The Truth Behind 9/11

[haX0red_Account]

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but....

 

 

Mobile phones work perfectly at altitude. Really, they do. Try it next time you are on a flight. No really, do.

 

Flying a large airliner such as a 757 is actually alot easier than flying a Cessna or any other light aircraft, the level of automation is vast. As for saying 'why did it only damage the surface?', well, it did alot more.

 

'The 757-200 caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project. ' (Which had been going on since 93')

 

Cockpit voice recordings - Yes there was. Go listen yourself.

 

Intercepts of rogue aircraft are based of enemy, usually Soviet plans to launch a pre-emptive strike. This means the west coast has most of the fighter cover. The military didn't know much about what was happening. Go listen to the NORAD tapes, they were released last year.

 

---

 

Anyway, I'm bored of debunking you, and I'm going to do something better. I've answered your 'statements', if you've still got any problems, I suggest taking A-levels, or a further education course in something. Obviously, you aren't intelligent enough to actually give us 'facts', as we asked for.

 

I bet when you talk and put an upward inflection?... on the end of every sentence?... like everything is a question?

 

Cheers

 

Tarne

 

fact- I've not managed to find one pilot anywhere who will publicly vouch for a poorly-trained cessna pilot flying those manoevres in a boeing. Why don't you get me one or have you flown a 757 yourself? If my post is going to be criticised for lack of facts...(adds upward inflection)

 

fact- I accidentally left my phone switched on a british airways flight from glasgow to heathrow in 2003 and noticed halfway there that it was on- guess what, no signal and no network coverage. Have you actually tried this? This has been mentioned much earlier in the thread without a decent debunking.

 

fact- bringing up soviet-era statements for an event in 2001 is almost funny- I would have expected you to be 'intelligent' enough to know the facts about basic history, perhaps you should take an A-level?. By the way, east & west coast coverage was about equal prior to 9/11. Check with the USAF PR people if you like. I still maintain that many call-outs of rogue aircraft happened regularly for mundane reasons but were responded to effectively.

 

Listen, point-scoring is a bit of a waste but look at it this way. If there had been a massive robbery on a heavily guarded bank and you found out that some petty crooks had been able to circumvent sophisticated multiple layers of security and succeed, the first thing the cops would be doing was checking the senior management out to determine inside involvement. Would it be acceptable to dismiss it and just say, oh well, the CCTV was down that day and it was just a fluke the alarm system failed, they just got lucky at predicting the PIN code on the vault? The result is just the same here so why is it any more acceptable to stifle even the sanest of questions. Think about how you would feel if you had lost someone that day and you hadn't received closure in getting a straight answer as to why they died.

[Chinahand]

Oh Jeez... talking of crap I see you linked to rense.com.. what after the lenghty 'in depth' discussion that's best you can offer??

 

the facts speak for themselves (you don't have to read the following if you don't want)

 

Boeing 757:

 

tail height = 44ft 6in (13.6) - Wing span = 124ft 10in (38.5) - Aircraft length 178ft 7in (54.5m)

 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

 

Pentagon:

 

Height of building: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

 

You are telling me a plane that size fitted into that hole?? Pure fantasy mate! As a self-confessed aircraft nerd (& holder of a PPL) The piloting skill itself is remarkable to say the least! So I suggest you do a little light reading pal! Aircraft construction might be a good place to start.

 

Excuse me I won't fag up your thread any futher

 

 

Charlie B - I assume you think the thousands of people who witnessed a plane hit the Pentagon are either lying or have been brain washed by the CIA.

 

You asked for pictures of plane debris - I showed you pictures of plane debris and eyewitness testamonies - yes on rense.com

 

How about Geocities or about.com.

 

All lies? All made up?

 

Go on tell me what your theory is as to what happened to flight 77 - how were the radar tracks showing it looping back round to Washington DC faked, the eyewittnesses, the debris in the building - what actually happened then? Kidnapped by the CIA, taken by space aliens to area 51.

 

Please explain your enlightened position.

[ans]

fact- I've not managed to find one pilot anywhere who will publicly vouch for a poorly-trained cessna pilot flying those manoevres in a boeing. Why don't you get me one or have you flown a 757 yourself? If my post is going to be criticised for lack of facts...(adds upward inflection)

 

While it may be a fact that you can't find one, it's hardly proof that it can't be done. Subjective at best. Surely if it was a conspiracy, they'd have dozens of pilots primed to vouch for this anyway?

 

fact- I accidentally left my phone switched on a british airways flight from glasgow to heathrow in 2003 and noticed halfway there that it was on- guess what, no signal and no network coverage. Have you actually tried this? This has been mentioned much earlier in the thread without a decent debunking.

Again, it might be a fact that this happened to you, it's also a fact that this is very much technically possible. Anybody with a modicum of knowledge of cell based mobile transmission could tell you this, so I am telling you this.

 

fact- bringing up soviet-era statements for an event in 2001 is almost funny

 

This is not a fact.

 

Your facts are not facts at all. You lose.

[CharlieB]

Oh Jeez... talking of crap I see you linked to rense.com.. what after the lenghty 'in depth' discussion that's best you can offer??

 

the facts speak for themselves (you don't have to read the following if you don't want)

 

Boeing 757:

 

tail height = 44ft 6in (13.6) - Wing span = 124ft 10in (38.5) - Aircraft length 178ft 7in (54.5m)

 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

 

Pentagon:

 

Height of building: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

 

You are telling me a plane that size fitted into that hole?? Pure fantasy mate! As a self-confessed aircraft nerd (& holder of a PPL) The piloting skill itself is remarkable to say the least! So I suggest you do a little light reading pal! Aircraft construction might be a good place to start.

 

Excuse me I won't fag up your thread any futher

 

 

Charlie B - I assume you think the thousands of people who witnessed a plane hit the Pentagon are either lying or have been brain washed by the CIA.

 

You asked for pictures of plane debris - I showed you pictures of plane debris and eyewitness testamonies - yes on rense.com

 

How about Geocities or about.com.

 

All lies? All made up?

 

Go on tell me what your theory is as to what happened to flight 77 - how were the radar tracks showing it looping back round to Washington DC faked, the eyewittnesses, the debris in the building - what actually happened then? Kidnapped by the CIA, taken by space aliens to area 51.

 

Please explain your enlightened position.

 

No Chinahand.. I'm not the person who's talking about aliens, area 51 & the CIA after all it was you who linked to rense.com . What I'm saying is personally I don't believe a 757 or 737 for that fact hit the Pentagon. Something hit it... but I don't think it was a commercial airliner being piloted by a person who had less very little instruction on heavy aircraft.

 

Yes 100’s of people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon & 100’s couldn’t identify it either.

[bollocks]

Charlie Brooker on internet debates: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1788773,00.html

[Lost Login]

So if I understand you correct so do not accept the pictures of the wreckage afterwards, or the eye witnesses who said it was an aircraft. You though accept that some people could not identify it.

 

You also do not accept the independent scientific research done by a university who researched it on their own account as they were intrigued by the suggestions that a commercial airliner could not have done the damage. Their research showed it was entirely consistent. Has any independent research been done showing the contrary? No.

 

However you are nearly convincing me that your personal gut feeling is more reliable than the research and first hand evidence so all we have to do is find or show where that flight ended up and job done. Surely that must be straight forward as it would show on radar screens, it would then have to fly and land somewhere, before being hidden and holding all the crew and passengers hostage for 5 and a bit years. Somebody must have spotted that or leaked the whereabouts. Probably I have just missed those reports so can you quickly put me right as I don't like not keeping up with the news and I would also like to join the campaign to have them freed. I presumne there is one?

 

 

 

 

No Chinahand.. I'm not the person who's talking about aliens, area 51 & the CIA after all it was you who linked to rense.com . What I'm saying is personally I don't believe a 757 or 737 for that fact hit the Pentagon. Something hit it... but I don't think it was a commercial airliner being piloted by a person who had less very little instruction on heavy aircraft.

 

Yes 100’s of people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon & 100’s couldn’t identify it either.

[Lost Login]

If you do not understand how and why mobile telephones do or do not work and it has to be explained then I doubt if you really have the capacity to work out much else for yourself. So to make it simple for a telephone to work you need a clear reception not interupted by hills mountains etc. The signal is sent out by the receiver, transmitter and goes out in various directions including upwards. Provided you are within range and the signal is unintupted your phone will work provided it is on the right tariff.

 

If you are flying at 10,000 feet that is less than two miles up. If that was always out of range then on land you would need transmitters basically evey 2 miles apart. If flying at 20,000 feet then 4 miles. That is patently absurd.

 

On a flight yes there will be "Dead spots" just as on land or sea when out of range. These tend to be in low density population areas in difficult terrain. You were not by any chance flying over the lake district or the sea at the time where you?

 

But lets accept your belief then it relies on all the passengers on that plane being held somewhere for 5 years and not contacting their families or it being leaked. It also relies on many of those people being "in" on the deception and happily to make the phone calls to their families. Presumably every body approached to agreed to do this or was killed or abducted as no body has ever come forward saying they were approached but turned it down.

 

Basically it just not stack up.

 

Finally in the year prior to the crash Norad according to their reports did about 2 intercepts a week. I can not see if they were re internal or external flights. They were not speedy as the rules at the time forebade them flying supersonic to the intercept. in respect of the Payne Stewart flight I believe it took in excess of an hour for the intercepts to arrive and that was on a flight with its respnder not turned off so it could be easily tracked. The response times therefore at the time where entirely consistent with the practices then.

 

 

 

fact- I accidentally left my phone switched on a british airways flight from glasgow to heathrow in 2003 and noticed halfway there that it was on- guess what, no signal and no network coverage. Have you actually tried this? This has been mentioned much earlier in the thread without a decent debunking.

 

fact- bringing up soviet-era statements for an event in 2001 is almost funny- I would have expected you to be 'intelligent' enough to know the facts about basic history, perhaps you should take an A-level?. By the way, east & west coast coverage was about equal prior to 9/11. Check with the USAF PR people if you like. I still maintain that many call-outs of rogue aircraft happened regularly for mundane reasons but were responded to effectively.

[Mr. Sausages]

err OK- one piece then- wreckage is found from united 93 miles away while the official story says it flew straight into the ground.

 

How many miles away was the wreckage found?

 

According to the documentary it was reported as being 6.9 miles away, but that's by road. As the crow flies it was only 1 mile away - which fits in with a plane crashing into the ground at a few hundred miles per hour; and ruined the theory.

 

If, as you're suggesting, this is not correct, then where was the wreckage found? As you're so certain, I'm sure you'll be able to provide map co-ordinates...

 

fact- I accidentally left my phone switched on a british airways flight from glasgow to heathrow in 2003 and noticed halfway there that it was on- guess what, no signal and no network coverage.

What were the reasons for there being no coverage?

 

If you're suggesting that because your phone didn't work on a flight between Glasgow and Heathrow, therefore no mobile phones have ever worked on planes, you're wrong. I have sent and received numerous text messages while flying.

[Chinahand]

No Chinahand.. I'm not the person who's talking about aliens, area 51 & the CIA after all it was you who linked to rense.com . What I'm saying is personally I don't believe a 757 or 737 for that fact hit the Pentagon. Something hit it... but I don't think it was a commercial airliner being piloted by a person who had less very little instruction on heavy aircraft.

Yes 100’s of people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon & 100’s couldn’t identify it either.

 

So you are saying that a plane did hit the Pentagon - right?

 

And I assume you'd have to accept from the landing gear, and engine photos shown that it was a large commercial (or military) plane.

 

You say you've a PPL - in that case I assume you are aware of the size of engines on small jets - they are tiny compared to the photos you've seen.

 

Now you claim the damage to the pentagon was small: I disagree.

 

As you can see the damage was extensive: stretching 310 feet through a contrete reinforced building.

 

 

And taking out or damaging 83 concrete pillars in which steel bars were wound around the columns in a helical shape making a coiled steel spring which provided added strength to the columns.

 

 

Now earlier you told me to go and find out about aircraft construction etc.

 

I'm a qualified mechanical engineer; I worked for 9 years doing design and manufacturing engineering where a detailed knowledge of stresses and the yield point of metals was absolutely vital. When I first started working we still did paper and pencil calculations of stresses to ensure we weren't over stressing the designs, later we bought in finite element packages to examine the full three dimensional object rather than idealized cross sections used with the manual calculations.

 

So I am familiar with the work required to produce a finite element model like this one:

 

 

or even this one:

 

 

Obviously we didn't have supercomputers like the University of Purdue to create basically a three dimensional finite element movie, but I understand what is required to produce one such image and then doing it a thousand or so times more is just repetition. So I can totally agree with a professor of structural engineering when he says:

 

At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

 

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.

 

So I here you when you say:

 

You are telling me a plane that size fitted into that hole?? Pure fantasy mate!

 

I review your experience verses the photographs of plane debris, the finite element analysis consistent with a 757 hitting the building and I wonder who I should believe.

 

You tell me you believe a plane did hit the building - now which plane would that be then if not flight 77? It would have to be a pretty big plane.

 

If it wasn't flight 77 what happened to it and its crew and or passengers?

 

If you are saying this is such a huge conspiracy that thousands of engineers and scientists working on this crash are all lying to us then, as ans is asking, where's the beef.

 

If all you've got is your opinion - great. I feel I've got an awful lot more backing my stance than that.

[Chinahand]

Oh and all you conspiracy theorists out there:

 

What do you make of these?

 

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

 

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Wheel Investigation

 

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

 

Comments and criticisms appreciated please - no nut stuff.

 

The truth is out there.

[stevie]

ok please everyone stop just saying its bullshit and just go read for yourselves and you will see there is something very sinister about 911 and days leading up to 911.

if it wasnt an inside job, then what were FEMA doing in NY running a 'terror excercise drill' namely trying to work out what they were going to do if terrorists overtook planes and tried to crash into things with them!! some coincidence!

also how did the secret service KNOW FOR A FACT that GWB wasnt a terrorist target on 911. we've all seen the video, how did they KNOW that? if they thought he was a target they would have got him straight out of that classroom and into an armoured car, seen as he was just 4 miles from an airport. Anyone know Sherlock Holmes' episode 'the dog that never barked'?

going along the israeli line, it would be nice if one of you 'bullshitters' could tell me why there were 5 israelis dancing on a rooftop filming the planes hitting the twin towers. when asked by police they said they were filming a documentary on the fall of the twin towers?!! how the hell did they know the towers were going to fall??

Anyway the most important thing to happen on 911 was Tower 7. that is the only thin you need to investigate. how did it fall? no planes hit that one? and the bbc reported that nobody died at tower 7 on 911? BOLLOCKS! secret service agent Craig Miller died as a direct result of tower 7!

[tameelf]

china all you have done with your post is confirm that your paid member of the disinfo team that plagues these debateing fourums i dont give a toss wt hit the pentigon in fact wt ever it was it didnt do enough dammage just forget all events regurding 911 and explain wtc 7 and the owner silverstien admiting he pulled the building then explain how in 6 .7 hours they rigged it to be demolished amidst raging fires

[ans]

if it wasnt an inside job, then what were FEMA doing in NY running a 'terror excercise drill' namely trying to work out what they were going to do if terrorists overtook planes and tried to crash into things with them!! some coincidence!

 

They weren't. It's an internet myth and has been categorically denied and disproven by the man in charge of FEMA.

 

going along the israeli line, it would be nice if one of you 'bullshitters' could tell me why there were 5 israelis dancing on a rooftop filming the planes hitting the twin towers. when asked by police they said they were filming a documentary on the fall of the twin towers?!! how the hell did they know the towers were going to fall??

They weren't filming. They were taking photos after the planes impacted.

 

Anyway the most important thing to happen on 911 was Tower 7. that is the only thin you need to investigate. how did it fall? no planes hit that one?

 

There are a multitude of reports and evidence to demonstrate exactly why.

 

and the bbc reported that nobody died at tower 7 on 911? BOLLOCKS! secret service agent Craig Miller died as a direct result of tower 7!

 

My goodness, one news agency made a mistake while every other news agency reported that he was lost, official US Government websites list his death as being there so this just points to sloppy journalism at the BBC, hardly a worldwide conspiracy, more an everyday occurance.

 

There are simply people in this world that refuse to accept things, no matter what evidence you present to them. When challenged, they bluster and protest but utterly fail to produce any irrefutable evidence to the contrary. They just want to believe and have scant regard for the truth, which is supremely ironic.

[ans]

Something I noticed when I read back the last few pages....

 

The majority of conspiracy theorists adamant that something is afoot have posted poorly spelled, appallingly punctuated and rambling text, often without any clear understanding of how quoting works and only a rudimentary grasp of paragraphs.

 

The majority of people arguing against a conspiracy have constructed literate defences, with well laid out text and a clear and defined, often bulletpointed, set of statements. They are also generally of a high grammar and spelling standard.

 

Far be it form me to suggest that the bulk of people who are so rabidly convinced there is a conspiracy are poorly educated, but I leave you to draw your own conclusions....

[Chinahand]

china all you have done with your post is confirm that your paid member of the disinfo team that plagues these debateing fourums

 

HA HA HA - (oh shit, now they'll think I'm Vader)

 

Yes I'm been very well paid to make 789 posts on subjects as diverse as the mormon church, creationism, the arab-israeli conflict, the MEA debarcle and the myths surrounding 911.

 

Please use this quote in future as categorical proof I'm a paid member of a disinfo team out to bamboozle you - as if reading your muck doesn't do that all on its own.

 

i dont give a toss wt hit the pentigon

 

Couldn't agree more - only the total insane or the deliberately blinkered would claim anything other than flight 77 hit the building in fact if it wasn't for Charlie B being totally blind to reality I'd have never raised it. Oh Charlie - how about the DNA samples collected from the wreckage - no bodies of course, but bits and pieces 2000 individual scaps of flesh found and DNA tested etc - all fakes planted by the CIA after the execution of the passengers. Shit it must have been horrible to cut them up and roast them to make them consistent with the accident scene. link

 

wt ever it was it didnt do enough dammage just forget all events regurding 911 and explain wtc 7 and the owner silverstien admiting he pulled the building then explain how in 6 .7 hours they rigged it to be demolished amidst raging fires

So many conspiracy theorists obsess about WTC 7. I just wish FEMA would hurry up and publish their final report on the building - though it won't stop the tin hat brigade of course.

 

So Mr Elf what is your analysis - an evil conspiracy forms to fake an attack on America. The plan is to subvert the military for their own means and take control of American foreign policy etc. As part of this plan a person who owns a building decides he'll demolish it as well for the insurance money, even though this building isn't directly to do with the attack.

 

Luckily when the attack is carried out, debris falls on the building extensively damaging it. Fires burn through the building for 7 hours and the fire department comes to the owner and tells him the building is so damaged and the fire department so over stretched it is best to abandon the building.

 

Ok says Mr Silverstein and in a later interview say he said "lets pull it."

 

A few hours later his controlled explosives hidden in the building are then set off.

 

FFS - you really are a paranoid dellusionist.

 

Mr Silverstein has explained multiple times he misspoke- if he said lets pull out would you still be wittering on about this - probably.

 

I admit maybe the conspiracy to fake 911 was made up of the absurdly stupid and so they would go and rig WTC 7 with explosives in the hope that it was damaged in the collapse, maybe they agreed that if it wasn't they'd leave them in place and remove them later once the fuss had died down.

 

What cretinous bollocks - I hope you are insulted by my anger and so will attempt a coherent reply as to how WTC 7 is the crux of this conspiracy - in my mind the collapse of this building could only be a consequence of the damage it sustained on the day - the detailed analysis so far done by FEMA confirms this - and for it to have been a part of a conspiracy is so mind bogglingly stupid as to be the provinence of the most warped an confused minds.

 

But I'll listen to you.

 

Only if it gives a fascinating insight into how people believe wierd things. Come on let's roll.