Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1921    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:37 AM

Sky, in a room full of 100 people, broken down like that chart.  How many completely believe the official explanation?

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

Regarding one poll, in a room of 100 people, only 5 blamed the government for planning and carrying out the 911 attacks.

In what universe, on what deluded planet is that an answer to that question?

Sky, in a room full of 100 people, broken down like that chart.  How many completely believe the official explanation?


It's a VERY simple question.  I'll be a good sport and let you have another attempt

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

which is understandable considering that intelligence warnings issued from around the world have mentioned Muslim terrorist and their preparation for a huge attack on the United States.

I agree.  There were over 20 warnings that year.  Some  INCREDIBLY specific (I'm thinking of the threat to attack "landmarks" from a group of militants "based in the US", The Arabic transmission on September 10th saying that tomorrow is "go" or something like that.

20 or so warnings, lots of information that by August 2001 the American Government should have had a very good idea that an attack of some kind, probably involving planes was likely.  So they chose to ignore the information and that negligent use of intelligence caused the deaths of 3000 people.  Following this, Geoge Bush and several members of his administration told lies, in public, while being filmed about how much information they had.  Sickening press conferences where "Dubya" claimed it was "impossible for anyone to have known."

That misuse of intelligence information, followed by dishonesty is, for me, fair call for a negligence hearing, or at least a few questions being asked in an official capacity.  It hasn't.  Even if you do not subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories (which it seems you very much don't), you have to admit, some people have been actively hiding information after the fact to cover their own ass.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1922    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,214 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:47 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

Sky, in a room full of 100 people, broken down like that chart.  How many completely believe the official explanation?

Looking at that chart, al-Qaeda has once again, distanced itself far ahead of the United States in the blame game.

Quote

In what universe, on what deluded planet is that an answer to that question?

You just don't get it!!

Quote

20 or so warnings, lots of information that by August 2001 the American Government should have had a very good idea that an attack of some kind, probably involving planes was likely.

They had plenty of warnings, but the government dropped the ball anyway, and their missteps have continued to this very day. They dropped the ball in the face of warnings regarding Pearl Harbor, so nothing really changed over the decades and nothing there to create a conspiracy.

Quote

So they chose to ignore the information and that negligent use of intelligence caused the deaths of 3000 people.

Negligence in government is nothing new and didn't begin with the 911 attacks. Jimmy Carter ignored warnings not to allow the Shah of Iran into the United States, and the rest became history when Iranian militants overran our embassy. J. Edgar Hoover, ignored warnings regarding the Japanese and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Singapore made a believer out of him, but by then, it was too late.

Quote

Following this, Geoge Bush and several members of his administration told lies, in public, while being filmed about how much information they had.  Sickening press conferences where "Dubya" claimed it was "impossible for anyone to have known."

Much of that had to do with infighting, missteps and blunders among our intelligence services, which once again, continued even after the 911 attacks. I have long been aware of intelligence blunders for decades. but there are people who seem to think that such government blunders began during the time frame of the  911 attacks, which is incorrect.

Once again, government blunders are nothing new and not unique to the government of the United States. We can thank Adolf Hitler for his blunders which helped him lose the war and we need to remember the blunders that embolden Hitler in the first place.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1923    conspiracy buff

conspiracy buff

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:05 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:04 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

People concoct the 911 conspiracy because they generally do not know the rest of the story and it is no secret that I have worked for the government and for defense contractors in aviation support, which places me in an ideal position to know when to  hold 'em and when the throw 'em, especially since I am also a pilot of over 40 years. 911 Truthers claimed that the Hani maneuver was very complexed and could not have been  performed by an ordinary pilot, so I simply said 'hogwash' because I perform similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less than 30 flying hours with no problem. In fact, the so-called Hani maneuver was nothing more than a very boring maneuver to say the least. Take 3 1/2 minutes to walk in a 3/4 circle 20-foot  and you see just how boring the so-called "Hani maneuver really was. Once again, 911 Truthers have shown their lack of knowledge on a number of aviation issues.

I didn't even bring up the Hani Hanjour topic because it is open to speculation.  Some experienced pilots have went on record saying that his maneuvers were impossible to pull off.  I'm not too well versed in mechanical technical aviation techniques, nor do I want to speculate on it.  I only give my thoughts on it.  Perhaps the "Hani maneuver" was possible or maybe not, who knows?  I'm sure we'll never know the complete story.  Some things about that days will forever remain a mystery no matter how much is released after the fact.

Quote

I have read so many post that consisted of nothing more than disinformation and misinformation knowing that what they have posted does not happen in the real world of aviation. I provide the facts but there are those who simply think I am disregarding the evidence, but that is not the case at all. What they perceived as evidence was not evidence at all. In fact, some what they insisted was evidence was actually false and misleading information which has been circulated by those who wanted to discredited 911 Truthers, and it worked because some of that false and misleading information was used by 911 Truthers in their arguments and done so unaware that the misleading information they were using in their arguments was planted. Case in point was the WTC7 detonations of WTC7 and it seems that many 911 Truthers failed to realize the UFO that was placed in the video but amazingly, they also failed to notice that the video was actually a reversed image of WTC7, which should have told them that the video was a hoax.

Again, that was never in my response.  Let me make one thing clear; I'm not considering myself part of the "911 truther" group at all.  I'm simply your everyday average joe who notices that the official government explanation fails to account for everything that happened.



Quote

As another example, the false story of mini-nukes at ground zero was a hoax as well. It was evident in the photos and videos that clean-up workers at ground zero were not dressed to operate in a radioactive environment as would have been expected if radioactive material was involved and lying around ground zero. Anyone who has worked with radioactive materials would have known that something was up in regards to the mini-nuke claim and clean-up operations at ground zero, in which case, 911 Truthers missed the boat on that one as well. I spent a short time at Mare Island, Vallejo, CA. undergoing nuclear training in 1972 and knew how ridicules that claim of mini-nukes really was, especially as I observed photos and videos of ground zero clean-up operations, which was not indication of a radiological event by any means. This is what I am  talking about and understand that this is not WTC ground zero.

I do think there are some outright bad theories concerning 9/11 that are way off.  Mini nukes?  That's too far out there, even for an admitted conspiracy theorist like myself to believe.  However, there have been numerous witnesses that described hearing explosions and actually seeing that controlled demolition before the structures fell.  Basic physics tells us that these structures could not have done "free fall" without a controlled demolition.  The thermite theory seems to be a plausible one, especially when you consider how quickly the buildings fell.




]Posted Image


]Posted Image


Posted Image







Quote

Here is where 911 Truthers were unaware that the Pentagon was unable to handle $2.3 Trillion, but conspiracist didn't know that so they concocted another unfounded conspiracy. I might add that over 2/3 of $2.3 Trillion has been found and work continued afterward.

You cannot stereotype everyone who opposes the government as "911 truthers".  That is a vague generalization.  As of right now, I've seen nothing to support that the money has been accounted for.  Where was it found exactly?



Quote

Question is: How much Iraqi oil was exported to the United States before the Gulf War?

It's no secret that Iraqi oil has always been important to the US before and after the Gulf War.  However, don't you find it the least bit suspicious that the US invaded Iraq at the same time the economy was starting to spin outta control?  Or that it was indeed at the hands of another Bush?  I dunno about you, but I don't believe in coincidences.  Especially when greed and money are involved.



Quote

No! You have to remember when Saddam slaughtered many innocent civilians with chemical weapons. Check it out. During clean-up operations in Iraq, there was leaking drums of chemicals leaking everywhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...east-21814734  

I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy or that he didn't deserve to be overthrown.  What I am saying is that the government killed two birds with one war; overthrow Saddam and take possession of Iraqi oil.



Quote

Actually, the temperatures ranged up to 2000 degrees, which was more than enough to weaken the steel columns to the point of collape. Remember, if a steel bean is not allowed to expand during the heating process, that steel beam will buckle, which is what was observed on the WTC buildings. Check it out.

It's not like I'm basing my opinion on personal expertise.  However, the documentary "9/11: In Plane Sight" was a pretty interesting compilation of experts on both fire and buildings, as well as demolition experts.  All of these unrelated experts are in agreement that there have been many hotter fires and buildings still survived.  The fact that the "free fall" of all three buildings has never been explained is very telling.  You also had firemen and cops describing what could've only been a controlled demolition with thermite.  That accurately explains how the buildings experienced free fall without the floors in between top and bottom to provide little to no resistance.  Again, basic physics cannot be overlooked.  How does a monumental building fall without resistance and experience free fall?  The only plausible answer is controlled demolition.



Quote

911 Truthers claim that the way the WTC buildings collapse proved that explosives were used, but let's take another look at a demolition process that does not require explosives and noted the similarities between the collapse of the WTC buildings with the way buildings collapse during the Verinage demolition process.

It is pathetic that you keep grouping and classifying everyone as "911 truthers", yet you overlook the obvious flaw in basic common sense and physics.  The World Trade Center buildings all experienced free fall.  That violates all accepted laws of physics unless it is indeed a controlled demolition.

Edited by conspiracy buff, 10 May 2013 - 11:08 AM.

There is a grain of truth in every conspiracy known to man, you just have to be intelligent enough to find it.

#1924    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,706 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:39 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

You are misinterpreting what I am implying. Let's try it again.

46% blames al-Qaeda

15% blames the United States.

     Ok,  i understand.        .. but the fact remains that  54% in that poll,   don't believe that Al qaeiouda  was responsible.  .. agreed?

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#1925    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,320 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:37 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 10 May 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Oh so now its saving 10 billion instead of making 10 billion.  Like the obvious change in strategy.

Silverstein got back a "portion" of 4.6 billion from the insurance claim split with the Port Authority.  It went right back to rebuilding and Silverstein still ended up paying out of pocket to cover the rest of the expenses.

In case you missed the point I am trying to make.

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC?  Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?


#1926    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:33 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 May 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC?  Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?
Didn't he only stump $14 million of his own cash?

Edited...Just googled up cause it's a while since I last looked. It was $14 mill.. not a bad return really!

Edited by Stundie, 10 May 2013 - 01:35 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1927    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 May 2013 - 03:39 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Of course the majority support the official story. Remember, Brent Blanchard, of 'Implosion world' and of Protec, is depended upon by demolition companies around the world. His publication is used as a good source of information on building demolition by demolition companies around the world and his company is sought after by demolition experts from around the world.

It is no secret that 911 Truthers are in a minority. Check it out.


*   123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Posted Image

sky
good grief that pie chart is 5 years old , have you not got anything more up to date,in 2008 i would have been in the AL-Qaeda section of that chart,now after reading the commission report and the nist report and working my way through many books by many different authors, i had to eventually conclude that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a complete and utter load of tosh and to defend such utter nonsense is bordering on treasonous.


#1928    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:55 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Looking at that chart, al-Qaeda has once again, distanced itself far ahead of the United States in the blame game.

Either admit that you don't comprehend English and maths to the right degree to converse with humans, or TRY and answer a direct question.

Do more people back the official explanation, or not. (according to your pie chart.

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 May 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Once again, government blunders are nothing new and not unique to the government of the United States. We can thank Adolf Hitler for his blunders which helped him lose the war and we need to remember the blunders that embolden Hitler in the first place.

Yes, government blunders are frequent.  Usually followed by enquiries, court hearings, dismissals, resigning, apologies and changes in the law to try and ensure they don't happen again.

That ALL happened after 9/11 didn't it.  (Blue text is ironic)

Here you go Sky, just in case... http://oxforddiction...n/english/irony

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1929    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,214 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:36 PM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 10 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

It is pathetic that you keep grouping and classifying everyone as "911 truthers", yet you overlook the obvious flaw in basic common sense and physics.  The World Trade Center buildings all experienced free fall.

One of the things that I get on 911 conspiracist about is that they are not in the habit of doing homework,  or doing it properly when they do. Look at the videos because in the videos you will see plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings. Verdict: No collapse at free fall speeds.

http://www.debunking...om/freefall.htm

Quote

[b]Not they did not experince free falls. Tht a That violates all accepted laws of physics unless it is indeed a controlled demolition.

Once again, the buildings are not falling at free fall speeds and explosives are not required. Check it out.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

As  you can  plainly see, debris is falling at free fall speeds and that debris is outpacing the collapse, which is another indication that the WTC building is NOT collapsing at free fall speed especially when plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse itself.


And, explosives are not required to demolish a building. Check out the Verinage demolition process that does not use explosives in the initial demolition process.



So once again, if  you are going to debate with me, you had better do your homework otherwise, expect the kind of response I am known to give others who failed to do  their homework.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 May 2013 - 07:04 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1930    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,214 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:42 PM

View Postpoppet, on 10 May 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

sky
good grief that pie chart is 5 years old , have you not got anything more up to date,in 2008 i would have been in the AL-Qaeda section of that chart,now after reading the commission report and the nist report and working my way through many books by many different authors, i had to eventually conclude that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a complete and utter load of tosh and to defend such utter nonsense is bordering on treasonous.

Even the latest polls show al-Qaeda fall ahead of the United States in the blame game.

View Postlightly, on 10 May 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Ok,  i understand. .. but the fact remains that  54% in that poll,   don't believe that Al qaeiouda  was responsible.  .. agreed?

I am only using the 46% and 15% references, which I have pointed out before.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 May 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC?  Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?

What's the point?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1931    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,214 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:52 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Either admit that you don't comprehend English and maths to the right degree to converse with humans, or TRY and answer a direct question.

Do more people back the official explanation, or not. (according to your pie chart.


What have I said about using the 46% and 15% references on the chart? A-Qaeda got the majority in that respect.

Quote

Yes, government blunders are frequent.  Usually followed by enquiries, court hearings, dismissals, resigning, apologies and changes in the law to try and ensure they don't happen again.

Well, let's take a look at what happened after 911.


The Agonizing History of the CIA's Intelligence Failures

In a lecture addressed to an audience of nearly 200 in Dodd Hall on March 2nd, Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times and author of "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (Anchor Books), discussed his deeply researched book, which won the 2007 National Book Award for nonfiction. The event was organized by the Burkle Center for International Relations.

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.
http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

CIA details errors it made before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON — A report released by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency's missteps prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to fully assess the threats streaming into the spy agency during the summer of 2001.
http://www.nytimes.c....1.7207793.html

CIA boss admits intelligence failures over 9/11 attacks

THE HEAD of the CIA yesterday admitted that his agents had flatly failed to penetrate the September 11 plot and said it would be at least five years before America developed the sort of intelligence capabilities to take on terrorists such as al-Qa'ida.

George Tenet, whose agency was roundly criticised by the commission investigating the attacks, said that he and his colleagues had failed those people who died in the strikes in New York and Washington. "We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland. We never translated this knowledge into an effective defence of the country," Mr Tenet testified before the commission. "No matter how hard we worked, or how desperately we tried, it was not enough. The victims and the families of 9/11 deserved better."

The failures, outlined in a statement issued by the commission and admitted to by Mr Tenet, were not failures of effort or of intention. Rather a picture emerged of an intelligence community still grounded in the challenges of the Cold War and ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the threat presented by stateless terrorists using unconventional means of attack
http://www.independe...cks-176015.html

CIA criticises ex-chief over 9/11

A CIA inquiry has accused the agency's ex-chief George Tenet and his aides of failing to prepare for al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks on the US. "The agency and its officers did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," the CIA inspector general wrote in a scathing report.
The document was completed in June 2005 and kept classified until now. Its release was ordered by Congress.
http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6957839.stm

Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.

Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.

http://www.washingto...5060902000.html

FBI Blames al-Qaeda for the 9/11 Attacks

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the hijackers and connected them to al-Qaeda, a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia....cks#cite_note-1

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1932    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:11 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 May 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC?  Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?

Exactly what did he "receive"?  A portion of the $4.6 billion dollar payout which by the insurance claim stated, had to go immediately to rebuilding!  Exactly what part of that do neither you, stundie, or the professor exactly do not understand?

On top of that, he was required to pay the $100 million in ground rent EVERY year regardless if there was buildings and tenants on the property.

The estimated costs of rebuilding the complex led to more than $11 billion back in 2009.  

Now, based on the current economy, the amount out of pocket Silverstein had paid over the course of rebuilding since 9/11, where exactly did he actually come out with a profit again?

I am sure if all 3 of you put your collective minds together, you will be able to handle such simple math.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1933    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,320 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:18 PM

Raptor

Anywhere one might read a copy of the insurance settlement and stipulations?

Actually, I thought he was in for $100 million, but I must have been wrong on that number.  Plus, I thought that because of a court ruling he was given sort of a double indemnity, and the gross payout was something over $7 billion.


#1934    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,214 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:40 PM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 10 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I didn't even bring up the Hani Hanjour topic because it is open to speculation.  Some experienced pilots have went on record saying that his maneuvers were impossible to pull off.  I'm not too well versed in mechanical technical aviation techniques, nor do I want to speculate on it.  I only give my thoughts on it.  Perhaps the "Hani maneuver" was possible or maybe not, who knows?  I'm sure we'll never know the complete story.  Some things about that days will forever remain a mystery no matter how much is released after the fact.

I have been a pilot since 1969 and what Hani performed did not take extraordinary skill. I was performing similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less that 30 hours of flying experience. To show you how boring that maneuver was, draw a 20-foot circle with a piece of chalk and at the top of the circle place a small dot and call it the 12 o'clock position.

Now, go to the 10 o'clock position and  place a small dot there. Starting at the 12 o'clock position of the circle, begin walking clockwise along that circle toward the 10 o'clock position, but, do so at a pace to where you will arrive at the 10 o'clock position 3 1/2 minutes later.

That will be an indication just how boring the  so-called "Hani maneuver" really was.  Today's airliners are very easy to fly and even a child can be taught to fly large aircraft in a relatively short period of time.



As I pilot of over 40 years experience, I knew that people were being mislead by conspiracist over the "Hani maneuver" and I just wanted to point that out. I disagree with John Lear because he has been misleading people as well.

Quote

I do think there are some outright bad theories concerning 9/11 that are way off.  Mini nukes?  That's too far out there, even for an admitted conspiracy theorist like myself to believe.  However, there have been numerous witnesses that described hearing explosions and actually seeing that controlled demolition before the structures fell.

I have been through war and heard and felt many explosions, but I did not see a shred of evidence of bomb explosions in any WTC video nor heard bomb explosions on audio. Let's take a look at what some those witnesses have said in regards to sound of explosions they heard.

Quote

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------


So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.
And just because someone heard...
  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.
Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions.

Verdict!! No bombs.

Now, let's take a look demolitions.

Quote


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

An Analysis of the Collapse of the WTC Towers 1,2, and 7 from an Explosives and  a Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."  


http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

We’ve now read many reports from professionals on the scene about the condition of WTC 7. All of these firsthand reports are in agreement that the building was in imminent danger of collapse due to the damage and fires it sustained.

We’ve also seen that WTC 7’s collapse did not look or sound like an explosive demolition, and we’ve seen still photos and videos that show an immense amount of smoke pouring from the building’s south and east side.

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac



ome 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academiareviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Basic physics tells us that these structures could not have done "free fall" without a controlled demolition.  The thermite theory seems to be a plausible one, especially when you consider how quickly the buildings fell.

And once again, explosives are not required to demolish a building.






My advice is don't listen to those conspiracy websites because they are well-known for spewing disinformation and misinformation, and in the case of' Pilots for 911 Truth,' outright lies as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1935    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 May 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Raptor

Anywhere one might read a copy of the insurance settlement and stipulations?

Actually, I thought he was in for $100 million, but I must have been wrong on that number.  Plus, I thought that because of a court ruling he was given sort of a double indemnity, and the gross payout was something over $7 billion.

The payout was supposed to be $7 billion.  Which was to be split between Silverstein and PA.  The settlement ended up as $4.6 ($4.55 if you want to be exact) which was still split between PA and Silverstein.

http://www.nytimes.c.../27rebuild.html

Quote

Richard A. Williamson, a lawyer for Mr. Silverstein, said at the court conference on March 18 that Mr. Silverstein was seeking damages to compensate him for continuing losses at the site. Mr. Silverstein, through his company, World Trade Center Properties, has a 99-year lease, worth $3.2 billion, on four buildings at the site, including the fallen twin towers. He signed the lease in July 2001, just six weeks before the attack.
Since the attack, Mr. Silverstein has been paying rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on towers that no longer exist, his lawyer told the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. Mr. Williamson said that his client had also lost rental income from about 400 tenants.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said that the $12.3 billion represented $8.4 billion for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings and $3.9 billion in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings.


So, as you can see, $100 million rent to PA which per the lease Silverstein signed several months before 9/11 regardless of any tenants or buildings on the property.  He at least expected $7.1 billion from the claim, which he only received a portion of to go into rebuilding.


He had purchased the property on a 99 year lease for $3.9 billion, along with paying over 9 years of a $100 million dollar rent with no profit from tenancy while rebuilding took place and who knows how long it would take for Silverstein to even start making a profit from new tenancy.


Granted, Silverstein is not poor or struggling at the least since his group owns several other real estate in NY.  However, the myth that Silverstein actually made money off 9/11 is completely bogus.  


You think that any good business men/women in their right mind would intentionally demolish his/her own property thinking he/she would immediately turn a profit?  That in itself is fool hardy.


No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users