The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Was 9/11 an inside job?

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Was 9/11 an inside job?

Yes
24
53%
No
21
47%
 
Total votes : 45

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby Robin Hood » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:53 am

Kikapu,

Thank you for the reply, you make some intersting and valid points ......... I will get back to you in a couple of days.

One point. I did say that there were some incompatibilities with the software not that the whole FDR data base was incompatible. It was initially help from Boeing that help sort things out but, the guy who was helping went to ask his superiors some questions, came back to P4T and said he could help no further for 'commercial' reasons.....he didn't explain any further and pulled the plug. It was as I understand sorted out by an engineer associated with one of the companies that wrote the software.
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:09 pm

Robin Hood wrote:Kikapu,

Thank you for the reply, you make some intersting and valid points ......... I will get back to you in a couple of days.

One point. I did say that there were some incompatibilities with the software not that the whole FDR data base was incompatible. It was initially help from Boeing that help sort things out but, the guy who was helping went to ask his superiors some questions, came back to P4T and said he could help no further for 'commercial' reasons.....he didn't explain any further and pulled the plug. It was as I understand sorted out by an engineer associated with one of the companies that wrote the software.


I'll be gone for a "little" while, so take your time.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16705
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby yialousa1971 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:43 pm

Proof that Thermite can cut a vertical columns!

User avatar
yialousa1971
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6230
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: With my friends on the Cyprus forum

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:57 pm

A Theory of Conspiracy Theories

By BILL KELLER
Published: June 3, 2011

Richard Hofstadter, whose writings long dominated the field of conspiracy studies, hypothesized that conspiratorial thinking — what he called “the paranoid style” — festered on the political margins and often contained an anti-intellectual streak. More recent scholarship by academics like Mark Fenster, Peter Knight and Robert Goldberg suggests that conspiracy theories do not come from a particular personality type, I.Q. stratum or dispossessed fringe; they erupt wherever unfathomable news collides with unshakable beliefs.



My own antidote to conspiratorial thinking is an abiding mistrust in the competence of big institutions. In American pop-culture thrillers, there is a lethal efficiency to whatever sinister organization is behind the evil doings. In my experience, governments, corporations and other powerful institutions are not usually that good at making things happen according to plan, let alone at keeping secrets.


Then again, Knight speculates that doubters may find their cynicism stoked by news that President Sarkozy’s wife is pregnant with their first child, just in time for the presidential campaign.

“Carla Bruni pregnant?” Knight mused. “Now that is just too convenient.”


Full report;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magaz ... =cse&scp=9
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16705
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby Robin Hood » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:49 pm

Yialousa,

I have seen the video before so the effect of ‘Thermite/Thermate’ was no mystery to me. I have tried to be objective in my reply so that I cannot be accused of only pointing out what isn’t know, rather than what we do know. The rest is common sense.................

I think that this video proves that ‘Thermite/Thermate’, can melt/cut steel. The guy admitted he knew little about explosives/demolition, if he had done he would of realised that the strength of the WTC towers was in the centre core steelwork and not the lighter outer ‘tube’ formed from 14” box columns. Apart from the central columns the rest of the steelwork is relatively light. The molten material, seen pouring out of the building I don’t think were the outer columns melting but the core columns melting. Given the floor construction, it is feasible that the floor allowed it to flow to the outer walls, especially as the floor level would have been compromised by the impact. The concrete used, with the exception of the machinery room floors and a couple of other more heavily loaded floors, was a thin screed of ‘light concrete’ (the white stuff), which it is a pretty good insulator.

With the integrity of the central columns destroyed using cutting charges of ‘Thermate’, the building would still stand but, even a small explosive device toward the bottom of the central structure would cause the central core to collapse into itself like a pack of cards, purely due to gravity, as the numerous videos show.

The construction of the floors nullifies the pan-cake theory but, also explains why there was so much dust and no concrete slabs to be seen afterwards. The concrete floors were non-load bearing soft concrete and just pulverised as the building broke up internally. The main floor trusses pulled the outer walls inwards and downward, as the severed column lengths of the central core to which they were attached, headed for the basement

The presence of ‘Thermate’ residue, little iron balls, throughout the WTC complex and beyond, really does (if true?) suggest that the collapse was the result of explosives, although ‘Thermate’ is a cutting charge not an explosive, but there were explosions heard according to those who were there at the time.

The official explanation of the collapse as being due to aircraft impact and the subsequent fuel fire is not credible given all the evidence. A Boeing 757 has five large/heavy components, the undercarriage and the two engines. Only these would have had enough kinetic energy to do structural damage even remotely sufficient to cause a collapse. Apart from the APU and the main spar in the wing, the rest of the aircraft was just fractionally more substantial than a Coca-Cola can and would have been shredded within milliseconds of impact.

The suggestion that the collapse of the two towers was structural damage aided by fire from the fuel is also a very, very weak explanation as it is commonly known that jet fuel, even under ideal combustion conditions does not create a high enough temperature to significantly damage steelwork. In any case that is an invalid hypothesis as most of the fuel vapourised and burned off upon impact and what remained as a liquid (if any) would have done what all liquids do, and that is head for the lower levels down the central core of the building. The dense smoke indicates burning materials like furniture, certainly not jet fuel because, after the first couple of minutes at most, there would be no fuel left to burn

As to how explosives could have been installed in both buildings and by whom is highly speculative and can only be reasoned argument with a great deal of technical knowledge, evidence and imagination thrown in but, it is not beyond the bounds of feasibility, if you look at the history of the towers for the 4-5 years before they were destroyed, in particular the ownership.

The symmetrical collapse of those buildings could not have been as the result of indiscriminate damage. The symmetrical collapse of the main structure could only have been possible if the 47 columns all failed within virtually milliseconds of one another. Had the buildings tilted and tumbled, then that could have been explainable as structural failure due to impact and fire, as the failure would not have been symmetrical. It is the controlled manner in which they fell that calls the official story into question.

If there is another investigation of what happened that day and it is proved that the official explanation was deliberately misleading or an attempt to cover the truth, then the ‘who, how and why’ should be the subject of an international and detailed investigation.

As for WTC#7 .................... no aircraft impact and no jet fuel? Again, had it toppled toward the side closest to the twin towers, then the damage from the falling debris destroying the structural integrity of the building would have been a perfectly plausible explanation. But, it didn’t, it went straight down in a very similar manner to the twin towers, although it seemed to be almost ‘melting’ into the basement. Unlike the twin towers WTC#7 was asymmetrical and yet the collapse was symmetrical? This really defies common sense.



The OP was ‘Was 9-11 an inside job?’ I find it very hard to believe that nobody in the US Administration even had a gut feeling that ‘something’ was going on. I have no doubt there was complicity. Somebody knew something, in fact at least one person must have known everything.
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby Robin Hood » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:35 pm

Kikapu,

• Why was it that when the FDR data from #93 was run on a United Airlines FDR analysis computer, the software was in many instances, incompatible and data could not be read? A UA computer that couldn’t read the software it was designed specifically to read?

• The ‘recovered’ FDR also showed that the flight deck door had been closed before departure from the gate and was not opened during the flight. So, how did the hi-jackers manage to get onto the flt. deck or.......... was it the UA Captain and FO flying the plane .................. or was it stuck in a control mode whereby it was responding to the last set of instructions inputted from where ever, which then remained frozen until UA#93 was maybe shot down over the Great Lakes?

(Corrected – it was United not American Airlines)

The above contradicts each other, don't you think?


Basically .....Nope. I hope I have explained that one? If it is of interest then you can see the facts relating to the whole episode regarding the software incompatibility on ‘Pilots for 9-11 Truth’.

Why was the flight deck door monitored, I am afraid I don’t know the answer and really can’t even speculate to that but, that it was monitored is fact and was one of the FDR parameters. The early FDR were wire recorders and had a limited capacity but, the modern ones are solid state with a capacity orders of magnitude greater than the early ones. If my experience in the oil/gas industry is anything to go by ............ if it is in the system ‘they’ want it recorded!!

WTC#7 had a very great significance as you would have noticed if you checked who some of the tenants of the building were? The tenants and what they were involved with, were of great significance to some people.

You say that ‘ ........the targets needed to be known targets’....did they? I think targets of consequence would be a better description, qualified by who they were of consequence to?

If WTC#7 was the intended target, it was no more difficult to hit than the twin towers .... in the hands of somebody that knew how to fly a 757! The smoke would not have obscured the target as most of it was way above the altitude required to hit WTC#7, if it was in fact destined to impact WTC#7 in the same time period as the twin towers were hit, i.e. before the collapse. At 615 ft WTC#7 was tall enough to stand out from other buildings. It was, after the twin towers, the tallest building in the complex and could be approached over the river.

You have not thought through the idea of Chicago buildings as targets. That is as bad an idea as flying half way to the West Coast to turn around and head back to hit the Capitol/White House. If Chicago was the target then effective planning would suggest hijacking a flight from Chicago at the same time as the others were hijacked from the New York region to attack New York targets. So, I do not think it feasible that Chicago was a target.

By waiting for almost 45 minutes to effect the hijack, which was after the impact with the twin towers, any attempt at any target would have been fruitless as NORAD response time (supposedly) would put them in a no win situation as a hostile in very heavily protected air space. Another thing to consider is that navigating an aeroplane at some 30.000 ft. Is not a matter of looking out of the window, and using the view like a road map. The pilot hijacker had little aviation experience and had zero hours on type. His chances of locating the target, without significant instrument experience whatever the target may have been, was in practical terms zero.

As for the planes being controlled electronically, “fly by wire”, is a very far-fetched imagination on your part.


Guilty! All modern aircraft are fly-by-wire, commercial and military. Everything is converted from the pilots physical instructions by several computers, to servos which move the control surfaces and adjust engine and other settings. It would be the norm for any computer to have a facility built into the software to enable a ‘maintenance’ function where by it would be possible to force outputs and defeat inputs. This is essential when commissioning a chemical plant and I see no difference when you check out and commission an aircraft. So, it is not so far fetched on a technical level. By software ‘adaptation’ it would be a simple task to ‘lock-out’ any direct control by the crew and override their inputs with remotely derived signals from another location, such as another aircraft.

If you were to question what sort of person would deliberately take over control of an aircraft and use it as a missile by remote control, then we need to look at the people who carried out these attacks? It seems that Muslim extremists appear have the capability of committing acts that are against their own religious teachings and contrary to the standards of civilised humanity. But what are we saying here? That only Muslims are capable of such acts and that ‘we’ civilised ‘non-Muslim’ people are full of compassion for our fellow man irrespective of his/her religious beliefs? There are as many fruit balls in our civilised world as there are in the in the least developed and religiously dominated world that these terrorists come from. So, I do not think the fact that a few thousand people were going to die because of their warped actions, is something that only applies to the ‘other side’. Given the right incentives and the ability to take actions without any transparency and almost guaranteed immunity........... I would not put it past certain politicians to act in a way that was 100% in their own interests and totally devoid of compassion or consideration for others.

National security is used in many cases as a ploy, to prevent others finding out dirty little secrets of those in power. WikiLeaks has shown that to be a fact. The 9-11 information that is being withheld has little to do with National Security. What they want to hide are certain facts that would put a whole new scenario before the people and that is something the political crowd could not allow. If there were issues that were likely to endanger National Security, there is nothing to stop these being presented in a closed court session.

What you have to take into account is, that there are those in power who also have imagination and also the means to turn it into a reality. I said a few posts back that one of the easiest ways of achieving an end without getting your hands dirty is to firstly delegate and then use the enemy to do your dirty work for you. I think maybe to explain this, he following story is a good example of that:

A criminal, locked up in prison for robbery where the stolen money had never been recovered, receives a letter from his wife, in which she complains about the state of the garden and says she was going to get contractors in to tidy it up. The prisoner, knowing all his mail was censored replied that, ABSOLUTELY and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES must she dig up the garden! He gets another letter a few days later to tell him that the Police had turned up one day with excavators and dozens of policemen.... and dug up the garden!

Feed the enemy with the right information and it surprising what can be achieved? My feeling is that this could well be the case with Al Queda and the Muslim involvement on 9-11. We all saw with our own eyes what happened, accepted what we were told. (I did for at least eight years) It would be easy to feed information to an enemy; turn a blind eye to certain intelligence, even to see off anybody that got too close to what was going on and just let events run their course. Only a very few really wanted to know the details as the whole thing was not just the hi-jacking bit but, it also opened up a whole load of opportunities for the gratification of personal gains, whilst blaming it all on 19 Muslims and their boss!

I thought that when the Presidents aid whispered in GWB’s ear that a second plane had crashed into the other tower, he had that gob-smacked look on his face that said “Oh, shit what the hell am I going to do now?” I don’t think he knew the details but he sure as hell knew something was going on and when he realised what was happening he had no idea what to do next, so he froze!

Another thing you might like to consider. We have heard all the stories and criticism about NORAD and its obvious failings on 9-11. This was put down to the fact that an exercise was being carried out at the time and there was some confusion. Apparently, the exercise was under the direct control of Dick Cheyney (that had never happened before) and believe it or not, it had the scenario of SIMULATED airliners being hijacked and crashed into the WTC!!!!! Coincidence ... or what? During an address by Condi Rice after 9-11 she is seen on TV live, saying that the Administration had never considered the incidents of 9-11 as a likely scenario. Strange? Do these people ever talk to one another?

Now I will switch my imagination into overdrive! Given the above it could be that the simulated aircraft were not simulated at all and, unknown to the person flying the simulated aircraft, were in fact REAL aeroplanes? Yes, I have a great imagination but, when you look into the events this is feasible. Who ever the pilots of the simulated aircraft were, they didn’t have a clue that they were actually flying real hijacked aircraft and, after the event, were told in no uncertain terms what would happen to them and their families if they shot their mouth’s off. Fear is also a weapon of power.

-----------------------

All this gives my over active mind something to think about in addition to World financial terrorism and, as you say ‘I'm sure we will talk more on this another time’.
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby yialousa1971 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:12 am

User avatar
yialousa1971
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6230
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: With my friends on the Cyprus forum

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby yialousa1971 » Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:40 am

User avatar
yialousa1971
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6230
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: With my friends on the Cyprus forum

Re: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Postby repulsewarrior » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:22 pm

Accused 9/11 mastermind open to testimony against Saudi Arabia

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/ ... 12390.html

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed open to testifying in victims' lawsuit if US decides not to seek the death penalty against him.
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10888
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

Previous

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests