FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Robot Planes
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 - The Verdict Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:17 pm    Post subject: Robot Planes Reply with quote

Way, way Cool!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU

That was my theory, but I don't know anything about flying. Switched planes controlled by robots. That would help explain the flash the instants before impact. They needed something to make the fuselage penetrate the perimeter columns and only a machine could fire the charge fast enough.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1673
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Robot Planes Reply with quote

psikeyhackr wrote:
That was my theory, but I don't know anything about flying. Switched planes controlled by robots. That would help explain the flash the instants before impact. They needed something to make the fuselage penetrate the perimeter columns and only a machine could fire the charge fast enough.

I don't actually see how that logic follows through... Confused

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:53 am    Post subject: Re: Robot Planes Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
I don't actually see how that logic follows through... Confused


If you watch the videos of the impacts for the north and south towers there were flashes the instant before the noses of the planes impacted the buildings.

WHAT WAS THAT? Why would a NORMAL airliner do that?

Could NORMAL airliners even penetrate the buildings that easily?

How could two human pilots hit buildings dead on? How do you get to practice such things in REAL flight simulators?

So if the planes were switched with computer controlled cruise airliners that could explain a bunch of things simultaneously.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SherryAnn



Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a real interest in this subject but I haven't posted anything myself because I'm a bit intimidated by all the people who post on this board with all their well thought out theories, etc. But as I said, I am incredibly interested in all your thoughts and theories. I truly believe that the whole thing had to have been an inside job because it just doesn't add up. But I have so many questions that I was hoping someone could answer. A few of them are: why does Al Queda and/or the Saudis allow us to blame them for 9/11? What happened to the people on the airplanes? Why would Barbara Olsen's husband lie about his wife calling him? Was HE involved somehow? Were the alleged phone calls home, doctored somehow? Are the news stations pawns of the government? What will happen if people like you are able to convince a huge majority of people that it was an inside job....what will our government do?

Keep up the good fight. Thanks for all the work you do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks 4 the post. I can't think of any reason to be intimidated or afraid to post your opinion or ask ANY question in regard to something so important.

The planes thing is a big one, many people have questions in that regard. One of mine is : Why would an operation of this size and scope be left to a Novice Human Pilot to complete? Personally I don't think it ever was drawn up that way, but that's just me. What it they missed or had second thoughts?

Another: The let's roll bullshit sales pitch: What if the passengers did in fact take control of the plane? What if there just happened to be a Novice Cessna bush pilot on board who may have been able to follow instructions and dump fuel, and crash land it in sufficient manner that allowed a few people to escape with their lives?

What if they had Guns instead of box-cutters? How to wiggle out from under the pre-scripted narrative of AL_k_DUH and " THEY HATE ARE WAY OF LIFE BULLSHIT " Makes zero sense.

Here's something that I've always found very very interesting in regard to 9-11. It's a simple observation: Why in every OFFICIAL piece of video evidence, every one, do they fade to black at key moments during broadcast? Hiding something or merely opening the door for yet another dog chasing it's tale opportunity?

Hombre'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telstar



Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Darlington,Co.Durham

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if the planes brought the two towers down, then what brought building seven down the same way? Or did I miss something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krammer



Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Fintan's theory that the angle of attack by the planes was the key factor in triggering the pancake collapse of the twin towers is correct, then it follows that building seven probably did collapse due to structural damage. The lack of cutter charge sounds in any of the broadcast audio or video precludes controlled demolition in my opinion. Although WTC 7 sure looks like a controlled demolition, pre-wiring an occupied office building with explosives does not seem to be a workable theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telstar



Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Darlington,Co.Durham

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the firechief said 'what do you think?' and I said 'There's been so much loss of life, let's just PULL IT, and we watched the building collapse',

Remember that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telstar



Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Darlington,Co.Durham

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I may answer Sherry Ann here, Well the name Al-Qa'eda was a made up name by the CIA, it was a group of Arabs that the British organised in English it mean 'The Base'.
In 1888 the British sent a Thomas Edward Lawrence CB. DSO. with a regiment to Arabia to train the Arabs how to fight, make bombs,etc.
This was to attack the then Ottoman Empire, now known as Turkey. This British soldier may be better known as Lawrence of Arabia.

Hope this helps a little to explain that this Al-Qa'eda? is not a new band of Arabs that just started up to blow-up the twin towers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krammer



Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yea, I remember it. Do you think that a building owner tells the fire chief that he should demolish the building?? Fire and Rescue are dedicated to saving life and property from fire.

Why would the owner tell the fire department to initiate controlled demolition of a building?? It makes no sense.

Likely this quote is referring to the firefighting efforts, something a building owner could possibly say to a fire chief. Of course the so called truth movement takes this quote out of context and runs it up the flagpole...to the embarrassment of all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telstar



Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Darlington,Co.Durham

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes how about that owner had just insured those three buildings for millions against 'Terrorism' a month or so before they were attacked, I had loads of paperwork on this which all tended to point in one direction, but there is still a few unanswered questions, but I'm left with the averall opinion that this was one of many 'inside' jobs, I also took an interest in the incident with the American surveillance ship named USS Liberty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telstar



Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Darlington,Co.Durham

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just think about it, if he did tell them to "PULL IT", then it must have been pre-wired, as it takes quite awhile to wire a building that size to come down so perfectly.

But how about the most devout Islamic lads? They went to a club and were throwing money around with drink and wild woman, they even left a holy Coran, but sourly this sort of conduct is against the Holy Coran.
Also none of their names were on the planes flight manifesto's.

O the list just goes on.................

_________________
Don't walk infront of me for I may not follow,
Don't walk behind me for I may not lead,
Just walk by my side and be my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

krammer wrote:
If Fintan's theory that the angle of attack by the planes was the key factor in triggering the pancake collapse of the twin towers is correct, then it follows that building seven probably did collapse due to structural damage. The lack of cutter charge sounds in any of the broadcast audio or video precludes controlled demolition in my opinion. Although WTC 7 sure looks like a controlled demolition, pre-wiring an occupied office building with explosives does not seem to be a workable theory.


I think the physics of skyscrapers makes collapse IMPOSSIBLE.

My Python program that runs only on the conservation of momentum with no physical supports takes 12 seconds to collapse. That is with the top mass hitting the lower masses and starting them falling. On various sites I have seen estimates of 8 and 10 seconds for the collapse time of the north tower. Dr. Sunder of the NIST says 11 seconds.

A skyscraper has to hold itself up. To get a collapse time of less than 12 seconds means NO RESISTANCE. Resistance should have definitely meant more than 18 seconds which would be 50% of free fall acceleration.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

It is an embarrassment to all of the people who claim to understand physics. It is somewhat curious all of the people who claim to know physics and talk about the collapse and then say nothing about the REALLY INTERESTING fact of the speed of that collapse. I would think anyone with SCIENTIFIC curiosity would be all over it. At least that is how scientists were portrayed when I was a kid.

Now they are more pompous and AUTHORITATIVE. [1764]

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krammer



Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr wrote:
krammer wrote:
If Fintan's theory that the angle of attack by the planes was the key factor in triggering the pancake collapse of the twin towers is correct, then it follows that building seven probably did collapse due to structural damage. The lack of cutter charge sounds in any of the broadcast audio or video precludes controlled demolition in my opinion. Although WTC 7 sure looks like a controlled demolition, pre-wiring an occupied office building with explosives does not seem to be a workable theory.


I think the physics of skyscrapers makes collapse IMPOSSIBLE.

My Python program that runs only on the conservation of momentum with no physical supports takes 12 seconds to collapse. That is with the top mass hitting the lower masses and starting them falling. On various sites I have seen estimates of 8 and 10 seconds for the collapse time of the north tower. Dr. Sunder of the NIST says 11 seconds.

A skyscraper has to hold itself up. To get a collapse time of less than 12 seconds means NO RESISTANCE. Resistance should have definitely meant more than 18 seconds which would be 50% of free fall acceleration.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

It is an embarrassment to all of the people who claim to understand physics. It is somewhat curious all of the people who claim to know physics and talk about the collapse and then say nothing about the REALLY INTERESTING fact of the speed of that collapse. I would think anyone with SCIENTIFIC curiosity would be all over it. At least that is how scientists were portrayed when I was a kid.

Now they are more pompous and AUTHORITATIVE. [1764]

psik


You are taking NIST out of context. Here is what they really say:
Quote:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


The 11 and 9 second times are for the first exterior panels to hit the ground based on seismic records. This is not the same as total collapse completion.

Accurate determination of the total collapse time is not completely reliable, but suffice it to say it was longer than you claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is Dr. Sunder Dunderhead in his own words.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

[1779]
psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 - The Verdict Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.