9/11 conspiracy debate

[Maha]

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

[The Stranger:Me]

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:Me]

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-e...kers-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=bm58c...eature=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/201...aft-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...

[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.