Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[WWu777]

So I guess that means that all the other air traffic controllers are either part of The Conspiracy, are speaking up against it, or have been cowed into silence?

In any case, if it is true that interception it would always be expected that a flight would be intercepted in X(*) minutes after air traffic controllers realising something was wrong, most sane conspiracy plotters would do their best to do their [actual or imaginary] taking over and crashing of the aircraft within that time window, which would then remove the need to worry about interception.

(*In practice, unless it was already obvious the passengers were going to die anyway, shooting down an airliner full of people (especially over a populated area) seems to be the kind of decision that might take some extra time to make, which would give some extra leeway to the plotters.)

However, for [real or fake] terrorists taking planes over, being shot down isn't necessarily a total failure, since the passengers and crew on the plane still die, there may be deaths on the land if the shooting-down takes place over a populated area, and there's still huge publicity for little cost.

Well you gotta be realistic and understand that if you are still employed with the FAA and start coming out with conspiracy claims about 9/11, you could easily be dismissed from your job. That's why the experts in the films I cited are all retired. If you are still employed, and say those things, you could lose your job.

Remember that conformity is required when you are part of an organization.

And besides, most people are working slaves to the system and when they come home, they want to relax and watch some mindless entertainment that doesn't require you to think or soak in details. Most people only know what they hear on CNN and NBC too. In other words, most Americans, including air traffic controllers, have not researched this subject or watched any of the many films on it. You gotta take that into account. Most don't even remember the collapse of Building 7.

If the two films I strongly recommended were shown on national TV in America, I guarantee that a lot more people would disbelieve the official account.

The rest of what you say is speculation. The point is that the four airliners were off course for too long. Some jet fighters should have been scrambled within 15 minutes. They weren't. The rest of what you say is speculation since no jet fighters intercepted the airliners.

Listen to what Robin Hordon has to say about the whole thing in the film "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11". His clip starts from part 4 or 5. You can tell from the clip that he is an authority on this subject and knows what he's talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

[Matt]

Wow there's two of them now, and it looks like we're starting again from scratch with "near freefall speeds" and other such bullshit.

Why couldn't he just stick with massive amounts of incompetence or deliberate inside interference I don't know. I could have stuck with him there (though I'd have to ask his self proclaimed NORAD expert what proportion of hijacked planes actually do get blown out of the sky.) That would have been interesting but no. He just had to go overboard and present the straw man that the steel melted and infer controlled demolition this proclaiming him a loony.

Sorry I've got a load on at work so I can't go through these tried old canards again.

Good luck guys, I'm adjourning for now.

[Admin]

If the two films I strongly recommended were shown on national TV in America, I guarantee that a lot more people would disbelieve the official account.

That's undoubtedly true. However, does that mean that the content is true/factual or would it simply show that people believe what they see/hear/read?

The rest of what you say is speculation. The point is that the four airliners were off course for too long. Some jet fighters should have been scrambled within 15 minutes. They weren't. The rest of what you say is speculation since no jet fighters intercepted the airliners.

Can you elaborate here. Why should some jet fighters have been scrambled within 15 minutes?

Is there evidence to show that the hijacked jets' status as having been hijacked was known at some point (remember, the hijackers turned off the transponders which are used to track the aircraft) and that interceptor fighter jets were deliberately not scrambled?

If you can prove that this is the case then all good and well (I look forward to seeing the proof) but if you can't, then you're simply asserting claims without evidence - i.e. speculating.

Bryan's approach here has been to assert claims and assume they're true unless others can prove them false (the Argument to Ignorance fallacy). Perhaps you can do better.

[tolman]

- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report otherwise).

So you've made your mind up that no flight recorders were found, then dismiss ones that survived the crashes as being fakes on the basis that you already know that there aren't any, then carry on claiming that it's bizzare that none were found.

Still, it's good to see you have enough sense of humour to call yourself a free-thinker and true self-doubting skeptic.

[tolman]

In other words, most Americans, including air traffic controllers, have not researched this subject or watched any of the many films on it. You gotta take that into account.

Why would an air traffic controller need to research anything to see how suspicious events were, if they are anywhere near as suspicious as you claim?
Surely they'd know from their job, the same way your experts would know?

The rest of what you say is speculation. The point is that the four airliners were off course for too long. Some jet fighters should have been scrambled within 15 minutes. They weren't. The rest of what you say is speculation since no jet fighters intercepted the airliners.

But the point is simply that unless someone running a conspiracy actually wanted it to get larger and therefore less robust and less secure, if they were faced with an issue over possible interception, the way to deal with that is a plan that avoids it being a problem, not going for the course of trying to get a large number of people whose job is to defend the country to conspire in the deaths of thousands of their fellow citizens.

Even approaching a single person to try and get them to do that would be a huge gamble - trying to do it over and over is simple insanity.

Life really isn't like James Bond, with evil cat-stroking geniuses.
You might learn that when you grow up.

[chaggle]

The point is that the four airliners were off course for too long.

Hi WWu777. Why don't you discuss this with bryan? He says there were no planes.

[bryan]

Hi WWu777. Why don't you discuss this with bryan? He says there were no planes.

Why don't you discuss gagging laws with DrS? Since you (worryingly) agree with me, you could argue the case for freedom of speech, especially now I'm banned from posting in the other sections.

[PaulW99]

I'm a bit late to the party, but welcome WWu777!

We have a fellow here called bryan who says there were no planes on 911.
Could you please set him straight? Thanks.

Bryan - look, another nut who was taken in by the "simple conjuring trick"!
Sort him out, would you?

Will the REAL skeptic please stand up?

[skbuncks]

skb

[tolman]

Why don't you discuss gagging laws with DrS? Since you (worryingly) agree with me, you could argue the case for freedom of speech, especially now I'm banned from posting in the other sections.

'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that any old [or young] fuckwit has the right to go wherever they choose in the real or virtual world and rant on about their delusions as long as they want to.

[bryan]

Bryan's approach here has been to assert claims and assume they're true unless others can prove them false (the Argument to Ignorance fallacy). Perhaps you can do better.

This is the trick of accusing your enemy of your own crimes.

Below are two quotes. The first contains several assertions. The second (my first post here) is a request for the poster to back up his claims.

I wouldn't put it beyond certain elements of the administration at the time to instigate a false flag fake terrorist outrage in an effort at warmongering, but if you want to support that accusaiton you have to look to testimony from the likes of Richard Clarke, there the most you seem to be able to find is evidence of a LIHOP scenario. However even if you do choose to make the leap to a plausible MIHOP set up the evidence is clear that their methods certainly involved the recruiting of genuine islamists who believed they were acting in the interests of Islam. These people certainly did board planes armed with little more than box cutters. The plane crews apparently followed SOP in offering minimal resistiance in a hijacking situation. History at that time showed that negotiation was the best way to preserve lives. Then three of the planes certainly hit high profile targets within a few minutes of each other and history changed.

What makes you so certain the hijackers boarded the planes? Have you seen their names on the flight manifests? Have you seen the ticket stubs or boarding passes? Have you seen CCTV footage of the hijackers checking in at the airports in question? Have you seen transcripts of witness statements from the check-in staff? Please provide links or references.

As it turns out, no credible evidence was ever provided.

[bryan]

'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that any old [or young] fuckwit has the right to go wherever they choose in the real or virtual world and rant on about their delusions as long as they want to.

Or that historians, chemists and other researchers have the right to question Big Brother's version of history?

[DrS]

I gave you a brief (not remotely exhaustive) list of research that disproves your "historians are gagged" stance. Did you see it?

[Matt]

As it turns out, no credible evidence was ever provided.

Plenty of evidence was produce you lying sack of shit. All of it was credible you lying sack of shit. That you claimed without justification that you dismissed the evidence as not credible is another matter entirely.

[WWu777]

Skeptics, here's a big question for you:

Do you think that US Navy Top Gun pilots and commercial airline pilots with 30+ years of flying experience, logging 23,000 hours of air-time, know their sh** regarding aviation maneuvers?

If so, do you think you are qualified to argue or disagree with them?

See below what the world's top pilots said about Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Pay attention to the part in bold.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen..._top_gun__.htm

Quote:


U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

So, one of the world's best pilots says he CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77, and that it's not possible. What does that tell you?

Are you more qualified than Commander Ralph Kolstad to comment on the maneuver of a 757? Do you have similar qualifications that he does? Have you logged 23,000 hours of flight time? Have you flown fighter jets and 757's for 40 years? What are YOUR qualifications against his?

Also, here is a similar statement from another experienced season pilot with 35 years experience flying commercial airlines and been on 100 combat missions for the Air Force. He explains below why Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible, even for the best pilots. Again, are you more qualified than he is about the plausibility of Flight 77's maneuvers on 9/11?! Pay attention to his words in bold below.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Quote:

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.



Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com

Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.

For more statements and analyses like these from many highly qualified veteran expert pilots with decades of experience in the Air Force and Commercial Airline Industry, see here:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html