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

#2551    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:30 AM

View Postpoppet, on 24 June 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

this will give you an idea who was behind the plot

Posted Image

Posted Image




Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2552    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:10 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 24 June 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

The information on the ACARS system is on ARINC's website.  in PDF form and specifically states how the system handles failed up-links....in detail!!

This is why you lose any sort of credibility in this discussion is because you are susceptible to reading and agreeing gish gallop and woo off sites like PF911T.

Why base your understanding off someone else's obvious bias analysis when it would that much easier to read about the system off the company's own provided documentation??

And your credibility and gullibility are well established by the fact that you embrace an impossible story, told by known liars.

Will either of us get into heaven? :w00t:

Maybe Woody's interpretation of the data is wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.  Could ARINC have 'tightened up' the data after the fact, Wikipedia style?  It's possible.  Considering the sophistry advanced by many corporations to toe the line with the OCT, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case.  The most incriminating video footage from the news helicopters at Shanksville, 3 of them, was absolutely scrubbed from the internet.

It is not the Boy Scouts of America who are controlling the coverup Raptor, it's the US government.


#2553    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

And your credibility and gullibility are well established by the fact that you embrace an impossible story, told by known liars.

Will either of us get into heaven? :w00t:

Maybe Woody's interpretation of the data is wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.  Could ARINC have 'tightened up' the data after the fact, Wikipedia style?  It's possible.  Considering the sophistry advanced by many corporations to toe the line with the OCT, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case.  The most incriminating video footage from the news helicopters at Shanksville, 3 of them, was absolutely scrubbed from the internet.

Oh boy!  Claims of ARINC modifying their documentation specifically to support the OCT?

I think the only obvious attempts at a cover-up here is your own ignorance/paranoia/mistrust of anything that does not support your views.

Please, the ARINC documentation precedes 9/11.

I will be honest though.  The response you just gave regarding ACARS and ARINC documentation being covered-up/fixed, was the exact answer I was expecting!

I wonder if the Wikipedia on WTC aluminum plated facade was also changed to support the OCT..../sarcasm.

Edited by RaptorBites, 25 June 2013 - 02:03 PM.

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

#2554    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:22 PM

I am still waiting for a 9-11 troother nutter to tell me why the government/Haliburton/The Illuminati/the CIA/Mossad/whoever would want to to simulate an additional Jihadist terrorist attack in addition to the thousands that have occurred already?

I guesss no answer will ever be forthcoming.

Edited by Zaphod222, 25 June 2013 - 02:23 PM.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#2555    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:28 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 25 June 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

I am still waiting for a 9-11 troother nutter to tell me why the government/Haliburton/The Illuminati/the CIA/Mossad/whoever would want to to simulate an additional Jihadist terrorist attack in addition to the thousands that have occurred already?

I guesss no answer will ever be forthcoming.

You won't get an answer.  Its hard enough for truthers to explain how FDNY/NYPD were involved in the cover up of "mass murder".

Now you expect them to explain how those organizations you listed were involved directly?

Its like asking flat earth believers to explain how the horizon works.

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

#2556    Ove

Ove

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:53 PM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 19 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Just so you get an idea of how outrageous the official 9/11 story is;



Keep in mind, these are objective experts who studied the 9/11 commission's report and official story and had no axes to grind or reason to lie.
This video is more than enough evidence, it was controlled demolition.


#2557    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:37 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

And your credibility and gullibility are well established by the fact that you embrace an impossible story, told by known liars.

You must mean those 911 conspiracy websites. Those 911 conspiracy websites are well known for getting the facts wrong on a regular basis and I am still waiting for "Pilots for 911 Truth" to make much-needed corrections on its website.

Quote

Maybe Woody's interpretation of the data is wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Woody has been discredited with facts and evidence time after time and it is amazing that anyone would even use Woody as a reference.

Quote

Could ARINC have 'tightened up' the data after the fact, Wikipedia style?  It's possible.

Call ARINC and let the ACARS experts tell you why you are wrong.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2558    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:48 PM

View PostOve, on 25 June 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

This video is more than enough evidence, it was controlled demolition.

I think not, considering that no bomb explosions were seen nor heard or detected by seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that  NO evidence of explosves was found at ground zero, which  proves beyond any doubt that no explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 June 2013 - 06:28 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2559    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:38 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 25 June 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Oh boy!  Claims of ARINC modifying their documentation specifically to support the OCT?

I think the only obvious attempts at a cover-up here is your own ignorance/paranoia/mistrust of anything that does not support your views.

Please, the ARINC documentation precedes 9/11.

I will be honest though.  The response you just gave regarding ACARS and ARINC documentation being covered-up/fixed, was the exact answer I was expecting!

I wonder if the Wikipedia on WTC aluminum plated facade was also changed to support the OCT..../sarcasm.

I was just wondering.  Kinda the same way I was wondering how, but knowing why, the videos taken from the 3 news helicopters at Shanksville were eventually 'scrubbed' from the internet.

Naw, you're right dude, the government wouldn't lie to you.

Nonetheless, I think Woody's presentation and interpretation corroborate what pictures and testimony show--no Boeing at Shanksville.


#2560    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:52 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 June 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

I was just wondering.  Kinda the same way I was wondering how, but knowing why, the videos taken from the 3 news helicopters at Shanksville were eventually 'scrubbed' from the internet.

What difference does that make when United Airlines, investigators and clean-up crews confirmed the crash site as that of United 93?

What difference does it make considering that wreckage at the crash site of United 93 is consistent with wreckage of a B-757?

What difference does that make when coroner, Wally Miller, confirmed that human remains from United 93 were recovered at the crash site of United 93?

What difference does that make when remains of passengers, crew and of the hijackers of United 93 were recovered from the crash site of United 93?

It is evident that you are just here to have fun and cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 June 2013 - 06:58 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2561    Ove

Ove

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 June 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

I think not, considering that no bomb explosions were seen nor heard or detected by seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that  NO evidence of explosves was found at ground zero, which  proves beyond any doubt that no explosives were used.
Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.


#2562    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:29 PM

View PostOve, on 25 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.

But, real demolition experts have denied that explosives were used! In addition, I have spent a lot of time in Vietnam to know what real bomb explosions sound and look like and I saw no evidence of bomb explosions in those 911 videos.

Since  you want to take the word of real experts, let's take a look here because it is apparent that you have missed the following information before.

Quote

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

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


August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

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


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm


ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


American Society of Civil Engineers
Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 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.


http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.


D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


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

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer


A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link

Even the following data does not depict an event involving explosives.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 June 2013 - 09:32 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2563    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 37,172 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:07 AM

View Postacidhead, on 20 June 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

This thread is like a tennis match:   you prove it - you prove it.  

Fact is nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Make your own judgement..

Absolute garbage. It has indeed been proven that the official account is supported by physical evidence, and the reason for the collapses has been outlined extensively. All erroneous claims have been answered, and then met with "I don't reckon". Every positive has been met with an "Well I think" or "It might be this" but nothing refuting the actual information and physical evidence has been refuted. There have been claims of Thermite charges which is refuted by the claim itself, there have been compete scenarios made up about Shanksville, yet not one of the pictures Skyeagle has laboriously posted time and again has been explained via the CT and why this physical evidence that supports the official story is not valid evidence. The CT is entirely speculation from the so called explosions, which strikes me as rather normal in a urning collapsing high rise building, or the backside covering blunders that show Barbara Bodine could have prevented this, but was a major stumbling block. Fact supports the official version of events, speculation supports the CT.
And that is about as in deep as any personal judgment goes. You either accept what it was, or one can spend decades pondering nuances. In the end the official story will prevail because it has physical evidence and the CT has a handful of obnoxious idiotic claimants that make even the most benign enquiry seem an attack  on logic. Makes it hard for anyone with a genuine question I think.
At the end of the day you have people claiming responsibility and rejoicing in the slaughter they caused. Really, I do not know why that most important factor is constantly overlooked. I'd like to spend more time in this thread, but it moves a bit quick for me.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#2564    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:38 PM

View PostOve, on 25 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.

If you stick around long enough, you will discover that Sky is one of those who simply denies that anybody else in the world can analyze facts and evidence.

He denies evidence that contradicts the official story, and he demonizes anybody that presents or analyzes said evidence.

But you're right--Gage and the others at AE911 have provided an invaluable analysis regarding what happened at WTC that day.

The official story is a bright and shining lie.


#2565    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:27 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 June 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

If you stick around long enough, you will discover that Sky is one of those who simply denies that anybody else in the world can analyze facts and evidence.

Facts and evidence support the official story, :yes:  not your fantasies. :no:

Remember,

*   You've posted that an anti-ship cruise missile struck the Pentagon

*   You've posted that explosives knocked down the light poles leading to the Pentagon despite the impact damage on the light poles

*   You've posted the aircraft passed north of the gas station despite the fact the distribution of B-757 wreckage inside and leading up to, the Pentagon, and of course, the downed light poles which indicated that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Not to mention the recovered FDR, the same recovered FDR that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company sent the conversion formulas that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77, and no  other aircraft.

*  Then,  you turned around and posted that nukes were responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings despite the fact the nuke story was a hoax.

*   You've posted that "no Boeings" were involved in the incidents at the Pentagon and Shanksville despited the recovery of B-757 wreckage at those crash sites and the fact that American Airlines and United Airlines, coroners, and recovery and clean-up workers confirmed the crash sites of those aircraft.

*   You blundered on ACARS, which was evident to others as well.

*   You've claimed that you are an airplane and helicopter pilot, but your lack of knowledge in aerodynamics and aeronautics and missteps and blunders proved otherwise.

And, the list goes on and on, so it is evident to me that you are just here to have fun and nothing else, and it is obvious why no one can take you seriously.

Quote

But you're right--Gage and the others at AE911 have provided an invaluable analysis regarding what happened at WTC that day.

I guess you overlooked something, because:

Quote

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

And of course, there are videos proving Richard Gage lying on camera. In other words, he has no credibility.

Quote

The official story is a bright and shining lie.

Let's take another look. Only one of the following is true:

* You've claimed that no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville.


Posted Image

American 77 wreckage at the Pentagon



Posted Image

United 93 Wreckage

It is very clear why no one can take  you seriously. In other words, Babe Ruth, you've struck out. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 June 2013 - 02:43 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users