Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/7/2017 at 9:07 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

No, people are more than willing to take these risks. Look around you, everything you see that was touched by humans someone took a risk and many that make these decisions are well off enough they don't have to work another day in their lives yet they keep on taking risks to advance their wealth. Without the willingness to take risks we would still be Africa living in caves and grass huts. 

Yes, of course everything involves *some* risk.  That's elementary.  It says nothing about why someone would assume the risk levels associated with a massive conspiracy for marginal gain.  

 

On 10/7/2017 at 9:07 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Examples would be the likes of Hitler, he had it all but decided it wasn't enough, The Arab spring is another, the 2008 crash was another that several billionaires took huge risks and none of them went to prison in that case. Look at the mess in Asia with manufacturing, many billionaires are more than happy to take huge risks to make money and they know they can with a few cronies in the right places and the consuming public on their side they will be free and clear.

 

Hitler was likely a madman, and not a good example of a rational person making a good assessment of risk.  The Arab Spring was a popular uprising, not a 'go/no-go' decision on an endeavour made by an individual so it's not valid.  The 2008 crash isn't exactly analogous either, as it was the usual type of loophole-exploitation and financial hijinks that those in decision-making positions felt they could get away with by denying knowledge.  And dozens went to jail.  And none would have risked the death penalty.

The risk we're talking about here is some individual who risks a large amount of money, and his/her own life to gain some level of wealth.  Trying to find such an individual, who has the power and wealth to do this and would risk the payout is the challenge here.

On 10/7/2017 at 9:07 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You don't have to pay off anybody, all you need is to make sure you have a few people at the top working with you to produce an official story that doesn't incriminate you. All you need is the majority of the population to believe you and call those that question the actual series of events crazy.  People like HE further advance the "conspiracy nuts" attitude, it's also human nature as observers to go to extremes (left and right in politics is a perfect example...). The people that witnessed the actual event can say what they want, unless they can sway public opinion and someone at the top sees their future on the line nothing is going to change the official story.  

If you don't have to pay off anybody then how do you keep people quiet ?  Depending on which version of the plot you think happened (and you have to pick one) you will need hundreds to thousands of people to make it happen.  

Edited October 12, 2017 by Michael Hardner

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to your first question, its pointless. Until something is verified objectively there is no way to know if the comments made regarding it are true or false.

Your next comments about me buying into an official storyline is a false assumption and its also illogical. You have not defined what this "official story line" is, nor have you provided the basis of how you decided its "official" let alone I buy into it. As well at no time did I state or define myself as "right" and "wrong" that is your projection.

Although it may be false assumption it's not illogical, you entered this discussion implying many reasons my line of thinking is incorrect. The "official storyline". is what the population is fed by mainstream media.

You then made reference to "thousands of examples"  of  wrongful convictions and claim this makes your exercise of posing  unsubstantiated speculations valid. That is illogical. If anything you have proven improperly proven assumptions or theories lead to erroneous conclusions. If anything you've given an example or a warning why speculation without objective evidence is dangerous.   If anything dna tests or other objective measurements, now  undoe the damage speculative evidence leading to wrongful conclusions in the absence of objective evidence once rendered.

Have wrongful convictions been eliminated? It would be illogical to state they have, DNA and other objective measurements don't eliminate wrongful convictions, or acquittals for that matter. 

You also referred to smoking. It was precisely because there was no objective evidence and people engaged in the same exercise you do, assuming things are true until someone proves them wrong, that until medicine could show objectively smoking and cancer were tied together , the false claims smoking did not cause cancer could not be repudiated. You have given yet another example of just how dangerous lack of objective evidence to disprove something being speculated can be until that objective evidence is found.

You completely missed the point. The tobacco industry argued until  smoking was connected to cancer they could speculate on what ever they wanted. In law we have to prove things we can't just throw something out and demand it be assumed truthful. In criminal law we mist prove beyond reasonable doubt, in civil court, on a balance of probabilities.

The evidence provided by pro smoking advocates was deemed "objective" until proven wrong by science and the power of the people finally being shifted to smoking as being unhealthy.

The fact is not one conspiracy theorist can prove on a balance of probabilities let alone beyond reasonable doubt, their theories. If that was the case they would have sued by now or pressed criminal charges.

Even you can see your statement is completely false, there are many reasons these charges or thoughts don't make to court including lack of interest, lack of resources, pushback etc.

In regards to your comment on government I do not understand it I have no idea what scenarios you presented, to which governments you presented them and how you determined the government never heard or considered these scenarios before you brought them to their attention.

The point is I have dealt various government departments over the years and although some experiences have been good to excellent, some have been nightmares. Sorry you missed that.

Finally information can be released to the public or remain classified depending on the nature of this information. A lot of information is not disclosed to the public not because its part of a conspiracy but because it deals with privacy information regarding an individual, and that individual's privacy is to be protected.

Some information is not released to the public due to national security reasons and some of it of course is kept classified to avoid political controversy or unnecessary damage to diplomatic relations.

Don't forget protecting interests of government, cronies and corporations...

It would be safe to assume not only I, but you, haven't a bloody clue of what actually happened at 9-11 and that is precisely why you feel it your right to speculate. For me that is an illogical assumption. For me the fact you do not have the information the government has does not mean your speculation created in the vacuum of lack of information is valid.

Well, we both have a "clue" or we wouldn't be having this discussion

For me its called  hysteria. I often see people who do not understand things become hysterical. They react with emotions, denial, anger, conspiracy theories and find others out like them and amplify each other's feelings of impotence by forming conspiracy groups of like minded believers who then feel acknowledged and empowered by their group.

To me that is just primal pack behaviour associated with homo sapiens and all apes.

I don't need an alpha male ape, other apes making me feel secure and in the know. It sounds like you might.

From your statements it appears your more hysterical than me. I heard and saw what happened on 911, I noticed some things that didn't make sense, I considered what I know from training and past experience, did a little research and came up with some conclusions and theories of what happened and what's going on. I didn't take engineering courses for this nor did I launch an investigation and I didn't join any conspiracy groups. Sorry, but apes did not contribute in any way, maybe you need to aim a little higher 

Truth to me is an illusion. Its simply the subjective opinion of whoever poses as the truthsayer.

I can see that 

For me and many like me who don't like organized groups leading our faith beliefs, we believe truth is not an absolute, its a path of constant journey and our reality, our perception of meaning and reality constantly changes in shape and meaning as it flows like a river. We don't try hold water in our hands. We don't try claim to contain the water from moving to achieve knowledge. We believe knowledge flows and reveals itself with constant evolution in  movement. You dam water, you can only do so temporarily, it always ends up back to when it came or is destined to go.

We can like beavers damn water for a temporart shelter but no beaver believes they are above the rules of nature. Their dams eventually break down-they are not permanent structures. Don't kid yourself. The structure you think you understand is not solid. You are trying to build a house  with sand in a flood plain.

So you have an group that doesn't like organized groups? I can think on my own...

So if the truth is you're hungry you don't need to eat? It'll change in a few minutes? How does justice get served if the truth is a moving target? You just contradicted everything you've stated in all your posts on here.

 

I joined this discussion because I find the subject matter interesting, as far as 911 is concerned I think it happened, I've seen a few videos and documentaries on the subject. It never affected my life in the least, I didn't know anyone involved or lost in the incident, the loss of equipment and infrastructure was a shame, the loss of life a tragedy. But we all are born, we live and we die, there are about 7.5 billion people on the planet, about 6,316 people die every hour.

Why did you join this discussion Rue?

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, of course everything involves *some* risk.  That's elementary.  It says nothing about why someone would assume the risk levels associated with a massive conspiracy for marginal gain.  

I don't know about "marginal", he has a hundred years to payout the lease and he got something like a 4.2 billion dollar payout virtually the next day?

Hitler was likely a madman, and not a good example of a rational person making a good assessment of risk.  The Arab Spring was a popular uprising, not a 'go/no-go' decision on an indeavour made by an individual so it's not valid.  The 2008 crash isn't exactly analogous either, as it was the usual type of loophole-exploitation and financial hijinks that those in decision-making positions felt they could get away with by denying knowledge.  And dozens went to jail.  And none would have risked the death penalty.

Maybe he was, who's to say there are not different levels of madness among the elite? Why don't people stop when they have enough? The Arab spring involved a few leaders that were more willing to give up their lives then their power and fortune, you might be surprised many billionaires are in a similar situation. A few bank managers and tellers went to jail? That's hardly the top brass in these corporations.

The risk we're talking about here is some individual who risks a large amount of money, and his/her own life to gain some level of wealth.  Trying to find such an individual, who has the power and wealth to do this and would risk the payout is the challenge here.

You might be surprised... Look at Trump, what did he have to gain becoming president? Would you say he put his life at risk? How about his wealth? How is he different? A madman?

If you don't have to pay off anybody then how do you keep people quiet ?  Depending on which version of the plot you think happened (and you have to pick one) you will need hundreds to thousands of people to make it happen.  

Not even close, how many do you think are in a demolition crew to implode a multi story structure? It's been proven time and again you don't need to keep people quiet, all you need to do is make sure they are labeled "conspiracy theorists" and the rest is taken care of. 

I don't know, to me it feels off that there seems to be a certain group of individuals running this world. Always you see the likes of major oil interests, big pharma, big banks, defence contractors, factory farming etc. with politicians. There are people from these entities that get appointed high government positions, what else is going on behind the scenes. In a way  Trump is the odd man out but he still put several of his cronies in powerful positions in his government (although with mixed results    ) Although you may think this has nothing to do with what we are discussing they are still taking risks to make gains from their positions.

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I don't know about "marginal", he has a hundred years to payout the lease and he got something like a 4.2 billion dollar payout virtually the next day?

Ah, ok it sounds like you're now talking about Silverstein the landlord.  Being specific is helpful, thanks.  With the landlord, you have a particular set of problems.  First of all, the means to pull off such an elaborate plan which presumably would involve intelligence/influence with US military officials.  Next, we can assess the risk from his point of view.  It's reported that he actually fought to take out the smallest amount of insurance possible for the buildings so it doesn't gibe with him wanting to collect on these policies.  The payouts followed years of litigation, during which he didn't receive rent for his now-destroyed buildings.  How could he have estimated the scope and timeline for all of the lawsuits - which he would have to do to assess risks ?

 

53 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Maybe he was, who's to say there are not different levels of madness among the elite? Why don't people stop when they have enough? The Arab spring involved a few leaders that were more willing to give up their lives then their power and fortune, you might be surprised many billionaires are in a similar situation.  

Yes, a mad billionaire is a possibility.  He'd have to be both diabolical and brilliant, though.  At some point, I think his secret would get out.  The Arab spring involved people risking personal safety for a cause which is not the same mindset as someone sitting on billions and trying to plan for how to increase his/her fortune.  

 

53 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You might be surprised... Look at Trump, what did he have to gain becoming president? Would you say he put his life at risk? How about his wealth? How is he different? A madman?

 

No, I would NOT say Trump put his life at risk nor much of his wealth either.  He could have expected the presidential run to have a financial payoff, as it seems to have done.

 

53 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Not even close, how many do you think are in a demolition crew to implode a multi story structure? It's been proven time and again you don't need to keep people quiet, all you need to do is make sure they are labeled "conspiracy theorists" and the rest is taken care of. 

Has NOT been proven time and time again - give me a cite of a conspiracy unfolding this way.  You need to have more than a crew - you need professions to plan it, and presumably coordinate with intelligence people unless the controlled demolition just coincidentally happened the same day two planes crashed into the buildings.  The more people, the higher up the chain they are, the more the risk.

 

53 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I don't know, to me it feels off that there seems to be a certain group of individuals running this world. Always you see the likes of major oil interests, big pharma, big banks, defence contractors, factory farming etc. with politicians. There are people from these entities that get appointed high government positions, what else is going on behind the scenes. In a way  Trump is the odd man out but he still put several of his cronies in powerful positions in his government (although with mixed results    ) Although you may think this has nothing to do with what we are discussing they are still taking risks to make gains from their positions.

Yes, big business leaders and successful people deal with politicians.  They understand how big organizations work, and have expertise in specific areas that government is involved in so this makes absolute sense.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  

Whether or not you know people in media, government, or big business you depend on these institutions to work and for the most part they do.  Business and government can get away with most of what they want to in full view of the public.  If people paid more attention to those things, we'd be much better off.  As it is, I think that ideas that your government is plotting to kill you are corrosive to whatever unity we have left in society.

[Rue]

11 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I joined this discussion because I find the subject matter interesting, as far as 911 is concerned I think it happened, I've seen a few videos and documentaries on the subject. It never affected my life in the least, I didn't know anyone involved or lost in the incident, the loss of equipment and infrastructure was a shame, the loss of life a tragedy. But we all are born, we live and we die, there are about 7.5 billion people on the planet, about 6,316 people die every hour.

Why did you join this discussion Rue?

I will try respond to your comments and questions. The fact that reasoning may be illogical (i.e., make inferences or assumptions without proof) doesn't make the thinking "correct" or "incorrect".  The "correct"/"incorrect" reference you make is as to you projecting on to me that I judge you as being "incorrect" or "correct". I don't judge what you say. What I do take note of is when you make conclusions as to things that have not yet been proven or assume correlations between phenomena where no connection has been provided. Whether you think you are "correct" or "incorrect" I leave to you.

Next you misquoted me as to wrongful convictions. I never stated ALL wrongful convictions have been deleted or undone. Convictions when based on objective evidence as I stated, i.e., dna, are usually foolproof unless the criteria is/was tainted, i.e., false labelling or contamination and this is why I argue its much more preferable to have as MUCH objective criteria as possible before rendering any assumptions about anything.

The wrongful convictions you may be referring to happened and happen because of one of two things. In one category are Judges who apply a law incorrectly and that illegal application is subsequently challenged at higher level of courts and if truly misapplied such convictions are thrown out or amended.

The other category are assumptions juries make. Juries on t.v. are depicted as making decisions based on subjective speculations presented by lawyers screaming and demonstrating in front of them. In reality the Judge has to give a lecture or direction  to juries before they deliberate and in fact censors or advises them not to consider any evidence that has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt if its criminal and on the balance of probabilities in civil trials.

It is possible although it is very rare today, you can put someone away criminally without sound overwhelming evidence despite t.v .shows. It's possible people mistake identities or police plant evidence but lawyers are trained to pick apart eye witness testimony for discrepancies today. In regards to planted evidence it is possible. That said, the evidence you talk of that proves erroneous is interpreted SUBJECTIVElY by juries in an incorrect way precisely because as you saw in the OJ Simpson trial they don't understand scientific "objective" evidence.

So your comments that I said wrongful convictions have been eliminated is false. I did say thanks to much more improved objective criteria like dna and other forensic sciences, we are taking a lot of guess work out of evidence that once because of subjective speculation led to erroneous convictions.

As a result of that  I said your example of wrongful convictions in fact contradicted your contentions because it in fact shows if you read the wrongful convictions that have happened, they come about because of erroneous conclusions based on subjective speculation not understanding and analyzing objective criteria and so to answer your last question I come on this board to challenge people like you in debate to read articles other than the ones you "find" interesting.

I also challenge you to go back to the article you  claim "objectively" shows airplanes could not have knocked down the towers and challenge yourself by asking was the article you read in fact "objective" or "speculative" and are there other articles that have presented "objective" evidence that have stated otherwise and contradicted the one(s) you read using applied physics and other scientific formulas such as the melting point of steel and the properties of steel when heated.

Next you need to actually read the tobacco cases or say the Ralph Nader class law suit against the Pinto. In those cases, the Plaintiff or lawyers doing the suing, not the Defendants had to come up with the objective evidence. In fact in the tobacco cases if you read them,  the tobacco industry for years did NOT present evidence smoking was safe. It never did. You are absolutely wrong.

They simply argued and it is there in the case transcripts, that there was NO evidence smoking was dangerous. The Defendants had no need to  initiate evidence. They never did. Their job was limited to trying yo repudiate or poke holes in the Plaintiff's case and had the Plaintiff's case only been speculative or subjective the tobacco industry would have won.

You clearly don't understand how a civil trial works. In a civil trial the Plaintiffs have to present on a balance of probabilities sufficient objective evidence to prove their point smoking was dangerous. Then and only then, after satisfying that onus of proof, it then switched to the tobacco industry to prove the evidence presented was defective. The tobacco industry never advanced evidence smoking was healthy. They tried to argue the objective measurements used  by the Plaintiffs were defective, inaccurate, distorted.

In fact the Defendants and Plaintiff engaged in a very slow, tedious exercise of step by step analyzing each method used to determine levels of toxicity and probability. So with due respect you just did not get it. The tobacco industry never presented or used proof smoking is healthy. They simply argued there was no proof it was unhealthy.

This was similar to the class action law suit started by Ralph Nader who argued the design of the Pinto, the Maverick and other vehicles raised the rate of probability of certain accidents and not only that but the  car industry knew this. In fact insiders leaked information that showed the car manufacturers knew their designs were unsafe and increased the isks of death but they calculated the wrongful death law suit amounts from such deaths would be far less than the profit made to manufacture the cars using inferior safety features.

Likewise in the tobacco case, whistle blowers presented evidence showing in fact the tobacco industry became aware of a direct correlation between lung diseases and smoking but did the same calculation as the car industry and determined the amount of wrongful death law suits would be so much less than the profit made in making and selling cigarettes it was something they could live with.

Dow Chemical when it manufactured silicone transplants sat on evidence saying they knew a certain amount would leak inside female bodies and kill such people but again they determined the amount of wrongful death law suits would be far less than the profit they would make.

It could be that some buildings have been designed with compromised safety features we may never know about because the construction people hid what they did. I have seen in construction law suits compromised qualities of cement, steel, and other materials because bidders who needed to undercut other bidders to get the contract made unrealistic profit margins and so to try regain the profit margin compromised the materials to save money. It happens. In the case of the towers, there is no evidence to suggest there was cost cutting in the design of the buildings that made them less safe. I leave that to others. What I have stated to you is there is nothing that has been presented that proves the theories you present or think are "objective" in fact just the opposite. What I am also arguing is that you and I have NO clue as to the actual intricate  maze of scientific phenomena that goes into constructing and taking down such buildings. Our knowledge yours and mind  comes from reading what? Some internet articles?

What I have argued is we live in a world of complex phenomena that requires expert evidence and we get to the point where we have to delegate our knowledge to expert evidence witnesses. So you and I don't have a clue. We  have a series of information we are given. The internet provides us information in neat simplistic sound bites lending to the illusion we have the whole picture needed to make a conclusion. If the evidence you needed to understand was put before you, do you really think you'd find it interesting or even understand it?

Conspiracy theories are interesting. Actual objective scientific data on the other hand can be boring and mundane, i.e., countless calculations, actuarial tables, data that is dry and tedious to read and very difficult to decipher unless you have specific training in quantitative analysis.

I came on this forum to say I don't doubt you think conspiracy theories are interesting but I challenge you to not think because you find an article interesting or agree with it, you can stop right there and make conclusions as you have,

Now you stated I contradicted myself because I told you if you truly are interested in seeking :knowledge" to stop closing your mind down to things you don't agree with. You also suggest I contradict myself because I don't accept subjective speculation and "what ifs" as proof of anything.

That is illogical. I simply have suggested what you may appear to conclude as truth may not be.

It sounds to me like you are "not" interested in "uniteresting" opinions, i.e., ones that don't conform to your bias that you believe some conspiracy is beyond the towers collapsing. Indeed from the sound of your responses to me it sounds like the purpose of your response to me now is in fact to say you feel you have sufficient objective evidence and why the hell am I questioning such evidence as if the only reason to be on  this thread is to agree with conspiracy theories. No this is a debate board, it encourages us to challenge not just agree on opinions others  state.

I am here to say you need to do a lot more research then reading some internet articles you find interesting before you start throwing out conspiracy theories you can not in fact prove to get to the bottom of what you think may have happened. Also if you start off with a pre-ordained assumption as to what happened it will distort what you think you see and read and give you tunnel vision and an inability to see anything other than evidence you think proves the patterns you think exist.

I have zero opinions on 9-11 other than I have yet to see one piece of objective criteria to prove the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition let alone George Bush or the illuminati or shape shifting aliens or Lindsay Lohan or Harvey Weinstein.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

On 10/9/2017 at 7:23 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Actually, reading this and thinking about it this whole post is utter nonsense.

This pilot/aeronautical engineer says you are full of it, as do many other pilots. I know that you are full of it too because you are ignoring so many total impossibilities while making all manner of useless, unproven, nonsense speculation.

Edited October 13, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

On 10/8/2017 at 7:56 PM, eyeball said:

I'd like to see a picture of the pile of plastic blasting cord pieces that would have been collected as evidence of a controlled demolition. These should also be visible in virtually every picture of the "blast" site ever taken.  The stuff would have been everywhere.

You illustrate a profound ignorance, eyeball. Don't you think it advisable to learn a wee bit before you spout off on a thread.

There have long been remote control detonators and radio controlled demolitions.

Explain how steel was melted and vaporized, molybdenum [4,700F] melted, lead vaporized [3,180F].

Explain how there was molten steel until February of 2002.

Explain how WTC2 plane had a jet engine that was not put in the UA's 767-200 series planes.

 

[hot enough]

On 10/9/2017 at 8:28 AM, Omni said:

Doesn't look all that difficult a target does it?

Still no evidence from Omni, a guy who has lied numerous times about myriad 911 events and science. 

A person who totally denies hard science and hard facts simply cannot be trusted on anything and that is you, Omni. 

Quote

 

EXPERTS SAID HIJACKERS 'MUST HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED PILOTS'
Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante's "hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets." Ferrante said, "It was almost as though it was choreographed," and explained, "It's not as easy as it looks to do what [the hijackers] did at 500 miles an hour." [1]

Darryl Jenkins, the director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the men who carried out the attacks "knew what they were doing down to very small details." He said, "Every one of them was trained in flying big planes." The Times reported that a "number of aviation experts agreed" with Jenkins and had said that "the hijackers must have been experienced pilots." John Nance, an airline pilot, author, and aviation analyst, said that "the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers." Nance pointed to the "smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers," and said that "precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill." Nance concluded, "There's no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done" in the 9/11 attacks. [2]

A pilot who had been with a major carrier for more than 30 years told CNN that to "pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon ... the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators." The pilot added, "They know what they were doing." [3]

Robin Lloyd, a Boeing 737 captain with a British airline, told The Telegraph that "the hijackers had to be experienced pilots with more than just a rudimentary knowledge of navigation." Lloyd, who co-runs the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network website, which is "regarded worldwide as one of the prime sources of accurate information for the aviation industry," said the terrorists at the controls of the hijacked aircraft "had to be 100 percent switched on people, 100 percent experienced pilots, probably military trained." He said someone like Osama bin Laden "wouldn't have access to pilots of the caliber needed to pull it off." [4]

John Roden, the president of Aviation Advisory Service, an Oakland, California, consulting firm, said the piloting necessary to navigate the planes to their targets "was very skillful. This is practically fighter pilot technique." [5] And a U.S. Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War concluded that the hijacked aircraft "either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat or they were being maneuvered by remote control." [6]

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11

 

 

[hot enough]

On 10/9/2017 at 12:31 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Nope, the most difficult thing I'd think is actually going through with it but I guess people run right into enemy fire during battle as well. 

Just after 911, an airline pilot/simulator trainer put a number of line pilots into a flight simulator and none of them, including the trainer could hit the targets at the speeds that the flights were said to have been going. The trainer had to slow the speed down a great deal to be able to hit it. 

[hot enough]

On 10/9/2017 at 1:07 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

A couple things about that. 

1. The towers fell amazingly fast with seemingly very little resistance. I argue that the floors below should have offered far more resistance then they did. 

The twin towers fell at accelerating speed. There was no jolt, no impact because a jolt/impact would have been a measurable event and there was no jolt/no impact. 

 

On 10/9/2017 at 1:07 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

2. The towers fell straight down into their own footprints. I argue that A. The steel was heated slowly so anyone with any metalworking experience will know that the steel columns would begin to yield slowly resulting in the top section actually settling onto the section below, not free falling onto it. B. The fire should have been concentrated on one side so the top of the building should have toppled off instead of just listing 10 degrees and falling straight down. The floors below were also not heated so they should have offered considerable resistance. 

This is all assuming the fire even got hot enough heat the columns in the first place. 

 

The fires never got hot enough to heat the columns to any temperature where the steel was compromised. NIST themselves said that steel did not reach anywhere near crucial temperatures. 

 

Quote

Also, what caused building seven to collapse? 

A controlled demolition is what caused WTC7 to collapse. It fell at free fall for the first 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys. That can only happen, as Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator himself stated - "free fall can only occur when all the structural resistance below has been removed". Then NIST was challenged about free fall and they admitted that WTC7 fell at free fall speed. Case closed. Controlled demolition. 

 

[hot enough]

On 10/9/2017 at 1:36 PM, Omni said:

The towers mat have fallen fast, but not at freefall as is evidenced by the debris falling away from the buildings at freefall which is noticeably faster.

You are not knowledgeable enough to discuss this, Omni. You have also shown and proven yourself to be a science denier, someone who denies facts in order to defend your loony conspiracy theory. 

The twin towers fell at close to free fall - they fell at accelerating speeds which can only happen with controlled demolition removing the structural resistance below.

Never a once did we see any floors, any unit move downward. They floors above the impact zone were blown into micron sized particles even before they ever impacted the lower floors.

The tower on WTC1 started to fall before anything else moved. That means that the hat truss/core columns were removed first. 

Quote

Tower 7 collapsed as a result of damage from the flying debris,

NIST says that the debris damage [notice how badly informed you are even on this simple issue] played no part in the initial collapse of WTC7. 

Quote

and from fire damage since the sprinkler system was wiped out by the damage from the other towers collapsing. 

Notice how badly informed you are on this too. The sprinkler system was not wiped out by debris damage from WTC1 [NOT WTC2!!]

WTC7 fires were normal office fires, burning thru the available fuel and leaving one area in roughly 20 minutes and on to another area that had fresh fuel.

WTC7, like every other steel framed office tower that has never ever collapsed from fire, could have burned for days with these transient fires and it would never have collapsed.

NIST's fable about the girder walking off its support from expansion due to heat is pure and utter nonsense.

That Seven collapsed at free fall, that it collapsed symmetrically can only mean that it was a controlled demolition. 

Professor Leroy Hulsey's study has found that the maximum expansion of Column 79 is about 2 inches. NIST said it expanded 6.25", which they had increased from 5.5" because their initial amount wasn't enough to cause a girder walk off. 

NIST lied about shear studs being absent; NIST lied about web stiffeners being absent; NIST lied about WTC7 being non-composite flooring systems. NIST lied about many things in order to get their theory to work. 

Did it work? Not in the least.

Science relies on reality. NIST's totally goofy computer simulation of their theory of girder walk off bears no relation to reality at all. NIST stopped their computer simulation two seconds into the collapse JUST because it had zero connection to reality, ie. the NIST computer simulation does not match actual videos of the collapse of WTC7.

Quote

FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?

News - News Releases By AE911Truth

Wednesday, 13 March 2013 23:45

No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even remotely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work. 1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall. http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/faqs/733-faq-11-does-the-nist-wtc-7-computer-animation-of-the-collapse-prove-that-the-skyscraper-came-down-by-fire.html

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, of course everything involves *some* risk.  That's elementary.  It says nothing about why someone would assume the risk levels associated with a massive conspiracy for marginal gain.  

The US made up a massive conspiracy theory, which even you don't buy, Michael, though you keep pretending you do. 

As I explained to you, equally massive US conspiracy theories have been pulled off thru the years and no one has spoken out. 

 

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you don't have to pay off anybody then how do you keep people quiet ?  Depending on which version of the plot you think happened (and you have to pick one) you will need hundreds to thousands of people to make it happen.  

Hundreds of thousands kept the Manhattan Project silent, even Truman didn't know for some time after he had become president. 

Why do you keep nattering on and on about a total non-issue when you have never once addressed any of the myriad total impossibilities of the US government official conspiracy theory? 

You too have illustrated time and again that you are willing to lie and distract/divert in defense of the USGOCT. 

[hot enough]

On 10/11/2017 at 8:43 AM, Rue said:

In regards to your first question, its pointless. Until something is verified objectively there is no way to know if the comments made regarding it are true or false

Your entire post is pointless, Rue. You have only engaged in distraction/diversion, talking about nonsensical non-issues to avoid dealing with the facts and the science.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed, as admitted by NIST. 

NIST has been caught in many lies.

NIST denies molten/vaporized steel when any fool can see steel from WTC7 and from one of the twin towers that has been melted/vaporized. 

Why are so many of you such deep deniers of science?

[Omni]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Just after 911, an airline pilot/simulator trainer put a number of line pilots into a flight simulator and none of them, including the trainer could hit the targets at the speeds that the flights were said to have been going. The trainer had to slow the speed down a great deal to be able to hit it. 

Now that's a load of horse shit only a 9-11 conspiracy theorist could come up with. I've been to FSI a number of times so if you give me the names of that trainer I will follow up. 

[hot enough]

This is the "Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory"

and no one has ever provided any. 

 

[Omni]

15 hours ago, hot enough said:

This is the "Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory"

and no one has ever provided any. 

 

Still waiting to hear who this "simulator trainer" who couldn't even steer a plane into a huge building works for.  

[Rue]

19 hours ago, hot enough said:

Your entire post is pointless, Rue. You have only engaged in distraction/diversion, talking about nonsensical non-issues to avoid dealing with the facts and the science.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed, as admitted by NIST. 

NIST has been caught in many lies.

NIST denies molten/vaporized steel when any fool can see steel from WTC7 and from one of the twin towers that has been melted/vaporized. 

Why are so many of you such deep deniers of science?

I don't deny science. I and others do challenge what you claim is science and what you claim is objective proof of molten-vaporized steel and for the record among many pieces of evidence used to counter our theories was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

Clearly what you pose as facts on this forum are not, they are subjective theories not proven by science or any existing evidence and they are defective and full of errors and inaccuracies and they  were already directly responded to and repudiated not with subjective theories but science.

When presented with science to prove your theories are not possible you did not respond, you in fact changed the subject.

Now I responded to someone else not you. That's because I find your contributions about as useful as a blood clot. Run along and play conspiracy with someone who cares.

 

 

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

I don't deny science. I and others do challenge what you claim is science and what you claim is objective proof of molten-vaporized steel and for the record among many pieces of evidence used to counter our theories was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

You really are terribly confused, Rue. You science deniers don't have a theory, or theories. You all have the same bogus US government official conspiracy theory, a theory that is so totally out to lunch, a theory none of you even know much about and none of you ever even discuss the USGOCT because you all know it is wacko.

The video you posted does not "counter our theories", as you assert, it actually makes a case, a terrible one but nevertheless, a case for you folks who can't even address your own USGOCT. I told you you were totally confused, which is why you have these wild, disjointed replies which never actually say anything about the science or the events. 

Aluminum always pours silvery in daylight conditions. This molten iron was staying yellow hot despite falling hundreds of feet. Aluminum cannot do that. 

This one event illustrates the USOCT is bogus.

Quote

It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

 

Quote

Clearly what you pose as facts on this forum are not, they are subjective theories not proven by science or any existing evidence and they are defective and full of errors and inaccuracies and they  were already directly responded to and repudiated not with subjective theories but science.

When presented with science to prove your theories are not possible you did not respond, you in fact changed the subject.

FEMA describes, with pictures, molten/vaporized steel girder/beams that come from WTC7 and from one of the twin towers.

What fuel source was there, Rue, that could have done that?

Did the Arab hijackers bring some thermate with them and hurl it over to WTC7 to melt/vaporize the steel beam/girder?

What fuel source was there, Rue, that could have melted molybdenum, 4,700F?

What fuel source was there, Rue, that could have vaporized lead, 3,180F?

 

[Omni]

31 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You really are terribly confused, Rue. You science deniers don't have a theory, or theories. You all have the same bogus US government official conspiracy theory, a theory that is so totally out to lunch, a theory none of you even know much about and none of you ever even discuss the USGOCT because you all know it is wacko.

The video you posted does not "counter our theories", as you assert, it actually makes a case, a terrible one but nevertheless, a case for you folks who can't even address your own USGOCT. I told you you were totally confused, which is why you have these wild, disjointed replies which never actually say anything about the science or the events. 

Aluminum always pours silvery in daylight conditions. This molten iron was staying yellow hot despite falling hundreds of feet. Aluminum cannot do that. 

This one event illustrates the USOCT is bogus.

 

 

FEMA describes, with pictures, molten/vaporized steel girder/beams that come from WTC7 and from one of the twin towers.

What fuel source was there, Rue, that could have done that?

Did the Arab hijackers bring some thermate with them and hurl it over to WTC7 to melt/vaporize the steel beam/girder?

What fuel source was there, Rue, that could have melted molybdenum, 4,700F?

What fuel source was there, Rue, that could have vaporized lead, 3,180F?

 

Jet fuel and lots of airflow. Ever lit a camp fire and noticed how it may wane but then come back to life simply by blowing on it? Maybe you haven't got out of your Mommy's basement far enough yet. 

[hot enough]

38 minutes ago, Omni said:

Jet fuel and lots of airflow.

What is it that you are trying to say? 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What is it that you are trying to say? 

Heat causes metal to fail. Fairly simple science.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Heat causes metal to fail. Fairly simple science.

I't s always "fairly simple science" that you can never explain or offer any evidence for. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

I't s always "fairly simple science" that you can never explain or offer any evidence for. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

I guess you've never soldered or gas welded. 

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

I guess you've never soldered or gas welded. 

You are being typically evasive, again, as always, never offering any evidence or even remotely plausible explanations. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

Why would anyone trust a guy who lies about being a pilot?

[Omni]

Just now, hot enough said:

You are being typically evasive, again, as always, never offering any evidence or even remotely plausible explanations. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

Why would anyone trust a guy who lies about being a pilot?

Hey li'l buddy, nobody lies about being a pilot. Ask Wilber, he speaks pilot talk. And then off to bed with you.