[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You guys rip on JTF but, once again, he’s got the goods.
I don’t think the terrorists had the skills necessary to hit those targets at those speeds. Denying this would be like denying the laws of Physics. If professional pilots and scientists say that performing this feat was impossible for them, I have to believe that.
I hope I’m not being fooled by all this.[/quote]
You are being fooled.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is bullshit. The hard part of landing a plane is not the left/right it is the up/down. I have never been on a plane where the pilot missed the runway but I have been on plenty where the pilot dropped it too hard.
Thats not the point AT ALL. The pilots in the simulators COULD hit the towers when they slowed down to LANDING SPEEDS. Do you know how fast those “hijackers” flew those planes into the WTC?!
…/[/quote]
Again you are full of shit. They could hit the runway at top speed but they don’t for obvious reasons.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys rip on JTF but, once again, he’s got the goods.
I don’t think the terrorists had the skills necessary to hit those targets at those speeds. Denying this would be like denying the laws of Physics. If professional pilots and scientists say that performing this feat was impossible for them, I have to believe that.
I hope I’m not being fooled by all this.
You are being fooled.[/quote]
Zap,
I respect your opinion. It was this that troubles me:
"-Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT:
“The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots, the terrorists, could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on.”
I read the link provided and this seems like the real deal. (Haven’t used THAT math in a while! 
)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys rip on JTF but, once again, he’s got the goods.
I don’t think the terrorists had the skills necessary to hit those targets at those speeds. Denying this would be like denying the laws of Physics. If professional pilots and scientists say that performing this feat was impossible for them, I have to believe that.
I hope I’m not being fooled by all this.
You are being fooled.
Zap,
I respect your opinion. It was this that troubles me:
"-Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT:
“The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots, the terrorists, could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on.”
I read the link provided and this seems like the real deal. (Haven’t used THAT math in a while! )
[/quote]
Professor of civil engineering? I rode my motorcycle at 120 mph recently. I found it was just as easy to steer as at 60 or 30 mph.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
hedo wrote:
And not one person involved is willing to talk about it for going on 6 years.
Yea, you mean like the 9/11 Commission for one…
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Washington Post
August 2, 2006
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth… It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission’s landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department’s early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration…
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies’ reluctance to release the tapes – along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence – led some of the panel’s staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
“I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,” John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. “The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years… This is not spin. This is not true.”
Hmmm, between NORAD and the FAA, I wonder how many people got fired?
FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape
Recording Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes
Washington Post
May 6, 2004
Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.
It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said…
The FAA said it was cooperating fully with the 9/11 panel. The agency said it took disciplinary action against the employee who destroyed the tape but declined to elaborate on what kind of action they took… :-o
the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said.
The problem with JTF is he won’t stop posting all of these facts. It’s really annoying.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys rip on JTF but, once again, he’s got the goods.
I don’t think the terrorists had the skills necessary to hit those targets at those speeds. Denying this would be like denying the laws of Physics. If professional pilots and scientists say that performing this feat was impossible for them, I have to believe that.
I hope I’m not being fooled by all this.
You are being fooled.
Zap,
I respect your opinion. It was this that troubles me:
"-Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT:
“The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots, the terrorists, could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on.”
I read the link provided and this seems like the real deal. (Haven’t used THAT math in a while! )
Professor of civil engineering? I rode my motorcycle at 120 mph recently. I found it was just as easy to steer as at 60 or 30 mph. [/quote]
Zap, what would it take to convince you that some things are out of the ordinary with 9/11? You don’t have to embrace a full fledged conspiracy theory but when you have over 400 university professors, scholars, professional engineers, pilots etc that are posting pretty credible evidence contrary to the 9/11 report why discount what they’re saying?
Because Zap is a genius!
Why listen to engineers or pilots? We have zap!
His opinion in regards to flying is obviously more important than that of an actual pilot.
Duh.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys rip on JTF but, once again, he’s got the goods.
I don’t think the terrorists had the skills necessary to hit those targets at those speeds. Denying this would be like denying the laws of Physics. If professional pilots and scientists say that performing this feat was impossible for them, I have to believe that.
I hope I’m not being fooled by all this.
You are being fooled.
Zap,
I respect your opinion. It was this that troubles me:
"-Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT:
“The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots, the terrorists, could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on.”
I read the link provided and this seems like the real deal. (Haven’t used THAT math in a while! )
Professor of civil engineering? I rode my motorcycle at 120 mph recently. I found it was just as easy to steer as at 60 or 30 mph.
Zap, what would it take to convince you that some things are out of the ordinary with 9/11? You don’t have to embrace a full fledged conspiracy theory but when you have over 400 university professors, scholars, professional engineers, pilots etc that are posting pretty credible evidence contrary to the 9/11 report why discount what they’re saying?
[/quote]
What are they saying? That airplanes cannot be steered accurately? Total horseshit.
Each and every thing has been debunked and then another crop of BS comes up. Experts are quoted out of context. Professors of civil engineering ramble on about aviation and they are quoted as authorities.
Even the stupid conspiracy theories all conflict with each other.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zap, what would it take to convince you that some things are out of the ordinary with 9/11? You don’t have to embrace a full fledged conspiracy theory but when you have over 400 university professors, scholars, professional engineers, pilots etc that are posting pretty credible evidence contrary to the 9/11 report why discount what they’re saying?
What are they saying? That airplanes cannot be steered accurately? Total horseshit.
Each and every thing has been debunked and then another crop of BS comes up. Experts are quoted out of context. Professors of civil engineering ramble on about aviation and they are quoted as authorities.
Even the stupid conspiracy theories all conflict with each other.[/quote]
I agree about the different conspiracy theories but I don’t agree about the experts being misquoted. There are legitimate experts that are speaking out about this. I think more often than not the truth is always somewhere in the middle. It’s not this crazy conspiracy theory but it’s not this simple cut and dry scenario either. I’m not sure who’s leaving what out or why but I think there are enough legitimate points to constitute a more thorough investigation.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Even the stupid conspiracy theories all conflict with each other.[/quote]
But the Protocols of Zion are real, man.
Well, real stupid.
I have said it before, but it is worth repeating - if JTF was even half right, the scary Powers That Be would have snuffed him out years ago.
He continues to expose the underbelly of a dark, multinational regime - and, well, they just let him do it. That doesn’t even make sense if you believe and apply the information JTF vomits all over the forum.
The only thing to do with conspiracy theorists is point and laugh. Or feel sorry for them - can you imagine how life would be if your mind was nothing but a blank slate to be written on by every crackpot that read the tabloids?
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Because Zap is a genius!
Why listen to engineers or pilots? We have zap!
His opinion in regards to flying is obviously more important than that of an actual pilot.
Duh.[/quote]
I am an engineer.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zap, what would it take to convince you that some things are out of the ordinary with 9/11? You don’t have to embrace a full fledged conspiracy theory but when you have over 400 university professors, scholars, professional engineers, pilots etc that are posting pretty credible evidence contrary to the 9/11 report why discount what they’re saying?
What are they saying? That airplanes cannot be steered accurately? Total horseshit.
Each and every thing has been debunked and then another crop of BS comes up. Experts are quoted out of context. Professors of civil engineering ramble on about aviation and they are quoted as authorities.
Even the stupid conspiracy theories all conflict with each other.
I agree about the different conspiracy theories but I don’t agree about the experts being misquoted. There are legitimate experts that are speaking out about this. I think more often than not the truth is always somewhere in the middle. It’s not this crazy conspiracy theory but it’s not this simple cut and dry scenario either. I’m not sure who’s leaving what out or why but I think there are enough legitimate points to constitute a more thorough investigation. [/quote]
There is some explosives expert that has been totally misquoted by the conspiracy guys and I am sure he is not the only one.
The conspiracy guys have been disproven on every point and they keep coming up with new stuff. Frankly it is not worth spending time debating it anymore.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have said it before, but it is worth repeating - if JTF was even half right, the scary Powers That Be would have snuffed him out years ago.
He continues to expose the underbelly of a dark, multinational regime - and, well, they just let him do it. That doesn’t even make sense if you believe and apply the information JTF vomits all over the forum.
The only thing to do with conspiracy theorists is point and laugh. Or feel sorry for them - can you imagine how life would be if your mind was nothing but a blank slate to be written on by every crackpot that read the tabloids?[/quote]
When you belong to the most powerful government in the world, you can afford to let people accuse you of being involved in a 9.11 cover up. Really, who’s going to fuck with you?
I mean hell, even if tomorrow proof came out in the papers that Bush, Cheney and other members met with Bin Laden a week before 9/11, NOTHING would happen to bush or anyone from his administration.
These guys are untouchable and they know it.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
When you belong to the most powerful government in the world, you can afford to let people accuse you of being involved in a 9.11 cover up. Really, who’s going to fuck with you?[/quote]
Who “belongs” to the government?
And, if what you said was true, there would be no need for a secret - after all, who is going to fuck with you?
Ok, then why keep it a secret if there is nothing to protect?
Conspiracy theorists ain’t so good at theory, looks like.
Well, then, they should be out there telling everyone exactly what they are up to then rather than drumming up freakishly elaborate, detailed schemes that require crackerjack timing and cooperation among multiple political parties and government agencies.
If they were “untouchable”, what is with all the cloak and dagger? If there is nothing to fear, why try and keep what they are doing in the dark?
You don’t make any sense - but then, you never do.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Because Zap is a genius!
Why listen to engineers or pilots? We have zap!
His opinion in regards to flying is obviously more important than that of an actual pilot.
Duh.
I am an engineer.[/quote]
Well my father in law is a pilot who works as an aeronautical engineer for Northrop and he said…
…“they land those things on runways every day why couldn’t they fly it into a building?”
But what does he know…
Seriously though he doesn’t pay attention to any of this hype. I’m going to ask him specifically about the speeds and the remarks that this fighter pilot made and see if that sounds credible. I don’t know any demolitions experts to confirm or deny what is being said in that field but it seems to me like some legitimate questions have been raised. Powerful people have been corrupt and evil since history has been recorded so I don’t find it too far fetched that people would manipulate events to tip the scales in their favor.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
When you belong to the most powerful government in the world, you can afford to let people accuse you of being involved in a 9.11 cover up. Really, who’s going to fuck with you?
Who “belongs” to the government?
And, if what you said was true, there would be no need for a secret - after all, who is going to fuck with you?
I mean hell, even if tomorrow proof came out in the papers that Bush, Cheney and other members met with Bin Laden a week before 9/11, NOTHING would happen to bush or anyone from his administration.
Ok, then why keep it a secret if there is nothing to protect?
Conspiracy theorists ain’t so good at theory, looks like.
These guys are untouchable and they know it.
Well, then, they should be out there telling everyone exactly what they are up to then rather than drumming up freakishly elaborate, detailed schemes that require crackerjack timing and cooperation among multiple political parties and government agencies.
If they were “untouchable”, what is with all the cloak and dagger? If there is nothing to fear, why try and keep what they are doing in the dark?
You don’t make any sense - but then, you never do.[/quote]
Because obviously, some level of secrecy is needed. Without a blatant smoking gun video of a drunk Cheney and Bush at a cocktail party admitting to the 9/11 operation, you and your other diehard bush fanatics would never even consider the possibility… Why not let conspiracy theorists rant? There’s already the widespread stereotype of Mel Gibson paranoids running amok with tin foil hats. Of course this is ridiculously asinine, but then the American public isn’t really known for its intellect.
But like I said, if it came out tomorrow that Bush and Co met with Laden a week beforehand, they would face no real punishment or inquiry. Perhaps a completely secret testimony without a transcript, Bush likes those. Then you and Zap would claim Cheney was attempting to infiltrate AQ as a muslim extremist to thwart any evil plans they were concocting.
You know it’s true.
The trouble with dismissing conspiracy theories is that some have been shown factual.
Winston Churchill fully admits to embroiling the USA in World War I, in his diary. He deliberately allowed the Lusitania to sail into the path of a U-boat. Hell, he boasts about it, as serving ‘the greater good’.
Another book, ‘Day of Deceit’ details how our government set up our entry into WWII —radio messages CLEARLY detailing the attack on Pearl for 24 hours beforehand, and nothing was done.
I don’t know if there was a setup with regard to the Towers. I am sceptical of the official explanation, that’s all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t know if there was a setup with regard to the Towers. I am sceptical of the official explanation, that’s all.[/quote]
There is much room for all kind of shady actions between an official version and a conspiracy theory.
This article explains how they hit a building.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Of course this is ridiculously asinine, but then the American public isn’t really known for its intellect.[/quote]
I’ve never really bought into that theory, but I have to say - you’re doing a pretty good job of changing my mind.