9/11 had fuck all to do with Islamic terrorism <apart from the patsys> & everything to do with profit margins.

Looks to me like birdies cause more damage to aeroplane nose cones than WTC's which are built from construction steel and reinforced concrete.

Pilots for 9/11 truth published the following article claiming that it is impossible for a 767 to achieve the claimed speeds of the WTC attacks, based on the data obtained from the investigation into the Egypt Air 767 Flt 990 crash in November 1999.

The article appears here: pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

The NTSB report into the crash can be downloaded here: www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf

The claim from Pilots for 9/11 truth is that the Egypt Air 767 broke up at 22,000 feet whilst descending at Mach 0.99, an EAS (Equivalent Air Speed) significantly less than the EAS postulated for, particularly UA FL175 as it approached the South Tower.

The NTSB report however does not state that the aircraft broke up at 22,000 feet. As the aircraft was descending both engines were shut down by the Relief First Officer, the person suspected of deliberately crashing the 767 (disputed by the Egyptians but not germane to the discussion), and the aircraft was still intact as it went through 17000 feet when both the FDR and CVR lost power due to the engine shutdown. Radar returns then have the aircraft climbing to 25,000 feet where it began another descent, apparently intact till it crashed into the ocean.

At no point in the NTSB report is it suggested that the aircraft broke up in flight.

Furthermore, the so called analysis of the loads on the aircraft neglects to mention that analysis of the FDR has the aircraft at just below 17000 feet, at 485 knots and crucially, experiencing 2.5 G as the Captain fought to regain control.

Furthermore, the aircrafts dual elevators were at opposite ends of their travel as the Captain pulled the control wheel back, and the First Officer was pushing it forward, introducing a large torsion moment on the tail assembly.

Furthermore, from the FDR the maximum Mach of 0.99 was actually experienced at 29500 feet, not 22,000 feet giving an EAS of 361 knots, 1 knot over VMO.
Two facts emerge from this.

1. This 767 airframe underwent a EAS of 462 knots whilst pulling 2.5G and with both elevators at opposite ends of their travel and survived. To say it could survive that and not survive the 1G flight at the speeds of the WTC attacks is not credible.

2. Pilots for 911/truth either did not read the report; couldn't interpret it correctly; or deliberately concocted the breakup/M.99 at 22,000 feet story, to further their own agenda. Take your pick.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
The nose cone of a plane is made out of very lightweight material.

Pilots for 9/11 truth

simulacra wrote:
Er, hang on, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Regardless of whether Saddam was a monster or not is no excuse to kill around 1 million people thanks to the protracted war.
& iirc Afghanistan was very useful for certain gas pipes, and absolutely shitloads of opium which is now in greater production in Afghanistan thanks to the 'help' of the allies.
Everything looks nice & rosy on the outside in those specs eh?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
This is why SilvaRizla did a runner, he guessed it was coming because of the theme of my posts, here we see that the kinetic energy that would have been reduced by the 'aeroplane' hitting the tower, seems to have not reduced as the 'aeroplane's' nose cone then travels through another layer of reinforced concrete and construction steel, and appears to be pretty much intact, surely not even David Copperfield could do that could he?

Please put explanations back into your processing unit for reconsideration.

How many pilots are there in the world vs how many pilots in 9/11 truth?
Is it as equally as small a percentage as with engineers and scientists? Could these tiny proportions who ascribe to 911 theories signify a minority of delusional individuals within a given field?
What do you actually believe then, that the planes were holograms?

simulacra wrote:
Er, hang on, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Regardless of whether Saddam was a monster or not is no excuse to kill around 1 million people thanks to the protracted war.
& iirc Afghanistan was very useful for certain gas pipes, and absolutely shitloads of opium which is now in greater production in Afghanistan thanks to the 'help' of the allies.
Everything looks nice & rosy on the outside in those specs eh?

So two wrongs make a right now?
Pig ignorance would be suggesting that that was the reason why the west wanted to remove Saddam.
Oh no, he's really mean to all those poor people, we must do something. (meanwhile carnage continues in many other parts of the world minus the ability to create profit out of it by invading.)

Saddam refused to take any further loans from the military-industrial-banking-complex which is why he was removed.

simulacra wrote:
You've obviously ignored the context of that post & are now just wibbling.

I don't believe or disbelieve any of the theories until they can be proved/disproved.
How is that? Might be a little too rational for ya.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
The nose cone of a plane is made out of very lightweight material.

Space Bandit wrote:
That is extremely irrational, to believe everything at face value is akin to blind faith, you should doubt everything until you can prove it, that is actual reason, not your particular inverted version of it.