Inconsistencies in the story

The Evidence the official story is based on

Nist Report bunch of BS
Other things to note about NIST's draft report

* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months.
* Many people in the buildings said that they heard or felt explosions.
* Virtually all the concrete of these enormous structures was pulverized into very fine dust.
* Much of this dust, along with pieces of steel and aluminum, was blown out horizontally several hundred feet.
* Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.

This along with what ill just call "visual confirmation of the use of thermite in WTC 1 and 2"

I believe what i see and i see thermite.

EDIT:

How could you believe that a plane that took down the WTC towers could suddenly unveil 2 unscathed passports as "proof"?
Do you buy EVERYTHING they want you to swallow??!?

BTW, Popular Mechanics is also BS, owned by the Hearst Corporation, a US weapons contractor with obvious motives as to why they released their 9/11 debunking articles.

Also, Kean Commision, BS.
Thomas kean (Oilman! CFR member! Homeland Security!)
Lee H. Hamilton (Homeland Security Advisory Council, CFR member)


Think about it for a second... a controlled DEMO TEAM, couldn't take down this concrete structure...

This building was MADE TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH A PLANE CRASH.

Proof, only for those who have a long attention span

Don't bother with these people, they're much happier believing a few primitive sand monkey muslims armed with sticks with no flight training magically stole a couple of planes and flew them off course without USA fighter intervention. Then of course the CIA magically produces the identity of these hijackers out of the evaporated ashes of their remains. Then of course we have to retaliate by attacking a country that had nothing to do with it, with all those nasty invisible WMD's, and conveniently with all that delicious rich oil. Makes sense.

The sad thing is, the general public doesn't care and doesn't know any better. They know what they were told through what they heard in the mainstream media and nothing more.

For every person than even responds to a thread like this to call it nonsense there are hundreds more that wouldn't even know the debated points on the topic. They simply know what they were told and wouldn't care to have a thought as to why they should think otherwise and/or question the "official" version of events.

How comical is it when they went for a little while with the color coded state of terror thing-a-ma-jiggies they were showing on our TV screens. What a joke that was.

And this war, what the hell is the purpose of it anymore? Bush continues to push this like its the most important thing in all the world. Like without it the entire Earth will be slaves to the terrorists. It's ridiculous.

And what was it - the PNAC thing that stated it will take a Pearl Harbor type of event to get the public behind this war they wanted to launch in the first place and then it just so happens 9/11 comes along. It makes me sick.

I don't understand all of it, and I'm not willing to say the government put into motion the things to make 9/11 happen, but there is definately more to what happened than what is publicly known. It's so twisted and confusing however that it becomes quite difficult to really understand how it all went down.

With comments like that I'd take the official story over yours anyday.

For any who know about the PNAC - and hopefully noted the names of those involved - if you treat this study as a diagram instead of a warning things suddenly make a horrid kind of sense.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/com

See, didn't even bother to address the Racist comment... I like to know who's in the bed before I jump in mate.

Sorry, but if the people in your bed are a bunch of Racist internet kids then I'm sleeping on the floor.

And who would you like to address the racist comment?

It's foolish to take someone elses poor response and then try to apply it to everyone discussing the topic. Quite frankly, his racist remark has nothing to due with the purpose of this thread. If that's what you wish you to grab hold of and make the main thing you've gotten from this however, then so be it.

Well not really. As most Racists fail to take into account that every human (whether black, white or yellow) all have the same anatomy.

This only shows sheer ignorance for information with regards to racial. So if he cannot take analyze information properly when it comes to race, why the hell am I going to believe him when he says theres a NWO and 9/11 was an inside job?

Very typical of you conspirators, all sticking up for each other. Makes you feel warm inside doesn't it?

How did I defend him? You sound just as silly as he does.

According to you, his racist comment has now made everyone that questions the events of 9/11 rascist?

Not only that, but you apparently think racists aren't capable of having intelligence on any topic apparently. I certainly don't condone racism, but that doesn't mean a racist can't possess intelligence in certain areas.

Well if I were trying to put forward an argument I'd attack those that brought race into it when race has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Also, you might wanna read your first post in this thread...see who sounds more silly.

Being a Racist clearly shows that a particular person has the innate ability to be extremely jaded.

Yea, certainly looks like your trying your hardest not to. Cus everybody should love a Racist.

Tell me what I said that is so silly in my first post.

You got some issues that I'm not gonna be able to help you with. All of a sudden I'm a racist because someone else made a racist comment....you don't have the best reasoning abilities do you?

BTW, it's rather funny you pick out how no one responded to the racist comment, yet that is the ONLY thing you responded to in this thread. It'd be like a random poster suddenly throwing out that they believe in Santa Claus when the topic of the thread has nothing to do with that and then picking that one comment out as the only thing you are going to focus on.

So, anything on 9/11 you will discuss?

You know why building 7 collapsed?
Do you know why stations were reporting the building collapsed while it was still standing behind them in the background as they reported it?
You know why all the concrete was pulverized to dust?
Why was molten metal in the debris? Why did it stay burning like that for weeks afterwards?
Why is it that there is molten metal dripping down the building before it collapsed? (signs of thermite being used)
How is it that the buildings fell at nearly free fall speed?
Why were there explosions in the basements of the buildings?

Take your pick, or would you rather stick to calling everyone who questions the official version of 9/11 a racist based of one persons response and then ignore the whole point of this thread?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home



http://www.911myths.com/



http://www.debunk911myths.org/



No they didn't.


Yes things explode in fire.


So all of the rubble that was removed was steel?


From buildings that "collapsed straight down"?


So all of the cutting was for show?



No, you don't.

I see you know nothing of Arabic people or Muslims.



Boxcutters. I see now why you believe in the CTs, you haven't even heard the "official story!"



Except for the ones who went to flight school.
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html



What's magic about standing up, brandishing weapons, saying you have a bomb and that you're hijacking a plane?



You know how many civilian aircraft were intercepted over North America in the 10 years before 9/11? One.



It's called investigating.


True, and one that did.



That the government cabal forgot to plant.



That America is getting all of...

Yeah, funny how a commercial airliner slamming into a building can sound a bit like an explosion.



Except they DID have flight training. Even without studying up on it, most people would remember that. You would think such a concerned knower of the truth would at least be aware of claims of flight training and address them even if they don't believe them...

You know there is actually a long history of Arabs (oh sorry, I mean primitive sand monkeys with sticks) hijacking planes. It was very big in the 80's. I don't think all the witnesses on those planes were government agents. So it is possible for them to steal planes (hard to believe, I know!). And most of them weren't intercepted and shot down by jets.

Anonymous...did you actually say that?

Sand Monkey Muslims?


How politically incorrect can you be?!



These poeple were intelligent people...a wee skewed in their dogmatic thinking (nuts actually), but nonetheless, intelligent.
Further, they weren't armed with sticks...they were armed with box cutters, and with a decidedly adept mode of invoking fear among the people they attacked ("I've got a bomb and I'll blow it up if you don't sit quietly!")..


...think about some glazed eyed towel head saying that while you're sitting helplessly in the seat of a crowded jet-liner at 35,000 feet...


Further yet, it is a fact that some of these "monkeys" had basic flight training (I could teach anyone to fly a plane into a building without any in-depth experience...). What these kooks did was not rocket science, I guarantee you. A couple hours in the air and anyone, sufficiently motivated, could be taught to maneuver a big jet in the sky towards a target.

What happened on 9-11 was perfectly understandable, was not miraculous (save a consideration of how we allowed it to happen), and involved no particular enhanced skills at all.

I could've done what those hijackers did vis-a-vis flying the airplane...and I've never flown a 757 or 767 type aircraft....I guarantee you I could do it with a couple hours instruction.


I think what's unbelievable about 9-11 was not the fact that it happened, but rather was the fact that America could've allowed such a thing to happen.

Back in 1940, a 22 year old Senior at Harvard University wrote a thesis which became a published book called "Why England Slept".
That senior's name was John Kennedy.

In it he examined the failure of the British Government under Chamberlain to take steps to prevent WW2.


One day there will probably be written a book entitled "Why America Slept". That book will be about 9-11 and why we were caught with our pants down sitting comfortably on the toilet while 19 Islamic crazys were permitted to do something like they did on 9-11-01...

or even less time. In a recent Mythbusters episode, Adam and Jamie were each given two tries on a professional airline simulator, simulating a 777 if I recall correctly. Their first try, they had clear weather, but no instruction. Only one had any clue what the controls even did and both predicatably crashed trying to land. Their second try they had worse weather but also an air traffic controller talking them in. He only had access to their radio and the radar image of them. He couldn't actually see them in the simulator or see their results. With just this little bit of help, both managed to get a safe landing on the runway with one right on the center line. A little instruction goes a long way.

Fine! Then go ahead and give us one name, just one name, maybe the source of explosive or the ones who planted them so we can track down who is the mastermind.
Well???

Same with you, just one name among the hundreds behind that fantistic ploy to knock down the twin tower.

Great, but it's entirely irrelevant to the 9/11 flights.

Not entirely... most assuredly the situations were vastly different, but Frenat's example does show that with a minimum amount of advice and / or training, someone could - and obviously did - fly a large passenger jet well enough to land it relatively safely (even if only in a simulator) or, with a little more specialized training - even just a few hours - learn enough about flying a large passenger jet to figure out how to turn off the transponders and then change course mid-air and fly the jet into a building. However it seems in at least one case, the lesson on which switch turns on the cabin PA system and which one turns on the air-to-ground radio was probably skipped...

The basics of flight are fairly simple, really... thrust, drag, lift, pitch, yaw, roll... even someone who has only piloted a glider (or even MS Flight Sim) understands the same fundamentals behind flying a large passenger jet. Give that same person a few hours in a simulator or even with just a really good instructor and a person could - and obviously did - learn just enough to accomplish their mission.



Cz

It seems you haven't read what their flight instructors said about them...

Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."



Sure, everybody's terrified of little blades that you can snap off with your fingers! [/img]http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]



Decidedly cliche, said in virtually every movie with a hijacker.



I highly doubt it, MID.



Nonsense. Flying 7 miles above the ground, with no visual references, and no assistance from ATC's, "Dumb and Dumber" wouldn't have the slightest clue where they were, or how to re-direct the plane towards New York and the WTC.

Turbs... only YOU could come up with a statement as moronic as this....



Tell ya what... you hold a brand new one of these



or maybe this



up to your neck or wrist or just about any fleshy part of your body with the blade even slightly extended then exert a little pressure and see what damage it can do.

Or perhaps one of these



Or maybe this one



Maybe one that has a blade like this



You'll notice that only the first two images were of the type of boxcutter that uses the "little blades that you can snap off with your fingers"... the other ones use thin yet solid stainless steel blades.


indeed



Cz

Key words: ...EVEN WITHOUT STUDYING UP ON IT, MOST PEOPLE WOULD REMEMBER(I.E. were brainwashed into thinking) THAT.
Look, this isnt easy... ITS BEEN 7 YEARS AND YOU PEOPLE STILL ARE SHOWING NO SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE!!!

From the man who TRAINED THEM


You should look up how many documented "false flag" operations there have been in the last, oh... 100 years, then we can talk.

EDIT: im simply stunned by the sheer amount of people avoiding the evidence at hand!!!!

Its like tying to coerce a duck into reading a book!!!!

Alright, i want ever person who believes the "official story" to point to the "official report".

Now, if you stand on our governments side, this is WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.

ironically i hope your all not going to point to the 911 commission, because i WILL make you LOOK and FEEL stupid...

The only moronic statements I see are yours, Czero.

Have you heard of any crimes (other than the supposed 9/11 hijackings) where a box-cutter was brandished by the criminal(s)? Probably not many, I'd bet.

Why? Because, like scissors are the perfect tool for cutting paper, and a corkscrew is the perfect tool for opening a bottle of vintage Chablis, box-cutters are a perfect tool - for cutting cardboard, drywall, and carpet. But, as weapons, they are a poor choice.

Certainly, you can injure, or even kill, another person with box-cutters / scissors / corkscrew. But even one person can defend / fight back against a box-cutter. And if you think you'd be able to fend off 20 or 30 people with a box-cutter, as they tremble in sheer terror, you're totally delusional.

I don't know if there is more to 9/11. I know the Iraq war is a waste. I agree with turbonium though on box cutters are bad weapons. I stock shelves at a grocery store cutting boxes with them they are hardly good weapons.

That's something I know as well, because I use box-cutters all the time.

Unless you can get right up to someone's neck with a box-cutter, it's not effective as a weapon. The tip (or point) of a box-cutter with a "snap-off" blade is utterly useless to "stab" with, because it will break without much force. And the single blade box-cutters (used for carpets & drywall), while stronger than a snap-off blade, are short in length, and not lethal (unless you can get right up to someone's neck and stab the carotid artery or jugular vein).

Even scissors would be a more effective weapon, actually.

What country are you from? I ask because the box cutters/utility knives in America have many versions where the blade is not breakaway. It's more like a single edge razor blade. Yes you would have to get close but one slash and most people would freak out.




9/11 commission and the NIST report among others. Have at it, but I must ask, what makes you think that the 9/11 commission report (or and single paper or report) is "The official story"?

hmmm.. is that a hint of cultural superiority i see before me?

Remember, they didn't have to worry about taking off; nor did they have to worry about landing.
All they needed to know was that the thing in front of them steers the plane, and provided you've got enough momentum, that's about all you'd need to know really. Believe it or not, even sand monkeys are actually biologically capable of flying a plane; most of these sand monkey countries have airlines and air forces of their own, for instance.

Are said monkey's able to fly a plane WHEN THEY AREN'T EVEN ON IT?

from the 911 commission.
"S. SUSAN GINSBURG: Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."

The hijacker on flight 11... who was a crappy pilot... "hijacked" the plane, flew it into the world trade center, the passport SURVIVED, fell to the ground, and it was picked up by a passerby.

Do you remember that image? cause it was all over the mass media.

THEN HE WAS FOUND TO BE ALIVE AND WELL.

This is the "evidence" you believe??? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON??

Zaus... did you see, on the videos that I'm sure you're seen, many times, any planes fly into the Twin Towers?
What were they, please? were they real? hallucinations? Holograms? Astral projections? Radio controlled models?
And if they were holograms, disguised cruise missiles, planes secretly switched by the CIA, or whatever, what happened to the actual ones, the ones that they pretended that they were?

That, merely, is the question I'm trying to clear up. Thanks.

I thought I was replying to anonymous51 who said they had no flight training, not that they were bad at it or incapable of doing it. which I responded by saying that they had. Which means that your post proved me right. And yet you claim I had been brainwashed because if it... Nice logic dude.

Also, I don't know the details of your pet theory. But even if someone's right, revelling in one's own opinion of self perceived superiority is rather embarrassing to watch.

But I still think they were capable. The twin towers were a pretty damn big and easily visible from a long distance. Steering an aircraft isn't rocket science. The hardest parts are navigation and landing. And being able to do it repeatedly many many times without risk. Flying something into a huge target wouldn't be that hard.

The pilot that was interviewed admitted he had no experience with a large commercial airliner anyway, so I'm not sure he would have known that much better than us. Obviously the controls wouldn't have been exactly the same. But the principals are. As long as you know how to turn autopilot off. They'd just handle differently/more sluggish obviously.


Yeah, but you don't need to fight off 30 people. You just need to prevent anyone from making the first move and risk being slashed/stabbed and maybe killed. Wouldn't be as psychologically easy as you might think. And remember, they didn't actually know they were going to die anyway. Most airline hostage situations end with the safe release of the passengers. Not many of them end in a suicide mission.

You're really ignorant of the history of Radical Islam. They had struck the US several times before, were those false flag attacks too? They really aren't that primitive, most if not all of the hijackers were university educated, they had the funding they needed and most importantly they had the will to do such a horrible thing, which is really all you need. It's also not easy to find a plane that's switched off all it's tracking instruments.

As for the aftermath, did you forget the ongoing campaign in Afghanistan? That war is the forgotten one, which you conveniently left out. The Taliban was taken out, and Al Qaeda was driven away. That was retaliation, the current Iraq War is a continuation of the Gulf War.




Maybe I'm not as ultra macho as you but if a crazy man pulled a box cutter on me, I'd do what he says. If you've read the report they first stood up, killed a flight attendant then stormed the cockpit and killed the pilots. The hijackers assured the passengers that they'd be safe, like it was a traditional hijacking. If you know the history of Islamic Terrorism, you'll see that they've done it before. The safest thing to do is wait for the ordeal to be over, if the passengers stormed the cockpit and took out the terrorists they'd likely be unable to land the plane and would all die. The difference comes in in Flight 93 where the passengers became aware of the other 3 attacks, and pieced together that this was going to be the fourth. They knew whatever they did they were going to die, and by overpowering they forced the hijackers to crash the plane then and there to prevent them from regaining control.

That right there is bravery on a level rarely seen, I bet most people would just lower their heads and wait for it to be over.

Disbelief that a box-cutter could be a threatening enough weapon for a hijack is absurd. A few seconds on Google:
Murder
Murder
Murder
Attack
Attack
Attack

The fact that you CAN kill, injure or threaten with a box cutter is obvious and backed up by the links above and many others that are easy to find. Is it the most terrifying weapon ever used? No, of course not but it doesn't have to be, it's still a very sharp knife. I'm sure the hijackers would have prefered to have pistols, machine gun, large ticking belt bombs, flamethrowers - these are much more threatening weapons, but not quite as easy to get on board (that said, given the information about security maybe not. Just imagine what had happened if they had managed to get guns on board "Wow man, there's no way dirty arabs could get guns onboard a plane, the government must have helped them. If they had done it themselves they would have had to smuggle in something easier to get on board, like, um, a box cutter")

I assume you've been on an aircraft before so I'm not sure how you think 20-30 people can run down an aisle and attack at the same time. People are not naturally heroic. No one wants to be killed or even cut - why would someone take that risk? Before 9/11 no one worried about hijackers crashing planes, they would always go somewhere and land. Even if someone was feeling heroic why would they risk an in-flight fight when they could take their time, build up a little courage and do when it's much safer on the ground.

I think you're just being overly macho in thinking you would have laughed at the hijackers and attacked them right away. Add in the option of first seeing someone being stabbed / killed without warning (as proof the hijackers will use force), and the threat of a bomb on board and you're the one who's being delusional if you think you would have done anything different.

You, like all your opinions, theories and ideas, are simply unbelievable, Turbs....



Cz

I dont know, but this should compel you to rethink why "television" is accepted as "reality" these days

Scary thought eh?

Ok, right. Digital imagery.
So the people, there, on the spot, who saw the planes, in real life, were seeing digital imagery.
Digital imagery which, it seems, can now be projected into real life.
three dimensional, solid, audible, digital imagery.


ok.









Still, at least I do seem to have got this admission out of Zaus, which is perhaps a historic moment in itself:



For that, I suppose, I should be grateful.

Well, as I believe that the WTC Towers were destoyed by terrorists in hijacked plains, I will add my two cents.

Responding to various theories:

*The WTC Towers were designed to withstand an airplane impact.
True. And they did. Then the structural dammage, combined with the fire took them down
*Molten metal seen before the collapse, proof of thermite.
Aluminum from the aircraft melts at a lower temperature than steel, thus stands of it flowing out of an inferno of tons of aviation fuel is not that strange.
*How can we believe that fire melts steel?
That is how steel is made.
*The buildings fell straight down.
Yes. When the supports weakened, the concrete slabs of each floor pancaked onto the one below, bringing the structure almost straight down.
*Glass ans debris was blown out sideways.
Yes. As each of the floors collapsed, air was forced out from between them.
*The rubble burned for a long time.
And? This was a massive aggragrate mixed with flammable materials, with small airspaces. low intensity fires could well have burned for weeks.

I've already mentioned that box-cutters can injure or kill someone. So can a corkscrew or scissors. But someone wielding a box-cutter/corkscrew/scissors is not going to subdue 20 or 30 people through intimidation. Your examples describe one-on-one incidents, where the perpetrator was able to threaten a single victim, at close range. Take a few seconds and Google "murder" with "corkscrew" or "scissors", and you'll find at least as many (and probably more) incidents using these "weapons", than there have been with box-cutters.



Box-cutters are indeed very sharp, but they are not even as effective a weapon as scissors are. You cannot use box-cutters to stab someone with, because the blades are not designed for puncturing. The blades are very thin, and have a wide taper, making them weak and ineffective for stabbing. Scissors are much more effective for stabbing.
That's what makes a switchblade or a hunting knife effective - and threatening - as weapons. Not for slicing someone with, but for stabbing someone with.

Look at your first "Attack" link, and note the common element in almost every standard knife incident - the victims were all "stabbed". There is only one incident with a box-cutter ("Stanley knife") - an injury to a man who was "slashed" by the box-cutter.



As I said, even scissors are a better choice of weapon than box-cutters are.



It doesn't take 20 or 30 people. All it takes is 2 or 3 people to overcome someone wielding a box-cutter. People don't have to be "naturally heroic" to respond in such a situation.



I've been in a couple of situations much more dangerous than this. When your survival is threatened, it (often) sparks an instinctive "fight or flight" response, and your adrenaline kicks in, big-time. Others may "freeze up" in fear, during the same situation.

My instinctive response in both situations was to "fight". During one of these incidents, I noticed that a few people around me froze up in fear. There was no "flight" option.

I wasn't being "overly macho", or trying to be some sort of hero. I was just trying to prevent my friends from being injured / killed at the time.

But you haven't mentioned the most important point...

Even if all the passengers and flight attendants cowered in fear from a few hijackers wielding box-cutters, there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft to them. To claim they did so, on 4 different planes, all on the same day, is so far beyond absurd that it's laughable.

What's really laughable, Turbs, is that you actually believe - AND expect OTHERS to believe - the mountains of garbage that pours forth from your mind in the form of your sad opinions...


Cz

You know this how?





Slashing tends to produce an uglier wound and more blood though. Remember you don't have to kill these 20-30 people you just have to scare them enough that they won't move against you.



Have you ever seen anyone slashed with a razor before?





To defend yourself from an attacker, yes. To scare people into being compliant, no.




No, it only takes one IF that one knows what he or she is doing and IF they find the courage to move.





You've been in much more dangerous situations than sitting on an airplane, 30,000+/- feet above the ground, with no weapon other than ones you can improvise, having 4-5 terrorists taking over planes, and crashing them into buildings? Prove it.



Did any of the attackers say they had a bomb and were willing to blow themselves and you and your friends and family up?



Good for you.



No, YOU haven't mentioned the most important part. No hijackers had ever done this before! SOP for hijacking was to sit and wait it out. Now what happened when passengers found out the planes were being crashed into buildings? They. Fought. Back. They realized that they had no choice other than to die. IF you had the flight option would you have taken it in your story above? If not, why did you point out there was no flight option?

Redtail... I sure hope you're not expecting Turbs to provide any actual evidence to back up his claims and opinions... You'll be waiting a long long time. His opinions are all the truth he needs and real facts just get in his way...


Cz

I think Redtail covered most of what I would have said but there's a few points I want to respond on.

You say "But you haven't mentioned the most important point...", then go on about attacking the cockpit. Yet you seem to side step an important point about how the pasengers would react if they first saw someone killed before their eyes and also if there was a threat of a bomb on board. Are you saying you'd try to be a hero if you believed they also had a bomb on board?

Also it's interesting you say "I wasn't being "overly macho", or trying to be some sort of hero. I was just trying to prevent my friends from being injured / killed at the time." and then a few sentances later say "there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft". Do you not get the contradiction here? Somone has got a knife to the throat of your colleague, maybe screaming for you to help, (remembering the pilots could not see that they were 'laughable' box cutters) they've probably already killed someone and claim they have a bomb and are willing to kill everyone on board. The pilot is responsible for the safety of the passengers and crew - before 9/11 the safest thing with hijackers (especially with bomb threat) was to comply with them. Nowadays it's different, doors are armoured and the procedure is to get the aircraft on the ground asap, but not before 9/11.

ETA: Oh yeah, you forget to mention that there were 4-5 hijackers on each plane, so the 20-30 people against 1 scenario is even more unrealistic. You now need a passenger who decides to attack 4 nutters, possibley all armed with knives, without any knowledge that anyone else will help, after that person has already seen said nutters kill someone and say they have a bomb. Barring Chuck Norris, I can't see anyone who would think that they were good odds. Even if someone was feeling macho the idea that whilst they were attacking one hijacker another hijacker could easily grab another, more 'cowardly', passenger and murder them because of your actions would probably put you off.

Perhaps you've missed the recent revelation that the location the cascade of molten metal came from was a UPS room, full of lead-acid batteries. Seeing what can happen when a battery is shorted, the cascade is very likely mostly molten lead.
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/0...or-of-wtc2.html
http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html

Molten Steel was described one month later. Not shorted batteries. Why would UPS need a room "Full of lead-acid" batteries anyway? How come the "batteries" if they existed, all shorted out, broke the casings they were in (cant happen by the way - Safety Regulations), and formed a torrent?? Never happened, just a lack of knowledge about electrical engineering IMO.

This is referring to the cascade of molten metal seen flowing down the side of WTC2, not reports of molten steel in the debris pile.
Did you actually read the link? UPS stands for uninterruptible power supply, and a room full of batteries is a common type of UPS. Plenty of pictures of such an installation in the first link. The second link describes what can happen to a shorted battery. The UPS was just below the impact level, so debris falling on the batteries and shorting them out was a distinct possibility.

Oh dear, I laughed out loud when I saw it written down like that.

Doesn't seem there is much support for the theory anyhow, but still amusing seeing you try to promote it.

Keithisco got it in one...


... now let's see if you can get anyone to agree with this trick.

Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of irony.

That made me laugh out loud too.

It's down to perspective I guess... I personally see more evidence for an inside job than the commonly held beliefs. Perhaps it is ironic what I said is a line 'debunkers' came up with first?

Still, it leaves the point that the 'official' story is lacking in evidence every bit as much as the 'alternative' theory may be. Then we come down to which is more likely...