from the bong....:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[oneofsix]

As it was, one of them nearly missed completely, you can see how hard he was turning, (for a large plane that would equate almost to a handbrake slide), to actually hit the building at all. The first one got it square on and you can see from the flight path, he had it well lined up from a long way back.

The one that hit the Pentagon wasn't dead accurate either although he may have hit the gorund deliberately, these plane are not Cessna's let alone helicopters and small movements/adjustments just don't happen.

What people need to remember is that "evidence" put up by conspiracy theorists is designed to convince people they are right and can hardly be objective. The explanation above about why the buildings collapsed as they did is not only correct but too obvious for some to see.

We may never know for sure exactly how much the Governmental agencies did know and the same is true about the killing of Osama, but there was no deliberate demolition of the one of the USA's proudest complexes and the hub of major US business world-wide. The WTC was a status symbol, a treasure of the USA, and to destroy that was a blow that even Al Qaeda wasn't sure it could do but was exctatic at the unexpected and so dramatic success!

If the US Govt. wanted to make an excuse to attack they didn't have to do much at all and any minor incident would have sufficed. You don't blow up your own temple and kill your own people...

To logical for the conspiracy supporters but I agree. Another failed attempt at Presidential assassination would have been a better ploy if the USA wanted to rig a ploy or even another attack like on the Cole (think that was the ships name). WTC and Pentagon are to elaborate to be the CIA manufacturing an excuse.

[onearmedbandit]

With respect to the capability of the aircraft and pilots, don't take my word for it, listen to some real pilots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHLiMl7u8R0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=related



Correct me if I'm wrong but the guy in the first video seems to doubt that the plane (whichever one) couldn't have handled the stress put on it by it's actions (he claims putting the plane through 4-5g's) and would've fallen out of the sky. So how did it happen? Smoke and mirrors?


So are telling us that a Government that couldn't hide the fact that its President got a blowjob in the Whitehouse is gonna pull off a conspiracy involving the murder of almost 3,000 of it's own citizens and the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property?

Step away from the bong....:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:


This^. But don't hate the bong, hate the smoker...

[saxet]

9/11 was staged just to stop us noticing that the moon landings were fake.

[Maki]

Firstly, don't tell me what I believe. I believe the official story is a pack of lies but does that mean I think it was an inside job? No, I have no idea whether or not it was so I reserve my judgment.

Let's just think about this for a second. What are we expected to believe happened on 911.

2.3 trillion USD disappeared without a trace from the Pentagon budget. Bin Laden's minions hi jacked a plane that hit the Pentagon (without anyone ever seeing the plane) destroyed records that could have helped clear this up. How incredibly convenient...

"A terrible pilot hits pentagon accounting office holding records of missing 3 trillion in oil for money scheme & missing 2.3 trillion in DOD expenses."
http://manitobacanuk.com/?p=2639

4 (not 1 or 2) large jet airliners where hi-jacked by men who could barely fly a cessna and then flown through high speed maneuvers that make experienced airline pilots shake their head in disbelief. These maneuvers were in fact so difficult that experienced airline pilots could not even pull them off in the stress free environment of a simulator...

3 buildings conveniently collapsed into their own footprint. Bin Laden seems to have kindly picked these to destroy since they were up for demolition anyway.

"That grandiose Titanic called the World Trade Center, which had been planned to last for at least a century, soon revealed itself to be an engineering stupidity and technological embarrassment. The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure. This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment.

The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off and falling into the street. Another built-in irreversible problem was that the WTC buildings were full of asbestos. They may have been "sick buildings" in other environmental ways. The twin towers were white elephants waiting for replacement. The entire WTC complex, including Building 7, had become, prematurely expendable."
http://teslapress.com/911_history.htm

We are expected to believe that this crime was perpetrated by people who are later found to be alive and well, living in other countries.
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

We are expected to believe that aircraft that were still on the active flight list in 2005 were destroyed on 911.

"Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity."

http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm

We are expected to believe that US air defenses were too busy and confused with exercises that day to be able to react to the errant planes and defend NYC and the Pentagon. Who was confusing US air defenses? Are we supposed to believe it was Bin Laden?

We are expected to believe that entities that made huge money prior to 911 betting that airline stock would go down have not been traced and interrogated as to where they got their information from.

It goes on and on and on...

So, in order to make a point, because he hated Americans for their "freedom", Bin Laden arranged for not 1, but 4 airliners to be simultaneously hi-jacked and with military precision his goons carried out a devastating attack against the US on a huge scale.

Ok, you may choose to believe that, and that's fine with me. I was however not born yesterday so I don't. What really happened? I don't know.

I just wonder, do you think Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?

[Oscar]

Firstly, don't tell me what I believe.

No one's telling you what you believe.
But if you post you post your theories with little or no poof and then say that the rest of us are sheep for not believing, you come off like a plonker.

[Latte]

So are telling us that a Government that couldn't hide the fact that its President got a blowjob in the Whitehouse is gonna pull off a conspiracy involving the murder of almost 3,000 of it's own citizens and the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property?

Step away from the bong....:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Eggs Zachary

[Quasievil]

I think Maki's Post was a good one, lots of things to think on reinforced with some data to look at, I dont believe it but I like having my thoughts challenged

nice :yes:

[Crasherfromwayback]

, but I like having my thoughts challenged



I don't. It confuuuuuses me.:confused:

[Maki]

No one's telling you what you believe.
But if you post you post your theories with little or no poof and then say that the rest of us are sheep for not believing, you come off like a plonker.

What theories? The only opinion I have expressed is that the official story is a pack of lies and I have provided evidence to support that. Sheep believe what they are told to believe, that is not a theory.

[onearmedbandit]

4 (not 1 or 2) large jet airliners where hi-jacked by men who could barely fly a cessna and then flown through high speed maneuvers that make experienced airline pilots shake their head in disbelief. These maneuvers were in fact so difficult that experienced airline pilots could not even pull them off in the stress free environment of a simulator...



This is the one I struggle with the most. If it was impossible for experienced pilots to complete the same manoeuvres in the 'stress free environment of a simulator...' then how did it happen at all?

[Crasherfromwayback]

. Sheep believe what they are told to believe, that is not a theory.

I read somewhere that a study had been carried out on sheep, and they're actually quite intelligent. I don't believe that.

[Crasherfromwayback]

This is the one I struggle with the most. If it was impossible for experienced pilots to complete the same manoeuvres in the 'stress free environment of a simulator...' then how did it happen at all?

+ 1. And we ALL saw the planes slam into the buildings!

[Maki]

This is the one I struggle with the most. If it was impossible for experienced pilots to complete the same manoeuvres in the 'stress free environment of a simulator...' then how did it happen at all?

No idea, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it.

[Okey Dokey]

I read somewhere that a study had been carried out on sheep, and they're actually quite intelligent. I don't believe that.

I guess it depends on wether (haha) the sheep were compared with something dumber, like people who believe that pilots are unable to steer the planes they fly :laugh:

[onearmedbandit]

No idea, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Not really, no.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I guess it depends on wether (haha) the sheep were compared with something dumber, like people who believe that pilots are unable to steer the planes they fly :laugh:

So you think it was the sheep that rammed (sorry) the buildings??!!

[Oscar]

What theories? The only opinion I have expressed is that the official story is a pack of lies and I have provided evidence to support that. Sheep believe what they are told to believe, that is not a theory.

So if the official story is a pack of lies - why?

Why would someone go to so much trouble to cover up...what are they covering up?

Apply Occam's razor.
Even a sheep can do that.

[Quasievil]

This is the one I struggle with the most. If it was impossible for experienced pilots to complete the same manoeuvres in the 'stress free environment of a simulator...' then how did it happen at all?


Easy, if you look really hard in the picture below you will see the truth, this has never been released before (i have the only copy) all other images you see are fake and have been photoshoped.
Keep this to your selves, I dont want to find any angry CIA wankers on my door step this afternoon, especially at nap time

if you look really hard you will see a wire, it was pilot less, the plane flew on a flying fox erected by the US government the night before .
Amazing but true people


<a href="http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/?action=view&amp;current=9-111copy.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/9-111copy.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[onearmedbandit]

Easy, if you look really hard in the picture below you will see the truth, this has never been released before (i have the only copy) all other images you see are fake and have been photoshoped.
Keep this to your selves, I dont want to find any angry CIA wankers on my door step this afternoon, especially at nap time

if you look really hard you will see a wire, it was pilot less, the plane flew on a flying fox erected by the US government the night before .
Amazing but true people




OMFG! It all makes sense now. Don't fret though Quasi, your secret is safe with me, I'm with Maki on this one - I knoooowww nuuuuthiiiinnk.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8vNzwxlohg0/Sw9T3iuxt7I/AAAAAAAAAzs/jyaXq2qjIo8/s1600/sgt_20schultz_small.jpg

[avgas]

9/11 was staged just to stop us noticing that the moon landings were fake.
They weren't fake. I see the moon every night.
I have no idea how they put it up there though.

[Quasievil]

I will go all out, here is the picture from the back of the building, this is how the buildings ignited, captain america (a co conspirator with the US government ) planted these sticks of dynamite out of public view that very morning.

I guess thats a wrap people, case closed finally

<a href="http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/?action=view&amp;current=twintowersDynamite.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/twintowersDynamite.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[onearmedbandit]

Not so quick Quasi. How'd they light dem fuses? It's very windy up there, you'd definitely need more than some matches, or even a Bic lighter.

[Quasievil]

I will see if I can get that picture released, standby I will make the phone call :yes:

[NighthawkNZ]

+ 1. And we ALL saw the planes slam into the buildings!

I didn't... I have only seen video, i was not there... video can be altlered on a live feed they do that every night on the 6 oclock news...

Bush always said he wanted to have his own Pearl Harbour so he could go and finish the job his old man couldn't... Some believe that Pear Harbour itself was all pre-planned by the Yanks and Japs before hand... do I believe that, I don't know, do I believe the offical story... not all of it too many holes when you follow the money... and do some research... becarefull what you wish for...

Was 9/11 an inside job... who knows... Do I believe the offical story not all of it too many holes when you start to follow the money... Do I believe every thing the media pushes down my throat lately... ummm no... I do my own research... ie; more to Pike River than you think...

However we will never know the true story behind 9/11 of what and or who did it and or how much of a helping hand they had etc...

There is too much money and power to be made out of war "for the love of money is the root of all evil" Following the money reviels more than most people ask for... and then they don't want to believe it.

Its all part of the grand dellusion of control and manipulation over the population, that they want to cull... oh wait thats another conspiracy... you think you have freedom... :doh:

[Quasievil]

it Was the Human Torch, he was also a conspiritor with the US government. Who would have thought !!

<a href="http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/?action=view&amp;current=twintowersDynamitehumantorch. jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/twintowersDynamitehumantorch.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[onearmedbandit]

I didn't... I have only seen video, i was not there... video can be altlered on a live feed...



Oooo this gets more and more interesting by the minute. Maybe they covered the city in some kind of hallucinogenic drug so everyone on the ground would think they've seen two planes slam into the buildings, then created 'amateur' footage and put it into peoples home cameras. The enormity of this is amazing.

[onearmedbandit]

it Was the Human Torch, he was also a conspiritor with the US government. Who would have thought !!



It all fits into place. And now SuperMan has uncovered it all he has renounced his American citizenship. (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/03/superman-renounces-u-s-citizenship-in-latest-comic-book/)

[NighthawkNZ]

The enormity of this is amazing.

It does... and is ;-)

I's still blaming the Aliems...

[Crasherfromwayback]

I didn't... I have only seen video, i was not there... video can be altlered on a live feed they do that every night on the 6 oclock news...

:

You ARE kidding right?

[Oscar]

It does... and is ;-)

I's still blaming the Aliems...

Not to mention the Aliens.

The bastards..

[NighthawkNZ]

Not to mention the Aliens.

The bastards..

Aliems you know... Aliems... You have the, Aliems movies, Aliems vs Prediator movie...

Yes pronounced Alie-ums... Aliems :blink:


or do I mean illiegal Aliems who know... either which way it was the Aliems either that or the butler... it usually the butler

[Maki]

So if the official story is a pack of lies - why?

Why would someone go to so much trouble to cover up...what are they covering up?

Apply Occam's razor.
Even a sheep can do that.

Thanks for bringing up the razor. It certainly rips the official version to shreds. All the staggering assumptions and leaps of logic needed to make that work...

If you want to solve a crime you find who has the motive, opportunity and means to perpetrate it.

If you want a better motive than the absurd "he did it because he hated our freedom", try power and money. If you want means and opportunity try 2.3 trillion USD.

Think about this:

"At least since his 1992 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' under George H.W. Bush, he has called for a sharp transformation of military capabilities into an unilateral and pre-emptive security arm for world conflicts-- solidifying U.S. primacy in the world order and ensuring control over mid-east oil."
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/070207_wolfowitz.html

Control over mid east oil.... Now, which motive rings more true to you, especially considering recent events?

[NighthawkNZ]

You ARE kidding right?

thats just what they say...:blink:

I don't believe that... thats just what they say...

and it gets better apparently some of the jets vapour trails are spraying us with chemicals to keep us under control and or so when they release the next virus on humans the anti virus doesn't work and kills off 90% of the population and only a select few have the real anti virus while they live in there under ground bases and oh and there more apparently the conspiracy isn't if we went to the moon its what the found ... :facepalm: (that its all true its made of cheese and there is a man in the moon, cows can jump that high and oh wait... thats not all... mars...)

see it them pesky aliems :blink::blink: :shit::gob: :shutup: :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[BoristheBiter]

What theories? The only opinion I have expressed is that the official story is a pack of lies and I have provided evidence to support that. Sheep believe what they are told to believe, that is not a theory.

OK so you say the official story is a pack of lies.

Well i say your theory is a pack of lies.

Just look at the one comment you are so fixated about "no pilot could fly the planes into the buildings" come on if you believe that you are thicker than pig shite.
Who flew it then? the aliens?

Flying a plane into a building is as easy as flying a plane "straight and level" just aim at the building. as for the vid of the old vet he says he doesn't think it is possible, he doesn't say its not possible, and these ones flying the plane at the end knew they where going to die so didn't care if these maneuvers would stress the plane.

You say we are sheep for following the offical line, well I say you are even a worse sheep for following complete bollocks.
I say go jump into a simulator, they are quite cheap now, and see just how easy it is to fly once you are airborne, I have in fact i have taken off, flown around and landed and the only air time i have had is in a Cessna 152, and you can see them starting to loose control over the plane as the second plane nearly misses.

[oneofsix]

OK so you say the official story is a pack of lies.

Well i say your theory is a pack of lies.

Just look at the one comment you are so fixated about "no pilot could fly the planes into the buildings" come on if you believe that you are thicker than pig shite.
Who flew it then? the aliens?

Flying a plane into a building is as easy as flying a plane "straight and level" just aim at the building. as for the vid of the old vet he says he doesn't think it is possible, he doesn't say its not possible, and these ones flying the plane at the end knew they where going to die so didn't care if these maneuvers would stress the plane.

You say we are sheep for following the offical line, well I say you are even a worse sheep for following complete bollocks.
I say go jump into a simulator, they are quite cheap now, and see just how easy it is to fly once you are airborne, I have in fact i have taken off, flown around and landed and the only air time i have had is in a Cessna 152, and you can see them starting to loose control over the plane as the second plane nearly misses.


Wouldn't hitting the building be easier than, say, hitting the runway? At least the building sticks up in the air for you to aim at.

[BoristheBiter]

Wouldn't hitting the building be easier than, say, hitting the runway? At least the building sticks up in the air for you to aim at.

It generally is.

[NighthawkNZ]

Who flew it then? the aliens?


Yes. I tells yah... :yes::yes::yes:

actually I am now finding it hard to keep a straight face.... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[BoristheBiter]

Yes. I tells yah... :yes::yes::yes:

actually I am now finding it hard to keep a straight face.... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

at least you still have one.:innocent:

[onearmedbandit]

Wouldn't hitting the building be easier than, say, hitting the runway? At least the building sticks up in the air for you to aim at.

I've played MS's Flight Sims a bit, and I know I could fly one of those puppies into a building. Landing, well that was the hard part.

[oneofsix]

I've played MS's Flight Sims a bit, and I know I could fly one of those puppies into a building. Landing, well that was the hard part.

Now you mention it wasn't one of the things they did was spend hours on MS Flight Sim practicing their approaches and learning the land marks?

[BoristheBiter]

Now you mention it wasn't one of the things they did was spend hours on MS Flight Sim practicing their approaches and learning the land marks?

I found it was easier in the simulator as on MS Fight Sim you don't get the feed back though the controls.

[MisterD]

Wouldn't hitting the building be easier than, say, hitting the runway? At least the building sticks up in the air for you to aim at.

I think the point was that planes generally slow down to do the runway thing, and the WTC ones were at cruising speed or close to it...

[ducatilover]

I found it was easier in the simulator as on MS Fight Sim you don't get the feed back though the controls.
Gasp! It was you wasn't it??

[Drunken Monkey]

I found it was easier in the simulator as on MS Fight Sim you don't get the feed back though the controls.

You do if you have a force feedback controller :)

[Jantar]

I think the point was that planes generally slow down to do the runway thing, and the WTC ones were at cruising speed or close to it...
Correct, and that is one of the thinhgs that makes hitting a building at cruising speed even easier than landing. In landing configuration, with undercarriage down, flaps extended etc, and at low speed, the aircraft is less responsive and is only a few knots above the stall. That makes it harder to control and more difficult to fly accurately. At cruising speed the aircraft is in its natural clean state and responds to the lightest touch. It is easy to control and to line up accurately on any point.

[NighthawkNZ]

Correct, and that is one of the thinhgs that makes hitting a building at cruising speed even easier than landing. In landing configuration, with undercarriage down, flaps extended etc, and at low speed, the aircraft is less responsive and is only a few knots above the stall. That makes it harder to control and more difficult to fly accurately. At cruising speed the aircraft is in its natural clean state and responds to the lightest touch. It is easy to control and to line up accurately on any point.

What so no Aliems... :-(

[Jantar]

What so no Aliems... :-(

Ragheads are aliems. :yes:

[avgas]

Ragheads are aliems. :yes:
Only in New York

[Oscar]

I think the point was that planes generally slow down to do the runway thing, and the WTC ones were at cruising speed or close to it...

The first one that hit was at maximum speed.
There's a video that gets it overhead from street level and it's engines are tapped out.

[Swoop]

The conspiracy is a conspiracy!

The buildings are still there. True!
It's just that the department of homeland security makes everyone with a film or video camera submit their footage for editing. This is all done via ewechoob or farcebook.

All the acting was done on the same set as the one where the moon landings were faked.

[BoristheBiter]

Gasp! It was you wasn't it??


Shit I knew i shouldn't have posted that, now the USA's crack seal team :rofl:will come after me. I'm off to hide in my mansion in the city, that will atleast give me ten years.


You do if you have a force feedback controller :)

I do but its still not the same.
I would like to have a go at the real thing (not enough air miles) to see what its like compared to the simulator.

[ducatilover]

Shit I knew i shouldn't have posted that, now the USA's crack seal team :rofl:will come after me. I'm off to hide in my mansion in the city, that will atleast give me ten years.



They'll kill you and dump the body in the sea then tell us you're dead. We will believe them.

[specter]

just my 10c...

i want to see footage of the plane hitting the towers. it seems that only people on the opposite side of the tower had video cameras that day. :facepalm:

[Usarka]

Did anyone even watch the video i posted? Same thing happened after the london bombings - it's the closest thing to evidence of a conspiracy we've ever seen but it's like an elephant in the room or it goes into some sort of blind spot.....

Anti-conspiracy nutters are just as blinkered and bigoted as the conspiracy nutters they despise.

[Jantar]

just my 10c...

i want to see footage of the plane hitting the towers. it seems that only people on the opposite side of the tower had video cameras that day. :facepalm:

No-one was ready with a video camera for the first impact. It was just a fluke that a group of firemen on a training exercise happened to catch the first plane.

For the second impact there were TV crews already filming the fire in Tower 1, but at this stage no-one was aware that the impact was deliberate. It was only well after the second aircraft hit that it became known that these crashes were deliberate.

[specter]

No-one was ready with a video camera for the first impact. It was just a fluke that a group of firemen on a training exercise happened to catch the first plane.

For the second impact there were TV crews already filming the fire in Tower 1, but at this stage no-one was aware that the impact was deliberate. It was only well after the second aircraft hit that it became known that these crashes were deliberate.

yet only the people on the opposite side of the tower heard the plane coming?

those things are farrrrking loud and add the echoes off the building?

im not pointing fingers but wtf?

[Jantar]

yet only the people on the opposite side of the tower heard the plane coming?...
Huh? Where did this gem come from?

[specter]

Huh? Where did this gem come from?

well everybody on the opposite side of the tower managed to turn and watch the second plane come in. how come no one got footage of the plane actually hitting it?

[Oscar]

Thanks for bringing up the razor. It certainly rips the official version to shreds. All the staggering assumptions and leaps of logic needed to make that work...


Like what?

And please don't insult me with the WTC7 collapse story or the "it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" bullshit.

Name one "staggering assumption" or "leap of logic" required to make the story work.

[Oscar]

well everybody on the opposite side of the tower managed to turn and watch the second plane come in. how come no one got footage of the plane actually hitting it?

There is footage of the second plane from over the other side of the Hudson River.
A panaromic shot from several miles away.
Which side do you call that?

[bungbung]

http://www.debunking911.com/

[Oscar]

http://www.debunking911.com/

But the Aliens wrote that.
Maybe even the Aliems...

[ducatilover]

My personal favourite is the thermite theory :rockon: What a crock. Anyone who has seen thermite burn knows it doesn't burn sideways through steel beams :facepalm:

[Virago]

well everybody on the opposite side of the tower managed to turn and watch the second plane come in. how come no one got footage of the plane actually hitting it?

FFS. You're suggesting that video footage was controlled? So everyone in NYC is actually part of the conspiracy? Wow - it's bigger than I thought...

FWIW - here's footage from every angle:

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DoE8Uz2ia3M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Maha]

Amazing Ken, even after ten years....first time I have heard the impact which is clear in some of the footage.

[The Stranger]

FFS. You're suggesting that video footage was controlled? So everyone in NYC is actually part of the conspiracy? Wow - it's bigger than I thought...

FWIW - here's footage from every angle:



Man that sure looks like a plane flew into that building.
But of course, we all know it can't be done right so there's some pretty awesome special effects work right there.

[onearmedbandit]

All the proof I needed was in that video. 3:10 - a guy with a camera from appox 2-3km away when witnessing the 2nd explosion clearly states - 'there is a bomb in it'.

[NighthawkNZ]

FFS. You're suggesting that video footage was controlled? So everyone in NYC is actually part of the conspiracy? Wow - it's bigger than I thought...


Dang bigger than I thought too... must be mind control aliems...

All dat smoke musta caused climate change

[jonbuoy]

Firstly, don't tell me what I believe. I believe the official story is a pack of lies but does that mean I think it was an inside job? No, I have no idea whether or not it was so I reserve my judgment.

Let's just think about this for a second. What are we expected to believe happened on 911.

2.3 trillion USD disappeared without a trace from the Pentagon budget. Bin Laden's minions hi jacked a plane that hit the Pentagon (without anyone ever seeing the plane) destroyed records that could have helped clear this up. How incredibly convenient...

"A terrible pilot hits pentagon accounting office holding records of missing 3 trillion in oil for money scheme & missing 2.3 trillion in DOD expenses."
http://manitobacanuk.com/?p=2639

4 (not 1 or 2) large jet airliners where hi-jacked by men who could barely fly a cessna and then flown through high speed maneuvers that make experienced airline pilots shake their head in disbelief. These maneuvers were in fact so difficult that experienced airline pilots could not even pull them off in the stress free environment of a simulator...

3 buildings conveniently collapsed into their own footprint. Bin Laden seems to have kindly picked these to destroy since they were up for demolition anyway.

"That grandiose Titanic called the World Trade Center, which had been planned to last for at least a century, soon revealed itself to be an engineering stupidity and technological embarrassment. The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure. This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment.

The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off and falling into the street. Another built-in irreversible problem was that the WTC buildings were full of asbestos. They may have been "sick buildings" in other environmental ways. The twin towers were white elephants waiting for replacement. The entire WTC complex, including Building 7, had become, prematurely expendable."
http://teslapress.com/911_history.htm

We are expected to believe that this crime was perpetrated by people who are later found to be alive and well, living in other countries.
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

We are expected to believe that aircraft that were still on the active flight list in 2005 were destroyed on 911.

"Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity."

http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm

We are expected to believe that US air defenses were too busy and confused with exercises that day to be able to react to the errant planes and defend NYC and the Pentagon. Who was confusing US air defenses? Are we supposed to believe it was Bin Laden?

We are expected to believe that entities that made huge money prior to 911 betting that airline stock would go down have not been traced and interrogated as to where they got their information from.

It goes on and on and on...

So, in order to make a point, because he hated Americans for their "freedom", Bin Laden arranged for not 1, but 4 airliners to be simultaneously hi-jacked and with military precision his goons carried out a devastating attack against the US on a huge scale.

Ok, you may choose to believe that, and that's fine with me. I was however not born yesterday so I don't. What really happened? I don't know.

I just wonder, do you think Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?

Out of curiosity Maki - what did you think when you saw it on the news back in 2001? The endless eye witness reviews "live from new york" footage?

Are you saying that the planes didn´t strike the building or that the buildings didn´t fall down because of the planes striking it?

That the US orchestrated the whole attack?

That a combination of explosives and airplanes striking the building caused it to collapse?

[Maki]

Out of curiosity Maki - what did you think when you saw it on the news back in 2001? The endless eye witness reviews "live from new york" footage?

Are you saying that the planes didn´t strike the building or that the buildings didn´t fall down because of the planes striking it?

That the US orchestrated the whole attack?

That a combination of explosives and airplanes striking the building caused it to collapse?

This in as interesting thread on so many levels, thanks to all who have considered my comments, even the people who put words in my mouth and then called me names for my so called theories.

I don't have any theories but I have opinions based on the facts.

"Out of curiosity Maki - what did you think when you saw it on the news back in 2001? The endless eye witness reviews "live from new york" footage? "

I didn't know what to think but I wondered about the firefighters who talked about "explosions" in the buildings. I certainly believe aircraft hit the WTC. What aircraft those where and who was flying them is still a mystery to me though. Why the WTC7 collapsed is still a mystery.

"Are you saying that the planes didn´t strike the building or that the buildings didn´t fall down because of the planes striking it?"

No, I think planes struck WTC1 and 2. Regarding the Pentagon I have no idea but don't you find it strangely convenient that records that could have shown what happened to 2.3 trillion missing USD were destroyed? A brilliant piece of flying if a Cessna learner actually did pull it off. I don't think WTC7 fell down because a plane struck it and I don't know why WTC1 and 2 fell down.

[BoristheBiter]

This in as interesting thread on so many levels, thanks to all who have considered my comments, even the people who put words in my mouth and then called me names for my so called theories.

I don't have any theories but I have opinions based on the facts.

"Out of curiosity Maki - what did you think when you saw it on the news back in 2001? The endless eye witness reviews "live from new york" footage? "

I didn't know what to think but I wondered about the firefighters who talked about "explosions" in the buildings. I certainly believe aircraft hit the WTC. What aircraft those where and who was flying them is still a mystery to me though. Why the WTC7 collapsed is still a mystery.

"Are you saying that the planes didn´t strike the building or that the buildings didn´t fall down because of the planes striking it?"

No, I think planes struck WTC1 and 2. Regarding the Pentagon I have no idea but don't you find it strangely convenient that records that could have shown what happened to 2.3 trillion missing USD were destroyed? A brilliant piece of flying if a Cessna learner actually did pull it off. I don't think WTC7 fell down because a plane struck it and I don't know why WTC1 and 2 fell down.

Actually you have opinions based on theories that someone else says are facts.
You think planes hit the towers??? WTF do you think they were if not planes? Sorry that's right pilots can't fly planes like that.

And it is not very good flying because they had all that time to line up on it and nearly missed it.

Saying they heard explosions and saying there where explosives used are too different things. next time you see a firetruck heading off follow it and watch the fire and listen to the explosions that happen when things are on fire.
Just think of all the things that are in an office building then mupiply it by the size of the towers and of course you will get explosions.

[Laava]

Some Osama Bin Laden anagrams;

A lesbian nomad
a nobleman said
abdominal sane
banned somalia
bonsai leadman
a samoan bled in
baled a mansion
a blond amnesia
abandon a slime, and my personal favourite
amiable on sand

[marty]

With respect to the capability of the aircraft and pilots, don't take my word for it, listen to some real pilots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHLiMl7u8R0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&feature=related

Experienced airline pilots could NOT hit the buildings unless they slowed down to almost landing speeds. But of course you believe that Osamas minions with no large aircraft flight experience hit those buildings at speeds outside the performance envelope of the aircraft...

Like I said, some will believe whatever they are wanted to believe. It has been proven time and time again...

having never flown anything over 7.5 tonnes and faster than 260kts, I successfully flew a full motion $30million 777-300 simulator under the golden gate bridge and around san fran city at low level, at around 450kts. i also flew under the auckland harbour bridge, then lined up and hit the sky tower. the turning circle is pretty big
but with a bit of planning it wasn't too hard.

[onearmedbandit]

having never flown anything over 7.5 tonnes and faster than 260kts, I successfully flew a full motion $30million 777-300 simulator under the golden gate bridge and around san fran city at low level, at around 450kts. i also flew under the auckland harbour bridge, then lined up and hit the sky tower. the turning circle is pretty big
but with a bit of planning it wasn't too hard.

Don't lie!!

[Maki]

Actually you have opinions based on theories that someone else says are facts.
You think planes hit the towers??? WTF do you think they were if not planes? Sorry that's right pilots can't fly planes like that.

And it is not very good flying because they had all that time to line up on it and nearly missed it.



This silliness has been repeated so many times that I think I should answer. There are many types of pilots. There are couch potato pilots who can fly a playstation and spout bullshit out of their ass. There are Cessna pilots who know a little better and then there are pilots who have flown large airliners for many years. You can take the word of whatever type of pilot you choose but I prefer to listen to those who actually know what they are talking about.

Someone or something controlled those planes. A computer or human pilots most likely. If you think those pilots were novices who could barely fly a Cessna as the offial version states, then I think you are rather stupid.

You might like to consider this possibility:
"British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions."
http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

[Jantar]

... then there are pilots who have flown large airliners for many years. You can take the word of whatever type of pilot you choose but I prefer to listen to those who actually know what they are talking about....
OK, I'm a weekend pilot flying now flying Cessna and Gliders, and I'm a "B" cat instructor.

Unlike Marty, the heaviest aircraft I've ever piloted was only 3.5 tonnes (and twin engined), but I have flown at over 300 kts (single engine and very small). I have been flying since 1967, yes, that's before I started riding motorcycles, and my son is a comercial pilot flying medium sized aircraft in Australia. No, I've never piloted a 767 or similar, but I do know the principles of flight very well. Take a look around this site and I think you'll find more pilots on here than you would imagine, including at least one heavy pilot. I'm suprised he hasn't already commented in this thread. Where are you terbang?

Flying an aircraft with sufficient precision to hit a building as large as one of the Twin towers is easy. It's wider than any runway in the world and sticks up so high that the real problem would be to actually miss the target.

[Maki]

OK, I'm a weekend pilot flying now flying Cessna and Gliders, and I'm a "B" cat instructor.

Unlike Marty, the heaviest aircraft I've ever piloted was only 3.5 tonnes (and twin engined), but I have flown at over 300 kts (single engine and very small). I have been flying since 1967, yes, that's before I started riding motorcycles, and my son is a comercial pilot flying medium sized aircraft in Australia. No, I've never piloted a 767 or similar, but I do know the principles of flight very well. Take a look around this site and I think you'll find more pilots on here than you would imagine, including at least one heavy pilot. I'm suprised he hasn't already commented in this thread. Where are you terbang?

Flying an aircraft with sufficient precision to hit a building as large as one of the Twin towers is easy. It's wider than any runway in the world and sticks up so high that the real problem would be to actually miss the target.

It IS easy if you slow down enough, like playstation pilots above have demonstrated with their mad skills... It does get a bit harder though when the plane is flying at speeds above it's design envelope, 510 knots in this case. I am sure your pilot friends would agree.

"A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn't a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won't publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?"

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2010/06/911-aircraft-speed.html

510 knots! Do you honestly believe that jokers who could barely fly a Cessna did that? I know a lot of people are desperate to cling to the official conspiracy theory because the alternatives are quite scary. The world isn't quite as safe and orderly as many of us would like to think...

I tend to agree with the possibility above that says:
"this wasn't a standard 767-200"

[ellipsis]

....I was having a chat with Spongebob and Patrick the other day...they have their own theories...it may not be widely known , but a very ritzy Crusty Crab Restaurant got fucked up big time when that 747 landed in the Hudson a year or so back...apparently the Falafel Brigade, didnt want Crabby Patties taking too much out of their NY trade...Sqidward came along and the conversation kinda died....Patrick said he has some video of it all...Spongebob was really quite agitated..I've never known him to be so perplexed...he reckons he will ,"nail some towel head ass"...didn't know he was that way inclined, either...:blink:

[Jantar]

..... It does get a bit harder though when the plane is flying at speeds above it's design envelope, 510 knots in this case. I am sure your pilot friends would agree....
Um, As the design envelope for a 767 - 200 series is Vne 516 knots IAS, then 510 kts is within the envelope, not above it.

Also remember that the 510 Kts is estimated ground speed not IAS which is unknown.

[Maki]

Um, As the design envelope for a 767 - 200 series is Vne 516 knots IAS, then 510 kts is within the envelope, not above it.

Also remember that the 510 Kts is estimated ground speed not IAS which is unknown.

Is 510 knots at 700 feet above the ground within the 767 envelope? Are you aware of the fact that things change with altitude? The atmosphere is about 3 times more dense near sea level than it is at cruising altitude for those planes. That affects engine performance and the forces acting on the aircraft.

What does the indicated speed have to do with the physics involved with this?

Why am I even explaining this? Just ask your airline pilot friends what would happen if they flew a 767 at 500 knots at 700 feet above sea level and if novices could execute complicated manouvers under those conditions.

Believe what you want, but there is no need to distort facts such as the design envelope of an aircraft at a given altitude.

[onearmedbandit]

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn't a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won't publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?"



Your argument is seriously flawed when the basic facts are incorrect, and you can't go changing your argument by now talking about flying at 700ft. Your source above claims the maximum operating velocity of the 767-200 is 360kts, 410 in a dive. This is clearly wrong as stated here. (http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103)


Performance
767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt).

[Jantar]

Is 510 knots at 700 feet above the ground within the 767 envelope? Are you aware of the fact that things change with altitude? The atmosphere is about 3 times more dense near sea level than it is at cruising altitude for those planes. That affects engine performance and the forces acting on the aircraft.

What does the indicated speed have to do with the physics involved with this?

Why am I even explaining this? Just ask your airline pilot friends what would happen if they flew a 767 at 500 knots at 700 feet above sea level and if novices could execute complicated manouvers under those conditions.

Believe what you want, but there is no need to distort facts such as the design envelope of an aircraft at a given altitude.

Exactly! the IAS changes with altitude and air density. The IAS and true airspeed are only identical at sea level. At higher altitudes the true airspeed is higher than IAS. There is another critical airspeed that I believe you may be getting confused with and that is the Manouvering speed Va. This is the maximum speed at which it is safe to apply full control deflection. I have been unble to find out just what this is for a 767-200, but a rule of thumb is 2/3 Vne. So that would make it around 370 Kts, very close to your claimed 360 kts.

One other thing I'm intersted in: Just what complicated manouvers are these aircraft supposed to have executed? From the video I've seen there was never any more than a rather gentle bank.

[Maki]

Ok, educate yourself about flying large airliners at 500 knots near the ground and the problems involved with manouvering and hitting small targets at such speeds. Enjoy...
If you still believe people who never flew a large airliner at all did that, fine. In my experience people believe what they want to believe.

You are the person bringing up these different measures of air speed so the only source of confusion is you. I am simply talking about the actual air speed. You obviously have little understanding of the physics involved and the effects of air density at different atitudes.

[Maki]

Your argument is seriously flawed when the basic facts are incorrect, and you can't go changing your argument by now talking about flying at 700ft. Your source above claims the maximum operating velocity of the 767-200 is 360kts, 410 in a dive. This is clearly wrong as stated here. (http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103)

I am not changing anything. Where does your link talk about a dive? I am discussing the performance of these aircraft at near sea level and so is my source. Yours is not. Do you think the WTC was 30.000 feet high maybe?

[onearmedbandit]

I am not changing anything. Where does your link talk about a dive? I am discussing the performance of these aircraft at near sea level and so is my source. Yours is not. Do you think the WTC was 30.000 feet high maybe?


This might answer a few of your concerns. (http://911blogger.com/node/20232)



Let’s now get to the question of Lear’s statement regarding the “impossible speed” at which both AA11 and UA175 were flying, according to official reports. Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11;

1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.

Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.

Boeing 767-300 Simulator Experiment on the 29th of April 2009

The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.

We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.

Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.

How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?

The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.

[Maki]

:clap:

Well done, there is some sanity. It seems to be possible but it is far outside the design envelope. That is why the flying supposedly done by complete novices on 911 stretches the imagination.

[ducatilover]

:clap:

Well done, there is some sanity. It seems to be possible but it is far outside the design envelope. That is why the flying done by complete novices on 911 stretches the imagination.
He said he had no real problems at far higher speeds in the sim, he isn't a practising pilot either by the sounds of it.

[BoristheBiter]

:clap:

Well done, there is some sanity. It seems to be possible but it is far outside the design envelope. That is why the flying supposedly done by complete novices on 911 stretches the imagination.

Are you that dumb He just disproved your "the plane can't do that theory"?

You have taken the word of one statement against the word of at least 3 pilots on here, so who still has there head in the sand?

[Edbear]

He said he had no real problems at far higher speeds in the sim, he isn't a practising pilot either by the sounds of it.

The pilots may not have had the experience many have, but have we heard exactly who they were? They did have training to a degree and the flight simulator report shows it's not necessary to be highly skilled to do what they did.

One can argue the matter until the cows come home, but the fact is, the WTC WAS hit, the Pentagon WAS hit and the third plane was on its way to its target. The planes did do what they did, so what they did was obviously within thier capabilities and the capabilities of the pilots. They did not perform impossible maneuvers, that's an oxymoron, nothing can perform impossible maneuvers, nor did they perform maneuvers outside their design envelope.

Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the US Govt. used highly trained military pilots to pilot domestic aircraft into its highly valued, iconic and world-renowned status symbol/business centre, simultaneously triggering a pre-set demolition charges and kill 3,000 innocent civilians; at the same time flying a domestic air-craft into the Pentagon and attempting to do the same to the White House. Why? To provide an excuse to invade Irag.

Yup. Let's attack, kill and destroy our most prized and valuable targets, hitting the very heart of the US power and economy, so we can invade Iraq and get rid of Sadam Hussein.

Tui Ad, anyone..?

[Quasievil]

But the plane did fly into the WTC so whats the point of arguing its possibility, it happened

Albeit on a flying fox for guidance, didnt you silly pricks see the imagery that proves it

[oneofsix]

:clap:

Well done, there is some sanity. It seems to be possible but it is far outside the design envelope. That is why the flying supposedly done by complete novices on 911 stretches the imagination.

:no: he said it is within the design envelop but outside the safe operating limits. As these guys weren't interested in safe operation of the aircraft you need to forget the safe operating limits, after all I'm sure they also say don't fly into buildings.
Even IF it was out side the design envelop, so what? they didn't care. The craft will hold together beyond the design envelop and they weren't looking for a comfortable or safe flight.

[Edbear]

:no: he said it is within the design envelop but outside the safe operating limits. As these guys weren't interested in safe operation of the aircraft you need to forget the safe operating limits, after all I'm sure they also say don't fly into buildings.
Even IF it was out side the design envelop, so what? they didn't care. The craft will hold together beyond the design envelop and they weren't looking for a comfortable or safe flight.

You make it sound like they didn't care if they crashed them and wrote them off... :innocent:

[The Stranger]

:clap:

Well done, there is some sanity. It seems to be possible but it is far outside the design envelope. That is why the flying supposedly done by complete novices on 911 stretches the imagination.

Am I missing something?
Isn't the entire argument about capability of the planes moot?
I mean, the planes did hit the buildings right? Have I got that straight?
Because if they did, then surely they are capable of it so really does it matter what speed was estimated?

Last I heard (and I readily accept that I may well be wrong) but they are claiming not that the impact was the big problem, but the burning fuel. Now conspiracies aside, this is bourne out surely by the fact that the building did not tumble on impact, but some time later when either the fire had done it's bit or the charges went off.

[Virago]

As always, the two sides of this debate are completely polarised, and always will be.

The conspiracy theorists have made a huge leap of logic. One which requires them to believe that "TPTB" are constantly plotting to kill their own people, for various mysterious reasons. That every disaster, whether at man's hands or nature's, is part of a deeper plot that threatens us all. That it is all controlled by a mysterious "world order", who control the "puppet" leaders below.

Having made that leap of logic, the conspiracy theorists find themselves in a dark and fearful world from which there is little chance of rescue. They are beyond reason.

The parallels with religious fanaticism are hardly surprising. Luckily they can't burn the rest of us at the stake these days...

[Swoop]

Albeit on a flying fox for guidance, didnt you silly pricks see the imagery that proves it
Another conspiracy!

The wire of the flying fox has to be attached to something at each end. One was on the WTC, so what was the other end of the wire attached to?

Whaterver it was, it would have to be even taller than the WTC building.

Huh? Huh?

[NighthawkNZ]

As always, the two sides of this debate are completely polarised, and always will be.

The conspiracy theorists have made a huge leap of logic. One which requires them to believe that "TPTB" are constantly plotting to kill their own people, for various mysterious reasons. That every disaster, whether at man's hands or nature's, is part of a deeper plot that threatens us all. That it is all controlled by a mysterious "world order", who control the "puppet" leaders below.

Having made that leap of logic, the conspiracy theorists find themselves in a dark and fearful world from which there is little chance of rescue. They are beyond reason.

The parallels with religious fanaticism are hardly surprising. Luckily they can't burn the rest of us at the stake these days...

Thats just a conspiracy ... damn aliems

[bungbung]

Another conspiracy!

The wire of the flying fox has to be attached to something at each end. One was on the WTC, so what was the other end of the wire attached to?

Whaterver it was, it would have to be even taller than the WTC building.

Huh? Huh?

The USG have the technology, they're just keeping it secret - Skyhooks

[carbonhed]

:corn:

Damn it's been fascinating watching Maki look more and more like a fly dying on a windowsill. On his back with his legs in the air and describing ever decreasing circles towards the inevitable. But experience shows that given a prod the hapless insect can be encouraged to do a few more laps.

So here's a shout out to you Maki. just because you're getting mercilessly raped now in the hour of the darkness before dawn get up stand up for what you believe in and it'll be a brand new day with bright horizons and freedom from the tyranny of evil men and shit.

You go guy.

:corn:

[NighthawkNZ]

:corn:

Damn it's been fascinating watching Maki look more and more like a fly dying on a windowsill.

He needs to follow the money on the 9/11 see what he comes up with... all the other "so called" eviedence is nothing... follow the money trail...

[oneofsix]

He needs to follow the money on the 9/11 see what he comes up with... all the other "so called" eviedence is nothing... follow the money trail...

aliems use money? :gob:

[Oscar]

I keep coming back to the "why?" question.

Why would anyone fly remote controlled planes into the towers?
What were the passengers doing when this was happening?

Why would anyone disguise a missile as a plane or fly into the Pentagon?
If it was a missile or a bomb, why did they do such a crap job?

How did they fool the entire population of mid-town NY?

And the biggie - Why do it? What did "they" hope to achieve?

[Whynot]

Hone was behind it all

[oneofsix]

I keep coming back to the "why?" question.

Why would anyone fly remote controlled planes into the towers?
What were the passengers doing when this was happening?

Why would anyone disguise a missile as a plane or fly into the Pentagon?
If it was a missile or a bomb, why did they do such a crap job?

How did they fool the entire population of mid-town NY?

And the biggie - Why do it? What did "they" hope to achieve?

What were the passengers doing when this was happening? making phone calls and text to there nearest and dearest saying they had been hijacked and were going to die weren't they? If so how was that faked?

[Quasievil]

Another conspiracy!

The wire of the flying fox has to be attached to something at each end. One was on the WTC, so what was the other end of the wire attached to?

Whaterver it was, it would have to be even taller than the WTC building.

Huh? Huh?

It was attached to a really tall thing just out of shot, I have a picture of it somewhere if you really want it

[oneofsix]

It was attached to a really tall thing just out of shot, I have a picture of it somewhere if you really want it

I have been waiting on Nighthawk to point out it was attached to the aliems frying saucer

[Oscar]

What were the passengers doing when this was happening? making phone calls and text to there nearest and dearest saying they had been hijacked and were going to die weren't they? If so how was that faked?

Why would "they" hijack a plane and fly it into the ground?

As I said earlier - the simplest explanation is usually the best...

[avgas]

Why would "they" hijack a plane and fly it into the ground?
As I said earlier - the simplest explanation is usually the best...
The same reason why most on here crash.
Not their fault.

[oneofsix]

Why would "they" hijack a plane and fly it into the ground?

As I said earlier - the simplest explanation is usually the best...

which they?
the terrorists that hijacked the plane with box cutters? they didn't intend to fly it into the ground, there is debate about where they did intend to crash it but it wasn't a field.
The passengers that hijacked the plan off the hijackers? they preferred to crash it to prevent it being used as a weapon like the other 3.
I am presuming we are talking about the plane that crashed in the field and not the one that hit the Pentagon which also hit the ground and plowed into the building.

[avgas]

My personal favourite is the thermite theory :rockon: What a crock. Anyone who has seen thermite burn knows it doesn't burn sideways through steel beams :facepalm:
Aye? what do you mean burn sideways. I don't thermite was involved, but thermite will burn sideways when put into a ceramic/cement "<", that is until it can then melt down again.
But yeh no thermite used there. Way to complicated to setup.
However would be pretty fun if some guy was in there with a gas axe cutting beams the day before.

[Oscar]

which they?
the terrorists that hijacked the plane with box cutters? they didn't intend to fly it into the ground, there is debate about where they did intend to crash it but it wasn't a field.
The passengers that hijacked the plan off the hijackers? they preferred to crash it to prevent it being used as a weapon like the other 3.
I am presuming we are talking about the plane that crashed in the field and not the one that hit the Pentagon which also hit the ground and plowed into the building.

Sorry, that question was directed at the consipracy theorists.
If it wa a huge plot by the US Gummint, why make it so complicated?

Why not just blow up a landmark building?

[NighthawkNZ]

aliems use money? :gob:

depends on the type of aliem... not all aliems fly around in ufo's, some aliems are from aliem country's and illegal aliems they use money???


Sorry, that question was directed at the consipracy theorists.
If it wa a huge plot by the US Gummint, why make it so complicated?

Supposidly to make it harder to find the real truth, they then put out a lot of dis-infomation to confuse every one and that makes it easier for people to believe the offical story...

So they say...


Why not just blow up a landmark building?

They tried that and failed and tighter security harder to get the explosives etc... easier to use a plane as a weapon load with avgas... make bigger boom with less preperation.

[Oscar]

depends on the type of aliem... not all aliems fly around in ufo's, some aliems are from aliem country's and they use money???

illegal aliems

I fuckin' hate aliems...

[Maki]

Are you that dumb He just disproved your "the plane can't do that theory"?

You have taken the word of one statement against the word of at least 3 pilots on here, so who still has there head in the sand?

Thanks for showing me the hopelessness of explaining things beyond the most banal on a forum like this and the foolishness of assuming that people possess knowledge above the most basic.

I suppose I should have written a compendium about what flight envelope and design speed actually means, fluid dynamics, aircraft performance, etc. Never mind. It was educational but in the end rather futile. People believe what they want to regardless...

The knowledge gained from this will save me time in the future :woohoo:

And while you are here I have a job for you. Yes you. Find where I said that a plane can not do that. I was talking about novice pilots performing extreme maneuvers outside the aircrafts design envelope (we have already firmly established that most people on here are clueless as to what that means, but who cares...). Find where I said "the plane can not do that". If you don't, you sure must be dumb, right?

[Swoop]

It was attached to a really tall thing just out of shot,
I totally believe that. Knew it would be something else really tall, like the Empire State Building.

Or a skyhook.

[Quasievil]

This should settle the matter completely, you will see everything here in this piece of photographic evidence which has not been released by anyone.

You will see the Starship Enterprise (a government owned space explorer) with a cable between the cargo bay and the Twin Tower, this cable was shot into the side of the building prior to Scotty launching the 767 along the cable and into the building, at the time of impact the Human torch flew towards the dynamite and ignited it (short fuse) and this caused the explosion. Shortly after thie previous sequence of events , captain america (out of shot) push the buildings over.

Case closed people, this should actually be the last post in this thread eh ?

<a href="http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/?action=view&amp;current=TheTruthcopy.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/TheTruthcopy.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[marty]

He didn't push them over. He stood on them, while wearing his cloak of invisibility that he stole from the Romulans.

[Oscar]

Thanks for showing me the hopelessness of explaining things beyond the most banal on a forum like this and the foolishness of assuming that people possess knowledge above the most basic.

I suppose I should have written a compendium about what flight envelope and design speed actually means, fluid dynamics, aircraft performance, etc. Never mind. It was educational but in the end rather futile. People believe what they want to regardless...

The knowledge gained from this will save me time in the future :woohoo:

And while you are here I have a job for you. Yes you. Find where I said that a plane can not do that. I was talking about novice pilots performing extreme maneuvers outside the aircrafts design envelope (we have already firmly established that most people on here are clueless as to what that means, but who cares...). Find where I said "the plane can not do that". If you don't, you sure must be dumb, right?

So what you're saying is - you've got nothing.:killingme

[BoristheBiter]

Thanks for showing me the hopelessness of explaining things beyond the most banal on a forum like this and the foolishness of assuming that people possess knowledge above the most basic.

I suppose I should have written a compendium about what flight envelope and design speed actually means, fluid dynamics, aircraft performance, etc. Never mind. It was educational but in the end rather futile. People believe what they want to regardless...

The knowledge gained from this will save me time in the future :woohoo:

And while you are here I have a job for you. Yes you. Find where I said that a plane can not do that. I was talking about novice pilots performing extreme maneuvers outside the aircrafts design envelope (we have already firmly established that most people on here are clueless as to what that means, but who cares...). Find where I said "the plane can not do that". If you don't, you sure must be dumb, right?


So you aren't going to explain yourself because you think we are thick and won't understand. We understand alright we just say your completely wrong, have been proven wrong and still won't admit it.

OK Symantec's you posted links to other that said that planes can't do that.
You still agreed with them so my opinion still stands, your still dumber than shit.

Your argument, however you put it is still wrong, plain and simple.

[marty]

Is 510 knots at 700 feet above the ground within the 767 envelope? Are you aware of the fact that things change with altitude? The atmosphere is about 3 times more dense near sea level than it is at cruising altitude for those planes. That affects engine performance and the forces acting on the aircraft.

What does the indicated speed have to do with the physics involved with this?

Why am I even explaining this? Just ask your airline pilot friends what would happen if they flew a 767 at 500 knots at 700 feet above sea level and if novices could execute complicated manouvers under those conditions.

Believe what you want, but there is no need to distort facts such as the design envelope of an aircraft at a given altitude.

As a Licenced Aircraft Engineer, commercial pilot and flight instructor with some other relevant qualifications, I have a pretty good idea about 'design envelope of an aircraft at a given altitude' I'm sorry but I seemed to have missed the post outlining your aviation qualifications.

Some of the hijackers were not complete novices - they had been flying for some time, and there is some proof that they had been doing some simulator work. refer here:

Having finished their flight training at Huffman Aviation and passed their commercial pilot license tests (see August 14-December 19, 2000 (http://www.historycommons.org/item.jsp?item=a081400passtests)), Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi spend December 29 and 30 at the SimCenter flight school at Opa-Locka Airport, near Miami. Saying they want to join an Egyptian airline and need experience in a large plane, they each pay $1,500 in cash and spend six hours, split over the two days, training in the school’s Boeing 727 simulator. Henry George, the school’s owner who trains them, describes their training as a “mini, mini introduction,” and they spend most of their time practicing maneuvers and turns. George later describes Atta and Alshehhi as “average pilots,” and says they are “quite ordinary. They were respectful and quiet almost to the point of being shy.” <CITE>[New York Times, 9/15/2001 (http://www.amanaonline.com/Articles/art_122.htm); St. Petersburg Times, 9/27/2001 (http://www.sptimes.com/News/092701/Worldandnation/The_trail_of_the_terr.shtml); Aviation International News, 11/2001 (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/hijack-pilots-showed-average-skills-say-their-instructors/); BBC, 12/12/2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_12_12_01.txt)]</CITE>
<CITE></CITE>

[BoristheBiter]

Ok, educate yourself about flying large airliners at 500 knots near the ground and the problems involved with manouvering and hitting small targets at such speeds. Enjoy...
If you still believe people who never flew a large airliner at all did that, fine. In my experience people believe what they want to believe.

You are the person bringing up these different measures of air speed so the only source of confusion is you. I am simply talking about the actual air speed. You obviously have little understanding of the physics involved and the effects of air density at different atitudes.

So what is you field of expertise when it comes to aircraft then?

[BoristheBiter]

This should settle the matter completely, you will see everything here in this piece of photographic evidence which has not been released by anyone.

You will see the Starship Enterprise (a government owned space explorer) with a cable between the cargo bay and the Twin Tower, this cable was shot into the side of the building prior to Scotty launching the 767 along the cable and into the building, at the time of impact the Human torch flew towards the dynamite and ignited it (short fuse) and this caused the explosion. Shortly after thie previous sequence of events , captain america (out of shot) push the buildings over.

Case closed people, this should actually be the last post in this thread eh ?

<a href="http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/?action=view&amp;current=TheTruthcopy.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii104/Quasizxr/QUASI%20PICS/junk/TheTruthcopy.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Hang on where is the second plane??
Those blasted aliems.

[NighthawkNZ]

I have been waiting on Nighthawk to point out it was attached to the aliems frying saucer
oh i forgot to mention that... damn aliems

[Quasievil]

Hang on where is the second plane??
Those blasted aliems.

Still at the airport, scotty hadnt teleported it by this time I expect eventually it was in the Cargo bay of the USS enterprise, and shot out a bit later on.

[BoristheBiter]

Still at the airport, scotty hadnt teleported it by this time I expect eventually it was in the Cargo bay of the USS enterprise, and shot out a bit later on.

So thats an early photo then?
i didn't think the human torch didn't turn up till later.

[Quasievil]

So thats an early photo then?
i didn't think the human torch didn't turn up till later.

Hell, you might have opened up something here Boris !!
I mean was it the planes or the dynamite that caused the explosion?
it was reported that apparently Captain America stood on the roof in a Romalian invisable cloak to bring them down.
HELL maybe they are conspiring against us, making us believe something different to what actually happened !!!

[Swoop]

HELL maybe they are conspiring against us, making us believe something different to what actually happened !!!
Well, your proof that the government was involved (using the Enterprise) confirms this is a conspiracy.
Quite rightly, case closed.

[marty]

we have WAY too much time on our hands lol :)

[Paul in NZ]

Given the US militarys legendary ability not to be able to conduct any mission without a few avoidable disasters and embarassing goofs I find it astonishing that the controversy is still raging - or at least that one or two are still raging (people that is)

Face it - some madmen got away with an audacious and insane plan and now we all have to go through bloody gates at the airport.... hang on.... maybe it was the airport security gate salesman in cahoots with the rubber glove companies - bastards...

[Edbear]

Given the US militarys legendary ability not to be able to conduct any mission without a few avoidable disasters and embarassing goofs I find it astonishing that the controversy is still raging - or at least that one or two are still raging (people that is)

Face it - some madmen got away with an audacious and insane plan and now we all have to go through bloody gates at the airport.... hang on.... maybe it was the airport security gate salesman in cahoots with the rubber glove companies - bastards...

No of course not! You completely miss the fact that those x-ray machines where you can see through clothes would never have been accepted if they didn't do something radical! Rubber gloves are so yesterday, for goodness sake!

[oneofsix]

Hell, you might have opened up something here Boris !!
I mean was it the planes or the dynamite that caused the explosion?
it was reported that apparently Captain America stood on the roof in a Romalian invisable cloak to bring them down.
HELL maybe they are conspiring against us, making us believe something different to what actually happened !!!

Darn wrong again I thought it was Harry's cloak

[MisterD]

we have WAY too much time on our hands lol :)

Yep - but I've learnt that a fully loaded 767 can take off on one engine. You just can't put a price on trivia like that.

[onearmedbandit]

This ex-pilot has an interesting take on it - holographic planes 'hit' the buildings...

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CudLxM04l6A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[avgas]

If you walk away from this thread, and take only 1 point....take this one....

bit of a side note - but anyone else notice that:

Pilots don't seem to know anything and come up with the most craziest stories.

Kinda scary really. Even scarier than the whole 911 thing altogether

[Swoop]

Pilots don't seem to know anything and come up with the most craziest stories.
You obviously haven't been in a bar full of pilots.:facepalm:

[avgas]

You obviously haven't been in a bar full of pilots.:facepalm:
Nah
oh hang on - once. Now I remember.....
Pilots are so full of shit :)

[NighthawkNZ]

Nah
oh hang on - once. Now I remember.....
Pilots are so full of shit :)

just like bikers really

[marty]

just like bikers really

just way cooler :)

[Laava]

No of course not! You completely miss the fact that those x-ray machines where you can see through clothes would never have been accepted if they didn't do something radical! Rubber gloves are so yesterday, for goodness sake!

Aand they have the machine that goes "piiiing!"

[Maki]

So you aren't going to explain yourself because you think we are thick and won't understand. We understand alright we just say your completely wrong, have been proven wrong and still won't admit it.

OK Symantec's you posted links to other that said that planes can't do that.
You still agreed with them so my opinion still stands, your still dumber than shit.

Your argument, however you put it is still wrong, plain and simple.

You just proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you are dumb because you failed to come up with anything to substantiate your claim. A waste of time since I knew that already.

Some people on here are thick while others are quite smart and amusing, even though they may not agree with me. That's fine. Putting words in peoples mouths and then calling them dumb because of the words you put there is however a bit, well, thick to put it nicely.

I love some of the stuff here, especially the posts by Quasi.

So you believe novice pilots could pull of those maneuvers. Fine. If you want to know what I really think I agree with Commander Kolstad here:

"Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

You and other luminaries on here know better but that's just fine.

[Edbear]

just like bikers really

Yeah, like I remember this time I was up in the 150 at 27,000ft pulling 7g in an outside loop and this damn Eagle got caught up the the ailerons! I nearly crashed, but thankfully I was able to get out on the wing and pluck it free. By then I was down to 11,000ft and wouldn't you know it the damn door was locked when I tried to get back in! I had to climb back to the tail and steer that baby down! For good measure I did a barrel roll just before touch down.:woohoo:

Was the worst day of my life... :blink:

[BoristheBiter]

You just proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you are dumb because you failed to come up with anything to substantiate your claim. A waste of time since I knew that already.

Some people on here are thick while others are quite smart and amusing, even though they may not agree with me. That's fine. Putting words in peoples mouths and then calling them dumb because of the words you put there is however a bit, well, thick to put it nicely.

I love some of the stuff here, especially the posts by Quasi.

So you believe novice pilots could pull of those maneuvers. Fine. If you want to know what I really think I agree with Commander Kolstad here:

"Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

You and other luminaries on here know better but that's just fine.

BUt we an't talking about the........ OK you win.

I just can't be bothered with you anymore.
I think you're wrong, you Think I'm wrong so we we will leave it at that.

[BoristheBiter]

Hell, you might have opened up something here Boris !!
I mean was it the planes or the dynamite that caused the explosion?
it was reported that apparently Captain America stood on the roof in a Romalian invisable cloak to bring them down.
HELL maybe they are conspiring against us, making us believe something different to what actually happened !!!

And why did the enterprise come back in time?

Maybe it was the whales?

[Maki]

BUt we an't talking about the........ OK you win.

I just can't be bothered with you anymore.
I think you're wrong, you Think I'm wrong so we we will leave it at that.

Thanks, that's very mature of you. I wish I was the same but I can get stupidly embroiled in arguments sometimes. Enjoy your evening.

[marty]

Read your own references mate. Up til now we have been talking about the towers - now you're talking about the Pentagon. And even I am suspicious about the Pentagon crash. My italics and highlighting.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

What was your aviation backgound again?

[ducatilover]

So super human bionic pilots, piloting holograph planes that cannot do what they allegedly did into the tower that only collapsed because of the sideways burning thermite (A secret, not known to the world, except the makers and conspiracy theorists) and explosives in the building, whilst a plane crashed into the Pentagon to destroy paper work that wasn't able to be found, due to not knowing it's whereabouts or even being sure of it's existence, that was most almost sort of likely to definitely be in that particular room, except, the plane didn't exist and it was a missile that exploded parts of fuselage onto the surrounding area.

Simple as. :yes:

[Maki]

Read your own references mate. Up til now we have been talking about the towers - now you're talking about the Pentagon. And even I am suspicious about the Pentagon crash. My italics and highlighting.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

What was you aviation backgound again?

What part of "especially critical" don't you understand? You are suspicious about the Pentagon crash!?!? What are you saying, was it alienz? :gob:

[Quasievil]

was it alienz? :gob:

Hardly all of the crew of the USS enterprise are Aliems, only a couple of them are

[Crasherfromwayback]

I think you're wrong, you Think I'm wrong so we we will leave it at that.

The phrase you're looking for is "Guess we'll have to agree to disagree".

No problem.

[carbonhed]

Christ what a bunch of fags! I could hit the Pentagon steering a Jumbo with my fucking knob. It's just like when I got back into biking... "Don't hit that cats eye!"... thud... "Don't hit that cats eye!"... thud... "Don't hit that cats eye!"... thud.

Target fixation... et voila! :laugh: