what happened on 911 - Page 22 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 02-27-2007, 05:48 PM

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

Dilbert1234567 · 02-27-2007, 07:18 PM

as previously stated:

you ever play telephone? case closed.

Willravel · 02-27-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

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:

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 02-27-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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:

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.

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.

Willravel · 02-27-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

What are the odds that a plane would hit one of the Twin Towers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 02-28-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What are the odds that a plane would hit one of the Twin Towers?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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

fastom · 03-05-2007, 10:38 AM

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-05-2007, 12:21 PM

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.

fastom · 03-06-2007, 02:04 AM

"no evidence of bombs has ever been found"

Nor even looked for.

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.

Cynthetiq · 03-06-2007, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

"no evidence of bombs has ever been found"

Nor even looked for.

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-06-2007, 08:22 AM

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.

fastom · 03-08-2007, 01:17 AM

He said "Dick and Bush"

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.

pai mei · 03-08-2007, 02:23 AM

Some quotes from people who work in mass media :

Quote:

"The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie
outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to
sell his country & his race for his daily bread. We are the tools &
vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual
prostitutes."
- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune

“Media is actually controlled by the corporations, who also control
the government. Which in a sense, is even worse, as they have no
loyalty whatsoever. Our job is to give people not what they want
But what we decide they ought to have”.
Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

“We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with
issues and subjects that we choose to deal with”.
- Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS political news

“We in the press like to say we're honest brokers of information and
it's just not true. The press does have an agenda”.
- Bernard Goldberg, ex CBS reporter

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the
general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe
democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps
to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print
what it knows."
- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our
plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity
during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and
prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational
sovereignty of an intellectual elite & world bankers is surely preferable
to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller (Baden-Baden, Germany 1991)

A picture with the 6 groups that own all the big media on the planet :

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

Cynthetiq · 03-08-2007, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

He said "Dick and Bush"

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.

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-08-2007, 08:37 AM

@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.

pai mei · 03-08-2007, 03:48 PM

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

Dilbert1234567 · 03-08-2007, 05:46 PM

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.

fastom · 03-08-2007, 06:22 PM

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?

Dilbert1234567 · 03-08-2007, 06:39 PM

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

Willravel · 03-08-2007, 06:54 PM

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?

Dilbert1234567 · 03-08-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Willravel · 03-08-2007, 08:27 PM

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-08-2007, 09:48 PM

...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.

Willravel · 03-09-2007, 08:55 AM

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-09-2007, 09:06 AM

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.

Willravel · 03-09-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-09-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Why is it that you think everyone in the US is deep in discussion about 9/11?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Only a few people have really sat down and broken down each part of that day and studied it for years.

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.

Willravel · 03-09-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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.

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-09-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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...).

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

fastom · 03-09-2007, 09:22 PM

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.

Cynthetiq · 03-09-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

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...

Willravel · 03-09-2007, 09:38 PM

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.

Cynthetiq · 03-09-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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

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

Willravel · 03-09-2007, 10:02 PM

I wasn't born yet.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-09-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

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.

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.

fastom · 03-10-2007, 01:52 AM

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

Dilbert1234567 · 03-10-2007, 09:36 AM

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.

Willravel · 03-10-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

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

:
This is a regular Boeing 767:

This is a Boeing 767 on 9/11:

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.

Quote:

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

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:

Quote:

The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

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.

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-10-2007, 01:16 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

fastom · 03-10-2007, 02:10 PM

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.

02-27-2007, 05:48 PM	#841 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	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 __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 02-27-2007 at 06:25 PM..

02-27-2007, 07:18 PM	#842 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	as previously stated: you ever play telephone? case closed. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-05-2007, 10:38 AM	#847 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	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. Last edited by fastom; 03-05-2007 at 11:00 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

03-05-2007, 12:21 PM	#848 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen Last edited by Dilbert1234567; 03-05-2007 at 12:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

03-06-2007, 08:22 AM	#851 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-06-2007, 02:04 AM	#849 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	"no evidence of bombs has ever been found" Nor even looked for. 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.

03-08-2007, 01:17 AM	#852 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	He said "Dick and Bush" 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.

03-08-2007, 08:37 AM	#855 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	@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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-08-2007, 03:48 PM	#856 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	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 __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"

03-08-2007, 05:46 PM	#857 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen Last edited by Dilbert1234567; 03-08-2007 at 06:06 PM..

03-08-2007, 06:22 PM	#858 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	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?

03-08-2007, 06:54 PM	#860 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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?

03-08-2007, 08:27 PM	#862 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

03-08-2007, 09:48 PM	#863 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	...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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-09-2007, 08:55 AM	#864 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

03-09-2007, 09:06 AM	#865 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen Last edited by Dilbert1234567; 03-09-2007 at 09:13 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

03-09-2007, 09:22 PM	#870 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	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.

03-09-2007, 09:38 PM	#872 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

03-09-2007, 10:02 PM	#874 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I wasn't born yet.

03-10-2007, 01:52 AM	#876 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Popular Mechanics seems to have an agenda. They didn't likely ask the right questions. Their article reads like defence lawyer tactics.

03-10-2007, 09:36 AM	#877 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-10-2007, 02:10 PM	#880 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	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.