Your 9/11 truth?

reply to post by Apocalypse1


Wasnt trying to land - was trying to hit building

Big difference in skill required

Any fool can crash a plane or in this case crash into a building

Takes lot more skill and training to land a jet airliner. Hanjour when took simulator training SKIPPED the part
about taxing on the ground and landing. Was only concerned with maneuvering in flight

reply to post by psikeyhackr

If you can't do that maybe you should not be posting.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Apocalypse1

 

Wasnt trying to land - was trying to hit building

Big difference in skill required

Any fool can crash a plane or in this case crash into a building

Takes lot more skill and training to land a jet airliner. Hanjour when took simulator training SKIPPED the part
about taxing on the ground and landing. Was only concerned with maneuvering in flight

Yes, lets try not to think about the fact that a guy that was incapable of flying a Cessna would choose to strike the Pentagon at the ground floor instead of any of the other floors in that 77 foot tall building. Sounds a lot like a feet an unskilled pilot would try. Right.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by micpsi

 

Can I ask you the question then: Why was the attack on the WTC so complicated in its planning? Why have a plan so dependant on all factors that if one of them had failed at any point it would have ended in failure for the conspirators. E.g. if the supposed explosives in the tower failed to detonate due the planes impact what would they have done?

Maybe something like that did happen. Remember WTC 7 did fall without being impacted by a plane. Could be that maybe a plane was suppose to hit WTC 7 but flight 93 was grounded in Pennsylvania and the FAA grounded the rest of 'em around 10:00am that morning.

But thanks to 9/11 we now know that if a skyscraper is damaged and then catches fire, it will collapse. On the other hand if a skyscraper catches fire, which causes damage, the building will stay standing. FYI.

Originally posted by Apocalypse1

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Apocalypse1

 

Wasnt trying to land - was trying to hit building

Big difference in skill required

Any fool can crash a plane or in this case crash into a building

Takes lot more skill and training to land a jet airliner. Hanjour when took simulator training SKIPPED the part
about taxing on the ground and landing. Was only concerned with maneuvering in flight

Yes, lets try not to think about the fact that a guy that was incapable of flying a Cessna would choose to strike the Pentagon at the ground floor instead of any of the other floors in that 77 foot tall building. Sounds a lot like a feet an unskilled pilot would try. Right.

Why do you assume Hanjour chose to hit the ground floor ? It could be said with just as much validity that he was simply determined to hit the Pentagon but very nearly lost it and hit the ground.

With regard to the Cessna you are being disingenuous. The story is based on someone not wanting to rent him one which is not exactly the same thing. Fact is Hanjour held a commercial pilot's certificate and there is no obvious reason why, with an aircraft already taken off for him, he would have been incapable of crashing into one of the largest buildings on the planet.

Originally posted by Apocalypse1

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by micpsi

 

Can I ask you the question then: Why was the attack on the WTC so complicated in its planning? Why have a plan so dependant on all factors that if one of them had failed at any point it would have ended in failure for the conspirators. E.g. if the supposed explosives in the tower failed to detonate due the planes impact what would they have done?

Maybe something like that did happen. Remember WTC 7 did fall without being impacted by a plane. Could be that maybe a plane was suppose to hit WTC 7 but flight 93 was grounded in Pennsylvania and the FAA grounded the rest of 'em around 10:00am that morning.

But thanks to 9/11 we now know that if a skyscraper is damaged and then catches fire, it will collapse. On the other hand if a skyscraper catches fire, which causes damage, the building will stay standing. FYI.

If you are going to suggest that WTC 7 was the target of UA 93 you need to answer some things :-

a) Why, from the time it turned back , was it steadily on a bearing for Washington apart from the final erratic maneuvers which tie in with the passenger revolt as evidenced by the cockpit voice recorder and phone calls ?

b) Why did the hi-jackers dial in the VOR (VHF Omni-directional Range Frequency) for Reagan National airport if they really wanted to go to New York ?

c) How were they going to hit WTC 7 while the Towers stood ?

Truthers often claim WTC 7 was a cd but, in the absence of some cover like a plane being flown into it, how was this going to be accomplished ? What was the original plan ? It was only by chance that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris , fires started and water supply cut. That could not have been planned for so truthers seem to be suggesting that the plan was just to bring WTC 7 down, as it stood pristine, in broad daylight. Doesn't sound very likely to me.

reply to post by headorheart


No one will ever know the truth about 9/11, its a shame that such an incident can happen and so many lies be told. The US government should have alittle respect for its people & the people that died and just tell them what really happened even if that is that Bin Laden was behind it.

The 9/11 report was a waste of paper and is incorrect in many many places. A new investigation is needed.

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
reply to post by headorheart

 

No one will ever know the truth about 9/11, its a shame that such an incident can happen and so many lies be told. The US government should have alittle respect for its people & the people that died and just tell them what really happened even if that is that Bin Laden was behind it.

The 9/11 report was a waste of paper and is incorrect in many many places. A new investigation is needed.

Physics cannot change and will not go away. I am more curious about the physics profession than the government. I wonder if that is part of the problem. So many people think the government is more important than physics. Physics is how reality works. Governments are irrelevant.

The United States may be laughed at for decades if this ever gets straightened out. The nation that put men on the Moon can't explain the physics of skyscrapers when the Empire State Building is 80 years old.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Apocalypse1

Why do you assume Hanjour chose to hit the ground floor ?

I don't assume Hanjour chose to hit the ground floor because I don't believe Hanjour was piloting the aircraft.

It could be said with just as much validity that he was simply determined to hit the Pentagon but very nearly lost it and hit the ground.

Could be. It could and was also said he very nearly lost it when he was descending from the sky like a military jet. Yet that worked out for him and so did this.

That's 2 for 2 for the pilot.

I'm thinking "experienced pilot at the helm here." That or Allah is truly God.

With regard to the Cessna you are being disingenuous. The story is based on someone not wanting to rent him one which is not exactly the same thing.

He couldn't rent it because he couldn't fly it. And lets not forget some of the comments his former instructors made about his piloting abilities.

Fact is Hanjour held a commercial pilot's certificate and there is no obvious reason why, with an aircraft already taken off for him, he would have been incapable of crashing into one of the largest buildings on the planet.

A commercial pilot's certificate is easy to obtain. Just pay a flight training tech school, attend class, and be there for the graduation and you will get one.

edit on 15-3-2012 by Apocalypse1 because: typo

When the planes penetrated the towers, the combined factors of speed, weight and explosive power caused massive damage to the info-structure, which consisted of numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns which provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core.

reply to post by Tschusterbauer


When the planes penetrated the towers, the combined factors of speed, weight and explosive power caused massive damage to the info-structure, which consisted of numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns which provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core’.

I wrote exactly the same thing pages back, I think you are about to receive (like i did) a visit from psikeyhackr fairy who will explain why your stoooopid because you don’t understand the physics.

Prepare yourself for boredom.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The 9/11 report was a waste of paper and is incorrect in many many places. A new investigation is needed.

I suspect you're simply making this up, since the 9/11 report didn't address any of the physics of anything.

Physics cannot change and will not go away.

That's not the only question that won't go away- you neglected to tell us what your background in physics actually is. It's rather hard to take your criticism seriously if it turns out you've learned all your physics from watching movies and reading comic books.

You know that bullets can't be curved in real life simply because they showed Angelina Jolie doing it in the movie "Wanted", right?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The 9/11 report was a waste of paper and is incorrect in many many places. A new investigation is needed.

I suspect you're simply making this up, since the 9/11 report didn't address any of the physics of anything.

Well you are lying about who made that quote. How did you manage that? It is on that page.

I never talk about another investigation. With physics this simple I regard an investigation as laughable.

I don't know which 9/11 report you are talking about but the NCSTAR1 report did talk about physics in places.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

With physics this simple I regard an investigation as laughable.

The plans are out there. Why don't you ease your mind and our eyes and get a set. Then you can prove to yourself through physics calculations that a progressive collapse is possible.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Well you are lying about who made that quote. How did you manage that? It is on this page.

It is not a lie, it is an error. I now see this post was made by wlasikiewicz, not you, and his post was lumped into yours somehow. I therefore retract this post because it is based upon an incorrect assertion on my part. There, you see how easy that was?

...but I notice you still didn't answer the question; what is your background in physics?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

With physics this simple I regard an investigation as laughable.

The plans are out there. Why don't you ease your mind and our eyes and get a set. Then you can prove to yourself through physics calculations that a progressive collapse is possible.

Well if the plans are out there it is certainly curious that Lon Waters does not have the horizontal beams on his site with the cross sections of the core columns.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Well if the plans are out there it is certainly curious that Lon Waters does not have the horizontal beams on his site with the cross sections of the core columns.

Did you try to email the site? They have email links.

But even if you do get the specs do you know what to do with them?
What are your qualifications as an engineer?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

...but I notice you still didn't answer the question; what is your background in physics?

I am not going to provide a background to explain grade school physics.

What is stopping you from explaining anything wrong with my Python program using the Conservation of Momentum? I would be happy to see a PhD physicist try to explain something wrong with it that might cause as much as a 5% error.

psik

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Well if the plans are out there it is certainly curious that Lon Waters does not have the horizontal beams on his site with the cross sections of the core columns.

Did you try to email the site? They have email links.

But even if you do get the specs do you know what to do with them?
What are your qualifications as an engineer?

I have communicated with Lon Waters a number of times. I am responsible for one of those corrections he made in 2008.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I am not going to provide a background to explain grade school physics.

Because you have no certifiable background to disclose.

What is stopping you from explaining anything wrong with my Python program using the Conservation of Momentum? I would be happy to see a PhD physicist try to explain something wrong with it that might cause as much as a 5% error.

Since you admit to not having all the construction data how could your Python program be anything but speculation?

No certifications + missing data + incorrect model = wrong conclusion

Imagine you being on trial and the prosecutor presents missing data and incorrect model and no certifications against you. What would you want the jury to do??