40 Questions which make believing the OS Grotesque

Originally posted by Verd_Vhett
The High Jackers Intended to crash this plane. These Nutter Sent the plane in to a nose dive, at high speed.

also somthing people often overlook, avgas is heavier then water per gallon, In emergency landings or ditches they dump the full if possible the terrorist did not so the plane was fuel of fuel Large explosion!

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Verd_Vhett]

Ah, but if the official story would tell us that the actual hijackers were overpowered by a heroic group of passengers. Would not those passengers have tried to pull the plane up? Or wouldn't the hijackers tried to veer towards some sort of populated area?

reply to post by Verd_Vhett

...also somthing people often overlook, avgas is heavier then water per gallon, In emergency landings or ditches they dump the full if possible the terrorist did not ...

Sorry, Verd, that needs to be corrected.

Avgas is NOT heavier than water. BTW, 'Avgas' refers to 'Aviation Gasoline', which is a lot like automotive gasoline, except in higher Octane ratings and stricter refining standards, plus has dyes added to denote the Octane levels.

Anyway, Avgas weighs approximately 6 pounds/US Gallon, compared to water which is 7.5 lbs/Gal.

And, Avgas is used in piston airplanes, reciprocating engines. NOT turbine engines.

Jet-A is a form of diesel, designed for turbine engines. It is heavier than Avgas, average of 6.7 lbs/Gal. Still, lighter than water.

In emergency landings or ditches they dump the full if possible...

Key words there are "if possible". NOT all jets have the capability to dump. The B757 does NOT -- the B767 does.

Reason for less fuel onboard in the event of a ditching is merely to provide greater buoyancy, shuld the ditiching be successful and result in minimal structural damage. The wings, less fuel, and undamaged will be quite buoyant. USAir 1549 is an example of A) Good technique, yet still there was damage in the very rear of the fuselage, and water came in and B) Passenger panic, and one rear door was opened slightly, a no-no since they usually are below the waterline, as the airplnae floats tail-low usually.

Otherwise, for an emergency on land where a normal landing is anticipated, the dumping would only be for weight reduction, but depends on emergency. Landing gear malfunctions? Time is not critical, so fuel burn-off or dump is logical. Engine failure/fire?? Immediate landing regardless of weight. Not all emergencies are the same.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Thanks you Sir!

You are a gentleman and a scholar!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hay weedwhacker, I've had PC trouble for a few days but am finally able to reply, I Hope!

I remember a reply of yours re the cell phones on flight 93?

I must admit, I spent about an hour trying to find MSM confirmation of UA launching an inflight mobile phone service, but to no avail, but I did recall seeing it a few years ago.

Well the long and the short of it was that I wanted to include it as one of my questions and the info seemed relevant, but I will grant you quite slanted towards a truther viewpoint.

Of all the 40 questions, the source/story I used for that was the least credible, I will keep looking for that original story about UA.

Oh by the way mate, thanks for bringing balance to the thread, and a bit of subjectivity, not my strongest suits!

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kiwifoot]

reply to post by kiwifoot


Thanks

MY airline had the 'Airphone' service in the 1990s, as I recall. AND we were not nearly as innovative or forward-thinking in marketing as United Airlines. MY company did it as a result of competition, BECAUSE of others doing it first.

Early days, there were TWO Airphone handsets, that were wireless. ONE in First Class, one back in Coach.

Can't remember when the phone in the seatbacks started, late 1990s/early 2000 for us, but slowly at first. Airplanes that were newly delivered, or those that had undergone heavy maintenance intervals.

THEN it was one handset for each three-seat set. (Airline seats are constructed as units of multiples, to fit what the customer's needs call for).

reply to post by kiwifoot

2) How was it possible that at least 10 passengers on board Flight 93 were able to use cell phones to call loved ones, when United Airlines made such a big deal of launching this feature on their planes several years later.

Cellphone use from airlines were hotly denied at the time on a
yahoo stock site with many communications experts
that had online access and don't recall any that said cell phone
communication from an airline was possible.
They were even discussing companies and testing for such capability.


9/11 Wrongful-Death Suit Receives April Trial Date
www.abovetopsecret.com...

His daughter was on a plane and wants to find what went wrong
and have it corrected.

Submitting the many 9/11 impedance to full story as subject to
reparations makes the FBI action of swift retrieval of evidence
or disposition of evidence a story as good as one of occulted
science.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I hope to find that article, will keep on looking.

I did try to include as much material from respected (more respected "cough") sources as I could.

You seem to know a lot about Airlines/craft, were you in the industry? It's a good thing especially for this topic!

I agree about some of the ideas touted around are at best laughable, at worst just plain disinfo.

The problem, like you say is not enough research.

I disregarded a few questions due to lack of sources or other reasons:

-Missing Gold (no references except for on truth blogs)
-No Building 7 on the 911 commission ( I saw a vid explaining how that was dealt with in the NIST report as it wasn't a part of the attacks but an engineering issue)

...Are a couple of examples.

There were more but I'll have to look at my hard copy, if I can read my writing!

The problem I had was trying not to get carried away and go overboard:-

For instance, saying NORAD/airforce stand down looks good, but in reality there was a response, so I said 'why was the military response so poor?, the airforce actually responded fairly quickly, but with no leadership or guidance.

I did try to keep my feet on the floor, and come up with questions that were realistic and plausible.

kiwifoot

I love it how when people posts something like "How can you believe in 9-11 conspiracies" They post no proof, no facts, just opinion.

This thread is a wealth of information and proves any other theory wrong.

Originally posted by conar
How does the believers in the official stories explain the refusal of information from the agencies?

1) why does NIST, FBI, SEC, Department of the Navy, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey withhold information and pictures and videos despite FOIA requests?
www.sheilacasey.com...

2) NIST are still holding on to the 7000 videos and 7000 pictures they used in their investigation, despite FOIA requests... wtc.nist.gov...

3) FBI confiscated 80 videos at pentagon, only 4 have been made avaiable via FOIA.

4) The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey refused to release the audiotape of firefighters' communications from the World Trade Center. In early November 2002, the tape was released to the New York Times, then to other unspecified "news outlets" (according to the Associated Press). the NYT is the only outlet to post excerpts from the tape; no one has yet posted the entire thing...
quotes from the new york times recordings...
www.911truth.org...
original recordings released by new york times..
graphics8.nytimes.com...

5) NIST didnt look for explosives because acording to NIST... "it would be a waste of time to look for something that wasnt there...."

"There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"[I]t was like professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom." FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio

Battalion Chief John Sudnik: "we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down.

Firefighter Timothy Julian: "First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down."

Emergency medical technician Michael Ober said: "We heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and . . . it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. . . . I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it.

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down." -- Paramedic Kevin Darnowski

"I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now." --Gregg Brady, an emergency medical technician

"it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight." -- firefighter Thomas Turilli

"heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down." -- firefighter Craig Carlsen

"I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces." --Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey

Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared to be "individual floors, one after the other exploding outward," he thought: "'My God, they're going to bring the building down.' And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions."

"It just descended like a timed explosion--like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to" Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio

"There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing." Los Angeles Times

This is part of what makes believing the OS grotesque stupidity...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


You're assuming WTC7 crumbled, in part, because it was damaged by debris. Buildings closer to towers 1 & 2 with significant damage from flying debris did not crumble into their own footprint.. and pictures / footage of wtc7 show a few fires with cosmetic damage at best.

You're suggesting engineers clever enough to configure footprint controlled demolitions haven't figured out to re-create a jet fuel / gravity WTC7 method yet? 9/11 was a teachable moment for controlled demolition professionals.

BTW An apt building in Iran was slammed into by a recently fueled Lockheed C-130 Hercules military transport, jet fuel fires and all that.. it didn't come close to collapse.

Photos show this apt building obviously absorbed more fire / physical damage than WTC7. Apparently Iranian engineering is years ahead of the US... their apartments are tougher than our govt buildings.. go figure.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A collapse summary if you will:
All the top floor fastener gave way due to heat and then all floors collapse
flinging off the outer supports taking away all fasteners.
Yes, that's what happened.
The floor fasteners to the core beams may go but can't agree with
the core beams going anywhere except being chopped up and
eaten away by high heat from the aluminum compound and explosives.
Swiftly taken away for scrap means another job well done by people with
the devil to pay.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by conar
How does the believers in the official stories explain the refusal of information from the agencies?

1) why does NIST, FBI, SEC, Department of the Navy, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey withhold information and pictures and videos despite FOIA requests?
www.sheilacasey.com...

2) NIST are still holding on to the 7000 videos and 7000 pictures they used in their investigation, despite FOIA requests... wtc.nist.gov...

3) FBI confiscated 80 videos at pentagon, only 4 have been made avaiable via FOIA.

4) The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey refused to release the audiotape of firefighters' communications from the World Trade Center. In early November 2002, the tape was released to the New York Times, then to other unspecified "news outlets" (according to the Associated Press). the NYT is the only outlet to post excerpts from the tape; no one has yet posted the entire thing...
quotes from the new york times recordings...
www.911truth.org...
original recordings released by new york times..
graphics8.nytimes.com...

5) NIST didnt look for explosives because acording to NIST... "it would be a waste of time to look for something that wasnt there...."

"There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"[I]t was like professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom." FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio

Battalion Chief John Sudnik: "we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down.

Firefighter Timothy Julian: "First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down."

Emergency medical technician Michael Ober said: "We heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and . . . it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. . . . I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it.

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down." -- Paramedic Kevin Darnowski

"I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now." --Gregg Brady, an emergency medical technician

"it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight." -- firefighter Thomas Turilli

"heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down." -- firefighter Craig Carlsen

"I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces." --Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey

Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared to be "individual floors, one after the other exploding outward," he thought: "'My God, they're going to bring the building down.' And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions."

"It just descended like a timed explosion--like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to" Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio

"There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing." Los Angeles Times

This is part of what makes believing the OS grotesque stupidity...

When a building is demolished by explosives. The detonations start from the bottom floor to the top.

reply to post by GovtFlu

You're assuming WTC7 crumbled, in part, because it was damaged by debris. Buildings closer to towers 1 & 2 with significant damage from flying debris did not crumble into their own footprint.. and pictures / footage of wtc7 show a few fires with cosmetic damage at best

I would suggest you do some more research. Especially involving the FDNY and what they were reporting about WTC 7 that day.

reply to post by Clickfoot

Yes, and that's my point. It includes the towers. What's the betting most of that vacant space was IN the towers? Note how your quotes go on to talk about anything but the towers... There's plenty of other sources that say the towers were mostly vacant. Do you not agree 370 mil for those towers is incredibly cheap? Must be a reason, no?

(the following math is going to approximation, not exact)

Each tower had 4.3 million square feet, for a total of 8.6 million, of which 7.6 million was office space. In other words, the Towers comprised three-quarters of the footage of the complex. Lets do some math 250,000 square feet was vacant, lets split it evenly, 125,000 square feet per tower. Buildings were 208 feet per side, which works out to just over 40,000 square feet per floor. So, in other words, if ALL the vacant space in the WTC complex was in the Towers, there would have been SIX empty floors out of 220 floors. Does that really sound like "mostly vacant"?

reply to post by Seventh


Its hard to discuss anything with you, when you continue to post so many falsehoods. Its also why I havent demolished the rest of your list. A bunch of the statements are too goofy for words.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by Stylez


Repeat after me, it was the building's very design plus the damage suffered by all three buildings PLUS the fires that caused them to fail. So, back to the post, you think its easier to crash planes into buildings at high speed and then let them burn as a better way to knock them down. Oooooookay....

Great post kiwifoot...thanks for your efforts...!!

Ive decided that those folk who choose to ignore the realities being presented here by kiwifoot are not able to clearly think for themselves....they have some type of defence mechanism that clouds all rational judgement....

Notice the lack of decent counter arguments...no responses with any "teeth", just squabbles over what constitutes a Complex versus a building etc....which gives me the clear impression that they cannot, repeat cannot dispute kiwi's accumulated evidence...

Yes some will come with their supposed "expert" opinions ,but dont be fooled by their loud noise....thats all it is.

I could tell you I was anybody/any profession....how would you know if I was lying or not..??
Of course you wouldnt...because you dont know who I am you cannot be certain that I am telling the truth...even if others "confirm" that I am who I say I am....

My advice...dont listen to kiwi, or myself, or any of the other people posting here...look into this yourself...

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by Stylez

 

Your post may actually have meant something if they didn`t arrest Khalid Sheik Mohammed for being the mastermind behind 9/11.

His testimony might have meant something if he wasn't tortured into saying it off a script, and that is only IF that was the real guy. Many say it looks nothing like the real on.

KSM: I was the master mind behind 911, I planned the whole thing from A-Z.

Wow that reads like it came straight from the heart

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Repeat after me, it was the building's very design plus the damage suffered by all three buildings PLUS the fires that caused them to fail. So, back to the post, you think its easier to crash planes into buildings at high speed and then let them burn as a better way to knock them down. Oooooookay....

Repeat after me, it was the building's very design plus the damage suffered by all three buildings PLUS the fires that caused them to fail.

ha ha what is that, what they had you do to get brainwashed into buying tthe official alibi? You still remember the chant verbatim too

you think its easier to crash planes into buildings at high speed and then let them burn as a better way to knock them down. Oooooookay....

Well its either THAT or you want me to believe their was a "Lucky way" to do it. That in an era where no such thing had ever happened in history where a steel frame building was brought down on its own footprint by fire. You expect me to believe that out of all the buildings ever made that would have this unique design flaw where fuel fires could bring them down like that, The terrorist just happened to pick NOT one, BUT THREE!

That not only was this a first of the many outrageously un-believeable, mathmatically improbable events, they just happend to get it right, That not only were two brought down this way but these lucky terrorists got a BONUS two for one, not even having to use a plane on wtc7 a building fortified as a bunker.

Who needs a bunker buster whe you got deisel fuel swampox, You want us to believe that three out of three all done in similar fashion using fuel in differen't areas and several floors of each one, could be done three out of three all on the same day by the same group. Obviously, they CAN be brought down like a CD swampy!

But you find that so hard to believe! Well, Ya know what!

SO DO WE!

I could run down your list of 40 questions and give you the answers but if you don't think for yourself that won't do any good and frankly it doesn't deserve my time. Nothing frustrates me more than the ignorance of the 9-11 'truth' movement. You recycle the same debunked BS, contradictions, and flat out lies no matter how often they are proven wrong.

I have only one question for you Mr. kiwifoot: Have you bothered to look at the other side of the story? You haven't or you would know the answer to your questions. Blindly believing the '9-11 truth' version is no better than blindly accepting the official story.

I've looked at both sides of the issue as a person who does not trust their government in the least and abhors the patriot act that has 'resulted' from 9-11. Obviously our government failed to prevent and react effectively to the attacks. However, if you look at real scientific proof, real truth, there is no doubt as to what happened that day. Open your eyes, use your own mind, and play the devil's advocate.