IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
False Accusations

wishIwasapilot
post Feb 27 2017, 08:35 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



Premise: The alleged hijackers who allegedly flew planes into WTCs 1 & 2 have been falsely accused of causing the collapse of three towers, WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

The alleged hijackers, according to the US official story only brought one type of fuel with them, jet fuel. That, combined with office furnishings can burn, for the conditions of the day and place, and how it burned, at a maximum temperature of roughly 1,800F.

The alleged hijackers have never had any other fuel sources, as described by the official US story.

Scientists who are supporters of the official story and NIST describe WTCs 1 & 2 burn temperatures with a range, as having maximum burn temperatures of about 1,500F. I err on the side of the official story.

The following molten and vaporized metals were found at WTC after the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. They were found at all three of those building sites in large steel beams and in the dust. And in large volumes. They were found and described by scientists who support the official US story. I list them below, with their approximate melting temperatures

steel & iron - 2,800F; vaporized lead - 3,180F; molybdenum - 4,700F; vaporized steel - 5,000+F

Conclusion: Let's use 1,800F, the highest possible temperature that the alleged hijackers' fuels could reach. There was no other legitimate/legal fuel that either could have been or should have been at WTC on September 11, 2001.

The maximum temperature of the alleged hijackers fuel is 1,000F below the lowest melting point mentioned for steel/iron and 3,200F below the highest vaporization temperature mentioned for vaporized steel.

The alleged hijackers COULD NOT be responsible for the collapse of the three towers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 28 2017, 02:45 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Your conclusion is correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 2 2017, 01:16 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 652
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Feb 27 2017, 08:35 PM) *
Premise: The alleged hijackers who allegedly flew planes into WTCs 1 & 2 have been falsely accused of causing the collapse of three towers, WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

...

The maximum temperature of the alleged hijackers fuel is 1,000F below the lowest melting point mentioned for steel/iron and 3,200F below the highest vaporization temperature mentioned for vaporized steel.

The alleged hijackers COULD NOT be responsible for the collapse of the three towers.


As Amazed has said, your conclusion is correct.

I would be very careful however with your choice of words to describe what happened.
Buildings WTC1 and WTC2 never collapsed.

Building WTC7 did collapse for at least 2.5 seconds, but only after controlled explosives were set off to initiate the collapse.

The general public is still completely ignorant of these facts.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 4 2017, 08:20 AM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Mike

Much of the general public is not aware of these facts, but it seems to me that slowly but surely people are beginning to figure out they've been deceived.

Weekly I make a trip to a small town in Florida, carrying passengers doing business on a year-long project. We get there about 9AM and usually leave by 3PM, so I'm just hanging around at the small FBO there. Often there are other pilots also waiting, so it's an opportunity to spend time with strangers, usually other pilots.

Usually we walk to a nearby restaurant for lunch, and did last week, with 2 other pilots. Sooner or later the subject of 911 came up, and I was a little bit surprised that both the other guys fully understood that the story of 911 is not true. Young guys too.

So, I think there is a slowly emerging recognition that the story is nonsense. Impossible aviation events and impossible building collapses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 4 2017, 03:11 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 652
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 4 2017, 08:20 AM) *
Mike

Much of the general public is not aware of these facts, but it seems to me that slowly but surely people are beginning to figure out they've been deceived.

Weekly I make a trip to a small town in Florida, carrying passengers doing business on a year-long project. We get there about 9AM and usually leave by 3PM, so I'm just hanging around at the small FBO there. Often there are other pilots also waiting, so it's an opportunity to spend time with strangers, usually other pilots.

Usually we walk to a nearby restaurant for lunch, and did last week, with 2 other pilots. Sooner or later the subject of 911 came up, and I was a little bit surprised that both the other guys fully understood that the story of 911 is not true. Young guys too.

So, I think there is a slowly emerging recognition that the story is nonsense. Impossible aviation events and impossible building collapses.



That's really good to hear!

When I referred to the general public being ignorant to what happened on 9/11 I was basing it on my experience with commenters on MSM news sites and conversations with friends/family/acquaintances etc.

I know there is a growing base of people who are waking up to the 9/11 truth, but believe they are still very much in the minority.
Hopefully this will change in the not too distant future.

My experience with the MSM is that they treat any comments counter to the official story as something that is taboo, sacrilegious.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Mar 8 2017, 10:36 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 2 2017, 02:16 PM) *
As Amazed has said, your conclusion is correct.

I would be very careful however with your choice of words to describe what happened.
Buildings WTC1 and WTC2 never collapsed.

Building WTC7 did collapse for at least 2.5 seconds, but only after controlled explosives were set off to initiate the collapse.

The general public is still completely ignorant of these facts.


I know that WTCs 1 and 2 never collapsed but I wanted to be as fair as possible, to try to get folks to at least engage. What I got didn't really surprise me, some shills who wouldn't touch my premise,a lot of people who won't even go there, in other words kind of a cluster duck.

Even among those who were receptive, they spoke a lot of the conventional lies, which have been pounded into the heads of everyone.

I guess you all know of the new U of A Fairbanks WTC7 study. The lead professor, when asked, on a scale of 1 to 100, how likely is it that NIST's WTC7 study is accurate. His reply, "zero".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Mar 8 2017, 11:22 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



I don't know if I'm supposed to do this in this fashion. My apologies if not. Please comment on the following exchange that took place in another forum on a thread about 911.

I am not either A or B.
=====================

Person A: The lie is that they took lessons flying small aircraft, not big commercial airliners.

Person B responded: The principals are the same. The location of relevant controls and displays for the specific plane can be easily researched. They were not interested in all the complex issues involved in flying, just in being able to turn off transponders, minor daytime navigation, and the very basics of flight. They were not interested in takeoff and landing, the most involved parts of flying.

I don`t know if anyone has studied their flights to see if they were following landmark navigation. While neither of the two flights into the WTC had their flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder recovered, there should be enough radar tracks both with and without the transponder to see if they were turning at major landmarks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 10 2017, 08:14 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 652
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Mar 8 2017, 11:22 PM) *
Person A: The lie is that they took lessons flying small aircraft, not big commercial airliners.

Person B responded: The principals are the same. The location of relevant controls and displays for the specific plane can be easily researched. They were not interested in all the complex issues involved in flying, just in being able to turn off transponders, minor daytime navigation, and the very basics of flight. They were not interested in takeoff and landing, the most involved parts of flying.

I don`t know if anyone has studied their flights to see if they were following landmark navigation. While neither of the two flights into the WTC had their flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder recovered, there should be enough radar tracks both with and without the transponder to see if they were turning at major landmarks.



There were no hijackers. End of story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 11 2017, 10:31 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Mar 9 2017, 12:22 AM) *
I don't know if I'm supposed to do this in this fashion. My apologies if not. Please comment on the following exchange that took place in another forum on a thread about 911.

I am not either A or B.
=====================

Person A: The lie is that they took lessons flying small aircraft, not big commercial airliners.

Person B responded: The principals are the same. The location of relevant controls and displays for the specific plane can be easily researched. They were not interested in all the complex issues involved in flying, just in being able to turn off transponders, minor daytime navigation, and the very basics of flight. They were not interested in takeoff and landing, the most involved parts of flying.

I don`t know if anyone has studied their flights to see if they were following landmark navigation. While neither of the two flights into the WTC had their flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder recovered, there should be enough radar tracks both with and without the transponder to see if they were turning at major landmarks.


I agree with Mike--there were no hijackers that day. That is, the hijackers were just actors in an elaborate ruse. No airliner at Shanksville or the Pentagon, so how could there have been hijackers?

Yes, the passengers (some of them) are problematic, but there is no real proof that any flights were really hijacked that day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Mar 12 2017, 09:40 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 11 2017, 11:31 AM) *
I agree with Mike--there were no hijackers that day. That is, the hijackers were just actors in an elaborate ruse. No airliner at Shanksville or the Pentagon, so how could there have been hijackers?

Yes, the passengers (some of them) are problematic, but there is no real proof that any flights were really hijacked that day.


Would you fellows like to handle that one issue on another discussion forum related to 911? I could start a new thread and parachute you in.

Or, point me to any threads that discuss the relative difficulties moving from small aircraft to jumbo jets.

This post has been edited by wishIwasapilot: Mar 12 2017, 09:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 14 2017, 07:44 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 652
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Mar 12 2017, 09:40 PM) *
Would you fellows like to handle that one issue on another discussion forum related to 911? I could start a new thread and parachute you in.

Or, point me to any threads that discuss the relative difficulties moving from small aircraft to jumbo jets.


It depends on what the forum is and how discussions are handled there.

The conclusion that there were no hijackers on 9/11 came after studying many details
of what happened that day.

"The relative difficulties moving from small aircraft to jumbo jets" played no part
in coming to the conclusion.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Mar 19 2017, 09:31 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 14 2017, 08:44 PM) *
The conclusion that there were no hijackers on 9/11 came after studying many details
of what happened that day.

"The relative difficulties moving from small aircraft to jumbo jets" played no part
in coming to the conclusion.


Could you point me to any such discussions, please, Mike?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Mar 21 2017, 10:05 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



[quote name='NP1Mike' post='10815889' date='Mar 14 2017, 08:44 PM']It depends on what the forum is and how discussions are handled there.

The conclusion that there were no hijackers on 9/11 came after studying many details
of what happen


Sorry for the double post.

This post has been edited by wishIwasapilot: Mar 21 2017, 10:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 24 2017, 03:26 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Mar 12 2017, 10:40 PM) *
Would you fellows like to handle that one issue on another discussion forum related to 911? I could start a new thread and parachute you in.

Or, point me to any threads that discuss the relative difficulties moving from small aircraft to jumbo jets.



In these online forums, parachuting in is allowed, and all I was doing was throwing in my 2 cents.

What relative difficulties have you heard about?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th May 2017 - 01:21 AM