What's your theory about 9/11?

[jaydeehess]

Oh, Jaydee - I feel you've hit a whole bunch of nails on their heads with that one !
As a thirty year building veteran in the U.K. I looked in horror at the speed at which the fire spread in both Towers and have absolutely no doubt that no such laxed attitudes to fire resistance will be tolerated in any future buildings.

Crash a fuel laden heavy jet into any occupied UK office building in a way that destroys the pipes for the sprinkler system and the fire would also spread quickly.

If Allan is referring to the spread after the jet fuel had burned off its a valid point. Obviously no one ever designs a building with the idea that several thousand gallons of acellerant would be distributed over several floors and ignited in the space of 1 second. Not much one can do to keep fire from spreading quickly when a large volume of acellerant is used.

However it then spread to floors not involved in the initial impact and the fire insulation was significantly abraded by the impact on the impact floors.
I forget now just how the fire codes differed. I do recall that Dr. Quintere had issues with the NIST report's dealings with this aspect. IIRC his beef was mostly that he thought it was not dealt with deeply enough and if there were 'sweetheart' deals made that affected safety he wanted names named.

In the new WTC 7 IIRC the sprinkler pipes are protected by concrete walls, in the towers they were protected by gyproc walls.

 

[jaydeehess]

That's a fair point. I was using "hypothesis" in the loosest sense possible, which was simply to denote a proposed concept extending from nothing more than one or two simple arguments prior to considering evidence or context. You're right, though, even that gives conspiracy fantasies too much credit for logic. Even my normal word choice - proposal - is too lenient and forgiving. What these conspiracy "hypotheses" end up being are attempts to distort and dissuade. Nothing more. Even many of the resident truthers here have openly stated that their objective is little more than to instill doubt about the shibboleth they call the "official story". So there's no need to use terminology implying that they're trying to build knowledge, or even a coherent argument. At best, with few exceptions (Steven Jones, admittedly) all they're trying to do is negate. So sure, even hypothesis is a term that bestows too much credit on them. I can agree with that.

"Proposal",,,,,,,,, I don't mind that but I will still use my choice of "contention" or "bald contention", bereft of any significant evidence and springing unbidden and purely from the imagination of a mind driven by paranoia and a set political world view.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hi Cyclonic,

Hardly anything new or surprising. Wahhabi/Deobandi Muslims have been sacrificing themselves to convert the globe to Islam for over two hundred years.


This is incorrect. There is some suspicion that the hijackers intended to blow up the airliner over the Eiffel Tower, however the sources for this claim are questionable, and the behaviour of the hijackers makes this explanation unlikely. More likely it was an alternative ending if their demands weren't met.


Until 9/11 airline hijackers (including GIA) had consistently shown a reluctance to kill passengers, preferring to use them as hostages. Locking hijackers out of the cockpit would simply have encouraged them to execute passengers who otherwise could have been saved.

(Prior to 9/11 your odds of surviving an airline hijacking were actually pretty good)

You've obviously never actually read the memo. It referred to three-year old intelligence that was so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Worse, it suggested that law enforcement had the situation under control.

That was the point I was making, that unless there was truely specific intel on these attacks it would be nigh on impossible to have intercepted and foiled them.

Yes, Islamic fundementalists had hijacked many and aircraft, even coordinated multiple hijackings, in the past 40 years or so, and yes, Islamic Jihadists had carried out suicide bombings against their perceived enemies quite often over the last 40 years or so.

These facts argue for the hypothesis that the two ideas were combined into a multiple coordinated hijacking of several aircraft and using them all as suicide attack weapons.

As I noted though, there are some anecdotes that suggest some specificity was known. Rice warning not to fly on Sept 11. Though this suggests she knew when and how, she did not known where and the USA is a big place.

Yeah I bet Americans would have loved that.

Reaction 1) Yell and scream, Alex Jones proclaiming 'police state' and 'travel restrictions' --- best nazi voice "payh-paas pleeze!"
Reaction 2) People just not bothering to fly. (pun alert) A flight away from air travel.

 

[BasqueArch]

I doubt even Olivier Stone could make a believable movie out of the no-plane theories.

I saw the movie in Tehran, wasn't convincing, even the audience booed.

New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory

August 8, 2006 | Issue 42•32
New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory Twitter


NEW YORK—Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone said Monday that his new film World Trade Center unveils "compelling and controversial" new evidence that a single plane was responsible for all four collisions in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001.

"There's no way anyone can ever deny there was only one plane."

"Get ready to go through the looking glass here, people," Stone told reporters at a Manhattan press conference before an advance screening of the movie, which premieres Wednesday. "The film you are about to see is going to blow the lid off the 9/11 Commission's official report and expose a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government."

World Trade Center, which stars Nicolas Cage as a dedicated Port Authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what Stone called "the official government line" about the event. According to the film, at 8:46 a.m., a lone commercial airliner flew diagonally through the North Tower of the World Trade Center, maintained a circular holding pattern for approximately 17 minutes, then struck the South Tower before heading to the Pentagon.

After its collision with the center of American military operations, the so-called "magic plane"—which variously and ingeniously identified itself to air-traffic controllers as "American Airlines Flight 11," "United Airlines Flight 175," "American Airlines Flight 77" and "United Airlines Flight 93"—took to the skies once again, landing at a top-secret "black-ops" Air Force base in West Virginia, where it was reloaded with a group of clones from another shadowy government program that Stone described as "shocking."

Stone, who said he did not have time to explore the clone angle in the three-and-a-half-hour film, plans to do so in the sequel, September 12.
....

<snip>​

[qimg]http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Oliver-Stone%27s-Jump-Map-R_0.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_oliver_stone_9_11_film

 

[tj15]

They used major landmarks such as the Hudson River to navigate. They probably practiced on Microsoft Flight Simulator or some similar cheap software.

That's what I was thinking for when they were close, but what about when they were far away? I'm guessing they could have just gone east.

 

[TruthersLie]

That's what I was thinking for when they were close, but what about when they were far away? I'm guessing they could have just gone east.

TJ..

Please remember they were trained pilots. And they had trained for this mission for a while.

They could have had maps with them, or used the onboard instruments to hone in on their targets.

Unlike what twoofs spew, they were trained pilots with hundreds of hours of flight time.

 

[cyclonic]

Hi Cyclonic,

Major problems with your analysis.
There is some suspicion that the hijackers intended to blow up the airliner over the Eiffel Tower, however the sources for this claim are questionable, and the behaviour of the hijackers makes this explanation unlikely. More likely it was an alternative ending if their demands weren't met.

prior 9/11 airline hijackers (including GIA) had consistently shown a reluctance to kill passengers, preferring to use them as hostages. Locking hijackers out of the cockpit would simply have encouraged them to execute passengers who otherwise could have been saved.

(Prior to 9/11 your odds of surviving an airline hijacking were actually pretty good)

hi gumboot
The plane needed 9 tonnes of fuel to get to paris from marsielles, they demanded tanks be filled : 27 tonnes.

The french prime minister certainly believed it, he ordered the storming of the plane by french commandos which was highly successful.
the aircraft was NOT to be allowed to takeoff.

how many passengers were shot on the tarmac at algiers by the GIA while trying to get permission to takeoff? 3-4?


about that august 6 memo to president bush, i doubt a CIA memo to bush will ever be made public and i certainly don't believe it contained 3 year old intelligence.

cheers

 

[tj15]

TJ..

Please remember they were trained pilots. And they had trained for this mission for a while.

They could have had maps with them, or used the onboard instruments to hone in on their targets.

Unlike what twoofs spew, they were trained pilots with hundreds of hours of flight time.

I had just never seen any detailed information about what the terrorists might have done in order to get to their targets... I'm just curious.

 

[jaydeehess]

i saw the movie in tehran, wasn't convincing, even the audience booed.

new oliver stone 9/11 film introduces 'single plane' theory

august 8, 2006 | issue 42•32
new oliver stone 9/11 film introduces 'single plane' theory twitter


new york—academy award-winning director oliver stone said monday that his new film world trade center unveils "compelling and controversial" new evidence that a single plane was responsible for all four collisions in new york, washington, d.c., and pennsylvania on sept. 11, 2001.

"there's no way anyone can ever deny there was only one plane."

"get ready to go through the looking glass here, people," stone told reporters at a manhattan press conference before an advance screening of the movie, which premieres wednesday. "the film you are about to see is going to blow the lid off the 9/11 commission's official report and expose a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government."

world trade center, which stars nicolas cage as a dedicated port authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what stone called "the official government line" about the event. According to the film, at 8:46 a.m., a lone commercial airliner flew diagonally through the north tower of the world trade center, maintained a circular holding pattern for approximately 17 minutes, then struck the south tower before heading to the pentagon.

After its collision with the center of american military operations, the so-called "magic plane"—which variously and ingeniously identified itself to air-traffic controllers as "american airlines flight 11," "united airlines flight 175," "american airlines flight 77" and "united airlines flight 93"—took to the skies once again, landing at a top-secret "black-ops" air force base in west virginia, where it was reloaded with a group of clones from another shadowy government program that stone described as "shocking."

stone, who said he did not have time to explore the clone angle in the three-and-a-half-hour film, plans to do so in the sequel, september 12.
....

<snip>​

[qimg]http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/oliver-stone%27s-jump-map-r_0.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_oliver_stone_9_11_film

its........all.......so clear......... now!

 

[Kestrel]

I had just never seen any detailed information about what the terrorists might have done in order to get to their targets... I'm just curious.

Modern airliners have sophisticated autopilot systems. Just set the coordinates of your destination and the autopilot will fly the aircraft to that place. About as easy to use as the GPS navigation units in cars.

 

[jaydeehess]

Modern airliners have sophisticated autopilot systems. Just set the coordinates of your destination and the autopilot will fly the aircraft to that place. About as easy to use as the GPS navigation units in cars.

True, but these planes used INS , not GPS.

Still, the VFR bush pilots I have had fly me around the northern boreal forest use a combination of dead reckoning and a map showing the lakes (look down note the shape o a lake, look at map for a lake of that shape) enroute to tiny villages that do not have roads or railways into them.

Certainly they are experienced in doing it this way but how much easier would it be to look for NYC when all that is east of it is ocean and a major waterway leads to it; taking into account that NYC is a city with a magnificent skyline compared to the villages I have been to with populations numbered in the hundreds rather than in the millions.

They were headed west when they took the plane, all targets are basically east. Even a cave dweller can look at a compass, and even a cave dweller can look down and recognize a major river.

Once close to Manhattan (a large island!) all they had to do was look for the tallest structures on the skyline with the ocean as a backdrop. The second plane had a huge plume of smoke to guide it.

In fact of the three planes that hit buildings the one with the most trouble was Hanjour on Flt 77. He did not seem to see the Pentagon until he was almost on top of it and had to do a circling descent. The biggest difference between the towers and the Pentagon is that the Pentagon is only 77 feet high as opposed to the 1000+ of the towers. What the Pentagon did have was that it is, obviously, a very large unigue shape and it did lie against a major waterway. So it was easy to spot once close but harder to see from far away whereas the towers were easier to pick out from a greater distance.

Given that the three buildings that were hit were all very distinguishable from the air, AND world wide symbols of American wealth and power, one wonders what the target of Flt 93 was. It most certainly was not WTC 7 since it was not particularily well known or a symbol of America, nor particularily distinguishable from the air.
The Whitehouse? Maybe, but it is a fairly small structure nestled in trees. Its a prime symbol of power but relatively hard to find.
For my money it was the Capitol building. Large, domed and the tallest structure for miles (IIRC), and certainly a symbol of American political power.

 

[Kestrel]

Given that the three buildings that were hit were all very distinguishable from the air, AND world wide symbols of American wealth and power, one wonders what the target of Flt 93 was. It most certainly was not WTC 7 since it was not particularily well known or a symbol of America, nor particularily distinguishable from the air.
The Whitehouse? Maybe, but it is a fairly small structure nestled in trees. Its a prime symbol of power but relatively hard to find.
For my money it was the Capitol building. Large, domed and the tallest structure for miles (IIRC), and certainly a symbol of American political power.

The Washington Monument is actually taller, but that just would help the terrorists find the Capitol. It's due East of that big pointy thing.

There is something else to mention. Simply by reading the newspapers, the terrorists would also have known that both houses of Congress were in session on 9/11. A much better target than the White House on a day the President was known to be out of town.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The Washington Monument is actually taller, but that just would help the terrorists find the Capitol. It's due East of that big pointy thing.

There is something else to mention. Simply by reading the newspapers, the terrorists would also have known that both houses of Congress were in session on 9/11. A much better target than the White House on a day the President was known to be out of town.

I think the word you're looking for is "obelisk".

But yeah, Flight 93's target would've been the White House or the Capital Building. But it's likely they would've gotten the Capital Building because that suckers massive.

The dome on it was being built during the Civil War.

 

[gumboot]

hi gumboot
The plane needed 9 tonnes of fuel to get to paris from marsielles, they demanded tanks be filled : 27 tonnes.

There's speculation that they eventually intended to fly to a Muslim-friendly country.

The french prime minister certainly believed it, he ordered the storming of the plane by french commandos which was highly successful.
the aircraft was NOT to be allowed to takeoff.

The French quite clearly intended to storm the plane right from the outset.

how many passengers were shot on the tarmac at algiers by the GIA while trying to get permission to takeoff? 3-4?

According to some of the hostages, the hijackers displayed increasing reluctance to kill as time went on.

about that august 6 memo to president bush, i doubt a CIA memo to bush will ever be made public and i certainly don't believe it contained 3 year old intelligence.

No offense, but you appear to be working off three year old intelligence yourself. The memo has been released. You can doubt it all you want, but I have read it.

Here's a link to it.

It was declassified and approved for release on 10 April, 2004.

 

[gumboot]

For reference, the available FDR data indicates that the hijackers used the Autopilot to navigate, but entering the NAVAID nearest to their intended target. From reaching the NAVAID, it appears the aircraft were then piloted visually.

 

[Jackanory]

Did the terrorists use the on board instruments in the plane to navigate their way to the targets or some other way of navigation (I know nothing about flying)?

Probably used a mixture of technical help from numerous onboard systems as well as visual landmarks. They could also have used the airline pilots up to some point on the pretence that they where holding bombs rather than about to use the aircraft as a missile. I would imagine from the FDR and flight path information available that the final approaches made where certainly made by simply looking for lanmarks and two huge towers. Obviously this was made much easier for the second impact, given the amount of smoke billowing from the first.

Its easy to go and have a 1hr flight from your local aerodrome and take the controls for 15mins. Albeit in a 185 cessna -but it still highlights the ease at which visual navigation and aircraft control is. Take off and landing may be difficult (not required on 9/11) but actual flying is not so difficult. Kids can go do it in the USA and fly quite confidently after only 1hrs instruction. Twoofers dont get out much so cant really comprehend these things and so make things appear far more difficult.

 

[Myriad]

Apparently, the desert cave-dwelling hijackers used to crash planes into womp-rats in Beggar's Canyon back home. And they're not much bigger than two meters.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TruthersLie]

Apparently, the desert cave-dwelling hijackers used to crash planes into womp-rats in Beggar's Canyon back home. And they're not much bigger than two meters.

Respectfully,
Myriad

But that's impossible without the targeting computer.

and we know that was an inside jobby job

 

[I Ratant]

Although the black boxes were immolated, the Tourist Guy's friend's cheapie camera survived.

 

[cyclonic]

There's speculation that they eventually intended to fly to a Muslim-friendly country.

The French quite clearly intended to storm the plane right from the outset.

According to some of the hostages, the hijackers displayed increasing reluctance to kill as time went on.

Speculation?

why would the french prime minister storm the plane from the outset when
"Prior to 9/11 your odds of surviving an airline hijacking were actually pretty good"

the order was given while the plane was in transit to marsielle after recieving reliable intelligence about the hijackers.

reluctance to kill?
lets hear from the french prime minister and the hostages that survived to what happened on flight 8969
aircrash investigation:the killing machine.
part 1


part 2


part 3


part 4



part 5