 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Does anybody know how many hijacked passenger planes had been used as flying bombs against skyscrapers before 9/11?
Does anybody know how many hijacked passenger planes had been used as flying bombs against skyscrapers before 9/11?
Your point being ?
You go on different flights from me if you think it would be hard to take out flight attendants - what is their main weapon - a winning smile or their overpowering perfume?
As for flying the planes, though i lack expertise, i assume they are not that hard if you can actually fly - not least because the did it. I suspect if I was planning to do this I would make sure i could do the flying bit and probably train to take out the perfumed smiling ninjas that guard the planes 😉
Nice gag about private schools though 😀 and I can neither afford it nor would i if i could - thankfully my kids are not dumb enough to need it 😉
Your point being ?
Is there a precedence of people flying passenger planes into skyscrapers?
The reason the 9/11 scenario has never been repeated and civil aircraft have not been successfully hijacked since is that most aircrews and passengers now would fear that the plane would be used as a suicide wepon so would have nothing to lose by fighting the hijackers. Pre 9/11 the best survival strategy was to cooperate and hope for rescue or a negotiated outcome . That is why 9/11 succeed because it was a game changer.
The reason the 9/11 scenario has never been repeated and civil aircraft have not been successfully hijacked since is that most aircrews and passengers now would fear that the plane would be used as a suicide wepon so would have nothing to lose by fighting the hijackers. Pre 9/11 the best survival strategy was to cooperate and hope for rescue or a negotiated outcome . That is why 9/11 succeed because it was a game changer.
This.....
they have also changed flight deck security as well so that it is near impossible to get into the flight deck
you may get the plane but not the plane
Would pilots open it if you started shooting passengers?
I dont know
Would passengers sit there whilst you shot them all - I doubt it.
Is there a precedence of people flying passenger planes into skyscrapers?
Is this rhetorical ?
If so, It might be better just to make your point rather than ask questions that don't require an answer, but don't make a point either.
Is this rhetorical ?
Nope, it is an actual question.
so you are not sure of the answer then ?
Big old jumbos into New York skyscrapers, yes I have that one covered.
However, as planes have been used as suicide weapons since at least WW2. There may be an example of plane+passengers+building that I am blissfully unaware of.
Try Google ?
I don't think there are any. Not large airliners anyway.
wot he said
Wiki lists no others but says
[b]Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, most hijackings involved the plane landing at a certain destination, followed by the hijackers making negotiable demands.[/b] Pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers' demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.[12] The September 11 attacks presented an unprecedented threat because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft and use it to delibrately crash the airplane into buildings for the sole purpose to cause massive casualties with no warning, no demands or negotiations, and no regard for human life. The "Common Strategy" approach was not designed to handle suicide hijackings, and the hijackers were able to exploit a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then, the "Common Strategy" policy in the USA and the rest of the world has no longer been used.
I left the rest as it was relevant to explain how the terrorist were able to overpower the crem re earlier posts
Hmm, seems like it's at least been tried.
Samuel Byck - his target was the White House
There also appears to be a number of suicide hijackings pre 9/11, although not targeting buildings.
Some, politically motivated. But not all, Auburn Calloway(a cargo plane not passenger) for example.
Probably the most pertinent plot being Operation Bojinka
the Pentagon always puzzled me a bit,
Would pilots open it if you started shooting passengers?
Speaking as someone who has a member of his close family (cousin) as a pilot for Cathay Pacific on 747's the answer is no, they would land at the nearest suitable runway.
And fwiw i i am highly sceptical about the official explanation of 911 but i'm not about to air my views on a mtb forum.
And fwiw i i am highly sceptical about the official explanation of 911 but i'm not about to air my views on a mtb forum.
why not?
Pentagon seem more suspicious because we can raise doubts about whether it hit - because we know nothing about planes hotting buildings deliberately at full speed - for example
The front part of the fuselage disintegrated on impact, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris penetrating furthest into the building.[38] In all, the airplane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 feet (94 m) into the three outermost of the building's five rings[40] and unleashed a fireball that rose 200 feet (61 m) above the building.[38]
Remeber its travelling at about 600 mph at the time
It seem plausible initialy to ask wher eis the debris of th eplane as I have seen that before but they are not from full speed crashes into heavily reinforced building they are generally plummets to theground or crashes [ lower speed for both
as for witnesses - whils the video above list many it ignores many as well
the plane flew over a interstae [ Mway} and was seen by many motorists who identified it as the jumbo including a reporter [ who of course just happend to be there to carry the official line [ see my point earlier about how any evidence will be spun to prove the conspiracy- no reporters its a cover up one there they were planted and not independent]
Air force pilot saw it from the air etc
also all the other building nearby copies have been released under FOI requests unlike what the Youtube video claims
It superficially looks more interesting but its the same load of bobins. they have reached their conclusion and use the evidence to fit their view- think how they would spin the reporter - Independent witness if they agree with them or part of the conspiracy and so convenient he was there when he does not confirm their view.
Despite being a member of this forum since it's inception i have no wish to air my personal views and opinions with a bunch of online forum users as it would undoubtably lead to arguments and as we all know arguing on an online forum is an utterly pointless and vapid waste of time, although some people on here seem to thrive on such a vain exercise i harbour no desire to involve myself in such an ineffectual squabble.
I will offer my opinion on "what tyre for wet, muddy, rooty conditions? though 😉
Yes but I can fit a headset to an expensive frame
NAH nah nah nah nah 😉
As we seem to be going down the jovial patronising route [ and that is very good from you] 😀
Despite being a member of this forum since it's inception i have no wish to air my personal views and opinions with a bunch of online forum users as it would undoubtably lead to arguments and as we all know arguing on an online forum is an utterly pointless and vapid waste of time, although some people on here seem to thrive on such a vain exercise i harbour no desire to involve myself in such an ineffectual squabble.
ooooOOOOOOoooooo! Well, get you! 😉
Touché 🙂
Ha-Ha!....A direct kick to my bollocks there junkyard, i honestly did not mean in a patronising route in the slightest whether it be inferred as jovial or as the typings of an arrogant arse - i just don't see the point of trying to put across any argument on a web forum that's why i've never been involved in any arguments or discussions on this forum apart from one in which i stated a genuine fact regarding wet weather use of semi-worn tyres vis-a-vis braking distance on the public highway (yeah...it was as mind numbingly boring as it sounds and i humbly apologise thus i'm never trying again), however if we were in the pub and face to face over a few pints and decent malt whisky so to speak then it's gloves off and the tables cleared for discussion followed by heated disagreement followed by argument which would probably lead to us attempting to settle it by arm wrestling which would be a farce, it'd end up with us both getting kicked out for being unable to stand erect without holding onto the bar with our teeth.
That's what usually happens up here anyway 😀
This is awesome.I've not laughed this much in a long time.
[url=
truth is out there.[/url]
😀
terrible video that.
at least the ones i posted had some credit to them
they landed a plane outside the pentagon then blew it up. genius.
they didnt fly the planes into the twin towers. they flew them past and set off an explosion. pure brilliance.
i really thought it was a piss take to start with.
IT is a piss take isnt it?
Well, HE seemed to believe it...
Sweet Baby Jesus, so many errors in that video, and he expects people to believe his ranting.
I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. I also don't believe that the USA aren't capable of anything to keep such a powerful economy going. Pretty scary. But I'm supposed to be scared right?
Hang on- are you guys joking when you take the joke video seriously? Or to phrase it differently- have you missed the joke, or have I?
Hang on- are you guys joking when you take the joke video seriously? Or to phrase it differently- have you missed the joke, or have I?
Well, that's the thing; is it a joke? There are so many people who believe what's in that video, the difficulty comes in knowing what's a joke and what isn't.
The guy narrating it is doing a very good job of sounding sincere. I couldnt detect any irony in it. thats was what made it so funny. And as the count says, there are quite a few people who actually believe stuff like that.
Yes but the thing is no one can believe the plane bit [ pentagon is daft enough but the twin towers] - no one - and certainly not someone into it as conspiracy, can have failed to see the videos of the actual planes hitting the towers
Gotta be a mickey take
Had a quick look at some of his other youtube postings and I'm still not convinced he is taking the mick.
no one - and certainly not someone into it as conspiracy, can have failed to see the videos of the actual planes hitting the towers
Gotta be a mickey take
They will claim the videos that show the planes hitting the towers were doctored, and write them off as Misinformation.
You need to remember that there are people out there who [b]actually believe[/b] that the world is ruled by shape shifting alien Lizards and that the moon is an Alien Spaceship for monitoring Earth.
They actually think these things are [b]true[/b]
So the stuff in that video is almost the thoughts of a sane and rational mind compared ? 🙂
yes i know that but to have claimed they missed - i have seen claims it was a hologram which is at least erm plausible* in comparison.
* of course its not but you could at least argue about this if you are mad or a truther but to say they missed even kaesae would laugh at you
I don't think it's at all surprising that the planes weren't intercepted- it'd be more surprising if they had been. All you need is confusion and reluctance to make the wrong call or act without knowing the facts, and that's before you get to anybody having to decide to give an order to have an airliner shot down.
You need to remember that there are people out there who actually believe that the world is ruled by shape shifting alien Lizards
The whole world or just Cornwall?
but to say they missed, even kaesae would laugh at you
I'm not sure he would to be honest.
I do however, accept your general point 😉
People will believe the strangest things in this world. Some people still believe in Santa.
Until they learn of their ignorance later in life. (i.e. kids stop believing in Santa...)
No different to religion (apart from some people never realise).
all the stuff I've seen that the truth movement put forward is tenuous at best. I'm not saying i believe the official version of events entirely but the vast majority of the footage that I've seen that the truthers claim proves beyond doubt their version of events do no such thing. they offer an alternative view, but no proof. certainly no more proof than the official line. also, they tend to use a lot of smoke and mirrors. they tell you they are going to show you some proof then give their opinion voiced over a video that generally shows no such thing.
the line that the twin towers were brought down from the bottom with large explosions. yet in none of the footage do they ever show movement below the impact areas.
also, they say that the towers were demolished. and they often state that to bring them down would have taken alot of planning and time to implement, but at no point has anyone ever said how they placed the charges without anyone noticing.
i do agree that the official version of events about the pentagon is a bit dubious.
Toppers, that's a lot of words to basically say....
"truthers tell lies and talk bollox"
But I agree 🙂
Classic smoke and mirrors.
Just seen the video. It gives nutters a bad name.
I'm up for a conspiracy theory as much as anyone. That was obviously put up by The Man to make doubters look like total a holes.
It did a good job.
For the record I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man. This one just doesn't hold much water for me.
That was obviously put up by The Man to make doubters look like total a holes.
He he, they really don't need any help with that.
Even the professional truthers like Alex Jones and David Icke manage to look like total arseholes without any outside help.
toppers3933 - Memberthe line that the twin towers were brought down from the bottom with large explosions. yet in none of the footage do they ever show movement below the impact areas.
Yup. I really love the conspiracy theorist's mindset, that looks for ideas- any ideas- that can discredit the official line, but doesn't test their own ideas. And further, doesn't care if the ideas they think discredit the official line are contradictory, that's the best bit.
For example- the nano-thermite-bollocks. Twin Towers were brought down by controlled detonation, they said. But how come more people didn't notice explosions? Oh, well, they used thermite, that doesn't cause an explosion. But then, someone else says "But look, seismograph traces that we can pretend show explosions!" and the thermite guys go "Yeah! [i]Nano[/i]thermite causes explosions!" The 2 are competing theories but people are happy to believe in both because they both "refute" the official story.
And another... "The buildings fell at the speed of free fall". Well, actually they didn't, and that's unmissable when you watch the videos, but hey. "The reason for this is that they were brought down by explosions"- but a controlled demolition still can't bring a building down at the speed of freefall.
The conspiracy theories are dull but the theorist mindset is pretty fascinating I reckon.
The conspiracy theories are dull but the theorist mindset is pretty fascinating I reckon
Agree they have an opinion then look for the facts is the main problem
One of my mates things it suspicious the bin laddens left america after 9/11*. However this ignores the fact they were there when it happened - of course if they left before that would also be significant.
* i have no idea if this is true its just an example of mind set aas any scenarios fuels the mindset.
Setting a position before looking properly at facts is hardly the preserve of conspiracy theorists, whoever they are. That, for example, is exactly what UK and US did before hundreds of thousands of people got killed in an illegal war. They even put forward an elaborate conspiracy theory to suit their ends - so why are they not lumped into the "conspiracy theory" category?
Happy to call them a bunch of conspiracist liars who manipulated a report in order to create a smoking gun as justification for an illegal war.
I think in this case we just call them liars tbh but yes it was a conspiracy IMHO.
.
Junkyard - MemberAgree they have an opinion then look for the facts is the main problem
Nothing inherently wrong with that. But naturally it goes hand in hand with making the facts fit the theory.
True the higss bosson and all that is nothing but a search for something we "believe" in as was DNA
Not holding out for a noble prize for any truther any time soon though 😀
Agree they have an opinion then look for the facts is the main problem
they have an opinion then look for the theories that they then give out as fact.
In one film i watched the other day about controlled demolition it stated that there was a huge piece of one of the towers that had cut into another building which was 390ft away. It was claimed that there was no way that this piece of debris could have gone out that far unless it was propelled by explosive. They then included in this film footage of the tower collapsing and clearly showing the outer skin of the building peeling away. 🙄
The towers were in the region of 1300ft tall. Of course it could go out that far. And anyway, i thought you said a controlled demolition? Its a pretty unsuccessful controlled demolition if pieces of the building are travelling 400ft horizontally.
I agree about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. We should never have gone and we shouldn't still be there.
Agree they have an opinion then look for the facts is the main problem
I think it's actually worse than that.
They have a set of circumstances, which they [b]Want[/b] to disagree with, just because that's the official line.
They then pick at every thread of it, not really looking for any proof of their own theory, just to discredit someone else's story.
That's why the "truthers" always end up contradicting themselves and each other.
Because "truthers" don't a really have a theory, just clutching at straws trying to prove that it absolutely didn't happen the way [b]"They"[/b] said it did.
(Is keasea (and the sunshine band) serving a ban currently ? Hard to imagine he would miss out on this thread otherwise !)
^^ this ^^
And architects? Giving structural mechanics advice? Give me strength!
not related but but?