ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 11th November 2008, 07:36 AM   #281
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,745
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Der Moor hat seine Pflicht getan, der Moor kann gehen.

The muslim has done his duty. The muslim can go.
Firstly, it's a but of an archaic phrase don't you think?

I'm going to assume that you are supposed to be writing in German here and not Dutch.

My German isn't the greatest but I was under the impression that the German word of "Muslim" was "der Moslem".

But if you were using the word "Moor" in the same context then it is in English then you have spelt it wrong. If I remember correctly it's "Mohr" not "Moor".

I was trying to figure out why you were saying basically:

The wasteland has done his duty, the wasteland can go

Kind of falls apart in Dutch though, where apparently the word "Moor" is synonymous with the English term for the people.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 07:37 AM   #282
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
What do you mean 'manufactured'?

We are talking possibly solely about additional lines of computer code to an existing system. I am not sure about retrieving a signal from the transponder, if that can be done pure with code yes or no.
Why my good sir...by manufactured I mean brought into being! Assembled from its component parts!
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!

Last edited by JoeyDonuts; 11th November 2008 at 07:41 AM.
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 07:41 AM   #283
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
<snip>

2) CIA closes down unit that hunts for bin Laden

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/wa...=1&oref=slogin

<snip>
Why is this important? Did you even read the article that you are linking to? Or did you just read the title and stop?

Originally Posted by NYTimes Story linked by 911Inv
Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."
...and I only had to investigate five sentences into the article before reaching that part.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 07:44 AM   #284
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,846
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
I'll look into that. A strong indication is that none of the 4 airplanes send a 'I have been hijacked' signal. This indicates that the loss of control was immediate.
"Immediate" is a relative term here. The loss of control clearly took place over a shorter time than would have been required for the pilot to assess the situation, determine that the appropriate action was to transmit a hijack code, reset four ten-position rotary switches and press a button. Since, in a traditional hijack, there would have been plenty of time to do this - because the hijackers would have issued instructions on where to fly the plane - doing so in a hurry would not necessarily have been a priority, and if for example a hostage was being threatened with immediate death if the pilot didn't give up the seat, it may never have been one.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 07:50 AM   #285
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
911 investigator-

you might want to look into the software that was running that day. some people think that ptech is like the whole PROMIS software scandal. the CIA, via michael Riconosciuto, created a "backdoor" to spy on anyone that also had the software. and guess what, OBL also had the promis software. WHO the hell trained those boys to use it???? maybe ali mohammed (CIA) since he was around OBL in the early days.
regarding ptech-
fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml

Jamey Hecht: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - its on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.

Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that…

Jamey Hecht: And that relationship had been going on mediated by Ptech for 2 years prior to 9/11. You elsewhere say that the Secret Service is among the government entities that had a contract with Ptech. Mike Ruppert's thesis in Crossing the Rubicon, as you know, is that the software that was running information between FAA & NORAD was superseded by a parallel subsuming version of itself that was being run by the Secret Service on state of the art parallel equipment in the PEOC with a nucleus of Secret Service personnel around Cheney.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 08:08 AM   #286
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by bio View Post
I am not sure, weather I can trust this graphic. were the bush-wars financed over the R&D-budget?
I couldn't find a graph showing R&D specifically (you probably can if you look hard enough) but you can see that the proportion of military spending in general is hardly comparable to the aftermath of Peal Harbor, nor, come to that spending during Vietnam or the Reagan years.

Last edited by Dr Adequate; 11th November 2008 at 08:09 AM.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 08:11 AM   #287
ellindsey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
What do you mean 'manufactured'?

We are talking possibly solely about additional lines of computer code to an existing system. I am not sure about retrieving a signal from the transponder, if that can be done pure with code yes or no.
No. The problem with the remote control concept is that none of the airplanes that crashed on 9-11 had fly-by-wire control systems. All of the planes had mechanical controls, in which the pilot's inputs to the control wheel and rudder were transmitted by a system of cables and levers to hydraulic boosters which moved the control surfaces. There is no place in the system where the control can be interrupted without disabling the entire system. These planes did have autopilots, which would push and pull on the control cables, adding mechanical input in the same way as another pilot would. The forces which the autopilot was capable of were less than those the pilots could exert, so even if the autopilot had been reprogrammed to crash the plane, the pilots would have been able to physically overpower it and keep control over the plane.

Furthermore, in addition to the flight controls, the cockpit crew have access to circuit breakers that control power to pretty much every system in the airplane. If the autopilot is behaving bizarrely, the flight crew are going to just pull the circuit breaker that controls the autopilot and shut if off. This is a hard-wired circuit, not something that can be overridden by radio control or changes in software. In an emergency the pilots can actually completely disable the airplane's electrical system by pulling the main power bus breakers. The aircraft that crashed on 9-11 were of a type that could in an emergency land fly and land with no electrical power at all. You'll have no radio or navigation gear, and rudimentary flight instruments, but the controls are driven by hydraulics which are powered directly from the engines and can work in the total absence of electrical power. And believe me, if the pilots discover that the airplane is behaving oddly and they have no control over the flight, they'll start pulling breakers and reconfiguring systems until they regain control.

On a more modern aircraft - an A380 or 787 or something - with fly-by-wire controls, you might theoretically be able to reprogram the computer to take control remotely. On the older aircraft that crashed on 9-11, taking control of the airplane in a way that can't be defeated by the cockpit crew will take massive physical modifications to the plane's mechanical and electrical systems.
ellindsey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 08:20 AM   #288
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Dog Town refers to WMD, Niger-uranium story, Atta-meeting-in Prague...

Obviously I was referring to the context of Iraq, the justification of which was given by 9/11. Now if we all can agree (as we seem to do) that the US was purposely lied into the Iraq safari, could it not be then that the initiator of this safari, 9/11, was staged as well? That is not a far-fetched idea, is it?
It's not far-fetched a priori, but it is far-fetched in the light of the evidence. It might have happened, except that all the information we have shows that it didn't.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 08:24 AM   #289
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
some people think ...
And when these people can lay out a coherent scenario and some evidence for it, their views will become much more interesting.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 08:50 AM   #290
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
I do not think that airplane manufacturers will openly advertise with this possibility like: 'This Boeing767 is equiped with a home run system!!'.
So, let's get this straight.

In your version of the Truth every Boeing is fitted with remote control, but all the people who build and maintain airplanes for Boeing are keeping quiet about it. Boeing, who wish to make a profit, have fitted this expensive safety feature without it being mandatory and without advertising it. And, apparently, without patenting the system.

As has been explained to you, the pilots can if necessary literally wrestle control from the autopilot, so this would have to be an entirely separate system.

You also require that this system has never been used legitimately to thwart hijackers, since that would kinda give the game away. Apparently the one time it's ever been employed was on 9/11. Bit of a waste of money, wasn't it?

Note that the system would be completely useless in every normal hijack situation (i.e. every hijack ever with the exception of the 9/11 attacks) because the key to a hijack is that you have the passengers as hostages. Just as they can say to the pilot: "Take this plane to Libya or we start offing the passengers" they could say that to the people on the ground, it would make no difference.

And you have not the slightest shred of evidence that any such device has been designed, let alone built, tested and employed.

But you need it to exist for your version of the Truth, so hey presto, there it is.

And then you can say: "Well, it coulda happened".

Yes. Alternatively, maybe secret Freemason researches into telekenesis allowed them to control the planes using only the power of the mind, amplified by special equipment recovered from the Roswell crash. But without any evidence, it is hard to take this conjecture seriously.

Last edited by Dr Adequate; 11th November 2008 at 08:54 AM.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 08:55 AM   #291
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by GStan View Post
Why is this important? Did you even read the article that you are linking to? Or did you just read the title and stop?



...and I only had to investigate five sentences into the article before reaching that part.
I read it alright.

You like to stress what the PR-woman says.

I attach more importance to what the agency does: closing down the bin Laden unit.

They cannot possibly admit that they do not care about bin Laden.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 09:01 AM   #292
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
I read it alright.

You like to stress what the PR-woman says.

I attach more importance to what the agency does: closing down the bin Laden unit.

They cannot possibly admit that they do not care about bin Laden.
Of course, you choose to argue semantics over who said what, and avoid the most pertinant question I asked: Why was this article important? And more clearly, how is it in any way supporting your theory?
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 09:06 AM   #293
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
I read it alright.

You like to stress what the PR-woman says.
I like to read the body of the article. That's usually the place where they put most of the important information; like facts and stuff....

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator
I attach more importance to what the agency does: closing down the bin Laden unit.

They cannot possibly admit that they do not care about bin Laden.
You like to read the title and stop, because when you dig further, you find that the article does not support your theory.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 09:12 AM   #294
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
911 investigator-

you might want to look into the software that was running that day. some people think that ptech is like the whole PROMIS software scandal. the CIA, via michael Riconosciuto, created a "backdoor" to spy on anyone that also had the software. and guess what, OBL also had the promis software. WHO the hell trained those boys to use it???? maybe ali mohammed (CIA) since he was around OBL in the early days.
regarding ptech-
fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml
Bollyn is vague about the technical specifications of the software that had been manipulated. He mentions indeed PTech as the key player. He says that NORAD software has been manipulated, what is possible since nobody denies that PTech had NORAD as a client. What I do not understand is how the 'home run' system got activated. There were suggestions 'via the transponder'. That would be via NORAD would it not? Now is there a way to circumvent NORAD and send a signal 'from the field' so to speak? Or must we assume that somebody send the signal from within NORAD?

Any ideas?
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 09:50 AM   #295
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
 
Skeptic Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,990
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in any of the eight pages here and it hurts my head to go through it all right now, but it is mentioned by "9/11-investigator" that the power to the WTC (both towers?) was cut off from the 48th floor (I believe) and up in order to install new fiber optics thus increasing the data bandwidth to the complex.

Now, this is something I know. I DOES NOT require a power shut down of any part of the building to put in new fiber. Assuming that they had enough dark fiber run to the building (to the appropriate carrier's demarcation point, which is typically in the basement), all that is required is slotting in a new card in the terminal equipment. Even if they had to run new fiber from the manhole into the building, there is no need to cut off the power.
__________________
"Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan

Even Mother TeresaWP doubted.
Skeptic Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 09:53 AM   #296
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy View Post
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in any of the eight pages here and it hurts my head to go through it all right now, but it is mentioned by "9/11-investigator" that the power to the WTC (both towers?) was cut off from the 48th floor (I believe) and up in order to install new fiber optics thus increasing the data bandwidth to the complex.

Now, this is something I know. I DOES NOT require a power shut down of any part of the building to put in new fiber. Assuming that they had enough dark fiber run to the building (to the appropriate carrier's demarcation point, which is typically in the basement), all that is required is slotting in a new card in the terminal equipment. Even if they had to run new fiber from the manhole into the building, there is no need to cut off the power.
So why do you think that they did shut-off power?
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 09:59 AM   #297
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
So why do you think that they did shut-off power?
No, no, it's your job to supply the evidence for your claims.

Why do you think the power was shut off? Is it because this is necessary for your version of The Truth, or do you have actual evidence and stuff?
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:02 AM   #298
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,560
They didn't.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:07 AM   #299
240-185
Muse
 
240-185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
I have a better question:

9/11-I, do you have any evidence that shows a power shortage which lasted enough so a huge army of men could plant 19,200 bombs (*) into TWO towers?

(*) Trusses have been cut every 10m. A Twin Tower is 400m high, that makes 240 explosive charges (one per column) on 40 levels. 240*40*2=19200 bombs.
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh*

My 9/11 Crackpot Index
240-185 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:11 AM   #300
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by 240-185 View Post
I have a better question:

9/11-I, do you have any evidence that shows a power shortage which lasted enough so a huge army of men could plant 19,200 bombs (*) into TWO towers?
Not to mention WTC7, while it was on fire.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:12 AM   #301
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Bollyn is vague about the technical specifications of the software that had been manipulated. He mentions indeed PTech as the key player. He says that NORAD software has been manipulated, what is possible since nobody denies that PTech had NORAD as a client. What I do not understand is how the 'home run' system got activated. There were suggestions 'via the transponder'. That would be via NORAD would it not? Now is there a way to circumvent NORAD and send a signal 'from the field' so to speak? Or must we assume that somebody send the signal from within NORAD?

Any ideas?
I've got an idea. This imaginary secret expensive useless impossible nonexistent technology doesn't exist. See my post (#290) and ellindsey's (#287) for more details.

You just want it to exist 'cos it fills one of the most gaping holes in your hypothesis. You are, in fact, one of the zillions of people per year who has independently discovered "Smacco's Rozar":
To any hypothesis, no matter how contrary to the evidence, further unproven hypotheses may be added in an ad hoc manner to defend the original hypothesis from the facts.

Last edited by Dr Adequate; 11th November 2008 at 10:16 AM.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:21 AM   #302
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
So why do you think that they did shut-off power?
There have been random power shut downs and server power-offs at my work over the last few months. Mostly on the weekends and in the afternoons.

Should I be worried that my workplace is about to suffer from a controlled demolition or is there gonna be a false-flag attack on our network???


Last edited by Thunder; 11th November 2008 at 10:31 AM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:37 AM   #303
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,846
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
So why do you think that they did shut-off power?
A little while ago, someone posted a ticket to the observation floor of WTC1 dated the same day as Scott Forbes claimed there was no power above floor 48 - does anyone have a link? Apparently there was plenty of power available on the upper floors that day.

Since the only evidence of a power down is the unsupported word of one witness, and there is another witness account that directly contradicts it, we have to consider it unproven that the power was indeed shut off in the upper half of one tower. There is absolutely no evidence of any power shutoff anywhere in the remaining three quarters of the buildings.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 10:50 AM   #304
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
A little while ago, someone posted a ticket to the observation floor of WTC1 dated the same day as Scott Forbes claimed there was no power above floor 48 - does anyone have a link?
I added the pictures and a link to the original blog post here.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 11:00 AM   #305
ellindsey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 228
And while you're at it, read this.
ellindsey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 11:05 AM   #306
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,846
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
I added the pictures and a link to the original blog post here.
I should have known, it's usually your site that has the answers. I'm more and more inclined to the view that new CT'ers should be asked to read every word on 911myths.com before anyone bothers to respond to them.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 11:56 AM   #307
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by 240-185 View Post
I have a better question:

9/11-I, do you have any evidence that shows a power shortage which lasted enough so a huge army of men could plant 19,200 bombs (*) into TWO towers?

(*) Trusses have been cut every 10m. A Twin Tower is 400m high, that makes 240 explosive charges (one per column) on 40 levels. 240*40*2=19200 bombs.
Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...enario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 11th November 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason: Add p.s.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 12:03 PM   #308
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...enario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.
Will you, at some point, move beyond guessing, speculating, hypothesizing and generally just making **** up and start providing evidence?
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 12:03 PM   #309
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
9/11 investigator....

you present an interesting theory. Granted it's based on the work of a reporter from a neo-Nazi webpage, it's pointlessly complicated and there are some minor problems with regards to your complete lack of evidence....

but other than that it's rock solid!

So what do you plan on doing with this earth-shattering theory of yours?
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 12:03 PM   #310
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
What do you mean, Aschenputtel, spinning in space? It is me against the rest of the forum (with appreciated close air support from Senenmut).

No offense intended, but 1 idiot can ask more questions than 7 Einsteins can answer. Patience please.
A. Kindly address me by my name, not by some ridiculous German appellation, thank you. And if you're referring to my location listed under my name, given that we all appear to be on planet Earth (I reserve judgment in the case of some of the more out there posters, mind you), we're all spinning in space, since that's what the Earth is doing. I prefer not to advertise where I am more closely than that.

B. Gumboot has more than politely addressed the majority of the points you raise in your initial post, and I have yet to see you respond with anything other than ridicule to his salient points. For example; he's pointed out on more than one occasion that the company you seem to think held the security contract for the various airports in fact only held a baggage handling contract for ONE of the airlines that had flights hijacked that day, an area that has nothing to do with airline security. That's just ONE of several points he's raised that would seem to poke holes the size of the moon in your theory, yet you ignore it in favor of poking fun. Does that seem like someone who should be treated with respect, Investigator? Because it sure as heck doesn't to me. So, I present to you a challenge. Go back to each of his posts; READ them, and then present any EVIDENCE (not speculation) you may have that would contradict his points, and I will withdraw my earlier statement about you failing to respond to any of the salient points raised by the skeptics here. Do we have a deal?
__________________
"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: Freedom, Justice, Honor, Duty, Mercy, Hope."-Winston Churchill
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do"-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 12:24 PM   #311
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...enario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.
The key word here is "narrative". A Truther has made up a story about how it would be, like, just totally easy to do.

Truthers make up a lot of stuff.

Quote:
P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.
"Radiographic explosives"?
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 12:48 PM   #312
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
It's telling that you have to resort to actions of the spanish judiciary in 2003 against a crime that was committed in the US.

At that time Bush's most loyal ally was the right winger Aznar. This indictment was no doubt a personal favour from Aznar to Bush.

<snip pointless quote>
Oh I see, so let me get this right, Bush calls in a favour and asks Spain to Indict BIn Laden.So basically Spain indicted him cos Bush asked them to and the US didn't indict him because, well I guess,Bush asked them not to.

Actually what is telling is you are not reading the articles you are posting links to or those that members are posting you. You are simply making rubbish up as you go along and hoping you don't look too stupid.

Sorry,sun beam you are failing, miserably.

If you wish to debate the article I posted, do yourself a hugh favour and actually read it before you post further.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 12:59 PM   #313
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by ellindsey View Post
No. The problem with the remote control concept is that none of the airplanes that crashed on 9-11 had fly-by-wire control systems. All of the planes had mechanical controls, in which the pilot's inputs to the control wheel and rudder were transmitted by a system of cables and levers to hydraulic boosters which moved the control surfaces. There is no place in the system where the control can be interrupted without disabling the entire system. These planes did have autopilots, which would push and pull on the control cables, adding mechanical input in the same way as another pilot would. The forces which the autopilot was capable of were less than those the pilots could exert, so even if the autopilot had been reprogrammed to crash the plane, the pilots would have been able to physically overpower it and keep control over the plane.
Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps

Quote:
Furthermore, in addition to the flight controls, the cockpit crew have access to circuit breakers that control power to pretty much every system in the airplane. If the autopilot is behaving bizarrely, the flight crew are going to just pull the circuit breaker that controls the autopilot and shut if off. This is a hard-wired circuit, not something that can be overridden by radio control or changes in software. In an emergency the pilots can actually completely disable the airplane's electrical system by pulling the main power bus breakers. The aircraft that crashed on 9-11 were of a type that could in an emergency land fly and land with no electrical power at all. You'll have no radio or navigation gear, and rudimentary flight instruments, but the controls are driven by hydraulics which are powered directly from the engines and can work in the total absence of electrical power. And believe me, if the pilots discover that the airplane is behaving oddly and they have no control over the flight, they'll start pulling breakers and reconfiguring systems until they regain control.
But I get your point and start to understand why in the narrative of 911research they build in an additional element:

The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.


But I am starting to feel compassion for you debunkers. We truthers are hopeless.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...enario404.html

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 11th November 2008 at 01:10 PM. Reason: link added
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:03 PM   #314
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,518
When a hypothesis is shown to be kooky, make it even kookier.

Has that ever worked for anyone?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:05 PM   #315
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
Oh I see, so let me get this right, Bush calls in a favour and asks Spain to Indict BIn Laden.So basically Spain indicted him cos Bush asked them to and the US didn't indict him because, well I guess,Bush asked them not to.
What is so exceptional about this. Aznar calls a prosecutor and invites him for a diner in the palace to discuss the 'international situation' and 'Spanish interest'. This is Spain, not Sweden.

Quote:
If you wish to debate the article I posted, do yourself a hugh favour and actually read it before you post further.
What makes you say that I do not read my own links? Untrue.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:06 PM   #316
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps
How does this mean that the pilot can't overule the autopilot? Obviously he can: he can pull harder than it can.

Quote:
But I get your point and start to understand why in the narrative of 911research they build in an additional element:
Smacco's Rozar!

Quote:
The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.
Which leaves you with the problem of who undertook the mission of resetting the autopilot, since this cannot be done remotely, and requires some poor sap to be on the plane. Why, you'd have to be, y'know ... suicidal.

Also we showed that the phone calls couldn't have been faked, remember?

Quote:
But I am starting to feel compassion for you debunkers. We truthers are hopeless.
Compassion? I should have thought that gratitude would be a more appropriate response.

Last edited by Dr Adequate; 11th November 2008 at 01:10 PM.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:06 PM   #317
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
When a hypothesis is shown to be kooky, make it even kookier.

Has that ever worked for anyone?
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:10 PM   #318
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Will you, at some point, move beyond guessing, speculating, hypothesizing and generally just making **** up and start providing evidence?
Well?
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:11 PM   #319
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
 
Doctor Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.
Oh I get it, accepting what 'luminaries' such as Bollin tell you is so much better.

You sir, need a new type of logical fallacy to be named after you. I suggest 'argument from bigotry'.
__________________
"ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher

"In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House
Doctor Evil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2008, 01:11 PM   #320
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
What is so exceptional about this. Aznar calls a prosecutor and invites him for a diner in the palace to discuss the 'international situation' and 'Spanish interest'. This is Spain, not Sweden.
What?

Quote:
What makes you say that I do not read my own links?
Your seeming indifference to their content.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.