i remember where i was on 9-11-2001

[hcap]

Right after 9/11 I questioned much of the "official" story of many things. Initially I could not understand how the mighty U.S Air force could not stop the 4 planes. After all built to defend against cold war Soviet attack, it should have been more than enough to stop 4 passenger airliners. Then we found out the formidable Air Force was not tasked to intercept hijacked planes within our borders and the FAA who was responsible did not contact NORAD quickly enough. And simple things such as the hijackers turning off the transponders fouled up civilian and military efforts to track the 4 planes. And of course major bureaucratic foul-ups

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._m...)_preparedness

Often conspiracy theories get formulated around half baked understandings of how things work.

The same goes for the "collapse" of the WTC buildings. Although it looks deliberate it can be explained. I highly recommend

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-trade-center/

Things like melting steel versus softening steel, and "pancaking"
are explained.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I love how three of those four planes hit exactly what they were supposed to hit on first try, going hundreds of miles an hour, flown by pilots who supposedly had trouble flying a prop plane according to the official story.

It's actually a lot more difficult than you think to hit the WTC with a commercial airliner going what? 350-500mph or whatever was reported? Neither of them missed...not even by a little...they both got the whole plane into each building...bravo to them.

And the Pentagon...whoo hahhh...an aviation feat of EPIC proportions if ever there was one. Give that guy a plaque in the aviation hall of fame for that maneuver...that was TRULY something SPECIAL.

What are the odds of all that?

It's absolutely amazing how perfectly their plans worked out (minus the plane that crashed in PA), given their supposed experience levels.

So what are you insinuating? You keep not believing any official stories or what we all saw, yet I don't see you coming up with any alternative theories.


I believe we pretty much got all the facts. If something was fishy too many people would have had to kept quiet. It would also take someone as evil as Hitler to do that to his own people for propaganda purposes. If something was off we would have had two dozen death bed confessions by now or just as many selling their story to the National Enquirer for a million dollars.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Right after 9/11 I questioned much of the "official" story of many things. Initially I could not understand how the mighty U.S Air force could not stop the 4 planes. After all built to defend against cold war Soviet attack, it should have been more than enough to stop 4 passenger airliners. Then we found out the formidable Air Force was not tasked to intercept hijacked planes within our borders and the FAA who was responsible did not contact NORAD quickly enough. And simple things such as the hijackers turning off the transponders fouled up civilian and military efforts to track the 4 planes. And of course major bureaucratic foul-ups

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._m...)_preparedness

Often conspiracy theories get formulated around half baked understandings of how things work.

The same goes for the "collapse" of the WTC buildings. Although it looks deliberate it can be explained. I highly recommend

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-trade-center/

Things like melting steel versus softening steel, and "pancaking"
are explained.

I completely understand and accept the not stopping of the four planes by NORAD...we're not in the habit of shooting down commercial airliners full of Americans...and was anybody really sure what the ultimate destination of the plane(s) was before they actually hit the buildings?

Did anyone KNOW they were heading towards those buildings in time to justify killing everyone on the plane by shooting it down? Hindsight is 20/20 as we all know. It's easy to say now, well, we should have shot those suckers out of the sky...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

So what are you insinuating? You keep not believing any official stories or what we all saw, yet I don't see you coming up with any alternative theories.


I believe we pretty much got all the facts. If something was fishy too many people would have had to kept quiet. It would also take someone as evil as Hitler to do that to his own people for propaganda purposes. If something was off we would have had two dozen death bed confessions by now or just as many selling their story to the National Enquirer for a million dollars.

Listen, I'm not INSINUATING anything. I've already stated I don't know how or why, but what I do know is I don't buy many aspects of the "official" explanation.

Whether parts of the "official" explanation (that I don't personally believe, which is my right), smell like BS to me because they are delivered to us via ignorance (ie. we don't know how this happened either, so we'll just make something up so we sound like we are in control of the situation), or via malfeasance (ie. coverup), I could not tell you. Not my job.

And as for what I saw, I believe completely in WHAT I SAW, so I don't know why you wrote that part above. WE ALL SAW the same thing. What's not to believe? Seeing is believing.

[fast4522]

I know your not Insinuating, by any measure this was a well planed operation. I suspect the official story is 90+ % dead nuts and something in the single digits % witheld. I personaly felt TWA Flight 800 in 1996 was a complete coverup. I just do not feel 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's first attempt or airplanes was Osama bin Laden's idea specificlly, some of his lieutenant's had more education than his engeneering degree. I think the attack was on Wall Street as much as it was on the United States government, a financial collapse was one of the objectives. That being said New York has extra targets on its back than the other 49 States. In reconition we all have to credit New York for being up the challenges and excedeing demands of public safety. So yes I agree to a degree we are sometimes treated as mushrooms to protect perception and markets.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

So what are you insinuating? You keep not believing any official stories or what we all saw, yet I don't see you coming up with any alternative theories.


I believe we pretty much got all the facts. If something was fishy too many people would have had to kept quiet. It would also take someone as evil as Hitler to do that to his own people for propaganda purposes. If something was off we would have had two dozen death bed confessions by now or just as many selling their story to the National Enquirer for a million dollars.

I actually agree with you.

[PaceAdvantage]

YouTube

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk

I just did this to get the link instead just a black screen...

Worth the watch tho...interesting to say the least...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk

Cessna test with amateurs only had done training on simulators. Instructor says "it's easier with larger planes". So the question "is the experiment a deep state conspiracy too?"

YouTube (Short URL)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Cessna test with amateurs only had done training on simulators. Instructor says "it's easier with larger planes". So the question "is the experiment a deep state conspiracy too?"

It's easier to do with large planes if they are flying on auto pilot or being flown remotely, heading towards a beacon placed inside of WTC...

It's certainly not easier when trying to fly manually, which is what these pilots had to be doing if the official story is to be believed.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's easier to do with large planes if they are flying on auto pilot or being flown remotely, heading towards a beacon placed inside of WTC...

It's certainly not easier when trying to fly manually, which is what these pilots had to be doing if the official story is to be believed.

Your video misses a major point. Indeed the entire flight from the beginning and setting the navigational controls does require more than what amateurs could do.

Hijackers flew skillfully to targets, experts say

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...31-story.html#

....Unlike a small private plane where pilots generally fly visually, a commercial plane like those hijacked Tuesday require a vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot.

However,

Experts say any pilot with basic training could keep a 757 or 767 on a level course. However maneuvering a plane to change its flight path or navigate the craft in changing weather conditions would require months of additional training and experience.


So most likely the hijackers forced the airline pilot and co-pilot TO GET THEM CLOSE USING ALL INSTRUMENTATION NECESSARY, AND THEN TOOK OVER?

Simpler is better. Occam's razor is useful.

[Tom]

Obviously, this was part of early Project Q.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

So most likely the hijackers forced the airline pilot and co-pilot TO GET THEM CLOSE USING ALL INSTRUMENTATION NECESSARY, AND THEN TOOK OVER?

Simpler is better. Occam's razor is useful.

How in the world is your scenario anything close to Occam's razor?

[PaceAdvantage]

There are so many BS stories...from the way the buildings fell, to the skill needed to fly a jetliner at somewhere near 400-500mph at THAT ALTITUDE, all the while remaining ON COURSE to hit the towers ON FIRST TRY, that just participating in this thread has made me that much MORE doubtful of everything.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How in the world is your scenario anything close to Occam's razor?

Your collerction of 9/11 conspiracy theories requires a sh*tloasd of complicated, convoluted assumptions, none of which stand up to scrutiny. Your latest about the hijackers not being able can't hit the broad side of a barn, when in fact I quoted experts saying

"Experts say any pilot with basic training could keep a 757 or 767 on a level course. However maneuvering a plane to change its flight path or navigate the craft in changing weather conditions would require months of additional training and experience.

I simply proposed the hijackers forcing the crew to do the more difficult "vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot."

Much simpler to accomplish. They not only hijacked the plane, but also the pilot and co-pilot.

Occam's razor rules