The Great 9/11 Challenge.

davoxx · 05-05-2011 2:02pm

clever_name wrote: »

Maybe they would have liked too but waiting until later might have ment more people on the filights they would have to hijack, more people to subdue = increased risk of failure?

so are you suggesting that the flights used were not fully booked?

to be honest regarding subduing the passengers, i'm more surprised that they were not challenged given what weapons they had (and to me that would suggest that the people were <replaced> scared </replaced> or they had better weapons and we were lied to, also could suggest an inside job, but any discrepancy could).

Hookah · 05-05-2011 2:06pm

Di0genes wrote: »

For a small portion of the collapse.

It's spread across massive road....These aren't little two lane streets, and it spills into the buildings beside it.

It's not a tight area and it's not neat.

Round and round we go.

We're not we're trying to explain the flaws in your logic.

Unfortunately probabilistic logic isn't part of your repetoire.

clever_name · 05-05-2011 2:18pm

davoxx wrote: »

so are you suggesting that the flights used were not fully booked?

More than suggesting, I am saying it is a fact that the flights used were not fully booked.

Would later flights have had more or less people? no idea.

davoxx wrote: »

to be honest regarding subduing the passengers, i'm more surprised that they were not challenged given what weapons they had

I read a book a few years ago about armed robbers, one was interviewed and he said the best weapon was an axe or a knife, people would freak out and lose reason when a gun was pointed at them, an axe or a knife seems to be a more primal fear.

davoxx wrote: »

(and to me that would suggest that the people were cowards or they had better weapons and we were lied to, also could suggest an inside job, but any discrepancy could).

Ever had anyone pull a knife on you?, how did you react?

davoxx · 05-05-2011 2:30pm

clever_name wrote: »

More than suggesting, I am saying it is a fact that the flights used were not fully booked.
Would later flights have had more or less people? no idea.

fair enough.
would the hijackers have known that the flights were not fully booked?

clever_name wrote: »

I read a book a few years ago about armed robbers, one was interviewed and he said the best weapon was an axe or a knife, people would freak out and lose reason when a gun was pointed at them, an axe or a knife seems to be a more primal fear.

i'm not sure what you are saying here - that a knife is scarier?

clever_name wrote: »

Ever had anyone pull a knife on you?, how did you react?

we are not talking about me, and tbf it depends on the situation .. on a plane where there is no where to run, i'd tackle a knife before i'd tackle a gun.

to me something smells off - it is plausible, just not proven, that they were trying to minimise human loss at the towers.

Dave! · 05-05-2011 2:34pm

davoxx wrote: »

(and to me that would suggest that the people were cowards

Jayzus

Besides the obvious human aspect of everyone (except internet warriors) being afraid if a knife is pulled on them...... The passengers probably didn't know that it was a suicide mission. Passengers on Flight 93 found out what was happening, and attempted to overpower the terrorists.

Your argument about minimizing human life is weak. If the US government were callous enough to knowingly kill 3000 of their own people, then I don't think a few more thousand would have made much of a difference :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz · 05-05-2011 2:44pm

davoxx wrote: »

we are not talking about me, and tbf it depends on the situation .. on a plane where there is no where to run, i'd tackle a knife before i'd tackle a gun.

One factor to bear in mind is that, pre-9/11, nobody had deliberately crashed a hijacked plane before. So if the hijackers grabbed a couple of women, put the box-cutters to their throats and said 'everybody behave or we kill them', then probably everyone would have sat down and waited for the hijackers to land the plane somewhere and for the authorities to deal with the situation.

Of course - and it has already happened - if a hijacker now attempts to use a knife or whatever to take over the plane, every passenger is thinking of 9/11 and they will tackle the guy come hell or high water.

clever_name · 05-05-2011 2:44pm

davoxx wrote: »

fair enough.
would the hijackers have known that the flights were not fully booked?

Could have tried to book seats and see how many were left.

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what you are saying here - that a knife is scarier?

Someting like a knife or a hammer is very effective at scaring people.

davoxx wrote: »

we are not talking about me, and tbf it depends on the situation .. on a plane where there is no where to run, i'd tackle a knife before i'd tackle a gun.

Having no where to run actually makes you easier to subdue, in general terms it reduces your choices to fight or submit and most times all it takes is one or two people to submit and the crowd dynamic kicks in and everyone elses follows.

Nothing to do with being cowards, the right thing to do in a hostage situation is to not piss off the hostage takers.

Also have you ever been on a bus or train when someone kicks off? what did you do? My guess is turned up the volume on the MP3 and found something very interesting to look at on the floor.

davoxx · 05-05-2011 3:03pm

Dave! wrote: »

Jayzus

Besides the obvious human aspect of everyone (except internet warriors) being afraid if a knife is pulled on them...... The passengers probably didn't know that it was a suicide mission. Passengers on Flight 93 found out what was happening, and attempted to overpower the terrorists.

not really. to be fair being afraid and doing nothing vs being afraid and doing something are two different things.

besides seems to me that because they did not know it was a suicide mission is a poor excuse.

but this is besides the point.

re Flight 93 - was not a part of this point regarding flying into the building when full.

thinking back to the point of this thread - if we can clearly prove that this was something other than some crazy people flying into buildings, would we have not done so? i would have thought the point was that not all points can be wrapped up nicely.

separate point: "Suspected insider trading"- how much of that was refuted?

Di0genes · 05-05-2011 3:20pm

Hookah wrote: »

Round and round we go.

Unfortunately probabilistic logic isn't part of your repetoire.

Fortunately I can spell repertoire.

And unless you can explain how "probabilistic logic" makes your case, you're falling into some kind of smug self-congratulatory defence which basically can be summarised as;

"I'm too smart to explain how right I am".

Di0genes · 05-05-2011 3:26pm

davoxx wrote: »

to be honest regarding subduing the passengers, i'm more surprised that they were not challenged given what weapons they had (and to me that would suggest that the people were cowards or they had better weapons and we were lied to, also could suggest an inside job, but any discrepancy could).

Truly charming.

And forgetting of course that pre 9/11 flight crews were told to acquiesce to hijackers, and to ask passengers to do the same.

And of course forgetting that the hijackers on all flights made a point of killing crew and passengers, demonstrating their intent and capability.

And of course forgetting that at least on one flight the terrorist claimed to have in their possession a bomb.

And of course COMPLETELY FORGETTING that the passengers on the last flight to be hijacked, became aware that their fate was not to be hijacked and used as hostages but instead the plane was being used for suicide mission, and these COWARDS fought back, died in the fight, and sacrificed themselves to ensure their plane never reached it's target.

Rarely has a post annoyed me so much.

davoxx · 05-05-2011 3:31pm

clever_name wrote: »

Nothing to do with being cowards, the right thing to do in a hostage situation is to not piss off the hostage takers.

and that is why the american government always negotiates with terrorists, oh wait they don't ...

but fair enough - hostages was something that i did not add to the equation.

clever_name wrote: »

Also have you ever been on a bus or train when someone kicks off? what did you do? My guess is turned up the volume on the MP3 and found something very interesting to look at on the floor.

thanks for your guess which is wrong, thanks for playing insult the poster.
i have had to restrain someone with a knife when he lunged at at cashier. but to be fair i was behind him and had a friend with me.

but back to point - i still find it hard to believe that they did not pick a later time, if killing people was the plan, unless they knew about the military exercises (but how would they?) but this does not prove anything one way or another.

so i'll close this point: as plausible - there are reasons why that flight was chosen, and there are reason why a later one was not. similarly there are reasons why a later one could have been if they wanted to maximise the death toll.

Penn · 05-05-2011 3:39pm

Keep it civil folks.

davoxx · 05-05-2011 3:55pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Truly charming.

And forgetting of course that pre 9/11 flight crews were told to acquiesce to hijackers, and to ask passengers to do the same.

And of course forgetting that the hijackers on all flights made a point of killing crew and passengers, demonstrating their intent and capability.

And of course forgetting that at least on one flight the terrorist claimed to have in their possession a bomb.

And of course COMPLETELY FORGETTING that the passengers on the last flight to be hijacked, became aware that their fate was not to be hijacked and used as hostages but instead the plane was being used for suicide mission, and these COWARDS fought back, died in the fight, and sacrificed themselves to ensure their plane never reached it's target.

Rarely has a post annoyed me so much.

fair enough if they were told to go along with it. all i said was that it seemed strange to me.
for all we know they could have had guns, and the security had failed and let them through with guns.
how many planes were hijacked with knives previously?

also http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm would suggest (why i am sceptical) that the weapons were never found, true huge area of debris, but they were meant to go through all evidence very carefully.

by the way, those that fought back are not cowards. i never said they were.

and take a breath and do not get worked up of this.

clever_name · 05-05-2011 4:00pm

davoxx wrote: »

thanks for your guess which is wrong, thanks for playing insult the poster.

I was not trying to insult you, it was a presumption based on what most people would do. My apologies for any offence caused.

davoxx wrote: »

but back to point - i still find it hard to believe that they did not pick a later time, if killing people was the plan, unless they knew about the military exercises (but how would they?) but this does not prove anything one way or another.

so i'll close this point: as plausible - there are reasons why that flight was chosen, and there are reason why a later one was not. similarly there are reasons why a later one could have been if they wanted to maximise the death toll.

Again to finish off, these are two very big ifs, I d'ont think killing the highest number of people was the goal, I think the goal was to show the world that what they could do and to instill fear.

If they had had the choice of 50,000 dead and no footage of it or 3000 dead and it all shown on live TV which do you think they would have went for?

davoxx · 05-05-2011 4:06pm

clever_name wrote: »

I was not trying to insult you, it was a presumption based on what most people would do. My apologies for any offence caused.

fair enough apologies accepted

clever_name wrote: »

Again to finish off, these are two very big ifs, I d'ont think killing the highest number of people was the goal, I think the goal was to show the world that what they could do and to instill fear.

If they had had the choice of 50,000 dead and no footage of it or 3000 dead and it all shown on live TV which do you think they would have went for?

true maybe the whole point was fear so, if that was the point, then morning or night would make the best impact for reporting (people would be forced to watch it for the day, or the sight of flames in the night would light up the sky).

but for fear (and only from my perspective) during busy office hours would have the greatest impact, as the way i see it, people would be afraid to go to work. similarly with the london tube bombings, they were during busy times?

clever_name · 05-05-2011 4:06pm

davoxx wrote: »

also http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm would suggest (why i am sceptical) that the weapons were never found, true huge area of debris, but they were meant to go through all evidence very carefully.

Looking for boxcutters in the rubble of the WTC is beyond needle in a haystack, how many knives would have been in the buildings to begin with?

davoxx wrote: »

those that fought back are not cowards. i never said they were.

Neither were people who did not fight back

Hookah · 05-05-2011 4:07pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Fortunately I can spell repertoire.

Unfortunately, you forgot to put the comma after fortunately, and fell victim to Muphry's Law.

And unless you can explain how "probabilistic logic" makes your case,

It's logic that includes probabilities and possibilities. It doesn't make the case, but it does tend to leave things more open to investigation.

Not the pseudo-scepticism of some.

you're falling into some kind of smug self-congratulatory defence which basically can be summarised as;

"I'm too smart to explain how right I am".

I was trying to point out that perhaps you are seeing 'flaws in my logic', only according to your perspective, the perspective of the official theory being entirely correct.

That if you switched, occasionally, from yes/no logic to probability logic, you might see the need for a proper investigation in to some of the events of that day.

Not much to ask for, in the case of 3000 or so deaths, an investigation, is it?

I'm starting to get the impression that people who accept the NIST findings with regard to building 7, are suffering from some form of insanity.

King Mob · 05-05-2011 4:12pm

Oh my poor thread....
All those rules for nothing...

clever_name · 05-05-2011 4:13pm

davoxx wrote: »

true maybe the whole point was fear so, if that was the point, then morning or night would make the best impact for reporting (people would be forced to watch it for the day, or the sight of flames in the night would light up the sky).

but for fear (and only from my perspective) during busy office hours would have the greatest impact, as the way i see it, people would be afraid to go to work. similarly with the london tube bombings, they were during busy times?

Morning or night where? I was in Ireland and I watched it. As for lighting up the sky to give it more impact, they are terrorists not Michael Bay (some people may see no difference between these two;))

I'm sure you have seen the footage of people not just in NYC but areound the world, plenty of fear going on.

davoxx · 05-05-2011 4:17pm

clever_name wrote: »

Morning or night where? I was in Ireland and I watched it. As for lighting up the sky to give it more impact, they are terrorists not Michael Bay (some people may see no difference between these two;))

I'm sure you have seen the footage of people not just in NYC but areound the world, plenty of fear going on.

Morning or night in new york, but true me and my action film scenes ... maybe there is something wrong with me

i always thought that the reason the twin towers were hit was to make either a huge scene of destruction or kill as many people as possible.

Dave! · 05-05-2011 4:20pm

davoxx wrote: »

Morning or night in new york, but true me and my action film scenes ... maybe there is something wrong with me

i always thought that the reason the twin towers were hit was to make either a huge scene of destruction or kill as many people as possible.

I'm sure they'd have been happy if they could have killed everyone in America with one attack, but 3000 people is a pretty big number so I'd say they considered it a job well done...

Hookah · 05-05-2011 4:22pm

Barrington wrote: »

j

When the plane hit the towers, some structural members were knocked out or bent. Even without the fire, these members will have lost strength, possibly even past their safety factor of the additional loading calculated. This means other steel members have to try and carry the loading, possibly being pulled in another direction having lost stability.

With the fire then weakening more steel members, it would have only taken some of them to fail to bring the building down. If structural members are being pulled in another direction, coupled with having to carry additional loading, they will fail.

So with the planes and fire weakening some of the steel members, the other ones were not designed to carry those loads in those directions, so they failed also. The supporting columns didnt simultaneously fail, they couldn't carry those loads in the first place.

Is this what's known as the 'pancake theory'?

clever_name · 05-05-2011 4:32pm

davoxx wrote: »

i always thought that the reason the twin towers were hit was to make either a huge scene of destruction or kill as many people as possible.

I think you are right, I also think it was done for practical reasons, they were huge building, easier to find visually from a plane and also easier for people on the ground to see from a distance.

I have no evidence and I d'ont know if it was researched but I always thought they would have killed more people if they had crashed the planes along somewhere like fifth avenue, Guess that would have been harder to do too.

Another maybe is that it was the world trade centre, so it could be seen as not just attacking the US but letting the world know what they could do.

Penn · 05-05-2011 9:14pm

Hookah wrote: »

Is this what's known as the 'pancake theory'?

Not really. Pancake theory, to my knowledge, would be each floor falling onto the next, then those two falling onto the next etc. What I'm describing is more like about 20 floors (forget the actual numbers of floors) collapsing and breaking through the next floor, then through the next floor etc.

The top parts of each tower tilted towards the point of impact, as thats where the steel members had failed. So when you have 20+ floors which suddenly fall unevenly onto the next floor, it's not really a pancake effect, because that to me would indicate that the floor constructions didn't fail, only their supports. Whereas with the 20+ floors collapsing onto them, judging by the speed of collapse and unevenness of the collapse, it doesn't really seem like a pancake effect. Though I haven't done enough research in that area to give any true answer. Just my opinion

Suceed · 01-09-2012 10:13pm

Di0genes wrote: »

They've changed the substance over time.

The point is thermate isn't a explosive, and isn't used in demolition.

This video proves it can be, and easily debunks some of the debunking about thermate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

francois · 01-09-2012 10:45pm

Suceed wrote: »

This video proves it can be, and easily debunks some of the debunking about thermate...

Not really to be honest, he doesn't for a start cite any sources for the "plenty" of scientists who "agree", besides who put all that explosive there during the building in the first place? Some greedy builder would have sold this "explosive" inside news long ago
Full marks to the guy for trying though

davoxx · 03-09-2012 11:46am

francois wrote: »

Not really to be honest, he doesn't for a start cite any sources for the "plenty" of scientists who "agree",

you should have read his thesis then ... :rolleyes:

francois wrote: »

besides who put all that explosive there during the building in the first place?

saddam, remember after 911 it was all iraq's fault with there oil wmd ...

francois wrote: »

Some greedy builder would have sold this "explosive" inside news long ago

ha, ha, ha ... great attempt at wit ... read up first about the 'renovation' works that were carried out on the building, which company was in charge of security and were the explosive sniffing dogs on duty on the week prior to 911 ... then come back and make silly comments like this ...

francois wrote: »

Full marks to the guy for trying though

indeed ...

seannash · 03-09-2012 12:23pm

davoxx wrote: »

you should have read his thesis then ... :rolleyes:

saddam, remember after 911 it was all iraq's fault with there oil wmd ...

ha, ha, ha ... great attempt at wit ... read up first about the 'renovation' works that were carried out on the building, which company was in charge of security and were the explosive sniffing dogs on duty on the week prior to 911 ... then come back and make silly comments like this ...

indeed ...

Can I ask,do you genuinely believe the building were taken down with explosives?
The company I worked for was doing ongoing renovation work in the building at the time it happened and had been for years.They were actually doing alot of work in the lift shafts amongst other areas
Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

Jonny7 · 03-09-2012 12:34pm

seannash wrote: »

Can I ask,do you genuinely believe the building were taken down with explosives?
The company I worked for was doing ongoing renovation work in the building at the time it happened and had been for years.They were actually doing alot of work in the lift shafts amongst other areas
Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

You do realise this is practically proof that your "company" was in fact planting explosives in two buildings that were definitely going to be hit by two fuel laden airliners

seannash · 03-09-2012 12:45pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

You do realise this is practically proof that your "company" was in fact planting explosives in two buildings that were definitely going to be hit by two fuel laden airliners

Perhaps your right.
hmmm maybe I should rethink this beard I'm growing,might make me look suspicious

The Great 9/11 Challenge.

Comments