The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[beachnut]

...
The U.S. military and the Mossad ... MM

Jews did it, that is the best 911 truth has. Lies backed with delusions, with an occasional 7.09gs of math thrown in.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I suggest you start by not arrogantly assuming you know everything there is to be known about destroying buildings.

Spare me your hypocrisy. You arrogantly assume you know everything there is to know about fire physics and chemistry and assume a position in defiance of nearly the entire scientific and engineering communities.

The U.S. military and the Mossad might know a few things about knocking down structures which you are not privy to.

Oh look, you're trying to drag the jews into it. That trick was old in 1934.

Unfortunately for you, my knowledge (and that of everyone else here) is exactly the same as that of the US military and the jews. To deliberately bring a structure down, you must cause enough supports to fail. To force those failures, you must apply more energy to those supports than they can resist without failing.

X number of supports times Y amount of energy. That's the only way to do it. It doesn't matter if you use conventional explosives, magic thermite or tapioca pudding.

40,000 charges. Busiest office buildings in the world. Absolute secrecy. Those are the conditions you need to meet.

Start working on your plan. Justice for 3000 innocent people demands it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My question is, if the truth is as clear cut as the 911 movement suggests, why are they spending so much time with their evidence spamming it on television ads rather than gathering their resources on some kind of court case? This truth movement is supposed to be kinda global, so I find the excuse that it would easily censored here in the states quite unlikely considering they could simply gather their resources in one of the international court systems.

If they did that, then their only challenge would be to take the mix mash of incompetence and snake oil and figure out a practical means of passing it off as tangible evidence in the courts.

 

[triforcharity]

There is no truther mindset.
MM

No ****!! That's the FIRST fact I have EVER seen you post. EVER!!

 

[GlennB]

I stand corrected.

Sorry, I should have put a in as well as the .

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sorry, I should have put a in as well as the .

We're cool. I made an error and was corrected.

I would loooove to see a twoofer step up and defend Hoffman's 1.8 million ceiling tile scenario.

But they won't even come up with a way to plant 40,000 charges.

 

[GlennB]

I suggest you start by not arrogantly assuming you know everything there is to be known about destroying buildings.

The U.S. military and the Mossad might know a few things about knocking down structures which you are not privy to.

MM

And once again a Truther assigns mystery powers to The Man. Unlimited and unknowable powers. You know, MM, I think you secretly admire The Man. I think you really want to become part of His team. Are you hoping He has jet-packs, flying cars and memory-erasing light pens?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The more friendly way to put this is not only has the mainstream 9-11 truth movement failed to provide evidence to support any of its claims, it has invented its own standard of what it considers evidence, and been absolutely incapable of any investigative competence whatsoever. While the different factions deal with infighting, between CIT, and WTC no planes, DEW, and the like they should consider as well that their own standards aren't much different.

 

[twinstead]

I suggest you start by not arrogantly assuming you know everything there is to be known about destroying buildings.

Hypocrisy. You are assuming to know everything about it as well. This for example:

The U.S. military and the Mossad might know a few things about knocking down structures which you are not privy to.

So now you are an expert on US military and Mossad demolition techniques? Yea, and I'm sure those folks in Area 51 have technology we can only dream of. I submit that reverse-engineered alien technology brought the towers down!

 

[George 152]

We're cool. I made an error and was corrected.

I would loooove to see a twoofer step up and defend Hoffman's 1.8 million ceiling tile scenario.

But they won't even come up with a way to plant 40,000 charges.

Imagine.
Somewhere waaaaay out there is an explosive acoustic ceiling tile factory that made 1.8 million tiles without any-one working there or designing or owning or managing the factory and without all the required licenses and permits to transport, process and store explosives...
Riiight

 

[achimspok]

I never said 15 degrees/6 degrees,...

It's strange. I quoted you saying that ...
Your sloppy NIST is approximately right for a large distance. The plane came in at an angle of about 15° and 6° [/QUOTE]
...but it obviously disappeared in the quoted post.

Everyone, the 38 degree bank turn at impact, is over 5 mile turn radius 29,000 feet of turn radius, that is a 10 mile wide turn, there was no major maneuvering,...

Everyone, nobody said anything about a major maneuvering. I talk about a very fast and very precise hit. Beachnut, do you get the difference? A major maneuver is something what I would expect in the path of a firsttimer levelling at overspeed.
Sure, that's not what happened. The plane took one turn 50 miles out towards Manhatten descending at 10000ft/min. It aimed straight at One Liberty Plaza (or should I say at Giulianis Office right behind it) and turned 9 seconds prior to the impact into an alost perpendicular trajectory in 3D. I know, you like to argue in 3D at least while complaining about ZOOM.
So the plane took one "little" maneuver in the very last moment and SWOOSH. That's pretty good at 600mph.

Your data is wrong, or can you explain a 4.33g acceleration in your data? You can't explain it, it is your data, ...

I already explained it. You either don't read or don't understand. Its 30m inconsistency at the transition between 2 shots that show the plane between -12 and -8 seconds. One of those shots is the Empire State Building with a tiny dot in the sky. That moving pixel represents 30m.
At -7 seconds more shots show the plane and the data are increasingly better with every additional shot. Hence, my data are pretty good but you are not able to understand the data.
Go ahead and square the failure to build up your rethorical nonsense!

I tell you wich data is wrong. Here it is:

...the attitude at impact does not matter, the kinetic energy is the same as it really was...

Wrong. Impact angle matters. Impact velocity matters.
Kinetic Energy depends on the square of velocity and velocity is a vector! ...in some cases on the impact vector no matter how it moved 40 miles out.

...lined up within about 12 degree of perpendicular all along the path, is lined up to hit the WTC.

Btw, 6° vertical and 15° lateral is about 16° of perpendicular.

Explain to me, a pilot, an instructor pilot, an evaluator pilot, a pilot with an ATP how a straight in shot is not a straight in shot? Are you having problems with understanding what lined up means? Which part of no major turn don't you understand.

Are you having problems with understanding what precise means?

911 truth don't do math. Cool, they tell you it is math, and then spew 7.09gs of nonsense.

25° banking limit, Mr. Super Pilot? What do you think how many Gs do you get from the positional data in your NTSB image? Longitudinal and vertical?
Your poop argument masturbates with my failure of 30m while your data have 160m resolution. ...my 1 second yours 5 seconds. ...my aim at the tower during the last 9 seconds and still would miss it 3 seconds prior to the impact your mega bullets aim at Manhatten somehow.

Called drift, something a first time real flight in a 767 terrorist pilot would end up homing into his target, slightly, like 911. ...
More proof the pilot was on his first and last fligh...

More proof the "pilot" didn't aim at the tower but that's what a beginner terrorist would have to do. Check out the ZOOM shots. It wasn't the wind that pushed the plane sideways. It just dived and banked into a mostly perpendicular trajectory.

How will you prove 175 was level at impact?
Do you understand the attitude, where the nose points of the plane is not where it is going?

Take a distant shot from about the elevation of the MER floors.

Zoom in and you get the relations of building and plane almost without changing in depth. We know the speed, we know the diameter of the fuselage and the video has 25fps.

Obviously the plane descended about 4m during 1s while it moved 260m.
The vertical angle was something between 0.88...0.99° and that's much less than 6°.

And after you repeated my 7g mistake for 10-20-30 times posting island bullets and banking limits you finally try to use the victims just like you guys always do.

Based on the fact the terrorists were seen taking over the plane, it was the dying testimony of the people on board doomed to die because the terrorists took over the planes. Evidence, and the fact is no pilot would let his plane crash unless he was dead. It is our job to protect our passengers first, the plane second. What is wrong with my priorities, to protect my passengers and crew? Gee, the terrorists killed themselves, their stuff was left, it proved they did it, because the same guys were identified by seat who got up and killed crew and pilots - it is on the record. WE have the DNA of terrorists, but no wants killer DNA. Are you related to the failed terrorists?

"Based on the fact" is always a strong opening but...
"the terrorists were seen taking over the plane" - yes, some said so.
According to Betty Ong we had 7 people in the cockpit, right? ...and mace. ...and an evacuation of the first class in the back of the plane. ...and still the passengers in the back of the plane believed in a medical emergency.
In the first days a shot was reported. Later it wasn't a shot. Later the passenger was stabbed. ...by a boxcutter?
"Gee, the terrorists killed themselves,..." May be, but the paymaster of Atta was in the White House. Any idea why Atta was interested in crop dusters just 3 days prior to his vaporization? Any idea how Atta could try to buy crop dusters in Florida before he entered US? Any idea how all these hijackers could get visa for "Hotel" and "Wasantwn"?
"their stuff was left, it proved they did it" ...well, they left parking lots infront of the wrong houses. Dead arabs rented the cars. Living pilots crashed in buildings. And they always left tons of stuff everywhere. They even left passports bouncing out of the cockpit and back into the street. Or they left passports 2 years after 9/11 in the baggage they left on 9/11 just to show the world "I was a real person and I used fraudulent correction fluid."
"because the same guys were identified by seat" ...yes, two seats by Ong the other two by Sweeny. And in the Portland plane Alomari had long brown hair and glasses. They had ties at the ticket counter and had two timestamps and shirts at the security check.
"it is on the record." ??? I never heard about any sound from AA11, UA175 or AA77 other than the strange tape-like statements addressed to the passengers and received at the airport due to wrong button use 3 times at AA11 and 2 times at UA175. 5 times the same mistake but not one address that reached the passengers anyhow.
"WE have the DNA of terrorists" YOU have DNA. And the same guys who found the wrong parking lots and faked passports and waterboarded confessions gave you some tissue or hairs for comparison. That's brilliant.

In the end it doesn't add up, what ever really happened.

Tell me one freakin' reason WHY the ISI should pay Mohamed Atta!
Tell me one freakin' reason WHY the Zelikow Commission decided that the money flow is of NO PRACTICAL USE!
Tell me one freakin' reason WHY the FBI should hunt for Abdul Rahman if they found a passport of Abdulazzis including photographs and birthday!
Tell me one freakin' reason WHY Al Qaeda should give a stolen Abdulazzis Alomari identity to a real and living Abdulazzis Alomari hijacker with the very same birthday and how Al Qaeda could know about a passport stolen in 1996 in Denver!

May be your story is 51% right. It's a lie anyway and no DNA makes it any better. That brown thing isn't chocolate even if you find some pieces in it. It has a name that you may not spell out in this very pro-waterboarding forum without being banned for at least 3 days.

Do you remember the first "terror experts" who told you on 9/11 that you have to look to the middle east and Osama Bin Laden?
It wasn't any FBI agent or CIA spokesman or govt official.
One was Jack Kelley, who was fired a little later because of scandalous fraudulent stories about arabic children with pictures of the Sears Tower.
He told us that the US had plans "set to go for several weeks now" to retaliate massively. Ooops. Hey, "no one could have predicted..."

The other "terror expert" was was Neil C. Livingston, CEO of Global Options Inc. (some kind of a privat CIA) at 10:52 am.
He and his Global Options Vice President Robert Owen first met when working for Ed Wilson and Oliver North. Well, that's the Iran-Contra thing.
Robert Owen is the connection to Hill & Knowlton's - the PR agancy that orchestrated daddy Bush's Gulf War I including the faked "Nayirah" testimony.
"They throw the babies out of the incubators." (...just a lie to brainwash a nation and it worked for daddy.)
The CEO Livingston instead did a CIA carrier before they founded their own CIA.

 

[beachnut]

I tell you wich data is wrong. Here it is:

Your data is wrong. After you 7.09 g failure and the fact your data includes longitudinal acceleration of 4.33g, then -2g. Your data is nonsense.

LOL, you think the aircraft is level because the fuselage was level, NIST says the fuselage was 1 degree above level. Did you miss what it says? You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist with bad data. What is new?

The terrorist lined up over 40 miles out and aimed at the WTC. You make up nonsense you can't support with pilot expertise. What is your story? OMG, CIA? LOL

You have no clue on flying, math, or what you did, and your data is claptrap. The longitudinal accelerations of 4.33g and then -2 g are impossible do you messed up the data, you can't use any of your data. You flunked the peer review, it was done by an ATP pilot with 37 years of flying experience, by an engineer with a masters degree, with 36 years of experience, and an aircraft accident investigator with 21 years of experience. It is a redo; but you will start ranting about the CIA and melting.

BTW, if you bank and push, you turn the other direction. Flying is cool, you have no clue. The terrorist aimed at the WTC towers, any moron save Pilots for Truth could hit the largest buildings hit on 911. Flying a 767 is easy, I flew large jet, I flew small prop planes, the big jet is easier to fly, and you have no clue why.

OMR (oh my randi), now you go ballistic into all the failed 911 truth lies. Wow. You have crazy ideas, if you prove them all you have a Pulitzer Prize. BTW, the brown stuff is chocolate, it has more energy than the piles of BS you left above; you can test it like the idiots who said dust was thermite and it had less and more energy than thermite! Wow, what if Jones tests dust that was chocolate, then he would say it was 10 times more powerful secret explosive than thermite and TNT. LOL, you paranoid conspiracy theorists are funny. Like JFK, Bigfoot, Chemtrails, and more, you all lack knowledge and skills to comprehend simple events, and prefer to make up lies based on your own failed opinions.

Make what you want of a lazy bank to 38 degrees, the turn radius at that time would give you a 10 mile wide turn, this gets funnier the more you think you have something, and then you have to interject the ISI, and CIA, and you leave out what the purpose of your failed analysis was?


For the record what is your impact angles? Exactly perpendicular all around? Oops, the plane was in a roll, no way it hit dead on because the velocity vector was where? You need to retract your failed work, it will only get worse. You need to explain why you have a 4.33 acceleration, and then a -2 g acceleration in your data. Can you? Make you data bad.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Just as I suspected. An elaborate Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Just a momentary lapse back into sanity

There have been 29 pages and counting on this thread so far, running the gamut as to the how's, the who's and the whats of a non-religious fanatic inspired attack on 9/11, but one thing I haven't seen (and I'll confess I didn't bother reading every post as after the first five or six pages, the voices in my head started arguing with each other) is: why?
Specifically, why go to the immense amount of trouble, risk, and exposure to set in motion a chain of events similar to the ones that 9/11 inititated when there are obviously simpler, smaller, more secure,and infinitely less risky methods to achieving the same objective?
If the government/Gnomes of Zurich/Illuminati/ insert shadowy organization here wanted to invade the Mid-East/ procure Saddams oil at a discount/ steal Afghanistan's precious supply of rocks and barren desert/insert poorly reasoned motivation de jour here, there are lots of other ways that do not entail hushabooms/ special thermitic devices/ death rays/ insert outrageously impractical demolition methods here, that would require none of the above, use tried and true procedures, and have almost zero propensity for discovery then, now, or in the future.
So why an attack of this type to begin with?

 

[Craig4]

I suggest you start by not arrogantly assuming you know everything there is to be known about destroying buildings.

The U.S. military and the Mossad might know a few things about knocking down structures which you are not privy to.

MM

That's nice. Got any explosive residue? Oh, and don't embarrass yourself with the Harritt paper.

 

[beachnut]

Just as I suspected. An elaborate Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

If the pilots on 911 rolled up to 75 degrees and pulled 3.8g, I might be skeptical of them, since they never flew in a real 767. The terrorists did no precision maneuvers, they looked like rookies, on their first flight. 911 truth lies about the terrorist flying.

Each time I check on these failed claims it turns out they are worse than failed, total nonsense based on delusions.

 

[The Platypus]

I suggest you start by not arrogantly assuming you know everything there is to be known about destroying buildings.

The pot calling the kettle... Isn't this exactly what 911 kooks do...

 

[The Platypus]

The truth, unlike lies is not a variable.

Gee, it's funny how you don't apply this to kook claims...

 

[achimspok]

Your data is wrong. After you 7.09 g failure and the fact your data includes longitudinal acceleration of 4.33g, then -2g. Your data is nonsense.

Poor old man. You have no clue and no argument. All you do is riding on a long admitted and corrected failure or constructing a failure that isn't there. It just proves that you have no clue.

LOL, you think the aircraft is level because the fuselage was level, NIST says the fuselage was 1 degree above level. Did you miss what it says? You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist with bad data. What is new?

As I said, you have no clue. I'm not interested what NIST said about the fuselage. They were 7 degree off lateral 5 degree off vertical and 20-60mph off speed. Who cares if NIST estimated 1 degree above level? NIST had no clue how to do it and you either. You even don't get the meaning of the image I gave you for the very basic understanding.
Let me explain: The trajectory of that plane had an downwards angle of 0.88°-0.99° no matter in wich direction the nose pointed at that time. It was horizontal on purpose right in the moment of impact. Your holy NIST was way off. (Same for AA11.)

The terrorist lined up over 40 miles out ...

... with Greenland?

BTW, if you bank and push, you turn the other direction.

If you bank and lose your wing too. We know wich direction the plane was gone. We know how much and how fast. You don't know.

...

Prove your nonsensical official story and get the Nobel Prize. Tell the story without omitting the "not fitting" 49%! So far, you did a terrible job.

Make what you want of a lazy bank to 38 degrees...

lazy bank, precise hit, no passport escaped, CIA lied to you, everything fits together. That's it. You story do not fit together. You have the delusion of coke brains and rubber boat cave warriors who overcame a military system by the coordination of a student in Hamburg who used the codeword Porsche911 or Holy Tuesday?
Hey, Atta bought his ticket on August 28? Do you get it? No, you don't.

For the record what is your impact angles? Exactly perpendicular all around?

Are you able to read? No, you don't read. You just repeat your nonsense over and over.

For the record: GO BACK AND START READING!

Oops, the plane was in a roll, no way it hit dead on because the velocity vector was where?

You already estimated the radius? The velocity vector was where? Kinetic energy was the same? Bank limitation? blooblahblup?

I don't need to retract anything. You have to start from scrach with your nonsensical arab story.

You don't need to explain again why I have a 4.33 acceleration because I did it two times already. You don't get it. GO BACK AND START READING!
My resolution 30m, your resolution 160m!
My resolution 1s, your resolution 5 s!
My a = ( ve² - v0² ) / ( 2 * (s+/-15m) ), your a = ( ve² - v0² ) / ( 2 * (s+/-80m) )

My data: I see the behaviour of the plane.
Your data: You are lined up with Greenland somehow.

Get your story straight! Torture won't help.

P.S. the collision physics give a brown pretzel on the roll angle. Any freakin' particle will move along it's trajectory. The only acceleration is given by plane meets columns.

 

[Animal]

So... in the last 20 pages or so, has anyone demonstrated a way to plant 40,000 demo charges in the worlds busiest office buildings without anyone noticing anything?

Or do y'all just concede that 9/11 as described by the tinfoilers is 100% impossible.

Not to mention that the buildings were occupied 24/7 and you could not move squat into them (or around Manhattan for that matter) without multiple unions being involved.