#1 WTC Demolitions Thread

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Bernie

I As far as the 'no planes' theory is concerned, that's a crock.A Jet engine was found in Murray Street. ... Or is this to hard a concept for some here to understand?

Yeah, the people who sealed off all of Lower Manhattan to press coverage, put a bunch of completely phony images on live television, fabricated "amateur" videos, went around confiscating film submitted for development that day, would never have taken the trouble to plant an engine in the street, or fabricate story of one. They can blow up the biggest buildings in the world, but an engine in the road would be beyond quite beyond their capabilities.

There's something called a preponderance of evidence. That's where you learn all you can about something, and decide whether the scale is tipped overwhelmingly in a certain direction. On 9/11 the scale was broken.

[Bernie]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

They can blow up the biggest buildings in the world, but an engine in the road would be beyond quite beyond their capabilities. There's something called a preponderance of evidence. That's where you learn all you can about something, and decide whether the scale is tipped overwhelmingly in a certain direction. On 9/11 the scale was broken.

Doug, I understand your point but seriously, the wrong engine? They go to all that trouble of making it look like Flts 175 and 11, both B767 Airliners heading for LA thousands of miles away and they risk exposure by placing the (relatively) tiny B737 Jet engine in Murray Street? They did this knowing every single Aircraft Engineer, Pilot, Planes potter type around the Planet would spot the obvious planting of an engine which would barely push the (relatively) Giant B767 down the runaway, let alone get it into the air?

I flew in a Quantas B767 down from Brisbane to Sydney & back a few weeks ago. Normally we have the B737 for this run. The 767 is a BIG Plane by comparison.

And what about the strange machinery planted on the fuselage and visible on every Video of the Aircraft which slammed into the South Tower? Why would the 'no plane' cartoonists include all that machinery in their 'fake' renditions of an aircraft slamming into a building, knowing eyebrows would be raised? Why include drawings which raise needless suspicion, placing the 911 official fairy tale in jeopardy?

All is Disinfo?

Come on...............

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Bernie

Doug, I understand your point but seriously, the wrong engine?

All is Disinfo?

Come on...............

Yes, all concerning 9/11 is disinfo. Social Service, the handle of the guy who made September Clues, is quite correct in saying that the only thing we can prove about the day at this point is that the video broadcasts were fakes. Bad fakes. And that's what his movie does. We have no access to any of the physical evidence, and you're completely naive in imagining that a picture of something has any significance, be it genuine or not. Any number of other things could have been going on that day. At this point we are left with simply proving that the official story is a lie. That the television coverage itself was disinfo.

The only other line of enquiry is research into the victims. The passengers and crew of the planes seem to be turning out to be nothing but fictions. Browse through the 911 forums to see examples:

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=6172

The towers were hit with missiles, the towers were hit with planes, the towers were blown up with thermite. -- How are you suppoed to know when what you were watching on TV was nothing but a movie? It wasn't images of New York that day, it was some kind of video production.

[DouglasReed]

Lots more pictures here:

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911...eetEngine1.htm

Other "witnesses" said it landed on a car.

Looks to me like something somebody took out of the back of a van. Pulling down the street sign and placing it for effect would have taken all of 3 minutes.

[Bernie]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

Looks to me like something somebody took out of the back of a van. Pulling down the street sign and placing it for effect would have taken all of 3 minutes.

Yeah, but the wrong engine? You're saying the 911 perps had such utter contempt for the intelligence of the Police, Public, they put a B737 engine, about the size of a large Garbage Bin on a street in full view of the punters as they walked past? That they believed no-one would twig to this? They had sufficient resources to stage 911, somehow cause NORAD to stand down, yet they can't supply a B767 damaged engine? Stone the crows and starve the Lizards!

[Slamin2]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

Other "witnesses" said it landed on a car.

Looks to me like something somebody took out of the back of a van. Pulling down the street sign and placing it for effect would have taken all of 3 minutes.

Yep, a car was hit.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Seat...91104-full.jpg

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Bernie

Yeah, but the wrong engine?

A Boeing 767 carries two Pratt & Whitney PW4000's.

Wikipedia (Links)

Pratt_&_Whitney_PW4000

This is an engine with a 94" fan. I don't think it would have fit too well in the van.



The piece on the street was I suppose the engine part at the back which is much smaller.

What do you want me to tell you? The official story says it was a 767 or a 757, and there's a 737 engine in the street? Why don't you take it up with the 9/11 Commission?

[Bernie]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

What do you want me to tell you? The official story says it was a 767 or a 757, and there's a 737 engine in the street? Why don't you take it up with the 9/11 Commission?

Touché Douglas. However I doubt they would have planted it there, you are way more cynical than I. You may well be justified in that.

I wish I could ask that question and while at it I'd certainly ask the corrupt, spineless bastards why they never bothered even mentioning WTC 7 and it's fall in free-fall time in their long and expensive report. Why they stonewalled all kinds of questions and why they agreed to have Bushwinkle and that slimy old Lizard, 'dead eye' Dick Cheney be interviewed in Camera.

BTW, I'm not sure if the image sslamer put on here, that small (BMW?) sedan, if it was hit with a 737 engine, travelling at that velocity I suspect the damage would be far more extensive. This is not to say the occupants weren't very lucky people.

[Oy Ze Hate]

Originally Posted by Slamin2

September clues will tell you that its a hologram, or there was no plane, despite the face people heard it and saw it.

Thanks for the rep, shit for brains. My ancestors got here by building ships and sailing here. You and yours got here by stealing ship designs and bringing niggers here for slave profit.

[Oy Ze Hate]

Originally Posted by Slamin2

September clues will tell you that its a hologram, or there was no plane, despite the face people heard it and saw it.

You think mass human sacrifice is funny, you sick little kike? God you are truly the spawn of a sick bunch of fuckers.

Your kind murders 3,000 of my kind and it's a joke. And that's but the smallest example of your people's perfidy. You are the son of a sick race of subhuman bastards. You know that don't you?

[DouglasReed]

Originally Posted by Bernie

Touché Douglas. However I doubt they would have planted it there, you are way more cynical than I. You may well be justified in that.

It certainly looks to me like something that was planted. I can't imagine a something like that, which has got to weigh a couple hundred pounds, falls a thousand feet and ends up sitting up nicely on the curb. The street sign clinches it for me. -- Look at where it is supopsed to be from the diagram on that page I linked to:



Four blocks from the towers, and it's supposed to have sheered off the "Murray St." sign, which then ended up 6 inches away? How does that work? How does it take the sign off so nicely, and how does the sign end up next to the motor, when the trajectory is like a canon ball?

I'd say a couple guys drove up in a van during all the confusion, when people's attention was focused on the towers. Maybe it wasn't even part of the main operation, who knows. But I really don't think that thing fell off a plane out of the sky.

[DouglasReed]

We need to recruit this kid.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yscpNIxjI

[Hans Norling]

Geez, as if the usual truther claims aren't typical enough, now there's the Icke/Jones Illuminati/NWO cryptology and bohemian grove stuff in the mix as well.

[Slamin2]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

It certainly looks to me like something that was planted. I can't imagine a something like that, which has got to weigh a couple hundred pounds, falls a thousand feet and ends up sitting up nicely on the curb. The street sign clinches it for me. -- Look at where it is supopsed to be from the diagram on that page I linked to:



Four blocks from the towers, and it's supposed to have sheered off the "Murray St." sign, which then ended up 6 inches away? How does that work? How does it take the sign off so nicely, and how does the sign end up next to the motor, when the trajectory is like a canon ball?

I'd say a couple guys drove up in a van during all the confusion, when people's attention was focused on the towers. Maybe it wasn't even part of the main operation, who knows. But I really don't think that thing fell off a plane out of the sky.

How about that hit a car? There are also plane parts that crashed through the sky lines at the Marriot.

[A.S.]

Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin

Simple physics? Technical terms? I swear I can almost hear you say; "Somethin' sure does smell purty Pa', I never was much for them fancy book learnin'".

You just exposed yourself cunt, by using the "dumb hillbilly" argument. We all know how jews love that argument...

My IQ is 140, and I'm a Software Engineer. I can handle anything technical you want to throw at me. But it is not necessary for the discussion. Best to keep it simple with 9-11. No need to invoke Engineering details, simple common sense analogy (like the one I provided) is adequate.

The fact that you don't want to keep it simple shows you are just what everyone here knows you are: a paid debunker. Covering for murderers. You're scum. You're shit. You're the lowest of the low.

[A.S.]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

Give him credit. He's the hardest working 911 debunker I've ever seen. He uses what’s really the only tactic that’s left to employ, and quite skillfully: throw enough seemingly scientific gibberish at people, and some of them are going to figure it’s their own fault that they can’t make any sense out of it.

You forgot to add: insult the opposition's intelligence when they refuse to accept his gibberish as a plausible explanation for what happened.

Never mind how the trusses were connected and all this kind of distracting detail, just look at the event on a macro level. The equation doesn’t balance. It’s not a matter of two times, or three times, or ten times, or fifty times. The WTC demolition involved an amount of energy that was at least HUNDREDS of times what the towers possessed in gravitational potential, if not thousands. Things that fall down, be they Jenga blocks or skyscrapers, don’t disintegrate. If the floors were “pancaking”, then we would expect to have a stack of 110 floors piled up on the ground when it’s all over, which would be 20-something stories high in its own right.



Instead what was there? Nothing. Nada. Vapor.

They try to hook you with this word "collapse." -- "These pictures shown are taken from when the building is almost half-way down in its collapse." -- Like a skyscraper is a house of cards that you just nudge the wrong way and it gives up the ghost. What's happening as this building is "collapsing" is steel girders are being broken apart in thousands upon thousands of places. Floors and walls are being pulverized to dust. The weight of one floor falling ten feet to impact the floor below it supposedly accomplishes all this. Everything vertical that stands in the way of that happening is similarly pulverized.

I don't really know what the profit is in the end of trying to do this. This "debunking." Trying to maintain something that isn't simply absurd, but many hundreds or thousands of times absurd. In the end it's just going to show people that, indeed, there is a very large conspiracy at work here.

Good work Douglass, very well stated. The part I put in bold about gravitational potential energy is especially important. All you lurkers read it again, and once more for good measure.

FACT: There was no reason for the steel cores of the twin towers to collapse. Shitskin babbles about the trusses, etc. but he avoids the cores like the plague, because my simple analogy (welded rods placed in the ground) shows they could not have come down due to fire/impact from the plane.

The mere fact that this dude does nothing all day long but post pseudo-scientific nonsense in an attempt to "debunk" 9-11 "conspiracies" (facts, evidence, and common sense) proves he's working for ZOG.

[Dan_O]

One of the first red flags for me on the "official" story was the fact that Hani Hanjour failed a test, and was not even permitted to rent one of these....



Yet, him and his cronies managed to overtake a whole flight crew, switch off the transponder, use the navigation systems, and manage to swiftly zero in on the Pentagon with pin point accuracy in one of these....

[Mike in Denver]

Dan o,

Good post, and it makes a perfect point, that it would have been impossible for these sloppily trained, barely trained, 19 Arabs to fly and navigate the airplanes that were flown into the WTC towers.

I spent from 1991 to 2000 designing, implementing, testing, and installing, full-cockpit flight simulators. I don't have a few dozen hours flying these simulators, I have thousands of hours, maybe 10 thousand hours, sitting in the cockpit flying complicated missions. Granted the planes were not commercial airliners, rather they were F16s, F15s, F18s, and foreign fighters, but I have to opine the following: It would be absolutely impossible for someone with only limited experience in a flight simulator, and no experience in a real airliner, to even keep a real plane in the air. Take it off auto pilot and you are in the ground toot suite. The simulators I built were perfect simulators, every control, switch, dial, light, indicator, panel --- I actually got to sit in a real F15 cockpit once, on the ground, and I had no pretension that I could have flown it. I would have been completely overwhelmed, and a 767 is vastly more complicated.

Mike

[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88

There was no reason for the steel cores of the twin towers to collapse. Shitskin babbles about the trusses, etc. but he avoids the cores like the plague, because my simple analogy (welded rods placed in the ground) shows they could not have come down due to fire/impact from the plane.

Omg, not your debunked steel rod "analogy" again. Without noting on the idiocy in not understanding scale-modeling and how this rejects your entire comparison, you still refer to anything you can't deal with as "babbles".

Re-cap from my latest post to you which you never replied to or did you?

Here's a note on why scale models are problematic in this context:

Right, time for a tutorial on scaling. Let's make a 10% sized model of WTC2. It will have columns 10% of the stiffness (scales as area divided by length), but wind forces will be only 1% of the real ones because wind resistance scales with area. The weight will be only 0.1% of the real one (scales with volume). The fracture energy per floor will be 1% of the real one (scales with column area), but the gravitational potential energy (scales as volume multiplied by height) will be 0.01% of the real one. So energetically a 10% scale model will have a ratio of potential energy to fracture energy - the ratio that determines whether or not it will collapse - 100 times less than the real building. So it won't collapse. Now if we weaken the columns by a factor of 100, it will collapse - but this test is discredited by the truth movement, because we have "tweaked the model to ensure collapse".

Summary: Scale models behave nothing like the real thing. If you won't believe it till you see a scale model collapse, then you won't believe it. Even though it's true.

Also, if we assume your analogies to be even remotely valid, then no building could ever suffer progressive collapse since the damaged parts would fall to the side and not crash downard.

My IQ is 140

No, it's definently not. It seems just about every other person on these forums report IQ's between 130-160, it's absurd and in your case I have other reasons as well to be hesitant.

and I'm a Software Engineer

And I'm an ex Surface Engineer with a background in construction, currently working in industrial STEEL smithing. I win.

I can handle anything technical you want to throw at me. But it is not necessary for the discussion. Best to keep it simple with 9-11. No need to invoke Engineering details, simple common sense analogy (like the one I provided) is adequate.

This gives it away, since you were unable to deal with the details you, instead, concocted a stupid analogy that any physicist would be able to tell you was stupid, and you excuse yourself away from qualified discussion to simplistic stuff and claims that are only made possible from poor or zero understanding of the details in question.

The fact that you don't want to keep it simple shows you are just what everyone here knows you are: a paid debunker. Covering for murderers. You're scum. You're shit. You're the lowest of the low.

That is such a done to death men-in-black paranoia. I could very well ask you why you are defending and so vehemently apologizing for islamic fundamentalists and terrorists from such branches.

I maintain that crappy truther bs is an unfortunate element within racialistic circles, one that needs to be addressed and delt with on point. I do not mind debate or discussions over these matters, where as you are bending over backwards in whining about me actually having tried to have one with you. Hmm... either you are just one of those less than savy who argues from faith-based convictions about these issues, or you are part of the opposition (ie a zoggling), that's how I see it.

[Hans Norling]

On the Hani Hanjour thingy.

The hijacker-pilots had commercial licenses on flying those planes.

In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html

An excerpt from here;

Avery conducts an interview with Marcel Bernard, chief flight instructor at Freeway Airport in Maryland. Hani Hanjour came to Freeway a month before the attacks to rent a plane. During the interview, Bernard talks about his experience flying with Hanjour, stating that he had trouble with the landing and average or below-average skills. But before this, he states that Hanjour already had his private, instrument, and commercial licenses. I guess we're just supposed to ignore that? Another statement by Bernard conflicts with Avery's implication that Hanjour couldn't have flown Flight 77:

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."

If the flight instructor felt that there was no doubt he could have flown it, why doubt it then?

He did have problem with landing that Cessna after having done three test-runs together with the flight instructor, naturally he managed to fly it and land it but not up to demanded quality without additional lessons and fine-tuning. Hanji had a license for commercial airplanes and was trained in flying one, he had 600 hours of flying experience for it.

The standard evaluation consists of one-to-one-and-a-half-hour flights east over the Chesapeake Bay area. Hanjour paid $400 cash and provided a valid pilot's license from Arizona, Bernard said. He failed because he showed problems landing the airplane and the flight instructor had to help him, Bernard said. But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. "There's no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

Excerpt from above "Ask the Pilot";

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was.
To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system.

For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

As a curiosa. The guys on Mythbuster both managed to land a plane, without prior experience, in the commercial airline-simulator with just some radio-talk assistence. So, crashing it into large buildings wouldn't necessarily be harder than landing it safely on a strip, on the contrary even.