911 radio controlled destruction/war creation

[Trae 1]

First off....... sympathies with the distress and trauma the 911 incident caused .

As the 'war on terror' appears to have turned into a full -time world psych operation absorbing the 'War on drugs ' and becoming a new 'crusade' of sorts ..........some questions and inconsistencies remain unanswered.

Any-one questioning the validity of the official stance on the 911 events appear to have been fairly well silenced or at least muted.

I know a guy who has flown radio control models for a large portion of his life. His initial reaction when seeing the 911 plane strikes was to analyse and criticise the flying because to him it looked as if the planes were under radio control.... our initial reaction to seeing the strike sonTV was that a movie was being made .

Since then some conspiracy theories dealt with the 'disappearing' small plane that some have suggested had taken over control of the aircraft which eventually struck the buildings.

Do any viewers have more information on the debunking of these theories.?

The story I heard goes a bit like this was done by 'higher powers' to create an environment of fear where the war industry could then step in and maintain its hold over the world which had been slipping due to the loss of the USSR as an enemy.

Can any viewerse enlighten me on the debunking of this particular conspiracy theory.?

[Skyrad 0]

Sounds like a crock of shit to me, hope that helps

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

BTW, looking at your profile I'd say you must be the most persistent student I've ever heard of!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Trent 0]

Your friend must be really sharp to be able to judge that the planes were remote controlled just from seeing all of 3 seconds of flight on TV. I don't suppose that sloppy flying could be explained by amateurs at the controls shaking with jihadi delight that they were about to enter the lowest depths of hell.

Wait, all of us in NY at the time are just keeping a big secret. It was a controlled demolition, but we all conspired to make it look like an attack so NYC would get some sympathy and maybe the Olympics.

Oh, hello again!

[Skyrad 0]

No they bomb you after you get the olympics not before.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do any viewers have more information on the debunking of these theories.?

What substance is here to debunk? You can't disprove conspiracy theories - that's why they persist. All you need is a reason why, and you can then reframe the events to meet that explanation - in this case, the need to feed the war machine. If you believe that, then you'll believe a wholely unsubstantiated view of 9/11 to go along with it.

Occram's razor is the counter explanation. People took over the planes, flew them into buildings. They were on the plane manifest, they were recorded on the flight boxes, they were attacked by the passengers of the 4th plane.

Why doe remote controlling seem like a reasonable alternative reality? What does that gain anyone?

[kallend 2,115]

I have been flying radio controlled planes for nearly 50 years (since 1956 to be precise). It is my carefully considered opinion that the planes in the 9/11 incident were NOT radio controlled and that anyone who thinks they were is deluded.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Have you started reading Rhino's web sites?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

What does that gain anyone?

C'mon! Some people LIKE conspiracy theories, Kelpie!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Trae 1]

in reply to Skyrad's:"BTW, looking at your profile I'd say you must be the most persistent student I've ever heard of! "


I'll take that as a +


I'm not taking the line that the R/C thingy is a reality here. just asking some questions. I was just interested in how that theory was debunked. So far it seems that it was debunked by people simply accepting the official line without question...bit like the 'Emporers clothes' story.

There were a lot of other apparent inconsistencies that could be explained by 'assumin' the 911 event was just a huge set-up.

Of course such a perspective would upset a lot of the victims etc etc and that is not my intention here. Once again I feel for the victims and their families and countrymen.

Hopefully this subject hasn't become a complete taboo just yet. eg If you talk about this you must be deluded etc etc..

Some other inconsistencies that I'm interested in hearing the debunking theorems for ...'a crock of shit' doesn't quite make it as an anti- theory even though admittedly it may be the truth.


Inconsistency no.(1) Apparently mibile phones worked on some of the aircraft when such things didn't usually have the range or capability at that time. The conspiracy bit here is that the calls were bogus.

(2) The rapidity with which some info (regarding one of the terrorists being trained to fly) was released to the public. The conspiracy bit is that some-one already knew this but just released it a bit too early for credible belief.

(3) The way the president reacted when told what had just happened when he was in a classroom full of kids. The conspiracy bit here is that he had prior knowledge and was just told that they really had gone ahead & done it... just like daddy had told him they would.


Not wanting to stir up baaad sheet here just wondering if any-one else has heard about this stuff and can help in dispelling these (and other) apparent inconsistencies.

There's no delusion just seeking some closure on some unanswered ?????'s

[jdhill 0]

The sky is red... can anyone "debunk" my theory?

Wait.... I hear the black helicopters coming...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[AlexCrowley 0]

it's not bad shit, just thoroughly debunked elsewhere shit.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Trae 1]

in reply 2"The sky is red... can anyone "debunk" my theory?

Wait.... I hear the black helicopters coming...

..........................................................................

Not my sheet ...this came indirectly out of somewhere else.. oh wait I do believe everyhthing I'm told.... yes sir... , No sir ...Ok you're in charge sir..


Round here its the possies of Black 4wd's you've gotta watch out for.......................... especially around sunset when the sky is .....RED.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

What does that gain anyone?

C'mon! Some people LIKE conspiracy theories, Kelpie!

Sure, they can be fun. And it's fun to make fun of the believers.

But this one is just fucking stupid.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Have you started reading Rhino's web sites?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Trae 1]

in reply 2:' Sure, they can be fun. And it's fun to make fun of the believers.

But this one is just fucking stupid.

..................................

you know what they say about assumin...fishy guy.:



So questioning is believing now. ????

dur effin' stupid? ...that's what's floating out of your mouth aint it.....had to come from somewhere....


Prowl away little pirana ...... ooh there's a shark squeeeel

[kelpdiver 2]

are you eaglerider? (what that the id for that whack job going on about the Jews being behind the London bombings? was he banished?)

[Trae 1]

in reply 2 kelpdiver's :'are you eaglerider? (what that the id for that whack job going on about the Jews being behind the London bombings? was he banished?)


me no whack job kelpy fish,

me just stupid effer,
..............you said must be true



flying not swimmin,

That's not a raw nerve is it ????

[algboy 0]

Quote

Quote

Do any viewers have more information on the debunking of these theories.?

What substance is here to debunk? You can't disprove conspiracy theories - that's why they persist. All you need is a reason why, and you can then reframe the events to meet that explanation - in this case, the need to feed the war machine. If you believe that, then you'll believe a wholely unsubstantiated view of 9/11 to go along with it.

Occram's razor is the counter explanation. People took over the planes, flew them into buildings. They were on the plane manifest, they were recorded on the flight boxes, they were attacked by the passengers of the 4th plane.

Why doe remote controlling seem like a reasonable alternative reality? What does that gain anyone?

"People [allegedly] took over the planes, [allegedly] flew them into buildings. They were on the plane manifest [no, really, they were], they were recorded on the flight boxes [trust us], they were attacked by the passengers of the 4th plane [so the story goes]."

So . . . I guess it all depends upon WHICH conspiracy theory you wanna buy.

Some folks believe the mainstream conspiracy theory that 19 Islamic jihadists screwballs (who drank alcohol and hung out in strip clubs, BTW) and couldn't even fly a Cessna managed to bring down WTCs 1 & 2--and scared WTC 7 so much that it went down too (out of sympathy, no doubt).

The fact that no steel high-rise (prior to 9/11) had ever gone down due to fire raises the hmmmmm-factor a bit.

The fact that 7 of these 19 screwballs are still alive gives one pause, though.

Occam's Razor is a helpful aphorism--not a law.

When looked at dispassionately, the mainstream conspiracy theory is full of holes, yet it's defenders fall back on "knowing" a priori that it just HAS to be right, while offering a patronizing snicker to those who raise the obvious questions.

You can disprove--or prove--anything--armed with the facts. The final truth stands on its own whether you care to call it "conspiracy theory", "fairy tale", "history", or "evidence".

People need to avoid the sloppy thinking of ad hominem attacks and calling those who doubt "Bush-haters", America-haters, anti-semitic--or, God help us--a LIBERAL

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"People [allegedly] took over the planes, [allegedly] flew them into buildings. They were on the plane manifest [no, really, they were], they were recorded on the flight boxes [trust us], they were attacked by the passengers of the 4th plane [so the story goes]."

So . . . I guess it all depends upon WHICH conspiracy theory you wanna buy.

This is exactly the sort of thinking we're talking about.

One explanation, the official one, has a prepondurance of evidence, starting with the dead passengers.

The other explanation has the notion that the way the planes flew looked funny to them. Don't believe those viewers have much experience watching inexperienced pilots aiming jumbo jets at a specific building target.

It also requires a notion that the Bush Administration expected a gain from it all. While he did get his opening to take down Iraq, he also got a recession in contrast to what the Democrats delivered in the 90s. Maybe you'll want to go with the idea that he screwed up and it was more successful than planned. Or is using explosives on the WTC part of the fantasy now.

There were rumblings that the 4th plane was shot down, and I can see reasons to run with that one. It's very plausible that the feds would do that - the passengers were doomed anyway - and then create a heroic story out of it. Not too different from Jessica Lynch. But to do that, you have to enlist the wife (girlfriend) of one of the dead to have the conversation that occurred up to and beyond the attack on the hijackers.

If Bushco is so competent that they can pull off this incredibly elaborate attack on its own people, then surely they could have found bin Laden and WMDs by now.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The story I heard goes a bit like this was done by 'higher powers' to create an environment of fear where the war industry could then step in and maintain its hold over the world which had been slipping due to the loss of the USSR as an enemy.

Oh it's absolutely true. You know how the moon landing was faked just for national pride and prestige? Well, just the same way, the 9/11 attacks were faked. They never really happened. That's right! The images were created by Steven Spielberg to frighten the American people into supporting Bush's Iraq war to get revenge for the attempted assassination of his daddy. Yeah, and Spielberg is getting a handsome cut of the Iraq oil action for his role. It's all fake, and no one really died! Just like the movie "Wag the Dog", with Dustin Hoffman. I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet.

[Trae 1]

in reply to "Life without the courage for death is slavery.'

Sorry to be a little bug of topic here but it's uncanny how much you look like a friend of mine..do you know or are related to a Darren who happens to be a stick fighting instructor? -----you could be his brother the resemblance is so strong.

It sometimes get strange when people keep looking like old friends.

Ciao

[eaglenrider 0]

Ya know Kelpdiver,
I haven't found anyone yet who can explain away Larry Silversteins' comments during that PBS documentary.
Ya know the one where he admitted before the world that they decided to "pull" the number 7 building.
And then it fell into it's own footprint just like #s1+2.

Can you explain that away?

Blues,
Cliff

[yuri_base 1]

Yo!

Of course WTC's collapses were not 'natural'. Anybody with a basic knowledge of physics can figure this out.

We gravity testers know that if something is freefalling, the only force acting on it is gravity.

Both towers completely disintegrated -- from 415m to 0 -- in approx. 10 seconds.

Freefall -- real freefall, without air (let alone steel/concrete) resistance -- from 415m takes 9.2s.

A little bit more physics is required to take into account the fact that the mass of falling floors slows down on collision with each consecutive floor below by the law of conservation of momentum (even if there's no structural resistance). Don't sweat: I've done the calculation and the answer for the 110-floor 415m tower starting the collapse from the 20th floor from the top is 10.8s.

Anyway, the towers freefell. There was no resistance from the massive steel&concrete 27m x 40m core -- the backbone of the structure, supporting 60% of its weight -- and 244 steel 36 x 36cm exterior columns, supporting 40% of the weight, with everything built with 600% strength redundancy.

Why? Ask a demolition expert.

If there were resistance, the collapse would take much more time (if ever reach the bottom), be much more asymmetrical and the center core would not be destroyed to the bottom by relatively light floors.

There are many many other 9/11 puzzles out there. See e.g.

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
Physics 911
911 Research

"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people.... will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one." Guess who said that? - Hitler, "Mein Kampf".

But it's easier not to think and just label everything you don't understand a 'conspiracy theory', right?

Yuri

Android+Wear/iOS/Windows apps:
L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP
iOS only: L/D Magic
Windows only: WS Studio

[SpeedRacer 1]

Deja Moo.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------