The biggest impossibilty of 911

[The_Worlds_finest]

Those guys that allegedly hijacked the airplanes trained on cessnas. The planes used compared to what they were trained on is apples to oranges. About the only thing the two have in common is they both fly. Now to the spicy stuff...cessnas do not have the sophisticated navigational equipment used on boeings...how did the alleged hijackers know how to fly the planes with no knowledge of the cordinates of thier targets, let alone washington dc and new york the perfect direction to fly from hundreds of miles out, and then hit buildings with on one attempt.

(please dont reply with the ignorant statement of "well it happened")

[Nbadan]

not to mention, how did they know how and when to turn off the transponders and how this would confuse civilian air traffic controllers long enough for them to deviate from their flight plans without being noticed? hmmmm....

[ChumpDumper]

Wouldn't it be great if we could ask an airline pilot about this?

Oh, someone did....

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index1.html

That was easy. Why didn't you guys google that yourselves if you wanted to know the truth so badly?

[xrayzebra]

Oh my goodness, Chump, you ruined the thread. How can
you have a good conspiracy theory when you keep interjecting
facts. Just stop it!

[AZLouis]

(please dont reply with the ignorant statement of "well it happened")

LOL.

Screw the facts.

[IceColdBrewski]

Oh good God. This again? :rolleyes

I love how these conspiracy nimrods believe that the current administration could pull off a monumental conspiracy such as 9-11 (that would involve hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut), yet they weren't even smart enough to plant the smoking gun WMD's they would've needed to justify invading Iraq.

Morons. This country is full of morons. Hate to break it to you halfwits, but a conspiracy that big just isn't possible. It would involve too many people. SOMEBODY would've spilled the beans by now!

Pull your heads out of your assess and get over this 9-11 conspiracy crap.

[Extra Stout]

Oh good God. This again? :rolleyes

I love how these conspiracy nimrods believe that the current administration could pull off a monumental conspiracy such as 9-11 (that would involve hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut), yet they weren't even smart enough to plant the smoking gun WMD's they would've needed to justify invading Iraq.

Morons. This country is full of morons. Hate to break it to you halfwits, but a conspiracy that big just isn't possible. It would involve too many people. SOMEBODY would've spilled the beans by now!

Pull your heads out of your assess and get over this 9-11 conspiracy crap.
How do we know it was Bush. It could have been the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS

[boutons_]

"a conspiracy that big just isn't possible"

Agreed, but a much smaller conspiracy of inaction among WHIG/Exec prior to 9/11 is very credible. The inaction was ignoring the chatter of summer 2001, hoping the terrorists would attack USA interests, handing PNAC/neo-cunts a totally bogus pretext (Saddam = terrorist) for going after the Iraqi oil, among all the other lies the WH told to get into Iraq.

Now we see the WH prolonging the failed Iraqi occupation to no effect, other than trying to delay withdrawal after Jan 2009, to save the WH's own legacy by making it easier to slime the next (very probaby Dem) administration with "losing Iraq". Such cynicism is certainly consistent with hoping terrorists would attack back in 2001.

[IceColdBrewski]

"a conspiracy that big just isn't possible"

Agreed, but a much smaller conspiracy of inaction among WHIG/Exec prior to 9/11 is very credible.

If so, this vast conspiracy would involve the Clinton administration as well. Because the the terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch.


But wait, let me guess. That was because of all the "Repugs" in Washington during Clinton's term. Right? :rolleyes

[mookie2001]

clinton had a chance to get him

so did reagan and bush 1

we totally made bin laden

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Those guys that allegedly hijacked the airplanes trained on cessnas. The planes used compared to what they were trained on is apples to oranges. About the only thing the two have in common is they both fly. Now to the spicy stuff...cessnas do not have the sophisticated navigational equipment used on boeings...how did the alleged hijackers know how to fly the planes with no knowledge of the cordinates of thier targets, let alone washington dc and new york the perfect direction to fly from hundreds of miles out, and then hit buildings with on one attempt.

I hate stupid people.

http://www.technofile.com/images/flightsim1.jpg

[boutons_]

"terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch."

Have we ever heard that Clinton's Exec heard, and ignored, the chatter in 2000 that dubya's Exec heard loudly, clearly, incessantly in 2001?

Clinton was aware of the al-Quaida threat and tried, however ineffectively, to take him out.

OTOH, there is not a sliver of evidence, offered by the WH nor found by 9/11 Commission, that the 2001 Repug Exec paid any attention whatsoever to al-Quaida.

The only defense the defenders of the Repugs offer is not that the Repugs did a good job, but that it's all Clinton's fault, as if if the Repugs were totolly forced by Clinton TO DO NOTHING about terrorism between Jan - Sep 2001.

The Repugs were intentionally asleep at the NatSec, in flagrant dereliction of NatSec duty. Condi was a bad a NatSec director as she is a Sec of State. Incompetence and loyalty rule, in every area, in the dubya/dickhead era.

[IceColdBrewski]

clinton had a chance to get him

so did reagan and bush 1

we totally made bin laden

Well, at least you're finally admitting that Bin Laden was the one who really orchestrated the whole thing insted of playing your little conspiracy games.

[IceColdBrewski]

"terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch."

Have we ever heard that Clinton's Exec heard, and ignored, the chatter in 2000 that dubya's Exec heard loudly, clearly, incessantly in 2001?

Clinton was aware of the al-Quaida threat and tried, however ineffectively, to take him out.

OTOH, there is not a sliver of evidence, offered by the WH nor found by 9/11 Commission, that the 2001 Repug Exec paid any attention whatsoever to al-Quaida.

The only defense the defenders of the Repugs offer is not that the Repugs did a good job, but that it's all Clinton's fault, as if if the Repugs were totolly forced by Clinton TO DO NOTHING about terrorism between Jan - Sep 2001.

The Repugs were intentionally asleep at the NatSec, in flagrant dereliction of NatSec duty. Condi was a bad a NatSec director as she is a Sec of State. Incompetence and loyalty rule, in every area, in the dubya/dickhead era.

Exactly. It was all because of the "repugs." :rolleyes

Thanks for proving me right.

[boutons_]

"It was all because of the "repugs." "

Exactly, from Jan 2001 to 9/11, it was all on the Repugs, and they blew it. Go read the 9/11 Commission report.

Even emascualted as it was by the WH, the Report points out many security actions the Repugs DIDN'T take prior to 9/11.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not convinced that 9/11 could have been avoided by either a Bush or Gore administration with the possible exception of repeated missle strikes on the Afghan training camps. Still, there are very clear differences in the way the Bin Laden issue was treated by the Clinton and Bush White Houses, leading one to conclude that one administration saw the threat as far more serious than the other saw it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch."

Have we ever heard that Clinton's Exec heard, and ignored, the chatter in 2000 that dubya's Exec heard loudly, clearly, incessantly in 2001?

:rolleyes If you think those guys came into the country under Bush, you've got some serious reading comprehension problems.

[mookie2001]

Well, at least you're finally admitting that Bin Laden was the one who really orchestrated the whole thing insted of playing your little conspiracy games.what are you talking about? who knows what responsibility he had?, yeah he was a terrorist, head of al queda, he was also a known cia operative, they dont even know the identities of the hijackers


also


I NEVER SAID WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACKS, ever in any thread

[xrayzebra]

"It was all because of the "repugs." "

Exactly, from Jan 2001 to 9/11, it was all on the Repugs, and they blew it. Go read the 9/11 Commission report.

Even emascualted as it was by the WH, the Report points out many security actions the Repugs DIDN'T take prior to 9/11.

boutons, you mean like all the good information given
by the Clinton admin, you know Sandy Burglar.

Am I the only one who is watching Fox news. Bush
admin needs to be hung for not hanging Burglar.
Cant we just get along can only go so far.
:madrun

[ChumpDumper]

boutons, you mean like all the good information given
by the Clinton admin, you know Sandy Burglar.Mainly Richard Clarke and George Tenent, the guys Bush saw fit to keep from the Clinton administration.

[IceColdBrewski]

what are you talking about? who knows what responsibility he had?, yeah he was a terrorist, head of al queda, he was also a known cia operative, they dont even know the identities of the hijackers


also


I NEVER SAID WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACKS, ever in any thread


Hey. You were the one who brought up Bin Laden in this thread. Why? Because you thought he had nothing to do with it? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

what are you talking about? who knows what responsibility he had?, yeah he was a terrorist, head of al queda, he was also a known cia operative, they dont even know the identities of the hijackers


also


I NEVER SAID WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACKS, ever in any threadIf you are curious about the hijackers, I invite you to listen to reporter Terry McDermott, who spent quite a bit of time researching their lives.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630481

You don't even have to read....

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You don't even have to read..

I don't think he can. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I just find it odd that folk will take a two-minute video sequence, the word of three guys with some editing equipment in their homes, as gospel and not even think of inquiring about a veteran reporter who spent a couple of years travelling to over twenty countries actually investigating nothing but the identities and lives of the hijackers.

[boutons_]

"If you think those guys came into the country under Bush,"

I didn't say they did.

[IceColdBrewski]

Funny how these "Loose Change" college kids (the ones who started this whole 9-11 conspiracy fad) have had to "revise" their documentary several times due to "inaccuracies." Yet somehow the nutjobs continue to gobble up everything they say.

[ChumpDumper]

Right, I'm waiting for McDermott to come out with Perfect Soldiers: The Second and Perhaps Penultimate Edition Unless I'm Mercilessly Owned Again When Caught Saying Things Like a B-52 Hit the Empire State Building.

[Extra Stout]

I just find it odd that folk will take a two-minute video sequence, the word of three guys with some editing equipment in their homes, as gospel and not even think of inquiring about a veteran reporter who spent a couple of years travelling to over twenty countries actually investigating nothing but the identities and lives of the hijackers.
McDermott is part of the conspiracy. I bet he's part JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[FromWayDowntown]

i think it's odd that some people don't realize that some "conspiracy theorists" on this forum have just been requesting answers to seemingly simple questions

I think it's odd that some people don't realize that some "conspiracy theorists" on this forum have been given the answers to seemingly simple questions.

[boutons_]

While the Repug defenders are making lists, let's see the list of anti-terror actions, the WH reactions to the summer chatter and blinking red lights, even just bullshit blah-blah NatSec meetings, between Jan and Sep 2001.

[IceColdBrewski]

really? please, list the answers. i'd like to see them myself.

Kinda hard for him to give answers considering that you haven't asked any questions.

[IceColdBrewski]

Funny stuff.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[efrem1]

clinton had a chance to get him

so did reagan and bush 1

we totally made bin laden

and I guess we made Hitler when we disarmed Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. People today have the historical knowledge of a Chimpanzee.
:lol

[Phil Hellmuth]

don't hate on skepticism.

skepticism is okay.

unless you have the answers stop fuckin giving your hateful opinions of supposed "nuts"

and just because the other side gives rebuttals doesn't make those rebuttals concrete in stone. there is two sides to everything.

[IceColdBrewski]

don't hate on skepticism.

skepticism is okay.

Being skeptical is one thing. But believing that the WTC was brought down by demolition absolutely qualifies you as a conspiracy nutjob. Period.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Being skeptical is one thing. But believing that the WTC was brought down by demolition absolutely qualifies you as a conspiracy nutjob. Period.


that is a nice red herring right there.

[Flight3107]

This thread should have been dead after the 3rd post.


Why is everyone still arguing?

[Extra Stout]

:rolleyes nbadan has questions. mookie has questions. mouse has questions. i am not as skeptical as these three, but when they ask their questions i'd like for you geniuses to answer them rather than calling them idiots. or else admit that you don't know the answers. bitch.

Conspiracy theorist: Look! I have evidence 9/11 was an inside job!

Normal people: Your evidence is wrong because of incontrovertible facts A, B, and C.

Conspiracy theorist: But what about this?

Normal people: Fact D disproves it.

Conspiracy theorist: HA! Bet you can't debunk THIS!

Normal people: Facts E and F debunk it.

Conspiracy theorist: HA! You still haven't disproved anything! You don't have any facts!

Normal people: We just presented you with a series of facts.

Conspiracy theorist: No you didn't! You won't answer any of my questions! You keep stalling! SHEEPLE! SHEEPLE!

Normal people: Stop wearing your ass as a hat.

[IceColdBrewski]

:rolleyes nbadan has questions. mookie has questions. mouse has questions.


There are literaly dozens of websites with pictures, eyewitness testimony, video, etc that totally debunk this 9-11 conspiracy nonsense. All you have to do is try a little research. But your minds are already made up. Common sense be damned.

Screw it. You're right. The most incompetent administration of our generation was smart enough to pull off the great 9-11 conspiracy, yet couldn't even manage to plant some WMD's to justify the Iraq invasion.

You win. :rolleyes

[Phil Hellmuth]

http://911scholars.org/

[IceColdBrewski]

http://911scholars.org/

Sorry. But for every nutjob conspiracy webpage on 9-11, there's 5 more that debunk it all. Try again.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Sorry. But for every nutjob conspiracy webpage on 9-11, there's 5 more that debunk it all. Try again.

debunk?

oh yea, i hear about debunks of debunks.

give me a break...

more like opinion and preaching to the choir cookie cutter jibberish.

[ChumpDumper]

http://911scholars.org/Is there a "Structural Engineers for 9/11 Truth" organization out there you can point me to.

[boutons_]

repost:

"While the Repug defenders are making lists, let's see the list of anti-terror actions, the WH reactions to the summer chatter and blinking red lights, even just bullshit blah-blah NatSec meetings, between Jan and Sep 2001."

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

[boutons_]

"countless debunkings of your theories"

The only "theory" I have is that the WH did NOTHING in reaction to chatter and blinking red lights.

And since nobody, including the 9/11 Commission, has found ANYTHING that the dubya Exec did prior to 9/11, my theory goes unchallenged.

[Phil Hellmuth]

DEBBUNK DEBUNK DEBUNK DEBUNK...

god stfu already.

[boutons_]

"stfu already."

PH threatening AHF's heretofore contested lead in content-free posts.

[Extra Stout]

"countless debunkings of your theories"

The only "theory" I have is that the WH did NOTHING in reaction to chatter and blinking red lights.

And since nobody, including the 9/11 Commission, has found ANYTHING that the dubya Exec did prior to 9/11, my theory goes unchallenged.
You are absolutely right that the Bush Administration from January to September 2001 de-emphasized whatever focus Clinton had in dealing with Al-Qaeda. At first, they were looking to constrain China as their top objective.

[Extra Stout]

ok retard. how about you repost this except with proof?
"WTC 7 wasn't heavily damaged!"

Photo and video evidence shows a 24-story gash taken out of the south face, a huge hole where the fifth story was supposed to be, the lower southwest corner of the building missing. Eyewitnesses say a third of the building was scooped out.

WTC 7 was an unusual design in order to accomodate the electrical substation equipment and the trading floors. When only a few key columns were destroyed, enormous loads were placed on the remaining few. This was not a proven design. But, nobody designs skyscrapers to withstand having adjacent skyscrapers fall on them.

Firefighters at the scene realized early on that WTC 7 was unstable and pulled everybody out. They did not fight the fires raging inside.

"But the fire never made it to the north side of the building!" Photos and videos show that indeed it did.

"But it fell straight down!" When the main truss failed, the rest of the trusses on the level of failure, which were not designed to handle the extreme loads, failed diagonally within a few seconds, causing the floor above to collapse. Once this began, the momentum of the building rapidly led to global failure.

"But it fell straight down!" Well, almost straight down. But when the collpase began, the moment is going to cause the outside walls to start failing inward, causing the building to start bowing in the middle and collapsing on itself.

"But the buildings fell at (close to) free fall speed!" Once the building started moving downward, whatever small resistance could be offered by the failed structure would have been no match for the enormous momentum of such a large mass, and as it accelerated, it would have gotten closer to theoretical free fall.

"But on WTC 1 and 2, some physicist said that the reinforced core should have offered at least a little resistance!" But the core did not collapse at the same time as the rest of the building, and video evidence shows that the core stayed standing for several seconds after the floors collapsed around it.

"But there has never been any evidence verifying who the hijackers were!" Except that a respected journalist did an in-depth study on each of them.

"But you haven't answered a single one of my questions! You're stalling! SHEEPLE! SHEEPLE!" Pull your head out of your ass.

[Extra Stout]

And of course, elpimpo, I'm sure that you, just like all your buddies, will ignore that post, and go on believing whatever you want to believe, or at the very least pull out the boilerplate "Well, I still don't believe the entire official report."

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories is like debunking creation science. The adherents believe for reasons that have nothing to do with objective evidence, and aren't really interested in having their minds changed.

[Phil Hellmuth]

close this fuckin thread.

its like arguing religion.

[boutons_]

PH, typical chickenshit post.
Can't offer any substance, so he wants to close thread.

[thispego]

we should kill ALL the 9/11 threads, never talk about it again

[Nbadan]

"WTC 7 wasn't heavily damaged!"

Photo and video evidence shows a 24-story gash taken out of the south face, a huge hole where the fifth story was supposed to be, the lower southwest corner of the building missing. Eyewitnesses say a third of the building was scooped out.

WTC 7 was an unusual design in order to accomodate the electrical substation equipment and the trading floors. When only a few key columns were destroyed, enormous loads were placed on the remaining few. This was not a proven design. But, nobody designs skyscrapers to withstand having adjacent skyscrapers fall on them.

Firefighters at the scene realized early on that WTC 7 was unstable and pulled everybody out. They did not fight the fires raging inside.

"But the fire never made it to the north side of the building!" Photos and videos show that indeed it did.

"But it fell straight down!" When the main truss failed, the rest of the trusses on the level of failure, which were not designed to handle the extreme loads, failed diagonally within a few seconds, causing the floor above to collapse. Once this began, the momentum of the building rapidly led to global failure.

"But it fell straight down!" Well, almost straight down. But when the collpase began, the moment is going to cause the outside walls to start failing inward, causing the building to start bowing in the middle and collapsing on itself.

"But the buildings fell at (close to) free fall speed!" Once the building started moving downward, whatever small resistance could be offered by the failed structure would have been no match for the enormous momentum of such a large mass, and as it accelerated, it would have gotten closer to theoretical free fall.

"But on WTC 1 and 2, some physicist said that the reinforced core should have offered at least a little resistance!" But the core did not collapse at the same time as the rest of the building, and video evidence shows that the core stayed standing for several seconds after the floors collapsed around it.

"But there has never been any evidence verifying who the hijackers were!" Except that a respected journalist did an in-depth study on each of them.

"But you haven't answered a single one of my questions! You're stalling! SHEEPLE! SHEEPLE!" Pull your head out of your ass.

Stout is selling...(nice post by the way), but I'm still not buying. We aren't taking wooden structures here, as I've already proven, we are talking a building with 57x24 steel beams capable of handling the loss of more than just a few main truss. The lower floors were also reinforced with triangle trusses. Even a house of cards built with toothpicks will offer some resistence to a heavy object thrown on top forcing it to lose momentum and not fall at free fall speed, which can only happen when something offers no resistence at all.

[ChumpDumper]

as I've already proven, we are talking a building with 57x24 steel beams capable of handling the loss of more than just a few main truss.You proved nothing about how much each beam was designed to carry on every floor.
The lower floors were also reinforced with triangle trusses.And if one of them went -- then what? Are you saying they were redundant?
Even a house of cards built with toothpicks will offer some resistence to a heavy object thrown on top forcing it to lose momentum and not fall at free fall speed, which can only happen when something offers no resistence at all.Why do all the conspiacy theorist keep saying it free falls? Is there even a video that shows 7WTC actually hitting the ground?

[Nbadan]

You proved nothing about how much each beam was designed to carry on every floor.

I didn't have to because the initial NIST and FEMA report both blame the collapse on truss failure on floors lower than 10, much lower.

[Nbadan]

And if one of them went -- then what? Are you saying they were redundant?

No, but the other beams would still offer resistance, unless they were all somehow compromised.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't have to because the initial NIST and FEMA report both blame the collapse on truss failure on floors lower than 10, much lower.So nothing above that could have possibly failed first? Especially since columns could have been knocked out on several floors by the initial debris strike, increasing the load on the remaining columns?

[ChumpDumper]

No, but the other beams would still offer resistance, unless they were all somehow compromised.How much? If you have a video of WTC7 hitting the ground, I'd like to see it.

[Nbadan]

Why do all the conspiacy theorist keep saying it free falls? Is there even a video that shows 7WTC actually hitting the ground?

Why does a alternative theory have to be a 'conpiracy theory'? Scientific theory isn't on the side of 'the official story', as a curious lot, doesn't that spark any curiousity?

Free fall and othe laws of motion explained (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HCSMBlVw2Qg)

[ChumpDumper]

Why does a alternative theory have to be a 'conpiracy theory'?Because you said there was a conspiracy.

Or are you taking that back now?

[ChumpDumper]

Free fall and othe laws of motion explained (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HCSMBlVw2Qg)Is there a video of a structural engineer explaining it?

[mookie2001]

what about a government official?

[Nbadan]

Because you said there was a conspiracy.

Or are you taking that back now?

No, I've always said that 911 was The Great Deception, but you won't learn that for a few more decades.

[ChumpDumper]

It still hasn't been explained to be by the ALTERNATIVE THEORISTS THAT CONSTANTLY STATE OR IMPLY CONSPIRACY (trying to be sensitive but accurate) why the controlled thermite demolition took seven hours to happen -- just enough time for the fires to look good and cause the building to measurably move after north tower debris had been directed over another building and across the street to knock holes in the southwest corner and south face?

[ChumpDumper]

No, I've always said that 911 was The Great Deception, but you won't learn that for a few more decades.No, you've stated controlled demolition, which is only possible through a conspiracy.

If you think it's a great deception, go ahead and say who you think is doing the deceiving and why.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey mookie, did you listen to the interview I linked?

[ChumpDumper]

Here's another one since I know you are very interested in the hijackers:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2005/05/04

[Phil Hellmuth]

PH, typical chickenshit post.
Can't offer any substance, so he wants to close thread.

typical weak ass two sentence reply. let me praise you for that one. touche bitch

GTFOWTBS

look i don't discredit people who believe that something is fishy about 9/11. I also don't discredit who believe there was no CONSPIRACY. But if you think our government is fine and dandy and there is nothing more to life than clear cut vanilla angel theology... you are kidding yourself.

ask questions, don't have anything forced down your throat.

[smeagol]

:rolleyes nbadan has questions. mookie has questions. mouse has questions. i am not as skeptical as these three, but when they ask their questions i'd like for you geniuses to answer them rather than calling them idiots. or else admit that you don't know the answers. bitch.
Go and read post #1 and post #3 of this thread.

The starter of this thread asks how can terrorists, who trained on cessnas, fly 757s and 767s into the WTC and the Pentagon.

chump answers by posting extracts from pilots (probably the people most qualified to answer TWF's question) who explain how it is possible for terrorists (or any other group of people who train on cessnas and flight simulators) to fly planes into the Towers.

A question was asked, an answer was given.

Same case as with all other questions asked by mookie, mouse and dan. Answers were provided, but you, and them, could care less because your mind has been set.

[xrayzebra]

Where is a moderator when you need them. Cant all these
threads on 9/11 be consolidated into one thread.

[mookie2001]

this by the way is the biggest impossibility of 9/11
august 2002

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."


The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.





http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

the chances of this are like 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Spurminator]

This is also a crazy coincidence.

Released on 9/11/2001:

http://cwhisonant.gotdns.com/blog/dreamtheater.jpg

[Spurminator]

Also originally scheduled for September 2001 release:

http://www.geocities.com/conspiracyx2002/coup.jpg

[smeagol]

the chances of this are like 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000

Yep, a conspiracy is only good if one can tie unrelated events into a well knit thread.

I also heard that the power was cut off on the days prior to 9/11. That would only make sense if the perpetrators of the attack (the terrorists with the Government's compliance, or even better, the Governemnt itslef).

Hell, you can make a conspiracy out of anything.

Wasn't a missile who brought down TWA flight 800?

[ChumpDumper]

this by the way is the biggest impossibility of 9/11
august 2002

the chances of this are like 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000What's so impossible about that?

The chances are like 1:1, because it happened.

Their building resembles the WTC very closely.

http://ludb.clui.org/static/pub/98/0d291e/231e7b0750a1bf35a5035796.medium.jpg

What are the odds!

So now the spy satellite agency is in on it. it makes perfect sense. They evacuate their building just in case their expert pilots mistake the building above for the pentagon or the capitol building. Then, not even a year later, the CIA publicly reveals it to pre-empt the truth movement, which was so close to finding it out anyway because they suspected satellites use focused energy beams to bring down the building. Well, I don't know if they thought the beams were from satellites, but I do now.

[smeagol]

What's so impossible about that?

The chances are like 1:1, because it happened.

Their building resembles the WTC very closely.

http://ludb.clui.org/static/pub/98/0d291e/231e7b0750a1bf35a5035796.medium.jpg

What are the odds!

So now the spy satellite agency is in on it. it makes perfect sense. They evacuate their building just in case their expert pilots mistake the building above for the pentagon or the capitol building. Then, not even a year later, the CIA publicly reveals it to pre-empt the truth movement, which was so close to finding it out anyway because they suspected satellites use focused energy beams to bring down the building. Well, I don't know if they thought the beams were from satellites, but I do now.

:nope

It's much more interesting if you post an article that at first glance seems to help to prove the great 9/11 conspiracy, and you say something like "no way this drill and 9/11 could happen the same day. This has to be a conspiracy!".

Who really cares about the explanation?

By the was, elpimpo, here's another instance of a question - answer scenario, those which you say never happen.

[mookie2001]

The chances are like 1:1, because it happened.



the chances of it being a coincidence; the events being unrelated

[ChumpDumper]

Why would they have a drill on 9/11 if they were in on the conspiracy and knew they weren't a target?

[mookie2001]

norad stood down, excuse if something went wrong

[ChumpDumper]

That wasn't my question.

Why would the NRO have a small-airplane crash drill on 9/11 if they were in on the conspiracy to fly jetliners into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Capitol and knew they weren't a target?

[mookie2001]

i didnt say they were in on conspiracy, its not like the NRO makes its own decisions on anything, NORAD did stand down

[ChumpDumper]

Who makes the decision for the NRO to have a disaster drill?

[mookie2001]

I don't know, someone in one of the many high levels of the government, cia, military?

keep dismissing coincidence after coincidence


why do you think Norad totally dropped the ball on 9/11?

[mookie2001]

yes, even if the GOVERNMENT did it, its not like the person who directed the drill knew all the details of the upcoming attacks

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know, someone in one of the many high levels of the government, cia, military?But you just said you knew the NRO didn't direct its own drills in its own buildings. How can you say that definitively if you don't know who does direct them?
why do you think Norad totally dropped the ball on 9/11?I think they weren't fully prepared for the scenario of planes flying from US airports being used as bombs. They sent in whatever planes they had in the area, but it's not like there were squadrons of fully armed planes already in the air. That is not how NORAD works.
yes, even if the GOVERNMENT did it, its not like the person who directed the drill knew all the details of the upcoming attacksSo you're saying the government did it?

[mookie2001]

do you really think the nro makes it own decisions, a national spy agency that most of us have never heard of, made up of cia and military??



So you're saying the government did it?
yes naturally I believe someone in the government ordered the drill




it's not like there were squadrons of fully armed planes already in the air. That is not how NORAD works.HReally??, I thought norad was all xwing fighters?

[ChumpDumper]

do you really think the nro makes it own decisions, a national spy agency that most of us have never heard of, made up of cia and military??Decisions about its own building? Sure.
yes naturally I believe someone in the government ordered the drillNo, you're saying the government did 9/11.
HReally??, I thought norad was all xwing fighters?I don't exactly know how you think things work. You seem to think fire drills are scheduled by cabinet members.

[mookie2001]

you're saying the government did 9/11.that doesnt make any sense

im saying the drills were one of the many many many factors that combined to allow the attacks to occur

[Nbadan]

Gross negligence or ?

Report: French knew of al-Qaida plot 25 minutes ago


PARIS - A French intelligence service learned as early as January 2001 that al-Qaida was working on a plot to hijack U.S. airliners, and it passed the information on to the CIA, a news report said Monday.

France's Le Monde newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents on Osama bin Laden's terror network that were drawn up by the French foreign intelligence service, the DGSE, between July 2000 and October 2001.

The Defense Ministry didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

Le Monde reported that the documents included a note dated Jan. 5, 2001, which said al-Qaida had been working on a hijacking plot for months. The intelligence note reported that bin Laden had attended a meeting in Afghanistan in October 2000, where a final decision to carry out the plot was taken, the newspaper said.

French intelligence officials apparently had no idea that al-Qaida was plotting to crash hijacked planes into buildings, as happened in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/france911)

[Phil Hellmuth]

What's so impossible about that?

The chances are like 1:1, because it happened.
.


this has got to be the dumbest thing i have ever heard today.

[Nbadan]

Le Monde said the French report of January 2001 had been handed over to a CIA operative in Paris, but that no mention of it had ever been made in the official U.S. Sept. 11 Commission, which produced its findings in July 2004.

Alertnet (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16125438.htm)

Guess they just forgot?

[mookie2001]

that official sep 11th commission was hardcore


put bushs punkass on the hot seat

except he stalled the investigation
and he didnt take an oath
and what he said wasnt recorded
and no notes were taken
and nobody present could ever talk about what he said
and cheney was by his side the whole time

[ChumpDumper]

that doesnt make any sense

im saying the drills were one of the many many many factors that combined to allow the attacks to occurSo you're saying the government intentinoally allowed 9/11 to occur.

[mookie2001]

I dont know if it was intentional or not

if some chode gets the order to run a drill, hes not a mastermind terrorist, these people are following orders

[ChumpDumper]

Gross negligence or ?

Report: French knew of al-Qaida plot 25 minutes ago



Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/france911)
from the article:

But the French warning hinted at a plot in Europe, not the United States, and there was no suggestion of suicide attacks or multiple planes. One former official said al-Qaida may have leaked misinformation to divert intelligence agencies from the bigger, deadlier plot to come on Sept. 11, 2001.

The warning was another example of how intelligence agents sensed al-Qaida was hard at work in the months leading up to Sept. 11 but were unable to piece together fragmented warnings into a coherent plot.

Are you grossly negligent when you leave out things like that, or ?

[ChumpDumper]

I dont know if it was intentional or not

if some chode gets the order to run a drill, hes not a mastermind terrorist, these people are following ordersWhose orders?

[sabar]

Birthday Paradox, it was bound to happen.

[Nbadan]

Aren't you forgetting 'no one could have anticipated' and a certain PDB...?

[ChumpDumper]

Tenet was beating Bush over the head with warnings about AQ almost every day. Had he known any specifics, he would have said so.

[Phil Hellmuth]

I see people pointing fingers in all directions, which finger should i pick????

[ChumpDumper]

I see people pointing fingers in all directions, which finger should i pick????The one that makes the most sense given the evidence.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm confused about dan's reliance on a report that suggests that bin Laden's group was responsible for 9/11, since in another thread, dan chastized me for buying into the hype that 9/11 was caused by 19 militant muslims hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings.