Empty Plane Theory

Originally posted by backwherewestarted

Originally posted by revolutionphase1
reply to post by backwherewestarted

 

So you dont have any more evidence...? How did you know these people?

1) It's interesting how you present absolutely no proof to back up your theory, yet are quick to demand proof from anyone not following you lock, stock and barrel.

2) Perhaps, if you weren't solely thinking about trying to save your skin with obfuscation and spin you would have read what I already posted.

3) Let's take your route: provide definitive proof of the planes being empty. Step up or shut up tough guy.

You missed my last post....thats my evidence. Your turn.

(here it is again)



this has nothing to do with "toughness"

reply to post by andersensrm

Yea I'd like to know why a plane is IMPOSSIBLE to fly remotely.

I never said that.

However, it is quite clear from the preponderance of evidence that NONE of the four on 9/11 were "remote controlled". I am sorry, but the post by another member, just above yours, of an R/C model airplane was so ludicrous it was laughable.

I have actually built and flown a LOT of R/C airplanes, as a hobby. I know what is involved. However, I also have many thousands of hours in real Boeing 757s and 767s (among others) and am very, very well aware of the extreme complexities that would be involved to RETRO-FIT even one of those....let alone four!

Just the design, the research and development alone would require extensive work....with many people involved. Then, the installations, the testing, the re-testing to fix problems that are inevitable in such experimentation, etc. Thousands of man-hours would be required. Hundreds of people.....and, four airframes would have to be somehow magically "taken out" of normal service....even though there are NO records of any such thing ever happening.

Drones are mini planes that are piloted remotely, this is the same thing but on a larger scale.....

Drones (UAVs) are designed from the start with remote control in mind. Just as model airplanes and model cars and model helicopters and model boats, etc, are. Working it "backwards" is not the same thing.

Computers can probably fly a plane better than a human ever could.

Not entirely. Not in these discussions, for these purposes, and in the manner seen on 9/11. This is a layperson's misconception.....although there are many aspects in aviation where some form of automation to assist the pilots is necessary (to reduce workload, and because of the simple possibility of fatigue in Humans, after long periods of concentration to a task).

There are some exotic airplanes, experimental and some military fighters and bombers that have, as a requirement in their flight control envelopes, a computer-enhanced augmentation.....because the airplanes are inherently unstable aerodynamically. In those instances, this instability allows for far more agility, when needed.....and the computers, being able to "focus" exclusively to that one task, can do a job that exceeds a Human's capabilities.

But, such an airplane would never be a candidate for airline service. On military applications of that sort, the crew always has an option to eject, if necessary, (or have other contingency plans) should the computer software fail and cause a critical control issue.


Finally, and specifically to 9/11, we know for certain that two of the four had controls moved and manipulated in the cockpits that can ONLY occur by Human hand....we know this from the FDRs. There is every reason to presume, then, with 100% certainty that it was the same case with the other two airplanes. With United 175, for instance, it was the only one that had its transponder 'squawk' code altered to another random four-digit number (twice, this occurred). All the others were selected to a 'Standby' mode, and stopped transmitting entirely. (Also done by hand, turning knobs).

In addition with UAL 175, the last angle of bank seen just before impact was steeper than any of the autopilots are programmed to allow. 30° is the maximum that the AutoFlight systems will achieve, and the usual "maximum" is further selected down for operational reasons to only 25°, normally.

As I said.....there are many, and incorrect, rampant speculations out there that are tossed around by laypeople who have NO idea of the technical issues involved.

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by backwherewestarted

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by backwherewestarted

 

Its not that these people died, its whether or not they were on those planes, and who put those planes into the building. To this day we still don't have the answers, and we probably never will. We don't want to accept that our own government could do this to us, so we don't. But that doesn't mean they didn't. We think we know everything there is to know, but in reality the public is at least 50 years behind the elites.

I never commented on who was responsible, I simply commented on the fact that the planes had people on them. Don't be like the OP and spin and obfuscate in order to push an agenda.

Im not pushing any type of agenda, other then getting the truth. I have a very open mind, I don't doubt that you knew these people, and that they died, for people just don't dissappear. But how do we really know those planes had people on them, fact is we don't, and we can cite all the evidence we want, problem is, is that the evidence isn't direct, and because of that it is POSSIBLE not IMPOSSIBLE that this evidence could be falsified. People seem to think that this ins't an option, and thats what scares me, because it most certainly is. I don't exclude possiblities just because I can't find any evidence towards it, or because I don't like what it would mean.

Let's just say that I saw two of those individuals I mentioned get on their flight that morning.

Let me get this straight, your "proof" that the planes were empty is that some women lied about being in one of the Towers and surviving????
That may be the single most moronic thing I have ever seen posted on a message board.
Want to try to keep digging the hole deeper?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Just the design, the research and development alone would require extensive work....with many people involved. Then, the installations, the testing, the re-testing to fix problems that are inevitable in such experimentation, etc. Thousands of man-hours would be required. Hundreds of people.....and, four airframes would have to be somehow magically "taken out" of normal service....even though there are NO records of any such thing ever happening.

Have you no faith in the illuminiati? Your not giving them the credit they deserve! Of course it would require extensive work! Your solving this conspiracy yourself, and you actually fly these things.

reply to post by revolutionphase1


SIgh...

More evidence of "fake people, this woman was actually CAUGHT

Go to 1:30 in the video The woman is mentally ill.

Are you aware of a mental condition some people have where they want to be seen as a "victim", or a "hero"? It is well-documented. Sometimes it is so severe a mental illness that people (usually mothers) will intentionally injure their own children, in order to gain sympathy form others, to be the center of attention, and to earn praise for being so "strong" to "stay by" their sick child, through all the "hardships".

It is related to Münchausen syndrome, and is actually known as "Münchausen syndrome by proxy".......

SO you see, a little research goes a long way to deeper understanding.

reply to post by backwherewestarted


Moronic? It supports my theory perfectly. She said someone died in the tower that ended up not even being there....just like my theory of these "people" supposedly being on board, but most likely not there. Why are you so angry lol? Ive been pretty nice to you

reply to post by ProudBird


mentally ill like the Columbine shooters? Vtech shooter? Jared Loughner? D.C Sniper? hmmmmm

The united states governments ingredients for war, imo. Choose a country, preferably one with oil and demonize its people. Then have the media fan the flames of fear by brainwashing everyone into believing that we have to go over there and get them before they come over here and get us. Then fabricate a false flag incident involving those people to instill vengeance and hate into the hearts and minds of the masses of people to gain public and financial support in order to get the war machine rolling into high gear. Then go over there and murder innocent men,women and children, annihilate them, so the beautiful elites and wealthy industrialists can continue swimming in their oceans of money...

Originally posted by revolutionphase1
reply to post by backwherewestarted

 

Moronic? It supports my theory perfectly. She said someone died in the tower that ended up not even being there....just like my theory of these "people" supposedly being on board, but most likely not there. Why are you so angry lol? Ive been pretty nice to you

It's interesting that your thread is in the "Hoax! Lies, Scams and Fakes" forum.

Yes, moronic as we are talking about planes, not about some woman with mental issues claiming she was in one of the Towers.

Oh, wait, I get it, you are trying to call me a liar without actually saying it.

Keep trying tough guy.

reply to post by ProudBird


Good post you provide a lot of information. But I think you fail to look outside of the box, what if 4 commercial aircraft were switched with other "fake" commercial aircraft that had been built from scratch to be remotely controlled. Then what about robotics, you could make a robot to do the "human" actions that can't be done remotely. FDR is a digital device, therefore it can be replicated and falsified, If I am mistaken then tell me why there is absolutely no way of doing this.

When you have access to ATC, military intelligence, black op intelligence, basically unlimited funds, is it really so hard to believe that someone could actually pull it off? Im not asking if it did happen, just if there is a POSSIBILITY that it happened, if there is no possibility then theres no point in addressing it.

reply to post by revolutionphase1


Now I suspect you are pulling my leg, and trying to drag me under a bridge......

Have you no faith in the illuminiati? Your not giving them the credit they deserve! Of course it would require extensive work!

As I pointed out, you can access the historical records and see that all four jets form 9/11 were in service up to 11 September, and show no records of having been removed from service for the many months that would have been needed for this fantastical assertion of making them able to be "remote controlled".

Not only that, but all four were witnessed by hundreds of people who are still alive today, being loaded with passengers and crew, and departing their respective airports on normal, scheduled flights.


Oh, I see this thread has finally been moved to where it belongs.....the Hoax! Forum.

Good.

reply to post by andersensrm


You're trying to think WAY too far "outside the box", here:

what if 4 commercial aircraft were switched with other "fake" commercial aircraft that had been built from scratch to be remotely controlled.

Try a little research into what it takes to build just ONE commercial airliner....and then try to understand how it is impossible for such a thing to occur "in secret"!

reply to post by ProudBird


How did we "lose" 2.3 trillion dollars without nobody realizing it. Sh*t happens.

reply to post by backwherewestarted
Theres no reason to talk to the op that way,none at all,anythings possible and sometimes the truth is too horible to face and so denial becomes the accepted norm,are you trying to derail his thread?

The thousands of innocent american dead at pearl harbor were the governments sacrificial lambs of their generation and the thousands of innocent people killed in the twin towers were the governments sacrificial lambs of ours...imo...

reply to post by ProudBird


Yes, 9/11 was a hoax.

My theory is that 4 outfitted planes left secret bases in America, no passengers, possibly one fake/real pilot per plane.
I dont doubt people watched other people board these supposed "decoy" planes, full of actors. Then- those planes landed at a selected destination, while the terrorist planes slammed into the buildings. Just a theory.

reply to post by andersensrm


Never lost 2.3 trillion.

That is yet another lie that is spread by a multitude of so-called "9/11 truth" websites.

The money referred to by Rumsfeld on 10th September was in relation to balancing the books, and accounting for the more than a dozen different computer systems in the various agencies involved in DoD that the Pentagon had oversight on....

Besides.....does anyone really think that a "secret plot" involving the stealing of that kind of money would, first, be admitted to ONE DAY before the so-called "False Flag Intentional Act"?

Is that logical? Frankly, I am amazed that anyone doesn't see it for the ridiculous stretch of nonsense that it is, it's so obvious.

Should read this link, it is very long, and more comprehensive than I can write here...and no sense in my repeating it anyway, since it already exists:

Summarising, then, the argument appears to run something like this.

Huge sums of defence budget money have gone missing.

Simply admitting this was not an option.

However, those pulling off the 9/11 "inside job" decided that if they crashed into just the right spot of the Pentagon, then they could kill many of those who might uncover the problem or tell the public about it, and perhaps also destroy vital documentary evidence.

What's more, it gave the opportunity for Rumsfeld to inform the public on September 10th, and have his bombshell ignored courtesy of the attacks on the very next day.

Makes sense? To some, apparently, based on the sites and forum posts we've seen, but if you take a closer look at the information they've left out then a very different picture emerges.

Read the answers to those inane "beliefs" and assumptions here:

9/11 Myths

From 1775 through 2012,the united states has never not been at war with someone...Timeline of United States military operations en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ProudBird


Let me ask you this, if there is absolutely no possiblity of empty planes, why did you open this thread?

Tell me this IS IT IMPOSSIBLE????

reply to post by revolutionphase1


Sigh (again)...

.....nonsense, your "theory" is.

There are NOT "four decoy planes" anywhere available....if you had read my other posts, you would see why. (**)

Also, the ATC radar recordings are uninterrupted, for all four airplanes. BOTH American 77 and United 93 also have the FULL Flight Data Recorder information, and there are full videos on YouTube showing both flights, from their point of takeoff at Dulles and at Newark respectively.

(**) There is a database maintained of ALL large commercial airliners built going back several decades...at AirFleets.net

Production list
Select a plane to display the production list

Airbus A300 Airbus A310 Airbus A318 Airbus A319
Airbus A320 Airbus A321 Airbus A330 Airbus A340
Airbus A380 ATR 42/72 BAe 146 / Avro RJ Beech 1900D
Boeing 717 Boeing 737 Boeing 737 Next Gen Boeing 747
Boeing 757 Boeing 767 Boeing 777 Boeing 787
Canadair Regional Jet Concorde Dash 8 Embraer 120 Brasilia
Embraer 135/145 Embraer 170/175 Embraer 190/195 Fokker 50
Fokker 70/100 Lockheed L-1011 TriStar McDonnell Douglas DC-10 McDonnell Douglas MD-11
McDonnell Douglas MD-80/90 Saab 2000 Saab 340 Sukhoi SuperJet 100

GO to the linked website, and that list is interactive, you can search to your heart's content.....