evince
Truthmatters
Then tell me how the air forced out lower windows in al perfect line going UP in a wonderful little timed sequence?
Is it crazy to distrust the official 911 story?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Then tell me how the air forced out lower windows in al perfect line going UP in a wonderful little timed sequence?
Litmus
Verified User
The neocons did it. No doubt about it in my mind.
Don't blame all the NeoCons....5 minutes after the first plane hit, Cheney sent his daughter Mary up to Building 7 in a cute little Firewomens outfit to wire up the charges....but keep this under your hat...its top secret..
Yes, it does. One more time you give evidence that you simply do not read anything that doesn't support your view. It is very easy to keep a point of view if you simply ignore any evidence to the contrary to the point of repeating what was already discussed.
Plus WTC 7 was not pulled by cables, WTC 6 was because it was tilting towards other buildings that it could damage. You can even watch the rest of the video of that guy talking of pulling WTC 6 and see them actually pull the building with the cables, but that part is usually cut off on the conspiracy sites. Of course, the full video was available on the site at the link I provided, but you didn't watch it. It would actually give you information, something you appear to avoid when speaking on this subject.
The "pulled" was the team of firefighters in the building for WTC 7. I even posted the stories from the firefighters themselves.
While "pulled" is used in building demolition when they directionally pull the building with cables to direct the demolition, it is also used in firefighting when they pull us out of buildings that are dangerous to the firefighters and likely to collapse on them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
photoshop
I'll explain all that when you tell me what was happening inside that building, which floors collapsed and in what order, along with the status of open or closed doors and the condition of the inside walls....we'll work on it....
then we'll figure out where the hell that damn disappearing elephant goes in the magic shows.....
Litmus
Verified User
I don't think he needs to explain all that for you to explain how windows could break that way. You're in denial.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Would they also be able to manuever these planes better than combat pilots and experienced commercial pilots could? Why would these pilots question this fantastic story if it was so easy? Don't they know the requirements of flying heavy aircraft better than you? Wouldn't American heroes like Bowman and Wittenberg know that all that is needed is 30 minutes behind a simulator?
Would they be able to fly all over the country flawlessly?
How did they find these buildings they were aiming at?
Why was there so much made of them taking flight lessons if any dork could jump into the cockpit and fly it like better than experienced pilots.
Why were they taking flight lessons in the first place if they already knew how to fly? Wouldn't that be risky and expose their plans?
While we're at it, why weren't fighters scrambled from Andrews AFB to intercept them? That airspace is the most protected airspace in the world and Andrews exists to protect that airspace. When fighters were belatedly scrambled, they came from Ohio, not the airbase 10 minutes away. Why is that?
I don't know what their agenda is, but I asked my brother, my friend, my friend's mother (all of them pilots all of them fly passenger flights), and the three Navy pilots that I still am in contact with and all informed me that it not only could be done, but wouldn't be that difficult.
I will 100% trust a source I know over a source I do not know. I am assured of their expertise while I don't even know if somebody who is billed as "Lt. Col. Whatsisname" was ever even in the military, let alone touched a plane.
Anyway, if you want to actually read an article by somebody that I know is an actual pilot of the same types of aircraft you can read it here:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Salon has this regularly. You could even ask him a question of your own. It is "Ask the Pilot"...
Here is what it says, because I know you will ignore it and simply repeat your stuff while never actually reading the thing...
Boy! I do agree with him there...
I snipped off a few portions where he describes the many different conspiracy theories, some of which have nothing to do with 9/11 and went directly into the "They were to inept to do that" portion of the article.
The article continues...
It describes people who say that Mike Walter's interview said he saw a "missile" when in reality he described an airplane before uttering the line "It was like a missile with wings!"
He has often been tracked down, according to his own account, and interviewed then called a "liar" by those interviewing him. (This is another fine example of the "theorists" fanatical devotion to their own view without regard to any evidence.)
There is more... I hope you actually read it. It gives you a clear idea of what people whom I am 100% positive are pilots have reported to me...
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Salon has this regularly. You could even ask him a question of your own. It is "Ask the Pilot"...
Here is what it says, because I know you will ignore it and simply repeat your stuff while never actually reading the thing...
Boy! I do agree with him there...
I snipped off a few portions where he describes the many different conspiracy theories, some of which have nothing to do with 9/11 and went directly into the "They were to inept to do that" portion of the article.
The article continues...
It describes people who say that Mike Walter's interview said he saw a "missile" when in reality he described an airplane before uttering the line "It was like a missile with wings!"
He has often been tracked down, according to his own account, and interviewed then called a "liar" by those interviewing him. (This is another fine example of the "theorists" fanatical devotion to their own view without regard to any evidence.)
There is more... I hope you actually read it. It gives you a clear idea of what people whom I am 100% positive are pilots have reported to me...
Litmus
Verified User
Not particularly. I do have a devotion to what I believe to be truth when I come by it honestly. The idea that they couldn't do this because they were "cavemen" as BAC put forward before is simply wrong on many levels. First the whole "cavemen" thing is just race baiting. As if people born in that area have some sort of ability lapse because they are Arabic, as well as the fact that the majority of them had graduated from college...
Second people I know for a fact that are pilots give me an entirely different story than what he tries to sell me.
As I said before, I think that many people in power are trying desperately to cover their own ineptitude and this causes many people to think there is a conspiracy. The only conspiracy here is people desperately trying to make themselves look better.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I respect your opinion and the opinions of people you trust .. but c'mon brother, let's talk like adults. Sure you know that Lt. Col. Bowman was in the military and his record is easily found. Don't go there, it's unbecoming of a thinker, which I consider you to be.
I have no idea how those you spoke to could say that flying heavy aircraft all over the country flawlessly and executing difficult manuevers is easy.
That simple makes no sense at all.
This makes sense to me ..
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
excerpt ---
"The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.
But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.
In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”
Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."
---
"According to FAA radar controllers, Flight 77 then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which Hanjour allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).
The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."
And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his missile was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon, and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
more at link ..
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=5115
That makes sense to me and coincides with what I've heard pilots to say.
Flying heavy aircraft without training cannot be easy, especially in the flawless manner of 9/11. That would be ridiculous.
Litmus
Verified User
Just the fact that it looked exactly like one of those controlled demolitions is enough for me. It was a false flag attack to achieve political ends. These were cia trained operatives.
Litmus
Verified User
The people who run this country run it for their friends and don't care about the people. What else can explain this last year when the president and both parties were trying to ram immigration reform through and then seemed shocked people didn't want it, and started ridiculing their own electorate. They should be run out of town on a rail.
Last edited:
They won't be, they've got about 40% of the electorate starting to believe them.
Litmus
Verified User
THey will be. Their game is over.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Why do you assume that you are the only honest debater between us?
First, my reference to "cavemen" is due to the factual knowledge that these guys hid in caves, not because of any racial implications. Shouldn't you know better? I'm the one who argues AGAINST the stupidity about arab propensity for violence and against the hate of muslims and against the stupidity of Islamophobia.
I read your article and here's what it says about the pilot and writer, Patrick Smith .. "Patrick Smith is an airline pilot."
Again, here are the credentials of the pilot I believe ..
Lt. Col Robert Bowman USAF, Ph.D in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, Former Director of the Star Wars Program in the Ford and carter Administrations, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, former Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church, recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Republic Aviation Airpower Award, the Society of American Military Engineers' ROTC Medal of Merit (twice), the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, the Meritorious Service Medal, and numerous other awards, and one of the America's foremost authorities on national security.
Yet, you discount Bowman and pretend you don't know if he was even in the military. That's not honest. You believe Smith because you want to believe Smith. Quite obviously, Smith's credentials don't come anywhere near that of Bowman by a huge margin.
Does Smith have a Ph.D in Aeronautics?
Has he flown combat missions?
Has he worked inside the Pentagon .. in both republican and democrat administrations?
Has he ever been the head of Star Wars?
Does he hold anywhere near the medal, awards, and commendations that Bowman has?
I also gave you a list of very experienced pilots, some of them American heroes who have collectively flown hundreds, if not thousands of combat missions, and who have proven their loyalty to this country at the risk of their own lives. Yet you discount them and rely on the statement of "an airline pilot."
You criticize others for believing what they want, then you prove that you do the exact same thing.
The part you snipped off was very telling as Smith rambled about other "conspiracy theories" .. but he avoided the "conspiracy theories" that have been proven true .. like ...
Saddam does not have WMD
or this war is about oil
or the Jessica Lynch story was fabricated
or there is more to the Pat Tillman story than this administration is telling
or the US knew that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked
or the Gulf of Tonkin tale is a lie
or the toppling of Saddam's statue was a Hollywood stunt
or the FBI and the government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center bombing and allowed it to happen when they could have stopped it
or the Bush Administration conspired with Britain to make a case to go to war with Iraq
or Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen
Downing Street memo
Yellow cake uranium fraud
Intentional outing of Valarie Plame
etc, etc, etc throughout our history
All so-called conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
Every investigation begins with a "conspiracy theory."
Why would I doubt that Smith is saddled by the same dissonance from reality that you seem to be? If he's giving advice as a pilot, shouldn't his expertise be relagated to flying? What was that other bullshit about?
I also looked for and read other articles by Smith and it's obvious that the man has an agenda as he delves into all manner of political and social subjects. What agenda would American heroes have in risking their careers to state what they believe is the truth?
If we're to discuss this honestly, you need to come down off that high horse my brother and stop acting like you are the proprietor of truth and those who challenge the unbelievable are idiots and simply "fanatical" and holding only to what they believe. You just did the same thing.
While you celebrate this ...
The fact is the human proclivity to reject what they do not want to believe is stronger than the proclivity for analysis.
Case in point .. Iraq and the overwhelming support for the invasion based on what was the most obvious lies ever told. How much "proclivity" was needed to know that "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes" was a lie from the very beginning? How much intelligence was required to know this war was a fraud from the very beginning? Those of us .. conspiracy theorists .. who argued against the idiocy of believing anything Americans were told to believe were met by people just like you my brother who so vehemently and adamantly argued the impossible and who had the temerity and balls to call us "moonbeams" and "tin foil hats." You may not have argued for Iraq, but you demonstrate the same characteristics of those who did.
If the theory fell only on the impossibility that these guys who hid in caves could not have piloted these planes, then you might have a point. But there are a thousand things wrong with the fairy-tale and if this was being ajudicated in a courtroom it would be an open and shut case.
This issue will be defined and ultimately judged on the facts, not pompous disbelief and a refusal to look closely in the mirror.
Additionally, I've asked you about a dozen times why the Bush Administration covered up, removed, and destroyed critical crime scene evidence and you keep running. Strap on your track shoes because I'm going to keep on asking until you answer.
I also posted the overwhelming evidence that the Bush Administration knew 9/11 was about to happen, followed the orders of PNAC, and rewarded those who participated in the fraud. You didn't address that either, nor present counter evidence.
Last edited: