Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[josephpalazzo]

Mofo..someone said Elvis is hiding under your bed. :shock:

Sort of like your theory? The theory with multiple holes the size of the Marianas Trench in them? The theory that, if true, would only explain one aspect of the 9/11 attacks, and does not even adress any motive or means on how the demolitionists managed to do such?
Somehow I don't think Popular Mechanics has to worry about any competition.

It's all pimple cream dude..911 threw all that dust up and some kid's got dust particles in their sweat pores and SON OF A BITCH..pimples.. thus selling pimple cream to generations of acne covered teenage grease balls.
Anything to make a buck.

I can't believe that this thread is still happening.

And AtheistMoFo has yet to even turn up one stick of dynamite.

You got the order backwards. It's "everything you say is bullshit, therefor you are a conspiracy nut".

no don't you see, we refuse to blindly accept his claims at face value and demand crazy things like "proof" and "evidence" thus proving that we are all part of the conspiracy and trying to keep the public ignorant!

AtheistMoFo, the black helicopters are heading to your secluded cabin in the woods as we speak. (or type anyway.)

I think Thumpalumpacus is doing a plenty decent job at tearing you a new asshole right now. I have no particular desire to butt in. :)

When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.

But when the logic is faulty, the insults are deserving. But those insults don't always work, as the person with the faulty logic is trapped and, like a dog chasing its own tail, he goes round and round, endlessly.  :P

[AtheistMoFo]

I don't think that you can build a case on a single passport that seemed to survive the impact.

Right.  This was another point I have tried to make that none of you guys seem to get.  One odd occurence by itself means nothing.  But when taken in context of all the other events that defy common sense, you have to start wondering.

Gotta go to work now, so will only give one more instance for now and be back later with more.

Hani Hanjour  (Since we have already mentioned him.)

Considering that he had a total of 46 minutes experience in a 757, which is more likely: this pilot who can not safely fly a single engine Cessna performed a manoeuver that experienced pilots would find very difficult, or HH was not at the controls of AA77 when it hit the Pentagon?

[Plu]

How many Cessna's did he crash for the conclusion to be reached that he could not safely fly one? Or was it just this one instance of him not being rented a Cessna by one company that led you to the conclusion that he must be unable to fly?

[Jason78]

I don't think that you can build a case on a single passport that seemed to survive the impact.

Right.  This was another point I have tried to make that none of you guys seem to get.  One odd occurence by itself means nothing.  But when taken in context of all the other events that defy common sense, you have to start wondering.

Aircraft that size rarely crash into buildings as big as the WTC.   Since we've got so few data points to go on, it seems a bit premature to pick out something like that as odd.  It's all odd.

Considering that he had a total of 46 minutes experience in a 757, which is more likely: this pilot who can not safely fly a single engine Cessna performed a manoeuver that experienced pilots would find very difficult, or HH was not at the controls of AA77 when it hit the Pentagon?

Could a pilot with next to no training crash a plane?   I'd say that's a damn near certainty!

[Jason78]

I can't believe that this thread is still happening.

And AtheistMoFo has yet to even turn up one stick of dynamite.

When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.

That wasn't an insult.

That was an observation.

[Sargon The Grape]

When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.

Much like Creationists, you fail to be self-aware of when your statements get so ridiculous that we can no longer take you seriously.

[Thumpalumpacus]

*This is going to be a long post.  If you are literacy-challenged, please skip.*

It should be noted that those whom you are calling "no conspiracy" theorists actually think that there was a conspiracy, which encompasses 93 and the Pentagon strike as well as WTC.

FINALLY you have figured out what I have been trying to get across from the get-go.  The idea that ALL conspiracy theories are necessarily bullshit is preposterous.  But many of the participants in this debate persist in the childish bickerings of "You are a conspiracy theorist, a conspracy nut, therefore everything you say is bullshit."

Since the get-go, I have been trying to get the OCT camp to admit that we do agree on at least one thing:  There WAS a conspiracy.  There can be no question.  It is the "who, how and why" part we disagree on.

I don't know if you were here when we were discussing JFK's murder, but I believe that that was the result of a conspiracy.  I "finally" figured out that conspiracies do sometimes happen in, oh, 1985 or so, thanks.

Just because some conspiracies have occurred in history doesn't make your particular theory correct, though.  And my rejection is not out-of-hand, but rather, after careful consideration.

Right again!  So the argument is not whether or not there was a conspiracy, but which theory is more believable.

My contention is that when you look at all the factors from a neutral perspective, the Official Conspracy Theory is the most outrageous one of them all.

That is where you and I part company.

The Official Conspiracy Theory contends that Osama bin Laden, 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 UAE persons, 1 Egyptian, and a Lebanonese, plus the phantom "20th hijacker" (assumedly muslim) plotted the entire crime.  But why should we rule out the possibility that non-arab, non-muslims may have been in on it?  Maybe even some israelis?  Or Americans?  The only reason many of you now rule out that possibility is because you believe the official dogma.  It was all Al Qaeda, and no one else.  If you would think objectively, you would at least have to question the OCT.

You urging anyone else to "think objectively" on this matter is laughable.  Your subjective dislike of Jews, which has been made clear in several of your posts, clearly colors your appraisal of ambiguous facts, and causes you to discard facts which undermine your hypothesis (and I'm being generous using that word).  We have seen that in this very thread.

Also, the official theory includes KSM in the planning circle.  I wouldn't doubt if the circle of support the hijackers relied upon was larger than what is currently known or thought, myself.

MINDGAME: We know that police plant fake evidence on suspects only in movies and never in real life.  However, since 9/11 resembles a movie in so many ways, let's just hypothesize police planting a fake passport on the street close to the scene of the WTC destruction but at sufficient distance so it is not buried in the rubble.  Or on the other hand, let's hypothesize a passport (made of paper) survives an inferno that vaporizes the bodies of all passengers on the plane, as well as the two indestructible black boxes carried on every aircraft.  Which is more believable?

This is another ridiculous claim.  FDRs aren't "indestructible".  They are digital storage (or magnetic tape recorders) protected by tensile steel and include thermal protection, but they can be and have been destroyed in crashes before. Here's a photo of the CVR from American 77:



Here are the current survivability standards for FDRs:

Fire (High Intensity)   - 1100°C flame covering 100% of recorder for 30 minutes. (60 minutes if ED56 test protocol is used)
Fire (Low Intensity)   - 260°C Oven test for 10 hours
Impact Shock   - 3,400 Gs for 6.5 ms
Static Crush   - 5,000 pounds for 5 minutes on each axis
Fluid Immersion   - Immersion in aircraft fluids (fuel, oil etc.) for 24 hours
Water Immersion   - Immersion in sea water for 30 days
Penetration Resistance   - 500 lb. Dropped from 10 ft. with a ¼-inch-diameter contact point
Hydrostatic Pressure   - Pressure equivalent to depth of 20,000 ft.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flig ... order_(FDR)

I've emphasized a couple of standards which probably got a damned good stress-test that day.

And here's the lead from a news article about the Dana Air crash in Nigeria:

The Director of Engineering with the Accident Investigation Bureau (AIB), Mr. Emmanuel Dialla has revealed that the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), an essential component of the Dana Air plane, has been destroyed by post-crash inferno.

Mr Dialla who continued his testimony on Monday told the Coroner inquiring into the cause of death of the 153 persons on the Dana Air Crash of June 3rd, that the recorder was burnt due to the failure of extinguishing the post-crash inferno that lasted for 24hours.

http://www.channelstv.com/home/2012/08/ ... royed-aib/

Take note of the conditions said to have caused the FDR to be destroyed in Nigeria. The plane crashed into a building and then the data storage was subjected to long-term high heat from fire.  Sound familiar?

That is not the only instance of the destruction of FDR/CVRs.  You could certainly look up more, if you were so inclined.

[AtheistMoFo]

[center:3kttdp2b]Which is more believable?[/center:3kttdp2b]
Despite that up until 9/11 whenever commercial or private jets went off course, high-speed NORAD jets chased them down and normally intercepted the flight within a matter of 10 to 15 minutes.  But on the day that will live in infamy, four commercial airliners went way off course and flew around for considerable time, even after it was known that the country was under attack.  They were never intercepted due to NORAD's incompetence.

Or would you believe that orders were intentionally given to stand down?
[spoil:3kttdp2b]The following data is all taken from the Official 9/11 Commission Report.  Don't take my word for it, please check it yourself.

8:14 AA11 apparently hijacked
8:25 AA11 unquestionably hijacked
8:44 UA 175 apparently hijacked
8:46 AA11 slams into WTC North
8:51 AA77 apparently hijacked
8:52 UA 175 reported hijacked by flight attendant
8:54 AA77 deviates from flight plan course
8:56 AA77 undoubtedly hijacked
9:03 UA 175 slams into WTC South
9:28 UA93 apparently hijacked
9:32 AA77 Dulles tower (DC airspace) observes fast-moving unidentified craft (AA77) on radar
9:36 UA93 reported hijacked by flight attendant
9:37 AA77 slams into Pentagon
10:03 UA93 crashes in field in Pennsylvania[/spoil:3kttdp2b]
AA11  -  flew for 30 minutes after it was suspected to have been hijacked, 19 minutes after known to be hijacked
UA175 -  flew for 19 minutes after known to have been hijacked (even though WTC 1 was hit two minutes after UA175 known to be hijacked)
AA77  -  flew for 46 minutes after apparently hijacked and  WTC had already been hit
UA93  -  33 minutes after known to have been hijacked and it was known that the country was under attack

[Insult to Rocks]

[center:9sjcyo2r]Which is more believable?[/center:9sjcyo2r]
Despite that up until 9/11 whenever commercial or private jets went off course, high-speed NORAD jets chased them down and normally intercepted the flight within a matter of 10 to 15 minutes.  But on the day that will live in infamy, four commercial airliners went way off course and flew around for considerable time, even after it was known that the country was under attack.  They were never intercepted due to NORAD's incompetence.

Or would you believe that orders were intentionally given to stand down?
[spoil:9sjcyo2r]The following data is all taken from the Official 9/11 Commission Report.  Don't take my word for it, please check it yourself.

8:14 AA11 apparently hijacked
8:25 AA11 unquestionably hijacked
8:44 UA 175 apparently hijacked
8:46 AA11 slams into WTC North
8:51 AA77 apparently hijacked
8:52 UA 175 reported hijacked by flight attendant
8:54 AA77 deviates from flight plan course
8:56 AA77 undoubtedly hijacked
9:03 UA 175 slams into WTC South
9:28 UA93 apparently hijacked
9:32 AA77 Dulles tower (DC airspace) observes fast-moving unidentified craft (AA77) on radar
9:36 UA93 reported hijacked by flight attendant
9:37 AA77 slams into Pentagon
10:03 UA93 crashes in field in Pennsylvania[/spoil:9sjcyo2r]
AA11  -  flew for 30 minutes after it was suspected to have been hijacked, 19 minutes after known to be hijacked
UA175 -  flew for 19 minutes after known to have been hijacked (even though WTC 1 was hit two minutes after UA175 known to be hijacked)
AA77  -  flew for 46 minutes after apparently hijacked and  WTC had already been hit
UA93  -  33 minutes after known to have been hijacked and it was known that the country was under attack

You are overestimating the compentancy and attention span of bored national defence workers, who 95 percent of the time don't do anything. For example, the planes that led the attack on Pearl Harbor were detected multiple times before the attack proper, but were shrugged off by command as a inbound flight of B-17's. That was just one of the many warning signs that was ignored. In summary, never attribute to malice what can be adequetly explained by stupidity.

[Damarcus]

When you can't wield logic, everything sounds like an insult.

that's great, putting it in my sig.

When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults. That always works.

I'm not trying to trump your logic, because I have better things to do with my time. I don't think you are willing to change your mind on this, so why should I be willing to change mine?

[Plu]

I've been sigged! My life's work completed  :rollin:

[AtheistMoFo]

How many Cessna's did he crash for the conclusion to be reached that he could not safely fly one? Or was it just this one instance of him not being rented a Cessna by one company that led you to the conclusion that he must be unable to fly?

In view of the shallowness of your post, my first reaction was that I would just skip over it.  But considering the possibility that at least one open minded person may some day actually come across this thread, I changed my mind, and will respond after all.

- HH reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected.
- In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States from Saudi Arabia to pursue flight training, after being rejected by a Saudi flight school.
- For three months in 1996 and again in December 1997, HH applied to CRM Airline Training Center, Scottsdale, Arizona, but never finished the coursework for a license.  Applied again in 2000, but was turned down.
- Duncan Hastie, owner of CRM Flight School: "He was a pain in the rear, we didn't want him back at our school because he was not serious about becoming a good pilot."
- August, 2001: Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, Freeway Airport, Bowie, Md took HH up on three test runs and found that he had difficulty controlling and landing the Cessna 172.  Chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

How many profession opinions are required to come to the conclusion that HH was a piss poor pilot?

And PS, if you think "crashing a plane should be a piece of cake" for a piss poor pilot, HH did not simply "crash a plane."  He executed a very complex manouver that experienced professional pilots would find very difficult.

[AtheistMoFo]

don't know if you were here when we were discussing JFK's murder, but I believe that that was the result of a conspiracy. I "finally" figured out that conspiracies do sometimes happen in, oh, 1985 or so, thanks.

Just because some conspiracies have occurred in history doesn't make your particular theory correct, though. And my rejection is not out-of-hand, but rather, after careful consideration.

I do not remember making any claims about conspiracies being a historical fact as proof of anything, except to say it is proof of possibility of conspiracy, and this possibility should not automatically be ruled out.  Examine all the evidence, and then decide.

In fact we KNOW there was a conspiracy.  Whether or not any non Al Qaeda members were part of the conspiracy is the point.  You say there were not, I say the evidence points to the conclusion that there were.  Who or how many, I do not know.  Whether the conspiracy originated with Al Qaeda and others joined in, or whether it originated elsewhere and Al Qaeda was recruited so they could take the rap, again, I do not know.

You urging anyone else to "think objectively" on this matter is laughable. Your subjective dislike of Jews, which has been made clear in several of your posts, clearly colors your appraisal of ambiguous facts, and causes you to discard facts which undermine your hypothesis (and I'm being generous using that word). We have seen that in this very thread.

My prejudice toward jews and israel is not a matter of debate.

All my life up until about a decade ago I always had empathy for jews and felt it was unfair how they have been persecuted and disliked throughout the ages.  If anything, I had negative feelings toward arabs and muslims.

But then I began to take more interest in history and current events.  I learned things they never taught me in school.  And thanks to the Internet, I was able to see current events from a variety of perspectives.  That is when I began, little by little, to understand why the jews have always been disliked.

And I am not suggesting that anyone else should change their views in regard to jews.  You think what you choose to think about them, I will think what I choose to think about them.  That said, I will not waste any more time discussing my prejudices.

This is another ridiculous claim. FDRs aren't "indestructible". They are digital storage (or magnetic tape recorders) protected by tensile steel and include thermal protection, but they can be and have been destroyed in crashes before. Here's a photo of the CVR from American 77:

Wow!  That black box allegedly from AA77 really is one mangled wreck?  Imagine what would happen to something made of paper aboard the same aircraft, like a paper passport for instance.

[Shol'va]

As an observer, let's for a moment say I accept your premise, AtheistMoFo, that 9/11 was an inside job.
What point are you driving at?

[AtheistMoFo]

As an observer, let's for a moment say I accept your premise, AtheistMoFo, that 9/11 was an inside job.
What point are you driving at?

Thank you for asking.

As you no doubt have noticed, I am very strongly convinced that 9/11 was definitely an inside job.  When arabic language flight manuals and korans were discovered in a car parked at Logan Airport, and a passport magically dropped out of the sky, I started getting suspicious.  Then within a matter of a few days congress handed the president a blank check to invade any country he saw fit, by then I was at least 50% convinced something was fishy.  As the saga unfolded, every step of the way I became more and more convinced it had to be an inside job.  Eventually I began doing my own research and came to the conclusion that the Official Conspiracy Theory has no more credibility than the bible myths. Can I say it with 100% certainty?  No, but I am as certain about 9/11 as I am certain about the god theory.

But back to your question.

What is my point?  Well, I grew up in an environment where a person was innocent until proved guilty.  We had what was called habeas corpus.  We were free to travel as we pleased without being molested by TSA agents or having our naked bodies scanned.  When we talked about a "free speech zone" we were referring to entire countries, not some fenced in parking lot far away from places where we wanted to excercise our right to freedom of speech and freedom of assebmly.

All that is gone now.  I want it back.  Not for myself so much as for my grandchildren.  And in my opinion the best way to get it back is for there to be a mass awakening of the population to the realities of life.  The mass awakening starts with the realization that as sure as there are criminals in walking the streets around us, there are also criminals among the elected and non-elected government officials who control our every move.

A mass awakening is like an avalanche.  No single snowflake can do it on his own.  My job is to wake up as many sleeping snowflakes as I can awaken.  That is my point.