9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".

Status
Not open for further replies.
gambitt said:
For the record I don't think it was a cover up and I have never stated such. I just think the magnitude of these events is beyond any of us and to assume that we know absolutely everything about what happened. It's not only about what was seen. Like someone said earlier, it is possible that the US government knew about the attacks beforehand and for whatever reason allowed them to happen. Again, I'm not saying this is true but we average joes cannot simply say "I am right, you are wrong".

Call me a devils advocate if you like, I'm just sick of people on both sides adamant that they are correct about something that is way above their pay grade.
Click to expand...

 
RDM said:
The red arrows normally try very hard not to crash their planes and so have some limits as to how close to street lights they prefer to go. It may suprise you but virtually every single 757 pilot manages such a "close to the ground" maneover every time they fly. They normally call it "landing on a runway" but it generally doesn't involve a large building to assist breaking.
Click to expand...

I've just spat my lasagne out.
great post.
 
Amnesia said:
yeah thats the bit im finding hard to get my head around...im guessing he aimed for the building but it would take some skill to fly so low without hitting the ground with a plane of that size.
Click to expand...

What sounds more plausible to you...

1) Someone with skills to fly a plane, hijacks a plane and flys it into the Pentagon.

2) The US Government, fires an extremely large missile into the Pentagon, and plants aircraft debris around the surrounding area, whilst some how "disposing" of the real aircraft.
 
should i pick one of those answers to fit in with a group ?
maybe i should say it was terrorists and go with those in power and possibly become christian too whilst am at it....after all there are books about it and those in power wouldn't make stuff up.
 
RDM said:
The red arrows normally try very hard not to crash their planes and so have some limits as to how close to street lights they prefer to go. It may suprise you but virtually every single 757 pilot manages such a "close to the ground" maneover every time they fly. They normally call it "landing on a runway" but it generally doesn't involve a large building to assist breaking.
Click to expand...

Best post I've read in ages. Thanks for that RDM.

How the hell people can possibly think there is something amiss here is beyond me.

One thing that seems to have been missed by the CT's is that the towers started to collapse exactly where the planes hit.

Now either the pilots were so accurate that they crashed exactly where the explosives were planted or someone triggered the explosives from the ground to blow where the planes had hit.

In either case, how would the explosives and the cabling required to trigger them have remained intact after the crash?
 
ManCuBuS said:
One thing that seems to have been missed by the CT's is that the towers started to collapse exactly where the planes hit.

Now either the pilots were so accurate ........
Click to expand...

Groen says they were missiles that were later disguised by the media to look like planes.
I wish CT'ers would all get together and CT about the same thing.
 
stockhausen said:
Was a plane flown into Tower 7 :confused:
Click to expand...

The debris and the multi-storey hole firefighters reported seeing gouged out of the side rather strongly implies it was hit by something. The debris from the very large building collapsing nearby seems a likely candidate.
 
As I understand it, shortly after the apparently remarkably shoddily constructed 47-storey WTC Tower Seven collapsed, all of the steel was exported from the US before any meaningful investigation into the reasons for the collapse.

One does have to wonder why the US Government allowed this :confused:

I have no doubt that there is a very good explanation ;)
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Click to expand...

A few blurry third hand video clips. Well I'm convinced.

I think my favourite part is where he draws the outline of a plane on the blurry video:

lolypj.jpg


Do you see why some people might hold different opinions if this is the best evidence you can produce?
 
gambitt said:
Do you see why some people might hold different opinions if this is the best evidence you can produce?
Click to expand...

It isn't the best evidence. The best evidence was all the bits of plane lying around but you want to ignore that too. Not to mention a missing plane and a couple of hundred dead bodies.

gambitt said:
Did I mention a missile? Let me check... nope. No mention of a missile, sorry. :confused:
Click to expand...

Indeed, you seem to be conspicuous in your absence of any explanation. Giving equal credence to a plane crash or a missile when there is plenty of evidence for one and no evidence for the other. Normally I find that people who say "Oh, it could be either" actually want to say "It was all a conspiracy" but would prefer not to look stupid.
 
Some idiots are now claiming that a plane flew into the WTC Third Tower (Tower 7) or a missile was fired at it without anyone noticing :confused:

Where is Darwin when you really, really need him?

:rolleyes:
 
RDM said:
It isn't the best evidence. The best evidence was all the bits of plane lying around but you want to ignore that too. Not to mention a missing plane and a couple of hundred dead bodies.
Click to expand...

I assume you have seen clear photographs these couple of hundred dead bodies. If it is not against the rules would you mind posting them up please? I don't think it's against the rules because we had a recent thread showing "shocking images" of the past year.

RDM said:
Indeed, you seem to be conspicuous in your absence of any explanation. Giving equal credence to a plane crash or a missile
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I did not mention anything about a missile.

RDM said:
when there is plenty of evidence for one and no evidence for the other.
Click to expand...

Here are some perfectly reasonable questions that both a CT and a fence sitter might ask:

Why is that the only video evidence is from 1 poor quality camera on the Pentagon and the only other camera from a hotel. This is a highly important US government building in the 21st century. In 2001 three or more cameras would pick up a shoplifter at Tesco. Yes I know a plane moves much faster but shouldn't there be more cameras? What about a radar system?

How did some bloke who learned to fly light aircraft manage to pull off such a precise attack in a 757?
 
stockhausen said:
As I understand it, shortly after the apparently remarkably shoddily constructed 47-storey WTC Tower Seven collapsed, all of the steel was exported from the US before any meaningful investigation into the reasons for the collapse.

One does have to wonder why the US Government allowed this :confused:
Click to expand...

what did you want doing with it. You had hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble from all 3 towers mixed up together.

You can not reconstruct towers like they do airplane frames. It's complete nonsense from CT that this should have been done.
 
gambitt said:
Why is that the only video evidence is from 1 poor quality camera on the Pentagon and the only other camera from a hotel. This is a highly important US government building in the 21st century. In 2001 three or more cameras would pick up a shoplifter at Tesco. Yes I know a plane moves much faster but shouldn't there be more cameras? What about a radar system?

How did some bloke who learned to fly light aircraft manage to pull off such a precise attack in a 757?
Click to expand...


The Pentagon uses physical surveillance rather than relying on cameras.

The pilot crashed a plane into a very large building - hardly precise.
 
gambitt said:
Please walk me through your thought process for this one outlining points on how easy flying a 757 can be for someone with no experience of flying this size of plane.
Click to expand...


:D do me favour.

Steering a plane with intent to crash is far removed from flying a 747 safely with the intention of landing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1542204.stm

"The skills needed to aim an airliner at a building would, of course, be far more basic."

""You haven't got to take it off. You haven't got to land it," Mr O'Hara explained. "It's a one-way trip. You don't need to be a skilled pilot: I could teach you in half an hour the skills needed to aim at that tower."

:D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom