Jump to content

Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'


soiarrai

Recommended Posts

Conspiracy theories; it seems every big event has them. But always they seem a disappointment in the end. So was Roswell a cover up and we keep aliens and their space ships at area 51? The alien autopsies real?

 

As for the pentagon clip, the plane was travelling at say 400 feet per second (rough guess). Snapping pictures that slowly could miss it. Just look at the smoke plume appear. It goes from nothing to being what looks like hundreds of feet in the sky in just one frame. It is not clear that particular camera position even has the angle for catching the planes approach.

 

On the other hand, they raise good questions about tower 5. I've always wondered how a simple fire could bring down a big sky scraper that had no damage at all. Has it ever happened anywhere in the world before? Surely safety organizations are poring over that one to understand it so it can be considered in future designs. If it were impossible for fire alone to do that, surely we will be hearing more and more about this. Conspiracy theory is one plausable theory, but verdict is still out on this one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

ok Fidel , let's keep a score card here , just for the records.

 

WTC #1 plane or no plane

 

WTC #2 plane or no plane

 

Pentagon plane or no plane

 

Some field in PA , plane or no plane

 

And if no planes , controlled demolitions with computer grafics of plane's crashing into the WTC's.

 

And if plane's , they were hijacked and then without the knowing of the bad guys , cause they couldnt jack=off with 72 virgins lap dancing them , had to be remote controlled into the towers , by the Pentagon chiefs , ok , I surrender , i'm burning brain cells here , sorry I disputed your theory's

 

Bada :beer: Bing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been claimed that planes were modified in the 70's so that if a plane did get hijacked, it could be controlled from the ground. Very similar to what happens with the drones in Iraq and Afghanastan which are controlled, in some cases, in the US.

 

What seems to support this belief is that both planes were flown low and hit their targets (WTC towers) on the first pass. I find this feat impressive on terrorist pilots that never did learn how to fly an airplane.

 

Another problem is that jet fuel caused the towers to weaken which caused the buildings to fall. Check the burning temperature of jet fuel and then compare it to the higher temperature needed to melt steel. It would appear that the jet fuel could not cause the steel to soften.

 

I suspect that there were many variables at play and we the public may never know the true story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think I agree that to gov was directly involved in the bringing down of the towers. But I do believe they were complicite. Meaning that they knew and or where involved in the planning of the attack. I think things just went a but further than they had expected. Remember the neo-cons had long hoped for a "pearl harbor" type of event to trigger support for their attempt at a brave new world. Another interesting development is that the bushyboy team wants congress to pass a retro active law to protect them from prosecution as war criminals. I sense that they see their world about to collapse and want to cover their butts. I cant wait to see who bushyboy pardons as he walks out the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people were trained in real simulators for these aircraft; what they did is no feat at all. I have been in real cockpit simulators and can tell you that within a few minutes of familiarizing myself with the control response I could easily replicate what they did. And why a bunch of planes hitting a bunch of targets? Just one hitting the capital building alone would have 100x the impact and galvanized the nation to action. In fact, radar shows one plane was searching for the capital and couldn't find it (of course), so it went on to find the pentagon which is real easy to spot from the sky. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical. But I don't see any compelling counter theories.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lazyphil

what about the phone calls made to loved ones from the hostages, this was clear evedence, btw, i dont see whats so hard to believe 19 people taking over planes and crashing them, some training was done, its not like they had to take off or land, just stear the damn things, dont these things fly themselves by puters?

 

and i seriously doubt you're 'independantly thinking' you have given some links by academics, did you write this? :smirk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the phone calls. Have you ever tried to use a cell-phone from a jet in mid air? It's possible now, but it was pretty much impossible 5 years ago, special equipment is needed and Ryanair made a big deal about being the first in Europe to launch this just a couple of months ago. Don't know if u can do it yet.

 

"just stear the damn things", I suppose. It is just like riding a bike, or driving a car. Left, right up, down. Pretty easy to "steer" a jet precisely into a small target with NO training in flying the jet. I think they had received training flying small planes.

 

With regard to the "puters", I think they do have a little Windows console that allows you to enter coordinates like "North Tower, WTC, Manhattan", or "The Pentagon" and then the plane heads straight for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...