Topic: 9/11 derail: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) (Read 6248 times)

Friend of mine, who has flown Mirage 2000 and F-16s in the Hellenic Air Force, was laughing at the supposed "stunt" of the passenger plane. He said the hit is way more consistent with a cruise missile or, if it was a plane, perhaps a remote controlled one.

Another friend, who is now co-pilot in an Airbus, also questions how is that even possible... he is not sure he could have done it himself so "cleanly" because there are turbulences, obstacles and stuff which would render the feat almost impossible (meaning using the jet to break through the side of the building the way it was done). He believes that so low clearance would have been extremely risky for colliding with terrain objects that would jeopardize the objective (hitting the pentagon) and that there is simply no reason why one would do it that way - plus the impact momentum and blast would be better if one crashed it while diving at an angle.

And on top of that, the maneuver that pilot did was pretty impossible. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

If you know any pilots, ask them what's the chance that an amateur pilot (hijacker), would crash the plane HORIZONTALLY on the pentagon, like he was landing or something... This is a very difficult maneuver to perform, especially in a city environment with poles, trees etc (unlike an airport which has much horizontal clearance in most directions).

If you go too slow, you'll stall the plane and crash. If you go too fast, you can't maneuver it as you like through the terrain (which is still mighty difficult in itself with a huge passenger plane, unlike a fighter jet).

Normally an amateur hijacker would fly higher than the pentagon, spot it, then dive into the pentagon with an angle and crash the plane in this manner.

It's really interesting.

nobody reacted on my theory

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

Seriously, people need to wake up.

false flags, false falgs everywhere...


Just for the fun, rename this thread to "Reptilian The truth behind 911 thread" 

Explosives!

Meaningless yes, but at lest correct. It's important when you debate to not blatantly lie. It shows you have a deluded agenda or you are an ignorant idiot.

One thing that I did not look into is radiative heat. Having one surface burn at 500C is not the same as having a volume burn at 500C. The heat is transferred by several processes, one of which is IR radiation. Several floors are burning for about an hour and any trapped heat will cause either violent air ventilation due to convection of heated air, or hot-spots that have temperatures above individual fires.

Regarding the bolded point, did you notice how the top part of the S. Tower falling over and then suddenly the building starts to fall straight down? This made no sense to me, as clearly the least resistance would be to continue falling over and not go straight down. Looks like I wasn't the only one to notice that.
 
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/
snippet:

Further: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
snippet

Reading it is Orwellian all the way down.

First of all, the heat would mostly go upwards

Secondly, the fuel would not last for hours, as the wings (which act as fuel containers) can be assumed to be ripped apart, so the fuel is mixed with the air everywhere and therefore would combust within several seconds, minutes at most.

At most, the temperature due to the jet fuel fire would increase by about 200 degrees celsius, which is not even nearly enough to melt or even weaken steel.

Also, most of the heat would be absorbed by the air in the first place anyway.

by the way, this tower did not collapse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

note that fireworks in fact do heat up the building much more than jet fuel (at least in those quantities) for the simple fact that the fire is sustained for a much longer period of time. Therefore the air will become much hotter and thus the structure of the building gets more time to absorb the heat, instead of the heat just blowing away with the wind.



all nice numbers, but they're meaningless,

to know how much the steel really heats up, you don't need to know how hot kerosine burns, you need to know how much energy (heat) is added to the structure of the building.

You have to consider the amount of fuel burnt, the efficiency of the burning process (there's 3 possible chemical burn processes of jet fuel depending on how well the fuel was mixed with oxygen), the total mass of all the objects that were heated up including the air (which will absorb most of the heat, by the way), the specific heat of all the object heated, and from that calculate the deviation in heat, in other words how much things heat up from the temperature they started out at.

Since the building is quite large, and the fire was at the top of the building, it's not possible for all the steel in the building to have absorbed nearly enough heat to weaken by a large enough margin to allow structural failure.

on top of that, i would assume a building like that to have a large amount of redundancy in support so that even if the steel was somehow weakened to even 20% of their normal support it would still be able to stand without a problem. A certain level of redundancy is even required in all buildings as a safety measure.

even without the evidence of planes, and the fact that a single planestrike does not make a tower collapse, the main point of evidence is this:

It is a very hard science to make a tall building explode in a controlled demolition in such a way that it does not damage anything near it. (Or at least does minimal collateral damage). The only way to make a building collapse in a controlled way is by many small timed explosions. It takes a team of highly specialized engineers weeks if not months of preparation to get it right.

Apparently two planes managed to do it just like that. Quite odd, isn't it?

If you don't buy my story about controlled demolition, why don't you check out videos on youtube and see how often it goes wrong? Note that those jobs are always done only by experts, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The odds of having a plane strike cause a perfect collapse (or any kind of collapse at all) is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

note especially the second building, this is what happens VERY OFTEN, and this is what you would expect to happen when only the top part of the building is severely damaged, the top will just slide off, and do no damage to the bottom. Especially if the top part is not nearly as heavy as the bottom part (which is always the case, because the bottom has much more support, and is therefore heavier, not to mention the top part only a few stories, it did not have nearly enough mass to destroy the complete tower beneath it). Trust me i'm an engineer. The top part would need to be at least 40 times heavier to be able to crush the bottom part like it did, unless all the support was blown away at precisely timed intervals with small explosions starting at the bottom of the tower.

Max Cleland is a former US senator who served on the 9/11 commission:

quote from wikipedia:

he was quoted as saying in November 2003: "I... cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."[20] He called the 9/11 Commission a "national scandal." [21][22]

On the other hand you have structural engineers and architects and like Richard Gage putting their reputations on the line with peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

Richard Gage was interviewed on CSPAN earlier this month. ...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtGhjzI9rw4

You are avoiding a witness who was in a key location. Other witnesses btw have verified his claims. Your argument is making very little sense. It is like a combination of more logical fallacies than I care to look up.

This is not a matter of believing what anyone says, per say. Rather it is about investigating their claims, and OPENLY. That was not done.
The biggest crime in our history had no investigation until the families forced the administration into doing so and then they put Henry Kissinger in as the head!
Until of course his conflict of interests forced him to resign (or be removed.)

So many people were murdered that day and the investigation was avoided at all costs. We should have an open investigation, still.

pa - It certainly appears so. The amount of money spent on defense, intelligence, etc. really makes one wonder where it is spent. And controlling public opinion is of paramount importance. I just hope those duped into being shills/trolls start to look at the bigger picture. Thanks for the links.

IAS

I discount my own testimony as a witness. I would never ask anyone to take my single version as truth as I am human and fallible. Do you believe yourself?

In case you haven't noticed people believe things that they did not partake in so seriously, that they die to prove their sincerity (in honestly believing a lie).

Like skyscraper collision assisted group suicide...

One of the reasons it is so difficult to have a serious, logical discussion regarding the 9/11 attacks is that the US government (and likely other interested parties) have hired shills/trolls to infiltrate and disrupt such discussions. See: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/01/13/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

It's worth reading Cass Sunstein's Orwellian paper on "Cognitive Infiltration": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

What do you guys think of General Wesley Clark's approach to 911?

-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4DgsCqP8U

He seems quite legit, a true american patriot that does not have obvious reason to lie about what he experienced at the highest levels of the State.




+ what about Larry Silverstein, who bought WTC for a nugget barely a year before the attack (whilst engaging in renovating and putting those buildings in adequate standards), but added a special article about "terrorists attacks" in the $5+ Billion insurance policy not even a month before it happened?

So IMHO, the main reason WTC went down was because the costs of dismantlement or removing the asbestos were just huge. And so it was somehow just better to blow it up, accusing some terrorists, strengthening the laws (patriot act?! NSA spying?!) to control the population and spread fear amongst it, make profit, and find excuses to mess with middle east countries. Easy.  

edit: and so imho to find the Who, one must not only focus on the How (suicidal beard-gang members with cutters?!): its more about the Why. And one can then argue that 911 did provide a huge hedge to america's puppetmasters, at least for that last decade..

I'm not sure what your intent is, but basically you ignored my replies and then bring up Red Herrings. Are you trained to avoid discussion?

The towers had an inner steel core, an incredibly large one. That building was designed to withstand multiple hits as it did.
How many theories has the government now put down regarding the collapse? They must be up to 4 or 5 I believe. And few are buying it.
Again, buildings don't just fall down on themselves. Perhaps one can fall over given enough force, but not implode upon itself at free fall speed.
There is a reason architects, engineers and professionals all over the world are involved in this.
There is a reason that most people don't believe the governments story.

Your mind is made up and is not open to discussion. Your job here is apparently served.

Its about sharing

Are you serious? Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background? Is this just another Ad Hominem attack?
The guy toured the world telling his story and the so called government committee didn't even include his first hand testimony.

I wonder: does the order still stand?