[Closed] 9/11 documentary

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...

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

Cool. But is it relevant to airliners hitting buildings way below supersonic speeds ?

nealglover - Member

Cool. But is it relevant to airliners hitting buildings way below supersonic speeds ?

Only from the aspect of proving any talk of the planes flying above (or close to) mach 1 being nonsense.

OK, now all of that bollox has been cleared up, can any of you explain which of the facts contained in this post you're refuting?

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, Dan Senor had been working for the Carlyle Group.

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 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.

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]

The question is what does any of that prove?

Not refuting any of it but I'm with Drac - so what?

I am both disputing some of it - that saudis fled or the Bin ladden specifically - and also saying so what if you latest fantasy is l true it proves nothing much anyway

That's a lot like the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game - you can connect anyone to just about anyone else in a surprisingly small number of steps. And when you include multinational companies with thousands of employees, it makes it even easier.

1. If they are facts provide sources, not just quoting yourself or a crazy video.

2. You’re still trying to disprove science with politics.

3. None of what you’ve quoted proves anything.it Is the definition of conjecture

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...

This for example is a superb bit of bollocks. ‘Regardless of debates on the physics’ as if that is disproved by someone taking a job some time in the future.

JHJ, did you just quote yourself again? 🙂

OK, let's try and approach this with logic - where's your source for the "Bin Laden family and Saudi royals being evacuated on 9/11" story? Evacuated by whom, from where and where to? I know I'm wasting my time but....

1000!

Snopes is, as always, a useful resource

https://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

No secret flights

That's a lot like the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game - you can connect anyone to just about anyone else in a surprisingly small number of steps. And when you include multinational companies with thousands of employees, it makes it even easier.

Given Bin Laden is one of about 40 odd brothers it’s probably about 2 degrees.

JHJ, did you just quote yourself again?

Of course he did. He’s having a conversation with himself.

He quotes “facts” (because he doesn’t like conjecture apparently 8O) )

But nobody listens, mainly because his “facts” are as reliable as a Yodel delivery driver.
(See secret flights snopes link above)

So he’s left to quote himself, and slowly disappear up his own bullshit spiral.

But more to the point, his list of spurious facts, tenuous link, coincidences are the perfect definition of Conjecture

A list of random events and half truths, enough to convince him that science is irrelevant and he knows best.

[b]CONJECTURE -
1.
form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information[/b]

Makes you think 🙄

Given Bin Laden is one of about 40 odd brothers it’s probably about 2 degrees.

I'm 2 degrees away from L. Ron Hubbard. Makes you think.

That's what THEY want you to think.

#LizardOverlords

Makes you think.

The question is what does any of that prove?

Well it certainly proves that a lot of the folk on here don't check my posts very thoroughly... the orignal post contains the links to the sources.

It also proves, through no fault of their own, that people don't know nearly enough about the Carlyle Group or the backgrounds of the people involved...

2. You’re still trying to disprove science with politics.

9/11 was a political event

Back to the flights... 1st up, lets take a look at information provided by snopes:

The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, [b]has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the “9/11 Commission”)[/b]

Doesn't sit particularly well with:

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

Expanding on the source from reputable publication vanity fair (link to which you can find in the original post)

[b]When he and Perez met at the terminal, a woman laughed at Grossi for even thinking he would be flying that day. Commercial flights had slowly begun to resume, but at 10:57 A.M. the F.A.A. had issued another notice to airmen, a reminder that private aviation was still prohibited. Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down. As far as private planes were concerned, America was still grounded. “I was told it would take White House approval,” says Grossi.[/b]

[b]Then one of the pilots arrived. “Here’s your plane,” he told Grossi. “Whenever you’re ready to go.”

Unbeknownst to Dan Grossi, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the 52-year-old Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had been in Washington orchestrating the exodus of about 140 Saudis[/b] scattered throughout the country who were members of, or close to, two enormous families.

One was the House of Saud, the family that rules the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that, owing to its vast oil reserves, is the richest family in the world. The other was the ruling family’s friends and allies the bin Ladens, who, in addition to owning a multi-billion-dollar construction conglomerate, had spawned the notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden.

([url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Unger ]Craig Unger[/url] The Journalist who penned the piece for Vanity Fair wrote an extremely well researched book '[url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/House-Bush-Saud-Relationship-Dynasties/dp/1903933897 ]House of Bush, House of Saud[/url]' detailing the extensive links between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia)

From House of Bush, House of Saud:

But in fact, the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W. Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office and George H. W. Bush and James Baker were free to join the private sector, the Bush family's relationship with the Carlyle Group began to become substantive. By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush's role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle. With former Secretary of Defense Carlucci guiding the acquisition of defense companies, Carlyle finally began making real money from the Saudis, both through investments from the royal family, the bin Ladens and other members of the Saudi elite, and through lucrative defense investments.

[b]Now, let's not forget that Bandar Bin Sultan was personally thanked by Osama Bin Laden for helping bring American (CIA) support during Operation Cyclone (when ex CIA director George H.W. Bush was vice president, under Ronald Reagan)
[/b]

Still sticking to facts and fear not, there is PLENTY more

bencooper - Member

That's a lot like the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game

Indeed
Using JHJ's standard of "evidence" I can link David Attenborough, via me, to 9/11.

The question is what does any of that prove?

Well it certainly proves that a lot of the folk on here don't check my posts very thoroughly... the orignal post contains the links to the sources.

It also proves, through no fault of their own, that people don't know nearly enough about the Carlyle Group or the backgrounds of the people involved...
.
.
.
Edited out lots of CONJECTURE.

So. When given the opportunity to tell us what your big CONJECTURE list [b][u]Proves[/u][/b].

You offer [b][u]Nothing[/u][/b] whatsoever.

“Makes me think” that’s exactly the total of what it proves.

(I’ve made a couple of the most relevant words bold and underlined them, for clarity.

2. You’re still trying to disprove science with politics.

9/11 was a political event

Normies: On May 15, 2001, John Prescott punched a man who threw an egg at him.

JHJ: Some people have argued that it could not have been an egg, because it is impossible for an egg to break when thrown at less than supersonic speeds.

However, Prescott was a member of Tony Blair's government. Blair was alleged to have had several "romps" with Wendi Deng, wife of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is Australian, like the Great Barrier Reef. So the "egg" was probably a sphere of egg-like soup, constructed from a coral-based nano-material manufactured in Australia by jews.

Normies: You don't need to throw an egg at supersonic speed to break it.

JHJ: Wendi Deng wasn't wearing any pantyhose at a meeting in London in 2006.

9/11 was a political event

no, it was a terrorist attack. The annual conservative conference is a political event.

therefore, you still have no evidence to disprove the events of the day of 9/11. The scientific evidence remains unrefuted.

The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the “9/11 Commission”)

Doesn't sit particularly well with:

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

there is no causal link between the two that undermines the former statement. The flights took place on 13/11 when the tampa flight ban had been rescinded. Do you dispute that?

I've read the vanity fair article. All it says to me is that the US government probably wanted to keep the Saudi government on side. Even if (and this is conjecture) George Bush allowed them to leave because it suited a business relationship it is completely irrelevant to the act of 9/11.

You have no evidence of collusion between the US & Saudi (or Bush & Bin Laden) to commit terrorism on 9/11. All you have at best is possibly some dodgy favours, and you speculate wildly from there.

Another particular allegation is that a flight carrying Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, was allowed to fly while airspace was closed, with special approval by senior U.S. government officials. On September 13, Tampa police brought three young Saudis they were protecting on an off-duty security detail to the airport so they could get on a plane to Lexington. Tampa police arranged for two more private investigators to provide security on the flight. They boarded a chartered Learjet. The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. The three Saudi nationals debarked from the plane and were met by local police. Their private security guards were paid. and the police then escorted the three Saudi passengers to a hotel where they joined relatives already in Lexington. [b]The FBI is alleged to have had no record of the flight and denied that it occurred, hence contributing to the story of a “phantom flight.” This is another misunderstanding.[/b] The FBI was initially misinformed about how the Saudis got to Lexington by a local police officer in Lexington who did not have firsthand knowledge of the matter. [b]The Bureau subsequently learned about the flight.
[/b]
[b]These flights were screened by law enforcement officials[/b], primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot … [b]The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes[/b]. Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity

from the snopes article, my bolds for clarity.

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

Again these are unrelated, but made to look a certain way to suit an agenda

1. Did Cleland resign? Yeah, he took up another post on 2004 on a different commission

2.did he say those things, again yeah but it was referring to the short time period avaliable for the commission to report and it's perceived lack of funds, not because he suspected Bush had some sort of involvement.

3. Did he resign [i]because[/i] he though the commission had been deliberately compromised? No he didn't.

Rather than post up all this nonsense Jhj why don't you just say bluntly who you think bombed the the towers why they did, and what they hoped to gain from it, and we'll start from that

Rather than post up all this nonsense Jhj why don't you just say bluntly who you think bombed the the towers why they did, and what they hoped to gain from it, and we'll start from that

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Like that’s ever going to happen 😛

Avoidance of your question and More irrelevant conjecture on the way from jivebunny......

2.did he say those things, again yeah but it was referring to the short time period avaliable for the commission to report and it's perceived lack of funds, not because he suspected Bush had some sort of involvement.

I can see you're all enjoying this, so who can guess who one of George W Bush's earliest advisors on Foreign Policy was, before he even ran for president...

Avoidance of your question and More irrelevant conjecture on the way from jivebunny......

And then........ as if by magic.....

.....so who can guess who one of George W Bush's earliest advisors on Foreign Policy was, before he even ran for president...

Boom!

I’m like Nostradamus me.

nealglover - Member

Avoidance of your question and More irrelevant conjecture on the way from jivebunny......

Ten points to nealglover.

I'm not straying into conjecture... I'm sticking to facts

How those facts are interpreted is up to the individual...

And you have been asked what YOUR interpretation of those “facts” are.

But you’ve ignored it.

So come on, what happened, why did it happen, who made it happen.

Simple questions for a man with all the FACTS.

(By the way, that wasn’t a fact at the top of the page, it was a “question” ... slight difference)