Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

Yes. Even I can set the plane to go where I want it to go and know how to steer left, right, up, and down. But heaven help me if I had to correct a serious problem or land the thing. You wouldn't want to be flying with me.

0 Replies

DrewDad, the reports from Air Traffic Controllers watching flight 77 were surprised at the tricky maneuvers the plane took. For you to simply say steering an airplane is easy wont wash. I dont say I know what happened. There's the government's story that hijackers just flew the planes into the buildings. Then there are the flight instructors who say these guys were dumb and dumber. Thne there's the air traffic controllers descibing nearly impposible turns. Who to believe? To me the government's story is the least likely to believe. But what I most believe is we need a much more comprehensive investigation than we've yet had. "Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner: source

The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. 1"

0 Replies

What bothers me about the conspiracists here is that they wont stick to one point, they wont sit down to investigate a single of their assertions, prove or disprove it, and then move on the next one.

Instead, whenever some piece of evidence is brought that appears to disprove the theory, assertion or question that's being discussed, they'll jump to another seemingly random question of contention, 'and how do you explain that then?'.

No apparent willingness to seriously hash something out. That pattern alone leads me to great skepticism of their theories.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Meet Ace Suicide Pilot Hani Hanjour

Let's look at what we know about the alleged suicide pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour. According to press reports, Hanjour had used Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport three times since mid-August as he attempted to get permission to use one of the airport's planes. This from The Prince George's [Maryland] Journal September 18, 2001:

"Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.
"According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

. . . "Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.

"Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed.

. . . "Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.

"Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience .S Pete Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman for the FBI, said it is an on-going criminal investigation and he could not comment." http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/hijackers.html

So this guy flew a 757 500 mph into a five story building and it hit right were the building was empty for constrction with every body safe on the other side?

0 Replies

nimh, I think the "conspiracy theorists" here have presented a bunch or reasons for having a real investigation. Accepting the government's story would be rejecting other evidence from air trffic controllers who were astounded at maneuvers the planes took or from flight instructors who ridiculed the ability of the alleged pilot/hijackers. FEMA said the only theory investigated on WTC 7 was the government's theory and that theory was highly unlikely. Steven Jones and other scientists make valid points and their calls for futher investigations are certainly not crazy. It's crazy to simply accept the government's story. Even more so in this conspiracy theorists mind since a bunch in the PNAC laden Bushie administration had said in writing that a new Pearl Hatbor would help their cause immensely.

0 Replies

Precisely Nimh.

From every credible account I've read, anybody who had been taught to steer a plane, including me, could have done a 180 which is about the only unusual maneuver Flight 77 did other than going off course in the first place and accelerating just prior to the crash into the Pentagon. The primary target of Flight 77 was apparently the White House, but due to visual problems, the hijackers selected the Pentagon as a secondary target. I believe the Pentagon would be both easily seen and easily recognized. And for a plane flying east toward the Pentagon, the west wing would be the logical target area.

Here are some accounts from several different perspectives. If some have been posted already I apologize.

USA Today's Account
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-clearskies_x.htm

NY Times Account
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/nyt101601.html

CNN Account
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/24/gen.terror.controller/index.html

Commission on Terrorism Account
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

As all of these are in essential agreement, it would seem that all are sufficiently credible to be the most likely version of the truth.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

FEMA said the only theory investigated on WTC 7 was the government's theory and that theory was highly unlikely. Steven Jones and other scientists make valid points and their calls for futher investigations are certainly not crazy.

Yep, my point is that you (people) keep repeating these assertions, without ever addressing any point thats brought up regarding them.

Ie, Steven Jones and his assertions have been discussed here quite extensively now, I think. Have you noticed or integrated any of the resulting info, at all? One must be quite determined to gloss over it in order to at the end of the discussion just insist that, well, someone says it so there must be something to it.

Are you willing to critically review whether these scientists' points are in fact valid, at all? Because it seems to me that everytime somone like Farmerman tried, the other person would not so much engage in such a review but rather switch to some other pet element or source of the conspiracy theory ... only to again come back with the thing Farmer had tried to review a few pages later, without any reference or acknowledgement of something having been said about it.

Its like talking to people with no memory, or something. Or no ability to go beyond "hey, thats an interesting theory" to "lets verify if its actually true", in any case.

0 Replies

nimh, Jones statements are here to read. He makes sense to me. His saying that there wasn't enough heat generated by the fires to buckle the steel and cause a collapse is science based. His thoughts on molten metal and thermite are there for all to see. He calls for further investigations. That makes sense to me. How bout you? If you'd care to comment on his temperature figures or anything else please do. And if I care to reply I will. How bout what the flight instructors had to say about dumber and dumbest in relation to the alleged hijacker/pilots?

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not believe the Bush administration had the time or resources to anticipate and stop 9/11, but I believe they are doing their damndest to prevent another one. And I support that effort.

While I totally disagree with your first clause, I just think youre overly defensive and are being somewhat disingenuous because of your attempts to"circle the wagons around Bush". I do however, hope that your second clause is correct, but neither of us know the answer to that.
The ability think the unthinkable is still not yet in our "bag of tricks" we still lack the creativity and leadership to turn the dysfunctional nature of all those competing agencies into a cohesive mission minded organization.
Independent QA exercises have still left things wanting. Fortunately the "gadget guys" at many of the National Labs are doing their jobs and turning out inventions that can do quick scans for nuclear devices . and are using new algorithms to enable communications to be quickly sorted .Now if we can agree on how to use these technologies . This is the 5th anniversary year of 9/11 and all I hear from the exec branch and congress is that weve protected ourselves from another hit.
Weve pissed off potentially important allies and have entered a war thats gonna keep us tied up for years and this has strategically helped us how?

0 Replies

blueflame

Quote:

His saying that there wasn't enough heat generated by the fires to buckle the steel and cause a collapse is science based

Thats cause youre easily impressed bluflame. First hes already been corrected on the actual max temperatures achievable. They are in the 12 to 1500 degree range depending on the winds aloft (this was happening on the 57th through 89th floors ) Ive been in the WTC working for an egineering /mining outfit and , even on calm days down at street level, it was mighty windy up high. Metal bends, and the forensic evidence has strongly supported that, because the bolts that they found from key support trusses were sheared , as if freom some weight and a moment arm on the beams.

As far as the outrageous "puddles of thermite" bullshit, if you knew anything about chemistry youid know that Aluminum melts at a temp far lower than structural steel. It melts about 650 C thats about 1350 F , which is within the range of the fire temps achieved. Notice how all those piles of

twisted rebar were in the puddles of Aluminum. If it were "thermite" wed have a 180 different puddle . Wed have puddles of pure IRON in an aluminum oxide matrix. I saw rebar in a "pudding " of Aluminum. Thermite is aluminum metal powder and Iron Oxide that, when ignited , forms a strong weld of iron metal and aluminum oxide, not the other way around (thats an oops for Dr Jones, hes beginning to sound a bit incompetent to me)

Maybe Dr Jones just forgot to mention the stoichiometry of thermite.

You reading the "scientific" data is like a parakeet reading the New York Times. I hate to be so blunt but your understanding of one of your main points is nonexistant.

0 Replies

farmerman, well this parakeet is still wondering. WTC 7 did not get hit by a plane yet collapsed. I'm sure you're more able to address the scientists than I am. That's scientists with a plural. Jones is not alone in questioning. And it may very well be true that Underwriiters Lab is a bunch of dolts. But I still agree that further investigation is needed. The argument that jumbo jets are easy to fly makes the air traffic controllers who were amazed at a 270 turn in about two minutes look foolish or maybe it makes the people who say it's so easy look foolish. I could post opinions from top guns who doubt the hijackers flew the planes. We could talk also about the stand down and the coincidence of the training exercise held on 911 and the fact that Bushie and Rice told us many times nobody coulda dreamed of an attack by airliner despite that exercise. We could also talk about the passports, Korans and other evidence conveniently found aftewards or the fact that many of the alleged hijackers who supposedly died in the attacks were later found to be still alive. There's lots we could talk about but that would be considered jumping around.

0 Replies

As I understand it,WTC 7 was intentionally demolished because of damage caused from getting hit by debris from the collapse of the WTC.

What is the controversy there?
It was unsafe and condemned.

0 Replies

I heard that as well. That's why I wondered what the controversy over "wtc 7" was about.

0 Replies

Oh so now mystertyman and McGentrix are saying WTC 7 was intentionally demolished. And who all agrees? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm

0 Replies

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:
"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." [Firehouse.com]

Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...

Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

0 Replies

The pix showed melted Aluminum , not steel. I had a picture from the security cam but couldnt post it for some damn reason

0 Replies

The seismic story is just bullshit. Ive already posted tyhe Lamont Dougherty seismic stations and they are equally sensitive . As we stated before, the source that Jones quoted had scrunched the seismic record which makes the duration appear short and the amplitude appear expanded. All one has to do is load the data on Excel or some data base and then decrease the x (time ) axes when they graph it.

0 Replies

yep, now I know theyre lying. Those are the same seismic stations Ive already posted (except in real time) Lamonts sweep was 40 seconds, this one they "doctored" was 10 seconds with an expanded y axis. This **** youve posted was from 2002 and after that the Lamont scientists were quite angry and swtated publically that the "conspiracists" took the seismic record out of context and doctored it visually to attempt to make a piece of data. Youve actually proved my point. CDI is in Baltimore and can be reached to queastion them about the molten steel. Im sure loiseaux family members can tell moten steel, but why did you (or magginkat) include a pix of molten Al??

0 Replies

farmerman, ok. So all the etewitnesses who heard explosions in the basement before the collapse are full of crap. The air traffic controllers are full of crap. The flight school instructors are full of crap. Everyone but the Bushies are full of crap. To you at least. We "conspiracy theorists" are mainly saying we need further investigation. That is not unreasonable in the least. We do seem to be getting somewhere with mysteryman and McGentrix both admitting WTC 7 was demolished. What have you to say to them on that? Are they now quasi-conspiracy theorists? I'm not saying even that WTC 7 was pulled. I am saying the government's story dont add up and I call for further investigation.

0 Replies

Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know