Honestly would it not have been the easiest to simply install teh remote control on the 4 planes before hand?

Then when the planes take off you take control after a certain moment, then you could fly them any way you wanted to, like through the Manhattan skyline at full speed or 100 feet off the ground at full speed.

Just take control and fly them into the targets with the poor blessed souls on those flights.

I assume it is not difficult at all for the gov't to create the supposed radio transmissions from the terryrists on the planes

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Maybe they made a slow approach and hit the juice in the final few moments....
Originally posted by st111
That was a typo. That was an honeset mistake.
I clicked one button to the right of the five when typing that.

Huh? What was a typo? You didn't even write that, you're not 'st111', or am I missing something here?

Are you posting under two names

[edit on 19/4/2007 by ANOK]

Whaaa? No I am not, I tried to quote some user that said a 767 is a fighter jet and say that I didn't say that, but that a 757 did hit the pentagon.

Even, if you say that a 757 did not pentagon, then you say it could have hit it with them using a remote control, you are contradicting yourself.

A 757 did hit the pentagon. If it was a hologram 757 or if it was something else, some official flight attendant could easily prove you wrong if they had to by providing the number of the flight to you and showing you when the flight took off and when it was supposed to land or arrive.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
...Whaaa? No I am not, I tried to quote some user that said a 767 is a fighter jet and say that I didn't say that, but that a 757 did hit the pentagon...

What are you talking about? I think you are doing more than confusing two conspiracies. You're also confused about what I believe, so do us both a favour, don't try to put words in my mouth OK.
Maybe you should spend some time going over 9-11 threads and learn something, before coming hear making confused conclusions about what other people think about what happened.

I have no idea what caused the pentacon damage, a holographicly cloaked missile, a small military plane, a UFO from the planet zod, or Alah himself.
All I know for sure is there was no 757 at the pentagoon, the rest is just guessing.
So quit quoting me as saying things I haven't said, thanx.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
...Whaaa? No I am not, I tried to quote some user that said a 767 is a fighter jet and say that I didn't say that, but that a 757 did hit the pentagon...

What are you talking about? I think you are doing more than confusing two conspiracies. You're also confused about what I believe, so do us both a favour, don't try to put words in my mouth OK.
Maybe you should spend some time going over 9-11 threads and learn something, before coming hear making confused conclusions about what other people think about what happened.

I have no idea what caused the pentacon damage, a holographicly cloaked missile, a small military plane, a UFO from the planet zod, or Alah himself.
All I know for sure is there was no 757 at the pentagoon, the rest is just guessing.
So quit quoting me as saying things I haven't said, thanx.

Huh? So you're going to discredit and defame all of the families that lost husbands, wives, women, and children upon both of those flights that hit the twin towers? It is possible that there was a 757 there, and what I am saying is that if you talked to any flight official and if they were serious enough they could provide the flight number of the flights, and they could provide videos that security took of the hijacker, and people who were going on the plane, and prove that people went on the plane itself.

Flight 93, is a different story.

Was there any Plane Wreckage in any of the rubble after the towers collapsed? because if there was that would kinda debunk the whole hologram thoery. Im not going to argue with john lear but because i know nothing about flying but i think the WTC would be a pretty big target to hit and one of the easiest targets to aquire because of their height. if there was any conspiracy in the whole thing, i dont think its wether or not a plane actually hit the wtc but how did the steel melt for it to collapse? explosives would do it but i think you would have seen an explosion at the beams. if the explosion could rip through steel beams it would have easily riped its way through some concrete and be visible from the outside in some way. the only thing that could have done it in my opinion is thermite.

reguarding to what john lear said about the WTC being hard to hit, it would have been even harder for each plane to hit a specific floor. the only way it could have been done then is if there were explosives/thermite placed on dozens of floors at each of the beams on both towers. where would they be able to hide all of that from the people who worked at the WTC?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

What? You did say that there were no planes at the WTC towers.

I am trying to follow what you are posting MH but it is a little tough when you don't use the proper quotes or who posted it.

Now. Who said that there were no planes at the WTC towers? Please use their name and exact quote. I think we will be able to get this sorted out. Thanks.

Planes were hijacked by Islamic fundimentalists that have hated Eurpoe and the west since midevil times, and most recently starting from around 1776 on. They flew them into buildings, just like they had planned to do for year and we under-estmated their ability to do. Done and done.

Not taking one side or the other, I'd just like to point out that Most Muslims had completely forgotten about the Idea of Holy War, until Russia Invaded parts of the middle east. The U.S. (who hated Russia) sent people into Afghanistan and funded Jihadist's to fight the Russians for them, they funded Terrorists (and Osama actually) for quiet awhile. Now that funding has turned against them, and the ideas they re-introduced to the Muslim world is coming back to haunt them.

The U.S. Seems to have a problem wit this, what with bringing Bin Ladan into power, Saddam Hussein, and Castro? I'm sure there are some people I'm forgetting who the U.S. Supported at first but then realized what a mistake they had made. They also supported the Coup in Iran that eventually lead to the Coup by the Aiatola(sp) and into modern day Iran.

\(^_^)/ don't you wish our government could go back to our original Isolationist beliefs?

--edited for Quotes--

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Tibris]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Maverickhunter

What? You did say that there were no planes at the WTC towers.

I am trying to follow what you are posting MH but it is a little tough when you don't use the proper quotes or who posted it.

Now. Who said that there were no planes at the WTC towers? Please use their name and exact quote. I think we will be able to get this sorted out. Thanks.

I think you are spreading disinfo johnlear, obviously planes hit the twin towers and my quote function is messed up. I try to include their exact name and their exact quote but my computer acts really Cr@ppy and messes up and doesn't let me quote things exactly. Anok said that no boeings hit the WTC towers, that being said, you said that there were no people in the planes. It's not that no planes hit the WTC, because they did. You said they were holographic planes, and also, the rest of the members are saying that no one was in those planes.

Well what about body count? They found bodies in rubble some from the flight and some from the people in the building.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by fuzzkill
Was there any Plane Wreckage in any of the rubble after the towers collapsed? because if there was that would kinda debunk the whole hologram thoery. Im not going to argue with john lear but because i know nothing about flying but i think the WTC would be a pretty big target to hit and one of the easiest targets to aquire because of their height. if there was any conspiracy in the whole thing, i dont think its wether or not a plane actually hit the wtc but how did the steel melt for it to collapse? explosives would do it but i think you would have seen an explosion at the beams. if the explosion could rip through steel beams it would have easily riped its way through some concrete and be visible from the outside in some way. the only thing that could have done it in my opinion is thermite.

reguarding to what john lear said about the WTC being hard to hit, it would have been even harder for each plane to hit a specific floor. the only way it could have been done then is if there were explosives/thermite placed on dozens of floors at each of the beams on both towers. where would they be able to hide all of that from the people who worked at the WTC?

I don't know if there was plane wreckage or not but they didn't show it on live TV. That brings up a good question. I'll have to rewatch those tapes of 9-11 to see if the planes just disappeared or if they fell and crashed.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
What? You did say that there were no planes at the WTC towers.

Pls quote me where I said that, thanx.

If your quote function is messed up, not sure how it could be, why don't you just look at what you've wrote and fix it before you hit post? Cause at the moment you are miss-quoting, and then claiming people have said what they haven't said. Using something you can fix as an excuse for not making sense doesn't... well, make sense.

Nowhere on ATS have I EVER said there were no planes at the towers, let alone in this thread.

This thread is stupid and getting stupider...

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

I think you are spreading disinfo johnlear, obviously planes hit the twin towers and my quote function is messed up.

Thanks for the post MH, I always appreciate the chance to make myself clear. There is no "quote function" on a computer. It is something you perform yourself. For instance if you want to enclose someones quotes you use

[ quote] at the beginning of the quote and [/quote ]

at the end. You also want to be sure that you include the part that says "originally posted by..." and I usually take out the [ quote] just before that.

As to my spreading disinfo as you mentioned above that is a very serious charge but you have every right to make that charge on ATS. But just so that everybody knows what is it that you think is disinfo I need you to post the exact quote so that I can respond.

You mentioned "holographic images". Since you may have just 'heard' about what I said in my original posts about holographic images and not actually read what I said I need you to go back and quote exactly what you think I said was disinformation. You will notice that everybody else on this thread is quite specific about their complaints.

If you can't or don't want to do that I would respectfully request that you rephrase the above quote that I am spreading disinformation.

Thanks again for your participation in this thread.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
What? You did say that there were no planes at the WTC towers.

Pls quote me where I said that, thanx.

If your quote function is messed up, not sure how it could be, why don't you just look at what you've wrote and fix it before you hit post? Cause at the moment you are miss-quoting, and then claiming people have said what they haven't said. Using something you can fix as an excuse for not making sense doesn't... well, make sense.

Nowhere on ATS have I EVER said there were no planes at the towers, let alone in this thread.

This thread is stupid and getting stupider...

Hmm? You said that no boeing 757 hit the WTC, so and no other planes were present, so therefore no planes hit the pentagon, as no planes were present.

Oh and Johnlear I joke about people spreading disinfo, it's just my thing to joke about it and I know you're not a disinfo agent. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and I am questioning the 9-11 truth movement because they make contradictions with themselves.

What do you think about the 9-11 truth movement contradicting themselves? I think the government had responsibility with letting it happen but I don't think they did it.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

Hmm? You said that no boeing 757 hit the WTC, so and no other planes were present, so therefore no planes hit the pentagon, as no planes were present.

MH, let me respectfully suggest that you need to improve your thinking skills.

First of all it was me that said no 757's hit the WTC because none did. 767's were the type of airplane that allegedly hit the WTC.

I said that hoping you would see your error and start thinking about it. But no. You decide that if no 757's were there then no other planes were present and therefore no planes hit the Pentagon as no planes were present.

Thats probably the most illogical thinking I have ever seen displayed on ATS.

Let me respectfully suggest that you carefully read the posts and then think about it for a little while before shooting from the hip.

Oh and Johnlear I joke about people spreading disinfo.

I don't take it as a joke.

it's just my thing to joke about it and I know you're not a disinfo agent.

I assume that is your version of a retraction.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Opinons yes. Calling someone a disinformation agent is not an opinion unless so stated.

and I am questioning the 9-11 truth movement because they make contradictions with themselves.

This is your privilege but you did not make that clear in any way.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Hmm? You said that no Boeing 757 hit the WTC, so and no other planes were present, so therefore no planes hit the pentagon, as no planes were present.

I asked you to quote where I said 'no plane hit the WTC'. Until you can pls quit saying I said that, I didn't, never have, ever...
My mind is not made up enough to make that claim.

Yes I believe no 'Boeing 757' hit the pentagoon, but I didn't say 'no plane' hit the pentagoon. Not enough wreckage to convince me a Boeing 757 hit the pentagoon, let alone the crazy flight path that an experienced 757 pilot would have trouble with.

I also didn't say no other planes were present. In fact there were 'other' planes present, like a C-130 for example.

Quit making assumptions about what people think.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Hmm? You said that no Boeing 757 hit the WTC, so and no other planes were present, so therefore no planes hit the pentagon, as no planes were present.

I asked you to quote where I said 'no plane hit the WTC'. Until you can pls quit saying I said that, I didn't, never have, ever...
My mind is not made up enough to make that claim.

Yes I believe no 'Boeing 757' hit the pentagoon, but I didn't say 'no plane' hit the pentagoon. Not enough wreckage to convince me a Boeing 757 hit the pentagoon, let alone the crazy flight path that an experienced 757 pilot would have trouble with.

I also didn't say no other planes were present. In fact there were 'other' planes present, like a C-130 for example.

Quit making assumptions about what people think.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by ANOK]

Well where was this C-130? Is this another conspiracy that hasn't been proven true? Well the only plane that was present that seemed to hit the twin towers was a 757, and I was asking if there were any other planes that hit it, if you say that no 757 hit the twin towers, then how did they collapse without the rubble or wreckage of the plane being shown on national TV? Plus also, they probably were just flying there on that day on a normal flight.

Hmm? You said that no boeing 757 hit the WTC, so and no other planes were present, so therefore no planes hit the pentagon, as no planes were present.


MH, let me respectfully suggest that you need to improve your thinking skills.

Go on.

First of all it was me that said no 757's hit the WTC because none did. 767's were the type of airplane that allegedly hit the WTC.

Then why did someone correct me and say that a 767 is a fighter jet and it was a 757 that we were talking about?

I said that hoping you would see your error and start thinking about it. But no. You decide that if no 757's were there then no other planes were present and therefore no planes hit the Pentagon as no planes were present.

What I meant that no other planes were present on impact on the WTC, I wasn't talking about the Pentagon.

Thats probably the most illogical thinking I have ever seen displayed on ATS.

You're thinking irrationally.

Let me respectfully suggest that you carefully read the posts and then think about it for a little while before shooting from the hip.

Oh and Johnlear I joke about people spreading disinfo.

I don't take it as a joke.

] it's just my thing to joke about it and I know you're not a disinfo agent.

I assume that is your version of a retraction.
Ha ha, so you noticed my sarcasm. Well, then it's a fair game. I think that some of your theories don't make sense and that's my right to think that you can think that about me too. I believe we landed on the moon legitimately, I have been to the engineering room at NASA when I was like 10, 11, or 12.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Opinons yes. Calling someone a disinformation agent is not an opinion unless so stated.

So go try and turn people against me, when I said nothing to offend you. It's my opinion and I am not forcing it on anyone else. This is a debate between me and you don't drag the rest of ATS inside it.

and I am questioning the 9-11 truth movement because they make contradictions with themselves.

This is your privilege but you did not make that clear in any way.

Be more coherent and then think about what I am saying then we can talk.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Well where was this C-130? Is this another conspiracy that hasn't been proven true? Well the only plane that was present that seemed to hit the twin towers was a 757, and I was asking if there were any other planes that hit it, if you say that no 757 hit the twin towers.

One more time, before I put you on ignore. I DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO PLANE AT THE WTC!

Got it now? C ya...

BTW as for the C-130 go do some research...

Things can get complicated if one doesn't know the difference between a 757, 767, and a Jetfighter.. Why not reread all post from the start Maverickhunter and see what people say and quote before you asume things that are not right and make people look bad..