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.

 

Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

page: 16
154
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



This pilot is obviously very skilled pilot in looking at his military career. This being fairly apparent due to the fact that generally only the best pilots in the military fly single engined fighters. In an F-16 one doesn't have the luxury of a copilot making the pilot responsible for not only flying the aircraft and keeping it in the air , but also the additional task of managing the dropping/launching of it's weaponry as well.

The statement from him stating that he's 100% certain that 9/11 was an inside job most likely has much to do with having discussed that day with other military pilots.AND as I have mentioned here on several occasions, that the maneuvers performed by the planes and so called hijacker pilots were not only beyond the skill level and/or capabilities of most pilots but also beyond the capabilities of most passenger aircraft.

Additionally,This pilot knows how things in the military operate under normal conditions and also knew as an experienced pilot that those planes under normal circumstances should have been intercepted. This is what they as interceptor pilots train for almost exclusively.

But that day due to the Military exercises leaving only 6 active aircraft guarding the entire east coast ?

As well as another exercise that simulated highjacked aircraft by placing 20 or so unidentified radar blips on the Air Traffic Controller's screens ?

But what happened that day had much to do with policies concerning the downing of commercial aircraft by Norad's interceptors. Which had been changed....conveniently immediately prior to 9/11.

In essence, no planes were to be fired upon/brought down over US airspace without GW's AND Rumsfeld's approval.
What was the purpose of this ? If it were not to allow the mission of flying these planes into the WTC and Pentagon ?

Especially when this order was issued a few months prior to 9/11 AND
After 9/11 was later rescinded and the control was returned back to Norad !

I see constant references to the 9/11 Commission Report. What about Mineta's testimony to the commission that Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 from 50 miles out approach and eventually crash into the Pentagon ?
And did absolutely nothing !

And finally, what did GW do when informed of the events unfolding on 911....he paused briefly and then continued reading the book "My Pet Goat" to the class !
He obviously new what his priorities were at the time and made no attempt to do anything about it.

And why ? Because, The coming wars resulting from 911 were going to make him and his Daddy Bush's Carlyle Group even richer !
The Carlyle Group is also where most of Silversteins WTC insurance settlement went BTW.





posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
There can be a press conference with the President admitting 9/11 was a inside job and guess what? Nothing will happen!

It can't be proven now as I'm sure the loose ends have been tied.


You really think that if Obama publicly admitted that the US governement had planned and executed the 9/11 attacks "nothing would happen"?

I think there would be the mmost almighty s=+tstorm. And I think that people who say that it's all over are just providing an excuse for the weakness of "Truther" theories and for their own apathy.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


But you can't really claim that the nationality of the hijackers is a hole in the story. It makes it more likley that the OS is correct, at least in its key areas, because someone designing the narrative with the intention of invading Iraq would have surely made them Iraqi.


That's an excellent point. I agree and I think in the most ham-fisted way they did make them Iraqis. For all we know there were no disgruntled Iraqis in the FBI data base and keep in mind TPTB would have had to convince people within various organizations that were not part of this. You couldn't make everything up. And so you had legitimate intelligence used that did not fit exactly. Close enough. That was a theme for years afterwards.

I think the CIA and the Bush administration had their heads so far ** **** *****, that they lost sight that some of us are paying attention. Hubris I believe is the correct word here. Nothing fits quite right in the official story. Cell phones, airport security cameras, NORAD in test mode playing games, Bush Sr in Washington that morning meeting with members of the Carlyle Group and Bin Laden's brother and the hijackers listed are from Saudi Arabia. "Give me a list of disgrunled Islamists!" There is a plausible explanation for the Saudis. Not good but plausible. Who doesn't believe that Saudi nationals are pissed off with their lot? Just look at the Saudi King coughing up 37 billion to buy his people off yesterday. If Muslims were allowed he would have stepped off the plane shouting "Free beer!" Would Saddam have welcomed disgruntled Saudis after the first Gulf War? Sure.

It wasn't neat, it was ham-fisted. It was a cartoonish scenario in my opinion. "If I were really going to do that, would I do this?" They had and have total contempt for the people.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


In regard to the Pentagon and in response to my request that you substantiate your statement that " the people and the databases and the physical files were located *precisely* where the impact occurred", you have referred me to the Jesse Ventura show and a couple of truther sites.

Frankly, isn't the Ventura show an embarrassment to truthers ? Perhaps you have seen the other thread on the go exposing the drivel presented on that show about alleged morphed phone calls ? And the truther sites present no evidence that peolple in the impacted area were working on the unaccounted for $2.3 trillion. In fact the 9-11 Research site makes it clear that the majority of victims in the Pentagon were in the Navy Command Centre so refuting your sugggestion that this was the Pentagon's " accountancy wing. "

Fact is that you have absolutely nothing to refute this document, signed off on behalf of the Inspector General of the D o D, making it clear that the killed and injured who were involved in finance were working on Army audits for FY 2001 :-

www.dodig.mil...

Are the Inspector General and finance staff " in on it " ? even if it involves killing colleagues ?

And, if you think about it, none of your hypothesis holds water. The unaccounted for money accrued over many years due to a multiplicity of ageing computer systems ( over 600 ) which did not communicate with each other as needed. If all the physical files and databases relating to the 2.3 trillion could be moved to a specific locale in the Pentagon then wouldn't the reconciliation have been done in the process of identifying everything ? And all this would have been without any back-up ?

And, why do you suppose Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would give a damn about the 2.3 trillion when it didn't happen on their watch and Rumsfeld, in fact , was hoping to get some credit for clearing up the mess. Which is why he mentioned it on 9/10 and also earlier.

And, how come the money was later largely accounted for if all records were destroyed ?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghpink
If you follow the links, he leaves 2 links to prison planet, which is Alex "Jar head" Jones scaremonger, who is basically a disgruntled, paranoid middle american male and leaves no evidence that supports his 100% assertion. Doesn't this bother any of you??

What bothers me is the amount of baseless character assassination and name-calling that is going on. You speak of evidence, where is YOUR evidence that Alex Jones is a "Jar head?" Was he really a former marine, because marines are sometimes (wrongfully IMHO) referred-to as "jar heads." If he was a former marine, then hats off to the guy for serving our country. Next you call him a scaremonger. A lot more people might be thankful that he's getting the news out --at the very least. You can be frightened by the information or you can prepare. Even the US government suggest people prepare a disaster kit stocked with food and supplies.

Next, you call him a "disgruntled, paranoid middle american male..." Really? Are you a psychologist? What's wrong with being from "middle america?" Some damn fine people are from "middle america."

"...and leaves no evidence that supports his 100% assertion." Really? If you have listened to him at length, watch the video(s) and/or read articles... Then you'd see that there is proof. He may not have the smoking gun each and every time, but c'mon, a lot of these topics he covers are of HIGHLY SECRETIVE goings-on, like the Bilderberg Group. Look, they station civilian mercenaries with bad attitudes and loaded sub-machine guns around the perimeter of their estates when meetings take place. How is a journalist going to get past that? Do you really think these clandestine organizations are going to open up to journalists trying to expose them? No, they will try to defame the most prominent of them, which is what you're trying to do.

Instead of armchair quarterbacking Alex Jones, maybe try doing a little research, doing a little good in the world yourself? This is meant in a very friendly manner, as it's just a mere suggestion on a better way to channel obviously passionate energies.


Originally posted by ghpink
Some of you seem like fairly intelligent people... I just don't get it.


Then perhaps take a closer look at the other side of the argunment, from the DEBUNKER side (as in the folks wholeheartedly debunking the OS). But really, attacking the PERSON (like Alex Jones) instead of the facts/evidence/ideas is bad form for ANYone. I'm not saying I'm a 100% Alex Jones kind of guy. I'm just saying that it's really un-gentlemanlike to do such a thing. Go for the facts, make arguments about things, and stop the personal attacks. Again, just some humble suggestions.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 



This pilot is obviously very skilled pilot in looking at his military career.


Irrelevant. And, he's got about 3,200 hours total. I have 20,000. I think he's a crackpot.


The statement from him stating that he's 100% certain that 9/11 was an inside job most likely has much to do with having discussed that day with other military pilots.


Illogical. IF that were true, than there would be a hell of a lot more coming forward!! No, he got his skewed ideas from the SAME place all the mis-informed "9/11 truthers" get theirs. The same crap "conspiracy" sites that put out the same crap dis-info. As illustrated by the rest of your post, since the only way you got it, is from THEM!



.... that the maneuvers performed by the planes and so called hijacker pilots were not only beyond the skill level and/or capabilities of most pilots but also beyond the capabilities of most passenger aircraft.


LIE. And obvious logical fallacy. Go re-read (or read for the first time) MY posts about that very topic.
Read, Watch and get Educated.


....that those planes under normal circumstances should have been intercepted.


They never had enough time!!!


But that day due to the Military exercises leaving only 6 active aircraft guarding the entire east coast ?


NO, not "due to Military exercises"...(another "truther site" lie). There were only a handful of regularly scheduled "alert" aircraft at any given time. It was peacetime. No longer any "threats" from the USSR. Early Warning systems in place, would have alerted and activated PLENTY of additional resources, should the unthinkable had occurred, and they would have had ample time to deploy and group, to face an inbound threat from OFF SHORE!!!! Which, was the focus!!!! Off shore.....



As well as another exercise that simulated highjacked aircraft by placing 20 or so unidentified radar blips on the Air Traffic Controller's screens ?


Exaggerated lie.


But what happened that day had much to do with policies concerning the downing of commercial aircraft by Norad's interceptors. Which had been changed....conveniently immediately prior to 9/11.


Misconstrued, misunderstood and thus, another LIE.


In essence, no planes were to be fired upon/brought down over US airspace without GW's AND Rumsfeld's approval.


Lie. Try searching to verify the crap from the "truther sites", eh??


I see constant references to the 9/11 Commission Report. What about Mineta's testimony to the commission that Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 from 50 miles out approach and eventually crash into the Pentagon ?
And did absolutely nothing !


Huh???? What was Cheney (not that I defend the man, he is evil incarnate...but really in this case)....what could Cheney DO?? He had already given the order to intercept....they were inbound (and too late). His orders where to "Protect the House". (Which referred to the White House, as, to him, the most important psychological symbol in D.C.) Does he have magic powers? A magic wand??



And finally, what did GW do when informed of the events unfolding on 911....he paused briefly and then continued reading the book "My Pet Goat" to the class !


LIE!! Go to the video....see him "read" after his aide whispers in his ear.


Rest of your post is even more rambling.....and frankly, a bit fringe.
edit on 24 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Once again, you are trying to superimpose a "theory" onto facts I presented in my first post in this thread. I made no conclusions about anyone's motives or the outcome of the whereabouts of the money. And, if you think that accounting records and reports cannot be fudged or fabricated to make money that was missing seem to appear and suddenly be accounted-for, then there is no use in replying to any of your further responses on this thread. You can cite report after official report. I say again, the Warren Commission provided an official report, as did the 9-11 Commission. Being "official" does not necessarily mean 100% accurate, truthful or irrefutable. I'm sure that many here on ATS can cite official reports that were 100% fabrications. Are you naive enough to believe that just because the government releases and "official" report .... or an "OFFICIAL STORY" that it means that it's the truth? Really? I think that NO 9-11 debunking (the OS) thread would be in existence if the majority of people out there took what the government feeds us at face value. Have you ever heard of what is called "Psychological Operations," or "PSYOPS?" It's not fiction.

And as far as your finding a nitpick and extrapolating that to mean that everything I provided in the initial post doesn't hold water, well that's your own choice obviously. However, it's obvious to see to which end of this discussion you lean. There are a great many strange, coincidental FACTS about 9-11 that have a great many people suspicious and curious about what really happened on 9-11, but I'm not out here to win your approval.

Asking me whether or not the Inspector General (or anyone else) was in on it is ludicrous. How would I or anyone else know unless we were in on it? Further, you assume that they would have had the need to have been "in on it." Why? The truth is that the highly sensitive accounting records of defense spending was being investigated. This information was most certainly COMPARTMENTALIZED. "Coincidentally," the wing which housed accountants and bookkeepers happened to have been somewhat destroyed a day after the SECDEF announced that 2.3 billion dollars (which is a lot of money no matter how you try to downplay it) was unaccounted for.

And as far as your attempts to defame a former US Governor, Jesse Ventura: I put more stock in what he says that what you try to pass on here. Go ahead and keep linking to "official" reports. We've seen what "official" can mean, as the Warren and 9-11 Commission reports were both *OFFICIAL,* ---as well as the *OFFICIAL* story (OS). There are *believers* who are unwilling to open their eyes, blindly accepting the OS and what the government has *OFFICIALLY* proclaimed about the nature of the attacks. And they get riled when people debunk the OS.

For the record: Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" is a fantastic show that will probably have a short life because he's calling things out that TPTB don't want made mainstream knowledge.


edit on 24-2-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
I would like to ask a few questions on the wtc tragedy and hopefully iron out a few misconceptions a long the way.

For my self I have never bought the Idea of americans Killing Americans.I saw the world trade centre hit by planes, I saw them burn and I saw them collapse. At the time i thought it was a little odd how they fell straight down. I thanked God, as it could have been much worse if they had toppled.

I think the straight down bit is the only thing that made my antenie twitch , but only a little.
So thats roughly where I was with it for a long time.

Income the conspiracies.

I have a few questions that hopefully more learned on the subject can answer.
It certainly looks like a demolition job,i suppose even to the most untrained eye. What are the chances of two buildings,( I know there was a third, but lets leave that for now) Being hit by planes burning and then falling down in what must be the best position anyone could have hoped for under the circumstances. If these buildings had fallen over the consequences would have been terrible. Thats the first thing that i need to clear up.

Secondly , cast your minds back to a few years before 9/11. The basement/foundations were attacked by a terrorist group weakening the buildings for all we know. In a way that could prepare the buildings for straightdown collapse. Just thinking out loud here.

This new Military man says he thinks it's a demo job, and maybe we should believe him. I still have a problem though, Why oh Why would an Americam administration do something like this. If they wanted a war, fine go have one,I'm sure they could have come up with hundreds of prefabricated excuses to start something where ever they chose. So why would they decide to bring down 3 major buildings in New York city and also try to destroy their own goverment defence building the "Pentagon".

This is the reason i run into mucho problems with the Inside job. I just can't think of a reason for the US goverment to do this to their own people and their own country.

Please chime in with your reason why they would. Anticipating your responses

Thanks
edit on 20-2-2011 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)


I believe you will find all the answers to your valid lines of questioning Here

septemberclues.info...

No Terrorists--No Planes--Few If Any Victims. A Huge Hoax.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Who were the few victims and how did they become victims please ?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


I just wanted to add to your reply of the aircraft capabilities. You stated.



The statement from him stating that he's 100% certain that 9/11 was an inside job most likely has much to do with having discussed that day with other military pilots.AND as I have mentioned here on several occasions, that the maneuvers performed by the planes and so called hijacker pilots were not only beyond the skill level and/or capabilities of most pilots but also beyond the capabilities of most passenger aircraft.


I like to watch this video of old Tex doing his barrel roll maneuver in the prototype Boeing 707. These huge aircraft are more controllable than you think. Man I love to watch this video. He is one hell of a pilot.
www.youtube.com...

Now I am not saying that the highjackers had the skill, but it does not take that long to get the hang of operating a machine if you understand how it functions. I think that you should quit using this excuse as a means to try to portray the 911 conspiracy. It only hurts the truther scene.

I believe that there is more to the story than the msm reports, but you cannot go around spreading false data and assumptions to get people to "believe".
edit on 24-2-2011 by liejunkie01 because: vid link



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
You know, I have the thought...quite often.. that right now, I am 30 years old. Will the truth finally be revealed within my lifetime?

I certainly hope so. With this particular issue, I think more and more people are going to start popping up with credible source. As they do, maybe the masses will finally be open to the possibility that there was something deeper going on than just an attack.

Flag!


most truths seem to come out about 40-50 years later. Most secret documents are declassified by then and the perpetrators are all dead

I look at the Vietnam War, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an idea how the public will react. President Johnson KNOWINGLY lied before Congress when he claimed the vietcong attacked us. We know this truth from the President's own library tapes and NSA documents released. Are there vietnam vets protesting in the streets ? what happened to all of those peace loving hippies in the 60s ?

58,000 dead american soldiers, millions of vietnamese killed on both sides. thousands more dead from cancer causing agent orange sprayed. hundreds of thousands of homeless vets suffering from drug abuse, post traumatic stress syndrome, and depression. Unimaginable damage to Vietnam's environment, culture, and families.

and nobody seems to care. nothing surprises me anymore when the massive vietnam lie is ignored



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


I love the way you have no faith in anything the US government says or does, unless it's Jesse Ventura doing the talking, and then we're supposed to be impressed because he's a former governor.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I have noticed that debunkers never prove anything. They only make counter-claims that may or may not be true. I do not know what happened. I believe that I am being lied to by our government and the msm about what happened on 911. I hope I am wrong and I hope that the so called debunkers learn what logic is and what it means to prove something. Showing where someone else is wrong is not the same as proving you are right.

Here is why I think the government is lying:

-------

Why I Find The NIST Collapse Analysis Hard To Believe


Properties of Steel Shafts

Metal is resilient. A steel shaft can be bent to a point but it will still return to it's original shape. This is an easy phenomenon to observe in metal springs. A steel shaft has to bend so far before it will be distorted past a point of no return. It is an easy observation to confirm that metal shafts can withstand great forces with respect to their size.

Consider a #16 common framing nail: Generally, a 24 ounce hammer is used to drive a #16 nail into dimentional framing lumber. A #16 weighs about .3 ounces therefore the hammer weighs about 80 times more than the nail. According to the building codes where I come from a #16 is required to withstand 50 lbs of force in order to get it to begin to move once set into framing lumber. Therefore it must take more than 50 lbs of force to drive it into the lumber and set it in the first place.

So, I have shown that a steel shaft can withstand forces from very much larger transiting masses at high velocity and maintain dimentional integrety; they will still hold there shape and compressive strength.

It's fairly easy to bend the nail with a crooked hit. But if the hammer were smaller it would become more difficult not only to drive the nail but also to bend it. A 10 ounce cabinet hammer is 33 times heavier than the #16 nail but it's very hard to drive the nail with such a light hammer. It is also a lot harder to bend the nail with a crooked hit. Imagine using a hammer which weighs 2ounces. Although the hammer is better than 6 times heavier than the nail I doubt anyone could drive the nail or bend it with a strike.

Basic Iron Frame Construction

The frame of a skyscraper is steel, which is predominately iron, like a nail. The weight is supported by load bearing vertical steel shafts. The shafts are held plum (90 degree angle from ground) by steel cross members and lots of them.

Progressive Collapse Scenario

Vertical support becomes weak due to fire and collision damage so the weight above the damaged support comes down. It gains momentum as it falls breaking loose more of the structure which begins to fall, also, adding to the momentum. This process continues until there is no frame visible and the whole structure, over 400 meters high, is in a heap no higher than 25 meters. (25 meter figure from Bazant/Zhou; Why Did The Towers Fall. It has been contested.)

So, the top of the building became like a hammer and struck with destructive force the lower part of the building.

Consider the south tower. According to the NIST it broke off at around 2/3 up the length of the building. So the “hammerhead”weighed less than ½ the “nail” below.

Imagine striking a #16 common with a hammer that weighed .15 ounces! Would you expect to bend or break the nail with such a small hammer?

-------


So, according to debunkers I am supposed to believe that a stucture weighing over 200,000 tons dissolved into a clould of dust in a matter of seconds because of a small amount of kerosene (or jet fuel as it is sometimes called.) Either of the twin towers was easily 1000 times more massive than a puny little jet plane. They were also made of harder stuff.


I seroiuosly doubt that bin Laden would be convicted in a US court for the tragedy of 911. Any good lawyer would have no problem creating reasonable doubt.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by pshea38
 


Who were the few victims and how did they become victims please ?



It would be overly arrogant to claim with 100% certainty that there were absolutely no victims (there may have been some very few deaths by either accident or design), but to claim that the vast majority of victims as represented by the memorial photographs are ficticious, computer generated entities is entirely in keeping with the overall theme of the fantastical hoax that is 9/11. I will not pretend for one second that i stand any chance of convincing you or your ilk of anything, but with a little research, especially into the victim simulation report in septemberclues.info, open minded individuals might be swayed by the strength of evidence presented and convinced beyond doubt of the veracity of these claims.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
Wow, that's pretty strong stuff. Talk about a credible opinion!

For me, I tend to try to boil things down to their basics, or to try to look for an anomaly that discredits the "official story". In this case the "anomaly" is the fact that the Patriot Act was written so quickly and had so many specifics that were targeted at giving the gov't more power. I've always wondered how they got that thing written so quickly. It had to have been written beforehand and was just waiting for the right moment to be sprung on us. What better way than to create a bogeyman?


I find it quite possible that such a proposed law was being considered (e.g. in conservative think tanks and in Justice Department), and was just waiting to be "sprung on us", but I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

I believe that the actual conspiracy was actually interrupted by 9/11, which wasn't intended.

What They wanted was A Reason To Get Saddam. All of Dick Cheney's and "friends" plans revolved around Iraq. The neocons were obsessed about Iraq and didn't give a nut about Afghanistan.

If 9/11 had been an intentional self attack to justify invading Iraq

a) they wouldn't have attacked the Pentagon

b) it would have been accomplished by planted explosives and no aircraft (much easier, requires a much smaller cross-section of people involved, and is entirely expected)

and, most importantly

c) blamed on Saddam's wicked secret police


The actual conspiracy is in front of everybody's face: transforming the war in Afghanistan to one in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I am a retired Navy Commander, Fighter Pilot with similar credentials to the Colonel aforementioned. I have also worked professionally as an expert witness and aircraft crash investigator. The most well known case I worked on was the Payne Stewart Lear 35 crash in Aberdeen, South Dakota.

Several years ago someone came up to me at work (I now fly for a major airline) and asked if I had looked at the Pentagon attack on 9/11. I replied that I just saw what everyone else saw on television. He recommended to me that I go to all the available sites and look at it. On many hotel layovers I combed over numerous sites, watched many videos and looked at hundreds of pictures...

There is something that is undeniable in aircraft crash investigation....Physics Never Lies

-There is no way a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon that day...there should be 3 holes in the building. One big one for the fuselage and two smaller holes for the engines

-The tail section is the weakest part of the aircraft and almost always snaps off at impact...where is the tail?

-100 plus tons of metal does not disintegrate on impact...There should be seat frames, luggage and contents, 60 human bodies with some bones/tissue left even after the impact...And most of all (Most of 100 plus tons of aircraft in that hole)...

-From a flying standpoint when you are piloting a transport category aircraft at almost redline or max speed at low altitude the pitch axis is very and I mean very sensitive. To fly that sized airplane into the building on the profile described would be a miracle that would even top Capt. Sully's amazing story.

I don't have all the answers and I can't answer where the real Flight 77 went or what exactly flew into the building that fateful day.

To put this to rest the Federal Government should release verifiable DNA evidence of the victim's on the aircraft and release all the known other videos that would have given a better view of the aircraft and impact into the Pentagon. Plus show the public all the aircraft wreckage. By the way, the NTSB was not allowed to inspect the 911 crashes right after it happened. There are so many reasonable "red flags" no wonder there are many legitimate people who believe 9/11 did not happen as advertised...

Until then we will all just speculate



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

So, according to debunkers I am supposed to believe that a stucture weighing over 200,000 tons dissolved into a clould of dust in a matter of seconds because of a small amount of kerosene (or jet fuel as it is sometimes called.) Either of the twin towers was easily 1000 times more massive than a puny little jet plane. They were also made of harder stuff.


Yes. It is not just believable but physics.

Large buildings are regularly demolished by the chemical activity of a few kilograms of explosives.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by GhostLancer
 

I love the way you have no faith in anything the US government says or does, unless it's Jesse Ventura doing the talking, and then we're supposed to be impressed because he's a former governor.

Wow... You are making quite a bit of assumptions. And, you (as well as everyone here) KNOW what ASSuming leads to: making an ASS out of U and ME. ---ASS-U-ME--

Fortunately for *ME* I think I'm exempt from your statement.

I have "no faith in anything the US government says or does..." Really? You can honestly say that? How DESPERATE a play in this chess game. Once again, let's resort to ATTACKING THE PERSON, NOT THE IDEA. Very good that you resorted to the STAGNANT debunker's cookbook. Of course, with 9-11, the DEBUNKERS are those who are pointing-out inconsistencies in the OS (Official Story) and the *believers* are those who cling to it and defend it as if they were on the proverbial Bunker Hill.

You speak in absolutes. It's as if someone questions 9-11 means they question *everything* the government says or does. Would you find it hard to believe (most likely) that I am a patriot who has served and quite possibly retired from the military? Have you served your country in such a way? Have you protected us in the role of a police officer, or firefighter or med tec? Have you LIFTED A FINGER towards DIRECT SERVICE for your country? From your candor, I highly doubt it. Have you even been a part of the Peace Corps? You sound like someone who likes to argue yet has not lifted a finger towards ACTUALLY defending your country.

Jesse Ventura was not only a WWF wrestler. Before that he was a NAVY SEAL. After that he was an actor. After that he was a GOVERNOR. You, on the other hand, --I don't know what or who or HOW you are. I only know that you try to assassinate the character of good Americans DEBUNKING the OS.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by nh_ee
 


I just wanted to add to your reply of the aircraft capabilities. You stated.



The statement from him stating that he's 100% certain that 9/11 was an inside job most likely has much to do with having discussed that day with other military pilots.AND as I have mentioned here on several occasions, that the maneuvers performed by the planes and so called hijacker pilots were not only beyond the skill level and/or capabilities of most pilots but also beyond the capabilities of most passenger aircraft.


I like to watch this video of old Tex doing his barrel roll maneuver in the prototype Boeing 707. These huge aircraft are more controllable than you think. Man I love to watch this video. He is one hell of a pilot.
www.youtube.com...

Now I am not saying that the highjackers had the skill, but it does not take that long to get the hang of operating a machine if you understand how it functions. I think that you should quit using this excuse as a means to try to portray the 911 conspiracy. It only hurts the truther scene.

I believe that there is more to the story than the msm reports, but you cannot go around spreading false data and assumptions to get people to "believe".
edit on 24-2-2011 by liejunkie01 because: vid link

Such a maneuaver in mid-air is NOTHING LIKE the maneuvers required to fly at low levels over hard ground to impact the Pentagon at such an (supposed) angle. Further, the man in the video was a VETERAN TEST PILOT, not a Middle-Eastern terrorist-in-the-making who went to a few prop-plane courses. Apples and Oranges. You are trying to compare Chuck Yeager to Alabib Umsafalatib. NOTE: "Alabib Umsafalatib" is a made up name meant to represent one of the supposed terrorists.

You can't take Neil Armstrong and compare him to Osama bin Landen and hope that it sticks, really? Comparing a veteran test pilot to the capabilities of the supposed terrorists is OUTLANDISH and worth of a Saturday Night Live skit IN THE LEAST.

Really?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


Man I hate to break it to you, but heat directly affects the steels atomic structure. I am about to graduate a two year welding degree and I had to take metallurgy. I am sorry to tell you that your hammer and nail example has nothing to do with structural integrity of a beam that supports a massive amount of weight. I can take the time to make a huge post to back up my info, but I know that you will not appreciate the facts I present.

Here is a little info on metalallurgy in production engineering. You can see that everything listed has to do with steel and metals.

In production engineering, metallurgy is concerned with the production of metallic components for use in consumer or engineering products. This involves the production of alloys, the shaping, the heat treatment and the surface treatment of the product. The task of the metallurgist is to achieve design criteria specified by the mechanical engineer, such as cost, weight, strength, toughness, hardness, corrosion and fatigue resistance, and performance in temperature extremes.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Now I am in now way saying that I know everything on metallurgy. I am saying that I have had a college course on this subject. I have my tests and notes near me. I am what you could say a little educated on this topic.

I would suggest anybody using this kind of example like Deuteronomy has posted to actually educate yourself on how steel is affected by heat and stress load. I mean no ill intention. Just please look up some real information and not some biased material published for ratings.



new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join