NationStates Jolt Archive

I've decided to do a series of "Debunking 9/11 myth" here on NSG. I would do them on the Loose Change forum, but they banned me. Apparently using your knowledge of aircrafts, aviation, and being a pilot (even though I am just a Private Pilot) is forbidden and is a threat to the illusion they have set up over there. So without further ado, I will now debunk the first of several myth involving 9/11 and this "inside job" conspiracy theories.

Myth: The 19 Hijackers could not even operate a Cessna 172 and yet we're to believe they can operate a Boeing 757/767 in IFR conditions?

Ok, let me betray my fellow pilots, and admit, that the flight portion of any flight (the portion after take off and climb, and before descent and landing) is really the easiest part of flying. Hell I can take my 5 year old cousin up in the Piper Cherokee 180 that I fly, fly it up to 5,500 feet level it out, adjust the power and trim it, and my five year old cousin will be able to fly the aircraft.

Basically that what all the hijackers had to do, the real pilots did all the hard work for the terrorist. After the aircraft was leveled out at cruising altitude with autopilot and auto-throttle engaged, the aircraft is basically flying itself.

Let me also take this time to explain hijacking policies pre 9/11. Back then people did not invision that these aircrafts were going to turn into missiles. The basic policy is to obey all of the hijackers request, fly them to Cuba or wherever they want to go, land, and have SWAT and authorities waiting for them at the airport. Since 9/11, the policy has change drastically to now a lock cockpit door and non-compliance with hijackers.

Ok, so the hijackers now has control of the aircrafts and they killed off the pilot and co-pilot, well they'd have to navigate to their targets right? I mean they're up at 30,000 feet, they can't use landmarks to navigate so they must use the instruments and surely that'd stop them right? Well, it would, if we didn't equip the aircrafts with autopilots and auto-throttles that basically fly the aircraft for the hijackers. Also, there's a little computer on the flight deck called the Flight Management System or FMS. This is basically the navigation computer of the aircraft. It's basically a computer with a small screen and keypad. All the hijackers would have to do is put in the coordinates of the closes navigation point to their targets and the autopilot would fly to that point. For American Flight 77, this would have to be Reagan Int. airport since it's the airport closes to the Pentagon. Hell the FMS could probably adjust the descent rate of the aircraft to bring it down to the altitude that the hijackers would need to crash it into their targets.

Now they are now close to their targets, and they have disabled the autopilot and auto-throttle. Now let's look at American Airline Flight 77. Now one of the things that is commented about this one is that the aircraft did a near 360 degree steep turn while descending at a rate of 3050 feet per second at full power, full power for a Boeing 757/767 would be at 500 mph. Conspiracy theorist like to point this out that a large airliner could never make this turn without the aircraft falling out of the sky. While yes it is highly recommended that a pilot does not do a steep turn (In an aircraft, a steep turn is basically turning while at a 45 degree bank.) it's not impossible. The turn is actually alot wider than what the theorist would like to believe. They believe that the Boeing turn on a dime, which it did not.

So why make the steep turn? Well, like I said, the nearest Nav. point for the Pentagon is the Ronald Reagan Airport, so after he passes over the airport, he now has the Pentagon in sight. He flies past the pentagon, executes the turn and he is now lined up with the pentagon and does his final descent into the Pentagon.

While it is unlikely that these hijackers could actually cut it as an airline pilot, the fact is that they did have minimum pilotage experience which are limited to simulation time, apparently that was all they needed to carry out their duty. If you ever heard of someone saying "Flying is so easy a child could do it." Well that is true, as long as the aircraft is at a leveled flight, trim up and power settings are set, and it really helps if it has an autopilot, auto-throttle and an FMS. You don't have to be freakin' Chuck Yeager to do this, but it helps.

Wilgrove!
1. You know nothing about flying or aircraft.
2. Grow up and get a life.

I've decided to do a series of "Debunking 9/11 myth" here on NSG. I would do them on the Loose Change forum, but they banned me. Apparently using your knowledge of aircrafts, aviation, and being a pilot (even though I am just a Private Pilot) is forbidden and is a threat to the illusion they have set up over there. So without further ado, I will now debunk the first of several myth involving 9/11 and this "inside job" conspiracy theories.
So inconvenient when real fact get in the way of the made up kind.

Myth: The 19 Hijackers could not even operate a Cessna 172 and yet we're to believe they can operate a Boeing 757/767 in IFR conditions?

Ok, let me betray my fellow pilots, and admit, that the flight portion of any flight (the portion after take off and climb, and before descent and landing) is really the easiest part of flying. Hell I can take my 5 year old cousin up in the Piper Cherokee 180 that I fly, fly it up to 5,500 feet level it out, adjust the power and trim it, and my five year old cousin will be able to fly the aircraft.

Basically that what all the hijackers had to do, the real pilots did all the hard work for the terrorist. After the aircraft was leveled out at cruising altitude with autopilot and auto-throttle engaged, the aircraft is basically flying itself.
true.

Let me also take this time to explain hijacking policies pre 9/11. Back then people did not envision that these aircrafts were going to turn into missiles. The basic policy is to obey all of the hijackers request, fly them to Cuba or wherever they want to go, land, and have SWAT and authorities waiting for them at the airport. Since 9/11, the policy has change drastically to now a lock cockpit door and non-compliance with hijackers.

Ok, so the hijackers now has control of the aircrafts and they killed off the pilot and co-pilot, well they'd have to navigate to their targets right? I mean they're up at 30,000 feet, they can't use landmarks to navigate so they must use the instruments and surely that'd stop them right? Well, it would, if we didn't equip the aircrafts with autopilots and auto-throttles that basically fly the aircraft for the hijackers. Also, there's a little computer on the flight deck called the Flight Management System or FMS. This is basically the navigation computer of the aircraft. It's basically a computer with a small screen and keypad. All the hijackers would have to do is put in the coordinates of the closes navigation point to their targets and the autopilot would fly to that point. For American Flight 77, this would have to be Reagan Int. airport since it's the airport closes to the Pentagon. Hell the FMS could probably adjust the descent rate of the aircraft to bring it down to the altitude that the hijackers would need to crash it into their targets.
More or less.

Now they are now close to their targets, and they have disabled the autopilot and auto-throttle. Now let's look at American Airline Flight 77. Now one of the things that is commented about this one is that the aircraft did a near 360 degree steep turn while descending at a rate of 3050 feet per second at full power, full power for a Boeing 757/767 would be at 500 mph. Conspiracy theorist like to point this out that a large airliner could never make this turn without the aircraft falling out of the sky. While yes it is highly recommended that a pilot does not do a steep turn (In an aircraft, a steep turn is basically turning while at a 45 degree bank.) it's not impossible. The turn is actually alot wider than what the theorist would like to believe. They believe that the Boeing turn on a dime, which it did not.
That's usually where I like to educate those fellows about steep turns and how one does them. No one would intuitively expect the plane to want to continue over onto it's back in a steep turn. You wouldn't even know ask the question if you didn't take lessons.

So why make the steep turn? Well, like I said, the nearest Nav. point for the Pentagon is the Ronald Reagan Airport, so after he passes over the airport, he now has the Pentagon in sight. He flies past the pentagon, executes the turn and he is now lined up with the pentagon and does his final descent into the Pentagon.

While it is unlikely that these hijackers could actually cut it as an airline pilot, the fact is that they did have minimum pilotage experience which are limited to simulation time, apparently that was all they needed to carry out their duty. If you ever heard of someone saying "Flying is so easy a child could do it." Well that is true, as long as the aircraft is at a leveled flight, trim up and power settings are set, and it really helps if it has an autopilot, auto-throttle and an FMS. You don't have to be freakin' Chuck Yeager to do this, but it helps.
Straight and level yes. Landings not so much.

I find the whole argument silly. Give me one good reason why they wouldn't
take lessons. Really.

Or tell me what they did with the plane and the people on it (sorry to jump ahead).

It makes no sense. They were well funded and intelligent. Of course they would opt for the training.

HE'S PAID BY THE BUSHITLER CHENEY-HALLIBURTON(insert tired, overused phrase of choice) WAR MACHINE TO SPREAD LOGIC AND REASON!!

NO ONE LISTEN TO HIM, HE'S IN ON IT!!

Any tard can fly a cessna. That's the point.

Wilgrove!
1. You know nothing about flying or aircraft.
2. Grow up and get a life.

1. Um excuse me, I may not fly the big irons like the Boeing's and Airbuses, but I sure as hell know alot about flying and about what aircrafts are and should be capable of! I've been flying in Pipers and Cessnas for a long time, and I think I know a little bit about flying or about aircrafts! Let me see your logbook Celtlund, let me see how many hours you logged as PIC, let me see your ratings, and what aircraft your checked out on.

2. Take your own advice.

Any tard can fly a cessna. That's the point.

It's just how well he can fly it that matters.

I never thought they did, nor did I ever think it was them, just them. But I am a proud conspiracy theorist. And most of our shit turns out to be true, just gotta wait til the now living are dead to get some of the truth. And this is too big to come out for another 200 years. Haha.

Any tard can fly a cessna. That's the point.

Fly? Yes.
Land? No fucking way.

Wilgrove!
1. You know nothing about flying or aircraft.
2. Grow up and get a life.

And here we go again, waiting while the moderators do nothing about Celt's blatant flamebait bullshit.

It's just how well he can fly it that matters.

Really there's only two ways to die flying.

Fly? Yes.
Land? No fucking way.

Good point. What does landing have to do with crashing into a skyscraper? :p

PHEW wilgrove, i thought i was going to open this up and see you support the conspiracy theory. it was quite distressing.

nice post. too bad they wouldnt let you post it at loose change.

were you getting a bit flamey over there?

Good point. What does landing have to do with crashing into a skyscraper? :p

Quite a bit. The hijacker was in slow flight. You can tell because both sets of flaps were fully extended. It's tough to hit a relatively narrow target going 967km/h.

Slow flight is a critical component of landing.

I'm of the contention that it wasn't an inside job, but that the government isn't giving us the whole story either...

PHEW wilgrove, i thought i was going to open this up and see you support the conspiracy theory. it was quite distressing.

nice post. too bad they wouldnt let you post it at loose change.

were you getting a bit flamey over there?

Eh basically they were asking me to prove that I was a pilot and while the biggest CT person there who went by "Killtown" apparently possess all the inside knowledge of 9/11, and his main source was his blog. Meanwhile I used source like Newspapers, FAA, NTSB, Airliners.net, both Airliners involved, Boeing's website, etc. I also wouldn't accept "Killtown" blog as a legit source, so that may have something to do with it.

Anyone that believes some random 'jihadists' or whatever just decided to one day hijack some planes and ram them are deluded. But they will say the same about those that believe other arms and legs were in the mix, so to speak.

I will die believing that higher intel of our government either knew about it, or was behind it... or both.

Anyone that believes some random 'jihadists' or whatever just decided to one day hijack some planes and ram them are deluded. But they will say the same about those that believe other arms and legs were in the mix, so to speak.

Yea, but this wasn't just some random event. The hijackers spent years preparing for this.

Eh basically they were asking me to prove that I was a pilot and while the biggest CT person there who went by "Killtown" apparently possess all the inside knowledge of 9/11, and his main source was his blog. Meanwhile I used source like Newspapers, FAA, NTSB, Airliners.net, both Airliners involved, Boeing's website, etc. I also wouldn't accept "Killtown" blog as a legit source, so that may have something to do with it.

Do these people also edit wikipedia?

Do these people also edit wikipedia?

I wouldn't put it past them to do that. You know what makes me sick though. That on 9/11/06, Dylan Avery and his ilks were actually in New York passing out DVDs copy of Loose Change to those who lost family members on 9/11/01. I mean what is that saying? "Sorry for your lost, and oh by the way, your love ones is still alive and was a governmental agent all along." That is just wrong IMHO.

Eh basically they were asking me to prove that I was a pilot and while the biggest CT person there who went by "Killtown" apparently possess all the inside knowledge of 9/11, and his main source was his blog. Meanwhile I used source like Newspapers, FAA, NTSB, Airliners.net, both Airliners involved, Boeing's website, etc. I also wouldn't accept "Killtown" blog as a legit source, so that may have something to do with it.

lol

what great debate standards they have there! you must miss it so much.

Fly? Yes.
Land? No fucking way.

Bah, a tardhole with nippleballs can land a cessna.

It's been a point of discontent in the legal world for a long time.

Yea, but this wasn't just some random event. The hijackers spent years preparing for this.

there is 'proof' on both sides. I'm not even going to go into what I could say to that. For one.. it's been so long since I read up on it I can't remember alot, and I actually deleted a lot of links to it, when I was sick of being 'obsessed' with it. But I do remember passports were supposibly found of the hijackers.. but the black boxes were scorched. That is just a teeeny tiny thing on a mountain of other stuff. Not to mention all the much more other obvious things. But it's just the conspiracy of our times. In the 60's it was Kennedy.. btw who I'll also die believing we were lied to about. That's like a big duh, imo.

Anyone that believes some random 'jihadists' or whatever just decided to one day hijack some planes and ram them are deluded. But they will say the same about those that believe other arms and legs were in the mix, so to speak.

I will die believing that higher intel of our government either knew about it, or was behind it... or both.

I find it hard to believe the federal government would do this type of action against it's own nation. Just thinking rationally here. Those were not random jihadist. It was a well planned out covert operation. With determination and a little cash normal everyday people can do a lot. Maybe and I stress maybe helped by a intelligence agency of an anonymous nation or nations.

I wouldn't put it past them to do that. You know what makes me sick though. That on 9/11/06, Dylan Avery and his ilks were actually in New York passing out DVDs copy of Loose Change to those who lost family members on 9/11/01. I mean what is that saying? "Sorry for your lost, and oh by the way, your love ones is still alive and was a governmental agent all along." That is just wrong IMHO.

Most of the tin hat brigade have even called bupkiss on the loose change theory. It just makes no sense.

Have you posted any pictures of the actual freeway lights that were chopped off by the inbound plane. Oh no. That would be photo shop or routine maintenance or "streetlights of tomorrow" (yeah those dont come with the lights on them, saves electricity).

Incidentally, I'm going to have to sign off soon. The hangar is getting cold and I have no jacket.

Most of the tin hat brigade have even called bupkiss on the loose change theory. It just makes no sense.

Have you posted any pictures of the actual freeway lights that were chopped off by the inbound plane. Oh no. That would be photo shop or routine maintenance or "streetlights of tomorrow" (yeah those dont come with the lights on them, saves electricity).

Incidentally, I'm going to have to sign off soon. The hangar is getting cold and I have no jacket.

youre posting from a hanger?

i was just going to ask you if youre a pilot.

Bah, a tardhole with nippleballs can land a cessna.

It's been a point of discontent in the legal world for a long time.

Not so much with the aviation world.

Nippleballs might help though...:p

youre posting from a hanger?

i was just going to ask you if youre a pilot.

Ye. Drinking beer after hours at the DZ.

I'm working on a commercial rating. I want to fly multi-engine somethings.


Strangely enough it's quite warm outside. WTF?

Most of the tin hat brigade have even called bupkiss on the loose change theory. It just makes no sense.

Have you posted any pictures of the actual freeway lights that were chopped off by the inbound plane. Oh no. That would be photo shop or routine maintenance or "streetlights of tomorrow" (yeah those dont come with the lights on them, saves electricity).

Incidentally, I'm going to have to sign off soon. The hangar is getting cold and I have no jacket.

I got one thing better than the five lightpoles that were hit by the aircraft. A generator!

http://911review.org/_webimages/pentagongenerator/07my8s0p.JPG

As you can see, there's a little indention on top of the generator where the wings hit it, and it is pushed foward a little.

Here are the light poles.

http://757.batcave.net/a10a-DSC_0472-1.jpg

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

Ye. Drinking beer after hours at the DZ.

I'm working on a commercial rating. I want to fly multi-engine somethings.


Strangely enough it's quite warm outside. WTF?

has the commercial job market opened up some?

i had a friend who finally got his life together and went to flight school just before 9/11. turned a good decision to shit.

Not so much with the aviation world.

Nippleballs might help though...:p

It's true though. Nippleballs save the day.

Actually, is there anyone out there that can't land a cessna?


Shit man, you just turn the engine off at the right point.

I doooos have a joke though.

"What do you call a doctor in a baron?"

"Almost done!!!!!"

I find it hard to believe the federal government would do this type of action against it's own nation. Just thinking rationally here. Those were not random jihadist. It was a well planned out covert operation. With determination and a little cash normal everyday people can do a lot. Maybe and I stress maybe helped by a intelligence agency of an anonymous nation or nations.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. I am thinking rationally. I put nothing past them. Even if the jihadist had done it own their own, our cia etc knew about it. Didn't someone warn Bush or our int prior.. if i remember correctly the warning came from someone within our int? I'll never believe we were bon a fide ignorant of it. I will give that we might not had a direct hand in it( sincerely doubt that tho) , but someone here freakin knew.

Anyone that thinks a government, or any power to that stretch is outside the realm of doing some really bad are fooling themselves .. they are more likely because of their power and detachment imo.

Also, there were records kept of who all left that building prior. Can't remember if it was a day.. or days.. but it's not all that suprising who it was that leaving. Also the electrical shutdown prior, the dude that got a shit load of money from it.. etc. that's why i stopped reading about it,. it was just too much. No matter all those other things, our intel freakin knew, if not our president and the rest.

has the commercial job market opened up some?

i had a friend who finally got his life together and went to flight school just before 9/11. turned a good decision to shit.

I don't necessarily want to fly for the airlines. I think I want to fly a twin otter. There's tons of jobs out there. It's a matter of being creative. It's also a matter of being willing to relocate anywhere in the world.

It's true though. Nippleballs save the day.

Actually, is there anyone out there that can't land a cessna?


Shit man, you just turn the engine off at the right point.

I doooos have a joke though.

"What do you call a doctor in a baron?"

"Almost done!!!!!"

I got a better joke. If you have to make an emergency night landing you turn your landing light on about 30 meters off the ground. If you don't like what you see, turn it off.

I find it hard to believe the federal government would do this type of action against it's own nation.

i don't. those fuckers are cold.

i don't see any evidence that they actually did in this case. but we do know that a whole bunch of western governments (or factions within them) have engaged in terrorist actions in their own countries in the pursuit of various ends.

I got one thing better than the five lightpoles that were hit by the aircraft. A generator!
-snippage-

Those are obviously those new self collapsing poles.

i don't. those fuckers are cold.

i don't see any evidence that they actually did in this case. but we do know that a whole bunch of western governments (or factions within them) have engaged in terrorist actions in their own countries in the pursuit of various ends.

right ... including this one(gov), that didn't come out until years later.

i don't see any evidence that they actually did in this case. but we do know that a whole bunch of western governments (or factions within them) have engaged in terrorist actions in their own countries in the pursuit of various ends.

As have non-government factions.

Anyway, you are part of the government, are you not, so where do you get off?

It's all a bit ambiguous, isn't it?

Those are obviously those new self collapsing poles.

LOL, actually light poles are able to pop out of the ground, they aren't securely bolted. Why, well from what I can tell, it's that if it allowed to fall over when hit, then it causes less damage to the poles and car involved.

i don't. those fuckers are cold.

i don't see any evidence that they actually did in this case. but we do know that a whole bunch of western governments (or factions within them) have engaged in terrorist actions in their own countries in the pursuit of various ends.

But to what ends? What did they do with the people? The plane? I've yet to hear one good explanation.

I got a better joke. If you have to make an emergency night landing you turn your landing light on about 30 meters off the ground. If you don't like what you see, turn it off.

Ugh, this one time I actually saw the black hole of Calcutta. Never again. I hate pilots.

Edit: even my nippleballs couldn't save me at that point;.

LOL, actually light poles are able to pop out of the ground, they aren't securely bolted. Why, well from what I can tell, it's that if it allowed to fall over when hit, then it causes less damage to the poles and car involved.

Self extracting then. :D

But to what ends? What did they do with the people? The plane? I've yet to hear one good explanation.

They're all in underground bunkers in Area 51 with the aliens from Roswell! :p

Self extracting then. :D

Whatever make the conspiracy theorist happy I guess. :p

Ugh, this one time I actually saw the black hole of Calcutta. Never again. I hate pilots.

Edit: even my nippleballs couldn't save me at that point;.

That sounds like a euphemism for something unpleasant.

But to what ends? What did they do with the people? The plane? I've yet to hear one good explanation.

Yeah, I don't know either. Although I do know i searched obituaries and never found any of them(other than that site.. but certainly they wouldn't be that stupid). No clue.

My next thread will be "Debunking 9/11 Myth: Shanksville PA & United 93."

They're all in underground bunkers in Area 51 with the aliens from Roswell! :p

Aliens need love too.

My next thread will be "Debunking 9/11 Myth: Shanksville PA & United 93."

Ohhhhh! I actually have a conspiracy theory on that.

Ohhhhh! I actually have a conspiracy theory on that.

Well I will make the thread in the next few days, and you can follow up. :)

Yeah, I don't know either. Although I do know i searched obituaries and never found any of them(other than that site.. but certainly they wouldn't be that stupid). No clue.

It's highly improbable that there would randomly be a plane-full of "persons of interest." Besides, they'd arouse less suspicion with a series of kidnappings.

Well I will make the thread in the next few days, and you can follow up. :)

I'll be looking. I have a good one too.

Aliens need love too.

>.<

Quite a bit. The hijacker was in slow flight. You can tell because both sets of flaps were fully extended. It's tough to hit a relatively narrow target going 967km/h.

Slow flight is a critical component of landing.

:confused:

How is that slow flight? That's nearly the maximum speed of a 747...

I meant that's the other way you know the plane was in slow flight. sorry for the confusion.

Actually, bill clinton was behind 9/11.

But to what ends? What did they do with the people? The plane? I've yet to hear one good explanation.
How about war in the Middle East as an end, how about the Patriot Act, how about getting away with illegal wire-tapping, setting up concentration camps for POWs and using euthenisms like "enemy combatants' to get around the standards of basic human decency and the repulsion the good folk of the US would otherwise have felt for such dispicable conduct?

How about the fact that if the government wants to fuck over your right to even read a library book in privacy, all they have to do is say the word terrorism a couple of times and there we go?

I see no difficulty ascertaining what happened to the people and planes, they were destroyed when the planes were crashed into buildings and in one case a field.

The fact that a few terminally wacky people have weird ideas that involve an absence of planes tells us no more than if someone who believed it was foreign terrorists started ranting about the involvement of pink elephants.

The fact that some person who believes X is true also believes some other impossible thing about X doesnt prove the falsity of X.

If I were to try pull off a 9/11 as an insider, one of my first post-event acts would be to spread absurd and ridiculous stories about my involvment in order to discredit and have dismissed out of hand the actual facts of the matter. It is a surprising effective tactic given its simplicity and ease.

Evidently for all those who think there is some power in calling others conspiracy theorists, you might want to take a look in the mirror. No one is claiming this act was carried out by one person alone, or that a whole bunch of independent actors all did their part seperately and by coincidence they all acted simultaneously exactly as if they had conspired together. If you think that terrorists colluded in any way shape or form to pull-off 9/11 then you are a conspiracy theorist.

Evidently for all those who think there is some power in calling others conspiracy theorists, you might want to take a look in the mirror. No one is claiming this act was carried out by one person alone, or that a whole bunch of independent actors all did their part seperately and by coincidence they all acted simultaneously exactly as if they had conspired together. If you think that terrorists colluded in any way shape or form to pull-off 9/11 then you are a conspiracy theorist.

to quote michael parenti

“Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: ‘Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?’ For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together — on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot — though they call it ‘planning’ and ‘strategizing’ — and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not?"

How about war in the Middle East as an end, how about the Patriot Act, how about getting away with illegal wire-tapping, setting up concentration camps for POWs and using euthenisms like "enemy combatants' to get around the standards of basic human decency and the repulsion the good folk of the US would otherwise have felt for such dispicable conduct?

How about the fact that if the government wants to fuck over your right to even read a library book in privacy, all they have to do is say the word terrorism a couple of times and there we go?

I see no difficulty ascertaining what happened to the people and planes, they were destroyed when the planes were crashed into buildings and in one case a field.

The fact that a few terminally wacky people have weird ideas that involve an absence of planes tells us no more than if someone who believed it was foreign terrorists started ranting about the involvement of pink elephants.

The fact that some person who believes X is true also believes some other impossible thing about X doesnt prove the falsity of X.

If I were to try pull off a 9/11 as an insider, one of my first post-event acts would be to spread absurd and ridiculous stories about my involvment in order to discredit and have dismissed out of hand the actual facts of the matter. It is a surprising effective tactic given its simplicity and ease.

Evidently for all those who think there is some power in calling others conspiracy theorists, you might want to take a look in the mirror. No one is claiming this act was carried out by one person alone, or that a whole bunch of independent actors all did their part seperately and by coincidence they all acted simultaneously exactly as if they had conspired together. If you think that terrorists colluded in any way shape or form to pull-off 9/11 then you are a conspiracy theorist.

And I'm sure you're to tell us that 9/11 also played a role in the talks between PRK and Iran...

And the "random and unorganized" train bombings in both Spain and India...

Good Lord. Can't you people just let 9/11 go and let them all rest in peace. It's been nearly 6 years now.
Are we going to be subjected to this stuff ad nauseum - a la Vietnam War - by the US for the rest of our lives?
Just let it go. please.

Good Lord. Can't you people just let 9/11 go and let them all rest in peace. It's been nearly 6 years now.
Are we going to be subjected to this stuff ad nauseum - a la Vietnam War - by the US for the rest of our lives?
Just let it go. please.

Only if the U.S reverses many of their questionable foreign relation actions.

Only if the U.S reverses many of their questionable foreign relation actions.

Oh, give it a break. The world will have its Democratic presidency in '09 and we will all sit back, grab some popcorn, and see what happens.

And I'm sure you're to tell us that 9/11 also played a role in the talks between PRK and Iran...

And the "random and unorganized" train bombings in both Spain and India...

There's a big difference between carrying a bag of plastic explosives onto a bus or train and setting it off and not only hijacking a plane, but doing so and not getting a fighter escort within a few minutes that would blow you out of the sky before you even came close to hitting a building, especially after another plane had already done so. Then there's the matter of the melting temperature of steal compared the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel, the hasty removal of metal from the debris to be melted down, the claim that a passport, from inside one of the planes, could survive what a black box could not. The FBI "knowing" exactly who was behind it within a few hours, even though for the entire time since the planes were hijacked NORAD apparently knew nothing, thus the absence of fighter escorts. The list goes on and on.

While the Bush administration may have not been directly behind it (though they likely were), but they were certainly in the know, and acted to maximize the effects, or else it was all just a big coincidence and they happen to have the reasoning ability of someone on PCP.

:p There's a big difference between carrying a bag of plastic explosives onto a bus or train and setting it off and not only hijacking a plane, but doing so and not getting a fighter escort within a few minutes that would blow you out of the sky before you even came close to hitting a building, especially after another plane had already done so. Then there's the matter of the melting temperature of steal compared the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel, the hasty removal of metal from the debris to be melted down, the claim that a passport, from inside one of the planes, could survive what a black box could not. The FBI "knowing" exactly who was behind it within a few hours, even though for the entire time since the planes were hijacked NORAD apparently knew nothing, thus the absence of fighter escorts. The list goes on and on.

While the Bush administration may have not been directly behind it (though they likely were), but they were certainly in the know, and acted to maximize the effects, or else it was all just a big coincidence and they happen to have the reasoning ability of someone on PCP.

Steel doesn't need to melt to bend or break. 5th Grade science: Hot metals are malleable. And although that it is impossible for a passport to survive inside the wreckage, it is plausible for something like that (if there even was a passport that survived... i was led to believe that the poster didn't know for sure) to survive outside of the wreckage, indicated by the number of papers from offices of the building filling the air after the collision. I also was not led to believe that the passport was found inside the plane by the poster who suggested that. I'd refute your other claims, but that would take too much time from another thread that I'm already engaged in.

In any case, explain to me how the plane in PA went down short of its target, because I haven't the mind to believe that the Bush administration meant to have all of those people try to take the plane back, much less call family members on the ground.

:p

Steel doesn't need to melt to bend or break.
I see no suggestion to the contrary. What I do know is that molten metal was pulled from the wreckage days and weeks afterwards. That metal melted and became molten. It doesnt matter that it didnt have to be molten for the towers and WT7 to collapse, what matter is that molten steel was produced and so far as the official explanation goes, it couldnt have been produced.

5th Grade science: Hot metals are malleable.
5th Grade science - it takes a lot more heat than the official story allows for to produce the molten steel that was constantly uncovered during the clean up. Think about it.

And although that it is impossible for a passport to survive inside the wreckage, it is plausible for something like that (if there even was a passport that survived... i was led to believe that the poster didn't know for sure) to survive outside of the wreckage, indicated by the number of papers from offices of the building filling the air after the collision.
That is just really a very stupid conclusion. The planes exploded at impact, the towers did not. Think about it.

I also was not led to believe that the passport was found inside the plane by the poster who suggested that. I'd refute your other claims, but that would take too much time from another thread that I'm already engaged in.

In any case, explain to me how the plane in PA went down short of its target, because I haven't the mind to believe that the Bush administration meant to have all of those people try to take the plane back, much less call family members on the ground.
It went down because the people on the plane fought back and the terrorists in the cockpit crashed it before they lost control to the rebelling passangers. How exactly do you imagine this disproves inside involvement? Do you really think that the government knowing the attack was going to happen would prevent the passangers from rebelling - perhaps you think the government have 'anti passanger rebellion spells' as part of their arsenal.

The fact remains, to all human knowledge, it is impossible for buildings of the kind at issue to collapse in the manner observed due to the reasons given. In the 60's the potential effect of planes of this scale crashing into the towers was annalysed. The report produced found without any doubt whatsoever that the towers would withstand both the impact and fires where the entire fuel supply of the plane was assumed to have been dumped inside the tower (something that didnt actually happen, most the jet fuel was burned up within minutes of impact and most burnt up outside the tower).

Consider this, buildings that are known to be less stable and more likely to collapse have suffered bigger fires for a fuckload longer (try 16 hours instead of less than one) and have not collapsed. On the contrary, after cosmetic reburshment they have been returned to service without any structural problems whatsoever. In fact one of the towers suffered from a bigger, hotter, longer lasting fire in the 70's, and yet there it was still standing on 9/11.

According to the offical tale of 9/11 a multitude of highly unlikely events all coincided with a multitude of physically impossible happenings. As unbelievable as some other explanation may be, the occurance of the physically impossible is more unbelievable because the physically impossible (unlike say an inside job) isnt possible. When you eliminate the impossible, you've no rational choice left but to believe the only non-eliminated explanation. It's a fact as plain as daylight, the three WTC buildings that came down were brought down by controlled demolishion, any theory that doesnt fit with that fact, simply cannot be true. Hence the official version of events can be dismissed as a fabrication, and a rather fantastic one at that.

There's a big difference between carrying a bag of plastic explosives onto a bus or train and setting it off and not only hijacking a plane, but doing so and not getting a fighter escort within a few minutes that would blow you out of the sky before you even came close to hitting a building, especially after another plane had already done so. Then there's the matter of the melting temperature of steal compared the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel, the hasty removal of metal from the debris to be melted down, the claim that a passport, from inside one of the planes, could survive what a black box could not. The FBI "knowing" exactly who was behind it within a few hours, even though for the entire time since the planes were hijacked NORAD apparently knew nothing, thus the absence of fighter escorts. The list goes on and on.

While the Bush administration may have not been directly behind it (though they likely were), but they were certainly in the know, and acted to maximize the effects, or else it was all just a big coincidence and they happen to have the reasoning ability of someone on PCP.

Except you've offered nothing that hasn't been debunked REPEATEDLY. Popular Mechanics spent an entire issue detroying these assinine "theories" but the effort is wasted on reality impaired clowns like you.

How about war in the Middle East as an end, how about the Patriot Act, how about getting away with illegal wire-tapping, setting up concentration camps for POWs and using euthenisms like "enemy combatants' to get around the standards of basic human decency and the repulsion the good folk of the US would otherwise have felt for such dispicable conduct?


War in the middle east? First of all, it the US had wanted to go to war in Afghanistan they didn't need to stage an elaborate hoax of a terrorist attack to justify it. The country's government at the time supported terrorism and gave citizens very few rights. If they wanted to they easily could have justified it. Iraq? They had the WMDs. Patriot act and wiretapping went too far, I agree. But they were implemented to prevent another 9/11. Why would somebody hoax terrorism just to enact a bill to prevent terrorism? Guantanamo Bay already existed before 9/11.

If you think that terrorists colluded in any way shape or form to pull-off 9/11 then you are a conspiracy theorist.

No.

conspiracy theory
n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

The terrorists and associates have openly taken credit for the act, not to mention the actual hard evidence that indicates their guilt. Those who believe it was committed in secret by the gov or with the help of the gov or whatever are the conspiracy theorists.

blahblahconspiracybullblahblah
May I direct you to this site:
Popular mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1)

Consider this, buildings that are known to be less stable and more likely to collapse have suffered bigger fires for a fuckload longer (try 16 hours instead of less than one) and have not collapsed. On the contrary, after cosmetic reburshment they have been returned to service without any structural problems whatsoever. In fact one of the towers suffered from a bigger, hotter, longer lasting fire in the 70's, and yet there it was still standing on 9/11.
Except those fires which lasted longer weren't caused by a bloody big plane crashig into the building, weakening the building's structural intergrity nor ripping 1000's of square feet of fire-protective coating off the internal beams, as well as causing a fire burning at much higher temperatures due to the jet fuel.

So really you can't make any comparisons between the two whatsoever.

Except those fires which lasted longer weren't caused by a bloody big plane crashig into the building, weakening the building's structural intergrity nor ripping 1000's of square feet of fire-protective coating off the internal beams, as well as causing a fire burning at much higher temperatures due to the jet fuel.

So really you can't make any comparisons between the two whatsoever.

I think you can add in the fact they were designed with the idea of a 707 crashing into them.

The architect himself said we didn't imagine planes like they are today.

War in the middle east? First of all, it the US had wanted to go to war in Afghanistan they didn't need to stage an elaborate hoax of a terrorist attack to justify it. The country's government at the time supported terrorism and gave citizens very few rights.
So what? The same could be said of Iraq yet even with 9/11 it wasnt that easy to justify and required all this BS about WMD.

If they wanted to they easily could have justified it. Iraq? They had the WMDs.
No they didnt, it just so happens that even with 9/11 a bit of extra oomph was needed to justify the attack sufficiently.

Patriot act and wiretapping went too far, I agree. But they were implemented to prevent another 9/11.
How circular. Since the will/desire to prevent 9/11 is what is at issue, you cannot rely on it to establish that it did exist without falling into a fallacy.

Why would somebody hoax terrorism just to enact a bill to prevent terrorism? Guantanamo Bay already existed before 9/11.
The detention camp did not exist before 9/11 according to official accounts. As for the Patriot Bill, what evidence is there that it's purpose is to stop terrorism rather than to give federal government more control over its citizens? Let me guess the word of those who stand to gain more control over their citizens with the succesful passing of the Patriot Bill.

No.
No, not no, but rather yes.

conspiracy theory
n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
Which description can accurately be applied to the official version of events.

The terrorists and associates have openly taken credit for the act,
I think you will find the secret part doesnt have to continue after the act has been carried out, in fact I doubt anyone expects planes crashing into buildings to remain secret for any length of time.

not to mention the actual hard evidence that indicates their guilt.
Why would you mention something that doesnt exist. After all of the 19 terrorists 7 have turned up alive and well, not a single one was listed on the passenger lists, and if you really believe their passports were recovered from the exploded planes, then I really dont know what you are doing with the grey stuff located in your skull, only that I can eliminate 'thinking' from the list of possibilities.

Those who believe it was committed in secret by the gov or with the help of the gov or whatever are the conspiracy theorists.
As are those who think it was commited by a conspiracy of terrorists. The meaning of both theory and conspiracy are readily available and belief in the official version of events is belief in a theory that relies on conspiracy, and is about a conspiracy.....in other words a conspiracy theory. You might not like the label, but if you believe it wasnt a lone person acting without the knowledge of any other person, then you are a conspiracy theorists, however much you might not like the label.

I'll tell you what, those Pentagon terrorists must have been dwarfs to fit inside a missile.

I'll tell you what, those Pentagon terrorists must have been dwarfs to fit inside a missile.

When the missile is the size and shape of a 747, you can be quite tall actually.

Except those fires which lasted longer weren't caused by a bloody big plane crashig into the building, weakening the building's structural intergrity nor ripping 1000's of square feet of fire-protective coating off the internal beams, as well as causing a fire burning at much higher temperatures due to the jet fuel.
Right except for several important details. The building was annalysed for it's ability to withstand being hit by a faster moving plane of the same scale and included in the annlysis was the effect of the fires assumed to be fueled by the entire fuel load of the plane. Instead only a portion of the fuel went inside and most burnt immediately. The 'damage' to the structure prior to a fire was included in the analysis.
Do you not find it odd that the first building to succumb supposedly due to the fire working on the already weakened structure was the one hit second and the one that experianced the least amount of fires? Funny that.

The fact that no plane actually hit one the buildings concerned kinda makes the explanation somewhat redundant dont you think?

So really you can't make any comparisons between the two whatsoever.
You can when one of the buildings concerned was never hit by a plane (ie WTC7).

Let's be clear, of the 3 buildings we are supposed to believe collapsed because of a plane weakening their structure ahead of a fire damaging the integrity of the steel structure, one actually was never hit by a plane and no one is even trying to claim that it was hit by a plane.....yet down it went, at free-fall speed no less, despite the physical laws of the universe and what they mandate will happen when a moving mass comes into contact with an inert mass.

As for the popular mechanics article, no it doesnt debunk the notion that the towers and WT7 cannot have collapsed the way they did due to the reasons given in the official account. It does no more than state that the official version has been up held by studies......what studies? Doesnt say. By who? Doesnt say. Using what methodology? Doesnt say. Based on what evidence? You might have guessed, but just in case - doesnt say.....in fact aside from 'studies say' it doesnt actually say anything. Wow great debunking 'we say studies say so'.....I guess it has to be true then.......:rolleyes:

Oh, give it a break. The world will have its Democratic presidency in '09 and we will all sit back, grab some popcorn, and see what happens.

Whilst that would probably be better would waiting be better than trying to actively make sure the mistakes made in the past do not occur again?

Not this shit again.

autopilot and auto-throttle engaged, the aircraft is basically flying itself.

I should hope so.......

I really wish the CT nuts would remove their tinfoil hats and do some proper maths/physics courses

The designers of the WTC imagined a 707 going at about 200mph low on fuel lost in fog crashing into the towers and designed the towers to survive this.
Lets say the 707 has an impact rating of 1
The 767 hit at about 400 mph, now you may think that would give it a impact rating of 2, being twice the speed, nope its actually got a 4.
The 767 is loaded with fuel and weighs in at twice the weight of the 707 so that give a impact rating of 4 at 200mph compared with the 70.
Do the maths and the impact force experienced by the towers by the 9/11 crashes was actually least 16 times the force the designers had designed them to withstand.

anyways as a previous poster said........ Not this shit again:headbang:

El-Presidente Boris

Not this shit again.

Unfortunately, yes. (http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg)

I really wish the CT nuts would remove their tinfoil hats and do some proper maths/physics courses

The designers of the WTC imagined a 707 going at about 200mph low on fuel lost in fog crashing into the towers and designed the towers to survive this.
How very short-sighted of them. I guess they forgot to wonder where the planes might go once they land, or maybe they thought the planes just all stay there and that if you head off to the airport you'll find 100,000s, if not millions of planes all sitting around, or maybe they figured when planes land they get towed away along the highways and byways to some other airport where planes takeoff as well as or instead of landing. Or maybe they figured the airplane teleportation fairy would instaneously transport them off somewhere......

It also raises the issue of why, over 2 decades ago, the New York Times reported, to the contrary, that a report had calculated the effect of a 707 moving at 600mph impacting the towers. Then there is the pesky 1964 White paper which concluded that the buildings could withstand a hit from a 707 at 600mph.

Lets say the 707 has an impact rating of 1
The 767 hit at about 400 mph, now you may think that would give it a impact rating of 2, being twice the speed, nope its actually got a 4.
The 767 is loaded with fuel and weighs in at twice the weight of the 707 so that give a impact rating of 4 at 200mph compared with the 70.
Really, twice the weight? I take it you didnt get your figures from the FEMA report. Here's what they said
"The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds..."
"The Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds"
Any maths course that leads you to conclude that 274,000 is anywhere in the region of twice as much as 263,000 pounds is one I'd rather not take, thanks for the suggestion all the same.

Do the maths and the impact force experienced by the towers by the 9/11 crashes was actually least 16 times the force the designers had designed them to withstand.
Apparently you do math very differently to me. When I do math, if A is less than 10% more than B, A is not twice as much as B, nor anything close to or resembling twice as much as B. Call me crazy but, I suggest mistaking 274,000 pounds for being twice as heavy as 263,000 pounds might somewhat effect the calculation in dispute. But, if it pleases you to dismiss others as nutters because they dont share your particular conspiracy theory, you are welcome to continue to insist that in your reality 274,000 pounds really is something along the lines of twice as much as 263,000 pounds, I only wonder why if you are pulling arbitary multiples from the air you dont go with a dozen times, or a 100 times, why hold back?

Okay, Zagat, setting aside the math for the moment, if you believe it was an inside job, or at least partially an inside job, would you care to explain how exactly the insiders helped the terrorists accomplish their mission? I'm quite curious, as I think it would help us to resolve this much more thoroughly that way.

:headbang:

Please not a debate on this. Its not worth the aggravation.

Oh, thank you for doing us all this public service and "debunking this myth" :rolleyes:

I know that everyone on this forum and in reality was just lost in consternation, I mean, those hijackers couldnt fly a cessna! :rolleyes:

You should probably get to take over the mythbusters show :rolleyes:

You know, you people don't have to read this thread, hell you didn't even have to click on it, you could've just passed it on by. You sure as hell didn't have to reply with your worthless comments and pictures. In fact, I would encourage you to pass over this thread if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

You know, you people don't have to read this thread, hell you didn't even have to click on it, you could've just passed it on by. You sure as hell didn't have to reply with your worthless comments and pictures. In fact, I would encourage you to pass over this thread if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

Why can't we all just get over these silly 9/11 yadda yaddas?

Why can't we all just get over these silly 9/11 yadda yaddas?

Because people are allowed to be idiots?

Because people are allowed to be idiots?

Are you talking about yourself?

Are you talking about yourself?

*hands Il Ruffino a cookie for the comeback*

You know, you people don't have to read this thread, hell you didn't even have to click on it, you could've just passed it on by. You sure as hell didn't have to reply with your worthless comments and pictures. In fact, I would encourage you to pass over this thread if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

I of course am not expert enough to join the raging national debate over whether or not the 9/11 hijackers could fly cessnas.

Nevertheless, I had to offer my commendation to the Master Mythbuyster who was not content, like the masses, to sit by and let '9/11 Myth: hijackers couldn't even fly a Cessna' go undebated and undebunked.

Those pacifist masses, valuing maintenance of the peace over a lengthy debate over such an important and never-considered topic as '9/11 Myth: hijackers couldn't even fly a Cessna'...

If it were up to me, someone would be getting the Congressional Medal of Mythbuster Honor.

Indeed it occured to me recently that this forum had never discussed this topic, and that it was never addressed by any magazines or televisions shows, or in videos on the internet. To wit, no books have ever been published in the five and a half years since the NY and DC attacks...

This material here is not only deeply relevant to our lives but also shockingly original and groundbreaking.

Are you talking about yourself?

Why yes I am, thank you Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:

Why yes I am, thank you Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:

Just doing my job!

*eats cookie Corneliu gave to him*

Just doing my job!

*eats cookie Corneliu gave to him*

Have fun with the urinal cake.

Why yes I am, thank you Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:

Wait a minute...

Wilgrove... calling someone else "Captain Obvious" ... in an exchange over "are you talking about yourself." in a thread he made to enlighten us that the 9/11 hijackers really could fly airplanes...


The "irony" meter just blew up so hard they could feel it in china and see it from space.

The Oxford English Dictionary just changed its entry.

Irony fetishists the world over just came so hard they died.

Have fun with the urinal cake.

Have fun with your idiocy.

Have fun with the urinal cake.

Oh nice one. HOwever, you get no cookie because that is just obscene.

I learned something today:

This thread is full of science illiterate morons who need to remove tin foil from their heads.

I learned something today:

This thread is full of science illiterate morons who need to remove tin foil from their heads.

Don't be so cruel. Those hats are the only thing keeping their brains from falling out.

Don't be so cruel. Those hats are the only thing keeping their brains from falling out.

God damnit, don't give away the secret. Now I'm going to need to apply an extra few layers of duct tape to make sure it stays on.

Don't be so cruel. Those hats are the only thing keeping their brains from falling out.
so why all the different styles, like Centurion and Fez? fashion or oddly shaped brains?

Okay, Zagat, setting aside the math for the moment, if you believe it was an inside job, or at least partially an inside job, would you care to explain how exactly the insiders helped the terrorists accomplish their mission? I'm quite curious, as I think it would help us to resolve this much more thoroughly that way.
Kyronea, why would anyone interested in the objective truth, want to forget issues of veriafiable fact in favour of speculation? Do you usually take a view that speculation is more reliable than fact?
By 'resolve' might you (perhaps unconciously) mean 'make it easier to dismiss you by allowing me to consider your skeptism the result of thinking X is teh ebil or some other such ranting nuttiness?'

Seriously, you have outright asked me to drop factual matters, in favour of 'wild accusations' and unsubstantiated speculation as to the hows, whos, and whys, and your stated reason is that will lead to resolving the issue....seriously?!

OK, conspiracy theorists, let's see if I've got this straight.
In order to begin their war against Iraq and Aghanistan, neoconservatives plan to use a terrorist attack as an excuse to launch this war.
First, they plan to topple the WTC. They will have planes fly in there led by Saudis(that way, there will be added reason to go to war against Iraq), but instead of the planes bringing them down, there will be bombs in the WTC. Since there is no way the fire the planes cause would affect the explosions, and since there is noway anyone could notice the explosives being brought in, the explosives are then used to bring the WTC down. Of course, they could have just blown up the WTC without the planes, but you know, that's an added touch.
To further show the terrorist's evil, they then decide to blow part of the Pentagon up, but now, they will use a missile instead of another plane. This is because......... well, I don't know.
And finally, they burn a hole in the ground, pretend that a plane crashed here (because after all, everyone would care a whole lot about the plane crashing in the middle of nowhere) and then make a fake heroic story. They also get the wife of one of the heros to write a moving memoir of her story.
Ah, everything is clear now!:headbang:

OK, conspiracy theorists, let's see if I've got this straight.
In order to begin their war against Iraq and Aghanistan, neoconservatives plan to use a terrorist attack as an excuse to launch this war.
First, they plan to topple the WTC. They will have planes fly in there led by Saudis(that way, there will be added reason to go to war against Iraq), but instead of the planes bringing them down, there will be bombs in the WTC. Since there is no way the fire the planes cause would affect the explosions, and since there is noway anyone could notice the explosives being brought in, the explosives are then used to bring the WTC down. Of course, they could have just blown up the WTC without the planes, but you know, that's an added touch.
To further show the terrorist's evil, they then decide to blow part of the Pentagon up, but now, they will use a missile instead of another plane. This is because......... well, I don't know.
And finally, they burn a hole in the ground, pretend that a plane crashed here (because after all, everyone would care a whole lot about the plane crashing in the middle of nowhere) and then make a fake heroic story. They also get the wife of one of the heros to write a moving memoir of her story.
Ah, everything is clear now!:headbang:

More plausible than that crazy "official" theory that a group of foreign terrorists would launch a coordinated suicide bombing for religious/political reasons.. I mean, when has that ever happened? :p

OK, conspiracy theorists, let's see if I've got this straight.
You didnt.

In order to begin their war against Iraq and Aghanistan, neoconservatives plan to use a terrorist attack as an excuse to launch this war.
That would be purely speculative.

First, they plan to topple the WTC. They will have planes fly in there led by Saudis(that way, there will be added reason to go to war against Iraq), but instead of the planes bringing them down, there will be bombs in the WTC.
Were there Saudis on the plane? There were none listed on the passanger list, no remains to identify, no evidence of them having been at the airport, if you can explain how with no paper trail, no eye-witnesses able to place them at the airport (much less on the planes) and with the planes destroyed in firey explosions quite how they identifed the 19 people in such short time, I'd be interested. What would interest me even more is your explanation for how so many survived the event, 6 out of 19. Pretty impressive to get even one out alive, but half a dozen. Quite some feat all things considered.

Since there is no way the fire the planes cause would affect the explosions,
That being the purpose of say incasing the devices in an impact and heat resistent container, you know like the kind regularly used to protect black boxes in airplanes? :rolleyes:

and since there is noway anyone could notice the explosives being brought in, the explosives are then used to bring the WTC down.
Why would anyone notice? The buildings core is discreetly accessable (no one wants maintainance folk trapsing through their up-market offices if they can avoid it). Using thermobaric devices, as few as one per floor placed in the core would be sufficient.

Of course, they could have just blown up the WTC without the planes, but you know, that's an added touch.
I doubt that. You see that might not have looked good for the security company charged with protecting the WTC. It also has a lot less impact, and it leaves out the Pentagon entirely as well as Camp David (where the President wasnt on that fateful morning) where the airliner crashed into a field was purportedly headed.
Bombs in a building are supposed to be preventable, they dont have the impact of airliners as missiles (the horror isnt just the death toll but specifics - the passangers sitting in their seats being flown to their deaths).

To further show the terrorist's evil, they then decide to blow part of the Pentagon up, but now, they will use a missile instead of another plane. This is because......... well, I don't know.
I expect a plane crashed into the Pentagon. I can see why people would wonder why the footage that would prove as much wouldnt be released, but I find it likely that it was a plane and highly unlikely that it wasnt.

And finally, they burn a hole in the ground, pretend that a plane crashed here (because after all, everyone would care a whole lot about the plane crashing in the middle of nowhere) and then make a fake heroic story.
I've never encountered such a theory myself. I've come across ideas that the plane was downed by a missile. Certainly the plane could have been hi-jacked, the passangers could have rebelled triggering the premature (from the terrorist's point of view) crashing of the plane into a field and the towers could still have come down due to controlled demolishion.

They also get the wife of one of the heros to write a moving memoir of her story.
Ah, everything is clear now!:headbang:
Aha.

if one person can learn how to fly an airplane, why couldn't another?

isn't it a matter of public record that the individuals involved received EXCELENT pilot training before (well, yes of course obviously "before") the event in question?

this seems to be a pointless "debunking" of ... of WHAT precisely?
i don't get it.

the open question isn't the immediate mechanics of how the event took place, but what level of invoulvement in them was there at what levels of our own, (i'm a u.s.ian) government?

=^^=
.../\...

Were there Saudis on the plane? There were none listed on the passanger list, no remains to identify, no evidence of them having been at the airport, if you can explain how with no paper trail, no eye-witnesses able to place them at the airport (much less on the planes) and with the planes destroyed in firey explosions quite how they identifed the 19 people in such short time, I'd be interested. What would interest me even more is your explanation for how so many survived the event, 6 out of 19. Pretty impressive to get even one out alive, but half a dozen. Quite some feat all things considered.

Not sure what that 6 out of 19 thing is about, haven't read the whole thread (my eyes already hurt from lack of sleep lol) but in response to the top of that quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers. Also, I'm pretty sure they had security footage of them. I'm no expert but.

In general though, I can't believe this is even being seriously debated. Why are people so desperate to believe in crap like this? What is the psychological term?

Not sure what that 6 out of 19 thing is about, haven't read the whole thread (my eyes already hurt from lack of sleep lol) but in response to the top of that quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers). Also, I'm pretty sure they had security footage of them. I'm no expert but.

In general though, I can't believe this is even being seriously debated. Why are people so desperate to believe in crap like this? What is the psychological term?

The FBI has never claimed certainty about the ID of a couple of them.. the majority didn't bother to fake their documents, credit cards or names, probably because on a suicide mission, there's no need for escape later. But a couple of them used stolen or fraudulent documents, so all there is to go on is security camera footage.

The director of the FBI acknowledged that they weren't 100% about a couple of the names within a few days of the attack, but your standard conspiracy believer usually ignores that fact.

Anyway, you can find a handful of people who'll cling to a conspiracy theory forever, even in the face of real evidence. The moon landing was 38 years ago now and there's still a very "special" few who just know it was faked. :p 9/11 will be no different.. the blind deniers form a pretty tight-knit cocoon of ignorance, and, like we've seen this thread, rarely feel a need to offer any plausible alternate theory. It's a foolproof system. Any evidence contrary to the conspiracy just adds another layer of conspiracy, ad infinitum.

Kyronea, why would anyone interested in the objective truth, want to forget issues of veriafiable fact in favour of speculation? Do you usually take a view that speculation is more reliable than fact?
By 'resolve' might you (perhaps unconciously) mean 'make it easier to dismiss you by allowing me to consider your skeptism the result of thinking X is teh ebil or some other such ranting nuttiness?'

Seriously, you have outright asked me to drop factual matters, in favour of 'wild accusations' and unsubstantiated speculation as to the hows, whos, and whys, and your stated reason is that will lead to resolving the issue....seriously?!
...no, that's not what I was asking. I was asking you to explain what could have caused the buildings to collapse, building seven to collapse, and so on, not come up with wild speculation. And yes, it would make it easier to dismantle your claims because then we might actually know what we're debating. Similiarly, you might be able to convince us.

Frankly, I don't see why you even think there was an inside job anyway. It makes no sense, a la so:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html

Okay, so it's not exactly the friendliest explanation in the world nor is it something I'd choose if I had something better, but I don't.

...

Let me also take this time to explain hijacking policies pre 9/11. Back then people did not invision that these aircrafts were going to turn into missiles. The basic policy is to obey all of the hijackers request, fly them to Cuba or wherever they want to go, land, and have SWAT and authorities waiting for them at the airport. Since 9/11, the policy has change drastically to now a lock cockpit door and non-compliance with hijackers.

...

Excellent point. Maybe said before, to some bleeding obvious, but still worth saying. There's a lot of hindsight experts who totally miss the element of surprise 9/11 constituted. Your OP is excellent, good luck to your thread.

:) :)

In fact, it's the element of surprise which explains the ludicrous over-reaction of governments to 9/11. Government believed the hype fed them by the 'experts' they employed to surveill the internet, the phone networks, the media. They got sold a bill of goods, and hey look they're stumping up billions more for more of the same.

The correct reaction of government would be to call it "crime." It's people being nasty to each other, which they do all the time. Nothing to see here, move along.

If you want to change the world, you don't do it HERE. You don't do it by blathering in a public forum ... you do it with your hands and your brain, and you keep your mouth shut.

Not sure what that 6 out of 19 thing is about, haven't read the whole thread (my eyes already hurt from lack of sleep lol) but in response to the top of that quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers. Also, I'm pretty sure they had security footage of them. I'm no expert but.

In general though, I can't believe this is even being seriously debated. Why are people so desperate to believe in crap like this? What is the psychological term?
I expect the answer to your question is in your own post, I've bolded the text at issue.

In fact you display the exact problem here. You are unwilling to even contemplate critically thinking about the issue and cannot comprehend why someone else would. That's just stupidity. If you are an American it is also negligent and unethical. Every American has a duty to question and hold their government to account. They get many privledges in return for this and their ancestors in many cases gifted these rights and the correlated duties to them, paying for the bequethement in their own blood limbs and lives.

To suggest that not simply blindly and stupidly accepting whatever you are told by authority is somehow desperate, to suggest that believing a thing is crap when you admit that you are ignorant in regards to the information needed to reach a conclusion is ludicrous, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, dangerous, unethical and basically begging for corruption. May I ask what is not believable?
That someone who has a governmental post or works within the government couldnt or wouldnt commit a crime (plenty of evidence to the contrary)
That no government ever targets its own people
That no criminal would lie about and try to cover up their complicity in a crime

All of these things have demonstratably happened in the past (numerous times), yet what the authorised conspiracy theory claims happened has never ever been shown to happen before and was widely believed impossible. Your position is basically 'if my government claims what everyone believes is physically impossible, did happen, then it is desperate to believe otherwise'.

Given the blind creduality in authority (ie in power, you know that thing that corrupts) you and most others show, what would stop them? Certainly not any concern with getting caught.

As for the article, do you know how easy it is in the US to get a credit card in someone else's name? Credit fraud via identity fraud is a huge problem in the US an epidemic of sorts. It's laughable that the FBI wouldnt consider this aspect when they've nothing else to go on than easily faked credit card details. If any two-bit crook in the US can steal your identity in order to commit credit card fraud, wouldnt you have to be stupid to not consider it very likely that the credit card details were not robust. After all, it's not only their own identities they need to consider but also the chance that if their identity is ascertainable their families might suffer as a result, or (more significantly) authorities might be led back to criminal associates, thus risking their apprehension.
If they dont care to hide their identity and are using their own names to book and pay for the flight, why not give their own name when boarding? Why were the names on the credit cards not on the flight manifest? Might it be because it's a fuckload easier to get a credit card in someone else's name than it is to get a passport using someone else's identity? And ought not the FBI be at least as able to work out as much as little 'ol me? Yet it wasnt the FBI who discovered that at least 7 of the terrorists were misidentified. At this time the government started rounding up unvisa-ed people on the off chance they were terrorists, yet they didnt bother to mount a comprehensive investigation into the identity of the real terrorists even though this might have led them directly to other terrorists. That doesnt make a lot of sense does it?

And no, there were no security pictures from the airports that allowed proper identification - given the identification turned out to be wrong in as many cases as provably it has, that fact ought to be self-evident. If there were camera footage that positively identified the persons at issue they couldnt have turned out to not be those persons. And the coming forward of 6 individuals and the identification of a seventh, accused of being the hijackers isnt something you'd need to read in this thread if you were at all informed about the issue. It's a matter of public record that has received media coverage from established main stream media including the BBC and CNN among others.


What reason other than blind trust in authority (a very undemocratic, and particularly unAmerican principal) do you have for blindly believing what you have not bothered to even attempt to ascertain for yourself? Certainly based on your comments I know for a fact that your reason is not a critical annalysis of the facts at issue, because you dont really even know what the facts are. Just what on earth makes you think it is reasonable to call other people basically nutters because they believe something you are not informed enough to reach a conclusion on either way? Let me guess; authority said so....oh well it must be true then because authority is never corrupt and the founding fathers were desperately paranoid nutters for setting up the whole checks and balances thing - a system that evidently relies on the populice questioning the ascertions of their authorities.

Basically you, for no reason other than 'authority said so' believe that the physically impossible happened, and you are calling anyone who doesnt believe the physically impossible happened nutters. Good one.

...no, that's not what I was asking.
Yes it was. You asked me to forget the mathes, a kind of empiracal evidence and asked me to speculate as to the identity of those responsible and as to how they managed what they achieved. That is speculative, empiracal observations and calculations applied to known and establised facts seems a better way of resolving the issue to me.

I was asking you to explain what could have caused the buildings to collapse, building seven to collapse, and so on, not come up with wild speculation.
Controlled demolision, I thought I had already indicated as much.

And yes, it would make it easier to dismantle your claims because then we might actually know what we're debating. Similiarly, you might be able to convince us.
There are none so blind as those that dont have any interest in seeing. If you are an American it's your duty to ascertain the truth of this issue and the information is out there if you choose to look and apply critical thinking to it. Sure there is a lot of misinformation out there to. No one said the duty to your democracy, your forefathers and your descendents would be easy.

Frankly, I don't see why you even think there was an inside job anyway. It makes no sense, a la so:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html
Thanks for demonstrating that you've not a clue what I am talking about. The claims in loose change, in plane sight and other hoaxes are of course easily dismissed, which might explain why in this thread I've never claimed there were no planes, that there were pods or anything else of such a ludicrous and easily disproven nature. In fact I've claimed the opposite, so either you have not paid the slightest attention to what I've said (being compelled to dismiss it out of hand as nutty because authority said something contrary and power never corrupts) or you dont know the content of the links you provided. Either indicates that you are not applying critical thinking to the issue but are blindly accepting what you've being told because authority was the the one who told you. If everyone had this attitude to authority, the US would still be a British colony today.

Okay, so it's not exactly the friendliest explanation in the world nor is it something I'd choose if I had something better, but I don't.
Actually it's a complete red herring because it doesnt disprove a single thing I've said, and happens to not be accurate either (no experts agree with the theory that the towers and WTC7 came down as the result of controlled demolition...er bullshit) as you'd realise if you were approaching this with the kind of open eyes and critical thinking you need to arrive at correct and truthful conclusions.

In fact, it's the element of surprise which explains the ludicrous over-reaction of governments to 9/11.
Yeah, it must have been such a surprise what with all the chatter being receieved by intelligence agencies that something was in the works, and that that something might include planes into buildings, and what with Clinton having left clear warning regarding the alledged perpetrators. I guess the inconceivability of what happened explains why that very day war games included exactly that scenario. Clearly no one ever thought of it and that's why the were running a training scenario exactly along those lines.

Government believed the hype fed them by the 'experts' they employed to surveill the internet, the phone networks, the media. They got sold a bill of goods, and hey look they're stumping up billions more for more of the same.

The correct reaction of government would be to call it "crime." It's people being nasty to each other, which they do all the time. Nothing to see here, move along.

If you want to change the world, you don't do it HERE. You don't do it by blathering in a public forum ... you do it with your hands and your brain, and you keep your mouth shut.
The reaction of government was intended to capitalise on the opportunity they saw before them. They whipped up public hysteria to the greatest extent they were able to achieve, something outside observers tried to warn Americans about and tried to get them to recognise the implications of (ie the ease with which the frightened and angry can be manipulated into accepting and doing what in calmness they would never contemplate).

The opportunism with which the Whitehouse saw the matter ought to be obvious even if you dont believe anyone in the government was complicit. I'm personally not certain that a group within the government was complicit, there is the possibility that they simply knew, in the immediate aftermath, that the level of negligence that allowed the attack to succeed is much greater than the public will tolerate (although the level already admitted to is frankly rather far-fetched), hence the need to cover up aspects of what went on.