Why I Doubt the Official "Story"

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by maxella1The pentagon had drills with the same scenario of civilian jets used as weapons and crash into the pentagon and WTC two years before 9/11.

I would like to see a reference on this. The only "drills" I am familiar with are those associated with crashes (not "civilian jets used as weapons"). As a matter of fact, one of the firefighters from the Pentagon was in training for such a crash when the plane hit the Pentagon. They did a lot planning at the Pentagon for this sort of thing because of the proximity of Reagan National. Especially after the Jet Blue crash in 1982 which came pretty darn close. I would imagine that the WTC had similar drills and exercises due to their height.

edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Hey maxella, there is a new recruit in the house, I think this one has not read the all training manual yet, I'm sure 911files will get the hang of it after maybe 3,4,5, or 6 years, like some of his fellow manual readers!

Here is more evidence that they lied about "nobody could have even imagine airplanes would be used as weapons"
In addition to this www.abovetopsecret.com...

So why didn't they have any defense for the pentagon on 9/11 ?

On this day in history

On this day in history, 1974, Samuel Joseph Byck attempted to assassinate President Richard Nixon. Byck’s plan was to take control of an airliner and then force the pilots to fly the plane into the White House, thereby presumably killing the President who was there at the time. Not all went as planned, of course, though he did manage to get as far as taking control of a Delta Airlines’ plane. However, he never managed to get it off the ground.

Today in D.C. History: Stolen Helicopter Lands on White House Lawn

Preston landed on the South Lawn, but soon thereafter took off again, angling the helicopter on a return route to Fort Meade. Two Maryland Police Helicopters began following him, but Preston took his helicopter on a series of “erratic maneuvers,” making it hard for the Maryland Police to force him to land. Preston instead decided to return to the White House. This time, the Secret Service was ready. They began shooting at the helicopter, with both submachine guns and shotguns. The helicopter was forced to the ground and “after a short foot chase” Preston was arrested.

reply to post by maxella1


And yet, the events keep happening. Or do you not understand that pointing out how many times airplanes have been landed/crashed into the White House just shows that no one ever took it as a serious threat?

reply to post by maxella1

So why didn't they have any defense for the pentagon on 9/11 ?

So where would you put them ....?

Consider that the Pentagon lies about a mile from Regean National airport

Also any bullet/missile fired is going to come down somewhere And do lot of damage when it hits

During attack on Pearl Harbor many of the civilian casualties/damage was result of AA shells from ships
failing to explode in air and exploding on hitting ground

Also been other incidents of aircraft crashing the White House

1994 Frank Corder stole Cessna and tried to hit the White House crashing on lawn killing himself \

en.wikipedia.org...

Lets not forgot how a West German teenager who could barely fly took a Cessna 172 from Finland and
landed in Red Square in center of Moscow

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

And yet, the events keep happening. Or do you not understand that pointing out how many times airplanes have been landed/crashed into the White House just shows that no one ever took it as a serious threat?

No I don't understand. The people who didnt take it seriously should be held accountable for failure to protect DC and the Pentagon even though they knew that this type of attacks were attempted multiple times before.

Plus they were lying when they said that nobody could imagine this happening.

reply to post by thedman

So where would you put them ....?

It's not my job to protect DC, or the pentagon.

Consider that the Pentagon lies about a mile from Regean National airport

Okay I considered it... So what?

Also any bullet/missile fired is going to come down somewhere And do lot of damage when it hits

Not as much damage as a 767 Crashing into a building full of people running our government and/or military.

During attack on Pearl Harbor many of the civilian casualties/damage was result of AA shells from ships failing to explode in air and exploding on hitting ground

Yes I am aware that Pearl Harbor was attacked.

1994 Frank Corder stole Cessna and tried to hit the White House crashing on lawn killing himself

I posted this incident earlier in this thread.

Lets not forgot how a West German teenager who could barely fly took a Cessna 172 from Finland and landed in Red Square in center of Moscow

I don't care what happens in Moscow. And I don't understand what it has to do with anything we are talking about here.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by maxella1The pentagon had drills with the same scenario of civilian jets used as weapons and crash into the pentagon and WTC two years before 9/11.

I would like to see a reference on this. The only "drills" I am familiar with are those associated with crashes (not "civilian jets used as weapons"). As a matter of fact, one of the firefighters from the Pentagon was in training for such a crash when the plane hit the Pentagon. They did a lot planning at the Pentagon for this sort of thing because of the proximity of Reagan National. Especially after the Jet Blue crash in 1982 which came pretty darn close. I would imagine that the WTC had similar drills and exercises due to their height.

edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Hey maxella, there is a new recruit in the house, I think this one has not read the all training manual yet, I'm sure 911files will get the hang of it after maybe 3,4,5, or 6 years, like some of his fellow manual readers!

Here is more evidence that they lied about "nobody could have even imagine airplanes would be used as weapons"
In addition to this www.abovetopsecret.com...

So why didn't they have any defense for the pentagon on 9/11 ?

On this day in history

On this day in history, 1974, Samuel Joseph Byck attempted to assassinate President Richard Nixon. Byck’s plan was to take control of an airliner and then force the pilots to fly the plane into the White House, thereby presumably killing the President who was there at the time. Not all went as planned, of course, though he did manage to get as far as taking control of a Delta Airlines’ plane. However, he never managed to get it off the ground.

Today in D.C. History: Stolen Helicopter Lands on White House Lawn

Preston landed on the South Lawn, but soon thereafter took off again, angling the helicopter on a return route to Fort Meade. Two Maryland Police Helicopters began following him, but Preston took his helicopter on a series of “erratic maneuvers,” making it hard for the Maryland Police to force him to land. Preston instead decided to return to the White House. This time, the Secret Service was ready. They began shooting at the helicopter, with both submachine guns and shotguns. The helicopter was forced to the ground and “after a short foot chase” Preston was arrested.

edit on 19-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

You never did supply me the source that the government had drills simulating plane attacks on the Pentagon and WTC. Everyone knows about the planes as weapons scenario. Even Clarke in his book outlines defenses at the 2006 Atlanta Olympics for such an attack. I've even been exploring the possibility that the tactic may have been invoked on 9/11 at the Pentagon. But that is NOT what I asked for a source on. It was your assertion that the Pentagon and WTC were drilled as targets of such an attack. That I need a source on.

Think about how a skyscraper has to work.

Imagine you had a skyscraper 100 stories tall. Imagine each LEVEL weighed 1000 tons.

The top LEVEL only has to hold up the roof and let's ignore the weight of the roof to keep thing simple. LEVEL 99 has to be strong enough to support 1000 tons. 98 must support 2000 tons 97 3000 tons. So every level down that is another 1000 tons.

Now eventually the designers had to add more steel to support that weight. So that LEVEL became heavier. But that means every LEVEL below that had to be STRONGER TO SUPPORT THE ADDED WEIGHT.

So no matter what happened on 9/11 physicists and engineers should have been talking about how the weight had to be distributed down those buildings. And that doesn't even raise the question of how the buildings withstood the wind.

The PHYSICS should be settled before the conspiracy aspect is even questioned.

So the physics profession has refused to pick up the ball for TEN YEARS? Could that be because the physics is so obvious that there is no way planes could have destroyed the towers that completely in less than two hours?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Fortunately, Physicists are smarter than you are. They understand a dynamic load versus a static load. Continually repeating yourself in nearly every thread is getting irritating. It is obviously an obsession that you probably need to seek help with...

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Fortunately, Physicists are smarter than you are. They understand a dynamic load versus a static load. Continually repeating yourself in nearly every thread is getting irritating. It is obviously an obsession that you probably need to seek help with...

Curious that so many people who can't prove anything say so much about physicists but don't name the physicists.

How about Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

He put an email on the Internet on 9/12/2001. He said he lived 4 blocks from Ground Zero and had to abandon his home because of the dust. He took videos of the destruction.

But what has he said or written about 9/11 since then? NOTHING!

But in 2007 he released a book about Black Holes. How can he know enough about gravity to write a book on black holes but not about skyscrapers to question how an airliner could totally destroy one in less than two hours?

The amount of silence about 9/11 from so many scientists is very interesting but then people imply that scientists all believe the official story when this is nothing but GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS. Like when do we ever hear scientists talk about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? There is no mention of that in the entire 10,000 page NIST report. They talk about the center of mass of the airplane but not 29 stories of building that weighed hundreds of times that of the plane.

Yeah, the JREFers called me a broken record. But there is really nothing else to talk about because this problem is so simple. It should have been solved in 2002. That is the real 9/11 issue now! Why wasn't this simple problem SOLVED BY SCIENTISTS in 2002? That is something to be laid at the feet of our so called physicists.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Could it possibly be that the Physicists you rant about don't care about repeating the work of others? The entire premise of the rant I replied to shows that you either don't or refuse to understand the difference between a static versus a dynamic load of a structure's components.

That's not even Grade School stuff, it's Kindergarten level... Try laying a brick on top of an egg versus dropping the brick from a few inches above the egg and note the difference in whether the egg supports the brick or not...

When you do this, don't get too close when you drop the brick or you might end up with "egg on your face"!

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Could it possibly be that the Physicists you rant about don't care about repeating the work of others? The entire premise of the rant I replied to shows that you either don't or refuse to understand the difference between a static versus a dynamic load of a structure's components.

That's not even Grade School stuff, it's Kindergarten level... Try laying a brick on top of an egg versus dropping the brick from a few inches above the egg and note the difference in whether the eggs supports the brick or not...

When you do this, don't get too close when you drop the brick or you might end up with "egg on your face"!

So you can talk about ONE BRICK and ONE EGG.

Build a structure with MULTIPLE LEVELS and see what happens.

My model has 33 LEVEL. Yes, some of them were crushed by the dynamic load. But the Kinetic Energy decreased with each LEVEL.

www.youtube.com...

So the falling mass was brought to a halt. So who has built a multi-level model that can completely collapse? All you can do is TALK! So you still have not NAMED any physicist. How about Bazant who defies Newton's 3rd Law.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Ok, use a basket full of eggs if you want! The same principle applies... Is it not obviously plain to you that everyone perceives you as a "kook" except for other "kooks". BTW, I won't be replying any more because it's simply not worth the effort to type a reply...

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Ok, use a basket full of eggs if you want! The same principle applies... Is it not obviously plain to you that everyone perceives you as a "kook" except for other "kooks". BTW, I won't be replying any more because it's simply not worth the effort to type a reply...

You are the one who brought up eggs not me.

Build it and make a video. Until then you might as well shut up.

You mentioned STATIC LOAD. Your structure must support the static load.

But no, you are just going to talk some more.

psik

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

And yet, the events keep happening. Or do you not understand that pointing out how many times airplanes have been landed/crashed into the White House just shows that no one ever took it as a serious threat?

They did take it as a serious threat because after Frank Eugene Corder crashed a small stolen plane into the Whitehouse on September 11, 1994, they stationed 2 jets 10 miles aaway at Andrews AFB as a precautionary measure to avoid any future potential attacks.

Bizarrely, Frank Corder crashed the plane into the Whitehouse on September 11 (1994), strange date coincidence!

So anyway, due to this incident there were planes at Andrews AFB specifically to protect the Whitehouse/Pentagon, and even the newspapers reported soon after 9/11 that planes were actually scrambled from Andrews AFB that day, there is even an email from a researcher to a military person kicking about that claims in writing that they were scrambled from Andrews AFB that day. Maybe this is what Norman Mineta was referring to in his testimony? Perhaps the orders to not fire were issued.

Here's some more info relating to Andrews AFB that day and the newspapers that reported they were scrambled.

www.fromthewilderness.com...

Originally posted by 911files
You never did supply me the source that the government had drills simulating plane attacks on the Pentagon and WTC. Everyone knows about the planes as weapons scenario. Even Clarke in his book outlines defenses at the 2006 Atlanta Olympics for such an attack. I've even been exploring the possibility that the tactic may have been invoked on 9/11 at the Pentagon. But that is NOT what I asked for a source on. It was your assertion that the Pentagon and WTC were drilled as targets of such an attack. That I need a source on.

edit on 20-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

If you copy and paste this link www.mdw.army.mil/content/anmviewer.asp?a=290
into
The Wayback Machine
And click December 14, 2004 then you will get this:

Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas. Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one. The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.

Spy Agency Planned 9/11 Drill

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

I know that this exercise was for a rescue operation but the point is that in the last 30 years they knew very well that there were many scenarios that included civilian aircraft used as a weapon.
9/11: THREATS ABOUT AIRPLANES AS WEAPONS PRIOR TO 9/11
You may choose to believe whatever you want but it doesn't change the fact that they did imagine planes used as weapons, and lied about it.
I personally don't believe liars, and they had no excuse for screwing up on 9/11 and should be held accountable .
.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Fortunately, Physicists are smarter than you are. They understand a dynamic load versus a static load. Continually repeating yourself in nearly every thread is getting irritating. It is obviously an obsession that you probably need to seek help with...

I think your 4 years posting in the 9/11 forum 'Reheat' is a strange obsession, especially when you beleive the OS and are not researching the subject with a genuine motive, i.e. to piece together what really happened, not what we were told happened.

You are making judgements about Physicists being smarter than psikeyhackr, you have no way of gauging the intelligence of a large group of worldwide Physicists against someone who is annoymous on the internet! So to make that comment is pretty absurd!

Member 'psikeyhackr' knows enough about physics to determine what happened scientifically, through the information they present this is evident. You do not necessarily need to be a top level physicist to work out basic principles of physics.

There are people here, like yourself 'Reheat', that do not fully understand physics, but then try to argue against the obvious physics, that clearly prove the collpases were impossible without some kind of explosives.

You are here day after day trying to discredit people like psikeyhackr, who know their stuff, and then you complain that you find it 'irratating' that psikeyhackr is standing by his scientific examinations!?!

Why do you come back here day after day when you have no real motive to be here, and you find being here constantly irritating? Seem pretty strange behaviour to me?!

reply to post by Reheat

I won't be replying any more because it's simply not worth the effort to type a reply...

What are the "kooks" going to do now ?

reply to post by kidtwist


Reheat, along with at least a dozen more are complete frauds, and it rankles me that we have been forced to treat them as though they are legitimate players in a most deadly game. Are we powerless over their deceit? Isn't aiding a criminal a criminal offense? This shouldn't be ignored, as they hinder our efforts to find the truth about that day. There must be some way to vet these imposters.

Originally posted by dillweed
There must be some way to vet these imposters.

What do you suggest. Dunking them in a pond till they drown or burning them at the stake ?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by dillweed
There must be some way to vet these imposters.

What do you suggest. Dunking them in a pond till they drown or burning them at the stake ?

Educate yourself.

How the Judicial System Works