Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

"Jose" wrote:

Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.

What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
supporting the Iraq war.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Because - and this is important - they have to TEST the damned things on
a regular basis. That's why they *have* test modes. And they test them
in the day (because that's when the people doing the testing are
working) and they test them in the morning (because that gives them the
whole rest of the day to find and fix problems).

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:17:51 GMT, Jose wrote:

Yanno... the puzzle that I have is this:

The two theories vying for contention are
Theory 1: Terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into
the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania), presumably to
terrorize the US.

Theory 2: There were =no= airliners involved (since it would be
impossible for terrorists to fly commercial airplanes),

Given the training and certified instrument rated pilot rating of at least one
of the hijackers, it's entirely within the realm of possibility for them to have
taken control of the planes and flew them into the buildings. Hell, I could
have done it and I'm not even a licensed pilot.

Finding New York City from West Virginia is as simple as flying East to the
coast and then following it North, once there I could easily have seen the
building from 10+ miles away in the perfect weather that day. As long as I
didn't try anything too radical with the yoke (like an Immelman, for instance) I
wouldn't have had any trouble lining the jet up with the building and just
flying straight into it. It's not like I've got to reconfigure the controls for
takeoff or landing or worry about little things like efficient fuel useage, air
travel corridors or even other planes, the FAA would clear the airspace for me.

Now, given that destroying the buildings in any fashion involves loss of
lots of innocent lives, if our government wanted to do this, why would
it spare the lives of a few onboard the airplanes in order to fake the
attack. Why not simply have the government commandeer the airplanes
through its own agents, and fly them into the buildings?

One of the prevalent tinfoil hat theories is that the government flew the
planes into the buildings by remote control, letting them do it with their own
agents and not even requiring any of them to commit suicide at the same time.

They even claim that all the voice messages from the hijackers and phone calls
from the passengers onboard the planes were faked.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:55:19 -0700, Newps wrote:



TRUTH wrote:


You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
see the WTC?




It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

No, it wouldn't.

Hell, how hard would it have been to fly due East until you saw the ocean,
then turned North. Sooner or later you're going to be over NYC.

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:EoxMf.25449$_S7.23208
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:


TRUTH wrote:

How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
cloudy above NYC.

You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
see the WTC?




It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

In what way?
Did they not know what direction NYC is from WV?

TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
. com:


TRUTH wrote:

Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?





The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Why?
If the building is going to be blown up, as you said, how would having
the alarm in test mode help? WTC 1 and WTC 2 were collapsing, do you
think the people in WTC 7 were going to wait for an alarm?

Dan Luke wrote:

"Jose" wrote:

Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.

What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
supporting the Iraq war.

Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:


Dan Luke wrote:


"Jose" wrote:


Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.

What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
supporting the Iraq war.


Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?

Graham


Wasn't Danny Glover in that movie?

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
Pooh Bear wrote:


Dan Luke wrote:


"Jose" wrote:


Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.

What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
supporting the Iraq war.


Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?

Graham


Wasn't Danny Glover in that movie?

Danny Glover is just another socialist idiot.

Paul Nixon

"The Whole Truth" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13
million
dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was
used to
control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and
therefore
needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.


It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7
if *NO DEBRIS
HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous
reasons you say
exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens
of thousands of
pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do
know that you
have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition
on it, right?


Exactly. And the other obvious question is why on God's green earth
would the HQ of demolitions be placed so near ground zero? Wouldn't
it be more logical to put it somewhere else, where all the eyes and
tv-cameras would not be pointed? Then the base would not be in
danger while the alleged demolitions take place AND they can
evacuate the place in silence and in an organized fashion without a
need to demolish the whole thing.

And as The Whole Truth said; what would have been done, if the plane
parts did not hit WTC-7? The "demolition" would have looked highly
suspicious had the building not been on fire for hours.

TVirta