[bid_em_up]

Winstonm, on Sep 25 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

Who said that they have no experience flying such a big plane?

The U.S. government. Don't you remember all the flight simulator training reported?

Take this next for what it is worth. The author claims to be a pilot and an aeronautical engineer, but I cannot substantiate that claim.


"Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor."

And this is also included in the same article:

"This excerpt from a letter I received, from a senior 757 captain with one of the airlines involved in 9/11, sums it up:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

A novice would be lucky to find the city, let alone a single building. A strike on the first approach in a tightly-banked 180-degree turn at 400 knots? impossible for trainee pilots whose instructors claimed “could not fly at all”.

One might as well hand the keys to a car to a 12-year-old and ask the child to drive across town to school."

For the entire article which covers the virtually impossible task of a rookie pilot taking over the controls: http://www.physics91...t/sagadevan.htm

See, this is the entire problem in a nutshell - what you say is absolutely accurate in that this could have been planned for years with millions of dollars and carried out by extremely qualified pilots (except for the pentagon) - but that is not what the government has told us.

When you wipe away all the speculative questions, you are left with a handful of seemingly real questions of which there has been no satisfactory answer:

1). What caused WTC 7 to fall at free-fall speed?
2). Could a Boeing 757 aerodynamically be able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon?
3). CNN tape clearly shows a third white plane flying past the WTC towers (if this tape is not doctored.) What was it and why was it there?
4). Removed: Valid explanation found
5) Aerial photos show a huge empty crater in the center of WTC 6. If this building was destroyed by falling debris, where are the debris and why is the crater empty?
6) What caused the molten steel found in the towers' basements?

None of these questions are speculative - they are simply questions based upon video evidence or upon the government's claim of events. I don't see how they can be construed as controversial or conspiratorial in nature. I would think any person of inquisitive mind would be interested in the answers.

From aerospaceweb.org

http://www.aerospace...acy/q0274.shtml

"This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much.

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11."

Theres plenty other information in the article explaining how it could be possible for an inexperienced pilot to accomplish such a task, but you can read for yourself.

[Winstonm]

The whole point of this thread is simply to bring to light the inconsitencies and question marks surrounding 9-11 and to ask a single question: are there enough question marks to warrant a comprhensive re-investigation?

There are at present some 200+ oddities, coincidences, unexplained phenomena, contradictory eyewitness accounts, and expressed doubts. When taken as a whole, they paint a horrid picture; at the same time, all might have legitimate answers.

Doesn't it seem prudent to find out which is which?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

are there enough question marks to warrant a comprhensive re-investigation?

nah

Quote

Doesn't it seem prudent to find out which is which?

why? i mean, to what end?

[Winstonm]

bid_em_up, on Sep 26 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 25 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

Who said that they have no experience flying such a big plane?

The U.S. government. Don't you remember all the flight simulator training reported?

Take this next for what it is worth. The author claims to be a pilot and an aeronautical engineer, but I cannot substantiate that claim.


"Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor."

And this is also included in the same article:

"This excerpt from a letter I received, from a senior 757 captain with one of the airlines involved in 9/11, sums it up:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

A novice would be lucky to find the city, let alone a single building. A strike on the first approach in a tightly-banked 180-degree turn at 400 knots? impossible for trainee pilots whose instructors claimed “could not fly at all”.

One might as well hand the keys to a car to a 12-year-old and ask the child to drive across town to school."

For the entire article which covers the virtually impossible task of a rookie pilot taking over the controls: http://www.physics91...t/sagadevan.htm

See, this is the entire problem in a nutshell - what you say is absolutely accurate in that this could have been planned for years with millions of dollars and carried out by extremely qualified pilots (except for the pentagon) - but that is not what the government has told us.

When you wipe away all the speculative questions, you are left with a handful of seemingly real questions of which there has been no satisfactory answer:

1). What caused WTC 7 to fall at free-fall speed?
2). Could a Boeing 757 aerodynamically be able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon?
3). CNN tape clearly shows a third white plane flying past the WTC towers (if this tape is not doctored.) What was it and why was it there?
4). Removed: Valid explanation found
5) Aerial photos show a huge empty crater in the center of WTC 6. If this building was destroyed by falling debris, where are the debris and why is the crater empty?
6) What caused the molten steel found in the towers' basements?

None of these questions are speculative - they are simply questions based upon video evidence or upon the government's claim of events. I don't see how they can be construed as controversial or conspiratorial in nature. I would think any person of inquisitive mind would be interested in the answers.

From aerospaceweb.org

http://www.aerospace...acy/q0274.shtml

"This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much.

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11."

Theres plenty other information in the article explaining how it could be possible for an inexperienced pilot to accomplish such a task, but you can read for yourself.

Thanks for the informed and intelligent reply. Let me point out this problem, though. According to the article in my post, (cannot verify authenticity note), the hijackers were not IMF trained - taking over the controls of the aircraft would have involved flying on instruments to find NYC and Washington, D.C. or turning off the autopilot and computer to fly the planes manually. Again, according to the article, the government's claim is that they turned off the autopilot and flew the planes manually. Flying the planes manually, their chances of even finding their targets would have been virtually non-existent. Whether the software Brian F. spoke of would still be available I don't know.

Again this brings up the crux of the problems - conflicting statements from two seemingly knowledgeable persons. Who is right?

[hotShot]

Well who has the experience to know what is odd if a plane hits a building?
Unexplained phenomena turn to explained phenomena, after some considerations.

Eyewitness reports usually differ or even contradict each other, even with "simple" traffic accidents.

I have seen nothing yet that would be unexplanable considering what happend.
What I have seen in this thread is ignorace against simple physics and chemistry.

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE 
1). What caused WTC 7 to fall at free-fall speed?



Gravity. I know that's a copout I am not a construction expert.

I know of no NIST reports that show how this is possible; however, Dr. Judy Wood, PhD in structural engineering at Clemson University claims the fall time is impossible. Link is here: http://st911.org/

Quote

QUOTE 
6) What caused the molten steel found in the towers' basements?



Molten steel is liquid so maybe it found the lowest point, which happens to be the basement. Just a wild theory of course

According to Dr. Eiger of M.I.T., (who supports the governments theories), no fires burned hot enough to melt any steel.

[hrothgar]

Here's there problem

There are a near infinite number of wackos out there in the world. At any given time, you can always round up 4-5 of them willing to spend substantial time and effort bitching about something. Add in the ones who are trying to sell something and the number increases even further.

Even if I were qualified to try to refute all the different claim, I don't have the energy. Especially, since anytime you knock one of them down two more spring up.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Sep 26 2006, 06:19 PM, said:

Here's there problem

There are a near infinite number of wackos out there in the world.  At any given time, you can always round up 4-5 of them willing to spend substantial time and effort bitching about something.  Add in the ones who are trying to sell something and the number increases even further.

Even if I were qualified to try to refute all the different claim, I don't have the energy.  Especially, since anytime you knock one of them down two more spring up.

All true and another reason why it would actually be easier to "get away" with something of this magnitude than a lesser event (sorte with an intern, for example).

Without a "Butterfield" tape, at the end of the day all you have is conflicting testimony from experts. And even if it did happen as a "black flag" operation, I doubt anyone would have left lying around a smoking gun.

It would be of interest to me to see Vincent Bugliosi (prosecutor of Charles Manson) look at all the available evidence and give an opinion on the relative merits of the case for both sides.

[Winstonm]

Quote

What I have seen in this thread is ignorace against simple physics and chemistry.

I hope I have not given the impression of knowing physics or chemistry, because I don't - that's why I must rely on those who do know these things. Judy Wood, PhD of structural engineering at Clemson wrote a paper in which she stated that physics disproved the pancake theory because of the speed of collapse of the towers. I can neither prove nor disprove her allegation. Perhaps you can.

So if you have not seen anything on this thread there probably is a good reason: most, like me, must rely on written reports from those whose credentials show them to be knowledgeable.

[DrTodd13]

Just a few thoughts on this continuing thread. First, I have the Microsoft flight simulator program at home. Just working with this program, I think it would be possible to learn enough to be able to navigate a 757 to NYC. You can either get the charts and do navigation via VOR or you can plot a course via GPS and have the auto-pilot follow it. It might take me a few minutes in an unfamiliar cockpit to find the switches but I know what they look like. Don't put me on a watchlist or anything but I've tried flying planes into buildings in this program and it is pretty easy, especially for tall buildings. Landing is the difficult part. Hitting the Pentagon would have been harder but not impossible.

The vast majority of people will accept any answer the government gives regardless of how ridiculous it is and would only change their mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. A small minority rejects everything the government says regardless of evidence. There is basically no changing these people's minds. Some people realize that governments lie about some things and tell the truth sometimes. Figuring out when they are lying and when they are telling the truth is nearly impossible because of the other two groups arguing across them. Unfortunately, governments know that people are like this and so it makes it more likely that they'll try to pull something. Don't leave any smoking guns, cover your tracks, have a reasonable sounding cover story and you can get away with almost anything.

The physics and the chemistry involved in this event is certainly not simple. You've got hundreds of types of materials with strengths that vary depending on temp. Materials that burn and some that don't. The temperature depends on the availability of oxygen and now you're talking fluid dynamics. I don't think it is fair to say someone is ignorant of physics and chemistry if they disagree with the official position. There are probably very few people in the world with all the knowledge necessary to understand what could or did happen. Everyone else has to rely on what others tell them. Those with some physics training may say that causing floors to pancake must take energy and that energy must come from the momentum of the collapsing floors. This should and must slow the collapse down. The only question is how much does it slow it down. This relates to the breaking strength of various joints, welds, etc. and again becomes a complex problem. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask this question and in fact shows some knowledge of physics to be able to even ask it.

[Winstonm]

The thing that originally captured my attention was the collapse of WTC 7 - I didn't even know a third building had gone down. That led to some reading that at least created a reasonable doubt in my mind - but as Dr. Todd said, not having the ability to quantify the science makes conjecture over scientific aspects out of my realm. Indeed, probably out of almost everyone's grasp.

The thing that most bothers someone like me is the amount of coincidences occurring. There is something for the mathematicians: what are the odds inherent in coincidence?

John Ashcroft starts flying in chartered planes. OK, maybe a reason.
Surge in put options of AA and Unitied prior to the attack. Ok. Maybe a valid reason. Coincidence x 2?
War games were under way on 9-11? O.K., maybe valid.
Coincidence cubed?
Fema showed up in NYC the day before the attacks. O.K. Could be valid.
Coincidence to the 4th power?

This goes on and on over 200 times - supposedly - sources suspect in some, I'm sure. Still, if only 100 or even 50 of these coincidences are accurate, shouldn't it be possible to determine at least in mathematical theory the odds of all occuring randomly? And if so, could the likelihood that this was a planned event based on the same numbers be expressed?

At least it would be a different approach to the subject.

(Although without the math, there is a book that uses only mainstream published accounts that documents all these oddities, although I have not read it and would have to dig up its name.)

[bid_em_up]

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2006, 09:52 PM, said:

The thing that originally captured my attention was the collapse of WTC 7 - I didn't even know a third building had gone down.  That led to some reading that at least created a reasonable doubt in my mind - but as Dr. Todd said, not having the ability to quantify the science makes conjecture over scientific aspects out of my realm.  Indeed, probably out of almost everyone's grasp.

The thing that most bothers someone like me is the amount of coincidences occurring.  There is something for the mathematicians: what are the odds inherent in coincidence? 

John Ashcroft starts flying in chartered planes.  OK, maybe a reason.
Surge in put options of AA and Unitied prior to the attack.  Ok.  Maybe a valid reason.  Coincidence x 2?
War games were under way on 9-11?  O.K., maybe valid.
Coincidence cubed?
Fema showed up in NYC the day before the attacks.  O.K.  Could be valid.
Coincidence to the 4th power?

This goes on and on over 200 times - supposedly - sources suspect in some, I'm sure.  Still, if only 100 or even 50 of these coincidences are accurate, shouldn't it be possible to determine at least in mathematical theory the odds of all occuring randomly?  And if so, could the likelihood that this was a planned event based on the same numbers be expressed?

At least it would be a different approach to the subject.

(Although without the math, there is a book that uses only mainstream published accounts that documents all these oddities, although I have not read it and would have to dig up its name.)

Unlike yourself, I was fully aware that WTC 7 had collapsed that day at approximately 5 pm EST. The building was empty and no further loss of life occured on that tragic day as a result of its collapse. Whether it is was deliberately brought down or not is a non-issue (to me). The building was going to have to be demolished anyway. If they decided to "pull it", so what? I thought I remembered hearing at the time, that it was a deliberate decision to do so (better to be expecting it to come down, than to have it fall randomly on its own), but my memory of that day was (and still is) more focused on the horrors that occured earlier in the day.....


War Games

The war games were public knowledge at the time. From another website:

"On Aug. 22, 2002 Associated Press ran the following story (version carried in AirDisaster.com): "Top U.S. Intelligence Agency was to simulate plane crash into government building on September 11, 2001. U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings."

It would not be hard to conceive that since it was public knowledge that one of the simulated war-games would, in fact, be of a scenario similar to the one that the terrorists were planning, that they chose this day to execute their plan to take advantage of the confusion as to whether this was really occuring or if it was just part of the war games.

Put Options

From Snopes.com (the Urban Legend Website):

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous."

It is my understanding (from other websites) that there are/were some outstanding puts that were never exercised. But this was a small amount compared to what is claimed by the "conspiracy theorists". However, I would not find it difficult to believe that the perpetrators of such atrocities would also use the stock markets to increase the "wealth" of their "funding". Anyone willing to stoop to the depths that they did, would have no qualms about profiting from it as well. However, they would more likely to have been buying small quantities of puts over longer periods of time, imo.

FEMA IN NYC

FEMA (from what info I can find) was in NYC on 9/10 beginning to prepare for a biochemical drill. This too had probably been scheduled for months in advance. So what?

Other:

A Popular Mechanics article (below) covers a lot of this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1

All of these explanations were found in about 10 minutes, using a wonderful thing called Google. Maybe you have heard of it?

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Sep 27 2006, 12:52 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 26 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 25 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

For the entire article which covers the virtually impossible task of a rookie pilot taking over the controls: http://www.physics91...t/sagadevan.htm

From aerospaceweb.org

http://www.aerospace...acy/q0274.shtml

"This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners.

Again this brings up the crux of the problems - conflicting statements from two seemingly knowledgeable persons. Who is right?

You have an article on a website dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Then you have an article from a website dedicated to answer all kind of questions about aerodynamics of flight etc.

Who do you think is the unbiased, trustworthy source? Quite a no-brainer.

If you don't make this kind of assessment, you WILL get lost in the misinformation spread by whackos on the internet.

Arend

[bid_em_up]

Let me just point out Winston that from your source (http://www.physics91...t/sagadevan.htm) is the following quote:

"In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot—and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft."

I, personally, know this to be false. My father was a lead mechanic for a major commercial airline, retiring in the mid-90's after 30+ years of service. He has told me many times of instances where he and other mechanics would get in the simulator and fly planes around certain cities (ie, thru the Arch in St. Louis). None of these people were "instrument rated" pilots, and yet they had no problems operating the flight simulator. (I will grant that they were already familiar with the aircraft, however).

Another claim your article makes:

"Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172—an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get."

These men did not wish to be able to accomplish flying "solo". Part of flying solo, requires that you must be able to actually LAND the plane. Well, most of what I have read says that they could fly just fine. They just couldn't land worth a damn. What did they care, as they had no intentions of ever actually making a landing?!

Not familiar with the cockpit of a Boeing 757? Want to be? Well guess what? For only $24.99+$9.00 shipping and handling, this too can be yours:

(AA-B757CSP) B757-200 Cockpit Layout Study Panels
**NEW** 11 X 17" - B757-200 Cockpit Layout STUDY Panels - Full color, high resolution cockpit panels. Include Overhead, Forward, and Pedestal. Big enough for easy viewing, small enough to travel. Uses identical graphics as in the Professional Pilot's Systems Guide for easy cross reference.

http://www.impactink...op/item_327.htm

Not enough information for you?

Then choose this instead for an additional $20:

(AA-B757) B757/767 Professional Pilots System Study Guide
B757/767 Professional Pilots System Study Guide - The guide is divided into Overhead, Forward and Pedestal panels. Panel graphics are displayed side-by-side with descriptions. Function of each light, switch and gauge explained on the facing page. PC System Review section provides a comprehensive oral on each aircraft system. Comes with color system graphic panels.

http://www.impactink...op/item_254.htm

Really, it isnt that hard.

As far as finding their way to where they are going, I believe (but not 100% positive) that at least one of the instruments provides you with your longitude and latitude. It is not real difficult to find out the Longitude/Latitude of the the WTC's or the Pentagon, and then guide the plane in that direction until spotting your target.

Or:

From http://webpages.char...57-767/capt.htm

"2 - HORIZONTAL SITUATION INDICATOR (HSI) The HSI displays the airplane's path across the ground, just as a map would. At the top of the display is a portion of a compass rose showing the aircraft's Magnetic Course at its center and it's Magnetic Heading with the pointer. A magenta line represents the aircraft's planned route. Airports, navigation aids, even weather radar can all be shown on this display. With the flick of a switch the pilot can do away with this marvelous map and view the instrument as a traditional Directional Gyro, VOR or HSI."

This, to me, appears to say that you see on a instrument where you are and where you are heading. While it does say "planned route", I have no reason to believe that the information would not be displayed, should the plane vary from its planned route. Planes go off of their planned routes all the time in order to avoid turbulence/weather patterns.

Or:

Another possibility is that the hijackers had Portable GPS systems, but I dont remember if they were available at that time.

[Winstonm]

I have to agree with all that nothing anywhere proves anything, and that the internet can be a poor source of information.

There is no hard evidence showing a government conspiracy; yet the FBI also states they have no hard evidence tying Al-Queda to 9-11.

There is a quagmire of data, true and untrue, scattered throughout the internet, and it is not unlike getting stuck in quicksand tying to sort it all out.

The only thing we have are words of debate and the certain knowledge that 2 planes crashed into the WTC towers and 3 towers collapsed. After that it is all speculation.

[bid_em_up]

Please dont get me wrong. I have read through a LOT of the links that you have provided and they do make a fairly strong (even scary) case for the attacks to have been a planned event by someone other than the ones accused.

Unfortunately (rather fortunately), my little mind is not capable of conceiving such atrocities as occured being a planned event by the US government with all the agencies that would supposedly have to be involved to coordinate the events that occured that day as the "conspiracy" theorists seem to imply. I also can't possibly begin to imagine so many people being involved as is suggested (what, did Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld go to the WTC and plant the explosives themselves? I dont think so, so who did?) that everyone would just go along with such an idea willingly and not say a word.

I am not sure where the comment about 9/11 being al-Queada related comes from. Bin Laden is of the Taliban.

Now if, instead, the conspiracy theorists were to be suggesting that someone, somewhere (CIA, DOD, whatever), suggested to Bin Laden that should these attacks occur, the US could/would use them as a pretense to overthrow Saddam Hussein (the two supposedly hate each other) and then the coordinating matters were left to him.....maybe with a flight simulator provided.....and some thermite to be loaded onto the planes, or vans to be parked in the parking garages as well..........and of course, we would have to pretend to chase Bin Laden down, but would never actually capture him.......

OR

Follow the money trail. Who stood to gain the most from the destruction of the towers? And if the money trail were to lead to Mr. Silverstein (sic?) and it turned out that he (or his agents) had paid/arranged to have the towers destroyed for financial gain......

Then we have a real problem.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest detractors, imo, is that a lot of the "conspiracy" theorists websites go so far as to claim that it was not even commercial aircraft that hit the towers or the pentagon. They attempt to say it was either a military aircraft or a missile. Hogwash. You cant hide a plane and its passengers. Nor would you need to do so to accomplish this. A few surface to air missiles would have worked just fine, and would be a helluva lot easier to coordinate, should you be able to lay your hands on them.

(I would be more inclined to believe that we shot down UAL 93, instead of the published account of its passengers causing it to crash, than any of the rest of the theories suggested.)

[Winstonm]

Quote

Unfortunately, one of the biggest detractors, imo, is that a lot of the "conspiracy" theorists websites

I completely agree. I can think of no better answer than to go back to the original article I read that piqued my interest, found here: http://st911.org/

It is Dr. Steven Jones's article in which he does not claim conspiracy but only points out the poor job done by FEMA, the NIST, and the 9-11 Commission in investigating the matter and reaching a conclusion. He then states that a controlled demolition using thermite or its derivatives better explains all the evidence. (He does not claim conspiracy but notes that the demolitions could be set off from a distance.) He calls for a scientific re-investigation to validate either claim. If one only had a passing interest in these events, this is the one paper I suggest be read.

These three points made be Dr. Jones are relevant:
1) The computer model created by NIST that accounts for collapse has never been released, therefore has never been tested for repeatability, which makes it unscientific.
2) Controlled demolition explains all the facts and has been repeated hundreds of times with the same results - the science of controlled demolition is well established.
3) Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is probably right. The government's reports all stop when the building reaches the start of collapse - no explantaion of any events of the collapse itself or the residue from the collapse. Controlled demolition accounts for all the facts.

Quote

Unfortunately (rather fortunately), my little mind is not capable of conceiving such atrocities as occured being a planned event by the US government with all the agencies that would supposedly have to be involved to coordinate the events that occured that day

I don't think this excercise is necessary or even important and doesn't have to be considered. The only question to answer with as close to 100% certainty as possible is: What caused the towers and buidling 7 to collapse? Dr. Jones calls on a multinational scientific investigation with all the available evidence released to them along with the NIST computer model.

If it could be scienfically proven that the collapses were caused by demolition, the who, what, when, and how would all be resolved in time.

[pbleighton]

"Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is probably right."

Agree.

Airplanes flies into buildings.

Buildings fall down go boom.

Simple!

Peter

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Sep 27 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

"Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is probably right."

Agree.

Airplanes flies into buildings.

Buildings fall down go boom.

Simple!

Peter

And I guess he liked Occam's razor so much he decided to buy the company.

[EricK]

What would have happened if the buildings hadn't fallen down? I.e. The top floors are destroyed and fall over the edge (or onto the floors below without causing the rest to fall).

Precisely the same thing! the US could stilll have used it as a pretext for war.

Since we know that some planes crashed into the buildings that is surely enough. From Al Qaeda's point of view, the complete collapse of the towers was just an unexpected bonus. If the US was behind it then rigging the towers to explode is just an entirely unnecessary extra, which would only further risk the possibility of their plot being exposed.

One of the mistakes conspiracy theorists make is to assume that everything that occurred happened precisely as planned. So since Al Qaeda couldn't have known that flying planes into the buildings would cause their collapse, then what happened couldn't have been simply an Al Qaeda plot.