9/11 was an inside job

[roscoe]

psikeyhackr



Let's see, you want pictures of lots of intact seats from the same incident that left the landing gear in pieces? Are you really that thick or do you have a reason to act that way? Landing gear are made of forged pieces several inches thick, yet they were ripped apart. Seats are made from aluminum sheets and tubing about 1/10th of an inch thick(or less)that easily melts in a kerosene fueled firestorm like this...

Are you starting to see just how idiotic this whole thing has become?

Body parts recovered inside the Pentagon. That is a seat bottom next to the tarp. That is puddled, melted aluminum, from some source. Note that this is a forensic photo taken at the time of the body's recovery. I doubt any of the seats came in larger chunks.

Main landing gear pieces.

What will it take for you to be able to pull your head out of your fundament? We were attacked on 911 by people who came from Saudi Arabia, not by our own government.

Grumpy

Congratulations you just showed a body that was a Pentagon Employee and a wheel spar NOT IN THE PENTAGON.

If this constitutes PROOF to you then you need some serious training.

Show me some more of your "evidence" that I'm unable to blow away in an instance?

Where's the wreckage on the lawn that miraculously appeared later after the Pentagon evacuation.

 

[roscoe]

So the NTSB never recovered the wreckage of any aircraft and yet miraculously we know that the aircraft involved were. American 11, United 175, American 77 and United 93.

One of the greatest insights since the equally miraculous arrest in the Texas Theatre of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yes despite the murder of a Dallas Policeman and the President several police cars turn up to arrest a man who didn't pay for his ticket.

And bless me boys and girls they managed to photograph the incident. Like yer do.

That'll teach him not to sneak in. Wouldn't you think that the Dallas Police would be a bit busier elsewhere?

 

[GeoffP]

Congratulations you just showed a body that was a Pentagon Employee and a wheel spar NOT IN THE PENTAGON.

And how do you know he's a Pentagon employee?

Where's the wreckage on the lawn that miraculously appeared later after the Pentagon evacuation.

Are you sure you'd see it from this angle? Prove it.

And, as if it needs to be said, posting your name and city on an internet forum is not a good idea.

 

[GeoffP]

All worth watching.

Doubtful.

American Airlines Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. Proof given upon request.

I request.

Need a NEW INQUIRY. Anybody got a problem with that?

Yup. I do. I don't feel the need to pay twice for the same, obvious answer.

 

[roscoe]

And how do you know he's a Pentagon employee?

How do YOU know he/she was on American Airlines Flight 77?

I know he/she wasn't because the plane never took off that day.

Are you sure you'd see it from this angle? Prove it.

What outside the hole?

And, as if it needs to be said, posting your name and city on an internet forum is not a good idea.

Always depends if it's the right ones.

 

[roscoe]

Doubtful.

So you didn't bother. How can you discuss anything with me when you choose to remain ignorant. The bottom line of course is you might not read it but others will. So you don't really matter in the scheme of things do you?

I request.

But you've just indicated that you wont bother to read it. - Message #618

The FDR (Flight Data Recorder) that was issued under a FOIA request indicates the speed of AA77 was 530 mph at 12 metres ASL. Now telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their Boeing 757-223s can do 530 mph at almost sea level. Hold the phone away from your ear until they've finished laughing at you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_SgxURgJJQ

If these testimonies are correct the plane would miss the light poles.

Yup. I do. I don't feel the need to pay twice for the same, obvious answer.

Oh you don't ay?

I'll post this, you never know you might bother yourself to look at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvavRkDIQW8

It's the chairman of the 911 Commission saying that the 911 Commission inquiry was QUOTE "Set up to fail" UNQUOTE

 

[roscoe]

There's tons more on American Airlines 77 but you BCTs have to rationed like children. Only one sweety at a time.

 

[roscoe]

911 was NOT an Inside job per se although it has been (and continues to be) covered up and assisted from the inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4

here's another piece of information

The Air Traffic Controller that handled American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 also handled Egypt Air 990 on 31st October 1999.

He now lives in Israel and was a former member of Sayeret Matkal.

911 Intercepted

Note American 11 is on the CSD this is an Air Traffic management System where Raw Radar data is digitized onto a ATC screen. The track is not raw Radar data it is CSD data and New York TRACON says he does not see American 11 on the Raw Radar data at 12:10.

 

[Grumpy]

roscoe

Just to show how little you know.

The FDR (Flight Data Recorder) that was issued under a FOIA request indicates the speed of AA77 was 530 mph at 12 metres ASL. Now telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their Boeing 757-223s can do 530 mph at almost sea level. Hold the phone away from your ear until they've finished laughing at you.

Yes, the barametric altitude was 12 meters, but it was set to zero at the takeoff, not by the hijackers at the destination. Factoring in the correction only drops you about 6 meters, leaving the nose of the plane(where the instrument resided)about 6 meters off the ground, about 18 feet. The center of the original hole was 6 meters off the ground. Funny how that works.

As to the speed, it was above the DNE(Do Not Exceed)speed, those pilots would have had a bit of 'splainin' to do when they returned to an airport and that plane would have been decertified for carrying passengers until a full inspection was carried out. The airframe is safe to supersonic speeds, about 650 mph at ground level, but it could have damaged some of the access doors or landing gear doors, seals, fasteners, latches and probably the windshield wipers(if it had any). Tsk, tsk. But, somehow, I doubt the guys flying the plane at the time cared much about the trouble they were in for damaging a valuable plane, why do you think they would be worried about flight safety regulations? The 757 is capable of much higher speed than the 530 mph before there is any danger of airframe failure, pilots keep it under those speeds at lower altitude by decreasing the throttle setting.

Grumpy

 

[GeoffP]

How do YOU know he/she was on American Airlines Flight 77?

I know he/she wasn't because the plane never took off that day.

False assertion.

What outside the hole?

So you can't, then, or you would have. All right.

Always depends if it's the right ones.

I wonder if this is so in your case, but as you will.

So you didn't bother. How can you discuss anything with me when you choose to remain ignorant. The bottom line of course is you might not read it but others will. So you don't really matter in the scheme of things do you?

Oh, but I matter greatly, especially to you. I've seen so many of these things - Loose Springs, the lot. They all fail fundamentally in the science and in the reasoning process. I might look at them, eventually, but if they're just going to regurgitate things and make others up - as at least one Troofer on this thread has done - why should I bother?

Tell you what: I might look at them later today, if I see any signs of rationality in this discussion from your side.

But you've just indicated that you wont bother to read it. - Message #618

That was your "proof on request"?

The FDR (Flight Data Recorder) that was issued under a FOIA request indicates the speed of AA77 was 530 mph at 12 metres ASL. Now telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their Boeing 757-223s can do 530 mph at almost sea level. Hold the phone away from your ear until they've finished laughing at you.

I listened to that absurd link that an earlier poster made which he purported demonstrated this absurd point. It didn't. It didn't mention a bloody thing about it. Now why don't you go ahead and link me to some structural information that demonstrates a 757 can't do 530 at 12 m for about thirty seconds. What I'm betting is that you're not supposed to do this for long periods of time, or for any period of time since it might compromise the structural integrity of the airplane for future use. I doubt very much this was a salient consideration in the minds of the 9/11 hijackers.

If these testimonies are correct the plane would miss the light poles.

As I listen - yes - to this drivel yet again I find myself wondering: which kind of light poles would your argument prefer? The ones that were knocked down? The ones that were not knocked down? Because it seems to change depending on which Troofer I'm talking to.

Oh you don't ay?

Aye, I dun't. I dun't think there annah need to bother about three times th' charge for half the reasons, aye.

I'll post this, you never know you might bother yourself to look at it.

Beg me to.

 

[billvon]

The FDR (Flight Data Recorder) that was issued under a FOIA request indicates the speed of AA77 was 530 mph at 12 metres ASL. Now telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their Boeing 757-223s can do 530 mph at almost sea level.

Vne (velocity never exceed) for a 757 is .86 Mach, or 654MPH at 72F. This is the highest speed it is tested to.

You were saying?

Hold the phone away from your ear until they've finished laughing at you.

Oh , they'll laugh at you all right. Then hang up and say "great, another clueless 'truther'."

 

[GeoffP]

First criticism: can't see jack shit. I can't make out any details on the fuzzy images that were supposedly taken from wherever. As for the suppositions they generate, theycan't be assessed. There's no way to be sure what's supposed to be what. Secondly, I also object that at about 17:00 the interviewer appears to be trying to drive the discussion. He's desperate to inject a C130, for starters.

 

[GeoffP]

28:55 Fucking hell again he's trying to get the C130 in there. (This is a Troofer paradigm, I assume.) Why is he trying to guide the testimony instead of just asking what he saw?

 

[roscoe]

Well speaking of ignoring crap.

Here's the phone call to Boeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZHamfG1aII

I'll wheel some more experts out for you later.

 

[GeoffP]

I note that the first cop specifies that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. So, not a missile or a C130 then. And a plane actually hit the Pentagon which he describes as a UA 757 or similar. Not looking good so far and there's only 40 min to go.

 

[GeoffP]

The impression of overall angle again is about over the Citgo, roughly. Why is this a problem?

 

[GeoffP]

Well speaking of ignoring crap.

Here's the phone call to Boeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZHamfG1aII

I'll wheel some more experts out for you later.

First fail.

The rep clearly doesn't have the foggiest idea, assuming that actually is someone at Boeing. It sounds like she's looking it up. I'll help you out here: max cruising speed about 930 km/h or about 560 mi/h. Mach 0.8 as Grumpy specifies above. They don't list an altitude (look, I gave you that detail for free) but I assume that's higher up. You might argue that they couldn't achieve that at ground level: you're forgetting, however, that they were in a powered descent. And that's that. Thanks for the link.

Edit: just to be clear here: you realise that the VNE for these things probably never comes close to maximum possible velocity before structural fail? That things are engineered to survive, not fail at the top tolerance tested?

Here's another good link for you: http://911blogger.com/node/20232

Write me back when you've read it. This is a requirement for the debate: I (reluctantly) checked your links. Now it's your turn.

Wheel out the next expert!

 

[billvon]

Here's the phone call to Boeing.

And here's a link to the actual data from the Pilot's Operating Handbook.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=c-gXmglyT0autmBEyujfqw&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU

Which sort of sums up the difference between pilots and "truthers." A pilot would look for aircraft limitations to discover the maximum speed his aircraft could fly. A "truther" watches TV.

 

[GeoffP]

I think this be done.

Roscoe: got a problem with that?

 

[GeoffP]

1:05:00 Cops refute missile, Globohawk, C130. Right cop refuted overfly earlier.