HAHAHAH :lol: Yeah I was playing jenga last night thinking to myself, "I can win this if I just put a lit match towards the middle olf the structure. It would collapse in seconds, into it's own footprint, at free fall speeds!" I lost, needless to say.

It's thoughts like that make me give up, believe what you want, I don't care anymore, you stopped looking for answers when you can't discern the difference from a structure made from solid blocks of static, non malleable (relative to the forces involved in a jenga tower) wood, and a nearly hollow tower made of dynamic, malleable steel (relative to the forces involved in a tower of this magnitude and the impacts from the planes). There is no parallel you can draw between the 2, except that they have a similar shape.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink; it’s time to put this one out to pasture.

I did learn one thing in this thread at least.

I thought that they needed a lot of special tricks to make a building fall straight down in demolition, not thinking of the huge lateral forces it would require to make something so massive move off its base. While we think of these buildings as solid structures, as if they were a bar of stone, its better to think of them more like sandcastles, unable to support itself in any direction but straight down.

The jenga comment was obviously a joke, not unlike the bird running into a chimney statement. It was intended to simply ammuse, not to be used as an apt comparison. I've never confused the structure of a skyscraper with that of a solid object.

Speaking of huge lateral forces... if them walls were bending in and that caused the collapse then just why did stuff going flying out the sides with pretty good velocity as it started to collapse?

I suppose it's a little late for the experiment but i think if you leaned one of the WTC towers over you could go till it'd be hitting the surrounding buildings and still wouldn't have broken apart. Kind of like a Leaning Tower of Manhattan. Not sure if you could lay it on it's side, but maybe, these weren't built out of coat hangers.

It was actually about four years until the first tower was completed and tennants began to move in (1966 - 1970)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)

I don't think that is fast or slow. if you look up buildings built around the same time with similar height the building times are similar. WTC is a little longer but that is probably related to it being a multi-tower complex rather than just one building.


As an interesting aside, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_towers), it took three years to build the Petronas towers. This was of course much more recent. The interesting thing however was the that each tower was built by a different construction company. It was kind of a competition to see who could get their tower up faster.

Walls beding in as stresses warp the metal supports/joints. Stuff flying out because entire floors pancaking within a second displacing LOTS of air. You're grasping at straws.

Tonight I had a fun time with a haloween jack-o-lantern. I hollowed out a nice big pumpkin. I soaked a few rolls of toilet paper in kerosene overnight. So I dropped in a roll at a time and lit them up. It was incerdible. The flames rose 6' into the air, and all the little kids that stopped by were amazed. Each roll takes about 45 minutes to an hour. 2 rolls later, and the pumpkin is still standing strong. It's warm to the touch, but I could easily pick it up. Just for shits and giggles, I threw in a road flare for about 15 minutes. Man, it looked cool. The inside of the pumpkin is charred, but it's still standing strong.

Frankly, I don't kow how comparisons go between the twin towers and the pumpkin that could, but I figured that this thread is usually depressing. It could use some holiday cheer. A pumpkin with a 6' flame for 45 minutes is something that made me smile. I'll post some pics (and maybe a vid) later. Happy Haloween, all!

And here i had my suit layed out on the edge of the bed awaiting word on funeral arrangments for this topic.
It's back!:thumbsup:

Remember Will, the towers were not built of something indestructible like pumpkins... every wonder why the tiles on the space shuttle are orange?

No, no, no... the towers were built out of lead solder as our colleague will attest as soon as he gets back with his pillowcase full of candy.

:)
I like your festive spirit, will, and I'm definitely with you here. I like that we can set these sad things aside for a minute. Happy Halloween to you, and to the TFP!
:)

People say 'why aren't government workers and air traffic controllers going public if it was an inside job?' Well, several have but it's not covered in the mainstream. There have been 2 cia agents, 2 former bush administration members, and many fire fighters and police officers who have said 9/11 was an inside job. Now this flight controller says it too.

Excellent article. I'm glad that some brave people are able to speak out about their knowledge of what happened. I still hold out hope that we can put the puzzle together eventually.

How about the Underwriters Lab guy? He clears up some of the silly fire melting steel issue.

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/letter.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA&eurl=
Here you can see the beginning of the myth

Anything burns if it gets hot enough.
What happened on 9-11 was that perverts gained access to tools significant enough to do what they wanted them to do.
If they'd created their own tools it would've still been wrong.

Norad can track the smallest object that flyes, it is made to track thousands of nuclear missles coming in and separate the fake ones from the real ones.
In the year 2000 there were 60 civilian planes that went off their course, all were intercepted by fighter planes in less than 20 minutes.
This is standard procedure in case of a plane which goes other way than it is supposed to
No orders need to be given to intercept it, no decisions, standard manual rules. Orders need to be given to shoot it down not to intercept.
On 9/11 4 planes fly undisturbed , not even one was intercepted ?
Videos :

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11

well, your just wrong. several jets were sent to intercept the hijacked planes, however, none arrived in time, furthermore, even if they had, there was nothing they could do. Orders do need to be given to intercept. ATC has to dial NORAD and tell them there is a problem. after flight 11 was suspected of being hijacked at 8:37 am, 2 F-15's were set to battle stations, however, the transponders on the hijacked planes were disabled. making it difficult to distinguish which plane they were looking for between the other 4500 planes in the skies that morning. In 2000, all the planes that were intercepted had there transponders on, making it easy to find them. the hijacked planes were not easy to find, therefor they were not intercepted.

please do some research before posting.

Dil
Do some research on that on your own, those "interceptions" were a joke, if that half hearted effort is the best the government can do perhaps the whole military needs to be disbanded and let shopping mall security take over.

really? if it is that simple that they can track the smallest objects and planes with disabled transponders, then why can't they stop drug planes? Based on your logic they should know and track each and every plane that is up in the sky 100%.

how were they a joke, how do you suggest, in your infinite wisdom to intercept a plane going 500 mph, turn the sirens on and ask them to pull over?

According to all public records, the fighters did not reach the planes by a long shot, so your question really isn't relevant.

Let's look at the time line:
- Between 8:14 and 8:20 AM, EST, American Airlines Flight 11 goes off course, something that is carefully monitored and is reported.
- 8:20 AM EST, American Airlines Flight 11 transponder signal stops.

At this point, as a part of normal response, fighters should have been sent. I'm sure we're all aware that Otis Air Force Base is less than 7 minutes from Manhattan by an F-15, so it would not have been difficult. I'm sure we're all aware that there is an Air Defense Zone just off shore of the entire Atlantic Coast. This zone is under constant patrol.

- 8:24:38 AM EST, John Ohonowski, the head pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, activated his talk button and Boston Air Traffic Controllers could clearly hear a hijacker say, "We have some planes. Just be quiet and you will be okay. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move."

- 8:25 AM EST, Boston Air Traffic Control contacted at least two other air traffic control centers that a hijack was in progress with American Airlines Flight 11, and, supposedly, they notified NORAD (as is procedure in this case).

Now normally, in a hijacking situation, would have called upon the 102nd Fighter Wing at Otis and two planes would have been in the air no later than 8:32 AM EST. The planes would have had at least 14 minutes to reach the WTC before Flight 11, which is twice the time they need. Of course we know there was no interception at all.

- 8:39 AM EST, Flight 11 flies over Indian Point Nuclear Power Stations. In case you were wondering, this would be the most logical place for a terrorist attack in the whole of the US, even more important than the White House and the Pentagon because of the potential death toll.

- 8:40 AM EST, The FAA notifies NORAD of American Airlines Flight 11's hijacking. This has been confirmed by NORAD and is included in the 9/11 Commission.

- 8:43 AM EST, The FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 175 has been hijacked. Again, this is confirmed by NORAD.

- 8:36 AM EST, NORAD orders the 102nd Fighter Wing to scramble two F-15s. NORAD, by their own account, paused for 6 minutes before notifying Otis.

- 8:46:26 AM EST, American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the North corner of the North Tower (WTC 1) between the 94th and 98th floors flying at an approximate speed of 480-490 mph.

- 8:46 AM EST, United Airlines Flight 175 transponder shuts off.

- 8:47 AM EST, NORAD is informed of the first attack.

- 8:50 AM EST, 5:50 AM PST, Rich Miles, a manager of United Airlines Chicago system operations center, receives a call from a mechanic at an airline maintenance center in San Francisco that takes in-flight calls from flight attendants about minutia. The mechanic says that a female flight attendant from United Airlines Flight 175 just called and said, "Oh my god, the crew has been killed; a flight attendant has been stabbed. We've been hijacked."

- 8:52 AM EST, According to sources, the F-15s have left by this point. This is the last known information on the scrambled fighters. We don't know where they went (not NYC or DC, obviously).

- 8:55 AM EST, fake call by Barbara Olson.

- 8:56 AM EST, American Airlines Flight 77 transponder switches off, and it goes off course.

- 8:57 AM EST, The FAA formally notified the military about the final resting place of American Airlines Flight 11. Apparently, they didn't know before this point.

- 9:02 AM EST, United Airlines Flight 175 impacts the South side of the South Tower (WTC 2) between the 78th and 84th floors at a little over 500 mph. Most of the plane, including both engines and large sections of the fuselage and wings eject from the North side of the building and are found as much as six blocks away.

To clarify, the F-15s, with a top speed of a top speed of 1875+ mph, a mere 7 minutes from Manhattan, had left about 26 minutes before this impact and still had not arrived. This suggests that they were only going at maybe 20% their maximum speed. I guess there wasn't a hurry.

- 9:30 AM EST Two or three F-16s take off from Langley Air Force Base and head towards NYC. Moments after takeoff, the Secret Service contacted the planes and had them redirect to Washington D.C. for the past 31 minutes, American Airlines Flight 77 had been headed towards Washington D.C.

- 9:37 AM EST, 40 minutes after losing contact, American Airlines Flight 77 impacts the side of the Pentagon where there are renovations going on and is unoccupied, poking a very small hole and leaving behind no evidence of wings or a tail.

According to NORAD, at the moment of impact at the Pentagon, the F-16s were still 105 miles (12 minutes) away. An F-16 can travel at over 1500 mph. This means that the F-16s had to have been traveling at 14.3% their top speed to reach the nation's capitol.


I hope this helps.

It helps a great deal; your source needs to learn to fact check.

First, before 9/11 jets were not allowed super sonic speeds to intercept.
Top speed ~700 mph, not 1500.

Going off course is not carefully monitored, it is only carefully monitored over the coast line and out at sea, to track smugglers. Between the 1989 and 9/11 all except 1 intercept was off the cost of the US, they all had there transponders on and were easily identified by radar because of the low amount of traffic in the area, most of these planes were drug smugglers, or suspected drug smugglers. Finally before 9/11 planes were not left armed on the runway, there was no needed, any plane that was sent to intercept had to be loaded first. There was ample time to arm them before any threat, ie some foreign power, could make it.

At 8:24, flight 11 said some suspicious stuff, the flight controller contacted his supervisor, at 8:37 the supervisor contacted norad. 2 F-15’s were sent to armed and prepped for flight, but did not have a location to go to. At 8:46, the plane hit the WTC.

They had 9 minutes to sort through 4500 blips, and find the 1 that did not have its transponder on. There was no computer system in place to automate it; it had to be done manually. 9 minutes to sort through 4500 objects. Give me a break it can’t be done.

But my question is relevant, it is extremely relevant. The was no perceived rush to intercept the planes, they were commercial flights, unarmed, and up until that point, no one had ever used a civilian plane as a weapon, all the military jets had to do was to fallow them and try to make contact. In the past, all intercepts did was follow the plane until it landed, an attempt to make contact if contact was lost.

"We're facing the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, but don't go too fast to stop it". An exception to that rule (which was only sometimes observed) is as easy as a few words from NORAD.
Irrelevant. These planes had transponders, then the transponders shut off. Also, they were aware that the planes were hijacked.
They didn't have a location to go? They knew the approximate heading because the flight controller gave it to his or her supervisor who gave it to NORAD.
Wrong. They had 14 minutes to go from Otis to NYC. That would have been easy, as the flight controller said it was headed towards NYC.
You're already forgetting that NORAD had run drills about planes being used as weapons so recently before 9/11? Comon. The Pentagon knew about it, NORAD knew about it, the Air Force knew about it. The FAA even knew about it.

Hind site is 20/20. At the time it was nothing big until they started impacting buildings. You seem to think NORAD and all these other organizations are some super computer, capable of operating quickly and efficiently, they are not, and they are bloated bureaucracies. We are talking about making split second decisions with dire consequences; we are talking about shooting down a commercial jet because it was hijacked, if they had shot all the planes down, you'd be complaining that there was no probable cause to shoot them down.

Before 9/11 the rules stated that a controller had to go through multiple layers of both the FAA and the DOD before any action is taken. The regulations are to blame.

The transponders were shut off, making it impossible to distinguish from the other 4500 planes except by going though them one by one, there was no easy way to do it. And they only had 9 minutes to do it. The person tracing flight 11 that morning when the transponder was shut off was tracking 15 planes as well, to get a view of the radar, he had to go up a flight of stairs. The displays were on different floors, ok, lets think about this, we have 2 screens, one with 14 dots, one with 15, they are on different floors, find the missing dot, by the way, they are all moving, ready, go. It can’t be done, not in 9 minutes.

There was a massive communications break down, things happened to fast. They did not have an approximate heading or location, they could have gotten it, with time, but they did not have enough time. They thought they had more time, they thought it was a standard hijacking, where demands are made, and they have time to negotiate, not that they would plow the planes into buildings.

It was 9 minutes, but even with 14 minutes, it is impossible to pick one blip out of 4500, it just can't be done.

Even if they had drills, they still did not think it could happen, and once it was known to be happening, it was too late. When normal criminals take hostages, the cops don’t just bust in shooting, they wait it out until they know the hostages are going to be killed, the cops would rather wait it out until the time is right it minimize civilian casualties rather then risk an assault. The same is true here.

Ah, but there was 51 minutes between the impact of Flight 11 into the North Tower and the supposed impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. 51 minutes isn't enough?

Also, you said that they could only go 700 mph, yes? Well that's still enough time to get there with time to spare.
In all 4 cases, the transponders were shut off after the planes were heading in the directions of their targets. It's not hard at all to figure out speed and trejectory in order to located the planes. If I can do it, and you can do it, and a 7th grader can do it, why couldn't NORAD, the FAA, the Air Force, or anyone else? Even with them not knowing for sure, they had good indicators.
They F-15s were ordered to NYC and the F-16s were ordered to DC. They knew where they were going, they just dragged their feet for some reason. The reason they dragged their feet is unknown.
That's a rather big assumption. When you run drills, you prepare for the real life situation. This was the real life situation. It was not an alien situation to anyone, NORAD, the FAA, the Air Force, the Pentagon, etc.

So NORAD, the DOD and FAA are completely incompetent. Gotcha.

No its not enough. As you know flight 77 doubled back and with out its transponder active it would be extremely hard to track. Meanwhile the planes launched were mistakenly sent to intercept flight 11, not flight 77, 11 already had crashed. At 9:32, Dulles picked up an inbound plane (flight 77) and when they realized it was heading towards Washington, the fighters were ordered to return to DC at top speed “I don’t care how many windows you break” the commander said giving authorization to break the sound barrier. 5 minutes later, flight 77 impacted the pentagon; however the jets were 150 mile east.

At the time, the fighters were several hundred miles away, and when they were given the order to intercept, they had 5 minutes before impact.

Wrong, in 2 cases they were on target, flight 93 is unknown, and flight 77 double backed after the transponder was disabled. It is hard to determine speed, trajectory of the planes. No I can’t do it, you can’t do it, and no way can a 7th grader do it.

They dragged there feet because they were not sure where they were. They followed procedures.


bingo. singularly, they were fine, together, everything broke down during 9/11, communication was lacking and could not respond to a fast developing threat.

i have no issues with that... Americans have lost the edge of doing things the best, most professional, and greatest.

Just look around at the people you work with, people who serve you, people who do services for you... we don't get the quality of work we used to. worker apathy rules at the moment.

The first plane crashing into the tower was unavoidable, but the second tower and pentagon might have been preventable. Flight 93 'may' have been shot down.

I would have expected the planes to play defense around NYC, Boston, DC, Baltimore and Philly right after the first plane hit the tower. Any plane that was flying off course and too low would be dealt with.

This vido is something else if it's indeed true. This is a video of the BBC reporting in a live feed (some 20 min premature) that building 7 collapsed while it's still standing in the background. If this is all accurate, then it just further proves prior knowledge and a total psyop from the intelligence agencies and media.

The video is on this page along with a write up about it. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7building7.htm

Regardless if this is true or not, what would reporting the collapse 20 min early mean exactly?

The point was that the Capitol is to be protected in the instance of attack, no matter what. The official policy is to have planes in the air around DC in the event of an attack. Flight 77's transponder switched off over a half hour before the F-16s took off. I have to wonder why they would simply ignore protocol.
Ah, not the point. The fighters were headed towards NYC. The order to intercept would not have been relevant until the jets were a few miles out. They should have reached the city with much time to spare, and with simple radar they could have intercepted the plane(s) before they were even over a populated area. They dragged their feet en route to NYC, and that is the problem.
I enjoy how you say "wrong", then your next 7 words agree with me. It warms my cockles. Both planes en route to NYC were headed towards Manhattan before their transponders were shut off. Again, you, I, or a 7th grader can calculate location by factoring in speed and trajectory. It's basic geometry. Also, Flight 77 didn't double back before but after the transponder shut off. It was all in the minute of 8:56 AM EST.
"Fly to New York City" isn't clear enough, I guess. What order would you have given in order to communicate a need form them to fly to New York City?

The truth about 9/11 has come out
Here is the movie check minute 14
http://www.esnips.com/doc/47ae2fd7-0...lding7Collapse

The story is here
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reporte...Before_It_Fell

It's in plain view for all to see, WTC 7 still stands, it is visible behind the reporter, but on screen they say it has fallen, then they "lose the connection to New York , technical dificulties" ...

http://www.mediafire.com/?5j2yjmycyty - download

http://img133.imagevenue.com/loc54/t...1_122_54lo.jpg

Ummm... I recall that news sources all have various reports on that same day. I recall some local stations stating the 7 collapsed already when it was still standing. In the days of having instant up to the moment statments, this is no different.

When the ballplayer small plane crashed into the Upper Eastside recently, some said it was a helicopter, some said it was a plane, some changed back and forth every 5 minutes.

that does not in my mind provide anything for conspiracy but rather BAD journalism.

I don't recall any of the claims you are making. Please post links or references.

What you are missing is this is just a fraction of the 'bad journalism' on 9/11. Every news report that didn't fit the official story has been forgoten or spun so many times no one can figure it out. I tend to believe live instant new stories and footage rather than the stories the government puts out months and years later.

There's no links to my memories of the day. I live and work in NYC. I remember the day quite well.

Just like the day that the small plane slammed into the apartment building my collegues and I and flipped from channel to channel to see the differences of the newscasts, comparing everything from feeds, chyron crawl, information and accuracy.

I cannot tell you which ones were claiming that building 7 collapsed before it collapsed, but again there were many news outlets that made that claim incorrectly.

it was not known to be an attack. it was a hijacking, not an attack, not until they started crashing into buildings, and then it takes people to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that its an organized attack, not a hijacking gone wrong.

actually no, they were heading east over the pacific, as per standard operational orders. until the target is declared, they fly over the pacific to not clog the airways over the US. there was 5 minutes between the order to intercept and the plane impacting, the jets headed at there best speed back to new york but did not make it in time.

no they don't agree with you, you said all 4, i said 2, 2 does not equal 4, there for you were wrong. but i am glad to hear your cockles are warm. and again, you are over simplifying things, tracking a plane based off of one vector, and its a bad idea to try. just the atmospheric effects will make that vector inaccurate after a few minutes, but worse yet, if the plane changed direction, by guessing at its supposed location could have, and would have in 2 instances, lead the fighters way off course. it is silly to assume that a hijacked plane will stay on course. and since there was no perceived danger it was best to wait until all the facts were known.


if i was in their position at the time, I'd go with, hold out of the way at low speed's until we find them, then intercept them and follow them until we know more about what they want.

How can it be bad journalism predicting the future, how do they know it will collapse ? The video is live, the building is there, why does she say it has collapsed ? And also gives the details, then the video is cut because of "technical difficulties" :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60649180677572

It just shows that they had the story prepared, but BBC got the timing wrong, resulting in "news from the future"

you ever play telephone? case closed.

I remember the airplane vs. helicopter argument that day. The media people keep trying to get the scoop on each other and don't always report the truth.

It would be a stretch to say the media was involved in the cover-up, and knew that this was going to happen ahead of time. They were rushed, and didn't have access, the people they went up to and questioned at ground zero probably were shell shocked. There is absolutely no reason to tell the media if this was a inside conspiracy.

Interesting coincidence, but I'm 95% sure that it was just a misinformed journalist.

BBC answers :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html

They say they lost the tapes of the biggest story ever. It's strange how someone found those tapes , they were on the net at BBC archives yesterday :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread269695/pg1

Google has removed the video :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60649180677572

The video can still be found here :
http://shoestringcentury.blogspot.co...-evidence.html

as previously stated:

you ever play telephone? case closed.

I think they may have become suspicious that they were under attack when a hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center. After the initial strike, it's safe to assume that everyone had put 1 and 1 together and gotten 2.
Actually, no. The planes were ordered to New York City. You see, NORAD had already been given Flight 11's trajectory and speed, and when NORAD scrambled the F-15s they went to New York City. I have no idea where you're getting the information about the planes flying over the Pacific.
No, even if I concede flights 77 and 93 - which I am not doing, I'm still half right...and I'm right about the largest attacks. So you've warmed at least one cockle by your own admission. "Atmospheric conditions" will not render a trajectory inaccurate at all. I'm not a pilot, but I do know several and they have made it clear that while a wind might blow one way or a pocket might drop you, you can get a good idea of where a plane is going based on trajectory and if you combine that with speed, you can =really start to narrow it down. Add to that the fact that Flight 11's actual flight was damned short:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._AA11_path.png
and I think we can figure out what's going on. It's not like the F-15s were flying to Arizona or England. They were headed towards New York (state) at at least 700 mph. Again, they dragged their feet something pretty serious.

It wasn’t until the second plane hit, that I first thought we were under attack, I thought it was just a horrible accident. We are all optimist when it comes to tragedy, I can’t speak for the people on the inside, but I’m sure that some were even thinking the impact was an accident even though it was a hijacking.

Well I screwed up, I did, I meant the Atlantic, not the Pacific... they were sent over the Atlantic, near New York but they were a ways out over the ocean until the target was known (source is Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts)

Its accurate until they turn, and then it all goes to hell, what would have happened if they had tried with flight 77 to guess where it would be, they would have been way off, and you’d complained they were sent to the middle of know where when should have been defending the pentagon.

What are the odds that a plane would hit one of the Twin Towers?
You said they were told to intercept the plane. If the plane flew away from the coast, inland, then there would be no reason to fly over the Atlantic. Also, the speed laws don't apply over open ocean. So either: they flew over the Atlantic and dragged their feet or, they flew over land and dragged their feet.
As you said, they didn't know there was a target with Flight 11. They went to intercept Flight 11. With Flight 77, they had an idea of what was going on so they went to DC.

fixed link... again
 

before 9/11, some planes accidentally hit buildings, before 9/11 no one purposefully hit a building. although unlikely, it was more likely then a terrorist attack.

they do apply over some of the coast, i don't know how far out, but i think its several miles. they still did not know where to go to intercept, they were waiting until they got the location, once they did the made there best time to the city. something you may not realize is that even though a plane is capable of Mach 2, they are incapable of sustaining that speed for long, although tthe f-16 has a combat radius of 500 miles (max distance traveled to target and back) it does not mean it can travel at Mach 2 for the 1000 miles. furthermore the top speed is only available at altitude, not low over a city.


flight 77 came back on the DC radar 5 minutes before impact, when the flight controller noticed it was a rogue plane the call was made and the f-16's over the Atlantic tore out at the max speed towards the city, but they were still 150 miles awaywhen it hit the pentagon

Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

link fixed

Dil
You are really grasping at straws with your arguments.
How do you explain that BBC video where the reporter tells about the WTC7 collapse with the building standing there in the background?

Maybe time zones? In that case i'll be looking to BBC for the winning lottery numbers and horse race results!

While Dil keeps harping about the 55 mph speed limit for intercepting planes... take a look at this:

"Did HBO Cover Up Bomb Use At The WTC on 9/11?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XqXbGDIHcA

Those are actually reports broadcast on that day. Funny how the "conspiracy theorists" (ones that believe 19 Arabs and fire-induced pancaking) select only favorable arguments.

BBC: again i ask have you ever played telephone, messages get garbled as they get past along, one of the biggest problem these days is the media is more concerned about speed then reliability. it can easily go from, tower 7 is heavily damaged and looks like it will collapse, to it was heavily damaged and just collapsed.

i never said 55 mph. jets cannot exceed the speed of sound over cities.

some of that video i agree with, the media is fucked up, fox especially, i don't trust a damn word fox says and neither should you. sure they cropped the sound, what ever the reason, still does not mean that bombs were placed. the buildings are large, and contain many things, there are plenty of things that can go boom. no evidence of bombs has ever been found. tower 7 had tons of diesel in it, what other flammable/explosive things were in there.

http://www.printsandphotos.com/Merch...ize/3/3265.jpg

"no evidence of bombs has ever been found"

Nor even looked for. :no:
What better evidence that the words of the people that were actually there? I guess they can't tell one noise from the other... might have been somebody nailing a picture hook in the next office, huh? Really big hammer.

I'm not sure what you'd expect to find and who you expect would find it since the "real 19 Arabs" controlled the cleanup and the investigation.

right there's even a few hundred bodies never accounted for, may as well say they didn't even bother to look for those either.

heck maybe your 19 Arabs grandfathers were behind the Holocaust too.

:shakehead:

yes i forgot, the government silenced all the thousands of workers, relocated them or killed them and there families, and there friends, and their friends so no one could talk about what they saw. i forgot about the missing 10,000 people who did the clean up work, i forgot how they disappeared so they couldn't talk. sorry my bad... oh wait they didn't huh.

or was it just dick and bush doing all the cleanup i forgot.

He said "Dick and Bush" :eek: har har

I don't think they need to silence anybody, you and many others don't believe people who were there telling you what happened, you need to hear it only from official sources.

If "Dick and Bush" told you a herd of elephants trampled on the towers to make them crumble you'd believe that.

Some quotes from people who work in mass media :

A picture with the 6 groups that own all the big media on the planet :
http://img171.imagevenue.com/loc18/t..._122_18lo.jpeg
They create that reality which is the most profitable for them

I see my freedom as something not influenced by the outside world, but people must know about the media. It's the media created reality we live in and if the media lies that's the reality for us. Good thing this internet

Conversely true is that you and many others don't believe people who were telling you what happened, you need to hear it only from fringe sources.

If "fringe" sources told you a herd of elephants trampled on the towers to make them crumble you'd believe that.

Again, the post not the poster. :)

@pai mei

though quotes are taken out of context, you seem to belief that they are talking about covering up for the government, with the exception of fox new, you are wrong. the media does have an agenda, to get viewers. and they will manipulate our hearts and minds to do it. how many little white girls go missing and make the head lines, even though there are hundreds of times the number of minorities that do...

@fastom

unfortunately allot of the people on the scene are not experts, they hear 'explosions' that could have been anything, they saw the windows black out on the plane, when there is clear video that they were not. i-witness reports are unreliable, the 'explosions' on the bottom floor could have just been elevators impacting the ground floor, it could have been reserve fuel in the basement, any number of things. but some idiot called it an explosion and others heard, and the word spread to many people that there was a bomb.

Dilbert1234567 you say Norad could not track the planes because the transponders were turned off ? Norad is military and enemy jets and missles do not have transponders, and commercial planes are in the air in case of a nuke attack with 1000 missles (with no trasnponders) but Norad is made to track and identify them.
Hijacked plane = enemy plane, Norad could find them easy.
Here are some real news :

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11

The official report is full of holes, unlike the documentaries above, try the first one

you still don't get it.

the jets WERE on radar, radar however does not identify a plane, all it shows is a blip on a map, maybe direction and speed. matching the blip to hijacked plane against a sea of other blips is near impossible. as i stated already, the traffic controller had to traverse a flight of stairs to get from the radar screen to the room that the transponders screen. the communication did not exist to quickly identify a hijacked plane with out its transponder on.

edit: watched video

First he’s an ‘enthusiast’, not an expert. Nuff said.

3:00 steel melting is not part of the official line. It expanded and warped, then contracted.

4:20 forgot to mention that the bomber was nearly empty on fuel on impact.

5:33 the fire was dying down at that time, where the girders were contracting and pulling the sides inward, destroying the structure integrity.

6:30 smoke is also a sign of impurities in the fire, IE all the crap inside the tower burning.

I’m done this video is full of crap.

Dilbert
The multitude of blips are very few. It doesn't matter the total number of planes in US airspace they didn't need to look in San Diego or Seattle, they knew where the planes were.

I'm surprised you aren't concerned about the military being as inept as you claim. Do you believe all public services are like that? :orly:

...

I have a question, Dil. Say you have a thousand blips on a screen any given day. Say that normally, all of them have transponder signals (so a number appears next to them). Say that this morning, three didn't send signals, meaning that on the screen there are three blips that are just blips, no numbers. As I understand it, air traffic controllers are responsible for no more than a few dozen planes at any given moment. Are you sure it would have been so difficult to find them?

thats how it is now, however, on 9/11, there was no device in the tower that combined both methods of tracking the planes, radar and the transponder were handled on different floors, not just on different screens. the flight controller had to go up a flight of stairs to see the second view. that is why it was so hard to track the 3 that didn't have the transponders on them. NORAD was the same, sure they can track everything in the sky, but they are not designed to track commercial aircraft as airline flights, NORAD saw them as blips, not as airline flight numbers. the flights originated inside the US, so there was no threat as NORAD is designed to look for it, had it came from the ocean, or another country, they would have scrambled and intercepted immediately.

i think were getting some where now.

Have you ever seen the movie "Pushing Tin?". It's not really all that good, but it does feature air traffic controllers a lot. One thing you may notice while watching this movie, which was made in 1999, is that the screens they look at featured both he blips and the transponder codes. While I realize this is a work of fiction, it's amazing that they would have this technology showcased ahead of 9/11. Do you think it's possible that they actually do receive the information from radar (to locate) and transponder (to identify) on th same screen? The fact that I asked a friend isn't that good so far as asking for evidence, so I figure this Angelina Jolie classic might serve as an aid.

I'm pretty sure that both radar and transponders have been displayed on the same screen since the 1980s. I'll see if I can find proof online, but for now Pushing Tin will have to do.
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/p/images/pushing-tin-1.jpg

...and people fly through plate glass windows when shot by guns, and explosion sounds fly at the speed of light. and sound travels in space, and gas tanks explode... movies mix reality and fiction to tell a story, and to entertain, entertainment overrides reality, how cool of a story would it be if he had to walk 2 minutes to check the other display. that would make a lame movie. just like not hearing the phaser blasts in space.

you're grasping here Will.

I would highly recommend reading this book:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=158816635X

its well thought out and fact checked. I'll even let you borrow copy if you want.

No, the reality is that air traffic controllers, since the early 80s and before, have had on their screen both the information on location and identification. The problem is that I can't find a link to an article online. The idea that they were separate is incorrect. I'm grasping at straws for a link, but the truth of the matter is that you're incorrect when you say that radar and transponders were handled on different floors.

then why would popular mechanics lie, a reputable organizational, who would be ratted out in a second by thousands of air traffic controllers on their lie. why have thousands of air traffic controllers come out and say they are wrong? your grasping at straws here Will.

i love how your gut feeling overrides experts.

one thing to keep in mind is that they 2 systems Can be integrated, but they were not on the system in question.

According to Popular Mechanics, they are not experts. They contacted people in various fields. They did not contact an air traffic controller. How many air traffic controllers are there on TFP? Why is it that you think everyone in the US is deep in discussion about 9/11? Why do you think that everyone, after 9/11 studied for hundreds of hours? You're continuing ascertion that people are lying assumes that they know to begin with. Only a few people have really sat down and broken down each part of that day and studied it for years. Because of that fact, the idea that people are 'lying' really isn't necessary. They simply haven't looked at the information available.

Also, there are air traffic controllers and pilots in the 9/11 truth movement. I simply avoid quoting them here because I doubt you'd believe them. There was an extensive interview with a seasoned pilot who has flown dozens of different planes and even worked as an air traffic controller on the radio show "Guns and Butter" that I posted, and people suddenly attacked the man's validity (weak attacks), and he was summarily dismissed. I see that as precedent that I'd be wasting my time by posing the testimony of anyone who agrees with me. Rather scary.

because its hard to accept that a simple plan could kill so many people, and that it could happen again, easily even in the current climate. it's a scary notion to know we are so vulnerable. it's much easier to think that it takes an intricate government conspiracy to kill so many and so much, that everything has to be perfectly aligned for such an attack to take place. it's scary for me to think that such a simple plan could be executed and our government is so inept and obsessed with covering its own incompetent ass that it could do such a terrible job with the investigation, giving conspiracy theorist even more fuel to the fire.


I have looked into it for years, i approached it with an open mind, and instead of believing the first theory i saw, i looked into nearly all of them (i ignored the mini nuke theory all together.) however, my scientific background tells me that towers can collapse in the fashion we saw with out explosives.

I didn't ask the possible reasoning behind why people would study this, I asked what evidence you have to suggest that everyone is studying this.
Yeah, I think we can all agree that the alien, satan, and mini-nuke theories are incorrect. My understanding of science, along with my is depth discussions with professionals in the fields of tall building construction and now demolition have led me to the conclusion that we are missing a very large piece of information about that day.

you lost me there, i don't think many people are studying it, i think there are some legit people studying it, and allot of people that want there 15 minutes of fame (mini nukes...).


hmmm, i know we've gone over tall buildings, and i don't think we will get anywhere, every structural engineer at my college, every physics professor, agree that there was nothing fishy in the towers destruction.

The only air traffic controller i know says you are wrong. He's been doing the job since the 70's and is quite familiar with the system.

For that matter the only pilot i know says you are wrong too.

really? he didn't walk out in the 80s when all the ATCs walked out during the Reagan adminstration? I thought they all got fired for walking out...

Cynth, not all ATVs were members of the PATCO (and thus not all of them were on strike), and also most of them returned to work eventually.

Again, Reagan was a dick.

yeah i guess :orly: ... I thought they were dicks because I sat on a tarmack for 3 hours waiting to take off from JFK.

I wasn't born yet.

and the people popular mechanics interviewed say I'm right, i trust popular mechanics to get there facts right, more then your friend. your friend has a limited scope, which may not include the airport in question, whereas pop mech actually asked questions to the place in question, hence more reliable.

Popular Mechanics seems to have an agenda. They didn't likely ask the right questions. Their article reads like defence lawyer tactics.

how could they ask the wrong question, the answer they got was that the controller had to traverse a flight of stairs to see the radar vs transponder view. thats a pretty big stretch there.

there articles are written by professionals, technical writers, thats why they read like they were written by professionals technical writers. technical writers write technically so they can't be misinterpreted. why would you lump them in with lawyers unless you want to bring in the negative connotation that lawyers have. now you are not just attacking the books credibility but the organization as a whole, you are attacking a credible, accurate organization with a great track record of accuracy because they don't agree with some guy you know. you have an agenda, to only accept the evidence that supports your views while rejecting anything that disagrees with them.

Fine then, a point by point AGAIN.


Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that the jets that struck in New York and DC weren't commercial planes.

Me: We have only ambiguous video or picture evidence, since many photographs and videos of the crash, epically of the Pentagon, remain classified. Aside from eyewitness accounts, which aren't particularly reliable, we only have limited photographic evidence about the Pentagon crash. Fortunately for me, the one video released by the Pentagon was enough to debunk the Flight 77 myth. Fortunately for me, I've already analyzed the evidence and have posted about it here, here, here, and here.


Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that a pod was attached to the fuselage of Flight 175 that hit the South Tower.

Me: And we're right :thumbsup::
This is a regular Boeing 767:
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/nopod767.jpg
This is a Boeing 767 on 9/11:
http://pod.batcave.net/z5.jpg
Any questions?

Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that either no planes were scrambled or that they dragged their feet. Thankfully, that's a conversation we just ended, so I won't need to go into further detail.


Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that a FOX News broadcast featured an interview with Marc Bimbach where he was quoted saying, "[The plane that hit the South Tower] definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Me: Popular Mechanic's experts omitted part of this interview, in which Marc explains in great detail a blue logo on the front of the plane, something that would not have been on Flight 175. Again, I don't know how much stock to put into eyewitness reports, but it's something that he imagined a very specific blue logo where there officially was none.


Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists suggest that it's standard operating procedure for fighters to intercept possibly hijacked planes, and that they can usually reach them in a matter of minutes.
Me: Popular Mechanics sucks. According to the Air Force in their official press release, it took the F-16 about 20 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's Learjet.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews
Why would they need to lie to prove their point? Is it possible that they are full of shit? Yes, and this proves it. But it gets better...
...NORAD, according to the AP, has scrambled fighters 67 times between 9/2000 and 6/2001. But it gets better...
...one of Popular Mechanic's own expert sources, Maj. Douglas Martin, told the Associated Press that NORAD scrambled over 60 times in the year prior to 9/11.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
Yikes, right? How could they be so wrong. But it gets better...
...This is a cached copy of the FAA protocol. Notice it's effective from before 9/11? This is where you can find Chapter 7: Escort of Hijacked Aircraft. It's scary how wrong PM, an organization of professionals and technical writers can be.


Popular Mechanics: Me: WTC7 fell PERFECTLY INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT, despite the fact that all the alledged damage and explosion was on one side of the building.
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org...ollapse_lg.gif
Notice that it falls at free fall, no outward debris, and the top moves straight down.

As for the fire thing, I've already posted evidence on that, and even though someone who claims to be a student of higher physics doesn't follow, my work has been verified by experts.


Popular Mechanics: Molten steel? Jet fuel caused loss of strength?

Me: Yes, jackasses. The ASTM E119 steel used to build the WTC could not have been stressed by hydrocarbon fires, especially in only an hour. An executive from Underwriters Labs, the company that was given the responsibility for proving the official story about 9/11, spoke out, saying "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." Not only that, but anything and everything inside the WTC buildings would have been strictly governed by fire codes. In other words, it would be fire rated, tested for flame spread, smoke density and a dozen other thing. This will give you a complete listing of the ASTM published standards.


Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that as each tower collapsed there were visible puffs of smoke coming out from he collapsing floors, suggesting controlled demolition.

Me: There were 47 solid, one piece i-beams in the center of each Twin Tower. They supported the weight of the building. I'm wondering just how the impact of a floor falling upon a floor would collapse them at the same speed as the rest of the collapsing building? How about a big dose of 'nope'. This is my favorite:
Where is the math on this fantastic 'enormous energy"? I'd love to see the math that explains how one pancaked floor at the top of the building mysteriously falling could explain the pulverization of the entire building, including crushing the 47 i-beams. Of course, I can't because PM left that out.


This is exhausting. I'll finish the rest later.

I'm done with this thread for now, one quick note

your source is the one that sucks, if you actually read the pop mech book fully or just did deeper, you'll see that both the take off and intercept time were given in local time, but the plane crossed a timezone, hence the extra hour. the total time between take off and intercept is 1:20 not 0:20.

here is the official NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm

they were launched shortly after contact was not made at 0933:38 EDT
the intercept was at About 0952 CDT notice the timezone change. 80 minutes.

but anyways, this is a waste of my time, I've got calculus to study.

Oh Dil

You put blind faith in anybody who puts blind faith in that official story. They make it up as they go along, make the so-called evidence fit the story rather than examine the evidence and figure out what happened. I hope these "investigators" aren't the people i'd have to rely on if my car got stolen.


Now look at that video clip Will posted of tower 7. It's pretty plain to me and anybody with half a brain what's happening there.
Notice the top sagging in the middle? The structure is being blown up (yes i said "blown up"). A collapse from damage on one side or a fire will never do that. Certainly you must have seen a building demolition on TV, maybe one of the old Las Vegas casinos? But why was it on fire anyways? No plane crashed into it, the debris that fell on it damaged the one side but as shown in pictures it wasn't burning earlier.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA okay, now that's good.

Overgeneralize much? If your arguments were really about the post not the poster, I'd not be able to take your statement and without changing a word, put you in the same position.

Quote:

Oh Fastom You put blind faith in anybody who puts blind faith in that official story. They make it up as they go along, make the so-called evidence fit the story rather than examine the evidence and figure out what happened. I hope these "investigators" aren't the people i'd have to rely on if my car got stolen.

Gee that's really good. :shakehead:

Keep from attacking the fellow member, keep it on subject not personal attacks.

Cynth, first you say this:
and then you say this:
So either what fatsom did was fine, or what you both did was wrong. You use the same 'attack' on fatsom that he used on Dilbert, and then you dress him down for it.

Fastom does not attack the evidence, he attacks the person, me, pop mech, anything that does not agree with him. if it does not agree with him it has an agenda, and there for cannot be trusted. that is why I am done with this thread.

it was an example so that he can read how wrong it was.. .sorry it wasn't ALL yellow which it should have been.

Hard to moderate and play World of Warcraft at the same time.

Cynth: Okey dokey.

Dil, why bail?

Oh c'mon Dil , i'll try not to diss. :devious:

I do find it hard to figure out how anybody thinks Pop Mech is unbiased. They investigated backwards, draw a conclusion and look for evidence (or make it up) to fit that. Ignore that which doesn't fit. :orly:

I guess what i said meant the subject needed to change...

"Now look at that video clip Will posted of tower 7. It's pretty plain to me and anybody with half a brain what's happening there.
Notice the top sagging in the middle? The structure is being blown up (yes i said "blown up"). A collapse from damage on one side or a fire will never do that. Certainly you must have seen a building demolition on TV, maybe one of the old Las Vegas casinos? But why was it on fire anyways? No plane crashed into it, the debris that fell on it damaged the one side but as shown in pictures it wasn't burning earlier."

Is there any way to add a sound clip to a post... maybe The Who ?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh can't explain....

Ce spune un controlor de trafic :

http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TaRPm7CvKFM

Who believes them ? They got home changed clothes and come back ? and know nothing about the extent of the damage ? Then they say they just escaped from WTC 5 ?

If there was Bin Laden saying what they say, all the world would yell "liar !"

Wow, great find. That sure seems typical of comparing the official story to what was said that day.

I didn't used to believe in government coverups and conspiracies until that airliner got shot down off Long Island. The newspaper said "shot down" and i just happened to be there when a former Navy officer stopped at a store and saw that paper.
He groaned and muttered "Not again".
So i had to ask.

moderator: please delete this post
 

moderator: please delete this post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiIyI6ugmUM
Rosie O'Donnel speaks out about 9/11. She has nothing to gain by this. I admire her courage.

The official investigation began 400 days after the attack - only at the request of the victim's fammilies, the governemnt had no intention to investigate on their own, they "knew" all from day one.
They spent 600000 $ on it , and they had a lot to investigate : 4 planes, NORAD not working, 3000 victims, thousands of witnesses
WTC 7 did not even make it in the report
On Monica Lewinsky they spent 40 million $
Who wants to find more search 9/11 on google and google video

It's awesome that so many viewers are being exposed to 9/11 infomation. Hopefully it won't be long until this totally goes mainstream.

Hopefully it happens before Bush kicks off WW3 and blows us all to Kingdom Come (Cum?):paranoid:

John Kerry says that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. He's one of the last people that I thought would address '9/11 truth' issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLnaogsm60A&eurl=

That's an interesting vid, samcol. It's hard to tell what stand he's taking on it. It seemed that he was acting as if this was the first he's heard of it, and the statement about it being brought down didn't fit with that. Dishonest maybe? It's hard to tell.

Anyone else notice how after the elections, Al Gore and John Kerry got a little cooler? What's that all about?

I found the video to be very odd as well, his stance doesn't make much sense. If you think WTC 7 came down by demolition the obvious conclusion is that we've been lied to about 9/11, but he kind of just throws it out there like everyone knew 7 was a demolition.

It's like everybody knew but nobody cares. :orly:

It doesn't seem like anybody official is interested in catching the perpetrators.
But the sheeple don't find that suspicious.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/...ghway_collapse

This event might change my mind as to the effect of jet fuel and the explosion had on the WTC buildings. I'm not sure how much of the fuel would have been used up in the first fireball anymore.

Then again, you don't hear people saying that there were streams of jet fuel burning all over the inside of the building either.

Don't forget that most of the fuel in the wtc burned up immediately.

Some facts:
1) The overpass was not built to take a 4 alarm fire or the impact of a commercial plane like the WTCs were.
2) The only thing that burned under the overpass was gas and the trucks.
3) We don't know how long the fire burned under the overpass.
4)vs. the fact that While the gas fire was unfortunate and the traffic was HORRIBLE, it shouldn't cast too much doubt on the questions surrounding 9/11.

Howzabout some of the other aspects. The planes themselves, there are a whole bunch of inconsistancies there. From the tail number of one still being listed as active to the claimed flights not have being registered that day , there was a database of every scheduled airline flight i saw several years ago that didn't list those flight numbers.
The first time i ever heard anything about the 9/11 deal not being as claimed was from a pilot neighbor who filled me in on the remote flight control and the fact the 757 can't manouver like they showed on TV. He referred me to a pilots forum which wasn't this one...

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...showtopic=5935

... it was just regular airline topics with one pilot asking if anybody thought a 757 could do that. I think that led to the Pilots for Truth site.

Maybe somebody here has experts in white coats in laboratories who say it's possible but my neighbor has flown everything from biplanes to 747's since WW2 and says it's utterly impossible.

So if a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon what did? If it didn't happen as stated, what else? Then the 19 Arabs getting on those planes wasn't the root cause, what else? And so on...