9/11 true or false !

[ooh-andy-ansah]

Too complicated Biggles.

I think you have just been shot down in flames by Manfred von Richthofen

 

[GBJ]

one word OIL, corrupt politicians in bed with the oil companies is the only reason I can come up with, not legal but just in their eyes

Exactly. And it's that answer that goes hand-in-hand, with the premise of 9/11 being "allowed". Collateral Damage for the greater good.

The reasons for invading Iraq were never proven, making it totally illegal, but it's been seemingly dismissed.

Ask yourself a simple question. If those people responsible for the invasion & subsequent years of Warfare in Iraq & Afghanistan, did it using bogus reasoning, for their own potential gains, then What else are they capable of?

 

[Jam_Man]

The first responders to the crash site included a police chief ,reporter,coroner,as well as ordinary civilians,They all said the same thing which was "that was not a plane crash ' all they discovered was thousands of tiny fragments and fully intact passports,driving licenses and the Koran which were all owned by the terrorists!

The black boxes which I understand are on the same section as the aircraft yet they were found 13ft in depth apart which led many to believe even aviation experts they were actually placed there poorly.

Im no expert but I have watched Air Crash Investigators and I thought there is one in the tail (the flight recorder) and one in the cockpit (the cockpit recorder).

Even if they were next to each other getting smashed into the ground at 500mph would mean they could be thrown well away from each other.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Exactly. And it's that answer that goes hand-in-hand, with the premise of 9/11 being "allowed". Collateral Damage for the greater good.

The reasons for invading Iraq were never proven, making it totally illegal, but it's been seemingly dismissed.

Ask yourself a simple question. If those people responsible for the invasion & subsequent years of Warfare in Iraq & Afghanistan, did it using bogus reasoning, for their own potential gains, then What else are they capable of?

Agree with that. The hijackers came from Saudi Arabia - I didn't see Blair & Bush sending troops into Riyadh.

 

[mrsblue]

I think you have just been shot down in flames by Manfred von Richthofen

Red Baron was ace :smile:

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

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.




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.

She claimed to be in Benfleet at the time, a likely story:omg:

 

[mrsblue]

Then we have the peculiar story of none of these hijackers were captured on CCTV !,The footage the authorities used was from a time lapsed camera yet the airport had no such camera!

Many suggest the hijackers were not even on the manifest.

 

[chapperzUK]

Then we have the peculiar story of none of these hijackers were captured on CCTV !,The footage the authorities used was from a time lapsed camera yet the airport had no such camera!

Many suggest the hijackers were not even on the manifest.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/One_quality_video

http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif

 

[londonblue]

That's just it though, the manouvers have been labelled as almost impossible, for experienced pilots, never mind someone who failed the basic control test in a much smaller plane, 3 weeks prior. That, IMO, makes it hard to comprehend him performing such a complicated manouvre in the first place. Now of course there's a possibility he got lucky & blagged his way through the manouvers (twice) but it seems implausible to me. Consider all the factors at the time of him taking the controls, the noise, the adrenaline, the stress, the pressure, the stability of the aircraft, the location of the aircraft in the sky, trying to turn off the transponder, getting to grips with the controls. For a man who couldn't safely control a Cessna, he'd have to of been incredibly lucky to pull this off.

To me this is a complete red herring. Firstly, lets assume the flight test he failed was the absolute basic test. It probably wasn’t, but let’s give your theory the best chance of succeeding.

The basic flight test would be to fly straight (i.e. maintain a heading with reference to a DI – direction indicator - to a level of, say, +/- 5 degrees) and level (i.e. maintain an altitude within say, +/-50’). Neither of these would be important when trying to hit a building. It doesn’t matter if he keeps losing his heading, he would just zig-zag his way there. He would have failed his flight test, but he would still have reached his target. The same is true of altitude.

There is also the “human” factor here. Let’s be honest, do you think he was taking his flight test seriously knowing that it made no difference if he passed or failed?

Also, you don’t know that he got the pilot to do these supposedly amazing manoeuvres (which, based on your description, I pretty much replicated in a simulator when trying to land at Insbruck), and then took over afterwards.

The rest of your “factors” IMO are really just padding to try and make it seem more difficult. For example, turning off a transponder is as simple as flicking a switch. I would also argue that adrenalin would aid his performance, not hinder it.

You say about maintain course, well first of all, he had to ascertain where abouts he was in the sky, exactly. When you're up in a plane on a normal day, it's not exactly easy to pinpoint where you are by looking out of the window. So he'd have to of sussed that out, then plotted a course for Virginia, and try & stick as close to it as possible. We know he flew for at least 40 minutes, unguided & unattended, so he must have been covering a fair distance. Of course he wouldn't care about the fuel or people in the back too much, but he would have cared about trying to stay on course. Which, as mentioned, he had to change twice.

Did you know that some Airline pilots actually use MS Flight Sim (or others – I believe MS have stopped producing their one) for training purposes? They don’t use just them of course, but they sometimes make use of them to learn the layout of unfamiliar airports so then they land there they don’t make a fool of themselves asking for directions when given taxi instructions. They also use them to get a feel for the local area around unfamiliar airports. I would say, although I can’t be certain (and nor can you the other way for that matter), that it is entirely possible that any hijacker could use a flight Sim to familiarise themselves with the areas they need.

Also, how do you know he didn't have a GPS on him? It's a pretty simple piece of equipment. So long as you've programmed a waypoint (in this case a building, probably by grid reference) all you then have to do is turn it on and press the "direct to" button.

 

[mrsblue]

The A320 Hudson crash land has been shown clear as day the world over,Just ask yourself one thing which is if the authorities have many cameras capturing the plane into the Pentagon why not show the images.

 

[chapperzUK]

The A320 Hudson crash land has been shown clear as day the world over,Just ask yourself one thing which is if the authorities have many cameras capturing the plane into the Pentagon why not show the images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXxihf4qBZg

"Clear as day" isn't how I would describe that and that plane was going possible half the speed because the pilot wanted to land safely and not destroy a building.

 

[londonblue]

The A320 Hudson crash land has been shown clear as day the world over,Just ask yourself one thing which is if the authorities have many cameras capturing the plane into the Pentagon why not show the images.

Moving pictures maybe, but stills taken from moving pictures are always crap.

 

[mrsblue]

Moving pictures maybe, but stills taken from moving pictures are always crap.

Let's get things into perspective,

You fly a piddly little Cessna which is like comparing a moped to a Ferrari,You say on the sim you were decent which is great but it's still only a sim.

Over 250 vastly experienced pilots have all declared the manoeuvres the hijackers performed were near on impossible for even the most experienced pilot and impossible for novices.

These 250 pilots have thousands of hours flying the biggest and fastest and some have flown smaller yet even faster fighter jets but they all agree it was impossible.

Today you have disproved telecom experts the world over and disproved vastly superior pilots than you.

 

[Lord Football]

I'm sorry, I may be the arch anti American socialist on here, but I am going to disappoint. It is simply not feasible that the US Government (or its agencies) were complicit in an action that saw 3000 or so its citizens, from its largest city, die horribly on worldwide live TV.

There is not a shred of hard evidence that this was anything other than a well planned terrorist attack. Sooner or later it was going to happen, and sooner or later it will again.

There is plenty of conjecture and facts that have been made up on the spot. The only fact is that people crashed planes into buildings.

 

[Jam_Man]

The A320 Hudson crash land has been shown clear as day the world over,Just ask yourself one thing which is if the authorities have many cameras capturing the plane into the Pentagon why not show the images.

So what are you actually saying happened at the Pentagon bearing in mind they found the black box which showed the plane crashed into the Pentagon?

It is strange there are no videos or pictures of what happened, but they there are no videos of a missile hitting either which surely would have been available too. Even the Hudson River crash videos/pictures are very poor and thats in the heart of NYC.

 

[mrsblue]

So what are you actually saying happened at the Pentagon bearing in mind they found the black box which showed the plane crashed into the Pentagon?

It is strange there are no videos or pictures of what happened, but they there are no videos of a missile hitting either which surely would have been available too.

Oh yes I forgot the black box !

Under scrutiny many things appear incorrect such as the angle of the plane according to the black box was 270ft altitude yet the Pentagon only stands 78ft high so surely the plane would have missed the building altogether .The government stated the plane left gate 26 yet the black box indicates the plane left a different gate on the other side of the airport at a different time!

 

[mrsblue]

I'm sorry, I may be the arch anti American socialist on here, but I am going to disappoint. It is simply not feasible that the US Government (or its agencies) were complicit in an action that saw 3000 or so its citizens, from its largest city, die horribly on worldwide live TV.

There is not a shred of hard evidence that this was anything other than a well planned terrorist attack. Sooner or later it was going to happen, and sooner or later it will again.

There is plenty of conjecture and facts that have been made up on the spot. The only fact is that people crashed planes into buildings.

Pearl Harbour,

The government knew the attack was coming they even knew what day and exact time yet they still allowed it to happen!
The attack was as many suggest the chance for America to try their atomic weapon!

 

[chapperzUK]

Oh yes I forgot the black box !

Under scrutiny many things appear incorrect such as the angle of the plane according to the black box was 270ft altitude yet the Pentagon only stands 78ft high so surely the plane would have missed the building altogether .The government stated the plane left gate 26 yet the black box indicates the plane left a different gate on the other side of the airport at a different time!

Where did you get that from? Genuine question as you haven't posted a single source for any of your claims.

 

[mrsblue]

Where did you get that from? Genuine question as you haven't posted a single source for any of your claims.

Do what I do look for it as "the truth" is out there.

 

[londonblue]

Let's get things into perspective,

You fly a piddly little Cessna which is like comparing a moped to a Ferrari,You say on the sim you were decent which is great but it's still only a sim.

Firstly, I don't fly a Cessna, I fly a PA 28. Don't you ever read?

It was a Sim used by professional pilots for their training. Professional pilots are allowed to log those as "proper" hours in their log books because they are so accurate. (It was actually quite freaky how accurate it was, even down to the noises.)

Moreover, I might fly a small plane, but that gives me infinitely more knowledge and experience than you, but you still feel it appropriate to comment on things as if you're the expert.

Over 250 vastly experienced pilots have all declared the manoeuvres the hijackers performed were near on impossible for even the most experienced pilot and impossible for novices.

I was asked my opinion. I gave it based on my experience. You have just spouted complete and utter rubbish, and have also refused to answer any questions that might actually prove you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Moreover, 250 pilots have said they can't do what that guy did? How many said they could? If, out of the entire world's population of commercial airline pilots, only 250 have said they couldn't do that, then I would say that doesn't prove anything.

Today you have disproved telecom experts the world over and disproved vastly superior pilots than you.

Once again, you need to go back and read. The quote I used was from the NYT and started with the words "According to industry experts".

I've put it in bold in the hope that you won't miss it this (third) time around.

Also, I have quoted pilots from a forum for pilots that debunk another of your ludicrous assertions, but you have (yet again) chosen to ignore them because they don't fit your delusion.