• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How 9/11 was done

9/11-investigator said:
Bollyn is vague about the technical specifications of the software that had been manipulated. He mentions indeed PTech as the key player. He says that NORAD software has been manipulated, what is possible since nobody denies that PTech had NORAD as a client. What I do not understand is how the 'home run' system got activated. There were suggestions 'via the transponder'. That would be via NORAD would it not? Now is there a way to circumvent NORAD and send a signal 'from the field' so to speak? Or must we assume that somebody send the signal from within NORAD?

Any ideas?
Click to expand...
I've got an idea. This imaginary secret expensive useless impossible nonexistent technology doesn't exist. See my post (#290) and ellindsey's (#287) for more details.

You just want it to exist 'cos it fills one of the most gaping holes in your hypothesis. You are, in fact, one of the zillions of people per year who has independently discovered "Smacco's Rozar":

To any hypothesis, no matter how contrary to the evidence, further unproven hypotheses may be added in an ad hoc manner to defend the original hypothesis from the facts.​
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
So why do you think that they did shut-off power?
Click to expand...

There have been random power shut downs and server power-offs at my work over the last few months. Mostly on the weekends and in the afternoons.

Should I be worried that my workplace is about to suffer from a controlled demolition or is there gonna be a false-flag attack on our network???

:o
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
So why do you think that they did shut-off power?
Click to expand...

A little while ago, someone posted a ticket to the observation floor of WTC1 dated the same day as Scott Forbes claimed there was no power above floor 48 - does anyone have a link? Apparently there was plenty of power available on the upper floors that day.

Since the only evidence of a power down is the unsupported word of one witness, and there is another witness account that directly contradicts it, we have to consider it unproven that the power was indeed shut off in the upper half of one tower. There is absolutely no evidence of any power shutoff anywhere in the remaining three quarters of the buildings.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
A little while ago, someone posted a ticket to the observation floor of WTC1 dated the same day as Scott Forbes claimed there was no power above floor 48 - does anyone have a link?
Click to expand...
I added the pictures and a link to the original blog post here.
 
240-185 said:
I have a better question:

9/11-I, do you have any evidence that shows a power shortage which lasted enough so a huge army of men could plant 19,200 bombs (*) into TWO towers?

(*) Trusses have been cut every 10m. A Twin Tower is 400m high, that makes 240 explosive charges (one per column) on 40 levels. 240*40*2=19200 bombs.
Click to expand...

Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.
Click to expand...
Will you, at some point, move beyond guessing, speculating, hypothesizing and generally just making **** up and start providing evidence?
 
9/11 investigator....

you present an interesting theory. Granted it's based on the work of a reporter from a neo-Nazi webpage, it's pointlessly complicated and there are some minor problems with regards to your complete lack of evidence....

but other than that it's rock solid!

So what do you plan on doing with this earth-shattering theory of yours?
 
9/11-investigator said:
What do you mean, Aschenputtel, spinning in space? It is me against the rest of the forum (with appreciated close air support from Senenmut).

No offense intended, but 1 idiot can ask more questions than 7 Einsteins can answer. Patience please.
Click to expand...

A. Kindly address me by my name, not by some ridiculous German appellation, thank you. And if you're referring to my location listed under my name, given that we all appear to be on planet Earth (I reserve judgment in the case of some of the more out there posters, mind you), we're all spinning in space, since that's what the Earth is doing. I prefer not to advertise where I am more closely than that.

B. Gumboot has more than politely addressed the majority of the points you raise in your initial post, and I have yet to see you respond with anything other than ridicule to his salient points. For example; he's pointed out on more than one occasion that the company you seem to think held the security contract for the various airports in fact only held a baggage handling contract for ONE of the airlines that had flights hijacked that day, an area that has nothing to do with airline security. That's just ONE of several points he's raised that would seem to poke holes the size of the moon in your theory, yet you ignore it in favor of poking fun. Does that seem like someone who should be treated with respect, Investigator? Because it sure as heck doesn't to me. So, I present to you a challenge. Go back to each of his posts; READ them, and then present any EVIDENCE (not speculation) you may have that would contradict his points, and I will withdraw my earlier statement about you failing to respond to any of the salient points raised by the skeptics here. Do we have a deal?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.
Click to expand...
The key word here is "narrative". A Truther has made up a story about how it would be, like, just totally easy to do.

Truthers make up a lot of stuff.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.
Click to expand...
"Radiographic explosives"?
 
9/11-investigator said:
It's telling that you have to resort to actions of the spanish judiciary in 2003 against a crime that was committed in the US.

At that time Bush's most loyal ally was the right winger Aznar. This indictment was no doubt a personal favour from Aznar to Bush.

<snip pointless quote>
Click to expand...

Oh I see, so let me get this right, Bush calls in a favour and asks Spain to Indict BIn Laden.So basically Spain indicted him cos Bush asked them to and the US didn't indict him because, well I guess,Bush asked them not to.

Actually what is telling is you are not reading the articles you are posting links to or those that members are posting you. You are simply making rubbish up as you go along and hoping you don't look too stupid.

Sorry,sun beam you are failing, miserably.

If you wish to debate the article I posted, do yourself a hugh favour and actually read it before you post further.
 
ellindsey said:
No. The problem with the remote control concept is that none of the airplanes that crashed on 9-11 had fly-by-wire control systems. All of the planes had mechanical controls, in which the pilot's inputs to the control wheel and rudder were transmitted by a system of cables and levers to hydraulic boosters which moved the control surfaces. There is no place in the system where the control can be interrupted without disabling the entire system. These planes did have autopilots, which would push and pull on the control cables, adding mechanical input in the same way as another pilot would. The forces which the autopilot was capable of were less than those the pilots could exert, so even if the autopilot had been reprogrammed to crash the plane, the pilots would have been able to physically overpower it and keep control over the plane.
Click to expand...

Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps

Furthermore, in addition to the flight controls, the cockpit crew have access to circuit breakers that control power to pretty much every system in the airplane. If the autopilot is behaving bizarrely, the flight crew are going to just pull the circuit breaker that controls the autopilot and shut if off. This is a hard-wired circuit, not something that can be overridden by radio control or changes in software. In an emergency the pilots can actually completely disable the airplane's electrical system by pulling the main power bus breakers. The aircraft that crashed on 9-11 were of a type that could in an emergency land fly and land with no electrical power at all. You'll have no radio or navigation gear, and rudimentary flight instruments, but the controls are driven by hydraulics which are powered directly from the engines and can work in the total absence of electrical power. And believe me, if the pilots discover that the airplane is behaving oddly and they have no control over the flight, they'll start pulling breakers and reconfiguring systems until they regain control.
Click to expand...

But I get your point and start to understand why in the narrative of 911research they build in an additional element:

The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.


But I am starting to feel compassion for you debunkers. We truthers are hopeless. :D

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Oh I see, so let me get this right, Bush calls in a favour and asks Spain to Indict BIn Laden.So basically Spain indicted him cos Bush asked them to and the US didn't indict him because, well I guess,Bush asked them not to.
Click to expand...

What is so exceptional about this. Aznar calls a prosecutor and invites him for a diner in the palace to discuss the 'international situation' and 'Spanish interest'. This is Spain, not Sweden.

If you wish to debate the article I posted, do yourself a hugh favour and actually read it before you post further.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that I do not read my own links? Untrue.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps
Click to expand...
How does this mean that the pilot can't overule the autopilot? Obviously he can: he can pull harder than it can.

But I get your point and start to understand why in the narrative of 911research they build in an additional element:
Click to expand...
Smacco's Rozar!

The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.
Click to expand...
Which leaves you with the problem of who undertook the mission of resetting the autopilot, since this cannot be done remotely, and requires some poor sap to be on the plane. Why, you'd have to be, y'know ... suicidal.

Also we showed that the phone calls couldn't have been faked, remember?

But I am starting to feel compassion for you debunkers. We truthers are hopeless. :D
Click to expand...
Compassion? I should have thought that gratitude would be a more appropriate response.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, accepting what 'luminaries' such as Bollin tell you is so much better.

You sir, need a new type of logical fallacy to be named after you. I suggest 'argument from bigotry'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom