[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The question makes perfect sense, it's just that you can't answer it.
You said a certain event didn't happen.

1. You asked what would happen if the passengers resisted
2. I provided Flight 93 as an example of one possible outcome

I ask again.
How could you be sure beforehand, how things would pan out.
The answer is you couldn't. You couldn't be sure.
Consequently no one would okay your plan.

You are saying:
P1: If the terrorists could not have 100% certainty of success then they would not attempt the attack
P2: The terrorists did not have 100% certainty
C: They did not attempt the attack

You have done nothing to substantiate P1 and I do not agree to give it provisional agreement just for the sake of argument. Substantiate P1 or retract your claim.

 

[The Demon's Head]

No thanks, I only read factual books. I find fiction childish.

You find fiction childish...lol

TAM

My sides nearly split on that one.

 

[jsfisher]

You would have to be sure if someone was going to OK your plan.
A plane had to hit the south tower, otherwise all the bombing prep would stand to get discovered etc.
A plane had to hit. You've just admitted the hijack bit can't be sure.
Whereas my remote controlled lift off and delivery can be guaranteed.
My plan can be guaranteed to work, your's can't = my plan is adopted.
The hijack boloney was all the cover up and nothing else.

Your plan is adopted???? By whom???

You imagination is more active than a Pixar animator's.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You would have to be sure if someone was going to OK your plan.
A plane had to hit the south tower, otherwise all the bombing prep would stand to get discovered etc.
A plane had to hit. You've just admitted the hijack bit can't be sure.
Whereas my remote controlled lift off and delivery can be guaranteed.
My plan can be guaranteed to work, your's can't = my plan is adopted.
The hijack boloney was all the cover up and nothing else.

Circular reasoning.

 

[Daald]

Malcolm, I'm just amazed that you have the capability to type.

Guys, I just can't understand how you can even read his jibberish.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's called an emergency landing. Would five minutes make you happier?

No, besides five minutes is a long time to prevent someone getting in and stopping you, or killing passangers. I guess you being the big hero would have ignored the FAA regulations on how to behave in a hijacking and just let them slaughter the women that worked with you while you bravely landed the plane, or would you just have inverted the plane so that everyone that wasn't strapped in would go flying? What a wonderful idea. Of course you'd have lost your job and likely been up on criminal charges, but hey....

How could you be sure the pilot wouldn't do that?

BECAUSE BEFORE 9/11 FLIGHT CREWS WERE TRAINED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HIJACKERS!!!! WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

[beachnut]

I die at the hands of a six stone weakling with shoulders like cotton, not really.
BTW, suppose they couldn't get in the cabin right away. The pilot could have the plane on the groung in two minutes. Even an aenemic stewardess wouldn't bleed to death from a razor slash in that time span = end of hijack = would Rockefeller go with your plan or mine?

You are not a pilot. A cut throat, dead in seconds. Wrong again.

You are right, a pilot should not open the door if someone is killing people, he should land and help kill the killers. Only our bag of tricks on 9/11 was not ready, was it.

But the passengers of flight 93 built a bag of tricks and stopped the terrorist. You have had almost 6 years to mess up 9/11, flight 93 solved the 9/11 story in minutes. You are no hero, are you? Big talk, from such a ....

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You would have to be sure if someone was going to OK your plan.
A plane had to hit the south tower, otherwise all the bombing prep would stand to get discovered etc.
A plane had to hit. You've just admitted the hijack bit can't be sure.
Whereas my remote controlled lift off and delivery can be guaranteed.
My plan can be guaranteed to work, your's can't = my plan is adopted.
The hijack boloney was all the cover up and nothing else.

your reasoning is so circular im getting dizzy

 

[332nd]

The question makes perfect sense, it's just that you can't answer it.
You said a certain event didn't happen.
I ask again.
How could you be sure beforehand, how things would pan out.
The answer is you couldn't. You couldn't be sure.
Consequently no one would okay your plan.

Jesus Krumpin Christ! So the only way a plan would get approved, is if beforehand the planners were SURE how it would pan out? You have never served in the military have you? If fact, you have never read a book, seen a movie, or even a TV show about the military have you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You would have to be sure if someone was going to OK your plan.

Why?

A plane had to hit the south tower, otherwise all the bombing prep would stand to get discovered etc.

Begging the question that the south tower had explosives in it.

A plane had to hit. You've just admitted the hijack bit can't be sure.

No it didn't, but it was likely to work. Name a plane hijacking before 9/11 that failed. Once they had control of the plane it didn't matter if the missed the target, crashing a plane in the middle of NY City would still have had a desired effect.

Whereas my remote controlled lift off and delivery can be guaranteed.
My plan can be guaranteed to work, your's can't = my plan is adopted.
The hijack boloney was all the cover up and nothing else.

No, because you are assuming that that the buildings had explosives in them, we aren't. If there weren't explosives then it doesn't matter if the hijackings were 100% effective. And there is ZERO proof that there were explosives in the WTC buildings.

 

[SOMERLED]

the same applies to you, how can you be certain everything will work out?

that no one notices the missing military planes

none of the passenger get away before being killed

no one involved comes forward

no one on the internet uncovers the whole plot


consequently, no one would ok your plan

Certain, because Raytheon showed it could be done (and more) just days before.
How can a couple of Boeings that belong to Boeing be classed as missing?
What passengers? Remote control = remote, away from = no one on board.
No one came forward? You mean like Mineta?
They had and still have the MSM, they thought it was enough.
They'll still hoping it is. That's one more mistake.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wow! By yon counter on the wall, this is 5720 posts in exactly 25 hours!
This may be the Thread From Hell!

 

[beachnut]

I'm just amazed that you have the capability to type.

There may be a cure for terminal stupidity, will he find it in time?

Pilot note ---

You know you could almost get a plane down in 3 or 4 minutes from 30,000 feet, but you would be landing in a field or trees unless you were very lucky. I doubt if he understands maneuvers and what the pilot would have to do to make a normally 20 minute event down to 2 minutes.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No one came forward? You mean like Mineta?

Mineta claimed that the WTC was blown up and the planes were remote controlled? I must have missed that one, got a link for it?

 

[jsfisher]

Certain, because Raytheon showed it could be done (and more) just days before.
How can a couple of Boeings that belong to Boeing be classed as missing?
What passengers? Remote control = remote, away from = no one on board.
No one came forward? You mean like Mineta?
They had and still have the MSM, they thought it was enough.
They'll still hoping it is. That's one more mistake.

"belong to Boeing"???

Yeah, I know the rest is bovine excrement, too, but the Boeings-belonging-to-Boeing demanded my attention.

 

[SOMERLED]

Why?



Begging the question that the south tower had explosives in it.



No it didn't, but it was likely to work. Name a plane hijacking before 9/11 that failed. Once they had control of the plane it didn't matter if the missed the target, crashing a plane in the middle of NY City would still have had a desired effect.



No, because you are assuming that that the buildings had explosives in them, we aren't. If there weren't explosives then it doesn't matter if the hijackings were 100% effective. And there is ZERO proof that there were explosives in the WTC buildings.

That's why the twins went UP, before they came down.
Anything going UP, has to be blown UP. Because gravity acts only in a downward direction. I'll get you a book on it, when you can join your writing letters together into a word.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Certain, because Raytheon showed it could be done (and more) just days before.

raytheon carried out the 9/11 attacks days before to make sure it would go ok? thats news to me

How can a couple of Boeings that belong to Boeing be classed as missing?

and how many boeing employees are there? would any of them notice 2 missing 767s? how would you certain none of them would talk? (BTW i thought they belonged the military, what happened to those hardened armor plated planes you were in love with before?)

What passengers? Remote control = remote, away from = no one on board.

so no one board f175 on the morning of september 11, 2001? better let the families know

No one came forward? You mean like Mineta?

so he confirms your entire theory?

and since this means rockefeller couldnt have been certain no one would come forward, why would he ok your plan?

 

[jsfisher]

That's why the twins went UP, before they came down.
Anything going UP, has to be blown UP. Because gravity acts only in a downward direction. I'll get you a book on it, when you can join your writing letters together into a word.

At what point did the towers go up on 9/11?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Certain, because Raytheon showed it could be done (and more) just days before.

Affirming the consequent fallacy.

How can a couple of Boeings that belong to Boeing be classed as missing?

They didn't belong to Boeing, they belonged to the airline companies.

What passengers? Remote control = remote, away from = no one on board.

People boarded the flights, at airports. Family and friends wished their loved-ones well and have not seen them since.

No one came forward? You mean like Mineta?

Could you point out where Mineta has declared himself to be a whistleblower?

They had and still have the MSM, they thought it was enough.

Begging the question.

 

[SOMERLED]

"belong to Boeing"???

Yeah, I know the rest is bovine excrement, too, but the Boeings-belonging-to-Boeing demanded my attention.

Boeing have been the subject of RICO legislation since the early nineties.
Of course y'all know all this. When are y'all going to stop pussyfooting around and try and patch together a viable hijack scenario?
Or are y'all just palying for time, trying to work some nonsense scenario out?