What would it take for Trump to win?

[PeterAit]

"What would it take for Trump to win?"
Speaking as an outside observer and therefore not `invested' in any candidate or party:
A willingness for US voters to forego critical thought perhaps? Possibly in conjunction with an episode of national psychosis and/or a complete and collective suspension of disbelief.

Trump addresses some legitimate concerns from the white middle class about loss of good manufacturing jobs, but to vote for him based on this would be the height of stupidity. The best analogy I can come up with: if your car is not running properly, then set your garage on fire. We all know that he is a vile racist, misogynist, and xenophobe, but it's important to realize the astounding depth of his stupidity. How many failed businesses has he run? How many businesses has he driven into bankruptcy (sometimes to his own personal gain)? Smart? Does not seem so. And his ignorance - he proposed invading Iceland, beloved of we photographers, because it was harboring ISIS (speech before the SC primary). Who with the wits of a gerbil would want this man as president?

[Rand47]

Assuming you are not joking, I am really sorry for your loss. I'd expect you more than anybody else to want to understand what happened that day.

But I fail to see how the tragic disappearance of the people who were on the plane supposed to have crashed on the Pengaton tell us that the plane actually crashed there.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Are you serious?  This is an honest question.

Rand

[Rob C]

"I am not an expert in demolition, but I understand that there are several techniques that could be used to bring down buildings. At least in the case of the 3rd tower, there are many documented reports of explosions.

There guys seem to have serious doubts also: http://www.ae911truth.org/ "

.....................................

Well, Bernard, one could say the plot thickens by the day.

Whether 'explosion' sounds were due to explosives or simply to physical failures of materials isn't shown; in either case, if there were explosives involved, then by whom were they placed? Would internal Tower Security people not have been able to see them being planted, either by terrorists or by the darker arm of government? Were they planned as early as during the actual construction, wouldn't the builders have twigged what was going down?

Perhaps witnesses simply do not know what they hear, which in that context, wouldn't be at all surprising. As stun grenades are used to gain access to building in the hope of disorientating armed thugs, the effect on the public must be fairly similar when present in the scale that the Towers represented. I was in one car crash - I hope the last - many years ago, in in my mind it was all in very slo-mo; the reality? Who the hell knows, least of all myself!

Rob

[Jim Pascoe]

I really have no idea what the truth is and to try and guess at it just brings misguided ridicule from the ultra conformists. However, the psychology behind witness accounts is not as straightforward as we would be led to believe, it's been shown that should there be a shock happening and you then quickly tell people what they saw they will come to believe that is indeed what happened. A quick google brought this up -

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4  Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

I've not seen that example but I am aware of the principle.  However to me the shocking unexpectedness of the events concerning the hijackers does still seem more likely to me than the alternatives.  But then i'm always a sceptic when it comes to conspiracy theories.

Jim

[BernardLanguillier]

Are you serious?  This is an honest question.

Rand,

That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.

In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.

I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?

Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jim Pascoe]

Rand,

That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.

In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.

I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?

Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard - I'm not an aviator, but it doesn't surprise me that many pilots have claimed they would not/could not have flown the plane so low at such speed.  I would imagine that even the test pilots for that type did not try such a procedure.  That is because it would probably be suicide to try - which of course is precisely why the hijackers were prepared to attempt, and succeed.

Jim

[Justinr]

"I am not an expert in demolition, but I understand that there are several techniques that could be used to bring down buildings. At least in the case of the 3rd tower, there are many documented reports of explosions.

There guys seem to have serious doubts also: http://www.ae911truth.org/ "

.....................................

Well, Bernard, one could say the plot thickens by the day.

Whether 'explosion' sounds were due to explosives or simply to physical failures of materials isn't shown; in either case, if there were explosives involved, then by whom were they placed? Would internal Tower Security people not have been able to see them being planted, either by terrorists or by the darker arm of government? Were they planned as early as during the actual construction, wouldn't the builders have twigged what was going down?

Perhaps witnesses simply do not know what they hear, which in that context, wouldn't be at all surprising. As stun grenades are used to gain access to building in the hope of disorientating armed thugs, the effect on the public must be fairly similar when present in the scale that the Towers represented. I was in one car crash - I hope the last - many years ago, in in my mind it was all in very slo-mo; the reality? Who the hell knows, least of all myself!

Rob

The rumours are that the explosives were laid a week or so before when the building was closed down for 'maintenance ' of some sort. The fact that these are the only know instances of high rise buildings collapsing due to the effects of fire is also of interest to those who doubt the official account. If you would like to know why there are so many questions still being asked about the event the following book is a good place to start -

https://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529

It was written by an academic rather than a web jockey and asks many questions that have yet to be fully answered.

[Alan Klein]

The fact that these are the only know instances of high rise buildings collapsing due to the effects of fire is also of interest to those who doubt the official account.

The heat created by fire does bring down buildings by warping the steel that holds them up once it hits around 1000 degrees F.  The fires in the WTC were particular hot due to the aviation fuel that burned.  The planes themselves damaged a few of the floors just from the crashing.  Building codes require that all steel members in high rise building like the WTC are sprayed with fireproofing materials to stop or at least delay the effect of heat.  There were a lot of issues with the fireproofing materials applied to the WTC that may have contributed to their collapse.  Also, the fireproofing probably was damaged on the floors where the planes hit and most of the fire occurred.  So the steel was vulnerable at that point.

Also, there was also the basic design of outside steel holding up the building that contributed to the their collapse, a design not used in most office buildings and which was not repeated in the new WTC. Most buildings have interior vertical columns and horizontal beams forming a horizontal and vertical grid; the WTC did not.  The WTC was built like an airplane on its nose.  The plane has no interior supports.  Same with the original WTC. The skin acts as the full vertical support with the attached floors acting to stabilize the structure and outside shell. Once the plane damaged floors started to collapse, it continued to collapse each subsequent floor beneath cascading through the building shell bringing down the entire tower.     

[Alan Klein]

Just to clarify a point I made.  Fireproofing materials are require on all steel members regardless of the height of a building.  It's not limited to high rise buildings as I indicated in my last post.  As a construction manager in NYC, I was always involved with inspections of the fireproofing installation.  Today the materials are far superior than those used when the WTC was built.  There are also very involved inspection requirements by licensed firms and inspectors to assure the proper application, inspections that were probably limited back when the WTC was built.  Fireproofing was a new requirement then. 

[RSL]

Rand,

That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.

In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.

I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?

Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.

[Justinr]

The heat created by fire does bring down buildings by warping the steel that holds them up once it hits around 1000 degrees F.  The fires in the WTC were particular hot due to the aviation fuel that burned.  The planes themselves damaged a few of the floors just from the crashing.  Building codes require that all steel members in high rise building like the WTC are sprayed with fireproofing materials to stop or at least delay the effect of heat.  There were a lot of issues with the fireproofing materials applied to the WTC that may have contributed to their collapse.  Also, the fireproofing probably was damaged on the floors where the planes hit and most of the fire occurred.  So the steel was vulnerable at that point.

Also, there was also the basic design of outside steel holding up the building that contributed to the their collapse, a design not used in most office buildings and which was not repeated in the new WTC. Most buildings have interior vertical columns and horizontal beams forming a horizontal and vertical grid; the WTC did not.  The WTC was built like an airplane on its nose.  The plane has no interior supports.  Same with the original WTC. The skin acts as the full vertical support with the attached floors acting to stabilize the structure and outside shell. Once the plane damaged floors started to collapse, it continued to collapse each subsequent floor beneath cascading through the building shell bringing down the entire tower.   

Alan, I think it best that I restrain from further  involvement with arguments over 9/11 as they tend to go on endlessly and there is probably little I have not come across before. However, I will say that if they were to fall due to the planes crashing into them then they would have done so a lot earlier.

I have recommended a book in another post which outlines the the serious questions hanging over the official account in far more detail than can be done here - https://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529

[Jim Pascoe]

I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.

I'm quite sure you are right Russ.  However just to point out that Bernard's assertion in Post 100 was that the plane was flying in excess of 800 kph at the time of impact.  Which is why I noted that probably they don't test airliners at that speed below tree-top height!

Jim

[Alan Klein]

The terrorists weren't testing the planes.  They intended to crash them at the base of the Pentagon, something easily done.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks…

The nearest I have been a cockpit is row one in the passenger cabin on way from Salt Lake City to Fanning Field. But that doesn't mean I am not interested in flight…

I am always a bit skeptical about conspiracy theories, common sense says that the most probable explanations should be tested first.

Quite a few years ago a ferry went under here in Sweden on the Baltic Sea. Experts quickly found out that the cause of the sinking was failure of the bow port and flooding of the car deck. Perfectly good explanations consistent with the facts.

But soon enough there were a lot of conspiracy theories involving KGB, Swedish Military and also probably some three letter organisation from the US and the Dark Side.

Quite possible but not very probable…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia#Official_investigation_and_report

Best regards
Erik

I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.

[Jim Pascoe]

The terrorists weren't testing the planes.  They intended to crash them at the base of the Pentagon, something easily done.

Alan - you may not have read the posts I was referring to.  Bernard stated that many pilots said it was not possible to fly such an aircraft at such a high speed/low altitude.  I was pointing out that probably they were not tested in such circumstances, but that the hijackers were not constrained by safety issues as they were intending to destroy themselves and the plane anyway.

Jim

[Manoli]

A quick google search indicates that the stall speed for s 757, is between 126 and 150 knots (a bit below 172MPH) - surely slow enough to allow a competent pilot to fly low without stalling ?

[MattBurt]

How about that interview last night?

[Justinr]

A quick google search indicates that the stall speed for s 757, is between 126 and 150 knots (a bit below 172MPH) - surely slow enough to allow a competent pilot to fly low without stalling ?

Things are different at ground level, the airflow around the wing changes dramatically providing extra lift.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... We all know that he is a vile racist, misogynist, and xenophobe..

Uh-oh... whenever the sentence starts with "we all know..." we all know it ain't so 

...Who with the wits of a gerbil would want this man as president?

Maybe those with gerbil wits wouldn't, but plenty of smart people would.

[MattBurt]

Uh-oh... whenever the sentence starts with "we all know..." we all know it ain't so 

He could just be faking it to appeal to his base.