Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

Thats what the truth movement is for, for those who know the story is fishy, like a famous nazi propaganda agent once said "if you want to know how much the public knows, and how close they are to figuring it out, lead the opposition yourself.

The sad truth is that 9/11 was instigated by not just the US government, but the world Elite. Also, this was for worldwide gain, not gain in just the US.

What was said in revelations will come to pass, by design, you wanted to know how deep the rabbit hole goes? Thats just scratching the surface.

9/11 was the end of the fairytale, when the world elite would come out and willingly admit their part in the complete brainwashing and the enslavement of humanity.

The end of the world is a real thing, everything begins, everything ends, that is why it is important to understand what time period you are living in!!!

All great nations rise and fall, but we have right now global corporatism, their power to do whatever they please simply relies on their ability to make the masses believe "it is for the good of (insert whatever here)"

People are people, we are talking about soulless greedy men who don't care for the lives of the "cattle"

Something to note about secret societies such as bohemian club, bilderberg, skull and bones, freemasonry, and many other world elite gatherings, they are all secretive men-only clubs... why?

The pyramid of knowledge, atop it sits the eye of illumination...

As i said earlier, the Elite have aleady done their occult magic and are no longer afraid to come into the open about their actions and their role in society as we know it.

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

--David Rockefeller, page 405 of the paperback edition of his book 'Memoirs'

'

You may want to look up who david rockefeller is so that you know who i am talking about, and now... some interesting things...

linked-image

The Fidelity Investments research pyramid. Things to note... the black, white theme(egypt invented chess), the light atop the pyramid.

linked-image

Kayne west, jay-z throwing down the new mainstream rapper BS pyramid of power.

Its on the dollar bill... its the sign of many banks and other powerful companies, and it is embedded in your brain because its been used anciently and recently as a subliminal control. just like the WB(formerlly Varner Bros), cnn, nbc, cbc, bbc, abc, etc, etc, etc.

The eye, the pyramid, the checkerboard. These are the more prolific symbolism, along with the lady in red and the egyptian lotus(which has a highly hallucinogenic quality about it).

but forget about that for now and take a look at rihanna, and our music industry.

Umbrella, on wiki.

Now, note the release date. june 4, 2007.

what else was going on? oh yeah the MASSIVE(!) flood in europe! In fact, when the song hit the #1 spot the rain was at its heaviest, and the locals were even blaming it on the song umbrella!!!

From the Wiki

The song's reign at number-one in Britain occurred as the UK was hit by extreme rainfall and flooding, which led some people to jokingly suggest the two events were related, the media referring to it as the "Rihanna Curse". Interestingly, the precise day the song was knocked from the #1 position by Timbaland, the weather seemed to improve. A similar situation occurred in New Zealand, where the song hit #1 in the early winter of 2007 as the country was experiencing some of the worst storms in its history.[34] In Greece, "Umbrella" was released at a time when people were suffering through a summer of several major heatwaves topping 47C/117F, and the worst forest fires of modern history, killing 60 people. When the song peaked at #4 in the Greek singles chart in October 2007, the country experienced significant rainfall. Spain also experienced one of its wettest summers in decades, and the coldest August since the beginning of the 20th century during "Umbrella"'s chart run.

Coincidence? nope. Occult Magic in the form of TV and music. It is the great populace controlling machine at work, using sex to drain the life energy out of a person(if you have trouble with that one you are lost to the world, as the act itself can CREATE LIFE) so they are unable to figure out what is holding them down.

Take a good hard look at our system of commerce, industry, corporate affairs, government worldwide, and honestly tell me the whole thing isnt just a paper basket being thrown into a volcano with no chance at avoiding the inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Read it again. He mentions the fireball only to question whether it was real.

No, he does not say the fireball wasn't real...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

On the contrary, it is his own post from an internet forum:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/...85844162914307/

(long link, about two-thirds down)

Can't find anything, so please post his quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying the input stops, but was reduced. The “calm points” are the beginning of this decrease or decaying oscillation, a slowing in seismic activity and loss of momentum mid-collapse, which lasts for only approximately 1 second before the activity increases again.

On your logic, if the input is only reduced rather than stopping, then there should be an even more gradual decay.

I did not “pick” anything; I matched the seismograph to video footage and the “calm points” occurred in the moments the upper blocks had fallen through their height. Also, you are not appreciating the difference between reduced “spike” readings and the “calm points” which are drawn out giving a much more constant reading for approximately 1 second than other areas.

You do appreciate that the instrument is oscillating, don't you? About a second is just over one cycle of these oscillations.

I don’t recall using the word “gradual” in my description of the reduced activity, though even if I did you are just quibbling. Apart from the term being very vague, how can it be determined if the reduced activity was gradual or not when the apparent resumption of the collapses at that point prevents us seeing how the oscillation would progress?

You described the calm points as "not gradual". I point out that on your logic they should be gradual. You then backtrack saying that they fit a decaying oscillation, ie a gradual change.

If the collapse had been arrested with resistance of the lower intact block greatly slowing the fall by the time the upper block had dropped through its own height, and assuming debris impacting the ground does not obscure the reading, I would expect to see something like this for WTC2: -

linked-image

Note the calm point still there, indicating the beginning of the reduced activity. Perhaps this is how the reading would have progressed had not explosives completed the collapses. I mean how else should it progress with reduced activity leading to a halt?

Never mind making up your own trace, try comparing what happens at your "calm points" with what goes immediately before. The reduction in magnitude from the cyle before is considerable, though less so than the reduction between the cycles third and second before. That reduction occurs during the fall of the upper block, with no corresponding reduction in the input signal, so a smaller reduction occuring where you want a "calm point" is hardly the gradual decay you need for your theory.

Try and understand this basic point, because without it you are just making yourself look ignorant:

There is a lot of scatter in the magnitudes of the cycles, depending on whether an input event adds to or cancels out the existing movement of the instrument. You are reading data into this variation in magnitude that is in fact random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he does not say the fireball wasn't real...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

The fireball is now "everybody's" theory, no longer his as he then questions it "...elevator operator of the 50A car is alive...He should have been burned alive"

Can't find anything, so please post his quote.

Here it is from that link:

WR- Killtown, you guys are great!!, my response is easy. I was there, he was not. I have met with everybody in the government and I doubt he has. I have the respect of my community and of those who were saved that day. I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert. He says-A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators. The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground- Very strange indeed ,since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.

William Rodriguez | 08.18.06 - 12:20 am | #

It is quite clear that he is now referring to other people's claims of a fireball "He says...fireball...", and he is again now claiming that there was no fireball on the basis of the operator's survival "He should have died..on this theory..."

I note that Roberts has quoted Rodriguez accurately, also giving a link to the original quote, while you denied that the quote was Rodriguez at all. Now what were you saying about Roberts' credibility?

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your logic, if the input is only reduced rather than stopping, then there should be an even more gradual decay.

You described the calm points as "not gradual". I point out that on your logic they should be gradual. You then backtrack saying that they fit a decaying oscillation, ie a gradual change.

This is just one big quibble on your part. Yes, I described the “calm points” as “not gradual” and I have never said that they were “gradual”. Due to the ongoing collapse, from comparing a single cycle to another, it cannot be determined if the decrease was gradual. As I said, “gradual” is very vague – increments can be to a small or large degree but still be gradual, so what exactly is the definition of “gradual” as a measurement in this case? Do you know how effective the damper system is in a seismometer?

Never mind making up your own trace, try comparing what happens at your "calm points" with what goes immediately before.

Oh, “never mind” that you say – very telling. You know that reduced seismic activity moving back to pre-collapse levels could possibly be displayed as I indicated and that the “calm point” fits in well with it. Otherwise, how else should such a decrease in activity appear?

The reduction in magnitude from the cyle before is considerable, though less so than the reduction between the cycles third and second before. That reduction occurs during the fall of the upper block, with no corresponding reduction in the input signal, so a smaller reduction occuring where you want a "calm point" is hardly the gradual decay you need for your theory.

The above would indicate a decrease in momentum beginning approximately 1-2 seconds before the upper block had fallen through its height, reaching its lowest level at the “calm point”.

You have obfuscated this issue enough when all it requires is the answering of a simple question – will reduced seismic activity produce a reduced reading on a seismograph or not? Yes, reduced activity does cause reduced readings. Yes, there are reduced readings or “calm points” mid-collapse. Yes, as discussed, they are more likely caused by reduced activity than by your ‘chance’ theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no use trying to reason with the 9/11 conspirasy guys. Everything that is offered as proof is called BS and is somehow linked by 37 degrees of seperation from George Bush. I work with one of these guys and he thinks that everyone but him are idiots. Only he and the see'ers of truth know whats really going on in the world and the rest of us are fools. Man, I am so tired of hearing this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no use trying to reason with the 9/11 conspirasy guys. Everything that is offered as proof is called BS and is somehow linked by 37 degrees of seperation from George Bush. I work with one of these guys and he thinks that everyone but him are idiots. Only he and the see'ers of truth know whats really going on in the world and the rest of us are fools. Man, I am so tired of hearing this crap.

You know whats really funny, is that most people think that the goverment is there to help the people that put them in power. Oh wait they do you just have to be there friends and have money. The goverment doesn't give a crap about you, so why would they feel they have to tell you the truth about anything. For the vast majority a 30 second sound bite on the evening news dictates what they believe. The people lost as soon as the goverment had no fear of the people. Funny that most people think we actually live in a democracy and there vote means something. Huh most people know little or nothing of what is going on around them or how things work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that the President knew the country was at war at that moment?

Do you honestly think....that not knowing what the hell was actually going on at that moment, that "action" was advisable, or dictated?

What he knew was that a tragedy had occurred. No one knew squat about it beyond that.

Personally, I thought that he handled himself with incredible restraint in the face of the news whispered into his ear that an airplane had crashed into the world trade center towers.

I think his reaction, at the moment he heard the news, was the best proof there is that it wasn't a plot. Did that look like the reaction of an evil mastermind, hearing that his plot had come to fruition? It looked to me like much the same as anyone else probably did on hearing the news. I know that the conspiracy theorists will say that I'm being naive and that was a carefully rehearsed scene, or (who knows?) that it was all photoshopped later and/or he wasn't really there and it was a hologram; but i stand by what I've always said; I just don't think he's that good an actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and now... some interesting things...

linked-image

The Fidelity Investments research pyramid. Things to note... the black, white theme(egypt invented chess), the light atop the pyramid.

I know Zaus lives in a parallel universe, but Egypt didn't actually invent chess.

Chess originated in India,[11] where its early form in the 6th century was chaturanga, which translates as "four divisions of the military" – infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariots, represented respectively by pawn, knight, bishop, and rook. In Persia around 600 the name became shatranj and the rules were developed further. Shatranj was taken up by the Muslim world after the Islamic conquest of Persia, with the pieces largely retaining their Persian names. In Spanish "shatranj" was rendered as ajedrez and in Greek as zatrikion, but in the rest of Europe it was replaced by versions of the Persian shāh ("king").
(incidentally, it looks more green and white to me.)

Oh, and the light atop the pyramid? That's a homing beacon for UFOs.

Rihanna is, though, an instrument of the Dark Side, that I'll give you.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just one big quibble on your part. Yes, I described the “calm points” as “not gradual” and I have never said that they were “gradual”. Due to the ongoing collapse, from comparing a single cycle to another, it cannot be determined if the decrease was gradual. As I said, “gradual” is very vague – increments can be to a small or large degree but still be gradual, so what exactly is the definition of “gradual” as a measurement in this case? Do you know how effective the damper system is in a seismometer?

In other words, you can say anything you like because you are making it up as you go along.

I suggest you ask the owner of the seismograph if you want detailed specs of its response.

Oh, “never mind” that you say – very telling. You know that reduced seismic activity moving back to pre-collapse levels could possibly be displayed as I indicated and that the “calm point” fits in well with it. Otherwise, how else should such a decrease in activity appear?

Why should I comment on a trace that you just made up? You could have your "tail" moved to start two cycles sooner and you would still be able to say exactly the same thing about it.

The above would indicate a decrease in momentum beginning approximately 1-2 seconds before the upper block had fallen through its height, reaching its lowest level at the “calm point”.

In other words, whatever the trace looks like, it confirms your theory. We have another of your unfalsifiable theories at work here.

You have obfuscated this issue enough when all it requires is the answering of a simple question – will reduced seismic activity produce a reduced reading on a seismograph or not? Yes, reduced activity does cause reduced readings. Yes, there are reduced readings or “calm points” mid-collapse. Yes, as discussed, they are more likely caused by reduced activity than by your ‘chance’ theory.

Reduced activity will result in the readings tailing off. However, normal readings to a series of equal input events show a large scatter in response, so you cannot tell from a single cycle whether you have the start of a tail-off or just normal scatter. You have two small readings out of four cycles in the bit of the trace you are looking at, so they are hardly rare events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know whats really funny, is that most people think that the goverment is there to help the people that put them in power. Oh wait they do you just have to be there friends and have money. The goverment doesn't give a crap about you, so why would they feel they have to tell you the truth about anything. For the vast majority a 30 second sound bite on the evening news dictates what they believe. The people lost as soon as the goverment had no fear of the people. Funny that most people think we actually live in a democracy and there vote means something. Huh most people know little or nothing of what is going on around them or how things work.

I would agree with you as far as elected officials and political appointees go, but I have known (and even been one of them) some very dedicated civil servants who gave up glamerous jobs to try and make a difference and keep this country operating as it was intended to, despite interference from the aforementioned group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no use trying to reason with the 9/11 conspirasy guys. Everything that is offered as proof is called BS and is somehow linked by 37 degrees of seperation from George Bush. I work with one of these guys and he thinks that everyone but him are idiots. Only he and the see'ers of truth know whats really going on in the world and the rest of us are fools. Man, I am so tired of hearing this crap.

I know, I know, but if you don't reply to them then you are conceding the argument by default. I don't expect to convince q24 that he is wrong, because his theories are unfalsifiable, but I am trying to show that there are good engineering reasons for all the things that the "truthers" think are evidence for controlled demolition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know, but if you don't reply to them then you are conceding the argument by default. I don't expect to convince q24 that he is wrong, because his theories are unfalsifiable, but I am trying to show that there are good engineering reasons for all the things that the "truthers" think are evidence for controlled demolition.

The thing is, in my opinion, you don't even have to focus on the buildings and how they collapsed or any of that stuff. The government knew well ahead of time that terrorists had plans of hijacking planes and flying them into the twin towers (and other targets). They chose not to take the proper steps to stop this from happening. They may not have known the dates such an attack was set to take place, but they knew it was being planned and that the day would soon arise. They chose not to stop this from happening, and that is what makes them guilty.

They then used this event to launch this ridiculous war we are now in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his reaction, at the moment he heard the news, was the best proof there is that it wasn't a plot. Did that look like the reaction of an evil mastermind, hearing that his plot had come to fruition? It looked to me like much the same as anyone else probably did on hearing the news.

Probably, it was a little more restrained than the common man's reaction.

He knew where he was, and who he was addressing, and had the deportment to keep himself together in the midst of that rather vulnerable little audience, despite the horrific nature of the intial news that he had just received.

But you're absolutely correct. His guts had to be boiling at this news. It was very likely as if he'd just been told his Mother had passed away...and he knew he couldn't react to the news in any overt fashion at that moment....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was said in revelations will come to pass, by design, you wanted to know how deep the rabbit hole goes? Thats just scratching the surface.

You know, I have a theory, based upon the fact that you've probably used that phrase "how deep the rabbit hole goes," perhaps a half dozen times....

I think you're one of those people who saw "What the Bleep Do We Know" once, and thinks they know what it was actually all about....

(egypt invented chess)

You must've fallen into the Rabbit Hole for that one....

Modern Chess originated in Southern Europe during the latter part of the 1400s, and evolved from earlier variants of Indian and Persian origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

The flight instructors said that they only flew in a simulator. The other students said they could barely do that. One of the hijackers tried to rent a two engine plane and could not fly it according to the owner of the plane.

All of these hijackers hung out in a town in Florida near a CIA office. The CIA knew who they were and what they were doing and did nothing then lied.

Professional pilots said that only an expert could do this and the plane that hit the pentagon would have been hard for an expert.

The plane that hit the pentagon made a small hole. There was no damage to a window less that 20 feet from the hole the lawn was not touched, not possible according to pilots. And there was an exit hole just like those in building hit my missiles. in less than 5 minutes after the plane hit the pentagon the FBI confiscated all the tape from video cameras in all building around the pentagon and never realsed them. The three frames do not show a airline it is way too small and show a jet. A airline does not have a jet exhaust but a missile would. There was nothing left of the plane. the wings would have been sheared off and the engines would have survived being is that they are made to withstand tremendous temperatures and stress.

Firefighters said they heard pop,pop,pop as the building went down, just like explosives. There were explosions in the basements before the planes hit.

Build 7 came down with no official explanation. Building 5 had explosions that were never explained. their was 160 billion in gold in the basements according to an article about 3 months before they only found 140 million and claim that was all there was. A security company had their hard drives restored and found 160 million was embessled. Can you say bank robbery.This is just the tip of the ice berg. There are college professors, engineers, pilots, fighter pilots, retired generals that are getting together and asking for a investigation of 911 because the official explanation is a fraud. The congress is scared one congressmen was killed for asking for a reinvestigation.

With McCain being the next president the cover up will continue. Yes he will be the president because the election is already fixed like the last two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you can say anything you like because you are making it up as you go along.

I suggest you ask the owner of the seismograph if you want detailed specs of its response.

My assertion has never depended on specifics of the damper system; only on the fact there is a reduced reading mid-collapse. I think you will find you are the one who introduced the quibble on how “gradual” oscillations should be. In admitting you do not know the seismometer specifications, you are in effect arguing against your own case and yes I agree you are making it up as you go along. As you are basing your dispute of my observation on a specific technical detail, perhaps you should contact the owner of the seismograph before making what are unfounded claims.

Why should I comment on a trace that you just made up? You could have your "tail" moved to start two cycles sooner and you would still be able to say exactly the same thing about it.

The reading that I created is a hypothetical case to show that the “calm point” is not out of place as the beginning of reduced activity – that is because it could very well indicate reduced seismic activity... and reduced activity in the middle of a progressive collapse is not good at all for the official story.

In other words, whatever the trace looks like, it confirms your theory. We have another of your unfalsifiable theories at work here.

Not at all – I just show that what you raised as an obstacle does not detract from the fact the seismograph displays a reduced reading. If the seismograph had shown a gradual build-up as the buildings collapsed and without those “calm points” coinciding with a specific observable event mid-collapse, I would have no problem.

Reduced activity will result in the readings tailing off. However, normal readings to a series of equal input events show a large scatter in response, so you cannot tell from a single cycle whether you have the start of a tail-off or just normal scatter. You have two small readings out of four cycles in the bit of the trace you are looking at, so they are hardly rare events.

Yes, you got it at last – reduced activity causes reduced readings! And this will be the case every single time. I agree, as the collapses continued, we cannot definitely say this was the beginning of a tail-off but what your own calculations have proven is we can be 81% confident of this. Therefore we are left with the likely conclusion that the momentum of the fall was slowing and the increased readings thereafter are an indication of controlled demolition completing the collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know, but if you don't reply to them then you are conceding the argument by default. I don't expect to convince q24 that he is wrong, because his theories are unfalsifiable, but I am trying to show that there are good engineering reasons for all the things that the "truthers" think are evidence for controlled demolition.

My theories are falsifiable as, with the right evidence, they could be shown false. That you cannot present the evidence to disprove them (because in the cases we discuss it does not exist) is confirmation they are plausible theories.

There are no “good” engineering reasons explaining how a ‘natural’ collapse should produce the controlled demolition features observed, though plenty of excellent physics reasons demonstrating that it shouldn’t. We have already discussed how the government’s official investigation into the collapses relies entirely on exaggerated computer simulations working to a preconceived theory with nil corroboration from physical evidence. The controlled demolition theory on the other hand is based on sound premise, supported by hundreds of independent science and construction professionals, and importantly, physical evidence.

The thing is, in my opinion, you don't even have to focus on the buildings and how they collapsed or any of that stuff.

Left Field makes a good point here – the WTC controlled demolitions are just the tip of the iceberg in the false flag operation. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence before, during and after 9/11 to on its own prove the inside job. As an example, in the mid-90s members of the current US administration stated they required a “new Pearl Harbor” to exert military influence in the Middle East... lo and behold, within 6 months of coming to power they got exactly that and have been ‘securing’ said region ever since… how very ‘fortunate’ for them. :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professional pilots said that only an expert could do this and the plane that hit the pentagon would have been hard for an expert.

Nonsense. Professional pilots my rear. Any professional pilot realizes what happed that day and knows that someone with little real training could've done it. (Professional pilots spend alot of time training to stay alive in an airplane...it takes no particular skill to die in one).

Flying a plane into a building takes no particular skill whatsoever. No particular brains either.

You merely need to know how to make basic maneuvers with the stick and rudder...mostly the stick.

You point the nose at the building and hold it there. You probably scream alot while doing it as well...There was nothing difficult about what any of the hijackers did that day with those airplanes.

Now, if they were intent on landing them...THAT would've been something to watch...of course the results would've been tragically similar...

One of the hijackers tried to rent a two engine plane and could not fly it according to the owner of the plane.

I have no doubt about that.

Without a multi-engine rating, few people could handle a two engine plane properly...and of course, these fellows had no particular interest in take off and landing...the two essential skills required to fly an airplane and live to tell of the adventure.

With McCain being the next president the cover up will continue. Yes he will be the president because the election is already fixed like the last two.

Oh yes...of course!

Fixed...

In the present case, we can only hope it's ordained as you say it is...

Dangerously...it is not so ordained at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. Professional pilots my rear. Any professional pilot realizes what happed that day and knows that someone with little real training could've done it. (Professional pilots spend alot of time training to stay alive in an airplane...it takes no particular skill to die in one).

Flying a plane into a building takes no particular skill whatsoever. No particular brains either.

You merely need to know how to make basic maneuvers with the stick and rudder...mostly the stick.

You point the nose at the building and hold it there. You probably scream alot while doing it as well...There was nothing difficult about what any of the hijackers did that day with those airplanes.

"Nonesense" was a fitting prelude to your post.

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ..."

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.

"Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists"."

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Turbine engineering specialist. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Private pilot.

"The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field."

Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE – Aerospace Engineer. Certified Commercial Pilot. Instrument Rating. Aircraft flown: Piper, Beech, and Cessna single-engine. 350 total hours flown. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Ohio. Employed in Aerospace Engineering since 1983.

Quotes taken from amongst the 100+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals on Patriots Question 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, in my opinion, you don't even have to focus on the buildings and how they collapsed or any of that stuff. The government knew well ahead of time that terrorists had plans of hijacking planes and flying them into the twin towers (and other targets). They chose not to take the proper steps to stop this from happening. They may not have known the dates such an attack was set to take place, but they knew it was being planned and that the day would soon arise. They chose not to stop this from happening, and that is what makes them guilty.

They then used this event to launch this ridiculous war we are now in.

Which is why, by and large, I concentrate on the buildings claims. I am no apologist for the US government, especially not for its foreign policy. However, there is a big difference between negligence in ignoring warnings of a terrorist attack and actually carrying out such an attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you got it at last – reduced activity causes reduced readings! And this will be the case every single time. I agree, as the collapses continued, we cannot definitely say this was the beginning of a tail-off but what your own calculations have proven is we can be 81% confident of this. Therefore we are left with the likely conclusion that the momentum of the fall was slowing and the increased readings thereafter are an indication of controlled demolition completing the collapses.

You are still missing the key point: the trace is not an exact match to the input because of the way that the instrument responds. This is true of any seismograph, it does not depend on the particular characteristics of this one. Given that there is considerable scatter in the trace because of this factor, you cannot make the deductions you do based on individual cycles of the instrument response.

I hope you do not gamble or play the markets, because your ability to find pattern in data that is actually random could then prove costly.

I am sure that whatever the shape of the trace, you would have found that it confirmed your theories. That is what is meant by an unfalsifiable theory - it is immune to evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theories are falsifiable as, with the right evidence, they could be shown false. That you cannot present the evidence to disprove them (because in the cases we discuss it does not exist) is confirmation they are plausible theories.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Whatever happened to logic? I cannot disprove an unfalsifiable theory not because it is plausible but because it is capable of accommodating any evidence whatever. You say that the collapses were controlled demolitions because that is what they looked like. If I present any evidence of how they differ from controlled demolitions, you say that they were covert controlled demolitions so they should not therefore look like real ones. In other words, they are CDs if they look like CDs, and they are also CDs if they don't look like CDs. Unfalsifiable.

There are no “good” engineering reasons explaining how a ‘natural’ collapse should produce the controlled demolition features observed, though plenty of excellent physics reasons demonstrating that it shouldn’t. We have already discussed how the government’s official investigation into the collapses relies entirely on exaggerated computer simulations working to a preconceived theory with nil corroboration from physical evidence. The controlled demolition theory on the other hand is based on sound premise, supported by hundreds of independent science and construction professionals, and importantly, physical evidence.

On the contrary, there are hundreds of thousands of structural engineers an the world, and less than one tenth of one percent of them (your "hundreds", few of which are actually structural engineers) find any problems with accepting that the collapses were the natural results of the impacts and fires. That small proportion do not seem capable of coming up with any technical paper setting out their reasons for disagreement, while quite a few technical papers have been published showing how the collapses could happen.

If anyone has the patience to go through this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=97662

they will see that your "physical evidence" for controlled demolition is nothing of the sort, being mostly what would also be expected in a natural collapse. You have no evidence whatever for your controlled demolition theory, which is incredibly convoluted and involves pilotless aircraft, Mossad, impact- and fire-proof detonators and a mixture of both high explosives and thermite. You have presented no evidence that a thermite demolition is even possible on that scale. On the other hand, the "official" theory has come up with a plausible mechanism for collapse initiation which has been verified by lab tests and industry-standard simulation methods. This mechanism includes the bowing of the wall columns prior to the collapse seen in photos of the buildings and very difficult to explain in a controlled demolition context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quotes taken from amongst the 100+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals on Patriots Question 9/11.

Other pilots disagree:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why, by and large, I concentrate on the buildings claims. I am no apologist for the US government, especially not for its foreign policy. However, there is a big difference between negligence in ignoring warnings of a terrorist attack and actually carrying out such an attack.

They let it happen. Think about what that means. Unreal what a free pass people are willing to give them. And yes, they may have even played a part in it happening. Whether they did or not doesn't change the fact they still let it take place when they could have done much more in attempts to prevent it - doing anything at all to prevent it would have been more than they did.

Then after you realize that, think about the fact not one person stepped up to stop what was happening on the day itself. Every single system in place to stop such an event failed. People in charge disappeared or simply didn't want to take charge. Think about how they knew after the first plane struck what was going on, yet played dumb like it might be a crazy accident.

They knew much more than they care to admit.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.