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.
By 9:02 a.m., the aircraft reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. 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. 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. 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.
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 !! )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.