The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[tsig]

Dave - your position is reasonable. How come you won't call out your idiot skeptic colleagues for proclaiming that it is 100% impossible.

How about this little brain-buster: Can you name something that is only 50% possible? Regnad asked me if some farfetched scenario was 100% possible.

How come you guys don't attack the idiot skeptics? Only the idiot truthers earn criticism?

A coin coming up heads when flipped.

Good try though....Its 100% possible, not 50% possible.

A coinflip has 2 possibilities, each with a 50% probability. Words are important.

Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. By impossible I actually meant improbable. Can you see the difference now?

So when you use a word it means just what you want it to mean at the time of the post.

 

[tsig]

I wouldn't sign off on your new car just yet Triforcharity.

Is it possible that if you play the lottery your number will be called?

Yes, it is possible. Is it 50% possible, 100% possible, or 0.0001% possible? Hint: Trick question.

So your logic fails, badly. I would try to understand things better before attempting to make them into a joke.

Twinstead: You do realize that the common consensus is that 'impossible' does not equal 'improbable' right? Even if the probability is minute....

Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. By impossible I actually meant improbable. Can you see the difference now?

???

 

[tsig]

Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. By impossible I actually meant improbable. Can you see the difference now?

According to jref (who represents rational society! huge laugh!), impossible is improbable. If it is "vanishingly improbable", thats as good as impossible.

...so stupid.

Iamaniceguy = done with this thread

You seem to be stumbling around in a semantic swamp seems probably impossible you'll ever get out.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

So when you use a word it means just what you want it to mean at the time of the post.

I suppose its not your fault you've misunderstood my sarcasm. Typed words do little to convey subtleties of speech....

I assumed that anyone who has been following my last 12 posts would get it.

That definitely makes ann ass out of me and you.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

You seem to be stumbling around in a semantic swamp seems probably impossible you'll ever get out.

The difference between "improbable" and "impossible" is not a matter of semantics. Just like molten metal should not be confused with molten steel.

To dismiss my point as a matter of semantics is ignorant. Impossible implies certainty. "100% impossible" should have been my first clue that this thread was retarded. Its like saying "completely surrounded", or "past history".

Something improbable, vanishingly improbable if you will, can still happen, and does all the time.

You see how it works....even if you agree with what the person is saying, if you do not hold their logic and reasoning and language to the same standards as people with whom you disagree, then you lose major credibility in my books.

Sry to derail this thread.....please go back to discussing the passport.

/involvement in this thread

 

[chipmunk stew]

Something improbable, vanishingly improbable if you will, can still happen, and does all the time.

The point you seem to be ignoring or totally missing, is that whether something CAN happen (in theory, one day)--that is, whether it's possible in the plane of all events past and future--is a totally different conversation from whether something DID happen (in reality, at a specific point in the past).

As someone asked upthread, is it possible that the Steelers won the Super Bowl? No one doubts that there is a probability that they COULD have won, but they didn't. As soon as the Packers won, the probability dropped to zero.

 

[twinstead]

seeeeeeeeeeeeemantics where the wind comes sweeping down the plain....

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The point you seem to be ignoring or totally missing, is that whether something CAN happen (in theory, one day)--that is, whether it's possible in the plane of all events past and future--is a totally different conversation from whether something DID happen (in reality, at a specific point in the past).

As someone asked upthread, is it possible that the Steelers won the Super Bowl? No one doubts that there is a probability that they COULD have won, but they didn't. As soon as the Packers won, the probability dropped to zero.

But it was a close game! I might not like football all that much or the Steelers (given that I'm from PA), when it comes to the last game, I watch some of it. When it's all over I'm just glad a team won.

 

[TJM]

When it's all over I'm just glad a team won.

Hmm...

That statement implies that both teams could lose the superbowl. Maybe some truther wordsmith can come along and let us know if this is improbable or impossible.

 

[tsig]

Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. By impossible I actually meant improbable.
Can you see the difference now?

The difference between "improbable" and "impossible" is not a matter of semantics. Just like molten metal should not be confused with molten steel.

To dismiss my point as a matter of semantics is ignorant. Impossible implies certainty. "100% impossible" should have been my first clue that this thread was retarded. Its like saying "completely surrounded", or "past history".

Something improbable, vanishingly improbable if you will, can still happen, and does all the time.

You see how it works....even if you agree with what the person is saying, if you do not hold their logic and reasoning and language to the same standards as people with whom you disagree, then you lose major credibility in my books.

Sry to derail this thread.....please go back to discussing the passport.

/involvement in this thread

By semantic I actually meant pedantic.

 

[twinstead]

Okay. It's settled. An inside job is 200% impossible!

 

[Patriots4Truth]

How did WTC1 get 9ft of floor sagging (or more if you count thermal expansion) in 17 minutes?

 

[grandmastershek]

How did WTC1 get 9ft of floor sagging (or more if you count thermal expansion) in 17 minutes?

Duhhh...its obvious, thermite.

 

[achimspok]

100% wrong. Small, light (i.e., low mass, low inertial force from high deceleration), flexible items are the MOST LIKELY type of thing to survive airplane crashes. Even fiery crashes.
Light, flexible things such as IDs, wallets & ... passports.

Compare the remnants to this fiery crash:
PSA flight 1771
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4
...
Achim's personal incredulity is uninformed by the evidence & experience of the real world.

OK, if super-engineer tfk says so then we have to rethink from scratch even if the linked images are pretty obvious.

What do we have?

According to the linked TV show we have an 8 miles debris field (just like the Flight 93 debris field). Therefore the PSA 1771 accident is used for debunker physickery.
The claim is that according to 3 eyewitnesses the plane came down in one piece and hit the ground of the cattle farm. The plane disintegrated due to impact and some debris was found 8 miles away.
The reasearchers estimated an impct velocity of 720 mph and an impact angle of 10° over vertical.

Simple math and real world physics tell the engineer immediately that a lot of energy was consumed by the deformation of the ground and the airplane since that deformation is pretty obvious too.
Let's totally forget about that energy. Let's assume that piece of the airplane hit the rubber ground like a billard ball in a 100% elastic collision.
The debris wound bounce up at the reverse speed 720mph and 10° over vertical. The air resistance at that speed is tremendous but lets forget about that too.
The debris would bounce up in the air and land 3621 meters (2.24 miles) away (bouncing again like a bouncy ball???).

Even at the ideal impact/bounce angle of 45° + 100% elastic collision with the cattle farm + no air resistance at 720mph the bouncing piece of debris would land at a 6.5 miles distance.

Observation + knowledge:
1) excessive deformation
2) soft ground (a lot of debris obviously disappeared in a crater like impact hole)
3) high air resistance at high speed
4) impact angle ~10°
5) debris field of 8 miles

What is the conclusion of engineers under the conditions of real world physics?
That airplane broke up during fall. There is NO other explanation for the distribution of the debris over an area of 8 miles no matter what the witnesses believe.
Btw, the same conclusion applies to Flight 93.

Nevertheless we have contradicting reports.

The NTSB report says:

... AT 1613, THE PLT RPTD TO OAKLAND ARTCC THAT HE HAD AN EMERGENCY AND THAT GUNSHOTS HAD BEEN FIRED IN THE AIRPLANE.
WITHIN 25 SECONDS, OAKLAND CTR CONTROLLERS OBSERVED THAT PSA 1771 HAD BEGUN A RAPID DESCENT FM WHICH IT DID NOT RECOVER.
WITNESSES ON THE GND SAID THE AIRPLANE WAS INTACT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GND IN A STEEP NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE.
THE CVR TAPE REVEALED THE SOUNDS OF A SCUFFLE AND SEVERAL SHOTS WHICH WERE APPARENTLY FIRED IN OR NEAR THE COCKPIT.
THE PISTOL WAS FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE WITH 6 EXPENDED ROUNDS. FAA RULES PERMITTED AIRLINE EMPLOYEES TO BYPASS SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.

Wikipedia tells us:

As the plane, a four-engine British Aerospace BAe 146-200, cruised at 22,000 feet (6700 m) over the central California coast, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the sound of two shots being fired in the cabin. The cockpit door was opened and a female, presumed to be a flight attendant, told the cockpit crew "We have a problem." The captain replied, "What kind of problem?" Burke then announced "I'm the problem," and fired three more shots that incapacitated or killed the pilots.
Several seconds later, the CVR picked up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitched down and accelerated. A final gunshot was heard, and it is speculated that Burke shot himself. The plane descended and crashed nose-first into the hillside of a cattle ranch at 4:16 p.m. in the Santa Lucia Mountains near Paso Robles[5] and Cayucos. The plane was estimated to have crashed at a speed of around 700 mph (1100 km/h, 600 kn), disintegrating instantly. The crash was witnessed by three different people on the ground, all of whom were able to see the plane until a fraction of a second before its impact. Two men in a pickup driving east on Highway 46 saw the plane against a clear blue sky. The third witness, an illegal immigrant who was very near the impact site but never publicly came forward, was said to have feared for his life. The plane was completely intact until it crashed, and was traveling at an approximately 70-degree angle toward the south. The plane impacted a rocky hillside, leaving a crater less than 2 feet deep and 4 feet across, presumably where the landing gear struck the ground. Unburnt paper flew everywhere as small aircraft fuel fires burned on the ground. No one survived the horrific crash. The human remains were in very small pieces, the largest of which were feet in shoes. The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 of the passengers were never identified.

The TV Show "Black Box - Sky crime" tells us:

Edward Williams, Sheriff: "The plane came down about 10° over vertical at about 720mph when it hit the ground.
... I was startled by that becaus things were blowing all over the place as I said 7-8 miles away in a very large area.
... When we got the tape back from the contents of the black box I was out on the scene and we found a car that had a tape player in it. So several of us - the head of the FBI and others - said to see what had happened in that cockpit.
... and then there is a sound of the plane increasing in speed as it is heading towards the ground.
... And then all of the sudden is an additional gun shot and then there is dead silent.

Bill Wammock (1st detective to arrive at the scene): "I couldn't comprehend at first that it was something larger than perhaps a small single engine private aircraft. And I kept thinking he was carrying newspapers because it seemed like nothing but papers blowing gently in the wind hanging in the trees. The thought never orrured to me that it was actually bits and pieces of a large aircraft, bits and pieces of passengers luggage and in some cases bit and pieces of a human being."
Voice Over: What finally allowed the detectives to piece together the last moments of flight 1771 was the discovery amongst the wreckage of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) the so called black box. After overnight analysis in Washington the tape was rushed back to the crash site.

Richard Bretzing (Ex Head, FBI Los Angeles): from the time the first shots were heard until the time of impact of this aircraft hitting the ground approximatela 47 seconds elapsed.

From these descripitions we get some facts:
1) The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 of the passengers were never identified.
2) 4:13pm the pilot reports gunshots. 25 seconds later Oakland Ctr observe a rapid descent.
3) cruising altitude 6700 meters
4) 47 seconds between the first shot and the impact.

Hence, we have 22 seconds of descent from 6700 meters and a final velocity of 720mph.
At a constant speed of 720mph that plane could fly 7081 meters in 22 seconds!
...means straight down without accelerating.

It was a BAe 146-200. Cruise speed: 498 mph (432 knots, 801 km/h) at 29,000 ft (8,840 m) (high speed cruise)
Obviously the aircraft had to accelerate and it didn't go straight down.
What's the conclusion of real word engineers again?

Let's have a look at a 4th source of information:

Several seconds later, the CVR picks up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitches down and begins to accelerate. A final gunshot is heard as Burke fatally shoots himself. Airspeed continues to build until 13,000 feet, when traveling at a velocity of 1.2x Mach, the aircraft breaks apart and the Flight Recorders cease functioning.

Obviously the FDR stopped recording at 13000ft indicating that the airplane broke apart.

The landing gear impacted the ground. There is no such wide impact hole that indicates wings. There no indication of soot or fire somewhere around the hole.

Somehow we deal exactly with the expectable appearance for a plane that broke apart in midair.
The times the speed the reported altitudes and even the distribution of the debris make perfectly sense.
Draw your conclusion why debunkers link such a video fraud without checking that nonsense first.
The linked "debunker" video was made to blame some radio host of reporting lies about Flight 93. They use lies to do so. Nice job, tfk!
What's the common phrase here? "Where is your math?" or "Do a little research!" or "Try real world physics!"

Yes, we see a lot of paper after a plane broke up in midair but airplane crashes with a lot of fire surprisingly show much less paper especially in the sooted area.

Well, in Lockerbie suitcases and passports were found.

...and a lot of debris

Interestingly the Lockerbie 747 fell from an Altitude of 31000ft (9.400 m) and impacted the ground at almost the same velocity like AA11 impacted WTC1.

The Lockerbie Terror investigation looked like this:

Is there any image of the Flight 93 investigation?
Flight 93 dived down from just 10000ft.

At 13:23 the pilots alegedly received the ACARS warning.
5 minutes later we read a "(mayday)". Seemingly someone tries to enter the cockpit.
Half a minute later we still hear "(get out of here)" but we get no explanation for the use of brackets.
Silence. The next thing we hear is a message pretty similar to the strange Atta message.
Obviously also Jarrah pushed the wrong button at least twice.
Also Jarrah do not listen to what the controller asked.
Also Jarrahs statements reads like recorded during (or for) a hijacking exercise.
...just like the Atta voice.

Btw, in the case of WTC1 very little of debris was found and both ways for an escaping passport that managed to land at Vesey St are pur nonsense...

...just like a correction fluid fraud.

 

[WildCat]

For example, I proclaim that the passport surviving the planecrash is 100% impossible.

You can proclaim that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. But don't be surprised if people laugh at you.

 

[WildCat]

But is it 100% delusional?

Not necessarily. Mentally challenged people aren't delusional, for example. They're just people with low IQs.

 

[WildCat]

Wrong....so wrong.

Rational people understand there is a big difference between impossible and improbable. The ability for said event to occur being the major difference.

Is it that hard for you "rational bunch of people' to accept simple logic? Are you afraid that admitting an inside job has a probability might get you labelled as a truther? Smells like fear to me....

This has to be parody...

 

[Patriots4Truth]

You can proclaim that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. But don't be surprised if people laugh at you.

a different topic - but that is exactly my point about Nist claiming that some floor trusses in WTC1 "sagged" 9ft in 17 minutes.

 

[grandmastershek]

a different topic - but that is exactly my point about Nist claiming that some floor trusses in WTC1 "sagged" 9ft in 17 minutes.

Are we supposed to care for some reason?

 

[LightningTeg]

Once again achimspok, what the hell is the point of all this rambling and shotgunning of random evidence? Jarrah* Put the plane to the ground when the plane started to be overun by passengers. Probably a much steeper AOA then 10 deg. And why would he respond to ATC?