As it has been my experience, all the pictures shown so far by all conspiracy theorists in the past have been found to be misleading, usually they are not showing the whole picture or they misrepresent the location or misinterpret the images.
Please post links to the images you are referring to, but I have 100% confidence that time stamps are not the main issue or has affected any conclusions by the serious investigations.
You keep posting irrelevant links that don’t answer what you’ve been asked, and ignoring other posters who either ask you direct questions or who post links directly relating to things you claim.
You asked if anyone could explain why “we don’t have records of the stock market the next day”. It was closed. I await your surely-to-be-fascinating “info”, to be posted at some indeterminate point in the future.
:rolleyes:
What do you mean “allowed to fly”? Do you think ATC has a remote control unit for airplanes? Do you think there is a magical, invisible rail in the sky airplanes are physically restricted to?
In fact, airplanes fly where pilots point them. ATC can’t do a damn thing about it if the pilot decides to change plans mid-flight. Verbal scolding is the extent of their awesome power.
The hijackers turned off the transponder so the airplanes dropped off secondary radar (the normal mode for ATC) and stopped responding to the radio. Usually this is a sign that an airplane is in distress, not hijacked. The normal procedure is to try to determine whether or not it’s even still flying, and if so, try to get other pilots nearby, those with working radios, to take a look. Scrambling jets for a shoot-down is the very very last resort. Even today. That’s why we have had accounts of small airplanes violating the no-fly zone over Washington, DC, not accounts of them being shot down. It was not until after the WTC towers were hit twice that it became obvious to all there were hijackings occuring, and even then they still had to contend with airplanes that lacked working transponders, making them much more difficult to track.
That’s where the order to land all airplanes came into play (a completely unprecedented order, I might add). By getting all the legit flights out of the sky they could finally track the unlabeled blips of the hijacked airplanes on primary radar… but doing that took time, it was unavoidable. By the time they knew where the hijacked airplanes were there wasn’t enough time to stop them because airplanes travel very fast.
Damage to the facade (including photos taken just after the impact) is consistent with aircraft impact, and includes impact marks from the right wing tip. The left wing tip appears to have hit the ground just in front of the pentagon.
It is true that although the Pentagon is an office building, many of its windows were made of bomb-proof blast, and many of those windows did survive unbroken.
According to actual pilots, maneuvers taken by flight 77 were completely consistent with what is physically possible from a 757.
As a matter of fact, given that the Pentagon does deal with secure and sensitive information, they were in the process of installing reinforcements and bomb resistant elements to the building. This is a matter of public record. The hijackers just happened to smash into a side where these modifications were almost complete. Presumably, if they had chosen a different side, the damage would have been much more extensive.
There is a continuum between “cardboard shack” and “Fort Knox”. The Pentagon is, indeed, and office building. It has some security features not normally seen in typical office buildings, but it is not intended to withstand a true military assault or an impacting airliner. I’m sorry you don’t seem incapable of understanding this.
Oddly enough, the WTC was designed with the impact of a B707 in mind - but a 707 is significantly smaller than a 757 and back when the WTC was designed our ability to make impact predictions was considerably inferior Between better computers and an actual case to study future buildings will, we all hope, incorporate lessons learned from 9/11.
After several years, I have to conclude it is really doubtful that there was any foreknowledge going on.
The timestamps? Are you talking the timestamps in EXIF info on a photo? Are you kidding me? They don’t mean shit. They’re set to whatever the camera is set to. If it’s not a digital camera, they can be added later. And, besides, they could be changed at any time, which is exactly what you would expect Them to do. What, you think They’ve carefully orchestrated this delicate ballet involving hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and, upon releasing photographs, forgot to change the timestamps? Gimme a break.
Has it occurred to you that the reason you can not find this is because it doesn’t exist?
It may be a lot to take in but there is relevant info.
ps How many times has the stock market ever been closed except for holidays?
Not more than 2 or 3 world wars im sure.
For the 17th time…
A tape WOULD exist if it had not been CONFISCATED or even DESTROYED. If it hadn’t, a lay person could research municipal records and find this. This isnt like the JFK assasination when we will actually have more evidence released in a few years. You cannot prove the tapes weren’t destroyed, which would explain why I dont have the tapes in my personal collection. This is a simple logic-based argument which you are perpetuating much longer than need be.
The stock market has been closed every time the WTC has been destroyed by hijacked airplanes.
It is a lot to take in. Why don’t you tell me why it’s relevant?
You asked where the records are for the stock market for Sept. 12, insinuating that they were covered up or confiscated or that something nefarious was going on. It was closed. Can you not admit you were wrong and that there’s a completely reasonable explanation for why “we don’t have records of the stock market the next day”? The article notes in multiple places that it was closed for several days.
It. was. closed. There were no records, because it was closed. When it is closed, there are no records. It was closed. Therefore, there were no records.
This takes about a second-grade education to understand. Do you understand?
Relevant to what? That is info that is reporting about possible unethical profits to be gained **after **the attacks, it seems you are insinuating here that the executives were involved in the conspiracy, but this is just like gas station or business owners that after a hurricane use the disaster to gauge others; people like that deserve punishment, but it would be really ridiculous to assume the gas station or business owners caused the hurricane.
The piece also reports on companies and executives that did behave ethically.
reef shark-
You may have noticed that any time you bring up a point, multiple cites are offered to refute that point. You may be ignoring or dismissing most of them, but that does not make them not exist. This is because the points you are bringing up are the exact same points that conspiracy theorists have been bringing up for years, all of which have been repeatedly debunked time and time again. You’re bringing nothing up here that hasn’t been discussed ad nauseam, and the fact that you don’t appear to be aware of the responses to your point show that you haven’t done much research outside of conspiracy theory sites.
If you actually want the answers to the points you’re raising, I suggest you take some time off and read answers from non-conspiracy sources. You are unlikely to convince anybody here of anything by bringing up long-debunked claims.
Alternately, you could accept that this matter has been discussed and independently investigated repeatedly, and that the conspiracy theorists lost. It’s over. Get over it, find a new conspiracy theory to waste your time on.
My take on the Pentagon footage?
I don’ t have a take on the Pentagon footage. I wasn’t there; I wasn’t on the ground. I didn’t see the plane hit the building personally.
And neither did you.
So my “take” on the Pentagon footage is this: if there were anything in it that substantially contradicted any of the eyewitnesses and evidence, we would have heard it by now. It would have been a major news story. It would be all over the papers. Why do I believe this?
People are greedy and ambitious. Any reporter would be set for life if he could expose this as a real conspiracy. Every news agency in the entire world would leap at the chance to discredit the U.S. government with actual contradictory facts. Are there any actual facts that contradict the official report in any substantial way? No. Conclusion: there’s no such evidence to find.
People are generally stupid. They think with their hearts instead of their brains. Conspiracies perpetuate themselves because people are too willing to look at suspicious evidence given by persuasive people, rather than the other way around. I don’t entirely trust the U.S. government in every and all things, but the fact is, they can’t be lying all of the time, because of Point #1.
People cannot keep secrets. I have an extremely hard time believing in any worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of media outlets, tens of thousands of workers, hundreds of thousands of people who live in New York and Washington DC. Somebody would have blabbed.
There’s a sucker born every minute. If a person can’t make a name for himself as a real live honest-go-goodness whistleblower, the next best thing is to cry wolf. Making up lies and bullshit is part of the human condition; it’s a good way for the unintelligent and unimaginative to draw attention to themselves. We even have a parable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” because of how common this is.
If you want to be convincing, first show me what you’re convinced of.
All you do is ask questions. State your theory and let us analyze it.
Every time one of your statements is questioned, you answer our questions with more questions. It’s evasive and it’s not good debating.
Hell, my only experience with planes is MS Flight Sim, and I’d bet anyone $100 that even I could figure out how to turn off the transponder.
That’s bullshit. I don’t usually use that word outside the Pit, but that’s really how bad it is.
We have had this discussion before. Our conclusions were backed up by people on this forum who fly various sizes of Boeings. The turns made are, indeed, entirely possible to do with a 757. I question who these “numerous pilots” are, and if they have any experience flying a 757 or similar airplane.
The turns are unusual, that is, not typical, but then they were being flown by pilots much more accustomed to small, prop-driven aircraft with little or not real training in large jets. Airliners are capable of much more extreme maneuvers than seen in normal operations. Indeed, a Boeing 707 was successfully rolled without incident (link is to video of the pilot discussing the maneuver and actual footage - a bit low-rez, but it was the 1950’s.)
So, some of the steep turns and other maneuvers might be unusual but far, far from “impossible”.
Popular mechanics is the only site listed more than 3 times here. Come with something else. That site has been embarrassed by people who are worth something at their computer.
