Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

Status
Not open for further replies.
ProfessionalMackem said:
When did they write and publish them? After the project had been declassified?

Anyway, the direct comparison should be made with Pearl Harbour. Was there any Americans who had prior knowledge to this attack? Hasn't been much leaking of information, even though it was 60 odd years ago.



Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image


Cores don't look small or flimsy to me. Quite the opposite actually.
Click to expand...
Great pics btw.

The structural engineer said the main attraction of the towers to developers was that they were 'supported' by their exterior walls. It meant using 30% less steel without sacrificing strength. The core simply wasn't designed to be the main load bearing part of the structure as it would in a more traditional design with a web of steel going all the way through.

Kent_Mackem said:
Fair enough comparison with Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure when they were written mate.

I'd be surprised that Americans would go to such lengths just to kick start a war. Big loss of life that day. Political suicide if it got out. The fact that it hasn't suggests strongly that it's just all conspiracy cobblers like.
Click to expand...
I'd always thought the likeliest candidate for a conspiracy would be flight 93. It would make complete sense had they shot that plane down.
 


Kent_Mackem said:
Fair enough comparison with Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure when they were written mate.

I'd be surprised that Americans would go to such lengths just to kick start a war. Big loss of life that day. Political suicide if it got out. The fact that it hasn't suggests strongly that it's just all conspiracy cobblers like.
Click to expand...

We've just been talking about the NWO on another thread. Don't think they care much about human life, all collateral damage to them.

Such lengths have been taken by companies/corporations/countries to perpetuate war for centuries.

Read up on false flags, 9/11 and 7/7 will be no different in the annuls of history.

Reichstag fire to kick off WW2 for the Germans
Gulf of Tonkin incident to kick off Vietnam war
USS Liberty incident in Israels 6day war
Pearl Harbour to get USA involved into WW2

These are just off the top of my head.

Randy Ostrich said:
Great pics btw.

The structural engineer said the main attraction of the towers to developers was that they were 'supported' by their exterior walls. It meant using 30% less steel without sacrificing strength. The core simply wasn't designed to be the main load bearing part of the structure as it would in a more traditional design with a web of steel going all the way through.


I'd always thought the likeliest candidate for a conspiracy would be flight 93. It would make complete sense had they shot that plane down.
Click to expand...

Is this the same engineer that said they were made to withstand multiple plane strikes too?

Just because you think the core wasn't as load bearing as others think, doesn't just make them obsolete. They didn't have the capacity to just disappear into thin air man.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
We've just been talking about the NWO on another thread. Don't think they care much about human life, all collateral damage to them.

Such lengths have been taken by companies/corporations/countries to perpetuate war for centuries.

Read up on false flags, 9/11 and 7/7 will be no different in the annuls of history.

Reichstag fire to kick off WW2 for the Germans
Gulf of Tonkin incident to kick off Vietnam war
USS Liberty incident in Israels 6day war
Pearl Harbour to get USA involved into WW2

These are just off the top of my head.



Is this the same engineer that said they were made to withstand multiple plane strikes too?

Just because you think the core wasn't as load bearing as others think, doesn't just make them obsolete. They didn't have the capacity to just disappear into thin air man.
Click to expand...
Freudian slip there?
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
We've just been talking about the NWO on another thread. Don't think they care much about human life, all collateral damage to them.

Such lengths have been taken by companies/corporations/countries to perpetuate war for centuries.

Read up on false flags, 9/11 and 7/7 will be no different in the annuls of history.

Reichstag fire to kick off WW2 for the Germans
Gulf of Tonkin incident to kick off Vietnam war
USS Liberty incident in Israels 6day war
Pearl Harbour to get USA involved into WW2

These are just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...


this is a great point - the problem is people say they wouldn't do that to their own people - don't confuse your morals with theirs .they would and have
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Is this the same engineer that said they were made to withstand multiple plane strikes too?

Just because you think the core wasn't as load bearing as others think, doesn't just make them obsolete. They didn't have the capacity to just disappear into thin air man.
Click to expand...
It's the same engineer who said they were designed to withstand the impact of a plane lost in fog, not one hurtling at full pelt. They didn't envisage a deliberate attempt to fly a fully-laden 767 into them. Heavier plane, faster speed, more force.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
What is the explanation of the speed of collapse? Something close to free fall speeds for both towers wasn't it?
Click to expand...
No, hence your entire argument collapses.

the walrus said:
Why was there's puffs of smoke emerging from each floor right before that particular floor collapsed? Many people have said it looked like a controlled demolition, hard to argue...
Click to expand...
Is it completely inconceivable to you that that was air driven out the only way it could go by the pancaking floors, carrying with it the smoke that came from the fires?
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
No, hence your entire argument collapses.

Is it completely inconceivable to you that that was air driven out the only way it could go by the pancaking floors, carrying with it the smoke that came from the fires?
Click to expand...

Mate you should give up. If nutjobs want to think explosives were secretly planted throughout the building and were set off after remote controlled missiles in 757 fancy dress hit them let them crack on.
 
Iif all these lizards weild so much power and influence why dont they just shut down all the nut job websites.. knock the likes of professional mackem off in an accident etc...
 
ravydavygravy said:
Which laws of physics were broken by the planes flying into the buildings?
Click to expand...

The laws on conservation of energy are my main gripe. The link does well to explain it. It even has pictures. Not my work mind...

http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?
Logon or register to see this image


In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. Start by using free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2 seconds

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds.

That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

Conclusions

In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
  • The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
  • The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
  • On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than it normally is
  • On 9/11, energy was not conserved
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Read up on false flags, 9/11 and 7/7 will be no different in the annuls of history.

Reichstag fire to kick off WW2 for the Germans
Gulf of Tonkin incident to kick off Vietnam war
USS Liberty incident in Israels 6day war
Pearl Harbour to get USA involved into WW2
Click to expand...

A false flag is a government set-up making something appear like it was done by some other entity than the real perpetrator. Pearl Harbor wasn't a false flag. It was a full-scale military attack involving hundreds of Japanese planes.

The Reichstag fire occurred six and a half years before World War II.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't a false flag either - just a mistaken or imagined radar contact - but indeed likely nothing happened. It's the best example of what you're trying to cite.

The Liberty attack would make no sense to serve the purpose of setting off a war. Why would the Israelis attack a US ship to incite support of their war against Arabs?

Here's the problem with your point though: none of these incidents involve a government deliberately killing hundreds of its own citizens.
 
Epping said:
Iif all these lizards weild so much power and influence why dont they just shut down all the nut job websites.. knock the likes of professional mackem off in an accident etc...
Click to expand...
An 'accident' eh? Hmmmm.

ProfessionalMackem said:
The laws on conservation of energy are my main gripe. The link does well to explain it. It even has pictu................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
Click to expand...
:eek::eek:
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
The laws on conservation of energy are my main gripe. The link does well to explain it. It even has pictures. Not my work mind...

http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?
Logon or register to see this image


In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. Start by using free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2 seconds

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds.

That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

Conclusions

In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
  • The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
  • The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
  • On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than it normally is
  • On 9/11, energy was not conserved
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
Click to expand...
I seriously hope that you Thor'd that, cos if that's how your mind is like ....
 
SYB_DC said:
A false flag is a government set-up making something appear like it was done by some other entity than the real perpetrator. Pearl Harbor wasn't a false flag. It was a full-scale military attack involving hundreds of Japanese planes. Which parts of the U.S government knew about but failed in their duties (seem familiar?) 1000's died which could've, should've been avoided.

The Reichstag fire occurred six and a half years before World War II. So what? Why did the Germans burn down their own parliament and blame some commies, if it wasn't for the justification of invasion to its own people?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't a false flag either - just a mistaken or imagined radar contact - but indeed likely nothing happened. It's the best example of what you're trying to cite. So what else triggered the U.S into binding resolutions against the North Vietnamese?

The Liberty attack would make no sense to serve the purpose of setting off a war. Why would the Israelis attack a US ship to incite support of their war against Arabs? There wasn't supposed to be any survivors mate. The Israeli's were going to blame the Arabs for sinking the ship. They said sorry so that's okay then.

Here's the problem with your point though: none of these incidents involve a government deliberately killing hundreds of its own citizens.
Click to expand...

SYB_DC said:
Isn't it sort of ironic that you take the 10 second figure in the 9/11 Commission report as unassailable, accurate, and true and then refuse to believe anything else in there?
Click to expand...

I believe my eyes mate. 10seconds was about right for both to collapse.

TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
Well you can see debris that has been thrown clear of the buildings freefalling alongside as the towers collapse and it's going down much faster.
Click to expand...

Not exactly thrown clear were they? More like exploded clear. Extra kinetic energy from an outside source i.e explosives.
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
The laws on conservation of energy are my main gripe. The link does well to explain it. It even has pictures. Not my work mind...

http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?
Logon or register to see this image


In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. Start by using free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2 seconds

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds.

That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

Conclusions

In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
  • The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
  • The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
  • On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than it normally is
  • On 9/11, energy was not conserved
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
Click to expand...

Watch the clips of the collapses. The bits that fall outwards fall faster than those in the centre. The buildings don't collapse without resistance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top