Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Have you ever watched how buildings are prepared for implosion?
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Do you have any idea about the amount of work and workmen required to destabilize structural elements and place explosive charges???
|
Yes. You'd need only 500 pounds of C-4 for each Tower. It isn't necessary to place explosive charges on each floor, or even on every other floor. Every fifth floor would have been sufficient.
Explosively...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
You can't argue with conspiracy theorists. They don't need proof of things; they make it up as they go.
|
Just make things up, huh?
True or false: The World Trade Center was originally scheduled to be bid out by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 2004, however it was inexplicably moved up to 1999.
TRUE
True or False: Larry Silverstein was the winning bidder on the World Trade Center?
FALSE
A realty group from Chicago was awarded the bid in January 2001, but they backed out in March and Larry Silverstein was then awarded the bid in April 2001.
True or False: Urban Moving Systems in Weehauken, New Jersey employed more than 100 Israelis who had entered the United States illegally, and who were all former IDF members or members of the Mossad.
TRUE
True or False: Those 100+ Israelis who entered the US illegally all fled the country after FBI agents first appeared at their workplace.
TRUE
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
If the laws of physics get in the way, they just ignore them, or conveniently miscalculate or misquote figures until they work out in the favor of the theory.
|
Debunk this, uh, Physics, assuming you're qualified to do so (I am a school trained arson investigator).
Fuel Spill Volume (V) 7000.00 gallons
Fuel Spill Area or Enclosed Area 22700.00 ft2
Mass Burning Rate of Fuel (m") 0.051 kg/m2-sec
Effective Heat of Combustion of Fuel (DHc,eff) 43000 kJ/kg
Fuel Density (r) 810 kg/m3
Empirical Constant (kb) 1.6 m-1
Ambient Air Temperature (Ta) 77.00 °F
Gravitational Acceleration (g) 9.81 m/sec2
Ambient Air Density (ra) 1.18 kg/m3
Q = m"DHc,eff (1 - e-kb D) Adike
Where Q = pool fire heat release rate (kW)
m" = mass burning rate of fuel per unit surface area (kg/m2-sec)
DHc,eff = effective heat of combustion of fuel (kJ/kg)
Af = Adike = surface area of pool fire (area involved in vaporization) (m2)
kb = empirical constant (m-1)
D = diameter of pool fire (diameter involved in vaporization, circular pool is assumed) (m)
Pool Fire Diameter Calculation
Adike = pD2/4
Where Adike = surface area of pool fire (m2)
D = pool fire diamter (m)
D = √(4Adike/p)
D = 51.818 m
Heat Release Rate Calculation (Liquids with relatively high flash point, like transformer oil, require
Q = m"DHc,eff (1-e-kb D) Adike localized heating to achieve ignition)
Q = 4624815.52 kW
4383492.65 Btu/sec
tb = 4V / pD2n
Where tb = burning duration of pool fire (sec)
V = volume of liquid (m3)
D = pool diameter (m)
n = regression rate (m/sec)
Calculation for Regression Rate
n = m"/r
Where n = regression rate (m/sec)
m" = mass burning rate of fuel (kg/m2-sec)
r = liquid fuel density (kg/m3)
n = 0.000063 m/sec
Burning Duration Calculation
tb = 4V/pD2n
tb = 199.56 sec or
3.33 minutes
I am giving the government every benefit of the doubt, and I am assuming the fuel was concentrated. According to NIST, ~3,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off (as the fireball) in the explosion.
However, the reality is that the fuel was most likely spread out over a larger area and consequently,
it would have burned off even faster than 3.33 minutes.
The BTUs produced would have no effect on steel whatsoever.
You can debunk this too:
Since you have no idea what you're looking at, that is a Standard Fire Curve.
It takes 90 minutes of extreme heat to cause steel to deflect even 1 millimeter, and a deflection of 1 millimeter is not catastrophic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
If logistics of rigging the buildings with 100 tons of explosives present a problem, they just invent up a new way that someone would simply walk a hundred tons of explosives into the buildings without being noticed by one single person.
|
It was at least 500 tons.
True or False: On Friday, September 7th through Monday morning September 10, both World Trade Centers were closed to visitors and residents; the power reduced; telephone and internet communications suspended; the security system deactivated; and bomb dogs and their handlers were scheduled off for the weekend and told not to report for duty.
TRUE
Well, let's see....I have more than 100 Israelis who are former IDF members or Mossad agents, and many with explosive/demolition experience; and they are housed in a moving company called Urban Moving Systems.....and a moving company has vehicles of many different sizes and shapes.....and office building with that many tenants......seeing moving vans in the parking garage or on the plaza would not have drawn any attention from anyone....they are as common as street vendors in New York City.
So I have two teams, the move the explosives and communication equipment to the WTC and they have all night Friday, all day Saturday, all night Saturday night, all day Sunday and much of Sunday night to prep things.
Those pesky bomb dogs, well, they ain't there....so if I get oils or residues from PBX on my hands or shoes or clothing and touch something like an elevator button, or hand rail or wall or walking on carpet or tile or bumping into walls, those damn dogs will not be alerting, since they aren't there.
The WTC wasn't totally devoid of security, it just had the cameras and monitors turned off, and the bomb dogs removed.
The lack of common sense by you people is just absolutely appalling.
And communications? WTF? I thought you were an "expert." Do you know that blasting caps are radio frequency controlled, right? And you do understand that they are basically a cell-phone or pager, right? And you do understand that you would need to put signal relays in the central core in each of the Towers, right? And you are aware of the fact that proprietary software for demolitions has existed since the early 1990s, right?
Do you even have a clue what I'm talking about?
It's a huge database. The fields are for the explosive ID number, its location, and the code for its blasting cap.
That controls the firing sequence for the PBX. You can have "profiles" or "settings" so that you have as many firing sequences as you want, and you can even modify the firing sequence on the fly.
All you do, is select the firing sequence you want, press "Enter" and a radio-transmitter sends out a micro-burst -- just like calling several pagers or cell-phones at the same time, and the blasting caps detonate.
It would surely to help to have spotters on the roof-tops with video cameras, walkie-talkies, and binoculars to see where the damage was on the Towers, so that the proper firing sequence could be selected for each Tower, and a live video feed would be most excellent.
Ohhhhh, wait a minute, we do have pictures of unidentified people on the tops of buildings with video cameras mounted on tripods, using walkie-talkies and binoculars.
Ooooops.
You're a little weak on your knowledge base there hero.
Debunking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouponDad
provide me PROOF that it wasn't a conspiracy. Bush needed a reason to attack Iraq and institute his "patriot" act and this was it. Its called a false flag operation.Roosevelt had his Pearl Harbor,Bush had his 9/11,just waiting for Obama's.
|
You mean Clinton, not Bush. The conspiracy was in play during the Clinton Administration. Does that mean Clinton was responsible? No. Given that the president is the only one who can truly protect the conspirators, it would be both logical and natural common sense to insulate a president from such activities. The possibility that either Clinton or Bush had prior knowledge is about ZERO.
Percent.
Since the bid schedule for the World Trade Center was moved from 2004 to 1999, you cannot blame Bush for that, and it is evidence that the conspiracy was in operation as early as 1998.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wargamer6
Provide proof that it was a conspiracy not using conspiracy sites or videos.
|
The bid schedule for the World Trade Center was moved from 2004 to 1999.
The winning bidders inexplicably backed out, allowing Larry Silverstein to get the bid.
That is evidence, not proof.
If you want proof, then I give you the 5-Dancing Israelis who had their moving van parked in the parking lot of an apartment complex in New Jersey across the river from the WTC and in plain view of it no later than 8:35 AM and that they had a video camera mounted on a tripod on top of the step van, and all 5 were standing atop the van.
Those five men knew 9-11 was going to happen....and they parked their van in place where they could make a video recording.
Sorry about your luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wargamer6
You are making a claim that the government blew up the buildings. Where's your proof?
|
I cannot speak for others, but I have never made any such claim whatsoever.
I understand that there are people dumber than runny excrement who are so stupid that they cannot make the distinction between "the government" and a group of people within government acting on their own and without any authority.
Remember the news story from New Mexico about the two Burger King employees who put marihuana on a cop's hamburger and served it to him.
So, was that a conspiracy by the Burger King Corporation, it CEO, board-members and shareholders?
Or was it merely a conspiracy by two employees acting on their own without proper authority?
Is there anyone who just still doesn't get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wargamer6
Do you believe in chemtrails?
|
No, and I've repeatedly debunked the idiotic chemtrails.
Providing evidence and proof....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
you cant be that thick headed can you? true it wasnt just the fire that brought down the buildings. the structure was compromised by a loaded jumbo jet crashing into the buildings.
|
That is easily debunked.
Both World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Aircraft had been known to strike buildings in New York City. A Boeing B-25 struck the Empire State Building.
"The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds...; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds...." - 1.5.2 Unusual Building Loads
Boeing 707: 263,000 pounds
Boeing 767: 274,000 pounds
(274,000 - 263,000) / 263,000 *100 = 4.18% difference in weight.
Boeing 707: 146 foot wing span
Boeing 767: 156 foot wing span
(156 - 146) / 146 * 100 = 6.84% difference in wing span
Boeing 707: 153 foot length
Boeing 767: 159 foot length
(159 - 153) / 153 * 100 = 3.92% difference in length
530 mph is 777 ft/s
Force = Mass * Velocity
F = m * v
F707 = 263,000 pounds * 777 ft/s
F767 = 274,000 pounds * 777 ft/s
F707 = 204351000 = 277.06 MegaWatts
F767 = 212898000 = 288.65 MegaWatts
However, it is important to consider materials construction. As far as Boeing 707s go, they were more elastic than Boeing 767's, and would have caused more damage. Consider that the wing struts on a 707 are aluminum and steel, while on a 767 they are mylar (composite carbon/graphite).
The wings of a 767 are designed to break away on impact to carry the fuel cells away from the passengers (to increase survivability from fire), while on the 707 they were not.
"However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass and traveling at substantially higher speeds." - 1.5.2 Unusual Building Loads
I guess you are totally incapable of recognizing when your government is telling blatant lies.
A 767 is "
considerably larger" than a 707? There's only a 7% and 4% difference in wing span and length respectively.
A "
significantly higher weight?"
I just proved there was a 4.18% difference in weight and that is not "significantly higher" as your government claims.
Seems you and your government have something in common: You're both bad liars.
That info came from
World Trade Center Building Performance Study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
... as a result of the crash, the fireproofing was scraped off the steel beams in the building.
|
Immaterial and irrelevant.
See the Standard Fire Curve I posted above for a thorough debunking of that nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
... the fires created enough heat to soften the steel to the point where it couldnt hold the weight.
|
Impossible.
See the physics on fire and heat from JP-4/5 I posted above. The temperatures necessary to affect steel never materialized.
If the heat from the fires was as intense as you and all the others claim it was, then it would be impossible for people to be milling about on the floors looking out through the damage like we see in photos and videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
as for using explosives to bring down the towers, there was no way that anyone could have wired the buildings in such a short period of time without anyone knowing what was going on.
|
Not true. I have demonstrated how it could be done. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
... and further more, if it was a major conspiracy, then were are the people who are willing to blow the whistle on the conspiracy? there is always someone who will, and yet no one has come forward to say anything.
|
Do you know those people?
I do. I've worked with them. They are fanatics in every sense of the word. They believe in what they are doing, and they are able to rationalize and justify their actions, and you'll never convince them that what they did was wrong.
I've been involved in numerous conspiracies, either because I planned them, I assisted in planning them, I executed them, or I participated in them.
I can plan and execute a conspiracy involving you.....and you would never know that you had been an unwitting participant in a conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
...and before you claim that they were paid off, or eliminated, or what ever, the conspiracy would have to have thousands of people working together to bring this off, and you know there is no way they were all killed in the trade center when it collapsed.
|
That is simply a false statement. It could have planned 9-11 with just 6 other people. That's all I need to pull it off.
Conspiracies are a lot like con-games.
Here's a great example. I need to get the World Trade Center bid schedule changed from 2004 to 1999.
How do I do that? I don't........
WTF? Yeah, see, it's a conspiracy. I don't my get my hands dirty. I'm not going to anything, rather I'm going to get someone else to it for me. And that person is going to convince one of the board members on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to submit a motion to move the bid schedule up, and perhaps lobby other board members to support.
Why? They don't need to know why....it's a conspiracy, remember?
Look at Maltbie.
Who went to Maltbie and convinced him to stand down all of his counter-terrorism investigations in the US?
A principal? No way. A conspirator? No, the conspirator got someone to do that for him. Whoever approached Maltbie was an unwitting participant in the conspiracy, right?
Do you think it was, "
Go tell Maltbie to stand down 'cause we got some terrorists that need to take out the World Trade Center?"
Riiiight...
Sorry, that my might work in Tom idiot-Clancy novel, but not in real life.
Physics rules...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
That's just a cutesey little sentence the CT sites throw out there for the gullible and ignorant to repeat so that they don't stop and think, "Hey, wait a minute. Was it really the government who told us how the building collapsed? Or was it the engineering profession?" As a matter of fact, the government was a minority presence at the WTC site and at Fresh Kills.
*This is NOT an invitation to post Richard Gage's pathetic list of "engineers and architects", most of whom are neither, and his demonstration of how the WTC fell using cardboard boxes. Although, it is pretty funny to watch.
|
Since you never read either the FEMA or NIST reports, you have no idea that neither one actually claims the aircraft and fire caused the building to collapse. They rely on "innuendo."
How can I prove you wrong....let's see...your own Congress even had issues:
Quote:
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCEU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The investigation has been hampered by a number of issues, including:
No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts.
Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records: The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns. The documents are necessary to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future.
Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study: The confidential nature of the BPAT study may prevent the timely discovery of potential gaps in the investigation, which may never be filled if important, but ephemeral evidence, such as memories or home videotapes, are lost. The confidentiality agreement that FEMA requires its BPAT members to sign has frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse, who are unsure if their work is complementary to, or duplicative of, that of the BPAT team. In addition, the agreement has prevented the sharing of research results and the ordinary scientific give-and-take that otherwise allows scientists and engineers to winnow ideas and strengthen results.
Uncertainty as to the strategy for completing the investigation and applying the lessons learned: The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings. (Its report is expected to rely largely on audio and video tapes of the event.) Nor does it plan to examine other important issues, such as building evacuation mechanisms. Instead, FEMA has asked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation. Yet so far, NIST has not released a detailed plan describing how it will take over the investigation, what types of analyses it will conduct, how it will attempt to apply the lessons it learns to try to improve building and fire codes, and how much funding it will require.
|
There you go. None of the FEMA or NIST investigators had access to the Ground Zero (and they so state in their reports). No real investigation was done, but note that they did claim the presence of sulfides.
"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." - C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
That is proof of demolition devices.
Did you read the criminal investigation? Of course you didn't, since none was ever done.
Let me give you an analogy.
A building collapses.
I never go to the site to study the debris, I never look at the blue-prints, I never look at the engineering design, I never interview any of the architects, engineers or construction workers who built the building.
Instead, I merely rely on watching a video.
Then I write a report with flawed conclusions since I never did an actual investigation.
Then a bunch of "experts" review my findings, and without doing any investigation themselves, agree with my flawed conclusions.
Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
OH, and OP, by the way, before you start reciting your Conspiracy Website Catechism, you should know that I'm a survivor of the attacks on the WTC.
|
Then you of all people should want to know The Truth, and you don't, so live in blissful ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
actually the buildings were quite well engineered. but when they were designed, the biggest aircraft was the 747, and there were not very many of them around since they were just starting to roll off the assembly lines. we also didnt have to worry about terrorists
flying airplanes into buildings back then either.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Not to be picky...all right, yes, it's to be picky, lol.
It's 102 Minutes. There are both a documentary and a book by that name. They are not the same thing.
I recommend the book. It is not easy to read if you prefer butterflies and fluff. It's about the people trying to survive inside the building and those who did and those who did not. But it is very accurate, and it is very well-written. And to stay on topic, without trying to do so, it would easily reinforce how completely moronic the controlled-demolition fantasy is.
|
That image is a complete and total misrepresentation of both WTC1 and WTC2.
New York City ordinances and building codes, county ordinances and building codes, New York State laws and building codes, and federal laws related to building high-rise structures prohibit the use of frame building 110 stories.
Yet that is exactly what FEMA depicts in their bogus drawing -- a frame building.
Where is the central core? Oh, well that has to be intentionally omitted to give a false view, and persuade people to believe that the building fell on its own.
That image contradicts earlier images in the FEMA report which correctly show WTC1 and WTC 2 to be built around a central core.
Those iron supports in the center of the Tower, the central core, is what holds up the Tower (the vertical load) not the exo-skeleton. The central core is omitted from the diagrams because it would raise too many questions by intelligent people, not to mention it debunks their own theory.
Explaining how propaganda works...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Remember, TWO big honking planes traveling at 500 mph each crashed into those buildings, taking out nearly 10 floors of support in each building.
|
Not relevant, and I already debunked that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
What happens when you remove the support columns and facade of 10 floors in a building?
|
(Sigh), it is the central core that supports the vertical load for the Towers.
The exoskeleton only supports the lateral load. Learn and understand the difference.
The central core was not damaged, so there is no reason for the Towers to have fallen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
No explosive could last that long in roaring fires.
|
Yes, they most certainly could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
We've had over 20 official reports on 9/11 alone. over 100 published papers by engineering firms, colleges, and even a recreation done by Columbia University. Over 200 engineers and scientists researched and wrote for NIST's studies (which were all put to the public for peer review with nary a Truther who objected or even contributed to the studies with their own research)
There are over 20 non-fiction books that cover the history and motives of Al Quaeda, the best is "the Looming Tower" which covered everything that the 9/11 Comission didn't cover.
9/11 , next to World War II , has been pretty much the most covered event in modern history.
|
Yeah? Well, if you're such a know-it-all, the please tell everyone why documents from WW II, including documents from before Pearl Harbor and about Pearl Harbor were classified Top Secret Cosmic in 1948 and will not be reviewed for declassification until the year 2023.
Please speculate on what information those documents might contain that would still be a threat to the National Security of the United States at this time.
Or perhaps it isn't a matter of National Security; perhaps it's a matter of National Embarrassment.
We already know for a fact that a German born in Ukraine (a "Black Sea German") was a spy for Stalin and was feeding information about the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt.
We also know for a fact that Viktor Sorge (the spy) misidentified a Japanese ship, confusing it with its sister ship, and as a result, informed the United States that the Japanese fleet would be departing to attack Pearl Harbor as soon as the ship reached the marshaling area. Unknown to Sorge, the Japanese fleet had departed 3 days earlier.
If you look at the evidence objectively, the US knew the Japanese were coming, and were preparing a counter-ambush attack. The counter-ambush attack failed, because the Japanese arrived earlier than the US expected.
So, you claim it is the most studied, huh? Okay, then answer these questions, since you know so much about it and this is one of the most studied events in history:
1) Why was the time-table to bid out the WTC moved up 5 years?
2) Who specifically by name on the board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey put forth the motion to move the time-table up?
3) I want to know that person's financial history and what contacts they had with persons not on the board of the PANYNJ by telephone, e-mail and in person which discussed the matter of moving up the time-table, and the same for those members of the PANYNJ who voted to approve moving the time-table forward.
4) Why did the winners of the bid (a realty group based in Chicago) for the WTC breach the terms of the bid agreement by backing out?
5) What action(s) did the PANYNJ take vis-a-vis contractual remedies? In other words, under contract law, the PANYNJ is entitled to be reimbursed costs related to the realty group's refusal. Did the PANYNJ seek remedies or not? And if not, why not?
6) Who specifically on the Chicago realty group initated the action to refuse the winning bid?
7) Who approached FBI Agent Roger Maltbie and asked him to stand-down every one of the then-current investigations into terrorist activity?
8) Why did the FBI repeatedly refused to approve applications for search warrants to search Moussaui's laptop computer while he was in custody? Did that order come from the local field office or from Washington, DC?
9) I want to know who approached specific people at the Pentagon and coerced a review and alteration of aircraft intercept procedures over US air space. I want all of there telephone, e-mail and face-to-face contacts as well.
10) What was the specific context of the conversation between Cheney and the Duty Officer. "
Does the order still stand?" What order?
An order to shoot down aircraft? An order to not shoot down aircraft? Another order related to something else?
11) Who at the US consulate in Jedda approved the visa applications for the alleged hi-jackers? Was approval a local-based decision, or was there influence from the State Department or other agencies?
12) Please provide a written transcript of the 71-day interrogation of the "5 Dancing Israelis." Additionally, provide any reports, videos of the interrogations, or other related material.
13) Why were the 5 Dancing Israelis in the parking lot of an apartment complex, where they had no business on or before 8:35 AM on 9-11?
14) Why did the 5 Dancing Israelis who were ostensibly moving company employees, have a video camera mounted on a tri-pod atop the step van prior to first plane impact?
15) Why did the FBI field agents enter the property of Urban Moving Systems without first obtaining a search warrant? The 5 Dancing Israelis were already in custody, and all 5 Dancing Israelis had entered the United States illegally. The threshold for probable cause to obtain a search warrant had been met with
prima facie evidence.
16) From which ports of departure, or how or by what means did the 100+ illegal alien Israelis working at Urban Moving Systems leave the United States?
17) Where is the video taken by the 5 Dancing Israelis? Why hasn't it been released? Who among those who wrote the commission's report saw the video?
18) Why hasn't there been a full release of all radar and audio tapes from ground controllers from all airports and military facilities who had contact with any of the four flights?
19) Where are the written statements of all US Air Force pilots, especially those from the 1st Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, involved in 9-11?
20) Has there been a complete accounting of all air-to-air missiles for those aircraft launched on 9-11?
21) Why were federal and state laws violated concerning aircraft accident investigations?
22) Why was neither Fight 77 nor Flight 93 reconstructed as required by federal laws and regulations?
23) Who is Terry Hogan?
24) Why were CIA "rendition flights" conducted with bogus documents with fictitious names?
25) The port engine on Flight 93, why wasn't tested? What did Rumsfeld say on TV?
Flight 93 had been shot down......your memory fails you. Let's see, I'm in an F-16, do I fire a radar seeker or an heat seeker?
An heat seeker, like the AIM-9. I'm probably trailing Flight 93 port and aft at a distance of about 5 miles or so. I launch the AIM-9, it locks on the biggest heat source, which would be the port engine, it tracks right up the engine and detonates, causing the engine to fall, and then Flight 93 continues on until it crashes. That's why the port engine isn't with the plane.
Well, this much we already no. Apparently, in order for the CIA to convince the pilots to fly "rendered" prisoners out of countries into other countries to be tortured (or to Gitmo), CIA agents gave the pilots a letter signed by someone in the State Department whose name was Terry Hogan.
So it's now been discovered that there never was anyone in the State Department named Terry Hogan. It's a bogus name. You can read about it here:
Did CIA Rendition Flights Rely on Bogus State Dept. Letter? - ProPublica
Imagine that. Those pilots were unwitting participants in a conspiracy. Get it?I'm sure all the works you mentioned have answers to all 25 of those very relevant questions, right?
I'll wait patiently while you try to answer them.
Conspiratorially...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
So the Jews were behind it?
|
(Sigh), no. Nice attempt at a Straw Man. Israelis were involved, of that there is no doubt. You have the evidence, you just don't want to see it.
Well, hell, since the lot of you are so freaking stupid, I guess I should point out that just because Israelis were involved, it does not logically follow that Israel was behind it. Holy pig.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaimuki
While I'm not a truther, the American people deserve a thorough and robust investigation, I don't think the 9/11 Commission gave us one.
|
It's nice to see at least one other intelligent person out there.
Thanking...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
