[Old_Dude]

I just don't believe it . . . I am convinced by the time the plane actually crashed, the government was well aware of what was going on and there was government involvement which either shot down the plane or more likely, intentionally controlled the plane to crash via computer input . . . what a perfect spot to do this - in the well concealed area where the plane finally crashed . . .

. . . think about it, 95% of the time commercial airliners are controlled by computer input via radio signals . . . the technology is certainly there to "take over" the plane via these signals and I think that's exactly what the government did . . . can't say I blame them, but I wish they'd be more honest about it . . .


Link to the story at FoxNews

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by Old_Dude
I just don't believe it . . . I am convinced by the time the plane actually crashed, the government was well aware of what was going on and there was government involvement which either shot down the plane or more likely, intentionally controlled the plane to crash via computer input . . . what a perfect spot to do this - in the well concealed area where the plane finally crashed . . .

. . . think about it, 95% of the time commercial airliners are controlled by computer input via radio signals . . . the technology is certainly there to "take over" the plane via these signals and I think that's exactly what the government did . . . can't say I blame them, but I wish they'd be more honest about it . . .


Link to the story at FoxNews

RIC - Richmond, VA airport, was actually one of the first airports to have the equipment to bring a plane in by a pilot on the ground in the event of an emergency.

 

[MMike]

Of COURSE it was shot down.........

I thought everyone had long agreed that the "passengers taking over" story was concocted to make everyone feel better at such a sensitive time. Knowing that their loved-one's plane was shot down as opposed to them heroically saving the world....well ....it just made eveyone feel a little better under such difficult circumstances.

It was SO shot down

 

[Evilmunch]

Originally posted by Old_Dude
I just don't believe it . . . I am convinced by the time the plane actually crashed, the government was well aware of what was going on and there was government involvement which either shot down the plane or more likely, intentionally controlled the plane to crash via computer input . . . what a perfect spot to do this - in the well concealed area where the plane finally crashed . . .

. . . think about it, 95% of the time commercial airliners are controlled by computer input via radio signals . . . the technology is certainly there to "take over" the plane via these signals and I think that's exactly what the government did . . . can't say I blame them, but I wish they'd be more honest about it . . .


Link to the story at FoxNews

If they had the ability to control the plane then why not just land it somewhere?

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by Evilmunch
If they had the ability to control the plane then why not just land it somewhere?

exactly.

Conspiracy theorists sound pretty crazy. Everybody knows the passengers were rushing the cockpit, b/c they were on their cell phones w/their wives telling them about it just beforehand. Seems a lot more plausible that they succeeded, than that the [big bad evil] gov't intentionally crashed the plane, rather than diverting it to Iowa or landing it.

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

where is this all coming from?

i read the same story and it was heroic passengers that kicked some bad guy butt and then after regaining the cockpit, tried to land the plane in a field because the pilots were already dead.

The problem was that they couldn't learn how to land the plane fast enough. The nearest airport tower couldn't aknoweldge what was happening correctly in order to prevent the tragedy.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Ockham adhered to the principle of parsimony, or economy of "sufficient reason". This became commonly known as Ockham's razor, or in lay terms, "the simplest answer is usually the correct one."

I loved watching the X-Files, too, but it was just a TV show folks.

 

[Old_Dude]

From the FoxNews article linked above . . .

The new theory, based on the government's analysis of cockpit recordings, discounts the popular perception of insurgent passengers grappling with terrorists to seize the plane's controls.

I don't see how anyone could believe:

. . . after regaining the cockpit, tried to land the plane in a field because the pilots were already dead.

Nobody tries to land a plane that bad . . . even a blind person could've managed better than that . . . it was either intentionally shot down, or "electronically" maneuvered down . . . there is no way this plane was crashed by the non-terrorists . . .

If they had the ability to control the plane then why not just land it somewhere?

Excellent question. I believe the risk of the terrorist pilot(s) overriding the remotely controlled autopilot was much greater than just dumping it in the middle of nowhere . . . by this time, the government knew exactly what was going on - there was no guesswork what had to be done - only how, when and where . . .

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Excellent question. I believe the risk of the terrorist pilot(s) overriding the remotely controlled autopilot was much greater than just dumping it in the middle of nowhere . . . by this time, the government knew exactly what was going on - there was no guesswork what had to be done - only how, when and where . . .

And at the emotional level of the WTC falling and all the people dying would've made crashing the plan an "easy" and decisive decision.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Ockham adhered to the principle of parsimony, or economy of "sufficient reason". This became commonly known as Ockham's razor, or in lay terms, "the simplest answer is usually the correct one."

I loved watching the X-Files, too, but it was just a TV show folks.

Occam.

Old_Dude, give up on the conspiracy theories!

 

[Tenchiro]

Holy sh!t, where is my tinfoil hat when I need it!!!

 

[sub6]

You people are ridiculous. If there was ANY way that the plane could have been controlled by the GOV'T, they would have done whatever they could to land it to get the damn terrorists ALIVE, so they could crucify the f*ckers, it would have been a PR BONANZA for the govt. It would have been just as easy to do a controlled crash-landing in a field and hope to get some survivors than to just smash it into the ground (or shoot it down [!!!!]).

Also, I think you have WAY too much faith in the gov't to think that:

the government knew exactly what was going on - there was no guesswork what had to be done

Dude. We're talking about the government here. They can't scratch their ass without filing forms in triplicate to the GSA. They're by and large a group of under-motivated "lifers" (which is what gov't monkeys call the ones who have given up all hope of ever getting a better job or making something of themselves) who wouldn't have figured out that they could crash it until it had run out of gas two weeks ago.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Nobody tries to land a plane that bad . . . even a blind person could've managed better than that . . . it was either intentionally shot down, or "electronically" maneuvered down . . . there is no way this plane was crashed by the non-terrorists . . .

You are completely talking out your ass. I'd like to see you (someone with absolutely NO experience piloting ANYTHING) so much as taxi a jet airliner from the gate to the start of the runway, let alone LAND one traveling at FULL SPEED in a FIELD surrounded by TREES while TERRORISTS try to KILL you.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Holy sh!t, where is my tinfoil hat when I need it!!!

Dude if you think it only takes a hat to protect yourself, you are sadly mistaken. You also need to stop the new world order from taking over your pet's mind.

 

[Bikecrasher]

I has to be true...they said so on the internet!!!

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
Occam.

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.


The British are very fond of their "U"s and lengthy spellings.

 

[Old_Dude]

. . . I'd like to see you (someone with absolutely NO experience piloting ANYTHING) so much as taxi a jet airliner from the gate to . . .

You're hilarious. Just as you assumed wrong about my piloting capabilities, you're also assuming wrong about this government cover up.

sub6, guess what? Kennedy was shot by Oswald!



BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.


The British are very fond of their "U"s and lengthy spellings.

This also sounds like a good way to make your outcome fit your expectations.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Westy
Dude if you think it only takes a hat to protect yourself, you are sadly mistaken. You also need to stop the new world order from taking over your pet's mind.

NOOOO!

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by Old_Dude
You're hilarious. Just as you assumed wrong about my piloting capabilities, you're also assuming wrong about this government cover up.

sub6, guess what? Kennedy was shot by Oswald!

Okay, so you're an experienced pilot (as if I believe that load o' BS for two seconds ). Were the men who allegedly charged the cockpit experienced pilots too? [hint] NO. [/hint]



Shouldn't you be holed up in a bunker somewhere in the Rocky Mountains, stockpiling small arms, military surplus tents, and Spam, waiting for the day that the US gov't gives it's blessing to have U.N. forces come to take away all your freedoms?

 

[Old_Dude]

Maybe I've been too zealous with the "the government took it down" theory . . . perhaps I'm wrong, but it still wouldn't surprise me if there was involvement . . .

Happy riding,

OD

 

[jonassterling]

Just to keep this going, how did burning kerosene manage to melt the steel supports of the WC?
And on top of that how did both towers manage to fall like they were demo'ed?

I'm not saying I believe the conspiracy therories, but I'll be damn if much of anything makes sence in the explinations given to us.

Ever see early pictures of the Pentagon? small hole. A lot smaller than a 757.

And both palnes that hit the WC flew past a power plant that would have killed hundreds of thousands if it was hit.

OK I'll shut up and put my tin foil hat back on.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Maybe I've been too zealous with the "the government took it down" theory . . . perhaps I'm wrong, but it still wouldn't surprise me if there was involvement . . .

Happy riding,

OD

Good enough for me! I'm out after one final point:


Jonassterling - it melted b/c of the burning contents of about a dozen floors worth of carpeting, paper, desks, electric wiring, and wallboard, which was ignited by burning jet fuel (no kerosene involved), and they fell that way b/c that's how buildings fall. They aren't trees that topple to the side, they collapse straight down b/c they're built straight up. Ever see a house of cards topple over to the side?



Anyway I'm out, been fun BS'in with all you crazies. Don't let the CIA steal your thoughts this weekend!!

 

[jonassterling]

Ok I know you will come back and read this cause you love us crazies.

Jet fuel is refined kerosene.

Ever look at the blue prints of the WC? It was put together a little differently than a house of cards.

I'm not saying it did not happen, the explination leaves alittle to be desired for some who is looking a bit deeper into it.

I am the CIA, and I already stealing your thoughs, so there.

Where's my damn tin foil helmet, my fillings are picking up alien transmissions again.

 

[Batman]

From the FoxNews article

There's your problem right there.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by jonassterling
Just to keep this going, how did burning kerosene manage to melt the steel supports of the WC?
And on top of that how did both towers manage to fall like they were demo'ed?

You're kidding, right?

It doesn't take much to melt steel (actually just heat it up to it's red-hot malleable state). Given the volume of jet fuel on fire, I'm suprised it took as long as it did for the weight of 30 stories of building to crush the supports below it.

They fell like they were demoed because gravity pulls down, and none of the lower floors were designed to sustain impact forces. If you can figure out a way to make steel and concrete of that volume fall any direction but down, you'll win a Nobel Prize.

As for the pentagon... if you zoom in, the hole looks bigger. Perspective, my friend.

 

[Tenchiro]

It was all planned by Dubya to a) draw attention from the illegal election he just won. b) Raise his approval rating by kicking terrorist butt. c) Give an excuse to oust the Taliban, and get a pro american government so American oil could run a profitable gas pipeline accross Afghanistan. d) Allow him to finish what his father started in Iraq.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

/em goes looking for more tinfoil....

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by ohio
You're kidding, right?

It doesn't take much to melt steel (actually just heat it up to it's red-hot malleable state). Given the volume of jet fuel on fire, I'm suprised it took as long as it did for the weight of 30 stories of building to crush the supports below it.

They fell like they were demoed because gravity pulls down, and none of the lower floors were designed to sustain impact forces. If you can figure out a way to make steel and concrete of that volume fall any direction but down, you'll win a Nobel Prize.

As for the pentagon... if you zoom in, the hole looks bigger. Perspective, my friend.

Ok I could argue the melting point of Iron here, and the tempatures a fire in an open space would reach, and the insulation around the steel beams, and the way metal heats, and so on and so forth. But that would be a waste of time for you and me.


So back to Indian point Power plant. Don't tell me they did not know it was there.

And look at the first photos before the wall fell down at the Pentagon. Where is the plane?

Excuse me for a moment, gotta email Cletus about those stolen M-60s for my militia.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by jonassterling
So back to Indian point Power plant. Don't tell me they did not know it was there.

Maybe their goal was a political statement about the greed of western culture, and not just to merely kill people. Then targeting a symbol of that would make more sense than just a power plant.

 

[jonassterling]

They had 3 planes to do with what they wanted. Maybe it was a political statement, but the goal of the terrorists is to destroy our society, not grandstand.

Anybody know where I can get some belted 7.62 Nato rounds? 20,000 or 30,000 should do. Tracers would be nice, too

 

[jonassterling]

Here are the pics I spoke of earlier

and

after the wall fell

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states...

I stand corrected on the alternative spelling (bows like Uriah Heep).

The principle I am familiar with, boils down to keep your models manageable.

J

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by jonassterling
Ok I could argue the melting point of Iron here, and the tempatures a fire in an open space would reach, and the insulation around the steel beams, and the way metal heats, and so on and so forth. But that would be a waste of time for you and me.
So back to Indian point Power plant. Don't tell me they did not know it was there.

The insulation was not designed to withstand the impact of a large airplane full of fuel, I am sure much of it was blown away. Insulation will only slow down the heating process, it would just take longer to reach a temperature where the steel would fail.

Power plants were designed the withstand high speed aircraft impacts, maybe not a large modern jumbo but a nuke plant is much less of a sure thing than a tall spindly building.

 

[BurlyShirley]

A plane DID hit the pentagon. I know this from a first hand witness.

Jonas, buildings are designed to fall strait down so that in the event of a bombing, earthquake or jetliner, the building doesnt topple to the side and cause more damage. You need to watch more TLC.

 

[jonassterling]

I don't know if you remember the fires, but 2 things I remember about them.

The second plane to hit lost alot of it fuel outside hte building, resulting in a huge fire ball, so less fuel to burn.

Second those fires only burned hot for maybe an hour. After that thick black smoke started to pour out, which is a sign of a poor burning(cooler) fire.

So lets say the fire burned for 2 hours. Could a fire like this reach the neccisary 1000+ degrees F to melt the supports?
And all the steel is moving the heat to cooler parts of the steel structure.


And back to the towers failing straight down. This implies a uniform failure of all supports. I would suspect that a fire like that would not uniformly heat all supports at the same rate. This would cause parts of the structure to fail at a different rate than other parts, which would could easily cause the tower to lean and collapes sideways.

And these towers were disigned to handle the effects of a 737 crash.


Now back to my study on the Illuminati.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Westy

Power plants were designed the withstand high speed aircraft impacts, maybe not a large modern jumbo but a nuke plant is much less of a sure thing than a tall spindly building.

Correct all the way around. But it's a moot point.

The terrorists goal was to make a statement and make the nation appear vulnerable. If their singular goal was to kill people they would have hit a football game. They took down the most visible and powerful symbol of American capitalism in existence... I don't know how you can argue that it is inconsistent with Al Qaeda's goals or methods.

 

[Skookum]

This thread is getting stupid.............

It's good to question things but be realistic while your at it, otherwise it gives people less patience to actually listen to a valid question that might be raised. If one were so inclined to theorize then one should not qualify oneself, as if wondering aloud.......

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
A plane DID hit the pentagon. I know this from a first hand witness.

Jonas, buildings are designed to fall strait down so that in the event of a bombing, earthquake or jetliner, the building doesnt topple to the side and cause more damage. You need to watch more TLC.

Ok a plane did hit the Pentagon. Explain why it looks like it did before the wall colapsed.


And just to inform people reading my crazed ideas, I just like to argue, and have been know to change sides to keep the discussion going, must be my Irish heritage. Maybe I'll go start a thread on abortion in the political debate forum. That should be fun.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Skookum
This thread is getting stupid.............

It's good to question things but be realistic while your at it, otherwise it gives people less patience to actually listen to a valid question that might be raised. If one were so inclined to theorize then one should not qualify oneself, as if wondering aloud.......

Good lord, you're one of THEM!!!

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Good lord, you're one of THEM!!!

the tinfoil still works right if you put it on your helmet, right?