To all Believers of the Official Story:

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Useless charts, graphs and snide remarks. How stale and unimaginative.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across snide, actually I was laughing the whole time I posted that bit if information.

Sometimes you just have to step back and look around.. I was only refuting your claim, with a bit of humour. Sorry you didn't like it.

I just have a hard time letting wild claims go unchecked.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Just want to ask you if you 100% believe the Official Report on 9/11, if not what areas do you have trouble with?

watchZEITGEISTnow

A couple of weeks back, on the ATS Mix show, they had William Rodriguez.

I found what he had to say... well... pretty interesting.

As an agnostic on the whole 9/11 situation, can someone (CT'er or non) please explain away the explosion on the ground floor.

For as much as I want to ignore the whole 9/11 'Conspiracy' or 'Non Conspiracy' thing, I can't ignore this.

As a side: I live in the arse-end of the world: New Zealand. And I have to tell you, the whole 9/11 'thing' is a debate people have. In my workplace, and amongst friends.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Thank you for your apology.

The claims I made were not wild. They are backed by many polls, some of them taken by universities. Zogby has been tracking the opinions of people regarding 9/11. The majority of people (60%) in Europe did not buy into the "official" reports after they witnessed 9/11 occurring and compared the reports. As of 2007, over 50% of NYC residents do not buy into them. Nationwide, it is 40% not now accepting or never did accept the official "reports.

"To all Believers of the Official Story:"

can i quickly just ask what is the actual official story

Hello All,
Just my opinion, but those of us who didn't watch TV that day, like myself since I was in class that day, have a very different idea as to what happened.

We all know the obvious signs of an inside job....Insider Trading, WTC7, lack of video evidence at the Pentagon and physical evidence at Shanksville, PA., etc., etc....

However, I have come to the conclusion, as have others, that no planes ever hit any of the four locations, especially WTC 1 and WTC 2. Now, that may be a touchy subject for some of you and I can understand that since most people watch TV and believe everything it spews out, but I urge you to look at the evidence from that day, namely the "live" video feeds on all the different TV networks. I hope you put aside the "NO-PLANE THEORY" looney comments and sincerely look at the evidence.

Also, has anyone listened to this interview with our good friend Mr. John Lear and another fellow pilot.....parts 1 and 2 respectively. Not saying he agrees with everything I have written above, but I put more faith in the many pilots, including Mr. Lear who have questioned the official story based on their experience, than in the hands of Alex Jones or the LooseChange crew. Nothing against them at all....
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Also, take a look at this video as well....
www.youtube.com...

I think the basic idea, regardless of what our theories on 9/11 are, is that it was one of the worst tragedies in our history in the United States and the fact that it took that many months afterward to actually start an investigation into the mattter, originally allotting, I believe, $3 Million to fund it, is sickening and wreaks of Conspiracy/Obstruction of Justice, the list goes on. At least, if anything, we can say we were here and questioned the official story, not blindly believing this lie and the many others perpetuated on us everyday.
Thanks for reading....

.....Purduegrad05

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Purduegrad05]

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Purduegrad05]

Originally posted by OrionStarsIf it was "just like the real thing", there should be no problem accomplishing the same in a real airplane.

The problem is that it costs big bucks to take an aircraft out of service
for training, well for any purpose.

Another thing is that if you screw up to bad and crash they just reset the sim and try again, can't do that in the real thing

If life was a pre-progammed computer of virtual reality, nothing would be "too dangerous or too expencive " to perform either.

Well it's pretty clear that you dont have a clue about aviation, and what a modern simulator is.

Most of the parameters that's put into the boxes in the sim are collected from the real aircraft.

reply to post by OrionStars


Okay, here we are - again. Same circular logic, circular arguments supported by semantic posturing.

The original OP asked for my opinion. I stated my opinion, nothing more. I also gave an example as I thought this was more complete than replying with a simple one liner. I also admitted I could be 100% wrong. I also claimed I had no proof (concerning my shoot-down claim).

That is quite a baseless broad tar brush to spread over at least 40% of the US population and 65% of world population.

Says who? 65% of the world population?! A quick Google search (not scientific) claims the estimate of the world population is 6,602,224,175. So you're claiming that 4,291,445,713 (roughly give or take a few million people) believe holograms, no plane in Pennsylvania and the WTC were brought down due to "Thermite" and a "controlled demolition"? Four billion, plus or minus a few million?

I know exactly from where your claim comes from and what the basis for your claim actually says, do you? Even if what you are claiming was true, and it's not, that doesn't make the claims of a conspiracy true.

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Conjecture does not equal proof. Because Alex Jones says so does not equal proof.

Whenever you have an opinion in disagreement with others, does that automatically make you and others dishonest because of differing opinions (hypotheses)?

If you had actually read the OP's question you would realize I offered my opnion, not the basis for a debate. I also gave an example, exactly as the OP asked.

Specifically dishonest: the Loose Change fraud. These guys are either blindingly incompetent or flat out dishonest. There has been much, much work done in realm of "proving" their claims. I don't need to highlight what you don't already know - or choose to ignore

As for the rest of your attempt to semantically box me into a corner: don't be silly. Of course I don't think those who think differently than me are dishonest. I do believe that their honestly held beliefs are based on total frauds, perpetuated by those who gain financially from those that will buy their books, videos and pay to come see them "lecture".

What have you done to honestly disprove an opponent beyond your own opinion?

....with people who long ago made their mind up about the events of 9-11 and are convinced it's a massive conspiracy that fit's their own political biases? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There is no reason, evidence, or plausibility that will change their mind - like yours.

If you are not interested in the full truth concerning 9/11, that is your perogative. However, it is not your perogative to baselessly denigrate many, many others who are. Is it really any concern of yours how other people do what you opine as "wasting their time"? If so, why would that be?

That's a truly remarkable position from someone claiming to be after the truth, or in your case "...the full truth...". See, the thing is you - and others like you - just can not wrap your brains around the fact that I DO want the full truth. I am not going to entertain wild, baseless speculations and positively absurd claims based on "facts" as put forth by people like the Loose Change crowd.

You, not me, made the leap that I was personally attacking someone in particular. I am attacking the ideas. I offer no apologies for that. I see that as nothing more than another attempt to derail my comments, re frame them into something they were not and move the discussion to something your more comfortable talking about: me and my comments, rather than the absurd nature of the no plane in Pennsylvania "conspiracy".

The rest of your post is semantic gymnastics event.



[edit on 4-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by OrionStars
Why and how is it "just like the real thing". If something is "too dangerous or too expencive" to perform in a real airplane, how is that "just like the real thing"? If it was "just like the real thing", there should be no problem accomplishing the same in a real airplane. "Just like the real thing" has the same weight, mass and velocity attached to the ground as real airplanes? Yes, it definitely makes a difference in real airplanes.

Flying an airplane cost money and time on the aircraft, so ALL training and currency is done in the sim because of the cost. The sim also offers extremely real scenarios of emergencies that just can not be done on a real plane.

Simulators are rated and a type “D” sim is equal to a real aircraft and when you fly it you log real time just like the aircraft.

I think you are somewhat confused as to what flying is all about.

If we look at driving your car that is done with a lot of hand eye coordination to stay on the road while you physically drive it using mainly visual aspects, and to simulate that it would not be like the real thing in every aspect. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, and if they were willing to spend 20 million on a car sim it just might be like the real thing.

An airplane in many ways is actually easier than a car, and in some ways it is much harder. Operating aircraft instruments is a learned event with no hand eye coordination needed to master it. Such as the auto pilot, you do not need to practice with it inflight to get proficient with it since it is just buttons and wheels to set what you want the plane to do.

This, as with many other directional instruments once you learned how they work you can use them rather well.

Once away from the ground an aircraft becomes very easy to fly. Your flying might really suck, but you do not need to worry about the sides of a road or how fast you need to go to control an airplane, as with car. This is why at this point it is rather easy in all you need to do is push up the throttles and forget about them for speed only comes into play at lower speeds, such as stall speeds. If you are doing 200 or 400 it really doesn’t matter much.

Your control of the aircraft to go up, down, left or right is very simple, and you can totally ignore the use of the rudders since they are mainly used at lower speeds. Add in the sky is the limit as to where you can go and let’s just say you have a huge fudge factor that you do not have while driving on a road with a car.

Think of putting a 8 year old behind a car on the salt flats in Utah where he could drive for hours and not hit anything and you preset his speed to 40 let’s say. He would be able to drive around all day if he wanted to. Well flying would be a lot like that.

What the hijackers would need to know is what direction the towers were at the point that they took over. This means they would need some training on the instruments to navigate. Navigation is as simple as setting 10 to 360 degrees on a heading and then turning the plane in that direction. If they know the heading they can easily fly to it. Then at the point many miles away they would just need to fly visually to the towers since the towers would be easily seen. At the point that they could see the towers they would then only need to aim towards the towers and push the throttles to max and then just fly into them.

Instrument training is mainly a ground training school that anyone of us can easily understand.

May I ask you a question? If the hijackers didn't fly into the towers who did?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Pilots of commercial jetliners have said differently. Why don't you find a pilot to argue with about it?

reply to post by Xtrozero


It just stands to reason, for some people anyway, having something attached at ground level would be "just the same" as actually moving on and off ground level. Particularly, when it comes controlling over a couple of hundred thousand pounds of weight and mass, plus, more than a few actual thousands foot pounds of engine thrust, from each engine, while not being securely attached to the ground.

Sometimes if the only answers you get are "im sorry that is top secret" and you are still left asking why....that would lend credibility to the thought that something is being hidden. Then you ask yourself why whould you hide anything if the official story is 100% true. The reason all of these conspiracy theories come about is because we are all left to our own resources to figure out the "truth" since not all information, videos, documents were released....AND since at the end of every official corridor we travel down searching for official information always leaves us empty handed you get these logical deductions from what is already provided. When you are left to your own devices trying to answer your own question of why because the man upstairs wont release all the information necessary for a full fledged investigation the imagination eventually takes hold and produces some interesting stories.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Particularly, when it comes controlling over a couple of hundred thousand pounds of weight and mass, plus, more than a few actual thousands foot pounds of engine thrust, from each engine, while not being securely attached to the ground.

With aircrafts small or large, both act the same since both are flying due to low pressure on top of the wings to create lift. Bigger ones just take a little longer to change directions due to the greater mass involved, but flying into the towers would be nothing more than lining up on the run in and making very small inputs until they hit.

reply to post by enigmania


Just finally got time to watch the 911 doc that you were referring, also watch Zeitgeist.

I like the overall premise of both although I like the 911 better, pretty good questions are arise in that one too.

I guess I need to do some digging on what they presented in order to see if I change my mind, specially the molten metal aspect.

Still to me it would be a pretty difficult feat to CD those 3 building without no one really notice what's going on, I have check a couple of CD articles and they go to explain the great lenghts they go to do their job , and that is in buildings that don't even come close to the size of the WTC.

Anyways to digg I go.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
[Instrument training is mainly a ground training school that anyone of us can easily understand.

May I ask you a question? If the hijackers didn't fly into the towers who did?

If the hijackers had the training in the sims, how come they did not know how to use the radio and intecom. Several times they thought they were talking to the passengers when they were broadcasting?

Also the hijackers would have needed to get into the cockpits and subdue the pilots in under 4 seconds.

It only takes 1 second for the pilot to key the mike and make a emergency call.

It only takes about 4 seconds the set the hijack codes on the transponder.



[edit on 4-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If the hijackers had the training in the sims, how come they did not know how to use the radio and intecom. Several times they thought they were talking to the passengers when they were broadcasting?

My point is you do not need to be a trained pilot to do what they accomplished. As for radios, they are set up so that if you move the control column switch one direction you broadcast to the outside, moving it in the other direction you are on the intercom of the plane. It is obvious that it must have taken them some time to figure out what direction they needed to go.

Also the hijackers would have needed to get into the cockpits and subdue the pilots in under 4 seconds.

It only takes 1 second for the pilot to key the mike and make a emergency call.

It only takes about 4 seconds the set the hijack codes on the transponder.

As I mentally picture myself in the seat with my straps on, and this means seatbelt and shoulder straps. My back is to the door and I’m flying the aircraft, talking on the radios, and bull#ting with the other pilot all at the same time.

Someone kicks the door in and the first thing I hear is a loud BANG! While not being able to see the door, the VERY first thing I do is check my instruments such as pressurization and engines. If the hijackers came forward and ripped my little headset off my head then my ability to communicate is gone with no need to subdue. Being locked in a seat belt I would not be able to do anything but wave my arms over my head as they cut my throat.

Reaching down on the center console to move 4 small pinwheel to 7700 or trying to do it through my flight computer would really not be on my mind as I fight for my life stuck in my seat.

LOL how do you guys come up with this stuff?


[edit on 4-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
talking on the radios, and bull#ting with the other pilot all at the same time.

If your already talking on the radio how come you could not call for help ?

So please explain to me. What are the odds of out of 4 planes (8 pilots) Not one getting off an emergeny call or signal. Has it ever happened in aviation history?

Oh and by the way at least 1 of the planes had prior warnings about the other hijackings.






[edit on 4-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If your already talking on the radio how come you could not call for help ?

So please explain to me. What are the odds of out of 4 planes (8 pilots) Not one getting off an emergeny call or signal. Has it ever happened in aviation history?

Oh and by the way at least 1 of the planes had prior warnings about the other hijackings.

I'm not saying it is cut and dry as everyone who thinks there is a conspiracy says it is. My main point is they could have done what they did with the training they got.

BTW when was the last time someone hijacked a plane with the sole purpose to kill the pilots as quick as possible so they could use the planes as missiles?

Never…

So what was or was not possible for the pilots in that situation no one really knows for sure. I can give my opinion as to what I would be thinking of or doing as something that never happened before unfolds before me.

I can tell you this was a scenario no pilot ever thought about before 9/11, so it wasn’t like anyone was sitting back just waiting for this to happen.
I do know that kicking the door in would be easy and within a few seconds the headsets could easily be off and after that it would have been a life and death struggle with full advantage to the hijackers. I also believe they could have killed one pilot before either even had a clue as to what was going on.

With two hijackers entering the cabin I really do not think either pilot would get off a call.

With the aircraft that you said that knew that there were hijackings going and still didn’t do anything I do not know in that situation.

I'm just looking at this all with 7000 plus hours of flying, and to try and figure it down to the second as what the crew could have done I think it is not taking into account that we are talking about a group that was ready and set to kill the pilots and the pilots being totally clueless really wouldn't know how to react and would most likely be stun a few seconds not even comprehending what was taking place.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So please explain to me. What are the odds of out of 4 planes (8 pilots) Not one getting off an emergeny call or signal. Has it ever happened in aviation history?

Oh and by the way at least 1 of the planes had prior warnings about the other hijackings.

Did you already forget about Flight 93, ULTIMA1? There were two radio transmissions from that flight. Didn't we discuss this a couple of months ago?

FedEx 705 and EgyptAir 990 didn't get off radio transmissions immediately when they were hijacked. Didn't we discuss this a couple of months ago?

Two warnings were sent to flight 93, the captain responded to the first one with a question asking for confirmation. The second one was sent at approximately the same time the hijacking started. Didn't we discuss this a couple of months ago?

Read the flight 93 air traffic control transcripts. The pilots were searching for other traffic as per request by the ATC. Maybe that's why they didn't jump up out of their seats and go into full combat mode without knowing that there was even a hijacking on their aircraft.