The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

Justin39640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

you can study something in pieces to verify each piece, can you not?

you might have to use some information from other pieces but the biggest chunk of my question can be answered just by analyzing those 17 minutes. what happens in the other minutes can be taken into account when posting the assumptions. if the assumptions are variable multiple tests can be taken for each variation and the final conclusions of all the tests would take into account confidence intervals and so on.

regardless, and to the point, I hope to someday find someone who can pop out a proper analysis of those 17 minutes for me - as that is the piece that I'm concerned about (and my original question to this thread).
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Patriots4Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Well then, please grace us with your own calculations or a link where you prove my assumption wrong (my assumption: I'm sure you've seen just as much scientific analysis on 9 ft of "sag" in 17 minutes as I have.)
triforcharity said:
Your assumption is still an argument from personal ignorance, as shown above.
Click to expand...
not until you can prove my assumption wrong
triforcharity said:
I am asking YOUR personal position, not anyone elses. If you have this information, and posted it previously, please link to the thread.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is what I stated already. The fires weren't hot enough.
triforcharity said:
If the only thing you bring to the table is your own personal ignorance, yes, it most certainly does.
Click to expand...
like you have brought anything to the table.
 
beachnut said:
And what does this mean?
What vibration?
Click to expand...
Check the FDR! ...or ask Warren Stutt! ...but of course your buddy did it all the time to escape a thunder storm.

beachnut said:
... obstacles? Hani missed the tower and hit breakaway lampposts, not many obstacles.
Click to expand...
...choose to pass over the tower. The "breakaway" lampposts have predetermined breaking point at the base. The wings cut through the middle or the top. Inertia cause the lampost to "remain" in position. Physically these obstacles were just breakaway lampposts.

beachnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait, did he say "more than 400mph"? Yes. That was from before it was known what speeds.

beachnut said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, you must be the sharpest knife in the drawer. You should have told your first analysis to NIST because the NIST analysis was way off.
But you are right. There was no major maneuvering. It was a smooth and precise attack. One maneuver.


beachnut said:
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?
Click to expand...
Who knows? According to the FDR there wasn't a lot of banking. He just pulled it out of the 2700ft/min descent into horizontal 5ft above ground.
I bet that what you did at the age of 7.

beachnut said:
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".
Click to expand...
Apparently nobody but you and the hijackers knew it until 9/11. Even Boeing couldn't answer the question if a jet could withstand those speeds at low altitude. You knew everything. You are better than NIST, Boeing, the hijackers... just your daughter might came close behind you. Watch your back, blowhard!

beachnut said:
What is this vibration stuff? What sissy pilot complained about vibration? Are you serious?
Click to expand...
Yes.

beachnut said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you didn't do a little Boeing looping right through the thunder cloud and hit the runway with closed eyes at MACH 1? I bet you did.
I guess Attas love for money, cocaine and stripper girls was motivation enough to learn to fly. Maybe some CIA/ISI/KSM triple agent had heroin smuggle jobs in Afghanistan??? Just guessing. It would explain the Venice connection and some interest in crop dusters.
Do you think Atta wanted to fly a crop duster into the WTC? I mean, he - at least one of the Attas - already had a ticket for a Boeing.

The man believed to have flown a hijacked passenger airliner into the North Tower of the World Trade Center also wanted to get behind the controls of a crop-dusting plane, raising fears that terrorists may have been planning a chemical or biological attack.

Mohamed Atta, a suspected ringleader in the recent terror attacks in New York and Washington, made repeated visits to a crop-dusting airfield in Florida, according to Willie Lee, the chief pilot and general manager of South Florida Crop Care in Belle Glade.

Lee identified Atta to the FBI, telling agents the suspected hijacker came to the airfield as recently as the Saturday before the Sept. 11 attacks, asking questions about the capabilities of crop-dusters, including how big a load of chemicals they could carry.

Atta was "very persistent about wanting to know how much the airplane will haul, how fast it will go, what kind of range it has," Lee told ABCNEWS.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92436&page=1
Click to expand...

beachnut said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...
Yes he did. Why pay airports millions for glideslope systems and why use jets ILS to hit a 200ft wide runway? Firsttimer Beachnut did it percisely at 600mph without anything but a Boeing? It's so freakin' easy! Tell the FAA!

beachnut said:
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...
Click to expand...
Atta used the compass? You mean, he was north and knew the towers were south? That's pretty clever, isn't it. Tell the FAA!

beachnut said:
Wrong president:wink:. 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.
Click to expand...
No, nothing of it. I love Disney. I have a lot of friends in USA. And I hate stupidity. Beachnut told me that flying jets is so easy that I can do it. Who are you that you think I can't?
Btw, my persidential jokes aren't late. If Bush would have spend the money of a blow job investigation then we probably would have a story that would make any sense. Oh, he would have to give the money to anyone but Zelikow or maybe Rice or maybe Wolfowitz or maybe Cheney...

Have you ever heard about the british Inquiries Act?
Tony Blair wanted some Zelikow commission investigation of the London Bombings by his own and by an Act. That Act wanted exactly the same like the official 9/11 investigation.

Amnesty International:
"Any inquiry would be controlled by the Executive."

Australian Judge Peter Croy:
"It seems to me that the proposed new act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The commissions would be working in an impossible situation. The Minister... would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step... It really creates an intolerable Alice In Wonderland situation."

US Congressman Chris Smith:
"The bill ... should be named the Public Inquiries Cover-Up bill."

You failed, your money failed, your story still fails. My point.

PS. Not the military regulations were changed, the FAA regulations were changed. And as you said, the military did no domastic crab until 9/11. There was no need to change anything. Rumsfeld took a walk on the lawn until it was over.
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
The creation of the world in 7 days too.
Click to expand...

However, holocaust denial is comparable to 9/11 Truth. Saying the world was created in 7 days is not really offending or harming anyone!

...and if it is, that's their own problem!
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
He's a veteran FDNY firefighter. One of the people you believe are part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...
No one ever believed that the FDNY is part of a conspiracy.
That's just what so called debunkers say. And debunkers like to say that FDNY firefighters like Barthmer or Schroeder or ... who heard explosions are morons. Debunkers like to say that Firechief Walsh confused the local elevators with the express elevators. Debunkers like to say that the firefigters who talk about "lava" running down the channel rails are insane.
 
achimspok said:
No one ever believed that the FDNY is part of a conspiracy.
That's just what so called debunkers say. And debunkers like to say that FDNY firefighters like Barthmer or Schroeder or ... who heard explosions are morons. Debunkers like to say that Firechief Walsh confused the local elevators with the express elevators. Debunkers like to say that the firefigters who talk about "lava" running down the channel rails are insane.
Click to expand...

Truthers like to say that explosions mean there were explosives. Truthers like to say that people can't make mistakes (unless it benefits their story of course). Truthers like to say that everyone is literal and nobody in the history of the universe has ever used a metaphor.
 
EventHorizon said:
Truthers like to say that explosions mean there were explosives. Truthers like to say that people can't make mistakes (unless it benefits their story of course). Truthers like to say that everyone is literal and nobody in the history of the universe has ever used a metaphor.
Click to expand...

In other words, Truthers can be compared to Holocaust Deniers!
 
dc1971 said:
However, holocaust denial is comparable to 9/11 Truth. Saying the world was created in 7 days is not really offending or harming anyone!

...and if it is, that's their own problem!
Click to expand...

No, you are completely wrong. Holocaust denial is comparable to defending someone who used the Reichstagsbrand as a pretext for war. It's comparable to a doctrine that says "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." It's comparable to the creation of an "axis of evil". It's comarable to downplay torture. It's comparable to blame someone without evidence. It's comparable to an inquiry controlled by the Executive. It's comparable to downplaying the PNAC plans.
It's typical that the same try to stigmatize any critiques by comparison to a completely unrelated tabu. It's typical that debunkers use the suffering of the victims to oppress critiques. It shows the vulgar spirit of 9/11 debunkery.
 
EventHorizon said:
Truthers like to say that explosions mean there were explosives. Truthers like to say that people can't make mistakes (unless it benefits their story of course). Truthers like to say that everyone is literal and nobody in the history of the universe has ever used a metaphor.
Click to expand...
Yes, your critique is right but you find it on both sides of the fence. I would say 50/50.

What is Richard Rotanz saying by "...the upper 20 floors burnt inferno"?
On the other hand, William Walsh literally meant that the local elevators were blown out of the hinges. He was asked twice and presisely described the position. ... and so on
 
Last edited:
LightningTeg said:
Steering an airplane is not difficult. Landing is a whole different story.
Click to expand...
Of course. That's what I meant in my last post.

Btw, UA175 didn't steer anyhow. Without the last maneuver it would have crashed into Giulianis office. That's the direction it was steering.
Hanjour reached 1° just 5ft above the ground. Of course, he had no landing gear down. Both planes "landed" in the building. ...a bit too fast, I guess.

Go to minute 4:05
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
No, you are completely wrong. Holocaust denial is comparable to defending someone who used the Reichstagsbrand as a pretext for war. It's comparable to a doctrine that says "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." It's comparable to the creation of an "axis of evil". It's comarable to downplay torture. It's comparable to blame someone without evidence. It's comparable to an inquiry controlled by the Executive. It's comparable to downplaying the PNAC plans.
It's typical that the same try to stigmatize any critiques by comparison to a completely unrelated tabu. It's typical that debunkers use the suffering of the victims to oppress critiques. It shows the vulgar spirit of 9/11 debunkery.
Click to expand...

Those who grossly misinterpret history are doomed to repeat it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom