9/11 Discussion Thread

Wow what a sad accident, that certainly fits the bill !

Do you have any pictures of the pentagon crash site proving the holes were as you suggest ? It would certainly help sway me.
 
What are those large spools on the lawn? Why would they be there if a plane had just swept through on the ground?
Keep in mind that the incoming 757 would have looked like this:
http://4everstatic.com/imagenes/674xX/aviacion/aviones/boeing-757-154861.jpg

That's an appropriate photo because it's taken with the left wing slightly down, just like how AA77 hit the Pentagon. The left engine (on the right side of this photo) was pretty much skimming the ground as it hit - we know this because the short concrete wall was broken out like is shown in this computer-generated image. But you can see in the first photo that there would be quite a bit of space between the fuselage and the ground, and the inside span of the starboard wing and the ground.
 
Last edited:
Hey Steve, what do you make of this:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

Some are saying two of the flights never took place, I believe due to/according to BTS records . . . And I believe this is aside from another problem which is that two of the four planes were deregistered a long time before 9/11 and the other two a long time after 9/11, (after people asked about why they hadn't been deregistered). Were these type things something you dealt with or looked at or knew about? If so, how often were those sorts of things wrong?

That is interesting Reece, I think there are issues with the flight manifesto"s as well. Was there ever any security video from the airports identifying the hijackers?

I am going to speculate here, based on the assumption that the correlation between the upgrades of the columns in towers and the impact zones. If it is not a remarkable coincidence, I see no other conclusion that the planes in fact became guided missiles.

Steve might have some input on this, but I don't see how amateur pilots could be so precise. Same with the pentagon, right into the newly reinforced renovations!. Yet another unlikely coincidence? And where was the one that crashed headed? Could it be that the target was intended to be tower 7? Those planes could not have afforded to miss the targets, given the high tech nature and scope, I doubt the vital showpiece would be entrusted to the skills of the pilots actually.

All based on the freaky correlation though. But if true certain conclusions do open up.

It is quite possible those planes were tampered with, rigged. The inconsistencies there may be evidence for something else.

It is the complete vacuum of evidence where their shouldn't be that has caused certain theories to emerge. Even in one of the most heavily surveyed and tightly secured defense installations there is, there is still a massive lack of evidence. That in itself is incredible.
 
. . . And I believe this is aside from another problem which is that two of the four planes were deregistered a long time before 9/11 and the other two a long time after 9/11, (after people asked about why they hadn't been deregistered). Were these type things something you dealt with or looked at or knew about? If so, how often were those sorts of things wrong?

Not sure you're right about this Reece:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3150324/

This Database says, that the planes were Deregistered on/Reason for Cancellation:
N334AA - 01/14/2002 - Destroyed
N612UA - 09/28/2005 - Cancelled
N644AA - 01/14/2002 - Destroyed
N591UA - 09/28/2005 - Cancelled
 

Whoa! wait a sec, what is going on there?

Only two destroyed? The other two took four years?

If you go to Reece's link there is a bit more. And according to that, it is the ones listed destroyed for which there are no records according to original BTS pages. Apparently sometime in 2004 the database returned different results. It listed those two flights, AA11 and AA77 on sept 11 but no tail numbers given, no planes assigned to flights.

It think it deserves some investigation. News to me.
 
Just answering my own questions.

There was a video of Mohamed Atta and Abdul al-Omari at the Portland (Maine) airport, which was released to the press soon after 9/11.

The only photographic evidence showing any of the hijackers was released, (unusually) not by the FBI but by the Associated Press the day before The 9/11 Commission Report was released in July, 2004. Images of Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed – passing through the security checkpoint at Dulles airport before boarding AA77.

There are over 300 security cameras at Dullies. This was the only one? There were no encoding of date, time, location or cam ID that is normally integrated into the security video. The video was shot at 30 frames a second instead of the usually time lapse of security cams.

Released three years later? By the press? No encoded details and at 30 frames a second? From one camera at one airport?

It is quite lucky the officials found that briefcase complete with terrorism manual and a convenient list of the hijackers!

People sure are gullible critters.
 
People sure are gullible critters.
You've accused others of speculation something you've been doing since participating in this thread.
A few posts ago you linked to a video by a stranger, whom I will add was speculating also; which for some reason you found to be more credible than all of the reports by the 9/11 committee and now you've the gall to call others gullible. Why can't you see you're engaging in the same thinking you've accused others?
 
You've accused others of speculation something you've been doing since participating in this thread.
A few posts ago you linked to a video by a stranger, whom I will add was speculating also; which for some reason you found to be more credible than all of the reports by the 9/11 committee and now you've the gall to call others gullible. Why can't you see you're engaging in the same thinking you've accused others?

Because I am not.

Noticed I specified the difference when speculating? I stated it every time I think. Your accusation is something you made up. A strawman. As for that video I said it was interesting. A visible observation. And it certainly is. If you like I can speculate on what that observation could mean.

I am capable of separating what is evidence and what is theory.

I see no evidence of that from you or the others. All you do is try to force things into a preconception that has been sold to you.

I prefer the scientific approach, and let the evidence point the way. However none of you can answer for the science, when you do, you want to avoid the scientific approach all together with regurgitated bullshit that in no way resembles any scientific methodology.

You do not even account for the evidence, you pick and choose despite the incredible weight of the evidence. The pan cake thing is an example, this was refuted about 8 years ago you know? The molten steel issue? That is a well known lie.

You guys have been shown wrong several times over.

Yet you insist on pushing painfully erroneous and outdated and regurgitated blog talking points and with absolutely no original thought what so ever or any sort of supporting evidence.

You, your self actually just drop in every now and then with these irrelevant comments and add nothing but comedy. Like a drunken heckler on the balcony that can't see straight. With the ocassional boooo!

Making a strawman with the moon landing for goodness sake. That is pretty much the entire depth of your position.
 
Last edited:
So I have to retract some of my speculations. But I always said they were!

Show me one single retraction from the skeptics. Even when faced with the massive amounts of eye witness testimony for molten steel and physical forensic on the tower 7 beam. They still won't admit it. They won't admit that it was actually denied by the official investigators as were the micro spheres. They have no problem with the removal of evidence! No problem with any of it, it seems. There is something else about psychology being revealed here I think.

They just shift to a new subject. Have we not noticed?

I challenge any of you to admit to anything you were wrong about!
 
This video certainly proves that the jet was descending quite quickly towards the tower, it was almost certainly at high power too, it looks like it reduced the descent rate before hitting the tower. This means that it would be going really fast when it hit! Airliners are really slick, they normally descend at idle thrust, the problem most students have is slowing them down, if they are levelled off when descending, it takes roughly one nautical mile per ten knots to slow keeping idle thrust. (Conservative but I used it at first) The normal limits were definitely exceeded !

I think they were flown by people, even people with little training is possible, they had some time flying around to get used to how it flew, they weren't being asked to do too much. It is tricky though at high speed, as I said in an earlier post, if you don't get lined up a long way out, it is really difficult to maneuver your way back to the place you want to face. Throw in the 'g' and the wind noise at that speed, it's a really new environment for any pilot I would think ? What or who ever was controlling the planes managed to carry out the mission unfortunately, in spite of any difficulties.

Thanks. Interesting stuff... Aren't sophisticated airplanes like that Boeing able to navigate themselves by GPS? A/P works through GPS these days doesn't it? It doesn't seem anything like that could have been of any use in navigating those planes I'd suspect, however.

I also wonder what kind of technology would need to be employed in order for an airplane's system to be overridden and for it to be controlled remotely.
 
I challenge any of you to admit to anything you were wrong about!
I stated earlier in this thread that the top half of the Windsor Hotel in Madrid was steel-framed. It was only about half of the top half (and the steel-framed part completely collapsed due to fire).

I admitted my error after Craig pointed it out, but I'll admit it again if that makes you happy.
 
I stated earlier in this thread that the top half of the Windsor Hotel in Madrid was steel-framed. It was only about half of the top half (and the steel-framed part completely collapsed due to fire).

I admitted my error after Craig pointed it out, but I'll admit it again if that makes you happy.

Anything else? Just run down the whole list now and get it over with.
 
That is interesting Reece, I think there are issues with the flight manifesto"s as well. Was there ever any security video from the airports identifying the hijackers?

I am going to speculate here, based on the assumption that the correlation between the upgrades of the columns in towers and the impact zones. If it is not a remarkable coincidence, I see no other conclusion that the planes in fact became guided missiles.

Steve might have some input on this, but I don't see how amateur pilots could be so precise. Same with the pentagon, right into the newly reinforced renovations!. Yet another unlikely coincidence? And where was the one that crashed headed? Could it be that the target was intended to be tower 7? Those planes could not have afforded to miss the targets, given the high tech nature and scope, I doubt the vital showpiece would be entrusted to the skills of the pilots actually.

All based on the freaky correlation though. But if true certain conclusions do open up.

It is quite possible those planes were tampered with, rigged. The inconsistencies there may be evidence for something else.

It is the complete vacuum of evidence where their shouldn't be that has caused certain theories to emerge. Even in one of the most heavily surveyed and tightly secured defense installations there is, there is still a massive lack of evidence. That in itself is incredible.

@6:25 :)

 
I stated earlier in this thread that the top half of the Windsor Hotel in Madrid was steel-framed. It was only about half of the top half (and the steel-framed part completely collapsed due to fire).

I admitted my error after Craig pointed it out, but I'll admit it again if that makes you happy.

The admission of molten steel will earn you one like. :)
 
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ho-ho-ho-911-was-an-inside-job,30705/

Seasons greeting from your old friend Santa! My, my, Christmas is just two short weeks away, and everyone here at the North Pole can't wait to deliver presents to all you nice boys and girls this year. Yes, Jolly ol' St. Nicholas hopes you're all being as good as can be!

But today, Santa would like to tell you all about something very naughty, something very, very naughty indeed. Dear children, have you not heard? Why, 9/11 was an inside job! Oh, ho, ho, my, yes it was!

I mean, look at the facts, boys and girls! We already know the Bush administration was itching to go to war in Iraq, now, don't we? Yes, indeed we do, my darling ones! The Downing Street memo proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then you look at the Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, the one headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Ignored! Why, children, they threw that briefing aside like used wrapping paper on Christmas morning, didn't they?

And remember, sweet little ones, Bin Laden never claimed responsibility for the attacks until 2004. Do you know how many years that is, boys and girls? Something was up the government's sleeve, and I'll let you in on a little secret: It wasn't sugar plums, oh, no! No, it was the ties between the bin Laden and Bush families. They've been under the mistletoe for decades, if you catch your old pal Kris Kringle's meaning! I've checked my list twice, and it seems Arbusto Energy, a Bush business, had financial connections to Salem bin Laden, half-brother of Osama. The CIA actually helped create and fund al-Qaeda right around the time Bush Senior was the agency’s director—ho, ho, ho, ol' H.W. stuffed their pockets as fat as a Christmas goose!

Now, as for the towers themselves: The type of steel they used melts at a temperature of about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, and as I'm sure all you smart little boys and girls know, jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees, tops. My darlings, you'd need quite a Yule log to create that extra 1,200 degrees, wouldn't you? Oh, what a glorious sight it would be!

Of course, you do know what they found in the Ground Zero debris, don't you? Would you like St. Nicholas to tell you? Well, then, hop up on his lap and I'll whisper it in your ear: traces of nano-thermite. Does that jingle any bells upstairs? Nano-thermite is an explosive compound, children, capable of making the biggest Christmas cracker you ever saw! So what in the name of Donner and Blitzen was it doing in the world's largest banking complex? Was Lehman Brothers or one of the insurance companies stockpiling explosives? No, children. You find nano-thermite where there's been a controlled demolition. Ever see a controlled demolition, little ones? That's where the whole building plummets straight downward like a plumb bob and every floor is destroyed. Even if the building is struck in the middle.

Oh, dear, perhaps ol' Santa has just gone a little nutty in the head, like dear Mrs. Claus repeatedly likes to claim! Perhaps, much like Mrs. Claus, Santa would be better off pretending the facts don't exist. But you believe, don't you, children? You believe in Santa's theory.

Now, I'm not saying the hijackers weren't naughty. They were very, very naughty indeed. But if you want to really talk naughty, there's not enough coal in Santa's sack for a government that throws its own citizens under the sleigh just to gain political power.

Ho, ho, ho, so many questions dance through Santa's head! What about the six eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying jet immediately after Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, children? Why was debris from the flight found miles away from the crash site? And why did the BBC incorrectly report that 7 World Trade Center had collapsed moments before it actually did? Talk about a snow job, eh, young ones? Why, it's a veritable winter wonderland!

Perhaps this Christmas, Santa will bring some of you very well-behaved—and discreet—young children some nice, shiny new computers to play with, so you can go to 911truth.org, watchLoose Change on YouTube, and see for yourselves. Because if you ask Santa, the truth needs to come out in order to properly honor the memory of the victims and awaken a duped populace, slumbering away in their cozy beds, living in dreamland. We can close our eyes and drink the government eggnog, or we can raise our voices and demand to know what really happened. Isn't that right, boys and girls?

Well, I've still got a lot of toys to build before Christmas Eve, my little ones, but I'll be visiting you all very soon—ho, ho, ho, that is if I'm not jailed as an enemy combatant for asking simple questions!

Because that's what they fucking do, you know.
 
Some of the happenings requires non-critical religious type of belief to be accepted.

"Wallace Miller is the coroner of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. He was among the first people to arrive at the alleged Flight 93 crash site on the morning of 9/11."

"He told author David McCall: "I got to the actual crash site and could not believe what I saw. ... Usually you see much debris, wreckage, and much noise and commotion. This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise. ... It appeared as though there were no passengers or crew on this plane." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 86-87)"

"Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached."

http://shoestring911.blogspot.se/2007/02/many-misquotes-of-wallace-miller.html


From that scene to this tale:


"Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families"

"Around Thanksgiving, Jerry and Beatrice Guadagno of Ewing, N.J., received word that their son Richard's credentials and badge from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been found by the FBI at the crash site.

"It was practically intact," Richard's sister, Lori, said of the credentials, which were returned in their wallet. "It just looked like it wasn't damaged or hadn't gone through much of anything at all, which is so bizarre and ironic."

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp


They keep finding credentials when it suits them.
Bizarre and ironic are mild terms here.
 
Back
Top