nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

NORAD on 9/11: What was the U.S. military doing that day?

tunaman

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-895995587805019501&q=zwicker&pl=true

Everybody also keeps ignoring the FACT that the US military were involved in extensive war games that morning.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a012802.html

6 A.M.: WAR GAMES

Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins figured it would be a long day.

Sept. 11 was Day II of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide. The simulation would run all week, and Deskins, starting her 12-hour shift in the Operations Center as the NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, might find herself on the spot.

Day I of the simulation had moved slowly. She hoped the exercise gathered steam. It made a long day go faster.

8:40 A.M.: REAL WORLD

In the Ops Center, three rows of radar scopes face a high wall of wide-screen monitors. Supervisors pace behind technicians who peer at the instruments. Here it is always quiet, always dark, except for the green radar glow.

At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane.

"It must be part of the exercise," Deskins thought.

At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration.

On the phone she heard the voice of a military liaison for the FAA's Boston Center.

"I have a hijacked aircraft," he told her.

American Airlines Flight 11, headed to Los Angeles, had veered off course, apparently toward New York. The liaison said to get "some F-16s or something" airborne.

Forty-one minutes earlier, Flight 11 had left Logan Airport with 81 passengers. For the last 27 minutes, it had not responded to ground control.

Deskins requested Flight 11's latest position, which an operator put up on the screen.

Flight 11 wasn't there.

Someone had turned off its transponder, the device that identifies the plane to ground control.

Boston Center could still track it on primary radar, but the operators in Rome would be hard-pressed to find it amid the jumble of blips on their screens.

We'll direct the intercept, the liaison told Deskins. Just get something up there.

Deskins ran up a short flight of stairs to the Battle Cab and reported the hijacked plane -- real world, not a simulation.

"He says it's going to New York," she said. A thought flashed: Why is he going to New York?

8:43 A.M.: SEARCH

Master Sgt. Maureen Dooley started doing the math.

If Flight 11 cruised at a normal speed, maybe 350 knots, in a certain direction, it would be right -- she directed a technician to zero in on a sector northeast of New York -- there!

They saw blips, dozens of them -- the swarm of a Tuesday morning aerial rush hour. Somewhere in there was Flight 11.

"You have the urgency to do what you're trained to do," Dooley said. "But you also have that personal urgency, which is saying, `Oh, my God!"'

By now, Powell was on the scramble line to Otis Air Base in Falmouth, Mass., one of two Air National Guard units controlled by the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), telling it to upgrade its "readiness posture." Direct phones and e-mails flashed to NORAD in Colorado and CONR, its Continental U.S. Region headquarters in Florida.

At 8:43 a.m., Dooley's technicians, their headsets linked to Boston Center, heard of a second plane, United Flight 175, that also was not responding. It, too, was moving to New York.

The FAA was still trying to contact Flight 11. If this followed past scenarios, the hijackers would start making demands, the first of which might be to land at JFK International Airport.

Dooley's technicians centered in on a radar blip that might be Flight 11. They watched it close on New York City.

8:46 A.M.: SCRAMBLE

The Battle Cab, a long, glassed-in office, overlooks the Ops Room like a low-slung balcony in a darkened theater. In a corner booth, an officer waits for the unthinkable: the coded message indicating America is at war.

Six minutes after Boston Center's call, NEADS scrambled two armed F-15s at Otis Air Base on Cape Cod.

"We had no idea where the aircraft was," recalled Maj. James Fox, who gave the order. "We just knew it was over land, so we scrambled them towards land."

Weapons directors guided the jets, as radar technicians talked to the FAA -- a headset to one ear, a phone to the other.

Deskins ran to a nearby office and phoned 1st Air Force Chief Public Affairs Officer Major Don Arias in Florida. She said NEADS had a hijacked plane -- no, not the simulation -- likely heading for JFK.

"The entire floor sensed something wrong," Chief of Operations Control Lt. Col. Ian Sanderson said. "The way this unfolded, everybody had a gut sense this wasn't right."

Alot of people are afraid to admit that they have been duped. That is the hardest thing for most people to get over, the fact that they have been made a fool of by the perps of 9/11.

I haven't even touched on the inconsistencies and contradictions at the pentagon, or flight 93 that supposedly crashed but left no wreckage. The following site has done extensive research on the pentagon...

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Capt'n Midnight

The WTC wasn't steel framed in the conventional sense. The truss to hold the floors failed because of lack of insulating material . Steel softens at a much lower temperature than it melts, otherwise there would never have been any blacksmiths

WRT the fire, there were economies of scale. The ratio of surface area to volume was such that in the centre there would be little cooling effect. There would be lots of metals that could have melted, aluminium would be about 600c. Also depending on what burned there would have been hot spots too so it's quite plausable that some steel melted. Maybe there was a thermite type reaction, unlikley but plausable.

And yes most of the steel did NOT melt so the average temp of the fire is moot. WRT to the indenfitication of the alleged molten metal - did anyone test it with a magnet to confirm it wasn't zinc / other die-cast metal ??

Devious

I think we need to bring Occam's Razer in to this debate. Just to clarify, this states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

So, applying this principle, which is the more likely? Terrorist attack? Or loony state-sponsered operation requiring the co-operation of ridiculous numbers of US citizens?

Teg Veece

Devious wrote:

I think we need to bring Occam's Razer in to this debate. Just to clarify, this states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

So, applying this principle, which is the more likely? Terrorist attack? Or loony state-sponsered operation requiring the co-operation of ridiculous numbers of US citizens?

Did the magician make the rabit disappear into thin air? Or was there a complex effect of smoke and mirrors involved requiring the co-operation of the entire studio crew and the allegedly unknowing volunteers.

I think Occam's Razor is a bit blunt.

18AD

There's some interesting stuff in this video,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change&pl=true

Enjoy.

Lirange

Devious wrote:

Or loony state-sponsered operation requiring the co-operation of ridiculous numbers of US citizens?

No kidding. Untold numbers of people would have to keep their mouth shut.

Not to mention George W. Bush looking like the stooge that he is down in Florida when it was happening and afterwards his handlers having him dart around the country in a panic of utter confusion. If the grand plot was on you'd think they'd have staged a better performance.

Ciaran500

gilroyb wrote:

Makes you think...

Will you stop posting this crap, if you have something to add to the thread then post it.

tunaman

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The WTC wasn't steel framed in the conventional sense. The truss to hold the floors failed because of lack of insulating material . Steel softens at a much lower temperature than it melts, otherwise there would never have been any blacksmiths

WRT the fire, there were economies of scale. The ratio of surface area to volume was such that in the centre there would be little cooling effect. There would be lots of metals that could have melted, aluminium would be about 600c. Also depending on what burned there would have been hot spots too so it's quite plausable that some steel melted. Maybe there was a thermite type reaction, unlikley but plausable.

And yes most of the steel did NOT melt so the average temp of the fire is moot. WRT to the indenfitication of the alleged molten metal - did anyone test it with a magnet to confirm it wasn't zinc / other die-cast metal ??

What are you talking about? the WTC wasn't steel framed?

This post does not make any sense, as it is just rambling assumptions with no evidence to back up your claims. What are you trying to say?

How about you try to counter my response to your ridiculous claim(without evidence) that the fighter jets struggled to catch the airliners because they didn't have enough fuel.

The F-15 fighters are scrambling to New York City. Later accounts concerning these fighters conflict significantly. According one account, pilot Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy later recalls that they are in a hurry at this time: “we’ve been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don’t know what we could have done to get there any quicker.”

I was in full-blower all the way.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 7/3/2002] Full-blower means the fighters are traveling at or near full speed. An F-15 can travel over 1,875 mph. [Air Force News, 8/30/1997] A considerable amount of fuel is required to maintain such high speeds for long, but a NORAD commander notes that, coincidentally, these fighters are stocked with extra fuel. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 7/3/2002] Duffy later says, “As we’re climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” He says his target destination is over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 10/11/2002] Similarly, another account states that, as the F-15s are taking off, “Duffy told his wingman they would fly supersonic.” According to Duffy, “When we took off I left it in full afterburner the whole time.” [Filson, 2004]

“An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in ten to twelve minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman.”

How do you explain that?

gilroyb

Ciaran500 wrote:

Will you stop posting this crap, if you have something to add to the thread then post it.

Who else has added anything to this thread? This is not a discussion, it's an example of explosive written diarrhea. One side shows websites/videos/misquotes, while the other tries to convince them that these things don't actually prove/show anything. No one who reads this is going to change their mind in any way.

Makes you think...

tunaman

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe that if you look at the video, you'll see that the part of the building above the crash site collapsed down onto the building beneath, which basically then just had the floors beneath give way. The resistance would be negligible in comparison, I went over the mathematics of it in a previous thread, I have no great desire to go over it again.

There is a huge problem with that theory, as there is no evidence to back it up. There would still be some resistence, even if it was only minimal the buildings would have taken longer than 10 seconds to collapse. The official report by FEMA even came to the following conclusion...

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

In May 2002 FEMA releases its report of the WTC collapses. It concludes,“[W]ith the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” On Building 7: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

So even the official FEMA report was not able to determine what caused the collapse, of not just WTC7, but all 3 towers, and yet some people on here claim to know it all. Notice how they never at any time mention structural damage as the cause of the collapse, which leaves fire as the official explanation to not just WTC 7, but all 3 buildings.

It's convenient and according to recent investigation, as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica on matters of scientific fact. It's only on the political side that things get shaky. However, I did subsequently reference two other non-editable sites.

It seems the only claim you are trying to make is that fires get very hot. Do you believe that jet fuel(most of which burned off in the initial fireball) and office furniture was enough to melt steel?

Remember that no steel-framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11. However we are meant to believe that on that day, not 1 or 2, but 3 buildings collapsed due to fire?

You ever burn plastics or rubber? Both are items which burn fairly well, and produce black smoke. Both are also quite likely to be found in airplanes and office blocks.

I have never been a pyromaniac or arsonist so I haven't done any burning.

What way was the wind blowing that day, vs the side of impact? Fires travel in the direction of the wind, and things get kindof breezy when you get to 70 stories up. Blazing inferno is quite possible on the far side of the load-bearing core.

NTM

That's twice you have tried to use the claim the wind being very breezy that day was responsible for fanning the flames. There was no reports of any blazing infernos from witnesses inside the towers.

The following is a list of statements from firefighters in the towers that day.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and that's when that building collapsed.

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.

Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling.[there was no delay in the floors falling] It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

Are people going to try and claim these aren't reliable witnesses?

tunaman

Devious wrote:

I think we need to bring Occam's Razer in to this debate. Just to clarify, this states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

By supporting the official story you are forced to make numerous assumptions as there is very little evidence to support their theory. The official investigation couldn't even determine what caused the collapse of the 3 buildings, so people are forced to assume the fires got hot enough without any evidence to back this up.

Or loony state-sponsered operation requiring the co-operation of ridiculous numbers of US citizens?

The number of people who knew everything would have only been a handful. The many others involved just took their orders from their superior, without asking questions, which is standard procedure.

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. - Dresden James

Manic Moran

tunaman wrote:

What are you talking about? the WTC wasn't steel framed?

Steel Trussed.. If you want to put it another way, it was a central pillar with layers sticking out of it. The gravity-bearing structure was the central core, not the outsides of it, which were trussed in a manner to prevent the lateral effects of the wind from being transferred to that central core. (Architect's own words). This is different to your more typical tall office building which uses a true frame.

How about you try to counter my response to your ridiculous claim(without evidence) that the fighter jets struggled to catch the airliners because they didn't have enough fuel.

Terminology catch, methinks. I don't speak Fighter Jock, but I do know that Full Military Power is the maximum setting before hitting the afterburner detente. Which generally keeps you subsonic.

However, if we want to get technical, we can do some maths. The numbers don't lie.

We know that the F-15 is powered by two Pratt and Whitney F-100s. At full afterburner, each engine has a max fuel flow-rate of somewhere just under 60,000lbs/hr. Say 115,000lbs/hr total.

An F-15C (Current air superiority variant) carries some 13,500lbs of fuel, if the wing and fuselage tanks all maxed out. (It can carry more externally, but drop tanks prohibit supersonic speed). So, divide the fuel carried by the aircraft by the rate of consumption, and we discover that the engines will drain the fuel tanks in all of seven minutes. (Less taxi, take-off, etc). This is why the F-22's Supercruise ability is so highly touted. It can not only travel quickly, but it can have fuel left over for when it gets to the place it's going.

The statement that an F-15 can get from Otis to New York City in ten minutes is technically correct, but leaves out one or two important little pieces of information. Not least, the fact that when the aircraft gets there, it will almost immediately need to tank up from an air refueller, or land. It can get to New York, and it can fire its missiles at whatever the threat is as soon as it gets there, but it can't do much else.

What seems far more likely is that the Duffy's reference to leaving the afterburners on was to the fact that they did not switch off the afterburners immediately after taking off (which is normal), but kept them on throughout the ascent to altitude and an initial burst of supersonic speed. Leaving the burners on for the full 150-mile transit seems impossible given both the fuel consumption rates, and the fact that it took them almost 20 minutes to get to where they were going.

Yes, I'm a sad git. I hang around air force bases and just watch aircraft take off and land, have lots of books on the subject, and so on.

NTM

kippy

Only a few people had to know the whole plan as the chain of command means that most people just do what they were told without questioning it. People that have a pretty good idea that they were unwitting accomplices are either keeping quiet to keep their job, to protect themselves and their family from harm, or for money. People who are talking aren't being taken seriously.

Again,
How many people do you think were involved in this......top to bottom.

I think most logical and indeed sane people (ie not crazed terrorists) will question why, if they were asked to:
a) Fly a plane into the WTC (unless of course the plane was remote controlled)
b) Pack the WTC full of explosives ( avoiding security in the WTC (which remember was a pretty secure complex, unless of course the security guards were in on it as well) risking possible death in the process. When do you think the explosives were planted?

You mean to tell me that the normal person (like myself who believes something if it makes sense) will not question orders that mean the taking of 3000+ innocent fellow citizens.
Were are not talking about one or two people here-we are talking of many dozens of people who would have known of this.....some who could probably provide plausible evidence (somthing that those you say have come forward thus far have not been able to provide)

That is madness, as despite overwhleming evidence that they lied numerous times you continue to have blind faith in their story?

I think madness is flying two airliners into two buildings causing the deaths of many innocent people. Madness would also be blowing up trains in Spain and Madrid-these are mad things to happen in our times.......
I would rather believe what I am told by the people responsible for protecting us and have a society where I am free to say and do what I want within reason and where people such as yourself, are given the chance to have their say....no matter who you disagree with.

As I said there may have been certain lies told-to protect the politicians from taking a slamming cos they should have been better prepared, but no where near the scale of lies you are suggesting........

tunaman

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes, I'm a sad git. I hang around air force bases and just watch aircraft take off and land, have lots of books on the subject, and so on.

NTM

That must be true as it probably helped trying to confuse some people with all those stats on fighter jets. However the fact remains the pilot repeatedly said they were on full-blower the whole way.

You never answered the questions I posed in response to your post either.

tunaman

kippy wrote:

Again,
How many people do you think were involved in this......top to bottom.

Again I will repeat that only very few would have known the whole stroy. The many other people involved would have just been following orders, which is standard procedure. Taking into account the multiple war games that were happening that morning, they could easily have thought that was what they were involved in.

I think most logical and indeed sane people (ie not crazed terrorists) will question why, if they were asked to:
a) Fly a plane into the WTC (unless of course the plane was remote controlled)

I believe that the planes were probably remote controlled.

b) Pack the WTC full of explosives ( avoiding security in the WTC (which remember was a pretty secure complex, unless of course the security guards were in on it as well) risking possible death in the process. When do you think the explosives were planted?

Alan Reiss was director of the WTC at the time of the attacks, and the following is an excerpt from his testimony to the 9/11 commission.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/040518-reiss.pdf

Six weeks prior to the September 11 attacks, the World Trade Center was net leased to a private developer, Silverstein Properties, which began managing the facility with its own executives. I, and a select group of Port Authority employees assisted Silverstein staff during a three- month transition period.

With the net leasing of the World Trade Center to Silverstein Properties in July 2001, the Port Authority’s role in managing all aspects of the complex changed substantially. We assembled a transition team of World Trade Center management and operations staff to advise and assist Silverstein Properties personnel in assuming their roles and responsibilities at the complex. Silverstein Properties hired or reassigned staff, including a fire safety director, a maintenance manager, an operations manager, and a director of security.

This Silverstein is the same lad who also owned WTC 7, and in the following short clip describes how they decided to "pull it", which most people know is a term used in demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverstein&pl=true

There was also reports of the WTC having huge asbestos problems, with estimates for having it removed going into the billions.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

I think it's safe to say the demolition of the towers were not bad news for everyone.

Were are not talking about one or two people here-we are talking of many dozens of people who would have known of this.....some who could probably provide plausible evidence (somthing that those you say have come forward thus far have not been able to provide)

All the conclusive evidence was quickly destroyed, and the following is an excerpt from two high profile men in America who describe just how hard it is to tell the truth, now more than ever.

The following is an excerpt from a podcast interview between George Kenny of www.electricpolitics.com and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. This interview took place on February 7, 2006.

PCR: Yeah, I suppose you know about these 9/11 Scholars...
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/]

PK: Yes.

PCR:...who have physicists, even includes a German Defense Minister, and the head of the German Secret Service. It's a wide variety of people with impressive credentials and they say the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraud. Now I have not really, I've been worrying about jobs and foreign policy and I haven't really looked at it very closely but I did go to Georgia Tech and I did learn some physics and I know enough physics to know that it is strictly impossible for buildings to collapse into their own footprints at free fall speed except under controlled demolition. Those buildings did not come down the way the 9/11 Report says. It is strictly impossible. In fact, the account in the 9/11 Report is a total contradiction to the laws of physics. [My emphasis.]

PK: You know, now, recently, without going into a lot of detail about this, I'm not an expert on it either, but I did notice that New York City, I guess after some legal wrangling, finally released late last year the oral history statements by a number of people who had been working in the towers and it is fascinating because there were people who were, there were people on the chemical engineering staff who were in the lower levels and before the buildings had fallen they reported seeing explosions and five ton doors that had been wrinkled like tissue paper and various kinds of machine tools that had been vaporized, and so there was some kind of explosion down there before the buildings fell.

PCR: Yeah. The oral histories. I've seen some reports on that and read some of them and they all say they heard a series of explosions floor by floor. That's controlled demolition...

PK: So we have to...

PCR:...there is no other way to explain it. You see most people need to know, they think the only buildings that fell ware the two towers.

PK: Right. But you have building 7.

PCR: Building 7 was hit by nothing and the same thing happened.

PK: It's the first time ever that a building sort of on its own collapsed due to fire. A steel structured building collapsing. You'd think that the engineering profession would want to know why.

PCR: You know, they'll talk. Some of them will tell you privately but if they say it publicly they loose clients for their firms because everybody gets mad, [mocking anger] 'You're against the government, you're against the country, you're a traitor, you don't believe Bush...' This is what happens, so they don't say anything.

The physicists at the university, very few of them can say anything because they all live on government grants.

PK: Right.

PCR: People don't understand how hard it is in America to speak the truth. Its almost impossible.

PK: That's right. Yeah.

PCR: Everywhere you go. You see, I'm not allowed to even write about it by my editors. So that is one reason I don't know much about it. I tried to find out something once and I pointed out some of the really major holes in the story and they just said, 'Don't write about it. You're not allowed to write about it. You'll ruin your credibility. Everybody will say you're a conspiracy theorist and then they won't believe what you say about jobs.'

As I said there may have been certain lies told-to protect the politicians from taking a slamming cos they should have been better prepared, but no where near the scale of lies you are suggesting........

There really is no doubt they lied about what happened that day, and there was obviously a major cover-up afterwards. They even tried to put Kissinger in charge of the 9/11 commission, which didn't begin till 431 days after the attacks.

What part of the official story do you think they didn't lie about?

Manic Moran

tunaman wrote:

That must be true as it probably helped trying to confuse some people with all those stats on fighter jets. However the fact remains the pilot repeatedly said they were on full-blower the whole way.

To quote Scotty.. "I canna change the laws of physics"

The F-15's fuel capacity and the engine's fuel consumption rates are public knowledge. I have demonstrated that it is physically impossible for an F-15 to travel supersonic for eight minutes. I have also pointed out that the application of 'full power' does not involve the use of afterburner, despite your assertion that 'full blower' must mean AB. We also know that from rollout to arrival was an average speed of about 500mph, which including taxi, launch and transit sounds about right for a full military power transit.

You never answered the questions I posed in response to your post either

Sorry, didn't notice any particular questions posed that didn't seem rhetorical from your point of view.

There would still be some resistence, even if it was only minimal the buildings would have taken longer than 10 seconds to collapse.The official report by FEMA even came to the following conclusion...

You are quoting the absensce of proof of cause to be proof of something, it seems. The towers seemed to me to go down about as quickly as one might expect a million-ton structure to go down: Fast. Without evidence to show that what seems to me to be patently obvious is in fact not the case, I don't see how you can expect me to think otherwise. I've not paid much attention to WTC 7, but I don't see why fire -shouldn't- be a cause of collapse.

It seems the only claim you are trying to make is that fires get very hot. Do you believe that jet fuel(most of which burned off in the initial fireball) and office furniture was enough to melt steel?

If it burns for long enough, I can't see why not.

There was no reports of any blazing infernos from witnesses inside the towers.

Probably because anyone who was on the 70th floor for any length of time is now dead and cannot report.

NTM

kippy

Honestly- I couldnt give too figs if the yanks were up to their eyes in crap as regards the truth in the matter. But I dont think they are-based on logic/fact and what I perceive to be the truth myself.

Your whole argument about only a few people needing to know the full story is nonsense-and to be honest this is what blows this conspiracy theory apart-as to be honest it does in so many of the conspiracy theorys out there.
Maybe a few people knew the full story. But they needed a hell of a lot of people to know parts of this and I can tell you now that none of these people, whatever about before the fact, but certainly after it, knew what they were involved in. Something this big does not get kept secret without people who were involved in it coming out and selling their story or partners of these people or families of these people-perhaps a jilted lover or a "friend" who knew what you were up to.

The planes hit the twin towers, the towers fell, over 3000 innocent people died. A plan crashed into the pentagon, a plane crash landed in PA. I believe all of this cos it happened in front of both a live and a TV audience.

Another major point I would like to put to you....if you believe the planes were remote controlled can you advise how this happened and who set them up for this- how did the pilots not advise the towers that there were being remote controlled.... Please also explain the fact that people who were on the flight that crashed in PA, called families before the crash and advised them of the terrorists on board the plane and the fight between the terrorists and certain passengers. Were these robots, its possible I'll bet.

An as for the buildings coming down.....are you saying that the new management company were actually the people who planted the "explosives".

To the logical human being I dont see why a jet liner crashing at speed and full of fuel will not cause the catastrophic failure of the supersturcture. The collapse of a number of floors caused by this would put massive pressure on the levels below....causing the whole structure to fail.
Pretty logical really. Without going into massive detail.

Your stories would make a great work of fiction and in fact there does seem to be a market out there for conspiracy theories.....hence the need of a few to twist common sense,logic and find something where there is nothing.

I dont think that anything I or anyone else who believes what we were told, can change your opinions of what happened and I dont expect us too. You will keep searching the net for more and more fabrications and half truths until you yourself have been wound in by the conspiracy theorists.
Have you thought that the people who put these theories out there and attempt to back them up with more and more quasi data may in fact be enemies of the US or other States, trying to destablise it? Tryin to throw enough crap out there to make the citizens of the US question their very government and bring them down?? An indeed citizens of other states rising up against the US administration.........
Now theres a conspiracy theory and a half......

Kippy

tunaman

Manic Moran wrote:

To quote Scotty.. "I canna change the laws of physics"

Yet engineers have claimed that to believe the official pancake theory the laws of physics have to be ignored.

We also know that from rollout to arrival was an average speed of about 500mph, which including taxi, launch and transit sounds about right for a full military power transit.

So now you are trying to claim that fighter jets are in reality no faster than an airliner?

You are quoting the absensce of proof of cause to be proof of something, it seems. The towers seemed to me to go down about as quickly as one might expect a million-ton structure to go down: Fast. Without evidence to show that what seems to me to be patently obvious is in fact not the case, I don't see how you can expect me to think otherwise.

The only footage we have from inside the towers that day is from the Naudet brothers documentary, which in the following short clip shows severe damage in the lobby.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5925490088127820509&q=naudet&pl=true

The accounts from firefighters in and around the buildings also tell a very different story to what we were told by the government.

I've not paid much attention to WTC 7, but I don't see why fire -shouldn't- be a cause of collapse.

Probably becuase no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire. Here is a picture of those fires just over and hour before the building was demolished.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/359_wtc7_fires.jpg

Probably because anyone who was on the 70th floor for any length of time is now dead and cannot report.

NTM

There are plenty of reports from emergency workers who survived.

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

Fighting Irish

Haven't posted in this thread yet but the way i see it is:

The Conspiarcy Theorists believe all the bombs in the towers, diff plane hitting pentagon etc.

Smart people believe people knew it would happen and let it go ahead for whatever reason.

Stupid people believe the official report.

tunaman

kippy wrote:

Honestly- I couldnt give too figs if the yanks were up to their eyes in crap as regards the truth in the matter. But I dont think they are-based on logic/fact and what I perceive to be the truth myself.

You wanted to know why nobody has spoken out about this, so I tried to show you just how difficult it is to tell the truth in the US.

Your whole argument about only a few people needing to know the full story is nonsense.Something this big does not get kept secret without people who were involved in it coming out and selling their story or partners of these people or families of these people-perhaps a jilted lover or a "friend" who knew what you were up to.

There are many credible people who have come out and called for an independent investigation, as the official conspiracy story is an impossiblity.
The following short video is a logical look at all the evidence from a doctor's point of view.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674&q=government&pl=true

The planes hit the twin towers, the towers fell, over 3000 innocent people died. A plan crashed into the pentagon, a plane crash landed in PA. I believe all of this cos it happened in front of both a live and a TV audience.

Nobody is disputing that two planes hit the towers, however we have never been shown any of the video evidence that was quickly confiscated of what hit the pentagon. There is no physical evidence an airliner hit the pentagon.

The following is a picture from the supposed crash site of flight 93.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/344_flight93_above.jpg

Do you really think an airliner crashed there?

Another major point I would like to put to you....if you believe the planes were remote controlled can you advise how this happened and who set them up for this-

Have you not heard of UAV's?

The technology has been around for decades.

how did the pilots not advise the towers that there were being remote controlled....

They could have, but we will never know as the air traffic controller's tape was conveniently destroyed.

Please also explain the fact that people who were on the flight that crashed in PA, called families before the crash and advised them of the terrorists on board the plane and the fight between the terrorists and certain passengers. Were these robots, its possible I'll bet.

Of course it's possible. Would you ever call your ma and give her your full name?

An as for the buildings coming down.....are you saying that the new management company were actually the people who planted the "explosives".

I don't know who planted the explosives, but when you read all the firefighters statements, the only logical explanation is that there was explosives planted in the buildings.

To the logical human being I dont see why a jet liner crashing at speed and full of fuel will not cause the catastrophic failure of the supersturcture. The collapse of a number of floors caused by this would put massive pressure on the levels below....causing the whole structure to fail.
Pretty logical really. Without going into massive detail.

Even the official theory discounts the airliner crashing into the building as the cause of collapse, so you are left with fires. If the buildings were so compromised by the impact of the planes, logically would they not have failed immediately?

I dont think that anything I or anyone else who believes what we were told, can change your opinions of what happened and I dont expect us too.

So can I assume that to this day you continue to swallow the official conspiracy story whole?

Have you thought that the people who put these theories out there and attempt to back them up with more and more quasi data may in fact be enemies of the US or other States, trying to destablise it?

Have you not thought that half of the sites out there are just blatant attempts at spreading disinformation? by doing so making it as difficult as possible for people to try and find out the truth of what happened that day?

I am just asking difficult questions and presenting factual information, what conclusions people draw from the evidence is completely up to them.

In case you haven't realised the 9/11 commssion admitted that NORAD lied to them. At 7:35 in the following video you will find Senator Mark Dayton asking some very uncomfortable questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful&pl=true

kippy

Okay,
While I do not believe the whole story as I pointed out before, I do believe most of it. The reasons why lies may have been told I have also given.
However your sheer knowledge of different sites/videos etc have awoken in me a need to find out more and as such I will go over every piece of information and video that you have presented here in an attempt to find out the truth. (Seeing as I have some time this evening to spare)
I will come back with a full report and indeed anything I think me be of benefit to other readers......
Regards,
Kippy

tunaman

kippy wrote:

I will come back with a full report and indeed anything I think me be of benefit to other readers......
Regards,
Kippy

Nothing to report?

Anybody else have an opinion?

Blowfish

tunaman wrote:

Anybody else have an opinion?

You sound like you want an argument.

Manic Moran

Oh, you want an Argument. This is Abuse. Arguments are one thread over...

NTM

tunaman

Blowfish wrote:

No
You sound like you want an argument.

I'm just curious as I have provided many links and videos which hopefully should have given people plenty of new information, which they can use to form an educated opinion, instead of just accepting the official conspiracy story.

It basically comes down to whether you believe either fires or explosives brought down the 3 skyscrapers that day. Let's ask some of the people who were in and around the buildings what they saw...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and that's when that building collapsed.

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.

Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling.[there was no delay in the floors falling] It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

Here is footage inside the lobby after the first plane hit roughly 95 floors up.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5925490088127820509&q=naudet&pl=true

This is not just some conspiracy theory as there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

Blowfish

Blowfish wrote:

You sound like you want an argument.

*ehem*

tunaman

Blowfish wrote:

*ehem*

All I did was present some evidence, how is that looking for an arguement?

Blowfish

grand, but the point is that this thread has over 80 posts, and is at the stage that you believe one thing, others believe other things, and neither will actually change their mind about anything, so the thread isn't actually going anywhere.

tunaman

Blowfish wrote:

grand, but the point is that this thread has over 80 posts, and is at the stage that you believe one thing, others believe other things, and neither will actually change their mind about anything, so the thread isn't actually going anywhere.

The thread has near on 2,000 views, so I'm just curious what people who haven't posted in the thread have to say on the issue. Ultimately people have to draw their own conclusions as to what happened, but a healthy debate on the information and evidence will help us get closer to the truth.

With all the evidence that has been provided how many still believe in the official conspiracy story?

Blowfish

tunaman wrote:

The thread has near on 2,000 views, so I'm just curious what people who haven't posted in the thread have to say on the issue. Ultimately people have to draw their own conclusions as to what happened, but a healthy debate on the information and evidence will help us get closer to the truth.

With all the evidence that has been provided how many still believe in the official conspiracy story?

Fair enough, but you were asking something along the same lines with the 'who controls the world' thread', and ultimitely if you do post up the same things a couple of times people get fed up with it fairly quickly, for example the bebo threads.

Capt'n Midnight

tunaman wrote:

The thread has near on 2,000 views, so I'm just curious what people who haven't posted in the thread have to say on the issue. Ultimately people have to draw their own conclusions as to what happened, but a healthy debate on the information and evidence will help us get closer to the truth.

With all the evidence that has been provided how many still believe in the official conspiracy story?

People don't have to draw their own conclusions if they trust others. If they are not capable of distinguishing which facts are relevant from spuious ones or semi-facts then it's probably a waste of time to try to work out stuff.

Just because a thing is possible doesn't prove it happened. And just because people cherry pick facts doesn't make someting possible.

Any way the real 9/11 conspiracy is that it diverts attention from bigger issues.
Like the raft of new laws.
Like the invasions.
Like the 10 million+ civilians the US military has killed since world war two.
Compared to that 9/11 is a non-event.