• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

9/11 true or false !

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

and Ill ask the same question, if it wasnt a plane, then why did they even bother. They destroyed the WTC, they didnt have to attack the pentagon, that was just an "extra", why go through all that trouble with the WTC and then shoot the Pentagon with a missile?

There may well be plenty of gaps in the information that you quote, and there will always be holes in which to exploit with conspiracies, but it doesnt answer the basic question why they bothered. No one remembers 9/11 for the Pentagon, it had far less impact.

You can keep throwing up information but no one seems to answer that question, or where the actual plane went.

Just because the way they dealt with the investigation may have been flawed, or even manipulated via politics, doesnt mean that the fundamental cause of 9/11 wasnt just what it was, a terrorist attack using planes.

Ill leave it at that as we are certainly off topic and this could be a thread on its own!
 
and Ill ask the same question, if it wasnt a plane, then why did they even bother. They destroyed the WTC, they didnt have to attack the pentagon, that was just an "extra", why go through all that trouble with the WTC and then shoot the Pentagon with a missile?

Well, going by one theory, which i'm not advocating, merely using to answer your question, The Pentagon was hit to reinforce the idea that America was weak. The American people needed the extra security & in addition the government would need detailed information on every person in the country, to keep them safe. Or to spy on them. The theory also goes... A few of the top people, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, were warned in the weeks leading upto 9/11, that The USA & several key points of interest, were the target of very real & plausible terrorist attack, that was labelled as "imminent". (This is actually a fact & came from foreign sources, who were tracking certain groups of Al-Quaeda, but lost these potential terrorists) The theory continues, that the top table decided, to "allow" the attacks to happen. Collateral damage was justified as the rewards would have been for the greater good. I.e. Stellar Wind & the sequential phone tapping that has happened, can be justified in the name of defence (even though Stellar Wind was stopped in 2004(?) due to it still being highly illegal, even in the name of defence. But lets not forget the PSP, The Presidents Surveillance Programme, which to this day still remains totally classified & undisclosed. Well, apart from one bit. The only information we know about the PSP, is it gives the powers-that-be, the permission, for warrantless wiretapping, on internationals who they believe to be related in someway to al-qaeda. It also allowed the growth of The National Defence Programmes, The Patriot Act was born & so were the Department of Homeland Security. Oh and oil. America wanted the oil in the Middle East aswell. That's the theory anyway. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it totally, but lets be honest, it with the shroud of lies, contradictions & anomalies with the official story, who knows what to believe? You believe the official story because the media told you so?

Getting back to The Pentagon, why the actual attack on It? to implement maximum fear factor? The Trade Tower attacks were bad enough, and would have instilled fear, but for one of the most powerful nations on the planet, to have its infamous, military building attacked, would certainly be cause for more alarm & panic. Manhattan wouldnt have been subject to the same "no fly zone" restrictions that The Pentagon would have, which makes it even more impressive/scary, that these ragtag bag of religion of peace, Stone Age animals, led by a cave dweller, could penetrate the United States' main military headquarters so easily.

So, to carry on with the conspiracy angle, which again, im not advocating, supposedly the top table, "allowed" the attacks on the WTC's & the pentagon. OR decided to actually get involved themselves, just in case there were a few Americans left unsure, they would smash a missile into one of the most safest buildings in the Northern Hemisphere, tipping every last person into a state of vulnerability & desperation.

Again, I'm not selling that Theroy, so you haven't got to necessarily buy it. I'm just offering you a theory that has been bandied about for some time. It sounds like the plot of a straight to DVD, Steven Seagal movie, I know. But that's not enough to disprove it as total crap. The fact is, IMO, the official story doesn't make sense, so anything's plausible atm.

There may well be plenty of gaps in the information that you quote, and there will always be holes in which to exploit with conspiracies, but it doesnt answer the basic question why they bothered. No one remembers 9/11 for the Pentagon, it had far less impact.

The Pentagon attack, to some, may not be as memorable, but thats because the images & videos of the WTC attacks are still ingrained in our minds & will probably never go. If there were more footage shown of the actual Pentagon attack, then that would also be fully embedded in your subconcious, I have no doubt. Hopefully my reply above answers this in more detail.

You can keep throwing up information but no one seems to answer that question, or where the actual plane went.

Because no-one truly knows. The transponder on AA77 was switched off & the plane was therefore untraceable. They found the plane's black boxes, which showed the flight path it took (which is what I was asking London Blue about, as many veteran pilots believe the manoeuvres were impossible to someone of Hani Hanjour's abilities). Unfortunately the cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged to be of any relevant use. But they did manage to recover a chair from the cockpit. Oh and a hijackers driving license, which was located in a pile of rubble.

So to answer your question, I really don't know, but I know I'm sceptical of the official story, due to its highly implausible "facts" & the secrecy that surrounds it. Which story is more believable? That a man with not a lot of flight history, who cannot pass a basic control test, pulls off 2 manouvers that many ex-pilots have said they would struggle to do, manages to fly for nearly 40mins unchallenged into one of the most protected airspaces on the planet, and ploughs into the most famous military headquarters on the planet. OR the Americans fired one of their own missiles, at their own property, for their own gain. Both sound like absolute crap tbh, so I refuse to believe one more than the other, just because the media & powers-that-be, said I should.

Just because the way they dealt with the investigation may have been flawed, or even manipulated via politics, doesnt mean that the fundamental cause of 9/11 wasnt just what it was, a terrorist attack using planes.

Ill leave it at that as we are certainly off topic and this could be a thread on its own!

Im not disputing that. I'm saying I believe there's more to it than what we know. We'll probably never know, but I for oneX would welcome an independent investigation, if only to silence the conspiracy rumours for good.

Jam, you should open a new thread and put all of this in there.
 
After several requests here is the very thread.

United 93,

We have all heard the telephone conversations from this flight yet many things are left unanswered.

Above 10,000 feet mobile phones simply do not work yet we heard several very clear calls made on mobile technology,One call which was the stewardess phoning home,Her call was examined under amplification and before she was cut off she whispered "it's a set up".

The crash site was strange as no wreckage was discovered whilst the crater was far too small for a plane of that size,Again no plane no bodies no nothing EXCEPT for a red bandana owned by one of the terrorists,Metal can vaporise so can bodies plus the seats yet a single piece of cloth survived.
 
After several requests here is the very thread.

United 93,

We have all heard the telephone conversations from this flight yet many things are left unanswered.

Above 10,000 feet mobile phones simply do not work yet we heard several very clear calls made on mobile technology,One call which was the stewardess phoning home,Her call was examined under amplification and before she was cut off she whispered "it's a set up".

The crash site was strange as no wreckage was discovered whilst the crater was far too small for a plane of that size,Again no plane no bodies no nothing EXCEPT for a red bandana owned by one of the terrorists,Metal can vaporise so can bodies plus the seats yet a single piece of cloth survived.

It was the same with the 'plane' that flew into the pentagon, the wreckage didn't resemble an aircraft more like a missle or smaller UAV. All very strange events and if you haven't already watch Loose Change as it has loads of theories on 9/11.
 
Should be moved to the pub as it's no more about politics than a copy of The Beano.
 
It was the same with the 'plane' that flew into the pentagon, the wreckage didn't resemble an aircraft more like a missle or smaller UAV. All very strange events and if you haven't already watch Loose Change as it has loads of theories on 9/11.

All of them debunked, mind.
 
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

I would say reasonably easy, because you're assuming the idiot knew what he was doing. He was probably not completely in control when he was performing the manoeuvre, and was doing it without really knowing. You're also assuming he did it in a way that a normal pilot would, which is to ensure the safety and comfort of the people on board. This idiot couldn't give two hoots about those things. You're also assuming he didn't have the gun to the head of the pilot and was forcing him to make the manoeuvre, with the intention of taking over afterwards.

As I said before, the basic controls on an airliner are the same as on a Cessna and any trainer. When I had an hour lesson in a 737 simulator I was amazed at how easy it was to fly. (I even managed a pretty good attempt at landing at Insbruck - which is considered one of the most dangerous landings around, so much so only captains, and not first officers, are allowed to carry it out in real life). Obviously it's all the other stuff that makes them difficult, such as the auto pilot (which is unbelievably difficult to get your head around). Maintaining course is difficult if you're doing it on instruments and have never used them before. It is also difficult to work out the amount of fuel on board, and keep tabs on it. But this guy wouldn't have been doing any of that, he would have just pointed the nose at the target and hoped to keep in on course with the basic controls, and without any thought for the people in the back.
 
Last edited:
Should be moved to the pub as it's no more about politics than a copy of The Beano.

I have it on good authority that this is what some sceptics in the Tory party have nicknamed their manifesto.
The Labour Party have named theirs after their leader - "The Dandy".
 
We lose at the weekend and mrsblue creates a non-SUFC related conspiracy theory thread ... there must only be one explaination! Mrsblue is now being controlled by Ron Martin! :omg:
 
After several requests here is the very thread.

United 93,

We have all heard the telephone conversations from this flight yet many things are left unanswered.

Above 10,000 feet mobile phones simply do not work yet we heard several very clear calls made on mobile technology,One call which was the stewardess phoning home,Her call was examined under amplification and before she was cut off she whispered "it's a set up".

The crash site was strange as no wreckage was discovered whilst the crater was far too small for a plane of that size,Again no plane no bodies no nothing EXCEPT for a red bandana owned by one of the terrorists,Metal can vaporise so can bodies plus the seats yet a single piece of cloth survived.

I'd like you to prove that to me, as someone who works in telecoms, and knows different. Here's a quote for you from the NYT:

According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

The analogy I would use is listening to a radio in the car. The further out of signal range you go, the worse the signal becomes, but there will also be pockets where the reception will improve for a few minutes, and then deteriorate again. There is no definite cut off point: reception depends on local interference, the weather, and many other factors.
 
Some of the calls were also made from the phones on the plane, not mobile phones.

As for the wreckage there was wreckage, and there were human remains found. A bandana could easily survive a crash.

You just have to look online to see how many facts are disputed by conspiracy theorists, and how many theories are debunked.
 
Look what I found on the BBC website. Of course this can't be a coincidence, it must be part of the conspiracy. People knew we were discussing this and have forced the BBC to re-publish this page:

BBC
 
Because no-one truly knows. The transponder on AA77 was switched off & the plane was therefore untraceable. They found the plane's black boxes, which showed the flight path it took (which is what I was asking London Blue about, as many veteran pilots believe the manoeuvres were impossible to someone of Hani Hanjour's abilities). .

So basically the plane did hit the Pentagon then, whether you believe he was capable of doing it or not?
 
Some of the calls were also made from the phones on the plane, not mobile phones.

As for the wreckage there was wreckage, and there were human remains found. A bandana could easily survive a crash.

You just have to look online to see how many facts are disputed by conspiracy theorists, and how many theories are debunked.


True some were made from the radio phone yet several were made from mobiles which at 34000 ft travelling at cruise speed will Defo not work which has been proved beyond doubt.

The very first people on the scene all said "never was a plane crash" yet they retracted their observations after being visited by the FBI.

To the best of my knowledge no bodies were found.
 
True some were made from the radio phone yet several were made from mobiles which at 34000 ft travelling at cruise speed will Defo not work which has been proved beyond doubt.

The very first people on the scene all said "never was a plane crash" yet they retracted their observations after being visited by the FBI.

To the best of my knowledge no bodies were found.

Did you not read Londonblues post above, there is doubt.

Something hit the Pentagon that is certain!

Indeed, the plane as they have the black box.

This is why conspiracies work, people grab the bit of information that fits their belief and ignore all else.
 
At 35000 ft and travelling at 550mph mobile signals just cannot keep up with the planes speed which is science and cannot be disputed.LB's report states it may be possible whilst descending or gaining altitude but once the plane has reached cruise speed there will not be any service whatsoever.
 
At 35000 ft and travelling at 550mph mobile signals just cannot keep up with the planes speed which is science and cannot be disputed.LB's report states it may be possible whilst descending or gaining altitude but once the plane has reached cruise speed there will not be any service whatsoever.

Really. Hate to break it to you but microwaves travel at the speed of light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top