The online racing simulator
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - How the Towers Fell
(1218 posts, started )
Jesus H Christ, you never stop with the crap talk. The hijackers were not on the passenger lists because passenger lists that were given out were lists of the VICTIMS. The hijackers were NOT VICTIMS.

The hijackers WERE ON THE PASSENGER MANIFESTS!

FFS!!

[edit] Oops.. didn't realise we were on to a new page.. sorry Mazz!
Why the heck wouldn't a phone work? They don't want you using them when you land or take off because of some (probably irrational) fear of interference.
Quote from SamH :Jesus H Christ, you never stop with the crap talk. The hijackers were not on the passenger lists because passenger lists that were given out were lists of the VICTIMS. The hijackers were NOT VICTIMS.

The hijackers WERE ON THE PASSENGER MANIFESTS!

FFS!!

[edit] Oops.. didn't realise we were on to a new page.. sorry Mazz!

Where ?

Their names appeared on NONE of the lists.

And even of the names that did appear on the FBI lists, a number turned out to be false.

And shall I start on the fact that some members of the FBI were threatened with dismissal prior to 911 for stating that these people were a threat ?

There's a large amount of evidence pointing to US security protecting certain hijackers, also foreign security agencies warning the US regarding some of them.

And do you care to post an answer to post 300 ?

To quote someone, if it look's like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's worth thinking that it may be a duck....
Above about 8,000 feet you're definitely on the outside edge of cellular tower range, but below that you can make a pretty good connection. Airphones can be used at any altitude, and they were what was used predominantly.

The planes were not at cruising height.. their transponders had been disconnected and they were being flown at relatively low altitudes. The intention in flying these planes was to crash into buildings - not generally possible to achieve at 30,000 feet.
Racer X NZ, where what? The names of the victims and the hijackers have all been released. On what are you manufacturing "evidence" now?

And no, frankly, I don't care to answer any more of your posts since you've systematically failed to answer a single one of my questions throughout this thread with anything more than a "yeah but..". You don't operate within the realms of reason and I'm fed up with having to debunk this shit for you, when you could so easily do it yourself. Frankly, I think you're just easily led. Oh come all ye faithful.
Quote from SamH :Above about 8,000 feet you're definitely on the outside edge of cellular tower range, but below that you can make a pretty good connection. Airphones can be used at any altitude, and they were what was used predominantly.

The planes were not at cruising height.. their transponders had been disconnected and they were being flown at relatively low altitudes. The intention in flying these planes was to crash into buildings - not generally possible to achieve at 30,000 feet.

By 9:02 a.m., the aircraft reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.[1] At 9:24 a.m. Flight 93 received from flight dispatch the warning "Beware any cockpit intrusion—two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center". At 9:26 a.m. the pilot asked for confirmation of the message. That was the last time flight dispatch heard from Flight 93.
At about 9:28 a.m., after both towers of the World Trade Center had already been hit, air traffic controllers in Cleveland Center overheard the pilot Jason Dahl yelling "Get out of here", along with commotion and possibly screaming from the cockpit.[1] Forty seconds later, more screams were heard. During this time the aircraft dropped 700 feet (200 m). Air traffic controllers tried to contact the pilot and received no reply.



That would take them to 28 000 feet,



The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a 40 degree angle.[33] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35 m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were killed by the impact or had been previously killed during flight).



Means it must have been at some hight to achieve this.



The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were recovered on the afternoon of September 13, buried 25 feet (8 m) deep at the impact site, but only transcripts have been released to the public.



Oh well, that's fine then. I guess this must be another case of not needing to release the facts.......



Anyone have any later information ?????



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Quote from SamH :Racer X NZ, where what? The names of the victims and the hijackers have all been released. On what are you manufacturing "evidence" now?

And no, frankly, I don't care to answer any more of your posts since you've systematically failed to answer a single one of my questions throughout this thread with anything more than a "yeah but..". You don't operate within the realms of reason and I'm fed up with having to debunk this shit for you, when you could so easily do it yourself. Frankly, I think you're just easily led. Oh come all ye faithful.

I'm not claiming that they haven't been released, just that none of them were on the passenger list's of the flights in question.

Who precisely provided the names and why weren't 19 people recorded as being on these flights ?

Sorry but see post 184, if you choose to ignore the large holes in the official story then that's fine.
I'm not claiming that I'm right in any of this, only that no-one has disproved many of the point's raised regarding the suspicious nature of what happened that day.

All I'd really like to see is an investigation that look's at ALL the fact's.

It's not my country but if it was I'd certainly want to have this investigated, especially as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are the direct results of it.
( And NZ is involved in cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan, we're keeping out of Iraq thankfully !! )
Quote from Racer X NZ :The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a 40 degree angle.[33] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35 m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were killed by the impact or had been previously killed during flight).



Means it must have been at some hight to achieve this.

You obviously don't know much about flying an airplane. You wouldn't have to be more than 1,000 feet in the air to achieve this kind of impact. 550 mph can be reached in level flight using full throttle.
Quote from Stang70Fastback :You obviously don't know much about flying an airplane. You wouldn't have to be more than 1,000 feet in the air to achieve this kind of impact. 550 mph can be reached in level flight using full throttle.

So where's the black box details that can clear this up ?????
Quote from Racer X NZ :So where's the black box details that can clear this up ?????

Uhmmm - you don't have to clear it up. There's nothing to be proven. The top speed of a 757 is more than 600 mph, and the cruising speed is 500. It's clearly well within the aircraft's abilities to crash into the ground at that speed without gravitational aid.
Quote from Stang70Fastback :Uhmmm - you don't have to clear it up. There's nothing to be proven. The top speed of a 757 is more than 600 mph, and the cruising speed is 500. It's clearly well within the aircraft's abilities to crash into the ground at that speed without gravitational aid.

So, who needs any scientific proof, seem's to be the catchcry of the whole official explination.

I'm not arguing about the fact it hit the ground, just the hight's it was at !!!!!

See post 184 !!!
Quote from Racer X NZ :So, who needs any scientific proof, seem's to be the catchcry of the whole official explination.

But that is scientific proof! You could take an identical aircraft, fly it at 500 mph at 1000 feet at full throttle, and then nose down and hit the ground at 550 at a 40 degree angle. The test doesn't need to be recreated. Try it for yourself in a flight simulator if you must. The proof is in the statistical figures of the aircraft.

Quote :I'm not arguing about the fact it hit the ground, just the hight's it was at !!!!!

I would also like to know more about the exact trajectory of the flight, I'm just pointing out that the crash was not something that required a very high altitude, or very strange flightpath to cause it.
Quote from Racer X NZ :So where's the black box details that can clear this up ?????

Sigh, i know i'm wasting my time, so this is the last i'll say on the matter.

Here is an NTSB list of some of the aircraft accidents it has investigated http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/A_Acc1.htm compare any one with the info found here in the analysis of Flight 93 autopilot info http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf or, scroll down and have a look at the reports on all the planes involved on 9/11 http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm (again, i can't be arsed to read them myself, but if you want the info, it's there)

The NTSB very very rarely release the flight recorder information let alone the flight deck voice recorder. Yes the info is made available, but usually not to the general public, it's simply not their policy to do so. I'm sure you can think of many good reasons for this.

But you know all the information you seek can be found on the net anyway. The real question is, are you willing to go find it, or as SamH has said many times in this thread already, are you so desperate to believe in every conspiracy theory going, that you simply choose to ignore all the debunking.
Flight 77's info is on the web but flight 93's seems unavailable, if you have it please post a link.

And flight 77's is unrepeatable by a Navy pilot with 20 years experience as a Navy pilot, including ' Top Gun ' instructing duties and 6000 hours on 757/767's.

But then I don't post any evidence do I ??

See post 184. - sigh
Quote from Racer X NZ :Flight 77's info is on the web but flight 93's seems unavailable, if you have it please post a link.

And flight 77's is unrepeatable by a Navy pilot with 20 years experience as a Navy pilot, including ' Top Gun ' instructing duties and 6000 hours on 757/767's.

But then I don't post any evidence do I ??

See post 184. - sigh

They're all available to me, but, they're coming down the wires at a stonking rate of 2.3kb's/sec and most of the files are huge. The only one i managed to get was the autopilot info from flights 93 and 77 (both in one document) i'll attach it to this post.

As for the Navy pilots(fortruth.com) i can't really question their credibility. But, the flight analysis of Flight 77 says the plane made the turn, over 100 eyewitness saw it skim the grass and hit the Pentagon, the debris found at the crashsite has been verified as being from Flight 77. The DNA samples found at the crashsite have been verified as those on the passenger list, and many other experts (both airline pilots and ATC) have claimed the maneuver was possible. As you know there are many many website with videos going into detail of how and why it was possible, go check em out for yourself.

An unqualified hijacking pilot hell bent on suicide wont be too worried about giving the passengers a comfy ride or taking the plane to the extremes of its design tolerances. Go take a look at the vids of the flight path, it's not as extreme as you might think.

So, as to why a Navy Pilot is saying it's an impossible maneuver i can't explain ?, Is he trying to sell a book or something ?

But, as i said above, this could go on forever. One person posting a link to a "Truthers" site, someone else posting a link to a "Debunkers" site. And i've had enough of it to be honest.

At the end of the day, i don't think anyone in this thread has said the Official Explanations are completely water tight. They're not, and they do lead to many many other questions. The main issue i have with all these fanciful conspiracy claims is, they do nothing but muddy the waters, and the legitimate questions that should be asked are simply being deluged by a torrent of bullshit. Which probably helps 'The Powers That Be' tbh, we're all to busy arguing amongst ourselves that no one can be bothered to stand up and fight anymore. All this arguing is doing is adding confusion which in turn leads to apathy.

Back in the late 80's early 90's Thatchers Government brought in the Poll Tax. Me and many other Lefty Student types were outraged, so we protested on-mass, and spent several hours being chased through the streets of London by coppers with big sticks, riot shields and huge police horses. And in time, the Government ditched the poll Tax (unfortunately a few years later they replaced it with a tax that actually cost more, but by that time a new wave of Lefty Students had emerged, who unfortunately didn't give a **** about anything, apparently Punk did die )

Point is, if all we do is sit on are arse's and do nothing but argue amongst ourselves, then perhaps we deserve to be shat on by those we democratically elect to be our Leaders. Perhaps it's time we stood up in unison and took action rather than just talk and whinge about it.....anyone up for a civil war ?....anyone got a rifle i could borrow ?...or a tank ?...or a one way ticket to Bali ?...
Attached files
autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf - 395.8 KB - 73 views
I'm violating my parole here, but it has to be said:

Quote from Mazz4200 :At the end of the day, i don't think anyone in this thread has said the Official Explanations are completely water tight. They're not, and they do lead to many many other questions. The main issue i have with all these fanciful conspiracy claims is, they do nothing but muddy the waters, and the legitimate questions that should be asked are simply being deluged by a torrent of bullshit. Which probably helps 'The Powers That Be' tbh, we're all to busy arguing amongst ourselves that no one can be bother to stand up and fight anymore. All this arguing is doing is adding confusion which in turn leads to apathy.

A-****ing-men. Get your heads out of your asses - if there's one thing the State knows how to do is keep you busy.
You know, I tried to read all of this thread. I really did. But it was an exercise in futility. I think People WANT conspiracies. maybe we need them to make up for things we've lost in growing up. Like when we find out that the boogey man in our closet is actually just noise from water pipes. Or we realize the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are really just our parents. To make up for that feeling of loss or disappointment when something that was once mystical is revealed to be something not so impressive. Well that and possibly out of control paranoia.

And people give Governments, particularly the US, waay too much credit for crap. There's no way a "rogue element" in the government of the US can operate on a magnitude that would be capable of pulling off destroying the WTC or building 19 or whatever and not getting busted for it. there's just too many checks and balances in the way, not to mention rival rouge elements with contrasting agendas.

My favorite conspiracy theory is the one that we didn't go to the moon.
LOL that's right, they managed to get a couple a thousand people to keep a secret.

Anyways, I was in Vegas in July of that year. The hijackers or at least some of them were in a hotel across the street or nearby (sorry can't remember) from where my friends worked at the time. They ran a store in the Stratosphere casino. Hell, I think I held a door open for Mohammed Attas.
Quote from Racer Y :Hell, I think I held a door open for Mohammed Attas.

that kind of talk can get you a free trip to cuba these days
Quote from Racer Y :You know, I tried to read all of this thread.

I've bin pretty quite for a while as I have a busy life and its all I could do to keep up with the thread post rate,

But having said that, I am spending some time following up the links which really are far more informative than most of the conflicting posts here, - including my own.

I still have the same unanswered questions though - and I can also see where the possiblities of nuclear devices are coming from (mentioned by Racer X NZ), which would certainly explain the pools of molten steel (so where is the radiation from the blasts).

I'm still on the conspiracy side of things by a large margin atm.

From what I can see though like other conspiracy theory's - this is never going to go away, is it the internet that is simply encouraging conspiracy theory's, or is it the movement of information that perhaps would be otherwise suppressed thats keeping it alive?

Personally considering the obvious shinnanagins of the first enquiry - I think another should be held - when Bush is finally out of the office he should never have been in - in the first place.
Quote from Racer X NZ :Stuff

You didn't answer my question. What is the difference between structural steel and normal steel.


You keep doing it. You pose some questions (mighty stupid ones at that, but let's pretend they aren't and you're not), but you NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER dignify them or us with an answer to either your questions or ours.

I take it from this you haven't a clue about jet fuel, steel, structures, load paths, projectiles and falling bodies, flight, safety worker jargon, business or anything else that we (mere forum people) have debunked without even trying.

You can post links to foolish people saying foolish mistruths all you like, and you can writhe and wriggle out of situation (first saying nobody tries to learn from new things, then saying they do, and then asking why that is [without making clear what 'that' is meant to refer to]).

You are obviously on this earth as a village idiot meant to torment people in arguments you know NOTHING about.

I will retract that statement when you can provide ANY evidence you know what you're talking about on even the vaguest 6-year-old type of way.
I must say that while there are a lot of clueless people on this thread, and that sometimes it is extremely frustrating when they refuse to accept something that is simply a scientific fact, this thread is very amusing and fun to argue on.
Quote from Stang70Fastback :sometimes it is extremely frustrating when they refuse to accept something that is simply a scientific fact

It isn't frustrating for me. Just don't read the thread and you won't be frustrated! Like most events in life, I try to not worry about it. Something like 9/11 is not an event that happens often. There seems to be a fairly low chance that you will be killed in a terrorist attack if you don't live in the mid-east.
Quote from Racer X NZ :The buildings were designed to take a 707 impact, similar weight and fuel, they clearly failed. If so, then why ????

They did not fail. They survived the impact. They stayed up for an hour before the steel became weak enough to start a chain reaction.
Quote from tristancliffe :You didn't answer my question. What is the difference between structural steel and normal steel.

Since I am more than qualified to answer this - I will.

The answer is................ no differerence.

Yes there are many different types of steel, but as far as I'm aware structural steel is simply mild steel that forms a structure - in fact any steel that forms a structure.

The only difference between steel and iron is the minute amount of carbon that is added to it, in the order of .05% if I remember correctly, and high carbon steel contains only a tiny fraction of carbon more.
Structural steel is simply rolled into girders, and angles, and channels, as opposed to sheet steel, which is rolled into ...erm sheets lol.

Of course the you can specify the charecteristics and properties of a steel for certain purposes, but generally speaking there is nothing special about "structural steel", it is simply good ol mild steel which you will find in ships, bridges, and buildings.
Quote from IStang70Fastback : must say that while there are a lot of clueless people on this thread, and that sometimes it is extremely frustrating when they refuse to accept something that is simply a scientific fact, this thread is very amusing and fun to argue on.

To an extent yes, but it is still a debate and thats why we are here, isnt it?
Yep there is quite a bit of crap to see through, but I do enjoy the genereal thrust and there is always something to learn - there is always someone else's point of view.

What you see on TV or the papers is always vetted and filtered, what you read and are directed to here is not, so whilst you might some stuff irritating repettitive boring and annoying, (and misspelt )
At least its not censored, and its a good way of finding things out that your goverment (and others) would rather you did not.
Quote from Dennisjr13 :They did not fail. They survived the impact. They stayed up for an hour before the steel became weak enough to start a chain reaction.

Don't even bother trying to make that point. I've pointed it out many times but people seem to want to ignore it...

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - How the Towers Fell
(1218 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG