To those who believe the 911 official story

[Zaus]

Intentional Deception to start a war?

hmmmm.... how many times has history repeated itself?

Another popular technique to p*** people off and start a war? Guantanamo Bay.

If you have not seen the pictures they didn't show on the mass media, trust me, the rest of the world was responsible enough to actually account for it happening.

America practically DENIES IT!! And the public was not shown the full scope for obvious reasons, it wasn't for them.

[turbonium]

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

What can one say? It's yet another display of sheer brilliance, in a post by Czero.

I've come to expect no less.

[Czero 101]

What can one say? It's yet another display of sheer brilliance, in a post by Czero.

I've come to expect no less.

Rest assured, Turbs, that your expectations of me mean about as much to me as my lack of any expectations of you mean to you.

Cz

[Zaus]

What about the 2000 degree temperatures for weeks afterward???

how does a plane do that?

You must understand nearly EVERYTHING, loose change, the "truth" movement, 911 EVERYTHING, is Disinfo(being used to mislead)

how do they "trick" people into believing it? truth. plain and simple truth mixed with obvious errors so that it can be discredited.

Ive noticed that many different 911 "theories" have been raised, some due to the MASSIVE LACK OF EVIDENCE, as every "theory" shows, there are holes to plunder.

But, if the "truth" movement has a plant leading it, he will obviously lead them into a trap(as has been done), therefore they are discredited and people no longer listen to them. However, with every video, small snippets of truth shine through like diamonds...

Loose change showed how CRAPPY the overall evidence was, and touched on CIA operations involving "crashing planes into the WTC" Depicting it in many magazines and so forth.

The NIST report itself, ADMITS that it is not possible for a building like the WTC to collapse from "fire", just like the other tower and building 7.

It is... really... unintelligent to think that a building made from steel will cave due to fires...

Loose change again points out that NO BUILDINGS MADE WITH STEEL have EVER, i repeat EVER, been brought down by fire... even with EVERY FLOOR ON FIRE AND BURNING FOR 24+ hours, the STRUCTURE is ALWAYS LEFT.

This has NEVER happened before, but there's a catch.

The three buildings that were destroyed in 911, were the only buildings in history to have ever collapsed due to fire.

They know you get WHAT YOU ACCREDIT TO REALITY by watching "the news".

They know you are getting what YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUTH SOLELY FROM THEM, and thus reality can be created.

impossible moving bridge...

Oddities, and a dead giveaway...

Audio and impossible angles

Edited March 8, 2008 by Zaus

[turbonium]

I said...

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.

You know this how?

Because I took a few seconds to Google it, that's how. Try it for yourself, and you'll know it, too.

Slashing tends to produce an uglier wound and more blood though.

I agree, in general a slashing is more graphic, but less lethal, than a stabbing.

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.

And that's my point - a box-cutter isn't going to scare 20-30 people into a state of cowering submission.

Have you ever seen anyone slashed with a razor before?

Sure. Just this morning, I nicked myself shaving !

But seriously, I'm sure you mean a severe slashing. No, I haven't seen it in person, only on TV news, etc. Some of it was very graphic footage. Have you seen it in person?

I said...

..even scissors are a better choice of weapon than box-cutters are.

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

You're claiming that scissors are only a better defensive weapon than box-cutters? Scissors (in general) are also a better offensive weapon than box-cutters.

You're also claiming that box-cutters are better than scissors "to scare people into being compliant". Neither of them are an effective weapon to scare people into compliance.

I said...

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.

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.

LOL! Are you serious? How do you expect me to prove it, exactly? With a video? It may be difficult for you to believe, but nobody was toting a Handycam at the time!

Maybe you can "prove" that 19 hijackers took over the 4 planes on 9/11? Got any video evidence?

As for comparing situations, you're trying to move the goalposts, by bringing in the supposed Flt. 93 "passenger revolt" scenario. I was comparing the original 9/11 hijacker scenario, where (supposedly) the passengers were unaware of any plan to crash the planes. Don't try and claim now that Flt. 93 was the 9/11 hijacker situation being discussed and compared.

My situations were indeed much more dangerous than the 9/11 passengers' situation, as noted previously.

I said...

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.

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

No, they shot bullets. I temporarily lost the hearing in my left ear when a gun was fired a few inches away from my head. Take my word for it, a bomb threat would be the least of your worries at that point.

I said...

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.

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.

You're still not getting it. No PILOTS had ever done this before! SOP has always been to never relinquish control of your aircraft during flight to anyone (including crazed terrorists).

Do you think there is a good reason why this SOP might be considered so important? If you know any commercial pilots, they can tell you - a pilot giving up control of his aircraft is likely no better off than if he'd gone and crashed the plane himself!

Compare 9/11 to similar hijacking incidents, such as El Al Flight 219. Two hijackers with guns and grenades threatened to shoot people, or blow up the plane, if the pilot didn't let them into the cockpit. The pilot refused, and sent the plane into a deep nosedive to fling the hijackers upside down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

The purported 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns. And even if they claimed to have bombs, none were ever seen.

The official story is utter nonsense. It would have been extremely difficult for the (supposed) hijackers to take over even one of the planes. But four planes? That's absolute crap!

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.

Yes, that's the official story. Too bad it's pure fiction, with B-movie dialogue.

IF you had the flight option would you have taken it in your story above?

No.

If not, why did you point out there was no flight option?

Simply because there was no flight option.

[turbonium]

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?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying to be a hero". The only way to fully understand that point is by going through such an ordeal yourself. It occurs in many combat situations, serious crimes, etc. It's purely instinct. You aren't thinking about getting The Congressional Medal Of Honor, or hoping you'll become a national hero, if you go out and do 'this' or do 'that'. But it's not easy for many people to believe that, because - as I said - it has to be experienced personally.

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.

No, it's not a contradiction, As I said earlier, the pilot may as well crash the plane himself if he gives up control of the aircraft. The best chance of survival - for both crew and passengers - is by the pilot(s) keeping control of his aircraft (especially during the flight). The pilot(s) always takes the position that he (they) alone is (are) fully responsible for the lives of those onboard. A pilot would have to be killed first, before he'd ever give up control of the plane to a terrorist.

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.

Missing the point here.

We've been discussing a scenario with hijackers wielding box-cutters, period. I pointed out that 20-30 people will not cower in utter fear and terror in such a situation. Not from box-cutters. They don't have to act like a herd of cattle if they believe their survival is at stake. And the pilot will not give up control of the aircraft, which is really the most relevant issue.

[Travelling Man]

Actually, the entirety of the situation is being missed here.

It isn't a situation where 20 people are cowering in fear from a guy with a box cutter... it is a matter of ONE person cowering in fear from a guy with a box cutter. These were a bunch of INDIVIDUALS on a flight that were afraid to act alone... not a TEAM of people that could act in concert against a common enemy. With a team, one person could be expected to "take one for the team" and jump a razor-wielder, knowing he'd have the crap cut out of him - just so the rest of the team could bum-rush the bad guy and finally disarm him.

The folks on the planes were NOT a team.

There was only ONE plane that had the passengers form something of a team... Flight 93. The individuals got together under a leader and acted en masse. THEY were successful in preventing the hijackers to complete their mission.

[flyingswan]

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.

As it wasn't my theory in the first place, there is at least one person who agrees. In the first link, he mentions his qualifications:

"In the 1990s I was involved professionally in this field, specifically in robotizing the management of electronic file tapes and in managing the UPS systems of a leading Italian banking group, so I am well acquainted with the safety problems and the physical and chemical characteristics of these batteries."

I've no idea how many people would support the idea, it isn't widely known, but the only adverse comments I've seen come from q24, whose ignorance of all branches of engineering is truly impressive for someone who persists in debating engineering issues, and keithisco, who appeared to misunderstand my initial post and has yet to reply to my clarification.

Is keithisco an electrical engineer? If so, what are his comments on my links?

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/0...or-of-wtc2.html

http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html

Edited March 8, 2008 by flyingswan

[Q24]

q24, whose ignorance of all branches of engineering is truly impressive

Despite our disagreements being nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with the official story's lack of evidence and failure to satisfactorily answer questions, if what you say above is true, I do appear to be in good company: -

“The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result of aircraft impact and subsequent fires.”

Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng – Mechanical Engineer

"The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.”

Eric Douglas – Registered Architect

“Upon reviewing the work of Prof. Jones, Jim Hoffman, and others, as well as NIST reports: my opinion is that these "collapses" could not have happened without the use of some sort of explosive, barring repeal of laws of physics!”

John Mizzi, B EE, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

James Quintiere - Professor of Fire Protection Engineering

“I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.”

J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer

“The aircraft impact and fire severity effects were magnified in the NIST reports.”

“We will find that the government investigations into building collapse [at the World Trade Center] must consider controlled demolition as far more probable since fire effects collapse could never be duplicated. ...”

Edward S. Munyak, BS ME, MS Eng. Mgmt., PE – Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer

“In addition the NIST report in relation to collapse initiation is faulty and opposes the known material properties of structural grade steel and the associated heat transfer processes.”

Christopher Backus, BS ME – Senior Product Design Engineer

“When you’re ready to accept the fact that we still have a vital need for the truth, a good way of examining the many important facts NIST ignored, and considering what could have really happened in New York City, is to read Steven Jones’ historic paper.”

Kevin Ryan, BS Chem – Certified Quality Engineer

*Mr. Ryan was fired by Underwriters Laboratories 5 days after sending a letter to a NIST scientist pointing out inconsistencies in the NIST report on the causes of the building collapses at the World Trade Center and asking for clarification.

“And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses -- such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity -- except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft. NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."”

Jim Hoffman, MFA – Software Engineer and Research Scientist

“The NIST and FEMA reports do not explain the collapse of WTC 7.”

Jon Jensen, BSc Physics – R&D Engineer, Aerospace Test Engineer, Manufacturing Engineer and Engineering Technician

[ifisurvive]

No, it's not a contradiction, As I said earlier, the pilot may as well crash the plane himself if he gives up control of the aircraft. The best chance of survival - for both crew and passengers - is by the pilot(s) keeping control of his aircraft (especially during the flight). The pilot(s) always takes the position that he (they) alone is (are) fully responsible for the lives of those onboard. A pilot would have to be killed first, before he'd ever give up control of the plane to a terrorist.

The best chance of survival of the passengers and crew is for the pilots to do what the hijackers tell them. The pilots did not know the hijackers would take over flying the planes - pretty much every hijacking before 9/11 involved the pilots remaining in control of the aircraft, but flying and landing where the hijackers told them to. Once into the cockpit, having a knife at your throat is pretty good reason to get out of your seat or the hijackers could have straight out killed the pilots without any warning.

So - we both agree that the pilots would do best for the safety of the passengers and crew. My argument is that the pilots would allow the hijackers in to the cockpit because there's no reason to believe the hijackers would not allow the pilots to continue to safely control the plane to whatever destination they demanded. Doing so would also prevent the death of the crew who's life was being directly threatened by the people demanding access to the cockpit and also would stop them from carrying out the threat of exploding a bomb on board. Your argument is the pilots would ignore the hijackers, allow one of thier colleague's throats to be cut, allow any other passenger then to be taken and killed next, and possibley infuriate the hijackers to explode a bomb killing everyone on board.

Did you read the link you gave about the El Al flight where the pilot fought back? That link gave details about FIVE hijackings - four of which were successfull, where the hijackers gained access to the cockpit and the pilots did what they were told. Seriously - you say "A pilot would have to be killed first, before he'd ever give up control of the plane to a terrorist", you say it's impossible the four aircraft on 9/11 could have been hijacked and as proof you give a link which shows four aircraft being successfully hijacked?!

And the El Al flight is an example where one crew member on the flight deck DID want to do what the hijackers said, but the captain took a quick decision (overriding what his standard procedure told him he should have done). The whole incident was only prevented from being a much bigger bloodbath by there being an armed sky marshall on board and pure luck that a hand grenade did not explode!

Missing the point here.

We've been discussing a scenario with hijackers wielding box-cutters, period. I pointed out that 20-30 people will not cower in utter fear and terror in such a situation. Not from box-cutters. They don't have to act like a herd of cattle if they believe their survival is at stake. And the pilot will not give up control of the aircraft, which is really the most relevant issue.

As Malruhn pointed out, ever single person is an individual and would have to make that decision on their own. And as I pointed out in my previous point they would have to take that decision to take on four guys with knives without any knowledge that anyone else will help. And again you are ignoring the issue of seeing soneone being killed already and the threat of a bomb.

It's interesting you point out what people will do if they believe their survival is at stake. Of course the thing with a knife is, unless that person is right next to you your survival is NOT at stake. It's a lot more at stake if you try to attack them. And if someone has a bomb (or you think they do), then, again, you'd better be close to them and know how to disarm that bomb because otherwise running to attack them is just putting your survival at more risk. Ultimately, before 9/11 when the most likely thing to happen was the flight would be diverted and LAND SAFELY (where, if you wanted to overcome your attackers is a much safer place), the best thing for your survival is NOT to fight back.

[Q24]

The whole incident was only prevented from being a much bigger bloodbath by there being an armed sky marshall on board and pure luck that a hand grenade did not explode!

You just reminded me... Daniel Lewin, a former officer of the Sayeret Matkal, an Israeli intelligence unit noted for dealing with counter-terrorism, was on Flight 11. He was sitting right next to the hijackers and the official story says he was killed when trying to intervene in the takeover. Not only Israeli intelligence on the ground you see ifisurvive; they were in the air too.

[turbonium]

The best chance of survival of the passengers and crew is for the pilots to do what the hijackers tell them. The pilots did not know the hijackers would take over flying the planes - pretty much every hijacking before 9/11 involved the pilots remaining in control of the aircraft, but flying and landing where the hijackers told them to. Once into the cockpit, having a knife at your throat is pretty good reason to get out of your seat or the hijackers could have straight out killed the pilots without any warning.

You're confusing two different situations. I'll explain this below...

So - we both agree that the pilots would do best for the safety of the passengers and crew. My argument is that the pilots would allow the hijackers in to the cockpit because there's no reason to believe the hijackers would not allow the pilots to continue to safely control the plane to whatever destination they demanded. Doing so would also prevent the death of the crew who's life was being directly threatened by the people demanding access to the cockpit and also would stop them from carrying out the threat of exploding a bomb on board. Your argument is the pilots would ignore the hijackers, allow one of thier colleague's throats to be cut, allow any other passenger then to be taken and killed next, and possibley infuriate the hijackers to explode a bomb killing everyone on board.

No, the issue is control of the aircraft, not who is telling the pilot where to fly the plane.

Did you read the link you gave about the El Al flight where the pilot fought back? That link gave details about FIVE hijackings - four of which were successfull, where the hijackers gained access to the cockpit and the pilots did what they were told.

A pilot doing what he is told is as entirely different thing than a pilot relinquishing control of his aircraft.

Seriously - you say "A pilot would have to be killed first, before he'd ever give up control of the plane to a terrorist", you say it's impossible the four aircraft on 9/11 could have been hijacked and as proof you give a link which shows four aircraft being successfully hijacked?!

As I said, pilots are still in control of the plane if hijackers are telling them where to fly the plane. I'm well aware of such incidents as you describe taking place previously. But again, that is entirely different than a pilot relinquishing control of the aircraft.

And the El Al flight is an example where one crew member on the flight deck DID want to do what the hijackers said, but the captain took a quick decision (overriding what his standard procedure told him he should have done). The whole incident was only prevented from being a much bigger bloodbath by there being an armed sky marshall on board and pure luck that a hand grenade did not explode!

Again, the relevant issue here is that the pilot did not give up control of the plane.

As Malruhn pointed out, ever single person is an individual and would have to make that decision on their own. And as I pointed out in my previous point they would have to take that decision to take on four guys with knives without any knowledge that anyone else will help. And again you are ignoring the issue of seeing soneone being killed already and the threat of a bomb.

It's interesting you point out what people will do if they believe their survival is at stake. Of course the thing with a knife is, unless that person is right next to you your survival is NOT at stake. It's a lot more at stake if you try to attack them. And if someone has a bomb (or you think they do), then, again, you'd better be close to them and know how to disarm that bomb because otherwise running to attack them is just putting your survival at more risk. Ultimately, before 9/11 when the most likely thing to happen was the flight would be diverted and LAND SAFELY (where, if you wanted to overcome your attackers is a much safer place), the best thing for your survival is NOT to fight back.

I agree with you here. I referred to this in my quote you've posted above.

Thinking you're going to be Rambo Jr. and be a national hero would be complete lunacy in the 9/11 situation described earlier (not Flt. 93).

My situations, as I said, were completely different than this. My survival (along with everyone else there) was indeed at stake.

My points regarding the box-cutters are that they are a poor choice of weapon, that they would not make 20-30 people cower in fear, and that they would not make the pilot give up control of his aircraft.

Edited March 9, 2008 by turbonium

[flyingswan]

Despite our disagreements being nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with the official story's lack of evidence and failure to satisfactorily answer questions, if what you say above is true, I do appear to be in good company: -

Like I say, ignorant of engineering, all you can do is cherry-pick quotes. You can't understand the errors that the likes of Hoffman, Ross and Ryan put into their arguments. You neglect the fact that others like Quintiere may express doubt about the NIST report, but that doesn't mean that they think controlled demolition was a possibility.

Incidentally, from this link:

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/facts/mm/02_03/feb.cfm

"Jim Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering, said the thickness of the surviving fire insulation in the World Trade Center towers, rather than the destruction of insulation during impact, explained why the towers collapsed when they did. The U.S. National Institute of Technology will soon be testing the theory."

[turbonium]

Like I say, ignorant of engineering, all you can do is cherry-pick quotes. You can't understand the errors that the likes of Hoffman, Ross and Ryan put into their arguments. You neglect the fact that others like Quintiere may express doubt about the NIST report, but that doesn't mean that they think controlled demolition was a possibility.

They may not consider the CD theory the most probable theory, or may not even rank it in their 'top 10' collapse theories.

But on what valid basis would they simply rule out the CD theory as a possibility?

They can't, unless they can prove conclusively why it isn't possible.

[Zaus]

wow... some people dont know ANYTHING!!!

controlled demolition...

yep... look at wtc 7... did you see it? no? well then your isht out of luck.

[flyingswan]

They may not consider the CD theory the most probable theory, or may not even rank it in their 'top 10' collapse theories.

But on what valid basis would they simply rule out the CD theory as a possibility?

They can't, unless they can prove conclusively why it isn't possible.

Apart from the sheer implausibility of someone prepping an occupied building for CD without anyone noticing, or of a CD system working after being hit by an aircraft and exposed to a fire, there's the complete absence of any evidence for CD - the lack of acoustic or seismic data from immediately before the collapses, no reports of explosive damage to the recovered steel, no nitrate residues, no witness reports of the smell of explosives even. The thermite/thermate theory gets around the acoustic/seismic problem, but is in even worse a position otherwise, with no plausible theory of how thermite could cut large columns, and again no residue (barium).

[Redtail]

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.

Because I took a few seconds to Google it, that's how. Try it for yourself, and you'll know it, too.

You made the claim you support it.

I agree, in general a slashing is more graphic, but less lethal, than a stabbing.

And it's the blood that causes hesitation.

And that's my point - a box-cutter isn't going to scare 20-30 people into a state of cowering submission.

Skin color can make people cower in submission, the right tone of voice can make people cower in submission, but a weapon that can do serious physical harm can't. No, you're wrong.

Sure. Just this morning, I nicked myself shaving !

But seriously, I'm sure you mean a severe slashing. No, I haven't seen it in person, only on TV news, etc. Some of it was very graphic footage. Have you seen it in person?

Yep. Unless you nick an artery a stab wound isn't going to cause much blood flow. Seeing a hard slash leaving meat hanging and a lot of blood causes problems for most people

I said...

..even scissors are a better choice of weapon than box-cutters are.

You're claiming that scissors are only a better defensive weapon than box-cutters? Scissors (in general) are also a better offensive weapon than box-cutters.

You're also claiming that box-cutters are better than scissors "to scare people into being compliant". Neither of them are an effective weapon to scare people into compliance.

Yes they are.

I said...

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.

LOL! Are you serious? How do you expect me to prove it, exactly? With a video? It may be difficult for you to believe, but nobody was toting a Handycam at the time!

So you and yours were so threatened, in a situation much more dangerous than the victims aboard those flights, there was no flight option so you handled it yourself and didn't file a police report, and managed to get out unharmed (Well unharmed enough you didn't need medical attention.)

Maybe you can "prove" that 19 hijackers took over the 4 planes on 9/11? Got any video evidence?

Aside from the phone calls, and cockpit recordings?

As for comparing situations, you're trying to move the goalposts, by bringing in the supposed Flt. 93 "passenger revolt" scenario. I was comparing the original 9/11 hijacker scenario, where (supposedly) the passengers were unaware of any plan to crash the planes. Don't try and claim now that Flt. 93 was the 9/11 hijacker situation being discussed and compared.

... I didn't bring 93 up... Even if I did it would be moving the goalposts though. The passengers on other three planes though they had the option of waiting it out like every other hijacking the passengers of 93 found out what was happening and that gave them the courage to revolt.

My situations were indeed much more dangerous than the 9/11 passengers' situation, as noted previously.

No they weren't and its laughable (in a sad way)that you would think so.

I said...

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.

No, they shot bullets. I temporarily lost the hearing in my left ear when a gun was fired a few inches away from my head. Take my word for it, a bomb threat would be the least of your worries at that point.

So what were the other attackers doing? They just stood and waited patiently for you to finish them off one by one?

Oh, and just so you know, NO, you weren't in as much danger as the people on those flights even if your story is true.

I said...

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.

You're still not getting it. No PILOTS had ever done this before! SOP has always been to never relinquish control of your aircraft during flight to anyone (including crazed terrorists).

Do you think there is a good reason why this SOP might be considered so important? If you know any commercial pilots, they can tell you - a pilot giving up control of his aircraft is likely no better off than if he'd gone and crashed the plane himself!

You're still not getting it. Pre 9/11 it wasn't uncommon to leave the cockpit door unlocked. Hell sometimes they left it open. Do you think a hijacker bent on using a plane as a weapon is going to be polite and ask the pilot to please give up his seat?

Compare 9/11 to similar hijacking incidents, such as El Al Flight 219. Two hijackers with guns and grenades threatened to shoot people, or blow up the plane, if the pilot didn't let them into the cockpit. The pilot refused, and sent the plane into a deep nosedive to fling the hijackers upside down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

The purported 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns. And even if they claimed to have bombs, none were ever seen.

... Comparing a flight from El AL to 9/11. A flight from a country that has to deal with terrorist acts FAR more than the US has. FAR more hijackings. Wow...

The official story is utter nonsense. It would have been extremely difficult for the (supposed) hijackers to take over even one of the planes. But four planes? That's absolute crap!

No, it's not.

Yes, that's the official story. Too bad it's pure fiction, with B-movie dialogue.

Prove it.

[Zaus]

Prove it.

You believe that a passport can survive a plane impact and magically fall to the ground intact. Then you believe this is actual "evidence" that said person was a "hijacker" on the plane that exploded... leaving PAPER untouched by FIRE...

STEEL DOESN'T BURN OR MELT until 2000 degrees, the WTC steel was graded for almost 3000. Kerosene burns up very quickly, and it takes 45 MINUTES for STEEL to get to a melting point IF THE TEMPERATURE IS OVER 2000 DEGREES for that time.

A plane... simply cant do that, and it is blatantly obvious. It is also blatantly obvious the WHOLE 911 coverage was BS.

Populace control means you can make war whenever you want, and if you think this war on "terrorism" is anything more than a populace control technique so the people wont revolt, you have fallen for their game, and it is YOUR FAULT. But, trust me, reality is much better than fantasy.

[Czero 101]

You believe that a passport can survive a plane impact and magically fall to the ground intact. Then you believe this is actual "evidence" that said person was a "hijacker" on the plane that exploded... leaving PAPER untouched by FIRE...

You're confusing "possibility" with "probability". Is it possible for a passport to survive a airliner crash? Certainly... many times at crash sites there are lots of personal items that are left essentially "unscathed". Is it probable for that one particular passport to have survived the crash? Yes it is probable in the sense that it is not possible to entirely rule out the fact that is could happen, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely low.

STEEL DOESN'T BURN OR MELT until 2000 degrees, the WTC steel was graded for almost 3000. Kerosene burns up very quickly, and it takes 45 MINUTES for STEEL to get to a melting point IF THE TEMPERATURE IS OVER 2000 DEGREES for that time.

Raw iron melts at about 2800 degrees F. Refined steel melts at about 2500 - 2700 degrees F, depending on the type of steel. However, steel starts to lose its structural stability and load bearing strength at far less temperatures.

A plane... simply cant do that, and it is blatantly obvious. It is also blatantly obvious the WHOLE 911 coverage was BS.

Correct... A plane, alone, with no other contributing factors, should not be able to do that. However, given that the plane itself was not the only contributing factor in this case, it is obvious to some, with the available evidence taken into account, that the events happened exactly as reported, just as it is "obvious" to some, despite a lack of conclusive evidence, that there must have been some kind of conspiracy at work.

Cz

[Redtail]

You believe that a passport can survive a plane impact and magically fall to the ground intact. Then you believe this is actual "evidence" that said person was a "hijacker" on the plane that exploded... leaving PAPER untouched by FIRE...

Yes. You remember those huge fireballs from the towers? Have you seen those pics of paper littering the streets?

STEEL DOESN'T BURN OR MELT until 2000 degrees, the WTC steel was graded for almost 3000. Kerosene burns up very quickly, and it takes 45 MINUTES for STEEL to get to a melting point IF THE TEMPERATURE IS OVER 2000 DEGREES for that time.

Steel weakens at far lower temperatures though. Centuries of blacksmiths know this.

A plane... simply cant do that, and it is blatantly obvious. It is also blatantly obvious the WHOLE 911 coverage was BS.

Yes it can.

Populace control means you can make war whenever you want, and if you think this war on "terrorism" is anything more than a populace control technique so the people wont revolt, you have fallen for their game, and it is YOUR FAULT. But, trust me, reality is much better than fantasy.

No, reality tends to be boring, which is why people, play MMORPGs, or D&D, or LARPs, or dream up fantasies of shadowy cabals controlling the masses and keeping them in a Matrix like "false world.

[frenat]

You believe that a passport can survive a plane impact and magically fall to the ground intact.

Yes. As well as the wallets with currency, credit cards, jewelry, purses, even mail that was eventually delivered. And this seat cushion from one of the planes

http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/large

Small pieces of debris often survive plane crashes or similar disasters. You didn't hear much about the other fragile items recovered because finding Joe Nobody's Blockbuster card isn't nearly as newsworthy as a passport from a perpetrator.

After the Columbia disaster they found mission patches and even some live worms from one of the experiments.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts10...rms_030501.html

Then you believe this is actual "evidence" that said person was a "hijacker" on the plane that exploded... leaving PAPER untouched by FIRE...

I believe it wasn't even needed as evidence as their identities were established through other means.

Edited March 9, 2008 by frenat

[Archosaur]

As the terrorists were in the cockpit of the airliner, going over 600mph, why is it so impossible that damaged, yet unburnt, items (such as a passport) might have been carried though the glass and plaster dividing walls ahead of the resultant fireball. The fuel exploded out of the opposite side of the impact, showing that the momentum impelled the kerosene through the structure, before it oxidized.

[Zaus]

The point is anyone who believes the official story should go and check themselves into a mental institution.

You ACTUALLY ADMIT to believing that this is evidence against the "hijacker", you believe "paper" survived an explosion that "melted" steel...

You believe that Satam Al Suqami was on flight 11... and he is alive to this day.

Yes the same "hijacker" who's face was there for you(among the other 19) to hate for killing innocent americans... never did a thing.

Who's reality is skewed when this is what you attest to "truth"? Or "Rational".

WTF.

[ifisurvive]

I agree with you here. I referred to this in my quote you've posted above.

Thinking you're going to be Rambo Jr. and be a national hero would be complete lunacy in the 9/11 situation described earlier (not Flt. 93).

My situations, as I said, were completely different than this. My survival (along with everyone else there) was indeed at stake.

My points regarding the box-cutters are that they are a poor choice of weapon, that they would not make 20-30 people cower in fear, and that they would not make the pilot give up control of his aircraft.

Turbs, I am a bit confused about what your argument is as you seem to be agreeing with a lot of my points and not really arguing your case apart from repeating your disbelief.

I’m still unsure of why you are still pushing the 20-30 people thing. The passengers are sitting in rows of seats, unarmed, the hijackers standing up with knives (however feeble you think them to be) that gives them immediate advantage. At the initial point of hijack, your 20-30 people would be scattered about an aircraft. Many would be blocked by other passengers and/or in a window seat so would have to climb over seats just to stand up and/or would have to run down a narrow aisle in order to reach the hijackers. So that reduces your 20-30 to 4 or so who would have reasonable access to attack. For each of those people remaining their ‘fight/flight’ mechanism would have to overcome their initial shock of what’s happened, the realisation that they would have to take on (again, with no knowledge that anyone else would help) multiple men with knives, endangering themselves and possibly others, when sitting in their seat would be the safest option. That’s if the ‘fight/flight’ mechanism kicked in, as we discussed knives not pointed straight at them wouldn’t necessarily do so. Add on top of that, if the hijackers had grabbed someone and held a knife to their throat, which would reduce someone’s desire to attack further (in fear the person would be killed by their actions). Add on top of that if someone had already been killed (seeing someone murdered, blood everywhere), that would reduce the likelihood again. Add on top of that if the hijackers shouted they had a bomb it would be even more reduced.

Once the initial shock is over and the hijackers have control of the plane the passengers would be able to group together more and build up courage. But by then an off-putting bomb threat (which you keep ignoring) would be easily established. And the belief that they would soon be safely landing would prevent any immediate group attacks. So what is your argument?

You agree (and have provided proof in a link you have provided) that pilots would allow the hijackers into the cockpit; you just think that once they had done so they would not allow them to take control of flying the aircraft – what is your argument here?! The hijackers do not have to politely ask the pilots to do anything, they have knives - they can kill the pilots (you've alreay agreed, and links have proved box cutters can kill). If you cannot imagine how they could have taken over the plane you must have a very limited imagination. Logically, on entering the cockpit one pilot would be at the door, the other at the controls. One pilot could have been removed from the cockpit (and either killed or just moved away, with the belief the other pilot would still be in control), and then the other pilot killed. Or both pilots could have been asked to sit in their seats and then killed from behind. Or even if the hijackers immediately burst in and attacked the first pilot he would be killed quickly and the second pilot would have little time to do anything and would have to climb awkwardly out of his seat before being able to defend himself from multiple attackers with knives. Are any of these scenarios unrealistic to you – why is any of this so ‘unimaginable’ to you?

[turbonium]

Apart from the sheer implausibility of someone prepping an occupied building for CD without anyone noticing,

No. The critical supports could only be seen and accessed by authorized personnel. The elevator shafts had sealed access doors, restricted to office workers.

You investigate the actual evidence first, and follow that to wherever it leads you. You don't begin by speculating on what would be required to collapse it by a CD. If the evidence leads you to a CD, then it doesn't matter how difficult it would have been to prep the explosives.

or of a CD system working after being hit by an aircraft and exposed to a fire,

Same as above. You go where the evidence takes you, to find out the cause(s) of collapse. If the evidence shows a CD, then you can speculate on the technical details involved in the CD.

there's the complete absence of any evidence for CD -

Wrong.

the lack of acoustic or seismic data from immediately before the collapses,

No, there is seismic data which shows the greatest spikes occurred at the initiation of the collapse - before the debris had even started to hit the ground.

no reports of explosive damage to the recovered steel,

They never searched for steel with explosive damage! They only looked for steel which fit in with their pre-determined theory a of fire / impact damage collapse. Steel which didn't meet this criteria was never sought out or collected.

no nitrate residues,

Same as above. They never looked for nitrate residues, or any other evidence of explosives, in the steel.

no witness reports of the smell of explosives even.

There were hundreds of witness reports of the sound of explosives, including many firefighters inside and nearby the buildings.

The thermite/thermate theory gets around the acoustic/seismic problem, but is in even worse a position otherwise, with no plausible theory of how thermite could cut large columns, and again no residue (barium).

Superthermite has been cited as a plausible source for cutting columns. Such residue (as I said) was never sought out by NIST's steel recovery team.

But Steven Jones does have physical evidence of thermite residue - several samples.

The CD theory of collapse has a wealth of valid supporting evidence. It can't simply be dismissed or ignored.