Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[The Platypus]

Wait a sec...

How do we know that tmd wasn't in on it and he's just here to throw us all off??? Why else would he be so persistant in trying to convince us of his stories but as a cover up???

OMG, he's in on it!

(cue suspicious spooky sounding music)

 

[BStrong]

They're just getting confused. We're beginning to outnumbrer them on the jref scale. It was a post of mine they were talking about.

'

Conspirator i: Have cleared the damn backlog yet ? We need to get 93 off the ground pronto. Those airport cops will be going that way soon. If they see that the olane is under remote control we're utterly screwed. The whole operation is blown.
Conspirator 2: We're stating to roll. But it's too late to complete the mission..could be fighters around by now. Better tell the joystick oilot to get clearance right now and take off. Tell him to fly out over Pennsylvania while we work out what to do with the plane.
Conspirator i: He says she's very heavy. Must be all that extra fuel I guess.
some time later....
Conspirator 1: Okay...we'll land her in Cleveland. We have a team there who will take her straight to a secure area out of sight.
Conspirator 2: Some seals went in by chopper and found a spot in a place called Shanksville . They blew a big hole in the ground and scatttered some debris around. We'll put out the story that the plane went in nose first at maximum speed and completely buried itself in the ground. Not perfect but ut will have to do.
Conspirator 1: It really is amazing that a little fire on the runway could have caused so many problems. Now Seven will have to be demolished in plain view in New York and we have to fake a jet crash in Shanksville in a very dubious way. There will be endless problems with this. People on forums for a hundred years.
Conspirator 2: And if it had all gone smoothly we would have had three Towers, Three planes,and no Shanksville. All as neat as ninepence.'

Bill, you'd better sign on:

http://www.wga.org/

Your stuff isn't making the cut as non-fiction, may as well cash in, it seems the thing to do.

 

[DGM]

Maybe because hitting those targets was hard. Those planes were maxed out speed wise, and under trained pilots were able to hit those building that square? For the pentagon it's hard to keep it off the ground while still being lower then the roof. Are all three of these possible, yes from I read it would have been very difficult for experienced pilots to do, let alone under trained, and by all reports of the one at the pentagon...a bad pilot.

So, simply putting the target in the windshield is out? What hit was "square"? One out of four? Flight 11 had a long run in so that wouldn't be tough. 175 had to do a strong correction not to miss and 77 almost crashed on the lawn after hitting poles, a tree and a generator trailer. You call that good flying (not to mention the uncoordinated descending turn)

 

[bill smith]

Bill, you'd better sign on:

http://www.wga.org/

Your stuff isn't making the cut as non-fiction, may as well cash in, it seems the thing to do.

Can you recommend anybody in particular ?

 

[tmd2_1]

Remote control planes, really? Tell us all about how the NWO/Mossad/whatever was able to extensively modify civilian airliners without any of the maintenance crews noticing all this extra equipment.

You are now including the airlines in this ridiculously complax and vast conspiracy of yours, yes?

It would only take a few security agents at the airport. They could have done in the night before, and we are talking about software may have gone un-noticed. Or maybe some maintenance folks were in on it as well. I don't know how it was done, I do know if the security at it's highest levels was in on it, it could have been done. Can I prove the security was in on it no, but security at all 3 air ports was run by the same company ICTS. Coincidence? you be the judge.

 

[Carll68]

Can't you all point out that whatever "proof" tmd supposedly provided simply does not address the OP ("prove that explosives can survive plane impact and fires"), instead of feading the derail by replying to all the things that don't address the OP?

Addressing the OP, I believe you my friend are the one responsible for Noah having to donate $1000 to Gage band of merry loons.

 

[BStrong]

Can you recommend anybody in particular ?

Oliver Stone seems to be woo-able.

 

[BStrong]

It would only take a few security agents at the airport. They could have done in the night before, and we are talking about software may have gone un-noticed. Or maybe some maintenance folks were in on it as well. I don't know how it was done, I do know if the security at it's highest levels was in on it, it could have been done. Can I prove the security was in on it no, but security at all 3 air ports was run by the same company ICTS. Coincidence? you be the judge.

I'll take you up on it - not guilty.

Next case.

 

[DGM]

They could have done in the night before, and we are talking about software may have gone un-noticed.

I see we can add flight control systems for the 757/767 families to the list of things you don't understand.

 

[tmd2_1]

So, simply putting the target in the windshield is out? What hit was "square"? One out of four? Flight 11 had a long run in so that wouldn't be tough. 175 had to do a strong correction not to miss and 77 almost crashed on the lawn after hitting poles, a tree and a generator trailer. You call that good flying (not to mention the uncoordinated descending turn)

Simple example, imagine driving your car as fast as you possibly can, it is difficult to keep under control. A plane is no different, hitting those buildings that square and that level is very hard to do. As for the pentagon you just made my point, it is hard to keep off the ground and below the roof. All are not impossible just difficult.

 

[DGM]

Simple example, imagine driving your car as fast as you possibly can, it is difficult to keep under control. A plane is no different, hitting those buildings that square and that level is very hard to do. As for the pentagon you just made my point, it is hard to keep off the ground and below the roof. All are not impossible just difficult.

What "that square and that level"? Are we talking about 9/11? Would your "remote control" be programmed for uncoordinated turns?

 

[tmd2_1]

I see we can add flight control systems for the 757/767 families to the list of things you don't understand.

Another brilliant post full of relevant information. Oh I understand flight control systems very very well, you don't have to worry abut that one bit.

 

[tsig]

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.

Way to pre-move the goalposts!

 

[tmd2_1]

What "that square and that level"? Are we talking about 9/11?

Meaning the plane was leveled off not slightly pointed up, or down. By hitting it square I mean for example just the wing hit part of the building, which would leave the rest of the plane sputtering out of control and crashing somewhere.

 

[DGM]

Another brilliant post full of relevant information. Oh I understand flight control systems very very well, you don't have to worry abut that one bit.

I'm not worried. Please enlighten us as to how "software" could fly the planes on 9/11? If you say with the auto-pilot we will know all we need to know.

 

[DGM]

Meaning the plane was leveled off not slightly pointed up, or down. By hitting it square I mean for example just the wing hit part of the building, which would leave the rest of the plane sputtering out of control and crashing somewhere.

So nothing to do with the actual flight paths as seen?

 

[tsig]

Let me make this as clear as possible
Here is a copy of the e-mail I'll hi lite the important part.


I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Believe what you want about the time of the collapse.

Watch the videos I provided of Gross lying, as I said there's a black mass that looks like an awful lot like molten steel, besides the two guys saying it was molten steel.

Those guys weren't lying, Gross was simple as that.




*sigh* there's not much more I can do. It's all there. Is it direct hard evidence...100% proof probably not. But it is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence.



I'm not sure I needed to read much more then what I have highlighted. If so many centuries of experience are on your side, then it should be very easy to prove him wrong by way of experiment.

Come on wouldn't all the rubble be staving the fire of oxygen as well? Just a thought.

I pay attention to my surroundings, but you have got to be kidding I'm sure every time there's maintenance going on in the building you work at, you give it a close up inspection.

Look at Cole and Jones' work they think differently about how long thermite will last.

But above all do let me know when you have that video of your experiment ready, you could probably have it done today, with so many centuries of experience on your side.




Listen it has nothing to do with him being Muslim or not, simply with the fact he lived in a cave. Above all this was written to show how one writes things can greatly impact if it is believable or not. 19 men hijacked planes and crashed them sounds simple...but compare that to what I wrote.


Brilliant response you cleared up any mystery about this report. Ryan Mackey questioned this finding (see page 102 of his paper) why shouldn't I? He said NIST should conduct experiments....which they didn't, Jon Cole did..guess how it turned out? Don't like Cole's results prove him wring by experiment, just as he asks.



See what I said above...besides box cutters were used in the taking over of the plane.


I've said ask the admins to move this, or do whatever but as long as people challenge me in *this* thread I will respond in *this* thread.



See above
I mean when's the last time you have ever heard of someone getting robbed or held up by someone with a box cutter?

Dipping molten steel with steel bucket is rather like dipping boiling water with ice spoons.

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm not worried. Please enlighten us as to how "software" could fly the planes on 9/11? If you say with the auto-pilot we will know all we need to know.

Try going here...and yes I picked this site for an important reason.
Forgot want to make this clear once again...this does not mean the "jews" did it. Far Far from it If it was a conspiracy the pentagon comptroller was almost certainly in on it. He just happened to work with a company that worked with remote control planes. Another coincidence? Man these are starting to add up.


http://100777.com/node/1836

 

[tsig]

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.

Shame you weren't there then isn't it?

 

[BStrong]

I see we can add flight control systems for the 757/767 families to the list of things you don't understand.

Haven't you seen a remote control model airplanes or 'copters?

And the military, those drones, like coincidence? you be the judge.

Man-o-Manischewitz, this story has a cast bigger than all outdoors.