Jump to content
The Education Forum

something wicked this way comes,the offical story of 911..something very wrong


Recommended Posts

something wicked this way comes,the offical story of 911..something very wrong

link http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

============================================================================================

Part Two - IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH

More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes. This article supplements our last, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH" in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA. We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

PFT - Probably the most discredited 9-11 group. They've been caught out manipulating data to suit their claims, and this latest one is just another example of what clowns they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PFT - Probably the most discredited 9-11 group. They've been caught out manipulating data to suit their claims, and this latest one is just another example of what clowns they are.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

==============================================================

Its a disinformation site ??? Golly, why would you need a disinformation site. Why would it exist ?? The only answer would be to coverup a coinspiracy. see

link http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/06/cit-stuff-is-disinfo-wake-up.html'>http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/06/cit-stuff-is-disinfo-wake-up.html

o---------------------------+---------------------------o

highest recommendation for link below

link http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

PFT are indeed, a bunch that make up certain fictions to suit themselves. I have caught them making alternate realities many times in the past.

Now while they are quite unreliable as such, the data they show should be examined for errors. The possibility of any of the airliners still flying after they crashed is of course zero, so there must be some kind of error in the times reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PFT are indeed, a bunch that make up certain fictions to suit themselves. I have caught them making alternate realities many times in the past.

Now while they are quite unreliable as such, the data they show should be examined for errors. The possibility of any of the airliners still flying after they crashed is of course zero, so there must be some kind of error in the times reported.

###############################vvvvvvvv#########################################

So making up false data.........maybe the government runs (or infiltrated) Pilots for Truth.

SOUTH PARK on 911

==============================================================

The goverment actually runs all the websites that claim they (BUSH) were responsible, making the conspiracy theories actually a government conspiracy themselves.

Later, in Chicago, Stan and Kyle run into the leader of the conspiracy group alive and well outside of a McDonald's. After a short chase by Stan and Kyle, he is cornered in a back alley and shot dead by the father of the Hardly Boys, who reveals that his sons discovered that all the conspiracy websites are false and run by the government. Stan, Kyle, and the Hardly family congregate at the Hardly house as the Bush Administration arrives, and eventually admits that the government was not behind 9/11. He explains that the government actually runs all the websites that claim they were responsible, making the conspiracy theories actually a government conspiracy themselves. The point, Bush explains, is that, since one-fourth of Americans are "retarded" and will believe conspiracies, the government wants them to believe that it is all-powerful and could get away with the worst terrorist attack in history, while they tell the other 75% of the country the truth—that 9/11 was caused (in Stan's words) by "a bunch of pissed off Muslims."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone did the research and has proved, without any doubt, that PFT are wrong.

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4145817

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4145941

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213916&view=findpost&p=4146491

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213916&view=findpost&p=4146816

I have a dream that, one day, 9-11 Twoofers will realise their mistakes, slap themselves in the head and say "WTF was I thinking!". Still, seeing as how many people still have crackpot theories regarding the Moon landings, I doubt this dream will ever come true.

Edited by Evan Burton
Added links
Link to post
Share on other sites

Links go to last page of thread, but start on page 117 of it. "booNyzarC" is the poster to read. Post number #1755, right at the bottom.

Very interesting reads. Some (mild) supposition on his part, but I concur : It does make sense from a logical point of view.

Will have to do some research meself, methinks, just to make doubly sure. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Dale Thorn

I heard a lot about 9/11 in the years since, after seeing it on TV myself in 2001. I hung out with a 9/11 literature distributor on Venice Beach for awhile, looking at videos such as Loose Change etc. Lots of great stuff, good evidence, in need of organization. So along comes Sofia and 9/11 Mysteries and suddenly I have a clear and logical presentation of the issues.

My method of evaluating the evidence is to start with the strongest points, and stay focused on those, adding other points only when they clearly point to things that don't happen without help. For example, revolver bullet casings found near Tippit's body (hint: revolvers don't eject their empty cases).

In 9/11, we are asked to believe that a building nearly 1400 feet tall with 47 massive steel columns in the center and lots of additional steel structure external to that collapsed straight down at near freefall speed, through its path of *greatest* resistance, because of a fuel fire and a jet impact. Like the Single Bullet theory, my BS meter pegged on that one.

Normally I don't read debunker sites, because the approach is fundamentally dishonest. But being on the Internet continuously and being a good reader (12th grade level in first grade), I expected to read some plausible explanations for the collapse due to fire, jet impact, and gravity. I haven't read even one.

Sofia suggests a lot of things in her video that make sense to me, a short list:

No big steel-reinforced skyscraper ever fell straight down before or since 9/11, for any reason other than demolition. I think 'big' and 'steel reinforced' always apply to skyscrapers.

If a pancake collapse were possible, it could not happen at or near freefall speed. Path of greatest resistance applies.

Skyscrapers have caught fire many times, some burning to their skeletons, none collapsed straight down.

Steel melts apparently around 2700 F., but you don't lose half the strength at 1350 F. Given what we know about steel stove burners and heating elements etc., it appears that steel would not lose half its strength until well over 2000 F., and judging by the number of people alive in the buildings talking on phones and standing in windows, the temperatures are unlikely to have been more than 100 F. except in a few locations where there were fires, and given the orange color of the flames there, those fires would not rise above 1000 F.

The importance of the collapses cannot be understated, because they provided the shock value of the New Pearl Harbor that ushered in the Patriot Act and the eternal War, the War on Terror. Most of the other issues I would be willing to consider or dismiss altogether, once I get past these building collapses. The really silly explanations I've heard so far remind me of the Emperor's New Clothes story. But I have an open mind. Three straight-down collapses the same day, and one of those not even hit by a jet, is mighty suspicious, and that fact alone plus these other things I've noted, would require some serious explanation, with factual evidence that can be verified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In 9/11, we are asked to believe that a building nearly 1400 feet tall with 47 massive steel columns in the center and lots of additional steel structure external to that collapsed straight down at near freefall speed, through its path of *greatest* resistance, because of a fuel fire and a jet impact. Like the Single Bullet theory, my BS meter pegged on that one.

So the physicists and structral engineers who say otherwise are lying?

Normally I don't read debunker sites, because the approach is fundamentally dishonest.

So does that mean you only read sites which support your views? Would you also give some examples of fundamental dishonesty for us to see?

No big steel-reinforced skyscraper ever fell straight down before or since 9/11, for any reason other than demolition. I think 'big' and 'steel reinforced' always apply to skyscrapers.

That would be because no big steel-reinforced skyscrapers were ever subjected to high speed impacts by large jet airliners and suffered subsequent fires.

Steel melts apparently around 2700 F., but you don't lose half the strength at 1350 F.

Apparently the materials themselves don't know that:

opi_trufirewall_strength_heat_flyer_lg.jpg

SteelTemp-vs-Yield.gif

post-2326-039513400 1325887047_thumb.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dale Thorn

Here's how I reply to what you posted. The first evidence of debunking you demonstrated was suggesting that bldg. 7 was hit by a jet. You did imply that even though you didn't state it. Secondly, you argue that the buildings weakened sufficiently for a *freefall* collapse with no resistance, which is absurd, due to fire or impact? And would physicists or engineers lie? Yes they would, but I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that. The Empire State building was hit by a very big plane. No big deal. Other skyscrapers have burned to their steel skeletons, but remain standing. You can find ample video of those.

Frankly, all you have is speculation, bldg. 7 denial, and a bunch of charts that don't mean anything because there is nothing to relate them to. No skyscraper buildings collapsed straight down at freefall speed before 9/11 or after, for the simple reason that they can't. It's impossible to remove all resistance to the fall.

With charts and graphs you can prove the magic bullet theory, but the fact remains that bullets going through people and breaking bones get deformed, and to cut through steel or seriously weaken it you need a very large blowtorch or a blast furnace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Building 7 was very badly damaged by the collapse of the two main trade towers, hence it collapsing later on. You typically cannot see the damage to it on the conspiracy sites as they tend to not show photos of it, as it undermines their opinions.

There is physically no problem at all with the way the two trade towers collapsed, they went down pretty much exactly as you would expect after sustaining such massive damage. (I have to again say that after such an impact I an very surprised they didn't come down immediately)

Then there is the problem that there is precisely zero physical evidence found of any explosives that were supposed to have brought the towers down. The conspiracy sites would try to have you believe that there is such things as 'nano-thermite' but no such material exists. What I suspect was found was the component of thermite, which is basically rust from steel. Steel, when heated to high temperatures, will also sometimes flake off sections that will turn rusty very quickly. Scaling I think it's called. So, with the debris in the footprint of the towers it is not at all surprising to find what would appear to be traces of what could have been thermite, but in reality is just heat-damaged steel beams.

The free-fall thing is also incorrect as if you look at different videos you can see from videos from different angles there may be some small periods where the upper tower sections are briefly falling at near free-fall speeds but the dust cloud quickly obscures the last part of the fall, where the upper section slows down dramatically.

If you take the time to look at the science behind it all, there really is no mystery as to why the buildings behaved the way they did and certainly no need to invoke the conspiracy theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's how I reply to what you posted. The first evidence of debunking you demonstrated was suggesting that bldg. 7 was hit by a jet. You did imply that even though you didn't state it.

Strawman - I did no such thing; you stated that that no skyscraper ever fell straight down before or after 9-11 and I said that was because none had ever suffered high-speed impacts by large jet airliners. I never implied anything about WTC7 and just so you are clear on my opinions, no aircraft hit WTC7. WTC7 was affected by debris from the collapse of WTC1 as well as internal fires.

Secondly, you argue that the buildings weakened sufficiently for a *freefall* collapse with no resistance, which is absurd, due to fire or impact?

Again, I did no such thing. Please do not put words into my mouth.

And would physicists or engineers lie? Yes they would, but I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that.

So would it be fair to say that your position is that qualified / accredited / experienced physicists and/or structural engineers who disagree with you are lying, and those that agree with you are telling the truth?

The Empire State building was hit by a very big plane. No big deal.

The two events are only similar in that both were hit by aircraft; apart from that they are completely different events.

The Empire State Building (ESB) was hit by a B-25D Mitchell bomber at the end of a routine transport mission, which became disorientated in fog whilst waiting to land. It was travelling fairly slowly.

The WTCs were hit by B767 aircraft flown at high speed.

The B-25 has a Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of 15,900 Kg.

The B767 has a MTOW of 179,000 Kg, over ten times that of the B-25

The B-25 had a maximum speed of about 438 Kph and impacted the ESB at about 320 Kph.

The B767s had a maximum speed of about 900 Kph and impacted the WTCs at about 750 Kph (AA11) and 900 Kph (UA175), roughly two and a half times the speed of the B-25.

The B-25 was waiting to land and refuel and so had far less that a full fuel load aboard. Even so, the B-25 could carry 670 US gallons of fuel.

The B767s were extended range aircraft (ER) and impacted with about 10,000 US gallons of fuel aboard, 15 times that of the B-25.

So the WTCs were hit by objects over ten times the mass, at over twice the speed and carrying fifteen times the fuel of the object that hit the ESB.

With charts and graphs you can prove the magic bullet theory, but the fact remains that bullets going through people and breaking bones get deformed, and to cut through steel or seriously weaken it you need a very large blowtorch or a blast furnace.

Well, if you are going to just accept what stuff you decide suits you but ignore facts that dispute your views, then I am unlikely to be able to change your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I might just use an illustration of the difference between the B-25 and the B767 impacts. Most of us will remember from basic science the equation of F = ma, or Force (in Newtons) = mass (in Kg) times acceleration (in metres per second per second).

I'm going to use the MTOW of the aircraft, and to simplify the acceleration, I'll assume the mass went from its impact speed to zero in one second.

For the B-25:

F = ma

F = 15,900 Kg x 320 Kph

F = 15,900 Kg x (320,000 metres / 60 seconds in one minute x 60 minutes in one hour)

F = 15,900 Kg x (320,000 metres / 3600 seconds)

F = 15,900 x 88.88

F = 1,413,333 newtons

or rounded to 1.4 million newtons

For the B767

F = ma

F = 179,000 x (750,000 / 3600)

F = 179,000 x 208.33

F = 37,291,666 newtons

or rounded to 37.3 million newtons

For the faster B767, that would work out to 44.7 million newtons of force.

There is no comparison between the events except that in both cases, aircraft hit buildings.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dale Thorn

The second tower was hit a glancing blow, most of the fuel dumped outside of the tower, and quite some time after the first was hit more directly, yet it collapsed first. Every argument that has been presented here flies directly in the face of common sense. The comment "I'm surprised it didn't come down immediately" is completely without logic, as there is simply no precedent for such a thing. Skyscrapers don't collapse because of fire, as everyone knows, and it is completely beyond logic that such a large building struck a glancing blow would fall straight down. I could build a small steel building and fill it with combustibles and you could knock a hole in it and set it on fire - it won't collapse. There is no evidence of hot fires over 1200 or 1500 or 2000 F. etc. raging in the central columns that would "weaken" them. And if weakened (which didn't happen - the second plane didn't come anywhere near), they still don't disappear. The argument against freefall is specious - time the collapses - a pancake or whatever would take several times as long. What you had in New York are three unprecedented and extremely suspicious collapses. Now I would like to ask a question that I think is relevant. Why do the two people who responded here do this debunking? I don't do debunking unless someone has a truly absurd conspiracy with no common sense evidence to back it up. And even then I don't have a lot of time to waste on such things. Why would you two expend so much energy and time on this? Perhaps I can learn something from your explanations. The many scientists and engineers who believe as I do are not crazies, not conspiracy theorists in any general sense, and their arguments are based on their professional experience.

And where is the government's supporting documentation for 9/11 - the analogy to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence and testimony?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dale Thorn

Building 7 is what I call prima facie evidence. It looks exactly like what it is, a classic controlled demolition falling inward on itself. That would be impossible for a building damaged in an irregular fashion, to collapse so neatly and symmetrically, exactly as seen in controlled demolitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...