Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Tony Szamboti]

Dynamic air pressure is a function of velocity squared and altitude since the density of air changes with it. Aircraft moving at 530 mph at sea level would experience pressure that is 11 times greater than landing speeds of 160 mph. The control surfaces are optimized for landing and takeoff speeds below 200 mph. So any little overshoot of movement on the controls by a human pilot would cause a major attitude change in the aircraft.

I have read that experienced pilots are lucky to hit those buildings 1 out of 10 times at the high speeds in a simulator.

It seems pretty clear that the aircraft were remotely controlled into the buildings by auto-pilot machines and homing devices. The south tower aircraft was actually heading towards NY City Hall until it was just two miles away from the building when it made a dramatic high speed turn towards it at five seconds away and then a precise adjustment just two seconds away. A human pilot would have been nosing for the building from a significant distance out.

Speculation... and where did you get 1 in 10? You just make facts up don't you?

Watch this video made by Pilots for 911 Truth about controllability problems at high speeds at low altitude. A Check Airman for one of the airlines discusses the problems experienced pilots had hitting the WTC towers in ten tries each in a simulator at those speeds starting at 28:50, and that they couldn't do it in those ten tries and could only do it when they slowed to landing speeds.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index...c=19732&hl=

You really should watch the entire video, as you can't know much about dynamic pressure and controllability if you think it was easy to do.

There is definitely something wrong with the hijackers piloting the aircraft into the buildings story.

[Peter Lemkin]

To All: If you would like to see what I consider [having worked researching 9-11 for over a decade] the best film so far to comprehensively demolish the official version point-by-point in a very well-done video in three parts totaling over 5 hours [!], part 1 is HERE.

For those following this debate between Jeff and Tony, I ask you to watch the film and judge for yourself who is on the side of sanity, truth, logic and physics. The film very wisely presents both sides, even if it has a bias toward 911-Truth.

Jeff Orling, I defy you to watch the three parts and tell us that after watching it, the official version which you support, and try to keep from collapsing by controlled demolition, still holds any 'water'. 70+% of your/my fellow Americans don't buy your and the 'governments' snake oil and that number is growing. In Europe and most of the World that number is closer to 90+%. While one person alone can be right when all other are wrong; in this case the numbers have it correctly and the government lied/is lying and will continue to lie. As the entire structure of the World today is largely based on the lie - and the 'war OF terror' that follows, it behooves all to know the details and fight against this horrific lie and cover-up. There is NOTHING correct in the official version other than they did get the day it happened correct - the rest is a tissue of LIES. Dangerous, treacherous, treasonous lies that have dismantled our Constitution [literally] and made America a country of rapidly diminishing freedoms and rights, laws and democracy; making the World a battlefield in which over a million have already died based on the lies and tens or hundreds of millions will soon if WE World Citizens don't bring Truth and Resistance to this Evil - not by 19 foreigners, but by forces within the Deep Political Structures of America who made this false-flag operation manifest!

[Peter Lemkin]

::darthvader::::thumbsup::

[Peter Lemkin]

[Peter Lemkin]

[David Guyatt]

Frankly I am mystified how any intelligent American or Brit or other European for that matter can survey Post WWII history and remain so blind as to seriously believe that we have a terrorism problem that originates anywhere other than our own Deep State arbiters.

Blessed are the mainstream media, for they shall keep the blind myopic by ever repeating the official story, even when it has been shot down in flames by other members of their community. Amen.

[David Guyatt]

I suppose what I am suggesting is that terrorism and many of the actions we have seen over the years were genuine insurgencies... and tactics of asymmetrical warfare which is the only type of warfare the disenfranchised can wage. Of course they do attempt justice through the usual *diplomatic* channels using their supporters to advocate on their behalf... in actions such as UN resolutions to Rachel Cory to the Marmara

Peter and others seem to dismiss terrorism as being *real* and being a tactic in play. And they definitely seem to question the scale of some attacks as being the handiwork of these rag tag terrorist groups. So was the Beruit barracks bombing a false flag or a real *terrorist* attack on US assets? Khobar towers? The Nairobi Embassy? The USS Cole? How about the disco bombings? The Achille Lauro? And the numerous plane hijackings? Was Lockerbee a flase flag or could it have been a terrorist operation?

But the two strategies aren't mutually exclusive. You can also create and/or later step in and guide insurgencies. Creating one is often a simple thing achieved by forcing injustice and cruelty on to a population, religious or political sect etc., and then "guide" the insurgency to a desired end via in-place agitators. Stepping into an existing insurgency is also not an especially hard thing to do either.

A classical case of this was the so called "Irish problems" where, in the end, so many important members of the IRA were working for British intelligence, that it was clearly a British led operation. That's not to say that the great bulk of the fighting men were owned and they did believe what they were fighting for. It was just an important coterie of the movers and shakers that were controlled. In this respect, the story of "Stakeknife" (Freddie Scappaticci) is salutary reading.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Peter I don't know if I will spend the time to watch the same materials rehashed. Is there anything new there? The New Pearl Harbor... buit is very telling at how this is is used by the truth movement to claim not only fore knowledge by INTENT to do 9/11.

I have explained this before.

Democracies do not attack unless attacked. The policy of pre emptive war was adapted POST 9/11. I suppose it was pushed through as an acceptable policy because waiting to be attacked first had devastating consequences. In both cases there was intel that the enemy was preparing to attack and in both cases the US did not not even prepare. At best it could be argued that hawks wanted to go to war and understood that there needed to be a reason which would have public support and so perhaps did nothing. But what COULD they have done? In the case of 9/11 perhaps hyuped up security? And similar to protect US naval assets. But everyone knows how a country will respond to being attacked. Calling it a Pearl Harbor event is only a load catch phrase.

Yes there was intel that Islamic terrorists were planning plane hijhacking attacks. Intel had prevednted somehow the earlier plot called Bojinka... or it was called off when some of the bombs they were preparing exploded in Manilla I think tippling off intel.

It appears that insiders were of two minds (or more)... they had only diffuse intel and couldn't grab all the hijackers in advance, had no legal reason to do it and their lawyers would have them out of jail pretty quick... or they wanted to let the attacks take place and become the cassus belli for war in the ME. The latter came true.

At best one might make the argument that the hawks drove a LIHOP... by both blocking intel somewhat and not doing anything at all (or little as they could and seem like they were doing something) even staging their exercises of what they knew might happen at the time when it DID happen.

The entire framing of the "New Pearl Harbor" as proof of an inside job is deceptive and manipulative.

[David Guyatt]

Democracies do not attack unless attacked.

You couldn't be more incorrect Jeffrey.

The US is probably a more warlike nation than the Romans ever were. Empire means subjugation. That means starting wars.

Korea 1950, Vietnam/Indochina 1950s through to 1975, where the US pre-stockpiled huge quantities of surplus WWII weapons in both nations for their pre-chosen enemies to use in their pre-planned wars - in order to extend their reach and take control over far flung resources.

By now the list almost runs to 100 wars started since WWII. You really need to read William Blum, "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy".

And that's only the US I've referenced above. The British empire, the French empire - all so called "democracies" with Blighty being the "Mother of Democracy". You would also benefit from reading history more thoroughly.

[Peter Presland]

Democracies do not attack unless attacked.

This not a ganging up - honest. But like David I can not let that statement pass.

As a citizen of the UK, I can tell you that we do not have genuine, functioning democracy. We have a system where the qualified masses go to the polls every 5 years and vote for 1 of 2 main and a number of no-hoper political parties. Aside from hotly contested differences over the trivia of domestic politics you cannot put a fag paper between their stated policies - let alone the unstated and largely hidden ones concerning foreign policy and the security state. On the epoch-defining issues there is either deafening silence or a suffocating zombie-like PC conformity which can be questioned only on pain of excommunication from polite establishment society. I suspect - in fact I know - that similar conditions prevail in the US.

If by 'democracies' you mean, roughly, the UKUSA/NATO group of nations, then the statement may be correct if applied to appearances but in the cold hard reality of geo-politics and 'the great game' it is frankly absurd.

If deep state policy arbiters decide they need war to further an agenda or protect some notional commercial interest or other then, in the absence of any genuine attack or attack threat, they will engineer one - a USS Maine, a Gulf of Tonkin, a WMD threat that can be activated in 45 minutes - that sort of thing. And in the 70 odd years since WWII, the so-called 'Democracies', lead by the US, have been the worst offenders by a truly colossal margin.

I too recommend William Blum's books. He has given me specific permission to post many of their chapters on Wikispooks here