_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Anti-misting kerosene. It contains a polymer which stops the fuel from vapourising, making it very difficult to light up in a crash. Special blades in the engines break up the polymer so that it can be vapourised just before ignition in the burner units.


M

turbotroll

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said that that he received a phone call at WTC 7 advising him to get out as the first tower was going to collapse - it collapsed as he was evacuating WTC 7. Who knew it was going to collapse? In the same video where it was admitted that WTC 7 was 'pulled', an engineer was explaining that he was on his way to WTC 1&2 to put up safety netting to stop falling debris etc - he had no idea it would collapse. In fact nobody expected it to collapse................................

P1Fanatic

I love the way there are so many "experts" on here who seem to know every fact regarding the twin towers incident. Where does all this so called fact come from - the internet and various conspiracy programs. Someone even suggesting they could fly an airliner into a tower as they played MS flight sim and had a few flying lessons.

At the end of the day none of us know exactly what happened but do you not think if there was anything so sinister happening that there would be some hardcore evidence and not just a poor quality picture/video clip? If it was that big a conspiracy someone would rat and have the evidence to back it up. There is no way they can keep everyone quiet - unless you believe in MIB neuralizers

Simon.

turbotroll

They aren't keeping everyone quiet. Ever heard of Stanley Hilton? He's the former chief of staff for former presidential candidate Bob Dole. He is currently representing over 400 WTC survivors/victims families in a 7 billion dollar law suit in the U.S against George Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and others for their direct knowledge/involvement in 9-11 (he also has goverment employees willing to testify under subpoena). Did you know that the U.S goverment were carrying out/planning war games simulating the crashing of airliners into buildings on the days leading up to, and including September 11th? Start here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/agency_p...a_building.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/wargames_cover.htm

This all documented in the press - not thought up by crazies in a basement.

turbotroll

For even more interesting stories visit here:

http://www.gregpalast.com/

He's a BBC journalist who uncovered documents on the IMF's plans to scuttle economies. He's one of the last true investigative journalists.

unclebuck

hello gsm1

Brit_in_Japan

The high speed cameras they use are seriously High Speed! Think of somewhere around 2000 frames per second, a roll of film only lasts about 10 seconds.

Scraping the bottom of the conspiracy barrel now aren't we? Apart from anyone trying to put out the fire, the correct course of action would have been to evacuate everyone else who was anywhere near the twin towers. It's a no brainer.

Professional structural engineers do not "put up safety netting", so whoever he was, he was not qualified to make a judgement. In retrospect the structural engineers understand why the buildings collapsed, the conditions were way beyond what it was designed to withstand (imact forces which ripped away fire resistant materials followed by massive amounts of burning aviation fuel which weakened the metal floor supports).

There have been a couple of very thorough and detailed documentaries about how the twin towers collapsed. They are very educational.

Billgtt

Here's an interesting page on the bombing of the Pentagon:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

Leslie

Quite a few people here who seem to think it is so easy to aim a large airdraft at the towers, I wonder how many of them have actually flown an airliner?

I have several thousand hours flying, was a qualified instructor on both large and light aircraft, and have also flown a large airliner as well as large military aircraft.

What I said was correct, it is not as easy as you might think to aim a large aircraft precisely at a target such as a tower or the Pentagon for that matter if you are not experienced. Its not even that easy to aim it at the runway on an approach if you have not had a good deal of practice at it. If you find you are off course, you are likely to overcontrol the aircraft to get it back in the right direction as a novice and if the aircraft is being flown very fast it is even more difficult to do. That is why I said it would have been interesting to see the approach to the towers to see how well they were flown. To the chap with a whole 4 hours flying, I bet you found your first approach a bit difficult to fly even though it is a piece of p-s in a small aircraft and when you are trying to aim a large machine, with a lot of inertia, for a suicide mission it is fair to assume you would be under a bit of pressure as well! Certainly not classed as "bimbling about"

If there was a conspiracy, which I did not advocate, then it would be easy enough to set the aircraft up for remote control, This sort of control has been done for many years with target aircraft.

I threw these facts into the discussion for interest purely as another factor which could be considered, and since I have a bit of actual experience as far as large aircraft control is concerned. Better than stating wild theories without any practical knowledge of the basic facts.

Les

Tiggs

lol- that site is so poor.

stuff like "WHY IS THEIR GRAVEL ON THE LAWN?" err...maybe for all the trucks about to arrive on scene!

and their little picture of the plane superimposed with half of it stuck outside the building! as if someone had just trunddled into the wall and then parked up!

and if it was a missile.....what sort of missle do our resident experts think would have done that much damage? you think we launched some bunker busters at the place?

turbotroll

Here's the video evidence where it's admitted that WTC 7 was pulled. The official story was that it collapsed due to fire damage.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Leslie

When you look at all those links, it can't help but raise a few questions in the mind!

OllyK

"Prison Planet" - let me guess which side of the fence these guys will be you could at least reference the "credible" press.

Senior_AP

Repeated post.

Senior_AP

Conspiracy theorists are mostly *******.

Some people who are "suspicious" and want to ask questions are credible.....however become tarnished by the conspiracy theorists brush.

They question anything and everything....it's stupid.

They're ***** trying to make a name for themselves.

Geezer

But where is the crossover point between a credible suspicion and a conspiracy theory? One must lead to the other unless all questions are answered satisfactorily, and these have not.

I'm not advocating anything, just questioning your statement.

Geezer

akshay67

This is pretty much correct as I saw a program where a group of material scientists recreated the collapse on a smaller model, but similiar structure, and it fell the same way - i.e. down as opposed to left or right.

akshay67

Didn't the hijackers hold a gun (or some weapon) to the pilots' heads and instruct them to fly into the 'towers?

Senior_AP

There are some things that the general population cannot handle. Thus I'm a great believer in certain things being retained within government.

I question some of it but a Conspiracy theory is to suggest the whole event was different to what we were lead to believe.

OllyK

Bit of a misleading run in there - most suspicion does not lead to conspiracy theory, only a very small number fo events do that.

Not satisfactorily to you, at this stage, maybe. Others will not be happy until the president stands there on TV ands says "We arranged 911", anything else will be dismissed as a lie, they are the crackpots.

Be sceptical by all means - keep an open mind, question things but don't be too keen to go off down the conspiracy theory route without some credible evidence to support it. The conspiracy theorists are making the claims, let them back them up.

OllyK

And what do you think the chances are of a pilot crashing his plane in to a massive office block?? Pretty damn unlikely I'd say. Yeah play along for a while in the hope you can save your passengers, but when it becomes obvious that they mean business any person faced with their own death would, I hope, try to take as few other people out with them as possible.

blip

The shadow from the engine perhaps

akshay67

It's what one news story said. I personally would only pass judgement if I had facts at hand rather than to think what is likely/unlikely in your personal opinion - this is what leads to misinformation and conspiracy theories in the first place.

Now where is that blackbox...

OllyK

As I don't have the "Testing a pilots response at gun point" report to hand, I don't see that there is much we can do on this area other than offer opinion. Given the scenario "You will be shot in the head whilst piloting a plane if you do not comply with a terrorists demands. You can be pretty sure that your passengers will die either way. Do you try and minimise the number of deaths of the people on the ground or do you say "**** it" and crash in to a massive office block".

I'd have thought that was a no-brainer for most people, I am guessing from your response you would have quite happily gone along with the terrorist's request??

akshay67

Without being in the situation, I don't know exactly what I would have done. I'd like to think that I would have avoided the 'towers altogether.

However, I am not a behavioural scientist (and nor are you I take it?), but it is often found when people are gripped in fear they can go along with an attackers demands unchallenged. Who is to say this didn't happen?

Again, I'd take a neutral stance at this moment and look for some factual information before passing opinion and writing off any possibility.

Does the "Testing a pilots response at gun point" report to hand exist or is this a straw man?

Silvafox

iTrader: (1)

Not a chance its a shadow. I work in Image manipulation and Graphics and have done for 9 years. The shape can be seen from multiple angles and films. No idea what it could be but I think its one of the wierdest parts of all this conspiracy crap.

wez_sti

whilst there are some valid points made, the majority seem to of been made by young kids!

'planes controlled remotely' - do you not think the hostess's may of been suspicious when they offer the pilot a drink and theres no-one there!?!?


following orders in the airforce is one thing, but killing thousands of inoccent civilians for commercial gain?? this would go against what any soldier had joined the army for in the first place, ie protecting their country.

some mental people with no regard for human life did something un-thinkable, end of. as for being 'so hard' to hit the buildings, did no-one ever watch the kripton factor??? some civilians manged to land a commercial airliner with very little trainning. i hear those simulators are very SIMULAR to the real thing!?!?!?


seems whatever topic is covered theres always an expert to give his informed opinion. there'll be a thread about the best way to eat cheese whilst standing on one leg in india and someone will say, i studied eating cheese whilst standing on one leg in india for 4 years at university...

Sprint Chief

Don't know of many 16ft wide missiles! I wonder if conspiracy theorists would like to enlighten me on an example?

To give you an idea of the size of a missile, a SCUD is just under 90cm diameter (about 3ft!!!) and would not leave a hole as large as 16ft under *any* circumstances when attacking a building with thick concrete (you don't want to spread the penetrating energy, you want to focus it through as small an area as possible). The scud is, of course, a Russian system but is a fair example of a fookin big missile.

The effect of hitting solid concrete with a commercial airliner (basically made of tin foil) doesn't leave much to analyse!

Building collapse often happens some time later as the structure is weakened by fire. This is common and why after a building fire nobody is usually allowed in until civil engineers have declared the structure sound.

I suspect most of these arguments "sound" good initially, but a little analysis shows them to be a little daft!

turbotroll

Even if you don't think the site is credible, you absolutley can't deny that the leaseholder of the WTC complex said on film (what is more credible than that?) that WTC 7 was 'pulled'. It's there for all to see. The official story was that it collapsed due to fire damage with explosives playing no part. FEMA reported this in the enquiry - it's the official story. WTC 7 just happened to be the nerve centre for FEMA, CIA, FBI, Secret Service etc, etc.

What something more 'credible'? Visit WWW.GREGPALAST.COM. He has broken many stories on prisonplanet, infowars etc, as they know they will be heard.

FrenchBoy

Just remind me what it is exactly you think happened?