9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".

Status
Not open for further replies.
n111ck said:
: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."

:D
Click to expand...

I actually asked for your opinion. Oh well. Might as well have asked for a link to the Daily Mail.

:D

n111ck said:
The Pentagon uses physical surveillance rather than relying on cameras.



The pilot crashed a plane into a very large building - hardly precise.
Click to expand...

Let's go back to this. Where was this "physical surveillance" at the time? I assume it consists of more than one bloke with a night stick doing a patrol every 30 minutes. A plane flying that low didn't raise eyebrows? They are pretty loud things you know.

Once again, I don't pretend to know everything (just speculate like everyone else) but doesn't the Pentagon have defensive measures for dealing with skilled attacks? Yet some bloke flying a 757 for the first time managed to pull it off.

:D
 
gambitt said:
I actually asked for your opinion. Oh well. Might as well have asked for a link to the Daily Mail.

:D

Let's go back to this. Where was this "physical surveillance" at the time? I assume it consists of more than one bloke with a night stick doing a patrol every 30 minutes. A plane flying that low didn't raise eyebrows? They are pretty loud things you know.

Once again, I don't pretend to know everything (just speculate like everyone else) but doesn't the Pentagon have defensive measures for dealing with skilled attacks? Yet some bloke flying a 757 for the first time managed to pull it off.

:D
Click to expand...

My opinion?? Rather than that a of a qualified pilot? That just perfectly sums up the whole CT nonsense. Well done. :D

One of the links in this thread details that the Pentagon uses security guards to protect the building. They wouldnt be very effective at stopping a noisy plane though.

The Pentagon also didnt have air defences - presumably, because as your rightly point out, no one had tried to crash a plane into it before.

:p
 
n111ck said:
My opinion?? Rather than that a of a qualified pilot?
Click to expand...

One qualified pilot.

n111ck said:
The Pentagon also didnt have air defences - presumably, because as your rightly point out, no one had tried to crash a plane into it before.

:p
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this? I'm sure I could find it on google but as someone who has ALL of the the answers I would like to know your source. ;)

I believe the White House has anti-air defences but no one has tried crashing a plane into that before either...
 
gambitt said:
One
Do you have a source for this? I'm sure I could find it on google but as someone who has ALL of the the answers I would like to know your source. ;)

I believe the White House has anti-air defences but no one has tried crashing a plane into that before either...
Click to expand...

it was a total mess with no direct line between FAA and military. That has since been change with a host of other things.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...-pentagon-improves-air-defence-operations.htm
 
Last edited:
gambitt said:
One qualified pilot.



Do you source for this? I'm sure I could find it on google but as someone who has ALL of the the answer I would like to know your source. ;)

I believe the White House has anti-air defences but no one has tried crashing a plane into that before either...
Click to expand...

One qualified pilot vs some random off the Internet (i.e. you) - hmmm who should I believe. Tough one. :D

There is a link in this thread that details the lack of air defence for both the Pentagon and WH - I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding it with your extensive investigation skills. :p
 
AcidHell2 said:
it was a total mess with no direct line between FAA and military. That has since been change with a hose of other things.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...-pentagon-improves-air-defence-operations.htm
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. You see n11ck it's not hard to respond to simple questions rather than just treating everyone who asks them as a CT nut with patronising replies such as "show me the video of the missle then" or using grinning like an idiot emoticons to get your point across. :D
 
gambitt said:
Let's go back to this. Where was this "physical surveillance" at the time? I assume it consists of more than one bloke with a night stick doing a patrol every 30 minutes. A plane flying that low didn't raise eyebrows? They are pretty loud things you know.
Click to expand...

What exactly are they going to do in the little time they have after noticing a 500mph+ plane?


gambitt said:
Once again, I don't pretend to know everything (just speculate like everyone else) but doesn't the Pentagon have defensive measures for dealing with skilled attacks? Yet some bloke flying a 757 for the first time managed to pull it off.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that the defenses for the pentagon would be against car bombs and the like and extensive internal security. It being on mainland USA would, at that time, suggest no real requirement for an active SAM site.
 
n111ck said:
One qualified pilot vs some random off the Internet (i.e. you) - hmmm who should I believe. Tough one. :D
Click to expand...

You see what I mean? Talking down to people with questions.

Not to mention putting words in their mouths. I did not say "pilot vs me", I said you were taking one pilots word as gospel and disregarding any other pilots' opinions.

Unlike you I don't believe that the world revolves around me and my opinions. :rolleyes:
 
gambitt said:
Not to mention putting words in their mouths. I did not say "pilot vs me", I said you were taking one pilots word as gospel and disregarding any other pilots' opinions.
Click to expand...


You havent provided an alternative opinion from a pilot?? :confused:

You're talking in circles and trying to change the subject now.

I win. :p
 
AcidHell2 said:
what did you want doing with it. ...
Click to expand...
I think that it would have made sense to have made more effort to determine (from the physical evidence) why such a shoddily constructed building collapsed, don't you?

AcidHell2 said:
... You had hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble from all 3 towers mixed up together. ...
Click to expand...
I certainly wasn't aware that "rubble from all 3 towers [was] mixed up together". From where do you get this information?

AcidHell2 said:
... You can not reconstruct towers like they do airplane frames. ...
Click to expand...
Quite so, so what :confused:


The point is that it appears that WTC Tower 7 was constructed in such a way as to make it VERY vulnerable to a fire. I would have thought that the construction, fire control and insurance industries could have learnt valuable lessons from a more detailed analysis of the design failings than was apparently carried out.

Try to remember, despite some of the ludicrous theories put forward in this thread, no plane flew into WTC Tower 7, no missile hit it; it caught fire and collapsed in a nice tidy heap.


At the very least, a major crime was committed and nobody seems to have been very keen to investigate it - I do wonder why :confused:
 
stockhausen said:
I think that it would have made sense to have made more effort to determine (from the physical evidence) why such a shoddily constructed building collapsed, don't you?
:
Click to expand...
No. to do what with exactly.
It was not shoddily constructed. Other steel constrution buildings have collapsed due to fire. Madrid tower being the main one as it used similar building method. That had no structural damage and still fell in less burn time than the wtc.


stockhausen said:
I certainly wasn't aware that "rubble from all 3 towers [was] mixed up together". From where do you get this information?
:
Click to expand...
NIST report

stockhausen said:
The point is that it appears that WTC Tower 7 was constructed in such a way as to make it VERY vulnerable to a fire. I would have thought that the construction, fire control and insurance industries could have learnt valuable lessons from a more detailed analysis of the design failings than was apparently carried out.
:
Click to expand...

A raft of improvements have been made to building regulations and as said before it was not shoddy.

what exactly did you want to happen with the rubble? It's just another CT red hearing.

They did also examine steel on site and at the scrap yards.
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gambitt said:
Wow. You didn't pick up on the fact that I only started using emoticons in this thread after you did in order to subtly mock you?
Click to expand...

:D wow you didnt see I toook your subtlety to the next level :D:D:D:D

Regardless I still win - your posts amount to nothing more than erm nothing. ;)

P.S. what was YOUR point?
 
AcidHell2 said:
No. to do what with exactly.
It was not shoddily constructed. Other steel constrution buildings have collapsed due to fire. Madrid tower being the main one as it used similar building method. That had no structural damage and still fell in less burn time than the wtc.

QUOTE]



But that's just it though! It didn't "just catch fire" and collapse in a heap. 2 massive buildings fell down next to it. Imagine the forces going into the ground in this area, plus the debris that had hit it when the plane hit etc. Surely your indepth research has found the pictures of Tower 7 with massive chunks taken out of it and the huge fires/smoke coming out of the south side.

Maybe it's best to not just focus on one tiny part of something and look at the whole picture for once.

It's a bit like quoting someone saying "I killed Bob Smith" when the whole quote is "I dreamt I killed Bob Smith". Seems to be how the whole conspiracy cracks look at things
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom