Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Take your time. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an inside job. The plan was executed alone by the terrorists. People just worry about it and become skeptic with that theory but it's false.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an inside job. The plan was executed alone by the terrorists. People just worry about it and become skeptic with that theory but it's false.

I agree. :) Many will not. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an inside job. The plan was executed alone by the terrorists. People just worry about it and become skeptic with that theory but it's false.

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not, or I have missed that. (Granted, with this enormous torrent of reams of demented troother propaganda along the lines of "Look! A squib! It must be the Mossad!", I can not manage to pay close attention to every troother post here.)

Please repeat your "direct answer".

If you cannot manage to pay close attention ... then perhaps... you should stop demanding other members repeat their posts for you!

This might help.

Edited by acidhead
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cannot manage to pay close attention ... then perhaps... you should stop demanding other members repeat their posts for you!

This might help.

You're quoting someone from over six days ago, that was referring to something you said (or someone else said), maybe days before that?

If we're all supposed to be on the same page here, don't mind if I say, you ask a lot!

Edit: calender discord

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read the first 30 pages before I realized this was a 190 page thread, so here goes haha.

I'll start with an observation of what happened. The hijacking of the planes itself is a mystery, but evidence that solidifies cynical followings, is the collapse of the towers. Any middle school educated mind could tell you that a building made of hundred's of miles of Steel and tons of concrete would not crumble literally straight down. It simply would not happen, now there are a couple alternatives to what could have been the cause, (explosives, publicly unknown tech), but the first step is realizing that the physics of how they went down is ludicrous. The Pentagon impact is just as cynical, surveillance tapes never disclosed, collision site as if the nose barely made it through the building, the angle/height/distance ratio the pilot would have made to impact the Pentagon would be virtually impossible for a pilot to replicate and would cause HUGE landscape damage, which did not happen.

O.k now the motive, so obviously the first and foremost was to justify a full scale invasion of a country, essentially on a international 'gang' now dubbed 'terrorists' which was funded by the U.S after the gulf war, to incite turmoil to ease pressure off Israel. Keep in mind this was over the actions of a handful of people, just to ineptly prove how wrong it was. Another immediate and permanent impact was creating a perpetual state of fear on a people whom thought untouchable, which was carefully followed by extreme constitutional defiling, all in the name of this 'fear' that came about. The news was filled with "Al-Qaeda planning to strike again!", "Another Al-Qaeda attack foiled by CIA!", people love adrenaline and fear, let's reference all the failed "end of the world" prophecies which you can research (pretty hysterical)

What we experienced after 2001 was a 'snowball effect' because of how easy it was to manipulate our population with fear mongering tactics. Which are rather absurd in the first place, I feel like I am the only one who noticed the green screen bleeding during sandy hook while the media was covering this, or the only one who questioned the boston bombing tactics. Killing the two unarmed 'suspects', inciting a temporary martial law, searching houses and implementing curfews. Even to the present day, you can find video's of Syrian rebels staging bloody aftermaths for our population to eat up, all while keeping this perpetual state of fear alive. "A Global force for good" protecting you from evil at every corner, terrorists demanding christian blood lurk everywhere, makes me laugh at the ignorance (Roman-Catholic crusades anyone).

Edited by TheSpoon
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

Who was behind the 911 terrorist attack? Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read the first 30 pages before I realized this was a 190 page thread, so here goes haha.

I'll start with an observation of what happened. The hijacking of the planes itself is a mystery,...

Shouldn't have been a mystery considering the number of warnings from around the world that terrorist were in the final stages of carrying out their attack on the United States using aircraft.

WARNINGS THAT THE DANGER WOULD COME FROM THE AIR

BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001 ©: Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

August 29, 2001: Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they "are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11 and it isn't known when the US is informed. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no questions asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter meets with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and claims his information was a "premonition of sorts." The three men are later arrested. Its unclear what has happened to them since their arrest. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01] FTW

EGYPT, WARNING #1: An undercover agent learns 20 al-Qaeda agents are in the US, four have received flight training

Late July 2001 (D): CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: "Just days after Atta return to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes]." [CBS, 10/9/02] This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

GERMANY: Terrorists will use airplanes as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols"

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] FTW

ITALY: Muslims warn of an attack on the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons

September 7, 2001: Father Jean-Marie Benjamin is told at a wedding in Todi, Italy of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He isn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passes what he knows to a judge and several politicians. He states: "Although I am friendly with many Muslims, I wondered why they were telling me, specifically. I felt it my duty to inform the Italian government." Benjamin has been called "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world." Two days after 9/11, he meets with the Italian Foreign Minister on this topic. He says he learned the attack on Britain failed at the last minute. [Zenit, 9/16/01] He has not revealed who told him this information, but could it have been a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan (see August 12, 2000 and January 24, 2001), which appears to have helped with the 9/11 attacks?

JORDAN: A major attack using aircraft is planned inside the US

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan has backed away from it. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] FTW

RUSSIA: Russian intelligence clearly warns the US several times that 25 or so terrorists, including suicide pilots, will attack the US, targeting "important buildings like the Pentagon"

August 2001 (D): Russian President Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001 claims that "Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened." Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [izvestia, 9/12/01, (the story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph, the link is to a translation of the original article from From the Wilderness)] FTW

OTHER WARNINGS

AFGHANISTAN: Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

ARGENTINA: A major terrorist attack is planned against either the US, Argentina, or France

Late July 2001 ©: Argentina's Jewish community receives warnings of a major terrorist attack against either the United States, Argentina or France from "a foreign intelligence source." The warning was then relayed to the Argentine security authorities. It was agreed to keep the warning secret in order to avoid panic while reinforcing security at Jewish sites in the country. Says a Jewish leader, "It was a concrete warning that an attack of major proportion would take place, and it came from a reliable intelligence source. And I understand the Americans were told about it." Argentina has a large Jewish community that has been bombed in the past, and has been an area of al-Qaeda activity. [Forward, 5/31/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is the "final stages" of a very serious attack on a Western country

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction is "based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency," which cooperate with the British. "The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed." The report states there is "an acute awareness" that the attack is "a very serious threat." [London Times, 6/14/02] This information could be from or in addition to a warning based on surveillance of al-Qaeda prisoner Khalid al-Fawwaz (see August 21, 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #1:

June 4, 2001: At some point in 2000, three men claiming to be Afghans but using Pakistani passports enter the Cayman Islands, possibly illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01] In late 2000, Cayman and British investigators begin a yearlong probe of these men which lasts until 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] They are overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City. On this day, they are taken into custody, questioned and released some time later. This information is forwarded to US intelligence. [Fox News, 5/17/02] In late August, a letter to a Cayman radio station will allege these same men are agents of bin Laden "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines" (see August 29, 2001).

EGYPT, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of a "significant operation" probably within the US

August 30-September 4, 2001: According to Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak, Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that bin Laden's network is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He says he learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. US officials deny receiving any such warning from Egypt. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

FRANCE: An echo of Israel's warning of a major assault on the US

Late August 2001 (D): French intelligence gives a general terrorist warning to the US; apparently its contents echo an Israeli warning from earlier in the month (see Mid-August 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

INDIA: Missed opportunity with White House attack warning

India gives the US general intelligence on possible terror attacks; details are not known. US government officials later confirm that Indian intelligence had information "that two Islamist radicals with ties to Osama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House," but apparently this particular information is not given to the US until two days after 9/11. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

ISRAEL, WARNING #1: 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists are inside the US and planning an imminent "major assault on the US" aimed at a "large scale target"

August 8-15, 2001: At some point between these dates, Israel warns the US that an al-Qaeda attack is imminent. [Fox News, 5/17/02] Two high ranking agents from the Mossad come to Washington and warn the FBI and CIA that from 50 to 200 terrorists have slipped into the US and are planning "a major assault on the United States." They say indications point to a "large scale target", and that Americans would be "very vulnerable." They add there could be Iraqi connections to the al-Qaeda attack. [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times later retracts the story after a CIA spokesman says, "There was no such warning. Allegations that there was are complete and utter nonsense." [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01] In light of later revelations of a Mossad spy ring trailing numerous Muslim terrorists in the US, it is easy to see that Mossad would have known this info. Could this be later disinformation by the Mossad to spin the spy ring story and blame Iraq for 9/11, or it is another smoking gun showing extensive US foreknowledge?

ISRAEL, WARNING #2: Israel gives the US a list of 19 terrorists inside the US planning an imminent attack, the list names at least four of the hijackers, including Mohamed Atta

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the 19 9/11 hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known and are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] The Mossad appears to have learned about this through its "art student" spy ring (see for instance, March 5, 2002). Yet apparently this warning and list are not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. It's not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] Israel has denied that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02] The US has denied knowing about Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary (see January-May 2000).

MOROCCO: Al-Qaeda is planning large scale operations in New York City in the fall of 2001, possibly targeting the World Trade Center

August 2001 ©: The French magazine Maximale and the Moroccan newspaper al-Ittihad al-Ichtiraki later simultaneously report that a Moroccan agent named Hassan Dabou had penetrated al-Qaeda to the point of getting close to bin Laden by this time. Dabou claims he learns that bin Laden is "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the WTC, and plans "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001." Dabou is called to the US to report this information directly, and in so doing blows his cover, losing his ability to gather more intelligence. The International Herald Tribune later calls the story "not proved beyond a doubt" but intriguing, and asks the CIA to confirm or deny, which it has not done. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02] FTW

The Philippine government warned the United States as far back as 1995 that terrorist were planning to se airliners to kill thousands of people.

The Bojinka Plot

Phase III, CIA plane crash plot: Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets.

Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

One of those terrorist was the same person who detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993, but did WTC1 collapse? No!

I might add that his uncle was the admitted mastermind of the 911 attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but evidence that solidifies cynical followings, is the collapse of the towers. Any middle school educated mind could tell you that a building made of hundred's of miles of Steel and tons of concrete would not crumble literally straight down.

It simply would not happen, now there are a couple alternatives to what could have been the cause, (explosives, publicly unknown tech), but the first step is realizing that the physics of how they went down is ludicrous

Why not? After all, the steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire not to mention the Kader toy factory collapse in Thailand due to fire. Let's take a look at the collapse of WTC6 and notice no explosives were used when WTC6 collapsed. You can view the collapse at time line 1:49.

The Verinage Demolition method collapse buildings without explosives. Check it out.

http__demolitions.free.fr_%E2%80%A2_Afficher_le_sujet_-_D%C3%A9molition_de_3_tours_R%2B15_%C3%A0_Chalon-sur-Sa%C3%B4ne_%2871%29-20120406-065657.jpg

. The Pentagon impact is just as cynical, surveillance tapes never disclosed,...

On the contrary, a video was disclosed, but how many air disaster investigations have the videos to aid in their investigations? Videos are not required, however, we have videos of American 11 striking WTC1 and United 175 striking WTC2 and yet, there are those who claim that missiles struck those buildings. So once again, videos are not required to determine the cause of an aircraft accident, which is why we have radar and FDR data.

...collision site as if the nose barely made it through the building,...

Let's take a look at the Empire State Building and notice the small hole when the building was struck by a B-25 bomber.

http://jrblog.typepad.com/jrblog/archeologyhistoryfactsmyths/

A B-25 is much larger than the hole you see in the side of the Empire State Building. Similar to what we saw at the Pentagon.

...the angle/height/distance ratio the pilot would have made to impact the Pentagon would be virtually impossible for a pilot to replicate and would cause HUGE landscape damage, which did not happen.

That is not true at all. That maneuver was so boring, and here it comes again, I could have gone into the kitchen and made a sandwich and returned to the living room to begin eating that sandwich before he could have completed his maneuver and the amazing thing about that is, he didn't even complete a full circle!!

On another note, my former Wing commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck the building and I ran into another airman who was also inside the Pentagon at the time it was struck. Furthermore, I have conducted a similar maneuver as a student pilot with less than 30 hours total flight time, so what happen here, a number of people were duped into thinking the maneuver required extraordinary skills and strength, but let's take another look.

To sum it up, there are those who have duped conspiracist and some have done so deliberately in order to discredit the 911 truther movement and have to admit that they have done a very good job in doing so. After all,look how many conspiracist fell for the hoax 911 nuke story and hoaxed video of WTC7.

O.k now the motive, so obviously the first and foremost was to justify a full scale invasion of a country, essentially on a international 'gang' now dubbed 'terrorists' which was funded by the U.S after the gulf war, to incite turmoil to ease pressure off Israel.

Not true at all. Did the United States invade any country after the USS Cole was bombed? No! Did the United States attack Iraq immediately after Ramzi Yousef bombed WTC1 in 1993 and fled to Iraq? No! Did the United States invade any country after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? No! Did the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky? No!

Another immediate and permanent impact was creating a perpetual state of fear on a people whom thought untouchable, which was carefully followed by extreme constitutional defiling, all in the name of this 'fear' that came about. The news was filled with "Al-Qaeda planning to strike again!"

Considering the number of countries around the world warning the United States that a terrorist attack was imminent, there should be no mystery there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will it take to turn this into a conspiracy theory. I first heard about this relationship at the Sacramento Railroad museum so I decided to check it out and guess what I found.

Obama and Bush are Cousins!

Hell froze over. A month of Sundays hit the calendar. Barack Obama and George W. Bush are cousins.

According to Factcheck.org, Obama and Bush are 11th cousins, both descended from Samuel Hinckley, who lived in Massachusetts in the 17th century. Meanwhile, Obama is also related — even more closely — to Dick Cheney. They are eighth cousins, both descended from a French Huguenot named Mareen Duvall who settled in Maryland in the 17th century.

http://kristof.blogs...sh-are-cousins/

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an inside job. The plan was executed alone by the terrorists. People just worry about it and become skeptic with that theory but it's false.

Sure, buddy, and Obama & Kerry are telling the absolute truth about just who used the sarin. :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, buddy, and Obama & Kerry are telling the absolute truth about just who used the sarin. :td:

Evidence speaks louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...says Spameagle... :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...says Spameagle... :tsu:

Presenting facts and evidence. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 12 years later Sky. For the curious and analytical amongst us, many things have been learned in those years. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 12 years later Sky. For the curious and analytical amongst us, many things have been learned in those years. :tu:

12 years later and still no evidence of a government 911 conspiracy. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 12 years later Sky. For the curious and analytical amongst us, many things have been learned in those years. :tu:

This person has a message for people like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't have been a mystery considering the number of warnings from around the world that terrorist were in the final stages of carrying out their attack on the United States using aircraft.

[/size]

The Philippine government warned the United States as far back as 1995 that terrorist were planning to se airliners to kill thousands of people.

One of those terrorist was the same person who detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993, but did WTC1 collapse? No!

I might add that his uncle was the admitted mastermind of the 911 attack.

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.

As for you comparing the Verinage building you are using a building that is 1/3rd the size and built outside the U.S with completely different engineering code and materials. It simply doesn't make sense how the WTC's collapsed like that, fire damage could do that in a longer time period. Not so soon after the impact though, I am not going to go into every single detail of the collapse and point out every flaw of physics in the belief it collapsed naturally as it is extremely obvious.

Now for you comparing past similar events to this one as far as inciting a war, what makes this any different? 'The last straw', I don't believe this at all,but if it were why would we not just increase security of people entering and leaving our country to begin with? We had to invade a country, which in itself strengthens the regime (think if someone invaded us, no matter if it was a reaction of an American 'terrorist' on foreign soil) and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The logic is flawed and you're support is disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.

As for you comparing the Verinage building you are using a building that is 1/3rd the size and built outside the U.S with completely different engineering code and materials. It simply doesn't make sense how the WTC's collapsed like that, fire damage could do that in a longer time period. Not so soon after the impact though, I am not going to go into every single detail of the collapse and point out every flaw of physics in the belief it collapsed naturally as it is extremely obvious.

Now for you comparing past similar events to this one as far as inciting a war, what makes this any different? 'The last straw', I don't believe this at all,but if it were why would we not just increase security of people entering and leaving our country to begin with? We had to invade a country, which in itself strengthens the regime (think if someone invaded us, no matter if it was a reaction of an American 'terrorist' on foreign soil) and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The logic is flawed and you're support is disturbing.

Why not go into details? Scared to be proven wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.

As a pilot I can tell you that video is flawed. Your mistake was posting a video that used "Pilots for 911 Truth" as a reference. I have been waiting for well over a year for "Pilots for 911 Truth" to make much needed corrections to its website, which so far, it has refused to do.

Members of my chapter consist of military, airline, private pilots, certified military and civilian aircraft inspectors and technicians. As secretary of that chapter, alternate safety officer, pilot, and retired airframe supervisor,/inspector/technician, for the Air Force and defense contractors, I also provide safety tips for those pilots and technicians, so I know what I am talking about when I say that using "Pilots for 911 Truth" as a reference source can have detrimental consequences in a debate because "Pilots for 911 Truth" is loose with the truth.

I have gone head-to-head with Robert Balsamo of "Pilots for 911 Truth" because I caught him red-handed deceiving readings on many occasions and I have noticed serious errors he committed during our confrontation, especially arguments regarding airframe safety factors and an airframe's ability to maintain structural integrity beyond its redline airspeed.

I've also determined that Robert Balsamo is not up-to-speed on airframe technology and I have had to post photos to backup my arguments whenever I detected that he was loose with the truth. He was a smooth operator capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of those who are not knowledgeable enough to know when he is deceiving them.

In addition, C-5s, which are much larger than a B-757, regularly perform even more drastic maneuvers than that performed by that terrorist hijacker. If you can obtain the Travis AFB airspace information pamphlet, you will notice that it proves information on tactical maneuvers performed by its aircraft from 10,000 feet MSL on down to the surface, with decent rates from 5000 FPM to as high as 10,000 FPM.

Now, let's take a look at the numbers of American 77. Hani began his turn at 9:34 AM and upon completion of his maneuver he was still at 2000 feet and 4 miles from the Pentagon and afterward the airspeed of American 77 was increased and it struck the Pentagon at 9:37:45 AM. Websites such as "Pilots for 911 Truth" have managed to deceive readers on a number of occasions.

Radar Analysis of American 77

Based on an analysis of radar data and information from the plane’s flight data recorder, a 2002 National Transportation Safety Board report will describe the maneuver the aircraft then performs: “[Flight 77] started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2,000 feet altitude and four miles southwest of the Pentagon.

Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements.” The aircraft accelerates to about 530 miles per hour as it closes in on the Pentagon.

http://web.archive.o... Study_AA77.pdf

The rate of descent of American 77 is much less ( between 2000 FPM - 3000 FPM) than the rate of descents that are cleared ( 5000 FPM - 10,000 FPM) for C-5 and C-17 transports. Just another example of how certain websites, such as "Pilots for 911 Truth," have been duping readers for years.

Check out this video.

As for you comparing the Verinage building you are using a building that is 1/3rd the size and built outside the U.S with completely different engineering code and materials.

From a structural standpoint, it is just a matter of weakening the right structures to where gravity takes over from there. Remember, when WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 suffered impact damage, structural loads were redistributed which made it that much easier for fire to further compromise the structural integrity of those buildings.

It simply doesn't make sense how the WTC's collapsed like that,...

Once again, from a structural standpoint, it makes good sense because there was no way to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

...fire damage could do that in a longer time period.

It depends on the structure of a particular building, where the fires are raging and the type of structural damage suffered by those buildings. Remember, the steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire to where only the concrete core remained standing.

Temperatures raging within WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high enough to weaken structural members which were already bearing increased structural loads due to impact damages. You can take a railroad track and set it over a fire for one hour whereas it will be soft enough to where you can bend it around a tree. In fact, that is how it was done during the Civil War.

sherman-destroying-railroads.jpg

sherman-bow-tie-2-copy.jpg?w=595

So, beware of someone who claims that ordinary office fires cannot weaken steel.

Now for you comparing past similar events to this one as far as inciting a war, what makes this any different? 'The last straw', I don't believe this at all,but if it were why would we not just increase security of people entering and leaving our country to begin with?

I mention that in August 2001 while preparing to leave the Manila Airport for San Francisco, but it was too late because that was three weeks before the 911 terrorist attack.

We had to invade a country, which in itself strengthens the regime (think if someone invaded us, no matter if it was a reaction of an American 'terrorist' on foreign soil) and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The logic is flawed and you're support is disturbing.

We invaded Kuwait to remove Iraqi troops out of that country and they were grateful for our involvement, and I might add that Iraq had no intention of stopping in Kuwait because its goal was to invade other Gulf States as well and take over their oil supplies and I have never forgotten Saddam's warning to those Gulf States either.

We invaded Afghanistan because it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Had it done so, there would have been no American involvement. All it had to do was the honor our demand and that would have the end of the story, however, Afghanistan refused and the rest is now history.

We invaded Iraq because of a false story of WMD from Iraq's opposition, however, WMD was eventually found in Iraq. Wars are very expensive in lives and money and In fact, the two wars will cost the United States trillions of dollars over the next three decades and much of that money will be used to support the veterans who were injured during those conflicts. We wouldn't have much of the financial problems of today if it weren't for those wars.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, I don't think it's wise to argue with a pilot with 2nd person perspective of what happened at the pentagon, but i'll leave this video.

I want to add on the deceptive nature of "Pilots for 911 Truth." One of the things that "Pilots for 911 Truth" refuses to admit is that they are incorrect on ACARS. Other posters corrected Robert Balsamo on ACARS and yet he refuses to make much needed changes on the website of "Pilots for 911 Truth."

To underline that they have been spewing false information on ACARS, I made phone calls to ARINC, the ACARS experts, where I relayed to them the comments that is posted on the website of "Pilots for 911 Truth in regard to their ACARS. The ACARS experts indicated to me that what "Pilots for 911 Truth" was saying about ACARS and the 911 aircraft was false.

Robert Balsamo should also have known that at no time did radar depict the 911 aircraft airborne after they crashed, which once again, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he, and "Pilots for 911 Truth," continues to deceive its readers and I am just bringing that reality out into the open, which is why I have warned people against using certain conspiracy websites as references.

http://www.blackfive...ts-for-911.html

I have a difficult time believing those so-called pilots @ "Pilots for 911 Truth" could be so ignorant of the way things work in the real world of aviation, but according to their own comments at that website, they are in fact as ignorant as they have portrayed themselves to be.

In regard to claims the 911 aircraft were flown under remote control, are they so ignorant to not understand the astronomical problems associated with such a claim? I guess they are.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious! I've been away for a bit cause I've bneen extremely busy, so lets take a look at what spameagle is posting....lol

Why not? After all, the steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire not to mention the Kader toy factory collapse in Thailand due to fire.

However, what you are forgetting is that the Windsor Building didn't collapse entirely like WTC1, 2 or 7 and that there many more better equivalent buildings which didn't collapse due to fires such as....

•Meridian Plaza.

•First Interstate Bank

•New York Plaza

•Caracas Towers

•Beijing Mandarin Hotel

All of these were high rise steel framed structures like the WTC which didn't collapse after fires, which were much more vicious and in some case burning much longer than any of the fires in WTC.

Now before you say something completely stupid :w00t: !! Like telling us again that no planes hit these buildings, then you are moronically forgetting that they did not hit the WTC7.....making your entire point moot.

And the fact that we have other examples of planes hitting buildings and them not collapsing from either the impacts or subsequent fires doesn't really support your case or make a convincing point.

Oh and as for the Kader Toy Factory, well is that really a comparator to the WTC?? Do you want to revert back to using the overpass?? lol Even if we accept these p*** poor structures as examples to support your fire theory, your still outnumbered by the fact that more building have survived than collapsed.

I know you keep ignoring it because it tears holes in your logic, although I wouldn't call it logic, I would just call it for what it is....backward thinking. lol

Let's take a look at the collapse of WTC6 and notice no explosives were used when WTC6 collapsed. You can view the collapse at time line 1:49.

Look at that....no explosives used, yet your contradict yourself by insisting that it would require tons of explosives with miles of detonation cord to demolish WTC1, 2 & 7.

Oh the irony is hilarious!! lol

The Verinage Demolition method collapse buildings without explosives. Check it out.

You keep referring to the verinage collapse even though it doesn't support your case.

•There is no air pressure escaping from many floors below the collapse zone unlike the WTC 1 & 2.

•No explosives were used and if they were used, the only explosives needed would be placed on the same floors which are cut in the verinage collapse, disproving your strawman that it would require tons of explosives.

•They cut the building in the middle as opposed to the upper floors because it probably wouldn't collapse if they cut the higher floors.

Naturally, I don't expect you to understand any of this because frankly, your a spambot! lol

On the contrary, a video was disclosed, but how many air disaster investigations have the videos to aid in their investigations?

The video from the security cam at the Pentagon didn't really show much did it really?? lol

Oh wait a minute, this is coming from the guy who watches a grainy video and sees silvery droplets falling at free fall speeds that he can't point out to anyone, but is capable of determining that it's aluminium. No doubt, you have also determined that the nose of whatever is in the frame of the video is a definitely a boeing. lol

Videos are not required, however, we have videos of American 11 striking WTC1 and United 175 striking WTC2 and yet, there are those who claim that missiles struck those buildings.

That might be the opinion of some people but have you asked if this is the opinion of the person you are addressing, or is this another one of those strawmen you like to building and then knock down, so you can convince yourself you had a point and that you have won. :yes:

So once again, videos are not required to determine the cause of an aircraft accident, which is why we have radar and FDR data.

If video is not required and if there is nothing on the videos which the FBI confiscated, then why don't they release them? lol

Let's take a look at the Empire State Building and notice the small hole when the building was struck by a B-25 bomber.

http://jrblog.typepa...toryfactsmyths/

Notice how it didn't collapse either!
A B-25 is much larger than the hole you see in the side of the Empire State Building. Similar to what we saw at the Pentagon.

And yet a building built back in the 1930s is apparently much stronger than a building which was designed to withstand the impact of the biggest plane at the time and constructed almost 40 years later. Looks like the architectural world took leap backwards instead of forwards hey?? :blink: lol

That is not true at all. That maneuver was so boring, and here it comes again, I could have gone into the kitchen and made a sandwich and returned to the living room to begin eating that sandwich before he could have completed his maneuver and the amazing thing about that is, he didn't even complete a full circle!!

Utter nonsense! lol

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Danielle O'Brien, Air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport

Yeah, that maneuver was so boring all right, that an internet debunker who knows better than those experts at GZ and now claim he knows more than the ATC at Dulles is bound to be correct?? :blink: lol Edited by Stundie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious! I've been away for a bit cause I've bneen extremely busy, so lets take a look at what spameagle is posting....lol

However, what you are forgetting is that the Windsor Building didn't collapse entirely like WTC1, 2 or 7 and that there many more better equivalent buildings which didn't collapse due to fires such as....

  • Meridian Plaza.
  • First Interstate Bank
  • New York Plaza
  • Caracas Towers
  • Beijing Mandarin Hotel

All of these were high rise steel framed structures like the WTC which didn't collapse after fires, which were much more vicious and in some case burning much longer than any of the fires in WTC.

How many of those buildings were struck by a B-767? Zero!!!

Did the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky? No![

Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States invaded any country after the USS Cole was bombed??

Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States attacked Iraq immediately after Ramzi Yousef bombed WTC1 in 1993 and fled to Iraq?

Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that he US invaded any country after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?

Did TheSpoon suggest or actually say that the United States invade any country after Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky?

I did to make a point.

  • There is no air pressure escaping from many floors below the collapse zone unlike the WTC 1 & 2.[/quote]

But, there is air pressure escaping from the buildings. I guess you overlooked that fact, so let's do a review.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.