One reason NOT to use the real planes at the Pentagon, and perhaps the WTC is the off chance of someone surviving. If a passenger did survive they would be able to tell what actually happened on the flight. That it was not an islamic terrorist hijacking as reported.
.

Nice post
I will go through those links once this Mountain Dew kicks in

Slank
Good thought.I tried that one as well.But seems 'to far fetched' and 'unrealistic' to a few people.

Originally posted by SMR
No science is needed when you have the internet.

Thanks for the new sig line.

Mock all you want since you cant ever find my findings to be false.Infact,you havent been able to reply to any of my findings after shutting you down

As for that statement,I think you know what I meant when I put that.But incase you dont have the smarts to figure it out,I will help you.
By 'no need for science when you have the interent' I meant that you do not need to be a science professor (as many here are not even though they bash my findings) when all the math and science are on the pages from which the source comes from.

Now instead of being a 'witty' comic,why dont you try and faslify my findings smart guy

BTW,,,is that all you do is look for comments from people to add to your sig line rather than posting something relivent to the topic?Nice heap of self esteem you got there

[edit on 11-9-2004 by SMR]

Anyone that thinks 9-11 didn't happen the way Bush and the rest of the Government said it did is in serious need of a life IMO. There is no way all these theorys apply here. I understand this is a site for such debate. However this discussion is just a waste of time IMO. My first PLONK!

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
However this discussion is just a waste of time IMO.

So why did you put forth the effort to waste your time

Some people's children

I do not doubt that DNA can be recovered from a small piece of skin,,I mean a drop of spit can give you DNA.
But come on,,,,

only pieces of tissue could be found

Talk about Where's Waldo
With all that damage,a plane that they say vaporized,almost nothing left of metal,yet small pieces of people are found?And not whole pieces,but skin tissue?
Im having trouble with that one.But will give benifit of the doubt right now until I can get some numbers here.
Going to need to see some numbers of those who needed to be indentified by these 'pieces'

[edit on 12-9-2004 by SMR]

Originally posted by SMR
I do not doubt that DNA can be recovered from a small piece of skin,,I mean a drop of spit can give you DNA.
But come on,,,,

only pieces of tissue could be found

Talk about Where's Waldo
With all that damage,a plane that they say vaporized,almost nothing left of metal,yet small pieces of people are found?And not whole pieces,but skin tissue?
Im having trouble with that one.But will give benifit of the doubt right now until I can get some numbers here.
Going to need to see some numbers of those who needed to be indentified by these 'pieces'

[edit on 12-9-2004 by SMR]

Why do you, and so many people like you, choose to IGNORE the photos, the evidence of thousands of pieces of the aircraft, the tons of metal from the airframe, the peices of the engines, the "black boxes" from the aircraft, the seats from the aircraft, the liggage from the aircraft, etc., and simply state "the plane vapourized" ??

I love how you deny everything that is fact so you can safely remain in your cacoon sheltered from reality. Keep up the good work.

A 757 hit the Pentagon - maybe if your efforts in proving a conspiracy were redirected in the proper place you'd have a more plausible conspiracy theory to support and prove. Such as: why couldn't the "government" have helped (and trained) the Al Kyda operatives to hijack and fly the planes into the buildings at both WTC and Pentagon sites? I mean, they didn't scramble fighters to check out the aircraft as is usual procedure - all 4 aircraft turned their transponders off and ceases radio communications within aproximately 10 minutes of each other (when other aircraft stray from their flight course there is at least 2 F16's scrambled to check out the situation within 30 minutes - in all 4 cases on 9-11 no fighters were scrambled in the first 45 minutes...).

The 4th plane over PA was most likely shot down by an F16 (one of the plane's engines fell off at altitude and landed miles away from the main crash site) - it was known that the passengers were attempting to overtake the terrorists through phone calls to 911. IF (and I stress if) the planes were all part of a greater conspiracy, one which aided and abbetted the terrorists in some "greater plan" to remove freedoms from the American public, and give the government more freedoms and powers over it, it would certainly make sense to blow that last plane out of the sky. Otherwise, perhaps a terrorist on the 4th plane could/would have been captured and told his tale of how he was trained by US agents...

I should stress that I firmly believe the above two paragraphs to be another tale spun in deluded fantasy - but there are thousands and thousands of people, and hundreds of organizations who will tell you the above is true. If it were true - then of course they'd simply fly the aircraft into the buildings, why would they further complicate matters by using anything other than the original 4 aircraft to hit the buildings with? Eyewitnesses on the ground would further support the story that it was a terrorist attack if people SAW the planes hit - this would be the final piece in completing the proof of a terrorist attack and would remove all thought from the public that it was anything but a terrorist attack. If it were missiles or military aircraft hitting the buildings surely hundreds of witnesses would have been all over the news saying "What in the hell is going on here?! I saw a missile hit that building!!"

Seriously, I think you're supporting a really misguided conspiracy theory, and I also think you're ignoring all the proof when it comes to evidence on the ground at the Pentagon. A missile did not hit the Pentagon. A 757 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by slank
One reason NOT to use the real planes at the Pentagon, and perhaps the WTC is the off chance of someone surviving. If a passenger did survive they would be able to tell what actually happened on the flight. That it was not an islamic terrorist hijacking as reported.
.

There is absolutely no way anyone can survive a commercial airliner crashing directly into a wall, mountainside, or other solid object. In the history of airplane crashes, any aircraft impacting such an object has resulted in 100% fatalities. In all airplane crashes where there are survivors, there has been a concerted effort by the flight crew to avoid a crash or to attempt a crash landing (slow down, try to land normally and slide on the belly).

If the US government was conspiring on 9-11 to attack it's own population in the hopes of generating a mass simpathy and outrage - and thus grant the government more controls over its own people though restrictions of freedoms and issuances of new laws - they would not have taken the chance that anything but the original aircraft and the people on those aircraft could be found as evidence on the ground.



[edit on 12-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by CatHerder

The 4th plane over PA was most likely shot down by an F16 (one of the plane's engines fell off at altitude and landed miles away from the main crash site) - it was known that the passengers were attempting to overtake the terrorists through phone calls to 911.

I thought I was the only one that thought the fourth plane might have been shot down. People should put some effort into that. I believe from the time the second plane hit the WTC to the time the fourth plane went down was more then enough time to scramble planes. Dick Cheney even gave the order to shoot down planes but it is said that his order never got threw Also just the fact that it landed in a empty field is alittle shady. If you had orders to shoot down a civillian plane would most likey do it over the most empty area you could find.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I thought I was the only one that thought the fourth plane might have been shot down. People should put some effort into that. I believe from the time the second plane hit the WTC to the time the fourth plane went down was more then enough time to scramble planes. Dick Cheney even gave the order to shoot down planes but it is said that his order never got threw Also just the fact that it landed in a empty field is alittle shady. If you had orders to shoot down a civillian plane would most likey do it over the most empty area you could find.

In all honesty, I think they probably did shoot down the 4th plane and choose not to freely admit that for the sake of the families of the people onboard. If it were up to me, if it were my call, I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot down that plane.

Jee, how’s about those solid objects in picture number 2, the bridge piling, and the train tussle?

By the way when a plane first takes off, especially when leaving a hub where it's maxed out on its load, it's going to be going full throttle. The reason that they stalled is without their flaps down they still did not have enough power to lift them. At this point the pilot is either going to press more throttle if available, or he has to drop the nose.

By the way there is not a field to be see anywhere in that general vicinity. The plane was obviously going fast enough to make it from middlebelt and wick through the bridges, probably a good mile from initial impact.

[edit on 9/12/2004 by defcon5]

[edit on 9/12/2004 by defcon5]

[edit on 9/12/2004 by defcon5]

CatHerder
You ask me how or why to questions and answers that have already been talked about and been done with.But again,you do not read and or come in late.

Now here you are trying to gain the upper hand,put in what YOU think is fact

There is absolutely no way anyone can survive a commercial airliner crashing directly into a wall, mountainside, or other solid object.

only to get shot down,,,,AGAIN!

Dude.I dont even feel like wasting time defending my opinions to you anymore.You think you know it all,you put your comments in,they get shot down,and you skip to another topic.

Im not going to put you on ignore though I should.Instead I want to see your opinions.After all,they are opinions and everyone is entitled right or wrong.

A quick reply from you though,,,,,,

Why do you, and so many people like you, choose to IGNORE the photos, the evidence of thousands of pieces of the aircraft, the tons of metal from the airframe, the peices of the engines, the "black boxes" from the aircraft, the seats from the aircraft, the liggage from the aircraft, etc., and simply state "the plane vapourized" ??

I never IGNORED the images.I simply do not believe them to be that of a 757.And as far as all the pieces.Some of those so called 'pieces' look so tore up,you cant tell if it is 757 or something RESEMBLING a 757.
You are going on what they are telling you it is by it being labled that.In one image,they say there is a tire that has the same tread.If you look at that crappy image,you cant even see that is infact a tire at all let alone the tread markings.

See you next time