Reply With Quote^
Very well-said.
gollUM I took the liberty of putting a call into my father who is a retired RAF engineer with 30 years spent working on/managing people working on aircraft. His answer was rather succinct, and that's that passenger aircraft are put through far more structural stress flying through heavy turbulence than they are at this level and speed/altitude. They are built to withstand a he'll of a lot. Maneuverability and maintaining air speed are the issue which weren't exactly a concern of nutters wanting to fly straight into the highest target on the horizon. Sorry but I trust his direct experience than a graph that you put online.
In terms of Occam's Razor, let's list some of the assumptions that would accompany a theory that it was not the passenger aircraft that hit the towers:
- Someone needed to build planes that would look like the exact size and shape of the Boeings that were seen on video by multiple sources, and described by multiple sources. Let's assume this took more than one person
- Someone managed to switch the transponders and any other broadcasting equipment picked up by air traffic and radar from the real passenger planes to the fake planes without anyone noticing. I'm guessing there was quite a quick turnaround for the aircraft so this would have needed to be done quickly. Let's assume this would take more than one person
- The real passenger planes were disposed of/hidden without anyone not in the loop noticing. Again let's assume multiple people would need to be involved
- The people supposedly travelling on those planes, who are now apparently dead, were either murdered or paid enough money to not see their parents, spouses or children ever again. Let's again assume that as well as the passengers, multiple people would need to have been involved
This is but a small list of assumptions that have to take place to support your hypothesis that the planes were not the passenger planes we all think we saw hit the towers.
Now the biggest problem with all those assumptions comes in. Not one single person, through guilt, financial gain, wanting to see their loved ones or just for the sheer fun has ever come forward to say they were involved. Thousands dead and not a single voice heard, and the amount of people required to pull off this level of illusion is significant.
I'm afraid that's where Occam's Razor really backfires on you. The assumptions that have to be made to support it not being those passenger planes that flew into the towers are far greater than those required to support it being so.
^
Very well-said.
Speed is not secondary, speed is directly correlated with dynamic pressure at given altitude. Dynamic pressure is result of speed. What brakes aircraft structure are forces initiated by pressure caused by speeding over the limit for given altitude.
You have documentary on YT about B767 Egypt air disaster caused by increase of diving speed over the limit that resulted with total structural failure.
Anyway, I gave you all the facts and opinions of people that are doing this stuff every day for living. What you will conclude and who will you believe is up to you. I concluded... as I said earlier...
@Schofie
I don't want to be disrespectfull, but managing people performing aircraft maintenance is not the same as working with design and evaluation of aircraft structures. Different set of skills neccessery, at least... That it is so is obvious from general remark from your father about how strong are passenger jets nowadays. I show you a graph, you show me graph, formulae or even literal description (I will manage somehow) and then we are talking!
Last edited by gollUM; 5th August 2017 at 15:15.
Surely if we apply Occom's razor here, the most plausible solution with least assumptions would be.......that Bin Laden orchestrated a horrific attack on America by flying two hijacked airplanes into the twin towers which eventually collapsed due to the extreme temperatures of the internal fires causing the steel to warp, stretch and twist. In collapsing, a huge chunk of tower 7 was gouged out, in turn causing that tower to collapse.
Last edited by mr noble; 5th August 2017 at 15:23.
I guess what it's saying is that whilst dynamic pressure is a problem there becomes a point well in excess of its given speeds it's not an issue. For instance when exaggerated forces are placed upon it.Originally Posted by gollUM
In level flight after a drop in altitude with clear skies is one time when these forces may not play a bigger part as they can do. I guess the truthers are really identifying this small piece of information and making much bigger of it than really needs to be.
I saw something looking like 2 planes hitting the towers and it's really as simple as that. As the saying goes if it looks like a duck........
^
Indeed. Although it's a waste of time trying to reason with these people.
Also, if it writes like a semi-literate... ;)
Your sniping and rudeness just about undermines any credibility that you might have had.
I'm no expert, but my guess from having read his/her posts is that English isnt their first language, and despite this they are doing very well explaining extremely complex concepts to chumps like me, who have no understanding of the fineries of aerodynamics.
You on the other hand, I suspect have no such excuse.
I'm sure it s not your intention to come acorss like a small minded bigot, so lets try and keep it civilised on what is shaping up to be 'thread of the week. Well, for me anyway
Hallelujah
We'll just have to disagree on that one then.
Why don't you answer the second part of my post, regarding the size of conspiracy required to pull off replacing passenger planes and orchestrating the deaths of those on the planes etc etc? That larger point has been conveniently dodged. Please, I would love to know how at least hundreds of people, which is surely what it would take to achieve such a feat, can all be kept quiet decades later. Not a single voice involved in it corroborating such an action when there are whistleblowers for much smaller acts in daily life.
This is the part I find unfathomable, that someone can believe it less likely a plane did something possibly against what they say its tolerances are, than a mass of people all colluding in what would have to be the biggest illusion ever seen by gargantuan proportions; and there never be a sniff of it apart from a graph.
Last edited by Schofie; 5th August 2017 at 15:52.
It's interesting no one seems to of mentioned the aquasition the the WTC some 6 months before by The Silverstein group .
The WTC was a ticking time bomb in terms of hazardous building materials used in its construction and the bill to remove this was climbing at regular intervals .
The Silverstein group made a huge profit on the loss of the buildings as they had covered acts of terrorism on their insurance policy .
The buildings came down in an identical way as a control demolition , it's plainly obvious , sure they were hit by planes but what better way to avert attention from the real causation of the collapse .
Planes hitting the buildings the way they did would never cause high rise blocks to collapse ,
Look at the awful Grenfell fire . There was easily far more heat over a much more prolonged period and the building is still standing.
There are agreed lots of additional conspiracy theories online that travel down silly illogical paths and get carried away but 911 was not as it appears in any logical sense .
Civilised?
Hey, I'm not the one tossing around slanderous accusations of mass murder here.
@Schofie
You mean something like Pearl Harbour? When everybody and then some (English sub that informed everybody up to the Churchill, American president who ordered to Hawaii Navy Commander to hush about it, Navy intelligence who informed higher Command about possibility of attack... and so on) knew that Japanese will attack and when. And then conveniently Hawaii were left to defend themselves with only about 30 planes, and almost entire Pacific fleet anchored in harbour exactly on that day. You think about something like that?
Or about WMD in Irak, mentioned earlier, while international team of monitors warned that there is no such things in production in Irak... except things sold to Irak by USA (chemical weapons precisely) used to bomb the Kurds!? Something like that? :)
Or Afghanistan, occupied country that is still producing approx. 75 percent of world's opium production although occupied by biggest Army in the world accompanied by DEA ongoing operation since beggining of occupation. Something like that?
There is no such thing as impossible conspiracy, when state interests of some particular states are involved! Although, I am not concerning myself about this stuff... I like aircraft! :)
@Beligero
Thank you very much for your kind words. I learned alot about people reading your comments througout this thread.
Most important thing is that you have fun, this is forum... at the end, not that we will solve something smart here...
Last edited by gollUM; 5th August 2017 at 16:14.
As you say - an interesting theory. I enjoyed the program.
Despite being reluctant to stick my head above this particular parapet....
If you are in a position where you are desperate enough to fake an incident like this in order to cement your position, then actually pulling it off is the easy part.
The lack of guilt in staging this event suggests that murdering those aboard the ill-fated flights would be a relatively mundane act of 'mopping up' (no disrespect intended). A complicit media would eagerly cover your tracks, in fact they would go one better, reinforcing the official story, blacking-out contrary disclosures and conflicting witness testimony and, of course, belittling those that seek alternative answers as 'tin foilers' etc
I'd go so far as to say that those who might be left that are in a position to say they were complicit in staging the event, are either in too deep with those in power that they have too much to lose to speak out, infact, they would lose everything and everyone. The powerful are rewarded with more power, at the cost of conscience and integrity. Those that aren’t willing to continue in this exchange are murdered themselves, or put under such fear or duress that they will never speak out. Their silence is assured, if not guaranteed.
The only way left to get to the truth is to think outside the box, to critically question and analyse information that is purported to be fact. Draw your own conclusions from what you know of the world, how it is run and maybe therein contextualise the facts of the matter under examination.
I am learning a lot on this thread. I'm no expert on 911 and there is some compelling discussion that is very enlightening. There are also learning’s of human nature, and how we respond to ideas that force us to question our own premises of authority, governance and how the answers to those questions may force us to review our conception of the cosy realities that we construct ourselves.
In my mind, all of the passengers were murdered. The only question is whether we think such an act is beyond the powers of an elected government, or purely the remit of ‘terrorists’. History would suggest that terrorists do not have exclusivity on mass murder.
Last edited by Hewjardon; 5th August 2017 at 16:31.
All I shall say here is that those who genuinely believe the WTC attack was faked must go on the run, forget about internet, mobile phones, bank cards and all that will allow them to trace you because they can't have people like you opening the eyes of the public. As the only answer to Schofie's query is that all those about to reveal the scam must have been dealt with.
Be very afraid.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
He bought the lease - in a group - alongside General motors.
ZOMG! General Motors was behind 9/11!
I wasn't going to join into the discussion seeing as I am not qualified to make any comments but... come on now... Pearl Harbour an inside job?
What will you nutters come up with next? The Japanese were too proud to just surrender so they bombed their own cities to make it look like they had no other choice?
Do you even realise how pathetic and ridiculous some of the theories you people come up with sound?
If a State was going to stage a 'terrorist incident', there are a lot easier and less risky ( to be found out ) ways of doing it than staging a incident like 911, like has been said in this thread, there have been loads of occasions where aircraft both civilian and military have been flown way outside their build specs and not disintegrated, I don't really accept that pilots can't reproduce the flight in a simulator, unless someone try's it in a real 767 you can't know for sure.
Cheers..
Jase
The rate this thread is going, someone will next be saying that a pilot landed a plane on the Hudson
Why not?
As far as I know a plane didn't crash into Grenfell tower and in the process, dump several tons of jet fuel to feed the fire, in addition to the actual damage done by the impact itself.
sent from TZ-UK mobile app
Also, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, Grenfell Tower's structural columns and beams were concrete, not steel like WTC's, so inherently A LOT more fire resistant
No but the jet fuel would of detonated instantly and only caused marginal heat from the floors in close proximity to the detonation , the Grenfell tower roasted for hours from the bottom up , and as heat generally rises its hard to understand how impact and fire on a few floors very high up can affect the foundations so much that they give way and allow a building to structurally collapse perfectly just the same as controlled detonations are done to minimise danger to other buildings and ease the cleanup process .
The foundations of the towers didn't give way though did they. They collapsed from the areas of impact and came down on themselves, which was clear for all to see. Unless that was also faked across all media cameras simultaneously
As above - several floors collapsed (the impacted ones) and the momentum of the floors above collapsed the whole structure,.
There was a group of demolition experts who theorised that the work involved to bring down the towers was impossible. Firstly there was no detonation lines found in the rubble for which there would have been literally miles of. To enable this to happen they would have had to expose the beams and cut through them partially. All of this was going in in a busy trade centre with literally hundreds of people working and visiting all day every day.
When this was put to the tin hat brigade they then came up with the crack pot explanation of a new and previously unseen type of thermite being used.
I think this thread demonstrartes how difficult it is to 'open the eyes of the public'. As has been said before, to accept the alternative 911 theory/ies is to admit that everything we take to be concrete and immovable is an illusion. And that is more than most people can, or will, get their heads around. Having to question everything you beleive and have been told, possibly undermine the foundations of relationships, question personal concpets of morality, power, authority etc is more than most people can be arsed with. I mean, why would you? Well, at worst you will have engaged in some independent thought and maybe some reasoned argument and critical thinking. Not bad things.......
Many, many people know the real truth about this event but they are so invested in its outcomes that they will never speak out. They wouldn't even think about it. It is as simple as that. Normal 'morally good' thoughts of, 'how could one cover-up such a huge event without someone speaking out?', really dont apply here. Under the circumstances, its quite a quaint outlook. And, yes, its a nice thought, but in those raraefied stratospheres I fear that your moral compass no longer determines your direction. You dont speak out if you fear for your life, your families life, fearful of losing your career, have been entraped into commiting incriminating acts etc And you certainly dont speak out if this is the way that you, your peers and those that have gone before you conduct their business as a matter of course.
Your mistake in asking 'where are those people speaking out?', presupposes a level of morality in such persons that ceased to exist a long. long time ago.
Last edited by Hewjardon; 5th August 2017 at 18:04.
The weight of a few floors which consists of flooring and ceiling the rest is Air in between dropping say 15 feet over five floors caused the whole building to drop in such a perfect way ?
I haven't put forward my thoughts on any of the substantive issues being discussed, save to say that the pasengers were murdered.
I know nothing of demolition, but I know enough about life to do my own due diligence and to form my own opinion.
Within the WTC, I guess there are service areas, staircases etc that are off-limits to the public that would be conducive to planting high explosives. I dont know.
The movies always show some swarthy Brit using a mobile phone to detonate her explosives, so are 'miles of detonation line' absolutely necessary using such technology?. Again, I have no idea!
Maybe there is a 'unseen type of thermite'. I'm not even sure what thermite is, but I know that military technology is approx 50 years ahead of that which has been subject to public disclosure, which suggests I should do some of my own due diligence on your 'thermite' theory.
Clearly I need to do some more reading.
Boo, boring reading. Maybe I'll just do a 10 second Google search and quickly re-hash the top 5 results into some sort of wierd, hybrid non-opinion and then report back here within minutes, and if anyone debates me I'll call them a condescending name, and then wave my punctilious finger at my non-fact based, non-opinion whilst shouting down all those dumb idiots that disagree with me.
Just two words, Newton laws. When something is pressing from above, thingy below presses with equal force thingy that is pressing from above. Due to the fact that thingy below is stronger structuraly than thingy above, because if it was not building would not stand all those years, theory is impossible!
Even NIST quit on this theory, it was called "pancake theory", and they abandoned it very fast.
Where did he say any of that? You are making stuff up that he never said in order to support your own argument. Do you not think that is pretty pathetic and ridiculous?
https://youtu.be/8tgQ75GxAZk
The magnitude of what happened and the Tower 7 demolition
What a complete load of testicles. This is to put one group of people who support the conspiracy theory into the 'enlightened, free thinking' group and those who don't into the 'sheep' group. If you really think reality is that black and white then there's some critical thinking you should do right there.
I would happily accept any facts that prove the conspiracy theory, and see those responsible brought to justice, but there aren't any. Just conjecture and counter-argument.
Do I sit feeling safe at home in delusional bliss? Fekk no. We have politicians starting proxy wars for oil; the same ones supplying arms to countries that support terrorism; other politicians allegedly colluding with Russia to steal an election; maniacs blowing themselves up and killing children; and thousands of people living in camps because they've been displaced by war. Exactly how closed to you think my eyes are?
I like facts, well represented and supported facts. In the absence of any I will form an opinion, which is what every other post on this thread is. Will I listen to other opinions and facts? Of course, that's what our grandparents fought to protect and my mind is changed on a daily basis on very many things, especially with having two young kids.
What I will not take is you simplifying my own questioning of these conspiracy theories into a category of 'sheep', because it does not exist and I am most definitely not that.
Enjoy your evening
Last edited by Schofie; 5th August 2017 at 18:50. Reason: Typo
True but you make no mention of the momentum from the thingy above when crashing in to the thingy below. It wasn't as if the thingy above was already gently resting on the thingy below was it?
So are you saying that the reported way it collapsed was also impossible or again did I read that incorrectly?
It's inferred from the part of his comment that I have quoted. I thought it was obvious since it was the only bit that I have kept in the quote
And I am not trying to support anything since I couldn't care less either way
So he didn't say it? ok.
I don't think I have ever heard anyone comment that Pearl Harbour was an inside job.
I merely stated that President of the US knew about the attack and did nothing to prevent it, it is historical fact. Some 3.000 Americans lost lives that day, if I am not mistaken.
Same as for example with Tonkin bay incident. Never happened but it drew USA into the Vietnam war. Some 55.000 Americans lost their lives there, if I am not mistaken.
Just that... no hidden meaning!
I don't know much about airplanes and structural designs so I didn't comment directly on the matter. I do know a little more about physics, and certainly plenty enough to see that you posted the words but you don't really understand what they mean. Since reasoning factually is difficult, I suggest you apply your understanding of Newton laws (I suppose you refer to his 3rd law) to a game of genga or to a house of cards.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Dare I say it, but I think we are essentially saying the same thing.
My comments are intended to be general in nature, and certainly not directed at any one poster. Apologies if that wasn't apparent. It was not my intention to presuppose a division into two camps, clearly there are huge grey areas where every opinion is equally valid.
Free thought and enlightenment are inclusive concepts. They are tools for everyone, not the preserve of those who to chose to believe one thing, or another. There is no exclusivity over free thought or opinion, whatever you chose to believe. Problems and conflict usually arise when topics become emotive, which is what I was clumsily trying to allude to. I certainly wasn't trying to simplify a topic that has been adequately demonstrated as well beyond my limited frames of reference.
Sorry for any offence, but like you, I stand by my opinion.
And enjoy your evening too, these debates are interesting and fun, thanks for getting the ball rolling :-)
M-O-M-E-N-T-U-M.........
AIR......... Sweet Jesus!
I read a book called Extreme Prejudice by Susan Lindauer.
Certainly got the cogs working...
Appreciate the clarity and yes it looks like we're in violent agreementLots of emotive posts which is a shame really as the underlying debate is an interesting one. Not just about the different theories but also the psychology of belief, ego and emotion. So easy to get sucked into the drama as I clearly demonstrated!
I can understand why you are nervous, but where am I wrong... precisely.
Because although the towers had a redundant safety system in place the resulting accumulative effect of the towers collapsing was enough.
Don't understand why the 3rd law has anything to do with this.
Ahhh... OK! But I will wait for the Saint Just also. :)
You may want to ask a QS or structural engineer what a the weight of a 'few floors' is. And don't forget about 200 tons of Boeing.
The weight of a few floors isn't an issue is it?
The building is designed to hold the weight of those floors up, no matter what happens.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
He's probably out enjoying the evening.
Indeed it is, for all of us :)
And maybe thats why these things (WTC) are planned (IF they are planned) on such a grand scale, precisley because such high levels of emotion and drama have a tendency to suspend our critical faculties. And while we are busy digesting these dramas, we are actively looking for an explanation. Thus, when an apparently credible narrative is provided, it is swiftly embraced and gives us a degree of peace. In the wrong hands, this inherent human condtion could easily be exploited, if for example, you wanted to plant a false narrative.
Its only when the dramatic dust settles that we can take off the emotive blinkers and try and acheive a coherent, objective, analyisis of events. And I think that is what you have started here, to a lesser or greater degree ;-)
Who knows!
Not the place to give a physics lesson. Apply your post to a house of cards and see if it works for you. Regardless of what you believe caused the initial explosion, both the destruction at the point of impact and the energy released by the explosion offset the static equilibrium you referred to. Every time a new support beam failed, the equilibrium was further displaced towards a total collapse.
You may question the fact that the towers both fell on themselves, in a way that would have challenged a demolition engineer. But invoking Newton 3rd law is misguided.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Mornington Crescent.
It wouldn't be the first time the American government harmed its own people in order to justify war.
The American government is epically corrupt and there are too many odd events that make up 911 to ignore the conspiracy theories.
- all scrambled fighters jets were sent in the opposite direction to the hijacked airliners.
- the twin towers should not have fallen after the impact or exposure to the ignited jet fuel.
- no one has been able to explain why explosions where seen on each floor just before they collapsed.
- why did tower 7 get demolished and how were they able to demolish it so quickly?
I watched it unfold live on TV too. Most of the world did. That means nothing.
There's too much footage for anyone to claim aircraft weren't involved. If you believe what the US government tells you, then I'm sorry but you've been brain washed.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by barkington; 5th August 2017 at 22:21.
Posting Permissions
