Inside 9/11 - Who Controlled the Planes?

[iOWNme]

Very interesting video here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4&feature=player_embedded

[midnight rambler]

The glaring truth gleaned from that video is that we must now all acknowledge that A-rab cavemen are a breed of superhumans capable of telepathy and clairvoyance.

[Nomoss]

Can U put up the link?
Thanks.

[gunDriller]

i worked as a design engineer on a team of about 500 engineers who designed & built the avionics for the F-22, JSF, and similar planes.

it was common knowledge that "Fly-by-wire" (remote control) capability was a standard feature, on military & commercial planes.

the official pilots are useful for take-off & landing, but the flight can often be performed better electronically.

especially if the pilot is a disinterested amateur, as in the case of the alleged Muslim 9-11 pilots, who we are told seized control of the airborne planes and then did some spectacularly skillful flying.

[Neuro]

The glaring truth gleaned from that video is that we must now all acknowledge that A-rab cavemen are a breed of superhumans capable of telepathy and clairvoyance.

Further they managed to invalidate the laws of physic that day. Cell phone calls at 6 miles altitude, passports surviving intact from a great fireball, freefall collapse of buildings, an airplane that apparently shrunk before crashing into the pentagon, and the planecrash where the remnants of the plane disappeared... Not to mention the ability to make themselves invisible while walking through the security cameras at the airport. Amazing people those A-rabs...

[Serpo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiT8n1bCXYo&feature=player_embedded

[Hatha Sunahara]

Wasn't it strange that no parts of planes were found outside the buildings below the 'point of impact'? And that the planes just flew right into the buildings and disappeared? No deceleration. No compression? No visible disintegration of the plane? And the holes in the buildings are in the shape of the plane? Like a cartoon? Like the wings sliced through the steel columns of the building-almost as if they were butter? Makes you forget the planes are made of aluminum. Were the laws of physics suspended so that somebody could weave together a very important fairy tale?

Hatha

[DMac]

The FAA reports to the Secret Service within the government hierarchy, IIRC. The Secret Service was being run by Dick Cheney out of the secret bunker.

It is no secret that since the 60's(?) commercial aircraft contain the potential for remote control.

The planes were remotely controlled.

Dov S. Zakheim

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Zakheimdov.jpg/300px-Zakheimdov.jpg

Dov played a role in the RC of the airliners on 911.
http://www.whale.to/b/zakheim_h.html

[Joe King]

Wasn't it strange that no parts of planes were found outside the buildings below the 'point of impact'? And that the planes just flew right into the buildings and disappeared? No deceleration. No compression? No visible disintegration of the plane? And the holes in the buildings are in the shape of the plane? Like a cartoon? Like the wings sliced through the steel columns of the building-almost as if they were butter? Makes you forget the planes are made of aluminum. Were the laws of physics suspended so that somebody could weave together a very important fairy tale?

Hatha150tons of aluminum that included a hardened frame hitting a small area at 700+ feet per second. In such a case the force of the impact was sufficient to overcome the shear strength of the beams on the outside of the building.
Which, btw, were no where near as stong and heavy as those at the core of the buildings. The core is where all the main support for the buildings was located.

It worked in a way similar to how the chunk of foam tore straight through the wing of the space shuttle.
ie with enough inertia, anything can break something else that is seemingly much stronger than the thing doing the breaking.

[Dogman]

150tons of aluminum that included a hardened frame hitting a small area at 700+ feet per second. In such a case the force of the impact was sufficient to overcome the shear strength of the beams on the outside of the building.
Which, btw, were no where near as strong and heavy as those at the core of the buildings. The core is where all the main support for the buildings was located.

It worked in a way similar to how the chunk of foam tore straight through the wing of the space shuttle.
ie with enough inertia, anything can break something else that is seemingly much stronger than the thing doing the breaking. On your statement about the core being stronger I have to disagree with you, it was the outside metal frame work that was were all of the strength was. In other words it was the walls of the box that had the vast majority of structural strength. And all of the outside box beams were hollow. The interior core did not support the buildings, but did help support the individual floors, the cores functions were for stair ways , elevators and utility's.

[midnight rambler]

On your statement about the core being stronger I have to disagree with you, it was the outside metal frame work that was were all of the strength was. In other words it was the walls of the box that had the vast majority of structural strength. And all of the outside box beams were hollow. The interior core did not support the buildings, but did help support the individual floors, the cores functions were for stair ways , elevators and utility's.

No, the Vierendeel trusses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss#Vierendeel_truss) bolted together end to end shared the load with the core, it's crazy to say that the Vierendeel trusses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss#Vierendeel_truss) supported the building alone or even for the most part.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtcmemorium/trident3.jpg

Say, you're not in the 'no planes' camp are you??

[Joe King]

On your statement about the core being stronger I have to disagree with you, it was the outside metal frame work that was were all of the strength was. In other words it was the walls of the box that had the vast majority of structural strength. And all of the outside box beams were hollow. The interior core did not support the buildings, but did help support the individual floors, the cores functions were for stair ways , elevators and utility's.
Ok. I'll stand corrected on that point. However, the amount of energy carried by the planes was obviously enough to break through the perimeter walls. Or missle, or whatever it was that has been proposed to have impacted the towers.

[Neuro]

On your statement about the core being stronger I have to disagree with you, it was the outside metal frame work that was were all of the strength was. In other words it was the walls of the box that had the vast majority of structural strength. And all of the outside box beams were hollow. The interior core did not support the buildings, but did help support the individual floors, the cores functions were for stair ways , elevators and utility's.Interesting, do you have a link or something, supporting that claim?

I was under the impression it was the core columns holding the building up...

[Dogman]

No, the Vierendeel trusses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss#Vierendeel_truss) bolted together end to end shared the load with the core, it's crazy to say that the Vierendeel trusses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss#Vierendeel_truss) supported the building alone or even for the most part.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtcmemorium/trident3.jpg

Say, you're not in the 'no planes' camp are you??


No I am as far from that camp as I can run.

Ok, in my post I was not entirely correct, the outside walls carried almost all of the lateral force, (wind) and shared the gravity load with the core. Now what ratio between the outside walls and the core was for gravity load bearing I have not a clue.

So I stand corrected in saying the core did not carry all of the gravity load, and that the walls did.

At some ratio both the walls and core handled both lateral and gravity load! And because of that fact, the buildings could have all of the open space that they had.

[Joe King]

Perhaps their design wasn't quite as strong as they thought once subjected to actual real-World events?

I know they designed it to be able to take a hit froim a 707, but they didn't actually try it. They calculated for it. What if they were wrong in their calculations?

[Joe King]

Interesting, do you have a link or something, supporting that claim?

I was under the impression it was the core columns holding the building up...

I was too, but apparently the load was shared by both the core and perimeter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Structural_ design

Although all it really means is that the energy carried by the planes was still sufficient to break the perimeter beams.

[Dogman]

Perhaps their design wasn't quite as strong as they thought once subjected to actual real-World events?

I know they designed it to be able to take a hit froim a 707, but they didn't actually try it. They calculated for it. What if they were wrong in their calculations? From an interview, the designer said the buildings were able to withstand impact from a 707, but the thought never entered their minds that someone would literally fly one (bigger) at balls to the walls top speed,loaded with fuel into one of them.

[Joe King]

Right. What he said was that they calculated {ie they ran the numbers} that the towers could withstand a relatively slow 707 lost in the fog upon approach to landing at JFK, hitting them......but they never actually tried it to know for sure.

[jbeck57143]

This website has some interesting ideas about what may have happened, regarding the planes:

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911scenario.htm

and:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm and an analysis of that theory:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer02.htm

[Serpo]

What planes..............;D