Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

www.sandiegouniontribune.com...

a reply to: CrazyFox

Not sure what you think that article proves. Yay...two of them flunked and became the defenders of the cockpit for the ones that managed to get pilot licenses.

Here is what context and citing a source looks like....

www.911myths.com...

Flight School Dropouts

And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn't have required all the skills of a regular pilot:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" www.pentagonresearch.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

I know you think I just want to get hits to websites I have nothing to do with so I did not give them a title so you can see the url directly (actually I think that is a lame excuse showing how lazy you are in regards to doing actual research.) I have been researching 911 since it happened for reasons I do not care to discuss on this thread. Your posts show a lot of pretty photos and long debunked theories believed by simpletons. Please show me any proof to your claims in regards to the procedures used in the processing of evidence please no garbage sources (I used 1 CNN but it was written when they actually reported news before Turner sold it to AOL.) Good luck as your post is the first I heard of such a fantasy but hey you have already shown how adept you are. Here are 4 for you to peruse or not at this point I do not really care as you have shown what you are and I will never walk over your bridge again.

edition.cnn.com...

www.pbs.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...

www.quora.com... it-overseas

a reply to: CrazyFox

And yet another stunning show of a failure to conduct basic research.

www.cbsnews.com...

"Earlier, a manager at an Arizona flight school that trained one of the Sept. 11 pilot-hijackers testified she called the FAA with concerns over his qualifications for a pilot license, but her concerns were dismissed by an agency official.

Margaret Chevrette, manager at the flight school, was testifying in the death-penalty trial of Moussaoui, who has confessed to being an al Qaeda terrorist..............


........Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot.

Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.

"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said."

Several of the terrorists, managed to get their commercial pilot licenses.

a reply to: CrazyFox

So you post a couple of decent sources that mention that some scrap....after it was cleared as being part of the initiation of the collapse....was sold to China (in addition to quite a few scrap places here in the States) and someone given away for memorials. Then you post Quora....and screw up the link. And you chastise others for their sources?

a reply to: CrazyFox

You act like this information has never been discussed over the many years, over many threads at places like ATS, Metabunk, Skeptic International.

Oh the mind of the conspiracist. Posting the same old recycled debunked junk like it’s the first time every time......

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

of course you would have to understand what you're claiming to see how absurd it is and that would involve thinking it through

Hell yeah is sounds absurd. The whole thing sounds like some Steven King meets Tom Clancy in a satanic ritual. Absurd, totally.

It's like talking to a brick wall

a reply to: CrazyFox

The men who could not fly a cessna?

Who had a commercial pilot license Who took lessons in 737 jet simulator - where attracted attention of instructors
by poor command of English

a reply to: kwakakev

Propaganda ???

"When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.

a reply to: mrthumpy

It's like talking to a brick wall

And why should it be any different with something on the size of 9/11? It is one of those things that not just marks a generation, but an age of society. I found a good quote by Kandinsky to help everyone step back and think about what they are writing and contributing.

It's another point worth remembering. Just because the *other guy/gal* is wrong doesn't guarantee that we're right.

The lies and deception around war are thick. For those that do question, keep it up. We all fell over many times learning to walk. Those that can learn from their mistakes fail to repeat them.

a reply to: firerescue

You are a classic. I have presented a clear photo of the Pentagon after the 9/11 attack. It was released to the public about 2 or 3 years ago maybe. Well that is when I first came across it.

You are within your rights to argue that a commercial jetliner full of passengers did crash there. You are fully entitled to make your own decision about it. It is good we can come together and talk about this stuff.

I find your understanding on the Pentagon strike as unconvincing and deceptive these days. At the time on the day I did agree with you. I took the official story as the public was presented as what happened. Why should I think any different?

Because I few years later when I did revisit the topic I could see something was not right, the public inquiries left too many questions. The widows and other family members who lost people that day where still lost in the madness of it. If it was Osama Bin Laden then this should of all been wrapped up by now. Just what is going on? Just what is going on? just what is going on? and round and round we go.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

It's like talking to a brick wall

And why should it be any different with something on the size of 9/11? It is one of those things that not just marks a generation, but an age of society. I found a good quote by Kandinsky to help everyone step back and think about what they are writing and contributing.

It's another point worth remembering. Just because the *other guy/gal* is wrong doesn't guarantee that we're right.

The lies and deception around war are thick. For those that do question, keep it up. We all fell over many times learning to walk. Those that can learn from their mistakes fail to repeat them.

Lies and deception like claiming fires burning three months later being evidence of thermite? Yeah I can't believe you came out what that steaming pile of BS

a reply to: kwakakev

From an individual that is clueless? From a person that posts nothing but innuendo?
About everything you posted has been debunked, and it has nothing to do with with the “official narrative”. Many of your talking points are pure junk science and BS.

You

I find your understanding on the Pentagon strike as unconvincing and deceptive these day

Looking forward to your “debunking” of the below article point by point. But I think a emotional rant is more likely?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 |

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

So, how did the passengers and crew of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon?

a reply to: neutronflux

So, how did the passengers and crew of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon?

Something like this first comes to mind:



But as with anything that happens at the Pentagon, it happens through the chain of command. On the day of 9/11 it was Mr Richard Cheney who was in charge at the Pentagon. It was his call in how the military was to react to the days events. He is one of those truly responsible for things going the way they did.

Next is a photo of where the WTC collapse started. Where did the energy come from for the fire balls?



Then a short time later. Where did the energy come from to turn concrete to dust and throw it out like that?

a reply to: kwakakev

Then a short time later. Where did the energy come from to turn concrete to dust and throw it out like that?

the first pic (of the towers) shows what?

How many floors above the initiation of collapse is there?

How much did each floor weigh roughly?

add them up and you get quite bit of weight falling on the floors below.

Quite a bit of energy is created when heavy things hit other things.

a reply to: kwakakev

But as with anything that happens at the Pentagon, it happens through the chain of command. On the day of 9/11 it was Mr Richard Cheney who was in charge at the Pentagon. It was his call in how the military was to react to the days events. He is one of those truly responsible for things going the way they did.

What the hell does that have to do with eyewitnesses seeing a large passenger jet hit the pentagon and how the passengers and crew ended up dead?

Next is a photo of where the WTC collapse started. Where did the energy come from for the fire balls?

The building was still on fire, or smoldering with flammable materials off gassing flammable gas, the collapsing upper portion above the buckling fell into the building below displacing air. The displaced air carried the fire and flammable gasses, and caused the fire ball when it hit the fresh air.

For the concrete, it was covered. The WTC used less structural concrete than what was common practice. Most of the concrete was light weight concrete for the floors. The building was loaded with drywall. Most WTC studies lump the drywall and concrete dust together. The drywall and concrete mix was about 34 percent of the dust created. Over 40 percent of the dust was from WTC insulation.

One. A building full of drywall is going to make lots of dust. Especially if it’s 110 stories and weights 500,000 tons.

Second, by percentage, insulation was the biggest contributor to the dust you are referencing.

a reply to: kwakakev

You are not very good with research, citing sources, with science, and a sucker for truth movement pseudoscience.

Again, has nothing to due with “the official narrative”. It’s the junk science of the truth movement that got my goat.

Any more intellectually dishonest arguments from you? Innuendo? Are you done?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

The weight of the floors and their rate of descent was to be recorded from above the smoke plume.
The plane theories can largely be tossed unless they include JP-7.
In 1955 many engineers still believed the optics for an A-12 would not work through clouds.
Perhaps Ironic that the A-12 was vulnerable to cloud vapor forming ice in the pitot tube.
That was the official story/cause of death for the pilot of the last A12 flight out of Japan, Jack Weeks.

There really isn't much to debate about a planned demolition if the building was only designed to meet the wind stress loads on the Japanese manufactured steel core supports for just 45 years. Would they *choose* an inertial damper system on the roof to extend the buildings life? Questions like that.

a reply to: neutronflux

You can find those severed structural steel beams from the controlled demolition you previously asked for in the last WTC photo. They are getting thrown out quite far. I cannot find this happening in any previous collapse due to fire. I can find this when looking at other controlled demolitions.

So I guess all this does present another implication of events. There is still a lot of conflict with just trying to interpret the basic 9/11 events. What sort of chance would any state investigation have if it did happen to search for that missing gold and clean house in the CIA? With everyone trying to cover their butts the misdirections would be amazing.

US Foreign policy on 9/11 is the same as yours with support of the official story. The rest of the world is more gradually not seeing it that way. I have to agree with the world that some thing still stinks with it all. I do not support state sponsored terrorism no matter who is pushing it.

Thanks neutronflux for checking out things on your side and making of it what you can. The arguments you have presented does not add up for what I see looking at the evidence.