9/11 Attacks

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

Let's play a game.

Pretend you're out walking, you see a big plane crash into the ground, and then you see a small white jet fly over the same location and fly off. Let's say it's the exact same plane that I've post a picture of for your convenience (because that's the actual plane, with the actual markings) - now, given that plane flys from 3000 feet to 1500 feet and you're looking up, how much of the the reg do you expect to be able to discern? Some of it? None of it? So do I doubt that they could'nt discern the markings? Not at all. I wouldn't expect them to be visible to someone on the ground - here it is near the ground landing and you can just about make out the reg.



Here's the same model plane, this time in nice clear US Coastguard livery - can anyone tell me the reg?

Happyman42

I think the key difference between you and me is that I distrust the 'source' of the evidence, not it all, but some of it.
After all an American Government covering up is not exactly unknown is it?
It's all very neat that you accept the 'official' version, I and others have tremendous difficulty doing that.
How does the Jet feature in 9-11? 'If' there was something sinister about events that day and those passengers where looking like they might get the 93 safely on the ground (thereby exposing the hijackers to cross examination and questioning,) wouldn't it be in your interests as 'the culprit' to make sure that plane never got back safely?
Now you may say that's the thoughts of a CT loon, I would say it is a reason to prove conclusively what that Lear jet was up to.
Is there a recording of the conversation ATC or not? I would just like to know.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is there a recording of the conversation ATC or not? I would just like to know.

Are you likely to trust the source if there is? The FAA is a government body after all. There's a 'very neat' position to take.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the key difference between you and me is that I distrust the 'source' of the evidence, not it all, but some of it.

And your problem is that you don't understand that I don't swallow everything I am told blindingly.

After all an American Government covering up is not exactly unknown is it?
It's all very neat that you accept the 'official' version, I and others have tremendous difficulty doing that.
How does the Jet feature in 9-11? 'If' there was something sinister about events that day and those passengers where looking like they might get the 93 safely on the ground (thereby exposing the hijackers to cross examination and questioning,) wouldn't it be in your interests as 'the culprit' to make sure that plane never got back safely?

Okay heres a few leaps from your logic here.

How did the US government know that this was the one flight that resistance would break out, and had the foresight to prepare for?

What would the hijackers know? They were Muslim Fanatics, are you suggesting that they were aware and had contact with Osama's CIA handlers or something?

How exactly is an unarmed Lear Jet going to change the situation even if the passengers did seize control of the plane?

Now you may say that's the thoughts of a CT loon, I would say it is a reason to prove conclusively what that Lear jet was up to.
Is there a recording of the conversation ATC or not? I would just like to know.

There's the quote from the pilot in the article I mentioned. If you're automatically suspicious of government links why are you going to trust a conversation with ATC?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

No I did not.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

Who asked the pilot to fly either dangerously or erratically? The skies were being cleared - the ATC knew what other aircraft were in the vicinity - they also knew that flight 93 had gone off the radar, so they just wanted confirmation of their suspicions?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Let's play a game.

Pretend you're out walking, you see a big plane crash into the ground, and then you see a small white jet fly over the same location and fly off. Let's say it's the exact same plane that I've post a picture of for your convenience (because that's the actual plane, with the actual markings) - now, given that plane flys from 3000 feet to 1500 feet and you're looking up, how much of the the reg do you expect to be able to discern? Some of it? None of it? So do I doubt that they could'nt discern the markings? Not at all. I wouldn't expect them to be visible to someone on the ground - here it is near the ground landing and you can just about make out the reg.



Here's the same model plane, this time in nice clear US Coastguard livery - can anyone tell me the reg?

All of them noticed it was a small white jet, all of them noticed that it had rear engines, but none of them could see for definite if that rear engine had markings?
None of them mentioned that it had stripes, the words are 'no discernible markings' and 'no identifying marks'.
Wouldn't the fact that they mentioned markings mean that they had looked for them? Wouldn't your answer be: I didn't look for markings or some such?
Nobody is talking about reading the reg, they plainly say 'a small (mid sized) white jet'

To Diogenes and Alastair: Jesus H, was there a recording presented or not. I would have thought it was proceedure to record a conversation with a plane being asked to investigate an accident.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

All of them noticed it was a small white jet, all of them noticed that it had rear engines, but none of them could see for definite if that rear engine had markings?
None of them mentioned that it had stripes, the words are 'no discernible markings' and 'no identifying marks'.
Wouldn't the fact that they mentioned markings mean that they had looked for them? Wouldn't your answer be: I didn't look for markings or some such?
Nobody is talking about reading the reg, they plainly say 'a small (mid sized) white jet'

To Diogenes and Alastair: Jesus H, was there a recording presented or not. It's not a trick question.

White jet? Check
Small/middling sized? Check
Evident engines at rear? Check
Discernible markings? Not if you're anywhere underneath the thing - no.
In the right place at the right time? Yep - according to the pilot, the plane's owner, and the FAA.

Stripes? Dunno - are they considered discernible markings? Do they stop a plane being considered white?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Stripes? Dunno - are they considered discernible markings? Do they stop a plane being considered white?

I'm sure a Zebra reckons it's what makes him different to a pony.

Yes they are markings, if you are investigating an event like this and you want as much detail as you can get.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm sure a Zebra reckons it's what makes him different to a pony.

Yes they are markings, if you are investigating an event like this and you want as much detail as you can get.

Well - if the witnesses decide to describe the plane as "white, and without any stripes", then it'll become an issue - otherwise the specific plane that was known to be in the exact spot looks exactly like what they do describe. Make of that what you will.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Well - if the witnesses decide to describe the plane as "white, and without any stripes", then it'll become an issue -

You would say that, wouldn't you

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You would say that, wouldn't you

It's hard to argue with the facts.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

To Diogenes and Alastair: Jesus H, was there a recording presented or not. I would have thought it was proceedure to record a conversation with a plane being asked to investigate an accident.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

NORAD and FAA conversations from the day. You can even listen to the tapes.

Happyman42

Scenario 1
Woman: I was attacked by a white man, your Guardship
Guard: Did he have tatoos or other distinguishing marks?
Woman: They were not discernible

Scenario 2
Woman: I was attacked by a white man, without tatoos or other distinguishing marks, your Guardship.
Guard: :eek:

Which one sounds more real iyho?

Soveriegn

A missile hit the pentagon, there were explosives in the towers and flight 98 was shot down.

Hell, don't take my word for it take the word of the fockers involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LJXoXpAHE

My name is URL

Soveriegn wrote: »

A missile hit the pentagon, there were explosives in the towers and flight 98 was shot down.

Hell, don't take my word for it take the word of the fockers involved.

Missile can mean any projectile flying through the air, to be fair.. When a footballer gets hit with a coin the coin is often referred to as a missile

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

Scenario 1
Woman: I was attacked by a white man, your Guardship
Guard: Did he have tatoos or other distinguishing marks?
Woman: They were not discernible

Scenario 2
Woman: I was attacked by a white man, without tatoos or other distinguishing marks, your Guardship.
Guard: :eek:

Which one sounds more real iyho?

Alternatively. Officer I was hit by car. Did you get any details. It was white fairly new five door? Make? No idea. Registration. No idea.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

Missile can mean any projectile flying through the air

This, and also, this incredibly complex and devious plan, carried out so expertly and its brought down by some guy opening his gob?

dave 27

what i dont understand is why there was thermite all over the area?

Soveriegn

My name is URL wrote: »

Missile can mean any projectile flying through the air, to be fair.. When a footballer gets hit with a coin the coin is often referred to as a missile

I agree, to be fair. But if that's what he meant, why did he quickly say "plane" ?

It was a slip of the tongue. He meant missile.

There were others in the video too :eek:

alastair

The FAA controller who asked the VF Corp jet to look at the 93 crash site:



Stacey Taylor

“I had another airplane [other than Flight 93] that I was working. And I told him, I said, ‘Sir,’ I said, ‘I think we have an aircraft down.’ I said, ‘This is entirely up to you, but if you’d be willing to fly over the last place that we spotted this airplane—and see if you can see anything.‘… So he flew over and at first he didn’t see anything and then he said, ‘We see a great big plume or a cloud of smoke.’”

http://www.msnbc.msm.com/id/14754701/page/0/

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

I agree, to be fair. But if that's what he meant, why did he quickly say "plane" ?

Because it was a plane?

Just saying.

Di0genes

dave 27 wrote: »

what i dont understand is why there was thermite all over the area?

Because there wasn't. The "Scientist" who found the thermite under dubious circumstances is a Mormon who's only published paper isn't on physics it's a treatise on the Archaeology evidence "proving" Christ visited the Mayans.

Happyman42

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

NORAD and FAA conversations from the day. You can even listen to the tapes.

Thanks, had a quick wade through that, I want to read it again after me dinner.

Is there any tape of FAA conversations with normal taffic? Like with the Lear up until it became involved?

squod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

Video from the three terabytes of data recently released (freedom of information) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation.

DublinWriter

Di0genes wrote: »

Because there wasn't. The "Scientist" who found the thermite under dubious circumstances is a Mormon who's only published paper isn't on physics it's a treatise on the Archaeology evidence "proving" Christ visited the Mayans.

Putting that aside for one moment, check out the data from the satellite imagery made days after the attack that showed the heat signature was way above what you'd normally expect from the smouldering remains of a collapsed building - only thermite produces such a thermal signature.

Firemen clearing the debris in the days following the attack reporting seeing rivulets of molten metal under the initial sub-strata of the debris.

The Twin Towers were designed to sustain a direct impact from a Boeing 707 - the largest commercial airliner in service at the time of design. One of the original architects described such an impact on the lattice-nature of the outer structure as being like a pencil poking through a mosquito net.

The building would retain physical integrity after such an incident, so the only remaining explanation is it that the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports of the outer skeleton.

I'd buy this theory but for two crucial facts:

1. BOTH buildings collapsed at free-fall speed. Had you dropped a coin from the top floor of either building the rate of fall would have been the same, something in the order of 9.6 seconds. The big problem here is why did the undamaged 50+ floors under the points of impact not offer any resistance to the collapse of the upper floors?

2. The Kerosene jet-fuel would have burnt off immediately. Even attaching itself to the outer superstructure, it couldn't have burned at a sustained rate that could weaken cast-steel.

Secondary to above arguments are the added weirdness of the scientific data that showed massive seismic activity in the two seconds prior to the collapse of each building, the vastly improbable event that all three buildings collapsed neatly into their own foot print and lastly the finding of a hijacker passport in all the debris.

I'm quite disappointed in you Di0genes as you seem more intent on rubbishing the messenger than the message, classic intelligence service disinformation technique. A true sceptic wouldn't resort to such means.

squod

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/4/170XJFF2KTQ


More stuff I haven't seen before.

squod

DublinWriter wrote: »

1. BOTH buildings collapsed at free-fall speed........

the vastly improbable event that all three buildings collapsed neatly into their own foot print..............
.

This vid (missing some scenes again) shows a freefall and neat footprint........

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/9/VyhMTOdRnRo

alastair

DublinWriter wrote: »

Putting that aside for one moment, check out the data from the satellite imagery made days after the attack that showed the heat signature was way above what you'd normally expect from the smouldering remains of a collapsed building - only thermite produces such a thermal signature.

Firemen clearing the debris in the days following the attack reporting seeing rivulets of molten metal under the initial sub-strata of the debris.

The Twin Towers were designed to sustain a direct impact from a Boeing 707 - the largest commercial airliner in service at the time of design. One of the original architects described such an impact on the lattice-nature of the outer structure as being like a pencil poking through a mosquito net.

The building would retain physical integrity after such an incident, so the only remaining explanation is it that the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports of the outer skeleton.

I'd buy this theory but for two crucial facts:

1. BOTH buildings collapsed at free-fall speed. Had you dropped a coin from the top floor of either building the rate of fall would have been the same, something in the order of 9.6 seconds. The big problem here is why did the undamaged 50+ floors under the points of impact not offer any resistance to the collapse of the upper floors?

2. The Kerosene jet-fuel would have burnt off immediately. Even attaching itself to the outer superstructure, it couldn't have burned at a sustained rate that could weaken cast-steel.

Secondary to above arguments are the added weirdness of the scientific data that showed massive seismic activity in the two seconds prior to the collapse of each building, the vastly improbable event that all three buildings collapsed neatly into their own foot print and lastly the finding of a hijacker passport in all the debris.

I'm quite disappointed in you Di0genes as you seem more intent on rubbishing the messenger than the message, classic intelligence service disinformation technique. A true sceptic wouldn't resort to such means.

The buildings didn't collapse at free-fall:


The aviation fuel wouldn't have lasted that long (a few minutes according to the NIST report), but it was sufficient to set fire to an entire building's worth of flammable material

The seismic recording don't show anything of note prior to the collapse of the buildings. The peak seismic activity coincides with the rubble hitting the ground:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcc_Bwh4uTE

Finally - the buildings did not fall inside their own footprints.

alastair

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

Video from the three terabytes of data recently released (freedom of information) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation.

Bit callous of the reporter to be stepping over all the dead bodies in the wtc 7 lobby like that. Oh wait...

Also worth noting the frequent explosion-like sounds - and without any demolition charges at play. Who'd have thought?

Di0genes

Firemen clearing the debris in the days following the attack reporting seeing rivulets of molten metal under the initial sub-strata of the debris.

Molten metal. Not molten steel. That could be motel aluminium.

The Twin Towers were designed to sustain a direct impact from a Boeing 707 - the largest commercial airliner in service at the time of design. One of the original architects described such an impact on the lattice-nature of the outer structure as being like a pencil poking through a mosquito net.

A direct impact from a low fueled accidental impact from a plane circling in the fog . Compare these two things. Accidentally bumping into someone with a rugby tackling

The building would retain physical integrity after such an incident, so the only remaining explanation is it that the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports of the outer skeleton.

Yes steel supports weakened by the huge fires.

I'd buy this theory but for two crucial facts:

1. BOTH buildings collapsed at free-fall speed. Had you dropped a coin from the top floor of either building the rate of fall would have been the same, something in the order of 9.6 seconds. The big problem here is why did the undamaged 50+ floors under the points of impact not offer any resistance to the collapse of the upper floors?

Yeah see the dust cold collapsing faster than the buildings, you've just exposed that you don't understand physics.

2. The Kerosene jet-fuel would have burnt off immediately. Even attaching itself to the outer superstructure, it couldn't have burned at a sustained rate that could weaken cast-steel.

Source?

Secondary to above arguments are the added weirdness of the scientific data that showed massive seismic activity in the two seconds prior to the collapse of each building,

you mean the collapse of buildings? Any CD requires short quick seismic bursts with each floors charge.

the vastly improbable event that all three buildings collapsed neatly into their own foot print

They didn't

and lastly the finding of a hijacker passport in all the debris.

The hijacker passport wasn't the only personal ID found at ground zero.

I'm quite disappointed in you Di0genes as you seem more intent on rubbishing the messenger than the message, classic intelligence service disinformation technique. A true sceptic wouldn't resort to such means.

Meanwhile you're asking me to yet again point out that the claims you made above are anything but new or right. I'm disappointed at your colon's ability to present tired already exposed as nonsense as something akin to news.