It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Easy Question: Who's Responsible for the 9/11 Plot?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
One assumption being made is that the plane was always flying at 600mph. However from the footage on the 2nd plane, the engines can be heard to increase thrust near the end. I don't know if that is scientifically reliable. but then neither is assuming that the plane was always travelling at full speed. He could have been travelling at a reasonable speed to line up the plane and then push it.




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
regarding the OBL images...
good way to compare...

it was obvious to me, that the end pic is someone else... but how do i know that?

the face is totally off...
the nose mainly...
it is easily an inch shorter in the fake pic... (he has quite a snoz)

it actually looks like the whole face is shorter on the fake... and a little wider.

other anomalies also, but that is the biggie...



[edit on 30-8-2006 by LazarusTheLong]


That's because the end photo has been stretched to distort the dimensions.Probably done by the same web site that imbeded a date and false time code on the pentagon video frames.


Link?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Assuming the hijackers got on the airplane...

Awesome. I don't know if you remember but I U2U'd you a while ago regarding the feasibility of someone with limited experience being able to pull this off. It's hard for me to believe they did as well. But I have a couple more questions that perhaps you could help with...
1. What is the likelihood that even a pilot trained to fly a 757 could maneuver it into the WTC/Pentagon? IYO could a trained pilot have hit those targets... 3 out of 3?
2. If it's that difficult for an untrained or inexperienced pilot to pull it off, why aren't all of the 757 pilots screaming about this being a bunch of BS?
3. I have a hard time believing the pilots just gave up their controls. Were they killed first or did they just give them up? I saw a picture of the cockpit... it looks awfully tight in there. Logistically could the dead pilots have been dragged out of their seats without losing control of the plane?
4. Aren't controls and instruments basically the same in all planes. Granted there are a lot more in the 757, but I mean the main ones required to navigate and fly? So therefore once someone with limited experience found his way around the cockpit of the 757 theoretically they would be able to fly and maneuver?
5. I would think that the thought of 72 virgins would have focused the pilot's concentration, not distract them. I envision the pilots saying (in Beevis and Butt-Head voice) to themselves "72 virgins... 72 virgins... 72 VIRGINS!!!" as they plow into the WTC. If they miss, well... no virgins. So they better make damn sure they hit their targets, no?

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy



One assumption being made is that the plane was always flying at 600mph. However from the footage on the 2nd plane, the engines can be heard to increase thrust near the end. I don't know if that is scientifically reliable. but then neither is assuming that the plane was always travelling at full speed. He could have been travelling at a reasonable speed to line up the plane and then push it.



As far as the second plane is concerned, I'm not 100% convinced that it hit the north tower as advertised. In another video it is seen climbing away from the WTC.

But whether or not it hit the tower the engine power (or thrust) can be changed at any time in any amount. But the reaction to that change in thrust will be slow. Lets say that the plane was flying at the maximum FAA allowed airspeed of 250 Kts (below 10,000 feet). At 250 kts. it would have taken the airplane about 3 minutes to travel from the Colts Neck VOR to the WTC. Lets assume that the pilot thinks he has it all lined up about 3 miles away and then increases to full thrust. It would take 2 or 3 minutes for that full thrust to accelerate the mass of the airplane from 250 kts. to 600 kts. not to mention the drastic change in control forces that would change as the aircraft is accelerating particularly in pitch which means the pilot would have had to practice that particular maneuver in that particular type of aircraft many times to stay at about 800 (lets say plus or minus 200 feet for the sake of the argument). In other words as the airplane accelerates from 250 kts, to 600 kts the stick forces required to change the angle of the nose relative to the horizon are constantly changing and it would take a skilled pilot to maintain a relatively stable altitude. I find it hard to believe that the 757/767 was traveling 600 kts at 800 ft. as published by many sources. But if it was it would have to have been accelerating at full thrust for several minutes...long before he made the turn at Colts Neck VOR. I find it more reasonable that the aircraft was traveling about 350 to 400 knots at the time of impact but whether or not it was 350 kts or 600 kts it would have taken a very skilled pilot to accomplish that feat. And there was no way that a pilot with a Private license, having never flown a Transport Category aircraft could have maneuvered that airplane into the world trade center. Not by chance. Not by luck. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Not guided by 1000 virgins. And certainly not at that skill level.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Thank you John for your enlightened commentary here...

If this was, as i suspect, an agent provacatuer scenario, with real terrorists being dupped...

can a remote rig be set up on a plane, without being visable to the pilot or copilots?

in other words...
would the real terrorists be fooled into thinking that they were actually flying the plane, when they weren't in control...

or really, the main question is, would the real pilots have noticed the remote hardware installed on the craft, when they boarded?

I watched a discovery program a few years ago, and they were talking about a remote setup installed reduntantly so that if ever neccessary it could be "turned on with a flip of the switch" and take over complicated operations... even landing...
It was never integrated into production though I beleive...

another thing that isn't considered, is that this system on the program was AI... and could operate independantly of any human... (even landing)

So I have another question for you John?
could an automatic flight program be used (NOT REMOTE CONTROL) to AI pilot with the precision needed to hit the towers?
perhaps a laser guided program?

It would explain the extreme manuvuers that were shown.
thank you



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Originally posted by mecheng



1. What is the likelihood that even a pilot trained to fly a 757 could maneuver it into the WTC/Pentagon?


Its not unlikely. Its impossible. Its simply impossible for even a semi-skilled pilot to have made that descending turn of almost 360 degrees and hit the Pentagon where it did, approximately 5 to 10 feet above the ground level. People who believe that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon are basing their opinion on hope. Hope that this wasn't an inside job. Hope that what hit the Pentagon was not a Predator. Hope that all this is just a nightmare. They are certainly not basing their opinion on facts. And the facts are that its impossible for a pilot with the skill level of the alleged pilot of the Pentagon 757 to have made a descending turn of almost 360 degrees and then hit the Pentagon dead center. What we have been told about that crash has been a total fabircation. The instant that the nose hit the wall the tail of the airplane would have separated and been thrown up and over the Pentagon. It would not have been swallowed in an alleged hole.


IYO could a trained pilot have hit those targets... 3 out of 3?


No. Not 3 out of 3.


2. If it's that difficult for an untrained or inexperienced pilot to pull it off, why aren't all of the 757 pilots screaming about this being a bunch of BS?


Many are. But that information is not making into mainstream media because the name of the game is "I need this job very badly to support my wife and family. In no way will I jeopardize it by giving my opinion on a subject that might subject me to political influences that would lead to a chat with the chief pilot of my airline tellling me that they have enjoyed my services but I need to pack up my kit and hit the road. There are literally thousands of pilots that know the impossibility of a center tank fuel pump igniting TWA Flight 800. There are thousands of aeronatical engineers that know that too. But they all want one thing: to keep their job secure no matter what.


3. I have a hard time believing the pilots just gave up their controls. Were they killed first or did they just give them up? I saw a picture of the cockpit... it looks awfully tight in there. Logistically could the dead pilots have been dragged out of their seats without losing control of the plane?


It would be difficult but in theory yes. The autopilot would have been on but lets look at the mechanics of this scenario. Lets assume that all you had was a box knife. In order to kill the pilots you would have to open an artery, slash their throats, etc. What is the other pilot doing? Watching??? A pilots immediate reaction to an attack of any type within the cockpit would be to instantaneously disconnect the autopilot, roll the aircraft 180 degrees upside down and push the controls forward which would pin the attacker to the ceiling. Remember that the pilots are securely attached to their seats with a seat belt at all times. The hijacker is just floating. So now, as the hijacker is being thrown between the ceiling and the floor with the pilot pumping the controls he has to disable and kill both of them. That is going to be quite a feat. Pilots have an extraordinary sense of survival. They have bills to pay. Families to support. Girlfriends to play with. Union dues to pay. They are not going to give up easily and certainly not to a hijacker that is currently bouncing between the floor and the ceiling. Ok, suppose the hijacker does get a couple of lucky swipes and both pilots are dead or dieing. Can you imagine the amount of blood spurting in the cockpit. There would be quarts, if not gallons of it all over. Over the bodies, over the controls, everywhere. OK. Now the hijacker has to unlatch the pilots seat belt and drag him out of that seat. That means he has to lift a 180- 230 dead weight, slippery with blood vertically up so that the pilots legs will slip under the control wheel. There is no way to get rid of the control wheel (yoke). So now he has the dead pilot a foot or so vertically up but now the pilots head is against the ceiling so now he has to turn the pilots torso towards the inside of the cockpit which now pins the pilots legs against the yoke. Now he has to lift this dead weight towards the center of the cokpit while at the same time reaching over and maneuvering the pilots legs out from behind the yoke. Its a slippery and messy job because there is so much blood. OK so my some amazing feat of contortion the hijacker now gets the pilot into that small space between the cockpit door and the throttle pedestal. Legs are sticking everywhere but now the hijacker has to climb into the bloody seat, grab the bloody controls and fly the bloody airplane. Hopefully the hijacker has brought along some hand towels because there is a lot of blood around and its going to be impossible to grab on the control wheel unless he can wipe up the blood. So assume he has a couple of hand towels (because there is no hand towel dispenser in the cockpit of a 757) cleans up the control wheel and starts to turn back to New York. Then he makes a call: "This is Muslim hijacker No.1 calling Fantasyland Tower, do you read? I have just killed 2 pilots, drug one out of his seat, cleaned up the mess and now I am going to hit the World Trade Center dead center. Get it? Dead Center! Do you read me Fantasyland Tower?


4. Aren't controls and instruments basically the same in all planes. Granted there are a lot more in the 757, but I mean the main ones required to navigate and fly? So therefore once someone with limited experience found his way around the cockpit of the 757 theoretically they would be able to fly and maneuver?


No, thats not possible. Newer aircraft, even one as old as the 757/767 series uses FMS (Flight Management Systems). Without extensive training a person would not be able to 'figure out' how they worked or how to use them for navigation. They do not have knobs to turn. They are programmed with push buttons. Yes, they all have old fashioned airspeed indicators and alitimeters but these dials are not going to get you to New York.


5. I would think that the thought of 72 virgins would have focused the pilot's concentration, not distract them. I envision the pilots saying (in Beevis and Butt-Head voice) to themselves "72 virgins... 72 virgins... 72 VIRGINS!!!" as they plow into the WTC. If they miss, well... no virgins. So they better make damn sure they hit their targets, no?


No. Even a normal pilot who thinks about sex between 4 and 6 seconds every hour of every day forgets about it from the Outer Marker inbound until landing is assured.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Thanks again Mr. Lear.
In regard to question 1... What about a fully trained pilot with years of experience flying 757's? Could he have pulled off a) either of the two WTC hits or b) the Pentagon hit based on his skill alone and not luck? I'm just trying to rule out that any pilot could not have hit those targets.
Also, in regard to question 5... That would explain some of the flights I've been on before


[edit on 31-8-2006 by mecheng]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Originally posted by mecheng



What about a fully trained pilot with years of experience flying 757's? Could he have pulled off a) either of the two WTC hits or b) the Pentagon hit based on his skill alone and not luck? I'm just trying to rule out that any pilot could not have hit those targets.


A fully trained pilot. with years of experience in a B-757/767, could not have hit those targets without a little advance planning and a little simulator training. It just couldn't be done.

If I had to train a pilot with very little experience in airplanes to hit the WTC or Pentagon I would recommend about 300 hours of training in a 757/767 visual simulator. Obtaining or contracting for this time in the US would be difficult as US airlines use their simulators on a 24 hour a day basis. 300 hours is an enormous amount of time and at 4 hours per session, 2 sessions per day, 6 days per week would take about 6 weeks of intensive training. Whoever owned the simulator might ask why the simulator is crashing into the World Trade Center several times a day but lets say that they don't question why they have to reboot the simulator all day long.

Lets say the perps rent some time from the only 757/767 simulator in the Middle East which of course is in Tel Aviv as all the other Middle East airlines fly French Airbuses. Lets say that the Israelis don't care about their simulator being used to crash into the World Trade Center 6 times day and having to reboot the thing 6 times a day. Then it is conceivable that we could train some Muslim pilots to center punch the WTC and Pentagon.

Of course, if the Israelis themselves were training the Muslim Pilots then they wouldn't question why the sim was crashing all day long into the WTC. But then the Muslims might wonder why the Israelis were training them to crash into the world trade center. The Muslims might ask themselves, "Do you think there is a conspiracy here? I mean we get the 72 virgins but what do the Israelis get?"



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Thanks John Lear, you've Certaintly Made me Think Twice about that.

However (And I by no means know anything about Aircraft) I would Imagine A Passenger Plane Would Be Designed to be the most Simple and Easyest Plane to fly for Obviouse Reasons, When I fly Abroard the Piolt has no trouble Spinning the Plane round a few times and Lighning the runway up at such a short distances, see I remember him doing that comming into Zante Airport which is a good comparisson to WTC from a Geometric point of view , the landing strip is nearly on the beach, he came in Sea-wards spun the plane round twice and landed, not shure about speed, probly quite slow but It Dosen't seem a Million miles away from WTC scenario appart from Speed.

Don't laugh at this Comparrison, I'm shure its not Quite the same but Can this be done on MS Flight Simulator (Version prior to 9/11)

Does anyone know of the Mechanics Mr.Lear Describes are Similer?

I wanna Try it.

I Own and Pilot my own Boat (Don't laugh at that, I'm not Comparing that to Flying a Plane) and I know how Deciving the Water can be at Judging Distance and things like that.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I dunno. I know commercial pilots who don't feel this would have been difficult for the hijackers to have done. I have no expertise to say either way.

But the alternate brings up 100 other issues that become even harder to believe. Like a predator hitting the Pentagon. Then you have to figure out how they managed the mass hallucinations of all the observers. And with the several second latency of the Predator, it would be equally as hard to be that accurate. Plus the tail did fly over top of the Pentagon building. it can be seen on the frames that captured the crash.

With WTC 1&2 we would have to believe that from the time of the inpact to the time of the collpase, that people were able to open up parts of the building at the impact zone which is going to be mostly inaccessable from dfamage and fire, and access the key support columns, attack explosives, and exit without being noticed. Then we would have to assume that within that time they would have to destroy the original plane and passeengers, bring the remains up to the building and plant them, without anyone noticing. Demolitions could not have been pre p[lanted since they occured at the exact point of the impact and would have damaged or destroyed by the impact. Then there's the 100s of engineers involved as well as all the peopel who studied the building and worked on the excavation. They would all have to be in on it too. And no leaks. The passengers who were killed and their famillies would have to be in on it too.

I wouldn't expect pilots to take actions in such an event. If they were told to leave the cockpit, they may have litened because standard prcoedure was to obey and get the ordeal over with. no one expected them to be used as weapons. There were 4 hijackers, so if they slit throats, there were enough to handle all the pilots, who likely never expected or experienced such an ordeal and would not have a known response. If anything it's more likely they would have frozen in fear.

but at this point it all becomes pure speculation. For me there are far more impossibilities with a remote controlled plane.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy




I wouldn't expect pilots to take actions in such an event. If they were told to leave the cockpit, they may have litened because standard prcoedure was to obey and get the ordeal over with.


I flew for several different airlines over a period of 30 years and never, ever heard to obey an order to get out of the cockpit. Obey an order to fly somewhere but not to relinquish the controls. To anybody. Ever.


There were 4 hijackers, so if they slit throats, there were enough to handle all the pilots


4 hikackers in the cockpit of a Boeing 757? All of them with box knives fighting 2 pilots? While the passengers are left alone? I respectfully suggest that we are lacking some critical thinking here.


who likely never expected or experienced such an ordeal and would not have a known response. If anything it's more likely they would have frozen in fear.


Frozen in fear? A pilot? A guy who juggles at least 2 girlfirends and his wife day in and day out? Frozen in fear? A guy whose whole life revolves around preparing to calmly handle life threatening emergencies at 500 mph at 41,000 feet? Frozen in fear? A guy, many of whom are NRA Life Members? Frozen in fear? A guy who every 6 months puts his career on the line in a 4 hour simulator check ride? Frozen in fear? A guy who faces down head flight attendents every flight over inaccurate passenger counts? Frozen in fear? Tell me Snoopy, do any of these pilots that you know fly airplanes?


For me there are far more impossibilities with a remote controlled plane.


Interesting comment Snoopy. What is the single biggest impossiblilty of a remote controlled airplane being guided into the WTC? Thanks for your comments.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
That's because the end photo has been stretched to distort the dimensions. Probably done by the same web site that imbeded a date and false time code on the pentagon video frames.


Oh boy. Now you're really reaching.

If this is true then you can back it up really simply by going to the original video which was released to the mass media by the US government and providing a link so we can ALL see that the distortion you assert has actually taken place.

If you can't do that - and I'm pretty sure you can't - then your contribution adds nothing to the debate but hot air.

As for the "false time code", I remember when that video first came out, and it was on a variety of sites, all of which showed the same false time code. Did all of them get it from official sources and then alter the time code together?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by snoopy
I flew for several different airlines over a period of 30 years and never, ever heard to obey an order to get out of the cockpit. Obey an order to fly somewhere but not to relinquish the controls. To anybody. Ever.

4 hikackers in the cockpit of a Boeing 757? All of them with box knives fighting 2 pilots? While the passengers are left alone? I respectfully suggest that we are lacking some critical thinking here.

Frozen in fear? A pilot? A guy who juggles at least 2 girlfirends and his wife day in and day out? Frozen in fear? A guy whose whole life revolves around preparing to calmly handle life threatening emergencies at 500 mph at 41,000 feet? Frozen in fear? A guy, many of whom are NRA Life Members? Frozen in fear? A guy who every 6 months puts his career on the line in a 4 hour simulator check ride? Frozen in fear? A guy who faces down head flight attendents every flight over inaccurate passenger counts? Frozen in fear? Tell me Snoopy, do any of these pilots that you know fly airplanes?

Interesting comment Snoopy. What is the single biggest impossiblilty of a remote controlled airplane being guided into the WTC? Thanks for your comments.


Well, again, I have no way of knowing for certian of the pilots behavior, but who really does? Different pilots are going to have different personalities. Many planes have been hijacked in the past? Why didn't the pilots just not abide by the hijackers ever before? Why have so many hijackings been successful before? I don't think I can recall offhand any hijacking that was stopped (cant say I ever investigated it).

While to some it may be a handling of life threatening emergencies, I am sure for many pilots its more of a cushy job that has been mostly uneventful for most of their careers. Do the pilots I know fly? yes, but none have ever conveyed that they were always full of fear from flying. And none have personalities that are what one might consider dominant or agressive or anything like that. Do they represent the average pilots? I would have no way of knowing that. I am just skeptical of the notion that being a pilot makes one trained for such events. And as for leaving the passengers alone, many of the phone calls indicated that they passengers were huddled to the back and by themselves while thb hijackers were up front. They kept the passengers in the back by spraying the cabin area with mase, preventing them from going up front. I believe in some of the calls the pilots were mentioned being in the back as well, but I don't know if I am merely confusing that with something else. So don't hold me to that. It may have varied on each flight, I don't know.

Well, I already mentioned some of the issues with remote controlled planes. For one those planes don't have fly by wire. IF they did, then the airline would have to have specifically designed such a system just for this incident. That would meana lot of people building/designing such a system on a civillian plain that would have to be in on it with no benefit and not blowing a shistle. Then you have the latency, which is several seconds. Many people think these predators are perfect, but out of the first 125 made, almost half of them crasherd or failed. And the latency of several seconds would make it hard for a pilot to adjust in time.

Then you have to take into account getting the plane parts from the real planes, the contents, and its passengers into the building before it collapses and plant all that stuff there without anyone knowing. Then you have to get the passengers (before you kill them) to play along with the plot and make the phone calls. Or you could say the victoms were mimiced. This would take a lot of planning in advance and knowing exactly who would be on the planes, including people who signed up late because of missing previous flights. Then they would have to be able to fool the familly members. Unless the familly members were in on it, inwhich case they are involved in hjelping kill their loved ones.

Then if you get into controlled demolition it gets even deeper. So I can't really argue over the logistics of flying. But I can argue over the variables or individual personalities, and all the other issues that then have to be accepted along with remote controlled planes, instead of simply stopping right there.

I am not trying to prove one point or the other, but currently lean twards a non-conspiracy just because of such issues. No matter which way anyone argues on any subject, there are always going to be questionable things. But for me it's a matter of which has less questionable things to me.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Its not unlikely. Its impossible. Its simply impossible for even a semi-skilled pilot to have made that descending turn of almost 360 degrees and hit the Pentagon where it did, approximately 5 to 10 feet above the ground level. People who believe that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon are basing their opinion on hope. Hope that this wasn't an inside job. Hope that what hit the Pentagon was not a Predator. Hope that all this is just a nightmare. They are certainly not basing their opinion on facts.


Either that, or they are basing it on all the available evidence which points to a plane hitting the pentagon.

www.911myths.com...

I suppose all that wreckage came from a predator?

There is plenty of evidence indicating a 757, including the remains of passengers whose DNA just happened to match the DNA of their relatives.

Who's ideas are based on hope again?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Plus the tail did fly over top of the Pentagon building. it can be seen on the frames that captured the crash.


The Pentagon video that I've seen doesn't even show a plane. It shows an explosion and you certainly can't see a tail flying through the air. This is just nonsense. Please post a link to a video that shows this.

For someone who talks about "the mass hallucinations" of people seeing a 757 you seem to be a little hallucination-prone yourself.


With WTC 1&2 we would have to believe that from the time of the inpact to the time of the collpase, that people were able to open up parts of the building at the impact zone which is going to be mostly inaccessable from dfamage and fire, and access the key support columns, attack explosives, and exit without being noticed.


No. There was a window of a week a little before the attack when the bomb-sniffing dogs were removed and a lot of "maintenance" was taking place. Do some research.


Then we would have to assume that within that time they would have to destroy the original plane and passeengers, bring the remains up to the building and plant them, without anyone noticing.


No. All they would have to do is plant a passport so that the media could report the hijackers were there... and to show that the passport was planted, I can quote the 9/11 Commission's own report as referenced by the top debunking site 9/11 Myths:

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Page 40
www.9-11commission.gov...


This, by the way, comes in the middle of a discussion about how it was not impossible that the passport should have survived the crash: but it demonstrates quite clearly that the possibility that the passport was planted was not excluded, it was strengthened. An anonymous guy just gave a policeman the passport? Why? Why should he think it was important? Why didn't he leave his name so he could be called to testify under oath that he'd picked it up from the sidewalk?


Demolitions could not have been pre p[lanted since they occured at the exact point of the impact and would have damaged or destroyed by the impact.


Nonsense. The most obvious evidence for explosives being used is the fact that the WTC towers fell at a rate equivalent to free fall. This would entail each floor being knocked out just before the floor above fell on it. Explosives would have had to be placed throughout the building.


Then there's the 100s of engineers involved as well as all the peopel who studied the building and worked on the excavation. They would all have to be in on it too. And no leaks. The passengers who were killed and their famillies would have to be in on it too.


JFK's assassination would have required a lot of people to be in on it. Leaks from that have trickled out over the years, but it's taken time. And there's so much disinfo out there that sorting the data into a coherent picture that everyone can agree on is almost impossible.

But many, many witnesses to inconvenient moments (like the woman who saw Ruby and Oswald together in a police car) died suspicious deaths early on in the game. Cover-ups can work if those involved know how ruthless the perpetrators are prepared to be.

As for the passengers and their families... the passengers just disappear. The families grieve.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Nonsense. The most obvious evidence for explosives being used is the fact that the WTC towers fell at a rate equivalent to free fall. This would entail each floor being knocked out just before the floor above fell on it. Explosives would have had to be placed throughout the building.



Good, then I suppose that since the towers did not fall at "a rate equivalent to free fall" means that no explosives were used?




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
As far as the second plane is concerned, I'm not 100% convinced that it hit the north tower as advertised. In another video it is seen climbing away from the WTC.


I was going to ask if you had a link to this, and I thought I'd do some digging on my own first... and I found this rather fascinating page which shows that a large, commercial sized plane was circling lower Manhattan at the time of the impacts. Could this plane have housed a remote-control facility that would have to all intents and purposes eliminated latency?

Is it, as the site claims, anomalous for the plane to have been there in the first place?

And if this is not the plane in the video you reference, is there any chance you could link to a site with the video you mention?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Good, then I suppose that since the towers did not fall at "a rate equivalent to free fall" means that no explosives were used?


I apologise. I shouldn't have said "a rate equivalent to free fall". I should have said, "a rate almost equivalent to free fall and certainly too fast to support the pancake theory".

Calculating the time taken for an object to fall from the height of the towers, in a vacuum, has been done in many places on the web. The formula for this is t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity, 32.17 feet per second per second.. If we take the height of the building (h) as 1306 feet, this gives a figure of 9.01 seconds, but this ignores air resistance. Please feel free to check this in any physics textbook. Factoring in air resistance brings in variables according to surface area and density of a given debris fragment and complicates matters considerably, but it's safe to add in four seconds. The towers collapsed, so far as we can tell from video evidence, in around fourteen seconds, not nearly long enough to support the pancake theory, which would require some sort of delaying effect as each floor impacts the next. Even if you assume that the "pancaking" effect adds only one tenth of a second per floor, this takes the collapse time way over what we actually saw.

I don't know what the crude graphic was supposed to demonstrate.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
So according to John Lear no Kamikaze could've ever hit his target, and definitely not in Ohka rocket special, as a) pilots were unexeprienced(in fact MUCH LESS flight hours than 0911 pilots), b) esp. in Ohka the speed of approach was very high, c) targets were much smaller than WTC and d) pilots had to use only their physical force while steering the aircraft.
But history teaches us otherwise.
So if an untrained pilot without experience can in such a circumstances hit say a minesweeper, why is it unlikely that pilot with more experience and with the help of modern navigational and steering equipment would hit target as large as WTC?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
To compare Kamikazis to a commercial jet airliner is just short of comparing a sports car to a 16 wheeler...

they handle just a bit different in tight corners...

and I am still waiting for my question to be addressed by those that would know...

Is a remote rig setup, obvious to those flying the plane... or could it be hidden?

and isn't there an autopilot targeting program that could have targeted and flown the planes all the way into the WTC? without any human help, or latency of instruction required...

From what i have read (and Johns comments) this was a near perfect hit... perhaps accomplished with computer GPS/laser accuracy



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join