9/11 Debate: Watch as Popular Mechanics debunk LooseChange in person

[Claymore]

I argue speed because speed is dependent on altitude - higher altitude equals faster speeds, and wikipedia uses the speeds you quoted as "cruising speed." Point being that high altitude cruising speed is higly unlikely to equal similar speed close to the ground.

Bear in mind that max speeds are always quoted as being in level flight, not at the terminal points of dives.

At sea level, at a temperature of 15 °C (59 °F) and under normal atmospheric conditions, the speed of sound is 344 m/s (1225 km/h or 761 mph).
[source]

So, you are trying to tell me these jets were doing close to the speed of sound when they hit the towers - blatantly false because any video evidence (of the 2nd jet for instance, obviously is travelling nowhere near the speed of sound, and yes, I've been to some of the world's top airshows and am fully aware of what the speed of sound looks like at low level.) The lumbering jet that hit the second tower was doing nowhere near the speed of sound, I would think it was doing the usual speed in a low altitude configuration, ie, about 230 knots or less, and we also should know, these jets have low landing speeds, under 200 knots.

Please re-read what I wrote. I said nothing about "close to the speed of sound", I said that the max quoted estimated speed (950kph) was only Mach 0.77.

Why would it be doing a low speed? Because the hijackers were worried about damaging the plane? I'm sure you're aware that distance and size can alter our perceptions of speed considerably. While it's entirely possible that it wasn't doing 950kph, I seriously doubt the plane was moving slowly.

I notice boeing doesn't post a "maximum speed," it is irrelevant in terms of airlines (load, thrust, range, cruise, etc, being more important.)

But I do find this:
Boeing 767 Maximum Speed: 583 mph [source]

Whoever wrote that obviously took Boeing's max cruise speed and interpreted it as maximum speed.

So your max quoted above of 800-950kph is plainly impossible as this would be maximum speed at altitude, ie, the only place where true maximum speed would be attained.

You keep saying that, but you *still* have not provided any evidence of this; let's not forget the issue of a dive either...

(Incidentally, there are a number of reports of World War 2 fighters going transonic in dives, yet their maximum speeds were only in the region of 650kph.)

Where? The NIST faq is shown to be not worth the paper it is written on (explain concrete pulverizing to dust, even explain mushrooming.) Explain the woman alive in the impact hole (which you still haven't managed to do.) Explain the firefighters reports of being on the impact floor. All directly in contrast to the NIST faq, the ULTIMATE authority on these events.

Again, ask the experts. I still don't see the point about the woman. I have seen pics of the second tower with a great hole in it, and no fires.

Incidentally, this file makes fascinating reading - it's got a great deal on the impact and the ability of the buildings:
Engineering

So you are not disagreeing that on impact the jets were in level flight. I speak the 2nd jet because I saw this with my own eyes (tv). It made a slow turn. A turn at the speeds you describe, once again, is something an experienced pilot would have a problem executing in an airliner but this is a cessna pilot, obviously a natural ace in your estimation.

What makes you think the pilot was a Cessna pilot? There's evidence that he tried to rent a Cessna, but in fact he was a licenced commercial pilot with instrument ratings. How many hours do you need for a commercial licence?

On the hit to the pentagon and astroturf: I did find info on this and I don't feel like searching for it again; simply, rules of ground effect and plain pilot overload at that speed at low altitude make this a difficult maneuver for even the most experienced pilot.

You mean, when a pilot intends to survive...

What does ground effect have to do with it? Read this - it's very enlightening: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

So, the building mysteriously vapourised due to the impact of the jet and floors collapsing. Do you really think it would be so neat and leave such a neat pile x 2 buildings?

Neat? Eh? Where'd you get that one from? Loose Change? The collapse was anything but neat!

Do you really have any clue what you're talking about. This is not a sprung elastic band; it is a 110 story building, the height of engineering. But no, pulverised to dust. Thousands of tons of steel and concrete a smoking hole in the ground. Fairy dust never had it so good.

Potential energy. Gravity. Read up on it.

Nope, it was identified as a Rolls-Royce RB211.

Please point to one link where this was verified.

Here's a very nice, thorough link: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
And another, debunking Loose Change: http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html

Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry displays the Pratt & Whitney JT8D. These photos show that JT8D matches the Pentagon engine photographed at the crash site.
[source]

Unfortunately, they state that these engines were used in the A-3 Skywarrior. That's completely incorrect. Can't they even get that simple fact right?
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-3_Skywarrior

And here you are posting speeds again, speeds that are plainly impossible at low altitude especially insofar as my max speed quoted above.

Proof! Evidence!

Also, I'm still waiting for that theory. Or would you like me to draw one up?

 

[kilo39]

Also, I'm still waiting for that theory. Or would you like me to draw one up?

I make my comments regarding speed and altitude due to the different effects of air density and pressure - speed at high altitude does not equal speed at low altitude - and speeds attained at high altitude will not be possible at low altitude. In other words 700, 800 kph is impossible.

Yes I read the ground effect article before I made the post. Note the ground effect article comes off a debunker site (which are beginning to outnumber the conspiracists sites - to the extent they are difficult to tell apart.)

I made the comment in specific regard to statements like this from the article:

That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive. We have shown that any influence of ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack. The 757 was apparently in a shallow dive as well, further reducing its angle of attack such that any impact of ground effect would have been extremely small.
-
These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

As you mentioned: a natural ace.

 

[icyrus]

Oh - isn't that all very neat and tidy - like we are not talking the release of massive forces - no - these massive forces fall straight down into a neat pile - it wasn't a pancake - no - this tremendous energy was somehow mysteriously released - to cause a free-fall... no resistance or conservation of momentum - and it wasn't a pancake - now tell me - what causes a massive unleashing of energy - 12 stories collapsing above? Maybe. 24000 thousand gallons of fuel - not. Okay - so 12 stories collapsing above - but it all fell down in a neat straight line - in 11 seconds. Into its own footprint - dang - not even humpty dumpty did it so neat.

Quick question, by neat pile do you mean "destroyed all the surrounding buildings"?

 

[kilo39]

Quick question, by neat pile do you mean "destroyed all the surrounding buildings"?

Call it "literary licence."

And the very fact it destroyed so much of the surrounding landscape (while falling into its own footprint) is a clue.

 

[Claymore]

I make my comments regarding speed and altitude due to the different effects of air density and pressure - speed at high altitude does not equal speed at low altitude - and speeds attained at high altitude will not be possible at low altitude. In other words 700, 800 kph is impossible.

Yes, aircraft can fly faster in level flight at high altitude than at low altitude. However, exactly how fast this is depends on the type of aircraft. Also, I should remind you again that these aircraft had not been in sustained level flight; that changes everything.

So, come on: proof!

That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour

OK, let's stop right there. Hani Hanjour may not have been a great pilot. But make no mistake: he had a commercial pilot's certificate. To get that, he had to have done at least 250 hours of flight training, in addition to exams etc. That's not trivial.

Call it "literary licence."

And the very fact it destroyed so much of the surrounding landscape (while falling into its own footprint) is a clue.

Falls into own footprint, AND destroys much of the surrounding area...how the hell do you figure that one?

If that's literary licence, the literary genre must be fantasy.

 

[kilo39]

(hey Claymore, much as I complain it's been fun)

We have batted this backwards and forwards regarding WTC and the Pentagon. An observation: in this batting "the powers that be" have the wherewithal to debunk us both with one simple video, or one verifiable fact regarding WTC and pentagon, the pentagon especially, as clear and full video exists of the event (undisputed.) [Instead they release the worst they can find - note - confiscated in the first place - what gives them this power, and in view of this, if they had the wherewithal they would have confiscated ALL the WTC video, the two are naturally aligned, both exist within the public domain. Of course they would have a problem confiscating the worlds video but the actions at the pentagon certainly shows their intent. Even more, sites like state.gov, information sites for the US government are forced to reference the same materials as the conspiracists: msnbc, rense, youtube, etc.

Then we have the matter of the NIST faq, a neat summary of the report, and patently unbelievable, especially insofar as simple visual evidence on this thread is contrary to their story. Also notable, it shows little absolute "proofs," it makes summations much as any conspiracists document, and once again the NIST uses as reference public video (youtube) when they have the original of the pentagon (for instance.) What is going on????! Any sane person must ask themselves this question.

A Google tale: within the last 48 hours I went looking for pictures concerning air crashes (point: debris fields) with one particular in mind (as I had seen the original tv news reports.) The cargo crash in Holland into the apartment building. Remember this at all?

This is what I found:

1992 Oct 4, In the Netherlands an Israeli El Al Jumbo Jet transport, enroute from New York to Tel Aviv, crashed into an Amsterdam apartment complex and killed 43 people. Since then scores of people complained of unidentified health problems. In 1998 it was revealed that the jet carried 50 gallons of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a non-poisonous ingredient of sarin nerve gas, destined for Israel. A report on the crash was released in 1999 and said that the plane's ballast included carcinogenic depleted uranium.

Fuller story here:
The El Al jet also carried at least 800 kilograms of depleted uranium (DU), used as ballast to balance the jet's cargo. Burned DU releases uranium dust, which is known to cause lung cancer and other diseases.

Dutch authorities and El Al admit Flight LY1862 carried sarin components and DU, but refuse to provide details on six tons of military cargo. According to airport security personnel, the plane carried seven pallets of unspecified munitions.

Journalist Dekker claims, on the basis of leaks from Dutch officials, that the jet carried 27 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, enough to make seven warheads the size of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki in 1945.

Point: we live in a bubble - clueless, ignorant and mislead of what truly goes on in the world.

 

[kilo39]

Here is what I think happened on 911: bin laden is a CIA troll. Between him and the CIA they planned 911 (how else did they get access to flight codes, flight manuals and the intricate operation of a 757/767? Training on cessnas? I think not.) 19 whom according to BL didn't know the different members of the group or the overall plan. Now lets see: months of planning, intimate knowledge of the jets, and this ragtag bunch carries out the most extensive terrorist operation EVER KNOWN - but the cia, fbi had no clue. Um. And BL living in a cave was the mastermind. Yup. To all intents BL's grandmother (whatever, earlier post) knew so how come not the cia?

Then to double all this, NORAD, and the pre-programmed automatic response is somehow switched off or looking the other way exactly on the day (9am in the morning.) Maybe they were in a meeting or having coffee... PLEASE. Worse, any final response is tardy and unhelpful. Let's not forget these are attack jets of the usaf: they have onboard radar better than any on the ground, and are fully capable of running their own intercepts and making their own decisions in terms of said auto-response (instead they were sent to a holding pattern off NY; hardly helpful.)

Okay. Let's look at it all a little closer: the american government has previously made plans to kill their own civilians and orchestrate terrorist attacks against their own citizens in pursuit of a larger political goal.

Here is a link to Operation Northwoods, cleared and authorised by the american government, only finally vetoed by President Kennedy:

UNCLASSIFIED
THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
WASHINGTON 25, D.C.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE : 13 March 1962
NORTHWOODS (S)

3. This plan, incorporating projects selected from the attached suggestions, or from other sources, should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States. The plan would also properly integrate and time phase the courses of action to be pursued. The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

There were other plans and studies directly relating to the attack on 911:

He says not only did the Bush administration purposely ignore Al Q'aida in the months preceding the WTC attacks, but the situation is even more disturbing, considering his military unit way back in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers exactly like what occurred on 9/11. McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.
[source]

Here is the original lie detector test: [source]

So, what do we have? We have a government prepared to attack its own citizens, who made precise plans of execution.

Further (and links are in this thread) there is no doubt the fbi/cia knew of these terrorists, even lived with them, and did all in their power to circumvent any (other) investigation against them including numerous arrest requests made by other members of the fbi. Further, the official 911 Commission report was obscurant and censored, even to other members of the government. WHAT IS GOING ON?

Then we have: REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century; "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
[source]

Okay, my points in all of the above: the world you live in is not the world you think you live in, and in the long trail of documentation up to and including Condeliza Rices denial of being briefed or "forgetting." The american government is clearly capable, and the wish/need was expressed by Cheney, and their ducking and diving, and the paucity of REAL information even referenced by the gub is itself a pointer towards guilt and implication.

 

[kilo39]

Regarding WTC: I believe the plan was in place to attack the towers. That it couldn't be allowed to be a 'simple' terrorist attack (which even a double impact without collapse would have been) sufficient to allow the american government to invade (so far) 2 countries using this as a pretext (saddam had links to al queda according to them, and with wmd untenable). To ensure success the cia planned covertly to the exact detail with powers in the military ensuring they were looking the other way. Then to guarantee success 'they' arranged for the towers to definitely collapse, and for the pentagon to be similarly damaged.

(And before anything else, there have been other reports, threads about airlines being hijacked and concurrent exercises and such - these are part of LG's links and are on this thread.)

Those interested should also look at [source]

Having posted all the above I post the following, and before you all get hysterical I remind you of the sarin, DU information at the start of this post, ie, these are not "pie in the sky ramblings," reality is stranger than you think.

I remind you of this:

‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said.

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.[source]

Evidence is coming to light of health problems, quality of air issues, and we have the visual evidence of the day including the massive dust clouds, the heat at the site which took months to disperse. There have been reports recently of the difficulty of identifying the victims of 911, some (a thousand or so,) will not be identified - the remains will be kept - until technology can catch up to "the severely damaged DNA - too small to identify at this time using current technology."

Now let's see, a building collapse: there should have been thousands of crushed victims - instead DNA samples are too small, or too damaged to identify. How do we get from crushed victims to dna samples too small to identify? In every collapse, every earthquake, rescue dogs are onscene to identify live victims and bodies. There have never been NO SURVIVORS in the very worst disasters known to man. Seemingly 911 was a world of firsts.

Regarding the pentagon: I believe it was hit by a missile, though the physical evidence seems to preclude that (engine remains.) Only one thing - the (night) they released the parking slot video I saw an earlier video which looked like a missile strike but to be sure I wanted to see it again... the very next broadcast it was a different video - the one we have seen since - stop action, indistinguishable - or let me rather say I saw the full frame speed version, the next version was the stopgo.

Flight 93? That is surely the cleanest ground impact site ever in the history of air travel.

This is what I believe happened to WTC.

I believe the thermonuclear strike is the best scenario, and the only reason this assertion can be made is the wealth of video material and photos of the day, which as we have seen from the pentagon is a situation the government would prefer not to have.

Watch this space for political moves to shut up the american population... oh but don't we have that in the Patriot Act and the various terror laws that have just been passed by bush and crew.

Tell me the signature is not unmistakable.

Ah classic Claymore. Off your mushrooming link:
Both of the twin towers exhibited a mushrooming behavior as they collapsed, resulting in the dispersion of their steel over areas several times the size of their footprints. The mushrooming plumes of dense dust and steel began at the impact zones, and rapidly expanded. By about five seconds into each collapse the diameter of the mushrooming plume was about three times the diameter of the tower.

It is not immediately obvious to what extent the mass of the destroyed portion of the towers was dispersed throughout the clouds. However, several pieces of evidence show that most of the towers' mass landed outside of their footprints in a highly symmetric distribution.

 

[Claymore]

Kilo, to help you out, I have come up with a rough theory of what happened on 9/11, accoring to the conspiracy theorists. I have tried to use the information you have provided to form this; where necessary, I have extrapolated to make the plot more complex rather than simple, as conspiracy theorists don't seem to like Occam much. I've structured it in an outline format to simplify reading.

Also, I have not discussed possible motives: what will who get out of this scenario?

The 9/11 conspiracy - a theory

The plot is hatched by a group we'll call CIA - Conspiracy In Action. You can deduce their power from what follows.

World Trade Center
-Shares
---Before the attacks, arrange for unusual share trading in airline stocks to throw people off the scent.
-Aircraft
---Rig two Boeing 767s with remote control capabilities (alternative: persuade some hijackers to hijack the plane and do a suicide run).
---Take control of the aircraft some distance out from Boston, at 30000' or so, and direct them toward NYC, descending. Turn off transponders.
---Ensure that NORAD and the FAA don't get fighters there in time.
---With both aircraft, bring them in slowly and carefully, and fly them into WTC 1 and WTC 2.
-Demolition
---In the meantime, rig up WTC 1 and WTC 2 with several tons of explosives; dozens of demolition crew members can sneak it in when no-one's looking; no-one will notice stripped fireproofing and odd-looking cables.
---Ensure that the explosives are undetectable in rubble; develop new ones to be sure. (Alternative: blackmail/bribe everyone who does find evidence of explosives afterward).
---Rig up WTC 7 with explosives too, just in case the planes miss, or there's peripheral damage.
---Since WTC 7 is one of the farther buildings in the WTC complex from the towers, better play it safe and rig them up for demolition too.
-The attack
---Once the planes have hit the towers, let them burn for a bit.
---After a while, when it looks like lots of damage has happened, hit the demolition switch to prevent more people escaping.
---Blow all the floors at the same time, instead of sequentially, as in normal demolitions; it'll look more spectacular.
---Blow the extra explosives in the upper floors to provide a great mushrooming effect. That way no one will guess it's a demolition.
---Seeing that WTC7 has been burning for several hours, let the owner (who is in on the plan) give the order to do the demolition of WTC7.
---Damage to the other buildings is not as severe; leave them, and remove the explosives later.
-Cover-up
---Make sure that anyone who might find explosive residue is silenced.
---Track down the dozens of engineers doing reports, and make sure that they follow the official line.
---Make sure NORAD, FAA and the ATCs are in on it so that they can provide the "correct" information.

Pentagon
-Aircraft
---Get an old A-3 Skywarrior out of mothballs. Remove the old J57 engines, and fit some JT8D engines.
---Alternative: get a Tomahawk cruise missile, and bolt a JT8D engine underneath.
---Rig the A-3 up with remote controls, and load it with some really decent explosives.
---As a decoy, make a 757 passenger flight disappear. Create fictional passengers, and fictional families who can make public statements afterwards.
---Fly the A-3 in; make it weave a bit so that it can clip several lampposts along the way.
---When it hits the Pentagon, make sure the explosives go off and demolish all trace of the A-3.
---Make sure that the hole it creates is too small for a 757; people won't be fooled otherwise.
-Cover-up
---Right afterward, get hold of every single eyewitness in the area, and make sure they all spout a story of an American Airlines 757 coming in. (Alternative: place a couple of hundred CIA people in the vicinity to act as "witnesses". Make sure all video footage is confiscated in case that contradicts the witnesses.
---Before emergency crews arrive, scatter a few bits of accurate-looking debris around on the lawns.
---Get a severely fire-damaged Rolls-Royce RB211 engine, plus some 757 landing gear components, and get them into the rubble under the cover of fire hoses. A few body parts wouldn't go amiss either.
---Provide a fake black box, complete with fake recordings.
---Make sure the coronor's department provides a report "identifying" all the "victims".
---Make sure NORAD, FAA and the ATCs are in on it so that they can provide the "correct" information.

Flight 93
-Aircraft
---Set up a regular airlines flight for a fake hijacking; use remote control.
---When flying, get a fighter in on it, and blow it out of the air over Pennsylvania; make sure it's at altitude so debris is widely scattered.
-Cover-up
---Set up fake phone calls to various people; make sure the recipients of the calls know what to say, and that it's all publicised. Blackmail/bribe the recipients of the calls, if necessary.
---Make sure the coronor's department provides a report "identifying" all the victims.
---Make sure NORAD, FAA and the ATCs are in on it so that they can provide the "correct" information.

 

[Claymore]

(hey Claymore, much as I complain it's been fun)

Yup. I've certainly learnt a lot.

We have batted this backwards and forwards regarding WTC and the Pentagon. An observation: in this batting "the powers that be" have the wherewithal to debunk us both with one simple video, or one verifiable fact regarding WTC and pentagon, the pentagon especially, as clear and full video exists of the event (undisputed.)

I agree on any video evidence. They should release the whole damn lot.

Then we have the matter of the NIST faq, a neat summary of the report, and patently unbelievable, especially insofar as simple visual evidence on this thread is contrary to their story.

That I'd disagree on - I find the WTC stuff entirely plausible. Yes, there may be details that may never be explained totally (a bit of chaos theory here), but I can think of nothing else that would fit the bill, either from a physical or a political point of view.

1992 Oct 4, In the Netherlands an Israeli El Al Jumbo Jet transport, enroute from New York to Tel Aviv, crashed into an Amsterdam apartment complex and killed 43 people. Since then scores of people complained of unidentified health problems. In 1998 it was revealed that the jet carried 50 gallons of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a non-poisonous ingredient of sarin nerve gas, destined for Israel. A report on the crash was released in 1999 and said that the plane's ballast included carcinogenic depleted uranium.

Helderberg as well...

 

[Claymore]

Here is what I think happened on 911: bin laden is a CIA troll. Between him and the CIA they planned 911 (how else did they get access to flight codes, flight manuals and the intricate operation of a 757/767? Training on cessnas? I think not.)

Just a comment - it's dead easy to get that stuff. Anyone with access to an airport can (heck, I have a colleague who could - he used to be in Boeing maintenance at JHB International). A friend of mine is a flight sim nut, and he ordered all the flight manuals for a 737 over the internet from a company that supplies them. He can do the full checklisted start-up on an airliner, as per the official manuals, never mind the flying mechanics.

Then to double all this, NORAD, and the pre-programmed automatic response is somehow switched off or looking the other way exactly on the day (9am in the morning.) Maybe they were in a meeting or having coffee... PLEASE.

Actually, the exact timeline of the response was all quite interesting. Nothing that cannot be explained by the chaos and uncertainty of the situation though.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua175

Let's not forget these are attack jets of the usaf: they have onboard radar better than any on the ground, and are fully capable of running their own intercepts and making their own decisions in terms of said auto-response (instead they were sent to a holding pattern off NY; hardly helpful.)

Their radar is certainly nowhere near as good as ground-based radar. Once there, what were they going to do though? US jets are not in the habit of shooting down American airliners, hijacked or otherwise.

Okay. Let's look at it all a little closer: the american government has previously made plans to kill their own civilians and orchestrate terrorist attacks against their own citizens in pursuit of a larger political goal.

The problem here: what did they have to gain? Iraq wasn't a blip on the horizen, and the excuse to attack Iraq was always the supposed WMD. Afghanistan was attacked because of the Al-Quaeda link...but of what benefit was that? Since 9/11, America has been more divided than any time in the last century. I struggle to see a motive.

 

[Claymore]

Regarding WTC: I believe the plan was in place to attack the towers. That it couldn't be allowed to be a 'simple' terrorist attack (which even a double impact without collapse would have been) sufficient to allow the american government to invade (so far) 2 countries using this as a pretext (saddam had links to al queda according to them, and with wmd untenable). To ensure success the cia planned covertly to the exact detail with powers in the military ensuring they were looking the other way. Then to guarantee success 'they' arranged for the towers to definitely collapse, and for the pentagon to be similarly damaged.

Then why the aircraft? Why not another bombing, much more thorough this time?

Now let's see, a building collapse: there should have been thousands of crushed victims - instead DNA samples are too small, or too damaged to identify. How do we get from crushed victims to dna samples too small to identify? In every collapse, every earthquake, rescue dogs are onscene to identify live victims and bodies. There have never been NO SURVIVORS in the very worst disasters known to man. Seemingly 911 was a world of firsts.

Eh? There were plenty of survivors!

Flight 93? That is surely the cleanest ground impact site ever in the history of air travel.

Hold on a sec...weren't you telling me earlier about debris 8 miles away?

It is not immediately obvious to what extent the mass of the destroyed portion of the towers was dispersed throughout the clouds. However, several pieces of evidence show that most of the towers' mass landed outside of their footprints in a highly symmetric distribution. [/I]

In other words...you are saying it WASN'T a neat pile, in their own footprints?

 

[kilo39]

C'mon Claymore, don't be obtuse. Also you seemed to have stopped your post halfway? Was this just after you fell off your chair?!

Primarily I wanted you to look at 3 links. The main link with the primary photograph, here. This page, and this one. The rebuke is as important.

His updated info is a minimum of cutting charges, and two pineapple sized devices, one under each tower. The 3 links above tell the primary story, without getting into the detail of radio controlled aircraft, drones, the rest, and a minimum of equipment and setup.

"The steel pillars of the core, 47 pieces, were sturdier than the turrets of the tanks of the Second World War."

"What was needed therefore was 47 cuts like this"

Regarding this site, and details of bone dust, the vapourisation of the central column, which is plainly visible in the latest Loose Change, the mass of dust lying inches thick, the massive ejection of debris weighing tons (22 ton outer wall steel sections 4 floors high, ejected 200 meters; 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower) mysteriously vaporising in thin air, etc. As he says somewhere in all that; it fulfills the demands of Occam's Razor.

Some responses:

Just a comment - it's dead easy to get that stuff. Anyone with access to an airport can (heck, I have a colleague who could - he used to be in Boeing maintenance at JHB International). A friend of mine is a flight sim nut, and he ordered all the flight manuals for a 737 over the internet from a company that supplies them. He can do the full checklisted start-up on an airliner, as per the official manuals, never mind the flying mechanics.

There is a very simple explanation for radio controlled aeroplanes, and perfect flying. It requires neither drones nor dummy aircraft. A simple set of codes would put the planes on auto-pilot directed at their targets. And you really should read the documents on the simulations setup by the military. And would these terrorists know all these things, intimate knowledge, no matter your tales of armchair pilot buddies. In fact that is about the best yet: they trained on MS flight simulator, now where have I heard that before?

Attack radar on an F16 is far more capable of precise targeting than air traffic control for instance. Norad was looking the other way, they were reliant on civilian controllers(?) Whatever.

The problem here: what did they have to gain? Iraq wasn't a blip on the horizen, and the excuse to attack Iraq was always the supposed WMD. Afghanistan was attacked because of the Al-Quaeda link...but of what benefit was that? Since 9/11, America has been more divided than any time in the last century. I struggle to see a motive.

You really do need to read "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES." This link is to the original document, not a summary. Read it! It is the blueprint of why all this is necessary.

Then why the aircraft? Why not another bombing, much more thorough this time?

A globally identifiable enemy. The Ultimate Extravaganza! And if you had read the document on Peak Oil you would understand the true target was the oil fields of the Caspian Sea.

Eh? There were plenty of survivors!

No Claymore; no one came out of the actual wreckage. There were no people buried alive as is normal in an earthquake or similar.

Hold on a sec...weren't you telling me earlier about debris 8 miles away?

Yes, but if you look closer into that the debris field it is "light materials," things that would blow in the wind, not aircraft parts. According to the reports. (Then of course, there is always literary licence!)

In other words...you are saying it WASN'T a neat pile, in their own footprints?

As I started, obtuse. There have been many times on this thread when I wonder if you have seen the video. To all intents it dropped into its own footprint with a massive ejection of materials. We've seen the videos (I hope.) The close-up pictures at the links show the true devastation.

 

[nivek]

mmm those must've been really dumb terrorists if this was done with the co-operation of the US government

afaik, suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are fighting for a cause and they feel its justified and worth sacrificing their lives for.

so according to all the conspiricy theories available, did the CIA round up a bunch of suicidle hippies off the net and ask them for a small favour or did bin laden just screw over 18 of his own people for his buddy george?

 

[Claymore]

Primarily I wanted you to look at 3 links. The main link with the primary photograph, here. This page, and this one. The rebuke is as important.

His updated info is a minimum of cutting charges, and two pineapple sized devices, one under each tower. The 3 links above tell the primary story, without getting into the detail of radio controlled aircraft, drones, the rest, and a minimum of equipment and setup.

Right, there are a few problems with that.
#1: As is plainly obvious, the collapse started at the top, where the planes hit, not at the bottom, where these supposed new-tech devices would have been placed.
#2: No seismic devices picked up any detonations, and they most certainly would have.
#3: What about WTC7? Did that have a nuke in it too? And the other WTC buildings? Them too?

Now, I think you would be quite interested in reading this report. It's a PDF file, a document discussing the possibility of the buildings having been demolished, done by Protec, a company that is one of the world's top authorities on building demolitions. The site it's published on, ImplosionWorld, have a lot of interesting stuff; in fact, the flash image on their main page shows a few building demolitions, and you can see they don't resemble the WTC collapse at all.

There is a very simple explanation for radio controlled aeroplanes, and perfect flying. It requires neither drones nor dummy aircraft. A simple set of codes would put the planes on auto-pilot directed at their targets. And you really should read the documents on the simulations setup by the military. And would these terrorists know all these things, intimate knowledge, no matter your tales of armchair pilot buddies. In fact that is about the best yet: they trained on MS flight simulator, now where have I heard that before?

I don't understand the issue here. Maintaining an aircraft in flight is not terribly difficult at all; it's take-offs and landings that are the problem.

As for the comment about auto-pilots...why the hell would an auto-pilot suddently execute a sharp turn, and exhibit erratic bahaviour? And that doesn't explain peripheral issues - what happened to the crew and passengers?

Attack radar on an F16 is far more capable of precise targeting than air traffic control for instance. Norad was looking the other way, they were reliant on civilian controllers(?) Whatever.

The attack radar on the F-16, the AN/APG-66, has a short (150km) range, and only a 120 degree by 120 degree view cone. Yes, it is more accurate in close quarters, but they'd need to get there first. And why F-16s when it was F-15s that were scrambled?

You really do need to read "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES." This link is to the original document, not a summary. Read it! It is the blueprint of why all this is necessary.

It doesn't explain why the attacks would be linked to Iraq, nor some of the convoluted theories (demolition with nukes *as well as* aircraft and hijackers?).

A globally identifiable enemy. The Ultimate Extravaganza! And if you had read the document on Peak Oil you would understand the true target was the oil fields of the Caspian Sea.

Oh, so the US controls the Caspian oil fields then? News to me...

(And how does that link to Al-Quaeda, the globally identifiable enemy?)

No Claymore; no one came out of the actual wreckage. There were no people buried alive as is normal in an earthquake or similar.

Hate to draw your attention to this, but that was not an earthquake. Many people were evacuated, but how well do you think someone would survive an 80-storey fall amongst debris, or being under all that stuff coming down, trapped inside stairwells? Nonetheless, one of your own nuke theory links described firefighters close to the building being miraculously spared when debris missed them.

Yes, but if you look closer into that the debris field it is "light materials," things that would blow in the wind, not aircraft parts. According to the reports. (Then of course, there is always literary licence!)

Oh, so *now* you're saying it was a small debris field, not a large one as you claimed earlier. As it happened, there were engines found hundreds of yards away...doesn't sound unusual to me.

As I started, obtuse. There have been many times on this thread when I wonder if you have seen the video. To all intents it dropped into its own footprint with a massive ejection of materials. We've seen the videos (I hope.) The close-up pictures at the links show the true devastation.

Read the Protec document above. I think that makes things clearer. I still can't figure out how "massive ejection of materials" equates with "own footprint". Pick one or the other; they are contradictory.

 

[kilo39]

Right, there are a few problems with that.
#1: As is plainly obvious, the collapse started at the top, where the planes hit, not at the bottom, where these supposed new-tech devices would have been placed.

If you read the documents it is about shaped charges and directing their cone of destruction. And placed charges are still part of the mix, just far fewer of them, 47 to make the cuts at the top for instance (without finding the exact detail.)

#2: No seismic devices picked up any detonations, and they most certainly would have.

Yes Claymore; there were seismic signatures. He goes into that as well, and it seem it is now up to debate exactly when the seismic occurrences were. The conspiracists say one thing; the surge of debunker sites say something else.

#3: What about WTC7? Did that have a nuke in it too? And the other WTC buildings? Them too?

Let's not discuss the intricate detail of WTC7 (at this time, though he does mention this,) but this is also open to debate; what was said by whom, when, etc.

Now, I think you would be quite interested in reading this report. It's a PDF file, a document discussing the possibility of the buildings having been demolished, done by Protec, a company that is one of the world's top authorities on building demolitions. The site it's published on, ImplosionWorld, have a lot of interesting stuff; in fact, the flash image on their main page shows a few building demolitions, and you can see they don't resemble the WTC collapse at all.

I looked at this pdf. Really Claymore, 4 pages in and I've read enough (and somehow can't copy and paste here.) But it starts, "Nor will we be rendering opinions on the NIST, FEMA, or Commission Reports, as they did not make specific comments regarding explosives." It then goes on "does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors." Which is plainly nonsense as any video of the scene shows destruction (puffs of smoke and blast evidence) of floors preceding the upper collapse (and explosions on the ground floor: Witness to 911.) And, this goes to shaped charge and a cone of destruction. Also in terms of the nuclear scenario the amount of charges required and placement make different requisites. There is no "55 minute limit." Stories are many of security and empty floor, building scenarios. "They tilted" and fell straight down due to the removal of any resistance through the centre columns. The top tilt is apparent in video or even better the photos here It then straightened due to removal of resistance below, and fell into its footprint.

"... which lead to an extended-duration "pancake like effect down to the ground."

Pleaze. This is exactly what NIST says it didn't do. And since when is 11 seconds "extended?"

"was forced out the windows well below the collapse mechanism."

"arguing over who heard explosion type noises... is a pointless exercise."

That is enough. Do you really read this stuff (with no comprehension?) The document is not worth the paper it is written on. Again. Please. Debunker in capitals.

I don't understand the issue here. Maintaining an aircraft in flight is not terribly difficult at all; it's take-offs and landings that are the problem.

Oh dear (and I read that site too.) Ja, pilots are paid big salaries but any **** could do it. Please! Yes, we can all play with a joystick, the reality is somewhat different. Like being checked out "exactly" in the cockpit. Trained on MS FS. Right. I guarantee your armchair pilot would be facing a different reality if he sat in the hot seat.

As for the comment about auto-pilots...why the hell would an auto-pilot suddenly execute a sharp turn, and exhibit erratic bahaviour? And that doesn't explain peripheral issues - what happened to the crew and passengers?

Now let's see. A perfect flight path, to make impact with all 3 jets. Erratic behaviour is your quote off a debunker site of "many ground witnesses." Right.

The attack radar on the F-16, the AN/APG-66, has a short (150km) range, and only a 120 degree by 120 degree view cone. Yes, it is more accurate in close quarters, but they'd need to get there first. And why F-16s when it was F-15s that were scrambled?

Um no. The APG-68 as used on the F16 has a range over 180 NM.

Range: 296.32km, 184 miles

And no. The APG-70, as used on the F15 has at least twice the range (classified.)

It doesn't explain why the attacks would be linked to Iraq, nor some of the convoluted theories (demolition with nukes *as well as* aircraft and hijackers?).

Um no.

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. ... Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future.

The document literally drools of military buildup and securing "american interests around the world."

It is also a blueprint for american industry and the wallets of the neocons. (Please pay attention!)

Oh, so the US controls the Caspian oil fields then? News to me...

You see, not paying attention. No, Claymore; securing Afghanistan is a securing of the route for the proposed pipeline from Caspian. Neocons much investment in this pipeline.

(And how does that link to Al-Quaeda, the globally identifiable enemy?)

Al-Quaeda is a cia plot. There is no Al-Quaeda, it was invented by them. And BL is a documented cia troll.

Hate to draw your attention to this, but that was not an earthquake. Many people were evacuated, but how well do you think someone would survive an 80-storey fall amongst debris, or being under all that stuff coming down, trapped inside stairwells? Nonetheless, one of your own nuke theory links described firefighters close to the building being miraculously spared when debris missed them.

You are being obtuse. Explain survivors of Oklahoma City or the african embassy bombings. Or the pakistani earthquake, whatever. Always survivors (otherwise why bring in the dogs.) 'Miraculously spared?" Exactly. Miraculous being the word.

Oh, so *now* you're saying it was a small debris field, not a large one as you claimed earlier. As it happened, there were engines found hundreds of yards away...doesn't sound unusual to me.

The reports state debris were found 8 miles away with a secondary field 2 to 3 miles away. Further reports (debunker?) say light materials were found 8 miles away. The sparse details can be argued either way.

Read the Protec document above. I think that makes things clearer. I still can't figure out how "massive ejection of materials" equates with "own footprint". Pick one or the other; they are contradictory.

massive ejection = "22 ton outer wall steel sections 4 floors high, ejected 200 meters; 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower"

Did it or did it not look like a controlled demolition, ie, into its own footprint? Massive ejection of materials (in a mushroom for instance) is not contradictory.

 

[Farquaon]

I still believe it was a conspiracy!

 

[kilo39]

I still believe it was a conspiracy!

Gee whiz, with my wealth of evidence how could you believe anything else?!

 

[Claymore]

If you read the documents it is about shaped charges and directing their cone of destruction. And placed charges are still part of the mix, just far fewer of them, 47 to make the cuts at the top for instance (without finding the exact detail.)

And yet, destruction did not start at the bottom of the building. How do you explain that?

Yes Claymore; there were seismic signatures. He goes into that as well, and it seem it is now up to debate exactly when the seismic occurrences were. The conspiracists say one thing; the surge of debunker sites say something else.

Columbia University's seismic detectors picked up nothing, and nor did Protec's. Were they special conspiracy detectors that picked something up?

Let's not discuss the intricate detail of WTC7 (at this time, though he does mention this,) but this is also open to debate; what was said by whom, when, etc.

Did the other WTC buildings have nukes and explosives too? I'd like to know.

I looked at this pdf. Really Claymore, 4 pages in and I've read enough (and somehow can't copy and paste here.) But it starts, "Nor will we be rendering opinions on the NIST, FEMA, or Commission Reports, as they did not make specific comments regarding explosives." It then goes on "does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors." Which is plainly nonsense as any video of the scene shows destruction (puffs of smoke and blast evidence) of floors preceding the upper collapse (and explosions on the ground floor: Witness to 911.)

Please point me to *any* video showing collapse starting at the *bottom* of the towers.

"... which lead to an extended-duration "pancake like effect down to the ground."

Pleaze. This is exactly what NIST says it didn't do. And since when is 11 seconds "extended?"

Did you read the footnote about "pancake-like" at the bottom?

That is enough. Do you really read this stuff (with no comprehension?) The document is not worth the paper it is written on. Again. Please. Debunker in capitals.

World's top authority of building demolitions, you mean.

Do you also disagree with the theory of relativity because that retard Einstein didn't know what he was talking about? Have you quoted *any* information from demolition experts backing your theory?

Oh dear (and I read that site too.) Ja, pilots are paid big salaries but any **** could do it. Please! Yes, we can all play with a joystick, the reality is somewhat different. Like being checked out "exactly" in the cockpit. Trained on MS FS. Right. I guarantee your armchair pilot would be facing a different reality if he sat in the hot seat.

And again...he was a licenced commercial pilot, so had at least 250 hours experience.

Now let's see. A perfect flight path, to make impact with all 3 jets. Erratic behaviour is your quote off a debunker site of "many ground witnesses." Right.

*You* were the one who mentioned the sharp turn!

Um no. The APG-68 as used on the F16 has a range over 180 NM.

The APG-68 was used on later models. Which models would have been scrambled?

And no. The APG-70, as used on the F15 has at least twice the range (classified.)

Goody. It still looks forward, and it's still irrelevant. And if fighter radars are so good, why are there AWACS aircraft, which carry basically ground-based systems in the air?

The document literally drools of military buildup and securing "american interests around the world."

So...this makes it necessary to use civilian aircraft to destroy buildings? That's a stretch.

Al-Quaeda is a cia plot. There is no Al-Quaeda, it was invented by them. And BL is a documented cia troll.

Wow, that makes the CIA of the last few years incredibly competent, being able to so thoroughly create a dummy terrorist organisation. So competent they surely wouldn't bugger up a simple thing like building bombings...

You are being obtuse. Explain survivors of Oklahoma City or the african embassy bombings. Or the pakistani earthquake, whatever. Always survivors (otherwise why bring in the dogs.) 'Miraculously spared?" Exactly. Miraculous being the word.

How many victims have survived 50+ storey falls in collapsing buildings?

The reports state debris were found 8 miles away with a secondary field 2 to 3 miles away. Further reports (debunker?) say light materials were found 8 miles away. The sparse details can be argued either way.

I thought you didn't believe official reports.

Did it or did it not look like a controlled demolition, ie, into its own footprint? Massive ejection of materials (in a mushroom for instance) is not contradictory.

Nope. There was massive ejection of materials, quite unlike controlled demolitions (watch video clips on the Implosionworld site), so therefore, *by definition*, it cannot have been in its own footprint.

 

[kilo39]

And yet, destruction did not start at the bottom of the building. How do you explain that?

Claymore. Insofar as ANY evidence has been presented I don't have to explain anything as none of your experts (or yourself) even pretend to explain the massive unleashing of forces at WTC. Explain the mushroom? Explain squibs (oh ya, windows blowing out.) Explain alive people where there shouldn't be. Explain wreckage too hot to touch for weeks. Explain molten metal in the basement. Explain 22 ton blocks thrown 200 metres. Explain NO survivors. Explain no fire on the impact floor. The list goes ever on. Not once have you come up with an explanation for any of this except to point me at debunker sites that make no sense. Right, we didn't test for explosives (because NIST didn't.) We didn't look at molten metal because "it wasn't relevant." When the very FEMA reports tell of things they cannot explain "metal like swiss cheese." ! Why am I explaining anything? And you who will not look at video. Watch Witness to 911 (refer to LG's links, remote cameras) recording explosions in the basement, the sound of explosions and the visual shockwave acting on the cameras. Explain? You're kidding right?

Columbia University's seismic detectors picked up nothing, and nor did Protec's. Were they special conspiracy detectors that picked something up?

Are you saying there was no seismic signature? (BTW, well documented. I suggest you do a search.) Or are you questioning the timing of the signature. There was a signature of that there is no doubt.

Did the other WTC buildings have nukes and explosives too? I'd like to know.

Let's concentrate on WTC 1, 2 shall we. Starting with my long list at the top.

Please point me to *any* video showing collapse starting at the *bottom* of the towers.

Witness to 911. As above.

Did you read the footnote about "pancake-like" at the bottom?

The footnote? Ya, right. And, yes, now I have. Please Claymore how do you read this stuff? So now they are "qualifying?" I wonder why? Could it be because their report is completely contrary to the NIST report? Ya, "a pancake effect" - to "like a pancake effect." Yup. And these are the experts. What then are NIST? And what of THEIR report? (NIST Report = let us repeat, there was no pancake-like effect!!!)

World's top authority of building demolitions, you mean.

Ooooh ya. Completely contrary to the NIST report. Who then is the expert and who is the idiot?

Do you also disagree with the theory of relativity because that retard Einstein didn't know what he was talking about? Have you quoted *any* information from demolition experts backing your theory?

No but I have quoted: "‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said."

(Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks.)
[source]

also: "Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering"

and I quote the above link because the original at www.physics.byu.edu is no longer there. I wonder why?

And I also quote "Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. [source]

Good enough for you?

And - top demolition? Government contracts must be good, neh? What do you think?

and, just for some more:
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)

And again...he was a licenced commercial pilot, so had at least 250 hours experience.

Prop planes. Now let's see, we're flying a jet; I know if I wiggle the throttles backwards and forwards we'll go faster or slower, and if I press this thingy we'll go down. Ja, piece of cake. Please. Not saying it is not possible. One, find the target. Two, hit it. Not so easy. Ask your armchair buddy to do it first time, the one and only time, and to fly a perfect intersect course. And he has never flown a 757 before. Oooh ya. It seems you have no problem with tall tales. A world of firsts.

*You* were the one who mentioned the sharp turn!

No, I said the jet did a slow lumbering turn (if that is your reference.)

The APG-68 was used on later models. Which models would have been scrambled?

As you say, no F16's anyway so why are we having this discussion.

Goody. It still looks forward, and it's still irrelevant. And if fighter radars are so good, why are there AWACS aircraft, which carry basically ground-based systems in the air?

Awacs are for deep air control, overall battle management.

So...this makes it necessary to use civilian aircraft to destroy buildings? That's a stretch.

So that makes it necessary to kill a president... that's a stretch. Not? Could it be because they had the file lying around from their previous "plans and exercises?" (earlier links) Ja global tv is going to watch some random bombing in ButtEnd USA

Wow, that makes the CIA of the last few years incredibly competent, being able to so thoroughly create a dummy terrorist organisation. So competent they surely wouldn't bugger up a simple thing like building bombings...

You really need to read more. Especially about the Agency within the agency. And 'bugger up?' I don't think so, been a screaming success so far.

How many victims have survived 50+ storey falls in collapsing buildings?

You really do stretch Claymore. How many 50+ story buildings have been attacked? How tall was Oklahoma, how tall were the african embassies, how tall was the Pakistani earthquake? Now lets see; dna too damaged by heat, too small to identify (using current technology.) But here we are splitting hairs over how tall a building is/was. [source]

I thought you didn't believe official reports.

Stretching again, exactly as I am the one quoting the governments own documents and reports.

Nope. There was massive ejection of materials, quite unlike controlled demolitions (watch video clips on the Implosionworld site), so therefore, *by definition*, it cannot have been in its own footprint.

And again. What did you see?