Let's get back to asking questions

reply to post by powerdive


That is actually what the US bureacrats should have done. Rather than issuing bogus reports. That money could have been better spent in an isolated reactment in scale model with anyone filming, who wished to be present.

One scale model tower and Boeing 767, with all same scale model materials, specs and construction, would have been enough to understand what actually could have been the highest probablity happening to the twin towers, as the event is reported to have taken place.

As it is, the US taxpayers paid millions for bogus reports. What a serious waste of resources, that could have been much better spent to give us actual truthful answers. Independent overseers could have made certain, everything in scale, was exactly how it was in full size down to every bolt that went in to construct the twin towers. Same gauge steel, everything.

Take the speed of the alleged plane the "official" version said it was going. Put in some type of material distributed weight to scale for all passenger and crew weight and weight distribution in the alleged plane.

reply to post by powerdive


I fail to understand what the photo is supposed to to tell me. How do I know it is authentic, and not simply something out of someone's computer program promoting virtual reality.

I do have problem when people are reported to die with other people, and that did not happen as reported and validated by BBC.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"United Airlines Flight 93
Boeing 757-222. Fuel capacity 11,000 gallons

Seating Capacity 200
38 passengers (including hijackers)
5 flight attendants, 2 pilots

Alleged hijackers:


Saeed Alghamdi - Alive
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Ahmed Alnami - Alive
Ziad Samir Jarrah

Full details"

The following presents even more mystery again saying the "official" version is not accurate or true:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Your photo changes the name's facial features again. Your photo makes it the same name with 4 very obviously different faces with the same name.

reply to post by Boone 870



That is the second different image of Atta and the fifth different image of Jarrah. From where did those photos come? Osama bin Laden? The men themselves? Where?

reply to post by OrionStars


Click the link again, on the right hand side of the picture there is a blue box that says NBC video.

reply to post by Boone 870


With all due respect, may I have my questions answered first? I asked them in response to your prior post.

reply to post by OrionStars

That is the second different image of Atta and the fifth different image of Jarrah. From where did those photos come? Osama bin Laden? The men themselves? Where?

They are still images from the video that is in the link I posted. The video was found by US military forces in Afghanistan.

Can I ask why random pictures of the alleged hijackers in different locations are being posted?

I know we've been discussing the accuracy of the identities attributed to the alleged hijackers, but how did this become so broad-based? After all, it started with paulpaulpaul's assertion that he had evidence the 19 named hijackers boarded the four aircraft in question on 9/11.

As interesting (but sadly old) as these other photgraphs are, they don't help validate paulpaulpaul's claim, nor, as far as I can see, do they develop any other line of inquiry.

Maybe I've missed the point, in which case, I apologise. If not, why are they being posted?

[edit on 27-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by powerdive

 

I did not see box cutters/utility knives as any type of protective weapon, considering how many people, versed in self-defense, may have been on any alleged planes.

If someone simply said there was a bomb, and people were not shown a bomb, or saw any movement to set off a bomb carried on the body somewhere, or a remote control device, why would utility knives pose that big a threat to all people on the alleged planes, particularly the men?

Those are some interesting questions.

My thoughts (not quite worth a cup of coffee):
Box cutters were specifically chosen because they were within the FAA guidelines and allowed. Shoot, pre 9-11 couldn't you carry a knife with a blade less than something like two inches?

Without trying to sound like I am patronizing anyone, I think it's imperative we think through the Rosetta stone of pre 9-11 thinking and what people may have been thinking while under extreme stress during the actual events.

Some dude on the street threatens you with a box cutter and you open a can of whop *** on him. That's not gonna get much street cred. However, in the hands of a hijacker, a box cutter could be seen as a formidable weapon to some. Keep in mind each plane had several murders committed with these weapons as part of the take-over.

Pre 9-11 thinking was give the hijackers whatever they want. And, with good reason. Pre 9-11 most hijackings were symbolic and ended with little bloodshed. I understand there are some horrible exceptions. But, generally, I think that's a fair statement.

The first three aircraft crashed with the pre 9-11 thinking onboard. That is, IMO, the surviving passengers and crew thought they would be flown to some remote airport, demands would be made, etc. Before Flight 93 crashed, the surviving passengers and crew were able to put enough together on their own (about what was their actual reality) to change thier thinking and put your ideas into practice.

That is, they were being complacent and submissive to the hyjackers (pre 9-11 thinking) learned of the other planes fate, shifted their thinking to one of action based on the backdrop of the new reality. Meaning; their not going to hold us hostage, they are going to kill us, suddenly I'll take my chances with the supposed bomb and there are more of us than box cutters.

I'm not sure this made any sense at all? Basically I am saying with pre 9-11 thinking it was totally reasonable to give in, not fight and totally plausible that a box cutter could be seen as a deterrent to attacking the hijackers. Put it together that they are out to kill you and you're going to (guaranteed) die if you do nothing, that changes your perspective a bit, I would imagine.

I'm going to step out of the conversation, make another drink for myself and enjoy the start of a long weekend. It's entirely possible that first one hit me a little harder than I intended (see above ramblings).

Wizard In the Woods - The generally infantile and ignorant attitude you possess really shines brightly in this absurd question, it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the Middle-East in any shape or form and you should refrain from any further input to this conversation. Thanks for your time.

I have to say I don't appreciate this post. I don't find Wizard to be infantile or ignorant. I certainly don't agree with him, but I have no personal beef with him as a person.

I like to think people like Wizard and I, who honestly disagree, could sit down, share a few cold ones and have a great conversation about these kinds of things.