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: 17
154
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


I believe that you misunderstood me. I was mainly talking about the aircrafts capabilities. Here is a direct quote from my post above.


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


Here is a snipit about what i said about the skill levels of the pilots.



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.


You are completely assuming that these people could not maneuver these aircraft if needed. How can you sit there and say what these men could and couldn't do? They did have some training and they had the will power to execute their plan. This is enough to do some pretty amazing feats.

I am in no way supporting what they did. I am only stating that you need to quit underestimating one's abilities to accomplish a goal set by one's self.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Utah62
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.

Very interesting. I'm surprised that no one responded to your post. Can you verify the timeline in this Knight-Ridder Tribune article about the USAF intercept of Payne Stewart's plane and do you have any idea why the same intercept protocol wasn't followed by NORAD and the Air Force on 9/11?


...Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from."

Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

www.wanttoknow.info...

It was also very interesting to hear your thoughts on Flight 77 and the Pentagon:


Originally posted by Utah62
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.

Exactly. Thank you for confirming what many people have long suspected.

Your observations and expert analysis is in sharp contrast to another well-known "pilot" on this board who claims to have 20,000 hours, but in actuality never flies because he spends every waking moment writing lengthy posts and insulting diatribes that vehemently defend every government lie, scandal and cover-up that was ever created.

I'm much more inclined to believe a crash investigator and airline pilot who doesn't claim to have all the answers and who actually has the time to fly.



edit on 2/25/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


I was just pointing out another inconsistency in your line of thought. If one can call it that.

I also like the way you immediately create another - although this one verges on hypocrisy - by telling me not to assume things, and then assuming an enormous amount about me. I mean, you assume I haven't "served my country" because of my "candor"? Do you even understand what you're writing, because it doesn't ake any objective sense.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I like the way you'll immediately take this guy's word on his credentials because he agrees with you. No questions asked.

And your information on the Payne Stewart timeline is wrong. The intercept you're talking about happened nearly three hours after the last communication with the Lear jet.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Man, I hate to break it to you but you essentially said nothing. You have proved nothing. You do not know what you are talking about. The NIST theory is nothing but sophistry. And that is all you have.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



I like the way you'll immediately take this guy's word on his credentials because he agrees with you. No questions asked.


Well many here accept the opinion of a pilot who has NEVER proven their credentials..
Is there a difference or should we just ignore all their posts also???
Not a bad idea actually..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Whenever a ferrier does shoes for a horse he requires a forge. There must be forced air from bellows along with the forge in order to get the shoe hot enough for the ferrier to work with it. Ferriers, who are usually big strong men, then have to beat the shoe over an anvil with a rather large hammer to shape the metal. The shoe doesn't just break apart as if it were made of glass.


But I am supposed to believe that dimentional lumber, kerosene, curtains, carpet, no forced air, heated up that huge metal frame (almost 200,000 tons of metal) enough for the building to just crumble.

To paraphrase Lork Kelvin if one can't put numbers to an event then one doesn't really understand the event.

How much kerosene would it take in order to heat the frame on a few floors to the point where the frames would just suddenly buckle and break? How much energy (in joules) would it take to accomplish this? How many kilograms of steel would have to be heated to what temperature? What volume (in moles) of fresh air would be needed? Can any of you so called debunkers answer these questions? Do any of you debunkers have the guts to admit that you, too, are only speculating?

I would like to add that all of us to some degree suffer from emotional/mental problems as well as just plain stupidity from time to time. That is the human condition. But questioning authority is a healthy thing. The government never proved anything. Our government has a very bad track record when it comes to honesty. They had the resources to do a thorough investigation. Instead we get popular mechanics magazine and internet debunkers. Debunkers never prove anything. They only make counter claims which may or may not be true. But don't expect them to ever prove anything. They never will. They don't know what proof is.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I realise that this post will offend some.I do not doubt the sincerety of those who passionately want or need to believe that domestic ,or Israeli elements were behind September 11,but I don't believe that up to now.You have to understand the history of Al-queada,and just who and what they really are.They are an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.The Muslim Brotherhood was founded by the Nazis.If you doubt this,look into it.The ringleaders of the operation(SEP11 pilots) lived together in Germany.Again,look into this.You see,a war never really ends.The "winners" tend to move on,and the "losers" tend to seathe.In radical Islam,the Nazi scum found kindred spirits.Also,we should never fofget that Nazi Germany came to power by exploiting CONSPIRACY THEORIES.To these idiots,all the worlds problems were the fault of Freemasons,and the Hebrew race.I wont go into more detail on this;those with interest will independantly research,those who dont will write me off as the spawn of Satan.On a lighter note,the US government leaks like a sieve.Believe when I say that private business has an easier time of covering things up than the US government.I am not saying that our government is an angelic orginization,far from it,but as the article said,direct involvment in such is HIGH TREASON,which still carries the DEATH PENALTY,as it should.If I am proven wrong at a later date,rest assured that any US national involved will be shot by those closest to them,as a JOB PROTECTION measure on the part of the shooter.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 



How much kerosene would it take in order to heat the frame on a few floors to the point where the frames would just suddenly buckle and break? How much energy (in joules) would it take to accomplish this? How many kilograms of steel would have to be heated to what temperature? What volume (in moles) of fresh air would be needed? Can any of you so called debunkers answer these questions? Do any of you debunkers have the guts to admit that you, too, are only speculating?


Well I hope they take into account how much of that fuel was used in the initial fireballs outside the building..
And all the fuel we are to believe went down the elevator shafts and blew out the lobby etc..

I wonder how much that left for the fires to buckle steel..??



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
A lot of these debunkers seem to want people to believe that skyskrapers are like chinese puzzles. Complex, yet if one were to just remove the right small part the structure would fall apart like a house of cards. That notion is one they can not show and they just expect other people to believe it. Well, I don't believe it. None of you so called debunkers has any idea what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


And your post shows that you know absolutely nothing about it. One little piece...good grief.

And to the other poster, you do realize about 75% of the stuff in a modern office building is either petroleum based or flammable right?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The 'Taliban' was initially stirred by the US government in order to decrease military activity of Russia in northern Afghanistan. So what im trying to say is that the US had some control over the Taliban. After the 9/11 attacks the Us saw an increase in its military budget.Hence the attacks were means to gain sympathy of the public and an excuse to start the so called 'War on terrorism'



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Man, I hate to break it to you but you essentially said nothing. You have proved nothing. You do not know what you are talking about. The NIST theory is nothing but sophistry. And that is all you have.




Ok, I told you that it wouldn't matter. I am glad that I didn't take the time to explain it to you. Heat does directly affect the atomic structure of steel. Look it up. Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. Keep spreading your misinformation. You look like you know what you are talking about.


By the way, did you take a college level course for metallurgy?

EDIT: I am about to leave for welding lab. Yes, I do deal with steel everyday. This is my last semester of a two year program. Your post makes me laugh, thank you, I needed a laugh before I leave.
edit on 25-2-2011 by liejunkie01 because: EDIT



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


In my opinion, they were testing their weapons and at the same time those planes were crashing into those buildings, they knew their plan to blindside the constitution was going to work by creating a fake terrorist attacks and giving them an excuse to control the way people live.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Well many here accept the opinion of a pilot who has NEVER proven their credentials..
Is there a difference or should we just ignore all their posts also???
Not a bad idea actually..


Do they? I've never met any conspiracist here who accepts weed's opinion. Although it's often well-sourced, and it's obvious he knows what he's talking about. I also believe he's given his credentials to the website owner.

But it's fair enough to reject both. They are just people on the internet after all. I was just amused by GoldenFleece's readiness to believe someone anonymous, with no posting history to speak of, simply because they endorse his views.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Utah62
 


Excuse me???


I am a retired Navy Commander, Fighter Pilot with similar credentials to the Colonel aforementioned.


Great. Good to have you aboard.



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.


Let's see....you worked on the Payne Stewart crash in 1999? I presume while still on active duty with the Navy? It is a bit vague. Subsequent to that you separated, and got hired at an airline. Which puts you at a decent seniority level, you have what? About 10 years now? Of course, seniority is relative, depending on the company, the economy, their business in the ups and downs, and any more hires behind you, and/or furloughs on the down times....

So, back to your narrative. A friend asked you about the Pentagon and American 77? SO, you say you "combed" through the many websites while on layovers. And, you come up with:


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


True.... the physics never Lie. SO, what have you concluded, merely from browsing the Internet?

_____

-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 .


D'Oh!!!! Oh, no.....where to start?? I sense a disturbance in your force of credibility beginning to take shape....

_____

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


Credibility accelerating downwards.....faster....."almost always snaps off at impact"??

Sorry, not to seem rude but.....I am going with my instincts, here. It's still not looking good for your claims.

_____

-100 plus tons of metal does not disintegrate on impact...


"100 plus tons" of metal???
As a self-described skilled accident investigator, do you usually toss out such casual, vague and INCORRECT numbers???

(I also know of NO AMERICAN pilots, whether military or civilian, who ever use the word "tons" when referring to airplane weight. Have seen it common from UK & Australian pilots. However, will understand that sometimes we shape the terms we use to suit the audience, so will let that one slide, for now...)

However, what cannot let slide is this amount...the "100 plus tons" amount. We are referring to American 77, here specifically. A Boeing 757-200. As an "airline pilot", you no doubt understand the differences and meanings of EOW, ZFW, MGTOW, etc? I daresay, Boeing would have had a hell of a time marketing and selling that B-757 product IF it weighed "100 plus tons" due to just its structure (you said "of metal") before any fuel or payload was added.....since the MAX takeoff weight is also "100 plus tons"!!!

To put those into proper numbers....at MY airline, our B-757-200s (also, like those at American, equipped with the Rolls Royce RB-211-535 powerplants) have a MGTOW of 240,000 pounds. IF, as you wrote in your post, the jets were "100 plus tons of metal" to begin with....will, 100 tons is 200,000 pounds. SO, "plus"? Let's call it ONE pound.....that leaves only 39,999 pounds left over for fuel ....and passengers and cargo (payload).

NO, mate.....the "metal" and basic B-757-200 (with R/R engines) weighs a LOT less than "100 plus tons"! Somewhere in the range of 128,000 to 130,000 pounds. (THAT figure, BTW, is the EOW. So, it includes other items not part of the airplane. As an "airline pilot", I'm sure you know what I refer to??).



Moving on.....I thought, earlier, you said that "Physics Never Lies" (sic). And, so far, with this, you are on track:


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)...


Except for "in that hole".....actually, most of it was spread throughout the interior of the Pentagon, which is to be expected, as the Physics of the event were undeniable.


Now, again....I really hate to nitpick IF you are in fact as credentialed as you claimed, but my "pilot speak" BS Meter is flashing here:


-From a flying standpoint when you are piloting a transport category aircraft at almost redline....


(my emphasis). "Redline"? That's what it's called in a Cessna.....but, you might be choosing words for the audience, once again (?).....


...but, I'm afraid your flowering hyperbole is getting a bit stinky, here:


....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.




The sensitivity in pitch IS related to speed....altitude is irrelevant. However......a pilot knows how the airplane "feels" on the controls, and there is instant hand/eye/sensory biofeedback to inputs, and reactions of the airplane in response. For the non-pilots, this member is trying to say the airplane would be "too" sensitive...when, in fact, it is little different than YOUR common experience as a driver, at slow residential road speeds, compared to fast highway driving. Tossing in "Sully" is...ridiculous....



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.


Surely, IF you are indeed who and what you claim.... you've seen the SSFDR reports, information, etc?? As a person who has "participated" in accident investigations, surely you would have a capability of understanding the significance and weight of evidence that data provides.....YES??



To put this to rest the Federal Government should release verifiable DNA evidence of the victim's on the aircraft....


The victim's what? Oh, you meant victims as a plural....
Why, do you think, that sort of information should be freely available to the "public"? Do you not realize that, if you went through proper channels, then it would be made available on request? DO you not have any sense of propriety and empathy for the families and loved ones of the victims??

THINK, for a moment....take away the "9/11" aspect, and consider what you are requesting....apply it to ANY OTHER crash example, and to those deceased victims as well. Do you still consider this a reasonable, and logical demand?

_____

... and release all the known other videos that would have given a better view of the aircraft and impact into the Pentagon.


WHAT "videos"?? There is a full list, available online. of some 85 different video recordings that were viewed in attempts to locate visual evidence of the airplane in flight, on approach. What is available, has been shown.

____

Plus show the public all the aircraft wreckage.


This, besides being as ridiculous and insensitive as the "DNA" demand, is ALSO not like any other example ever to have occurred. AND! Would prove absolutely NOTHING to the religious "9/11 conspiracy" zealots....who would merely wave it away as "faked"!


_____

By the way, the NTSB was not allowed to inspect the 911 crashes right after it happened.


Lie. DO the words "Crime Scene" ring a bell?? IN your vast accident investigation "experience"?

I have some very, very serious doubts as to your veracity, as stated in the opening comments of your post.....

_____

There are so many reasonable "red flags".....


Indeed. YOU have triggered quite a few....they are right next to my aforementioned BS Meter....



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dec23
 


You dont get out much do you?

The United States had NO control over the Taliban. The majority of our relationships over there were with the factions of the mujhadeen that became the Northern Alliance. Our government TRIED to "bribe" the Taliban and failed.

And as for needing an "excuse" for the war on terrorism, fine, we used 9/11 as an excuse to come late to the party. The war on terrorism should have been started in the late 80s.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

You sure gave that weed a good whacking!

Uhhh, tell us again, when's the last time you've flown?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


And your post shows that you know absolutely nothing about it. One little piece...good grief.

And to the other poster, you do realize about 75% of the stuff in a modern office building is either petroleum based or flammable right?


And your post shows you know absolutely nothing about it. One little piece....good grief!!! I guess we are even.

I have noted you didn't answer any of my questions pertaining to quantative analysis.

With respect to your 75% of office stuff being flamable I was wondering if you know how much all of the office stuff in the the towers weighed? What was the ratio of mass of office stuff compared to the amount of frame steel and reinforced concrete?

But you know, you may be right. I was cooking some potatoes on the top of my stove the other night and I swear that stove fire must have been real hot because my whole stove just collapsed to the floor in a pile of dust. The fire didn't melt the stove. It just made the stove hot enough to weaken the metal so it wouldn't hold up its own weight. I wonder that maybe without the weight of the potatoes the stove would have survived.

I remember last year my wood stove just dissolved into a pile of debris. The heat from the wood burning inside just weakened the structure to the point where it couldn't hold up its own weight just like my cooking stove: both appliances were made out of steel. Boy, that steel sure is weak stuff.

Personally, I hope the debunkers are right. I don't want to believe the world is run by an elite group of industrialists and financiers who have no morals. But the debunkers???? Well, we have all seen examples of their thinking. Make your mind up for yourself.

Personally, I am very suspicious. Debunkers never provide anything but sophistry to back up their arguements. The government never proved anything. In any case the government has a track history of lying.

Now I am worried about my furnace. It is made out of steel and it burns alot of LP this time of year. I hope it doesn't crumble from the heat.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Again with "the jet fuel burned off quickly" tripe. Sure, the fuel burned off....AFTER it had already started widespread fires in a combustible area and AFTER an airliner had severed sprinkler lines.

Not entirely sure why it is so hard for people to understand that it wasnt just the jet fuel and it wasnt just the airliners hitting the buildings. It was the impacts, the resulting damage and the fires that doomed the towers.

However, there is this little tidbit about office fires from 1999.....




It was a startling sight: Six minutes and 55 seconds after a fire ignited in a wastebasket containing typical office trash, flashover occurred and near-ceiling gas temperatures reached a peak of at least 1,600 F. About 90 seconds later, flames filled the entire room and eventually consumed all of its combustible furnishings.

This fire test conducted by Factory Mutual Engineering and Research (FME&R) not long ago stands the notion that office areas are low-risk occupancies on its head. Combustible contents and interior finishes are numerous within office environments, and possible sources of ignition abound. In fact, according to an FME&R study of 490 office building fires, the average loss was $260,000.





www.drj.com...


Or you could read this....

www.tms.org...



new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join