Jump to content

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

One of the things the conspiracists keep trying to say is that the towers fell at "freefall",

More Omni disinformation, rank conspiracy theory stuff. You are a conspiracy theorist, Omni. But you support one that has no evidence which is why you never provide any evidence, even for your specialty, a "pilot". 

No one knowledgeable says that and it is testament to your never provide evidence manner that you would try a deception like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

More Omni disinformation, rank conspiracy theory stuff. You are a conspiracy theorist, Omni. But you support one that has no evidence which is why you never provide any evidence, even for your specialty, a "pilot". 

No one knowledgeable says that and it is testament to your never provide evidence manner that you would try a deception like this.

Don't waste any more time until you can answer my basic question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

Don't waste any more time until you can answer my basic question.

You just told another Omni lie and without pause, you go off on a silly tangent to attempt to hide your lie. 

You've lied about being a pilot. You lied about the "hijackers'" skills and the ease with which big jets can be flown. You were proved wrong by a real expert and still you come back lying. 

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omni has pretended he is a pilot. He has described the alleged hijackers piloting skills as adequate to do what was done on 911.

The following illustrates one of two things: one, Omni is not a pilot and he is therefore lying, or two, he is a pilot but he is lying about the skills needed to fly a jet in order to plant lies defending the totally impossible USGOCT.

================

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

The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11

...

HITTING THE WTC LIKE 'THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE'
Some experts commented specifically on the flying skills that would have been necessary to crash planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. [11]

Michael Barr said the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC "had to change course ... had to know how to navigate." [12] Barr, who is a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot, said the hijacker pilots "almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle." He commented on the difficulty the pilots would have had in synchronizing their attacks so they hit the two WTC towers about 15 minutes apart, saying: "The routes they were flying were very different--one plane coming from the north and the other coming from the south. That adds greatly to the complexity and it requires a degree of skill to prevent the planes from banking too much or descending too fast while keeping on course." Barr added that the piloting skills apparently exhibited by the hijackers indicated that "months and months of planning and training were involved." He concluded, "Unfortunately, these guys were good." [13]

A 767 pilot told the Boston Globe: "The perpetrators were trained pilots and trained to operate the 757-767 family of aircraft. ... t did not seem to bother them that the flying was very demanding." This pilot noted that video showed that the second aircraft to hit the WTC was banked, or turning, as it struck the tower, "making the maneuver more difficult." He added, "To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years." [14]

Niki Lauda, the former Formula One world champion who is also a pilot and owned his own airline, said on German TV that whoever flew the aircraft into the WTC must have been "properly trained to fly a plane like that." He said: "You have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots. ... It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it." [15]

AIRCRAFT THAT HIT THE PENTAGON 'WAS FLOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL'
A particularly high level of skill would have been needed to fly an aircraft into the west wall of the Pentagon. CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. ... [T]he complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." [16] A "top aviation source" called the maneuver "a nice, coordinated turn," which, according to one law enforcement official, was the work of "a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing." [17] Other "aviation sources" told the Washington Post that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon "was flown with extraordinary skill." [18]

According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said the terrorist who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon displayed "proficiency in the aircraft's advanced navigation and automated flight systems. ... Such systems require pilots to program the desired course heading and altitude into an onboard computer, and the plane carries out the instructions." [19]

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Omni has pretended he is a pilot. He has described the alleged hijackers piloting skills as adequate to do what was done on 911.

The following illustrates one of two things: one, Omni is not a pilot and he is therefore lying, or two, he is a pilot but he is lying about the skills needed to fly a jet in order to plant lies defending the totally impossible USGOCT.

================

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

The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11

...

HITTING THE WTC LIKE 'THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE'
Some experts commented specifically on the flying skills that would have been necessary to crash planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. [11]

Michael Barr said the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC "had to change course ... had to know how to navigate." [12] Barr, who is a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot, said the hijacker pilots "almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle." He commented on the difficulty the pilots would have had in synchronizing their attacks so they hit the two WTC towers about 15 minutes apart, saying: "The routes they were flying were very different--one plane coming from the north and the other coming from the south. That adds greatly to the complexity and it requires a degree of skill to prevent the planes from banking too much or descending too fast while keeping on course." Barr added that the piloting skills apparently exhibited by the hijackers indicated that "months and months of planning and training were involved." He concluded, "Unfortunately, these guys were good." [13]

A 767 pilot told the Boston Globe: "The perpetrators were trained pilots and trained to operate the 757-767 family of aircraft. ... t did not seem to bother them that the flying was very demanding." This pilot noted that video showed that the second aircraft to hit the WTC was banked, or turning, as it struck the tower, "making the maneuver more difficult." He added, "To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years." [14]

Niki Lauda, the former Formula One world champion who is also a pilot and owned his own airline, said on German TV that whoever flew the aircraft into the WTC must have been "properly trained to fly a plane like that." He said: "You have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots. ... It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it." [15]

AIRCRAFT THAT HIT THE PENTAGON 'WAS FLOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL'
A particularly high level of skill would have been needed to fly an aircraft into the west wall of the Pentagon. CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. ... [T]he complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." [16] A "top aviation source" called the maneuver "a nice, coordinated turn," which, according to one law enforcement official, was the work of "a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing." [17] Other "aviation sources" told the Washington Post that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon "was flown with extraordinary skill." [18]

According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said the terrorist who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon displayed "proficiency in the aircraft's advanced navigation and automated flight systems. ... Such systems require pilots to program the desired course heading and altitude into an onboard computer, and the plane carries out the instructions." [19]

 

If you were a pilot you'd know it wouldn't take extreme skill to hit a huge building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Omni said:

If you were a pilot you'd know it wouldn't take extreme skill to hit a huge building. 

If you were a pilot, you would know that you are lying because myriad experts have described clearly how you don't know what you are talking about.

I've known that since the first time you gave "evidence", which has always amounted to squat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, hot enough said:

If you were a pilot, you would know that you are lying because myriad experts have described clearly how you don't know what you are talking about.

I've known that since the first time you gave "evidence", which has always amounted to squat. 

So if you need all this higher flying talent to hit a huge building, how the hell was I so lucky to hit a little narrow runway on my first solo with just over 5 hours dual instruction under my belt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2017 at 12:05 PM, Omni said:

Lost count of how often that has been done, and not only by me. I'm still waiting for you response as to how many tonnes of explosive would have had to be secretly installed in the towers, and how that was done. Until you can answer that one, I'll leave you to wallow in the "troother" nonsense. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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.

Yes, I wonder how many miles of det cord it would have taken to get that little program together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2017 at 2:03 PM, hot enough said:

Omni has pretended he is a pilot. He has described the alleged hijackers piloting skills as adequate to do what was done on 911.

The following illustrates one of two things: one, Omni is not a pilot and he is therefore lying, or two, he is a pilot but he is lying about the skills needed to fly a jet in order to plant lies defending the totally impossible USGOCT.

================

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

The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11

...

HITTING THE WTC LIKE 'THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE'
Some experts commented specifically on the flying skills that would have been necessary to crash planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. [11]

Michael Barr said the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC "had to change course ... had to know how to navigate." [12] Barr, who is a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot, said the hijacker pilots "almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle." He commented on the difficulty the pilots would have had in synchronizing their attacks so they hit the two WTC towers about 15 minutes apart, saying: "The routes they were flying were very different--one plane coming from the north and the other coming from the south. That adds greatly to the complexity and it requires a degree of skill to prevent the planes from banking too much or descending too fast while keeping on course." Barr added that the piloting skills apparently exhibited by the hijackers indicated that "months and months of planning and training were involved." He concluded, "Unfortunately, these guys were good." [13]

A 767 pilot told the Boston Globe: "The perpetrators were trained pilots and trained to operate the 757-767 family of aircraft. ... t did not seem to bother them that the flying was very demanding." This pilot noted that video showed that the second aircraft to hit the WTC was banked, or turning, as it struck the tower, "making the maneuver more difficult." He added, "To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years." [14]

Niki Lauda, the former Formula One world champion who is also a pilot and owned his own airline, said on German TV that whoever flew the aircraft into the WTC must have been "properly trained to fly a plane like that." He said: "You have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots. ... It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it." [15]

AIRCRAFT THAT HIT THE PENTAGON 'WAS FLOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL'
A particularly high level of skill would have been needed to fly an aircraft into the west wall of the Pentagon. CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. ... [T]he complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." [16] A "top aviation source" called the maneuver "a nice, coordinated turn," which, according to one law enforcement official, was the work of "a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing." [17] Other "aviation sources" told the Washington Post that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon "was flown with extraordinary skill." [18]

According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said the terrorist who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon displayed "proficiency in the aircraft's advanced navigation and automated flight systems. ... Such systems require pilots to program the desired course heading and altitude into an onboard computer, and the plane carries out the instructions." [19]

 

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

I'm a pilot of both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft and although I'm no high houred expert of every aircraft to ever take to the air I do know that Bernoulli's principle applies the same regardless of if the aircraft is a rubber band airplane or the great Antonov AN 250. These aircraft were well within their flight envelopes when they were taken over by the hijackers, in other words they were at cruise speed loaded to around 50% capacity, there was a lot of leeway for them to make amateurish mistakes and still be able to keep these aircraft aloft.

As far as controlling them the 767 has one control that probably 99% of all fixed wing aircraft have (including the Cessna 172) and that is the aircraft  control yoke  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoke_(aeronautics) . With this one simple control device  one could take control of these aircraft and basically do exactly as what the hijackers did without touching one other single control in the cockpit. I bet the aircraft autopilot even disengages when human input is detected at the yoke. I would bet any novice pilot could taxi, take off, fly and land a 767 with very little instruction,  it's not rocket science.  Also the cockpit is not anymore stressful environment while in flight then traffic on a highway especially as most basic tasks are automated these days.

As far as navigation is concerned all they needed was a Garmin or TomTom and they would have been guided right to the towers, they just needed to guided to the area, the towers would have been easy to see within thirty miles especially for the second aircraft. Also seat of the pants navigation has been going on since the beginning of flight, it's not that complicated... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

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

I'm a pilot of both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft and although I'm no high houred expert of every aircraft to ever take to the air I do know that Bernoulli's principle applies the same regardless of if the aircraft is a rubber band airplane or the great Antonov AN 250. These aircraft were well within their flight envelopes when they were taken over by the hijackers, in other words they were at cruise speed loaded to around 50% capacity, there was a lot of leeway for them to make amateurish mistakes and still be able to keep these aircraft aloft.

As far as controlling them the 767 has one control that probably 99% of all fixed wing aircraft have (including the Cessna 172) and that is the aircraft  control yoke  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoke_(aeronautics) . With this one simple control device  one could take control of these aircraft and basically do exactly as what the hijackers did without touching one other single control in the cockpit. I bet the aircraft autopilot even disengages when human input is detected at the yoke. I would bet any novice pilot could taxi, take off, fly and land a 767 with very little instruction,  it's not rocket science.  Also the cockpit is not anymore stressful environment while in flight then traffic on a highway especially as most basic tasks are automated these days.

As far as navigation is concerned all they needed was a Garmin or TomTom and they would have been guided right to the towers, they just needed to guided to the area, the towers would have been easy to see within thirty miles especially for the second aircraft. Also seat of the pants navigation has been going on since the beginning of flight, it's not that complicated... 

Agreed on all counts. and yes, typically if you grab the yoke and make an input the F/D will throw a message up on the screen asking if you want to disengage the A/P. (I guess it assumes you may have inadvertently bumped it) Just keep moving it and it will disengage. And if you knew a bit about a flight director you wouldn't even have to fly the thing. Just push a couple of buttons and then twirl the heading bug to make a 180 to head you back toward NY, and when those huge buildings came into view as you say miles away, adjust a rate of descent to get you below 1363 feet, and get ready to meet your 72 virgins.

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

Image result

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Omni said:

Agreed on all counts. and yes, typically if you grab the yoke and make an input the F/D will throw a message up on the screen asking if you want to disengage the A/P. (I guess it assumes you may have inadvertently bumped it) Just keep moving it and it will disengage. And if you knew a bit about a flight director you wouldn't even have to fly the thing. Just push a couple of buttons and then twirl the heading bug to make a 180 to head you back toward NY, and when those huge buildings came into view as you say miles away, adjust a rate of descent to get you below 1363 feet, and get ready to meet your 72 virgins.

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

Image result

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. 

People don't realize 90% of the switches and buttons in those cockpits are for isolating systems and subsystems for troubleshooting and in flight mechanical or electrical issues, most will never be touched for the life of the aircraft other then for testing and fault finding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 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. 

People don't realize 90% of the switches and buttons in those cockpits are for isolating systems and subsystems for troubleshooting and in flight mechanical or electrical issues, most will never be touched for the life of the aircraft other then for testing and fault finding. 

Yep, like all those caution lights, you test them on the pre-start and hope like hell you never see them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2017 at 1:37 PM, Omni said:

One of the things the conspiracists keep trying to say is that the towers fell at "freefall", yet in at least one of the videos a huge chunk breaks off of one of the towers as it goes down, and you can quite clearly see how much faster it falls, which is actually at freefall. And yes of course, what happened to all of those people in those airplanes if there were no airplanes. It's hard to wrap ones head around how people could be so easily led astray without addressing basic reality. There seems to be a segment of our society that is quite willing to be so led. 

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. 

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. 

Also, what caused building seven to collapse? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 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. 

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. 

Also, what caused building seven to collapse? 

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. Tower 7 collapsed as a result of damage from the flying debris, and from fire damage since the sprinkler system was wiped out by the damage from the other towers collapsing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 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. Tower 7 collapsed as a result of damage from the flying debris, and from fire damage since the sprinkler system was wiped out by the damage from the other towers collapsing. 

Even during a demolition the building doesn't actually freefall, there is resistance as the structure above overcomes the integraty of structure below.  

WTC 7 was a half block from WCT 1 and debree destroyed it? There were other buildings across the street from both towers and they weren't catastrophically destroyed, this speaks volumes of the quality of construction for the WTC buildings... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Even during a demolition the building doesn't actually freefall, there is resistance as the structure above overcomes the integraty of structure below.  

WTC 7 was a half block from WCT 1 and debree destroyed it? There were other buildings across the street from both towers and they weren't catastrophically destroyed, this speaks volumes of the quality of construction for the WTC buildings... 

A long way before steel melts it looses much of it's structural integrity and bends whichever way force is applied to it. My grandfather used to forge horseshoes in a forge we had in a shop on the farm. The conspiracy theorists always try to say that the steel beneath the towers after their collapse was "molten". It was glowing hot for sure, both because of lots of exposure to burning jet A, and of course friction on the way down, but no proof any of it was molten. Hot steel glows long before it melts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Omni said:

A long way before steel melts it looses much of it's structural integrity and bends whichever way force is applied to it. My grandfather used to forge horseshoes in a forge we had in a shop on the farm. The conspiracy theorists always try to say that the steel beneath the towers after their collapse was "molten". It was glowing hot for sure, both because of lots of exposure to burning jet A, and of course friction on the way down, but no proof any of it was molten. Hot steel glows long before it melts.

Yes I know, I work with metals every day.  I also know steel weakens and yields slowly as it's heated, it's not an instant phenomenon.

In addition these buildings should have had a considerable safety factor built into them, they were designed to withstand the impact of fully laden 707s at cruise speed which according to aircraft specs, speed and load the 767s that were used were well under. It should also be noted these buildings were designed for substantial wind loads (and some earthquake shock loading as well?) It's hard to believe they could just fall like a house of cards like they did.

Another option is these buildings were actually rigged to collapse the way they did to minimize potential collateral damage then if they toppled but advertizing that feature they may have figured the towers would have been hard to fill.

Those three buildings collapsing the way they did is just so full of holes in my opinion. I could see the top portion toppling off or possibly the towers falling over but falling straight down onto undamaged structure is simply the path of most resistance. If this is the case demolition crews are going to way too much trouble to implode buildings.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Yes I know, I work with metals every day.  I also know steel weakens and yields slowly as it's heated, it's not an instant phenomenon.

In addition these buildings should have had a considerable safety factor built into them, they were designed to withstand the impact of fully laden 707s at cruise speed which according to aircraft specs, speed and load the 767s that were used were well under. It should also be noted these buildings were designed for substantial wind loads (and some earthquake shock loading as well?) It's hard to believe they could just fall like a house of cards like they did.

Another option is these buildings were actually rigged to collapse the way they did to minimize potential collateral damage then if they toppled but advertizing that feature they may have figured the towers would have been hard to fill.

Those three buildings collapsing the way they did is just so full of holes in my opinion. I could see the top portion toppling off or possibly the towers falling over but falling straight down onto undamaged structure is simply the path of most resistance. If this is the case demolition crews are going to way too much trouble to implode buildings.

 

.

Both the aircraft were below max . gross due to pax. loads and fuel req'd, but videos indicate they were either at or above cruise at impact. One of the classic vids. you can actually hear the engines spooling up just prior to impact. Maybe the hijackers were well enough versed in physics to know what you lack in weight you can compensate for with speed.  In the aftermath of 9-11 I recalled seeing a video a demolition crew made during their job of taking down a large brick smoke stack at a defunct factory which I think was in or near downtown Seattle. The boss on the job explained that taking it apart brick by brick would have taken forever, and that it was too close to other buildings in all directions to knock it over, so what they did was plant explosives around the perimeter a certain distance below the top. He further explained that the process was designed so that once the explosives were set off, the top part of the structure would fall into the remainder of it and basically "pile drive" the rest of it vertically. They finally "hit the switch" and the smokestack collapse just as described, and very similar as did the towers. It was also interesting that Osama worked for the demolition section of his dads construction company. Perhaps he figured out that rather than go through the rather impossible task of installing all that explosive in a building full of people on a daily basis, we'll just underpin that upper section with a fast moving Boeing.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Omni said:

Both the aircraft were below max . gross due to pax. loads and fuel req'd, but videos indicate they were either at or above cruise at impact. One of the classic vids. you can actually hear the engines spooling up just prior to impact. Maybe the hijackers were well enough versed in physics to know what you lack in weight you can compensate for with speed.  In the aftermath of 9-11 I recalled seeing a video a demolition crew made during their job of taking down a large brick smoke stack at a defunct factory which I think was in or near downtown Seattle. The boss on the job explained that taking it apart brick by brick would have taken forever, and that it was too close to other buildings in all directions to knock it over, so what they did was plant explosives around the perimeter a certain distance below the top. He further explained that the process was designed so that once the explosives were set off, the top part of the structure would fall into the remainder of it and basically "pile drive" the rest of it vertically. They finally "hit the switch" and the smokestack collapse just as described, and very similar as did the towers. It was also interesting that Osama worked for the demolition section of his dads construction company. Perhaps he figured out that rather than go through the rather impossible task of installing all that explosive in a building full of people on a daily basis, we'll just underpin that upper section with a fast moving Boeing.     

There is an interesting discussion about the towers and planes here  http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html . One guy was so confident they would remain standing he died rescuing people when it did collapse. There's some interesting reading on the towers design here  http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc4.htm , they also have a good article on building demolition by implosion. In there they state that they install explosives on higher floors but only to aid in crushing the materials to make cleanup easier, they use explosives on the main floor to actually bring the structure down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

There is an interesting discussion about the towers and planes here  http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html . One guy was so confident they would remain standing he died rescuing people when it did collapse. There's some interesting reading on the towers design here  http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc4.htm , they also have a good article on building demolition by implosion. In there they state that they install explosives on higher floors but only to aid in crushing the materials to make cleanup easier, they use explosives on the main floor to actually bring the structure down. 

The articles you refer to  that in your opinion raises " interesting" discussions  are "interesting" because YOU are interested which is a euphemism for you agreeing  with the articles' speculations. Likewise the article you refer to as "good", because you agree with it so call it "good". Unfortunately the speculation in all the articles you have raised has been debunked.

The problem with this thread and discussions on conspiracy theories is that with due respect, people like you read articles that subjectively speculate about what "could" have happened with ZERO objective evidence. It sounds possible to you so you find what's speculated "interesting" or "good". It does not make the articles you read either interesting or good to me or others. For me and others we need OBJECTIVE evidence not SPECULATIVE theories.

One of the problems with this thread is its initiator has shown repeatedly he presents subjective speculation as objective fact and his own emotional feelings as "truth". When responded to with objective evidence that contradicted what he quoted, he then engaged in name calling as he continues with Omni showing he can not emotionally detach himself from the issues he discusses. His words also show he will in fact quote a subjective opinion or theory and claim its a fact.

Now in your case you are on a forum and respectfully point out speculative theories you like which I get. They actually have been addressed on this thread and others. We tend to talk in circles as the same issues get repeated over and over in circles.

You of course should try challenge yourself to consider other articles other than the ones you read. With due respect there are other articles other then "how stuff works" . "how stuff works" is designed to simplify engineering and physics concepts-it might be the answers you are not considering are not in "how stuff works" because such articles aren't designed to provide the complex formulas you would need to understand to get a full picture.

Also the problem with theories is until proven with objective testing they remain unproven and thus they fuel continued discussion as people argue since they can't be proven, they can't be disproven and rely on that fallacy to keep repeating them. Consider this. We know it is human nature after a disasterous event to try make sense of it. Our minds are designed to see patterns and if need be make patterns out of chaos. Its called apophenia. We see faces in clouds. We want to make sense of what would otherwise make no sense. We create conspiracies or theories that connect the dots in what otherwise seems like a disconnected series of dots. Its what we do. Its why we created religion-to fill the void for phenomena our 5 senses and mind do not seem to otherwise comprehend. Conspiracies like religious values give us faith in what would otherwise seem like hell, chaos, insanity.

The fact is and its very hard for some to grasp, not all events happen in a logical, pre-ordained series of planned thought. We want to believe their is intelligent design behind everything. Certainly when we study nature that most often is the case. Its marvelous actually to see the intricate connections between different life forms and how we all are dependent on one another and what a beautiful maze of interaction it really is. In that sense it proves what some like to refer to as "God", an order behind the order and chaos too.

There is no reason to disbelieve intelligent design in nature or even in many human actions but stop and think, do you really think all humans are as planned and organized as you give these alleged conspiracy creators. Do you really think with the extent of inter-dependence required to carry off the conspiracies some believe, they could possibly remain secret or not go as planned or did not happen the way you want to see them as happening?

The reality is you live in the world where the media, mostly your cell phone and internet is your path of knowledge.  How many books does anyone read? Who are we kidding? Is the generation depending on the internet and cell phone for their thoughts connected to their inner selves spiritually or in any way? The average person takes a cell phone or internet, reads a few articles, picks the ones they like, and then they feel they have a base of awareness to then conclude not only what the truth is but a platform to scorn and insult others and pose themselves as prophets like Hot Enough.

:I can only tell you what I know having worked inside government. Its not organized. Its chaos. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Bureaucracy is such that there are excessive layers and departments or compartments of people who have no clue what people outside their jurisdictions are doing. Government is  sometimes like a comedy of errors its so poorly organized. When things do break-down and they do, civil servants run for cover erasing any trace they had anything to do with the trouble. Often that is what outsides see as conspiracy when its simply inept bureaucrats covering their asses.

Rather than repeat the contents of this thread, all I will say is in conclusion, your theories have been responded to and explained if you want to find them and you may wish to consider the articles below:

https://psychcentral.com/lib/patterns-the-need-for-order/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html

Edited by Rue
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Rue, what you have stated may have some basis in reality, however, what's to say the conspiracists theory is correct and the official explanation isn't false? Where are you getting your OBJECTIVE evidence? Because you buy the official storyline of what happened on 911 and others see things that just don't make sense doesn't automatically make you right and them wrong. There are thousands of examples of this. How many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't commit? How many times have we been told living downstream of industry our water was perfectly safe? Smoking was not harmful to your health? Remember this was all based on OBJECTIVE evidence... AND remember the destruction done on 911 was never officially investigated, we bought the aircraft brought down these three buildings, end of story...

As far as working inside government is concerned I have no idea, but I do know dealing with government that I seem to always bring scenarios they have never dealt with before <_<

Would I be safe to assume you have no idea what happens at the top end of government and their interactions with other governments and the elite as well?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

...what's to say the conspiracists theory is correct and the official explanation isn't false? Where are you getting your OBJECTIVE evidence? Because you buy the official storyline of what happened on 911 and others see things that just don't make sense doesn't automatically make you right and them wrong. There are thousands of examples of this. How many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't commit? How many times have we been told living downstream of industry our water was perfectly safe? Smoking was not harmful to your health? Remember this was all based on OBJECTIVE evidence... AND remember the destruction done on 911 was never officially investigated, we bought the aircraft brought down these three buildings, end of story...

As far as working inside government is concerned I have no idea, but I do know dealing with government that I seem to always bring scenarios they have never dealt with before <_<

Would I be safe to assume you have no idea what happens at the top end of government and their interactions with other governments and the elite as well?  

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...