The 9/11 Forum

AA 11
Aircraft: Boeing 767-223ER
Location: Manhattan, New York, USA
Registration: N334AA
Previous Registrations: ---
Flight Number: 11
Fatalities: 92:92
MSN: 22332
Line Number: 169
Engine Manufacturer: General Electric
Engine Model: CF6-80A2
Year of Delivery: 1987

Photo: Alexander Jonsson



UA 175
Aircraft: Boeing 767-222
Location: Manhattan, New York, USA
Registration: N612UA
Previous Registrations: --
Flight Number: 175
Fatalities: 65:65
MSN: 21873
Line Number: 41
Engine Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney
Engine Model: JT9D-7R4D
Year of Delivery: 1983

Photo: Bill Hough



Legend:
Fatalities
The number of fatalities aboard the aircraft
which crashed, and also ground casualties.
In format:

FATAL:ABOARD + GROUND/3rd PARTY

Flight Number
The flight number assigned to the flight which
crashed by the airline/operator.

MSN
The MSN (manufacturer's serial number) of
the aircraft which crashed. Every aircraft is
assigned a MSN at the time of production.

Previous Registrations
The previous registrations of the aircraft
involved in the accident. As aircraft are sold,
moved between airlines, etc., the registration
number changes. Most recent registrations are
listed last.

Registration
The unique registration number of the aircraft
involved in the accident. Registrations are
prefaced with a country code such as 'N' for
the United States, 'G-' for Great Britain, or
'SU-' for Egypt.

Year of Delivery
The year in which the aircraft was delivered
to the original customer from the factory.

SanderO wrote:Heretic,
You're on a slippery slope with that position. If we can't accept any evidence then 911 is a black box... we know the situation before 9/11 and on 9/12 but how it things happened becomes a complete mystery / black box.

So there was some fakery, unreliable evidence, poor observations, withholding of evidence, false and unreliable testimony...and so forth. But we have to work with what we have and try to reconstruct the events using sound forensic methods and science (scientific method).

It's certainly possible to make up a coherent account and more so if you stretch the truth or even the science... and see what you want to see in the visual record.

On the other hand what is the alternative? ...accept the narrative which clearly has huge holes in it? I don't think so.

I agree completely with your point.

What I was trying to say is that so many, in so many (questionable) ways, like to discard or disregard any evidence that contradicts the official narrative. Debunking, they seem to call it.

In this instance, if there is a photo showing unusual appendages on an airplane, simply present some specious excuses "proving" that the appendages are normal, or that they simply do not exist. To me, much of that effort comes across as sophistry of some sort--it sounds terrific, but seems to conflict with reality.

So it seems to me the logical conclusion of such efforts is that ALL photographic evidence is bogus, having been manipulated somehow or other. Or that any explanation for something observed can be rationalized, AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT STORY PREVAILS. I find that a form of sophistry.

Heretic,
There seems to be evidence that planes hit the towers... which is the area that interests me most. I agree that there is little evidence of a jumbo plane crashing in PA. The Pentagon is more of an enigma... it could have been an explosion, a missile, a drone and even a plane I suppose. But the latter has lots of problems with the evidence.

As far as the twins go... the plane may have provided more punch than is assumed if they were not the commercial flights claimed. They could have flown faster, carried more fuel or even other incendiaries which would be delivered into the towers. Maybe.

The planes did not cause the instant collapse of the towers. They did not even cause an instant collapse of the top sections above the impacts. Whatever DID cause the tops to drops either was a delayed *program* as in... OK Joe... hit the red button and blow the suckers now... or a process where heating etc. weakened the columns which DID survive the impacts and WERE supporting the tops. In the latter the process slowly weakened and removed the reserve strength of the core (our working hypothesis) until it could no longer support the tops... and then game was on.. collapse ensued.

So the issues re the WTC planes would be:

What would the difference be in faster planes in terms of column destruction on impact?
What would the difference be for heavier planes in terms of columns destruction on impact?
What would the difference be for planes carrying more fuel in terms of columns destruction AFTER impact?
What would the difference be for planes carrying additional *incendiaries* in terms of columns destruction AFTER impact?

What was the difference between the core damage from the planes in tower 1 and tower 2 such that 2 came down in less time?

Was it the particular columns destroyed on impact?
The elevation of the impact: more mass above for tower 2?

Were those towers doomed if the fires were extensive enough to cause strength reduction in the core or collapse of several floor slabs? The planes impacts did not collapse enough floor mass obviously to kick off a ROOSD. Could a jet destroy enough of the core on impact to cause a ROOSD? I tend to think not.

That is a most reasonable and plausible analysis sir!

I had not thought about any particular payloads onboard the aircraft, but all your questions are relevant.

My guess is that the buildings were prepared at the point of impact. They did have the cooperation of the tenant(s) in giving access to hidden areas, and I'm pretty sure there is credible information about alot of "building work" having been done over the years. I think it's likely that the buildings were prepared right under everybody's nose, as it were. Right in front of them, but nobody knew what was going on.

But you're right it seems, that modified airplanes might have included explosives.

Heretic76 wrote:That is a most reasonable and plausible analysis sir!

I had not thought about any particular payloads onboard the aircraft, but all your questions are relevant.

SanderO's post basically had two parts: One could be called an analysis. In that first part, he discusses how plane crashes alone did not make the towers collapse, but how it is plausible that the fires that followed the plane crashes brought the towers to the point of collapse.

A hunch tells me this is not the part of SanderO's post that you consider to be "a most reasonable and plausible analysis". It seems very much as if you think that the second part, where SanderO asks a number of speculative questions, constitutes a "plausible analysis".

Do you realize that asking speculative questions is not analysis?

The questions he asks are not even based on plausible scenarios:
- there is no prima facie evidence that any other planes but the regular airframes that serviced regular scheduled flights AA11 and UA175 crashed into the towers.
- there is no prima facie evidence that the planes were heavier
- there is no prima facie evidence that the planes were faster
- there is no prima facie evidence that the planes were loaded with any incendiaries or explosives in addition to the normal, large supply of jet fuel for a transcontinental flight.

If you beg to differ, present that evidence!

Heretic76 wrote:My guess is that ...

Your guess is not evidence, does not establish plausibility and does not amount to a theory.

Heretic76 wrote:and I'm pretty sure there is credible information...

In other words, you don't have that credible information.

[/quote]I think it's likely that ...[/quote]
Why is it important what you think likely? Make your case about such probabities!

[/quote]But you're right it seems, that modified airplanes might have included explosives.[/quote]
SanderO is right? He Just Asked a Question, he did not make a claim! Because SanderO realized that as soon as he makes a claim, someone will ask if he has evidence, or speculation only.

And you talk "seems" and "might" - it's all in your imagination, correct?

Of course we would have most of this information if we had the flight recorders!

iorwerth wrote:Of course we would have most of this information if we had the flight recorders!

We have the flight recorders of AA77 and UA93, retrieved from inside the Pentagon and inside the crater near Shanksville, and look what happens: SanderO, and heretic, and many others on their side of the issue boldly state they have serious doubts that AA77 and UA93 crashed in thos locations.

How would you address such doubts? What would you say if we did in fact have the WTC flight data recorders and they supported the common narrative, as did the FDRs of flight 11 and 93? Honestly, would you tell SanderO and heretic to get real?



Also, of course we would be rich if we all had a million Euros, and we all would have better mojo if we slept with supermodels. But unfortunately, we all have to deal with reality as it is.


Or were you trying to make a claim?

Oystein

It is good to see that English is apparently not your second language. That you understand the difference between such concepts as "proof" and "speculation".

But it does seem that your standard for proof is far lower than mine. It appears that your only standard of proof is a government decree. I just cannot go there, because I know that the government constantly practices deception.

You find nothing irregular about a situation in which all manner of small (and critical) evidence, such as identification cards, wedding bands, human tissue, seat belts and such are recovered from the accident site, but 4 boxes supposedly onboard the aircraft, boxes designed and built to withstand huge destructive forces, are nowhere to be found. As fascinating as it is troublesome, for those of us skeptical of government decree.

To clarify, my GUESS is that the aircraft that struck the towers were NOT carrying explosives, for reasons I outlined in my previous post. That said, it is POSSIBLE that they were. I am still capable of being neutral on some topics, not all.

Your claim that the FDRs available support the official narrative is inaccurate. The FDR for 93 was close to the official narrative, but contradicted it in important parameters. Ditto 77.

Heretic76 wrote:Oystein

It is good to see that English is apparently not your second language. That you understand the difference between such concepts as "proof" and "speculation".

Yep, I do.

Heretic76 wrote:But it does seem that your standard for proof is far lower than mine. It appears that your only standard of proof is a government decree.

Could you please support that allegation with evidence?
Reporting from the inside of my brain, I can assure you that it is false.

Heretic76 wrote:I just cannot go there, because I know that the government constantly practices deception.

I invite everybody to compare this with the following description:

Heretic76 wrote:for those of us skeptical of government decree

...and reflect on the proper meaning of the word "skeptical".

Heretic76 wrote:You find nothing irregular about a situation in which all manner of small (and critical) evidence, such as identification cards, wedding bands, human tissue, seat belts and such are recovered from the accident site, but 4 boxes supposedly onboard the aircraft, boxes designed and built to withstand huge destructive forces, are nowhere to be found. As fascinating as it is troublesome...

Correct, there is nothing irregular about the observation that some light-weight object from the cabin were not subjected to the same kinds of inertia and forces as sturdy boxes in other parts of the plane. Also. Those (relatively few) objects that escaped the planes and buildings before the collapses obviously were not subjected to the extreme fires in the impact floors, the forces of the collapses, and the long-term smouldering fires that followed.

Heretic76 wrote:To clarify, my GUESS is that the aircraft that struck the towers were NOT carrying explosives, for reasons I outlined in my previous post. That said, it is POSSIBLE that they were. I am still capable of being neutral on some topics, not all.

To clarify, my GUESS is that the aircraft that struck the towers were NOT carrying 50 circus clowns, for reasons I could outline in my next post. That said, it is POSSIBLE that they were. I am still capable of being neutral on some topics, not all.
If you show me evidence of 50 circus clowns aboardf the planes, I'll consider it.
If you show me evidence of explosives aboardf the planes, I'll consider it.
Before you present that evidence, I recommend you just keep your wild speculations to yourself.

Heretic76 wrote:Your claim that the FDRs available support the official narrative is inaccurate. The FDR for 93 was close to the official narrative, but contradicted it in important parameters. Ditto 77.

I am not much familiar with the 93 readouts.
I am much more familiar with the 77 readouts. Warren Stutt has shown that that data fits the correct and common narrative very nicely, with no significant deviations from what was already known from radar, witness accounts and ground damage.
But I am open towards you presenting evidence for your claim. In the appropriate sub-forum maybe.

@ Heretic,

remember I replied to this:

iorwerth wrote:Of course we would have most of this information if we had the flight recorders!

("this information") refers to identity of plane, speed, fuel load... the things SanderO Just Asked Questions about.

Can I ask you a couple of questions of my own? Here it goes:
1. Do you agree or disagree with iorwerth's opinon that "Of course we would have most of this information if we had the flight recorders"?
2 If you disagree: Please explain!

If you agree, then suppose the FDRs of flights 11 and 175 had indeed been found
3. would you accept the data if it agreed with the official story?
4. would you accept the data if it didn't agree with the official story?

Thank you.

Heretic76 wrote:ALL photographic evidence is bogus, having been manipulated somehow or other.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Epistemological solipsism. Instaban as far as I'm concerned. It was a dead giveaway from the first post onwards.

About the rest of the "discussion": this thread is about what the title indicates it is about. I will report deviations from OP to the moderator team henceforth.

Oystein wrote:@ Heretic,

remember I replied to this:

iorwerth wrote:Of course we would have most of this information if we had the flight recorders!

("this information") refers to identity of plane, speed, fuel load... the things SanderO Just Asked Questions about.

Can I ask you a couple of questions of my own? Here it goes:
1. Do you agree or disagree with iorwerth's opinon that "Of course we would have most of this information if we had the flight recorders"?
2 If you disagree: Please explain!

If you agree, then suppose the FDRs of flights 11 and 175 had indeed been found
3. would you accept the data if it agreed with the official story?
4. would you accept the data if it didn't agree with the official story?

Thank you.

1. I agree with Iorwerth's statement, on the assumption that any FDR provided by the government is authentic.

3. In this hypothetical, yes I would accept it, as long as the data could be analyzed by NGO.

4. Ditto.

I'm sure you will, Snow.