By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
9/11 unanswered questions on 19:15 - Jul 20 by NeathJack
Of all the theories regarding 9/11 the most ridiculous one of all surely has to be that 19 men armed with box cutters took control of 4 airliners and, without any apparent previous training (bar some flights in a Cessna) managed to fly 3 of the planes without any problems into their targets at high speed and, in the case of the Pentagon, by doing manoeuvres that highly skilled and experienced pilots would have struggled with.
If that was one of the "conspiracy" theories rather than the chosen official narrative it would have been laughed out of the room instantly.
F*ck me - another one...
Ok , this is a copy and paste job but it does the trick (at least for the rational people out there...)
The hijackers were not experienced pilots, nor had they ever piloted commercial airliners, but they also didn’t have to do any of the three most difficult flying maneuvers–flying in inclement weather, taking off, or landing. Only four of the hijackers were trained to fly–one for each flight. Three of the four had trained and earned private pilot’s licenses. The fourth, Hani Hanjour (American Airlines Flight 77) had both a private and commercial license, and experience with small commercial aircraft.
All were trained in auto-pilot and navigational systems, and would have only had to plug in GPS coordinates and point the planes in the right direction to hit their targets. The day was clear, the targets were clearer. Experts conclude their skills would have been more than sufficient to finish their missions.
1
9/11 unanswered questions on 20:45 - Jul 20 with 1552 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 19:10 - Jul 20 by Batterseajack
Doesn't mean they need to bring it down though does it.
Why do you believe that Building 7 was deliberately brought down? What made you rule out the the collapse being caused by the falling debris from the nearby towers fatally damaging the structure of B7?
It was barely damaged by debris yet came down like a pack of cards. Explain that one?
9/11 unanswered questions on 20:41 - Jul 20 by WarwickHunt
F*ck me - another one...
Ok , this is a copy and paste job but it does the trick (at least for the rational people out there...)
The hijackers were not experienced pilots, nor had they ever piloted commercial airliners, but they also didn’t have to do any of the three most difficult flying maneuvers–flying in inclement weather, taking off, or landing. Only four of the hijackers were trained to fly–one for each flight. Three of the four had trained and earned private pilot’s licenses. The fourth, Hani Hanjour (American Airlines Flight 77) had both a private and commercial license, and experience with small commercial aircraft.
All were trained in auto-pilot and navigational systems, and would have only had to plug in GPS coordinates and point the planes in the right direction to hit their targets. The day was clear, the targets were clearer. Experts conclude their skills would have been more than sufficient to finish their missions.
"All were trained in auto-pilot and navigational systems"
I've never seen that evidenced anywhere? Happy to be proven wrong though.
There's also no way the GPS or ILS would have taken the plane through the maneuvers that Flight 77 did on approach to the Pentagon.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:07 - Jul 20 with 1526 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:07 - Jul 20 by NeathJack
Fairy 'nuff.
For a commercial pilot you'd have thought he'd have gone a more straightforward route though
A commercial pilot would generally have the sense to not fly a plane into a building in the first place.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
3
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:10 - Jul 20 with 1457 views
So are you saying he wasn't an FAA licenced commercial pilot? That article makes no mention of it. Almost as if it's an inconvenient truth to the point they're trying to make.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:21 - Jul 20 with 1430 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:17 - Jul 20 by Dr_Winston
So are you saying he wasn't an FAA licenced commercial pilot? That article makes no mention of it. Almost as if it's an inconvenient truth to the point they're trying to make.
Something wasn't quite right about this particular attack..
considering the USA knew that the taliban were looking to board flights and hijack a plane before the attacks even materialised.
Plus all the bombers were known taliban/al-Qaeda members.. who somehow managed to make their way across the pond, board American flights with 4/5 on each f*cking plane.
Warwick talks about rationality.. how the f*ck did 19 known terrorists get on the planes? in f*cking sequence.
Something doesn't add up.
[Post edited 20 Jul 2016 21:25]
The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:15 - Jul 20 with 1372 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 20:45 - Jul 20 by Ebo
It was barely damaged by debris yet came down like a pack of cards. Explain that one?
When you say barely damaged, how damaged was it? Cosmetic damage to the facade? Or a few supporting columns knocked out? I'm aware it did not have looked that damaged from the side opposite to where the twin towers fell and this is where most of the images of it were angled from after they fell. Obviously it would have been hard to get images from the elevation facing the twin towers given all the dust and debris. Im just curious as to how you came to rule out that the damage it received from the towers didn't ultimately cause if to collapse.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 11:09 - Jul 21 with 1279 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 10:27 - Jul 21 by Batterseajack
When you say barely damaged, how damaged was it? Cosmetic damage to the facade? Or a few supporting columns knocked out? I'm aware it did not have looked that damaged from the side opposite to where the twin towers fell and this is where most of the images of it were angled from after they fell. Obviously it would have been hard to get images from the elevation facing the twin towers given all the dust and debris. Im just curious as to how you came to rule out that the damage it received from the towers didn't ultimately cause if to collapse.
This is the only part of 9/11 I have a problem with.Building WT7 ...it was not hit by anything but still collapsed.
No steel structured building has ever collapsed through fire before...and theres been some horrendous skyscraper fires.
The official explanation says it collapsed through office fires. Other explanations afterwards from various scientists have said it was pulled by wires..etc If it was a supporting structure that collapsed then it would fall inwards towards that weakened structure not in a pancake fashion like this..? I dont know I m not an expert...
Dont wish to be argumentative on this but I m just looking for answers like everyone else...to many people including structural engineers this looks like some kind of controlled demolition...I wish it did nt but none of us know the truth unfortunately.
Have a look at this 30 second video
This post has been edited by an administrator
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
I own a number of books on 9/11. You should check out Peter Dale Scott's Road to 9/11 and Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline.
My best guess as to who was responsible would be a combination of Al Qaeda and the Saudi Government, specifically members of the House of Saud, some of whom have well-documented ties to the Bush family. For example, the 28 Pages that were declassified (mostly) a few days ago show that Prince Bandar (also known as "Bandar Bush" due to his close relationship with the Bush family) was connected to money received by one of the 9/11 hijackers. Bandar was the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. at the time of 9/11.
9/11 unanswered questions on 11:09 - Jul 21 by Lord_Bony
This is the only part of 9/11 I have a problem with.Building WT7 ...it was not hit by anything but still collapsed.
No steel structured building has ever collapsed through fire before...and theres been some horrendous skyscraper fires.
The official explanation says it collapsed through office fires. Other explanations afterwards from various scientists have said it was pulled by wires..etc If it was a supporting structure that collapsed then it would fall inwards towards that weakened structure not in a pancake fashion like this..? I dont know I m not an expert...
Dont wish to be argumentative on this but I m just looking for answers like everyone else...to many people including structural engineers this looks like some kind of controlled demolition...I wish it did nt but none of us know the truth unfortunately.
Have a look at this 30 second video
This post has been edited by an administrator
That's the bit that baffles me... no way should that building have fallen, and given that the Secret Service/CIA had offices in there, it's very fishy.
I don't believe in drones, or anything like that, but I believe either the Americans knew it was coming or were aware that something was so they let their guard down to get an excuse to go steal some oil. America has form for this, pearl harbour for example.... and please don't question would Bush have seriously allowed this to happen... for what he and many of his friends and family stood to gain, of course he would, they call it Collateral Damage.
Personally, I think individuals within the U.S knew what was coming, but Bush was focused on Iraq the moment he came to power. Make no mistake, 9/11 was an opportunity for them to exploit (i.e. Saddam has ties to 9/11, which wasn't true). We also know they received warnings from various foreign intelligence agencies and governments (including Russia!) that there would be an imminent attack on America. Bush and Cheney did nothing. In fact, investigations into the hijackers - some of whom were identified months and months prior to 9/11 - were deliberately blocked. Why?
"...detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles. Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”" (read more here: http://www.nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/ )
Again, the Saudi issue raises its ugly head. I also think Dick Cheney is the man we should be paying closer attention to, not Bush, with regards to intelligence info. Also, I think it’s worth mentioning that while the official 9/11 investigation is seen to be the “truth” of 9/11, its own commissioners said it was “set up to fail” by the White House. One commissioner, Max Cleland, resigned in protest.
Here’s another video worth a look:
I could go on and on... hope some of the info here has been of help.
[Post edited 21 Jul 2016 17:56]
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 17:59 - Jul 21 with 1126 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 15:21 - Jul 21 by QuakerJack
That's the bit that baffles me... no way should that building have fallen, and given that the Secret Service/CIA had offices in there, it's very fishy.
I don't believe in drones, or anything like that, but I believe either the Americans knew it was coming or were aware that something was so they let their guard down to get an excuse to go steal some oil. America has form for this, pearl harbour for example.... and please don't question would Bush have seriously allowed this to happen... for what he and many of his friends and family stood to gain, of course he would, they call it Collateral Damage.
[Post edited 21 Jul 2016 15:21]
What has George W. Bush gained from the attacks, exactly?
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 18:16 - Jul 21 with 1117 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 11:09 - Jul 21 by Lord_Bony
This is the only part of 9/11 I have a problem with.Building WT7 ...it was not hit by anything but still collapsed.
No steel structured building has ever collapsed through fire before...and theres been some horrendous skyscraper fires.
The official explanation says it collapsed through office fires. Other explanations afterwards from various scientists have said it was pulled by wires..etc If it was a supporting structure that collapsed then it would fall inwards towards that weakened structure not in a pancake fashion like this..? I dont know I m not an expert...
Dont wish to be argumentative on this but I m just looking for answers like everyone else...to many people including structural engineers this looks like some kind of controlled demolition...I wish it did nt but none of us know the truth unfortunately.
Have a look at this 30 second video
This post has been edited by an administrator
What do you mean it wasn't hit by anything? If you were really looking for answers you would not say that building 7 was not struck by the collapsing towers. Just google "building 7 damage" and you'd quite clearly see the corner section near the lower floors taken out. what would happen to a cross bar if you took a goal post away?
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 19:06 - Jul 21 with 1077 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 20:41 - Jul 20 by WarwickHunt
F*ck me - another one...
Ok , this is a copy and paste job but it does the trick (at least for the rational people out there...)
The hijackers were not experienced pilots, nor had they ever piloted commercial airliners, but they also didn’t have to do any of the three most difficult flying maneuvers–flying in inclement weather, taking off, or landing. Only four of the hijackers were trained to fly–one for each flight. Three of the four had trained and earned private pilot’s licenses. The fourth, Hani Hanjour (American Airlines Flight 77) had both a private and commercial license, and experience with small commercial aircraft.
All were trained in auto-pilot and navigational systems, and would have only had to plug in GPS coordinates and point the planes in the right direction to hit their targets. The day was clear, the targets were clearer. Experts conclude their skills would have been more than sufficient to finish their missions.
Whoever wrote that has never tried to programme the flight management computer of a 767-200 before.
9/11 unanswered questions on 18:16 - Jul 21 by Batterseajack
What do you mean it wasn't hit by anything? If you were really looking for answers you would not say that building 7 was not struck by the collapsing towers. Just google "building 7 damage" and you'd quite clearly see the corner section near the lower floors taken out. what would happen to a cross bar if you took a goal post away?
The crossbar would collapse at the point of least resistance. Would it cause the other post to collapse vertically?
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:43 - Jul 21 with 1007 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:54 - Jul 21 by MillJack
The crossbar would collapse at the point of least resistance. Would it cause the other post to collapse vertically?
Yes, if two goal posts were only just strong enough just to be able to support the weight of the cross bar, with both posts in place, take away one and the other is supporting more than its able to support.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:25 - Jul 22 with 985 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:43 - Jul 21 by Batterseajack
Yes, if two goal posts were only just strong enough just to be able to support the weight of the cross bar, with both posts in place, take away one and the other is supporting more than its able to support.
Surely,if you took one goal post away then the other post will still be standing and the crossbar will fall diagonally at one end but still in place....it would nt cause the other post to collapse and the crossbar to fall to the ground horizontally in free fall.
Same with a steel constructed tower...take one support away and the building will partly fall into that missing support while the rest is still standing supported by the others.....Maybe I'm wrong on this I don't know....
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.