Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Considering that I've been out of this truck for two weeks in the last year, and driven most of the rest of the time, and I don't parallel park it at all, I don't care if some guy can parallel park a pickup or not.

But with autopilot, who cares if he can't fly a Cessna. Autopilot will do most of what he had to do for him. I haven't flown a plane in years, but I almost guarantee that I could fly a 757 once it was airborne, and get you down to just about landing (and could probably land it, although it wouldn't be pretty).

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

What are you talking about.

He could he was certified by the FAA as being competent to fly commercially

The only issue he really had was his poor grasp of English and a instructor at the Las Vegas flight simulator discouraged him form continuing his training however he did actually complete and pass the initial training.

Remember all he really had to do was a few maneuvers to line up plane so long as he could control it he would have been able to have done this.

He didn't even need to know how to take off or land all he had to do was know enough to fly in in the air and then line it up on a vector for the Pentagon. He was a certified commercial pilot who had been flying since 1996 and had training on aircraft simulators so i am sure this was with in his capabilities.

According to the flight instructor who spent real time with him in a Cessna 172, he could not take off and land competently! Believe what you want. Taking off and landing don't require talking. You can either do it or not. You obviously believe the story, despite numerous problems I and others have shown with it. How come glass windows were not broken just feet from the front area until the roof came down? How come spools on the ground were not messed up? Where did the wings go? Just hitting the building would have cause damage, but they want us to believe they folded up into a hole?! The ground was not damaged! Very few plane parts and what did they carry out under that blue tarp? Might it have been the guts of a missile that actually hit the building?

Those who tell the truth have nothing to hide. Now look at what was gained out of 9/11. Massive loss of Freedom. A behemoth of a new Federal Agency, training Americans to be searched at will and treated to the most disturbing of behavior that if done by someone other than your government would land them in jail on molestation charges, war machine profiteering, and constant FEAR FEAR FEAR of terrorism. Please, you are not in danger of some terrorist right now anymore than you are likely to get hit by lightning. The ones who need to be afraid are those in the Middle East because they likely will get shot, bombed, droned, have uranium surplus dumped on them. Keep preaching the government propaganda, it doesn't change the truth.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


He didn't have to take off or land. So what does that matter? They knew they were going to have to fly the plane, and hit the target, so if I were one of them, that's all I'd worry about. So I can't land, so what? I'm not planning to, so why bother getting good at it. I'm not going to take off, so why worry about it?

The question is, how was his flying once they were in the air. Was he capable of flying once they were airborne? THAT is the important part.

The windows didn't shatter, because they were designed to withstand a truck bomb, in contact with the building.

The wings shattered into small pieces, because with the exception of the spar running through them, they're basically hollow , and shatter easily in a hard impact like the Pentagon.

Here is a copy of Hani Hanjour Commercial Rating. As you can see he was legally qualified to fly Boeing 737s.

reply to post by waypastvne


Which means he wouldn't have much trouble flying a 757. The newer model 737s are similar to the 757, and the cabins in the late 737s are the same as the 757.

Mod Edit - what was posted here violates the strict rules of the 9/11 forum to do with civility - something which can result in an instant account ban

reply to post by NorEaster

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NorEaster
why didn't the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon burn like that? Why was it so easy to put out, and why was there such comparatively little fire damage? ... The Pentagon wasn't anywhere near as completely devastated as it should've been when compared to the WTC towers.

As I'm sure you are aware, the Pentagon just had TONS of steel and concrete reinforcement brought into the sections that got hit. The plane came in low and fast. Came in and the top of the building collapsed onto what was left of the plane. Hundreds of fragments were found around the Pentagon. But no 'large fuselage' could survive. that's just the materials engineering fact.

You're purposely deflecting the fire question. Who cares about the concrete and steel. The fires wouldn't have been affected by that. As for the top of the Pentagon outer wall, that collapsed about a half hour - forty minutes after the impact - as proven by video footage that's widely available. The flames had been largely put out by then and certainly the enormous, overwhelming, twin-towers destroying fires had been largely extinguished by then

Fortunately for the Pentagon the fire was ground level and firefighters were able to get to the scene in just minutes to blast the flames with water and foam. Unfortunately for the twin towers and the NYC FD those huge fires were 90 stories above ground. They didn't have the same luxury that the Pentagon did to blast the fires with tons of high pressured water and foam from fire trucks... It required men to climb all of those stairs with fire hoses... That fire was allowed burn for quite a while without so much as a sprinkle of water... They were bringing a knife to a gun fight...

Makes sense to me

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by AuntieChrist

 

You posted many interesting questions........I don't see the debunkers too quick to jump on those.

Just a suggestion when quoting a post......before typing your response go all the way to the end of the quote and type after

so we know what words are yours. Responding inside of a quote is a bit confusing.

Also, some may think threads like these are a waste of time. I for one have already read a number of things I did not know about 9/11 and I am sure there may be others as well.

One thing that stands out in this debate, us truthers, all appear to not believe the official story and although we may not agree on exactly what happened, we do agree it wasn't that story.

On the other hand, debunkers do not budge from 100% of the official version AT ALL. They are united in defending it at all costs no matter what evidence may contradict any portion of the story. To not consider ANY of the evidence against the official story as valid is disturbing to say the least.

It is plausible that multiple plots took place on that day, but it was not simply 19 terrorists that caused all of it.

As someone mentioned earlier, you need look no further than WTC7 to know a smoking gun exists.





Well said..
I`ve always enjoyed the 9/11 threads on ATS and its a shame that some of them get shut down due to those who get carried away and also those who come with the intention of getting a thread closed.
I too have noticed over the years that debunkers don`t move ..at all...from the official theory.

I think the difference is that " Truthers" actually do more research because they are looking for answers....whereas those who believe the official theory feel they don`t need to look any further than that theory.

Over the years my opinions have changed from how it was done but I`ve never believed the official theory.
We get accused of getting our info from conspiracy sites but I myself have gathered most of my info and leads from those on both sides of the argument here...on ATS.

reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012


Thanks for that bit of advice.
Unlike some of the resident OS'ers, I don't really have time (nor reason) to hang around in forums, so am somewhat green as to the exact tech codes and methods.

Keep up the good work my friend.

~ Auntie ~

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by cuckooold
I believe that planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon as per the media narrative. One thing does confuse me, and if anyone can enlighten me it would be appreciated.

Photographs show the interior of the Pentagon after the plane hit (full of jet fuel). How is it that there is an opened book sitting on top of a stool, seemingly untouched by the inferno of the exploding plane?

This is one item I've seen mentioned a number of times, yet I've never seen an explanation I can recall.

That one has come up before and the explanation is really quite simple (as to why that exposed room is seemingly undamaged). The room only became exposed when the damaged section of the building collapsed along an expansion joint in the construction and such a large solid building would need to have a lot of such expansion joints to cope with normal temperature variations. The room in question might only have suffered a little smoke damage prior to the collapse, if anything. It was surrounded by concrete which protected it from the fire.

That is exactly correct. It's worth pointing out that in order to function, expansion joints are necessarily breaks in the structure of a building; walls, slabs, beams, and other horizontal structural elements stop on one side of an expansion joint. You can often see such expansion joints in large public buildings: there will often be a metal plate in the floor that spans between the two sides of an expansion joint. Another clue in large industrial buildings is that there will be two rows of columns very close together. Between the two is an expansion joint. If you look at the floor plans of the pentagon you should see this exact condition at the point where this mystery office is right next to the collapse.

Expansion joints typically separate large horizontal structures like the pentagon into several discrete elements. thus limiting the propagation of any shock wave or collapse. This is just what we see at the pentagon: one side of the expansion joint is devastated, and the other, relatively unaffected.

some relevant links for the curious:
www.inprocorp.com...
www.mmsystemscorp.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a floor plan: I haven't checked to see if it is correct, but the Movement Joint is called out.

Originally posted by lambros56
I think the difference is that " Truthers" actually do more research because they are looking for answers

Truthers doing research? Like holographic planes, cargo planes being used, pod carrying planes, pod carrying planes firing missiles, painted on nano nano thermite, tonnes of explosives being laid so no one noticed, mini nuclear weapons, beam weapons, cruise missiles.... that is what "truthers" have claimed caused the destruction of the buildings.

Here is a good example of "truther" quality research



The official theory states 4 planes were hijacked, 3 of them crashed into buildings, resulting in severe damage to the Pentagon, and the other 2 collapsing due to unfought fires and damage. As a result of the collapse of those 2 very tall buildings other buildings were destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC) 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure.

WTC 7 collapsed due to severe damage caused by the collapse of the North tower and unfought fires. The collapse of WTC 7 caused severe damage to Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Building. The fourth plane crashed into a field.

That is what the OS states

reply to post by hellobruce


Wtc 6 was directly in front of wtc 7, and was completely devastated. Miraculously there were large portions of the building that were left standing, yet wtc 7 had very little damage compared to 6 and fell down like a house of cards.

Go ahead and explain that one away!

reply to post by jaws1975


How long did WTC 6 burn? How many diesel tanks were in the building to add to the fire?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Note how long it took to get it started! 411 days after compared to other national tragedies that take less than 1 week max 2 weeks!

For me their investigation started around 11 am on sept. 11 2001. I looked outside to see two county Sheriff cars sitting on the runway in front of my house. I live on a grass strip runway and manage the airport. They left the cars parked on the runway and came over and started asking me questions about activity on the airport and if there were any Arabs taking flying lessons at the airport. I told them yes there was an Iranian pilot living on the airport and he had been living there for several months. The Iranian pilot along with everyone else at the airport were questioned and the airport was shut down to air traffic. An FBI agent came by about 5 pm and questioned all of us again. At least one Sheriff car remained parked on the runway 24 hours a day for the next three days.

The investigation started instantly on Sept 11, to claim anything else is silly.

Originally posted by jaws1975
reply to post by hellobruce

 

Wtc 6 was directly in front of wtc 7, and was completely devastated. Miraculously there were large portions of the building that were left standing, yet wtc 7 had very little damage compared to 6 and fell down like a house of cards.

Go ahead and explain that one away!

What on earth are you talking about

WTC-6 was the smallest of all the WTC buildings only 8 stories, but its entire southwest corner was destroyed and i was almost totally burnt out.

In fact it was so badly damaged they had to demolish the building afterwords.

Yet it even it sustained less damage than WTC-7, however trying to make a comparison between the two buildings is absurd. Its such a gross oversimplification of the structural differences of the two buildings to make the comparison you are making. Essentially your entire argument is says "well here is another completely different building and it didn't collapse".... really so what, what does that prove?

I can quite quickly counter that by pointing out that WTC-5's inner structure had collapsed, its insides were almost hollow. And guess what that means, a steel structure that collapsed due to fire's that was not WTC 1,2 or 7. The steel that was holding up the floor's of WTC-5 collapsed due to fire!

And what does this prove you may ask...

it proves that fire can cause the steel holding up structures to fail and collapse.

I have still to hear how you explain what I posted about Pennsylvania. No bodies to recover per the coroner. No plane parts visible. Just a gouged out image of what a plane might look like when it hits the ground. It's amazing when compared to other crashes of passenger jets hitting the ground. Lots of wreckage, a fuselage, wings, tail section, dead bodies, but in PA just like in NY many firsts happened that day.

Sleep on people.



Image of that field in 1994



Image on 9/11 No Plane, Luggage, Bodies



Another one



Looks like a bomb crater added to the pre-existing scar on that field.

This is what it looks like when a plane hits the hard earth



Flight 93 is the smoking gun. I know it's not what you want to believe. I know it means we've been lied to, but the proof is in the pudding. The coroner said his job was over within five minutes of getting on scene because there were NO bodies or parts.

THERE IS NO WRECKAGE.

This is not the Florida everglades that swallows up planes. The fire is really non-existent, so where did the plane go?

Bahahaa, "You don't know what a 757 looks like"

Classic

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Flight 93 is the smoking gun. I know it's not what you want to believe. I know it means we've been lied to, but the proof is in the pudding. The coroner said his job was over within five minutes of getting on scene because there were NO bodies or parts.

THERE IS NO WRECKAGE.

Not true. But you'll believe what you want from the sources that you want.

Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone.[82] Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total.[83] The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact.[84] Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24.[85][86] They identified another by September 29.[87] Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27.[88] All the people on board the flight were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented that investigators could not determine whether any victims were dead before the plane crashed. Death certificates for the 40 victims listed the cause of death as homicide and listed the cause of death for the four hijackers as suicide.[89] The remains and personal effects of the victims were returned to the families.[90] The remains of the hijackers, identified by the process of elimination, were turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as evidence.[91]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is an account as it was happening
old.post-gazette.com...

Where do you guys get this stuff from? Is an agenda driven youtube video supposed be the end all on these things?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You left out the part where he talked about finding body parts later. It's kind of funny how in one breath the comment is made about no bodies found at Shanksville, and then in the next, about human remains found far from the crash site.

Bodies never come through a plane crash intact. It's parts and pieces, as the body is the most fragile thing on the plane.

About 8% of the remains survived the crash, were recovered and identified through DNA by the coroner and an Air Force team.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by jaws1975

 

How long did WTC 6 burn? How many diesel tanks were in the building to add to the fire?

Maybe sticking to airplanes might be your best course of action, I promise you burning diesel doesn't melt thick core columns allowing for a building that size to fall in seconds! Fail!