9/11: Ten Years of Deception, Part 1 (2015)

[SeekingTruth]

Now available for streaming on Hulu.com. There are 3 parts.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/780176.

Caio for now. Explore and read, especially biased free news on youtube.

[Old-T]

Biased free news? Really? Because they say so, or because you wish to believe it?

[SeekingTruth]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Biased free news? Really? Because they say so, or because you wish to believe it?

Because I follow my own truth, that's why. You probably do not have a clue about your own truth.

[Old-T]

Because you believe something--or want it to be true--does not make it so.

[IIFFOFRDB]

I think the knucklehead meant to say unbiased but I could be wrong.

noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
our strong bias in favor of the idea.
2.
unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice:
accusations of racial bias.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Because you believe something--or want it to be true--does not make it so.

Well if you think about it, that could be said about anyone's belief of 9/11. The Government version is a bit ridiculous anyway, and the footage of planes passing through a building like a hot knife through butter and exploding inside the building instead of exploding directly upon impact is very unlikely.

Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SeekingTruth

Because I follow my own truth, that's why. You probably do not have a clue about your own truth.

Your own truth? What's wrong with the plain old simple truth where ever it may go.

[CuteOldGuy]

Even the 9/11 Commission admitted we aren't getting the full story. But if I say that, I'm accused of being an un-American conspiracy theorist. The fact is we don't don't know what happened. I think we need to know. 9/11 has been the excuse for the biggest attack on Liberty in history. Without the full story, we cannot possibly decide if the loss of freedom is necessary.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well if you think about it, that could be said about anyone's belief of 9/11. The Government version is a bit ridiculous anyway, and the footage of planes passing through a building like a hot knife through butter and exploding inside the building instead of exploding directly upon impact is very unlikely.

Jim

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Even the 9/11 Commission admitted we aren't getting the full story. But if I say that, I'm accused of being an un-American conspiracy theorist. The fact is we don't don't know what happened. I think we need to know. 9/11 has been the excuse for the biggest attack on Liberty in history. Without the full story, we cannot possibly decide if the loss of freedom is necessary.

You think our government is capable of the biggest coverup in history? Get real.

Exploding inside instead of upon impact is unlikely? You have a tenuous grasp on basic physics. Why would it explode directly on impact, when the fuel is in the wings? Exploding when it did is HIGHLY likely.

The 9/11 commission did not say we weren't getting the whole story. You are a conspiracy theorist. What liberties have you lost? Have g-men visited your home? We know exactly what happened, but you refuse to accept it.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You think our government is capable of the biggest coverup in history? Get real.

Exploding inside instead of upon impact is unlikely? You have a tenuous grasp on basic physics. Why would it explode directly on impact, when the fuel is in the wings? Exploding when it did is HIGHLY likely.

The 9/11 commission did not say we weren't getting the whole story. You are a conspiracy theorist. What liberties have you lost? Have g-men visited your home? We know exactly what happened, but you refuse to accept it.

Apparently you know nothing about physics or Airplanes. The wings of an Airplane aren't one solid piece they are constructed in sections and riveted together. They aren't going to remain intact as the plane impacts the building. Sections of the wing should have broken apart upon initial impact and that should have been obvious in the videos, it wasn't. Furthermore, whether our Government is capable of this or not may still remain to be seen, but the initial narrative has way to many holes in it to be believable anymore.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Apparently you know nothing about physics or Airplanes. The wings of an Airplane aren't one solid piece they are constructed in sections and riveted together. They aren't going to remain intact as the plane impacts the building. Sections of the wing should have broken apart upon initial impact and that should have been obvious in the videos, it wasn't. Furthermore, whether our Government is capable of this or not may still remain to be seen, but the initial narrative has way to many holes in it to be believable anymore.

Jim

You said impact. Meaning the moment the nose hits the object. The measure of time between the nose first touching the building and the planes tail end passing through wasn't even one second. The wings didn't even have time to do anything until they were already inside.

"the planes entering the buildings at 750 feet per second"

At 750 feet per SECOND, you think we are going to have time to see anything but mass destruction? Let alone wings breaking off. C'mon.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 degrees. Steel melts at 2750, so people went apeshit, saying that the fuel couldn't have melted the steel, causing the collapse.

"Steel weakens at as low as 400 degrees. As the core steel columns weakened, load-bearing was transferred to the building’s shell. As the fires continued to burn, multiple floors weakened, sagged, and pulled on the outside structure causing total collapse."



You should read up on it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You said impact. Meaning the moment the nose hits the object. The measure of time between the nose first touching the building and the planes tail end passing through wasn't even one second. The wings didn't even have time to do anything until they were already inside.

"the planes entering the buildings at 750 feet per second"

At 750 feet per SECOND, you think we are going to have time to see anything but mass destruction? Let alone wings breaking off. C'mon.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 degrees. Steel melts at 2750, so people went apeshit, saying that the fuel couldn't have melted the steel, causing the collapse.

"Steel weakens at as low as 400 degrees. As the core steel columns weakened, load-bearing was transferred to the building’s shell. As the fires continued to burn, multiple floors weakened, sagged, and pulled on the outside structure causing total collapse."



You should read up on it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/

I've read up on all of it the conspiracy theories and the actual accounts. I have a hard time believing an airplane like the 767 is going to fly at over 500 miles per hour at just 900 feet altitude and not experience structural damage before hitting the building. I am not a pilot and you're not a pilot. But the pilots in the following clip will tell ya it's bullshit.

Jim


https://youtu.be/M926lPlIivU

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I've read up on all of it the conspiracy theories and the actual accounts. I have a hard time believing an airplane like the 767 is going to fly at over 500 miles per hour at just 900 feet altitude and not experience structural damage before hitting the building. I am not a pilot and you're not a pilot. But the pilots in the following clip will tell ya it's bullshit.

Jim


https://youtu.be/M926lPlIivU

I call bullshit. The 767 is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 600MPH at ANY altitude. If your contention was correct, simply having a plane go into a dive would be a death sentence, which of course it isn't.

"A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively."

"The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive."

http://911blogger.com/node/20232

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I call bullshit. The 767 is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 600MPH at ANY altitude. If your contention was correct, simply having a plane go into a dive would be a death sentence, which of course it isn't.

"A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively."

"The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive."

http://911blogger.com/node/20232

Your link is full of shit, and if you believe a plane like a 767 with passengers, luggage and seats ect is capable of speeds of 500 and beyond at sea level without breaking up then you must believe in the Easter Bunny too. There is no proof what so ever those planes were travelling at those speeds, none. It can't be done. What the 911 Commission and the media portrayed to us about 9/11 simply is false. The truth is out there. I'll assure you and anyone else it is far different from what we have been told.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Your link is full of shit, and if you believe a plane like a 767 with passengers, luggage and seats ect is capable of speeds of 500 and beyond at sea level without breaking up then you must believe in the Easter Bunny too. There is no proof what so ever those planes were travelling at those speeds, none. It can't be done. What the 911 Commission and the media portrayed to us about 9/11 simply is false. The truth is out there. I'll assure you and anyone else it is far different from what we have been told.

Jim

You're just wrong. Here are the specs, cruising speed of well over 500mph

Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 567 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft (11,000 m) cruise altitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

You know better than the government and MIT, I guess.

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said."