Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Old Larry foreseen it. Reason why he insured his buildings to cover for the event. Strange that.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

An attack of this type had never been theorised so a defence had never been planned.

More truther bullshit, links here with sources.

Windfall

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Anyone care to answer?

- What are the odds that all the "black box" flight recorders were damaged beyond use?
- Why were the alleged hijackers' names not on the passenger lists?
- Why are several alleged hijackers reported to be still alive?
- Why did Mohamed Atta, one of the alleged hijackers, take a suitcase containing a curiously worded will and burial instructions on a suicide flight?
- Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers, given in a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston Air Traffic Control, not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claims were responsible?
- Why were none of the attacking planes intercepted? It is reported that planes are routinely intercepted if they deviate from their flight path and contact can't be made.
- How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals--the stated reason for not returning President Bush promptly to Washington on September 11?
- Why did the Justice Department deny a surveillance warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui? Since 1978, it is reported, more than 12,000 such warrants were issued, only Moussaoui's was denied.
- Why does the U.S. not hold hearings on these questions, when it would serve the U.S. objective of keeping Americans focused on the "war on terrorism?"

9/11: What Really Happened on September 11 Remains a Mystery

If you were to do your own homework you'd find all the answers.

I doubt anyone else can be arsed.

Especially when you post a dead link as well.

Why did a stewardess get a seat wrong? Stress maybe?

Why didn't the Washington plane get shot down? Perhaps it was about to be.

Why are "hijackers still alive"? Because they used fake passports.

All of this is really obvious shit, and already covered.

Can't you do any better than this nonsense?

As for "Why does the US not hold hearings", probably because like everyone else they know it's just another opportunity for lunatics to put on their tin foil hats and squeal.

In fact that site is a link to answers to most of dumb shit truthers blurt out.

http://www.911myths.com/indexold.html

You should research your questions there before you post them to save everyone time. As you can see, the post links to the sources they use, and its quite obvious that some of them get selectively edited by the loonies.

Of course, if you believe that that sheer volume of news sources are all telling lies, then you'd better lock yourself away from the New World Order and their Lizard headed alien friends.

Wow the NTSB did a brilliant job of faking all this data for imaginary aircraft, eh?



NTSB Release August 22 2006

^^His last link is ok, but the one before that seems a dud. ENT has done the same. Trouble is, ENT also posted a photo and commented on it, but it turned out to be a simulation

Halliburton harry along with ha-hazz-ard both eat out of the same petro-chem industry trough, so it's understable when they leap around squealing like girls over any opposition to the official 9/11 story.

Ya get that.

^^ Prove it.

Well, where are the uneven surfaces and smoke stains which would have been there if it was real ? And where did you get that photo, anyway ? Who took it ? Why is there no smoke between the camera and WTC tower ?

WTF R U on about?

At least give a reference, post # or something.

Originally Posted by ENT

That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists.

This one....from your post on page 149

Read the whole post next time, nitwit.

That diagram you're referring to is NIST's pathetic attempt at explaining the towers' collapse.

Originally Posted by ENT

Since 1989, the director of NIST has been a Schedule-C Presidential appointee and is confirmed by the United States Senate, and since that year the average tenure of NIST directors has fallen from 11 years to 2 years in duration.(Wikipedia)

The investigation was officially announced on Aug. 21, 2002. When the NCST Act was passed in October of that year, it required that the WTC investigation be conducted under its authorities. The draft report on the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was released for public comment on June 23, 2005; the final report was issued on Oct. 26, 2005.
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

It's not an independent body, but directed by the POTUS of the day, at that time GW Bush.

After Bush put NIST under the authority of NCST Act, it ceased to act independently of the government.


What does the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act do?

The act, signed into law on Oct. 1, 2002, by President Bush, authorizes the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) to establish teams to investigate building failures. These authorities are modeled
after those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for investigating transportation accidents.

NIST is a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
What was the previous authority under which NIST conducted structural failure investigations?
The legislative authority under which NIST conducted structural investigations prior to the NCST is
found in 15 U.S. Code Sec. 281a - Structural Failures.

This law states that “NIST, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures that are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.”

NIST also is a technical support agency within the Federal Response Framework as well as the National
Disaster Recovery Framework that outline how the federal government will responds to major disaster
declarations under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief And Emergency Assistance Act.

What was NIST’s prior role in the investigation of structural failure?
Prior to the enactment of the NCST, NIST’s role in the investigation of structural failures typically included:
establishing probable technical cause(s) of the high-magnitude consequences in the context of current
practice and codes and standards;

identifying issues and making safety recommendations for existing or new facilities through
improvements to codes, standards, and practices;

producing the technical basis for needed changes or improvements to practice or standards and codes
that will enhance public safety and health and homeland security; and,

preparing technically sound, archival, publicly available documents as references for future investigations or responsive actions.

A non-regulatory agency, NIST did not consider findings of fault, responsibility, or negligence. NIST’s
new authorities do not change that approach


This explains NIST's refusal to investigate the possibility of explosives or thermite used in the WTC demolition

AS a result, NIST also ignored and covered over the disclosure that several floors below the impact zone had been removed along with much of the internal fittings in all the other redundant unoccupied areas immediately below the impact zone prior to 9/11.


Shyam Sunder,NIST fire and research lab director, came up with all the b*llsh*t explanations of how the WTC buildings collapsed.

Exposed as a fraud,




Here's the fraud explaining his cooky cutter theory.



Another one of his hairbrained explanations, how the exterior beams of WTC1 and 2 snapped off in a straight line, an impossibility as the pillars were made of interlocking steel plates set in a zig-zag pattern.

That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists.






Here's the fraud attempting to explain the WTC demolitions.

So I watched the 1st part of the Pearl Harbor theory and came up with the same conclusion.

Conspirators are a bunch of nutters.

Jesus, 70 odd years have passed and no one put there hand up saying they where involved in the Pearl Harbor conspiracy.

I'll watch the rest of the shit tomorrow.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

At close to 1,000 ft above SL, the wind speeds in NY on 9/11 would definitely be three times more than at ground level, so 3 x 14 = 42 mph sustained wind speeds (according to official records) and gusting at 18.4 x 3 mph = 55.2 mph at 1,000 ft above SL yup, you have wind speeds that fit into rainfalls calculated paradigms.

"Would definitely be" is a completely meaningless phrase coming from you. It simply means "I fervently believe" and it's bullshit.

You have simply invented an arbitrary multiplier of "3" to fit the number that someone else actually MADE UP.

If we are to believe that airliners crashed into those towers, their fuel tanks were only filled to half capacity 11489/2 = 5,744.5 gal that day because of the short runs and low passenger levels.

All three aircraft were going to either LA or San Francisco. "Short Runs" Yet ANOTHER example of you fabricating the facts to fit your theories.

It isn't unreasonable to suggest that those flights were almost certainly specifically chosen because of their higher fuel loads.

Flt 175 was a Boeing 767-200ER, with a range of around 4,000 miles and a fuel capacity of aprox 11,000 gal. roughly 49,500 litres. or 55 tons of kerosene.

Distance from Boston to Los Angeles is 4,800 kilometres (2,987 miles) and a flying time of about 6.5 hours aprox.

The plane uses around an average of 3,200 litres of fuel per hour, X 6.5hrs = 20,800 litres of fuel to fly from Boston to LA. aprox.

That's less than half the plane's fuel capacity, around a quarter of the weight of the loaded plane.

Why would an airliner with only one sixth of normal passenger numbers carry enough fuel to go from Boston to LA and back? It could have refueled at LA for the return leg to Boston.

Carrying half its fuel capacity 5,500 gallons (close to 25,000 litres) would give it a comfortable safety margin of nearly 5,000 litres kerosene for emergencies, nearly one and a half hours flying, more than as required by law.

So on such flights, airliners weigh up the cost to weight ratio and load up with only sufficient fuel for the trip, not for two trips.
Otherwise if it was carrying extra tonnage of fuel with such a low payload of passengers, the flight would have been uneconomical.

If the plane that flew into the South Tower was in fact UA Flt 175 ( capacity of 375 passengers and luggage) from Boston to LA, then all it had on board was 56 passengers and crew, (only one sixth of its payload capacity) and around 5,000 gallons of kerosene.

So, IF that was Flt 175, there would have only been 5,000 gallons of fuel maximum, to burn.

The aircraft certainly appeared to be a large one, but not the correct profile for a Boeing 767-200 ER.

It was likely a 767-200-X, a military version, its forward fuselage is longer than a 767-200 ER.

Oh fuck now he's an aeronautical engineer!



By the way fuckstick.

Ever heard of CARGO?!




More Truther bullshit, and cnuts like ENT just lap the shit up:

Claim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories—specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.


FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

Arguing science with twats like ENT is like arguing with "intelligent designers" that men didn't ride Dinosaurs.



More science to cut through ENT's bullshit here:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes - Popular Mechanics

There's nothing really more to be said on this dogshit threat, ENT is going round in circles and talking about imaginary aircraft again. No matter what facts you put up, the little cultists cling to their beliefs and refuse to acknowledge anything but the half-truths and bullshit that support their delusions.

PM me when you've proven everything on either 911myths.com or Popular Mechanics using SCIENCE and EVIDENCE rather than "well the government got to them!". Otherwise this piece of shit thread belongs in the shithouse with it's proponents. It's not worth wasting any more time on.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

There's nothing really more to be said on this dogshit threat, ENT is going round in circles and talking about imaginary aircraft again. No matter what facts you put up, the little cultists cling to their beliefs and refuse to acknowledge anything but the half-truths and bullshit that support their delusions. PM me when you've proven everything on either 911myths.com or Popular Mechanics using SCIENCE and EVIDENCE rather than "well the government got to them!". Otherwise this piece of shit thread belongs in the shithouse with it's proponents. It's not worth wasting any more time on.

Good, you soppy liitle mug - piss off back to your android thread you plastic gunner.

"I work in the sand pit"

Course you do you liitle pussy hole - money's your only God.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by ENT

That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists.

This one....from your post on page 149

Were they cut at all? Can't produce that thing 417 metres long, and not welding the pieces has the benefit that one can replace a damaged section swiftly.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by ENT

That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists.

This one....from your post on page 149

Were they cut at all? Can't produce that thing 417 metres long, and not welding the pieces has the benefit that one can replace a damaged section swiftly.

If you look at the videos of the towers' collapse you'll see that the tops broke off along a straight line on a single floor level, then fell.

The structure was not built to break that way.

The whole outside structure was composed of staggered panels bolted and welded into place in a zig-zag pattern, so they would have broken apart that way too.


Below is a diagram of the NIST theory of the "clean break" collapse scenario, an impossibility due to how the facade was constructed.





Here's how the facade panels were fastened together, a zi-g-zag pattern.













As any engineer can tell you, a straight line is weaker than a curve or zig-zag, so the towers were built so as NOT to rip apart along a straight line.

Originally Posted by peterpan

"each alleged airliner" ENT my man, I think there was little doubt that the airplanes were real, not alleged. Or were the airplanes not real maybe?

Smelling the rat sitting on my nose

"Real" airliners comes in remote mode too

Originally Posted by ENT

I say :
"That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists."

Is all that too difficult for you to grasp?

Not at all.....there's just this one little turd you left : the fact that you are commenting on what looks to be a simulation :






and even if it is not, they do NOT look like they have been cut by charges. Where are the uneven surfaces and smoke damage ????