911 inside job - for what?

[psyche101]

Psyche

Objectivity?

I can be very objective my friend, and I go to great lengths to be objective on any given subject. FWIW, I am a Libra, and through my whole life have been able to see both sides of any story. I can remain neutral on most stories, but once it becomes obvious, once the preponderance of the evidence is made, I have no problem making my mind up.

You are not aware of it, but I actually defended the OCT on the internet for a number of years. Basically I was just regurgitating the official story as it had been told to me by the media, but I did defend it, though I had questions.

HI BR

This I am not seeing. To be frank, from this perspective, you seem to be only doing what you are accusing Skyeagle of doing. But regurgitating anything anti government. Having seen you in the UFO section jump blindly into cases and insist the Government is lying indicates to me anti-government that this is a generalisation with you. I have not even seen you put up much information, the only post in this thread whereby you have supplied me with information was the thermite claim, which did not stand up at all. I have seen you quote known cranks like Eric Hufscmid, it is hard to take your claims at face value when most of the stuff is fairly introductory stuff that has been shot down by competent people with good qualifications. And having a construction background, the reports make sense to me. I would like to see some objectivity, but as I say, you seem to be guilty of that which you accuse Skyeagle, except he is quoting mainstream media, and you are quoting mainstream Professional CT'ers, and out of the two, the people you quote are not toppling the scales in the direction you indicate. It's just not there mate.

I'm sure we agree Psyche, that life is not always just black and white. There ARE shades of gray. And because you and I know each other only through this bizarre cyber filter, we don't REALLY know each other.

Yes, I agree with all of this. All I can comment on is what I see though.

I am very objective in my analysis, but in the matter of the events of 11 September, I have had to reverse my earlier position and recognize that the OCT cannot possibly be true. I am objective at the beginning of ANY analysis, but at some point and in some cases, objectivity is no longer valid in a proper analysis.

I just don't see it BR. You have not managed to convey that which you find so convincing. From your posts, I get a more "believe me, I am onto it" kinda thing, being in construction, I rely heavily on facts and figures. Everything to have supporting documentation. I have come from the opposite direction from you, and was quite open to all sorts of ideas, some I eve got from my parents but abut things like the paranormal I suppose to use a broad brush, and pretty much all of it turned out to be superstition. Quite deflating, but puts my faith in facts and figures, not just words.

I am not happy, and am not proud that the government of my country has become the world's biggest terrorist and biggest hypocrite, no sir. It does not give me any sort of pleasure to point out its crimes. It is a significant psychological barrier to recognize that one's government is responsible for so much wickedness, but I would rather be honest with myself than fool myself.

I have no problem with a personal situation, it is when it is brought out into the public arena that I think some etiquette is in order. If you want to state that all these grieving families loved ones are alive and faking their deaths for the Government, you need to have some very solid evidence, irrefutable evidence, not just some rot Alex Jones spouted in the net. The ethics and morals involved demand nothing short of complete accuracy, not some "questions" that are just being dragged across the mire for a decade and more.

I wish you and yours all the best.

And you to BR, have a great weekend.

[DONTEATUS]

I cant wait to hear what BabeRuth has to say about the Governments Blowing up the Fretilizer Plant in Texas next !

[Babe Ruth]

Psyche

Irrefutable evidence can be found in the analysis offered by something over 2000 Architects & Engineers, as to the impossibility of the official story regarding the collapse of the buildings.

Irrefutable evidence regarding the presence of a Boeing at Shanksville can be found in the statements of Wally Miller and his people, the photographic evidence now 'scrubbed' from the internet, and a follow up interview of Wally Miller in 2011 or 2012 by Christopher Bollyn in his book.

Irrefutable evidence contradicting the official story at the Pentagon is ample.

I have made my own mind up Psyche. I rely upon various websites, including UM, for information, but I do my own thinking.

And I forget if I mentioned it to you, but aviation has been my career for something over 40 years. I am still active and earning a bit of money from it. I am still active in flight instructing.

Part of the irrefutable evidence for me comes from my experiences in aviation, especially instructing. I know it is impossible for Hani to do what he is alleged to have done. It's simply impossible.

Further, Dennis Cimino, an expert in analysis of Flight Data Recorders, discovered that the 'evidence' offered by the federal government in the form of the FDR from "Flight 77" is completely bogus.

You sir, may believe whatever song and dance the government sings for you, but I choose the independent way, and looking at the big picture.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Babe Ruth

[skyeagle409]

Irrefutable evidence can be found in the analysis offered by something over 2000 Architects & Engineers, as to the impossibility of the official story regarding the collapse of the buildings.

Let's take another look.

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.

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

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/

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?

No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?

Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?

To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

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

As you can see, the overwhelming majority do not question the official story.

Irrefutable evidence regarding the presence of a Boeing at Shanksville can be found in the statements of Wally Miller...

Let's take a look.

Coroner identifies seven more victims of Flight 93 crash

Seven victims of the Sept. 11 United Airlines Flight 93 crash in Somerset County were positively identified over the weekend, bringing the number of identified bodies to 11.

But Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that additional identifications could take months. There were 44 passengers and crew members on the flight.

http://old.post-gaze...scenenat5p5.asp

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Saturday, October 27, 2001

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected.

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.

"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

http://911research.w...7_flight93.html

This video also debunks your false claim.

Which explains why United Airlines confirmed the loss of United 93.

United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

http://www.washingto..._text091101.htm

Irrefutable evidence contradicting the official story at the Pentagon is ample.

Actually, the crash of American 77 at the Pentagon has been confirmed, and additionally, confirmed by the former commander of my Wing who was in the Pentagon when American 77 crashed and I ran into another Air Force member recently who was in the Pentagon during that time as well.

And I forget if I mentioned it to you, but aviation has been my career for something over 40 years. I am still active and earning a bit of money from it. I am still active in flight instructing.

I don't think so. You have made too many missteps. I, and other pilots and readers have noticed. In fact, you goofed in your response when I posted facts surrounding "ground effect." Any pilot would have known the specifics of what I presented but instead, you decided to challenge the message I'd posted, so I cut another notch in the stock on the number of errors you've committed regarding aviation matters.

The maneuver that Hani performed was a boring maneuver that did not require superhuman strength at all.

Part of the irrefutable evidence for me comes from my experiences in aviation, especially instructing. I know it is impossible for Hani to do what he is alleged to have done. It's simply impossible.

Further, Dennis Cimino, an expert in analysis of Flight Data Recorders, discovered that the 'evidence' offered by the federal government in the form of the FDR from "Flight 77" is completely bogus.

Actually, Dennis Cimino should have been aware that the conversion formulas were sent from American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company in order to facilitate the FDR investigation for investigators, and Dennis should have understood that the formulas sent by American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77, and no other aircraft. In other words, Dennis Cimino cannot be considered credible.

Edited April 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

YOU cannot be considered credible SkyEagle, but Dennis Cimino is very credible.

[skyeagle409]

YOU cannot be considered credible SkyEagle, but Dennis Cimino is very credible.

On the contrary, Dennis must have been joking because American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. sent further FDR information that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77, so once again, Dennis Cimino was unaware of that fact and cannot be considered credible.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Even though controllers lost contact with American 77, it could still have been tracked on the “tertiary” and “quadrary” radars.

Edited April 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I know it is impossible for Hani to do what he is alleged to have done. It's simply impossible.

You, and other 911 Truthers were duped,and remember, American 77 was already airborne and Hani had flown many hours, which is more than I can say for this little 7 year old girl who is flying a B-737 simulator.

[DONTEATUS]

Its no use Skyeagle, Baberuth is quite out there in La La Land ! Fact,and we all have proof of that. Just need to read his post ! sends prayers to all the Boston,and Texas families . We know yor pain.

Edited April 19, 2013 by DONTEATUS

[skyeagle409]

Its no use Skyeagle, Baberuth is quite out there in La La Land ! Fact,and we all have proof of that. Just need to read his post ! sends prayers to all the Boston,and Texas families . We know yor pain.

Babe Ruth brings up Wally Miller, thinking that Mr. Miller's interviews support his case without realizing that Wally Miller was the same person who has confirmed that United 93 had crashed near Shanksville and that passengers and crew remains from United 93 were recovered and identified.

Does Babe Ruth really think that people here were born yesterday?

[DONTEATUS]

Sky ,Its like this Some people live on this rock and learn,some just walk around in a daze !

[skyeagle409]

Sky ,Its like this Some people live on this rock and learn,some just walk around in a daze !

I heard that!! They don't bother to do their homework either.

It is amazing that 911 Truthers seem to think that it took extraordinary skill to do what Hani had done, but they need to understand that American 77 was already airborne when he took over the controls. 911 Truthers say that American 77 was a drone or missile that was flown by a professional pilot under remote control, but take a look at this flight path chart of American 77 and notice how sloppy the flight is flown after the autopilot is disconneted at "E" and "F."

There is no way that aircraft was being flown by a professional pilot each time the autopilot was disconnected after the takeover.

Edited April 20, 2013 by skyeagle409

[poppet]

I wonder how many 9/11 debunkers have actually read the NIST report, which has never been peer reviewed incidentally, so as far as a scientific paper goes it’s just a theory! And I wonder how many debunkers have taken the time to read the 9/11 commission report overseen by Philip Zelikow.

These two publications are a complete joke with so many omissions and falsehoods that it boggles the mind why anyone would defend such utter nonsense, but I guess some people won’t stray out of their comfort zones to actually do a little research and find it far easier to defend the official conspiracy with a few childish retorts calling people “troothers or twoofers”

The number of people questioning 9/11 is in the millions from scientists, the military, members of governments from all over the world ex CIA and FBI ,medics ,first responders, pilots the list is endless and is growing every day and until there is an independent inquiry these numbers will keep growing .

President of Italy’s Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court

http://www.washingto...inal-court.html

[skyeagle409]

I wonder how many 9/11 debunkers have actually read the NIST report, which has never been peer reviewed incidentally, so as far as a scientific paper goes it’s just a theory! And I wonder how many debunkers have taken the time to read the 9/11 commission report overseen by Philip Zelikow.

These two publications are a complete joke with so many omissions and falsehoods that it boggles the mind why anyone would defend such utter nonsense, but I guess some people won’t stray out of their comfort zones to actually do a little research and find it far easier to defend the official conspiracy with a few childish retorts calling people “troothers or twoofers”

The number of people questioning 9/11 is in the millions from scientists, the military, members of governments from all over the world ex CIA and FBI ,medics ,first responders, pilots the list is endless and is growing every day and until there is an independent inquiry these numbers will keep growing .

President of Italy’s Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court

http://www.washingto...inal-court.html

That is false. The majority of architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and demolition experts around the world support the official story. Let's do a review since you missed it.

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

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

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

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

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

http://www.tms.org/p...eagar-0112.html

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.

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

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/

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?

No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?

Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?

To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

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

Edited April 20, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

DEBUNKING THE 9/11 MYTHS

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

What 911 Truthers were unaware of

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxv7oy_debunking-a-controlled-demolition-at-the-wtc_news#.UXLc6SqF9CY

[poppet]

sky

you are kidding , maybe you should link to Bronners vanity fair piece as well,another piece of utter nonsense and as for you keep spamming threads with your pentagon debris photos i will be tackling that in the near future.

here is one to be getting on with.

as far as i was aware a Boeing has 2 engines ,they weigh 2 tons each ,they are made from titanium and on this particular day they were traveling at 530 mph.

so we have all seen a picture of one of the alleged engines , where is the other and where is the damage to the columns indicating its path of travel.

[skyeagle409]

sky

you are kidding , maybe you should link to Bronners vanity fair piece as well,another piece of utter nonsense and as for you keep spamming threads with your pentagon debris photos i will be tackling that in the near future.

here is one to be getting on with.

Thanks for posting that chart because it confirms the official story and debunks 911 Truthers who've claimed that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

If you are going to post something, at least understand what you are posting.

...as far as i was aware a Boeing has 2 engines ,they weigh 2 tons each ,they are made from titanium and on this particular day they were traveling at 530 mph.

so we have all seen a picture of one of the alleged engines , where is the other and where is the damage to the columns indicating its path of travel.

There are other photos of engine parts and I have posted them as well. The engine parts are spread within the Pentagon. We saw videos of two B-767s striking the WTC Towers, but how many engines were displayed at ground zero?

Edited April 20, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

Well ,Well, Well another truther I see with Poppet,Is poppet the short little pirate on THat movie ,Pirates of the Caribbean ? Just what we need another Truther ! Four Aircraft went in that day, Eight Engines,Lots of Lives !

[Stundie]

I must say I envy you not knowing who those people are.

My problem with the Truthers is they are hurting people who have already suffered. The faces I posted make claims such as these people are still alive, nobody was killed, it was all set up. Those who lost loved one's in this insanity do not deserve this. They have suffered enough. All they are doing is hurting people. They are not making any progress, they have not made one validated claim, like the Sandy Hook Truthers, I cannot see this bunch of loud mouthed red faced people making a difference, they are only causing more pain.

I do not see them like you, and I do not seem the accepting rational explanations at any time in the future.

I do not think you should put everyone in the same box as we are all individuals. The reason I do not follow any particular conspiracy theorist is that I like to think I can work out for myself which theories are possible and which ones aren't. As I've said previously, if the motivation is to get a new investigation, then that is what these truth movement groups should be concentrating on, not on which one of their pet theory is right or likely and arguing a toss about it with each other.

However, I do not like it when people say that truthers are hurting people that have suffered or disrespecting the victims of 9/11. You have to remember that some of those truthers such as the Jersey Girls do not believe in the official story either have lost loved ones. If you believe someone is lying or not telling the whole truth about what happened to those who died on 9/11, how can it be disrespectful to question it? Surely it is more honourable than keeping quiet about it. I find comments like that are designed and used to shut down debate or dissenting voices.

While I agree there are some conspiracies theorist out there who are out of touch with reality, I also find the same with some debunkers. (Not you of course, but I'll mention no names! )

LINK - Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

I imagine that the AIA doesn't want to be associated with a conspiracy but honestly, I do not put much thought into this article which clearly has an agenda and is full of logical fallacies. There are obviously members of the AIA who have signed Gages petition but I understand why the group as a whole doesn't want to associate themselves with A&E 9/11.

I have not seen a claim that holds water. Hence the broad brush. The entire CT as far as I can tell comes from Governmental actions, and to be fair, I am not sure why so many people consider themselves tactical military experts.

Bee is our resident Lady who tends to float with flights of fancy. If an underdog claims any scientific nonsense, you can be sure Bee will be banging that drum. Hence the Lasar beams. No technology claim is too wild for our Bee. But it is heartwarming to see Sandy Point was too much for her. She went up a step in my book on that one.

The Thermite and Laser beams claims do not hold water, I already explained the poetic license used with the thermite theory, and Laser beams are just not at a point where we can destroy buildings with them yet. If they ever will be. It's not true skepticism, it's knowledge. There is no reason to even consider Laser beams. Thermite's at least had an argument, albeit an erroneous one.

I have seen many a CT which I think holds water, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe it to be true, just a possibility.

I do not think the laser beams theory makes any sense, but the thermite in my view makes perfect sense in that it can it's can be used to cut columns and can do it relatively silently in comparisons to traditional explosives. Hence the reason I suggest it as a possibility.

What doesn't make sense to me is that a 110 storey building which has less than 5% damage manages to collapse to the ground. Even after the NIST reports which explains the initiation of the collapse doesn't go into any of the same levels of details on the actual collapse itself. Even the FEMA reports of pancake collapse doesn't match the evidence which the NIST rejects.

So what are we left with?? One report by FEMA which explains the collapse which is rejected by the NIST but they do not state how it collapses other than a few paragraphs.

Is it any wonder why people are sceptical of both reports?

Not quite following you there, did I say something was set up to fail? I was surprised that the US would consider anything as not possible when it comes to war. Some cultures have very different values.

Lies can be hindsight too, and as far as I can tell, that seems to be the larger cause for any misleading information.

No, you didn't say something was set up to fail.

The 9/11 commissioners themselves who published the 9/11 commission report said they were set up to fail. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said that the government set up the commission to fail, they cite deception by various government agencies, funding, timescale to investigate and the denial of access to documentation and witnesses.

Are you referring to a specific incident, or the entire Bodine mess?

No, I was actually referring to Cheney and Bush being interviewed together by the commission the conditions that put on the commissioners. Such as no notes or recordings allowed, they were not under oath and the fact they insisted on being interviewed together.

In your own words, how do you think this could have been handled better?

Well for a start they could have not ignored the obvious warning signs that were coming in. The commission highlights some of the errors but I think that some of those errrors were intentional. Like sending fighters the wrong way. The commission give us 3 reason o explain all the things that could have been done differently would require a long post and I want to try and shorten them...lol

Icke? I'd call him a liar, and many other things. Reptillian Governments?

Well I'm not a fan of Icke and I would call him many things, I think that Reptilian Governments are a push to far and that is where I part company with Icke. He was right about Savile though and called him out on it many years before his death and on the day he died. So he must have access to some information that we didn't, but not all the information he receives is going to be correct either, hence things like reptilian governments. lol

Does not seem to be the case. All media, people I speak to, I am yet to hear a sympathetic word.

There is no sympathy for him now because his crimes have been exposed. But at the time of this death, there was plenty of media coverage and public sympathy.

Have you heard Rolf Harris has been caught up in all of this too? There was a strange media blackout as the papers decided not to name in back in November. That could have been down to the Leveson Inquiry into press standards, but usually they wouldn't cut any celeb any slack if they were reporting facts.

I find the Truther movement unsettling. I am surprised that people would deny outright confessions and witnesses to come up with some anti government proposal, but that is true paranoid CT/FTB stuff. If people do not have an answer they used to say "It's God's Will" now they say "The Government stuffed it" And whilst they have made some tremendous stuff ups, I would expect that. If you have a look at some f the Ground Zero Lounge crapola, you might be able to see what I mean. Drunks with attitude seems be the driving force behind Trutherism.

I find the opposite unsettling to be fair. The problem is that even with the criticisms of the official story, there are those who are willing to ignore those and pretend like they do not exist. It almost like a fear that agreeing with a CT even on the obvious problems of the 9/11 reports, might lead to a downward spiral. I find it amazing that people are scared of thoughts, because at the end of the day, that is all they are, thoughts. Unless there is some truth behind them...lol

Whats FTB stuff? I'm not clued on conspiracies, honestly.

I would hardly say that drunks seem to be the driving force behind trutherism, I think what is behind it is that the official story doesn't add up to be honest. I'm sure there are drunks and druggies taking all kinds of stuff to come out laser beams, lol I have seen some good debunking of some conspiracy theories but there are some which are just as drunk and drug induced as the stuff from the other side called panto debunking.

Look at this way, imagine there is a CT hierarchy with your Gages/Jones Griffins at the top and your tin foil believe any hold crap and probably sleeps with his cousins is at the lower end. Panto debunking is the latter end of the debunking hierarchy..lol

Cheers

Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Well ,Well, Well another truther I see with Poppet,Is poppet the short little pirate on THat movie ,Pirates of the Caribbean ? Just what we need another Truther ! Four Aircraft went in that day, Eight Engines,Lots of Lives !

Four aircraft, (two B-767s and two B-757s), which have been written off by American Airlines, and United Airlines, and no longer on the registration books of the FAA because they are no longer in service and the reason why they are no longer in service is because all four airliners were destroyed on 9/11/2001. That is a good indication why those aircraft no longer exist and yet we are being led to believe those aircraft landed somewhere else. I might add that radar, ACARS, and communication position reports depicted no such thing.

Add to the fact that remains of the passengers and crew of those aircraft have been recovered and identified and their families have been notified, which is another indication the official story is supported by facts and evidence. I should also add that only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built.

[Babe Ruth]

....and it's a well-established fact, Sky, that american corporations never lie and never deceive and never play along with government schemes.

[ellapenella]

Maybe commercial planes ought to have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so, like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane, dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers.

[skyeagle409]

....and it's a well-established fact, Sky, that american corporations never lie and never deceive and never play along with government schemes.

The overwhelming majority of architects, civil engineers, and demolition experts agree with the official story and let's remember that facts and evidence support the official story as well .

Let's also remember when many 911 Truthers accepted as fact a hoaxed video of WTC7 despite all the warnings that the video was a reversed and doctored image of WTC7, and look what happened when the perpetrator came forward and lectured on video how it was done.

Edited April 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

....and it's a well-established fact, Sky, that american corporations never lie and never deceive and never play along with government schemes.

The matter of the Thread Is You say It was not Airliners with people that died that day? WHere do you get your information from Babe?

[shrooma]

Maybe commercial planes ought to have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so, like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane, dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers.

.

that technology has been around for 30yrs.

civil aviation authorities have been remotely flying large passenger aircraft since the 80's, mainly with the intention of crashing them, to better understand the mechanics of plane disasters, but NASA/Dryden have also tested systems to take-off, fly, and land passenger aircraft too, to see if the technology was feasable, with a 100% success rate on a dozen flights, so your idea may yet come about reann!

[Just Dave]

Sky the same people who were involved in this mystery are most likely trying to cover it up...probably manipulating the information at hand.