9/11 Attacks

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

If you're gonna post massive pictures, just post a link ffs.


This is a 757. Are you seriously gonna tell me that all they found of this massive airplane was a handful of metal scraps? Your "evidence" fails miserably.

I thought you had problems with squinting?

Not a 'handful of scraps' - the pieces were substantial enough -given that it had hit a reinforced concrete wall 4 metres thick.





As to the dynamics of the crash - hole - damage etc - try this handy primer for size.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Everyone watch for the magical invisible 757!!.

I can see the pieces, which would make it visible, and not particularly magical in my book.

demonspawn wrote: »

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Torra Bora incident.

I really don't have any thoughts on Tora Bora - how does it relate to 9/11? I will say this - the man managed to evade the Soviet army - possibly also using donkeys, so he has form in the sneaky mountain manouvers front.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

I really don't have any thoughts on Tora Bora - how does it relate to 9/11? I will say this - the man managed to evade the Soviet army - possibly also using donkeys, so he has form in the sneaky mountain manouvers front.

Ok, I'm done here. Delta Force had the primary suspect of 9/11 pinned down in a cave and they were ordered to stand down by an "unknown" person. And you ask how that relates to 9/11? Really?

If you can't explain that they I cba posting in this ridiculous thread anymore.

Your evidence amounts to nothing. I posted a CCTV video of the Pentagon blowing up with no airplane in sight. This is an exercise in futility, but I'll leave you with this.

In separate interviews Thursday, five residents who live and work less than four miles from the crash site said they saw a second plane flying erratically within minutes of the crash of the Boeing 757 that took off from Newark two hours earlier Tuesday morning.
Susan Mcelwain of Stonycreek Township said a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swooped low over her minivan near an intersection and disappeared over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge.
It was less than a minute later, Mcelwain said, that the ground shook and a white plume of smoke appeared over the ridge. "It was so close to me I ducked," Mcelwain said. "I heard it hit and saw the smoke. All I could think of was how close I came to dying. " About a mile north on Buckstown Road, Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney were at work making wooden pallets when they heard an explosion and came running outside to watch a large mushroom cloud spreading over the ridge.
"As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.
"If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt," Decker said. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane. " Late Thursday afternoon, federal agents who spoke to reporters at the crash site said "there was no evidence as of yet" that a second plane was nearby when Flight 93 plunged into a strip mine.

http://www.flight93crash.com/second-plane-at-flight93-crash-site.htm


http://www.flight93crash.com/index.html

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, I'm done here. Delta Force had the primary suspect of 9/11 pinned down in a cave and they were ordered to stand down by an "unknown" person. And you ask how that relates to 9/11? Really?

Really - but then you must too, if you say 9/11 had nothing to do with Al Qaeda - remember - 'not a scrap of evidence'? See how that works?

demonspawn wrote: »

If you can't explain that they I cba posting in this ridiculous thread anymore.

Your evidence amounts to nothing. I posted a CCTV video of the Pentagon blowing up with no airplane in sight.

You do realise that slow security camera footage and fast planes over short distances don't really get along?

At 500 mph, an airplane is going about 733 feet per second. For the security-gate video, the frame rate appears to be one frame/second. The distance from the point of collision to the right edge of the video frame appears to no more than 100 feet, so the chances of capturing the Boeing 757-223 (118 feet 5 inches in length) in the video are approximately (118.5 + 100)/733 or about 30%. Thus, it's not surprising that we see an empty frame followed by an explosion.

The garage video is a faster frame rate (looks to be about 10fps) - but the distance visible between tree and building is much shorter, resulting in a similar chance of capturing the plane.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

Really - but then you must too, if you say 9/11 had nothing to do with Al Qaeda - remember - 'not a scrap of evidence'? See how that works?

Explain why Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape to Pakistan. He was the prime suspect for the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

You do realise that slow security camera footage and fast planes over short distances don't really get along?



The garage video is a faster frame rate (looks to be about 10fps) - but the distance visible between tree and building is much shorter, resulting in a similar chance of capturing the plane.

Fair enough, please show me video of the plane crashing into the building. The Pentagon is the most well protected building in the United States, if not the entire world. Where is the rest of the other CCTV camera footage? Are we to believe that there was only one camera facing the area of the "crash"? Not just one camera, but a hi-res camera that only films one fps? Were there no cameras facing the direction in which this plane is meant to have come? This is the Pentagon for Christ's sake, not some underground carpark at a shopping center.

It happens all the time. When a small private plane recently entered the 23-mile restricted ring around the U.S. Capitol, two F-16 interceptors were immediately launched from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away. In a similar episode, a pair of F-16 "Fighting Falcons" on 15-minute strip alert was airborne from Andrews just 11minutes after being notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a Cessna straying towards the White House. [Associated Press, Nov 11, 2003; CNN Jun 20, 2002]

These were well-practiced routines. With more than 4,500 aircraft continuously sharing US airspace, between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. [FAA news release, Aug 9, 2002; Associated Press Aug 13, 2002]

But on Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds. [NORAD news release, Sept. 18, 2001]

http://septembereleventh.org/airdefense.php

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

This is an exercise in futility, but I'll leave you with this.

That's about flight 93 - nothing to do with the pentagon, but the mystery white jet isn't really a such a mystery - it's a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Co. of Greensboro, N.C. The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

That's about flight 93 - nothing to do with the pentagon, but the mystery white jet isn't really a such a mystery - it's a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Co. of Greensboro, N.C. The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on.

Bullsh*t. The FAA did not request any private aircraft to investigate a hijacked 757. The FAA was ordered by the military to ground all planes immediately. Stop making sh*t up. It was an unmarked airplane as witnessed by several people.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Bullsh*t. The FAA did not request any private aircraft to investigate a hijacked 757. The FAA was ordered by the military to ground all planes immediately. Stop making sh*t up. It was an unmarked airplane as witnessed by several people.

According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."—not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-flight-93

And did anyone claim it had markings? No - it's an unmarked white jet with engine at the back.

naughto

i can see the buring of koran books is not going to go down well.do they want them to attack again i feel its only a matter of time before some thing like this happens again.

demonspawn

Oh my god. You did not just site Popular Mechanics as a source.

Popular Mechanics is an American magazine devoted to science and technology. It was first published January 11, 1902 by H. H. Windsor, and has been owned since 1958 by the Hearst Corporation. There are nine international editions, including a Latin American version that has been published for decades and a newer South African edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mechanics


As Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted in their 1990 book Unreliable Sources, Hearst "routinely invented sensational stories, faked interviews, ran phony pictures and distorted real events." This approach came to be known as yellow journalism, named after the Yellow Kid, a character in the New York Journal's color comic strip Hogan's Alley.
Hearst's use of yellow journalism techniques in his New York Journal to whip up popular support for U.S. military adventurism in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 was also criticized in Upton Sinclair's 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism. According to Sinclair, Hearst's newspaper employees were "willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." Sinclair also asserted that in the early 20th century Hearst's newspapers lied "remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably." In addition, Sinclair charged that Hearst's "Universal News Bureau" re-wrote the news of the London morning papers in the Hearst office in New York and then fraudulently sent it out to American afternoon newspapers under the by-lines of imaginary names of non-existent "Hearst correspondents" in London, Paris, Venice, Rome, Berlin, etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst#Yellow_journalism


Try again, this time without the massive propaganda machine.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

And did anyone claim it had markings? No - it's an unmarked white jet with engine at the back.

It is illegal to fly an aircraft without a clearly visible registration number on the aircraft. Are you telling me this company flies illegally in unmarked aircraft?

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Oh my god. You did not just site Popular Mechanics as a source.

Popular Mechanics is an American magazine devoted to science and technology. It was first published January 11, 1902 by H. H. Windsor, and has been owned since 1958 by the Hearst Corporation. There are nine international editions, including a Latin American version that has been published for decades and a newer South African edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mechanics


As Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted in their 1990 book Unreliable Sources, Hearst "routinely invented sensational stories, faked interviews, ran phony pictures and distorted real events." This approach came to be known as yellow journalism, named after the Yellow Kid, a character in the New York Journal's color comic strip Hogan's Alley.
Hearst's use of yellow journalism techniques in his New York Journal to whip up popular support for U.S. military adventurism in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 was also criticized in Upton Sinclair's 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism. According to Sinclair, Hearst's newspaper employees were "willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." Sinclair also asserted that in the early 20th century Hearst's newspapers lied "remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably." In addition, Sinclair charged that Hearst's "Universal News Bureau" re-wrote the news of the London morning papers in the Hearst office in New York and then fraudulently sent it out to American afternoon newspapers under the by-lines of imaginary names of non-existent "Hearst correspondents" in London, Paris, Venice, Rome, Berlin, etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst#Yellow_journalism


Try again, this time without the massive propaganda machine.

I'm really impressed at the editorial control Hearst has maintained over his publishing empire. Over 50 years since he died.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

It is illegal to fly an aircraft without a clearly visible registration number on the aircraft. Are you telling me this company flies illegally in unmarked aircraft?

I'm telling you that it had no recognisable livery - and that the registration details would be easily missed as it passed overhead. Keep in mind that even nefarious CIA jets also carry reg markings, so quite what you're suggesting is escaping me. Here's the actual plane:





So - how would you see the reg from below?

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm really impressed at the editorial control Hearst has maintained over his publishing empire. Over 50 years since he died.

What makes you think his corporation would act any different than he did? He was instrumental is spreading false propaganda for the U.S. government, his corporation is not a credible source. End of story.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

What makes you think his corporation would act any different than he did? He was instrumental is spreading false propaganda for the U.S. government, his corporation is not a credible source. End of story.

I'm guessing that the jeans manufacturers in Carolina are also in on the grand Hearst conspiracy - and the FAA too? Because those are the players involved in moving the jet to the location you referenced?

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

What makes you think his corporation would act any different than he did? He was instrumental is spreading false propaganda for the U.S. government, his corporation is not a credible source. End of story.

And here was me thinking you had me on ignore.

Buy using that yardstick we probably shouldn't trust volkswagon, IBM, and several other companies who worked with the Nazis.

Unless you can find factual fault with the story, suggesting that the magazine is wrong or lying because of a man who died half a century ago, is absolutely laughable.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I have - particularly the bit about back seat moderation.



What exactly would lead you believe that there are no stupid people here? This is a subset of society - which contains more than enough stupid to go 'round. You might find it 'incredible', but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case - shame on me.

Ok, do you think I'm stupid?

Happyman42

Di0genes wrote: »

Unless you can find factual fault with the story,

Why do you trust the eyewitnesses at the pentagon and dismiss what the eyewitnesses at Flight 93 crash site saw? They had much more time to observe the small jet and assess if it had markings or not. Would it be because you want to believe what the Pentagon witnesses seen?

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why do you trust the eyewitnesses at the pentagon and dismiss what the eyewitnesses at Flight 93 crash site saw?

Where have I dismissed them. Alaister has provided a perfectly rational reason for the small plane's behaviour and actions.

Would it be because you want to believe what the Pentagon witnesses seen?

I give alot of credence to the eyewitness at the Pentagon because it's pretty hard to miss a jet liner flying a few feet over your head. In addition among those eyewitness there are several aviation professionals (pilots, and Air Traffic controllers).

In addition a friend of mine, a documentary film editor was stuck in traffic on the Washington Parkway that morning, and e-mailed me on Sept 12th to describe watching the plane fly into the Pentagon.

Happyman42

Di0genes wrote: »

Where have I dismissed them. Alaister has provided a perfectly rational reason for the small plane's behaviour and actions.

Except that he dismissed the part of the eyewitnesses statement that is important. That the plane had 'no discernable markings'

And answer the other part perfectly rationally....why would it have to fly so low? Jets are regularily asked to observe other jets by ATC, but from where they are usually because you have a huge overview....they are never asked to fly dangerously or erratically.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

Except that he dismissed the part of the eyewitnesses statement that is important. That the plane had 'no discernable markings'

The key bit is "discernible" If I witness a hit and run, and don't see the car's licence plate, do you assume that the car doesn't have a licence plate, or that it has a licence plate, I just didn't catch it?

And answer the other part perfectly rationally....why would it have to fly so low? Jets are regularily asked to observe other jets by ATC, but from where they are usually because you have a huge overview....they are never asked to fly dangerously or erratically.

No not dangerous and they weren't examining another jet they were examining a crash

"They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled

Happyman42

Which would you have more time to observe, a jet travelling at colossal speed at the height of lamposts or a jet circling at 1500 ft?
No 'discernible' markings would immediately have sent me looking at the the exact behaviour of the jet. Is there a recording of the conversation between the pilot of the small jet and ATC? Why are we relying on Popular Mechanics? Did the inquiry rely on this?
I'm not saying it wasn't a jet that hit the Pentagon, I am questioning your selective assessment of the evidence and whose evidence you are choosing to believe.

meglome

So demonspawn.. a video of plane being intentionally rammed into reinforced concrete. Strangley with similar results to the pentagon.

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

In German but this is a test that was done to test what would happen if a plane hit a nuclear power station. Obviously this concrete is thicker but you see the plane is literally shredded.

_sparkie_

namloc 1980 wrote: »

And what about the other fuel??? Paper, carpets, flooring, ceiling. I suppose in CT land these things don't burn at all.

you honestly think that the people that designed these buildings didnt put in any flame retardant ceilings or coatings? also since when does paper burn long or hot enough to melt a steel girder?

Royal Irish

Its great the way some people just post videos of "evidence" from youtube of all places and then finish there post by saying something like, "case closed".

meglome

_sparkie_ wrote: »

you honestly think that the people that designed these buildings didnt put in any flame retardant ceilings or coatings? also since when does paper burn long or hot enough to melt a steel girder?

dear jesus... fire protection standards were very different in the 1960's when these buildings was planned. The explosion would have striped off the (pretty light) fire protection that was there and NO ONE (well outside of CT'ers) is saying the fire was hot enough to melt steel. It only needs to be hot enough to weaken the steel, and it was plenty hot to do that.

Royal Irish wrote: »

Its great the way some people just post videos of "evidence" from youtube of all places and then finish there post by saying something like, "case closed".

Annoys the hells out of me too.
I assume though you're not talking about my video. Because in my post i just showed the similarities of the aftermath of two planes being flown into reinforced concrete. It is what is says on the tin an' all that.

Penn

_sparkie_ wrote: »

you honestly think that the people that designed these buildings didnt put in any flame retardant ceilings or coatings? also since when does paper burn long or hot enough to melt a steel girder?

The structural steel members would have been fireproofed. Possibly with a fireproof coating like you said or encased in concrete, depending on the members location, importance etc. As far as I know, this fireproofing doesn't completely prevent the fire from weakening the steel, it is only designed to ensure the fire takes as long as possible to act on the steel. This is to give enough time for safe evacuation of the building and to give enough time for the fire to be extinguished. This amount of time required is to be in accordance with whatever regulations are applicable at the time.

However, the impact of a plane hitting the tower at full speed would have a) damaged a number of the structural steel members, causing additional loading and directional forces to be placed onto the other steel members, which were not designed to take such loads, and b) damaged the fireproofing on a number of steel members, meaning that the length of time it would have taken for the fire to reach and weaken the steel would have been greatly reduced.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which would you have more time to observe, a jet travelling at colossal speed at the height of lamposts or a jet circling at 1500 ft?

The jet a few feet away from me, and not the Jet over a thousand feet away.

No 'discernible' markings would immediately have sent me looking at the the exact behaviour of the jet.

The key word is discernible, even in the article demonspawn quoted the person writing the piece says

Is there a recording of the conversation between the pilot of the small jet and ATC? Why are we relying on Popular Mechanics? Did the inquiry rely on this?

Have you check the 9/11 commission report?

I'm not saying it wasn't a jet that hit the Pentagon, I am questioning your selective assessment of the evidence and whose evidence you are choosing to believe.

Like what. There's a perfectly rational reason for the locals to have missed the ID markings. And a perfectly rational reason for the plane to circle. Not everyone who witnessed the Pentagon plane crash was 100% it was an American Airlines jet. Several were several were not.

Happyman42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8

The jet is moving that fast that the cameraman is even confused about where to point his camera. Consider how difficult it would be to see any detail at lamp post height.

This is a Lear Jet at low altitude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwkjXwR6_pQ


I know if I was prosecuting a case whose observations I would distrust more.
I watched the events unfold live on television and it was a long time before we got confirmation of who's jets they were, and iirc it was only confirmed from official sources, certainly the first one anyway as a lot of eyes were trained on the towers for the 2nd one.

As I say it's a small point, but an interesting one. I don't see how you can accept the Pentagon evidence and distrust the other evidence, unless you have other reasons.
Was there a recording of the conversation with the Lear Jet captain? Could you post a link?

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8

The jet is moving that fast that the cameraman is even confused about where to point his camera. Consider how difficult it would be to see any detail at lamp post height.

This is a Lear Jet at low altitude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwkjXwR6_pQ


I know if I was prosecuting a case whose observations I would distrust more.
I watched the events unfold live on television and it was a long time before we got confirmation of who's jets they were, and iirc it was only confirmed from official sources, certainly the first one anyway as a lot of eyes were trained on the towers for the 2nd one.

As I say it's a small point, but an interesting one. I don't see how you can accept the Pentagon evidence and distrust the other evidence, unless you have other reasons.
Was there a recording of the conversation with the Lear Jet captain? Could you post a link?

We appear to be going around in complete circles. I don't distrust or dispute. I think it's perfectly plausible that eyewitnesses couldn't make out the markings.
And Whats more

Two other airplanes were flying near the hijacked United Airlines jet when it crashed in Somerset County, but neither had anything to do with the airliner's fate, the FBI said yesterday.


In fact, one of the planes, a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, was directed to the crash site to help rescuers. The request for the jet to fly low and obtain the coordinates for the crash explains reports by people in the vicinity who said a white or silver jet flew by moments after the crash.
A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed, FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said yesterday, but was not diverted.


"There was a hole in the ground -- that was it," said Yates Caldwell, the pilot who was at the controls of the 10-passenger corporate jet for Greensboro, N.C.-based apparel maker VF Corp. "There was no way to know what it was .... I didn't know there had been a crash until I landed, until I was on the ground in Johnstown."

As to why I put more faith in the Pentagon. I don't just have eyewitnesses to go on, theres the physical damage the plane caused to lightposts and strcutures during it's kamikaze run. Theres the wreckage and body parts on the pentagon lawn. The damage to the Pentagon. All these support the eyewitnesses.

As to the White Lear jet, tell me how does this fit into 9/11? The Crash of United 93?

I'll repeat what I think happened to United 93. United 93 was the last plane hijacked. Passengers spoke to loved ones via celluar and airphones, and learnt about the other attacks. Realising their only hope of survival was to attack the hijackers, a group of passengers fought back. Using improvised weapons and a airhostess trolley, they attempted to storm the cockpit, the pilot lost control of the plane, and it crashed into mine in Shanksville.

Now please explain how this white lear jet could have had any impact on the events of this crash?