How 9/11 was done

[jaydeehess]

Forgive me for not reading every bit of this page but to address one contention.........

The 'rest of the world' may have been trying to figure out if the first impact was an accident or deliberate but I was watching it on TV minutes before the second impact. The consensus amoung the 6 of us was that it might be an accident but that it certainly looked deliberate. It was a clear day, the plane was waaaaay too low, and it had hit almost dead center of the face of the building while apparently (evidenced by the shape of the hole) flyng with wings fairly level .
Then we saw the second plane go in which simply confirmed the idea.of it bing deliberate more than it removed any doubt.

 

[Senenmut]

Most truthers are the Don Quijote-type Want to play the hero Truther.. You are more of an anti-semitic truther. Now now, you guys have more in common than one might think. The Blame it on the Jews, regardless of evidence truther is an evolutionary ancestor of the Anglo-Saxons/NWO pulled off 9/11. However, there are some distinctions. Most anti-semitic truthers are no-planers because they love to pull the "Jews own the media" card. But upon further investigation, the similarities between your evolutionary cousins can be seen. Just like the no planers, your "Remote-controlled commercial jets/secret knock-out punch" theory doesn't even past the laugh test. The "fake phone calls" has long passed its expiration date. Of course, no truther theory would be complete without a tower 7 CD theory. Not as imaginative as the no planers, but just as stupid.

i dont know if your talking to me dirctly or not but im just highly suspicious of all the israeli activity going on around 911. thats from the fox piece on the israeli art students to the lawyer gerald shea writing a pice that he sent to capitol hill. i also have issues with the ex leader of the ISI general mahmud ahmed sending Saeed Sheikh (MI6 or double agent), to wire 100,000 to atta. remember that Saeed Sheikh was with KSM when one of them beheaded daniel pearle for looking into the isi connection to AQ. then bush making the pakistan money connection classified????? one has to wonder!!! i think fox news said the israeli angle to 911 is classified too.

 

[Furcifer]

Truth in science is based on consensus.

No. Consensus depends on opinion, while science is based on fact. It's naive to think you can disregard scientfic evidence based on the fact the ancients believed in a heliocentric universe. At one time you probably believed in Santa, while tempting, I will not soley discredit your current beliefs based on this error. You learned, we learned, let's move on.

 

[Trojan]

I'd like to go back to the theory that the perps could plant charges in an elevator shaft and that those charges alone would be enough to cause a collapse.

Has our intrepid investigator ever looked at a controlled demolition video?

Ever read the accounts of controlled demolition teams to understand what type of work and preparation is required for a successful controlled demolition?

Is it too much to ask if the investigator has actually investigated, as opposed to just cutting and pasting from a truther site?

Is this unreasonable?

I can supply links if he needs them (if I had over 50 posts that is ...)

 

[T.A.M.]

i dont know if your talking to me dirctly or not but im just highly suspicious of all the israeli activity going on around 911. thats from the fox piece on the israeli art students to the lawyer gerald shea writing a pice that he sent to capitol hill. i also have issues with the ex leader of the ISI general mahmud ahmed sending Saeed Sheikh (MI6 or double agent), to wire 100,000 to atta. remember that Saeed Sheikh was with KSM when one of them beheaded daniel pearle for looking into the isi connection to AQ. then bush making the pakistan money connection classified????? one has to wonder!!! i think fox news said the israeli angle to 911 is classified too.

So you are suspicious because some Israelis were involved?

Well in that case, you will definitely be suspicious, to the point of breaking, over the number of Saudi Arabs involved.

Do you see where this is going? You can be "suspicious" all you want, but what does it amount to? A big stinking pile of suspicion.

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

I'd like to go back to the theory that the perps could plant charges in an elevator shaft and that those charges alone would be enough to cause a collapse.

Has our intrepid investigator ever looked at a controlled demolition video?

Ever read the accounts of controlled demolition teams to understand what type of work and preparation is required for a successful controlled demolition?

Is it too much to ask if the investigator has actually investigated, as opposed to just cutting and pasting from a truther site?

Is this unreasonable?

I can supply links if he needs them (if I had over 50 posts that is ...)

Indeed. One of the things most truthers don't realize is that demolition companies don't just slap cutting charges to the columns and walk away. They cut the columns with torches as much as they can without compromising the structural integrity of the column. Then they place the charge with a load of packing material, some carpeting, and then build a plywood box around the charge.

If you cut out the cutting part, you have to use a larger charge (assuming that would work at all) and those bigger charges would have been heard in Boston!

Somehow, we are supposed to accept, without any real reason, the idea that charges are just slapped on columns with rubber bands or glue and that works just fine.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

So why do you think that they did shut-off power?

Not my claim. As of yet, I have seen no evidence they did shut off the power. Where would I find that evidence?

 

[Trojan]

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.

The power shortage he thinks he can support, though he only has one witness, can at best claim half of one tower shut down. But this witness worked on the 90th floor, so, unless the witness can show some hard evidence ... well, you get the picture.

Even if we give him a pass and allow for a power down on half of one tower, what happens to the other tower and half of the original? Not to mention WTC 7.

Then he has to explain how this was accomplished with not witnesses. Not one person came back to work and see "gee, someone repainted the wall in my office and my picture is hanging wrong" - but he is a big picture guy and does not want to worry about the details

 

[Wolrab]

If the explosives were placed in the core, how does one explain the core of WTC1 standing briefly after the outside collapsed?

 

[9/11-investigator]

I was surprised to see that the thread has been brought back to life again. I am not sure if I am pleasant surprised since I was satisfied with the achieved results and simply wanted to evaluate the answers I have received and take up additional reading. I really commend Dr. Adequate, my otherwise fierce opponent, for really standing up for free speech (and the will to win the argument )

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for topic

However, I have been glued to my laptop screen for 5 days, which is somewhat at odds with my 'provider duties'.

I am going to do what I announced, namely going back to the drawing board and make adaptions to the theory and come back with detailed answers to all of the points made in this thread. Or stay away altogether if I start to become convinced that my case is hopeless (do not bet the farm on that possibility though).

What I certainly will not do is going in the F5-mode again. I will take all the time I need, which could be weeks

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for topic

Kind regards,
9/11-investigator

 

[Thunder]

who demolishes a building while not detonating the core?

these controlled demolitionists must have been really inexperienced. plus the fact that they allowed debrees to fall waaaaaay out of the footprints.

i think the 9-11 truthers should change the name of their pet theory to..."uncontrolled demolition".

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am going to do what I announced, namely going back to the drawing board and make adaptions to the theory and come back with detailed answers to all of the points made in this thread. Or stay away altogether if I start to become convinced that my case is hopeless (do not bet the farm on that possibility though).

I will bet that your case is hopeless. Here and now, I will wager my life, and (should I possess one) my immortal soul against a jelly donut that given the evidence we now have, you will never manage to make a stronger case for Mossad remotely controlling the planes than we can for al Qaeda hijacking them.

Why am I so confident?

Because the best you can do, if you can even do that, is to patch up the technical details that make your present hypothesis impossible. You can conjure up more secret technology, with no evidence that it was ever used, or you can implicate more people, with no evidence that they were complicit.

All you can do now is increase the size and complexity of your hypothesis to try to get round the very convincing evidence that al Qaeda operatives hijacked the planes. And each time you do, you will be adding one more thing for which there is not a shred of evidence.

And I will be able to point this out no matter what you come up with.

This is where you're screwed. Whatever new and more complicated hypothesis you come back with, my answer will be exactly the same as in post #436:

Let's look at the two cases again.

I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

You have no evidence that ...

Except that when you come back with your New Improved Theory I shall be able to add to the list of things you have no evidence for.

And this is because you are building castles in the air.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am going to do what I announced, namely going back to the drawing board and make adaptions to the theory and come back with detailed answers to all of the points made in this thread. Or stay away altogether if I start to become convinced that my case is hopeless (do not bet the farm on that possibility though).

I note with amusement the absence of the option "come back here and admit that I was wrong".

Dave

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I note with amusement the absence of the option "come back here and admit that I was wrong".

Dave

it would seem if he doesnt come back thats an implicit admission that he was wrong

 

[9/11-investigator]

I have stated earlier that half a year before 9/11 there was a successful full-automatic (unmanned) test flight from Edwards to Australia.

Here is link that proves that as far back as 1995 this kind of technology was in full development:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.950802.html

Boeing/Industry Team Evaluates Automatic Landing Systems

Flight testing of four global landing system (GLS) concepts is currently under way at NASA's Wallops Island Air Field in Virginia, following pre-trials out of the Boeing Glasgow, Mont., airfield.

All four GLS systems are installed and are being tested simultaneously on the 757, although only one is coupled to the autopilot for each approach.

"The program is much more than just a trial," says Miller. "We will be testing systems, developing simulations and defining certification requirements.

Is it too far fetched to assume that Boeing product engineers will have had brain storming sessions about possible applications of this technology? Of course not. Being able to put a plane on the ground safely in London fog is one thing. Begin able to put a plane on the ground in case something happens with a pilot is a second application. And an anti-hijack-application is a third. Remember Boeing filed for a patent concerning this third option one month after 9/11.

The big question remains: was this technology implemented yes or no on the 9/11 planes?

Maybe as a beta version?

 

[GStan]

<snip>
The big question remains: was this technology implemented yes or no on the 9/11 planes?

Maybe as a beta version?

No and No. Merely showing that it is not impossible that the technology exsisted is not relevant. Your job is to find evidence that it actually did exist and evidence that it was installed in the planes.

You have a painfully long way to go. Good luck.

 

[X]

I have stated earlier that half a year before 9/11 there was a successful full-automatic (unmanned) test flight from Edwards to Australia.

Here is link that proves that as far back as 1995 this kind of technology was in full development:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.950802.html

Boeing/Industry Team Evaluates Automatic Landing Systems

Flight testing of four global landing system (GLS) concepts is currently under way at NASA's Wallops Island Air Field in Virginia, following pre-trials out of the Boeing Glasgow, Mont., airfield.

All four GLS systems are installed and are being tested simultaneously on the 757, although only one is coupled to the autopilot for each approach.

"The program is much more than just a trial," says Miller. "We will be testing systems, developing simulations and defining certification requirements.

Is it too far fetched to assume that Boeing product engineers will have had brain storming sessions about possible applications of this technology? Of course not. Being able to put a plane on the ground safely in London fog is one thing. Begin able to put a plane on the ground in case something happens with a pilot is a second application. And an anti-hijack-application is a third. Remember Boeing filed for a patent concerning this third option one month after 9/11.

The big question remains: was this technology implemented yes or no on the 9/11 planes?

Maybe as a beta version?

Hiliting mine.

They were researching ways to tie the autopilot into the GPS network to make a Global Landing System (GLS).

It still works through the autopilot, which the actual pilots can easily override or disconnect.

This solves nothing.

And, as noted earlier, the patent you linked to is an idea, not a product.
The rationale behind such an idea is understandable, given the (then) recent occurrences.


So you still need to give evidence for, among other things, the existence of remote control system that can override the pilots, and be installed without being detected by anyone working on or with the aircraft.

You have none.

 

[gumboot]

I have stated earlier that half a year before 9/11 there was a successful full-automatic (unmanned) test flight from Edwards to Australia.

Here is link that proves that as far back as 1995 this kind of technology was in full development:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.950802.html

Boeing/Industry Team Evaluates Automatic Landing Systems

Flight testing of four global landing system (GLS) concepts is currently under way at NASA's Wallops Island Air Field in Virginia, following pre-trials out of the Boeing Glasgow, Mont., airfield.

All four GLS systems are installed and are being tested simultaneously on the 757, although only one is coupled to the autopilot for each approach.

"The program is much more than just a trial," says Miller. "We will be testing systems, developing simulations and defining certification requirements.

Is it too far fetched to assume that Boeing product engineers will have had brain storming sessions about possible applications of this technology? Of course not. Being able to put a plane on the ground safely in London fog is one thing. Begin able to put a plane on the ground in case something happens with a pilot is a second application. And an anti-hijack-application is a third. Remember Boeing filed for a patent concerning this third option one month after 9/11.

The big question remains: was this technology implemented yes or no on the 9/11 planes?

Maybe as a beta version?

You're ignoring the problem with your line of reasoning. No one is claiming it would be impossible to retrofit a Boeing airliner to be flown by remote in 2001. What is being claimed is that it would be impossible to do so without flight crew or ground crew noticing, and it would be impossible to prevent the pilots from overriding it.

Unless you can find an example of a manned aircraft being flown remotely against the pilot's will you have nothing.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

The big question remains: was this technology implemented yes or no on the 9/11 planes?

Maybe as a beta version?

I don't really see who in their right mind would want to purchase this technology when the "beta" version impacted three buildings and a fourth ditched in a field.

The GLS has many practical safety-related applications. No company in their right mind would demonstrate the validity of a safety feature by killing 3000 people with it.

On top of that, you've also indicted Boeing's executives, systems engineers, technicians - basically anyone who worked on the GLS project.

If you're going to make some sort of accusation against an entire company with a theory that YOU propose - then the burden of proof is on you. You don't seem to have any evidence for this whatsoever, just the same old tired connect-the-dots "what if" kind of speculation.

Personally, I have two friends that are engineers at Boeing. They would probably give you a Buzz Aldrin if they heard you accuse them of being complicit in terrorism and mass murder.

Unless of course, you're going to theorize next that Boeing had nothing to do with it and the Mossad stole the planes. No evidence of THAT either.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You're ignoring the problem with your line of reasoning. No one is claiming it would be impossible to retrofit a Boeing airliner to be flown by remote in 2001. What is being claimed is that it would be impossible to do so without flight crew or ground crew noticing, and it would be impossible to prevent the pilots from overriding it.

Unless you can find an example of a manned aircraft being flown remotely against the pilot's will you have nothing.

I understand and agree with all the responders.

There is still the possibility of so-called easter-egg functionality, secret/classified/non-publicly-specified functionality. Like the FAA demanding from Boeing to implement this kind of functionality. As a secret option for the authorities. Not something you want to advertise.

I am looking for hints that this might be the case.