Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[000063]

One last time...see the link there are modified Boeing 757/767's however difficult or not difficult you think it is, I mean the proof is simply the fact that they exist.

Like that modified plane NASA used back in the 80s? The one requiring extensive modification, that crashed the first time they flew it without a backup pilot in the cockpit and was destroyed? Destroyed, meaning it no longer exists?

Nothing in that link of yours addresses 767s. In fact, I find it odd you don't link to the actual manufacturers website.

http://www.sysplan.com/capabilities/radar/cts/index.html

The one where they list one component as being 800 lbs per rack, which are each 32" deep and 60" high. Looks pretty conspicuous. Also, this is decidedly a hardware modification, not just a software.

No I said a fair trial and impartial jury and I'll add someone that is not mentally ill.

You're moving the goalposts. A prosecutor did bring it to trial. And won.

So you think Boeing are helping coverup the murder of 3000 Americans?

In a previous post I said Boeing would not be involved....I just don't think it's in Boeing's best business interest to say something like yeah there's something strange about that Jet.

And that's another direct answer avoided by TMD.

"Yes", "no", or your favorite "I don't know". It's quite simple.

You people are amazing really, I one person have to prove beyond all doubt...below a level that it can't be proven any further. I've proved everything I have said...have said no lies...I apologized for coming on to strong about the remote control planes. But painted a very good picture that they almost certainly could be made (the website lays out the blue print)

And as several have pointed out, it would require conspicuous physical modification, which the flight crew would notice, unless they were in on it.

the comptroller had access to the planes, Boeing gave a interesting statement of not commenting because of national security reasons.

I've had enough of your snide insinuations.

All of this means nothing you still want more. John Gross flat out lies, but that's ok.

You're right. It means nothing. It's just making up a story out of disparate facts. Apophenia.

Then you have the FBI that say we have no hard evidence against Bin Laden.

They say they do have conclusive evidence about OBL and 9/11. It's just still classified. I told you this already.

By implication that would mean the tapes are forgeries....but that's all ok, and I'm the delusional one. Unbelievable really.

Why would the tapes be forgeries? Why couldn't OBL have taken credit for something he wasn't involved in? And why won't you answer my question with a simple "yes", "no", or "I don't know" instead of rhetorical razzle-dazzle?

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd2_1 you seem like a fairly nice guy, but what you have presented so far is a bunch of little dots that may (or may not) be factual. However, you can't tie them together in a way that makes sense. If you make claims, you have to back them up. Factoids don't constitute a workable theory unless you can link them into something believable

Once again, we've heard it all before here. You've brought nothing new to the table, IMHO.

Hi I appreciate the compliment. Look at my first post, I think I connect the dots. do I have all the answers...of course not..it is a plausible answer. Look at this it is a previous post I made. If you can look at this and still not have questions...nothing I ever say will convince you.

One last point I want to make about the pentagon. Take a look at this video. It is some doofus on the local Washington D.C fox the afternoon of 9/11. This guy somehow has a piece of the plane. He says it crashed and flew all the way into his car. He then just waltzes into a news station with a piece of evidence from the biggest crime scene in U.S history..like he's walking in the park. Give me a break. It's a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKgK5enk7hE

To add to this, take a look at this link. Now I know this is pilots for 9/11 truth but it is apart of Jason Ingersoll's collection. The picture was take 3-5 minutes after the plane hit and you see that same doofus in the navy annex. No girlfriend (that he mentions in the video) and just to far away from the pentagon. Strangely the DOD left this photo off of their official release. Seriously there's not much else to say.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/l...php?t8818.html

 

[WildCat]

Well, in his defense, he did. Hence, the lack of breaks in that paragraph.

 

[000063]

Let's say the official story is true (for what I'm about to say it doesn't really matter) with the exception that 93 was shot down. You don't think people would be a little upset it took them that long to respond?

Yes. I also think they'd be happy the military managed to respond at all, when they had failed to do so the other three times. This would've been an incredible response time, incidentally. Something like a third of the time any previous incident, IIRC.

You don't think they would want to keep that secret, by giving some BS about why they couldn't respond at all.

No, and see my previous point.

If you believe in the theory I presented you would even want to keep it a secret more, because the pentagon would be a total Bush administration idea. If you can't see this we will just have to agree to disagree.

Oh, I'm already absolutely certain nothing I could say would change your mind.

 

[tmd2_1]

Like that modified plane NASA used back in the 80s? The one requiring extensive modification, that crashed the first time they flew it without a backup pilot in the cockpit and was destroyed? Destroyed, meaning it no longer exists?

Nothing in that link of yours addresses 767s. In fact, I find it odd you don't link to the actual manufacturers website.

http://www.sysplan.com/capabilities/radar/cts/index.html

The one where they list one component as being 800 lbs per rack, which are each 32" deep and 60" high. Looks pretty conspicuous. Also, this is decidedly a hardware modification, not just a software.

You're moving the goalposts. A prosecutor did bring it to trial. And won.

And that's another direct answer avoided by TMD.

"Yes", "no", or your favorite "I don't know". It's quite simple.

And as several have pointed out, it would require conspicuous physical modification, which the flight crew would notice, unless they were in on it.

I've had enough of your snide insinuations.

You're right. It means nothing. It's just making up a story out of disparate facts. Apophenia.

They say they do have conclusive evidence about OBL and 9/11. It's just still classified. I told you this already.

Why would the tapes be forgeries? Why couldn't OBL have taken credit for something he wasn't involved in? And why won't you answer my question with a simple "yes", "no", or "I don't know" instead of rhetorical razzle-dazzle?

When bin laden was in the FBI's most wanted list..he wasn't listed for 9/11 I mean give me a break. They would be forgeries..because it wasn't really him on the tapes. If you can look at that one link that spells out how to do it, and not think it could be done, I don't know what to tell you. I apologized for coming on to strong about about the planes being in existence. What didn't I answer directly?

 

[beachnut]

... a piece of evidence from the biggest crime scene in U.S history..like he's walking in the park. Give me a break. It's a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKgK5enk7hE

... Strangely the DOD left this photo off of their official release. Seriously there's not much else to say.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/l...php?t8818.html

You presented proof a jet hit the Pentagon, debunking the idiots at pilots for truth.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Hi I appreciate the compliment. Look at my first post, I think I connect the dots. do I have all the answers...of course not..it is a plausible answer. Look at this it is a previous post I made. If you can look at this and still not have questions...nothing I ever say will convince you.

Can you give me a post number or link? Somehow I think if you had connected all of the dots in your initial post, there wouldn't have been so much discussion about it, but that's just me.

One last point I want to make about the pentagon. Take a look at this video. It is some doofus on the local Washington D.C fox the afternoon of 9/11. This guy somehow has a piece of the plane. He says it crashed and flew all the way into his car. He then just waltzes into a news station with a piece of evidence from the biggest crime scene in U.S history..like he's walking in the park. Give me a break. It's a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKgK5enk7hE

Sorry, but I'm on a dial-up connection. I'm not familiar with this person or what the evidence is. This may actually be something I haven't hear before. Perhaps my fellow forumites could clue me in via text, or you could provide a link to this evidence in text.

To add to this, take a look at this link. Now I know this is pilots for 9/11 truth but it is apart of Jason Ingersoll's collection. The picture was take 3-5 minutes after the plane hit and you see that same doofus in the navy annex. No girlfriend (that he mentions in the video) and just to far away from the pentagon. Strangely the DOD left this photo off of their official release. Seriously there's not much else to say.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/l...php?t8818.html

I'm getting a 404 broken link error when I click on that.

 

[beachnut]

When bin laden was in the FBI's most wanted list..he wasn't listed for 9/11 I mean give me a break. They would be forgeries..because it wasn't really him on the tapes. If you can look at that one link that spells out how to do it, and not think it could be done, I don't know what to tell you. I apologized for coming on to strong about about the planes being in existence. What didn't I answer directly?

Worldwide terrorism, that covers the world. You can quibble about it, but UBL was proud to kill Americans, and he helped do 911, you can't figure out 911 given the answers and UBL telling you who did it.
When will you prove UBL did not help do 911? Soon?
You use internet liars for your evidence. You are using paranoid conspiracy theorists who post delusions on the Internet for your evidence. Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?
Your links are false information, and it fooled you.

 

[tmd2_1]

Can you give me a post number or link? Somehow I think if you had connected all of the dots in your initial post, there wouldn't have been so much discussion about it, but that's just me.


Sorry, but I'm on a dial-up connection. I'm not familiar with this person or what the evidence is. This may actually be something I haven't hear before. Perhaps my fellow forumites could clue me in via text, or you could provide a link to this evidence in text.

I'm getting a 404 broken link error when I click on that.

Hmmm odd...it is post number 5 here.

Here is is again, and another link just in case.

regardless of what you think of these sites...as I said this is from the official military photographer.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8818.html
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/43829/1/

oh you know what happened when i copied and pasted it only took the shortened version..sorry about that.

 

[Sunstealer]

I want to re-post this for those who may have missed it.

Sorry I meant to add that this is from an article that clearly supports the Bin Laden did it scenario...like al queda would be able to get people on the ground at the airport.

What a lot of old baloney! You've re-quoted to a link about asking Boeing to clarify "strange" shapes on the under-carriage. Do you really think that this is going to warrant a company spending money to try and satisfy the unsatisfiable?

Where does your source show the original documents and letters for this exchange with Boeing? The PDF is nonsense.

Pilots more often than not will fly the same aircraft type for long periods - infact they will often fly the same aircraft numerous times. Do you honestly think that a trained pilot is going to ignore changes to the fuselage of an aircraft he knows inside and out during a pre-flight check without question?

What about the maintenence? Do you even realise the strict hoops that airlines have to jump through in order to satisfy aviation regulatory bodies thorough the world?

You do realise that there are photographs of the aircraft used on 9/11 prior to that date and none shows these anomalies - note the date http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20010911-1&vnr=1&kind=PC

How on earth are you going to propose a significant change to the aircraft without anyone noticing in that time frame? You obviously have no idea how the airline industries work.

Come on Mr super duper google investigator - show me documentation that this aircraft underwent maintenance between 1st August 2001 to 11th Sept 2001. Show me it was in maintenance long enough to fit a non-Boeing approved change to the fuselage. Who signed this change off? The aircraft would not have had an airworthiness certificate due to such a significant change. Boeing, AA would have had to have gone through a certification programme for this mod and the FAA would have to have approved this modification.

You are way, way out of your depth and it really shows.

If you are going to posit these bizarre theories then you must come up with a coherent narrative - it's been 10 years and no truther has ever done so. Care to give it a shot?

 

[tmd2_1]

What a lot of old baloney! You've re-quoted to a link about asking Boeing to clarify "strange" shapes on the under-carriage. Do you really think that this is going to warrant a company spending money to try and satisfy the unsatisfiable?

Where does your source show the original documents and letters for this exchange with Boeing? The PDF is nonsense.

Pilots more often than not will fly the same aircraft type for long periods - infact they will often fly the same aircraft numerous times. Do you honestly think that a trained pilot is going to ignore changes to the fuselage of an aircraft he knows inside and out during a pre-flight check without question?

What about the maintenence? Do you even realise the strict hoops that airlines have to jump through in order to satisfy aviation regulatory bodies thorough the world?

You do realise that there are photographs of the aircraft used on 9/11 prior to that date and none shows these anomalies - note the date http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20010911-1&vnr=1&kind=PC

How on earth are you going to propose a significant change to the aircraft without anyone noticing in that time frame? You obviously have no idea how the airline industries work.

Come on Mr super duper google investigator - show me documentation that this aircraft underwent maintenance between 1st August 2001 to 11th Sept 2001. Show me it was in maintenance long enough to fit a non-Boeing approved change to the fuselage. Who signed this change off? The aircraft would not have had an airworthiness certificate due to such a significant change. Boeing, AA would have had to have gone through a certification programme for this mod and the FAA would have to have approved this modification.

You are way, way out of your depth and it really shows.

If you are going to posit these bizarre theories then you must come up with a coherent narrative - it's been 10 years and no truther has ever done so. Care to give it a shot?

Simple...while I don't know this is what happened...it was simply not the plane it was supposed to be, but one of those modified tankers. How it got there...I don't know, as I said the Airport security would have had to have been involved. Read the article....it says it would have been a fairly innocuous device along with giving a blueprint of how to do it.

 

[bill smith]

Yes. I also think they'd be happy the military managed to respond at all, when they had failed to do so the other three times. This would've been an incredible response time, incidentally. Something like a third of the time any previous incident, IIRC.

No, and see my previous point.

Oh, I'm already absolutely certain nothing I could say would change your mind.

Check these out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related cointelpro1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_7YD2vmbA&feature=player_embedded#! cointelpro 2

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Hmmm odd...it is post number 5 here.

Here is is again, and another link just in case.

regardless of what you think of these sites...as I said this is from the official military photographer.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8818.html
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/43829/1/

oh you know what happened when i copied and pasted it only took the shortened version..sorry about that.

OK, I got to the linked site, but it looks like I have to view the news video to understand what the problem is with this guy.

Can you do a synopsis?

 

[Sunstealer]

So you think Boeing are helping coverup the murder of 3000 Americans?[/QUOTE

In a previous post I said Boeing would not be involved....I just don't think it's in Boeing's best business interest to say something like yeah there's something strange about that Jet.

If you are saying that the modified jet flew without Boeing knowing about it then you are wrong. Boeing would have to sign the change off and submit it to the FAA for approval. There would be a paper trail a mile wide. If you are suggesting that this was not the case then hundreds of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy just on that aircraft alone.

You clearly have zero experience or knowledge when it comes to airworthiness.

 

[tmd2_1]

OK, I got to the linked site, but it looks like I have to view the news video to understand what the problem is with this guy.

Can you do a synopsis?

Yes that guy...or a guys that looks an awful lot like him wearing the same thing...comes waltzing into a TV studio with a piece of the plane. Saying he was driving along when the plane crashed, and a piece of plane flew into his car. If that story isn't hard enough to swallow, there's that picture of him placing him somewhere else at the time. Forgot to mention the studio interview was about at 5 on the afternoon of 9/11

 

[tmd2_1]

If you are saying that the modified jet flew without Boeing knowing about it then you are wrong. Boeing would have to sign the change off and submit it to the FAA for approval. There would be a paper trail a mile wide. If you are suggesting that this was not the case then hundreds of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy just on that aircraft alone.

You clearly have zero experience or knowledge when it comes to airworthiness.

LOL no...this would have been a change Boeing would not have known about, and could therefore not approve.

 

[triforcharity]

You are a meanie!

Yepo!!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Yes that guy...or a guys that looks an awful lot like him wearing the same thing...comes waltzing into a TV studio with a piece of the plane. Saying he was driving along when the plane crashed, and a piece of plane flew into his car. If that story isn't hard enough to swallow, there's that picture of him placing him somewhere else at the time. Forgot to mention the studio interview was about at 5 on the afternoon of 9/11

Your synopsis is a bit lacking. What other place was he supposedly at if not the Pentagon.

Edited to add: And if there is a discrepancy about where this one individual was, how does that trump all of the other evidence (passenger DNA, FDR, CVR, etc.) that shows that the plane crashed into the Pentagon? In other words, why should I care about this guy?

 

[triforcharity]

When bin laden was in the FBI's most wanted list..he wasn't listed for 9/11 I mean give me a break. They would be forgeries..because it wasn't really him on the tapes

He wasn't indicted for the events of 9/11, correct. However, to get an indictment, you need alot of evidence. My guess is that they didn't want to release alot of the information because it was a matter of national security.

Once you use that information in an indictment, it's public knowledge.

You're still talking out of your posterior. Many of us here, (Beachnut, myself, DGM, Oys, Mr. Skinny just to name a few) are much more knowledgeable about relevant fields.

May I ask your education/profession?

 

[triforcharity]

Yes that guy...or a guys that looks an awful lot like him wearing the same thing...comes waltzing into a TV studio with a piece of the plane. Saying he was driving along when the plane crashed, and a piece of plane flew into his car. If that story isn't hard enough to swallow, there's that picture of him placing him somewhere else at the time. Forgot to mention the studio interview was about at 5 on the afternoon of 9/11

You're lying again. Your own link says that it landed NEAR his car.

Liar.

He claims a piece of plane landed by his car."