Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Just a note.

about 20 years ago the BBC had a show called something like "you have control" where teams consisting of a random celeb and a member of the public where given control of vaious types of vehicle. The show finished every week with the teams on BA's Concorde simulator where they simulated the famous disaster movie scenario "the crew is taken sick, you must land the plane." Not one of these teams, who had never flown before, ever crashed in normal fight. A couple completely screwed the landing but most actually landed ok just overshot the runway. IIRC two teams made perfect landings.

The secret? The automatic pilot can fly the plane solo, all you need to do is give it a heading and it will take you where you want to go. Even Concordes flight landing aids, though not state of the art at that time, were good enough to help bring her down. All you needed to do was know what lines to keep the various pointers between, kids raised on modern video games would have no problems.

So flying a plane is not biggie. The difficult paty is getting airborne and landing, neither of which was a problem in this case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
right... Alqaeda needed "years of planning" to fool the FAA, NORAD, take flight training, learn the ins-and outs of commercial airline systems... and then wait till the LAST MINUTE, the very morning, to buy the tickets?

---

Quote:

---

get real. Mohammed Atta even coincidentally left luggage behind in Boston with a conveneint list of all his accomplices and a terror "training manual".. what an F-cken JOKE!

---

Quote:

---

which somehow miraculously survived the intense fireball of the crash, that supposedly caused a 110 story building to melt and EXPLODE into its footprint in 10 sec.

---

Quote:

---

i mean.. whos the conspiracy theorist?

---

Quote:

---

yah.. and NORAD HAS NEVER BEFORE FAILED TO RESPOND TO 4 SEPERATE altered flights or hijackings either;

---

Quote:

---

that takes government complicity, the hijackers ALONE COULD NOT HAVE PULLED IT OFF!

---

Quote:

---

what kind of sheep would have played it cool and let some alleged "hijacker" compromise the lives of an entire plane, equipped solely with some *box cutters?

---

Quote:

---

engage any number of levers and guages and switches you see..and try to fly that at 200-300 mph and hit 75% of your targets

---

Quote:

---

when their own flight school instructors HERE IN AMERICA said they couldnt fly Cesnas.

---

Quote:

---

for a 757 thats almost phsyically impossible, with air resistance and turbulance,

---

Quote:

---

to the extent that the first firemen on scene admitted on camera that he 'didnt see any signs of a plane crash'... thats worth noting

---

Quote:

---

and the buildings didnt collapse after they were hit... they just burned; AND NOT AT STEEL MELTING TEMPERATURES EITHER! their were people standing outside the impact marks.. how much more 'proof' do you need. all those other floors that were perfectly intact pulvarized in a matter of seconds.. that has NEVER happened before.

---

Quote:

---

all the more remarkable that none of the Pentagons missile defenses were activated

---

Quote:

---

did the buildings collapse immediately when they were hit??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

hmm.. well thats interesting!! i wish someone had said something before..

im gonna have to head on down to my local airport and apply for a Pilot position; ill list "Ace Combat" for SEGA Genesis as my work experience...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

Sarcasm just makes you look like a loser and does nothing to advance your case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

Sarcasm just makes you look like a loser and does nothing to advance your case.

---

i wish i knew a commercial airline pilot.. id ask him why he bothers going through flight school at all.. apparently its a complete waste of time aye?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:


I have no problem with people who believe conspiracy theories except for those who keep propogating that which they know to be untrue or irrelevant in the name of "creating a counter-myth".

---

Quote:

---

Yup, the fire wouldn't reach the temperature to melt steel. But it far surpassed the temperature at which steel loses its strength. And if I see that inaccurate mock-up of the plane's wingspan one more time...

---

Quote:

---

What does it say about a person that they'd rather believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that it was the government of a country that committed mass murder rather than an organisation which identifies itself as being hellbent on destroying and killing Western nations?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
the fact of the matter is, and no one here has any explanation for it otherwise, but Norman Minetta, secretary of the transportation, testified that CHeney refused to shoot down the aircraft headed towards the pentagon! see mr. Minettas testimony yourselves

---

Quote:

---

antimason wrote:
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 13:19
wake up.. it was a conspiracy, there is no conceivable way that alqaeda, acting alone, caused all the damage that day.. its simply not possible

---

Quote:

---

how did building 7 collapse?

---

Quote:

---

why was the CIA running a drill, of the exact same scenario of flying hijacked planes into buildings, the VERY MORNING OF 9/11??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY!

---

Quote:

---

"Structural Conditions Observed

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY!

---

Quote:

---

"Structural Conditions Observed

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
how did building 7 collapse?

---

Quote:

---

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

---

Quote:

---

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

---

Quote:

---

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

---

Quote:

---

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

---

Quote:

---

the cold hard scientific facts: 9/11 was an inside job

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2-

It doesn't and that's where the theory falls apart. Huge conspiracies are hard to keep, the more people involved the greater the risk.

---

Quote:

---

This theory looks at the end result, is unable to believe that the actions taken on 9/11 could ahve brought about that result and then tries to construct a hypothasis that is a more "satisfactory answer."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you have testimony that Cheney was reluctant to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. And that’s your evidence that Cheney wanted to kill thousands of other innocent people? You really have to be a true believer to think that this is convincing evidence for your case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Why don't you just come out and say ...It's INCONCEIVABLE.!!. That way, we could respond in Inigo Montoya like fashion, - " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Fact is, despite your incredulity, that is EXACTLY what happened. 19 highly motivated, well financed and trained men took advantage of us in a way that most of the general populace thought never could happen. Which is EXACTLY why they did it. Because we weren't looking.

---

Quote:

---

That's been addressed, time and time again. Only you ignore the facts.

---

Quote:

---

You presume this is true ? Why ? Kooky internet web sites that offer nothing more than specious 'evidence'? What's so sad about dupes like you is that it diverts our attention away from what really DID happen.

---

Quote:

---

It allows you to ignore the evil that was committed against your country and to members of practically every nation on the planet.

---

Quote:

---

Shame on you. Shame for your gullibility and ignorance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BuffaloPhil:


You idiot. All they had to do was hit the building near the middle. Then, the steel would soften, causing bending. The bending would increase, until the upper floors were forced to fall down on their center of gravity (i.e. straight down, jackhole);

---

Quote:

---

the top thirty to forty stories were falling down into the bottom sixty! Of course the damn building fell in less than twenty seconds! Dear God, why are you still propagating this crap?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it."

Amen, brother. The #1 Political response to any event: "How can we spin this to our advantage?"

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:

Quote:

---

antimason- the cold hard scientific facts: 9/11 was an inside job

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you have testimony that Cheney was reluctant to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. And that’s your evidence that Cheney wanted to kill thousands of other innocent people? You really have to be a true believer to think that this is convincing evidence for your case.

---

this is why you werent in charge: shoot down the plane and lose the passengers, or LOSE THE PLANE ANYWAY and lose the targeted impact zone aswell! think about it... it hurts the official rediculous theory because Cheney is shown allowing the terror attack to occur! just as their political motives dictated

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

---

“The structural analyses of this study on components, subsystem, isolated exterior walls and cores, and global models of the WTC1 and WTC2, as well as observations from photos and videos taken during events, showed that the tower collapses were caused by combined effects of the structural and thermal insulation damage from aircraft impact and the subsequent intense fires. [[]emphasis mine[]]”
-- Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and fire, National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2-

It doesn't and that's where the theory falls apart. Huge conspiracies are hard to keep, the more people involved the greater the risk.

---

sure buddy.. the US government has no secrets?? wheres your proof.. and is the crux of your arguement?? get real

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:


So you would just kill them without hesitation? Glad you'll never be in charge of anything important. It would scare me if it was an easy decison.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The building was designed to take a hit from a 707 fluing at low speed lost in fog not a 757 with an almost full fuel load traveling at over 400mph.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats what the national institute for propoganda and disinformation claims.. that doesnt make it proven. you can plead to me all day that the impact from the jet, followed by some MINIMAL JET FIRES that burned at most 1000degrees, for 1 hr, to have caused 110 stories to collapse at freefall speeds... but it would never have fallen that way. see your ignoring what even the designers of the building said, which is that they designed it so that a plane crash would MERELY PUNCTURE THE BUILDING! it never would have collapsed controllable into its own footprint- the odds are slim to nil. i suggest you read what the actual engineers have to say... but then no one has talked to the designers since 9.11, since the lead engineer died IN THE TOWERS THAT DAY.. conveniently!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
You may be an idiot but I love the hat, is that real tinfoil? Glad to see you are a traditionalist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats what the national institute for propoganda and disinformation claims.. that doesnt make it proven. you can plead to me all day that the impact from the jet, followed by some MINIMAL JET FIRES that burned at most 1000degrees, for 1 hr, to have caused 110 stories to collapse at freefall speeds... but it would never have fallen that way. see your ignoring what even the designers of the building said, which is that they designed it so that a plane crash would MERELY PUNCTURE THE BUILDING! it never would have collapsed controllable into its own footprint- the odds are slim to nil. i suggest you read what the actual engineers have to say... but then no one has talked to the designers since 9.11, since the lead engineer died IN THE TOWERS THAT DAY.. conveniently!

---

There is no “national institute for propaganda(sic) and disinformation.” That’s a product of your delusional fantasies. The agency in question is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And the document I cited, the one you ignored, contains a detailed scientific structural analysis and computer simulation results that demonstrates conclusively that the accepted process of the collapse is not only possible, but probable. You’re obviously very committed to your fantasy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
AM

I don't think I'm a dupe of the administration. And I tend towards thinking some people in the administration had at a minimum a general warning and kept silent for their own purposes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Even ignoring the fact that 1) it is possible to knock down a building with a plane

---

sure, 3 planes, 4 buildings, 75% of their targets, all completely destroyed but the pentagon... it may be possible, but WHAT ARE THE ODDS??? seriously..

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

2) the unlikelyhood that such a conspiracy could be maintained your theory has a far bigger problem.

---

alqaeda can pull off conspiracies, but intelligence agencies with their multi=billion dollar budgets and compartmentalized security clearances cant.. right

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That problem is that according to your theory the ultimate objective of the attack is not to destroy the building but to create a political environment that could be used to inact legislation like the patriot act and start the Iraq war. I would contend that crashing the planes into the buildings alone would have achieved that objective, even if the buildings hadn't fallen the result would have been hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars of infrastructure damage.

---

if the buildings hadnt collapsed, you think we'd be where we are today?? 9/11 barely works for the "war on terror", and has almost no relevance to Iraq... if the buildings hadnt collapsed and shocked the hell out of americans, it would have been just another oklahoma city bombing. besides.. they needed to destroy the evidence.. like the plane reconstructions. (since we might find out they were military craft)

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In many ways having the towers still standing would have served as a even better advertisement for the administrations policies since they would have been an even more visable symbol that America had been attacked. If we believe as you do that the majority of the added conspiritors are involved in some way with demolishing the buildings then why bother?

---

to remove the evidence.. and as Hitler said "it is much easier to believe a big lie than a small one"

---

Quote:

---

willing to die for what? Allah? id sure like to see Atta explain himself in the afterlife, when he is asked why he was seen at a strip club, wearing gold and drinking hard liquor just days prior to the attacks; im sure thats how a TRUE devout muslim becomes a martyr for his god

---