REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is Jesse Ventura right?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Saturday, April 26, 2008 07:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3012
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:27 AM

FOSTER


You know I have to point out that you are on the internet the most powerful research tool ever created by man. With a few brief keystrokes I have managed to come across information that others claimed was "classified", as it turns out, not so much with the classified as with to lazy to look up the info. If you are really interested in finding the truth then maybe take a few mins and really search this great database for some of the facts. The transcripts of 93's little black box or the transcripts of other passengers calls. Hell I don't know maybe the opinion of a qualified civil engineer or demolitions expert (many claim to be so I would recommend that you do a bit of a background search before accepting them as experts, and before believing everything that comes out of their mouth).

Just saying that if your going to be yelling conspiracy you should be able to knowledgeably quote the facts of the case and provide supporting scientific evidence from reputable sources. Otherwise you look ignorant, and quoting the opinion of people who have no background in those fields is not sufficient to make one look informed about the subject matter.

Side note if you can't find any supporting evidence from people respected in those fields it is not evidence of a conspiracy. Occam's Razor holds that the simplest explanation is the one that is most often right. That said it would seem to me that there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:42 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
]I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?




I hope you find someone else to teach your kid physics.

Ever balanced a bat vertically on your hand? It's hard isn't it? Requires a lot of adjustment? By contrast it actually takes effort to knock over a stool, even though the stool and the bat are about the same length. The reason for this difference is to do with the position of the center of gravity of an object compared to the area of it's base. Center of gravity is kind of the average point where most of the mass of an object resides. The base of an object is that part of the object that transmits this mass to the ground.

For an object to be stable and not topple it's center of gravity has to remain within the area of it's base. In the case of the balanced bat the base is tiny which is why keeping it balanced needs constant adjustment. The system is inherently unstable and your balancing act is your attempt to keep the center of gravity within the base. You don't need to do that with the stool because the base is so much bigger, the CoG is very comfortably within the area of the base. That explains why it is relatively stable.

When you look at the buildings and think they should topple you are probably imagining a lumberjack cutting a tree. Two things to understand are that trees are rooted at the bottom and have a mass of branches at the top. The CoG of the tree is likely to be very close to the edge of the area of the trunk if not outside it. Without roots trees would fall over. Instead the strength of the trunk holds them up. When a jumberjack cuts the tree he removes the structure that is holding the unstable tree upright. Once enough structure is removed the tree topples because it's CoG is outside of the area of its base.

In the case of a building the CoG is almost always along the building center line and well within the base. Unlike a tree where the trunk not only holds up the weight of the branches but also prevents the tree from toppling in a building the structure only holds the building up. Because the CoG is so far within the base there is no possibility of it tumbling.

Remove support and it will fall straight down because in the absence of any other forces physics says it can only fall downwards. To get the building to topple like you imagine you would need to not only weaken the support but also exert enough force near the top to move the CoG of the section of the building above the breech tens of feet outside of the area of the base of the building. Since that force was not there the building fell downwards. It had to.

Quote:



I buy this story as much as I buy a Ryder truck full of fertilizer exploding the Federal building in OK City--by being parked in front.



AnFo (ammonium nitrate and fuel oil) is used in quarrying because it's a very very cheap explosive. It used to be a fav of the IRA back in the day. You need far more of it than you would something more energetic like TNT and that's why it ends up in truck bombs rather than in napsack bombs.


Watch and enjoy



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA


A few notes on OKC, while I cram down lunch here.

ANFO is a low order explosive, not suitable for concrete, any farmer around here could tell you so since they use it to blow stumps, and due to the distance between the truck and the building - isn't really likely to have cause the damage.

Two unexploded munitions of a far more sophisticated type were removed from INSIDE the building, one of which was attached beside a natural gas line.

During the event, two seperate seismic events were recorded.

All of those are known facts, and as I have always said, you have to ask the RIGHT questions.

Like...

Did any of the internal bombs go off ?

Who placed them and when ?

Without answers to those questions, the offical story on OKC falls apart completely.


And now, as to the Twin Towers.

Since many of the so-called hijackers have since been found alive and well elsewhere - what evidence is there to identify the actual perps ?

Why are those technologically impossible phone calls being considered evidence ?

Who made the stock trades that day ?

Who sent the Odigo message ?

Why did the FAA quality manager at ARTCC destroy the tapes ?

Why did Condi tell Willie Brown to stay off planes ?

Where are the aircraft black boxes ?

Was building 7 Pulled or not ?
If so, who wired the charges and when ?

What inferno ?
Show me some pictures, and counter the testimony of on site fire personnel who thought the situation was completely manageable.


Asking the right questions is a big step, I refuse to speculate without enough evidence to do so, however it's abundantly clear that the official story is bunk, and without real information due to unanswered questions, such speculation is gonna happen in many directions.

I also cite history, these cover stories never hold up, but rarely are they ever resolved fast enough to do the people negatively impacted any good either.

That also brings into question the motivation behind the presented cover story, as in why they feel the need to shovel such obvious bullshit in the first place.

We don't know, can't know - and it's damned unlikely we'll find out in time to take any realistic action about it, but hell if imma flame someone for trying no matter how wacked out I believe they might be.

Just imagine how other historical events might have unfolded if no one bought the cover story that gave those in power excuses to forment them ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:58 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
...just don't automatically assume that because someone has a title, they're incapable of being wrong.

I don't. In fact, I am in the position I'm in because I don't assume anyone is incapable of being wrong, including those who dished out the "official" stories.

I read the Brig. Gen's report, and it made sense to me. So, ok, you guys want to dismiss him as ignorant as well... that's your call. It's my call that his points are well supported and is consistent with structural mechanics as I understand them.

I see a lot of comments about how tiring and tedious all this "questioning" is. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinions. But why are you on this thread? The thread is about whether Jesse Ventura is right to question 9/11. You don't think he is, you've said so, move on. What is wrong with the rest of us who don't find it tedious in discussing the issue further?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:04 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Since many of the so-called hijackers have since been found alive and well elsewhere - what evidence is there to identify the actual perps?


Right.....'cause Mohammed Atta is now playing shortstop for the MSNBC softball team. I guess it must have been Rev Wright and his congregation flying those planes home to roost. Well..not the actual Rev, 'cause he's living large in his 10 bedroom mansion on the golf course in a 98% white neighborhood...man, those hate-whitey DVD's sell great!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:06 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Crediting the government with this kind of ability really is giving them far too much credit- and giving yourself far too little for falling for it!

I don't know what happened on 9/11. I don't know if our govt or if any govt is responsible for the WTC towers collapsing. So no, I am not crediting govt with this kind of abiliity.

What I am crediting our govt with is lying. There is abundant evidence throughout all of history that if nothing else, govts know how to lie. Sometimes, they don't lie very well. But they lie well enough to be able to enter wars and justify policies. It doesn't take a whole lot of competence to do that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


I learned a new word today:

Quote:

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists."

Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis. Solipsism refers to several world views whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent. Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

1. Nothing exists;

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and

3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

Solipsism syndrome is a pathological psychiatric condition involving dissociative mental states. It is a common belief among Developmental psychologists that infants are solipsist.

Author Robert A. Heinlein often toyed with themes of a solipsistic "multiverse" in various stories and novels. A good example is his short story "All You Zombies".

George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 features a climactic metaphysical debate: the central character, Winston, argues against "the belief that nothings exists outside your own mind," or the "fallacy" of solipsism; O'Brien, his inquisitor, explains that "collective solicism" would be a better name for the totalitarian scheme, but would also be nearly the opposite of solicism in theory. Winston ultimately loses this debate, and learns that truth defined by power and not the human mind.

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



Amazing how many Solipsists worship Big Brother as their god.



Quote:


September 911 Surprise as seen on History Channel TV
www.piratenews.org/flight93.html
www.piratenews.org/911con.html
www.September911Surprise.com

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.”
—Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006


www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

QUESTION: "Mr President, in your speeches, you rarely mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?"
GEORGE BUSH JR: "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him."



"9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
—FBI agent Rex Tomb, June 6, 2006
www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden."
—General Richard Myers, chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff
www.myspace.com/911pressfortruth

OPERATION NORTHWOODS - the signed confession by US Govt for perping terrorist attacks in USA
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
—Governor George W Bush, November 2000



"Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. Being right too soon is socially unacceptable. Belief gets in the way of learning. The hardest part of gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count. A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it - it keeps him upright. It is better to copulate than never."
—Robert A. Heinlein, US Naval Academy graduate, author of book and screenplay, Destination Moon (1950), The Man Who Sold the Moon (1949), The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (Tim Minear is working on a screenplay based on the novel), Starship Troopers (1959), and Take Back Your Government (1946)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein





The Summer Glau Chronicles: Free downloads
http://www.fox.com/fod/player.htm?show=tscc

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I see a lot of comments about how tiring and tedious all this "questioning" is. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinions. But why are you on this thread? The thread is about whether Jesse Ventura is right to question 9/11. You don't think he is, you've said so, move on. What is wrong with the rest of us who don't find it tedious in discussing the issue further?

Questioning entails listening to answers you don't agree with. Since you've ignored answers you don't agree with and dismissed them by focusing on one small side aspect (not to mention expressed the opinion that those with a different opinion to you should not be expressing that here on this thread), it comes across not so much as asking questions, as looking for positive confirmation of preconceived opinions. The other name for this would be confirmation bias.

It's fine to ask questions, but only if one is willing to actually listen to the answers, even if they're not what one wants to hear.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Asking the right questions is a big step, I refuse to speculate without enough evidence to do so, however it's abundantly clear that the official story is bunk, and without real information due to unanswered questions, such speculation is gonna happen in many directions.

THANK YOU.

I always wonder why asking these questions is so threatening. What's wrong with saying, "I don't buy it"?

Here are two more questions.

Where the hell was our Air Force on 9/11?

How did people with no flight experience successfully target the twin towers 209 feet wide flying jumbo jets 150 feet wide going 500 miles/hr? Not once, but twice.

(Imagine someone with no driving experience taking an exit ramp slightly wider than the car, going 100 miles/hr. It's a pretty impressive feat.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:27 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I think it's been well documented the Saudi terrorists trained on flight simulators to learn how to fly and steer the jets.

When the jets hit they were not going anywhere near 500 mph. I ( and a billion others ) saw the 2nd plane hit...looked like it was going pretty slow after it made its' big looping curve around to get into position to hit the 2nd tower.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:30 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
(not to mention expressed the opinion that those with a different opinion to you should not be expressing that here on this thread),

You misunderstand me. By all means, express your opinions on this thread. I just didn't know why someone who found this topic tedious would post about it. If you find it tedious, move on.

If you find it interesting, like I do, please by all means say what you think. Believe it or not, I've been reading your answers. I don't agree, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring them. Besides, I've heard all these answers before. The reason I have my doubts is because these answers didn't satisfy me in the first place. Hearing them again doesn't change that.

(You didn't really expect me to go, "Damn Citizen, thank you for answering the question in a way that I've never seen before! NOW that you've spoken, my questions have all been answered, and I no longer have any doubts about the official story." Did you?)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Where the hell was our Air Force on 9/11?

Not shooting down commercial aircraft. September the 11th 2001 was the first time hyjackers have used planes to attack targets, and not merely as political leverage. It's really easy to second guess decisions made after the facts are known, but to presume the military not shooting down those planes means anything is little more than confirmation bias.
Quote:

How did people with no flight experience successfully target the twin towers 209 feet wide flying jumbo jets 150 feet wide going 500 miles/hr? Not once, but twice.
They did have flight experience, and it's easier than you think.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Hey..what about the fucking Titanic?..huh? Iceberg my ass!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:37 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
(You didn't really expect me to go, "Damn Citizen, thank you for answering the question in a way that I've never seen before! NOW that you've spoken, my questions have all been answered, and I no longer have any doubts about the official story." Did you?)

No, I think your mind is already made up to be honest.

By the same token you don't expect me to go "oh, the same tired baseless accusation displaying more a lack of knowledge on the poser than a problem with the theory, I guess the theory must be wrong now I've heard that for the five hundredth time!" do you?

No, what I expected was you to engage in the discussion you asked for, instead you completely ignored my response. That's the tedious part. The fact that I find myself debunking the same thing over and over again, and it pops up over and over again as if it never happened.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:39 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Remove support and it will fall straight down because in the absence of any other forces physics says it can only fall downwards.

That's just it. How did the support get "removed"?

When the supports are weakened or deformed by heat as the official story alleges, buildings behave differently. It is when the supports are removed, say by explosives, that they fall straight down. At least, that is how I understand it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:49 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Iceberg my ass!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

lolisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:51 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
No, what I expected was you to engage in the discussion you asked for, instead you completely ignored my response.

I've read your post over and over again. I didn't respond because I don't know what to say. You say, "Yes, they are designed to fall that way." I can say, "No, they're not designed to fall at all." Seems like a waste of time just to say, "I disagree."

So the way I see it, you've expressed your opinion. I didn't see any facts in your opinion that merit a counter-argument, so I let it rest.

In topics like this where it is 5 to 1, sometimes I don't have time to answer every single opinion. I have to let some things go.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"That's just it. How did the support get "removed"?"

By becoming uncoupled from the walls due to heat-induced sagging, as the debris amply demostrates. In an earthquake the wall/floor supports shear due to seismic stress and the floors then pancake; in the fire the joists sagged due to plastic deformation, came off the walls and the floors then pancaked.

And gravity, being a force that acts towards the center of the earth, pulled everything straight down and not to the side.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:58 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
It's really easy to second guess decisions made after the facts are known, but to presume the military not shooting down those planes means anything is little more than confirmation bias.

I'm not presuming anything. I was asking a question. It is not one answered by the official story. They sort of just ignored it.
Quote:

They did have flight experience, and it's easier than you think.
See, this is why it is hard for me to answer your posts, Cit. What can I say to that? No, it's not easier than I think? You make general opinion statements--how do you counter general opinions not backed by anything? I just got to let it go, you know?

My husband is a pilot who has significant flight experience (flown over Europe, Africa, and the Atlantic ocean), but no jumbo jet experience. He says he can't do what those jetliners did--target that width at that speed in a 767. It is hard for me to believe that people with only simulator experience could do it. Not saying it's impossible, just terribly unlikely. And simply telling me "no, it's easy" isn't what I call a convincing argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:04 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

When the jets hit they were not going anywhere near 500 mph. I ( and a billion others ) saw the 2nd plane hit...looked like it was going pretty slow after it made its' big looping curve around to get into position to hit the 2nd tower.
You know, I wondered about that. Does anyone have any good info on just how fast those planes were going when they impacted the towers?

Cause in videos, they looked pretty slow to me too. But when I read about it, people say 500 mph.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:05 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
It is hard for me to believe that people with only simulator experience could do it.

Conviction and determination count for a lot IMO.
And if your husband couldn't hit a Tower, how does he land a plane? Like Mal said, use your eyes. They trained for flight only- it's pretty easy to get good at just one aspect of flying quickly if you're dedicated.

Just sayinisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"No, it's not easier than I think?"

Maybe you could try some simulator experience. Or, failing that, there are computer programs that do that. In one program that some people I know got for fits and giggles, I was able to land a jet fighter on a carrier after only a dozen or so tries. Yeah, maybe I was slow on the uptake, but I didn't read the directions either, just kind of went with it. Imagine if I had had actual training. And on-screen crashes are easy enough to walk away from and try again.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:08 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I've read your post over and over again. I didn't respond because I don't know what to say. You say, "Yes, they are designed to fall that way." I can say, "No, they're not designed to fall at all." Seems like a waste of time just to say, "I disagree."

Actually, there was a lot more in my post besides that. That's what I mean by ignoring answers you don't like. All these 911 conspiracies are basically confirmation bias raised to the level of an art form.

As for not being designed to fall that way, you can 'disagree' all you like, but that doesn't mean we're just swapping opinion. It's certainly desirable for you to characterise it that way. It's not my opinion that they're designed to fall in their foot print. My opinion is that the official theory is better than the conspiracy hypothesis, I base this opinion on facts, facts like modern buildings being designed in such a way as to be predisposed to fall within their own foot print.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:09 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I think it's been well documented the Saudi terrorists trained on flight simulators to learn how to fly and steer the jets.

When the jets hit they were not going anywhere near 500 mph. I ( and a billion others ) saw the 2nd plane hit...looked like it was going pretty slow after it made its' big looping curve around to get into position to hit the 2nd tower.



The alleged Saudi "suicide" hijackers were trained as jet pilots at US military bases, granted visas by CIA, employed as pilots by Saudi Airlines and Saudi Air Force, and are still alive giving interviews to BBC News. No hijackers were listed on any passengers lists on 9/11. No video showed any hijackers boarding any airliners on 9/11. No video shows any airliner hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. Bin Laden denied any involvement in 9/11, and has never been indicted for that crime. Even Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bin Laden family was dining with their lifelong business partner Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire in Washington DC on 9/11/2001. Bush Sr's secretary of state James Baker is now the Saudis' defense lawyer, since the 9/11 families are suing Bush's Carlyle Group for 9/11. Baker told Saddam to go ahead and invade Kuwait, 2 weeks before he invaded Kuwait.
www.september911surprise.com
www.piratenews.org/911con.html

My job in US Air Force was sabotaging US Govt buildings, sabotaging US military aircraft, sabotaging US nukes using conventional C4 explosive controlled demolitions. 1,000s of US soldiers have this job every day. "Wargames" is what they told us, then later in the day we find out it's Real World war illegal First Strike. We were ordered to destroy the USAF base in case of enemy attack, but the wargame never included our retreat by aircraft, so we were supposed to die. And Secretary of War Dick Cheney offered my wife a bribe, er job, to work for him at the Pentagon, after her successful mutiny during Gulf War #1.
www.piratenews.org/pentagonwhistleblower.html

The WTC bombers connecting the safety links on the detonation cord were probably killed when the first tower "prematurely" exploded by remote control. Dead men tell no tales.

BTW, Dr Ron Paul got 15% of the vote yesterday in Pennsylvania. He wants a REAL investigation of 9/11, whether he works in Congress or the White House.


www.ronpaul2008.com



The Summer Glau Chronicles: Free downloads
http://www.fox.com/fod/player.htm?show=tscc

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:17 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
No video showed any hijackers boarding any airliners on 9/11.

So what does that really mean- that they wore IMF masks?

Not getting it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
It is not one answered by the official story. They sort of just ignored it.

That's probably because it has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers.
Quote:

See, this is why it is hard for me to answer your posts, Cit. What can I say to that? No, it's not easier than I think? You make general opinion statements--how do you counter general opinions not backed by anything? I just got to let it go, you know?
You flatly stated they had no flying experience, when they did. Not just in simulators, but in planes as well. You expect a serious long winded answer to something that's fabrication. I'm sure your going to shout "are you calling me a liar" or something, but seriously, its a matter of record that they had flight experience, and you should have come across that in any proper research. Sorry for my flippant response, but I find it hard to take something like that seriously.

As for what your husband said, has he tried? Because I've seen pilots fly planes through smaller targets than the trade centres at high speed. It can be done.

And yeah, it's my opinion that, its also my opinion that I could do it if I wanted too.
Quote:

And simply telling me "no, it's easy" isn't what I call a convincing argument.
Well, to be blunt that's all you've given us. You flatly made a statement that they had no flight experience, which we know they did. You flatly made a statement that it's difficult, you've made a big thing about how you don't have to respond to statements like that, why hold me to a higher standard?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Citizen

The understanding I got was that with a more traditional foundation support structure the first few floors of the towers would had to have been (virtually) warrens of small hallways carved in massive foundations. Not wanting to lose real-estate they opted for the wall/floor support structure.

Perhaps other (modern) buildings fall in their own footprint b/c they too use the wall/floor support system for the same reasons. Or is that feature built-in in some other way irregardless of structure type ?

If you could reply to this I'd appreciate it.

THANKS !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:38 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
You know, I wondered about that. Does anyone have any good info on just how fast those planes were going when they impacted the towers?

Cause in videos, they looked pretty slow to me too. But when I read about it, people say 500 mph.

High speed can seem pretty slow when you're watching it at a distance:
Quote:

The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

Quote:

The speed of the 767 in the
second impact has been measured at 500-590 m.p.h.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:43 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
No video showed any hijackers boarding any airliners on 9/11.

So what does that really mean- that they wore IMF masks?



No "suicide hijackers" boarded the "hijacked" airliners on 9/11.

Pentagon's Operation Northwoods explains why:

Quote:

"Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of TERRORISM within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
—James Bamford, ABC News, "Friendly Fire: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba", May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"We could develop a Communist Cuba TERROR campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal."
—General Lyman Lemnitzer, Jewish Zionist chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon, Memo to Secretary of War Robert McNamara, Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba - Operation NORTHWOODS, March 13, 1962
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

"The FBI has issued a BOLO on suspected terrorists driving a white delivery van from New York City to the Mexican border. The suspects are using ISRAELI passports. They are considered armed and dangerous."
— Emergency 911 Dispatch, BOLO (Be On the LookOut), All-Points-Bulletin (APB), City-County Building, Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee, September 11, 2001, 11am EST -- Fox News Video


www.whatreallyhappened.com/hundreds.html


American JEW Adam Gadahn Perlman runs AllCIAduh
www.fbi.gov/page2/oct2006/gadahn101106.htm

"In Sept of last year, Adam Gadahn [aka Adam Perlman], the son of Jewish parents, the son of Jewish parents [who are on the board of directors of Jewish ADL] in Southern California, who himself converted to Islam, went on to become Osama Bin Laden's spokesman."
-Rep Jane Harman (D-CA), Jewish chairman, Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, CSPAN, "Use of the Internet by Terrorists: Using the Web as a Weapon", November 6, 2007



"Tasks are typically divided into small parts, and no single person can complete any job alone. Moreover, people are generally not encouraged or rewarded for doing other than their assigned jobs or for undertaking actions independent of their supervisors. It is possible for individuals... to do their jobs well and still produce a deviant action. Courageous insiders may blow the whistle and alert the rest of us, or suspicious outsiders may take a careful look and reveal what they have found."
—Professor M. David Erman, PhD and Professor Richard J. Lundman, PhD, from college textbook Corporate and GOVERNMENTAL DEVIANCE: Problems of Organizational Behavior in Contemporary Society
www.amazon.com

"'Enterprise' means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other legal entity, or any unchartered union, association or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises, AND GOVERNMENTAL, as well as other, entities."
—Tennessee Code 39-12-203, Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations RICO Act



I've been to Eglin Air force Base, as named in Operation Northwoods. It has at least 8 airfields hidden in the swamps, perfect for hiding fake CIA airliners (and running dope for CIA/DEA/Homeland Security).

There are plenty of airbases to do the same on 9/11, such as the NASA hanger at Cleveland airport, where the mayor of Cleveland reported that Flight 93 landed safely.

The US Air Force has admitted "Flight 93" was shot down by Lt Col Rick Gibney on 9/11, or whatever replaced it by remote control, which is why History Channel, Japanese TV and Popular Mechanics discussed my questioning of USAF Colonel Donn de Grandpre:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7225010773007638690&hl=en
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/365
www.piratenews.org/flight93.html


USAma Bin Laden and family terrorizing Sweden in 1971

BTW, I fell asleep in a motel with PREDATOR turned on, after driving 35 hours nonstop from Phoenix AZ to Jacksonville FL. That's one weird movie to dream you are living in real life. Proof that TV does brainwash the human mind.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:57 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The understanding I got was that with a more traditional foundation support structure the first few floors of the towers would had to have been (virtually) warrens of small hallways carved in massive foundations. Not wanting to lose real-estate they opted for the wall/floor support structure.

Perhaps other (modern) buildings fall in their own footprint b/c they too use the wall/floor support system for the same reasons. Or is that feature built-in in some other way irregardless of structure type ?/B]

I'm not sure what you're asking? Buildings collapse into their own footprint largely for the reasons Fletch gave, but people often make the mistake of thinking of buildings as one large piece. A single large block won't collapse in its own foot print, a stone monolith can't, it has to topple over. People seem to make the mistake that a building is the same, that it's one big block that has to topple over, when in reality they're huge systems comprised of thousands of small parts.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So in order to ensure a building falls in its own footprint the one thing you have to do is to make sure there are no large vertical members that will topple. ??

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:34 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2124251799530760088&hl=en
MP3 at www.myspace.com/countercoup


Thermite at WTC. Airliners don't carry Thermite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585
www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PPT_Presentations.html#Jones3


Controlled Demolition Inc was paid $3-billion govt contract to "demolish" WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8500406504731486597&hl=en

FBI confessed in fed court that FBI paid Emad Salem $1.5-million and gave him the bomb to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, and refused to arrest him, as recorded on 100 hours of audiotape and reported by NY Times:
www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem


Communist rap group run by FBI's Black Panther Cointelpro predicts 9/11 bombings 6 months before 9/11/2001
www.texemarrs.com/032002/the_coup_album_lauded.htm


Deadliest school massacre perped by US govt school board politician using controlled demolition by dynomite
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bauerle/disaster.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Quote:

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis. Solipsism refers to several world views whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent. Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

1. Nothing exists;

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and

3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

Solipsism syndrome is a pathological psychiatric condition involving dissociative mental states.

It is a common belief among Developmental psychologists that infants are solipsist.

Author Robert A. Heinlein often toyed with themes of a solipsistic "multiverse" in various stories and novels. A good example is his short story "All You Zombies".

George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 features a climactic metaphysical debate: the central character, Winston, argues against "the belief that nothings exists outside your own mind," or the "fallacy" of solipsism; O'Brien, his inquisitor, explains that "collective solicism" would be a better name for the totalitarian scheme, but would also be nearly the opposite of solicism in theory. Winston ultimately loses this debate, and learns that truth defined by power and not the human mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
—Governor George W Bush, November 2000



"Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. Being right too soon is socially unacceptable. Belief gets in the way of learning. The hardest part of gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count. A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it - it keeps him upright. It is better to copulate than never."
—Robert A. Heinlein, US Naval Academy graduate, author of book and screenplay, Destination Moon (1950), The Man Who Sold the Moon (1949), The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (Tim Minear is working on a screenplay based on the novel), Starship Troopers (1959), and Take Back Your Government (1946)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh they could certainly hit the towers, I think.

Flying a commercial jumbo isn't like stick jockeying a barnstormer, once you have it in the air there's actually very little hand and stick TO it, you see - there's a goddamn plethora of electronic aids that can do almost anything but burp and change the passengers kids, and if you know how to use THOSE, you can do a pretty good job of flying the plane from takeover to point B.

I am being deliberately vague here cause of security reasons, but really, if you know what buttons to push on the console, it's prettymuch all automatic.

And on a humorous note, when "the bitch" starts telling you to pull up, ignoring her is a bad idea.
(Southwest Airlines Flight 1248)

I have a crapload of simulator experience in multiple aircraft thanks to some investment interest and access to unused simulators, you'd be amazed at what chicanery it's possible to pull off in a 737-200 if you don't really care what you do to the plane in the process, and the bigger they are, the more automated they come.

That's an easy one to answer, I am surprised no one else brought this up.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:44 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
why hold me to a higher standard?

I'm not. Just saying it is hard to argue, "Yes, it is hard," and "No, it isn't." There isn't much to say beyond that, because it is all opinion. I'm explaining why I don't respond to your posts--there is nothing to say.

And yes, I am under the impression they had no flight experience, only very basic stuff in single engine airplanes, and simulator experience of larger planes. If that is incorrect, please post a link to correct me.

(If you want to get technical and say a little bit of single-engine experience counts as "flight experience," I'll grant that. But as far as I am concerned, they have no flight experience--whatever they have is negligible for the purposes of my question--and definitely none in jumbo jets.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:49 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's an easy one to answer, I am surprised no one else brought this up.

Well, that is the usual answer to that question. But it is not consistent with responses of pilots that I've talked to. They say it takes skill. Of course, maybe they're supposed to say that. But I am under the impression that while automatic controls can fly a plane, they aren't very useful in the kind of target flying used to impact the towers.

Of course, I am always open to hearing more opinions on the topic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's an easy one to answer, I am surprised no one else brought this up.

Well, that is the usual answer to that question. But it is not consistent with responses of pilots that I've talked to. They say it takes skill. Of course, maybe they're supposed to say that. But I am under the impression that while automatic controls can fly a plane, they aren't very useful in the kind of target flying used to impact the towers.

Of course, I am always open to hearing more opinions on the topic.

Yes, it does take skill to land a jetliner and take off. And it requires skill and experience to fly the jet to maintain a smooth and safe journey for your passengers.

BUT if you’re not taking off or landing or concerned about your passengers, then any idiot can do it. In fact, they pretty much fly themselves once you get in the air.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:06 PM

MAL4PREZ


CTS – what you need is a source of information about the WTC collapse that is based in facts and scientific principles, and not in hysteria and the highly suspect “gut feelings” of non-engineers. I suggest the following:

First, an easily digestible (in terms of techie terms) slide show narrated by the lead in the NIST investigation team. I’m sure the full report is online somewhere if you take the time to look for it, but the slide show gives you an idea of the computer modeling that was done – the disintegration of the planes at the instant when they hit the towers, the immediate effect of the impact on the buildings, the slower effects of the fires, and the mechanics of the collapse:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

Second, there’s a peer reviewed and published paper by civil engineer Zdenek Bazant. It goes into the basic physics of the collapse, including how failed structure at one floor could lead to the building collapsing as it did. Appendix 2 addresses the question of why the upper part of the South Tower did not pivot (like a falling tree) although it did tilt slightly as it began to fall. This is your falling-in-the-footprint issue.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (paper)
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTCfig-asce.pdf (figures)

I’ll note that this paper is a bit daunting in terms of technical language, but if you want to argue the feasibility of the “official” story, you have to address the conclusions Bazant comes to. The mechanical issues are very real, whether they are fun to read about or not.

For example, if you expect that the South Tower should have fallen like a tree, as you seem to, the onus is on YOU to explain how the dynamic horizontal forces at the base of the upper (collapsing) part did not shear the columns holding it up. If you lack the technical experience to argue at this level, I suggest you search the literature to find a rebuttal by an actual engineer, and not an ordinance expert or an economist (your OK bombing “expert”). Find a peer reviewed study that questions the offical story in technical terms, and then you’ll have something.

Third, here’s a site that debunks several 9/11 myths, both technical and other:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Including the pancake issue: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Building 7: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Hijackers still alive: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
And more and more that I could list, but why don’t you just visit the site yourself?

Finally, CTS, I must note that you have not replied to any of the posts that give you exactly what you say you want: a discussion of the technical issues. Foster and Fletch2 posted technical information that you appear to have just ignored. And yet you give a big THANK YOU to the one poster who at all agreed with you, (I’m not counting PN) though he gave you no facts at all.

There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning. But what are you really asking for? Do you really want to talk facts, or are you only out to find people to agree with your gut level suspicions?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:06 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
BUT if you’re not taking off or landing or concerned about your passengers, then any idiot can do it.

Are you a pilot? Is anyone here opining on this subject a pilot? Not discounting or dismissing your opinion, but it does help to put it in context.

Everyone is saying any idiot can fly a plane. But that was not my question. My question specifically is if someone with no real flight experience can target a building 200 feet wide going 500 miles an hour? This targeting is, in my opinion, much more than just flying a plane.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:15 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
My question specifically is if someone with no real flight experience can target a building 200 feet wide going 500 miles an hour?

There has been a response to this already on this thread - your assumption of no real flight experience is wrong. Four of the pilots - one on each plane - held FAA certificates as qualified pilots. There are witnesses who went to flight school with these people. Why do you insist on ignoring this?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:17 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, he's not right. And I'm beyond tired of having this conversation. It has now replaced the all timers, like.....

Young Earth Creationism

Moon landing hoax

2nd Shooter in JFK assassination




lol.. its funny you should mention those examples... im willing to consider any of the possibilities. i guess that makes me a kook? still, im willing to guess you would appreciate our skepticism on matters of climate change, or other covert socialist schemes... so try and keep it in context. when it comes to world governments, in light of history, it never hurts to be suspicious

for all i know, 9/11 was a communist conspiracy, perpetrated by a number of groups, designed to smother American constutional liberty under the false pretenses of a "war on terror". given that the patriot acts, military commission act etc, have done that, i may be right, if even inadvertently

regardless, its always better to have an alert, scrupulous populace, then one too willing to take the "machines", the establishments marching orders, almost ver batum, especially when the philosophical flaws are apparent to anyone with half a brain and a functional pair of gonads

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:18 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
BUT if you’re not taking off or landing or concerned about your passengers, then any idiot can do it.

Are you a pilot? Is anyone here opining on this subject a pilot? Not discounting or dismissing your opinion, but it does help to put it in context.

Everyone is saying any idiot can fly a plane. But that was not my question. My question specifically is if someone with no real flight experience can target a building 200 feet wide going 500 miles an hour? This targeting is, in my opinion, much more than just flying a plane.

I’m not a pilot, but I have spoken with pilots. In fact, I’ve asked this very question and the answer is yes, with a little training, anyone can steer a jetliner. It takes a few hours of training to learn to manipulate the levers, and the computer takes care of the rest - to maintain a smooth flight and stability in the air.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?

The AirSafe Journal™

17 September 2001

vol. 1 num. 16

In the wake of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is clear that one of the key factors in the success of those attacks is that at least one member of each of the four teams of hijackers was a trained pilot. While there is some question as to the amount of flying expertise possessed these hijackers, there is no indication that any of them had the level of experience or qualifications of an airline pilot. Whatever their level of expertise, it was sufficient to guide three of the four hijacked planes to their targets, causing the deaths of thousands.

Many people have wondered how it could be possible for relatively unskilled pilots to do this. This writer is in a unique position to answer that question. I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

After about a week of training, I was familiar with the layout of the flight deck and with the operation of the flight controls, autopilot, and navigation systems. As a result, flying the simulator was much less difficult than I had imagined at the beginning of the course. The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying manuvers.

Given my experiences in the simulator, I feel that if I were to be put into a 757's cockpit in the middle of a flight on a relatively clear and sunny day, I would be able to change direction and altitude without any trouble. Given a basic knowledge of a region's geography and of available navigational aids, I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city. Because the basic cockpit layout and many of the procedures used in the 757 are almost identical to those of the 767, I feel that the same would be true for a 767.

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:25 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Finally, CTS, I must note that you have not replied to any of the posts that give you exactly what you say you want: a discussion of the technical issues.

I replied to some, though not all. At some point though, there is nothing more to say. What do I say, "Yeah, I know about center of gravity, but the issues are more complicated than that?"

Quote:

And yet you give a big THANK YOU to the one poster who at all agreed with you, (I’m not counting PN) though he gave you no facts at all.
That is right. I appreciate someone else asking the same questions I'm thinking.

Quote:

But what are you really asking for? Do you really want to talk facts, or are you only out to find people to agree with your gut level suspicions?
Or both? There's just been very few "facts" in this thread so far. All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries. In fact, I think your post is the first to suggest where to look for more technical information that might answer my questions. For that, thank you to you too.

BTW, the economist is a 911 skeptic, not to be confused with Brig. Gen. Partin, the OK City skeptic. And credentials don't sway me one way or another. I evaluate information on its own merit--context of authorship is important, but ultimately, opinions have to stand on their own.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:35 PM

ANTIMASON


personally, i think there IS a cover-up regarding 9/11, and that certain AMerican and anglo-european interests took part in its execution.

if you delve deeply enough into so called "conspiracy theory", you run across the same intricate web of names and groups: the CFR, the tri-lateral commission, the bilderbergs, the UN.. and you ARE left with an impression that theres a greater agenda, a somewhat epic vision for the world that is being orchestrated by select groups of people.

9.11 may have been executed by Arabs, but the actual plans, to in essence alter AMerican foreign and domestic policy permanently, in a totalitarian way.. obviously was not.

given the massive failures on 9.11, the FAA completely neglecting their jobs, NORADS inexplicable absence, the accuracy and accomplishment of the hijackers to execute 3/4 of their mission(and just altogether the political aftermath of 9/11)... that cannot be dismissed as chance, coincidence, luck, or any other form of apology. if it was just blind luck, combined with uniform mistake across the line, given the 'theory of odds', something had to have worked in our favor.. but it didnt

the conspirators know how to hide behind bureaucracy and the pyramid scheme, so accountability is nearly impossible; its like trying a robot for a murder: how do you punish it? the circumstantial evidence overwhelms the governments "account", hands down.. and if you guys want to debate the specifics, lets open up another thread.. because something was definitely foul, whether anyone knows who to attribute it to or not


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:17 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

There has been a response to this already on this thread - your assumption of no real flight experience is wrong. Four of the pilots - one on each plane - held FAA certificates as qualified pilots. There are witnesses who went to flight school with these people. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
Well, there is flight experience, and there is flight experience. Obviously, your idea of flight experience is nothing like mine.

Just because someone has a pilot's license in a single-engine plane does not mean he has flight experience. That would be like saying some 16 year old who has a driver's license has driving experience. Well, maybe he does technically, but I doubt he has enough driving experience to make a 7 foot wide exit ramp going 100 miles an hour. In my terms, I would say he has no real driving experience to speak of, even if he does have a driver's license, you see?

Here are some of the issues I am thinking of, so you can understand what I mean by lack of flight experience.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun0
6.htm



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS

Was this directed at me ? Then I apologize. I should have realized that you have so little interest in facts that gently pointing you in a fruitful direction was insufficient.
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:21 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Finally, CTS, I must note that you have not replied to any of the posts that give you exactly what you say you want: a discussion of the technical issues.

I replied to some, though not all. At some point though, there is nothing more to say. What do I say, "Yeah, I know about center of gravity, but the issues are more complicated than that?"

That would be an excellent place to start, since a discussion of the WTC collapse in what you profess to be after. So hey, let's discuss! What are the more complicated issues?

Quote:

There's just been very few "facts" in this thread so far. All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries. In fact, I think your post is the first to suggest where to look for more technical information that might answer my questions. For that, thank you to you too.
I agree that there have been few facts on this thread, but hang on here - why are you so quick to blow off the PBS report? Did you actually try to look it up and see who's behind it and what it's all about?

Quote:

I evaluate information on its own merit--context of authorship is important, but ultimately, opinions have to stand on their own.
Hmm. Way up the thread you said that you're no expert on engineering issues, so how are you qualified to judge the merit of such information? What basis do you have for dismissing a trained engineer who backs up his conclusions with detailed science in favor of an economist talking generalities?

And turn this on yourself - how are we supposed to believe that it's "more complicated" than center of gravity if you don't tell us and back yourself up with something solid? We are like you - well I am anyway. I evaluate based on merit. You gotta give me something to work with! So far, it's been thin...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:44 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

There has been a response to this already on this thread - your assumption of no real flight experience is wrong. Four of the pilots - one on each plane - held FAA certificates as qualified pilots. There are witnesses who went to flight school with these people. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
Well, there is flight experience, and there is flight experience. Obviously, your idea of flight experience is nothing like mine.

Again, you say you have no flight experience and aren't an expert, and yet your idea of flight experience is an automatic trump card? You do know what it means to be not an expert, right?

Quote:

Just because someone has a pilot's license in a single-engine plane does not mean he has flight experience. That would be like saying some 16 year old who has a driver's license has driving experience.
When I was 16, I had no problem hitting a very small tree.

But here we have a good discussion - you point to an opinion written by a pilot. But did you note that other pilots, as posted by Rue above, disagree? They say changing direction and altitude is easy - easier than flying a cessna, in fact. (Why do you just skip Rue's post? Does it lack merit? Why? Seriously, I'm wondering!)

The article you pointed to also said that the hijackers couldn't have possibly found their way to NYC. OK, he's ignoring that they had GPS equipment. The average schmoe can handle driving with GPS with the serious distractions of kids in the car and things - other cars, street signs, etc - to run into. All the planes had was open sky and a clear, unclouded view. And a large city on a coastline. I've flown over and around NYC several times. It's hard to not see.

You still haven't replied to a post above that brought up this issue: any pilot can get centered on a runway, and yet you can't believe they'd hit a building? Do you see the problem there? They got it lined up, then they accelerated. Like a 16 year old driver hitting the side of a barn with a sports car. Why is that so hard to believe possible?

As far as the Pentagon, I agree that hitting a building at ground level would not have been easy. But I don't think it's impossible. (I wonder if they were going so fast as the WTC planes?)

As I understand it, they only went to the pentagon after circling DC - they couldn't find the White House or something. Maybe the pentagon, being so large and distinctly shaped - was easier to see. Anyhow, it would have been a matter of making an extremely bad landing. Don't need to set down smoothly, just in a certain place. Do you really think that's so impossible?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:28 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Remove support and it will fall straight down because in the absence of any other forces physics says it can only fall downwards.

That's just it. How did the support get "removed"?

When the supports are weakened or deformed by heat as the official story alleges, buildings behave differently. It is when the supports are removed, say by explosives, that they fall straight down. At least, that is how I understand it.



No they will always fall downwards unless you take pretty extreme measures to make them fall over. Now had the towers fallen over, that would have been proof of foul play. They fell the only way they could fall because gravity was the only force acting on them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:33 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
and yet your idea of flight experience is an automatic trump card?

Not an automatic trump. Just explaining where I'm coming from--answering your question on why I purposely ignore the alleged hijackers' flight experience.
Quote:

(Why do you just skip Rue's post? Does it lack merit? Why? Seriously, I'm wondering!)
I do not respond to any of Rue's posts as a matter of personal policy. Sometimes he makes good points, but nothing good has ever resulted from my conversing with Rue. We have uh...some bad history on these boards.
Quote:

any pilot can get centered on a runway, and yet you can't believe they'd hit a building? Do you see the problem there? They got it lined up, then they accelerated. Like a 16 year old driver hitting the side of a barn with a sports car. Why is that so hard to believe possible?
I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article. An inexperienced pilot is not going to hit a building 200 feet wide going 750 feet/second, with 25 feet to spare on either side of the plane, without difficulty. It is more like 16 year old successfully taking an exit ramp 7 feet wide in a 6 foot wide car, going 100 miles an hour, partially blindfolded. Not impossible, just unlikely.

I'm also not saying I'm right, and everyone else is wrong. I am saying this is why *I* have doubts and can't buy the kit and kaboodle.

Re the pancake fall, I'll have to spend a little time reviewing the links you've shared thus far. I'll write more on that soon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Some Covid-19 thoughts
Thu, April 2, 2020 13:51 - 147 posts
Elections 2020
Thu, April 2, 2020 13:40 - 377 posts
If Covid-19 comes back as expected this fall...
Thu, April 2, 2020 12:08 - 2 posts
new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
Thu, April 2, 2020 11:25 - 1052 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Thu, April 2, 2020 03:35 - 4227 posts
Canada's outlandish hair freezing contest
Thu, April 2, 2020 03:32 - 2 posts
Chump was warned in 2017 a pandemic was likely and now 200k or more people are likely to die.
Thu, April 2, 2020 01:25 - 3 posts
Quote of the day
Wed, April 1, 2020 22:26 - 44 posts
Who, What is Zero Hedge
Wed, April 1, 2020 15:40 - 49 posts
Coronavirus- Damn Commies are gonna get us all killed!
Wed, April 1, 2020 14:41 - 326 posts
Countdown Clock, Trumps Removal 'Starts'
Wed, April 1, 2020 10:57 - 300 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Wed, April 1, 2020 09:31 - 3319 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL