If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Interesting mental dichotomy Blagsta demonstrates insofar as he will fill threads on the evils of the capitalist system and its intentions to dominate all wealth and power, but yet suggest that any part of that establishment he so reviles could have colluded in the planning and execution of such an agenda-advancing and paradigm setting event (however much evidence of the falsehood of point after point of the official "conspiracy theory" is presented and endorsed by "credentialled" public actors) and he reverts to the "deference to authority figure" mentality of the masses and dismisses it out of hand.
If it isnt confirmed on the nightly news in bold letters, no amount of research will ever sway him from his apparently schizophrenic anti/capitalist-pro/status quo assumptions.
Better to be on his ignore list frankly! :thumb:
that trouts cooking nicely ...
Eh? Don't be daft. What I would like to know is who they are and what credentials they have. Is that too much to ask?
TBH. I reserve my judement on this until someone will fucking present more than a half baked theory. We've had two - The US Governments Theory - And some Conspiracy Nuts taking it too far.
Sigh. Typical. You can only get one extreme or the other.
how is their explanation of how the buikdings cannot collapse under any circumstances other than well placed demolition charges at ten floors a second taking things to far?
building seven has a couple of small fires burning ...no impact ...and you believe the official theory over that of engineers ...that they decided to pull the building down there and then rather than fight the fires.
to pull the building down like thaqt woulkd have taken at least a week of wiring up the explosives ...but in all the mayhem thats going on ...a demolition team load the explosives ...deliver them to the site ...and amidst all that confusion ...mangae to wire a fifty storey building perfectly and bring it down ...all in an hour ....
which version strikes you as aqn untruth?
It also amazes me that some people can't also see that interests of the US are probably spreading a lot of these conspiracy theories as a smokescreen to detract from the real issues. You're doing the CIA's work for them. Well done boys, give yourselves a big clap on the back.
Tracy Blevins (FM)
Bioengineering, Rice University
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Michiel Brumsen (FM)
Philosophy, Engineering ethics
Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
...........................
you've got to be kidding
Both versions. There is more too it we are not being told. Far, far more. Behind he scenes, behind the Government, behind the conspiracies... there lies a truth. A truth, they don't want to come out. Both sides. Some of them probably deny it to save realising it.
I want it. I need to know, its our right to know. It is our lives they are playing with here.
a person who has ....forget it ...i'm going to ignore you as much as possible.
The Jet-Jocks Who Couldn't Fly A Cessna
Nila Sagadevan
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks -- invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky". But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.
In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot -- and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.
The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs -- even landings, to a certain degree -- are relatively "easy", because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the cockpit.
But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -- I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots -- who Œbought the farm' because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions
Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan -- he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside -- there's nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.
After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.
It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin.
But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour -- whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" -- somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.
Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes -- remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).
In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.
To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended -- and invisible -- target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point.)
The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."
And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon -- and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH,.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
Its perpetual denial he prefers. Just pray you dont get him on any jury should you be falsely accused of a crime by the state.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles -- and the Global Hawk.)
The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.
Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control" of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
By Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D
A pattern of systematic destruction and disappearance of evidence runs throughout the official response to the 9/11 attack. All of the crime scenes were scrubbed with systematic efficiency, while farce investigations provided cover.
Such evidence destruction was only one part of an even larger feature of the crime: an evidence vacuum, wherein even the reasons for the disappearance of evidence remain hidden behind a wall of government unaccountability and official farces such as the Kean Commission.
NONE of the following evidence is available to the public. In most cases, its very existence remains unknown:
Airport lobby video showing alleged hijackers on the targeted flights
Airline flight manifests, tickets (or electronic or paper copies thereof), boarding pass stubs, issued to hijackers
CREDIBLE evidence tying bin Laden to the crime
Recordings of air traffic controller communications with ANY of the flights
Remains of any of the targeted planes – even a SINGLE SCRAP of identifiable wreckage from ANY of the four flights
Remains of the Twin Towers and Building 7 – even a single piece of the “vaporized” steel
Blueprints of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (the office of Minoru Yamasaki, the architect of the towers, is on a gag order)
Reports from hundreds of firemen (every single NYFD fireman who was involved in 9/11 is on a gag order)
The contents of the black boxes from ANY of the targeted planes (total of eight)
Photographs documenting the crime scenes before they were disturbed
Video footage of the crime scenes -- including at the Pentagon, where scores of “officials” were seen and photographed hurriedly (and very suspiciously) removing pieces of wreckage
Results of the closed-door “investigations” into the minute-by-minute activities on the morning of 9/11/2001 of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers (head of Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General Ralph Eberhart (commander of NORAD)
Ignorant no. Accurate yes.
Though looking at whats going on, on the thread now, you and me could be in agreement Blagsta so what does that say? :chin:
All the excuse they provided to invade Iraq was an evil dictator in charge and a load of cobbled-together crap about weapons of mass destruction - would they really have *bothered* to come up with the biggest conspiracy in history in order to invade Afghanistan?
The Neo Scum and Peanuts, sorry PNAC's would NEVER have been able to ride roughshod over the constitution the way they have the last few years without an incident like 9/11. It's not so much about foreign policy for the yanks as acquiring a domestic stranglehold.
It's obviously not that well known but in the US there are several movements that have been giving the government problems domestically in recent years - patriots, constitutionalists and whatnot. Large scale tax rebellions and that kind of thing. Theres even been an attempted seccession from the union.
Abroad they have always done what the hell they wanted, no matter how brutal. Using the same tactics at home is taking some finagling.
i wiegh up the evidence.
the official line is so obviously untrue. the links are to people in those fields.
it is IMPOSSIBLE ...for the pancake theory of collapsing floors to be the true version.
no steel framed skyscraper has ever fell becuase of fire ...you told to believe that three did just that all on the same day!
the hole in the pentagon and the cover ups that go with it should be sounding alarm bells in everyones heads but no ...