September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

a reply to: warthog911
Wow, that was a lot of info.

I myself have for many years now come to a tentative
conclusion that the planes were swapped. It just made sense
all four planes (from my understanding) went below RADAR
for a number of minutes before reappearing above RADAR
with their transponders no longer working.

Thanks for sharing the info.

Rebel 5

This is, so far, the most plausible explanation for 9/11. I wonder if the story about Putin having irrefutable evidence (allegedly) 9/11 was a false flag is linked. Satellite images of the switch?

a reply to: liejunkie01

I think you are missing the point. That top half that supposedly acted like a pile driver on the rest of the building fell as would be expected. It then began breaking up as expected. That would point to it meeting resistance and breaking apart, showing the lower section had the structural integrity to push back just as Mr Newton would say it would. People are quick to point out the lower columns would have been weakened but are equally quick to forget that the columns above would be weakened too (more so because of the fact heat rises). There should have been increasing resistance that slowed and stopped the collapse.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What a load of crap. The bottom section had a solid base. NONE of it was compromised or experienced an increase in temperature. The top section had a wide open gaping wound for a base and the pictures you responded to illustrates exactly what would be expected to happen. The top section, with its open wound for a base, tore apart as it collapsed onto the bottom, perfectly sound structure with a solid base.

It is not a solid structure. It is a series of connections bolted together and built according to "DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS".

Can you please show me where in the design specifications that the structure is supposed to accept a kinetic(in motion) load of that magnitude?

The only load of crap that I see is the ignorance spewed by people who do not have a clue as to what it takes for a building standing a quarter of a mile in the air to stay intact.

The shear strength of the bolts alone were exceeded when the hundreds/thousamfs of tons of upper structure collapsed. There is no way that that building design could have withstood those types of forces. Especially the viscoelastic dampers in place at the ends of the trusses.

If you do not get this then I am sorry you bought into ignorant online ramblings of which people have no clue. Ignorance seems to lead the way of the masses. Educating one's self on construction of buildings is a great start in breaking away from the chains of ignorance.

a reply to: rebelv

I myself have for many years now come to a tentative
conclusion that the planes were swapped. It just made sense
all four planes (from my understanding) went below RADAR
for a number of minutes before reappearing above RADAR
with their transponders no longer working.

But you can't explain why all the serial numbers for all the parts match the original planes.

You do realize that each part in each aircraft has it's own serial number ?

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

What a load of crap. The bottom section had a solid base. NONE of it was compromised or experienced an increase in temperature. The top section had a wide open gaping wound for a base and the pictures you responded to illustrates exactly what would be expected to happen. The top section, with its open wound for a base, tore apart as it collapsed onto the bottom, perfectly sound structure with a solid base.

It is not a solid structure. It is a series of connections bolted together and built according to "DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS".

Can you please show me where in the design specifications that the structure is supposed to accept a kinetic(in motion) load of that magnitude?

The only load of crap that I see is the ignorance spewed by people who do not have a clue as to what it takes for a building standing a quarter of a mile in the air to stay intact.

The shear strength of the bolts alone were exceeded when the hundreds/thousamfs of tons of upper structure collapsed. There is no way that that building design could have withstood those types of forces. Especially the viscoelastic dampers in place at the ends of the trusses.

If you do not get this then I am sorry you bought into ignorant online ramblings of which people have no clue. Ignorance seems to lead the way of the masses. Educating one's self on construction of buildings is a great start in breaking away from the chains of ignorance.

Chains of ignorance? Thats really poetic. Almost took away from the fact that you didn't say anything in your reply. Just a bunch of blah blah.

The "force" crumbled as picture and video evidence prove. You have nothing to base your theory on. At least the truthers have a history of false flags in their corner. The OS relies on a few dozen first time ever events to create their BS story.

Have you read the NIST report? Because they don't even guarantee their own results yet you do and will bash anyone that does not subscribe to your official theories. Me too.

Welcome to the chains of ignorance. Just stay in your corner and we will get along fine.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You didn't show me where in the design specifications of the structure, it says that the remaining connections are supposed to withstand the kinetic load of the debris.

Blah, blah, blah is about right.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You didn't show me where in the design specifications of the structure, it says that the remaining connections are supposed to withstand the kinetic load of the debris.

Blah, blah, blah is about right.

What difference does it make if we can not agree on the amount of down force provided from the top section. I believe it turned to spaghetti and you believe it turned into the Hulk. Video and the photos show it breaking up which opens my mind to new possibilities.

Same M.O. during the 07/07 bombings in London...

soulwaxer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You didn't show me where in the design specifications of the structure, it says that the remaining connections are supposed to withstand the kinetic load of the debris.

Blah, blah, blah is about right.

What difference does it make if we can not agree on the amount of down force provided from the top section. I believe it turned to spaghetti and you believe it turned into the Hulk. Video and the photos show it breaking up which opens my mind to new possibilities.

Can you please show me where I said it stayed in one piece?

Can you please tell me how the weight would be affected if itbroke up or if it was intact?

Can you tell me how the weight of the downforce of the debris has no impact on how the upper connections are supposed to stay intact during contact of the enormous weight of the falling debris?

It has everything to do with the way the towers fell.

Spaghetti or not, the weight and motion are still present. It still makes contact with the connections. And they were still presented with a load that was not within their design specifications.

originally posted by: soulwaxer

Same M.O. during the 07/07 bombings in London...

soulwaxer

Yes the wargame exercise on 911 were used as an operational cover for the attacks to occur.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Serious question sir, if you don't mind. I am just very curious. I feel like the offical story is riddled with holes, contradictions, and strange "coincidences", for anyone who takes a closer look. Yet, you seem very lock step with the official story.

Do you question any part, any aspect, of the official story? If so, which part?

Thank you and I hope you don't find my question offensive.

now be prepared for the usual interjection of far out theories by the group of people hired to debunk threads like this with
missile pods holograms space weapons collapses oh my

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
This is, so far, the most plausible explanation for 9/11. I wonder if the story about Putin having irrefutable evidence (allegedly) 9/11 was a false flag is linked. Satellite images of the switch?

Appreciated. But hey just to clarify something related to my original post. After digging a bit more (as I haven't really studied 9/11 much in several years, and wrote this all from memory for a user that wanted my input on the event recently), my original post is incorrect about the 2nd plane that hit the tower (175) being swapped-out with a C32-B (flight 11 was, but flight 175 wasn't). The basic framework doesn't change much at all, but I want to make this flight 175 swap-out correction now.

This gets a little complex but the jist is the 2nd plane to hit the towers (175) was swapped-out by a PROTOTYPE KC-767 (aerial refueler) built by Boeing in late 2000 as part of a test phase prototype of a new generation of aerial refulers, which use a commercial Boeing 767 body but are built as a tanker/refueler instead of a passenger airplane. This KC-767 refueler (prototype that shouldn't exist yet) was then real-world tested via Global Guardian 01 on 9/11, to trial a in-air refuel run on one of the E-4B aircraft, in hopes of trying to lock down a DoD/USAF contract to replace a mass amount of their oldest aerial refuelers (a contract which in 2002 then happened, but I will circle back that after). The rest of the original scenario stays pretty much the same (the only difference is the KC-767 shadows the E-4B near Stewart Air NGB (by overlapping its on radar via remote aeriel refueling (GG01 controlling the E-4B & the KC-767 that is fueling it)), and then the KC-767 breaks off at the cross over point to take over flight 175's flight path towards its target (while the C-32B takes off at the same time and takes over flight 11's flight path towards its target).

Anyways circling back to the massive DoD/USAF contract AKA the Boeing payoff (which is a big reason Boeing was so willing to play ball in all of this). After the "success" of the (now destroyed) KC-767 prototype (which proved it could do it's official job without much issue by refueling the E-4B prior to the go-live op), and due to the fact Boeing was willing to play ball with all of it shady stuff (including letting them remote fly their special prototype into the side of a damn building...) they were ready to get their payoff. Shortly after 9/11 (in 2002) the USAF Commercial Derivative Air Refueling Aircraft Program is created as the payoff to Boeing for their help/role with the 9/11 op. The CDARA was created to be a procurement program to replace ~100 of the USAF's oldest KC-135E Stratotankers and replace them with either Airbus A330-based tanker, the KC-330 or surprise surprise KC-767's! Well go figure they land on picking the KC-767, and not only that they originally opt to lease every single one of them instead of purchasing (which raised the projected cost of each aircraft by ~$150mil). Well over the next year or so, this added waste of money then ruffled some feathers, which caused the USAF to have to tweak the arrangement in 2003 to purchasing 80 of the KC-767 aircraft and leasing the other 20... Anyways the payoff wasn't as big for Boeing as it could of been, but still not bad right? Well it wasn't over yet, and in 2003 they hit a little bit of a hiccup in regards to this Boeing payout via mass contract due to a congressional investigation which indicated the A330-based tanker met more of the USAF specifications than the Boeing tanker and had a lower proposed cost (which sent up a bunch of red flags). This caused the DoD to have to freeze the contract for all 100 KC-767 from Boeing, and also forced them to have to make up some fall guy to take the heat away from the real reason the KC-767 was picked over the A330, which is where the patsy Darleen Druyun fits in (who did a whooping 9 months in prison, acting as the patsy/cover guy! The Boeing CEO at the time was also fired simply because they were honestly backed into a corner on this one... it was better to walk away and try again some other day). This must of chapped Boeing's ass something fierce! WHERE IS OUR HUMUNGOUS PAYOUT! WE DID OUR PART! WTF NOW? Well don't worry, Boeing got their bribe eventually (yay!), they just had to wait a few more years for another similar opportunity to try the mass payoff via contract again... an opportunity that happened in 2011 when the USAF awarded Boeing a fixed-price contract for 179 aircraft!

Yay everyone got paid! Awww such a happy ending, don't ya think... NOT... F**k you Boeing!



PS, sorry for any confusion this mixup/change might of caused... I am just trying to get the info out there (mostly from memory) and did my best to describe each element as I see it, but I wasn't 100% perfect, and I didn't post the original thread so there was no way to correct it after the fact. Whatever I am human, not perfect... now back to the elephant in the room that is the 9/11 op!

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You didn't show me where in the design specifications of the structure, it says that the remaining connections are supposed to withstand the kinetic load of the debris.

Blah, blah, blah is about right.

What difference does it make if we can not agree on the amount of down force provided from the top section. I believe it turned to spaghetti and you believe it turned into the Hulk. Video and the photos show it breaking up which opens my mind to new possibilities.

Can you please show me where I said it stayed in one piece?

Can you please tell me how the weight would be affected if itbroke up or if it was intact?

Can you tell me how the weight of the downforce of the debris has no impact on how the upper connections are supposed to stay intact during contact of the enormous weight of the falling debris?

It has everything to do with the way the towers fell.

Spaghetti or not, the weight and motion are still present. It still makes contact with the connections. And they were still presented with a load that was not within their design specifications.

Are you asking what the difference in down force is between a birdhouse made of popsickle sticks and a hand full of the same amount of popsickle sticks as it took to build the house, falling on something?

I don't know... a lot?

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You didn't show me where in the design specifications of the structure, it says that the remaining connections are supposed to withstand the kinetic load of the debris.

Blah, blah, blah is about right.

What difference does it make if we can not agree on the amount of down force provided from the top section. I believe it turned to spaghetti and you believe it turned into the Hulk. Video and the photos show it breaking up which opens my mind to new possibilities.

Can you please show me where I said it stayed in one piece?

Can you please tell me how the weight would be affected if itbroke up or if it was intact?

Can you tell me how the weight of the downforce of the debris has no impact on how the upper connections are supposed to stay intact during contact of the enormous weight of the falling debris?

It has everything to do with the way the towers fell.

Spaghetti or not, the weight and motion are still present. It still makes contact with the connections. And they were still presented with a load that was not within their design specifications.

so the north tower didn't have the structural integrity to take the motion of the upper section but the south tower had the strength to not just act as a pivot for the massive section above, but to also hold it with sufficient strength to stop it tumbling to the side and off the top? That's convenient. By your theory it should have tipped to the side and started to tear down one side of the tower at an angle. But it didn't. It tipped back in to the path of most resistance and then brought the rest of the tower down. It really is quite impressive that such weak buildings can display such strength.

a reply to: TruthNow88

No problem, it just occurred to me reading your OP and it seemed an interesting thought. At least you've clarified early on so as to avoid any confusion.

a reply to: sg1642

None of which is relevant to the pictures you posted. Flight 93 was intact when it hit the ground. It didn't hit anything else.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I question some of it. But I have a lot of personal experience around the military and aircraft. A lot of those portions people question I don't based on experience and knowledge.

a reply to: rebelv

They didn't go below radar, they changed their transponder codes after switching them off briefly.