No, Mr Poshman I am not asking them to 'own up' because I want them to be 'found out'.

'Didn't do enough' is one of a number of key layers to the concept, planning, execution and post-reaction-post disaster control applied to 9/11.

Think of 9/11 as an onion which has many layers. The outer layer is always dead and useless. This is the 'conspiracy layer' and we discard it because we are only interested in specific layers that identify human failure.

It is within these layers I can extract some truth and present to you a firm and 'concrete' case such that justice prevails and we can start to repair the lives of those whose loves died in probably the saddest moment of American history.

actually all you can do is possibly prove that there were mistakes carried out. You cannot prove any sort of intent hence the reason why your arguments will not be taken on by anyone who isn't dying for just one of these conspiracy theories to be proven correct.

It is merely opinion of yourself and of other theorists to say that the government were personally and deliberately involved in the destruction of the towers.

If you believe in this answer me one thing, after the people of the 2nd tower to be hit were first evacuated and then told to go back to their floors, why did the authorities not stop them if they knew what was going to happen. The mere collapse of the towers would have been enough to challenge al-qaida, there was no reason to send more people to their death. Do you believe that the US govt knew about this and deliberately murdered these people?

I for one cannot see that this having an ounce of truth as like I said the point would have been made without the deaths of all those people

No, Mr Poshman nobody was advised to go back into the South tower, a blatant lie that undermines the extremely successful evacuation sadly 479 rescue workers died.

But it is the evacuation that gives us amazing insights, first-hand accounts and information from the people that were trapped at the point of impact, some escaped, some died.

One man was drenched by the sprinkler systems and another had the sense to grab a recording from a security control room.

Amazing stories from brave men and woman alive and helping in the hole created by a jet airliner! Like Judy Wein's first person account in 'Ladies Home Journal'. She describes a man whose face was obscured by a red hanky. He was frantically pointing to the stairs saying, "anyone who can get up and walk, get up now".

Then of course a massive fire melted everything!

Given that most people have mobile phones this has already been done.

Also there are real life cyborgs in exitance with microchips planted into thier brains to control computers by thought. In REAL LIFE.

Cliff

Damn, and I'm a literate human being and I have an IQ over 80, yet somehow I'm still unconvinced by the above...!

I wonder where this statistic comes from? Who decided that it was a majority? Who did the research? What was their sample size? Where was it carried out? If it's the "majority" of all "literate human beings with an IQ over 80" I presume that it must have been a global survey with researchers in all countries? In which case, who paid for it? Where was it published? Has it been peer reviewed?

etc etc etc etc etc.

Graham, Srubs has put a link above which shows that 53% of americans believe that the americans lied or covered something up in the aftermath of 9/11, a distant cry from saying they are covering up major facts. It also states nothing of IQ's over 80 or the literacy rate of the people that took it (not from what I saw anyway).

Scrubs, I remember seeing testimonies from people in the south tower after the north had been hit and started an evacuation which wasn't authorised. They were duly told by Port Authroity cops to go back to their desks which the majority did, this was all prior to their tower being hit by the second plane so do not claim that I am lying. Thanks

I did not claim YOU in person was lying Poshman, I respect you and that would be rude, no it's the origin I dispute because a tape is available:

A tape recording shows that at 8:59, 13 minutes after the north tower was hit, a Port Authority Police captain, Anthony R. Whitaker, called for a complete evacuation of the trade center, though it is not clear how or whether this was communicated to the lobby desks.

that may be so, but i think your statement at the end "not clear how or whether this was communicated to the lobby desks." I think is clearly what happened.

I have watched documentaries where people were sent back to their desks.

There was one guy who was sent back to his floor and was the only there a matter of minutes when he glanced out the window to see a plane hurtling towards the window. He survived (clearly) but was one of only a few on his floor to survive.

Also, did the second plane not hit at 9.04am (I may be wrong as that is off the top of my head) so this order came a little late. Surely once the first plane had hit the order should have been given immediately. (I may be wrong here as the time I am talking about may be the first plane).

Let’s be clear people, crucial facts that would have saved lives and especially the lives of brave fireman have been painted over.

' The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.'

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani I believe endangered the lives of rescue teams and should be indicted under Health & Safety rules instead of running for president.

On 9/11, while the members of the New York Police Department heard the call to evacuate the north tower before it fell, many fire-fighters did not, and 121 of the bravest men and women in New York that day died largely because of this.

So folks, keep burying heads in the sand to protect our beloved democracy is NOT my raison d'etre; Geez surely we must ensure the lives of people who protect us are not endangered by lack of thought, irresponsibility and wilful neglect.

form.

Scrubs, fair enough on your first point.

Your Giuliani point is frankly ridiculous, put yourslef in the position that he was, firstly 1 tower is hit then the 2nd is, now do you try and save the people that you can or do you sit there and wait to see if anyone comes out?? Your statement above is ridiculous, irrelevant of H&S laws, BLAH BLAH BLAH, no fireman / port authority cops / policeman would ahve just sat there and hope that people get themselves out. Are you saying that any person that goes to fight a fire and unfortunately may lose their life can sue and get someone convicted for allowing them to try and stop a tragedy?

It wasn't just the fire departments that didn't hear the message, I heard that it was port authority cops who sent the people in the north tower back up to there floor. You haven't answered my point that the north tower was hit at 9.04? The tape recording was at 8.59, maybe some would ahve been saved but from what I gather from people who worked in the tower they were in the lobby before 8.59 as they had time to get back to their floors before the 2nd plane hit.

You clearly despise the american government but you might make your argument better if you actually put perspective to your thoughts. At the end of the day hindsight is a lovely thing to use when your in situations where mistakes made in the heat of the moment may have been incorrect.

Nobody makes all those "mistakes"without planning.
Even with all that planning ,they made mistakes.

:)

mistakes are generally made whilst your under pressure and no matter how much training you have received an incident like 9/11 that happened relatively quickly will put anyone who was in charge or who influenced proceedings on that day to make mistakes. Air traffic controllers / fire officers / police officers / port authority cops, all these groups of people made mistakes under more pressure than many of us will evr witness

I do want you to stay calm

Now under no pressure,calmly and silently
watch as many different clips as you can
of the twin towers collapsing,slowmotion,freezeframe,
replay.Make sure you know what it is you are seeing.

Ask yourself this.

A) Is this building exploding ?

or

B) Is this building collapsing ?

A is the truth (go look)

Take a week to choose ,the truth is looking you in the face.

:):)
Z

Well listening to every 9/11 NORAD channel recording seems to suggest they were 'stood down' so not much pressure there.

Shame really as I'm sure it is, 100% unnerving for any pilot let alone one with only simulator experience of passenger jets, to have F16 fighter jets above and below your wing-tips especially after spending a very l o n g time flying in circles and executing steep dives (see FAA IFF & passive plots) that indicate a sense of panic and confusion.

No, that kind of event is simulated/trained so you respond on instincts just like a well trained soldier. Hey the lads done their bit thank-you and well; it was the executive that failed and I ask why!

where do you get your vids from phyz?

the conspiracy theorists love to use the fact that vids are doctored unless they are the ones they use to claim their absurd theories.

the US made mistakes on the day but there is no way they blew those buildings up, and yes I have seen plenty of vids and I haven't really seen much evidence to state either theories are lies (ie. whatever theory you want to see, you will find evidence in the pictures that you see)

Look at any clip (news ones are just as truthfull)

consider if the building is going "down" or being blown "out"

Was it 17 simulated highjackings on the same day as a coincidence.Ha Ha

Then there was that magic airliner with 2 engines (6 tonnes of titanium each) that shrank to the size of a tomohawk
cruise missile,that made a tiny hole in the pentagon
and officially "vapourised ".

Something that has never before happened,in the history
of the world.

Just another cooincidence (dont make me laugh)

:)

actually i've seen quite a lot of those aircraft investigation documentaries on national geographic and a lot of the scenes following from an air crash, show a distinctly reduced amount of debris than probably would have been expected.

It all depends on what temperature the blast radius reached and unfortunately I fear the only way for anyone to find out for sure is to fully replicate what happened on that day. Remember these planes were FULLY laden with fuel

actually i've seen quite a lot of those aircraft investigation documentaries on national geographic and a lot of the scenes following from an air crash, show a distinctly reduced amount of debris than probably would have been expected.

It all depends on what temperature the blast radius reached and unfortunately I fear the only way for anyone to find out for sure is to fully replicate what happened on that day. Remember these planes were FULLY laden with fuel

mrposhman
re other air crashes

Not one ever actually "vapourised" though.

Strange that.

Would you agree ?

Other aircraft fully laden with fuel have crashed into buildings taking off,
there are always survivors or bodies.

The pentagon incident is the one and only ever
of its kind,
also strange ,
would you agree.?


And no the planes were not "fully laden with fuel",
They were internal/short haul flights,
and had been flying for up to 40 minites.

But of no importance:)

Beleive nothing , Know it.
(bhudda)

yes they were internal but I believe they were due to fly from coast to coast which in essence is around a 4-5 hour flight, enough to take us into africa / middle east.

you can't compare a plane that was in the air to one that is taking off, they are going completely different speeds, i haven't heard of one vapourising but then i haven't seen one fly directly into the side of a building before. Have you?

A quick example where the FAA made a clear mistake with reference to the 2nd WTC plane, the call was made to the military at 9.03am, 1 minute before the tower was hit. This doesn't indicate a conspiracy but a mistake made when under intense pressure. Remember the worst things to go wrong for an air traffic controller is to lose a plane, thats a lot of pressure in your hands.

phyz i have some stats to back up what I said earlier.

United flight 93 - travelling from newark to san francisco, flight time 6hrs 28 mins - Boeing 757

AA flight 77 - travelling from washington to los angeles, flight time 5hrs 35 mins - Boeing 757

United flight 175 - travelling from Boston to LA, flight time 6hrs 30 mins - Boeing 767

American flight 11 - travelling from Boston to LA, flight time 6hrs 30 mins - Boeing 767

Therefore these flights were carrying a lot of fuel when they took off, this was the reason why they choose these flights. They were internal and hence had less security yet were the longest domestic flights you will find in the US.

A Boeing 757 has an average take off speed of 160mph with a max cruising speed of about 571mph (I have converted this myself).

A Boeing 767 has an average takeoff speed of 206/330 kph (sorry for kph) with a max crusing speed of 954 kph.

Hence, you cannot compare a crash on takeoff / landing as one in midair. Your name has physics in it, i would have assumed that you would have known this. Planes have to reach a certain ground speed based on size and weight of a plane in order to takeoff successfully, this is nowhere near its max cruising speed. As these people were intent on crashing into buildings I would fully expect them to have crashed at close to there max speed and not close to takeoff speed. Hence the reason that there is no comparison pretty much with any other crash in the world. These were unique crashes.

Keeping on fuel, lets take Boston to LA, thats about 2600 miles and Boston to New York is roughly 200 miles, taking into account the time it took to take over the plane lets say the plane flew for 300 miles before hitting the WTC.

Converting 2300 miles into kilometres its about 3680.

If we were to do a very rough calculation based on the maximum fuel capacity (this is taking no account of contingency which all flights have and also doesn't weight the fuel usage) then at the max fuel capacity of 90770 litres for 12,200 km we will say there was about 20,000 litres of fuel on board, again using basic calculations there would then have been about 17,700 litres on board once the plane hit the towers. Thats a lot of fuel to burn.

Aviation fuel has an autoignition temperature of 210 degrees centigrade and has a max burning temp of 980 degress centigrade (source wikipedia) which is rather hot. Is this as hot as comuter simulations?

You cannot melt steel with aviation fuel.(too cold)
(max burning temp requires an "oxygen"feed so its inapropriate)

Quantity irrelevant.

Last plane into building I remember was Russian.

And the remains of the tomohawk missile came out of the
pentagon under a large blue tarpaulin,because that didnt
vaporize either.(pics on net)
:)

can you send me links please?

Can we have the full passenger list for flight 77? Anyone? or is the BBC statement that some are still alive a conspiracy theory?

scrubs,

a memorial - list - click here

click for copy of 'autopsy report'

click for article

Thanx Canvas - The autopsy report is most interesting as it is the 'terror' suspects on the flight I am most interested because confusion exists as to who they were or how they registered on the manifest.

OK is it me or are the full size autopsy lists unavailable

Scrubs, I'm afraid loose change have no credibility. They have refuted experts opinion in order to have people believe that their story of events is true. These are high school dropouts and not experts. (I think I am right in thinking loose change are who I think they are).

Canvas's link of the autopsy report suggests 64 "passengers" were killed yet the report shows only 58. I assume the final article is to show that the difference were crew and not passengers and were probably identified as passengers incorrectly.

If the planes were operated by remote control and there were no muslims on board, where did the voice of Atta come from?

Also, those were died in the plane (I forgot the number) that crashed in the field in Pennsylvania apparantly called their loved ones and there are recordings of these voices. If what is supposed happened (ie. people got up killed members of the crew and then took control of the plane) these recordings would make sense, if they didn't and either the pilots were in on it (no idea why they would agree to kill themselves) or they were remote controlled then who were they trying to stop? Also, how did the pilots vacate the controls? Were they poisoned? If so, by who? when? etc.

All these articles do is open more questions and don't fill in the gaps that conspiracy theorists like to think they do.

Mr posh

I am pleased your research is going well.

The 6 tonne engines both of which
where designed to burn aviation fuel at very
hot temperatures "indefinately".Vapourised ?
outside the pentagon in an orange fireball.

Orange (red) is a cool colour,
unlike the blue hot of afterburners.

Only white hot has enough energy to "vapourise".
Something that would have scorched the grass,
which it didn't.

These facts dont add up.
:)
ps: Have you found the picture of the missile being
removed from the pentagon yet? Its under a blue tarpaulin
with yellow writing on it ,hanging from a crane .
Its on film somewhere aswell.

Or was it,something that could withstand a blast that
"vaporised" 2 6 tonne engines.?

That something would be just the job for building vehicles
for our troops.

:)

the pentagon plane does raise a few questions though the pictures released by the cia do appear to show a plane, as a large tail fin does appear to come into the picture in the last frame.

i started to watch some videos last night and am pretty certain that when one of the towers (i think it was the south tower) came down there appeared to be one side of the building partially standing after the remainder had collapsed and then this collapsed inwards. Not really how a demolition would work?

It would appear to me that the theories around the heat affecting the floors would reduce the stability of the steel enough for the pressure from above to force a collapse.

I saw a few videos on youtube yesterday and whilst I don't agree with either physics or scrubs version of events on that day, you guys seem to have a sense of reality. Some of the videos on there are crazy!!

- No planes hit the towers!! ludicrous
- Scrubs links to a loose change site above - well they have said that the plane to hit the south tower fired a missile!! again ludicrous.
- Remote controlled planes - again ludicrous


Oh and in reponse to phyz above, I did see the towers fall down a lot last night and to my eyes that building is clearly collapsing and not imploding for the reasons I have stated above.

physics, have a look at the attached website, whilst it opens its own conspiracy theory involving israel it certainly raises interesting points, including NO witnesses who saw a missile.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Plus one question about your missile, is a missiles job not to explode? do most not have a bright white flash when they explode (hence hot) and effectively vapourise part of the exterior and explode the remainder into very small pieces. What were they then removing under your blue tarp which I have yet to find photos of

Thanks Mr P for that I saw pictures of a plane crash that was in the news recently again that aircraft had exploded before hitting the ground, there wasn't much of that aircrfat left either and that only hit the ground not one of the worlds largest buildings.

Check this out too, a bit more knowledge of the actual damage that the pentagon underwent.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

and don't forget it was one of the most reinforced buildings in the world as well

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

This is a website that appears to back the story that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

I havce only read the introduction for now but its clear to me that even from their point of view the damage from the exterior of the building could have been caused by a 757 or possibly something else. There is no statement of any damage to the interior of the building.

It appears to state that the 757 seems logical but then goes off on a tangent that pushes all the evidence they have already stated out of the way and just stated it was a missile based on the whole on the exterior of the building and the fact that the glass from streetlamps did not go far enough. To me that sounds completely ridiculous especially as they had already started to go through evidence that it was a 757. I will try and read the rest tomorrow.

The small piece of "wreckage" of flight 777 that appears
on the lawn of the pentagon after the crash.

Thin aluminium sheeting with paint on it.

1) The "wreckage" appears to be resting gently on the grass,
not as if it were thrown there at 100s mph.

2) It must have detached itself prior to the explosion,as
there is no heat damage to the paint.(not even soot)

3)When security pick it up,no grass stain ,no mud just one
hand picks it up,no heat.Not evidence of a crash,just
a decoy.

4)How could this survive when 6 tonne of titanium engine
leaves no trace.

5) The twin towers was not "demolition"work although
demolition techniques were used,it is blown apart before
it actually collapses,made to look spectacular.

6)Trade tower 7 has all the classic demolition signs.

7) yes some of the stuff is cranky ,miss interpreted,
but sifting through gets you to the truth unlike,the
official report.

8)Why have I started numbering ? its so authoritarian.


:)good so far.

by the way, your missile story is not even backed up by many conspiracy websites as it ignores too much evidence.

the general thesis is that it was probably a smaller plane as some of the actual parts of planes found in the building appear smaller than a 757 but I'm not overblown by all that.

By the way, where do you think flight 77 went then? Also, what happened to everyone in the plane?

Good questions mrposhman

My missile conclusion :

Is based on the photographic ,eyewitness and news footage.

The aircraft according to F.A.A. records are still "in" service.
(no flights though)

Forget thesis,theory,fantasy.
pull the facts from the evidence.

Remember the "people"involved are human.
They make stupid mistakes.

When you concider that at least 6 of the alledged 22
highjackers are alive and working in the middle east
today,
the demise of everone on flight 77 is also probably fiction.
There is no evidence that anyone died,nor a 757 crashed
at the scene.(my conclusion is that:this did not happen)

The first views of the damage to the pentagon (before a fire broke out? same day an all,and in the same place,"it never rains,but it pours.).
Show a hole.(no wing,engine or tail marks)no fire.
Also later you can easily see piles of paperwork on a
desk .(not even scorched)
Disproving the vapourising 757 fireball conclusivly.

Then with fire crews in attendence the place catches fire
and the whole thing ends up looking like a fake disaster,
which it is.

Fire crews all have "gagging"orders for 911.

I was looking at the passenger list and could imagine
a mission impossible team amongst them,hopefully all are
well.

How much would it cost to "pay all concerned for their
cooperation" with a National Security issue,is less than the
$9 billion insurance fraud claimed by "mr sylverstien"on
the 2 towers.
added to the exon fraud paperwork (and other inconveniant
paper work)and the "wall street" options taken on A.A stocks
falling that day.
With all that money,you could "arrange" 1000s of peoples
dissapearance,(national security,mums the word).
Not proven but possible.

Back to facts,the energy required to vapourise "the official reports finding" the 757,was not available at the scene.

I sadly Remember "challenger" ,Huge amounts of fuel ,far more energy,
And yet : ,bodies ,large bits of wreckage lots of debris,engines,
it is proof that flight 77 hitting the pentagon and vapourizing is a complete lie.
:)
"Believe nothing,know it." (bhudda)
:)

none of what you have said backs up that a missile hit the pentagon.

Now what I will admit after researching from both pro conspiracy and anti conspiracy theory websites is a plane hit the building, and that is also based from facts from the same sources as yours though I will admit the damage indicates a smaller plane though I have still to research the actual structural integrity of the wings.

News agencies reported that much of the rubble / wreckage was taken away before any photos were taken of the site as most photos were taken sometime after the explosion which seems strange that the CIA would remove everything though I have yet to see why they would fly a smaller plane into the building based on the buildings re-enforced structure and the fact no-one was there, there would not have been a great deal more damage / deaths should they have flown a 757 in there. Bigger hole and all that but not many more deaths.

There is however, no evidence to suggest a missile hit the building. None from eye witnesses etc or from the site, and this theory was actually released by the government (from what I have read) most likely to try to make conspiracy theorists look stupid.

Mr posh

Using the same logic to disprove one disproves the other.

It was a news interveiw on the street out side the pentagon
that a smart gentleman "30"s said he first heard the high
pitched whine of a jet engine and as he turned and watched
it go past him and into the pentagon,he said it looked to him
like a tomohawk missile.
(alluding to the fact that this man has knowledge of military hardware sufficient to positivly identify a missile in flight)no small feat.
Other eye witnesses report the whine of a jet engine also.
(discounting small aircraft theory).

Back to story : so if you accept flight 77 was not what hit the pentagon,the whole official story is FAKE.

Are you sure it was not flight 77 ?

The 757 slamming into a building and dissapearing without trace.Seen by no eyewitnesses on that fine clear day.
Caught by no surveylance camera's in the most monitored
piece land in the american capital.Flying 100 ft off the ground.
The alledged highjacker missed a terrific photo opp
and had NO qualifications to fly this aircraft.
Plants it through a ground floor window,no,no,no
This was presision guided ordinance ,it fits with the facts.
:)

Look I've seen pictures of a plane that hit the ground there was very little wreckage apart from a very samll part of it never hit the worlds largest and strongest buildings it hit the ground. No I can't provide you with pictures of the aircrfat because they haven't been published.