Was 911 an INSIDE JOB?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I believe that we understand little of the nature of reality or time, we cannot even explain strange properties of quantum physics at the moment.

I agree completely. This is one of the reasons that I find the "answer" of Intelligent Design so distasteful. It is the "God of the Gaps" reasoning in a new form - we don't understand something, ergo we conclude that some intelligence must be guiding it.

For me, the process stops at "we don't understand it". Everything after that is rendered obsolete by our admission that we don't understand it.

I mean, you admit that...

But yes, it's a leap of faith in a way.

...but for me there's no "in a way". Saying that we don't understand something and still drawing any sort of a conclusion based on our lack of understanding is nothing but a leap of faith.

I look at the order of the universe, and simply refuse to believe that it is down to chance or coincidence.

Fair enough. So you attribute it all to an Intelligent Designer. And why are they there? Chance? Coincidence? Or did they too have a cause and a guiding force? #

You can "kick to touch", saying that we don't understand the framework within which this ID would exist, and therefore can't answer such questions...but thats exactly the answer that you're rejecting about the origins of the universe (and thus everything in it)!

You may say that chance is at least a scientific principle, but then what of chaos theory - you yourself are a mathematician are you not Bonkey?

This isn't so easy to answer, but I'll have a shot.

First, lets clear make sure there's no misconceptions...

Chaos Theory deals with mathematical models of deterministic nature. Contrary to common belief, they have nothing to do with randomness or chaos. Rather, the term chaotic is applied because small inputs can lead to large variations in output.

It is, as I've just said, a mathematical model. Mathematics is not science. It is a tool often used in the forming of scientific models - thats a subtle distinction, but I would hazard that its the type of distinction Diogenes would expect someone to be able to make if they felt they "really" understood science.

Finally, science is really about building predictive models. A good model is one where those predictions match observation, within identified limits. Science does not explain what is, but rather attempts to model what appears to be. I've often pointed out to the Creationists (on *that* thread) that froma scientific perspective, there is no difference between a universe which is billions of years old, and one which God created 6,000-odd years ago made to look exactly like one which is billions of years old. In every case, the expected observations will be identical, and thus, from a scientific perspective the distinction between these two is meaningless.

So...from a scientific perspective, one must ask if there is a distinction between something that is truly random, and something which is deterministic where we cannot model that determinism. I would argue that there isn't. From our perspective, they are both indeterminable.

From there, we can move to the next question, which is whether we can tell whether something is indeterministic, or merely something where we have yet to be able to model the determinism. Again, I would say its a moot point. Our understanding of science is always changing. Thus, all we can say is that we cannot currently determine something, and may suspect that it may or may not be determinable.

These are limitations of science, sure. For me, though, thats a strength, not a weakness. From the scientific perspective, "we don't know that, currently" is a perfectly reasonable answer. "We may never know that" is a perfectly reasonable follow-up. It takes balls to say it at times, but its not a weakness. Its certainly no weaker than deciding to plump for an answer because of some appeal it holds...like the insistence that "it can't all just be random".

And again, I would point out that whatever answers you may choose to believe in...all you're doing is hiding the very same "I don't know" behind it. If you believe the universe couldn't just be random, then the Intelligent Designer couldn't just be random. Did that in turn require a non-random creation? Or maybe this ID wasn't created...but given that the origins of the universe lie outside our understanding of time (and thus outside our understanding of cause-and-effect), then the same reasoning becomes valid for the universe itself.

I don't buy it,

I'm not asking you to buy it. If anything, I'm pointing out that science isn't selling it in the first place. You are looking for answers where science offers none, whilst saying that you're not buying the answer that science offers.

I suspect that this is what Diogenes may have been referring to when he talked about those who "really" understand science rejecting ID.

and never bought the WMD story.

I never bought it either, but couldn't rule out the possibility that it was right.

Would I have backed the invasion of a nation on those premises? No, nor did I at the time.

Iraq never had inter continental range, in fact it's range could barely extend to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Attacking Iraq was like a team of WWF wrestlers jumping a crippled man in a wheelchair.

America was never seriously protecting itself directly. Even at the time, they made it quite clear that their concern was for the stability of the Middle East, which was crucial to US interests (as well as to most of the developed world, frankly).

The question of WMD existence should be considered seperately from the validity of the actions justified by the supposed answer. Was it possible they had them? Yes. Was it likely? No.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Precisely my point!

Science isn't philosophy. You're getting confused again.

I don't buy it, and never bought the WMD story. Iraq didn't have an airforce after Desert Storm.

The Iraq Airforce was badly depleted after the first gulf war, it wasn't non existent. It's not like there wasn't a single plane in the country.

Half the country was a no fly zone and the army itself was crippled.

The country was a no fly zone for miltary aircraft. Transport aircraft could still travel.

Scud sites as well as even SAM sites were wiped out, and the people were being economically crippled by severe sanctions. Iraq never had inter continental range, in fact it's range could barely extend to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Attacking Iraq was like a team of WWF wrestlers jumping a crippled man in a wheelchair.

And your point is? Iraq had WMD's at one point.

ironingbored

meglome wrote: »

Some big planes hit some big buildings, they burned, they fell down.

Can you give examples of "big" planes hitting "big" buildings which subsequently fell into their own footprint?

meglome

ironingbored wrote: »

Can you give examples of "big" planes hitting "big" buildings which subsequently fell into their own footprint?

Well I don't have examples of big planes being intentionally crashed into big buildings outside of 9/11 but they DID NOT FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, so it's a mute point, only the CT's say they did. Sorry for the caps but it's been said in here over and over that that's not what happened. See Diogenes post below.

Diogenes wrote: »

No wrong. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, Verizon, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, is currently being deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse

Furthermore the building was damaged by the planes, but the main cause of collapse was the fire that engulfed the building. It wasn't Plane hits, Wallop, building falls over. That is the kind of physics a roadrunner cartoon would be embarrassed to commit.

How was all this 'collateral' damage done if they fell into their own footprint?

derry

Hi again fans

Well its been a debate about if god exists the last few replies
And they say I off the subject

Any way here are some youtube demolish building examples


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgE9S3bV6QM&feature=related


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


The first is a 300 foot tower made from steel
The second is a large building mostly made from concrete

The WTC towers were like 80% steel with plaster board walls and thin concrete floor and fairly thin concrete façade which was attached to the steel Columns

The reason I mention that is in the first video you see the total lack of damage to a steel tower that topples over explosion the base and falls over like a tree impact speeds in the one hunder MPH plus region and yet it stays fairly intact
That's what you expect from a steel structure that it remains mostly intact bucked and bent but not pulverised like concrete

If the towers were weakened in the columns on one side slightly more than another there are two possibilities

If the WTC tower failed half way up they should have toppled to one side as one side being weaker than another would decide the direction of toppling

As the second video shows we see where one side is blown ahead of the other to cause one side to collapse and then drag the rest into the middle

So if we assumed one side was weaker than another the collapse should look like a combination of these two events or more like one of these two events with the high probability that the WTC towers being mostly steel it would topple more like a tree or the steel tower video

Now on both building we see a complete collapse vertically which has no resemblance to eiter of these films

Now two building both deciding to be so perfectly balanced in the start to finish explosion of events and create a rubble pile on a small footprint is stretching the facts

Yes there is damage to the regions near by but if the building fell over like a tree they would have destroyed several blocks of building

Conclusion in order to ensure the building would collapse in a flat pack it was necessary to have suitable thermite charges on all the main columns ignited at the same time to ensure all the columns failed at the same time

Once the building started falling in a flat pack fashion the force of gravity would ensure the process would keep it going in a small footprint provided all the columns an most every floor were already thermite weakened

If not the flat pack could lose speed and risk to start falling to the side and create a huge damage foot print

As the footprint in a two large towers falling over say like two trees in a forest and landing all over the place and destroying nearly every building in the financial heart of NY could cripple the USA economically worse than the cost of life and cost of the building involved

So it was necessary to ensure the event was stage managed to the last detail

There in the last detail went slightly wrong

WTC building 7 collapsed a few hours later
with only a few fires in it and no real reason why it should collapse

It was sopposed to be target for one of the flights

The flight 93 or one other was meant to hit building 7

Both flight 93 and a another flight were delayed

The other flight had taken on twenty USA army guy marines
The few Arab gents aboard decided to request to leave the plane while it sat on the apron and demanded to leave focefully and then left the plane
Those guys were never seen again but were part of another team that aborted the hijack event possibily to go for building 7

The unplanned having twenty USA army guys on the plane made the hijacking risky but the addition of a a large delay triggered the bale out option for those sets of hijackers

Flight 93 was late to take off and so lacked element of suprise

Flight 93 was seen from the ground to fly low and fast and then go upside down
Then it entered a vertical dive and crashed supposedly from fight to take control of the aircraft

If that is the case the debris field should be small and exist within 300 feet of impact zone

If there is a debris field over some few miles the story starts to go pear shaped
That damage could be consistent with a missile hitting the plane and so it was possible it was shot down

Alternatively if the hijackers ignited a large bomb the plane would lose parts from the explosion but non of the hijackers were reputed to use anything except knives

Other possibilities would be consistent with a plane that had exceeded it VNE (speed not to be exceeded ) and structural abilities from over speed and flutter or similar was removing chunks from the plane typical event in a steep dive from large heights consistent with fight in the copit or missile shoot down

But ground eye witness infer plane was flying level and low height and went into a roll to upside down and then entered a dive

So we see no evidence of a shoot down from that as we we expect flames and smoke from shoot down

The low height does not allow the plane to get the extremely fast speeds to break apart over a large area

The dive from low heights at say 300 MPH max speed of low flying jets with the thicker air low down would allow the plane to get to only ~400 mph before impact

400MPH vertical dive into firm earth will cause a big hole of sorts and pulverise a lot of the plane into pieces with very few parts bigger than a dinner plate
However engines are big and are tough things and rarely break into pieces so should be visible on the suface of the impact zone
Tail section should remain somewhat intact in that ~400 MPH crash and sitting on the top of the crash event

The impact to destroy all the plane and bury the whole plane and leave nothing on the surface like the photo supplied below would probably require a speed of 1200MPH

The only way to make a plane of this type reach speeds of 1200MPH would require rocket engines attached to the plane as the maximum possible speed for these plane get to from a dive from 30,000 would be ~700MPH

Normally in that severe dive event the wings fall off
Air resistance with no engines driving the body of the plane would slow down the body of the plane to 300MPH about terminal velocity speeds

Planes that fall at 300MPH are not pulverised
Example is Lockerbie crash where the front nose section of a jumbo jet fell from the sky and stayed in one piece
This is due to a bomb which blew up the 747 plane at 35,000 feet
The front nose section no longer connected to the main part of the jet fell at maximum speed of 300 mph

The rest of the plane with engines attached fell faster until wings broke off The remaining parts tumbled down at different speeds .Some parts fell very fast and others fell more slowly and large chunks were left spread over a huge 15 miles region

copy reference for education purpose

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-460660/No-10-did-plot-send-prisoner-Libya.html

1st pic attached shows damage from Locerbie crash

2nd pic example of engine falling from 40,000 feet on ocean impact water is like conctete when you hit it at high speed

3rd pic crash site from flight 93
http://img8.exs.cx/img8/5519/imprint33al.jpg

ironingbored

meglome wrote: »

Well I don't have examples of big planes being intentionally crashed into big buildings outside of 9/11 but they DID NOT FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, so it's a mute point, only the CT's say they did. Sorry for the caps but it's been said in here over and over that that's not what happened. See Diogenes post below.



How was all this 'collateral' damage done if they fell into their own footprint?

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

meglome

ironingbored wrote: »

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

So it obviously a large plane rammed into it at high speed? No? It obviously had a tube in a tube design and not a more standard steel structure? No? It was a hundred stories high? No? (there are several other differences but you get the idea)

You didn't respond to the original point at all and now you're basically comparing apples with oranges.

Derrys post hurts my brain, maybe I'll have a few vodkas and try again.

meglome

derry wrote: »

Planes that fall at 300MPH are not pulverised
Example is Lockerbie crash where the front fell from the sky and stayed in one peice
As the front of the plane was blown of from a bomb the front no longer connected to the jet fell at maxium speed of 300 mph

The rest of the plane with engines attached fell faster until wings broke of and the parts tumbled down at different speeds so some parts fel very fast and others fell more slowly so large chunks were left spread over a huge 15 miles region

copy reference for education purpose

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-460660/No-10-did-plot-send-prisoner-Libya.html

pic attached shows damage from Locerbie crash

Okay I'm not even attempting to go into most of this rambling post (not to mention I very much doubt you have any evidence for some of it other than you believe it) but lets take the bit above.

The Lockerbie plane was bombed in mid air, it fell to earth and broke up as it did. How can that possibly compare with a plane being ramped into the ground at maybe 500 miles per hour?

And yet lets look at where the main body of the plane in Lockerbie hit the ground

Strange but it looks just like the flight 77 crash once you ignore all the other debris scattered around which is exactly what you did with United flight 77.

derry

If you look the lockerbie impact zone it only had a small section ot the plane make that crater and that section was only the main part of the body with one small section of the wing attached

It hit the ground moving forwards at high speed along with a vetical component and that section was has a large fuel tank which exploded and created a large fire ball

The result is less of a hole and more of a deep cut from fast moving object cutting into the gound and then spreading a sheet of flame forwards
Large chunks of the plane from this event were spread around the edges of the crater and are outside the piture and hard to see with the burnt out houses
lots of burnt bodies passengers from plane or rather bits of bodies were recovered close to this impact zone as they tumbled froward out of this crater

Flight 93 is sopposed to have gone staight in and the earth swallowed it whole leaving nothing on the surface except a whisp of smoke coming from The hole

The only time this is ever seem is with extreme speeds like 1200MPH which rockets can do and will bury themselfs into the ground leaving a hole and no trace of the event

Planes with lower speeds tend to leave larger peices

I included new pics but will post them again

copy reference for education purpose

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ner-Libya.html

1st pic attached shows damage from Locerbie crash

2nd pic example of engine falling from 40,000 feet on ocean impact water is like concrete when you hit it at high speed

3rd pic crash site from flight 93
http://img8.exs.cx/img8/5519/imprint33al.jpg

Diogenes

ironingbored wrote: »

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings.
These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building.

The Twin Towers were 110 story buildings. Both buildings were hit in the region of the 70 story. Meaning the floors on fire had to support 40 stories of weight while their steel was compromised. Beginning to see how this comparsion is flawed.

Secondary steel beams were not protected.

However in the Carrington test the steel beams were substantial, not trusses as used in the WTC. The fire load was timber cribs. The steel beams, while not actually collapsing, were severely damaged, and access to the damaged area had to be restricted for safety reasons after the test.The steel beams were substantial, not trusses as used in the WTC. The fire load was timber cribs. The steel beams, while not actually collapsing, were severely damaged, and access to the damaged area had to be restricted for safety reasons after the test.

Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

As Meglome has pointed out the cardington test didn't factor in a jetliner filled with fuel crashing into it. The Cardington building was also a 12th of the size of the WTC, and designed to completely different specifications to the WTC.

So yes, at the risk of repeating myself, if you ignore all those differences then the Cardington test is completely relevant.

humanji

Sorry, I don't understand you Derry. In one sentence, what are you trying to say?

derry

humanji wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand you Derry. In one sentence, what are you trying to say?

Then try this link
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

www.flight93crash.com wrote:

Secondary Debris Field

NOVA: What can the spread of the wreckage on the ground tell you about the kind of catastrophe that might have befallen the plane?

KING: The spread of wreckage over the ground considered in the context of the local terrain can tell us quite a lot about the arrival of the aircraft in terms of the amount of energy and the nature of the flight immediately prior to hitting the ground. If the aircraft has come down vertically with relatively low energy, the wreckage will be contained in a relatively small area, dependent on the size of the aircraft, of course. If the aircraft is flying straight and level at high speed when it first touches the ground, then the wreckage will distribute itself typically in a fan shape over quite a large area. If the aircraft starts to break up in the air, particularly at significant height, then it will start to distribute pieces that will travel with the wind and be spread over sometimes many hundreds of square miles. If you consider the Lockerbie event, which happened at 31,000 feet, then the wreckage distributes itself over a large area of countryside.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/wreckage.html

The primary debris field:
"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long.

Spallone said the plane was still smoldering at 12:30. He said officials were trying to keep people from scene and confirmed that there are no survivors. He said the "debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields." The impact of the crash was so severe that the biggest piece of debris he has seen there is no bigger than 2 feet.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/graphics/images2/aa12.pdf

Photos:
http://www.bartcop.com/flight93.htm
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/emergency/pictures/091201f.htm


The secondary (and tertiary) debris fields:

The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

But investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in two separate places evinced an explosion.
http://www.eastandard.net/eahome/story15092001004.htm


Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

"John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon.

By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.

He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris. "

Comment: If the debris was somewhat continuous, as you'd expect if the debris all originated at the main crash site, the FBI wouldn't have been skeptical, and wait over 24 hours until the next afternoon to check it out. It's only 2.5 miles away to the lake. But when they got there they rented boats and bagged up a bunch of debris.

"Fleegle, marina owner Jim Brant and two of Brant's employees were among the dozens who witnessed the crash from Indian Lake. Fleegle had just returned to the marina to get fuel for a boat that had run out of gas when Carol Delasko called him into the drydock barn to watch news of the World Trade Center attack.

All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom," said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.

Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. "It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake," she said. (archived at http://library.triblive.com - search Delasko from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01)

Comment: If debris was simply dropped from 5,000 feet - it would take a couple minutes just to fall straight down on the lake. They hopped in their cars right away - and still saw the debris fall BEFORE they left.

Witnesses say they heard the plane fly over, felt their building AT THE DOCK shake. The debris evidence also supports the plane flying over Indian Lake AND that plane was falling apart. This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater. The testimony and evidence do not support the NTSB story that the debris floated from the main crash site.

In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues."
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."
(archived at http://library.triblive.com - search whole engine from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here)

Crowley related that 95 percent of the airplane had been recovered. The biggest piece of aircraft found was a fuselage skin measuring about 6 to 7 feet. The heaviest piece was from one of the engines and weighed 1,000 pounds.
http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html#final

Comment: It's important to recall that every description of the main crash site is that the airplane was OBLITERATED. Very small debris was spread over a couple hundred yards. This is exactly what you'd expect to see when an Airliner impacts nearly vertically as Flight 93 did. Nothing survived this impact... yet a 1000lb fan was found elsewhere. It fell off before impact, just like Flight 587's engine that was found basically intact did.

John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake [2.5 miles away from main crash site]
... said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there. (Archived at http://library.triblive.com - search burning seat cushion from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here. It's unclear exactly how far this seat cushion is from the primary crater.)

Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-7147291-0.html

Theory 1 - It blew there (The NTSB/FBI Story).
Comment: Wind speed that day was 9 knots (or 10.4 MPH). Video from that morning shows a very light breeze.

The NTSB theory is that a lot of lightweight paper-like material survived the crash fireball and escaped the 35 foot deep, wet mud crash site and floated at 10 mph 2 - 8 miles over more wet, muddy fields. And how did clothing, books and large engine parts blow there again? And is there stuff 2 to 8 miles away at the Pentagon crash? Or another crash you can think of? Oh yea, at Lockerbie and Flight 800 there was (both had in-air explosions).

Remember, the debris is NOT continuous. They didn't even have a clue the secondary debris existed until phone calls from residents brought skeptical investigators looking. If this debris was heavier than feathers it would not have floated from an explosion the height of 600 feet to 11,000+ feet sideways. Even if it could, there would have been a continuous trail back to the crash with the heavier items falling first. Remember, all the debris at the crash crater bounced South and Southwest. The secondary debris is East in the direction of, and beyond, Indian Lake.

Indian Lake is where witnesses heard the airliner fly over, and saw debris falling from the sky moments after the crash. If the debris floated from the crash site, it would have taken 10-15 minutes at 10 mph to get there.

Flight 427 is another airliner that crashed intact and ALSO had debris found 2.5 miles away. We can try to compare it's debris field with that of Flight 93. From the 427 report in 1999:

Several lightweight items (for example, pieces of interior insulation and a passenger business card) were discovered as far as 2½ miles east-northeast of the main wreckage; these items exhibited soot and smoke damage. One witness stated that he heard the sound of the crash while he was playing golf about 2 miles east-northeast of the accident site; about 2 minutes later, he observed blackened insulation falling onto the golf course. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/AAR9901.pdf

Comment: In the case of Flight 427 it was determined there was no midair breakup. When reading through the report it is clear the only debris found away from the crash is a very small amount of very lightweight debris. All the major components of the aircraft were found in a 350 foot diameter of the crash. The debris field of Flight 427 looks nothing like the debris field of Flight 93 which has much more debris scattered over a much larger area. The engine of Flight 93 was located far enough from the main debris field that it was not located until the a day later. It was not part of the 100-200 yard main crash debris as the engines of Flight 427 were. It is interesting to note that insulation from 427 was spotted 2.5 miles away within 2 minutes of the crash. That seems physically impossible to me.

If anyone can document another air crash where the aircraft crashed intact but had fairly significant debris spread over a couple miles like clothing, metal pieces like confetti etc. please email me the information. I have yet to find such a crash, and people emailing me claiming to have experience in this area have indicated the Flight 93 debris is consistent with a midair breakup.

Theory 2 - It fell off during descent. The Airliner overstressed and fell apart. This theory will get all the play when theory 1 is ruled out - and theory 3 is denied. So let's focus. I have heard experts on TV say the 757 is extremely robust, and I imagine Boeing isn't going to be anxious to say "Yea, they basically fall apart when you play rough."

Flight 93 impacted at 500mph (650mph was reported Oct 24th) according to early reports. I found those reports very curious... just how did they measure that? Interestingly, witnesses report the planes engines stopped and there was no sound just before the crash.

A 757 has a cruising speed of 550mph. It should have been able to go much faster than cruising speed before things started breaking off. These planes can dive, pull out and do a barrel roll without coming apart. One reply to this idea has been that the 550mph speed is only at "altitude". Flying that fast at low altitude would have doomed the structure of the aircraft.

In fact, all three other WTC jets were reported to have been flying around 500mph when they crashed. The Pentagon jet was 50 feet off the ground and clipping trees. They didn't fall apart.

It's difficult to imagine what could have been done from the cockpit to overstress a 757 at 500 mph. The consensus from the 757 pilots that have emailed is that it would be possible to overstress this aircraft, but they are really not sure what it would take to do that. It is not built into the simulators. One believed the debris may well look as it does in this case, but he always thought a shoot down debris field would look similar.

Jet engine mounts ARE designed to break away before the wing does. There are instances of engines falling off when struck by large blocks of ice formed by lavatory plumbing leaks. I have yet to read of a large passenger jet engine falling off due to overstress. Flight 427 spun in due to a stuck full rudder and didn't lose an engine. It's hard to imagine a more violent entry than that. Alaska Air 261 dove and rolled inverted, flew inverted for quite a ways as pilots tried to unstick a jammed down elevator. Engines stayed on just fine.

He recalled the case of a China Air 747 that tumbled out of control over the Pacific in 1985. The pilots were able to recover by subjecting the jumbo jet to upward of four times the force of gravity.
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

Passenger jets, by definition, must be designed with a fairly high structural tolerance in comparison to other aircraft due to their precious cargo. We can anticipate they might fly through thunderstorms, lightning, high wind conditions, unexpectedly turbulent air with heavy loads. Flight 93 had 38 passengers. 1/4 full... so theoretically should have been able to handle more than a fully loaded aircraft.

Is it possible it broke up due to stress as a result of a cockpit struggle? Well, the Flight Data Recorder synced in time to the Cockpit voice recorder would tell any expert. It seems to me the wings would rip off before the fuselage would breach, sending books, clothes and burning debris down miles away from the final crash site...

Theory 3 - It was shot off or blown off by a bomb. This jives best with the eyewitness accounts above in my mind. Remember the widely reported cell caller that said he heard an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane prior to the crash. In apparent confirmation, we have a number of ground witnesses reporting hearing a series of explosions. Also, we have ground witnesses that saw debris falling from the sky miles from the crash site within moments of the crash. Check the eyewitness page over. These things did not happen at the Pentagon or the WTC. Would the explosions have been heard if Flight 93 overstressed?

What we DO NOT have is witnesses saying Flight 93 came down in 2 pieces or a huge ball of flames. That seems to indicate that something hugely catastrophic did not occur.

We DO have at least 2 unique debris fields which suggests a midair trauma. But the debris is only a few miles away, so that trauma occurred at a fairly low altitude - which jives with reports of the plane at 6,000-7,500 feet.

So, what caused the plane to fall apart?

My examples before this were supplied before finding this site which must have copied me :rolleyes:

Derry

meglome

derry wrote: »

If you look the lockerbie impact zone it only had a small section ot the plane make that crater and that section was only the main part of the body with one small section of the wing attached

It hit the ground moving forwards at high speed along with a vetical component and that section was has a large fuel tank which exploded and created a large fire ball

The result is less of a hole and more of a deep cut from fast moving object cutting into the gound and then spreading a sheet of flame forwards
Large chunks of the plane from this event were spread around the edges of the crater and are outside the piture and hard to see with the burnt out houses
lots of burnt bodies passengers from plane or rather bits of bodies were recovered close to this impact zone as they tumbled froward out of this crater

Flight 93 is sopposed to have gone staight in and the earth swallowed it whole leaving nothing on the surface except a whisp of smoke coming from The hole

The only time this is ever seem is with extreme speeds like 1200MPH which rockets can do and will bury themselfs into the ground leaving a hole and no trace of the event

Planes with lower speeds tend to leave larger peices

I included new pics but will post them again

copy reference for education purpose

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ner-Libya.html

1st pic attached shows damage from Locerbie crash

2nd pic example of engine falling from 40,000 feet on ocean impact water is like concrete when you hit it at high speed

3rd pic crash site from flight 93
http://img8.exs.cx/img8/5519/imprint33al.jpg

As humanji says above what exactly is your point. Two different things happened. One plane broke up before it hit the ground after a bomb explosion so there was more debris spread around, the other ploughed into the ground mostly intact at 500+ miles an hour so there was less debris spread around. But unlike what you're saying there were still debris.

For instance. http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
or photo's http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
or more photo's http://www.911myths.com/html/more_flight_93_photos.html

Didn't take me more than two minutes to see that there was plenty of debris from the united 93 plane even with most of it ploughing straight into the ground. So what is your point?

meglome

derry wrote: »

Then try this link
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

My examples before this were supplied before finding this site which must have copied me :rolleyes:

Derry

Okay are you trying to say that no one is sure why some of these things happened? What exactly is your point?

Diogenes

DERRY wrote:

If the aircraft has come down vertically with relatively low energy, the wreckage will be contained in a relatively small area, dependent on the size of the aircraft, of course.

You undo yourself with this. As you say later in your post;

You later wrote:

The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

So you're saying the aircraft if it came down under low energy (ie velocity) it should have had a small debris field.

But your latter quote makes it clear that according to eyewitnesses that the plane had a wide debris field.

So either

A) These witnesses (who you trust enough to quote) are lying.

the witnesses and debris field are accurate and that flight 93 came down at speed, in direct odds of your theory.

Finally if your "theory" is true it would include the crash site investigators. So either they are wrong, or they are lying, the former would mean thousands of forensic scientists are in on this conspiracy. If it's the former than the man who committed this assault the English language;

Derry wrote:

If not the flat pack could lose speed and risk to start falling to the side and create a huge damage foot print

Is either

Is a brilliant civil engineer.

The ramifications of either doesn't bear thinking about..

Kevster

Irrespective of whether it was an inside job or not (I don't believe it was), George Bush Jnr. and his comrades should be brought before an international court of justice for their lies and incompetence. If they were the leaders of any nation EXCEPT one in the Western World, then this would happen.

derry

meglome wrote: »

As humanji says above what exactly is your point. Two different things happened. One plane broke up before it hit the ground after a bomb explosion so there was more debris spread around, the other ploughed into the ground mostly intact at 500+ miles an hour so there was less debris spread around. But unlike what you're saying there were still debris.

For instance. http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
or photo's http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
or more photo's http://www.911myths.com/html/more_flight_93_photos.html

Didn't take me more than two minutes to see that there was plenty of debris from the united 93 plane even with most of it ploughing straight into the ground. So what is your point?

The issues are 4 aircraft crashes on the day of 911

In 911 crashes we seem to get all sorts of strange and new events never normally seem in aircraft crashes even taking into account these are sopposed to be deliberate crashes

Here is a you tube about a plane crashing into apartment block in Holland

The plane damanges the complex but apart from the regin hit by the plane the rest of the complex never fell downDue to huge fireball event most apartments were burnt out to some extent so later the apartments were demolished in controlled fashion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjmOYTjk9DA

In flight 93 hole in the ground there is 99% of the plane underground having hit the ground vetically at high speed

Based on this we cannot be sure this plane was the original flight 93 or a clone which was empty and under radio control to be made look like it crashed at high speed from a staged managed crash

A ground team made a suitable ground explosion similar to what one would expect from a crash and supplied a few bits of a plane to infer a plane had made that crash crater

The original plane seen to manover just continued on it way at low height and went to land some at other location

So there in we have found that the flight 93 crash never happened the way we thought it would

Oncee you find suffient cracks in the 911 story it all fits with CT
But the sceptics just want to believe in hollywood version building will always fall down straight
WTC will fall down after short low level fire events

Planes will bury 99%of themself's 30 feet under ground and leave 1% behind

Whenever some world event happens that triggers a war it good to look who wins from it

Let's see Hitler gets german guys dressed in Polish army uniforms to attack Germany
The Germans outraged from this attack can now attack Poland the agressor

History is full of proven CT from the past

911 will prove eventually to be just another proven CT event where the Force major wished a nice little war which would make them buckets of money

The bombing of the embassies in Africa didn't swing it
The Bombing of the destroyer ship didn't swing it
But 911 got the war going and the only winner so far

The arms dealers

Diogenes

derry wrote: »

The issues are 4 aircraft crashes on the day of 911

In 911 crashes we seem to get all sorts of strange and new events never normally seem in aircraft crashes even taking into account these are sopposed to be deliberate crashes

Here is a you tube about a plane crashing into apartment block in Holland

And this plane crash the pilot was doing everything in his power to avoid the crash, he wasn't, just to pluck an example out of thin air, a jihad obsessed fundamentalist who was dealing with a couple of dozen passengers storming the cockpit.

Derry, you do not have a point of comparison to another crash, end of discussion.

The plane damanges the complex but apart from the regin hit by the plane the rest of the complex never fell downDue to huge fireball event most apartments were burnt out to some extent so later the apartments were demolished in controlled fashion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjmOYTjk9DA

And was the plane trying to avoid the ground?

Here's a few eyewitness you disagree with you about United 93

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair. Source


"It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Source


Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning. Source


The ensuing firestorm lasted five or 10 minutes and reached several hundred yards into the sky, said Joe Wilt, 63, who also lives a quarter-mile from the crash site. "Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa." The Washington Post September 12, 2001


"I just watched with my mouth open as this yellow mushroom cloud rose up just like an atomic bomb over the hill where I like to go hunting," said 72- year-old John Walsh

Barefoot and in his bathrobe, he drove up the dirt road to rescue anyone he could find. There would be nothing he could do.

Debris, including photographs and other papers that survived the fireball, was strewn over a wide area. Residents have spent days collecting it. Source


"When the plane hit, it sounded like something just fell on the roof. Everybody sort of panicked," she said. "I went to the window and saw all this smoke coming up and I just pointed and screamed."-Source


Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. Source


Tim Lensbouer, 300 yards away: "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]


Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom." [Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211]


Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," going "so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was." [St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


Terry Butler "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]

Terry Butler: He sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: "There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50 feet up.... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived." [Independent, 8/13/02]


Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. [ABC News, 9/11/01] She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth. [Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01]


Kelly Leverknight in Stony Creek Township of Shanksville: "There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane." It sounds like it is flying low, and it's heading east. [Daily American, 9/12/01, St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed. Source


Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip mine: "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees." [WPIX Channel 11, 9/13/01]


Paula Pluta of Stonycreek Township was watching a television rerun of “Little House on the Prairie” when the plane went down about 1,500 yards from her home along Lambertsville Road at Little Prairie Lane.

“I looked out the window and saw the plane nose-dive right into the ground,” she said, barefoot and shaken just 45 minutes after the crash.

The explosion buckled her garage doors and blasted open a latched window on her home, she said.

“It was just a streak of silver. Then a fireball shot up as high as the clouds. There was no way anybody could have survived. I called 911 right away.

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.” Source

Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts––Flight 93 crash scene witnesses––Flight 93 Witnesses

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

In flight 93 hole in the ground there is 99% of the plane underground having hit the ground vetically at high speed

99% of the plane isn't underground, you yourself admited that the debris field was spread over eight miles, you're contradicting yourself, again.

Based on this we cannot be sure this plane was the original flight 93 or a clone which was empty and under radio control to be made look like it crashed at high speed from a staged managed crash

And how do you explain the eyewitnesses who saw the plane go down? Or for that matter the phone records of passengers before they stormed the cockpit?

A ground team made a suitable ground explosion similar to what one would expect from a crash and supplied a few bits of a plane to infer a plane had made that crash crater

Within an hour of the crash volunteer fire fighters from three counties were on the scene.

On 9/11 alone, these included: • 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines Source: PowerPoint presentation by Rick Lohr, Director of the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency. Download it here as a PDF (numerous photos, several shown on these pages)

Volunteer first responders on 9/11 included:

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

These were men and women volunteers who turned up at the scene in the hours and minutes after the crash. In the weeks afterwards they picked the scene clean and helped find body parts for identification. For your theory to work hundreds of honest hardworking volunteers are part of the conspiracy theory.

The original plane seen to manover just continued on it way at low height and went to land some at other location

So there in we have found that the flight 93 crash never happened the way we thought it would

Speculation and hyperbola.

Oncee you find suffient cracks in the 911 story it all fits with CT
But the sceptics just want to believe in hollywood version building will always fall down straight
WTC will fall down after short low level fire events

Which is the hollywood version, terrorist attack leads to the destruction of buildings and the death of 3,000 people, or that there is a vast incomprehensible conspiracy theory with godlike powers who are capable of orchestrating the most complex plot in the history of humanity. And you're accusing me of being the one who goes for hollywood versions, and not you

Irony much?

Planes will bury 99%of themself's 30 feet under ground and leave 1% behind

Would you be a dear and provide a link to support this nonsense.

Whenever some world event happens that triggers a war it good to look who wins from it

Alternatively there is a more complex reason to explain why it happened.
Let's see Hitler gets german guys dressed in Polish army uniforms to attack Germany
The Germans outraged from this attack can now attack Poland the agressor

History is full of proven CT from the past

Look I'm going to be rude now but this is nonsense. Your essential point is the Nazi's did X ergo the Americans could do X. It's fecking nonsense. Do the Americans have concentration camps? Juden laws? No. Kindly refrain from idiotic comparissions till you have a point.

911 will prove eventually to be just another proven CT event where the Force major wished a nice little war which would make them buckets of money

The bombing of the embassies in Africa didn't swing it
The Bombing of the destroyer ship didn't swing it
But 911 got the war going and the only winner so far

The arms dealers

Derry, you're the one eyed man who thinks he's in the world of the blind when the rest of us can actually see just fine.

Diogenes

Kevster wrote: »

Irrespective of whether it was an inside job or not (I don't believe it was), George Bush Jnr. and his comrades should be brought before an international court of justice for their lies and incompetence. If they were the leaders of any nation EXCEPT one in the Western World, then this would happen.

What should and what is going to happen are two different things. Putin, Mugabe, Blair and Bush should all probably face charges in an international court, unfortunately if you or could decide who gets charged with by the ICJ well pretty much every leader from Hugo Chavez to Brian Cowen would be in the dock.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

Do the Americans have concentration camps?

exactly what would you call Guantanamo or Abu Gharib?

Juden laws? No.

but they do have the Patriot act,which is far worse

Kindly refrain from idiotic comparissions till you have a point.

Irony much?

foxhoundone

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I read in the paper today that the CIA believe the next terror threat will come from Europe, America or Russian and the guilty partys will be white...

can anyone guess the conspiracy before it happens....:D

well, not long now . id guese it will be november when the next president will be elected and bush is leaving office???? and my guess it will be a large luxury liner near new york,..

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

exactly what would you call Guantanamo or Abu Gharib?

There are 420 inmates at Guantanamo bay. Even using your atrocious opinion about the holocaust you cannot even begin to compare it to Treblinka or Auschwitz-Birkenau

but they do have the Patriot act,which is far worse

Really? Why?

Are Muslims in the US forced to wear an Crescent Moon armband?

Are inter racial marriages between US citizens and Muslims banned?

The Nuremburg Laws forbid Jews from working for the state or being employed as lawyers, doctors or journalists. Jews were prohibited from using hospitals and could not be educated past the age of 14. Public parks, libraries, beaches were closed to Jews. War memorials were to have Jewish names expunged. Even the lottery could not award winnings to Jews.

So perhaps Mahatma you could elaborate, how exactly is Patriot Act worse than the Nuremberg laws?

Irony much?

Plagrise me much? Why don't you actually wander off and explain how Gitmo and Abu Garib are worse places than Auschwitz, or how exactly is the Patriot act worse than the Nuremberg laws? Go on Mahatma, I could use a giggle, watching you run away from this.

foxhoundone wrote:

well, not long now . id guese it will be november when the next president will be elected and bush is leaving office???? and my guess it will be a large luxury liner near new york,..

Don't suppose you have anything to support this wild assertion. Nah, didn't think so.

derry

Diogenes wrote: »

snip....

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

These were men and women volunteers who turned up at the scene in the hours and minutes after the crash. In the weeks afterwards they picked the scene clean and helped find body parts for identification. For your theory to work hundreds of honest hardworking volunteers are part of the conspiracy theory.




Speculation and hyperbola.




Which is the hollywood version, terrorist attack leads to the destruction of buildings and the death of 3,000 people, or that there is a vast incomprehensible conspiracy theory with godlike powers who are capable of orchestrating the most complex plot in the history of humanity. And you're accusing me of being the one who goes for hollywood versions, and not you

Irony much?




Would you be a dear and provide a link to support this nonsense.





Derry, you're the one eyed man who thinks he's in the world of the blind when the rest of us can actually see just fine.

I wont go into the whole story but within all these crashing discriptions fom locals is lot of differences like slow and easy to see with wobbles to fast and streaked down in a crash


Now if you say to holly wood fool the local polulation and make a plane accident which never happend take place it can be done

You prepare the region a nice diused quarry months in advance
Yo fill a grater full of fuel and attach bits of a broken up aicraft to explosive
The you fly ajet over make it look like it will hit the ground bit it leeps going and you igite the fuel

People arrive and seee suitable sitiuation that looks like a crash and belive plane is crashed

The expolosives have also blown uip bodies collected from morgues etc

So the people saw what they thought was a crash but the crash was stage managed with a few peices spread out from the explosion

Anyway I don't need a link

The link is only face to face Hollywood stage a 911 event incorperated behind the scenes dirty tricks department

All the nazi regime methods went to USA after the war
The rockets the mediacal experments the mind control

Then the USA got the Russian methods Stalin used from the KGB when the soviet system collapsed

Its a no brainer to use well tried and tested methods if your going to stage manage a 911 event

All through history most wars ignition events were staged managed so as to allow the resulting country which claims to be the victim with war ambitions to swing into war mode

The neo cons wanted a reason to go to the middle east and set up a perminant base there and greased the route or allowed the elements of 911 plot to happen in carefully stage manged fashion
The president is unlikely not to have been in the loop but like most President is probably a puppet on a string in the overall plans

Like lets see the other day The USA orders from the President has taken to invading across the Packistan border and attacking so called al Qhida bases there

The concentration camps are now in Guantano bay where the kangaroo courts will decide life or death

The other consentration camps are in Afgahanstan and Iraq where the torture can be done before moving the best candidates to guantanamo

The force major who tells the USA what to do has decide that they want war only for the sake of war as that makes lots of profits
They don't care who wins or loses the battles or wars as they are not affected they make the money

Therefore the end for this war as it a war on terror is never ending unlike the previous wars where there was a biggining middle and end this one is open ended and will make a real fortune for the arms dealers

your all hung up the nitty gritty details of how it was done

You need only look to see who has the most to gain to see how it slots together and why the event was stage managed to do only a certian amount of damage but not too much


Derry

bonkey

derry wrote: »

Now if you say to holly wood fool the local polulation and make a plane accident which never happend take place it can be done

I'm guessing you've never been on a film-set.

Hollywood, or anything like that, can limit themselves to producing an image that looks somewhat realistic, from completely controlled perspectives. Wander outside those perspectives, and it falls apart.

You prepare the region a nice diused quarry months in advance

You pray no local wonders what all the activity is about.

Yo fill a grater full of fuel and attach bits of a broken up aicraft to explosive

You pray no local wonders what all the activity is about.

The you fly ajet over make it look like it will hit the ground bit it leeps going and you igite the fuel

You pray no local spots the plane flying away, thus noticing something.

This is the tough one...you have to turn your plane invisible and silent. You also have to make sure that anyone with radar coverage is bought off and pray that none of them say anything. You have to land the plane somewhere, which involves more complications and you have to go and kill everyone who was on that flight anyway, to make sure they never turn up anywhere.

Its one of those "brilliant" plans which involves killing a lot of people, buying off a lot of people, and praying to **** that no-one ever spots any of the prep or talks about it afterwards...and as always, you end up with a result that someone who has nothing to directly compare it to can (apprently) immediately tell is faked, even though it apparently sucked in all the locals.

Surely it would have been easier to just crash the plane? Why not go with "Remote Control overriding the plane controls, crashing it exactly like we saw and killing everyone on board?

It would, of course, be easier...the problem is that it would then look exactly like what it was supposed to look like. This, in turn, undermines any appeal for a reason to believe it was faked.

Thus, it would seem that the only reason these genius masterminds would go to the lengths you suggest is to make it easier to get caught.

So the people saw what they thought was a crash but the crash was stage managed with a few peices spread out from the explosion

But having gone to so much effort, they could actually make it look like a crash would look like, right? So what you're saying is that they knew that everyone in the locality was thick, and there wasn't a single person there with powers of observation like you would have.

Man...they're really lucky someone like you didn't live in the locality. Add that to the list of pointless risks this plan of yours would involve.

your all hung up the nitty gritty details of how it was done

Well, yes. Thats how it works. IF it couldn't be done a certain way, then we can say with certainty that it wasn't done that way. If you want the US to be behind it, you have to find a credible way that they could have been.

You need only look to see who has the most to gain

When the tsunami occurred a few years ago...those who gained most were the holiday resort providers. By your logic, we can assume that either:

1) There was no tsunami, they faked it
or
2) They caused the tsunami.

Right?

Or could it possibly be that situations can arise where those who gain the most are those who best adapt to the turn of events...those who turn it to their own advantage, regardless of whether they caused it or not.

After all...when rich people die, their spouse or children (typically) stand most to gain. Can we conclude, therefore, that when rich people die, we can lock their spouse & kids up for murder? After all, you don't think we need to get caught up in the nitty gritty of how they will have done it....they stood most to gain, so they're guilty of murder, and thats that.

Right?

why the event was stage managed

There's a reason they call it stage-managed.

When the statue of Saddam toppled, pictures were beamed around the world. Some days later, someone posted a picture taken from a nearby hotel, where the "thousands strong" crowd was shown to be less than 100 people, surrounded by tanks and assorted other US military to keep them safe. That was stage-managed. That was faked and as with so many other things it only appeared real from a tightly-controlled perspective. Move your camera....et voila.

The events of September 11 2001 did not have that luxury. Eye witnesses were where eyewitnesses were. They were there in the days and months before the event, as well as afterwards. Preparations would have to be invisiable. Planes flying away after a faked crash would have to be invisible and silent.

Alternately, everyone would have to have been in on it.

ironingbored

Diogenes, just want to ask you a few questions. I am not a crackpot CT but have no confidence in the official explanations for the events of 911.

1) Do you think a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? If, so why is the hole of the impact so much smalled in width than the wing span of a 757? How was it not picked up by cameras?
2) Do you think the scene of the wreckage in Pennsylvania is consistent with that of a 757 crashing into the ground at 563 mph?
3) Do you really think the WTC7 collapsed as a reuslt of falling debris and isolated fires throughout the building?
4) Do you find no evidence to suggest the truth about 911 is yet to be fully revealed?

Thanks

humanji

I'm sure Diogenes can answer with, well let's face it, smarter answer, but I'm going to have a go.

ironingbored wrote:

1) Do you think a 757 crashed into the Pentagon?

Well, I'd say he does. I do too.

ironingbored wrote:

If, so why is the hole of the impact so much smalled in width than the wing span of a 757?

The wings were folded back on impact. There was still damage to the wall consistent to the wings, but not to the full wing span. There's a video of a 3D computer generated rendering that some guy did, that I'll try and dig out. It just shows how a plane crashing into the Pentagon at the same speed/altitude/direction of that flight can result in the exact same hole made in the builiding.

There's also the fact that there's quite a lot of people who saw a plane crash into it. And there was also a lot of debris from an aircraft.

ironingbored wrote:

How was it not picked up by cameras?

It was picked up by a camera, but the quality sucks. Kind of like all security cameras, tbh. The argument has been made that the Pentagon would have sophisticated top of the line camera watching it, but that doesn't actually make sense.

The Pentagon has people patrolling constantly, which is a lot more effective than cameras. Also, cameras weren't that hi-tech back in 2001. Holding all the information from cameras on a database would take an incredible amount of space when you take into account the amount of cameras in use and the fact that the footage would be kept for some time (maybe a few months to a few years even). Yes, the US government could budget the money for such a system, but why would they? It's not like they were expecting a plane to fly through the window.

Another reason why the Pentagon doesn't have a top of the line security system (and possible the most important reason) is the fact that the Pentagon has f*ck all of importance in it. People are under the impression that it's the nerve centre of the US, but it's a bunch of offices for analytical departments of the government. Yes, they do deal with military information, but nothing of major importance. It's mainly just pencil pushers who send info on to other sites.

ironingbored wrote:

2) Do you think the scene of the wreckage in Pennsylvania is consistent with that of a 757 crashing into the ground at 563 mph?

Actually, this is one thing that I find odd, but for generally different reasons that most. Now, I'm no expert on crash sites (and oddly enough, I've yet to hear from someone who is, who thinks there's something wrong with this one), but I would of thought that the plane would of been shot down. I think it makes more sense. Two planes crash into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. They know a fourth has been hijacked and they know where it is. So it makes perfect sense to shoot it down than to have it crash into a building and kill maybe thousands more.

It may not be a pleasant thing to have to do, but it's simple logistics. But, as I say, I'm no expert. Real experts have said that the plane crashed into the ground. The black box and passenger phone calls seem to say the same. If the plane was shot down, it makes sense that the government would say that the passengers revolted against the hijackers and the plane crashed as a result because a) it doesn't make the government look bad for ordering the plane to be shot down, and b) it show "patriotic americans" fighting for america, with is great publicity for any government.

ironingbored wrote:

3) Do you really think the WTC7 collapsed as a reuslt of falling debris and isolated fires throughout the building?

It's been shown a countless threads here that it's not only possible, but most definitely true. I won't go into details as smarter people can do it better!

ironingbored wrote:

4) Do you find no evidence to suggest the truth about 911 is yet to be fully revealed?

To be honest, I've yet to hear one single plausible explanation to suggest a conspiracy other than Bin Laden orchestrating the event. All I've heard are people saying that either 1)it's a US government cover up, but they provide no proof, or 2) that they are suspicious due to not being familiar with the facts.

Paranoia is healthy. It's how humans have survived so long. But some people just seem to need to feel like the world is against them. Maybe they do it to feel like their lives actually mean something. Or maybe they just have too much time on their hands. In the end we all have to realise that "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

conceited

humanji wrote: »

To be honest, I've yet to hear one single plausible explanation to suggest a conspiracy other than Bin Laden orchestrating the event. All I've heard are people saying that either 1)it's a US government cover up, but they provide no proof, or 2) that they are suspicious due to not being familiar with the facts.

The fact is osama is not wanted for 9/11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Diogenes

ironingbored wrote: »

Diogenes, just want to ask you a few questions. I am not a crackpot CT but have no confidence in the official explanations for the events of 911.

1) Do you think a 757 crashed into the Pentagon?

Yes. Flight 77 flew over an eight lane highway at early morning rush hour into the largest office building in the world.

As a comparison, imagine a small passenger plane flying so low over the red cow roundabout, that it clips lightposts, and knocks them onto the road, during rush over, before crashing into the red cow inn. Now quadruple the amount of traffic and number of lanes.

Would you really try and fake the crash of a 757 in broad daylight over eight lanes of highway during rush hour in the capital of the United States?

Furthermore I have an e-mail from a friend of mine, dated Sept 12th 2001, she's a documentary film editor who was stuck in traffic on the I-395 who saw U-77 fly overhead and hit the pentagon.

If, so why is the hole of the impact so much smalled in width than the wing span of a 757?

What you're expected the 757 to make a wille e coyote esque hole like a airplane in the side of pentagon? The wings of a 757 are made of aluminum, perhaps you could explain how a designed light metal should react when crashing into the reinforced concrete of the worlds most secure office building?

How was it not picked up by cameras?

Because the pentagon rightly didn't rely on security cameras, it's primary source for security were armed guards. A camera can merely observe an intruder a security guard with a 9mm can spot and challenge an intruder. When you consider the scale of the Pentagon you understand why cameras were less important than security.

And to go back to your camera point, the approach of United 77, went low over a dozen lanes of highway, so low that lightpoles were clips and damaged the cars of witnesses.

While you are disappointed that theres no video to satisfy you, you must admit that faking an attack at the pentagon during rush hour in front of thousands of people, would be a tad complicated, yes?

2) Do you think the scene of the wreckage in Pennsylvania is consistent with that of a 757 crashing into the ground at 563 mph?

Very few, if any, 757's have ever crashed because it was hijacked by a religious fundamentalist, upon learning this the passengers rose up and attempted to regain control of the plane and in the ensuring brawl the plane nose dived into the ground killing all involved.

In short I don't think there's any other plane crash that United 93 can be compared to, so asking if it consistent is simple meaningless.

However the weight of evidence from family members of passengers is consistent with the story of United. The eyewitnesses to the crash concur, with this claim. The FAA and FBI crash investigators as well as local law enforcement and state pathologists agree with the official investigation.

So either

A) The conspiracy theory about United 93 is bull****

or

thousands of people are in on it, including the FAAm and state coroner.

3) Do you really think the WTC7 collapsed as a reuslt of falling debris and isolated fires throughout the building?

Yes and No. The building had a unique design, if you know of a building built over a power station and underground station I'd like to know. The reasons for the WTC 7 collapse are complicated and plausible.

4) Do you find no evidence to suggest the truth about 911 is yet to be fully revealed?

Thanks

It's been seven years since 911 perhaps you could be the first truther who gives an coherent narrative.

foxhoundone

Don't suppose you have anything to support this wild assertion. Nah,
didn't think so.[/quote]
well i jolly well hope not... cause being a CT, idd be getting me door kicked in an scooped an sent to a wee island of mexico somwhere, lmao {or maybe thats your plan ???}

bonkey

ironingbored wrote: »

3) Do you really think the WTC7 collapsed as a reuslt of falling debris and isolated fires throughout the building?

My answer to that would be that the FEMA report on WTC7 is out. It doesn't quite say that it collapsed as a result of falling debris and isolated fires.

It collapsed due to structural failure ultimately initiated by the expansion of lateral supports. This expansion was caused by fire.

Do I believe an entire building needs to be on fire in order for key lateral joints to expand and fail? No.
Do I believe that debris needs to hit a building for fires to start, causing those joints to fail? No.
Do I believe its possible for fire to cause lateral supports to fail through expansion? Yes.

4) Do you find no evidence to suggest the truth about 911 is yet to be fully revealed?

Are you suggesting that there is stuff we don't know? Of course there is. No-one sane would ever doubt that.