Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Disbelief]

I don't mean this to sound obnoxious, could you link to a story. I would like to read about it, I'm sure it would be a good read. I really don't mean any sarcasm or anything by this, I would be interested in seeing a story like this.

Even if there were some successful robberies with them, there's a big difference between that and taking over a plane with them. But I really would be interested in seeing stories about this.

Here's a page:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=robbed+with+box+cutter&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5c88e14de2b269a1&biw=1280&bih=577

 

[NoahFence]

I don't mean this to sound obnoxious, could you link to a story. I would like to read about it, I'm sure it would be a good read. I really don't mean any sarcasm or anything by this, I would be interested in seeing a story like this.

Even if there were some successful robberies with them, there's a big difference between that and taking over a plane with them. But I really would be interested in seeing stories about this.

:shakes head:

You don't take over a plane - you overpower a person. That person is at the controls of the plane. A boxcutter can tear a human to pieces. You may have noticed they're sharp? Human skin doesn't react well to sharp objects. You get what's called "a cut". The sharper the object, the more force behind its use, causes deeper "cuts". These "cuts" can result in the death of someone - say, a pilot strapped to his seat unable to defend himself.

Then you sit and pilot the plane. Think for once. Please?

 

[tmd2_1]

Here's a page:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=robbed+with+box+cutter&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5c88e14de2b269a1&biw=1280&bih=577

Thanks for that...interesting stuff. Seems more common then I would have thought. I would still argue...there's a big difference between taking over a plane with a bunch of people, and a one on one robbery. Besides I've stated the hijackings may well have been real and the official story could still be false. Like have someone hijack the planes so you could get all the stuff cockpit recording etc...etc...and then remote control takes over. Not saying that is what happened...but just that it could.

 

[tmd2_1]

Again. I don't need to prove anything to you. The work has already been done and can be found by anyone who wants to look for it. Repeatedly. The requirements to protect explosives from accidental detonation are very well known and understood by the people that have to work with them and stay alive. Day one in the explosives handling 101 class covers "Don't put explosives in or near a fire and don't hit the exploder mechanism with a hammer". This is really basic stuff and you can't get around it no matter how much you want to wish it away because it's inconvenient for your fantasy.

The same amount of protection that you would need for explosives also applies to your imaginary incendiary devices. They first need to withstand being hit by a 767 and the fires that resulted and then work flawlessly at least 45 minutes later. I think that you lack the simple understanding of, and appreciation for, the sheer magnitude and chaotic nature of the forces involved that day.

As far as your rubble fire comment goes all that it takes is to go and do some reading on landfill fires to see that the type of situation seen at ground zero is nothing new.

Finally, yes. If someone comes into my workspace to do any work (especially work that I didn't ask to be done) I'm going to notice it and even if it doesn't appear to be suspicious at the time if something happens later on I'm going to recall the unknown guy doing unknown work and say something about it. That hasn't happened IRT the WTC.

Amazing you don't need to prove anything, yet I've been asked to prove things numerous times, have done that..or at least offered evidence for it. But you just say it is this way, and that's fine. As I said come back when you have your video.

 

[Disbelief]

Thanks for that...interesting stuff. Seems more common then I would have thought. I would still argue...there's a big difference between taking over a plane with a bunch of people, and a one on one robbery. Besides I've stated the hijackings may well have been real and the official story could still be false. Like have someone hijack the planes so you could get all the stuff cockpit recording etc...etc...and then remote control takes over. Not saying that is what happened...but just that it could.

Yes, taking over the plane would probably be easier with your victims being strapped in their seats.

 

[Dash80]

I don't mean this to sound obnoxious, could you link to a story. I would like to read about it, I'm sure it would be a good read. I really don't mean any sarcasm or anything by this, I would be interested in seeing a story like this.

Even if there were some successful robberies with them, there's a big difference between that and taking over a plane with them. But I really would be interested in seeing stories about this.

Why should I provide this information for you, look it up yourself. In my local area just last week an old man was attacked with a flick knife

 

[tmd2_1]

:shakes head:

You don't take over a plane - you overpower a person. That person is at the controls of the plane. A boxcutter can tear a human to pieces. You may have noticed they're sharp? Human skin doesn't react well to sharp objects. You get what's called "a cut". The sharper the object, the more force behind its use, causes deeper "cuts". These "cuts" can result in the death of someone - say, a pilot strapped to his seat unable to defend himself.

Then you sit and pilot the plane. Think for once. Please?

See below post of yours. I mean yes it's possible, but we're talking about two pilots the people sitting near the cockpit, I would assume rise to help. I know I would even before 9/11. Could it all have been done with box cutters I guess but in my opinion would seem unlikely Besides the hijacking as stated below your post, they could still be real an the official story could still be false.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for that...interesting stuff. Seems more common then I would have thought. I would still argue...there's a big difference between taking over a plane with a bunch of people, and a one on one robbery. Besides I've stated the hijackings may well have been real and the official story could still be false. Like have someone hijack the planes so you could get all the stuff cockpit recording etc...etc...and then remote control takes over. Not saying that is what happened...but just that it could.

It was pretty easy. Everything was in the terrorists' favour:

- They were Five men on three of the planes, four on the fourth. In usual, civilian situations, when four or five dedicated, ruthless men attack with bare hands alone, few people are going to fight back immediately. But these men had box cutters
- Most of them were already close to the cockpit, in first class
- They had plenty of time to train for this
- They had surprise totally on their side
- Standard operating procedure for pilots in hijacks at the time was to not resist physically
- Back at the time, entering the cockpit was pretty easy. Four men trained
for precisely that mission have no problem just going in, controlling two or three crew, and slitting throats, all in a matter of seconds. Box cutters are absolutely perfect for slitting throats.
- Once the pilots are dead, everyone on the plane depends on the terrorist pilot who took over (or so they think), so no one will move against them. Flight 93 being the obvious exception, when passengers were already informed about the plans
- You tell the passengers to remain calm, that they are going to land safely, and the deal is sealed.

 

[Oystein]

See below post of yours. I mean yes it's possible, but we're talking about two pilots the people sitting near the cockpit, I would assume rise to help.

Pilots were instructed and trained by written standard operating procedures to not resist hijackers.

I know I would even before 9/11.

Without weapons against four trained, dedicated attackers with dangerous knives, who, in contrast to you, know exactly what the situation is all about? Fat chance! Experience tells us that people do not stand up to violent attack immediately. Yours is a display of pathetic armchair heroism. Pah!
Even if you had decided to resist: By the time you figure out that resistance is necessary, the pilots are dead. Now what? Fight the new pilot? Wrest control of the plane from him? Then what? Are you going to land the plane? No. If they tell you that they now controll the plane and are going to land it somewhere, your best option is to stay put and hope they know what they are doing, because you surely don't.
Because after all, haven't you learned from your trutsed truther websites that it is impossible to fly a Boeing when you are not a pro?

Could it all have been done with box cutters I guess but in my opinion would seem unlikely

Your opinion rests transparently on your own prejudice, on the preconceived dedication to reject the facts at all costs.

Besides the hijacking as stated below your post, they could still be real an the official story could still be false.

Yes. You want to have it not two ways, but any number of ways. Please make up your mind about what you want to believe. Fundemental opposition and automatic dismissal of everything is a childish tactic.

 

[tmd2_1]

Wrong, automatic intercepts of hijacked planes is not done on domestic flights. Darn, you need to do research on what was reality before 911. We might have jets follow hijacked planes, but it would not happen until requested by FAA, law enforcement etc. You have no example of intercepts on domestic flight due to hijacking.

How would they find 77? Why would they launch birds on alert for possible attacks from overseas to follow a hijacked aircraft?

No, you are not aware of UBL interview, he made an exception for kids and women for the USA. He liked all of us enough to kill us, including women and children. You could read his interview, but...

He was not a snot nose reporter. batting 0

As for phone calls, the ones of substance were seat-back phones. Zero research again. Do you check your own sources? Wow.

Now you agree Hani was a poor pilot, or are you standing by your false statement he had impressive skills?

You are not doing too good at this truther junk, but you are doing as good as 911 truth; evidence free and shoddy research.

No there are not. But you keep saying it and never produce the photos, or the video.

Wow just wow. You asked if I have taken a a chemistry class, and question my research skills. Well I have to question your reading skills. I was quoting an e-mail from Mark Loizeaux about pictures and video. As far as actual video..see the links I provided about John Gross. This may be hard for seeing as you had trouble finding the word Sulfur, but you can try.
Yes Hani was a poor pilot hence why what happened at the pentagon is hard to believe he flew it. I just read the entire UBL interview from CNN (before as I said I was just going by memory.)

Here is a quote from the interview, asked if he would attack American civilian in Saudi Arabia or soldiers, he only mentions attacking soldiers.

Q) Do you think there will be more bombing attacks on American troops in Saudi Arabia? or attacks on American civilians in Saudi Arabia? or will there be assassination attempts on the Saudi Arabian ruling family?

BIN LADIN: It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence. In other words, explosions and killings of the American soldiers would continue. These are the troops who left their country and their families and came here with all arrogance to steal our oil and disgrace us, and attack our religion. As for what was mentioned about the ruling (Saudi) family those in charge, do bear the full responsibility of everything that may happen. They are the shadow of the American presence. The people and the young men are concentrating their efforts on the sponsor and not on the sponsored. The concentration at this point of Jihad is against the American occupiers.

As far as cell phone calls go, I'm not sure what is "substantial" or not. But Ceecee lyles who is one of the few recorded calls, came from her cell phone, her husband has stated so.

I really believe this may be my last response to you.

 

[BStrong]

See below post of yours. I mean yes it's possible, but we're talking about two pilots the people sitting near the cockpit, I would assume rise to help. I know I would even before 9/11. Could it all have been done with box cutters I guess but in my opinion would seem unlikely Besides the hijacking as stated below your post, they could still be real an the official story could still be false.

In a violent incident, the only thing that happens to the average person in the absence of training is panic - and panic is not conducive to an effective defense, or any defense at all.

Inaction in the face of attack, or in witnessing an attack, is the rule, not the exception.

The average un-trained civilian that witnesses a violent attack resulting in death or serious injury is far more likely to freeze in place than go on the attack.

ETA - and you base your underlined statement on what exactly? have you been trained in the military, law enforcement, or martial arts? have you been a victim of or witnessed a violent attack and successfully fought off the attacker?

Unless you can answer yes to at least part of these questions, you're basing your statement on feelings alone, and until you feel your blood spilled or witness someone else's, and successfully fight back, you're talking through your hat.

 

[tmd2_1]

Pilots were instructed and trained by written standard operating procedures to not resist hijackers.



Without weapons against four trained, dedicated attackers with dangerous knives, who, in contrast to you, know exactly what the situation is all about? Fat chance! Experience tells us that people do not stand up to violent attack immediately. Yours is a display of pathetic armchair heroism. Pah!
Even if you had decided to resist: By the time you figure out that resistance is necessary, the pilots are dead. Now what? Fight the new pilot? Wrest control of the plane from him? Then what? Are you going to land the plane? No. If they tell you that they now controll the plane and are going to land it somewhere, your best option is to stay put and hope they know what they are doing, because you surely don't.
Because after all, haven't you learned from your trutsed truther websites that it is impossible to fly a Boeing when you are not a pro?



Your opinion rests transparently on your own prejudice, on the preconceived dedication to reject the facts at all costs.



Yes. You want to have it not two ways, but any number of ways. Please make up your mind about what you want to believe. Fundemental opposition and automatic dismissal of everything is a childish tactic.

It was pretty easy. Everything was in the terrorists' favour:

- They were Five men on three of the planes, four on the fourth. In usual, civilian situations, when four or five dedicated, ruthless men attack with bare hands alone, few people are going to fight back immediately. But these men had box cutters
- Most of them were already close to the cockpit, in first class
- They had plenty of time to train for this
- They had surprise totally on their side
- Standard operating procedure for pilots in hijacks at the time was to not resist physically
- Back at the time, entering the cockpit was pretty easy. Four men trained
for precisely that mission have no problem just going in, controlling two or three crew, and slitting throats, all in a matter of seconds. Box cutters are absolutely perfect for slitting throats.
- Once the pilots are dead, everyone on the plane depends on the terrorist pilot who took over (or so they think), so no one will move against them. Flight 93 being the obvious exception, when passengers were already informed about the plans
- You tell the passengers to remain calm, that they are going to land safely, and the deal is sealed.

I will address both of your posts here. We're starting to talk about things we can only hypothesize about. You believe it's likely, I say it's possible, just seems unlikely, we can leave it at that. Besides this all started with giving an example of how something is written can greatly influence if it is believable or not. But I want to address what you said about having it many ways. I mean doesn't that only make logical sense? There are many ways for the official story to be false, and only one way for it to be true. Anything that does not support the official story diminishes its likelihood.

 

[dafydd]

I really believe this may be my last response to you.

Very awkward for you,talking to somebody who knows the facts.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I always figured he was waiting for the mess in his shorts to soak in a bit so it wouldn't fall down his pant leg on the way out.

Of all the things Bush did right or wrong, sitting in the classroom for a few minutes longer was the least wrong.

 

[dafydd]

I will address both of your posts here. We're starting to talk about things we can only hypothesize about. You believe it's likely, I say it's possible, just seems unlikely, we can leave it at that. Besides this all started with giving an example of how something is written can greatly influence if it is believable or not. But I want to address what you said about having it many ways. I mean doesn't that only make logical sense? There are many ways for the official story to be false, and only one way for it to be true. Anything that does not support the official story diminishes its likelihood.

The many varying truther stories have no likelihood at all.

 

[WildCat]

Listen I was simply doing that to show how one can make any story seem believable or not believable. You can simply say look how simple 19 men hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The story I gave makes it seem much more difficult.

The 9/11 attacks were very simple. It wasn't complex at all.

Your ridiculous conspiracy theory involving fake plane crashes, thousands of tons of thermite, dancing Jews, swarms of secret agents scattering plane debris all over the place in full view in broad daylight, etc etc... well that's just silly. And ridiculously complex.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yes Hani was a poor pilot hence why what happened at the pentagon is hard to believe he flew it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Even the worst pilot can find his way to the scene of the crash.

 

[tmd2_1]

Very awkward for you,talking to somebody who knows the facts.

This is a guy who called me a nazi..didn't know it was 93 that went down near Pittsburgh not 175. Couldn't find the word Sulfur in the link I provided. Made many other errors..and he knows the facts.

The many varying truther stories have no likelihood at all.

Brilliant post, I am going to change my whole line of thinking because of it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It was pretty easy. Everything was in the terrorists' favour:

- They were Five men on three of the planes, four on the fourth. In usual, civilian situations, when four or five dedicated, ruthless men attack with bare hands alone, few people are going to fight back immediately. But these men had box cutters
- Most of them were already close to the cockpit, in first class
- They had plenty of time to train for this
- They had surprise totally on their side
- Standard operating procedure for pilots in hijacks at the time was to not resist physically
- Back at the time, entering the cockpit was pretty easy. Four men trained
for precisely that mission have no problem just going in, controlling two or three crew, and slitting throats, all in a matter of seconds. Box cutters are absolutely perfect for slitting throats.
- Once the pilots are dead, everyone on the plane depends on the terrorist pilot who took over (or so they think), so no one will move against them. Flight 93 being the obvious exception, when passengers were already informed about the plans
- You tell the passengers to remain calm, that they are going to land safely, and the deal is sealed.

/\ This.

Also, the number of people required to take and hold a plane has now been established -- 5 is enough, 4 is not.

 

[tmd2_1]

The 9/11 attacks were very simple. It wasn't complex at all.

Your ridiculous conspiracy theory involving fake plane crashes, thousands of tons of thermite, dancing Jews, swarms of secret agents scattering plane debris all over the place in full view in broad daylight, etc etc... well that's just silly. And ridiculously complex.

This may be my last response to you as well. I don't like when people say i said things I didn't say. I never said fake plane crashes. I said some things don't add up about the pentagon, I gave lloyde england's testimony, that doofus with a part of flight 77 that just comes into the studio, and their being a picture of him else where at the time as evidence. That doesn't mean that some jet -airliner didn't crash into the pentagon...just highly suspicious. For the thermite see the videos i've linked to several times. Again I never mentioned once about agents scattering debris, I said 93 was likely shot down...because of the scattered debris, and the deep impact crater indicates a vertical descent, making the "rolling" of debris impossible.