|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 15, 2013 0:18:33 GMT -5
"All four earned a Commercial Pilot Licence from the FAA after passing the tests required to achieve the certification. The tests they took were stringent, yet they passed."
You were told. It doesn't mean they flew planes on 9/11.
"Their own tutors must have suffered greatly knowing that they trained terrorists to become Kamikazes."
They were told a story, the same one you were told.
"It's still hard for me to accept that someone took over a plane full of people and murdered them all, but it happened."
As you were told and believe.
"Phone calls from the hijacked planes (Betty Ong's call for example) verified that they had slashed the throats of the pilots of the airliners and assaulted other aircrew with knives, some of whom were stabbed."
There are a lot of issues about the phone calls that are suspect.
"Pilots for 911'truth' may have airline pilots in their number but that doesn't mean are telling you the truth about the hijackings or the crashes."
They're not telling any story about the hijackings or the crashes so they can't be lying or telling the truth about that. Government told the story about 9/11 and government definitely lied about it, that was admitted by government itself.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 15, 2013 5:27:57 GMT -5
Calls from the planes are quite clear, the hijackers flew the planes. DNA identified the hijackers of Flight 77.
Crashing an airliner at speed is a damn sight easier than landing one. It's merely a case of line up, centralise controls, trim aircraft to reduce stick load, increase throttle.
There aren't any issues with the phone calls that are suspect, except to paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who cannot accept the reality of what happened. The aircraft themselves were equipped with air phones. In 2001 no technology existed that could in real time simulate someone else's voice and hold a two way conversation. Even now it's difficult to fake someone else's voice and real time fake conversations aren't possible yet.
Barbara Olson's call and Betty Ong's call (for two examples) are valid evidence that armed hijackers had taken over the cockpits, stabbed / slashed the pilots and were flying the planes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 15, 2013 6:41:53 GMT -5
Same as the other thread, I'm not interested in your opinions, I'm only interested in getting a REAL INVESTIGATIONS done to get at the truth, call me a "troofer" if it makes you feel better.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 15, 2013 11:39:43 GMT -5
Real investigations have taken place, I guess you aren't interested in the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2013 9:30:59 GMT -5
Same as the other thread, I'm not interested in your opinions, I'm only interested in getting a REAL INVESTIGATIONS done to get at the truth, call me a "troofer" if it makes you feel better. Like I've said, I've read this entire thread impartially. It's quite clear to me that you aren't interested in the results of any investigation that disproves your opinions - no matter HOW many facts are presented to you. Good luck with your future endeavors.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 16, 2013 9:51:21 GMT -5
Same as the other thread, I'm not interested in your opinions, I'm only interested in getting a REAL INVESTIGATIONS done to get at the truth, call me a "troofer" if it makes you feel better. Like I've said, I've read this entire thread impartially. It's quite clear to me that you aren't interested in the results of any investigation that disproves your opinions - no matter HOW many facts are presented to you. Good luck with your future endeavors. Your opinions and what's "clear" to you is irrelevant to me. That there has NEVER been any independent forensic criminal investigation conducted into 9/11 is fact not fiction or conspiracy theory. So-called investigations that begin with an officially stated premise and are conducted for the purpose of supporting that premise are sheer frauds, not investigations. If you want to talk about "investigations", the FBI never wanted Bin Laden for 9/11 because they said there never was any evidence that linked him to 9/11. Most of the 9/11 Commission members and the lead counsel said they were lied to, underfunded and set up to fail. And the results of that "investigation" was published as fact. Much of the information in the 9/11 Commission Report was taken 3rd party from "confessions" from those who were mercilessly tortured and even one who was forced to sign a "confession" that he was not allowed to read. None of that is opinion or conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. So your opinion about "results of any investigation that disproves your opinions" is sheer hokum.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 16, 2013 10:56:24 GMT -5
Er what about the University of Sydney's investigation ? The Steel in Fire Forum's investigation ? The University of Manchester's investigation ? The British Broadcasting Corporation's Horizon investigation ?
They're all independent of the US Government. These investigations were carried out by experienced civil engineers and structural fire engineers. They have enough public domain information to build up a picture of the damage to the towers and determine mathematically whether the structure could have survived.
They all agree that the high energy impact damage from the planes combined with the weakening effect of the fire upon the structure brought down the Twin Towers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 16, 2013 11:30:18 GMT -5
"These investigations were carried out by experienced civil engineers and structural fire engineers. They have enough public domain information to build up a picture of the damage to the towers and determine mathematically whether the structure could have survived."
NOT one of those were independent forensic criminal investigations. They're all (alleged) studies that start with a premise, to try to "determine mathematically whether the structure could have survived" (your own words). In other words, they set out to try to support a THEORY. And in other words, their scope was extremely limited.
You do understand the vast difference, right?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 18, 2013 16:31:52 GMT -5
No they set out to mathematically explain the stresses and strains upon the structures from impact to fire to bending moment and collapse. Factors such as the planes, their weights the velocities they were traveling at, the angles at which they hit, the columns they took out, can all be calculated. The effect of fire can be calculated. The strength of the steel can be calculated from start to finish. Anything extra would be apparent because the sums wouldn't add up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 18, 2013 16:44:33 GMT -5
So is that your admission that you don't know the difference between a theory and a forensic criminal investigation?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 18, 2013 17:49:02 GMT -5
No, it's a point that if the maths stack up (which they do) there's no question of controlled demolition and thus no need for a wild goose chase hunting for demolitions residues that don't exist. If it had been a controlled demolition it would show in the maths as the sums would not add up without the extra mathematical jigsaw piece.
Real engineers know this. Fake ones don't.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 18, 2013 19:22:59 GMT -5
Real engineers and many other experts know that 3 buildings cannot collapse in that manner from fire, airplanes or both. In fact, anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence can figure that out once shown the facts. Not being an expert, it might make some sense that the towers could partially collapse from airplanes and fires but certainly not in the global manner they did and at that speed.
To confess, I wasn't able to figure that out immediately although both tower collapses looked highly unusual to me. Once I saw the collapse of WTC7 (not until 3+ years later), I immediate assumed it was control demolished but that was quite confusing to me because it didn't make sense that it was rigged on 9/11. It took some extra detail about all 3 towers for me to be convinced the twin towers did not collapse naturally as a result of fire and airplanes. WTC7 though was a slam dunk for me from the very first video I saw. And the fact that a controlled demo takes weeks to plan and rig made it a slam dunk for me later that others besides Arab terrorists wanted to bring it down on 9/11 along with the twin towers.
But getting back to the point I brought up, unless you can post otherwise (not that I care if you do or not) you've only proven you don't know the difference between a forensic criminal investigation and a study designed to try to support a theory. Everything you post with regard to 9/11 is opinion and theory, much of it is based on convoluted "logic". You haven't posted one single thing that can be considered a forensic investigation.
On the other hand, Steven Jones, Niels Harritt, Jeffrey Farrer and others collaborated and conducted a forensic scientific investigation into 4 independent samples of WTC dust (HARD EVIDENCE). What they discovered in the dust samples was corroborated by yet another independent forensic investigation and further experiments by Mark Basile, a chemical engineer.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 19, 2013 10:05:07 GMT -5
Utter rot mate. Your opinion, not the opinion of real engineers. Real engineers understand the laws of physics. They know that if sufficiently weakened any structure including a high rise skyscraper will collapse. Evidence from WTC survivors such as Brian Clark prove absolutely that Drywall was dislodged by the impact of the aircraft. They know that WTC columns including core columns were cut by the impact of the aircraft and that the only fire protection for core columns was drywall (which was destroyed mechanically by the planes). The full metallurgical specification of each column, public domain info. Each component has a mathematical value and can be recreated mathematically either theoretically or physically. Evidence from fire tests proves that structural performance is dependent on the effect of load and the temperature profile (both values can be calculated mathematically). Crucially with fireproofing damaged & destroyed, steel temperatures were much higher than would otherwise have been reached causing a drastic reduction of load bearing strength. It's a fact that steel weakens in fire at temperatures above 300 degrees C and they know from Police Helicopter thermal imaging camera evidence that the fires in the WTC's hit 1000 degrees C. Steel's martensite crystals vibrate more and more breaking up as the material heats up so and cause the steel to lose rigidity. This effect is what happened to the unprotected parts of the Windsor Tower (not it's concrete protected core) in Madrid in the early stages of the Edifico Windsor tower fire (the official investigation into it's fire and partial collapse was carried out by Colin Bailey of Manchester University). Every load bearing / load reducting factor regarding the collapse of the twin towers has been looked at by experts such as Zdenek Bazant, Keith Seffen, Brett Blanchard, Charles Clifton, Ali Nadjai and the good blokes from NIST such as Richard G Gann.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 19, 2013 10:10:11 GMT -5
"Utter rot mate."
That would describe your lies and your agenda. The rest of your post has already been addressed, there's no reason for me to go over it again, ad nauseum repetition is your methodology.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 22, 2013 16:19:36 GMT -5
No it describes your lies and your agenda. To try and deceive people into ignoring the obvious: Hijackings of airliners and subsequent crashing of them and the killing of all aboard and all they could kill on the ground.
That's the issue you keep trying to cover up with your lies and that is your agenda. You've been exposed boyo, you haven't a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 22, 2013 16:55:52 GMT -5
"it describes your lies and your agenda. To try and deceive people into ignoring the obvious"
Really? And how am I trying to "deceive people into ignoring the obvious"? If you recall, I posted more than once that everyone should investigate everything, including whatever you post. But making up things and lying is part and parcel of your character. I'm used to it by now.
"You've been exposed boyo"
By you? I'm terrified. What's a "boyo"?
Is this the best you can do? That's rhetorical, no need to answer.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 22, 2013 17:57:10 GMT -5
Your deception regarding 757 debris at the pentagon is on record. "Boyo" is a friendly slang word meaning mate.
Making up things is part and parcel of your character not mine my friend, proof of your deception is in your flight 77 and thermite claims. I'm trying to help you, wake up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 22, 2013 20:26:11 GMT -5
"Your deception regarding 757 debris at the pentagon is on record."
There is not thing I posted that's a "deception". Questioning the official conspiracy theory and many things that don't make sense is not a deception, you're either utterly confused, don't know the meaning of the term or you're just pretending to be.
"Making up things is part and parcel of your character not mine my friend, proof of your deception is in your flight 77 and thermite claims."
I haven't made up anything, that would be what you do. You've been caught time and time again. Trying to turn it around doesn't change a thing.
"I'm trying to help you, wake up."
That's just another one of your lies, you're not doing any such thing and you very well know it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 23, 2013 4:19:15 GMT -5
Your 'questions' are not going to get very far when based upon lies and distortions and faulty conspiracy theories mate.
The planes weren't drones, there was no thermite involved in the destruction of the trade centre, the impacts and fires damaged the twin towers and they collapsed because of that not because of some kind of magic conspiracy. The debris from the twin towers damaged WTC7 and it caught fire. It collapsed because of structural damage and fire.
It really is quite simple yet you seem to want to complicate it with lies and distortions and fake evidence to paint a completely false picture. Stop lying and wake up my friend, it wasn't an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 23, 2013 7:37:51 GMT -5
Your opinions are taken where they come from. Despite your bulls**t claim that you're trying to help me, I'm not interested and you should be fully aware of that by now. I have every right to question anything for any reason and state my opinions just as you do. If you don't like it, well you know what you can do simple one.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 23, 2013 12:43:16 GMT -5
Keep your head in the sand if you want, but if you really want to know the truth you must first take your head out of the sand and look the facts in the face.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 23, 2013 13:01:25 GMT -5
Keep your head in the sand if you want, but if you really want to know the truth you must first take your head out of the sand and look the facts in the face. Sure fake one. Remind me if and when you actually have something to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 23, 2013 16:19:21 GMT -5
I'm beginning to doubt you're interested in discussing anything. You've a fixed opinion, any fact that disproves your opinion is ignored.
The only thing that would convince you that those bastards were capable of hijacking and flying and crashing a plane is if you'd been on flight 77 with them.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 23, 2013 17:41:44 GMT -5
"I'm beginning to doubt you're interested in discussing anything."
With you? You have nothing interesting to discuss so you may be right.
"You've a fixed opinion, any fact that disproves your opinion is ignored."
You have never stated any fact that would change my opinion.
"The only thing that would convince you that those bastards were capable of hijacking and flying and crashing a plane is if you'd been on flight 77 with them."
They may have been capable of hijacking, flying (to a point) and crashing a plane but that they actually did what government claims they did is not realistic and very likely impossible. There's also no evidence that any of them were on flight 77.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 23, 2013 18:38:42 GMT -5
In your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 23, 2013 18:50:16 GMT -5
Which part? That there's no evidence that any of them were on flight 77 is fact, not opinion. It's all part of government's official conspiracy theory that we're supposed to accept on faith. The rest is my opinion and that of many experts, especially pilots, of course.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 23, 2013 19:04:28 GMT -5
Evidence ? Their body parts in the wreckage for starters. Your 'experts' are only experts in your opinion. Your Pilots include loonies like John Lear.
Speaking as a Pilot myself, the guy's a loon.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 23, 2013 20:21:19 GMT -5
"Your 'experts' are only experts in your opinion."
Their not MY experts, their credentials are posted, I didn't make them up, and many of them are quite well known. Your propensity to denounce experts that you disagree with is well noted. That you're allegedly a pilot is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 24, 2013 2:23:58 GMT -5
Their 'credentials' are a joke. Upon closer examination, they're just a lot of people without qualifications in metallurgy, structural engineering, civil engineering, structural fire engineering or any background tuition in a field relevant to understanding what happened.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 24, 2013 7:16:43 GMT -5
|
|