The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Patriots4Truth]

That is true, but the part you quoted makes clear it took 97 minutes for the columns to buckle, not 17.

Poor reading comprehension is almost a requirement to be a truther.

If I was interested in the whole 97 minutes I would have clearly said so. Ironically, it is you who has a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Time and time again, and even in the post of mine which you just replied to, I made it clear that I am only interested in scientific analysis of the 17 minutes in which the south wall of wtc1 bowed inward 55 inches thus translating to 9 feet of floor "sag".

Wow.. just.. wow.

The brains in that post of yours are through the roof (maybe now would be a good time to look for them)

 

[aggle-rithm]

If I was interested in the whole 97 minutes I would have clearly said so. Ironically, it is you who has a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Time and time again, and even in the post of mine which you just replied to, I made it clear that I am only interested in scientific analysis of the 17 minutes in which the south wall of wtc1 bowed inward 55 inches thus translating to 9 feet of floor "sag".

Wow.. just.. wow.

The brains in that post of yours are through the roof (maybe now would be a good time to look for them)

What do you think happened on 9/11?

Whad'ya say? Want to be the first truther ever to answer that question intelligently?

I'm guessing the answer is "no".

 

[twinstead]

9-11 'Truth': the longest running argument from incredulity in history.

 

[achimspok]

You already explained it; you came up with nothing. Good job.... , wow.

I see, a lot of noise but nothing to clear anything up as always.

ISI is proven. It is even confirmed by the FBI.

Your "easy" Pentagon maneuver became "easy" after nobody had any plausible explanation for Hanjour. I know the comments of the ATCs, pilots, officials etc. pp. I know that some changed their expertise after it became vital for the official story. Hanjour became a well trained pilot and the maneuver became easy. ...but the instructors warned the FAA because of the disability of Hanjour.
(I know the Mr. Ruigrok Simulator test at the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory. Mr. Ruigrok was sold to the audience as inexperienced pilot but the head of the National Aerospace Laboratory probably had simulator time as much as no one else in the Netherlands. The simulator shows no topography, no obstacles, no vibration, dropped 500ft/min less, flew 30kn slower... )

Hanjour had to dive into the valley and to pull the plane into a horizontal (+/-1°) path hitting 5ft above ground in a vibrating Boeing far above "normal" speed.
UA175 came down a straight line at about 600mph. It didn't aim at the building. That's what an untrained pilot would have to do to have a chance. UA175 took one single maneuver about 9 seconds before it hit to turn in an almost perpendicular path - means about 8° lateral and less than 1° vertical.
AA11 didn't hit "a 200ft wide target", it hit the dead center of it at about 500mph less than 1° lateral and about 4° vertical.

Yes, I like to see you for the first time in a big loaded truck at overspeed on a vibrating forest trail taking the next turn to hit a red line in the center of a 2000ft wide target. I give you 2 years to train the maneuver using a PC game of your choice.
The method of your lies is obvious, beachnut, no matter if I ridicule your name or not. You try to ridicule everything but you have no answers. Even the Zelikow Commission had no answers because that Commission wasn't set up to find answers because 9/11 wasn't a presidential blow job

Wrong, the hijacking instructions made it as easy, and nothing really changed in reality - another flag you only have delusions on 911.

...another flag you just omitting the details.

Well, the military had DOD Directive 3025.1 and could respond to a request immediately if asked but the military had also CJCSI 3610.01A (June 1, 2001) with specifications for hijackings. Again, the NMCC was allowed to respond immediatly when requested but the FAA had to call the NMCC first and wasn't allowed to call NORAD directly.

And that's what happened at the NMCC: Nothing!

NMCC DIRECTOR STAYED IN PRE-SCHEDULED MEETING
Brigadier General Montague Winfield should have been on duty as the deputy director for operations (DDO) in the NMCC throughout the 9/11 attacks, in command of the operations team there. [22] The DDO's responsibilities in a crisis include establishing and moderating an appropriate conference call between military commanders and other relevant agencies, and generating a military response. [23] But, curiously, the previous afternoon, Winfield asked his colleague, Charles Leidig, to take over from him as DDO for a portion of his duty on the morning of September 11, and Leidig agreed to do so.

Leidig--whose usual job was as the deputy for Command Center operations, responsible for the maintenance, operation, and training of the NMCC's watch teams--had joined the operations directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in July 2001, and only qualified to stand in as the DDO in the NMCC about a month before 9/11. He therefore lacked Winfield's experience that would surely have been invaluable when organizing a response to the attacks on the U.S. [24]

The reason Winfield wanted Leidig to take his place as DDO on September 11 appears to have been because he was scheduled to attend a meeting that morning. This was a "closed-door personnel meeting convened by the Air Force to discuss the rating of Air Force officers," according to one 9/11 Commission memorandum. [25] Another Commission memorandum described it as a "session for general officers who rated Air Force officers." Leidig therefore replaced Winfield as DDO at 8:30 a.m. on September 11, 16 minutes before the first plane hit the WTC. [26]

One would reasonably expect someone to have fetched Winfield from his meeting when the second plane hit the WTC and officers in the NMCC "knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack," if not before. [27] And yet that did not happen. Winfield only returned to his post more than an hour later, after Flight 93 apparently crashed in Pennsylvania and the 9/11 attacks had ended.

EMERGENCY CONFERENCE ONLY BEGAN AT 9:29 A.M.
Another area of concern is the serious problems experienced by NMCC personnel in convening and running an emergency teleconference to deal with the terrorist attacks. The NMCC had specific procedures in place to manage a crisis. A 9/11 Commission memorandum described, "As a particular event unfolds, the first action is to convene a significant event conference to gather and disseminate information from government entities according to established checklists." [32] However, Charles Chambers recalled that the NMCC's significant event conference in response to the 9/11 attacks "was taking much longer than expected to bring up." [33] Commander Patrick Gardner, the assistant DDO, told the 9/11 Commission that the NMCC was "struggling to build the conference," which "didn't get off as quickly as hoped," and complained of his "frustration that it wasn't brought up more quickly." [34] The significant event conference only began at 9:29 a.m., 26 minutes after Flight 175 hit the WTC. [35]

At least two factors that contributed to this alarming delay in establishing the conference have been identified: disruption resulting from some NMCC officers having to participate in another conference call that was reportedly of no use in aiding the emergency response to the attacks, and problems connecting some agencies--particularly the FAA--to the NMCC's conference.

UNHELPFUL CIA CONFERENCE DELAYED NMCC RESPONSE
A National Operations and Intelligence Watch Officer Network (NOIWON) conference call was convened by the CIA, reportedly at sometime between 9:16 a.m. and 9:25 a.m. on September 11, to allow government agencies in the Washington area to quickly share information regarding the ongoing crisis. [36] But this call appears to have hindered, rather than helped, emergency response efforts. According to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, while the NMCC was preparing for the significant event conference, the "NOIWON call intervened. The NMCC abandoned its attempt to convene a [significant event conference] so its watch officers could participate in the NOIWON conference." [37]

What is more, the disruption was apparently for nothing. An intelligence officer working at FAA headquarters that morning said that he "does not remember any useful or significant information coming as a result of the NOIWON call." [38] And Charles Leidig told the 9/11 Commission that he "recalled no situational awareness that came from the NOIWON call." [39]

* Brigadier General Montague Winfield left his position as the deputy director for operations in the NMCC at 8:30 a.m. and only resumed his duties after the attacks ended, apparently around 10:30 a.m.

* Donald Rumsfeld, who as secretary of defense had a vital role to play in defending his country against the terrorist attacks, was at the Pentagon that morning, and yet he too only reached the NMCC after the attacks ended. Rumsfeld learned of the first attack in New York during a breakfast meeting he was holding for several members of Congress. He then returned to his office for his daily CIA intelligence briefing. [53]

* General Richard Myers, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was on Capitol Hill that morning and, despite seeing the coverage of the first crash in New York on television shortly before 9:00 a.m., continued into his scheduled meeting with Senator Max Cleland. [60] Myers learned of the second attack on the WTC either while he was with Cleland or just after he left the meeting (accounts conflict on this matter). [61] ... he arrived at the NMCC at around 10:00 a.m. or 10:10 a.m. [63] But he further delayed joining the air threat conference by initially leaving the NMCC and heading out to the secretary of defense's office suite, in search of Donald Rumsfeld. Only after an aide there told him that Rumsfeld had gone outside did Myers return to the NMCC. [64]

[22] "Memorandum for the Record: Orientation and Tour of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC)."
[23] Charles Chambers, "Notes on 9/11, Maj. C. Chambers, NMCC, Made Within the Week of 9/11"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy"; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Twelfth Public Hearing.
[24] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy"; "Statement of Capt. Charles J. Leidig, Jr., Commandant of Midshipmen, United States Naval Academy, Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." 9/11 Commission, June 17, 2004.
[25] "Memorandum for the Record: Orientation and Tour of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC)."
[26] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy"; "Statement of Capt. Charles J. Leidig, Jr., Commandant of Midshipmen, United States Naval Academy, Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States."
[27] Jim Garamone, "9/11: Keeping the Heart of the Pentagon Beating."
[28] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy."
[29] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Twelfth Public Hearing.
[30] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy."
[31] Debbie Sheehan, "Force Protection Plan a 'Timely Alert.'" Monmouth Message, September 21, 2001; Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, A Concise History of the Communications-Electronics Command and Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Fort Monmouth, NJ: Fort Monmouth, 2003, p. 71.
[32] "Memorandum for the Record: Orientation and Tour of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC)."
[33] Charles Chambers, "Notes on 9/11, Maj. C. Chambers, NMCC, Made Within the Week of 9/11."
[34] Commander Patrick Gardner, 9/11 Commission Interview Part I, Handwritten Notes; Commander Patrick Gardner, 9/11 Commission Interview Take 2, Handwritten Notes. 9/11 Commission, May 12, 2004.
[35] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 37.
[36] David A. Radi, "Intelligence Inside the White House: The Influence of Executive Style and Technology." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Program on Information Resources Policy, March 1997, p. 12; "Chronology of Events on 9/11/01." Federal Aviation Administration, September 11, 2001; "ACI Watch Log." Federal Aviation Administration, September 11, 2001; Bob Brewin, "The Consumer's Guide to Intel Nets." Government Executive, June 1, 2009.
[37] "Memorandum for the Record: Orientation and Tour of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC)."
[38] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Darrel Smith." 9/11 Commission, July 13, 2004.
[39] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy."
[40] Charles Chambers, "Notes on 9/11, Maj. C. Chambers, NMCC, Made Within the Week of 9/11."
[41] Commander Patrick Gardner, 9/11 Commission Interview Take 2, Handwritten Notes.
[42] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 37.
[43] Charles Chambers, "Notes on 9/11, Maj. C. Chambers, NMCC, Made Within the Week of 9/11."
[44] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CJCSI 3610.01A.
[45] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 37.
[46] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Twelfth Public Hearing.
[47] Charles Chambers, "Notes on 9/11, Maj. C. Chambers, NMCC, Made Within the Week of 9/11."
[48] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 37.
[49] Charles Chambers, "Notes on 9/11, Maj. C. Chambers, NMCC, Made Within the Week of 9/11"; "Memorandum for the Record: Orientation and Tour of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC)."
[50] "Memorandum for the Record: Orientation and Tour of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC)."
[51] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Twelfth Public Hearing.
[52] Rayford Brooks, 9/11 Commission Interview, Handwritten Notes. 9/11 Commission, April 15, 2004; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 37, 463.
[53] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 37; Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, p. 428.
[54] Assistant Secretary Clarke Interview With WBZ Boston. WBZ Boston, September 15, 2001; Torie Clarke, Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game. New York: Free Press, 2006, pp. 218-219.
[55] Don Van Natta and Lizette Alvarez, "A Hijacked Boeing 757 Slams Into the Pentagon, Halting the Government." New York Times, September 12, 2001; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Defense Department, Office of the Secretary, Historical Office, 2007, pp. 130-131.
[56] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38.
[57] Robert J. Darling, 24 Hours Inside the President's Bunker: 9/11/01 The White House. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2010, pp. 108-109.
[58] Draft: The Air Traffic Organization's Response to the September 11th Terrorist Attack: ATC System Assessment, Shutdown, and Restoration. Federal Aviation Administration, March 21, 2002, p. G-1; Hugh Shelton, Ronald Levinson, and Malcolm McConnell, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2010, pp. 430-432.
[59] Richard B. Myers and Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon, p. 159.
[60] Richard Myers, Interview by Jim Miklaszewski. NBC News, September 11, 2002; "History Makers Series: General Richard B. Myers, U.S. Air Force (Retired), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Council on Foreign Relations, June 29, 2006.
[61] Interview, General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, With Petty Officer Quinn Lyton, USN. Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, October 17, 2001; Richard Myers, Interview by Jim Miklaszewski; Richard B. Myers and Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon, p. 8.
[62] Interview, General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, With Petty Officer Quinn Lyton, USN; Richard Myers, Interview by Jim Miklaszewski; "Statement of General Richard Myers, USAF, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." 9/11 Commission, June 17, 2004; "History Makers Series: General Richard B. Myers, U.S. Air Force (Retired), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
[63] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Richard Myers, Affiliated With NORAD." 9/11 Commission, February 17, 2004.
[64] Richard B. Myers and Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon, pp. 152-153.

Now the typical Beachnut claim - as wise as ever:

War-games? LOL, a scheduled exercise, it means more expert military are available, the military does not do domestic crap, but they were up and running faster than it takes on paper and according to regulations, and instructions. OOPS, this is a red flag you don't understand why bringing this up ruins your Delusions.

In reality NEADS received multiple simulated hijackings:

And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap."
Transcript-Neads-Channel-2-Mcc-Upside-006

When? 5 min prior to the Pentagon impact? Wow!
...but some knew it better.

The USSS observed the airspace using Tigerwall.

...shortly after the second World Trade Center crash at 9:03, the Secret Service began informally communicating with a fighter pilot at Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles outside Washington, D.C., and the Secret Service requested that some fighters get prepared to fly. ... Later, fighter pilot Lt. Col. Marc Sasseville, stationed at Andrews, is reported as saying that some time after the Pentagon was hit he received a call from the Secret Service, ordering: “Get in the air now!”
Source: Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02

Immediate Response? Emergency? Total incompetence?

Mineta was on the line with the FAA.
Cheney was in the PEOC and lied to the public.
Cheney lied to you, Rice lied to you, Rumsfeld looked the other direction and did nothing, Winfield looked the other direction and did nothing, the CIA delayed any effort, NEADS watched simulated hijackings, Bush was sent to nirvana and was on a plane losing contact.
...and ISI General Mahmoud - who payed Atta via Pearl kidnapper Omar and had best contacts to KSM and CIA - had breakfast with Bush's next CIA Chief and former Operation-40-Terrorist Porter Goss. General Mahmoud felt soooo sorrrrry for the Americans.

Dick Cheney at Camp David on 16 Sep 2001 “Meet the Press”:

“Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta... But when I arrived there (PEOC) within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.”

The Zelikow Commission gave a different timeline referred to a USSS memo:

A FOIA request for the USSS memo resulted in "document do not exist":

Finally we have the Withdrawal-Notice for a Doug Cochrane "VP military aide" and probably the guy who asked "Do the order still stand?"

...and the "shoot down language" was used before Flight 93 hit the ground.

Clarke will describe being told to inform the Pentagon it has shootdown authorization slightly later, some time between 9:45 and 9:56 (see (Between 9:45 a.m. and 9:56 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Clarke, 2004, pp. 8] According to journalists Bob Woodward and Bill Sammon, Bush gives the shootdown authorization in a phone call with Cheney shortly after 9:56 (see (Shortly After 9:56 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Sammon, 2002, pp. 102; Woodward, 2002, pp. 17-18; Washington Post, 1/27/2002]

Here is what Mineta said:

I started to establish a direct line to the FAA to find out what was going on, and the Vice President and I were across from each other on the conference room table in the PEOC, and about this time someone came in and said this was -- when I finally got in there, it was probably about 9:27, is what I recall.

And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."

And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

So I said, "Monte, is there something -- can you identify it as being at the Pentagon?" He said, "No, we can't really pinpoint it like that."

Then about that time someone broke into our phone conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we've had a call from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines airplane go into the Pentagon."

At that point I said, "Monte, bring all the airplanes down..."
Source: http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.asp?0cb=-31a105678&cp1=1

Of course, "911myth2" do a hell of an effort to debunk Mineta but admits that the landing order "wasn't delivered until" around 9:45. (That's 7 minutes after the Pentagon crash, isn't it?) At that time United 93 was about 250 miles out and never came closer than 125 miles. Nevertheless "911myth" wants us to believe that Mineta confused the Pentagon impact with later reports of Flight 93.
Just another lie.

Furthermore, the Cheney Gang immediatly got report from an Arlington County police officer (Lagasse?) saying that he saw an American Airlines airplane. Cheney lied about that too stating that they got reports about a crashed helicopter and learned about that airplane much later.

Mineta estimated he was in the PEOC at 9:20-9:27am.

"Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out."

"NEADS needed orders to pass to the pilots. At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told, "negative clearance to shoot."
9/11 Commission report page 62

"10:15 Washington Center advises NEADS that Flight 93 has crashed in PA" 9/11 Commission report page 50

"Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31."
9/11 Commission report page 62/585

... emergency? Immediate Response? ... more expert military available? ... running faster? ... no presidential blow job?

You decide, Beachnut!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sure, we're to believe some nutcase who thinks the order was given to "shoot down" the planes, then they decide to move the goal posts to say that Mineta gave a "stand down" order!

Isn't that just stupid?

 

[beachnut]

"Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out."

Warning, whenever anyone sees this quote, you know the person quoting it has moronic claims or has no clue what happen on 911, so they spread lies and idiotic delusions. Using this quote is a sign of paranoid conspiracy theories, this is the battle cry of woo for 911 truth. It is the truth, ask a rational person as you try to tie this nonsense to something you what to claim but can't express it. What is the point of this crap? You can't explain it.

"NEADS needed orders to pass to the pilots. At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told, "negative clearance to shoot."
9/11 Commission report page 62

Sorry, all the pilots are officers, and they took an oath to defend the United States, and we can do what we think is right. Not sure what you mean by this, but it would be like telling cops they can't shoot bad guys when they are about to kill. You look up quotes and mine them to feed your idiotic delusions.

"10:15 Washington Center advises NEADS that Flight 93 has crashed in PA" 9/11 Commission report page 50

So? Wow, a plane crashed on 911. Good quote!

"Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31."
9/11 Commission report page 62/585

Sorry, as I said, I don't need permission to carry out my pledge I took when I was commissioned. You are quote mining to feed your need for moronic paranoid conspracy theories you see everywhere.

... emergency? Immediate Response? ... more expert military available? ... running faster? ... no presidential blow job?

Exercises on 911 made it a fact, more personnel were on duty to help in the response of 911. CAPs were set up all over the country in record time. It is a fact you can't understand, a fact you can't comprehend, a fact which you don't recognize since you prefer fantasy and lies. When you bring up exercises were going on and try to link that to an inside job, you are exposing your ignorance on a broad scale. I was on active duty on 911, what is your point with this exercise stuff? It makes you look very dumb.

You decide, Beachnut!

I decide you have no clue what happen on 911 and can't comprehend the United State military. The hijacking response of the military did not change before 911, the paper work BS changed.

But make my day, explain what the paper changes meant? Not a thing you will say changes the fact on 911 the response to "hijacked" aircraft like it always was. There were no provisions before 911 to shoot down airliners over the United States, we intercept planes outside the US that are not acting correctly and the intercepts are run in areas the military have control over. The military has no control of airspace over the USA where airliners normally operate.

You can quote mine for the next 10 years, but you will fail to make a rational point to support your idiotic inside job claims. But feel free to make up lies and post nonsense like you are doing.

Quote:
...shortly after the second World Trade Center crash at 9:03, the Secret Service began informally communicating with a fighter pilot at Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles outside Washington, D.C., and the Secret Service requested that some fighters get prepared to fly. ... Later, fighter pilot Lt. Col. Marc Sasseville, stationed at Andrews, is reported as saying that some time after the Pentagon was hit he received a call from the Secret Service, ordering: “Get in the air now!”
Source: Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02

How does this support your inside job?
Andrews AFB had zero Fighters on alert, zero were armed. Zero.
It would take minutes to launch a fighter, it would be unarmed, and it would take many minutes to arm a fighter, maybe an hour if you can get the people to load it to work. It is amazing some planed did launch with training ammo, and some with nothing. The military did not stand down on 911, you did as you began making up crazy ideas.

Please weave your posts into a single integrated what happened story. Not a thing you have posted has a point, or makes sense.

Who did the work of woo, exposing their biased take, exposing their ignorance, the SPAM you plagiarized?

 

[grandmastershek]

that the security camera take a picture every few seconds - right

If your equipment prints a timestamp into the picture then the timestamp is ALWAYS in the very same location just like the original timestamp.

Do you have any idea why you still see the matrix of some kind of sceen in the image? Why was that video NEVER EVER captured by the use of a usual video capture device?*** At least these images were used as "evidence" in the Mussaoui Trail.

*** one plausible reason: a screen matrix is the best way to hide any edits like wrong time stamps, wrong shadows, wrong persons... everything.

[qimg]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6365/portlandfake.gif[/qimg]

Can someone translate this into "sane" for me? Thanks in advance.

I am just waiting for the argument from incredulity.

(b) I don't believe they could have sagged 9 ft in 17 minutes. I'll only believe it possible if I get a full, honest scientific analysis

YAHTZEE!!!

 

[WildCat]

If I was interested in the whole 97 minutes I would have clearly said so. Ironically, it is you who has a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Time and time again, and even in the post of mine which you just replied to, I made it clear that I am only interested in scientific analysis of the 17 minutes in which the south wall of wtc1 bowed inward 55 inches thus translating to 9 feet of floor "sag".

Wow.. just.. wow.

The brains in that post of yours are through the roof (maybe now would be a good time to look for them)

Sweetie, the timeline started when the airplane hit. It didn't start 80 minutes prior to that moment.

Thus, the column didn't buckle in 17 minutes, it took 97 minutes. Maybe you should move your lips nex time you read it, it might help.

 

[WildCat]

Can someone translate this into "sane" for me? Thanks in advance.

It doesn't translate very well, my best effort yields "waaaahwahhahhaaaaaawaaaahhhh, why won't anybody listen to me, waaaahawaaahhhawaaahh"

 

[beachnut]

Your "easy" Pentagon maneuver became "easy" after nobody had any plausible explanation for Hanjour. I know the comments of the ATCs, pilots, officials etc. pp. I know that some changed their expertise after it became vital for the official story. Hanjour became a well trained pilot and the maneuver became easy. ...but the instructors warned the FAA because of the disability of Hanjour.
(I know the Mr. Ruigrok Simulator test at the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory. Mr. Ruigrok was sold to the audience as inexperienced pilot but the head of the National Aerospace Laboratory probably had simulator time as much as no one else in the Netherlands. The simulator shows no topography, no obstacles, no vibration, dropped 500ft/min less, flew 30kn slower... )

And what does this mean?
What vibration?
... obstacles? Hani missed the tower and hit breakaway lampposts, not many obstacles.

I don't think any experts changed their minds unless they made a mistake on 911. The story you quoted was from 912, before it was known what speeds and flight paths had been used. I have flown jets since 1974, and heavy jets since 1976, and the impact of 175 was a standard no real maneuvering hit - even if you want to bring up your nonsense, if there were no 60 degree banked turns, there was no major maneuvering on 911. I was an instructor pilot for large jets, I never thought the 911 was more than bad, suicide dolts who were only able to crash into buildings or the dirt. I was right on 911 about that, and after I studied the paths and speeds I discovered by first ideas on the flying were correct, so I was correct for over 9 years, my first analysis was right. 911 truth has had 9 years, and they continue to make up lies.

What is your point? Hani was a bad pilot, I agree; but as 99.9 percent of all instructor pilots and pilots agree, anyone can crash into building as large as the Pentagon, and as seen on 911, Hani hit the first and second floor of the Pentagon, who knows what he was aiming for?

Hanjour had to dive into the valley and to pull the plane into a horizontal (+/-1°) path hitting 5ft above ground in a vibrating Boeing far above "normal" speed.

Hani did not do a +-1 degree path, you are making up nonsense. I love the vibrating Boeing stuff, did you make that up today? That is funny stuff, what does it mean? I have flown a Boeing Jet above the "normal" speed, it got more stable, more likely to fly straight, and had less vibration, and MORE Kinetic Energy. I have flown in formation with other large jets and they have exceeded "normal" speed to catch me, and they had no problem except they went so fast some of the skin on the aircraft peeled off - but the Boeing Jet kept flying. The speed issue is nonsense, Boeing Jets have gone to near MACH 1 speed down low and not "blown up". What is your point?

What is this vibration stuff? What sissy pilot complained about vibration? Are you serious?

UA175 came down a straight line at about 600mph. It didn't aim at the building. That's what an untrained pilot would have to do to have a chance. UA175 took one single maneuver about 9 seconds before it hit to turn in an almost perpendicular path - means about 8° lateral and less than 1° vertical.

600 mph, I have seen this at pilot training when T-38s are trying to make it back before thunder storms move in. They landed exactly on center line after pulling 6gs in 70 to 90 degrees of bank in their single maneuver of 360 degrees. Did 175 pull 6gs? Did 175 use 75 degrees of bank? No. Flight 175 did a novice pilot hit in a bank maneuver, after being too high to make a more controlled approach. So? The attitude of 175 at impact was indicative of a novice, BAD pilot. Looks like Atta was the "best" pilot of the group; I guess his hate for America was motivation to learn to fly.

Every single flight maneuver on 911 was simple and things a first flight pilot could do. You have no point to make, you have no goal, you have no story to go with your SPAM.

AA11 didn't hit "a 200ft wide target", it hit the dead center of it at about 500mph less than 1° lateral and about 4° vertical.

Flight 11 hit a 207 foot wide target, and as all pilots do, they aim for the center, and hit within inches, like driving a car on the center of your side; however pilots land on a centerline, so shooting for the center is normal.

Wow, Flt 11 hit the center. What was he aiming at, a 207 foot wide target, and hit the center? Your point?

It would be hard not hit the way he hit after lining up miles out! Your point? Is IT a secret which way the building are lined up? Bet Atta knows how to use a compass, he was pilot, are you? You big inside job here is? Wait for it...

Yes, I like to see you for the first time in a big loaded truck at overspeed on a vibrating forest trail taking the next turn to hit a red line in the center of a 2000ft wide target. I give you 2 years to train the maneuver using a PC game of your choice.
The method of your lies is obvious, beachnut, no matter if I ridicule your name or not. You try to ridicule everything but you have no answers. Even the Zelikow Commission had no answers because that Commission wasn't set up to find answers because 9/11 wasn't a presidential blow job

Wrong president. You mess up 911, and your presidential jokes are late an administration. You must be like Atta, hate the USA but you can't fly jets.
The first day I flew a Boeing jet, with four engines, harder to fly than 767/757, I put the plane exactly on centerline of a 150 foot wide runway, vibrating Boeing and all? Not an inch off, exactly on centerline; first time in the Jet! And if I was allowed to fly the approach faster, I would be able to hit the centerline sooner, exactly on centerline, but quicker! Before you post nonsense and have no goal, you may want to go fly. Small prop planes are harder to fly than a 767/757.

I want to hear what the military is suppose do to pre-911 for hijacked aircraft? Oops, they might be asked to follow, spy on the plane; this could take hours to set up. Bringing up administrative changes to how hijack support is requested means nothing, it did not change what would happen, and when it would happen, AND, in emergencies anything goes. So the change in hijacking administrative crap, means nothing except 911 truth and you failed to read all there is on hijacking, or gain knowledge on the ad hoc relationship of the FAA and the military. Boils down to failure by you and 911 truth to grasp anything, or make sense, you make up nonsense based on ignorance, and you use quotes and cherry pick junk to fuel your paranoia.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Sweetie, the timeline started when the airplane hit. It didn't start 80 minutes prior to that moment.

Thus, the column didn't buckle in 17 minutes, it took 97 minutes. Maybe you should move your lips nex time you read it, it might help.

I don't know why you keep changing the subject. Did I say I wanted to know anything about those 97 minutes? NO. My original post was a question that has yet to be answered. But if anyone knows of any scientific analysis regarding the "sag" over the 17 minutes that I'm interested in then please help answer my original question. It would involve knowing the strength of the steel joists and then testing how much heat would be needed in a section or within the whole joist in order for 9 ft of creep. Creep deformation is "time-dependent" deformation. That's why I am interested in the 17 minutes rather than the whole 97 minutes. We know how much creep there was during the 17 minutes. Why you keep on saying 97 this, 97 that is beyond me. Perhaps you are trying to put words in my mouth because of your complete lack of reading comprehension skills. No one has expressed any interest in this thread about having a scientific analysis of creep over the whole 97 minutes. Kapeesh?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Warning, whenever anyone sees this quote, you know the person quoting it has moronic claims or has no clue what happen on 911, so they spread lies and idiotic delusions. Using this quote is a sign of paranoid conspiracy theories, this is the battle cry of woo for 911 truth. It is the truth, ask a rational person as you try to tie this nonsense to something you what to claim but can't express it. What is the point of this crap? You can't explain it.

Sorry, all the pilots are officers, and they took an oath to defend the United States, and we can do what we think is right. Not sure what you mean by this, but it would be like telling cops they can't shoot bad guys when they are about to kill. You look up quotes and mine them to feed your idiotic delusions.


So? Wow, a plane crashed on 911. Good quote!

Sorry, as I said, I don't need permission to carry out my pledge I took when I was commissioned. You are quote mining to feed your need for moronic paranoid conspracy theories you see everywhere.

Exercises on 911 made it a fact, more personnel were on duty to help in the response of 911. CAPs were set up all over the country in record time. It is a fact you can't understand, a fact you can't comprehend, a fact which you don't recognize since you prefer fantasy and lies. When you bring up exercises were going on and try to link that to an inside job, you are exposing your ignorance on a broad scale. I was on active duty on 911, what is your point with this exercise stuff? It makes you look very dumb.

I decide you have no clue what happen on 911 and can't comprehend the United State military. The hijacking response of the military did not change before 911, the paper work BS changed.

But make my day, explain what the paper changes meant? Not a thing you will say changes the fact on 911 the response to "hijacked" aircraft like it always was. There were no provisions before 911 to shoot down airliners over the United States, we intercept planes outside the US that are not acting correctly and the intercepts are run in areas the military have control over. The military has no control of airspace over the USA where airliners normally operate.

You can quote mine for the next 10 years, but you will fail to make a rational point to support your idiotic inside job claims. But feel free to make up lies and post nonsense like you are doing.


How does this support your inside job?
Andrews AFB had zero Fighters on alert, zero were armed. Zero.
It would take minutes to launch a fighter, it would be unarmed, and it would take many minutes to arm a fighter, maybe an hour if you can get the people to load it to work. It is amazing some planed did launch with training ammo, and some with nothing. The military did not stand down on 911, you did as you began making up crazy ideas.

Please weave your posts into a single integrated what happened story. Not a thing you have posted has a point, or makes sense.

Who did the work of woo, exposing their biased take, exposing their ignorance, the SPAM you plagiarized?

Beachnut. In essence, you are claiming that as a military officer(former maybe) and a pilot, that you would disobey orders and shoot down a domestic commercial passenger jet, if you felt it was the right thing to do at the time?

How altruistically self-centered of you Aren't soldiers supposed to follow orders?

Alternately, would you have refused a shootdown order if you knew, for example, that flight 93 would be heroically overtaken before it could reach its target?

I can understand your willingness to engage, should you deem it appropriate....but I'm honestly curious how you would react if it was the other way around.

 

[twinstead]

Aren't soldiers supposed to follow orders?

It's not as simple as that

 

[LightningTeg]

Beachnut. In essence, you are claiming that as a military officer(former maybe) and a pilot, that you would disobey orders and shoot down a domestic commercial passenger jet, if you felt it was the right thing to do at the time?

How altruistically self-centered of you Aren't soldiers supposed to follow orders?

Alternately, would you have refused a shootdown order if you knew, for example, that flight 93 would be heroically overtaken before it could reach its target?

I can understand your willingness to engage, should you deem it appropriate....but I'm honestly curious how you would react if it was the other way around.

Really? This question, Really? Of course its under his discretion.

Just like the B52s flying circles around the artic in the cold war. They were trained to fly into russia and hit their targets in the event they lost communication with the US under duress. No one was holding their hand.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Really? This question, Really? Of course its under his discretion.

Just like the B52s flying circles around the artic in the cold war. They were trained to fly into russia and hit their targets in the event they lost communication with the US under duress. No one was holding their hand.

Dont compare apples and oranges. My question is very specific to what he said regarding a 9/11 type highjacking situation; not wartime measures. Re-read what Beachnut said...

He implies that he would disobey a stand-down order and shoot a commercial jet over domestic soil. This is interesting to me as I assumed Beachnut would be the type to follow orders regardless of all else.

My question, to him, out of curiosity is: Would he disobey an order to engage a passenger jet, if he thought the order was innapropriate. (Its just a hypothetical question for B'nut(term of endearment), so I can understand what he meant)

 

[twinstead]

A lot of people think military folk are unthinking automatons. For good and for bad, during war and not, military people risk court martial by using their own discretion, sometimes to the consternation of their superiors.

It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

[LightningTeg]

Dont compare apples and oranges. My question is very specific to what he said regarding a 9/11 type highjacking situation; not wartime measures. Re-read what Beachnut said...

He implies that he would disobey a stand-down order and shoot a commercial jet over domestic soil. This is interesting to me as I assumed Beachnut would be the type to follow orders regardless of all else.

My question, to him, out of curiosity is: Would he disobey an order to engage a passenger jet, if he thought the order was innapropriate. (Its just a hypothetical question for B'nut(term of endearment), so I can understand what he meant)

And Beachnut's personal opinion or career relates to an inside job how?

 

[achimspok]

Can someone translate this into "sane" for me? Thanks in advance.

YAHTZEE!!!

Your insane "sane" cannot hide some slow-wittedness but let me translate the obvious.

The timestamp in the center of the image was subsequently edited into the images - probably into the stills because otherwise you get a problem to explaine the change of the position of the timestamp.

Even the HiRes images used in the Moussaoui trail show a screen matrix. Video captures do not show a screen matrix. Hence, the so called HiRes images are photographs taken from a TV od computer screen.
The easy way to get images from a video is a video capture device. The advantage of photographs taken infront of a screen is the "unified" surface pattern. It may help you to hide all sorts of manipulations.
Do you notice the reflection of Al Omari in the metal plate? Atta has none.

Why should anyone manipulate these images?
...because the other timestamp shows the ringleader 6 minutes prior to take off. He wears different cloth than described by the security check.

The Co-Pilot K. Anderson described one of the two "Mid-Eastern" at Flight 5930 this way:

Sex : Male
Race : White
Ethnicity: Mid-Eastern
Age : Late 20s early 30s
Hair : Brown, long and curly over back of neck.
Height : 5-9
Eyes : Brown, with glasses
Dress : Upscale, casual
Misc. : No facial hair

He wasn't able to identify Al-Omari by photographs.

Personal Privacy 09/26/2001 I Anderson advised he had been previously interviewed by federal authorities at Logan Airport, Boston, Massachusetts, on / September 11, 2001. Anderson had been the co-pilot on US Airways flight 5930 from Portland, Maine, to Boston's Logan Airport that / morning. ; Anderson was then shown a photo spread with 12 Colored photos depicting men of apparent Middle Eastern descent. He; was asked if he could identify any of those individuals as having been passengers aboard US Airways flight 5930 on September 11, 2001. It should be noted that the man depicted in the top row, third photo from the left, is MOHAMAD ATTA. Anderson identified that picture, of Mohamad Atta*, as having been a passenger aboard US AirWays flight 5930 on September 11, 2001. Anderson initialed and dated next to that picture, and wrote #1 above Atta's head indicating he was one of the passengers. Anderson identified the man in the top row, last picture on the right the picture of MARWAN ALSHEHHI as possibly the second passenger aboard US Airways flight 5930. He was advised he was "pretty sure" that was the second passenger. In that he was not positive, Anderson did not initial that picture, but wcote #2 above Alshehhi's head.

M-INT-00034148 265D-NY-280350 9/13/2001:

At 5:43 am Atta and al-Omari are observed by security cameras and a videotaping system at the US Airways Counter at the Jetport. (Serial 302-37792).

Nobody has ever seen the images of Atta and al-Omari at the US Airways Counter.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm sure you've seen just as much scientific analysis on 9 ft of "sag" in 17 minutes as I have. That is to say you haven't seen any.

Nope, that assumption would be dead wrong. I have seen many steel trusses fail in much SHORTER time, with NO structural damage.

Iv'e also studied it at length to see if there are warning signs that will prevent firefighter deaths.

So you are just as "ignorant" as I am for part (b).

Your assumption is still an argument from personal ignorance, as shown above.

As for part (a) - I've seen "hot enough" debates in plenty other threads. I do not wish to waste time in explaining something that is readily available.

I am asking YOUR personal position, not anyone elses. If you have this information, and posted it previously, please link to the thread.

Plus, the unwillingness to compromise (and the fact that no one knows exactly how hot the joists were) always leaves those debates in a standstill.

If the only thing you bring to the table is your own personal ignorance, yes, it most certainly does.

 

[Justin39640]

I don't know why you keep changing the subject. Did I say I wanted to know anything about those 97 minutes? NO. My original post was a question that has yet to be answered. But if anyone knows of any scientific analysis regarding the "sag" over the 17 minutes that I'm interested in then please help answer my original question. It would involve knowing the strength of the steel joists and then testing how much heat would be needed in a section or within the whole joist in order for 9 ft of creep. Creep deformation is "time-dependent" deformation. That's why I am interested in the 17 minutes rather than the whole 97 minutes. We know how much creep there was during the 17 minutes. Why you keep on saying 97 this, 97 that is beyond me. Perhaps you are trying to put words in my mouth because of your complete lack of reading comprehension skills. No one has expressed any interest in this thread about having a scientific analysis of creep over the whole 97 minutes. Kapeesh?

The 17 minutes of sag visible on the outside is the result of the heating for the 80 minutes prior on the inside. You can't study one part and ignore the rest.