Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC) Source:
, URL Source:http://, Published:Mar 16, 2009 Author:msnbc Post Date:2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:14356 Comments:607
You could have blasted the ahit out of the core and the floors STILL would have had to have pancaked downward.
If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom?
'Pancaked' Hahahaha
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder. That pretty well rules out the "remote control" idea.
How precisely can you make that claim? Do you know for a fact the systems weren't tampered with? How could you possibly say that with any semblence of certainty?
One possibility is the hand-picking of at least four black-ops pilots, willing to commit suicide.
That's a MUCH further stretch than the possibility of a hostile takeover of the flight systems by remote control.
"The real deal is this: the royalty controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
The NIST finding requires that the floor end connections held and that the sagging floors remained connected to the columns.
This is directly opposite of the speculation of FEMA
Thanks much for the link to that...I will read it through tomorrow when my brain is fresh. Interesting above quote...FEMA "speculation"...ain't that a dandy one?!
Tell me that you didn't just respond to me by saying: "Liar!!! I never posted that post about WTC on that other thread that I claimed I did not post but that both you and I have posted again here!!!!"
Sad the guy who believes that they built remote control redundancy into plane crash activated set charges and but doesn't understand the force/energy dynamic of a falling multi-ton structure on cement...
Another one who ***thinks*** that nothing exploded inside the building...even though he ***thinks*** that the charges were set to explode on impact...
No, they weren't set to explode on impact, but still some went off in the area, just not enough to compromise the structural integrity of the very well built structures the WTC towers were.
#559. To: SKYDRIFTER, Artisan, Christine, Jethro Tull, It istoolate, All (#530)
If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder.
So you're saying that there is NO way someone with intimate knowledge of the aircraft systems could design a device to completely take over any and all systems, and that there would be no way to stop the pilot from isolating the problem and disabling the device?
"The real deal is this: the royalty controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
>> If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder.
So you're saying that there is NO way someone with intimate knowledge of the aircraft systems could design a device to completely take over any and all systems, and that there would be no way to stop the pilot from isolating the problem and disabling the device?
Why does everyone assume that there even was a crew, or passengers?
This could have been a military plane disguised as a UAL plane.
I can't understand why SKYDRIFTER hasn't answered any of my questions here concerning his view of the possibility of remote control being used in the 9/11 attacks.
"The real deal is this: the royalty controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Um...because people bought tickets and boarded the plane in Boston.
There's no evidence they boarded the planes, and I don't think there's any evidence they bought tickets either, but I could be mistaken. Why don't you post some links that prove they actually bought tickets.
As I said, there is NO proof that they actually boarded the planes, but you're more than welcome to look for it.
"The real deal is this: the royalty controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Sad the guy who believes that they built remote control redundancy into plane crash activated set charges and but doesn't understand the force/energy dynamic of a falling multi-ton structure on cement...
Hey imbecile, check this out.
This is a bridge in Lebanon that was hit by missiles from Israeli jets. This bridge was much higher than the 1 floor distance in the WTC Towers. Still yet, even after falling hundreds of feet and having an actual missile hit it, it did NOT obliterate upon impact to fine dust. You might want to go back and check your physics book, you just screwed up big time. Thank god you are not a structural engineer. :)
Um...because people bought tickets and boarded the plane in Boston.
Yeah, that solves it then, why didn't I think of that?
They told us those planes hit the towers and those people were on the planes and no one has seen them since so that must mean those planes hit the WTC towers. <.sarcasm>
It must mean that only if you are using kindergarten logic. And you are not capable of much more than that.
I can't understand why SKYDRIFTER hasn't answered any of my questions here concerning his view of the possibility of remote control being used in the 9/11 attacks.
I don't know. I know he was a former commercial airline pilot, but why he thinks the actual planes taking off from Logan airport with passengers and crew on them hit the buildings is anybody's guess. All we have to go on is the word of the media and government and they have lied constantly about 9/11 so why would they tell the truth about the planes that really hit the towers?
Unless Skydrifter has some information we don't have then it is very strange of him to dismiss the missile guidance or remote control possibility on the planes that actually hit the WTC towers. So far he has not presented any information that would rule this out.
You surely don't think that the entire WTC structure above the impact zone fell straight down at once, do you? Not even the government's loony theory goes that far. The government's theory says one floor fell, which led to the next floor falling in a domino fashion. When they say a floor fell, they mean just the floor fell, not the entire structure above it. You really need to know what it is you are trying to defend before you start defending it.
You surely don't think that the entire WTC structure above the impact zone fell straight down at once
As is apparent from the videos it most certainly appeared to do so as it was the support [a combo of the trusses weakened by fire and the outer support walls bowing inward] below the level above the imapact zone that gave way thus allowing the top to fll as it was detached from the bottom.
Some of the "Troofers" try to fashion the fiction that because the below impact trusses failed that the top trusses had to fail too. Unfortunately for them [and you] there is no aspect of the WTC's engineering to support that contention.