Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Flight 77 is at the bottom of an ocean. Happy?

Do you know what the security situation was like in the world trade center? I don't. I don't know how it was done, but I think the US government has the power and resources to make it happen.

See the problems is you can't have it both way. Where in one scenario you have huge gashing holes with a huge fall out of debris over a wide spread area and things as delicate as paper passports surviving. And on the other hand a 757 vapourizes into a 15ft hole with no debri at all.

Icenic wrote:Flight 77 is at the bottom of an ocean.

Any proof?

Icenic wrote:I don't know how it was done

OK. IMO, I cant be done without being noticed by anybody. The towers were full with offices and workers. preparations for controlled demolition would take a long time with many people, using a lot of instruments and making a lot of noise. A huge operation. Completely impossible that nobody would have noticed.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm --

desertdudeshj wrote:See the problems is you can't have it both way. Where in one scenario you have huge gashing holes with a huge fall out of debris over a wide spread area and things as delicate as paper passports surviving. And on the other hand a 757 vapourizes into a 15ft hole with no debri at all.

At the Pentagon there was a fortified concrete wall. Do you have any indication that the same applied to the twin towers? Are you saying the windows were actually protected by invisible fortified concrete

Flying Dutchman wrote:

JoeTGF wrote:FD - you asked for links and info and you were provided them - any thoughts on what has been posted?

I asked two things during this thread:

-If flight 77 didnt crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to it? No answer has been given.

-How could an organization pull it off to let the towers collapse controlled without being noticed? No answer has been given.

Like I said the alternatives make absolutely no sense. The official story can be explained.

FD - I am sorry I wasn't on flight 77 and am not privy to US government secrets so its a bit of silly question. Its like me asking you where Osama bin Laden is right? Try asking the relevant question which you can others can answer or at least think rationally about - here are a few -

1. How can 3 buildings totally collapse from fire one of which wasn't hit by a plane
2. How can the hole in the pentagon be that size and no damage to the grass and other areas? The video of the pentagon shows a book just near the breach without the pages singed while the jet fuel from the WTC crash supposedly brought down the entire tower?
3. What was flight 93 reported by united as having landed for a bomb check 30 mins before its crash?
4. Why is there not a single picture of the plane crashing into the pentagon when there are over 100 cameras on the building?
5. Why did the 9/11 commission completely ignore the collapse of building 7?
6. Why is there a clear picture of something on the underside of the plane that hit the south tower? Why are there several reports (from people at the scene, newsmen, etc) that the plane had no windows?
7. Why were explosions like detonations heard before/as the towers collapsed by firemen and witness's at the scene?

Flying Dutchman wrote:Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer!

Hmm this word translated into english from the words could mean

Jawohl = "You" something called a "wohl"
Uber-storm-bahn-fuhrer = Very - Bad Weather -Some Highway- Hitler

Therfore

Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer! would mean

You-something called a whohl-Very-Bad Weather-Some HIghway-Hitler.

Here is a little looked at piece of information the WTC was in "power down" mode for almost the entire weekend preceeding the attacks i.e. No electricity in the building as part of Securacom (the company incharge of WTC security) meaning no security cams footage, no movement with in the building recorded nothing -unrestricted access. Eyewitnesses report tell of a lot of movement in and out of the building, engineers and faces not seen before.

FD -

I want to ask you 3 easy questions - here is the first

1. Do you think that the people that caused the crash into the pentagon, the crash of flight 93 and the crash/collapse of the WTC the same people?

Once again I say this to FD and EH:

Joe and I posted video links. Did you watch them? If not, then why not? If yes, then what are your comments on them?

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:06 pm --

zubber wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer!

Hmm this word translated into english from the words could mean

Jawohl = "You" something called a "wohl"
Uber-storm-bahn-fuhrer = Very - Bad Weather -Some Highway- Hitler

Therfore

Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer! would mean

You-something called a whohl-Very-Bad Weather-Some HIghway-Hitler.

Hahahahahahaha!! I don't know whether to consider that phrase an insult or just some gibberish!!!

Flying Dutchman wrote:At the Pentagon there was a fortified concrete wall. Do you have any indication that the same applied to the twin towers? Are you saying the windows were actually protected by invisible fortified concrete

Thats is the problem with all explanations trying to prove the offcial version. They pose more questions than they answer.

For the WTC the outer steel mess structure was also part of the building support structure. It was designed with a central "spine" of colums with the steel meshing acting like a exoskeleton. Thui enabling unintrupted floor space without support beams jutting in.

Agreed the pentagon walls were made of reinforced steel, But the windows wern't. The windows on top and to the sides of the so called impact hole are still intact, one would think getting hit at 500mph would at the very least crack even the sturdiest blast proof windows ( This is just as assumption, hoping the pentagon would have those kind of security measures )

If the fuselage, which is basicaly a empty aluminum skinned tube penetrated and damaged 3 feet of reinforced concrete ( the outer and wall of the other pentagon ring each 1.5 foot thick ). The engines which are mostly make of titanium one of the strogest metals on earth would atleast penetrate or even severly damage the outher wall. And these are the best case scenarios trying to fit into the official version.

Again you can't have it both ways. Its either this or that.

Also the lack of alternative explanations does not automactically prove the official one right.

Personaly I think this is what hit the pentagon. A tomahawk missile. The four or five frames released by the security cam blast and fireball look very similar to the scond strike in this video



Just before the blast you just see a small smoke trail in one frame just skiming a couple of feet above the lawn. The hole created in the wall would also be in accordance with a cruise missle strike. The small engine motor seen as wreckage pics of the pentagon also is about the right size for a tomahawk cruise missile motor and not a Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engine.

desertdudeshj wrote:Personaly I think this is what hit the pentagon. A tomahawk missile. The four or five frames released by the security cam blast and fireball look very similar to the scond strike in this video

Just before the blast you just see a small smoke trail in one frame just skiming a couple of feet above the lawn. The hole created in the wall would also be in accordance with a cruise missle strike. The small engine motor seen as wreckage pics of the pentagon also is about the right size for a tomahawk cruise missile motor and not a Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engine.

That is indeed very plausible. The explosion does look very similar. Also, the guidance system makes the source very hazy, therefore fitting into the "conspiracy".

Here is a little looked at piece of information the WTC was in "power down" mode for almost the entire weekend preceeding the attacks i.e. No electricity in the building as part of Securacom (the company incharge of WTC security) meaning no security cams footage, no movement with in the building recorded nothing -unrestricted access. Eyewitnesses report tell of a lot of movement in and out of the building, engineers and faces not seen before.

Building two was in power down mode for a twenty-four hour period and even then tourists could still access the building to take a view of NYC from the observatory at the top.

Are you saying that in a twenty four hour period, agents managed to rig a skyscraper to implode, conceal all the detonator cords, drill the thousands of holes in the walls to plant the thousands of explosives and patch and clean everything up the next day?

Again, demolishing a thirty story skyscraper took four months, unfettered access to the building with no intent to minimize damage to the building as they were planting the explosives and then to patch everything up (including hiding miles of detonator cords) .

It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to claim demolition experts were somehow able to rig three skyscrapers to implode without their work being noticed in an amount of time that only amounted to a couple of hours that in reality would have required thousands of hours to complete.

Hey EH

Do the building collapses look like demolitions to you?

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_19.html

(pic is too big, just click it)





Tomahawk missile?

Better question, if a Tomahawk missile struck the Pentagon, what happened to flight 77? Who took over the plane, where did it go (where was its radar signature), and why didn't it just crash into the Pentagon like the flights that struck the WTC?

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:44 pm --

JoeTGF wrote:Hey EH

Do the building collapses look like demolitions to you?

Sure, they looked like demolitions to me.

event horizon wrote:
Are you saying that in a twenty four hour period, agents managed to rig a skyscraper to implode, conceal all the detonator cords, drill the thousands of holes in the walls to plant the thousands of explosives and patch and clean everything up the next day?

It not necessarily had to be done within a 24 hour period , it could have been planned well in advance, If you have worked in a tall building, you always see maintenance people going in and out and doing "something" , are you or anybody for that matter , aware of every single thing that goes on ? NO? Because its not in their job description.

THe entire placement of all the detonators either via cords or remotely controlled could have been done in the most elegant way with perfect aesthetic sense.

Hey EH - answer my question

Also if that looks like a plain crash to you you should check out others on the net to see what they really look like.

Also again with the wheres the flight 77. Where is Osama bin Laden or WMD? Thats not really the point here or why it wasn't a plane - might be many reasons but I dunno all I can say is that its highly unlikely it was a plane.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:47 pm --

Sry missed your respose earlier.
So they looked like demolitions to you - does that strike you as odd? I mean would you expect that when a buidling ravaged by fire falls over?

THe entire placement of all the detonators either via cords or remotely controlled could have been done in the most elegant way with perfect aesthetic sense.

I don't know about that or maybe I misunderstood your post.

You actually have to do intensive work that can't be covered up without anyone noticing:

http://www.phillyblast.com/HollanderRidge/hrt-prep.htm

Anyways, do remote controlled detonators even exist for explosives used in buildings?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329#

Silverstein admitting he issued the order to demolish WTC7. How could they have been ready for a full demolition? Doesn't it take months to demolish a building?

event horizon wrote:You actually have to do intensive work that can't be covered up without anyone noticing:

Let me put to you this way, do you think buildings were people work dont have jobs done all the time ? When they do the jobs , the whole office doesnt shut down, people carry on not knowing what the construction and maintenance people are up to

Anyways, do remote controlled detonators even exist for explosives used in buildings?

haha , you underestimate technology my friend, you have remote controlled spy planes , that travel 100's of km, if you are wondering about their radio frequency at which the controls work, it truly is amazing

Anyways, do remote controlled detonators even exist for explosives used in buildings?

I think the Pentagon, being so many years ahead of the world, can probably muster up a wireless detonation.

EH

So they looked like demolitions to you - does that strike you as odd? I mean would you expect a building ravaged by fire to fall over like that?

Wireless denotars are common...they are used by the military all the time. Don't you watch any war movies!

Let me put to you this way, do you think buildings were people work dont have jobs done all the time ? When they do the jobs , the whole office doesnt shut down, people carry on not knowing what the construction and maintenance people are up to

Oh come on, they have to use jackhammers/drills (or whatever) to drill holes in the concrete and acetylene torches to cut through the steel beams.

Just watch an NGC program on the 9/11 conspiracy theories where they placed over one hundred pounds of thermite around a steel beam and even then it didn't come close to melting through - they also needed to construct a little contraption around the steel beams to hold the thermite.

So what do you have to say about Silverstein's confession?

EH - please respond to my question.

And if you watch that, they themselves said that the experiment was a failure as the "tank" that was suppose to hold the thermite leaked and only a very little quantity of it actualy got to the beam. Thermite is used in construction to "weld" metal beams toghter and very capable of melting steel.

I've even read the popular mechanics article. Nothing solid even there.

event horizon wrote:Oh come on, they have to use jackhammers/drills (or whatever) to drill holes in the concrete and acetylene torches to cut through the steel beams.

Do you work in construction ? Building maintenance services ? You are making baseless assumptions

event horizon wrote:

to cut through the steel beams.

The steel beams were cut...

I think it only fair that if questions are asked they aren't avoided.

Whilst I'm still agnostic, I have to say - the fanbois are on the back foot at the moment - they have more questions about holes in their theory than the opposition do. Just my observation.

I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for the dynamic duo, I may jump in and help them out - at least they are only hinting at ad hominem attacks for now... (a common smoke and mirrors tactic is to allude that opponents are nazi like or anti-US govt) - I trust the discussion will remain civil and focus on questions and answers about the events and evidence.

Consider this a gentle mod warning against ad hominem attack guys (for once, I'm not actively taking part in the discussion, so I will use my Mod powers to delete future personal attacks - and other Mods can edit my posts if I do the same).

So - I believe that questions need answering...


Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Anyways, I'm impressed how much confidence you have in our secret agent guys. A 30 story skyscraper took 4 months to rig up for demolition but three of the largest skyscrapers in the world was done over the weekend (without anyone even noticing all the detonation cords and holes drilled in the walls and support columns).

No kidding. And some here are saying that there is no way the terrorists could have learned how to fly those planes properly after months of pilot training, but the government can send in a hundred invisible demolition experts to rig many tower blocks with explosives in a weekend without anyone seeing anything suspicious.

I've read some things about 9/11, but I get immediately turned off by some of the conspiracy arguments because they seem so far fetched. If the US wanted an excuse to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan they had reason - the previous bombings of embassies by Al Qaeda. If they wanted an excuse to attack Iraq, they could come up with "proof" of weapons of mass destruction on the ground in Iraq - who would know in the rest of the world? Why plan an elaborate attack on US soil that has so many factors to it and leaves behind tons of forensic evidence that people could prove it was not a terrorist attack but an attack carried out by the US government. So many people had access to ground zero, there were tons of witnesses, passengers on planes calling to loved ones from their phones etc.

The documentary I saw was very thorough at explaining how the towers fell, and it featured many experts.