COMMENTS:
Voted : 5 - I feel very safe
If it was Ali Hanjour flying it though I wouldn't feel safe at all, according to his flight instructor he '...couldn't fly (a two seater Cessna) at all' yet we are supposed to beLIEve that he somehow managed to commandeer a 70 ton Boeing like a veteran pilot halfway across America for an hour without being intercepted by the most efficient airforce in the world even though the aircraft was heading straight for the most heavily protected building on the planet, pull of a gravity defying manouvre whom air traffic control described as being only possibly by a military aircraft when u-turning to head straight for the Pentagon after flying past it.
Official conspiracy theorists? ~
Eat your official issue tin foil hats if you believe that, for they are the only tin foil hats available.
^Give it a rest.
Pretty safe. It's always unsettling to see the wings bow up and down during flight, and I'm not a big fan of turbulence but I can generally make the whole thing academic and appreciate the fact that you're more likely to die in a car.
And ken, do you ever worry that when you're on a passenger plane it might somehow morph into a super secret zionist-cia missle that will be used to take over the world in some overly complicated plot?
But seriously ken, give it a rest. This is the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in US history, let people who lost loved ones mourn in peace and you can return to your conspiracy idiocy tomorrow.
Voted : 3 - in some ways safe, other ways not (mix)
I'd fly personally, but I'd be recicent to allow anyone I care for to fly, with what I know about the lack of security.
Make that "reticent", please.
No I won't give 'it a rest', and nor will the souls of of the innocent victims of 9/11 'give it a rest' either until their PNAC sponsored mass murderers are brought to book.
Fight the good fight Ken
I will Closet, thanks for the words of encouragement, I love you man. (o:
Ken, your true colors show. Rather than allow a brief moment of silence out of respect for those who died, you would rather continue ranting.
Voted : 4 - Generally safe
I don't fly much, but I feel protected by the sheer volume of air traffic. What are the odds that a particular plane at a particular time is going to be hijacked by terrorists and flown into a building? Pretty long. So, aside from my ordinary misgivings about flight, I'm pretty much the same.
Margaret's bang on as in usual.
Margaret's bang on as usual.
Actually tinfoil hat kenny, as any pilot will tell you, take offs and landings are the most difficult aspect of flying any plane, but steering and maneuvering a plane as it flys is childs play. That's why some of hijackers, including Atta, left their training schools before the land and take off segment of their training began. They didn't need it. And by the way little kenny, do you know how many commercial aircraft planes were in the skys of North America when those hijackers overtook those planes? The Arabs pulled off a very easy plan. Nothing difficult about it if you are prepared and full of hate. Even a tinfoil hat like yourself could have done it...that's how simple it was.
More crap from the spokesman of the 'official tin foiled hatted trekkies.....
....so why did they choose to train in flight schools in the USA when they could have trained anywhere else in the world and therefore not have aroused any suspicion?
No Alarm bells there Jinn no?
...and no interception by the US air-force of an aircraft that was for a whole hour heading straight for the Pentagon, the pulsating heart of US military might?
Are you THAT stupid Jinn et al?
Airlines are safer than they've ever been by far, I have absolutely no fears about flying whatsoever.
"If it was Ali Hanjour flying it though I wouldn't feel safe at all, according to his flight instructor he '...couldn't fly (a two seater Cessna) at all' yet we are supposed to beLIEve that he somehow managed to commandeer a 70 ton Boeing like a veteran pilot halfway across America for an hour without being intercepted by the most efficient airforce in the world even though the aircraft was heading straight for the most heavily protected building on the planet, pull of a gravity defying manouvre whom air traffic control described as being only possibly by a military aircraft when u-turning to head straight for the Pentagon after flying past it."
by Ken_from_Dublin on Mon Sep 11, 06 2:57pm
Sorry, I realise it's off topic but I personally cannot let this kind of bullsh*t pass uncommented.
If Ken is referring to Hani Hanjour let's clear some things up.
1)Hanjour had a commercial pilot's licence and accompanying certificates.
2)Marcel Bernard, the flight instriuctor who denied the rental of a Cessna 172 to Hanjour said "There's no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
3) Danielle O'Brien from Dulles ATC when commenting on the strange manouvres said "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane, you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." In essence she is not saying that ONLY a military plane or pilot could do it but that is was unusal and their initial thoughts were - it's military. Why? Commercial jets don't do that NORMALLY.
Please, please, please do not believe ANYTHING that the conspiracy theorists throw at you without checking the validity of the statements first.
You will find that their lies crumble at the merest touch of logic, common sense and scientific investigation.
Voted : 4 - Generally safe
as long as they're serving liquor...
by MO_ on Mon Sep 11, 06 7:43pm
[+]
"so why did they choose to train in flight schools in the USA when they could have trained anywhere else in the world and therefore not have aroused any suspicion?"
by Ken_from_Dublin on Mon Sep 11, 06 6:27pm
Gee wiz tinny kenny, a child could answer that. Because they knew the US had the best schools. Because they spoke English. Because they had the visas they applied for. Because they were going there anyway. Because they had plans to make there. If you want to know how to climb Everest Kenny you visit the Sherpa guides in Nepal. If you want to learn US domestic flight rules and patterns in the US you go there.
"and no interception by the US air-force of an aircraft that was for a whole hour heading straight for the Pentagon, the pulsating heart of US military might?"
by Ken_from_Dublin on Mon Sep 11, 06 6:27pm
The typical sleezy and cheap worded question of the tinfoil hat liars. You try to imply that the US government and US airforce knew along the AA 757 passenger jet was headed to the pentagon.
Further to that, you contradict yourself because of other arguments where you like to claim that no hijacked aircraft hit the pentagon, but that it was a missile! You are fighting this event with two completely different arguements! What a complete hypocrite and moronic asshole you are. Now, who is the stupid one?
Still, you are amusing.
"Further to that, you contradict yourself because of other arguments where you like to claim that no hijacked aircraft hit the pentagon, but that it was a missile! You are fighting this event with two completely different arguements!"
Oopsie! Now THAT'S funny!
Notice how narrow mind of Ignorance conveniently skips over my core points, I have to rush off to work now, I'll be back later on to intercept and shoot down his fallacious garbage, and put it in the trash can where it belongs.
'Hani Hanjour could not fly at all'
'... and I had to take over the two seater Cessna because I feared for our safety' or words to that effect, haven't got time to source it, catch ya later folks, and don't believe a word from the traitors in the meantime, they'll get their's eventually, time and truth are on our side.
Voted : 4 - Generally safe
Failry safe. I am not at all worried about some 'terrorist' attack on a plane I am on. However, I am worried about the continued cost cutting efforts of airlines and their effect on quality and safety.
{take offs and landings are the most difficult aspect of flying any plane, but steering and maneuvering a plane as it flys is childs play. by Jinn_the_Kafir on Mon Sep 11, 06 6:04pm}
Not for 757/767. Still not child's play to pull off those kind of maneuvers.
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training;
by Nila Sagadevan Physics 911
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.
SOME RELEVANT EXCERPTS;
"....But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself."
ANOTHER RELEVANT EXCERPT;
"...I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft."
As to how safe I personally feel in a commercial airliner; not worried at all as long as I'm a Qantas flight. Safest airline in the world.
As to how safe I personally feel in a commercial airliner; not worried at all as long as I'm on a Qantas flight. Safest airline in the world.
"The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 7:15am
Well you and I, that pilot, and everyone in world saw it happen, so that is irrelevent nonsense.
"And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!"
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 7:15am
Yes, and flight 93 crashed because of this very thing. Can't maneuver a plane properly when you are under attack in the cockpit, can you?
You try to discredit the hijackers, calling them "clueless" to strengthen your weak erroneous comments. Well it turns out they wern't so clueless doesn't it? These were educated and well trained men with a obsessed purpose, willing to kill themselves. In fact the platoon leader Muhammad Atta had a university degree in architecture. Not so clueless.
{Well you and I, that pilot, and everyone in world saw it happen, so that is irrelevent nonsense.by Jinn_the_Kafir on Tue Sep 12, 06 7:49am}
B U L L S H I T.
YOU didn't see any arabs at the controls of those planes, and neither did I, nor anyone else I bet.
Are you now trying to claim X-RAY VISION and the ability to see through the walls of metal-skinned aircraft?
What an idiot you are, Jinn, to try to pretend such a thing.
What we saw were TWO planes hit the WTC 1 & 2.
We did NOT see who was piloting those planes.
We did NOT see any plane hit the Pentagon, and the USA government has very suspiciously refused to show any video showing a plane of any kind hitting the Pentagon.
We did NOT see any plane hitting the ground at Shanksville.
Show me a witness who can see through the walls of a plane, of who stared face to face through the cockpit windows and saw arabs piloting those planes... YOU CAN'T.
Stop storytelling and spouting fairytale nonsense, Jinn, because everytime you do you look like a fool.
{...and flight 93 crashed because of this very thing. Can't maneuver a plane properly when you are under attack in the cockpit, by Jinn_the_Kafir on Tue Sep 12, 06 7:49am}
No fight in the cockpit because you can't PROVE THERE WAS.
Just more official storytelling nonsense and fairytales.
{In fact the platoon leader Muhammad Atta had a university degree in architecture. Not so clueless.
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Tue Sep 12, 06 7:49am}
A university degree in architecture does not include training in flying huge passenger planes, Jinn. Didn't you know that? Oh, and "Muhammad Atta" who? The guy whose identity was stolen and was still alive the next day and made a call to his family, and talked with his father on the phone?
9 of the named alleged hijackers are STILL ALIVE.
Hanjour had a commercial instrument-rated pilot license. This means he could fly a commercial airliner using the instruments.
"We did NOT see who was piloting those planes."
No, but we know who boarded them.
"We did NOT see any plane hit the Pentagon"
Well, plently of witnesses did and the fact the plane wreckage was found along with the identified remains of all but one of the passengers tends to indicate that one did crash there.
"We did NOT see any plane hitting the ground at Shanksville."
Ok, but the crashed plane and identified remains of the passengers is a pretty good sign that one did crash there.
"No fight in the cockpit because you can't PROVE THERE WAS."
Ah, now here's a real classy point. By that line of reasoning there was no conspiracy because you can't prove there was.
Oh and by the way there's a big difference between flying a plane 60 feet off the ground and crashing into the ground. Just for your records.
{"We did NOT see who was piloting those planes."
No, but we know who boarded them.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 6:15pm}
1 - Which is NOT the same as knowing who was piloting them.
2- The claim that we know who boarded them is not actual fact, because 9 of the named alleged hijackers are still alive, so they didn't do it, and someboyd else was just pretending that they did. The other problem with the claim is that the only evidence of who boarded those planes comes from the same sources that lied about everything else; including those FAKE cellphone calls. The faces don't match either, and one of those "security camera" videos was NOT a security video - it had no date or time stamp.
{"We did NOT see any plane hit the Pentagon"
Well, plently of witnesses did and the fact the plane wreckage was found along with the identified remains of all but one of the passengers tends to indicate that one did crash there.
by widehead of knowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 6:15pm}
Well, WE THE REST OF US DID NOT see any plane hit the Pentagon, and the USA government has very suspiciously refused to show any video showing a plane of any kind hitting the Pentagon.
The plane wreckage is minimal, and includes such things as the rotors from a much smaller jet engine than those used in a 757/767 as anyone who looks at the photos and checks can easily discover. None of those plane parts appears BURNT, SCORCHED, OR MELTED, in fact they look just like dirty old salvaged parts from a scrapyard. The remains of the passengers were ALLEGEDLY identified by DNA, but as Coldcircuit pointed out on another ballot (101154) under the circumstances that is not reliable for many good reasons;
# The people taking the DNA samples from the charred body or fragment are very unlikely to be the same individuals taking DNA samples from the relatives.
# Those taking DNA samples from the bodies/fragments are very unlikely to be taking those samples in the crash site. They'd do it elsewhere.
# The people analysing the DNA for comparison are also very unlikely to be the same individuals who took the samples. The normal standard practice is to send DNA samples to a lab. The people in the lab would not be at the crash site, they would not have seen the crash site, they would not have seen the bodies the samples were taken from, they would not be able to confirm that the samples were taken from the people that they were told that the samples were taken from.
In regards to the Pentagon site, the photos of dead bodies could be only photos of dead Pentagon staff and dead construction workers, not from the huge passenger jet which the government of the USA has avoided producing any videos to prove that a huge passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon.
As Coldcircuit stated; "The DNA is the most important thing; if all were identified on Flight 93, then that would include the hijacker's DNA too wouldn't it? I wonder how they obtained DNA samples from their relatives when nobody knows who the hijackers were? That's an enormous amount of anonymity, with enourmous opportunity for falsification and swapping of samples. Who would give them the DNA samples from the relatives? Were all of the people identified by DNA? 100%?"
widehead of knowledge couldn't answer the questions about this.
{Oh and by the way there's a big difference between flying a plane 60 feet off the ground and crashing into the ground. Just for your records.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 6:15pm}
Now you make a strawman excuse.
Remember this from Nila Sagadevan (aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.) ?
ANOTHER RELEVANT EXCERPT;
"...I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
Well, that alleged huge passenger plane at the Pentagon wasn't just crashing into the ground was it? Whatever aircraft it was, flew 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. It didn't just "crash", it flew 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. You do get this point don't you? It flew 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
and you do recall this point; If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn.
How did a 757/767 fly like that without marking the lawn with huge deep gouges where the engines would've been digging up the ground 10ft deep?
{"No fight in the cockpit because you can't PROVE THERE WAS."
Ah, now here's a real classy point. By that line of reasoning there was no conspiracy because you can't prove there was.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 6:15pm}
Oh well, I overestimated your intelligence and you didn't get the reference.
Where's your evidence of a fight in the cockpit? Do you really think it will stand up in debate?
"BULLSHIT."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Tsk tsk. Funny how the tinfoil hats always need both to YELL and curse, because they have a weak or no argument they need to support
"YOU didn't see any arabs at the controls of those planes, and neither did I, nor anyone else I bet."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Nor did you. So what's your point? Besides, I have never been able see the pilots at the contols of any plane in the sky. Just look at the photo of this ballot. See anyone? Your statement is silly, absurd and irrelevant. And of course you yourself can't claim who was or who wasn't at the contols either. Oh, but you can make it up can't you?
"Are you now trying to claim X-RAY VISION and the ability to see through the walls of metal-skinned aircraft?"
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
No. Are you?
"What an idiot you are, Jinn, to try to pretend such a thing."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Again, the common used and needed insult term of the tin foil hats. Others are "stupid", "clueless" "fool", "dumb", "blind", "moron" etc. The repeated and colorful terms to use when you have no argument.
"What we saw were TWO planes hit the WTC 1 & 2."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
That's a good start Lovelynice. Good for you. However I don't understand why you are yelling "two". Did someone claim to see just one, perhaps more than two?
"We did NOT see who was piloting those planes."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Yes, they were moving a tad fast, wouldn't you say? So that doesn't give you any valid and credible rights to say who was or who wasn't flying them yourself, does it?. Unless of course you have video lovelynice! lol! Got video?
"We did NOT see any plane hit the Pentagon, and the USA government has very suspiciously refused to show any video showing a plane of any kind hitting the Pentagon."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
No. You simply use the word "suspiciously". You also used it in another comment (above). The favorite cheap deception word so often planted in the expressions, phrases and rhetoric of the tinfoil hat people. Other frequently used words to bolster the poor arguements of the tinfoil hats: "suspicion", "liars", "shills", "strawman", "fake", "nonsense" "strange", "odd" etc.
Don't forget too Loveleynice, that literally hundreds of witnesses saw the AA 757 fly overhead and into the Pentagon. Many saw and identified the American Airlines logo and even identified it as a 757. Oh wait! I almost forgot, you already told me they were all government paid shills! Even the old men, ladies and children. Silly me.
"We did NOT see any plane hitting the ground at Shanksville."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Yes, the film from all the video cameras in the country farm fields were all seized by men in black, working for the government. Now they "suspiciously" wont release them!
"Show me a witness who can see through the walls of a plane, of who stared face to face through the cockpit windows and saw arabs piloting those planes... YOU CAN'T."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Can you? If you did, who did you see, men in black? Good point though. Gee, perhaps it wasn't Israeli pilots in those fighter planes over Lebanon??? And maybe the IDF was firing those Katusha rockets into Israel. After all we never saw and Hezbollah fire them, did you?
"Stop storytelling and spouting fairytale nonsense, Jinn, because everytime you do you look like a fool."
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
Oops! There are a couple of those favorite tinfoil hat terms "nonsense" and "fool". I guess Lovelynice thinks her fairytale nonsense trumps mine! LOL!
"widehead of knowledge couldn't answer the questions about this."
I could and did, thanks very much. Want me to go over it again?
"The plane wreckage is minimal"
Depends on how much you were mistakenly expecting doesn't it?
"and includes such things as the rotors from a much smaller jet engine than those used in a 757/767 as anyone who looks at the photos and checks can easily discover."
Go ahead and check! You'll find that what lovelynice is saying is not true! Please do check. Don't take anyones word for it!
"None of those plane parts appears BURNT, SCORCHED, OR MELTED, in fact they look just like dirty old salvaged parts from a scrapyard."
Ah! So they shipped in some plane wreckage did they?! And how did they manage to hush up the people involved in that operation?
The plane parts were twisted, torn and mangled - that's what I'd expect to see but hey - why not research yourself?
"The remains of the passengers were ALLEGEDLY identified by DNA but as Coldcircuit pointed out on another ballot (101154) under the circumstances that is not reliable for many good reasons"
No, the victims were identified - there's no alledgedly about it. And when coldcircuit shows us his forensic credentials we'll listen. Until then I'll trust the experts.
"The people taking the DNA samples from the charred body or fragment are very unlikely to be the same individuals taking DNA samples from the relatives."
So we should throw out any or all DNA evidence? this is just common practice. It's not mysterious. Forensic pathologists leave the taking of blood to nurses generally.
"Those taking DNA samples from the bodies/fragments are very unlikely to be taking those samples in the crash site. They'd do it elsewhere."
That's right - the bodies would be taken to a mortuary or laboratory.
"The people analysing the DNA for comparison are also very unlikely to be the same individuals who took the samples. The normal standard practice is to send DNA samples to a lab. The people in the lab would not be at the crash site, they would not have seen the crash site, they would not have seen the bodies the samples were taken from, they would not be able to confirm that the samples were taken from the people that they were told that the samples were taken from."
This does not invalidate the evidence because the samples and bodies would have been painstakingly tagged, bagged and inventoried. We are not dealing with amatuer investigators here - they knew what they were doing. And the suggestion lovelynice is making is preposterous in the extreme - it involves recovering and disposing of bodies whilst replacing samples taken at the scene with fake ones. What happened to the actually victims? It's all utter, utter nonsense from start to finish.
"In regards to the Pentagon site, the photos of dead bodies could be only photos of dead Pentagon staff and dead construction workers, not from the huge passenger jet which the government of the USA has avoided producing any videos to prove that a huge passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon."
The bodies were identified. Next.
"As Coldcircuit stated; "The DNA is the most important thing; if all were identified on Flight 93, then that would include the hijacker's DNA too wouldn't it? I wonder how they obtained DNA samples from their relatives when nobody knows who the hijackers were?"
This is ludicrous. The victims were identified. And we know who the hijackers were!! Who said we didn't know who they were?!
Posing ridiculous questions based on a personal lack of research and understanding is not even remotely close to providing anything resembling a coherent theory.
You must realise that a total and complete lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever means that the conspiracy theories are worthless meanderings having no basis in reality.
Apply your mind, your critical faculties and some research - you will be surprised at how quickly their claims unravel.
{"widehead of knowledge couldn't answer the questions about this."
I could and did, thanks very much. Want me to go over it again?by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
Actually you didn't. I checked before I posted the comment.
{"The plane wreckage is minimal"
Depends on how much you were mistakenly expecting doesn't it?
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
Most people would expect to see something more than a TOO SMALL rotor from a different plane, and not much more than a half truckload of UNBURNT, UNSCORCHED, and UNMELTED plane parts. Most plane crashes for huge passenger jets have burned, scorched, and melted plane parts and enough debris around for the same - at the Pentagon there is EXTREMELY LITTLE, and some of it's from the WRONG KIND OF PLANE.
{"None of those plane parts appears BURNT, SCORCHED, OR MELTED, in fact they look just like dirty old salvaged parts from a scrapyard."
Ah! So they shipped in some plane wreckage did they?! by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
They must've done, because as I stated; "None of those plane parts appears BURNT, SCORCHED, OR MELTED, in fact they look just like dirty old salvaged parts from a scrapyard"
Not at all hard to do. One or two guys with a truck could drop the scrap off. There was construction work going on, renovations inside the Pentagon on that side, trucks coming and going with old junk wouldn't stand out at all.
and that rotor is from a too small an engine to be from a 757/767.
Hey, you could rest all the suspicion if the USA government just released the raw video tapes which they confiscated from the gas station and the hotels, and the rest of the 85 CCTV cameras showing a huge passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. It's increasinlg suspicious that they don't release those tapes. What are they waiting for, the technology to fake it with really good CGI in a few more years?
{And we know who the hijackers were!! Who said we didn't know who they were?!
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
No you didn't know WHO those hijackers were. That's bullshit. 9 of the alleged hijackers ARE STILL ALIVE, and the FBI admitted that the men claimed to be them really were victims of identity theft. WHY are deliberately and repeatedly ignoring this FACT???
"The remains of the passengers were ALLEGEDLY identified by DNA but as Coldcircuit pointed out on another ballot (101154) under the circumstances that is not reliable for many good reasons"
No, the victims were identified - there's no alledgedly about it. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm
Including the "hijackers" DNA? HOW? Did somebody who knew their REAL NAMES (and didn't mention them to the FBI, because the FBI doesn't know their real names) actually go and take DNA samples from their REAL relatives???
Come off it.
{"The people taking the DNA samples from the charred body or fragment are very unlikely to be the same individuals taking DNA samples from the relatives."
So we should throw out any or all DNA evidence? this is just common practice. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
Yes it's common practice, I'm sure Coldcircuit knew that as well as you. It's also a practice that leaves the DNA samples WIDE OPEN to abuse and fraud.
Just because it's "common practice" and "efficient" doesn't make it immune to fraud.
{"The people analysing the DNA for comparison are also very unlikely to be the same individuals who took the samples. The normal standard practice is to send DNA samples to a lab. The people in the lab would not be at the crash site, they would not have seen the crash site, they would not have seen the bodies the samples were taken from, they would not be able to confirm that the samples were taken from the people that they were told that the samples were taken from."
This does not invalidate the evidence because the samples and bodies would have been painstakingly tagged, bagged and inventoried. We are not dealing with amatuer investigators here - they knew what they were doing. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
It is still a practice wide open to fraud. Switching would be EASY, too easy.
It's easy to play fraud with the DNA evidence because it's not the bodies being switched, it's only tiny vials of DNA samples in a box.
Coldcircuit already explained how it could be done.
{The bodies were identified. Next.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
Typical flippant shill response. "next"yourself.
The bodies were identified by what? DNA samples that are easily switched at the lab, or on the way to the lab, with the DNA samples from the alleged relatives being put in their place. It's too easy.
The FBI crime labs go caught before rigging evidence and fraud a few years before 9/11. You know that don't you?
They aren't the height of credibility either.
{ You must realise that a total and complete lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:25pm}
except that there's TONS of evidence that the WTC buildings were controlled demolitions, that the cellphone calls were fake is undeniable, and that 9 of the hijackers are still alive and these people were falsely accused, and that the Official Lies are a pile of BS, you just prefer to ignore it.
"there's TONS of evidence that the WTC buildings were controlled demolitions"
There is in fact no evidence this is the case and not one demolitions company agrees with you - not one. I wonder why?
"that the cellphone calls were fake is undeniable"
I deny it, the people who took the calls deny it, and the airfones company denies it.
"and that 9 of the hijackers are still alive and these people were falsely accused"
type your name in google. Wow - there are loads of people that share the same name and...wait for it... they live in the same country as you too! Sure, people made mistakes early on in the story but its ben cleared up now. Find any legit newspaper source that backs your story after november 2001. tricky isn't it?
Ignoring the DNA evidence is absolutely par for the course for conspriacy theorists and you have given a little heads up on your thoughts about any pentagon footage that may be released. By widening the net of conspirators (the guys who dumped the wreckage at the pentagon, or the guys who swapped the DNA samples) you are further stretching credulity.
And anyway - if the DNA samples were switched where the hell did they come from? Are you suggesting that the government killed the real passengers, burned their bodies and then shipped them to the forensic labs?!
And what's this "wrong engine part" you're harping on about? You've watched "Loose Change" too many times. Here's an idea - look up what the engine parts of the plane should look like - on a legit site - and then look at the pentagon photos. Ooh, guess what - the conspiracy theorists have been misleading you haven't they?
{ "that the cellphone calls were fake is undeniable"
I deny it, the people who took the calls deny it, and the airfones company denies it.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 10:50pm}
LMAO - you must be really DUMB!
Airfones are NOT cellphones you moron! An airfone company has NOTHING TO DO WITH CELLPHONE CALLS.
That you "deny it" is only because you avoid the FACTS.
The cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE, and therefore FAKE.
Stop lying and trying to pretend otherwise.
{"there's TONS of evidence that the WTC buildings were controlled demolitions"
There is in fact no evidence by widehead of knowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 10:50pm}
You and Jinn must sit on each others lap while making up your excuses because he made the same B U L L S H I T claim today.
Well, since you want to act like Jinn, say the same thing as Jinn, and make the same lying claim as Jinn, then I'll go ahead and post exactly the same posts YET AGAIN refuting your repetitive and BORING lie.
Hmm...have you been hiding under a rock, or are you just pretending to be dumb, stupid, illiterate, and unable to recall the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of posts in which I have cited quotes and sources filled with evidence?
I think the later. You pretend ignorance because you have played that bullshit tactic many times before on other sites and it's in your little rule book, and against some other people it "seemed" to have worked.
Well, you must be pretty dumb to think it would work with me.
The following shows that the "pancake collapse" theory is a lot of hooey...
There's a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward - even just having to push air out of the way - there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.
And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
** karma **
It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
** karma **
{Sure, people made mistakes early on in the story but its ben cleared up now. Find any legit newspaper source that backs your story after november 2001. tricky isn't it?
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 12, 06 10:50pm}
Yes it was cleared up the FBI admitting that they don't have a CLUE who those alleged "hijackers" were, and they don't know their names, and that they have nothing in fact to prove that they were arabs, because the names were all those of people whose identities had been stolen.
Yes, it was cleared up. Nine of the named hijackers are still alive. Have you noticed that the number of those named (including with their photos from the FBI) and yet being discovered as STILL ALIVE has INCREASED over the years. Not gone down, but gone up.
The original BBC story was only four were still alive, but now it's climbed to NINE.
You are coping with this aren't you?
You do know about "stolen identities" and how easily done it is, don't you? I understand it's a major problem in the USA with credit card fraud. Mossad was caught out in New Zealand in a scam with forged passports and stolen identities. The New Zealand police caught them out bad. It's not the first time that people's identities have been stolen.
Are you coping yet? Or are you still trying to pretend that the FBI infallibly got it right the first time even when they later admitted that they got it wrong?
Of course the FBI is not the height of trustworthy reliability is it? You do know that, don't you? You haven't just been hiding your head in the sand and allowing yourself to be brainwashed about how great and honest they're supposed to be have you? Or do you want me to cite evidence to show how disgusting CORRUPT the FBI really is....
Lovelynice, we are still waiting for the proof that the government of the United States of America planned and carried out all the 9/11 attacks. This is what you claim, so show the proof.
All your copy and pasted math does not prove this. Its just a bunch of math, nothing more.
Here's my point. Let us suppose just for silly hypothetical purposes that your erroneous copy and pasted math equations do conclude demolitions took place, and that they aided in the collapse of those buildings. Why should that automatically make one assume the government was involved. Why can't one also assume the Islamic terrorists, or any group for that matter, was envolved in that also? You see what I mean now? All you (hypothectcally) have done is proven demolition, not government complicity. You only assume they are. Back to false accusation again.
People can also legitimately assume the theory that demolition was an extended part of the terrorist's great planning. After all they are experts with explosives. bin Laden is an engineer, and platoon leader Muhammad Atta had a university degree in building architecture. You see, theories and assumptions can be made about anything. So I ask to you again. Where is your proof that the US government was envolved? You have shown none.
We are waiting.
Here is the big meeting folks
The suggestion that someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings and blow them up is in itself absurd. Could you imagine the meeting?...
Government: We want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into the 110 story building. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah but that way your sure to knock it down. Besides, Maybe the hijackers wont make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1 But you don't need to knock it down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll even put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our bay of pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock it down.
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both! :blink: How do we do that? I mean how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the seen?
Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...
Government: I've made my decision. continue...
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you. :) ...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on it's way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.
Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the initial concrete and Steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in Key internet forums.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We wont be able to fly plans into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right we can have one of the towers hit Building 7 missing the two next to it. After that we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
Government: Amassing... I also want to take out the pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect then fire a missile at the pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51 then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plan.
Accomplice #1: err... ah, Don't worry about these small details. I have an under cover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Lets make the target date Sept 11 2001.
It's really amusing to watch Ken talk about how Ali Hanjour was a bad pilot.
The guy wouldn't even exist if Kens story was to be believed.
KNOCK OFF THE CONSPIRACY CRAP NOW EVERYONE.
THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY BALLOT.
Isn't it interesting about the bias around here?
Mr Fiddle rates down my FACTUAL comments to the point of karma blocking them but only does this to me, and not to those obvious shills who (like Fiddle) defend the government's LIES. He's done this 3 times so far, with the same excuse "knock it off, this is not a conspiracy ballot".
I'd agree with his point, except that his bias is that he only rates down ONE SIDE of the debate with THAT EXCUSE, and not the other.
{It's really amusing to watch Ken talk about how Ali Hanjour was a bad pilot.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 13, 06 11:16am}
Well, HE WAS!
and as I (meaning ME; Lovelynice), have alreaady shown, the claim that Hanjour was flying that plane is complete rubbish. I cited a qualified pilot and aeronautical engineer's expert opinion on this (my comment above on Tue Sep 12, 06 7:15am) to show that there is NO WAY that claiming that Hanjour was flying that plane is believable except to a fool.
You don't know WHO was flying that plane, OR ANY OF THE OTHERS, since the "alleged hijackers"; those people named as "hijackers" were ALL VICTIMS OF INDENTITY THEFT.
That's why NINE OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE.
{The suggestion that someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings and blow them up is in itself absurd. by Jinn_the_Kafir on Wed Sep 13, 06 10:58am}
Not at all, silly Jinn.
It's quite simple really.
WTC 1 & 2 were KNOWN to be built strong enough to survive MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS.
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001;
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting"
They were made strong enough to handle hurricane force winds, and survive the direct impacts of fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, which is a plane only slightly smaller, but slightly faster, than a 757/767.
I'd rather trust the structural engineers and architects that designed the building than what the US govt's bunch of frightened little sycophants and paid off shills would say.
This is what the architectural firm stated;
"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. .. "
The buildings were also a lot stronger towards the base by necessity, and many structural engineers were STUNNED by the catastrophic collapses happening as they did because the resistance and strength of the building becomes greater the lower down you go. Also, with all the random damage being blamed (fire, and impact), that the buildings went straight down into their own footprint - and did three times in a row - that's like seeing an event beyond the miraculous. Asymmetric structural damage seems is extraordinarily unlikely to create a symmetric collapse.
Demolition experts would be out of business is such things happened normally.
Those buildings were not vertical pillars of water or houses built of cards.
With ONLY the impacts of those planes, the buildings would not have collapsed.
It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)
2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your BS
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Now considering this, there is only one conclusion - the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.
Your carrying on with other excuses can't get around this.
The reason for the planes impacting the buildings is OBVIOUS.
They were used as a tactic to give the excuse that the planes were the reason the buildings collapsed, and cover up the huge explosions that happened roughly at the same time as the plane impacts (but 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE the plane impacts) but unfortunately for the faction in the USA government which was responsible, their lies are too obviously just LIES.
757-200 757-200F 757-300
Empty weight 128,730 lb (58,390 kg) 141,330 lb (64,110 kg )
707-120B 707-320B
Empty weight 122,533 lb (55,580 kg) 146,400 lb (66,406 kg)
A 707 is almost the same weight as a 757/767
{All your copy and pasted math does not prove this. Its just a bunch of math, nothing more. by Jinn_the_Kafir on Wed Sep 13, 06 10:39am}
It's a BUNCH OF MATH which proves MATHEMATICALLY that it's IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed in the way that the USA government and liars liek are trying to pretend.
If you have a problem with math, Jinn, then that explains why you can't understand simple high school physics and are so gullible as to be believe that pile of nonsense peddled by the USA government and shills like yourself.
Most people are smart enough to recognise a controlled demolition when they see it.
February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Plane Hitting It In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center, the other being Leslie Robertson.
Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis, which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
"the "alleged hijackers"; those people named as "hijackers" were ALL VICTIMS OF INDENTITY THEFT.
That's why NINE OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE."
by Lovelynice on Wed Sep 13, 06 6:22pm
And we'll ask again - if the oh-so-clever people behind the conspiracy wished to drag us to war with Afghanistan and Iraq why bother to steal the identity of Saudi nationals who are, according to you, still alive?
See what happens when you apply logic to your pathetic premise? That's right - it doesn't stand up.
{why bother to steal the identity of Saudi nationals who are, according to you, still alive?
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 14, 06 8:25am}
TO BLAME MUSLIMS, OF COURSE.
YES, NINE OF THE HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE - as most people should know by now (and I can hardly believe that you don't) they were vicitms of IDENTITY THEFT
Tracking the 19 Hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11
welfarestate . com / 911 /
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / world / middle _ east / 1559151 . stm
'Suicide hijacker' is an airline pilot alive and well in Jeddah
news . independent . co . uk / world / middle _ east / story . jsp ? story = 94438
FBI probes hijackers' identities
news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / world / americas / 1553754 . stm
QUOTE= "The FBI has said that the identities of some of its list of 19 hijackers behind last week's devastating attacks are in doubt.
It believes that some of the hijackers used false identities, possibly even names of people who are still alive,"
{ See what happens when you ....
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 14, 06 8:25am}
See what happens when you make BULLSHIT claims and pretend to be smarter than me? You get proven wrong.
Now, wideheadofknowledge, are you going to continue this because it is rather OFF TOPIC for the ballot.
Liar. Shill. Pretend. Bullshit. Fool. Lies. See a pattern here? Pretend he's smarter than you? He doesn't need to pretend becuase its abunduntly clear that Wideheadofknowledge is extremely intelligent and well informed. Just as important, he is not arrogant and rude, so he is classy as well. Take a hint.
{Wideheadofknowledge is extremely intelligent and well informed. by Beauregard on Thu Sep 14, 06 1:55pm}
I didn't say he wasn't.
Widehead ofknowledge regularly backs his claims with quotes, links, and sources, so for that reason, I RESPECT him and enjoy debates with him, even if I do regularly shoot down his points - at least he has BRAINS, something which you lack. Maybe you should take a hint and instead of ONLY engaging in personal attacks follow his good example and cite quotes, links, and sources in 9/11 debates instead of ONLY engaging in personal attacks.
Then I might respect you as well
Lovelynice, I almost hate to point this out but those sources you gave are positively ancient.
Right now the identity of the hijackers is known and not up for debate. As I have said before - ironing out some difficulties early on ("Hey my name is Hani Hanjour and I'm not a hijacker!") brough a few individuals out of the closet but these alleged "identity thefts" are a pure fiction.
You seem to have no problem in saying that guys like Hanjour couldn't fly (despite 600 hours flying with a commercial, instruments rated license) but then argue that he wasn't even flying the plane because it wasn't that plane that hit the pentagon.
Your claims and arguments are confused and nonsensical and I am optimistic that when you realise that just one of the claims is bullshit then the wool will fall from your eyes and the rest of the claims will be revealed to you as nonsense too.
You just don't get it, do you Lovelynice? All you do is attack people. Just look at your comments on this ballot. You're aggressive, rude, abrasive, discourteous and you insult people.
If you were as intelligent as you like to tell people you are, you'd realize that no one wants to bother with you because of your attitude.
You accuse others of using personal attacks Lovelynice, when in fact it is all you do.
B U L L S H I T.
Stop storytelling and spouting fairytale nonsense, Jinn, because everytime you do you look like a fool.
by Lovelynice on Tue Sep 12, 06 9:20am
^^ And it looks like once again, you're the one to immediately become aggressive, rude and obnoxious. So who uses personal attacks?
Then I might respect you as well
by Lovelynice on Thu Sep 14, 06 8:48pm
^^ Let me stress that I could not care less if you respect me or not. Your opinions of me or on any topic, hold no value at all. You're obnoxious and over-bearing and you rub people the wrong way. Learn to be more respectful of others and learn to be more civil and then maybe we might just respect you.
{Right now the identity of the hijackers is known
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 14, 06 11:23pm}
Rubbish. 9 of those alleged to be them are still ALIVE.
The FBI themselves said that these were victims of IDENTITY THEFT.
{then maybe we might just respect you.
by Beauregard on Fri Sep 15, 06 7:00am}
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Now apart from your personal attacks on everyone who is a 9/11 sceptic showing EXACTLY who you work for), when are you going to get around to earning some respect by citing sources, quotes, and links?
{even flying the plane because it wasn't that plane that hit the pentagon
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 14, 06 11:23pm}
simple thing to resolve.
SHOW US THE PLANE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON.
You know with video of an actual plane, not just a smoke streamer and an explosion - BUT A VISIBLE PLANE.
But you can't do that, can you?
{ You seem to have no problem in saying that guys like Hanjour couldn't fly ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 14, 06 11:23pm}
Yes, that's right. HE COULDN'T FLY A HUGE PASSENGER PLANE.
I guess that the point needs repeating;
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training;
by Nila Sagadevan Physics 911
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.
SOME RELEVANT EXCERPTS;
"....But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself."
ANOTHER RELEVANT EXCERPT;
"...I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft."
{You accuse others of using personal attacks Lovelynice, when in fact it is all you do.
by Beauregard on Fri Sep 15, 06 7:00am}
Rubbish. I cite sourcs, quotes, and links.
YOU DON'T.
In fact the ONLY thing that you do is make personal attacks on 9/11 sceptics.
Which is a very weak and pathetic tactic because you don't do anything except make the mud you throw stick on you instead. You should grow up, and learn to cite sourcs, quotes, and links.
{ these alleged "identity thefts" are a pure fiction.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 14, 06 11:23pm}
You really should learn to stop telling LIES.
FBI probes hijackers' identities
news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / world / americas / 1553754 . stm
QUOTE= "The FBI has said that the identities of some of its list of 19 hijackers behind last week's devastating attacks are in doubt.
It believes that some of the hijackers used false identities, possibly even names of people who are still alive,"
Tracking the 19 Hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11
welfarestate . com / 911 /
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / world / middle _ east / 1559151 . stm
'Suicide hijacker' is an airline pilot alive and well in Jeddah
news . independent . co . uk / world / middle _ east / story . jsp ? story = 94438
Maybe you should get around to posting actual proof of their REAL identities.
then maybe we might just respect you.
by Beauregard on Fri Sep 15, 06 7:00am}
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Now apart from your personal attacks on everyone who is a 9/11 sceptic showing EXACTLY who you work for), when are you going to get around to earning some respect by citing sources, quotes, and links?
by Lovelynice on Fri Sep 15, 06 8:10am
^ There's something wrong with you and its very disturbing. So the challenge to you is put once again, since you never responded to the first few. That challenge is for you to go and find any single comment by me that is directly related to 9/11 in which I should have supplied facts, quotes and links.
We're waiting.
You won't find any because I have not made any. Why is it that when faced with the facts of your abrasive and rude personality you always resort to the same bogus and mis-placed comments like the one above? Its freaky.
So go find those comments of mine. Hurry up.
And this whole "who you really work for" bit is so stupid that it makes you look like a paranoid delucional nut.
As for you, the other question is when are you going to post new information? You're been debunked by now and everyone knows all you do is re-post comments you and your "pals" (wink, wink) made as long ago as 2004. Yeah, thats real relevant facts, quotes and links.
Get help.
"the FBI has said that the identities of some of its list of 19 hijackers behind last week's devastating attacks are in doubt."
Last week?! Wow, you sure are up to date with your info.
Hanjour had a COMMERCIAL PILOTS LICENCE with 600 hours of flight time. The fact he wasn't comfortable with a Cessna is neither here nor there - he was qualified and instrument rated. This is a fact not in any doubt whatsoever.
"SHOW US THE PLANE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON."
Well, If you bother you can find links on the net showing plane wreckage, dead bodies and information regarding the DNA identified remains of the victims.
It's funny how you accept pointless, speculative eyewitness testimony when it helps bolster your claims but ignore the hundreds of witnesses who a)saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon, b)pulled wreckage of the plane out of the building c)pulled charred remains of the victims from the rubble or those who ere involved in the forenic examination and identification of the dead.
Well, I say it's funny but really it's just rather pathetic.
{It's funny how you accept pointless, speculative eyewitness testimony ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Sep 17, 06 6:54am}
It's funny how you make that claim but casually ignore witnesses who disagree with your claims too. That's why I want to see something more than ONLY witnesses, because by themselves they are not reliable.
Afterall, don't you also casually dismiss the hundreds of witnesses to the EXPLOSIONS at the WTC? Despite the fact that these reports of EXPLOSIONS AND CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS are supported by the videos showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
Are you perhaps going to claim that all those WTC witnesses to EXPLOSIONS were LYING?
ARE THEY ALL LYING, including the firemen and other witnesses describing explosions at the other WTC buildings and describing what they recognised as controlled demolitions. Are they all lying? ALL OF THEM? Are you going to pretend that ALL OF THEM are delusional, that ALL OF THEM are so stupid that they can't recognise EXPLOSIONS when they hear them?
Are ALL OF THOSE EXPERIENCED FIREMEN AND RESCUE WORKERS so moronically STUPID that despite YEARS OF EXPERIENCE that they were simply confusing some little puffs of dust and the sound of some falling debris for HUGE EXPLOSIONS?
{ Hanjour had a COMMERCIAL PILOTS LICENCE with 600 hours of flight time. The fact he wasn't comfortable with a Cessna is neither here nor there - he was qualified and instrument rated.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Sep 17, 06 6:54am}
For flying a small light prop plane, not a great big 115-ton passenger jet.
Very big difference.
HE COULDN'T FLY A HUGE PASSENGER PLANE.
I guess that the point needs repeating;
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training;
by Nila Sagadevan Physics 911
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.
SOME RELEVANT EXCERPTS;
"....But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself."
ANOTHER RELEVANT EXCERPT;
"...I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft."
{ b)pulled wreckage of the plane out of the building
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Sep 17, 06 6:54am}
No, pulled wreckage of "A PLANE", which plane we have no real certain proof of, as the SOURCE of this official opinion is the notoriously lying USA government under G W Bush, the same bunch who LIED about WMDs in Iraq. WE NEED TO SEE VIDEO of this apparently invisible plane. I'm not saying there was no plane, I just want to see video of WHAT KIND OF PLANE, to see if it really was the plane we're being YELLED AT to believe in. I say "YELLED AT", because without anything more than being repeatedly told the same bullshit story and NO VIDEO, we're all expected to go on "faith" and just "believe".
we're all expected to go on "faith" and just "believe"
by Lovelynice.
No, you've been given an explanation and shown the evidence. You are not asked to accept it on faith alone.
You simply choose not to believe the evidence you have been given.
"Afterall, don't you also casually dismiss the hundreds of witnesses to the EXPLOSIONS at the WTC?"
The quotes you show us repeatedly do not back up this claim. The quotes you show us tell us that the collapse seemed-to-sound-like or looked-just-like a controlled demolition. This is not evidence.
"Despite the fact that these reports of EXPLOSIONS AND CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS are supported by the videos showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors"
You mean - the video footage shows the effect of a pressure wave (caused by the collapsing top) forcing debris out of lower floors in accordance with simple physical laws.
"and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions."
Seeing as the guys who actually monitor, analyse and report on the seismic readings disagree with you I would suggest that you're hopelessy wrong on this point.
< |
