9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[Babe Ruth]

My theory is that it was rogue elements within the government that planned and executed the events, and then because of that, after the fact the coverup was necessary.

Similar situation to the Murrah Building, IMO.

The coverup is worse than the crime I think.

[quillius]

My theory is that it was rogue elements within the government that planned and executed the events, and then because of that, after the fact the coverup was necessary.

Similar situation to the Murrah Building, IMO.

The coverup is worse than the crime I think.

and what would you put down as the reason for a cover up (rather than exposing the culprits) ?

[Babe Ruth]

Exactly what you said--exposing the culprits.

Any neutral examination of the history and performance of the 911 Commission indicates that its main purpose was to protect the guilty parties and mollify by misinforming the public.

Such behavior by the government over decades is very well established. When in the US Army decades ago, I learned the acronym for the operative mindset--CYA. Cover your rearend.

[quillius]

Exactly what you said--exposing the culprits.

Any neutral examination of the history and performance of the 911 Commission indicates that its main purpose was to protect the guilty parties and mollify by misinforming the public.

Such behavior by the government over decades is very well established. When in the US Army decades ago, I learned the acronym for the operative mindset--CYA. Cover your rearend.

maybe I misunderstood.

I assumed (maybe where I went wrong) that when you said rogue elements this indicated that there are non-rogue elements also. And I then thought you said that it was the non-rogue element and the rogue element that instigated a cover up. My question was if the good guys knew, why did they not expose the bad guys? Or are you suggesting this rogue element planned the event and the cover up without the good guys knowing?

[skyeagle409]

As for the cruise missle video, it seems to me the questions raised are 1) does it show the missle hitting the part of the Pentagon that was struck,...

You must remember that no cruise missile struck the Pentagon. The person who faked the video had placed the flight path of that faked object on the WRONG SIDE of the helipad.

Edited April 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

maybe I misunderstood.

I assumed (maybe where I went wrong) that when you said rogue elements this indicated that there are non-rogue elements also. And I then thought you said that it was the non-rogue element and the rogue element that instigated a cover up. My question was if the good guys knew, why did they not expose the bad guys? Or are you suggesting this rogue element planned the event and the cover up without the good guys knowing?

Yes, because there are rogue elements there must also be the opposite.

In this particular situation, we cannot positively identify either element. We can only speculate about identities.

In answer to your question, perhaps there are more bad guys than good guys? Again, we can only speculate. Further, it is entirely possible, perhaps probable, that a good guy became aware after the fact, and for various personal reasons and decisions, decided to go along with the cover up. He was innocent of tactical and strategic planning or execution, but became guilty in participating in the coverup.

Regarding the coverup, several of the good guys became casualties of the process. Max Cleland for example. There were at least several. I am suggesting that good guys were successfully intimidated by others, and of course the role of our lap dog media is very well known.

[skyeagle409]

Exactly what you said--exposing the culprits.

It has been more than 10 years since the 9/11 attacks and in a country full of nosy reporters looking for a top story, not one has uncovered a government conspiracy regarding the 9/11 attacks and once again, you are forgetting the aircraft loss reports of American and United Airlines.

[quillius]

Yes, because there are rogue elements there must also be the opposite.

In this particular situation, we cannot positively identify either element. We can only speculate about identities.

In answer to your question, perhaps there are more bad guys than good guys? Again, we can only speculate. Further, it is entirely possible, perhaps probable, that a good guy became aware after the fact, and for various personal reasons and decisions, decided to go along with the cover up. He was innocent of tactical and strategic planning or execution, but became guilty in participating in the coverup.

Regarding the coverup, several of the good guys became casualties of the process. Max Cleland for example. There were at least several. I am suggesting that good guys were successfully intimidated by others, and of course the role of our lap dog media is very well known.

Not so sure BR, I think it would take quite a 'bad apple' to sit and watch thousands of innocent people killed, and more so to actually assist in committing the crime to begin with. To say that there are quite of few of these 'bad apples' and that they are able to control and suppress ALL the good guys, seems a little bit of a stretch IMO.

Also, if there really are that many more bad guys than there are good guys, and with such power, then uncovering a conspiracy on 9-11 will serve little purpose to the overall scheme of things...I may aswell give up now.

[Babe Ruth]

Slightly related--Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's, and has written a terrific account of that, no matter how depressing and unsettling its discoveries were.

Point is, there ARE humans who can sit and watch thousands kill. Some even derives some sadistic pleasure from that, others will want to become more involved.

So, basically you and I are trying to arrive at the ratio of good apples to bad, and I think that is impossible because of many many psychological factors.

When the mind is properly prepared, it is capable of all sorts of rationalizations, and all sorts of heinous acts.

Polls have shown, for example, that more than half of church going folks in the US condone torture, as long as a proper rationalization is offered. Support for the death penalty offers parallel behavior.

[quillius]

Slightly related--Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's, and has written a terrific account of that, no matter how depressing and unsettling its discoveries were.

Point is, there ARE humans who can sit and watch thousands kill. Some even derives some sadistic pleasure from that, others will want to become more involved.

So, basically you and I are trying to arrive at the ratio of good apples to bad, and I think that is impossible because of many many psychological factors.

When the mind is properly prepared, it is capable of all sorts of rationalizations, and all sorts of heinous acts.

Polls have shown, for example, that more than half of church going folks in the US condone torture, as long as a proper rationalization is offered. Support for the death penalty offers parallel behavior.

I agree that this ratio is impossible to work out, and thats without delving into what constitutes a 'bad apple'. However, I think my point was really leaning towards the ability of bad apples in stopping the many good apples that would stand up and be counted in a stand against this crime. Jumping briefly back to the UFO cover up analogy, this differs in that without many being killed its eaasier to keep those good apples quiet. Something like 9-11 I dont think is possible due to the moral extreme it reaches, even with death threats as barriers.

dont know of that prison experiment you speak of but I will go and have a look.

[Babe Ruth]

I was in a hurry this morning and forgot to mention the title of Zimbardo's work. Perhaps some lurkers interested in human behavior would like to know too.

The Lucifer Effect is the title, published by Random House in 2007.

[skyeagle409]

What happened to American Airlines airframe N644AA?

HINT

Edited April 11, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

I was in a hurry this morning and forgot to mention the title of Zimbardo's work. Perhaps some lurkers interested in human behavior would like to know too.

The Lucifer Effect is the title, published by Random House in 2007.

Sounds like an interesting read. Thanks BR

[Q24]

Slightly related--Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's, and has written a terrific account of that, no matter how depressing and unsettling its discoveries were.

That thing was brutal. Though I think the results are more telling as to how astrocities such as the Nazi driven genocide occurred on a large scale, rather than 9/11 where an altoghether less number of individuals with a very specific ideology were involved.

[quillius]

Q24, quick question for you.

If the plane had hit the tower say 3 floors higher or even three floors lower, how would this change the game?

[Q24]

Q24, quick question for you.

If the plane had hit the tower say 3 floors higher or even three floors lower, how would this change the game?

It wouldn’t change.

Most people will have heard the tower core and external structure described as a tube in a tube design. Due to the external wall of the exterior, no one could see precisely where the core failure occurred. From the outside the collapse would be almost indistinguishable whether the impact were a few floors up or down.

Perhaps it is telling that: -

• The WTC2 failure appeared to occur at the impact level.
  
• The WTC1 failure appeared to occur just above the impact level.
  

So the two are not consistent in accounting for the impacts alone (much as the impacts are not consistent in accounting for the tilt direction of each tower, whereas the location of the main elevator banks where charges would be placed is consistent with the tilt).

Does the above indicate that Flight 175 impacted at level of the charges and Flight 11 impacted below level of the charges? It is quite possible.

Below are three scenarios representing the visible exterior columns and the hidden core columns. I have removed the core columns at the same level in each case to account for fixed location charges. I have moved the visible impact in each case.

{You need to click the image to enlarge to see all the lines, how strange)

Anyhow, when the core fails and the upper block moves downward, where will the obvious smoke expulsion and visible external movement appear to occur in each case? It is the same for all – at location of the impact; the weakened external wall structure.

The impacts didn’t need to be precise.

[quillius]

Does the above indicate that Flight 175 impacted at level of the charges and Flight 11 impacted below level of the charges? It is quite possible.

The impacts didn’t need to be precise.

Thanks for prompt and detailed response Q.

These two parts of your response are basically where I was headed (good pick up by the way)....

If the impacts had to be precise then this would be quite a big ask with all factors considered.

I am trying to work out 'what the were the actual targets?' and 'what would have been the outcome if one of the two planes hitting the tower never made it that far?'

anyhow I will give some more thought to your diagrams and response to see if anything else pops up....

[flyingswan]

Perhaps it is telling that: -

• The WTC2 failure appeared to occur at the impact level.
  
• The WTC1 failure appeared to occur just above the impact level.
  

Seeing as how fires tend to move upwards more often than downwards, this is hardly "telling". It's just another example of your twisting all evidence to support your belief.

[quillius]

Seeing as how fires tend to move upwards more often than downwards, this is hardly "telling". It's just another example of your twisting all evidence to support your belief.

Hello Flyingswan,

fire does indeed rise, therefore could thsi still not work?

Perhaps it is telling that: -

The WTC2 failure appeared to occur at the impact level.

The WTC1 failure appeared to occur just above the impact level

. from Q's post

in WTC2 failure occurs at impact level where charges are held.

in WTC1, the fire rises to floor(s) above to reach charges....

not sure how fire rising works against the suggestion?

with this in mind it would seem likely that WTC2 would collapse first/quicker.

edit to get rid of the word 'first' as this doesnt have a relevance. Quicker still stand sthough

Edited April 12, 2012 by quillius

[Babe Ruth]

I disagree about the importance of the points of impact, at least on one tower.

I find it way beyond happenstance that of the about 8 floors that were involved in the impact, 6 of those floors were leased by the company that was owned by or employed the soon-to-be head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, also a protege of Henry Kissinger, Bush's first choice to head up the Commission.

Whether those offices contained explosives, or homing device for the aircraft, or were simply in a critical position for destruction of the tower, I think it was essential to the plan and its successful execution.

From the aeronautical perspective, some sort of homing device could explain the fairly radical last moment banking maneuver.

[skyeagle409]

I disagree about the importance of the points of impact, at least on one tower.

I find it way beyond happenstance that of the about 8 floors that were involved in the impact, 6 of those floors were leased by the company that was owned by or employed the soon-to-be head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, also a protege of Henry Kissinger, Bush's first choice to head up the Commission.

Whether those offices contained explosives, or homing device for the aircraft, or were simply in a critical position for destruction of the tower, I think it was essential to the plan and its successful execution.

From the aeronautical perspective, some sort of homing device could explain the fairly radical last moment banking maneuver.

That doesn't work at all. Are you implying that American Airlines and United Airllnes were in on a government 9/11 conspiracy?

Edited April 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

in WTC2 failure occurs at impact level where charges are held.

in WTC1, the fire rises to floor(s) above to reach charges....

not sure how fire rising works against the suggestion?

with this in mind it would seem likely that WTC2 would collapse first/quicker.

My position is that there were no charges, just a lot of damage from the impacts and weakening of the steel due to the fires. The level at which the collapse began would be the level at which the fires most weakened the remaining columns.

WTC2 probably collapsed first because the impact speed was quite a bit higher, so the aircraft had more kinetic energy, hence caused more impact damage. As a result, less weakening was needed from the fires.

[Babe Ruth]

Swanny

If the steel met the standards of the New York Building Code, and that code required that the steel be able to withstand certain temperatures, and steel conducts heat fairly well, and jetfuel burning in open air cannot reach anywhere near the temperature to which the steel is certified, HOW THEN could the steel be weakened by the fires?

If the office furniture and equipment met that same building code, how then could the steel be weakened by the fires?

[RaptorBites]

Whether those offices contained explosives, or homing device for the aircraft, or were simply in a critical position for destruction of the tower, I think it was essential to the plan and its successful execution.

From the aeronautical perspective, some sort of homing device could explain the fairly radical last moment banking maneuver.

Enlight us please on how a homing device for remote control would have been placed on the plane prior to flight without red flags popping up from maintainence records?

Baseless assumptions is all this is at this point BR.

[skyeagle409]

If the steel met the standards of the New York Building Code, and that code required that the steel be able to withstand certain temperatures, and steel conducts heat fairly well, and jetfuel burning in open air cannot reach anywhere near the temperature to which the steel is certified, HOW THEN could the steel be weakened by the fires?

The temperatures were high enough to weaken steel and the impacts knocked off the protective fire protection coating from the structures whereas the steel structures were exposved to the fire unprotected.