[Closed] 9/11 documentary

/whathaveisaidnow/

Some waffle.

Either you’re a troll or a wilful idiot who can’t read simple stuff put in front of them.

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik ]Bernard Kerik[/url] went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority...

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Did it lead to the collapse of the nearby stack of Belgian waffles?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

what I do know is that there is video evidence and speech on those videos, that suggests that people close to the building somehow new that its collapse was very imminent - not ow... it might come down,... more...'it's coming down right now.

there is also a video of two guys talking near to WT7 and two very loud (what sound like explosions) are heard. Their reactions are consistent with the sound of the explosions, so I'm airing on the side of it is not a fake video.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Why would he say it? Maybe these devils are so far up their own rectums that they bait each other into playing these games, who knows?

How long have you spent in the NYFD? or in NY at all, how much time did you spend listening to the way people in that organisations speak during emergencies or stressful situation?
I remember one day on an industrial site I was working on we got a call as there were flames coming out of places they shouldn't be near the bottom of the 300ft tower we were working on. Phrases like "gonna blow" "it's gone" "pull it" (in this case referring to the very expensive test gear) were being yelled around. None of us really knew what was going on but we were getting the **** out of there.

Again, for any of your theory to hold you need to get 6 or 7 levels above it to where you have zero evidence, the numbers involved would be in the hundreds at least and you can't even hope to address those parts.

Can we do Wako Texas next?

Probably worth doing Operation Northwoods before that.

In alsorts of disasters eye witness accounts are almost always found to be very inaccurate. It was the same with Grenfell with reports of people throwing babies out of windows and assorts of other reports that were later found to be untrue. Besides,the top of the building was starting to lean over as the structure softened and buckled before it finally gave way, you can see this very clearly from watching the footage. If I was on the ground looking up and saw that I would have the sense the thing is about to go and get out of the way pretty sharpish.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

The obvious conclusion is that he meant pull the fire crew out.
What was the comment?
"We've lost enough lives, time to pull it" or words to that effect?
How would detonating the building save lives?

It wouldn't, ergo, you're a mentalist.

Here's the video:

It's obvious to anyone that he meant pull the fire operation out.

Anyone that isn't a mentalist.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'

Pull it to me would mean the operation or equipment, why would you use the phrase pull it when you actually mean blow it up ie controlled explosion...?

Pull it with regards to building demolition to me, would be using machinery to fell it, not an explosion.

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 Bernard Kerik went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority...

When you start looking into the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, things get interesting...

For example, Chief Spokesman for the CPA was Dan Senor...

Before going out to Iraq, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Senor ]Dan Senor[/url] had been working for the [url= http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=carlyle_group ]Carlyle Group[/url].

That's the same Carlyle Group that had received extensive funding from the Bin Laden Family, and Al-Waleed Bin Talal, both alleged by multiple sources to be involved in the funding and training of Al-Qaeda.

It's also the same Carlyle Group who were holding their annual conference on 9/11, among the guests of honor was one of Bin Laden's brothers... One of Carlyle groups key figures, who had multiple dealings with the Bin Laden family, George HW Bush had been in attendance the previous day

Of course, Bin Laden has many siblings, but what makes this more mysterious is the way [url= https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310 ]several members of the Bin Laden family and the House of Saud were evacuated on a private flight whilst airspace was still closed in the wake of 9/11[/url].

The repatriation of the Saudis is far more than just a case of wealthy Arabs being granted special status by the White House under extraordinary conditions. For one thing, in the two years since September 11, a number of highly placed Saudis, including both bin Ladens and members of the royal family, have come under fire for their alleged roles in financing terrorism.

You can probably guess who was responsible for authorizing those flights...

[img] [/img]

[b]One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been "deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."[/b]

But what does this have to do with the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority?

And what does it have to do with the death of FBI Al-Qaeda Expert John P O'Neill?

All in good time...

wasn't weinstein busy producing films and interfering with women?

But what does this have to do with the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority?

And what does it have to do with the death of FBI Al-Qaeda Expert John P O'Neill?

All in good time...

wasn't weinstein busy producing films and interfering with women?

yep, but 'Pull It' would be a request more likely to have been said by Louis CK...

Ooh, are you serialising your investigations now?

Nope, it’s just we can only cope with a limited amount of batshit crazy in one go.

Of course, we could just ignore him. Like he ignores the facts when put in front of him.

I'll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture...

jivehoneyjive - Member
I'll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture...

JHJ you mentioned John P O'Neill again, but you never answered my previous question about this:

I dont get the point you're making here, the reason I dont get it is: why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups? People really believe that an organisation which operates across the world only has one copy of any report and that its also a paper copy?

I did answer that already...

why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups?

Plausible deniability?
We're getting back into conjecture here though...

Going back to this:

The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah..

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks

However, thinking back to 2001, at the time, I was working as the supervisor for industrial and commercial gas infrastructure design for the whole of Wales... whilst some of our systems were computerised, the majority still relied on paper and were all stored in the same building.

[url= http://whokilledjohnoneill.com/essay/ ]A bit more background information[/url]... admittedly, there is some highly questionable conjecture in this piece, but there is also a vast amount of facts that aren't generally publicized.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but there were fires raging on Floors 8, 11, 12, 13, and 18. Those floors, in order: the American Express Bank, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank and City Group. Those are four financial institutions. Is that a coincidence?

That Building also had the offices of the Secret Service, the IRS, and the clandestine home to the New York branch of the CIA. I mean, imagine... imagine what kind of incriminating evidence went down in those buildings. [b]That branch of the CIA was the headquarters for the joint FBI-CIA investigation into Al Qaeda. Standard Chartered Bank was used by Omar Shiekh Saeed to wire 100,000 dollars to hijacker Mohammed Atta. Those offices of the SEC were ground zero for preemptive investigation into pre-9-11 insider trading.[/b] According to officials from the SEC, most of those cases were either scrapped or postponed for a great length of time.

So what about the investigation into Al Qaeda? That was being headed by FBI Agent John O'Neill

And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah...

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks

Let's not forget that Abu Zubaydah was in regular contact with Bandar Bin Sultan.

I'll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture...

Comedy gold!

Edit: just in case you were serious there, copying your own made up quotes or someone else’s unverified ramblings is pretty much the definition of conjecture

Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but there were fires raging on Floors 8, 11, 12, 13, and 18. Those floors, in order: the American Express Bank, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank and City Group. Those are four financial institutions. Is that a coincidence?

other banks...Go figure

Makes you think.

jivehoneyjive - Member 

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 Bernard Kerik went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority...

When you start looking into the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, things get interesting...

For example, Chief Spokesman for the CPA was Dan Senor...

A bit spooky that so many accountancy offices and people were targeted :

https://www.unilad.co.uk/politics/missing-2-3-trillion-proves-911-was-an-inside-job/

jivehoneyjive - Member
I'll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture...

TurnerGuy - Member
A bit spooky that so many accountancy offices and people were targeted :

A bit spooky that so many accountancy offices and people were targeted :

https://www.unilad.co.uk/politics/missing-2-3-trillion-proves-911-was-an-inside-job/

Obvious troll is obvious again.

Of course, we could just ignore him.

We were.

Look at post 2 on this page.

Everyone ignored it. Nobody took the bait of trying to sift through the batshit.

Then he quoted it himself in post 9, and pretended he was answering a questionbecause he was being ignored

Bit sad really.

If you look at the Oxford Circus reporting it shows some parallels in terms of the inaccuracy of initial reports and supposed ‘eye witness’ testimony. What the 9/11 truthers are doing is ignoring established fact and continually trying to push the initial confused reports despite them being confirmed as wholly inaccurate.

Hopefully in a few years time JHJ will be using olly mur’s twitter feed to confirm the ‘truth’ about the Oxford Circus terrorist cover up, and prove my hypothesis 😉

Hopefully in a few years time JHJ will be using olly mur’s twitter feed to confirm the ‘truth’ about the Oxford Circus terrorist cover up, and prove my hypothesis

Perfect example of how “truthers” obtain their “facts”

Well played.

I will refer these loons to “The Olly Murs confusion” in future.

There's a great book that covers how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, think it's called The Invisible Gorilla. They put a video on youtube to demonstrate it (the title of the book rather gives away the crux of the video...) and, as hypothesised in the book, exactly 50% of my then work colleagues did not see the incredibly obvious man in a gorilla suit walking through the video.

To add to that, one of the linked loony tunes videos on this threads has a truther speaking to a very experienced pilot who solemnly agrees that there is no way that an airliner will break mach 1 without breaking up, presenting this as key evidence of a conspiracy, when the figures they use as quoted from the official report are some way short of mach 1. So you've got people talking complete innaccuracies as proof.

And even if it were true (the bit where the plane exceeds the speed of sound) it's not a "pilot" who can tell you if this is possible or not, its an aerothermal engineer who's done the stress calcs! And even then, the absolute structural strength of an airliner is not fully known! During development flights, a prototype aircraft is instrumented to measure strain at various critical points, and flown, carefully, rigorously and in small steps up towards it's ultimate limit, but at no point is the actual limit found or breached!

So in order to answer the question "can a civil airliner exceed the speed of sound" you would need to ask the manufacturer of that aircraft, who would need to get about 15 engineers together to work out the answer. Finding someone who's flown a plane is not enough. It's called the "Burden of proof" for a reason........

During development flights, a prototype aircraft is instrumented to measure strain at various critical points, and flown, carefully, rigorously and in small steps up towards it's ultimate limit, but at no point is the actual limit found or breached!

Indeed. Of course the aircraft is not actually flown to its catastrophic limits but it doesn't need to be. The test aircraft are taken to their max dive speed during flight tests. They know where that is because as they approach it the wings start to flutter. Once they start to get flutter they obviously pull back and recover the aircraft. If they continued and the speed continued to rise then the wing flutter would continue to get more and more severe until such time the structural limit of the wing was exceeded and they literally would fall off. This would be long before supersonic speeds. So they are able to very accurately determine what the max speed of the aircraft would be before you got structural failure of the wings.

In addition to the flight testing they do a hell of alot of static testing on the 'iron bird' rig where the structural properties of the airframe can be very accurately established and therefore translated to limitations in flight. And there is the wing structure failure test where they bend a wing to failure. So again all this static testing can be accurately translated to in-flight capability so there is no need to fly the aircraft to its actual limits and risk lives.

But also when you go supersonic the aerodynamic centre (the point at which lift acts) moves rearward and the conventional flight control surfaces no longer work so the aircraft would have violently pitched nose down so would have crashed into the ground before the aircraft got to the towers. Normally through design the aerodynamic centre is very close to the centre of gravity of the aircraft for balance. So if the aerodynamic centre moves rearwards and away from the CofG then this creates the nose-down pitching moment that is way outside of the evaluators pitch authority, and in any case the elevators would be ineffective, so the dive would be irrecoverable.

Interesting about the aero centre moving, didn't know that - ta. 🙂

IIRC, their evidence for their "structural failure before mach 1" hypothesis was Egypt Air 990, which may have shed some bits before it crashed.

It’s all very interesting stuff, it not really relevant to the 9/11 debate.

The highest calculated speed, for the fastest of the two planes, was way less than Mach 1 anyway, so how does it become part of any discussion regarding 9/11. ?

yep all they can do is pick up tiny bits of crap that don't explain anything in the big picture at all. If there were snap videos of pearl harbour or the titanic I'm sure there would be more confusion there. Oxford St is a great example of this.

It’s all very interesting stuff, it not really relevant to the 9/11 debate.

The highest calculated speed, for the fastest of the two planes, was way less than Mach 1 anyway, so how does it become part of any discussion regarding 9/11. ?

Because of references in support of the conspiracy about the aircraft going supersonic because "airliners can't fly low and slow" and all that b'locks and those doubting the formal reports about the speed of the aircraft, just like all the other b'locks trying to discredit the formal reports.

The thing with it is though, unless you are a “no planer” we all saw the, intact, planes hitting the towers. Hundreds of times, from hundreds of different angles, and hundreds of different sources.

That should suggest (to anyone sane) that whatever speed they were doing, and what altitude they were doing it at, was within their capabilities. We saw them do it.

nealglover - Member
The thing with it is though, unless you are a “no planer” we all saw the, intact, planes hitting the towers. Hundreds of times, from hundreds of different angles, and hundreds of different sources.

but did you drink water that day

I was in the pub on the platform at Kings Cross Station, so no, probably not

it's OK they got the beer too....

I mentioned the supersonic thing because one of the half-baked videos in this thread stated that there was definitely a conspiracy because airliners couldn't break the sound barrier without breaking up, completely disregarding the fact the figures they referenced themselves in the actual video were some way short of mach 1. It was just to make the point that, just because some shouty American on youtube says "conspiracy!", it doesn't mean they're not talking bollocks.

I mentioned the supersonic thing because one of the half-baked videos.....

Fair enough. Just seemed an odd thing to discuss, but it makes sense now.

In other news, airliners can’t fly backwards, so it’s definitely a conspiracy.

wobbliscott

Lots of good stuff about aircraft testing and max speed

However, you are assuming that the airframe experiences flutter before any pure dynamic loading limit is breached. On modern planes, that may not be the case. It's also worth noting that all modern planes dynamically and automatically trim for CoP/CoG excursions vs speed, using two control loops, a "fast trim" that applies elevator trim and a "slow trim" that moves fuel around longitudinally (aerodynamic trimming via a flight control surface creates additional drag, moving fuel internally doesn't, so airlines obviously hate to fly with any significant flight control surface trim)

In any respect however it doesn't matter. As a PILOT, all you know is the VNE printed in the Flight Ops manual, which is sensibly set for civil aircraft considerably below the actual point at which, in the worst case, structural damage occurs or, as you have said, control authority is significantly degraded. As everything is logged these days, as a pilot, even getting to VNE under normal operational service would likely result in dismissal, so now commercial pilot is going to have a lot of experience at, and certainly not beyond, that airspeed.

So my point stands, you can't ask a pilot (with the exception perhaps of the Chief Test Pilot of any given airframe) about the ultimate or structural limits of something as complex as an modern airliner!

There's a reason high bypass turbofan engines aren't fitted to any supersonic aircraft...