9/11 - Europhysics report

look out piano said:
Not sure about the missile thing, very little footage or witnesses to the Pentagon attack tbh. And how did you see both planes hit - as most news footage started after the first one had hit tbf.
Click to expand...

The fire brigade videoed the first.

There were boat loads of eye witnesses who saw the Pentagon attack.


Then you've got lamp posts down which matches being hit by a plane with a large wing span, air traffic control monitoring a flight all the way to the crash site, plane parts found, bodies found etc.
 
Last edited:


Rizla said:
Think about it for one moment.
  • People to rig multiple buildings with explosives and not be detected. That is a serious undertaking requiring considerable expertise.
  • People in the airports and airlines to go along with it on the knowledge thousands of people were going to die.
  • People at various levels within Government to be aware and sanction it
  • People in the military to go along with it.
  • Relatives and associates of the terrorists and Bin Laden to go along with it.
  • People in the Saudi Government to go along with it.
The list is endless mate, and then you've got the families and associates of all those people.

Do you not think one person would have spoken out in the past 17 years, especially in the light of Edward Snowdon.

Just think about it, it is absolutely impossible.
Click to expand...

Very sensible post but please explain below.

A "normal" minimum clean speed with a full load and landing fuel varies between about 210-220 knots this is based on a Vref speed of between 130-140 knots. With this in mind an arrival into a field such as LGW would be flown clean until ATC ask us to reduce below that. Normally ATC ask for 210kts at about 12 miles 180kts between 12-8 miles and then 160kts til 4 miles.
What I normally do (not saying this is how it should be done everyone does it slightly different) is fly it clean at 210 (or min clean speed) until 12 miles then go to flap5 and fly at Vref+40 (170-180kts)til 8 miles and then use flap20 gear up Vref+20 (around 150-160kts) at about 4.5 miles I'd ask for the gear down and at 4 miles go Flap30 Vref+5 (135-145 knots) and fly that for the remainder of the approach.
Hope this helps. Wasn't sure what level of understanding you have so I've tried to explain it middle of the road.

The planes used in the 9/11 incident were not landing using the flaps as per Boeing's years of development.

These planes were used as missiles and at that speed/altitude were uncontrollable, so a few guys from the Middle East with no flight time were never going to achieve the devastation caused in 9/11.

It happened but to blame the named is laughable. Don't believe the conspiracy theories but I still await the truth behind this tragic incident.
 
daveydavey said:
Think he questioned building 7 mate which you've ignored.

But moving on...how do two towers which were hit at different heights, at different speeds, with different fuel bearing loads, which burnt for differing times, fall in identical fashion...in a manner which has never been seen before or after. Indeed, the only time building have ever collapsed in that manner is when demolished.


And yet the people who read & read are the ones made out to be jokers...
Click to expand...

They didn't fall identically. They fell very similar. Probably because both structures were built the same, both suffered major damage and both had enough weight bearing down on them to eventually pancake. The second tower fell first because it was hit lower down, meaning more weight above the impact zone.

ravydavygravy said:
I’ve just read the conclusion. Just mentions fire - No mention of planes.

Are they f***ing stupid?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
im not representing any conspiracy theories, not saying anyone is responsible ....I don't think those things are helpful. I'm Just asking basic questions, on the evidence available. If you look at it purely objectively it's inconclusive....

Why did wtc 7 collapse without being hit by a plane?

Why is there no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon yet all the hundreds of security cameras surrounding the building?
The 'explosion' footage is inconclusive as it doesn't show an intact plane.

Feel free to post footage of plane impacting the pentagon and I'll stand corrected
 
Mancini said:
Very sensible post but please explain below.

A "normal" minimum clean speed with a full load and landing fuel varies between about 210-220 knots this is based on a Vref speed of between 130-140 knots. With this in mind an arrival into a field such as LGW would be flown clean until ATC ask us to reduce below that. Normally ATC ask for 210kts at about 12 miles 180kts between 12-8 miles and then 160kts til 4 miles.
What I normally do (not saying this is how it should be done everyone does it slightly different) is fly it clean at 210 (or min clean speed) until 12 miles then go to flap5 and fly at Vref+40 (170-180kts)til 8 miles and then use flap20 gear up Vref+20 (around 150-160kts) at about 4.5 miles I'd ask for the gear down and at 4 miles go Flap30 Vref+5 (135-145 knots) and fly that for the remainder of the approach.
Hope this helps. Wasn't sure what level of understanding you have so I've tried to explain it middle of the road.

The planes used in the 9/11 incident were not landing using the flaps as per Boeing's years of development.

These planes were used as missiles and at that speed/altitude were uncontrollable, so a few guys from the Middle East with no flight time were never going to achieve the devastation caused in 9/11.

It happened but to blame the named is laughable. Don't believe the conspiracy theories but I still await the truth behind this tragic incident.
Click to expand...
Which airline do you work for may I ask?
 
People saying no other buildings have come down like that. Erm have two buildings, as big as the towers, and built with the same core structure, ever been hit full pelt by 757s?

Berks :lol:

citybythesea said:
im not representing any conspiracy theories, not saying anyone is responsible ....I don't think those things are helpful. I'm Just asking basic questions, on the evidence available. If you look at it purely objectively it's inconclusive....

Why did wtc 7 collapse without being hit by a plane?

Why is there no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon yet all the hundreds of security cameras surrounding the building?
The 'explosion' footage is inconclusive as it doesn't show an intact plane.

Feel free to post footage of plane impacting the pentagon and I'll stand corrected
Click to expand...

If there was no footage of the towers being hit would you doubt them too?

If they could remote control planes into the towers and have them both captured on film you'd think they could do the same with the Pentagon.

Also, so if you are doubting the Pentagon attack due to a lack of footage you must accept the towers as there is footage. So, what happened with the Pentagon? Did they just wait for the towers attacks (which were real hijacks) and just join in and lob a missile? Or did they risk blowing the whole thing by have remote planes for the towers and then a missile for the Pentagon?

Where did the plane that air traffic control tracked all the way to the Pentagon go? How did plane parts get there? How did missing passengers bodies got there?

Why did WTC7 fall when it wasn't hit by a plane? Probably because the towers fell on it, caused loads of damage and fires broke out.

robbied1 said:
You do tealise the people behind 9 /11 are the ones that put trump in office
Click to expand...

I like how people like yourself are privy to all the dark going ons that the majority of the world isn't :lol:
 
Last edited:
Twin towers aside the other 2 tragedies have questions to be asked and was mentioned earlier.

Pentagon - why was footage immediately confiscated

Flight 93- the ntsb investigator said he didn’t know what he was meant to do as there was no evidence to resemble a plain crash
 
dangermows said:
People saying no other buildings have come down like that. Erm have two buildings, as big as the towers, and built with the same core structure, ever been hit full pelt by 757s?

Berks :lol:



If there was no footage of the towers being hit would you doubt them too?

If they could remote control planes into the towers and have them both captured on film you'd think they could do the same with the Pentagon.

Also, so if you are doubting the Pentagon attack due to a lack of footage you must accept the towers as there is footage. So, what happened with the Pentagon? Did they just wait for the towers attacks (which were real hijacks) and just join in and lob a missile? Or did they risk blowing the whole thing by have remote planes for the towers and then a missile for the Pentagon?

Where did the plane that air traffic control tracked all the way to the Pentagon go? How did plane parts get there? How did missing passengers bodies got there?

Why did WTC7 fall when it wasn't hit by a plane? Probably because the towers fell on it, caused loads of damage and fires broke out.



I like how people like yourself are privy to all the dark going ons that the majority of the world isn't :lol:
Click to expand...
Its actually not hard to work out, if you dont follow the mainstream news. Some people obviously like yourself are just lazy and just believe what you are told. 84 per cent of americans do not believe the so called truth. Theres a big movement in usa to try and fet the truth but the mainstream media wont report it yet everyone in the mainstream media has knowledge about what really happened
 
robbied1 said:
Its actually not hard to work out, if you dont follow the mainstream news. Some people obviously like yourself are just lazy and just believe what you are told. 84 per cent of americans do not believe the so called truth. Theres a big movement in usa to try and fet the truth but the mainstream media wont report it yet everyone in the mainstream media has knowledge about what really happened
Click to expand...

You listen to utter toss on the likes of YouTube that gets debunked to fuck man :lol:.
 
dangermows said:
People saying no other buildings have come down like that. Erm have two buildings, as big as the towers, and built with the same core structure, ever been hit full pelt by 757s?

Berks :lol:



If there was no footage of the towers being hit would you doubt them too?

If they could remote control planes into the towers and have them both captured on film you'd think they could do the same with the Pentagon.

Also, so if you are doubting the Pentagon attack due to a lack of footage you must accept the towers as there is footage. So, what happened with the Pentagon? Did they just wait for the towers attacks (which were real hijacks) and just join in and lob a missile? Or did they risk blowing the whole thing by have remote planes for the towers and then a missile for the Pentagon?

Where did the plane that air traffic control tracked all the way to the Pentagon go? How did plane parts get there? How did missing passengers bodies got there?

Why did WTC7 fall when it wasn't hit by a plane? Probably because the towers fell on it, caused loads of damage and fires broke out.



I like how people like yourself are privy to all the dark going ons that the majority of the world isn't :lol:
Click to expand...

No if you read my earlier posts I said the north and south towers are hit and it's conclusive.
Im talking about the evidence that is available not taking things on faith.
This is about being objective on the evidence available. Since the evidence is poor for wtc7 and the pentagon I say it's inconclusive

Also I've never said I'm privy to anything

Just examining evidence objectively
 
Last edited:
A few questions...
daveydavey said:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

I understand this has been done many times, and it’s a bit old hat. But please read the above Euro Physics report which concludes this was staged. So I expect people to laugh or think they’ve won the argument...but just read it.

Eventually, people will accept this as fact - and wonder why, for so long, people didn’t accept it.

Please don’t chime in until you have read.
Click to expand...

1. That's a shitrag magazine, not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal
2. How did they conclude it (whatever 'it' is) was 'staged', exactly? And what exactly was staged - are they claiming there were planes that hit the buildings, but this was part of the conspiracy?
 
I went to read it then the first part showed it up to be bollocks

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation.
 
citybythesea said:
No if you read my earlier posts I said the north and south towers are hit and it's conclusive.
Im talking about the evidence that is available not taking things on faith.
This is about being objective on the evidence available. Since the evidence is poor for wtc7 and the pentagon I say it's inconclusive

Also I've never said I'm privy to anything

Just examining evidence objectively
Click to expand...

So the towers were legitimate attacks. Then what, the government joined in and attacked its own country?

robbied1 said:
Arent all books written by people wanting to make a few quid??
Click to expand...

You tell me, thicko.
 

Back
Top