9/11 true or false !

[Jam_Man]

9/11 was hardly complicated, just needed willing fanatics and a bit of flight training and money, which he had plenty of.

He didnt "beat" the USA, he struck against them using what was a very lax transport system. Being shot in the head and lobbed in the ocean doesnt sound like he won.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

9/11 was hardly complicated, just needed willing fanatics and a bit of flight training and money, which he had plenty of.

He didnt "beat" the USA, he struck against them. Being shot in the head and lobbed in the ocean doesnt sound like he won.

On the contrary, the logistical planning involved was impressive, (whatever your view of the outcome).

 

[mrsblue]

9/11 was hardly complicated, just needed willing fanatics and a bit of flight training and money, which he had plenty of.

He didnt "beat" the USA, he struck against them using what was a very lax transport system. Being shot in the head and lobbed in the ocean doesnt sound like he won.

"Bit of flight training" haha to try and compare the planes they trained in would be comparing if you had just learnt to drive then you race Lewis in an F1 car and match him .

Impossible I reckon.

 

[Jam_Man]

"Bit of flight training" haha to try and compare the planes they trained in would be comparing if you had just learnt to drive then you race Lewis in an F1 car and match him .

Impossible I reckon.

They learnt in flight schools in Florida.

Flying a plane once its in the air isnt that difficult with a bit of training, the landing and taking off would be impossible.

Guess thats another conspiracy you believe it then.:smile:

 

[mrsblue]

They learnt in flight schools in Florida.

Flying a plane once its in the air isnt that difficult with a bit of training, the landing and taking off would be impossible.

Guess thats another conspiracy you believe it then.:smile:

Have you ever watched "the truth" ?

The jet which supposedly flew into the Pentagon flown by a total rookie who was ridiculed by his flying school as "being unable to fly" yet this very same bloke managed to fly just off the ground at 500mph which top pilots stated they could not do plus the plane manufacture also said the plane would rip itself apart as their limit was 230mph at that altitude ,Yet this guy managed it.

 

[Jam_Man]

Have you ever watched "the truth" ?

The jet which supposedly flew into the Pentagon flown by a total rookie who was ridiculed by his flying school as "being unable to fly" yet this very same bloke managed to fly just off the ground at 500mph which top pilots stated they could not do plus the plane manufacture also said the plane would rip itself apart as their limit was 230mph at that altitude ,Yet this guy managed it.

No I cant stomach conspiracy programmes.

If he was that good a pilot why did he go to flight school in the first place and then be bad when he got there.

Maybe it was aliens.

 

[mrsblue]

No I cant stomach conspiracy programmes.

If he was that good a pilot why did he go to flight school in the first place and then be bad when he got there.

Maybe it was aliens.

Who know's

Yet that plane left zero evidence of a passenger jet,No bodies,no seats,no plane just a jet engine which was definitely not from the passenger jet,also add the fact the damage was clearly made by a smaller object,Then add the Pentagon has 100 cameras yet the FBI refuse to show any film apart from the grainy effort seen,Then add the fact the film seen was from the far parking barrier yet when viewed from the near side barrier the film had been doctored.

Aliens probably.

 

[GBJ]

9/11 was hardly complicated, just needed willing fanatics and a bit of flight training and money, which he had plenty of.

He didnt "beat" the USA, he struck against them using what was a very lax transport system. Being shot in the head and lobbed in the ocean doesnt sound like he won.

I did the 9/11 debate on here a few years ago, so I don't want to rehash old stuff, or go off topic too much, but I have to address this. You're alluding to Bin Laden being responsible, which is the official story. But lets not forget that the FBI actually admitted they didn't have enough evidence to link OBL to the attacks. Hence why it was omitted from his wrap sheet on their "Most Wanted" list. Seems strange considering Condoleza Rice, who was part of the 9/11 commission, claimed there was "substantial evidence" to prove OBL as the mastermind behind the attacks. She claimed this evidence would be revealed in due corse. 13 years later, No evidence has ever been revealed.

On the contrary, the logistical planning involved was impressive, (whatever your view of the outcome).

Not to the 9/11 commission. Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, and close personal friend of G. W. Bush concluded the attacks would have cost around $500k. A few days before the 9/11 attacks, the ISI wire transferred $100k to a one Mohammed Atta. The same Mohammed Atta that supposedly smashed AA11 into the WTC. Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 boys club & close personal lapdog of G. W. Bush, claimed that this was irrelevant & was therefore omitted from the 9/11 report.

 

[GBJ]

No I cant stomach conspiracy programmes.

Totally agree with you, however there are a few which raise brilliant & compelling questions. Questions that the the 9/11 commission refused to look at, or omit from their report. The official story (the 9/11 report) has more holes than a sieve. Playing these things down as "conspiracy" is naive

 

[londonblue]

On the contrary, the logistical planning involved was impressive, (whatever your view of the outcome).

The logistical planning really came down to three things:

1. Training some pilots - very easy since anyone can learn to fly with the right amount of money.
2. Sneaking guns on board some flights - very easy since they were domestic flights and security was lax.
3. Choosing four flights that took off around the right time to hit their targets and around the same time - not too difficult to work out.

It wasn't really rocket science. I reckon I could have done that just as well.

 

[londonblue]

"Bit of flight training" haha to try and compare the planes they trained in would be comparing if you had just learnt to drive then you race Lewis in an F1 car and match him .

Impossible I reckon.

Not really. I fly a PA 28 but had very little trouble flying a Boeing 737 in a simulator. The basic controls are the same, and don't forget, these people didn't need to be able to fly the plane over particularly long distances so they didn't need to know how to use all the bells and whistles, all they needed was the basic controls. Given that the pilot had already taken off and they had no intention of landing, the only difficulty was around knowing how to turn off the auto pilot, which you can learn from any PC Flight Sim game.

 

[londonblue]

Have you ever watched "the truth" ?

The jet which supposedly flew into the Pentagon flown by a total rookie who was ridiculed by his flying school as "being unable to fly" yet this very same bloke managed to fly just off the ground at 500mph which top pilots stated they could not do plus the plane manufacture also said the plane would rip itself apart as their limit was 230mph at that altitude ,Yet this guy managed it.

I'm sorry, but I find that impossible to believe because a plane will be doing more than 230 mph at low altitude during take off. Moreover, commercial airliners are built with such huge contingency margins that that simply can't be true. (For example, did you know a 747 can fly upside down? They don't because it wouldn't do the passengers any good, but Boeing have built a plane with capability far beyond what is needed.)

You are correct that even a good pilot will find it very difficult to fly straight and level at low altitude, but there are two points to that:

1. An ab initio pilot won't realise that, and will assume it's no different to flying straight and level at altitude.
2. These people didn't need to fly straight and level. They were trying to fly into buildings. It didn't matter if they were straight and level or not. They just had to point the nose at the target and keep it vaguely on course.

 

[Jam_Man]

You just have to ask the question very basic question, why?

Why go through the whole World trade centre attack using real planes to then fire a missile at the Pentagon. What happened to the plane that was meant to hit the pentagon, did it just vanish? If you are prepared to fly two in the WTC why not just do the same thing for the Pentagon.

Makes no sense, but conspiracy theories always based on gaps in knowledge and fill in the rest with whatever theories people can dream up.

 

[mrsblue]

I'm sorry, but I find that impossible to believe because a plane will be doing more than 230 mph at low altitude during take off. Moreover, commercial airliners are built with such huge contingency margins that that simply can't be true. (For example, did you know a 747 can fly upside down? They don't because it wouldn't do the passengers any good, but Boeing have built a plane with capability far beyond what is needed.)

You are correct that even a good pilot will find it very difficult to fly straight and level at low altitude, but there are two points to that:

1. An ab initio pilot won't realise that, and will assume it's no different to flying straight and level at altitude.
2. These people didn't need to fly straight and level. They were trying to fly into buildings. It didn't matter if they were straight and level or not. They just had to point the nose at the target and keep it vaguely on course.

The Pentagon plane was supposedly travelling at 500mph approximately 50 feet from the ground!

Air Force pilots have said low level flying at this speed will leave pilots disorientated .
Airplane manufacturers have stated a passenger jet so low at full power will disintegrate as the air is far thicker.
The supposed plane did the impossible which was leaving no trace of huge jets at full power,Experts in aviation have said the lawn would have been torn to shreds and any cars nearby would have been blown around..Yet nothing.
The pilot of this plane also managed incredible flying skill which many top pilots have openly admitted they could not perform such manoeuvres..The pilot descended rapidly then managed to avoid many obstacles whilst doing over 500 then somehow aimed at the one part of the Pentagon which recently had reinforced building work carried out.

 

[mrsblue]

The logistical planning really came down to three things:

1. Training some pilots - very easy since anyone can learn to fly with the right amount of money.
2. Sneaking guns on board some flights - very easy since they were domestic flights and security was lax.
3. Choosing four flights that took off around the right time to hit their targets and around the same time - not too difficult to work out.

It wasn't really rocket science. I reckon I could have done that just as well.

Yeah very easy and lucky the terrorists selected the same day as virtually every fighter jet was on manoeuvres on the other side of America,Even luckier the chain of command was identical to Pearl Harbour where none of top brass could be contacted,Yet the luckiest thing was the Pentagon plane which was picked up by radar 200 miles from the Pentagon,Now the Pentagon has a shoot down policy of any UFO within a 50 mile radius will be shot down by missiles fired from various points from the building,The radar operator gave Chaney a countdown of distance then asked have the orders changed to which Chaney replied no change .

 

[londonblue]

The Pentagon plane was supposedly travelling at 500mph approximately 50 feet from the ground!

Air Force pilots have said low level flying at this speed will leave pilots disorientated .
Airplane manufacturers have stated a passenger jet so low at full power will disintegrate as the air is far thicker.
The supposed plane did the impossible which was leaving no trace of huge jets at full power,Experts in aviation have said the lawn would have been torn to shreds and any cars nearby would have been blown around..Yet nothing.
The pilot of this plane also managed incredible flying skill which many top pilots have openly admitted they could not perform such manoeuvres..The pilot descended rapidly then managed to avoid many obstacles whilst doing over 500 then somehow aimed at the one part of the Pentagon which recently had reinforced building work carried out.

In that case show me the trajectory he would have taken? What incredible flying skill did he manage? Please enlighten me.

After all, you're saying that:

"Air Force pilots have said low level flying at this speed will leave pilots disorientated ."

and

"Airplane manufacturers have stated a passenger jet so low at full power will disintegrate as the air is far thicker."

and

"The supposed plane did the impossible which was leaving no trace of huge jets at full power,Experts in aviation have said the lawn would have been torn to shreds and any cars nearby would have been blown around..Yet nothing."

The first is certainly true, and let's assume for a second that the second and third are also true (although I'm not even close to being convinced on either of those). Either way, they're all general statements about low level flying and say nothing about this particular flight. Moreover, you then you say:

"The pilot descended rapidly"

Which means that he didn't do any low level flying anyway, and makes the points above completely irrelevant.

Please enlighten me because I'm not worthy of your superior knowledge as I only have a PPL.

Now, let's go back to the question of whether the plane would disintegrate at full power at low level. The answer is simply no, it won't, at least not straight away. You seem to think there is some kind of trigger where a plane self destructs once a speed/altitude combination is reached. There isn't, it may happen, but it won't happen straight away, it would take a lot of time not least because of the margin of error manufactured into the aircraft.

A plane may have an upper speed limit that is set, but that doesn't mean it can't go faster than that, and yes it might well be dangerous, but the idiots in charge of the plane at the time didn't really care about that. They probably didn't even know about it. They probably didn't even know the difference between IAS, TAS and GS, but given you're prepared to come on here and expound your theories I'm sure you also don't need me to explain.

Here's a quote from a real pilot on another forum just for pilots. I'm not going to mention the name of the forum through fear of you registering on there:

If you take the power levers and shove them full forward at or near sea level (up to 2,000' for this discussion) your 767/757 will in fact fly at a greater speed than 360 knots indicated airspeed in level flight and/or descent. It will keep accelerating until total drag equals total thrust or until something fails structurally and the jet comes apart (or runs into something solid). Each individual airplane will likely fail at a different speed as they each wear and fatigue differently over their operational lives. Could the 767/757 reach > 500 knots under the stated conditions I'd be comfortable betting a month's wages on "yes".

And here's another:

...for this reason that manufacturers are required to build aircraft much stronger than the minimum acceptable levels under normal operation. And the jets need to last a long time; think decades.

The written airspeed, weight, loading limitations are much lower than what the aircraft could actually perform at-under ideal conditions. This provides the safety margin that is so important for all of us.

 

[Jam_Man]

Again without getting into any discussion about whether the pilot could or couldnt do it, why would the people behind it do it in the first place.

Why fly two planes into the WTC and then just pretend to do it to the Pentagon. If they didnt want to fly one in to it then surely destroying the WTC was plenty enough and they had no reason to bother.

Where did the plane actually go?

No logic there whatsoever. People who believe this stuff generally just want to believe without applying any though....

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I love a good conspiracy theory, and am also a devotee of Alex Jones and 'Infowars', but I just can't buy into the 9/11 Conspiracy. I can believe that Al Qaeda and now IS have shadowy backing from Western or Chinese sources seeking to cause chaos and disruption, but that's as far as I think it could possibly go. All the evidence points to 19 mad ab dabs flying planes into buildings.

 

[GBJ]

I love a good conspiracy theory, and am also a devotee of Alex Jones and 'Infowars', but I just can't buy into the 9/11 Conspiracy. I can believe that Al Qaeda and now IS have shadowy backing from Western or Chinese sources seeking to cause chaos and disruption, but that's as far as I think it could possibly go. All the evidence points to 19 mad ab dabs flying planes into buildings.

To be fair Rust, I think what gives the conspiracy theories so much credence, is the glaring anomolies, confusion & questions that were omitted and/or totally ignored by Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld & the entire 9/11 Commission. For example;

1) The funding for the attacks "couldn't be traced" despite evidence that the ISI wired 1/5th of the suspected cost, to Atta. Kean said it was insignificant. The man responsible for flying American Airlines Flight 11 into the WTC, had received $100k from the ISI (who supposedly work very closely with the CIA), just days before the 9/11 attacks & it's deemed "insignificant!?" It was omitted from the 9/11 report

2) The discrepencies between agencies & Staff. General Myers, who was acting chairman of The Joint Chiefs on 9/11, & Major General Arnold, were high up in the chain of command, gave contradictory timelines as to what actually happened on 9/11 & when they tried to scramble the jets to defend the skies/engage the planes. This lead to...

3) NORAD & The FAA contradicting each other. One outfit saying one thing & the other saying something totally different, regarding times. Now that might seem insignificant, but the 9/11 Report states that the fighter jets were only minutes away from engaging the hijacked aircraft, but were unfortunately too late, as they'd already reached their intended targets. But if the FAA's timeline is to be believed, then the fighter jets would have made their targets, in due time. This has also been totally ignored & omitted from both the media & the 9/11 commission. You cannot have a serious, investigative report about one of the biggest atrocities to happen to your country, & simply ignore the fact that the 2 parties majorly involved on 9/11 gave completely contradicting stories.

4) WTC 7, was totally omitted from the 9/11 report. Now whether you believe it was dodgy or inevitable, surely some ground would have been covered here?

I could go on, but you get the point. I don't for one second believe in mini nukes or holograms or any of that other tin-foil hatted crap, but I do strongly believe that the 9/11 Commission & their report is a complete joke. Then again, maybe it was setup to be? Afterall, the American government ploughed, firstly, $3m into the investigation, which eventually rose to $15m. Meanwhile, the American government had no problem forking out $30m for an investigation into the Monica Lewinski scandal :)

 

[GBJ]

I know this is again off topic, but I just wanted to ask Londonblue a flight related question....

How easy/hard would it be to pull this sequence of events off? Obviously you've got to bare in mind a few things though, you failed a chaperoned test-flight, in a Cessna, 3 weeks previous, and you'd just wrestled the controls off of a 6"4, former US Marine... I've quoted the official story, "executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which, levels out at ground level".

And then goes on to do this.. "Exectutes a sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph".

All this in a Boeing 757. How plausible? Genuine question