The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[triforcharity]

Can you please elaborate on this doozy. What is the context you've seen this?

The Charleston SC Sofa Store fire. Killed 9 firefighters when the roof collapsed. Took 37 minutes to cause collapse.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200718.html

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Achimspok - I get what your saying; Its highly improbable that the passport survived the crash and explosion and landed where it did. It is more likely a plant, designed to publicly lead the investigation towards those they already knew would be responsible. It was never going to be used as evidence against anyone. It's possible. If this is not what you are saying, then please correct me.

Correcting you on what he is saying is not where time might best be spent.

However, you cannot prove this with the evidence you're presenting here.

Evidence?

The skeptics you're debating will never change their minds about this.

Correction needed again.

They are so closed to even the possibility that evidence could ever be planted, that it would take incontrovertable, not circumstantial, evidence for them to believe you.

Possibility = inside job!

Honestly, isn't it tiring being wrong so often?

 

[twinstead]

So even in the complete, utter absence that any evidence was planted, we're supposed to nonetheless keep an open mind about the possibility the evidence was planted? All it looks like to me, absence that any evidence was planted, that claiming to be skeptical because the evidence could have been planted is simply a convenient way to hand wave away evidence that is contrary to ones position.

I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, though.

 

[LightningTeg]

A person in a vacuum would have their blood boiling

 

[twinstead]

In his defense, I think he meant that the building fell exactly as fast as an object would fall in a vacuum. Just as idiotic and as impossible, but at least it doesn't require the building to actually BE in a vacuum.

 

[TexasJack]

So even in the complete, utter absence that any evidence was planted, we're supposed to nonetheless keep an open mind about the possibility the evidence was planted? All it looks like to me, absence that any evidence was planted, that claiming to be skeptical because the evidence could have been planted is simply a convenient way to hand wave away evidence that is contrary to ones position.

I suppose it's possible I'm wrong, though.

In that case, I'm going to keep an open mind that Elvis is still alive. Is that point of all those worthless posts of his?

 

[RedIbis]

The Charleston SC Sofa Store fire. Killed 9 firefighters when the roof collapsed. Took 37 minutes to cause collapse.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200718.html

So to be clear, you're not actually saying you "saw" this happen, but that you've read of "many steel trusses fail in much SHORTER time, with NO structural damage."

Or are you saying you were at this fire?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So to be clear, you're not actually saying you "saw" this happen, but that you've read of "many steel trusses fail in much SHORTER time, with NO structural damage."

Or are you saying you were at this fire?

No Red!

Firefighters motto is this: "DON'T TRUST THE TRUSS!"

I would know, I'm a firefighter.

 

[grandmastershek]

so now achimspok you are an expert video analyst now?

Apparently, he's just another member of "Armchair Scholars for 9/11 Truth". So far its cause he says so.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So to be clear, you're not actually saying you "saw" this happen, but that you've read of "many steel trusses fail in much SHORTER time, with NO structural damage."

Or are you saying you were at this fire?

Do you ever post anything that's not a question with a hidden agenda?

 

[LightningTeg]

In his defense, I think he meant that the building fell exactly as fast as an object would fall in a vacuum. Just as idiotic and as impossible, but at least it doesn't require the building to actually BE in a vacuum.

I know, Im just teasing. The whole statement "The building fell in free fall as if in vacuum" wouldnt even be true if the building really did fall at "free fall speed".

 

[beachnut]

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...

Hijacked planes are not shot down, they are shadowed, if the FAA asks, and it could be hours before that happens. We don't shoot down hijacked planes. And after 911 there might not be hijackings that last longer than it takes passengers to beat up the people who wanted to be hijackers.

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.

There was no stand-down order on 911. I would not have to break an order on 911 to STOP a plane on 911.

I would disobey a standdown order, and I would go after the traitors. That was simple.

The sad part of 911, no way to shoot down or stop 11, no one knows what it was doing.
The sad part of 175, no way anyone knows before it impacts the WTC that it was going to impact the WTC.
Will we shoot down the next plane? Do we shoot down the NEXT PLANE?

Do I need permission? Have you read my oath? Do I need permission to take action? Do passenegers need permission to take action? If you say yes and they do it anyway are you wrong?

You are in charge, do we shoot down 77, 93?

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)

Please explain how I could get an order to shoot down a specific plane on 911? Explain how I lock up a specific target and ensure it is not the wrong plane?

It would be cool to say I would stop a plane on 911, but I can't figure out who would be able to know which plane to stop. This is why Flt 93 heroes were first to take action, it is reality.

A stand-down order would be impossible to enforce since all the military knew they had to take action, since no one was sure what was going on. A stand-down order would be unlawful and expose traitors; 911 is simple.

On 911 once the the passengers figured out 911 they would attack the terrorists, what else can they do since they are not 911 truthers who never take action until they go nuts and shoot people.

There was no stand down order on 911, the military was taking action; people at home watching TV got up and rushed to work, to arm planes, to fly planes to take action! ALL without orders!

How many planes on 911 were launched because commanders took action like the passengers on 911? We don't need orders or permission to do what is right. When will you read our oath, our oath is what 911 truthers take out of context and become anti-government morons like Balsamo.

 

[RedIbis]

Do you ever post anything that's not a question with a hidden agenda?

Asking Tri to clarify his comments since his presence at a SC fire appears possibly specious is not a hidden agenda, it's an explicit agenda.

You talk like the impeccable debunkers don't ask questions with an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No one ever believed that the FDNY is part of a conspiracy.

Lie.

"Firefighters were in on it" is one of the central tenets of 9/11 trutherism. Alex Jones is on record accusing the FDNY of murder. Bring up the firefighters seeing fire on every floor of WTC7 and Redibis here at JREF will soil his panties over it.

And debunkers like to say that FDNY firefighters like Barthmer or Schroeder or ... who heard explosions are morons.

No... we debunkers have told you over and over and over again that explosions are a common occurrence in major building fires. Of course firefighters heard explosions, they were standing near WTC7, the largest office building fire in history!

Debunkers like to say that Firechief Walsh confused the local elevators with the express elevators.

Which is vastly different from calling him a moron. Or accusing him of being part of a conspiracy to murder 343 of his "brothers in hoses" as you have done.

Debunkers like to say that the firefigters who talk about "lava" running down the channel rails are insane.

No... we point out that the "lava" was most likely aluminum. Steel melts at 2800 degrees, well outside the ranges involved in most building fires. Aluminum melts at 1200 degrees, well within common temperature ranges of structural fires. Aluminum was abundant in the World Trade Center.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Asking Tri to clarify his comments since his presence at a SC fire appears possibly specious is not a hidden agenda, it's an explicit agenda.

Why not say, "I think your presence at this fire appears specious," or whatever it is you meant by that. You could then invite him to respond to an actual statement instead of a rock thrown from the shadows.

You talk like the impeccable debunkers don't ask questions with an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

The impeccable ones? Of course they don't, but they're quite rare. Most of us do use cheap rhetorical tricks once in a while. However, we do say other things; things that have actual content rather than veiled insults or accusations.

 

[triforcharity]

So to be clear, you're not actually saying you "saw" this happen, but that you've read of "many steel trusses fail in much SHORTER time, with NO structural damage."

Or are you saying you were at this fire?

No, I was not at this fire.

I have in fact SEEN physically, with my own eyes, steel beams fail in under 97 minutes due to fire.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No, I was not at this fire.

I have in fact SEEN physically, with my own eyes, steel beams fail in under 97 minutes due to fire.

Sorry, unless you were at this fire AND it is on the Internet where RedIbis can look it up, then it doesn't exist.

It is he who decides what exists and what doesn't. Didn't you wonder why there was no Universe before he was born?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Asking Tri to clarify his comments since his presence at a SC fire appears possibly specious is not a hidden agenda, it's an explicit agenda.

Redibis accusing yet another firefighter of involvement in the conspiracy.

 

[beachnut]

Check the FDR! ...or ask Warren Stutt! ...but of course your buddy did it all the time to escape a thunder storm.

I have accidentally flown over Vmo, the plane got more stable.
Just say you have no clue what vibration is. You have no idea what you are talking about so you hide behind a cute statement and try to move on without exposing your massive ignorance on flying. What vibration, and what does it mean. You implied there was vibration making flying harder, you are making up nonsense and need to confess you don't know anything about flying.

...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.

The lamppost are breakaway, designed not to kill people driving cars, they are not obstacles for suicide pilots, they are frangible nothings. You make up lies about being too hard to fly due to obstacles and flying into a valley. Total nonsense.

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

Oh no, the terrorist pilot climbed 3000 feet in one minute! See, I told you they were bad pilots, you said expert pilots, but then you post proof they were bad, erratic pilots; good job.
175 then dove at 10,000 feet per minute, another sure sign this pilot is BAD, you proved my point again, you said expert, I said bad, you posted proof of BAD. Thank you very much. Oops, 175 was going 510 knots at 9:01, I told you they don't have all the correct data in this story. It is not true that the passengers can't stand a power of dive of 10,000 feet per minute; like they said in the old days no one can go over 25 mph, they will die in trains. Silly statements we make, you use as evidence, I see they are silly statements. An expert pilot in an emergency can get his plane to dive at rates up to 15,000 feet per minute. Did you mean to point out the terrorists were Bad pilots, you first implied they were experts; you implied wrong.

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.

LOL, you have a non-pilot saying it is hard to land a plane with accuracy, and he is talking about the impacts at the WTC, a crash, not a landing. Sorry, it is easy to hit a target and crash.

Let me repeat, it is easy to hit the WTC towers, they are 200 feet wide, landing runways many times are 150 feet wide.

It is easy to hit a 150 wide runway on center line, it is harder to land at the proper speed heading the correct direction.

You claim 175 hit at 8 degrees and 0 pitch (SO), proves what? It proves the terrorist pilot hit the WTC. You have proof of a bad pilot crashing a plane.

You proved the terrorist pilot on 175 did not plan ahead, had to dive at 10,000 feet per minute, not done by regular passenger flight for passenger comfort. Bad pilot technique. Then you call aiming at the WTC to crash, is a maneuver. So? Looking at the data shows at the most a pilot unable to plan ahead in his first and last flight in a jet aircraft, he flew poorly, and he topped it off with crashing into one of the largest office buildings in the world. Where most pilots must hit a window of a few feet vertically to land precisely 750 feet down the runway, the terrorist had a window over over 1000 feet, a task hundreds of times easier than landing. Your analysis is a waste of time you have no clue what flying is about, you present evidence which supports my claims, not your fuzzy non-claims and goal free efforts.

What is the zero degree based on? Do you understand a plane flight path is not defined by a pitch angle?

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.

He never pulled out of the dive; are you making up lies? Are you using the distorted fish-eye like lens to make your 5 foot statement? He did not pull out of a 2700 ft/min descent, he impacted in a descent, his pitch was not horizontal, do you think his velocity vector was?
The plane was this high above the ground or obstacles in the last 4 seconds, 183, 89, 57, to 4 feet, a downward trend, on terrain which was getting lower. Do you imply Hani made a level impact? This is not what the FDR says.

What is your point, what does it mean?

What is the vibration you were talking about?

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!

Blowhard? LOL, you break me up, you have no point to make, no goal.

If you exceed Vmo, or Vd at low altitudes you can expect damage to the airframe. I know this, Boeing knows this, aircraft experts know this. I flew KC-135s, it is a 707 deriviative. The poor flying qualities of the 707 were engineered out of the 767/757, making it easier to fly. We have seen 707 dutchroll during a remote control flight cause the plane to crash early and ruin an experiement for fuel additives.

What kind of damage can you expect exceeding Vmo in thick air? If cargo doors, or access panels are mis-rigged or out of shape, the thick air could rip off the access panels. The gear doors might be damaged or ripped off. Skin from the aircraft might be ripped off. The plane does not magically fall apart, many people are alive today because Boeing jets did not fall apart and crash when they were above Vmo. Show me the plane breaks up speed, Vcrash! Please you have access to the certification from the FAA, where is Vcrash? Come one give me some of that expert 911 truth stuff. Got the Vcrash speed.

Do you support the can't go fast due to thick air statement made by many 911 truth believers. The air is too thick so the plane can't go fast? Will you denounce that lie? Can you?

Do you have kids? I think it was cool teaching my kid how to drive a manual transimission at the age of 11, kids have no problems, no biases learning how the clutch works, and it becomes a skill quickly. Flying jets is easier than learning a manual transmission, and easier than flying a prop; instead of thinking I am a Blowhard, you might want to study why I can say this after flying prop planes and jets since 1973/1976. I am an expert, but I am not the expert. Blowhard? I should be an expert in flying, am I correct all the time? Who cares, you can't correct me, you just make up things and have a superficial, shallow comprehension of what you are doing. The only person I have seen who was skeptical of how 911 went down, who actually keeps digging to gain ultimate knowledgd on many broad topics is BCR. You make shallow claims and keep pushing them instead of see why idiots like me push back.

Nothing you or 911 truth have on flying does anything but support 19 terrorists taking 4 planes.

Yes.

What is the vibration claim you want to make?

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.

Cool, you like to make up fantasy, now you have me looping a jet into a runway. Good for you. Thank you very much.

How much coke did Atta do? Strippers? Oh no a bad Islamic terrorist, not a good one. Wow, Mormons never drink beer or coke. oops

Crop duster? Serious? What would a terrorist want with a crop duster? LOL, you need help on this one? All the stuff you posted would indicative of a terrorists wanting to do a terrorist act. What was your point?

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!

Glide-slope systems are used for INSTRUMENT approaches. 911 flying was contact flying, all VFR. No instruments needed when you can see the BIG ADI, called earth, mother earth, etc. You are proving you have no clue what flying is about, and you do it each time you post about flying.

Speed does not mean much when flying, it is self critiquing; you will not understand what I mean, but on earth flying a plane below MACH 1 is not a big deal aiming at large targets, not much effort needed on planning when crashing is the only goal. You will not understand, you will not take the time to think about it.

All pilots learn to fly contact, VFR first. We use our built in glide-slope, the eye. The eye is better than the million dollar (not that much super researcher) glide-slope system. Pilot takes eye, points plane and hits target. Thank you very much.

The terrorist all learned to aim at a target and hit it on center, it is called a runway. All the terrorists were capable of hitting the centerline of a runway. It is easier to hit the center of a building and crash because you can do it at any speed, the attitude is not important, the angle is not important, etc. For landing not only do you have to be on centerline, you have to be on COURSE, in a landing ATTITUDE, ON SPEED. Hard to land, easy to hit target.

It is many times easier to hit a target than land a plane properly. FACT

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!

Don't need a compass but he had two right in front of him. You can use ground reference to plan your approach to hitting the WTC towers, it is easy. All pilots are trained to fly using ground references to check their DR navigation. If they were not, they are lacking.

To impact the WTC towers from a certain direction is easy, if you can't figure this out, it seems you think the terrorists did a expert job at it.

No, nothing of it. I love Disney. ...

Fantasy-land, the place 911 truth is. Cool. That explains why you think 911 was an inside job, you love Disney, fantasy-land. I do too, sort of, wonder what workers at Disney think about the mouse? lol

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? ...

The 911 terrorists were pilots, they did not fly the jets very well. So? They flew good enough to crash into large buildings and fail.

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...

Now you are double late and double wrong on the joke. Your joke was the wrong president, and your joke investigation is the wrong branch of government. Oh politics ...

Sorry, are you saying we did not investigate 911? FBI? lol, you believe the political junk.

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.

Cool, nothing to do with 911.

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

Your point? Backed up with nonsense and plagiarized stuff you posted earlier.

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.

The military does not do domestic law enforcement. It is clear what the military did for hijacking, it is spelled out. Are you implying changes to the hijacking rules were made which hampered efforts on 911? If you are, you are wrong and you can't prove otherwise.

Rumsfeld? LOL, you think he is the tip of the spear? lol

 

[RedIbis]

Redibis accusing yet another firefighter of involvement in the conspiracy.

A furniture conspiracy? A cabal of couches? I guess that would make as much sense as everything else you post.