9/11, Possibility Of No windows on the Plane.

If the plane didn't have windows, what would be the advantage of that? How come the government couldn't just use a plane with windows so it wouldn't be so obvious?

Originally posted by selfless
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say there were no windows for sure.

And with all due respect, you can't prove to me what hasn't been confirmed by anyone yet.

Same goes for me to you.

No its not, the official story is that there were windows there, its up to you to prove that there wasnt any.

I believe there was a conspiracy involved on that day but you are discrediting any theory whether its intentional or not.

Its exactly the same as the faked TV thread. No evidence at all. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, look into the studies done on them.

Originally posted by Flyer
]No its not, the official story is that there were windows there, its up to you to prove that there wasnt any.

I am not trying to prove there wasn't any windows.

I am trying to prove if there was or if there wasn't.

There's a difference.

Originally posted by Flyer
I believe there was a conspiracy involved on that day but you are discrediting any theory whether its intentional or not.

How am I discrediting any theories if I am trying to find out which one of the 2 is correct?

I am on the fence as they say.




[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by racerzeke
If the plane didn't have windows, what would be the advantage of that? How come the government couldn't just use a plane with windows so it wouldn't be so obvious?

Good question.

Speculation: Perhaps it was a specialized plane with such a solid core that windows on it would be too structurally weak.

Speculation: Perhaps it was just a passenger plane.

I don't know, Do you have any ideas racerzeke?

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Looks like someone went through this thread and rated ALL my posts one star. Thanks. I really appreciate it.

Hello my 1 star brother :0

LOL!

And by the way I didn't mean you did it to me in the first place.

Originally posted by selfless
I would like to apologize to everyone for the way I did my Op.

I Don't want to say that the plane was not a passenger plane and wish I could edit my OP but i can't anymore.


FROM THIS POINT ON.

Please, let's make this thread about finding out if the planes had windows or no windows.

Neither of them has been confirmed so therefor won't be confirmed until one of them is proven.

Again I'm sorry and i assure you that, I am completely open to the possibility that the planes had windows or that the planes had no windows.

Let's all be equals and try to find which one is true with out bias.

I apologise for busting in but:

You propose that we try and find out if the planes had windows or no windows selfless but i'm sorry how exacatly are we going to do that when it's already been explained.

Let's look at some basic realities here:

*It's been six years plus since the event actually took place. No actual evidence has been uncovered in all this time to prove or add creditability to this theory. Now that being said it doesn't mean some doesn't exist but as i doubt none of us here will ever get the chance of finding it or examining it then that point is speculation at best and is nulled with said conclusion.

*All we have to compare is videos and if anything else nothing but
conflicting eyewitness accounts at the best of times that suitable explanations based in scientific fact that would explain why the statements are conflicting.

* This theory was created via eyewitness accounts with no concrete evidence to make it more than speculation.

It seems we are just debating for the sake of debating and this is not aimed as a personal attack. With the general consquences being that these planes had windows with evidence to support this why should the majority change there judgement to believe in a theory that is nothing more than speculation.


[edit on 9-6-2007 by SR]

Originally posted by selfless
Speculation: Perhaps it was a specialized plane with such a solid core that windows on it would be too structurally weak.

If the core of the aircraft is solid the plane would not get off the ground. When passenger aircraft are converted to freighter version, plugs are often inserted into the window holes, but you can still see outlines even whne the aircraft is moving.

This is where you argument is at it weakest point IMHO. Why would the government, et al go through all this trouble to do this and not actually use the aircraft in question? Why would they run the risk of having thier carefully woven plot unravel by using different aircraft? And you can spot windows on aircraft, even those moving at high speed. If you can pick up the tail numbers of an F-15 moving at high speed during an airshow 500-600 knots, seeing windows is no problem at all.

You are right SR,

But imagine if someone finds footage or a photo somewhere that would prove one or the other, that would be great.

Problem is, It will only be confirmed when we find footage of the planes that shows windows because showing footage that suggests no windows could still be debatable since it wouldn't be sure if there are windows or not.

So I guess this is all a paradox.

Oh well, perhaps some day we will find good footage that will show windows or something that shows no windows(probably not).

Originally posted by FredT
This is where you argument is at it weakest point IMHO. Why would the government, et al go through all this trouble to do this and not actually use the aircraft in question? Why would they run the risk of having thier carefully woven plot unravel by using different aircraft? And you can spot windows on aircraft, even those moving at high speed. If you can pick up the tail numbers of an F-15 moving at high speed during an airshow 500-600 knots, seeing windows is no problem at all.

Perhaps because they put special explosives in the planes that could not be done with a passenger jet.

A speculation of course.

The motives for using mock planes are very much plausible.


[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

People who knows jets, I would like to ask a question.

Is this normal to be under an air plane?






In this photo they say that this is not normal but i won't just believe that statement before anyone here with aviation experience tells me wetter this is normal or not.

Please, don't think that I'm saying it's not normal. I am asking the question here because I don't know.







[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
You are right SR,

But imagine if someone finds footage or a photo somewhere that would prove one or the other, that would be great.

Problem is, It will only be confirmed when we find footage of the planes that shows windows because showing footage that suggests no windows could still be debatable since it wouldn't be sure if there are windows or not.

So I guess this is all a paradox.

Oh well, perhaps some day we will find good footage that will show windows or something that shows no windows(probably not).

If there was defintely footage or photographs somewhere proving this theory then holy smokes everything that has been thought to be known already will be blown wide open and i would personally eat my hat in shock at how blinded i was by other theories.

But at the moment i'm afraid i have to personally believe that part of the official story.

I know it's frustrating because we all wish we could work out the true extent of what happened that day.

Hopefully one day enough evidence will somehow surface that clears up it all up one way or the other we can all only hope.

Peace

SR

There simply isn't the resolution in those photos/videos to comment. Aircraft windows are hard to spot on a good day, so with impaired quality video/photos, there is no chance!

Originally posted by selfless
People who knows jets, I would like to ask a question.

Is this normal to be under an air plane?

In this photo they say that this is not normal but i won't just believe that statement before anyone here with aviation experience tells me wetter this is normal or not.

Please, don't think that I'm saying it's not normal. I am asking the question here because I don't know.







[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

I know I said I wouldn't answer you, but yes that's normal. It's the wing box where the landing gear retracts into. That area of the fuselage has a bulge where the wing box extends down a little below the fuselage to allow for structure and room for the gear.

The fuselage bulges out where the wings join it. This is called the wing fairing. The landing gear assembly folds into this area when it is retracted, which is seems to be a problem if the alleged pod is a missile launcher.

As is clear in comparing the photos above, under the right lighting conditions the wing fairing can look more pronounced. Notice how the reflected sunlight (specular highlight) on the right side of the plane in the center photograph changes from the fuselage to the fairing. This will be important later.

911review.com...

Zaphod58,

Do you have a photo of this configuration under a 767 plane?

I was not able to find any yet.

The window plastic sliders were most likely shut. This is going to lower contrast, making windows harder to see.

A real plane hit the towers as evidenced by the wreckage in WTC ruins.

Look on the link I provided. There are three that show almost the exact same thing that is in that video from different angles. But you can clearly see the same thing.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Look on the link I provided. There are three that show almost the exact same thing that is in that video from different angles. But you can clearly see the same thing.

I must say that my personal opinion on these images is that they are not consistent with the photograph i posted.

But of course that doesn't mean that what we see on the photo I posted is not normal but I'm still not convinced that this is proven to be normal.

Any pictures that would show the same thing as the 911 plane photograph?

Zaphod, the pics you posted show a normal looking underside of the plane. Perhaps you should go look at some of the other 9/11 threads that deal with that issue and I don't think we should derail this one, which is about windows on the planes.

Thanks.

And they show the same things that are shown in the "pod" pictures. You can see everything they show in those pictures on the bottom of a "normal" 767, because they ARE normal 767s.

Originally posted by sensfan
Zaphod, the pics you posted show a normal looking underside of the plane. Perhaps you should go look at some of the other 9/11 threads that deal with that issue and I don't think we should derail this one, which is about windows on the planes.

Thanks.

It's not Zaphod's fault though.

I'm the one who brought up the pictures of the under side of the plane.

I thought it was somewhat on topic since it deals with the physical aspect of the plane.