My sudden change of heart

If you dont want to read all this and just want to debate, skip to the "TLDR version:" in bold. But please at least read that part before posting.

I have been believing 9/11 conspiracies for quite some time. I would say about a year after 9/11 i started asking questions up until about last week. I always had doubts in my mind about the conspiracy theories, but in general i felt that many questions had been un-answered and in that regard i gave my credence to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and what the "truthers" stood for.

However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.

First thing i would like to point out is, governments DO cover stuff up. There is no doubt about it. But i know i can rest assured that our government did not commit 9/11.

A lot of people ask things like, "why is the media and the government so angry about us asking questions?"

Well, imagine your family just got murdered and the cops start interrogating you for the murder. Wouldn't you be mad? You know you didn't do it and you know the cops are wasting time not looking for the killer. In all fairness, the fact the government officials get mad about people believing in these conspiracy theories is actually more proof that they did not commit them.

People of this tyrannical nature are always proud of what they did. If our government is this diabolical, every 9/11 truther would suddenly "disappear".

If you where a "poland truther" telling Germany that hitler bombed the reichstag, hitler would just kill you.

But im actually going off topic here. This is just a "historical comparison", since 9/11 truthers and other liberals love to use this so much.

Here are some major concerns i have with 9/11 conspiracy theories:

#1: The NORAD vs Pennsylvania conflict of interest.
So, according to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, NORAD was conducting Drills on 9/11 and got confused about what was going on. They are suppose to intercept the airplanes hitting Towers 1 and 2 however failed to do so because of this. The government purposely confused NORAD so that the planes would hit their intended target.
Pennsylvania shows no signs of debris or any wreckage. The Government fired a missile into an airplane to stop it from reaching its intended target.

Ok wait... stop right there...
So... the government purposely allowed 3 airplanes to strike their intended targets and then proceeded to cover up the fourth plane hitting possibly DC by shooting it down?

Which one is it guys? Is NORAD standing down or is NORAD shooting down airplanes?
Or maybe... maybe its more plausible that NORAD couldnt intercept the first 3 airplanes in time but did intercept the 4th?

Should we hate the government for not telling us that they shot down an airplane that they Knew was 100% certain going to strike a target (considering 3 did before that one)? Decisions had to be made that day that no one should be responsible for. If the shoot down order was given for 1 plane we can conclude that the government did NOT want airplanes hitting targets.

Or, maybe it just crashed into the ground so fast that it disintegrated? A plane falling straight down and exploding could potentially leave very little debris. Either way, the pennsylvania "mystery" actually favors the "official story" more than the "truther story".

#2: Who in the hell orchestrated this thing? This isnt the burning of the reichstag. We are talking about rigging 3 buildings with explosives, hijacking 4 airliners(along with convincing TSA agents to go along). Every member of the investigation. All government and military officials involved in hijacking(or remote controlling) airplanes, rigging explosives, and detonating explosives.
The list goes on and on and on....
At some point there is going to be a guy with a digital voice recorder recording a smoking gun conversation with these people and taking it to court. # like water-gate gets exposed yet 9/11 flies through with no problems aside from two college kids who want to make a movie and some crack-pot with a microphone? Cmon now, give me a break. Ill believe a Roswell cover-up. You have a few villagers, a farmer, and one airforce base. But we are talking hundreds if not thousands of people involved here. In all honesty, you wouldnt even need to create a false flag so intense. You could easily just bomb some town, blame it on an "iraqi special suicide squad" or something, and go to war. You would not need something so elaborate and "diabolical" that could easily be leaked and broken apart.

I am going to say this as a "common sensical" approach: If the government committed 9/11 without any obvious problems or major smoking gun leaks, then this is beyond our "government". If you believe this, then you might as well believe we are being mind controlled by aliens. There is no other way around it, because it is impossible to have so many people silent and without "obvious" evidence.

Im not talking about a scientist with a plastic bag of powder saying theres thermite in it. Im talking about an official with documents, recordings, photos ANYTHIgn really that he/she would have had in connection with the crime.

How many people can go to bed at night knowing they where responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and not do something about it?

With something THIS big, its very hard to believe so many people would be silent. Its just impossible to even fathom, and this is the hardest part for me to believe.


#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!

I'll be honest, world trade center 7 is the ONLY reason i even believed in the conspiracy theories in the first place. I was watching loose change and thinking "bull# bull# bull# bull#" but because i am open minded(but skeptical) i kept watching. When it got to world trade center 7, i cringed. I had to rewind and watch that over and over. Justify that the video wasnt making this up(because i had never heard of it before) and continue with my own "investigation."

Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.

A perfect example of a "catastrophic" fire causing massive damage is the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake.
www.youtube.com...
What a lot of people dont know is that 80% of the damage caused was not due to the Earthquake, but rather the "fires" that happened shortly after the gas lines ruptured. The water system was shut down so firefighters couldn't put out the fire. You can see lots of burned buildings with just what look like cardboard cut-outs left standing. Similar to the end result of the World Trade Center damage. Buildings in manhatten are actually built so they collapse inward instead of outward, which is very smart and common in urban city environments. This isnt some crazy conspiracy, its the truth. Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward. This doesnt indicate a controlled demolition, it simply indicates that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.

here is a great video:
www.youtube.com...

What many truthers wont show you is the "penthouse" collapse. Why in the world would the penthouse fall into the footprint of the building if its being demolished?
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives. There is no evidence of any explosive use whatsoever. The only thing "eerie" about the collapse is how symmetrical it "appears", but as mentioned the buildings where designed to collapse in this manner. We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.

There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building. After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.
People use the "i heard explosions" eye witness accounts as "proof".

Well, if you watch eyewitness videos you will actually hear ZERO explosions. The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?
How loud would the explosions be?
Take a look:
www.youtube.com...

Pretty freaking loud. It would be 100% obvious that it was a controlled demolition, yet you cant hear anything close to this.

And finally, #4:
Presentation. Only NOW has any of the "evidence" been presented thoroughly. But in the beginning, you had a giant "entertainment value" attached. Go watch loose change with the loose connections, random finger pointing, eerie music. Its like watching "paranormal activity" for real ghost phenomena. You just wont find it.

Lately some of the videos have been "trying" to use scientific evidence, but most of it has already been beaten to death.

There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition. Again, a lone scientist with a zip-lock bag of powder is not evidence. Pictures of red steel being melted by construction workers is not evidence.

Before we start jumping to conclusions(such as i did myself), we need to take apart whats being fed to us(by both parties) and really figure out whats going on.

TLDR version:
1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.

2) The Pennsylvania crash was possibly a plane being shot down. When Terrorists hijack airplanes, it was believed that they would land and have a ransom and/or demands. Nobody expected them to crash into buildings. This is why NORAD did not shoot down the first and second plane. Nobody knew where the 3rd airliner was, so that plane did make it to its intended target. After 3 planes successfully made their intended targets, the fourth plane was given the "go" to be shot down. The government is probably covering this up because they dont want the public to know they shot their own airplane. Not just because it looks bad, but because that is how these terrorists actually use civilians. The idea that people fire at the terrorists and kill civilians is exactly the image the terrorists want us to see. This is the government not giving our enemy more propaganda. It also might be plausible that a bomb was on board that blew the airplane out of the sky or that it fell straight down and exploded entirely(the official story). If there was a bomb on board, it would be very hard to know 100% and that is probably why it is not the official story, even if it might be a plausible explanation for the lack of debris..

3) WTC 7 probably had its core exploded and/or had some kind of "leverage" dragged down to force the building to collapse inward. This is indicated by the penthouse collapsing first. There is actually no evidence whatsoever that there where explosives. There is no video showing explosives being used and no sound during the collapse of explosives going off. Witness testimony is not a valid way to look at this. Witnesses are great for a case, but you need some evidence before you can go to trial.
At best, they evacuated the building, planted a bomb in the core column, and tugged it downward to fall into its own footprint. This was to ensure other buildings in the area where not damaged and that if the building where to collapse later it would not cause any further loss of life.
Oh man, how evil and sinister of them to do that.
Again, there is no evidence of explosives being used whatsoever. If you believe the government "did it", then i want to ask you.. just how in the hell did they do it?
Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.

And now i expect hoardes of truthers to flock, reading maybe the first two paragraphs, and shouting jews and inside job without any critical response or analysis.

I wont repsond to any of that. If you have something debatable, i will see it.

If you have any evidence that contradicts what im talking about, i also want to see it. Remember, i was at truther. But for me, the truthers arguments are actually a huge fallacy. So please just present some solid evidence that contradicts anything i have mentioned above and i will gladly listen.

Flight 93 was shot down because it took off 40 minutes late.
Of course we have found no evidence of explosives in WTC 7 - the investigators admitted they never tested for them.
On and on it goes, there are many dead people who were connected with the events of 9/11.
People who died under suspicious circumstances.
I won't convince you and you won't convince me, let's leave it at that.
I get tired of searching for the truth but I am sure that is something the 9/11 Commission never delivered.
It was never "the government" but a small group of people connected to it that pulled off 9/11.
Official theory = Boxcutters bring down skyscrapers.
How much more ludicrous can it get?

I forgot to add that the Pentagon spends Billions of $ on "cyber warfare" (not to mention the NSA/CIA/FBI etc)
Don't you think they could have possibly infiltrated the truth movement?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Official theory = Boxcutters bring down skyscrapers.
How much more ludicrous can it get?

The official theory is that people with boxcutters hijacked an airplanes that crashed into sky scrapers.

What i dont understand is why you say it in such a way:
"Boxcutters brought down skyscrapers".

It just doesnt sound right when you present it in that way. If you said something like, "it seems ludicrous that people with boxcutters could hijack an airplane" then we could have at least a philosophical debate about it. But the way you present it is very childish and doesnt invite any kind of debate.

This is what im talking about when i say im willing to debate if there is any "evidence."

Thats like saying "chemicals in a metal box wiping out an entire city is ludicrous" when referring to nuclear devices. It may "seem" hard to believe, but nuclear devices do exist.

reply to post by demonseed


Oh you crazy fool... just kiddng Well thought out post and it is clear you put a lot of thought into it. Everyone should believe what they think to be true and even this statement has to be questioned if its true or not. I applaud your effort, the thing that gets me the most is the resident debunkers on ATS, They are so rude and give so little consideration of people's feelings that it makes me want to believe a conspiracy more because their attitude is so annoying.

But for me the more I look the more I see a conspiracy. On the day it all made sense but afterwards with hindsight not so much, the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport , the way the towers fell, the reports that really don't explain much and my interest in how money controls absolutely the MSM and even the so-called alternative press leads to me one conclusion, it did not go down the way of the official conspiracy theory.

I've got jaded, I've seen the lies, the murder, the hypnocracy of the people in charge, the money , the attitudes and the lies. I try to base my opinions on things that are on the record. The freefall collapse of 2.5 seconds is on the record. And without blabbering it's the physics of the two towers.

For a source check ae911truth.org

The towers "exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

Lies before 9/11, lies after 9/11.

Peace and nice thread, hope everyone is polite too

Edit to add PS the change may have appeared sudden but your subconscious has been mulling this over for a while I would guess, it's only a conscious sudden realization.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I forgot to add that the Pentagon spends Billions of $ on "cyber warfare" (not to mention the NSA/CIA/FBI etc)
Don't you think they could have possibly infiltrated the truth movement?

No doubt, jsut read up on history, 'they' have their finger in the pie nearly every time. The idea of an unknowing pasty, shoot even the BBC had its finger in the pie, a tiny role in the removal of the democraticall elected leader of Iran, for you guessed it, oil control, that was in the 1950's and can be read about in a book called All the Shah's Men. The BBC altered its end of day message and this was the green light for the operation to go. Operation Ajax.

reply to post by demonseed


The OS is a fairytale that could only occur if a million coincedences happened on the same day..
Kinda like life on Mars......

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by demonseed

 

Oh you crazy fool... just kiddng

Well thought out post and it is clear you put a lot of thought into it. Everyone should believe what they think to be true and even this statement has to be questioned if its true or not. I applaud your effort, the thing that gets me the most is the resident debunkers on ATS, They are so rude and give so little consideration of people's feelings that it makes me want to believe a conspiracy more because their attitude is so annoying.

But for me the more I look the more I see a conspiracy. On the day it all made sense but afterwards with hindsight not so much, the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport , the way the towers fell, the reports that really don't explain much and my interest in how money controls absolutely the MSM and even the so-called alternative press leads to me one conclusion, it did not go down the way of the official conspiracy theory.

I've got jaded, I've seen the lies, the murder, the hypnocracy of the people in charge, the money , the attitudes and the lies. I try to base my opinions on things that are on the record. The freefall collapse of 2.5 seconds is on the record. And without blabbering it's the physics of the two towers.

For a source check ae911truth.org

The towers "exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

Lies before 9/11, lies after 9/11.

Peace and nice thread, hope everyone is polite too

Edit to add PS the change may have appeared sudden but your subconscious has been mulling this over for a while I would guess, it's only a conscious sudden realization.

edit on 20-11-2010 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)

Yes, it was a few "key" things i saw that made me look into this more clearly. Particularly a documentary on the the earthquake of San Fran Sisco.

i try to be polite as possible but i can understand(kind of) why "debunkers" would be mad about this. To them, this is implausible and people believing it causes some kind of anger. Or they really are government agents? (LOL).

In all fairness, thank you for presenting what you believe without being feisty either. As i know both sides of this issue can be rude and ignore each other.

All i can say from my perspective is I recommend you watch the collapse closely then go watch numerous actual controlled demolitions. You will start to see common patterns among the actual controlled demolitions that are not prevalent in the 9/11 footage.

Like visible explosions and loud bangs before the collapse starts. That is really the key here. The only loud sounds you hear during the 9/11 footage is as the collapse is taking place. There is no indication that explosions caused the structure to lose integrity. You simply cant blow up a structure as its collapsing. No demolition crew would ever do that because there is no way to guarantee how fast a building will fall and where the debris will go.

I will admit, the collapses look "odd". But, there are no signs of any controlled demolition from what i can tell.

Its also important to note that many of the buildings that conspiracy theorists use for the "structures that burned and didnt collapse" suffered no outside damage, such as debris falling on it and planes hitting it. The San Fransisco Earthquake is the closet resemblance of what happened that day and i feel the end result is pretty similar.

You dont have to agree with me, but i do recommend you to at least watch various videos of controlled demolitions and simply make up your own mind. Wherever that takes you is out of my control, but hopefully we can agree that they do not look and sound similar.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by demonseed

 

Why do all believers feel the need to post lenghy replies which say little?
Is it just to fill a thread and make their beliefs sound more important?
Or are these people paid by the line??
Maybe they are just not intelligent enought to be more concise with their thoughts..
Who knows, but it does go on and on and on..

Just for the record:
Your mad because I post lengthy threads/responses.
I do this because i feel my beliefs are important.
Im paid by words per minute(oh man if only).
Im unintelligent(wait, what? Im unintelligent for posting lengthy replies?)

Im sorry that it was just too much to read for you. If you like, there is a TLDR: version available. It starts at the "bold" section and you can read that part before deciding to read the entire thread. However, jumping to insults does not help anybody.

Im going to be going to bed soon, so hopefully things wont get too out of hand.

If I dont reply to something its not because im ignoring, but because i am sleeping. The government doesnt pay me enough to lose my sleep over

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


Aye, that's the rub.....

.....with hindsight.....

...and the major problem. The sorts of "questions" that popped up by people unqualified to ask in the first place, and that seemed (superficially, at least) "reasonable"...until explained carefully and properly and logically.

The problem has been the "logic" has been misapplied and ignored, and a lot of false assumptions have been tossed into the mix, along the way.

So, question: You raised a lot of the same "points" that are bandied about by the "truth movement" over and over.....but instead of the aggregate whole, why not one-by-one? IF you were shown examples of EVERY so-called "inconsistency' that could be explained, demonstrated, presented as a precedent, then what??

Just to continue the sentence, I can speak with some experience on this bit, and show that at least THOSE two aspects can be crossed off of the so-called "inconsistency" list:

.... the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport....

First (and easiest) are the passports, and other personal effects. Yes, more than one passport. And many other personal effects, IDs of passengers, credit cards, papers, mail, etc. A careful and thorough study of any other airplane crash will reveal that this is very common. It is the hyperbole that spews from the frothing of the "9/11 conspiracy" websites that cloud this fact, as they use the "argument from incredulity" inappropriately.

Second, the "flight path" to the Pentagon has been over-hyped, by people who know nothing about how to fly, and accepted by others who know nothing about how to fly. I have watched the NTSB Flight Recorder animation presentation, that re-created from the Recorder data the final minutes, and from nearly four decades' flying experience, including 20+ years flying large passenger airliners, there is nothing out of the ordinary seen. It was a normal turn that included a descent. Something you, as an airline passenger, will experience on every flight.

Only TWO aspects of the actual American 77 "flight path" that would be "different" from a "normal" airline flight are matters of Federal Air Regulations, and other SOPs. The airspeed? Not excessive, in the turn. Perfectly within the airplane's handling abilities. ONLY thing, it was "illegal" per Regulations, especially in U.S. Airspace. Why? The "speed limit" of 250 knots below 10,000 feet. That is not for aerodynamic reasons (excepting as a concern regarding potential birdstrikes, but that's minor). NO, it's an air traffic control consideration, and the fact that airplanes operating below 10,000 feet tend to do so when congregating for arrivals and departures...hence, more crowding. Imposing airspeed limits increases reaction times, and slows closure rates, if mid-airs are impending. Makes it easier for the controllers, who are, after all, only human.

The airspeed did not become excessive and outside of published "limits" until near the end, as power was pushed up to maximum, and the last straight-in powered descent to impact was flown.

The only other aspect I alluded to was the angle of bank, in that descending turn. I said "SOPs"...it is airline (and FAA) standard procedure to impose a maximum angle of bank of 30 degrees, in normal airline operations. Passenger comfort mostly (but, no one would even notice at 35 degrees, for example). It is just an arbitrary angle, a compromise....as pilots we have to demonstrate accurate abilities to control up to 45 degrees of bank in large jets. Private pilots in light airplanes practice the "steep turns", as they're called, up to 60 degrees of bank.

Such demonstrations are part of every pilot's training, and part of the curriculum even before they solo. First eight - ten hours of lessons. (Usually, about lesson four-six or so). Along with other maneuvers, steep turns are just another to teach and allow the pilot the ability to demonstrate mastery and understanding of his/her control over the airplane. It also, for a learning (new) pilot, increases personal confidence in their own abilities.

I find the fantastic tales of special science and never before never again events and all the coincidences to have far more loopholes than the official story. But you are free to be a believer.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by backinblack


Yes given the fact that many believers give more detail to their profile details than to everything else one could really get that idea. But thats just wild speculation .

I'm glad you feel you made an educated guess..

Unfortunately, we wish you wouldn't have given up..

we know, and the truth wont set us free.. but we know.

reply to post by demonseed


I had to stop after reading your: There was no debris in Shanksville, line.
There was debris scattered over 6-8 miles!!!!!
If the "Let's Roll" plane crashed someone please explain the miles of scattered debris.

I will go back and attempt to read more of your post but if you're going to post/disagree/change-your-mind, it would behoove you to get the facts straight (although I realize in this event, that may be difficult).

One more thing ..... having dis-informants is part of the 'messy cover-up'. If you have more people giving more opinions out in a public forum then,a lot of people will just find it easier reverting back to the OS for some 'sanity'.
It's all part of the PsyOP game.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

Aye, that's the rub.....

.....with hindsight.....

...and the major problem. The sorts of "questions" that popped up by people unqualified to ask in the first place, and that seemed (superficially, at least) "reasonable"...until explained carefully and properly and logically.

The problem has been the "logic" has been misapplied and ignored, and a lot of false assumptions have been tossed into the mix, along the way.

So, question: You raised a lot of the same "points" that are bandied about by the "truth movement" over and over.....but instead of the aggregate whole, why not one-by-one? IF you were shown examples of EVERY so-called "inconsistency' that could be explained, demonstrated, presented as a precedent, then what??

Just to continue the sentence, I can speak with some experience on this bit, and show that at least THOSE two aspects can be crossed off of the so-called "inconsistency" list:

.... the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport....

First (and easiest) are the passports, and other personal effects. Yes, more than one passport. And many other personal effects, IDs of passengers, credit cards, papers, mail, etc. A careful and thorough study of any other airplane crash will reveal that this is very common. It is the hyperbole that spews from the frothing of the "9/11 conspiracy" websites that cloud this fact, as they use the "argument from incredulity" inappropriately.

Second, the "flight path" to the Pentagon has been over-hyped, by people who know nothing about how to fly, and accepted by others who know nothing about how to fly. I have watched the NTSB Flight Recorder animation presentation, that re-created from the Recorder data the final minutes, and from nearly four decades' flying experience, including 20+ years flying large passenger airliners, there is nothing out of the ordinary seen. It was a normal turn that included a descent. Something you, as an airline passenger, will experience on every flight.

Only TWO aspects of the actual American 77 "flight path" that would be "different" from a "normal" airline flight are matters of Federal Air Regulations, and other SOPs. The airspeed? Not excessive, in the turn. Perfectly within the airplane's handling abilities. ONLY thing, it was "illegal" per Regulations, especially in U.S. Airspace. Why? The "speed limit" of 250 knots below 10,000 feet. That is not for aerodynamic reasons (excepting as a concern regarding potential birdstrikes, but that's minor). NO, it's an air traffic control consideration, and the fact that airplanes operating below 10,000 feet tend to do so when congregating for arrivals and departures...hence, more crowding. Imposing airspeed limits increases reaction times, and slows closure rates, if mid-airs are impending. Makes it easier for the controllers, who are, after all, only human.

The airspeed did not become excessive and outside of published "limits" until near the end, as power was pushed up to maximum, and the last straight-in powered descent to impact was flown.

The only other aspect I alluded to was the angle of bank, in that descending turn. I said "SOPs"...it is airline (and FAA) standard procedure to impose a maximum angle of bank of 30 degrees, in normal airline operations. Passenger comfort mostly (but, no one would even notice at 35 degrees, for example). It is just an arbitrary angle, a compromise....as pilots we have to demonstrate accurate abilities to control up to 45 degrees of bank in large jets. Private pilots in light airplanes practice the "steep turns", as they're called, up to 60 degrees of bank.

Such demonstrations are part of every pilot's training, and part of the curriculum even before they solo. First eight - ten hours of lessons. (Usually, about lesson four-six or so). Along with other maneuvers, steep turns are just another to teach and allow the pilot the ability to demonstrate mastery and understanding of his/her control over the airplane. It also, for a learning (new) pilot, increases personal confidence in their own abilities.

You obviously have experience flying planes beyond what I have...Yes, pilots have said it is "almost" impossible for an untrained pilot to execute maneuvers such as were performed on 9/11...In fact highly trained pilots fail more than not..What the believers say is, well they DID manage it on some occassions so it is not impossible..And that is true...

What is difficult to believe is that THREE seperate underskilled pilots managed to perform THREE seperate maneuvers that highly trained pilots could NOT perform more often than not...

I ask you two simple questions weedwacker....

1) What experience did each hijacker on 9/11 have in commercial jet planes?
2) Given the same circumstances, what would your odds be of hitting the same targets?

Please answer with the same lenghy explanation you use as a debunker...

Hmmm,Ask a hard question and Weedwacker goes offline....
Wonder why that happens???

reply to post by backinblack


This is beyond the pale. How do you learn something, when you are reading it, unless it's detailed enough to cover the topic??

Please answer with the same lenghy explanagtion you use as a debunker...

Snarky. :shk: What is a "debunker"? Is a person who knows more than you, on a certain topic and is able to educate and dispel misconceptions a "debunker"? Is the first-grade teacher that shows a child how to spell, is that person a "debunker", just because the child thought that the word "rough" should be spelled "ruff"?



You may need a ladder, to safely get off that horse.....

I ask you two simple questions weedwacker....

1) What experience did each hijacker on 9/11 have in commercial jet planes?
2) Given the same circumstances, what would your odds be of hitting the same targets?

Answer to #2 is simple. Simple. 100%

The answer to #1 is readily available, on the Interwebs. Here, I will post it for your convenience, so you don't have to look it up yourself. BTW, I didn't write any of this, so you will have to take it up with the authors if it's "too long" for your taste....(I'll see if I can edit down to bare essentials....the link at bottom is HIGHLY recommended reading, for a more thorough comprehension):

FAA records show that four of the 19 hijackers—one aboard each flight—possessed FAA
certificates as qualified pilots.

[snip]

Each of the four pilots received flight training in the United States....

[snip]

Among the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, only Mohammed Atta held a
certificate from the FAA as a qualified private and commercial pilot, including
proficiency rating in multi-engine aircraft operation. Atta received his commercial pilot
certificate in December, 2000. Records indicate that Atta received Boeing flight
simulator training sessions.

According to experts questioned by Commission staff, simulator training was critical for
the hijacker to familiarize himself with the cockpit controls and proper operation of the
Boeing 757 and 767—the type hijacked on 9/11, and to gain the operational proficiency,
“feel,” and confidence necessary to fly the aircraft into an intended target.

[snip].... United Airlines flight 175, only Marwan al Shehhi is
known to have completed flight training and possessed an FAA pilot certification. Al
Shehhi received his commercial pilot certificate in December, 2000, on the same day and
at the same facility as Atta received his. He also had Boeing flight simulator training.

[snip].....American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour was the sole
individual who FAA records show completed flight training and received FAA pilot
certification. Hanjour received his commercial multi-engine pilot certificate from the
FAA in March 1999.

[snip].....United Airlines Flight 93, Ziad Jarrah was the lone
individual who is recorded as having received flight training and FAA pilot certification.
Jarrah received his private pilot certificate from the FAA in November, 2000, and was
recorded as having received Boeing flight simulator training. Staff would note that Jarrah
had logged only 100 flight hours, and did not possess a commercial pilot certificate or
multi-engine rating.

The staff would note the existence of computer-based software programs that provides
cockpit simulation available on the open market to the general public. According to
experts at the FAA such computer-based training packages, including products that
simulate cockpit controls of the Boeing 757 and 767, provided effective training
opportunities. The terrorists were known to use computers, and there is no reason to
believe they did not have the computer literacy necessary to take advantage of computer based training aids.
govinfo.library.unt.edu...

You should continue on the section, from the linked document, bottom of Page 5 into Page 6, heading is

"Flying the Aircraft"


ON another thread I made a post (one you probably wouldn't like, being that it was educational, and therefore "long") that detailed, in a sort of online lesson, just how easily I could teach anyone to use the on-board equipment, on most Boeings, and specifically the B-757/767, to navigate, and to manage the autopilot controls, for the majority of the flying to the "targets".

If we had access to the facilities (training materials, full-sized cockpit panel photographs and stuff, and then into a full-motion flight simulator I could show just about anyone, even if never flew in their life, quite a bit, within a few hours. Give me a week?? You'd be more than capable....this is the tragic truth, and why it was such a devious plan of the hijackers and extremists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT just for b.i.b.

Look at the next post, below mine. Is THAT from a "debunker" too? Seems kinda long....and if I read correctly, seems to be a "believer" in the so-called "truth movement" hype! In other words, your "side"??

(Oh, and no, those reports of "thermite" are not accurate. However, ths is not the thread for that, others debate it already).

reply to post by demonseed


Hello..
I agree, there are many bogus 9/11 theories, like the “no planes theory”..

But..

How do you explain the ’nano-thermite composite’ found in the WTC dust?!
How it found it’s way into the buildings?

9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE-Niels Harrit
www.youtube.com...

9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Mark Basile Chemical Engineer
www.youtube.com...


This is a high technology lab material that not just anyone can manufacture..

Here’s a patent for laminate (sol-gel)nano-thermite from 1999
Metal nanolaminate composite
United States Patent 5912069
www.freepatentsonline.com...

Here’s an article by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on sol-gel technology on making explosives and thermites just like the one found in the WTC dust
www.llnl.gov...



other evidence of 'cutting/demolition charges' in the WTC Towers...

Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center
www.youtube.com...

Here is a great video analysis by David Chandler, a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, showing the explosion “squibs” below the collapsing North Tower:
EXCELLENT Analysis of the North Tower Exploding
www.youtube.com...

Here’s another good video analysis by David Chandler showing South tower detonations
South Tower Coming Down
www.youtube.com...


Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
stj911.org...

PDF of the study:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

This nano thermite is CONCRETE evidence of criminal activity by an element inside or in the “shadow” of US gov. ..a similar “deep state”-element as ‘Ergenekon’ in Turkey is or what the ‘Operation Gladio’ was after WW II in Europe
‘Ergenekon’ en.wikipedia.org...(organization)

‘Operation Gladio’ en.wikipedia.org...

Peace

reply to post by demonseed


I knew when it was on live, that day, that this was a false flag and they were going into the middle east, and I phoned up my friend and she knew as well. In addition, when they first started dropping bombs on neighborhoods and the chbc radio reported a family blown apart and the father coming back early from work to hold them dying is his arms, blood everywhere, my own son was lying in his playpen and I had a red out. I was going to the border with rolled up newspaper for a bullhorn to declare war on GW Bush personally from all the women and children of the world. I mean I was in an altered state, and I phoned the Canadian Crisis Line only to discover someone with a yankee accent drawl saying things that would not even be legal in Canada for those volunteers to say, including, "weren't those black babies" and "if Oprah Winfield makes this an issue, its an issue, otherwise...".

I know damage control when I see it/hear it!

Building 7? You've had a change of heart? Really? Even though the announcer on a UK station kept asking about it while it was still standing and finally the female reporter said it had collapsed 20 minutes or more before it did, while it was still standing.

Use you head. That is 100% proof.

And you don't find it odd that the day before this occurred, 2.4 trillion dollars was announced missing from the treasury?

Pilots say they couldn't have done this, witnesses that defer from the official story have died, a woman died in a plane crash recently, over Buffalo after asking Obama to re-open investigation concerning a loved ones death, and even the ones that came door to door for UNICEF, I believe were all talking about that, for we got into conspiracies, and they got it.

There is reams of evidence, but those things above, they tell the whole story to me. I'm going to edit to add add two quick videos.

Edit to add: make that 3

2.3 TRillion $$ of the TAXPAYER's MONEY IS MISSING


John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech


George Carlin - We Like War