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.
The oddest thing to me about 9/11 is not the Pentagon attack but the collapse of Building 7-it defies the laws of physics and is not adequately mentioned in the commission report.
Agreed. This was my first clue that something was off about 9/11. At the time, it would annoy me that the media would only talk about or show the twin towers coming down. I always wondered why, after the initial "attack" they never showed or talked about Building 7 coming down. It took me quite a few more years, before I understood and was able to accept the whole thing was planned years in advance. What convinced me was all the "predictive programming" on TV and in movies that happened for years previous to the event actually happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
As far as conspiracies that are true-the CIA "cooperating" (aka funding and supporting) the global drug trade and various terrorists, er I mean rebel, groups. The War on "Terror" and The War on "Drugs" are both lies meant to restrict rights at home and achieve geopolitical goals abroad-endless war under the guise of morality and safety.
Yes, absolutely!
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 06-18-2017 at 04:25 AM..
- Why were none of the 9/11 airliners ever intercepted? Intercepting doesn't mean shoot down. When commercial aircraft go off course and/or lose communication it is normal procedure to send up jet fighters towards them to see what the problem is. Were they ordered to stand down until it was too late?
Just to add to what Dane said this happened so quickly it was only Flight 93 where there was a possible scenario it would be shot down. Cheney had issued the order to shoot down any planes they suspected to be hijacked and for a brief time he was under the impression his order is what brought that plane down.
How would you like to have that weight sitting on your shoulders?
Fine, assuming it was a commercial airliner that struck the Pentagon. And it probably was.
There are still many questions too many to list but here are a few.
- Why was the plane going at such extreme speed when it hit the Pentagon? 520mph is normal cruising speed at 35,000 feet, for a large airliner where the air is very thin, but not at ground level. Pilots have commented it is not possible to fly an airliner above a certain speed at low altitude without losing control or the aircraft breaking apart due to the extreme turbulence.
- Some say it would be possible for a 757 to go 500mph at low altitude without losing control, if it were being remotely controlled or piloted. Robotic controls are much stronger than human hands.
Air traffic controllers on the ground couldn't believe what they were witnessing:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
- Why were there so few passengers on the plane? There were only 64 people on-board Flight 77 including the crew. That is a third of the plane's capacity. All the other 9/11 planes had unusually low number of passengers as well. Airplanes don't normally fly with so few passengers because they lose money. Maybe one airplane wouldn't be such an anomaly, but all four? Another amazing coincidence and stroke of luck for the hijackers having so few passengers to deal with.
- Why were none of the 9/11 airliners ever intercepted? Intercepting doesn't mean shoot down. When commercial aircraft go off course and/or lose communication it is normal procedure to send up jet fighters towards them to see what the problem is. Were they ordered to stand down until it was too late?
Like any good conspiracy believer, you conveniently ignore the mountains of evidence that support the publicly reported story while engaging in open conjecture with literally ZERO expert testamony or research to back it up.
Perhaps you should read this before trying cast dispersions on the "official" story.
Yes it does. Hydraulics helps you when flying within the safe parameters of the aircraft. When you exceed those parameters you lose control.
Commercial airliners like that are fly by wire, the computer takes the pilots input and makes hundreds if not thousands of small adjustments per second. Without it some planes in the US military would be unflyable even with the most skilled pilots ,specifically the B2 and the F-117.
And did you ever notice they only talk about the twin towers falling, but never Building 7? The planes never hit Building 7 yet, it came down in the same fashion as the twin towers.
There was severe structural damage to that building caused by the collapse of the towers, the full extent of that damage is unknown because it was obscured by smoke. These photos here may give you idea of how bad it was. In particualr not the damage to the very top of the building and the corner. The corner picture is massive amount of structure to be missing.
I'm probably asking for trouble, but curious. Inspired by tonight's iZombie and some posts in this forum....
So many of the conspiracy theories a la "we never landed on the moon" "Elvis lives!" and the like just seem so...out there. Can you think of anything like this that ended up being true? I'm not even sure what qualifies as true...widely accepted? Shown by later science/forensics/etc to actually be plausible/real? Aliens wrote it up in their version of the National Enquirer?
Well...a lot of what I've seen posted here..are more on the order of lies told---Prior to some of truth being revealed..there were no real 'theories' out there..people bought the party line.
Conspiracy theorists were right about the Holocaust--and the deliberate cover-up practiced by our Govt., at the time. For years, people tried to get the truth out there. They were regarded as fear-mongers and liars.
Why is it when the twoofers talk about bld7, people never:
1. Admit that the building (7) got BADLY damaged when the towers fell:
...
You can try to explain as best you can-but the fact is that Bldg 7 is the first and only steelframe building to collapse due to fire. It is a mystery many would like to better understand, and it is not all to do with 9/11; many architects/engineers specifically have deep interest.
The 9/11 Commission Report did not even mention Bldg 7 initially-only to inadequately address it. You alone certainly do not have all the answers-at this point nobody does.
Huh? Top speed of a 757 is 610 mph at cruising altitude. You're saying it can go faster at ground level than at 35,000 feet?
Bro, do you even aviation-geek? There's no reason the airframe shouldn't be able to handle 520 mph at ground level.
Quote:
Vmo or max safe speed for 757 below 10,000 ft is 360mph, because air pressure is three times greater at ground level.
Whaat? It's 350 knots indicated airspeed below 27,000 ft, and that's a operational certification issue, not a technical one. There's an ample aerodynamic margin beyond Vmo - you think airlines are allowed to operate their aircraft at the thin edge of disaster, day-to-day?
I'd go into how indicated airspeed changes with altitude, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Much above that speed the airplane is virtually impossible to maintain control with any precision...
Faster means more responsive to controls. Put the aircraft in cruising configuration, and there's no aerodynamic reason why you shouldn't fly at cruising-style IAS at any altitude. In a very real sense, that's what IAS means. VNe at ground level is well beyond your figure of 520 mph. Sure, anypilot flying in that envelope would be prosecuted and fired, but that wasn't a concern for the terrorists.
Quote:
Which explains, for example why satellites whip around the earth at 40,000 MPH in low orbit, because there is no air up there. That is not possible at ground level.
Satellites aren't aerodynamic entities. Well, not for long.
Quote:
Yes it does. Hydraulics helps you when flying within the safe parameters of the aircraft. When you exceed those parameters you lose control. The power braking and power steering on a car, for example operates by hydraulics - but when you exceed safe operating limits, you lose control of the car and crash.
WTF are you talking about now? You were going off about the lack of human strength and how the maneuvers would have been possible if the plane was remotely controlled. Now it sounds like you're arguing that the plane couldn't do the maneuvers at all.
Completely untrue. The Bush administration did not "lie" about WMD, not anymore than Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry did (whom made the exact same claims). Also, WMD was not the only reason to resume military action in Iraq.
As for the wacko 9/11 conspiracy theory, it is just that, wacko!
Many will agree that they all lied. Because one side lied that doesn't negate the other side.
There was severe structural damage to that building caused by the collapse of the towers, the full extent of that damage is unknown because it was obscured by smoke. These photos here may give you idea of how bad it was. In particualr not the damage to the very top of the building and the corner. The corner picture is massive amount of structure to be missing.
Yeah, I know the official story. Sorry, but I don't believe it. The way that building came down was like a perfect demolition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
