9/11: Ten Years of Deception, Part 1 (2015)

You're just wrong. Here are the specs, cruising speed of well over 500mph

Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 567 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft (11,000 m) cruise altitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

You know better than the government and MIT, I guess.

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said." Originally Posted by WombRaider

It's not going to travel at those speeds at 900 feet stupid. Which is what they are saying the plane speed was upon impact. It just isn't a happening thing.


Jim

It's not going to travel at those speeds at 900 feet stupid. Which is what they are saying the plane speed was upon impact. It just isn't a happening thing.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I've just given you proof that the plane is capable of well over 500MPH at ANY altitude. You are being confronted with proof and choosing to believe something else. You're suffering from confirmation bias.

http://www.pprune.org/questions/4656...sea-level.html

"Do you realize that for all practical purposes there is no difference between sea level and 1,000' above sea level, or even, 2,000 above sea level for your question?"

"If you take the power levers and shove them full forward at or near sea level (up to 2,000' for this discussion) your 767/757 will in fact fly at a greater speed than 360 knots indicated airspeed in level flight and/or descent. It will keep accelerating until total drag equals total thrust or until something fails structurally and the jet comes apart (or runs into something solid). Each individual airplane will likely fail at a different speed as they each wear and fatigue differently over their operational lives. Could the 767/757 reach > 500 knots under the stated conditions I'd be comfortable betting a month's wages on "yes"."

The 767 is an extremely powerful aircraft and is known to be very low drag.

I've just given you proof that the plane is capable of well over 500MPH at ANY altitude. You are being confronted with proof and choosing to believe something else. You're suffering from confirmation bias.

http://www.pprune.org/questions/4656...sea-level.html

"Do you realize that for all practical purposes there is no difference between sea level and 1,000' above sea level, or even, 2,000 above sea level for your question?"

"If you take the power levers and shove them full forward at or near sea level (up to 2,000' for this discussion) your 767/757 will in fact fly at a greater speed than 360 knots indicated airspeed in level flight and/or descent. It will keep accelerating until total drag equals total thrust or until something fails structurally and the jet comes apart (or runs into something solid). Each individual airplane will likely fail at a different speed as they each wear and fatigue differently over their operational lives. Could the 767/757 reach > 500 knots under the stated conditions I'd be comfortable betting a month's wages on "yes"."

The 767 is an extremely powerful aircraft and is known to be very low drag. Originally Posted by WombRaider

It can't and didn't. So quit acting like an ass. Pilots and engineers and mechanics have already confirmed that these planes don't fly intact at 500 plus MPH at 900 ft. If you had common sense you would realize that.


Jim

http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/285/Boeing-767-300ER

Cruising speed? 493 knots, that's 567mph

It can't and didn't. So quit acting like an ass. Pilots and engineers and mechanics have already confirmed that these planes don't fly intact at 500 plus MPH at 900 ft. If you had common sense you would realize that.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Boeing lists the normal cruising speed at 567 mph. Regardless, the planes disintegrated when they hit the building. If you had any common sense, you would realize that.

Boeing lists the normal cruising speed at 567 mph. Regardless, the planes disintegrated when they hit the building. If you had any common sense, you would realize that. Originally Posted by WombRaider

No the planes didn't disintegrate when they hit the building. They melded into the building and then there was an explosion. Planes don't just disintegrate upon impact into a building or anything else. You should go back and watch the footage.

Jim

You think our government is capable of the biggest coverup in history? Get real.

Exploding inside instead of upon impact is unlikely? You have a tenuous grasp on basic physics. Why would it explode directly on impact, when the fuel is in the wings? Exploding when it did is HIGHLY likely.

The 9/11 commission did not say we weren't getting the whole story. You are a conspiracy theorist. What liberties have you lost? Have g-men visited your home? We know exactly what happened, but you refuse to accept it. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The leaders of the 911 Commission said EXACTLY that. Look it up. I've posted the link here numerous times. And what about the 28 pages of the report that haven't been released? Members of Congress who have read them say they should be released, and it would shed an entirely different light on the matter.


You know Bush was a liar. Why do you trust him for the truth on this, the main event leading to the largest loss of freedom in history? You're a complete idiot.

The leaders of the 911 Commission said EXACTLY that. Look it up. I've posted the link here numerous times. And what about the 28 pages of the report that haven't been released? Members of Congress who have read them say they should be released, and it would shed an entirely different light on the matter.


You know Bush was a liar. Why do you trust him for the truth on this, the main event leading to the largest loss of freedom in history? You're a complete idiot. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't you find it ironic. Liberals were so opposed to Bush and Cheney and the Iraq invasion. When it comes to 9/11 though, that incident was legit, real and atrocious and any talk of it being an inside job is taboo, and unpatriotic and disrespectful to those who lost their lives. But the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake. Why is it that so many people still don't realize that 9/11 was specifically orchestrated so we could blame Terrorists and gain public acceptance to invade Iraq in the first place.

Jim


http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/09/19/9...lied-into-war/

The leaders of the 911 Commission said EXACTLY that. Look it up. I've posted the link here numerous times. And what about the 28 pages of the report that haven't been released? Members of Congress who have read them say they should be released, and it would shed an entirely different light on the matter.


You know Bush was a liar. Why do you trust him for the truth on this, the main event leading to the largest loss of freedom in history? You're a complete idiot. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I don't trust Bush. I also don't think he or any group of people he could round up, are capable of such a conspiracy. And you have yet to highlight exactly which freedoms you lost.

The 28 pages are involving the Saudis. If you really want to get down to brass tax, consider this; We count them as 'friends', but women have far fewer freedoms in Saudi Arabia than they do in Iran, for instance. And yet Iran is considered an enemy. Saudi Arabia is not our friend. Period. They haven't been released because they will outline the Saudi Royal family's support of the attack.

Don't you find it ironic. Liberals were so opposed to Bush and Cheney and the Iraq invasion. When it comes to 9/11 though, that incident was legit, real and atrocious and any talk of it being an inside job is taboo, and unpatriotic and disrespectful to those who lost their lives. But the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake. Why is it that so many people still don't realize that 9/11 was specifically orchestrated so we could blame Terrorists and gain public acceptance to invade Iraq in the first place.

Jim


http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/09/19/9...lied-into-war/ Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

It's not ironic. It's called applying logic and judging each situation on its merits. So now you're admitting that Iraq was a lie and Bush knew about it? 9/11 was atrocious, regardless of how or why it happened, firstly. Blame terrorists? As if they wouldn't have any interest in unless we orchestrated it for them?

No the planes didn't disintegrate when they hit the building. They melded into the building and then there was an explosion. Planes don't just disintegrate upon impact into a building or anything else. You should go back and watch the footage.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

So... A plane that hits the ground at 600 mph doesn't disintegrate? Really?

And it wasn't an explosion. It was a conflagration, technically.

"The steel columns were covered with insulation, and were designed to maintain their strength for 2 to 3 hours of burning. However, the material that burned was not office furnature and paper documents. The wings, with their fuel load, probably remained in the building, where they provided fuel for the subsequent burning. The fierce burning that took place over the next hour was slowly fed by the fuel leaking out of the remains of the tanks.

At high temperatures, steel will melt. At much lower temperatures, it weakens. The jet fuel created a holocaust far hotter than planned for in the building. When the columns weakened, they became vulnerable to buckling. When buckling takes place, it takes place quickly. When one column buckles, it puts more weight on the others, and they buckle too. The columns for an entire floor (maybe for several floors) buckled at one time. The upper floors then slammed into the lower floors. The impact multiplied the force on these lower floors, and they buckled. The process continued as each lower floor continued to buckle in turn. In a few seconds, the entire building had collapsed.

Did the terrorists know this would happen. No. This was a new mode for the collapse of a tall building that was completely unanticipated. I can't rule out that some engineer, sometime, didn't write a memo pointing out this failure mode, but it was not well known. If it were, the building would not have had 300 firemen in the building at the time of collapse.

It is the fire that eventually caused the buildings to collapse. It was not the impact of the plane; it was not the explosion."

It's not ironic. It's called applying logic and judging each situation on its merits. So now you're admitting that Iraq was a lie and Bush knew about it? 9/11 was atrocious, regardless of how or why it happened, firstly. Blame terrorists? As if they wouldn't have any interest in unless we orchestrated it for them? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You haven't applied any logic to this subject what so ever. You have no common sense. You want to believe Bush could not have possibly known anything about 9/11, but instead desert dwellers planned and executed such a heinous event like 9/11 with such precision it took the whole country by surprise. You're apparently trying to use the Main Stream Media's version of what took place on that day. Anybody with one once of sense knows that story is nothing but bullshit. Thirty minutes after the last tower fell the MSM was drilling into our minds it was Osama Bin Laden was the culprit. Totally ridiculous.

Jim

You haven't applied any logic to this subject what so ever. You have no common sense. You want to believe Bush could not have possibly known anything about 9/11, but instead desert dwellers planned and executed such a heinous event like 9/11 with such precision it took the whole country by surprise. You're apparently trying to use the Main Stream Media's version of what took place on that day. Anybody with one once of sense knows that story is nothing but bullshit. Thirty minutes after the last tower fell the MSM was drilling into our minds it was Osama Bin Laden was the culprit. Totally ridiculous.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Tying a couple of pieces of truth together with ten pieces of crazy, doesn't make something true. 9/11 was not a very complicated event to orchestrate, actually. It was very simple. They didn't have to sneak anything on the planes, they didn't have to purchase explosives or anything else that would set off alarms. They simply had to buy a plane ticket and get on board. That's it. They used early morning, transcontinental flights for several reasons; early morning flights are more on time and that would allow them to orchestrate the simultaneous nature of the attacks and the planes are at full capacity for fuel.

It was not 30 minutes after attacks. 2 weeks later, the FBI announced that Al Qaeda was responsible. The FBI was able to ID the hijackers because they made no effort to hide their identities, since they would be dead. Airline employees who were able to call the ground prior to the planes going down, identified the seats that the hijackers were sitting in. Atta's luggage did not make his connection, so it wasn't burned up and was found and searched. They also searched the vehicles they had taken to the airport. They found flight manuals, receipts and other evidence. They found a passport at the WTC site and two passports from Flight 93 hijackers as well.

The media speculated it was Bin Laden because he was the most logical person to blame. He even denied credit for the attack before taking credit for it. KSM was more likely the one that was hands on in regards to planning and money.

You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Tying a couple of pieces of truth together with ten pieces of crazy, doesn't make something true. 9/11 was not a very complicated event to orchestrate, actually. It was very simple. They didn't have to sneak anything on the planes, they didn't have to purchase explosives or anything else that would set off alarms. They simply had to buy a plane ticket and get on board. That's it. They used early morning, transcontinental flights for several reasons; early morning flights are more on time and that would allow them to orchestrate the simultaneous nature of the attacks and the planes are at full capacity for fuel.

It was not 30 minutes after attacks. 2 weeks later, the FBI announced that Al Qaeda was responsible. The FBI was able to ID the hijackers because they made no effort to hide their identities, since they would be dead. Airline employees who were able to call the ground prior to the planes going down, identified the seats that the hijackers were sitting in. Atta's luggage did not make his connection, so it wasn't burned up and was found and searched. They also searched the vehicles they had taken to the airport. They found flight manuals, receipts and other evidence. They found a passport at the WTC site and two passports from Flight 93 hijackers as well.

The media speculated it was Bin Laden because he was the most logical person to blame. He even denied credit for the attack before taking credit for it. KSM was more likely the one that was hands on in regards to planning and money. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're just posting old news from Wikipedia. I've read all that stuff. 9/11 happened almost fourteen years ago. All kinds of new information has come out since then that debunks the original narrative. None of it you're able to handle so just live with the fairy tale that's been engrained in your head all these years.

Jim

It's not ironic. It's called applying logic and judging each situation on its merits. So now you're admitting that Iraq was a lie and Bush knew about it? 9/11 was atrocious, regardless of how or why it happened, firstly. Blame terrorists? As if they wouldn't have any interest in unless we orchestrated it for them? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes, Iraq was a lie. No, Bush didn't know, but he wanted a war with Iraq to complete his father's legacy. Had we attacked the enemy, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia.


This event is the excuse government has used to restrict freedom to a degree heretofore unheard of. I want the whole story. I want to know if it was worth it.