Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 200

Thread: Flight 93 footage thats rarely seen

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Prey521
    It's called "hand waiving" = "frantically waiving your hands in wild conjecture about something you have no evidence for, simply because you blindly refuse to accept the official story" Some People will believe anything that's opposite of the gubmints take on it.

    Have you heard the ones about the remote control detonators? Or that the planes weren't actually planes, but missiles with a plane hologram over it? There are actually websites out there dedicated to this kinda nonsense!
    LMAO..pleaase link some of these i got to see for myself

  2. #102
    P/T Pagan God thepieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn , New York
    Posts
    13,400
    Prey cmon....they even showed the molten pits on TV and my friends that worked ground zero saw them.

    Molten steel was found at WTC7.

    These claims have never yet panned out under investigation. Other than glib comments without physical evidence, the best they get is sme of the steel was red hot when pulled from the wreakage, wreakage that had been burning for over a week. Those conditions are easily enough to make the steel red hot. Also explosives don't leave steel hot for a long period anyways. Explosives have a rapid heat discharge, followed by rapid cooling. For steel to melt and stay molten requires continual heat, such as a fire. The conditions under the collpased buildings were very similar to the ealy iron age forges, though on a much grander scale.

    Again, what evidence of explosives, or eyewitness tesimony of seeing explosives installed, or being installed into WTC 7 is there?
    As for the lack of physical evidence...well thats another thing to question as has been mentioned.
    Obviously there won't be any eyewitnesses to explosives being installed or else there would have been something done ahead of time. Let me ask you a question. When you see maintenance men working in your building do you inspect or even watch what they are doing? In such an immense building would you think that with all the maintence accessways that aren't even visible to the public that one maintanance man would even know another from being someone they knew didn't work there? When i worked at 5 WTC and then 2WTC ..Im lucky if I even knew some of the coworkers there the offices were so immense. I would never knew one building worker from another.


    Pie
    SG Pimp Name : *Treacherous P. Shizzle*
    *
    The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
    *
    Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!

  3. #103
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by jz82
    Now I don't believe a pilot called "incompetent" by his instructors actually flew into the ground floor of the Pentagon at several hundred mph, but all the planes used on 9/11 had the ability to be remotely flown.
    LOL, you're speaking as if it were fact....gotta raise the flag on this one:



    This doens't, however, justify the claim that these planes HAD to be remote controlled.

    Correct.

    Conspiracy theorists incorrectly claim that the Boeing aircraft involved in 9/11 were manuevered beyond their "software limits" and thus could not have been flown by human pilots.

    This is as wrong as it can possibly be.

    First, the Boeing 757 and 767 do not use fly-by-wire. They use cable and hydraulic systems. There is no decoupling of the flight controls from the control surface actuator systems.

    Second, the so-called "autonomous flight" capability is not fly-by-wire. AFC is simply a next-generation autopilot that can perform the control actions necessary to fly the airplane from one airport to another with little if any pilot intervention. But it works no differently than any other kind of autopilot; it applies mechanical control inputs to the system the same way that the pilot does. It cannot be inherently "taken over" by some external controlling force any more than the highway patrol can remotely "take over" your car simply because you've got the cruise control on.

    Third, it is strongly against Boeing's philosophy to take ultimate control away from the pilot. The "hardover" condition I described above is something Airbus provides, but with which Boeing does not agree. It is Boeing's position that the operational envelopes within which FBW limits flight are set conservatively, and it should be within the pilot's discretion to invade those margins in time of emergency. Only the pilot, at the time, truly knows the operational envelope of the aircraft.

    There are good arguments on both sides of the question, and this is where Airbus and Boeing part ways in how they engineer flight control systems. But the fact remains that nothing in the flight control system of the Boeing 757 or 767 prevents the pilot from commanding extreme manuevers. That is simply factually false.

    The upshot of all of this is that FBW is not required in order to achieve remote-controllability. FBW does not immediately provide for remote-controllability.

    Also, you can't believe that the planes were remote controlled AND believe that the Flight 93 was shot down, just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  4. #104
    Mental Metal Minister Jamie_R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    10,452
    Quote Originally Posted by UOD
    Hey, let's check the scoreboard kids...

    USA- 5,000 civilians and military members dead since 9/11.

    Osama - ALIVE
    of course Osama's alive ... he's still on the payroll ...
    .

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

  5. #105
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    205
    Several credible eyewitnesses say molten steel existed. Not only do they specifically say "molten", but they describe the physical characteristics of it.

    For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
    Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

    ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
    ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
    Dripping? Flowed? Clearly that's the description of molten metal. As everyone knows, jet fuel/office contents/etc. cannot burn hot enough to do this.

  6. #106
    Maneater JawZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    21,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Prey521
    UOD, how can you even begin to compare the first bombing with 9/11? First, the planes hit the weakest part of towers and severely damaged the core of the towers. The bomb of '93 went off in the lower level of the towers, which is the strongest part of the tower, and also. there was no damage to the core. These were 2 totally different scenarios. Just because a bomb that went off in the lower levels of the towers didn't bring it down, doesn't mean that a plane traveling at top speed hitting the upper levels couldn't bring it down, you of all people should know something like this.

    One more thing, if the towers really were pre-built with explosives, wouldn't the bombing of '93 have revealed this? Surely such a large explosion would've set'm off, no?

    How can you NOT compare? the same people were involved...that is the point. We let them go. We always seem to find a way to let our enemies go...why is that Prey? Can ya just answer that one simple question?


    and again, you are hell bent on twisting the logic here. I'm not saying our government killed our own...but did they let it happen? WHO BENEFITTED from this? You refuse to answer the one simple question which is what fuels our suspicion....why trade on airline stocks? You mean to tell me that the business world knew that the attacks were impending and yet our government didn't??????????????????????????????????????

    so in your eyes, 911 was all a big surprise and we never saw it coming?

    ...formerly the omnipotent UOD

  7. #107
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Pie, i'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel, I was pointing out the fact that you said that jet fuel couldn't do something like that alone.
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  8. #108
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    205
    Also, you can't believe that the planes were remote controlled AND believe that the Flight 93 was shot down, just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
    From everything I've read, those planes did have everything required for remote guidance. Now it seems like a pilot can override it with manual controls, but who's to say the hijackers tried to manually fly them?

    http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm

    As for F93, I think someone finally got off thier ass and did their job. Someone pulling off an inside job only has so much time available to them until normal operating procedure returns.

  9. #109
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    UOD, no, I don't believe that the goverment just let 9/11 happen, did they know some attack may have been coming? Sure, but it doesn't mean that they knew when/where.

    And you cannot compare the 2 bombings cuz they were not carried out in the same fashion. Now if a 757 fully loaded with fuel had struck in the same exact place at the same exact speed back in '93, and the towers still didn't come down, then you'd be on to something, but they weren't, so it's irrelevant.

    And you tell me why the trading is suspicious? Because it happened so close to 9/11? Like I said before, it's only suspicious to you because you already think that there's something fishy going on. The suspicious trading was investigated and the SEC found that there was no suspicious trading whatsoever, unless the SEC was in on 9/11 as well!!
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  10. #110
    Regular Member SteelersFANinMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    South Shore MA
    Posts
    185
    Originally Posted by jz82
    Now I don't believe a pilot called "incompetent" by his instructors actually flew into the ground floor of the Pentagon at several hundred mph, but all the planes used on 9/11 had the ability to be remotely flown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prey521
    LOL, you're speaking as if it were fact....gotta raise the flag on this one:

    You obviously didn't watch any of the Loose Change videos. The instructor was on film claiming all of what jz82 stated about the terrorist/pilot.
    "...and when I leave, come together like butt cheeks." -Grits 'n' Gravy

  11. #111
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    205
    The suspicious trading was investigated and the SEC found that there was no suspicious trading whatsoever, unless the SEC was in on 9/11 as well!!
    Wrong, they only found that the traders had no links to Al-Qaeda. This is the danger of automatically assuming Al-Qaeda was solely responsible, they tossed out evidence that didn't point to them.

  12. #112
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by jz82
    From everything I've read, those planes did have everything required for remote guidance. Now it seems like a pilot can override it with manual controls, but who's to say the hijackers tried to manually fly them?

    http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm

    As for F93, I think someone finally got off thier ass and did their job. Someone pulling off an inside job only has so much time available to them until normal operating procedure returns.

    All that that handwaiving must wear out your arms dude. If one scenario doesn't fit, you just make up another, typical. If that plane had been remotely controlled by the gubmint, I'm pretty sure that they've would've alloted enough time for Flight 93 to get to it's attack destination, just like they let the 2 planes that hit the towers get to their destinations, right? So you're telling me that some naval officer/pilot broke command and went out in search of a plane that had gone off radar, and blew up the first one that he saw and it just happened to be the one that had the hijackers.

    Oh, and Pie, black smoke does not always equate to lack of oxygen, it's dependant on the materials that are burning.





    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  13. #113
    Certified SG Addict CableDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    26,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Prey521
    So does Brandon

  14. #114
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    205
    If that plane had been remotely controlled by the gubmint, I'm pretty sure that they've would've alloted enough time for Flight 93 to get to it's attack destination
    Well assuming the planes were remotely controlled (and could be manually overriden), they would have to be done so after the pilots were removed. Maybe the hijackers took too long to do their job. These guys were patsies, lets not give them too much credit.

    All this is pretty pointless, though. Focus on facts, like the presence of molten metal in the rubble and the inability of jet fuel/office materials to cause it.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by jz82
    Focus on facts

    In a conspiracy thread? LMAO

  16. #116
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    205
    Yes, because there's NEVER been a conspiracy.

  17. #117
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Oh, i've seen the Loose Change videos, what's your point? Have you bothered to look at all the evidence OTHER than what the CT'ist are telling you? I've looked at both sides, extensively, and the CT holds no weight in my eyes. I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything. People will believe what they want, a true seeker of truth will go out and look at both sides of the coin before making a decision. From what I've seen, most CT'ist only look at their side, and never bother to wonder what kinda evidence the other side has and they often passover questions that they, nor anyone else in their camp can answer. If you wanna believe it, that's fine, but the burden of proof is on the CT'ist to prove their case against the official story, and when you compare the 2, the CT story is overshadowed by facts.

    JZ, as to the whole Michale Chertoff and the PM article:

    Ben Chertoff:

    Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

    As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" I said, "I guess so," -- that's not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story.

    But wait, since his account doesn't match with the CT account, he MUST be lying, right?

    Also:

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  18. #118
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by jz82
    Well assuming the planes were remotely controlled (and could be manually overriden), they would have to be done so after the pilots were removed. Maybe the hijackers took too long to do their job. These guys were patsies, lets not give them too much credit.

    All this is pretty pointless, though. Focus on facts, like the presence of molten metal in the rubble and the inability of jet fuel/office materials to cause it.
    Maybe this, maybe that, what if this, what if that! You're so proving my point!
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  19. #119
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    205
    Wow, so he doesn't come out and admit it, what a shocker.

    You were basically asking for a scenario, so I provided one. There's a lot we don't know about 9/11, and if enough people have your mindset, we never will.

  20. #120
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by jz82
    Wow, so he doesn't come out and admit it, what a shocker.

    You were basically asking for a scenario, so I provided one. There's a lot we don't know about 9/11, and if enough people have your mindset, we never will.
    You're assuming that my mindset is to accept whatever I am told, and that is simply not the case. However, it is apparent that you're mindset is to NOT believe whatever the goverment, or in this case, the official story of what happened on 9/11, tells you.

    Like I said before, believe what you wish, this thread has used up enough of my time, my wife is leaving for 1 week tomorrow, and I got business to tend too........be back in 2 minutes!
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


Similar Threads

  1. Another flight in trouble =(
    By Ghosthunter in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-21-05, 02:31 PM
  2. Flight to Louisville, KY....again
    By mountainman in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-05-05, 07:02 PM
  3. So I didn't make my flight, I'm thinking that was a good thing
    By DaddyLongLeg in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-21-05, 05:35 PM
  4. Tracking a Flight
    By mountainman in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-30-05, 07:45 AM
  5. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-14-05, 01:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •