9/11: The Black Boxes at Ground Zero

[Farmer77]

So all the parts (landing gear, engine parts, etc.) from the site that have been conclusively shown to be from a Boeing 757 and fuselage pieces that clearly show American Airlines livery on them were what...? Fakes...?

Cz

Possibly. If not then why not release clear video of what happened and put the whole damn thing to bed? Again I don't claim to have any answers. I just know that there are way too many questions surrounding the pentagon ESPECIALLY when the government could easily release video of what happened from 100 different angles and end all the speculation, yet the don't- well why not?

[Farmer77]

Yes... really.

Do you have another plausible explanation for the damage seen in the images?

Cz

Based on many eyewitnesses it sounds like a C550 to me, but it couldve also been a missile as proposed by some, and again it could have been a 757 but to say that has been proven requires a leap of faith.

[Czero 101]

Possibly.

Perhaps you can explain how exactly this magical slight of hand was carried out?

If not then why not release clear video of what happened and put the whole damn thing to bed? Again I don't claim to have any answers. I just know that there are way too many questions surrounding the pentagon ESPECIALLY when the government could easily release video of what happened from 100 different angles and end all the speculation, yet the don't- well why not?

And just where exactly is it you think these alleged videos from "100 different angles" would have or should have come from?

As for you not having the answers, this is clearly not the case since its obvious from your dismissal of the available, documented facts that you seem to think that the answers those facts provide don't meet your standards. You're proceeding from a predetermined conclusion and looking for evidence that fits that conclusion, rather than forming a conclusion based on the available facts.

Additionally, you're playing the "if I ran the zoo" game where you assume that, because something didn't happen the way you think it should have, or that some kind of evidence that you seem to think should exist hasn't been presented that it automatically means that there's some kind of "foul play" at work.

Both of those are logical fallacies that invalidate your argument.

Cz

[Farmer77]

Perhaps you can explain how exactly this magical slight of hand was carried out?

And just where exactly is it you think these alleged videos from "100 different angles" would have or should have come from?

As for you not having the answers, this is clearly not the case since its obvious from your dismissal of the available, documented facts that you seem to think that the answers those facts provide don't meet your standards. You're proceeding from a predetermined conclusion and looking for evidence that fits that conclusion, rather than forming a conclusion based on the available facts.

Additionally, you're playing the "if I ran the zoo" game where you assume that, because something didn't happen the way you think it should have, or that some kind of evidence that you seem to think should exist hasn't been presented that it automatically means that there's some kind of "foul play" at work.

Both of those are logical fallacies that invalidate your argument.

Cz

Ok so I was off by 17. The FBI confiscated tapes from 83 different cameras near the pentagon (I cant believe you didnt know that).SO again why not put this whole thing to bed and release the videos if what you claim is on them actually is? As far as my logical fallacies go, I took com101 too and you are looking way too hard into my statements. It's a simple question for the government: you have the ability to prove your story, why not do it? (no this isn't the burden of proof fallacy)

I do not claim to have the answers. I do know however that based on historical evidence the government being involved in 9/11 on one level or another is quite plausible.

As for what I believe, I think if you were to put a gun to my head and make me tell you my opinion, you are right I would say that the government was involved at one level or another. Do I believe that to be gospel, no, could I be swayed, yes.

[Czero 101]

Ok so I was off by 17. The FBI confiscated tapes from 83 different cameras near the pentagon (I cant believe you didnt know that).SO again why not put this whole thing to bed and release the videos if what you claim is on them actually is? As far as my logical fallacies go, I took com101 too and you are looking way too hard into my statements. It's a simple question for the government: you have the ability to prove your story, why not do it? (no this isn't the burden of proof fallacy)

Actually, there were 85 videos from around the Pentago that "might have been relevant". Information about them can be found HERE.

From that page:

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.

In Summary:

• She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
  
• Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
  
• Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
  
• The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
  
• No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

The Doubletree Hotel's camera was too far away to see anything in detail due to that distance and poor focus. This video was released by the FBI December 4, 2006. LINK

The Citgo gas station camera was pointed at its pumps and not at the Pentagon. Go figure. This video was released by the FBI September 15, 2006. LINK

I do not claim to have the answers. I do know however that based on historical evidence the government being involved in 9/11 on one level or another is quite plausible.

I agree with you that it is plausible. Where I think we disagree is on the probability.

As for what I believe, I think if you were to put a gun to my head and make me tell you my opinion, you are right I would say that the government was involved at one level or another.

No guns involved here... at least not from me, anyway

Do I believe that to be gospel, no, could I be swayed, yes.

Please understand that I have nothing against you having your own opinion on the matter. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not to their own facts...

Cz

[Czero 101]

Based on many eyewitnesses it sounds like a C550 to me,

One of these...?

What of the eye witnesses who described seeing a wide-body commercial jetliner...?

but it couldve also been a missile as proposed by some,

A missile does not and cannot account for all the damage and physical evidence.

and again it could have been a 757 but to say that has been proven requires a leap of faith.

All it requires is a non-critical examination of the evidence:

• landing gear conclusively shown to be from from a 757
  
• engine parts from a Rolls Royce engine of the type known to be used by American Airlines, specifically on their 757's, and specifically of the type list as being used on the Flight 77 aircraft.
  
• wreckage of the fuselage that clearly shows American Airlines livery
  
• wreckage that have part numbers that can be shown to have come from a 757
  
• damage to the large generator and low retaining wall consistent with being struck by, if nothing else, a large jet with engines slung in pods under the wings unlike any missile or the C550, but very much like a 757

Cz

[Farmer77]

Actually, there were 85 videos from around the Pentago that "might have been relevant". Information about them can be found HERE.

From that page:

The Doubletree Hotel's camera was too far away to see anything in detail due to that distance and poor focus. This video was released by the FBI December 4, 2006. LINK

The Citgo gas station camera was pointed at its pumps and not at the Pentagon. Go figure. This video was released by the FBI September 15, 2006. LINK

I agree with you that it is plausible. Where I think we disagree is on the probability.

No guns involved here... at least not from me, anyway

Please understand that I have nothing against you having your own opinion on the matter. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not to their own facts...

Cz

Its freaking cold here in Alaska (seriously read the Anchorage climate trends, its gotten colder here over the last century NOT warmer) and my RA is killing me so im in a p***y mood and prolly just wanted to fight earlier. The bottom line I suppose is do you trust the government. Up until 2005 I would have quite literally started a fight with anyone who suggested the government was involved in 9/11, I was a registered republican who worked on both of Bush's campaigns and on several local campaigns. It was around '05 that I started asking some serious questions about America, our government, the wars and our political parties. They were extremely uncomfortable questions for me to ask, because as I stated I was a hard core right wing pro-america anti everything else, kill the muzzies kind of guy. But once I started asking those questions (why are we still in Iraq, why haven't we attacked Iran,why haven't the terrorists struck America again, why hasn't Bush done ANYTHING he said he was going to do, what is different between Bush and Clinton and on and on) I came to the realization that the paradigm which I had been living in was a false one, crafted out of comfort, cable TV and air conditioning. Right vs. Left is no more than WWE, actors playing a part for the benefit of the audience. Hell the last two presidents before Obama both got us into unnecessary wars in oil producing territories and then gave no bid contracts to the same damn company to take care of said oil. We know that politicians are liars. Seriously, thats not just a punchline anymore it is expected that our politicians will lie to us in order to get elected. So if they're willing to lie to get elected why wouldn't they lie for the promise of something grander? Or hell for that matter why wouldn't they just continue lying to keep their elected or appointed seats?

So again I guess the bottom line is who do you believe? Considering all the coincidence, happenstance, confusion and first time ever type events that happened on 9/11 juxtaposed with what we know about the nature of our politicians and the historical data which we know to be true about our nation I just can not believe the government at their word, I need proof of the kind which can be provided by the unreleased security cameras.

Edited December 19, 2009 by bigtroutak

[Obviousman]

I don't trust my government - I check the facts they give me. When those facts check out, I know they are being accurate.

My expertise is in aviation, so I know there is nothing strange about the aviation aspects of 9-11.

I have checked with experts in other fields and am happy there is nothing suspicious about the building damage / collapses, even though the exact mechanism may be debated.

It has already been stated that the unreleased images do not show the impact. Now - be honest: if they were to be released and did not show anything different than what we had been told (or did not show anything, if that is what has been claimed), truthers would accuse the government of tampering with them and removing damning evidence, wouldn't they? If they supported the government claims, would you accept them or would you also claim they had been faked / tampered with / (insert choice of conspiracy)?

[Guest]

An interesting question is - what has happened in the world to make the majority of the public believe that their own government is responsible for 9/11. What has brought us to this sorry mess.

I would hazard a guess that lying has become so systemic to the body politic that absolutely no-one believes a word they are told. How can this be good for the future ? Where will systematic doubt in our leaders take us ?

I don't feel that our politicians are capable of been honest because they have to much to hide, and they fundamentally believe they have made us so dumb that we couldn't cope with the truth.

A system like this will eat itself, and the prevalence of CT is just a symptom of the scales falling from our eyes. I wouldn't like to be a politician (the lying B****DS).

Br Cornelius

[CheetoMan2009]

Perhaps you can explain how exactly this magical slight of hand was carried out?

Like i said, i'm a man of logic, i can shed some light on this one, though i'm not saying weather true are not, just saying something obvious, which really shows lack of skeptism on your part.

This magical slight of hand could be easily manipulated with the fact that all peices where immediately removed from the site by FBI agents who could then replace or tamper with the little evidence that was actually collected, you don't find it funny at all the amount of time it took them to completely rid all evidence from the site? Or the dirt brought in shortly after, whats the rush to clear a crime scene before an investagation? There is none, any moron knowns you don't clear the scene until it has been looked at and recorded throwley.

And there arguments that i heard was because people don't want to see it and remind them of the event, what a load of bull!

P.S. - I see you later said something referring to this argument, truthers blah blah blah, like i said, i'm in the middle on this, not really on either side, but what can be done can be done, its not exactly impossible. And i stick to my argument, there was absolutely no reason to clear the crime scene in such speed and before investigation, that is a stray from normal procedure and the FBI are well aware of this "Fact".

Edited December 19, 2009 by CheetoMan2009

[Farmer77]

I don't trust my government - I check the facts they give me. When those facts check out, I know they are being accurate.

My expertise is in aviation, so I know there is nothing strange about the aviation aspects of 9-11.

I have checked with experts in other fields and am happy there is nothing suspicious about the building damage / collapses, even though the exact mechanism may be debated.

It has already been stated that the unreleased images do not show the impact. Now - be honest: if they were to be released and did not show anything different than what we had been told (or did not show anything, if that is what has been claimed), truthers would accuse the government of tampering with them and removing damning evidence, wouldn't they? If they supported the government claims, would you accept them or would you also claim they had been faked / tampered with / (insert choice of conspiracy)?

You pose a legitimate question and I think that for the majority of truthers out there nothing would satisfy them. For me to believe what is on the tapes, should they be released, the government would need to allow full access to the entire tapes. No 10 second flash of a metallic looking something screaming by.

I have spoken with engineering and fire experts and their story on the building collapse is mixed. Some see it as legitimate while others question the official story.

My area of expertise is logistics with heavy education in aviation (ATP) and the performance of the aircraft which hit the pentagon seems a little fishy to me. Again though it seems that there is no majority opinion amongst those who I work with (who are much more qualified than I)regarding the performance of the aircraft and the ability of an unskilled pilot to stick that landing.

[Czero 101]

Like i said, i'm a man of logic, i can shed some light on this one, though i'm not saying weather true are not, just saying something obvious, which really shows lack of skeptism on your part.

I see... so NOT believing in some fantasy where either a small plane or missile crashed into the Pentagon, or where super-secret FBI agents with "pre-prepared airplane wreckage" waiting to spring into action to cover up the "REAL TRUTH™" somehow makes me less skeptical...?

Its also interesting how all these things are "obvious" to people with healthy imaginations, a certain amount of paranoia and distrust and no experience in accident or crash scene investigations, yet independent experts cannot find anything wrong...

This magical slight of hand could be easily manipulated with the fact that all peices where immediately removed from the site by FBI agents who could then replace or tamper with the little evidence that was actually collected,

Your theory fails to provide an explanation for the crime scene photos taken of the wreckage in-situ, before being handled or moved.

The wreckage was moved to the north parking lot to allow easier and safer inspection and search for evidence and remains. Hardly a clandestine operation.

you don't find it funny at all the amount of time it took them to completely rid all evidence from the site? Or the dirt brought in shortly after, whats the rush to clear a crime scene before an investagation?

Wreckage and body parts were still being removed 3 days after the crash. Hardly a "rush" as you term it.

There is none, any moron knowns you don't clear the scene until it has been looked at and recorded throwley.

Apparently, some morons don't know how to spell simple words (skepticism, pieces, knows, investigation, thoroughly) and yet are completely versed on crash investigation procedures and FBI covert operations...

Fascinating...

And there arguments that i heard was because people don't want to see it and remind them of the event, what a load of bull!

Just because you would have no problem walking through the body parts of hundreds of victims, possibly even people you knew (Pentagon employees were involved in the investigation) doesn't mean that everyone else should.

The only bull that's being thrown around here are the theories of conspiracies and covert operations that have little to no basis in reality and even less evidence.

Cz

[flyingswan]

Didn't you in other words say the same for Ventura and Lindoff. I was not even talking about the buildings, i was talking strictly about the realness of Red flag operations and real off the record report of all black boxes found. You discredited both and referred to their intelligence and i guess insisting an award winning investagative journlist from time to time, just lies without reason, or just dosen't know what he's talking about. How could he not understand the simple words "Off the record we recovered all four boxes".

I said nothing of the sort. I never mentioned Ventura and this is my only comment on Lindoff: Never heard of him before you brought him up.

You need to pay closer attention to what you read.

[Czero 101]

My area of expertise is logistics with heavy education in aviation (ATP) and the performance of the aircraft which hit the pentagon seems a little fishy to me. Again though it seems that there is no majority opinion amongst those who I work with (who are much more qualified than I)regarding the performance of the aircraft

Sometime back in the summer in one of the other myriad threads about this subject, another poster (747400 maybe..? ) mentioned hearing of a US Navy evaluation of the 757 which stated that, properly armed, the plane would make a reasonably good dog-fighter.

Performance envelopes are established to ensure safe flight while taking most unexpected situations into account, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft cannot be pushed beyond those limits to obtain unexpected and / or better performance without catastrophic airframe or engine failure.

Take for example the Boeing 707 prototype that performed a virtually flawless barrel-roll at the Seattle Seafair in 1955. That aircraft certainly wasn't designed with that maneuver in mind.

and the ability of an unskilled pilot to stick that landing.

It was hardly a landing in the conventional sense of the word, and it doesn't take a pilot with thousands of flying hours to point an aircraft at a building and firewall the throttles.

Cz

[flyingswan]

Just curious;

Where's the comparison in warehouse fire collapses much lower & larger in span (m²), lighter gauge steel framed with (zincalume/colorbond) tin-roofed to high-rise steel & solid concrete super structures?

All three of the WTC collapses were of steel structures, without any concrete columns.

The cause for WTC and warehouses is identical: fire weakens steel.

Also (maybe wrong here) but according to this WTC remains the only high-rise super structure to 'completely collapse' by fire...(?)

What other high-rise steel structure has been exposed to a fire of such long duration with no fire-fighting attempts?

Depending on what kind of 'editing' your talking about (to slow down footage to better analyze or duping the public, etc etc) working both ways for cts & &/or debunkers alike, 'government' debunkers if you like?

In the case of the WTC7 collapse, I'm talking about the conspiracists editing to remove the start of the collapse, thus hiding the two key facts that there were no explosions immediately preceding the collapse, but there was a collapse of the penthouses a few seconds before the main collapse that looks nothing like any controlled demolition. On the "official" side, where is the comparable edit?

[flyingswan]

Read my post , I said I each one of these has an "explanation" and I wasn't looking for you or anyone else to repeat them, try reading the posts you are responding to.

You can hardly expect to post a list of claims for an inside job and not expect other people to point out the counters to such claims.

[Obviousman]

It was hardly a landing in the conventional sense of the word, and it doesn't take a pilot with thousands of flying hours to point an aircraft at a building and firewall the throttles.

This is an important aspect: some people try to make out that it was planned for the aircraft to hit THAT spot and they did just that. I disagree - from the approach I see that the initial run was flawed by being far too high above the profile and that he had to do a descending turn to lose altitude. When they came out of the turn, he just aimed for the Pentagon... and nearly missed it, too.

It wasn't a great feat of piloting skill.

[Q24]

Something else to consider with respect to intercept; even after 9-11, here is an example of how long it can take to intercept an airliner.

Helios 522

0900 Scheduled departure

0907 Departs Larnaca International Airport

0911 Pilots report air conditioning problem

0912 Cabin Altitude Warning sounds at 12,040 feet (3,670 m)

0920 Last contact with Nicosia ATC; Altitude is 28,900 feet (8,809 m)

0923 Now at 34,000 feet (10,400 m); Probably on autopilot

0937 Enters Athens Flight Information Region

1007 No response to radio calls from Athens ATC

1020 Athens ATC calls Larnaca ATC; Gets report of air conditioning problem

1024 Hellenic Air Force (HAF) alerted to possible renegade aircraft

1045 Scheduled arrival in Athens

1047 HAF reassured that the problem seemed to have been solved

1055 HAF ordered to intercept by Chief of General Staff, Admiral Panagiotis Chinofotis

1105 Two F-16 fighters depart Nea Anchialos

1124 Located by F-16s over Aegean island of Kea

That's 1 hour 17 mins from failure to respond, and one hour from alert to intercept. 29 minutes from the F-16s launching to actual intercept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

The above is notable in that it was not a hijacking and air defenses were not in overdrive after seeing another aircraft impact a landmark building. Anyhow, if I may share some of the timings from the actul morning of 9/11…

WTC1 was hit at 8:46am and WTC2 was hit at 9:03am. At this time we know that fighters were just south of Long Island – given a conservative estimate, that is 100 miles from the WTC; only approximately 7 minutes flight time.

The Pentagon was hit at 9:37am. At this time we know that fighters (after being sent in the wrong direction out to sea) were 150 miles away; approximately 10 minutes flight time – incidentally, this is further away from the Pentagon than when they took off. If they had flown straight from Langley AFB to Washington after their 9:32am take off as requested, this was only a distance of 130 miles; approximately 9 minutes flight time.

To summarise approximately how far away the fighters were from the hijacked aircraft at the time of impacts: -

Flight 11 (WTC1) – 24 minutes

Flight 175 (WTC2) – 7 minutes

Flight 77 (Pentagon) – 4 minutes

Note: the final timing assumes distance away had the Langley fighters been sent in the correct direction as requested by NORAD.

As you can see, the U.S. air defenses were not doing that badly, being only minutes away from intercept in a couple of cases and were getting closer.

Now let’s talk about Flight 93 that some believe was shot down…

First a small exercise before we go on – just assume for a moment that the aircraft was shot down. If you wanted to conceal this fact, then what is the most convincing cover story that could be supplied for public consumption? I don’t know if you agree, but personally I would claim I was never even aware that particular flight was hijacked – can’t possibly shoot it down if you don’t know about it can you!

And so the official story happens to go that NORAD were not informed of the Flight 93 hijacking until 10:07am, after the plane had already gone down in Pennsylvania at 10:03am.

I do not believe this part of the official story and I will tell you why – we know that civilian air traffic control were aware of the Flight 93 hijacking at 9:28am. Is it really conceivable that they neglected to inform NORAD of this information regarding the aircraft for some 40 minutes??? That certainly was not the case with any of the other flights.

Further, we have seen that following crashes of the first three aircraft, shortly afterwards there were fighters covering the air space over New York and Washington. Flight times from these locations to the Flight 93 crash site were approximately 18 minutes and 9 minutes respectively – they were well within range to intercept Flight 93 before the 10:03am crash! Also, this was a full 1h26m after NORAD had first gone into action and so it’s not like they hadn’t had time to get their act together.

In all – ATC were aware that Flight 93 was hijacked, I have shown that fighters were in range to intercept, news reports stated that an F-16 chased the aircraft and performed turns to remain close to it, a passenger actually on the plane reported an explosion and smoke, there was an isolated secondary debris field indicating that the plane was damaged in flight, the Secretary of Defense stated that the flight was “shot down”…

… what more does it take for people see the truth here?

[War Eagle]

All three of the WTC collapses were of steel structures, without any concrete columns.

Wasn't the massive inner main cores/columns made of heavy duty reinforced steel & concrete?

The cause for WTC and warehouses is identical: fire weakens steel.

maybe, but to the point of total collapse?

I'm no expert but wern't the fires where raging many floors up? You saying the heat reached thru the massive steel columns all the way down collapsing it like a deck of cards?

What other high-rise steel structure has been exposed to a fire of such long duration with no fire-fighting attempts?

Thought i just pointed it out in the earlier link/source?

-One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours.

-The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours.

-The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

Only a few, rest here and none collapsed?

(That Mandarin inferno looks like a mid-air malfunctioned rocket)

Don't have time to look it up but how long was the WTC actually burning for before collapsing in record time?

In the case of the WTC7 collapse, I'm talking about the conspiracists editing to remove the start of the collapse, thus hiding the two key facts that there were no explosions immediately preceding the collapse, but there was a collapse of the penthouses a few seconds before the main collapse that looks nothing like any controlled demolition. On the "official" side, where is the comparable edit?

Maybe, first i've heard of it tho.

But at the time, maaan every man & his dog must've caught some angle-shot of the collapse that day (handy cams, mobile phones, etc etc). By ''official'', i take it you mean the embedded mainstream media version(?)

So who/m actually determines what & who's version of 'official footage' is fit for media brainwashing & conditioning...i mean media release?

The more the merrier wouldn't you say, kinda let ppl make up their own minds?

[frenat]

The above is notable in that it was not a hijacking and air defenses were not in overdrive after seeing another aircraft impact a landmark building. Anyhow, if I may share some of the timings from the actul morning of 9/11…

WTC1 was hit at 8:46am and WTC2 was hit at 9:03am. At this time we know that fighters were just south of Long Island – given a conservative estimate, that is 100 miles from the WTC; only approximately 7 minutes flight time.

The Pentagon was hit at 9:37am. At this time we know that fighters (after being sent in the wrong direction out to sea) were 150 miles away; approximately 10 minutes flight time – incidentally, this is further away from the Pentagon than when they took off. If they had flown straight from Langley AFB to Washington after their 9:32am take off as requested, this was only a distance of 130 miles; approximately 9 minutes flight time.

To summarise approximately how far away the fighters were from the hijacked aircraft at the time of impacts: -

Flight 11 (WTC1) – 24 minutes

Flight 175 (WTC2) – 7 minutes

Flight 77 (Pentagon) – 4 minutes

Note: the final timing assumes distance away had the Langley fighters been sent in the correct direction as requested by NORAD.

As you can see, the U.S. air defenses were not doing that badly, being only minutes away from intercept in a couple of cases and were getting closer.

Now let’s talk about Flight 93 that some believe was shot down…

First a small exercise before we go on – just assume for a moment that the aircraft was shot down. If you wanted to conceal this fact, then what is the most convincing cover story that could be supplied for public consumption? I don’t know if you agree, but personally I would claim I was never even aware that particular flight was hijacked – can’t possibly shoot it down if you don’t know about it can you!

And so the official story happens to go that NORAD were not informed of the Flight 93 hijacking until 10:07am, after the plane had already gone down in Pennsylvania at 10:03am.

I do not believe this part of the official story and I will tell you why – we know that civilian air traffic control were aware of the Flight 93 hijacking at 9:28am. Is it really conceivable that they neglected to inform NORAD of this information regarding the aircraft for some 40 minutes??? That certainly was not the case with any of the other flights.

Further, we have seen that following crashes of the first three aircraft, shortly afterwards there were fighters covering the air space over New York and Washington. Flight times from these locations to the Flight 93 crash site were approximately 18 minutes and 9 minutes respectively – they were well within range to intercept Flight 93 before the 10:03am crash! Also, this was a full 1h26m after NORAD had first gone into action and so it’s not like they hadn’t had time to get their act together.

In all – ATC were aware that Flight 93 was hijacked, I have shown that fighters were in range to intercept, news reports stated that an F-16 chased the aircraft and performed turns to remain close to it, a passenger actually on the plane reported an explosion and smoke, there was an isolated secondary debris field indicating that the plane was damaged in flight, the Secretary of Defense stated that the flight was “shot down”…

… what more does it take for people see the truth here?

What speeds are all of those flight times based on?

[flyingswan]

maybe, but to the point of total collapse?

I'm no expert but wern't the fires where raging many floors up? You saying the heat reached thru the massive steel columns all the way down collapsing it like a deck of cards?

Fires were reported at many floors of the building, from the 7th to the 30th. The fires on the lower floors, about 7th to 13th, were still in progress at the time of the collapse. It was here that NIST identified the start of the collapse.

Thought i just pointed it out in the earlier link/source?

But none of them excede the WTC7 fire duration, unfought, in a steel structure.

-One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours.

Part concrete structure.

-The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours.

Shorter duration that WTC7, firefighters engaged fire.

-The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

Part concrete structure, and a modern building incorporating the lessons learned from the WTC collapses, firefighters engaged fire.

Don't have time to look it up but how long was the WTC actually burning for before collapsing in record time?

Best part of seven hours.

Maybe, first i've heard of it tho.

But at the time, maaan every man & his dog must've caught some angle-shot of the collapse that day (handy cams, mobile phones, etc etc). By ''official'', i take it you mean the embedded mainstream media version(?)

So who/m actually determines what & who's version of 'official footage' is fit for media brainwashing & conditioning...i mean media release?

The more the merrier wouldn't you say, kinda let ppl make up their own minds?

The point I'm making is that every conspiracist site I've seen edits out the start of the collapse. Other, non-conspiracist, sites give a better selection of views and durations. I've yet to see a conspiracist explain why this should be.

[Q24]

What speeds are all of those flight times based on?

900mph

I used this speed for a number of reasons: -

1. F-15/F-16 maximum speed at sea level is approximately 900mph, whilst at altitude it is approximately 1,500mph.
   
2. The Vanity Fair 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes article that I took the times from states, “They're about 150 miles away, according to radar analysis done later. Even at top speed—and even if they know the problem is suicide hijackings of commercial airliners rather than Russian missiles—it will take them roughly 10 minutes to get to the Pentagon.” This would assume a rough average speed of 900mph.
   
3. Although there are restrictions on fighter speed in some airspace, during the ongoing crisis the NORAD commander does not seem overly concerned about this – at 9:38am he states, “We need to get those back up there—I don't care how many windows you break!… Goddammit! O.K. Push 'em back!”
   

Of course I am only making estimates, though as described these do appear well within the timeframes for an intercept of Flight 93 had the order been given.

[flyingswan]

900mph

You do realise that these aircraft can only fly for a limited time at supersonic speed due to the much greater drag? It reminds me of a story a pilot once told me, he been at McDonnell-Douglas and they were very pleased because they'd just flown an F-15 supersonically for seven minutes. My pilot remarked that he was unimpressed, a friend of his regularly flew supersonically for hours at a time, and with 60 passengers in the back.

[War Eagle]

Steel Still so many questions with so few plausible official answers, imo;

Won't quote ya on them all Swan, But...

Fires were reported at many floors of the building, from the 7th to the 30th. The fires on the lower floors, about 7th to 13th, were still in progress at the time of the collapse. It was here that NIST identified the start of the collapse.

Part concrete structure, and a modern building incorporating the lessons learned from the WTC collapses, firefighters engaged fire.

Yes sure, but you realize none of those other high rise towers would have been built to the super strength structural specs as the WTC Towers, yet none collapsed?

But none of them excede the WTC7 fire duration, unfought, in a steel structure.

Shorter duration that WTC7, firefighters engaged fire.

Not sure what you mean here...

In any case you'd think for a great and massive city like NY (city that never sleeps) they would have had some kinda of contingency plans set in place well in advance for such disasters (towering infernos, etc) let alone much smaller building like WTC7 and other surrounding buildings?

Best part of seven hours.

Sth Tower collapsed less than an hour after being hit, nth several hrs later; according to Wiki, anyway...

(maybe they didn't want to make it look ridiculously obvious)(?)

[frenat]

900mph

I used this speed for a number of reasons: -

1. F-15/F-16 maximum speed at sea level is approximately 900mph, whilst at altitude it is approximately 1,500mph.
   
2. The Vanity Fair 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes article that I took the times from states, “They're about 150 miles away, according to radar analysis done later. Even at top speed—and even if they know the problem is suicide hijackings of commercial airliners rather than Russian missiles—it will take them roughly 10 minutes to get to the Pentagon.” This would assume a rough average speed of 900mph.
   
3. Although there are restrictions on fighter speed in some airspace, during the ongoing crisis the NORAD commander does not seem overly concerned about this – at 9:38am he states, “We need to get those back up there—I don't care how many windows you break!… Goddammit! O.K. Push 'em back!”
   

Of course I am only making estimates, though as described these do appear well within the timeframes for an intercept of Flight 93 had the order been given.

How long does it take to get to maximum speed? How long does it take to get to altitude? How much fuel will they use? How long can they fly at that speed before either running out of fuel or flaming out the engines? Which will happen first? Assuming they can cover that distance at max speed, how much fuel will they have left when they get there? Did the fighters know they should go at max speed? Without knowing the answers to all of these, assuming a max speed of 900mph or more is extremely ignorant.