WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

originally posted by: samkent
Look through this one page and then tell us how they couldn't fly planes.

Okay I did. And it's interesting that it says

“The news articles caution that there are slight discrepancies between the FBI list of suspected hijackers and the military training records, either in the spellings of their names or in their birth dates. They also raise the possibility that the hijackers stole the identities of military trainees.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001; Pensacola News Journal, 9/17/2001] It is unclear if these people were the 9/11 hijackers or just others with similar names. The US military has never definitively denied that they were the hijackers, and the media lost interest in the story a couple of weeks after 9/11

which also offers a link to delawareonline.

A Justice Department official said the latest suspect was not in custody, but that more arrests were imminent. Friday, authorities formally arrested a man they were already holding on suspicion of having a false pilot's license.


So not have you only given a link that suggest they could have had FAKE pilots licenses (to go along with their fake IDs), but also you then agree that they were CRAP pilots. And you also said yourself that.

You conveniently forget that Hani Hanjour had 21 hours in a 737 flight simulators.
You conveniently forget that Atta and Alshehhi had 2 lessons (90 min ea) in 727 simulators.
You conveniently forget that Atta and Alshehhi had 1 lesson in a 767 simulator.
You conveniently forget that Atta and Alshehhi were offered jobs as co-pilots for a

It takes 1500 hours MINIMUM to become an FAA Airline Transport Pilot, and yet they miraciously were pros with 1 or 2 lessons in a flight simulator?

It's interesting to see a poster sort of lose his own argument with his own points. That's what happens when you "clutch at straws".

Calling Pilots for 911 truth and Military officers for 911truth websites as "conspiracy theorist" websites, when all they are doing is simply debunking the official narrative was also sweet of you.

a reply to: Debunkology

It takes 1500 hours MINIMUM to become an FAA Airline Transport Pilot, and yet they miraciously were pros with 1 or 2 lessons in a flight simulator?

No one said they were pros.
You don't need to be a pro to crash a plane.

I have shown you that the hijackers had far more training and experience than you or your expert pilots site let on.
But that's the hook that these conspiracy site use.
They don't give readers the full information.
I can understand why you believe in this conspiracy theory. You don't have all the information out there.
But I don't understand why you limit yourself to info from conspiracy sites.
When you go to buy a new auto do you only look at anti Ford/Chevy sites?
You are buying into the 911 conspiracy based only on conspiracy websites.

Calling Pilots for 911 truth and Military officers for 911truth websites as "conspiracy theorist"

That's exactly what they are.

a reply to: samkent

Exactly. They were amateurs. And so the post that you disputed which was......

originally posted by: Debunkology
Well let's get the opinion of a guy who has flown a Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. Has even flown TWO of the airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11. Flight 175, the second airplane to hit the World Trade Center, and Flight 98 which impacted in Pennsylvania.

The guy is also a former US Airfoce Pilot of 20 years. Over 100 combat missions. A commercial pilot for PanAm and United Airlines for 35 years.

Russ Wittenberg

His key statements which I posted in another thread.

Key Statements:
***I don’t believe it’s possible for a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it."

***“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” (recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.)

***“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total Bullsh1t plain and simple.” (Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”)…

***“Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. “The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G manoeuvres at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these manoeuvres with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…”

STILL STANDS.

Here is just one of his interviews about this.

I have shown you that the hijackers had far more training and experience than you or your expert pilots site let on.
But that's the hook that these conspiracy site use.

Nope. I knew the 'hijackers' had limited flying experience. You simply emphasized their limited experience, pretending this meant something. Then back tracked and said they were crap pilots and amateurs.

I can understand why you believe in this conspiracy theory.

Your wrong again. I don't believe the official conspiracy theory.

You don't have all the information out there.

Neither do you.

But I don't understand why you limit yourself to info from conspiracy sites.

I don't, the first book I got on the subject was the 9/11 Commision Report.

When you go to buy a new auto do you only look at anti Ford/Chevy sites?

What kind of ridiculous statement is this?

You are buying into the 911 conspiracy based only on conspiracy websites.

No I'm not.

That's exactly what they are.

They have simply debunked the official conspiracy theory (and your conspiracy theories in the process). Their websites involve debunking the official conspiracy theory. The "conspiracy theorists" was the 9/11 Commision Report and NIST, and they have heavily been debunked.

originally posted by: Debunkology

It takes 1500 hours MINIMUM to become an FAA Airline Transport Pilot

HUH?!?

In my neck of the woods FO's are hired fresh from flight school with less than 200 hours flight time, most of them in level D simulators.
Frozen ATPL that is. Minimum requirements for captains is 1500 hours.

a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

In my neck of the woods FO's are hired fresh from flight school

As a side note the FAA has a newer classification for license. Sport pilot.
It only requires 20 hours of training.
Some pilots solo at 10 hours.
Flying on a clear day is easy for anybody.
Landing is another matter.

a reply to: Debunkology

Exactly. They were amateurs. And so the post that you disputed which was......

The hijackers had more training and flight time than WW II Japanese Kamikazes - most of whom first flight was their
last

The kamikaze had to hit targets smaller than WTC/Pentagon, which was moving and shooting back ...!!

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

a perfect free fall collapse from fire and debris? you really believe that?

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Debunkology

Exactly. They were amateurs. And so the post that you disputed which was......

The hijackers had more training and flight time than WW II Japanese Kamikazes - most of whom first flight was their
last

The kamikaze had to hit targets smaller than WTC/Pentagon, which was moving and shooting back ...!!

I hope for your sake you realize those little fighter jets are much more maneuverable than a passenger jet. That's like saying, " I can turn tight circles on my jet ski so the Titanic should never have hit the iceberg". LOL

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

a perfect free fall collapse from fire and debris? you really believe that?

They would have us all believe it if they could. Looks like all that education payed off.

Some still believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy etc. They can rationalize anything. Don't know their heads from a hole in the ground.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

a perfect free fall collapse from fire and debris? you really believe that?

Nope.

But apparently YOU believe it was perfect.

Those that have done real research realize it was a messy, asymmetrical, progressive collapse with a short period where a single point was measured to be both slower AND faster than FFA.

Did you even read NIST reaction on David Chandler's remarks at the 2007 NIST hearing?
NIST repeated Davids research on the 2.3 seconds of free fall acceleration in the onset of the WTC 7 collapse.
They even got closer to a perfect free fall acceleration than David.

And what does FFA mean in physics circles.?
No resistance at all from any building material over about a 35 meters vertical trajectory during 2.3 seconds.

Do you have a really interesting explanation, other than your above one?



Btw, this is my promised rebirth of my WTC 7 seismic thread in 2007 at the now long defunct StudyOf911.com website :

Title : Times on LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: LaBTop
NIST repeated Davids research on the 2.3 seconds of free fall acceleration in the onset of the WTC 7 collapse.

This a lie.


Their published reports clearly states that the first 1.75 seconds of the collapse were at less than FFA.

No resistance at all from any building material over about a 35 meters vertical trajectory during 2.3 seconds.

Only in truther internet physics circles.


In the real world, it means there was zero NET resistance.

Do you have a really interesting explanation, other than your above one?

Yes. You are clearly lying.

The first 1.75 seconds were when the columns were buckling and providing resistance, hence the less than FFA observation.

The next 2.25 seconds are when the columns were providing negligible resistance, most likely because of connection failure and breakage.


When you deny publicly about what NIST has in their report in order to make your case, it clearly proves that you are not interested in any truth.

You need to work on your lies,,,,

It would be nice to include links to your wisdom, since it's obviously not yours.

Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7 Theory :
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...
Don't forget to follow the black colored LINKS in that article.

The conclusion by independent scientists and engineers that WTC7's destruction was a controlled demolition is supported by a large amount of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence. Most notably, the sudden onset of collapse was followed by a period in which the building fell over 100 feet in free fall. This was shown by Scientists' member David S. Chandler and presented during the public comment period, forcing the government scientists to back down on their claim that no physical laws were violated by their theory. For more information on WTC7 and controlled demolition, see Evidence for WTC7 Ignored or Unexplained By NIST ( www.scientistsfor911truth.org... ) on this site and the article Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11 by David Chandler. ( 911speakout.org... )

That last Freefall.pdf is the one with the goodies. You deny it, so show your evidence.
Will be hard, NIST acknowledged the 2.25 secs of free fall acceleration. In a vacuum, thus not to forget to mention air resistance, which plays a role too in that case.
And your 1.75 secs of buckling is of no importance in the 2.25 secs of absolute FFA fact-discussion, so keep it out. I already included the 8.2 secs between the first sign of failure (East Penthouse roof denting) and the real start (the first 2.25 secs of FFA) of the following global collapse. It belongs in that 8.2 secs timeline.

David Chandler : NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall.

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that?
They don't.
They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time.
In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen.

This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.
The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.

Read also their next news item, after you read the above in its totality, it's title is :
9/11 in Academia
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Refrain in future posts, from members calling liars, when you have no leg to stand on.

a reply to: Debunkology

It takes 1500 hours MINIMUM to become an FAA Airline Transport Pilot, and yet they miraciously were pros with 1 or 2 lessons in a flight simulator?

Japanese kamikaze pilots of 1945 were trained solely on the ground - there was no fuel for them to practice in the air

The hijacker pilots took lesson in jet simulators at Jet Tech in Mesa AZ . The instructor signed off Hani Hanjour
as completing tight turns

Nothing was noted for taxiing or landing.......

a reply to: firerescue

Japanese kamikaze pilots

...would've been glad to read your comparision, I'll give you that. Reason enough to bring it up here, innit? For the glory of some empire!

Kinda funny in a retarded way. I hope your kamikaze account pays out well enough, another boat thoroughly derailed. Congrats!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yeah. His kamikaze account is such a great comparison. Propeller radial engines (not jets) powering a maneuverable fighter Plane with simple controls. Comparing it to a lumbering complicated passenger jet.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Comparing it to a lumbering complicated passenger jet.

And yet Hanjour had a multi engine commercial pilots license.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You somehow missed the point about hijacker pilots holding pilots license with commercial rating. They them rented time
in jet simulators to practice their skills at handling large aircraft

At Huffman Aviation flying school, 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi pass various pilots’ tests. On August 14, 2000, according to the 9/11 Commission, they pass their private pilot airplane tests, with Atta scoring 97 out of 100 and Alshehhi scoring 83.

Having finished their flight training at Huffman Aviation and passed their commercial pilot license tests (see August 14-December 19, 2000), future 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi spend December 29 and 30 at the SimCenter flight school at Opa-Locka Airport, near Miami. Saying they want to join an Egyptian airline and need experience in a large plane, they each pay $1,500 in cash and spend six hours, split over the two days, training in the school’s Boeing 727 simulator.

a reply to: firerescue

The only simulator that Hani Hanjour was known to gave trained on was the 737 simulator. An aircraft with a totally different cockpit than the 757. he is alleged to have piloted on 911. If anything his training would have confused him.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

If anything his training would have confused him.

It is you that are confused.
They had MS flight sim with the correct planes(s)
They had books with the correct cockpit layout.

Plus ask any pilot once you understand the basics of instrumentation you can identify each in any aircraft.
Flying a jet by tweaking auto pilot and then crashing is not hard.
Especially when you have a commercial pilots license.