9-11 planes cover-up

I came across an article today which makes very interesting reading.

Written by a retired USAF Colonel, George Nelson, it describes how it is possible to identify what exact planes were used on 9-11 (if access to the remains of them were allowed that is). The most stunning part however is the claim that the plane which supposedly crashed in a Pennsylvania field is actually still in operation!!!

Read the article here - www.physics911.net...

That "article" proves nothing.

Why waste money and resources trying to identify mangled pieces of the plane when you already know what plane it was?

Justyc; this article raises a good point about no real identification of the plains. In any normal crash all information is gathered, regardless what witness claim they see. Thanks for bring the article to our attention.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That "article" proves nothing.

Why waste money and resources trying to identify mangled pieces of the plane when you already know what plane it was?

but how would you know what plane it was if it has never been identified? you have only been 'told' what plane crashed where. if a plane has had servicable identifiable parts changed which belong to another plane which supposedly crashed does that not raise an eyebrow with you?

Visual footage played an important factor in identifying the aircraft.
Even the general public could identify what plane it was through a quick search of aircraft.

How do we even know that these serviceable parts were not found, and that the planes were not identified? This article provides no evidence, just hypothesis. For all we know, the government did collect these parts and did match the serial numbers to the planes in question. Why would the government then release photographs of the serviceable parts? They have no reason to, especially when no one of any serious legitimacy has publicly requested this information. Has anyone filed a motion in court for the government to release any evidence it has regarding serviceable parts found at the crash sights?

All I'm saying is that the article makes an assumption, and that assumption may not even be true. If there was a large group of people or even a respected public figure questioning the idea that those flights did indeed crash where the government said they did, then maybe the government would have released the proof that it found. But there isn't a large group or a public figure questioning this.

The largest majority of Americans believe that those were 757's and 767's from United and American Airlines that crashed on 9/11. That is why we haven't seen the evidence regarding serial numbered parts and whatnot. The absense of the release of this evidence in no way means that the evidence doesn't exist to begin with. It just could very well mean that no one has taken the proper legal steps to have it released.

Just my thoughts...

I'm thinking the guy who wrote this article was a phony. He doesn't seem very technical and doesn't use a lot of the terminology I'd expect someone with his alledged background to use. He doesn't seem very familiar with crash investigation procedures either.

One example is when he keeps saying "big hole in the ground" instead of calling it a crater or impact crater.

He also complains that private investigators were not allowed near the Flight 93 crash site. Of course they weren't! Why would he think they would be allowed? This was a crime scene for a hijacking and an attack on American soil. The public is not going to be allowed to go roaming around a crime scene like that! That statement he made just blows my mind.

He also says:

On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

Anyone with his supposed technical background in accident investigations and reviewing reports of them would be more thorough than that. You don't rely on opinions and conjecture when conducting an investigation. You stick to the facts. He doesn't do that here, he simply spreads a rumor. Way to go, Mr. Professionally Trained Accident Investigator!

Finally, he makes it a point to state the plane that struck the Pentagon had a 125 foot wingspan and the hole in the Pentagon was only 65 feet wide.

This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Just how much exposure has this guy had to aircraft? And how much does he know about the Pentagon? If he's a retired Colonel with 30 years and I was an E-5 with 6 years, he should know more about the Pentagon than I do. But apparently that's not the case.

First off, the wings of an aircraft are not superstrong, undestructable, unmoveable objects. I'm always slightly scared when I get on an airplane and watch the wings bounce up and down when the plane taxis down the runway. The wings are not very rigid.

The side of the Pentagon that got hit was almost finished remodeling. It had been rebuilt to make it stronger, so it could resist car bombs and other similar events. The original Pentagon was built quickly in the 40's and most of it was old and crumbling when the remodeling started. The area the plane hit was the strongest part of the Pentagon. It had new steel reinforced concrete, new structures, and new bullet proof windows, among other upgrades.

Now when this aircraft came in, the wings surely would not have stayed in place and drove through the pentagon. It's ludicris to think that. The penetration of the fuselage and resulting explosion created the 65 foot hole.

I'm convinced this letter is another in the long history of faked 9/11 documents that offer proof of a Government conspiracy.

"... has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. "

Disinformation - continuing the sucessful work of almost four years. So that people refuse to believe the obvious - no planes did ever hit the towers.
letsroll911.org...

Your source has been debunked so many times on ATS, its not even funny MattMarriott.
Try the huge INDEX thread that was created for discussion related to this topic and one can see for themselves.

Hard to imagine how many more times this topic, as with others related to it, will continue to be created, despite the many times that they have been refuted or debated.




seekerof

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by MattMarriott
"... has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. "

You mean that day when I was watching TV - those weren't airliners that flew into the buildings...

I'm really confused now... just what were they....


*sarcasm off *

Originally posted by MattMarriott
"... has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. "

Disinformation - continuing the sucessful work of almost four years. So that people refuse to believe the obvious - no planes did ever hit the towers.
letsroll911.org...

MattMarriott has some very interesting posts

[edit on 25-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 25-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 25-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 25-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

AAARRRGGHHH!! Another link to another board where it's just Matt Marriot saying the same thing to another bunch of people that are just as fed up as we are.

Good God... this one even points back to another thread on ATS where there's no doubt another link to another board...

Please Matt!! Just say it in one post.

Denial is a sad thing, especially of the obvious. The easiest way to trash any of these no planes or wrong planes into the trade towers is solved by, where are the passengers.

Can you not just realize that we were attacked on 9/11, and accept it for what it is. Our government needs not fly planes into buildings to start a war, they just give everyone the finger and do it.

Originally posted by MattMarriott


Disinformation - continuing the sucessful work of almost four years. So that people refuse to believe the obvious -

I would be happy to consider what you claim is obvious once you can prove that George Nelson actually exists as a Ret Colonel

Not wishing to get in the middle of your bun-fight in my thread, but i would just like to mention that i have emailed the site in question to ask for a response from George Nelson regarding the allegation that one of the planes appears to still be in service and am awaiting his response.

Originally posted by elevatedone

Originally posted by MattMarriott
"... has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. "

You mean that day when I was watching TV - those weren't airliners that flew into the buildings...

I'm really confused now... just what were they....

*sarcasm off *

Same here...

I guess it was the MIB who flashy thingy'd everyone and then handed out bogus tapes and photos, and told everyone they were planes. When they were really ET's in ufo's and their rayguns that took down the Towers...

*sigh*

Yeah justyc, I too would like to see these alleged reports...from a crediable source...

Originally posted by ThePunisher

Originally posted by MattMarriott
"... has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. "

Disinformation - continuing the sucessful work of almost four years. So that people refuse to believe the obvious - no planes did ever hit the towers.
letsroll911.org...

MattMarriott has some very interesting posts

I'm sure that Mr. MattMarriott has a load of "interesting posts."
But lets be assured of a few things that perhaps all of us, especially Mr. MattMarriott, need to take heed of:

6)......You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive my advance permission).....

8.) This is not a personal publishing forum.

9.) You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on ATS within posts or signature without prior written permission from me (Simon Gray). Your will not choose a username that is the same as website domain, subdomain, or URL for which you are associated.

Terms And Conditions Of Use

All of us need to pay heed to this, understand it, again, especially Mr. MattMarriott.




seekerof

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Seekerof]