Axiomatic Proof that No Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks

[spooked911]

Axiom: Plane parts would not need to be planted at 9/11 crash sites if real planes were used in the attacks.

Corollary: evidence of planted parts is evidence that real planes were not used for the attacks.

Evidence of planted parts:

Plane engine part lands under a construction canopy:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm

A stripped and unprimed fuselage piece supposedly from flight 93:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/highly-suspicious-flight-93-debris.html

A wheel magically stuck in a WTC column:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/05/truly-bizarre.html

These are just for starters. There is also the famous piece of "AA77" fuselage and the "AA77" windshield on the Pentagon lawn and the "AA77" nosecone that magically pentrated through multiple walls intact. And more.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. None of this is evidence of planted parts

So your syllogism fall apart.

Thanks for playing!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

42. Shhhh2006!

It is not so much a question of plane parts being found........as opposed to when they were found.....

Because initially.......

"We were allowed really close at first," he said. "It was an unbelievable thing. There was no plane to be seen -- it looked like a bomb had hit the building."

Connor said the plane had to have been in the courtyard.

"You just couldn't see a plane anywhere," he said.


http://www.cnweb.com/tribune/old/oct01/oct09/attack.html

[mrgerbik]

55. I agree

.. because there are more pressing questions to be answered then devoting our energy to a half-baked theory which cannot really ever be answered properly through proper scrutiny, other then the few videos that show a plane hitting the building.

Were there windows or not? It doesn't really matter.

[MervinFerd]

84. Why was this removed? It was perfectly reasonable.

The further the 9/11 crowd gets into nonsense, the less anyone pays attention to them.

[spooked911]

103. I disagree that these three things are not evidence of planted parts

Otherwise, how do you explain their unlikely situations?

I say they were planted.

Is it more likely that the engine rolled end over end to end up under a canopy AND that the flight crash completely stripped the fuselage piece of insulation and paint but did not singe the ground AND that a plane wheel happened to get stuck in WTC columns and then was so tightly stuck that it remained in there after a 100 story fall?

Are all these things-- and ALL of them must be true for your construct to work-- more likely than that the parts were planted?

[spooked911]

104. Also, what would satisfy you that these were planted parts?

Besides a video showing agents in black coats planting the pieces?

[Americus]

2. Maybe those engine parts rolled underneath the canopy. And maybe...

the flight 93 plane was undergoing restoration on 9/11 and was rushed into service that day due to a shortage of available aircraft, and so the new paint job wasn't finished yet.

Magic "Hot" wheels? Possible...if the WTC columns were made of "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter".

Excellent, perusuasive argument, Spooked911. Thanks.

[RayUbinger]

23. Rolled underneath the canopy through what opening?

The turbine-like part is too big to fit between any of the signposts.

Also observe that the rubble and yellow tape associated with this debris (at the Church-Murray intersection) are already visible in background in the clip of pedestrian reaction taken at the instant of the FIRST Hit:

http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet brothers and rogue infiltrated elements of FDNY were in on it.

[rman]

82. take a look at this photo

and tell me again the turbine part could not have rolled under there from the street just a few feet away.

[Americus]

91. Know of any eyewitness accounts of an engine part rolling in the street?

If a fairly large, heavy jet aircraft turbine fell into the street and then to the place where it was photographed, seems like there would have been a whole lot of people that would have seen it and reported having seen it. Unlike the alleged crashes into the WTC buildings (80 stories up?), a rolling jet aircraft turbine on the street would be easily heard and seen. Yet, to my knowledge there are no reports of people claiming to have witnessed such an event.

Granted, claiming to have seen a turbine hit the street and roll to underneath a canopy doesn't have the same cachet as claiming to have seen "the plane" crash into the WTC, but still, with no evidence for how the turbine got to where it is, Ray's theory that it was planted is persuasive and thus far hasn't been shown to be unreasonable or unlikely.

[spooked911]

101. not to mention that the part ended up on its end

not the most likely way a rolling cylinder would end up

[RayUbinger]

113. And right next to a Don't Litter sign!

Man, that Osama bin Laden sure was an IRONIC murderer, the way he taught his henchmen to fly the second airliner into the South Tower in such a way as to make plane parts land right on or next to some handily illustrative signs.

The "turbine" next to the Please Don't Litter sign, also split the Church-Murray intersection sign precisely in two, leaving the "Church" part standing
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm
but making the "Murray" part fall down right next to the "turbine."



Then there was the disc-shaped part that crashed exactly onto a One Way sign.



And don't forget that the rubble and yellow caution tape associated w/the Church-Murray debris (bottom) are already visible at the instant of the FIRST Hit, in the background of the pedestrian reaction shot (top):




Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
The Naudet brothers and rogue infiltrated elements of the FDNY were in on it.

[Americus]

114. Murray Street sign was there to direct planters where to put the "turbine"

Otherwise, they might not have remembered where the "turbine" was supposed to be planted. I don't think there was anything sinister about doing that. It was just a prudent idea, given all the confusion, noise, people running around and what not. That way it was sure to be found where it was supposed to be.

[RayUbinger]

115. That's what I'm telling you

The photo you posted is merely the vertical MIDDLE of a scene with important info missing from above and below. Rewatch the vid source:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm

The octagonal pole behind the foreground black PLAINCLOTHES agent's left hand, is the Church-Murray Street sign. The vid excerpt shows us that only the "Church" part of the sign remains. We're supposed to think the "turbine" precisely hit the "Murray" part of the sign. But the high readable portion of this sign is RIGHT BELOW the UNDAMAGED overhang.

The important info missing below the photo you posted is that the "turbine" really is too big to have fit between the various poles, signs and scaffold parts between it and the curb.

So, yes, putting all this together, I'm again willing to tell you, the turbine part could not have rolled under there from the street just a few feet away.

Meanwhile no one even tries to explain how the rubble and yellow caution tape were already in place before the 1st Hit.



Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Sinister clues of inside info and deep deception lurk in Emmy-winning S11 "documentary" by the Naudet "brothers."

[KJF]

3. Well

United 93:
"Note the rather pristine grass and foliage underneath this piece. You would think that if there were enough fire/heat to strip every bit of insulation and facing and windows and their seals, there would be enough residual heat to singe/kill the grass and foliage where this fragment landed."
You neglected to prove this was where it landed. It could have been moved here from somewhere else, as appears to have been the case in some of the other photos used in the Moussaoui trial.

btw, the glass isn't from a plane:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/078.html

[seatnineb]

4. Great work as usual Spooked!

[mirandapriestly]

6. Where have you been Spooked?

I'm glad to see you posting I missed your posts. What's ridiculous about the nosecone going through those walls is how fragile nosecones are, pictures have been posted here showing them smashed by birds! (poor birds) can you imagine them penetrating concrete walls?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. What if it didn't?

What if the nose cone was torn to shreds on collision, and that the fuselage continued into the Pentagon?

[mirandapriestly]

8. Tell that to Donald Rumsfeld, not me

He's the one who said that he'd been told the fuselage went through to the exit hole. The Faux news reporter on the released pentagon footage also says it and you know where they get their information.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. That's what I'm saying

What I understand to be the fuselage is the main part of the plane, the structure and all.

The nose cone at the front of the plane was destroyed on impact. It flew in pieces all over the place. Only the fuselage continued in.

If I'm being imprecise, I'm sorry. I just mean the main body of the plane (perhaps even without the aluminum skin). I've the impression that the passenger sections of planes are built somewhat like a roll cage, and it's that section that I understand slammed all the way through the Pentagon.



Maybe this will help explain what I'm saying. This graphic is from the Pentagon Building Performance Report. It shows where the bodies were found. One group of passengers is separated from the others by being called front-of-aircraft fatalities.

These are the hijackers. All other passengers (except a young girl) have been identified by DNA.

Notice where they are in relation to the impact hole. They (the white dots) are much closer than the other passengers (green dots). I only see a couple of other passengers closer than they.

You also see a lot of green dots clustered close to the "punchout" hole. There's also a black dot indicated where the flight recorder was recovered.

What this describes to me:

The nose cone was pretty much destroyed on impact, and the bodies of people forward spilled out. The bulk of the plane continued in, and most of it ended up against the AE drive wall. The accumulated debris of the remaining plane and Pentagon material is what punched out that hole. The size of the hole has nothing to do with the nose cone, because I doubt very much of it got that far into the building.

[mirandapriestly]

10. I agree

that is what would happen if a plane were to hit. But why did Rumsfeld and Faux news give out that misinfo? And what DID make it to the so called exit hole dodging around those columns? Random debris continuing on the force of it's own velocity? Additionally, the building report people were not allowed access to the building for several days and then it was only limited, so we have to trust their information which they got from the FBI, who I don't necessarily trust, since they were secretive in the first place. You've got to admit something doesn't make sense.

[Americus]

11. OCT'ers are forced to play "IF this, then THAT", just like JFK SBT'ers

OCT'ers aren't deterred by the many unanswered, indeed UNanswerable questions that cause most objective people to conclude that Spooked911 is correct: there were no planes used in the WTC events.

OCT'ers are stuck with a story that makes no sense. Like the Lone Nutters in the JFK assassination case who are stuck with the Single Magic Bullet Theory, they can't budge one inch because their entire silly theory will fall apart if they do.

Let 'em play their "IF" games with each other. That way, their strategy of distracting objective people by wasting their time will be to no avail. But fear not, they're very resourceful when it comes to figuring out new schemes to divide and conquer, distract and divert, and otherwise help keep the truth from being spread to more people.

[sabbat hunter]

19. while i think there was a

probably a second gunman in the JFK assasination, the bullet isnt as 'magic' as many think. if you look where connolly was seated in comparision to kennedy (lower and to the side) and the fact that the bullet wasnt "pristine". suddenly that bullet isnt as magic as one would think.

i am a very objective person, but spooked911 theory about no planes and holograms is a joke. i personally know witnesses that saw a plane hit the second tower.

the truth that must come out is how incompetant is our current government is. how they ignored all warnings, refused to listen. then turned the 911 attacks from a war against al qaeda into a war on iraq to try and avenge bush I.

this is the most incompetant, corrupt regime we have had since harding.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

21. How do your eyewitness friends contradict the hologram theory?

Do you think the theoretical holograms are invisible?

Personally I don't see the need for holograms, but are they impossible?
I don't know, and I haven't got time to investigate. Do you have some
reason to believe holograms are impossible?

[RayUbinger]

25. Exotic optical effects

I'm not saying Ghost 175 was a hologram, but a number of exotic optical effects in the sky of Manhattan on the morning of 9/11 are definitely part of the video record. For instance the Naudet Truck Whatzit slideshow
http://tinyurl.com/63zle
shows that weird little orb-like thing casting a "shadow" toward the sun, LEFTward of itself in the SOUTH-facing MORNING video, onto the side of the big white truck. Approx. Frames 140-155. Then in Frames 168-188 it casts a WHITE "shadow" onto the second building from the left.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm

[MervinFerd]

26. Holograms? Mr. Goat??

HOLOGRAMS?

Do you even have any idea what a hologram actually is?

Was there a Holographic Doctor on the Holographic Airplanes?

[RayUbinger]

27. I said exotic optical effects

> Do you even have any idea what a hologram actually is?

Something like a shadow cast toward the sun, or a shadow comprised of white light, like at Frames 140-155 onto the side of the white truck and Frames 168-188 onto the second building from the left at
http://tinyurl.com/63zle
?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Sinister clues of inside info and deep deception lurk in Emmy-winning S11 "documentary" by the Naudet "brothers."

[MervinFerd]

31. Oh. That clears it all up.

I thought you might be talking about something physically impossible, or something.

[petgoat]

33. Well you're not doing any better. If I knew what a hologram was,

I wouldn't have to wonder whether giant hologram over the skies of Manhattan
was possible or not.

As to your rhetorical questions, I have no idea what you're talking about, and
no great confidence that you do, either.

[RayUbinger]

168. You might know what a hologram is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hologram
but still not know whether a giant one over the skies of Manhattan is possible.

What my rhetorical questions are talking about is the fact that SOME kinds of exotic optical physics, whether we call them holography or not, is in multiple S11 videos. Examples include:

"shadows" cast toward the sun

"shadows" comprised of white light

giant hundred-mile-an-hour "bird shadows" cast onto the open sky

all in previously posted links.

My point being that a holographic airliner should not be dismissed out of hand as physically impossible, because there are several items of direct evidence of OTHER heretofore-thought physically impossible optics. These add to the overall case for secret technology that already exists in the demolition evidence, like evaporation of the steel core remnant of WTC1
http://tinyurl.com/3aaec
and the intense, unearthly, pervasive glow in many vids of the demolitions and shortly after.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm

[AZCat]

169. You must remember...

not everyone accepts your explanation of the supporting evidence. I, for example, don't accept the controlled demolition theory. While I admit that I can't rule out a holographic airliner as technically impossible, it seems a big jump to go from anomalies on video to "exotic optical physics" - what criteria was used to determine that the cause(s) of these anomalies was(were) external to the recording devices used?

[RayUbinger]

171. Secret tech is a more sensible belief than a 1-day 'camera plague'

AZCat asks:

> what criteria was used to determine that the cause(s) of these anomalies was(were) external to the recording devices used?

I submit that the internal-camera-glitch hypothesis can be discarded because of the number of different cameras involved, plus how common such anomalies suddenly became for just one day.

http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/canale
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/j2/index.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/newwhatzits
http://orbwar.com/ufo-photos-wtc-attack-9-11.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/thing
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bird
http://kiti.main.jp/Ufo/wtc/wtc.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/blackbird
http://thewebfairy.com/911/canale/terroristattack/


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Ray_Ubinger]

35. And in the 1800s light didn't bend, since nobody knew it could??

I didn't say a CONVENTIONALLY UNDERSTOOD shadow was cast toward the sun. I didn't say a CONVENTIONALLY UNDERSTOOD shadow was comprised of white light. I said up front it was exotic. By calling it "shadow" I'm just using the closest word I know that's LIKE the unprecedented optical effects in the clip. Call it a "laser-like projection dot" if you want -- but then people will tell you that laser light can't be black or white. I don't care what we name it. Just recognize it as existing in the video record. Stop implying I might have tampered with the clip, when its validity is easily verifiable by anyone else with the Naudet dvd. Instead, start explaining how a dot on a flat surface between a flying object and the sun moved in continuous sync with the flying object, and how the dot was dark when the object was dark (Frames 142-153 onto the side of the truck), and white (Frames 168-188 onto the 2nd bldg from left) after the object suddenly became almost transparently pale light blue (Frame 158). Or else start explaining why the NAUDETS tampered with the clip, why THEY added these "physically impossible" phenomena which exist in their footage.
http://tinyurl.com/63zle


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm

[MervinFerd]

36. Light -still- can't bend, except near stars.

And lots of things might cause 'dots' in a video camera.

Holographic airplanes would be pretty far down -my- list of possibilities.

But that's just me.

[petgoat]

39. Light bends in water-air transitions, in prisms, lenses, and in

regions of heated air.

Holographic aircraft are pretty far down my list too, since I don't see the need
for them. Live suicide pilots or robot pilots tracking on a radio beacon in the
towers could easily have flown the planes in.

But I came into the subthread wondering if holograms were possible, not were they
likely.

Ray_Ubinger, I don't understand your relationship to RayUbinger.

[AZCat]

40. Refracts, not bends.

Two different phenomena. Only gravity AFAIK can "bend" light.

Splitting hairs, I know. :)

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

141. definition of refraction

From Dictionary.com

Refraction
The turning or bending of any wave, such as a light or sound wave, when it passes from one medium into another of different optical density.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=refraction

[AZCat]

146. Yep.

Gravitational effects aren't medium dependent, unlike refraction.

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

149. Perceived gravitational effects on light are medium dependent

The medium is space-time.
Light does appear to bend around objects in space to a distant observer.
However, gravity doesn't actually bend light.
Space-time itself is bent by mass and light gets bent along with it.
This is because light from distant objects travel through the medium of space.

[AZCat]

161. Aiiiiiii...

I remember taking classes on this stuff, but my brain always started to hurt. Newtonian physics I can handle, but I'll have to claim ignorance here and yield to better minds than mine.

Is space-time really a medium? Man, I am getting old - I thought I remembered stuff from school pretty well. (is there a old man smiley somewhere?)



On Edit: word use.

[RayUbinger]

50. So you admit light can bend, even though nobody knew it in the 1800s

> And lots of things might cause 'dots' in a video camera.

What might cause the PAIRS of dots MOVING IN SYNC at
http://tinyurl.com/63zle
as detailed in previous posts?

Very similar are some of the other S11 flying objects
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/newwhatzits
The first clip at the first of these two links has also been made into a (very large!) Quicktime file:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/rayswhatzit.mov
which after the long download time eventually lets you pause, reverse and do frame-by-frame (using arrow keys).
At some points, that thing has doubles and even triples, moving in sync. It also reappears from the bottom of the screen after disappearing out the top of the screen. Here are some enhanced stills of it, and of the very strange mottled light pattern on the side of Tower 1:
http://tinyurl.com/4vo5u
http://tinyurl.com/3ufe3


> Holographic airplanes would be pretty far down -my- list of possibilities.

Ghost 175 vanished into the South Tower without breaking or bending, yet also without coming out the other side.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/vanishment/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/
How do you explain that except as either a cartoon or a hologram?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Secret Technology + Cover Story = Frameup on Humanity

[MervinFerd]

53. Except very near large stars, light does not 'bend' except

in ways well understood in the 1800s.

As for your spots and pairs of spots and moving spots, I have no idea what caused them.

But, holographic airplanes remain pretty far down the list.

Video cameras are very complex pieces of technology. I'd look into phenomena related to CCDs and optical effects before going off into 'holographic airplanes'.

I don't see why you would expect a plane hitting the WTC to "come out the other side". It smashed through some relatively light external supports, then hit heavier stuff inside.

You -really- need to get out of the house more.

[RayUbinger]

78. Orbs galore, but a cartoon 175

> As for your spots and pairs of spots and moving spots, I have no idea what caused them.

I have an idea that we'd better figure it out, because they were all over the place. Here are yet more clips of them.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/blackbird (from the Naudet movie; discovered by me)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bird
http://thewebfairy.com/911/thing
http://thewebfairy.com/911/canale
http://thewebfairy.com/911/canale/terroristattack/
http://orbwar.com/ufo-photos-wtc-attack-9-11.htm
http://911index.0catch.com/bird.html


> Video cameras are very complex pieces of technology.

We're talking about a dozen clips from a dozen different cameras. Do you think all those cameras just happened to start experiencing the same type of glitches on the same date in the same place? Or can you point to pre- or post-S11 vids that have such "glitches?"

> I'd look into phenomena related to CCDs and optical effects before going off into 'holographic airplanes'.

I'm not endorsing the holographic airplane theory. I'm just saying exotic (seemingly impossible but actually present on video) new principles of optical physics were involved on 9/11 somehow. It is a deep mystery to me what the purpose of these orbs was, and how they made light waves behave so strangely. In as-yet-unpublished excerpts of the Naudet flick and the Canale dvd set I have spotted them casting 2-D white shadow dots onto the Towers' surface and then lift off and start flapping through 3D like seagulls.

This is too many similar strangenesses from too many different cameras to have some random explanation like an occasional technical glitch in an occasional camera.


> I don't see why you would expect a plane hitting the WTC to "come out the other side".

I didn't say I would expect that. I said it BOTH made a plane-shaped impact hole (rather than braking or even bending on impact) AND did not come out the other side, therefore it had to be a hologram OR a cartoon. Real physical objects in real collisions are not known to simultaneously have enough momentum to punch through an impact side without damage, AND screech to a vanishing halt within the next length of themselves.

> It smashed through some relatively light external supports, then hit heavier stuff inside.

And then vaporized without a trace?? Why no wing nor tail nor fuselage section either falling down the side of the tower or sticking out of it or visible inside the hole?

Here's how I think they did it, as a cartoon, not a holgram (but effects akin to holography were still going on around the towers, for some reason, before during and after the explosions):

http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/vanishment
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2

Note the following example frame where the "tail" and right "wing" are mostly disappeared already, but the corresponding parts of the "impact" hole mostly haven't formed yet; the Tower in those spots still looks mostly like the rest of the Tower surface.


Real planes can't fly into buildings without breaking either the plane or the building, therefore this wasn't a real plane. It had to be a cartoon, unless it really was a hologram. The lack of substantiated eyewitness reports of an airliner impact, plus the extreme similarity to Marcus Icke's Flight Simulator animation, tells me Cartoon.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm

edited to correct fifth URL

[MervinFerd]

85. Possibly only the SPOTS were holographic.

The planes were real.

[RayUbinger]

111. Or possibly the spots were cartoons like the second plane was

But I can't imagine why (or even how, given the large number of different cameras involved) they would add animations of orbs and anomalous shadows--unless maybe to rub our faces in the fakery of it all? Even then, the orbs, anomalous shadows and weird looking birds don't look cartoony. They look real, just really strange. Here are some more:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/canale
These kinds of things also appear in several Pentagon clips.


> The planes were real.

Prove it. Is it because real 767s are sized like Cessnas and shaped like missiles and emit flashes of intense white light right before they collide with stuff?



Is it because a real plane can have its tail and right wing crash through a building surface while leaving the building surface in those areas looking as undamaged as most of the rest of the building surface?



Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. I love this canny observation

"man carrying scaffold"

Dats a gude wun. :lol:

[seatnineb]

45. And I like the way you don't observe.............

...the crater caused by the engine from Pan 103....



....and the lack of a crater caused by the engine from flight 175.....

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. My observation...

It obviously didn't HIT there...it just ended up there. No pic of the impact spot.

Also note the size difference???

God I must be brilliant.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Americus]

28. Your JFK facts are wrong.

Why is speculation about no planes on 9/11 a "joke", but OCT'ers conspiracy theory about a man in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan being able to plot an attack with planes that melt into buildings which then collapse into their own footprints, unlike anything that has ever happened before in world history.

The truth about the OCT is that it's a fairy tale that OCT'ers ought to be embarassed to try and claim otherwise.

[sabbat hunter]

30. which JFK facts are wrong

that connolly wasnt seated direcly in front of JFK or that he was seated slightly lower.

as good as the movie JFK was, there were flaws.

the speculation about no planes is a joke because there are hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses that saw a plane crash into WTC 2. all from different angles and different parts of the city.

and the plane didnt melt into the building. that right there is a huge flaw in any no plane theory.

ever see a board driven thru a tree during a hurricane or tornado. if the tree was thick enough it would appear that the board "melted" into the tree, but in reality it didnt.

the plane didnt "melt" into the building it is an optical illusion. even when slowed down the illusion exists because you arent slowing down the event, just the pictures of the event.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. WTF is it about a cave?

The Taliban had whole training camps in Afganistan prior to 9-11. Osama was a very wealthy guy, and Al Quaida had quite a few fund sources.

No more cave hiding after the soviets left, not until the US invasion anyway.

I love the part about "world history" as if we were just considering NYC history. Oh WORLD HISTORY that makes all the diference.

Not even going to mention the "melting planes" and "footprint" parts.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I don't know why Rumsfeld said what he did

I do know that the "nose cone punched out the AE Drive hole" idea is often repeated because it "looks" right. Round nose cone, round hole, and the plane went right on through. But thinking about the implications of some of the evidence (fragile nose cone, placement of bodies that were forward) shows that it couldn't be the nose cone there.

Random debris continuing on the force of its own velocity: There was quite a lot of that. After some distance in, the columns started holding up, but there was debris from the walls and offices that would have been swept along with the airplane debris. And since two things can't occupy the same place at the same time, we're also dealing with the air - the pressure wave you may have heard about. It was a combination of these things that punched out the AE drive hole.

Was the FBI in charge of the Pentagon site? I hadn't heard that. I would have thought that the Pentagon had enough manpower to secure the site themselves. And the Pentagon did have an interest in keeping the area secure. The collapse exposed offices that had not suffered from the fire, and plenty of classified information must have been exposed. That is a legitmate reason for keeping a clamp on outgoing information.

[mirandapriestly]

16. You know,I'm not sure who was in charge of the site

my point is that by the time the BPS people visited the siteall airplane & collapse debris had been removed. The team that was going to demolish & rebuild was getting the building ready for reconstruction. The BPS team had LIMITED ACCESS to the site and the debris for their report, so how sure can we be of that report or anything "official" we hear? The FBI hasn't published any information and the NTSB wasnot allowed to do a aircraft accident report so how much trus do we have in that report?

As far as Rummy goes, this is what he said:
"I’m told the nose is—is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away"

this illustrates all the different information, even at the top. It is no wonder we speculate!

As far as protecting classified information,I think they were more interested in destroying some of it. Security can't be an excuse for not allowing the building/debris to be inspected. I think that's ridiculous. They could have been escorted or something. They wanted to protect (hide) something else.

[Americus]

14. None of it (OCT) makes any sense, but it's interesting how OCT'ers

have added a new "explanation" to their repetoire of incompetence, negligence, and intelligence failres. I'd call it the "a little of this and a little of that" theory for explaining how the impossible COULD be possible with "a little of this and a little of that".

One theory they've yet to work up the nerve to try and sell is the "too many people were stoned that day and just didn't give a hoot about what was comin' down & goin' down".

[mirandapriestly]

17. It's as good as any! nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. The laws of physics?

When one object going at high speed meets and a very solid object that's planted in the ground, usually the object going at high speed loses. A normal passenger jet is not strong enough to maintain enough integrity to pierce multiple walls of concrete, even without rebar.

Too bad the fire fighters only put two lines on the fires. There might have been more of the plane/missile left if they had responded with more urgency and more equipment. It wasn't like there wasn't plenty of room to park trucks or that the impact area was hard to get to.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Request for proof

A normal passenger jet is not strong enough to maintain enough integrity to pierce multiple walls of concrete, even without rebar.

Sounds like a statement you should support, rather than just toss out there.

[Americus]

116. Is the poster claiming a passenger jet IS strong enough to maintain

enough integrity to pierce multiple walls of concrete?

If so, that sounds like a statement the poster should support, rather than just imply.

[DoYouEverWonder]

128. No, not at all

I am implying that a passenger jet can't pierce multiply walls of concrete no matter how fast it's going. If they could, why do we bother spending billions on bunker buster technology?

[spooked911]

102. Hi MP! Sorry, I just haven't had much time to spend at DU of late

nothing against DU. It's probably bad form to start a thread and then disappear, I apologize for that.

[SidDithers]

18. Just so I understand correctly...

you're saying that there were no planes involved on September 11, 2001.

No plane crashed into WTC1.
No plane crashed into WTC2.
No plane crashed into the Pentagon.
No plane crashed into the field in Pennsylvania.

Is that what you're really saying?

Sid

[MervinFerd]

22. Yes, I think that's what he's saying.

We should ask whether he thinks JFK was poisoned and buried in a secret location with Jimmy Hoffa.

I also hear that Vince Foster was actually STRANGLED and his body was actually in Hillary's bedroom.

[MervinFerd]

24. GREAT WORK, Spooked!!!!

Now, could you get to work proving JFK was actually poisoned and his body was never found?

Then, you could get on the fake Apollo Moon landings.

[Americus]

29. Spooked911: Y ou've got the OCT'ers all shook up. Congrats. n/t

n/t

[MervinFerd]

32. Yep, on the run we are.

Can you prove that George Bush is a Space Alien?

[petgoat]

34. Mervin, an argument like that, reframing the issue, really goes

nowhere. It's like a guy playing baseball insisting "No, third base isn't there. It's
way way way over here." It's only funny when you're really really drunk, and not funny
long even then.

[MervinFerd]

37. That's RIGHT!

It's like saying there were NO AIRPLANES when 10,000 people have direct knowledge there WERE AIRPLANES.

There is really no rational way to argue anything so ridiculous.

[mirandapriestly]

38. what 10,000 people have direct knowledge that there were airplanes

It's better than a million like I've seen some of you say, but where do you get that number?

[MervinFerd]

46. They were abducted by Space Aliens. Darn! If they were still around, I

could prove obvious facts.

[mirandapriestly]

51. wow

That is really funny. I've never heard that one before. If all else fails, ridicule, right? and I think in your case everything else has failed, so...bring out the space aliens..

[MervinFerd]

54. Honestly,....

I don't see how to approach this one except with ridicule.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

[mirandapriestly]

61. Just answer the question,nt

[mirandapriestly]

81. All I wanted to know was how did you get the number 10,000?

why does that induce ridicule? I didn't say there were no planes. I didn't say there were holograms. I do believe that less people saw the impacts than most people think. Why is that so ridiculous? Can you answer my question?

[seatnineb]

99. Good pressure Miranda.....looks like you got Merv on the run! n/t

[mirandapriestly]

107. Normally I wouldn't,but

I was told that I "needed to get professional help" because one of them didn't like my link, so turnabout is fair play. Seriously, he made a claim and can't back it up.

[seatnineb]

41. Wrong.

There are witnesses who DID not see the plane.....but who only saw the explosion........but claim that they saw the plane HIT anyway.....

It was at that point that I witnessed the second plane hit the south tower. It looked like a large bomb exploded in the building. I didn't see the plane, because I was about 6 blocks north of the complex.

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/KennyPliska.htm

[MervinFerd]

47. Selective attention. You are picking one account from thousands.

[seatnineb]

48. 2 accounts actually........

Here eat some more of the kind of testimony that you would prefer does not get heard...........a witness who does NOT see the plane......but still says he saw the plane hit the building......


And then I saw another flame go up. And from the television I could tell a plane, although I didn’t see the plane had come by to do it.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty121 ...


But the above testimony does not stop this very same witness from saying the following:

Then from the balcony I saw the second plane hit the building.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty121 ...

[MervinFerd]

49. Oh, that clears it up.

[seatnineb]

58. It sure does............

Still hungry for more punishement?......

Here is another lying "witness".....

And this time.....it is a witness that I actually conversed with myself here on DU.

This is what he told me in July 2004

Mon Jul-19-04 05:07 AM

Posted by Markses(to Seatnineb)

And I'll tell you this, friend: I saw a large passenger jet, almost certainly a 767, fly over my head at high speed and low altitude, and crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. With my own eyes I saw it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14285#15016

Now whilst I was arguing with Markses in July 2004 ....I never knew that this same Markses had already bragged about his 9/11 experience in another area of the labyrinth that is DU.....in March 2004 to another DU poster:

Thu Mar-04-04 05:10 AM

Posted by Markses(to unknown)

Just then, I saw a young black man, very close to me looking up at the sky. He said “Holy fuckin’ shit!” and his face was contorted and there was the unbelievable rush of noise and then the loud explosion and I’m certainly not talented enough to convey the timing of all this, very fast, seemingly all at once, but I remember it as a chronological sequence, though I don’t feel it that way. I pivoted right towards the sky, towards the loud explosion, and saw the fireball burst from the building – huge – and close: the first hit (“The First One”), North Tower (World Trade Center 1), downtown Manhattan, U.S.A.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x398075#398453

Markses is now banned from DU.....

But there is no doubt that whilst he was arguing with me ....he was embellishing his real experience on 9/11.....saying he saw a plane.....that he himself never saw......if only I had known it whilst I was interacting with him...

[mirandapriestly]

66. I love those '"I was there" types

there's another one on here who said they lost their "dear friend" on 9-11 and they spelled her name wrong.
Thanks for that interesting anecdote

[seatnineb]

71. Yeah!.....like Rocker Evan Dando........

...who has probably consumed enough drugs to have satiated several men......

...and who happened to be on his roof as "the plane " flew over him....

That’s what was going through my mind until I saw this plane come right over my shoulders and go directly into the south tower. It was so scary. It looked way more real on television than it did in real life."
http://www.evandando.co.uk/interviews/timeoff.htm

The above has to count as the most ironic testimony of the year award............

I wonder if Evan noticed the wings of flight 175 as it flew over him?

;)

[mirandapriestly]

97. Publicity stunt?

For his solo album - I don't think it helped much though.
“I do, I was in LA during the riots too. I always seem to be, unfortunately, in the middle of things. I was in Martha’s Vineyard when JFK Jr crashed. And I was in Paris when Lady Di died .”

He really lives on the razor's edge.

[seatnineb]

98. Dando is quite a liar............

Dando's stage antics offered a discomforting window to his mindset, including, but not limited to: rambling on about a strange culinary fetish ("I repeat, Noxzema on a bagel"), peculiar lies about recent employment ("I was out with Enya doing monitors for one-and-half years.
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thelemonheads/articles/story/5925364/evan_dandos_bizarre_and_brilliant_return

[mirandapriestly]

108. one of their star witnesses!

funny how few there really are (that can't be debunked)It's funny, I wasn't going to "go there" with the no planes issue, then when the trolls started up, I started looking into it and it really is not such a weak link after all. The problem is that we are ALL affected by the brainwashing of repetitive imagery, even those of us who don't watch television news, and try to look at corporate media with skeptism, and it is hard to realize that those televised images could easily be fakes, and there are very few witnesses.

[petgoat]

112. "we are ALL affected by the brainwashing of repetitive imagery"

Right, we look at that WTC2 fireball and imagine a giant explosion in the
tower and we look at the Pentagon Inferno and imagine that heating up the
WTC floor trusses.

Flight 93 was perhaps an essential part of this, to build the legend of the
suicidal hijackers who would rather kill themselves and a planeload of
random passengers than surrender.

Though I regard green-screen and holographic theories as highly speculative
and of little value, I think we need to keep them on the table.

I always remember Jacob Bronowski squatting in the dust of Dachau pleading
"Always think you might be wrong."

Here's some more Bronowski quotes about science:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jacob_bronowski.html

[mirandapriestly]

124. Yeah, I don't even know what bluescreen is

and holograms are the people in the haunted house at Disneyland, right? Actually, those are kind of.....nevermind... I'm going to stick with "there are fewer witnesses than you would think", and I'm not ruling the possibility of something other than a plane out.

I like:
(from Bronowski)
"Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime. "
although, that may change :scared:

[mirandapriestly]

52. Vague witnesses

closer inspections show that many of the most commonly quoted Pentagon witnesses have pretty major problems with they saw, like being 1.6 miles away and claiming they saw the plane impact. Amazing how so many of them worked for corporate media, too.

http://www.911-strike.com/eyewitness_vague.htm

[StealthyDragon]

56. If you pay a witness enough money.......

they'll see what you want them to see from 160 miles away!

;o)

[MervinFerd]

57. Holographic Witnesses.

If you just use holographic witnesses, you don't have to pay them.

And maybe we are all butterflies dreaming we are men.

[Americus]

59. Or shills. n/t

n/t

[StealthyDragon]

64. Shills?

No way!

;o)

[mirandapriestly]

67. that's funny. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. Try to find

a witness who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Not just the plane and not just the explosion.

Then from the group that saw the plane and the explosion, find someone who did not work for the military or the M$M.

Good luck.

[mirandapriestly]

62. one" witness" was almost 2 miles away! nt

[StealthyDragon]

63. And maybe we are all butterflies dreaming we are men.....

That's the mindset of about 90% of the population.

[Jazz2006]

65. ??? Are you positing that 90% of the population....

believe that they are butterflies dreaming that they are men?

Or that 90% of the population adopts a theory that "we are all butterflies dreaming that (we) are men?

Both seem quite ridiculous on their faces.

Or, as another alternative, are you attempting to posit something else that you just haven't got around to actually articulating yet?

[MervinFerd]

70. We -might- be butterflies; we -might- be holograms,.....

but probably not.

[StealthyDragon]

76. Butterflies or.........

angels!

What's the difference?

[mirandapriestly]

68. You have a very limited repertoire

are you trained on how to get under people's skin? or does it come naturally.

[MervinFerd]

69. Years of CIA training.

At a holographic military base.

[mirandapriestly]

73. If you were cia

you'd be able to support that claim you made that there were 10,000 witnesses to the world trade center attacks. Where is that answer ?
You're just someone who hangs out on a forum that is filled with people that you think are "kooks". Why would someone do that?

[Americus]

74. Why would someone do that? Very good question.

Money? Job requirement? Rite of passage initiation requirement for membership in Neoconhood? Totally uninformed about the events of September 11, 2001, and the historic record of how this and other governments operate (Reichtag fire, "Remember The Maine", Nino Aquino and the "welcoming committee" which met him at the Manila airport etc.)?

Wants to be loved by the "right" people but lacks the usual required credentials and hopes to gain credibility in their eyes by showing off?

Immature?

[mirandapriestly]

79. Probably the last one

I don't think anyone would hire any of them.

[MervinFerd]

77. I think it is important you hear a little voice from outside.

Remember Timothy McVeigh?

[mirandapriestly]

80. What do you mean by that? nt

[mirandapriestly]

109. Would you like to explain that remark?

I guess you didn't see my other request.

[mirandapriestly]

143. Or let them keep their jobs

notice the # of USA Today and government witnesses. Or, they are too far too see anything, yet they claim to. Can you really tell the airline and flight number from 1.6 miles away?

[rman]

83. The Pentagon is different imo,

but the turbine part and the wheel don't appear to me to be planted.

I think you're trying to fit the data to your pre-concieved conclusion.

[Americus]

86. What makes you think THAT?

What's the basis for your statement that "the turbine part and the wheel don't appear to me to be planted"?

Ditto your "trying to fit the data to your pre-conceived conclusion". BTW - WHAT pre-conceived conclusion are you talkiing about.

[rman]

87. why

the turbine part:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=92790&mesg_id=93553

the wheel stuck in the columns: i don't think it's "magical" until someone convinces me that it is. i can imagine a wheel coming off during the crash, crashing through some walls and office furniture, thus loosing speed, and ending up lodged between two columns.

Re the "no planes crashed into the towers", there's the small problem of how to fake that live on multiple broadcasters.

Flight 93 and the pentagon obviously do stink.
The WTC planes do not stink so obviously. it was live on TV, there's amateur footage, there were many eyewitnesses. The planes at the WTC were probably not the passenger jets that the OCT says they were but still large passenger-jet-like planes. It is many orders of magnitude more unlikely that large planes did not crash in the WTC, than it is for 93 and the pentagon.

And -if- the turbine part (why does spooked call it an engine part? it's obviously to small) and the wheel were planted in such a way that they were obviously planted, then why in heavens name would they be so stupid as to do that? This adds to the implausibility of that scenario.


From the above and the fact that spooked none the less pushes the "no planes at all" theory, i conclude he wants that to be the outcome.

[Americus]

88. Your explanation isn't convincing. I'll stick w/Spooked911's logic.

Thanks for responding.

[rman]

89. spooked offers no explanation

as to how the plane crashes at the WTC were faked, live on multiple networks.

[Americus]

90. How could he? There's no evidence they WERE faked AND live on TV.

Spooked911 can speak for himself, but more and more people are now convinced that there were NO plane crashes at the WTC. The fact that there's no definitive proof for HOW the crashes were faked doesn't mean they WEREN'T faked. Are you familiar with some/most/any of the theories which attempt to explain what really happened...at the WTC, Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania. Do you know the most common explanation for why President Bush was left sitting in a classroom full of children while America was "under attack"? ... as indeed it was. Attacked from within.

[LARED]

92. more and more people are now convinced

that there were NO plane crashes at the WTC

Probably doubled from 10 to 20 people since 9/11

Every 5 years it doubles. You started with 10 and now it 20. Shoot in a hundred years you'll have millions


You're on a roll baby.

[Americus]

95. Biggest Daisy on Earth

The 9/11 Daisy will be so large, not even the Derailers can stop it.

[LARED]

96. 9/11 Daisy?

You must not be from around these parts, because around here a daisy is a flower.



There are also Daisys that look like this;




Both look great

[Americus]

105. Prestige by association? One petal likes flowers, another prefers ladies?

Does your response mean that you don't know what I was talking about? No idea? Really? Not even a teeny tiny clue?

[LARED]

106. Yes, you need to explain

9/11 biggest Daisy on Earth.

[MervinFerd]

94. Live, on Fake TV?

Film at 11.

[rman]

100. yet you seem to think that spooked's scenario is more

plausible the RC drone scenario.

Just to say that it's possible isn't enough for me. I do acknowledge that the no-planes-at-all hypothesis is "possible" - i also think it's highly implausible, if only for the fact that it was live on TV.

I'd say there's more evidence that there were planes there, then evidence for no planes at all.
Also i think it's obvious the drone scenario is more easy to pull off then a completely fake aircraft crash live on TV.

There no definitive proof for any scenario, most notably for the OCT.

[MervinFerd]

93. "I think you're trying to fit the data to your pre-concieved conclusion."

Imagine THAT.

[mirandapriestly]

110. Could you please explain your remark about McVeigh?

and if you could just document that 10,000 number, thanks.

:grouphug: :toast: :loveya:

[MervinFerd]

117. Timothy McVeigh believed the Conspiracy Theories of the Early '90s.....

and made decisions based on those beliefs.


10,000 witnesses?

In downtown NYC 10,000 witnesses sounds conservative.
But the interesting number is the number who would have to be deceived, bribed, coerced, conscripted, converted or evangelized to make any of of these Conspiracy Theories work. I can't "document" a number. A bit of common sense says it has to be many more than is remotely plausible.

[mirandapriestly]

118. so you made a number up, that's what I thought.

and you are suggesting that another poster is going to end up like McVeigh because of a belief in what you call conspiracy theories? That sounds like a personal attack of a pretty serious nature.
No wonder you avoid straight talk.
10,000 people did not see the plane. Most of the people in "downtown NYC" had no view of the specific area that you would have needed to be looking at to see the plane. A person could walk to work in DT Manhattan for days and never even see the towers. That particular view is possible only from very far away (across the river) or directly in front of the building without any other buildings blocking it, which is almost impossible.

[LARED]

119. We've been through this before

Even if you discount the folks in Manhattan, there were 10's of thousands watching the WTC from the west side of the Hudson on the Jersey side, and 10's of thousand watching from the east side of the Hudson from lower Brooklyn. Both areas are heavily populated with a very clear view of the WTC.

You also seen to forget that all those office buildings in Manhattan have windows with people in the them. I'd bet a million dollars there are at least 10,000 people in downtown Manhattan with a view of the WTC's that day.

[mirandapriestly]

122. Actually, it's down from "1,000,000" to "10,000" witnesses

on this forum. Everywhere in New Jersey, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, & uptown in NYC you are surrounded by tall buildings. Everywhere. There were not that many clear shots to the world trade center. A typical New Yorker probably never saw them in the course of a day. When I lived there I only saw them when I was on a SoHo or downtown rooftop, and not all rooftops could see them, they were mostly blocked by - buildings. There are photo essays online of people who were there "at the impact" , but they didn't see the plane, their pictures show that. Now I'm not saying this means it wasn't there, I'm saying you could be at the WTC and not see the impact directly, because if you were not directly under them, fuhgeddaboudit. 10,000 people were not directly in front of them. Nor where they on the waterfront park along side the river in NJ where there was a clear view. I've seen pictures, it was sparsely populated. Rick Siegel who did the Eyewitness 911 video which starts after impact was at the NJ waterfront taping and he met NO ONE who saw the planes. Maybe he's lying, I don't know. Also, once you get over there if you don't have a telephoto lens or binoculars, it is pretty far to see. There is another tape around of the impact where it's too far to see the plane, and sure enough there is the fireball with no plane first and it's from NJ, I think. And, other than the Naudet vid , I don't think I know of any witnesses to the first one, except the suspicious 2nd tape that came out. As far as sound goes, there is the famous video of the man standing right under the plane and he doesn't notice a thing, until the fireball. Right under it.
We see images on television and in pictures that were taken from vantage points where you had a clear view of the towers. That gives us the subconscious impression that everyone in New York could see those planes and those buildings. It is simply not true, unless you live in an airborne helicopter a few blocks away.

Now, I'm not saying there were no planes . I am just saying there are fewer witnesses than it seems, for clarification

[LARED]

126. OK, so

is there some magic number where the number of eyewitness is meaningful to CT'er?

What if there were only 8,569 people that really saw the planes fly into the towers? What if 1,250,182 people were eyewitnesses.

So what? How does that change anything?

[seatnineb]

127. Let's see how you react to this.................

Official conspiracy theorists like you place too much blind faith in witnesses like these....who change their testimony/stories at will and lie out of their ass's like there is no tommorow.....

In the words of Mike Walter(2001)

Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my
view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw
the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane
actually went on its side and in(the wall) that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant

http://ru.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3178/index.php

In the words of Mike Walter(2004)

Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html

[LARED]

129. Like this

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

It is no way changes anything. People frequently embellish storys over time.

[seatnineb]

130. Rubbish.....In fact it happens when people tell lies...............

Like this one..............

US Airways Flight 1237 from Rochester was circling over Westchester County, waiting to land at La Guardia Airport, when the Boeing 737 suddenly began climbing steeply. The captain's voice came over the intercom. "There is a lockdown at the New York airports because of a hijacking," the captain said in measured tones. "An American Airlines 767 out of Boston THAT JUST FLEW OVER US, I regret to inform you, has just crashed into the World Trade Center. You can look out the right side of the plane and see the smoke." There were gasps. Then the passengers started talking, some to the person next to them, others to no one in particular. Shirley Dildane of Hammondsport, N.Y., said softly, "Well, I won't be having my meeting today." http://www.wardgriffin.com/sept11one.htm.

Only problem is that US airways Flight 1237 was cancelled on 9/11/01..........and NEVER took off....in the first place.....

Airline: US Airways (US)

Flight Number: 1237

Time Period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2001

Total Number Cancelled

2

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummaryDataDisp.xml

So tell me LARED.....how does Mohammed Atta and his American Airlines flight 11 fly above a plane that never took off!!?

[LARED]

131. Your link does not work

I doubt it provides correct information

[Americus]

132. OCT'ers will do anything to avoid answering substantive questions

Why is it that OCT'ers give excuses whenever their own "witnesses" are shown to lack credibility or when they are contradictory, and when the OCT'er is challenged with factual evidence, they run away from it, dodge it, duck it, try to change the subject, or find some "plausible" reason why they shouldn't have to respond.

Why do they DO that? Who knows. Why does baloney reject the meat grinder?

[seatnineb]

136. You sound as convincing as the witnesses you support..as in not very

.....convincing

LARED

Go here..........

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/

I think you are a clever enough chap to work out what to do from now on......

But just to save you the hassle........

I have done it for you......

Flight 1237 US Airways record for 9/11/01:



Take Off:
US 09/11/2001 1237 UNKNOW ROC (Rochester) 0:00

Landing:
US 09/11/2001 1237 UNKNOW LGA (LaGuardia) 0:00

The 0:00 means that the plane did not take off...or land....

I'll ask you the question again.....

How did Atta and his brigade on Flight 11 fly over flight 1237 .......when flight 1237 NEVER took off!?

[mirandapriestly]

139. Ask a "CTer"

You're the one who believes it was 19 hijackers with box cutters, schemed up by Osama bin Laden, THAT is a conspiracy, I don't know how it went down, so how can I be a "Conspiracy Theorist" ?
All I know is that we are being lied to.
The lower the number the more likely it is that the witnesses are mistaken. For example if only one person "saw the plane", it could be more easily dismissed as imagined under duress.

[Jazz2006]

123. And millions more

saw the second plane strike on television as networks were filming live by then.

It's rather odd that the same people who pretend that no such evidence exists use that very same evidence (which they claim doesn't exist), pore over it for countless hours, magnify it beyond recognition, play with and manipulate it until it is a meaningless collection of pixels and then claim that they see flashies and sparkies in it that are supposedly proof of "controlled demolitions" while simultaneously claiming that the footage doesn't exist (which is what they are really saying if they claim that nobody saw the planes on that very same footage).


It's truly bizarre.


Beyond bizarre, even.

[mirandapriestly]

125. We're talking about eyewitness accounts

can't you even figure that out? Watching something on tv does not count as an eyewitness account. that isn't the point here. Your reply is hilarious, although you're probably scratching your head trying to figure out why. How can you not understand such a basic concept?

[Jazz2006]

142. R e a d i n g C o m p r e h e n s i o n

Note the first word of my post, which was "and".

Then look up its conjunctive use.

Then try to connect the dots.

[mirandapriestly]

152. reading comprehension is e x a c t l y what you don't have

the addition of "and" doesn't make any difference. My whole point is that television witnesses are not really witnesses. how does one even begin to try to explain something like that, greyl?

[Jazz2006]

229. Wrong again (no surprise)

Yeah, actually, it does. Like I said, reading comprehension.

Unless you actually believe that all of the networks broadcasting live were in on a vast conspiracy and were faking their live video and instead cued up a fake video of a fake plane crashing into the second tower.

I take no issue with the fact that there may have been less than 10,000 witnesses to the first plane hitting the first tower.... but are you seriously suggesting that the second strike wasn't caught on tape by numerous networks and amateur videos and witnessed by millions of people in real time?

[Americus]

133. "Struck" it...as though it was made of "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter"

You're saying that millions of people saw a plane crash into WTC2 and melt into it like it was butter? No wings broken off and only a barely perceptive slow-down of the "plane" as it melted into the building.

Literally millions of people saw something that is impossible in real life. Very interesting. Was the show produced by David Copperfield?

[AZCat]

148. Impossible in real life?

With a bold claim like that, I'd love to see your calculations. Perhaps you'd enlighten me first by letting me know what methods you used to reach the conclusion that the behavior of the plane during the collision was not possible in "real life". I haven't done any impact dynamics simulations in a while but I would be interested in seeing your work - a professor of mine specializes in this and I'm sure something as topical as this would spark his interest also.

[dailykoff]

151. Real life is where two physical obects

can't occupy the same space at the same time, and stuff like that. Ask your professor about it.

[AZCat]

155. To what you are referring, I have no idea.

Care to explain?

[dailykoff]

156. Try this:

[AZCat]

157. No - I mean what events are you pointing to? n/t

[dailykoff]

158. Um, reread the thread.

:crazy:

[AZCat]

160. Could you be a little more specific? n/t

[MervinFerd]

120. OK, "More than could be bribed, intimidated, halllucinated......

JEEZ!!

You are denying a fact established beyond all -reasonable- doubt.

If it makes you happy:

1352.

OK?

[mirandapriestly]

121. who said anything about

bribing or hallucinating? Some people may have wanted to keep their jobs, but really there are not that many witnesses. You must not have a very strong belief in what you are arguing if you have to make stuff up.

[MervinFerd]

134. Axiomatic Form:

Many Witnesses Claim they saw planes.

Either

They saw planes

OR

They are lying for some reason.

How many witnesses could be coerced to lie on such an emotional topic?

Damn few.

You are just making a ridiculous argument.

[mirandapriestly]

137. Not that many.

certainly not 10,000. Or even 1,000, or even a couple 100. Many more people said they saw the fireball but not the plane. A witness can be lead to believe they saw something, without "lying", for example they could have told them that it was AA Flight whatever, and then asked them a few minutes later later and the witness would have repeated it because they saw "something".
Additionally, I don't know if you read the witnesses accounts released years later by the NYTimes but they don't mention planes either. In fact, almost all of them mention BOMBS, so let's talk about that. Why do you think that witnesses are lying about the bombs, but not the planes?

[Americus]

140. Excellent question re: why lie about bombs, but not planes. Good 1. n/t

n/t

[mirandapriestly]

138. problems with Pentagon witnesses

This is called "Vague witnesses" you can see the problems with the witnesses at the Pentagon.

http://www.911-strike.com/eyewitness_vague.htm


Anlauf, Deb & Jeff: Mrs. Deb Anlauf, resident of Colfax, Wisconsin, was in her 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel , (immediately west of the Navy Annex) when she heard a "loud roar": Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook. (...) Jeff didn't feel the impact of the plane crash as directly as his wife. He was attending an environmental meeting on the second floor of the hotel when the plane struck the Pentagon. About five seconds before the crash, Jeff said he heard the sound of "tin being dropped," likely as construction workers building an addition to the hotel saw the plane and dropped their building materials. "Then, about 5 seconds later, the whole hotel shook," Jeff recalled. "I could feel it moving. We said 'Oh, my gosh, what's going on?' "
http://www.leadertelegram.com/specialreports/attack/storydetail.asp?ID=7
From a distance of 1.6 miles, looking into the morning sun, we are not sure whether Deb Anlauf could have distinguished between an actual impact, and the magic show we propose. (If only we could see the Sheraton's security video....)

Corley : "It was striking to me how little of the building was involved in the fire," said Dr. Corley, who has reviewed the Pentagon report. The fire, he said, "didn't spread and and trap other people in the building. "While 125 Pentagon workers and 59 passengers and crew members on the plane died, few if any of the workers who died were from outside the immediate impact zone."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/05/nyregion/05TOWE.html
Corley is not an eyewitness, he just reviewed the report.

Dubill, Bob : " (...) when he saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision. The jet was 40-feet off the ground speeding toward the Pentagon. The wheels were up
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5425475&BRD=386&PAG=461&dept_id=444919&rfi=6
It doesn't say which roadway, or exactly where Dubill was located. We don't question that the airliner passed very low over Columbia Pike.
Dubill is Executive Editor of USA Today. He didn't claim to have seen the impact.

Eberle, Bobby: "Riding in a convertible ... I looked back and saw a jet airliner flying very low and very fast.
http://www.gopusa.com/bobby/bobby_091201.shtml
Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA. He doesn't specify his location and he didn't see the impact.

Eiden, Steve: Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. "You could almost see the people in the windows," he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit.
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/ads/chronology2001/page2.html
Eiden didn't see the final approach or the impact.

Goff, Dr Dr Goff :"We used every aspect of our medical training that day to treat victims suffering from injuries ranging from inhalation and blast injuries to all levels of burns to emotional trauma,"
http://www.aoa-net.org/Publications/DO/pentagon1101.pdf
If it weren't for Dr. Goff and others like him, the death toll on 9-11 would have been much greater. In honor of their efforts, we hope that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

Holland, Nicholas: Nicholas Holland, an engineer with AMEC Construction Management of Bethesda, Md., had spent the last two years working to reinforce the walls. Two summers ago, a blast wall of reinforced steel and concrete was installed right where the plane hit. It stood for 25 minutes after it was hit before collapsing, long enough for people to escape, Holland said.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/11/nation-291261.htm
We are not sure whether Holland is claiming that he was present on the scene.

Hunt, Bob: office when the explosion at the Pentagon occurred. "About a third of the sky was blacked with smoke", He said. Hunt was in contact with this office via e-mail on September 11 until he left work and decided to walk, rather than catch a crowded subway. "I talked to a number of average people in route who said they saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument" Hunt stated. He said they reported to him they could clearly see the markings of an American Airlines airliner and some even said they could make out faces of passengers in the aircraft windows. Again, this is what Bob Hunt heard from witnesses on the street in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/15/arjj031502.htm
Strangely, we have seen reports that this plane over the Washington Mall area was photographed -- and it was a four-engine plane. See http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3571

[Americus]

135. "can't document" a number, but w/out credibility, who'll believe it?

OCT'ers who espouse patently false theories and whose mission is obviously to do anything and everything possible to prevent the truth from being learned by more people, may well be suspected of lacking credibility whenever they claim "common sense" as the basis for their nonsense.

Is there an intern program for OCT shills?

[MervinFerd]

144. There is no rational response to this.

You are mouthing arrant nonsense.

Up is Down. Black is White.
There were no witnesses.

If all of mankind tell you that your views are nonsense, maybe you should listen.
Jeezus Pete!

[Americus]

145. A rational response would be to answer the question.

You said there were 10,000 witnesses that saw planes crash into the WTC. Then, MP asked you the source for that number, but instead of providing evidence to support your 10,000 witnesses claim, you've ducked, dodged, filibustered, changed the subject, talked about all kinds of crazy things, threw a hissy-fit, but like most OCT'ers, when it comes to substance, there's no there, there.

[MervinFerd]

147. It's an irrational question, that dodges the real issue.

There are MANY witnesses.

How-the-Hell am I supposed to know the exact number?

And what-the-Hell does the exact number matter?

There were MANY. More than a few. Enough to be credible.

10,000 sounds like a reasonable number for Manhattan, but, Say it's 1000, or 100.

It's still a whole lot.

And their testimony is backed by videotapes and a whole lot more.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus Pete!

[dailykoff]

150. Translation: "the TeeVee told me so."

Now go kick your troll thread for the umpteenth time.

[mirandapriestly]

153. Now it's down to 100.

Starting to sink in, huh?

[MervinFerd]

154. NO. THE NUMBER DOESN'T MATTER, IF IT IS BIG.

Jeeeeezus Pete!

IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Could be 10, could be 100. If they are credible, that's the story.

A rough estimate would be several thousand, but SO WHAT?

There really is no actual issue here.



Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

[seatnineb]

159. You are talking out of your ass!...and you know it.....

So tell me Merv.........

How does a witness in downtown Manhattan see a u-turn performed by Flight 175.......

She briefly told us that she was working in her office when she saw the second plane hit one of the Towers. Being A FEW BLOCKS AWAY from the site, Ms. Russell said she saw the second plane fly by, TURN AROUND, then hit the other tower. She put her arms up to shield her face from flying glass shards, but her arms were cut, nonetheless

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5734620... .

....when the 9/11 Commission has this same Flight 175 doing it's U-Turn over Trenton(pretty far away from down town Manhattan)




Any answers?...quickly now!

Here is a case of the 9/11 Commission and an Eye witness talking complete and utter bullshit.......

So you can take this bullshit...and go shove it up your ass!

[MervinFerd]

164. The issue was Holographic Airplanes, not U-turns.

I'd trust the Commission, not the witness on this point.

Witnesses get details confused; they don't miss jetliners flying around Manhattan. And their evidence is corroborated by much else.

It is not I who am pulling stuff out of my ass.

[seatnineb]

166. You are Still talking rubbish..........

That is the difference between you and me........

I don't trust either the 9/11 commission report or anonymouse fuckers like this who testify to having seen the following...


On September 1, my buddy and I went to NYC to work as Ironworkers. We got dispatched to work on a high-rise IN QUEENS.
We stopped working for about twenty minutes as the first building burned wondering what we could do, when we saw the second plane come around the corner of the other tower. HE MADE A U-TURN and crashed into it right before our eyes.
http://www.journalregister.com/towntalk/html/messages/4...

So Merv.....

Care to tell me how a witness in Queens,NYC.....sees a U-turn that according to the 9/11 Ommission report.....took place over Trenton....

[MervinFerd]

219. There simply is no possible rational response to this.

Do you believe in Elves?

[seatnineb]

222. In other words...you don't have an answer.......

I'll just make it a little bit harder for you.......

At this point I was still under the impression that this was an accident and after watching and filming this other plane make a U turn and head back towards the towers nothing in the world could have prepared me for what would happen next.I dont recall that feeling I got when I filmed that plane hitting the second tower,but the screams from the people around me and the anguish and tears in the eyes of the shocked man standing next to me is something I will never forget.

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jsp?forum=121&thread=58174&start=440&msRange=40

So Merv.....

You still got no explanation of how a witness in Bayonne can film a u-turn that according to the 9/11 Commission is taking place nearly 100 miles away.....

[greyl]

174. No, he isn't.

He's making sense, you're not.
I don't think anyone has insisted that all eyewitness accounts of an event always match exactly other than you and members of your crew.

[seatnineb]

175. No...you are wrong....and you know that Merv is wrong......

Here is 5th Avenue with the WTC off in the distance.......



Now if American Airlines Flight 11 was travelling at 300-400 MPH(if not faster)......care to explain how it took 10 minutes to actually get from 5th Avenue to the WTC?!!

Larry Anderson, a dentist, said he saw a plane flying "amazingly low" directly over Fifth Avenue a little before 9 a.m.

"It was a pretty big plane, and it was flying so low, right down Fifth Avenue. I could see a blue logo on the plane's tail, I'm sure it was an American Airlines jet, that's how low it was flying. It wasn't a small plane; it looked like a passenger plane. ABOUT 10 MINUTES LATER I heard an explosion. And then, maybe a half hour later I heard another explosion. And then the police sirens started going off, and I heard people screaming."

http://boards.theforce.net/Your_Jedi_Council_Community/b10008/4049615/p16

[greyl]

176. We see things differently.

Your saying I know I'm wrong implies that I'm not being honest. You are wrong, and the worst part is that I believe you think you're correct. Oh well.

[seatnineb]

177. You did not actually answer the question.......

Why am I not surprised..........

But we definetely see things differently.........

In the photo below showing American Airlines Flight 11 approaching the WTC I see clouds in the sky........

Do you?



I thought 9/11/01 was a beautiful sunny day......as shown in the Naudet video.....



So Greyl....have you got the balls to say one of the above is Fake.......

Go on I dare you......I triple dare you....

[greyl]

178. One of the above is fake. nt

[seatnineb]

180. That's it don't be shy.....why would someone fake a foto of the 1st hit

[spooked911]

182. Good job, seatnineb

way to keep on 'em.

wish I had the patience for that.

[greyl]

184. To get you to waste your time looking silly is one reason.

I can think of dozens more.

[seatnineb]

188. Another piss poor response........

Seeing as you are having such difficulty.........

Try swallowing another no-planer witness.......

Perhaps 10 minutes later, ''All of a sudden, there was an orange plume, a huge explosion. It shot out the back of the building. Everybody on the bus was just moaning and gasping,'' said Goldstein, who wept and trembled as she spoke.

The plume was from the second plane, but she didn't see the plane because of the thick smoke.

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/091101/new_091101bknew0030001.shtml

[greyl]

193. Thanks for the warning

that your response was going to be another piss poor one.

Swallow some of this.

[seatnineb]

194. Read that shit along time ago.....

Got any rebuttal to this?

I could see the George Washington Bridge from my office. And right before my eyes the building just exploded looking at it. I didn't see the plane hit but I saw the building just go up. So I work with my brother and we both ran to the window and we just sat there and looked in amazement what was happening and we just said: Yo! Know what?

http://www.documentnewyork.com/story.php?primaryKey=51

Did not think so.....

[greyl]

195. I doubt it.

And if you did, you didn't comprehend it very well, or just didn't care enough to ever put into practice.

I'm not going to waste any more time with you. See ya.

[seatnineb]

197. Sweet dreams:

Some people who "were there".......

In the words of Victor Cruzate:
When I was back in the roof I saw just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2. I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other guys on the roof. We speculated for a few minutes. The only thing we could imagine was on of the wings of the first plane hitting the other tower and provoking the explosion, but that was very unlikely. Finally one of the people on the roof said: "The radio is saying that there was a second plane."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1537530.stm

And this is the footage of Victor Cruzate showing the angle he was viewing from(North East)




...did not see what was shown on TV........

[Americus]

199. Remember: You made promise to STOP wasting our time. Buh bye.

Are you planning on changing jobs or just shifting your focus to easier marks? Seatnineb is one sharp cookie who doesn't merely dismiss OCT shills, rather s9b totally destroys them and the bogus tactics they rely on.

[greyl]

206. No, I didn't.

Difficulties with reading for comprehension are one of the weaknesses absurd conspiracy theories depend on.
Way to make yourself available.

[Americus]

217. If you didn't promise to leave, then what did you mean?

I acknowledge I may have misinterpeted what you said, though it certainly seemed clear to me at the time.

Please tell you what you meant. In plain English, free of OCT'er/shill language.

[greyl]

218. I'm not going to coddle you.

I'd rather put you on ignore.
See ya.

[Americus]

221. Do ANY of the OCT'ers here ever give substantive answers?

I guess when the truth isn't on your side, but you still have a job to do, you do the best you can.

[Name removed]

225. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Americus]

198. Interestingly - NOT 1 person even says they saw a plane AFTER hearing

and seeing an explosion at the WTC. Furthermore, no one reported seeing any airplane parts stuck in the side of the buildings or falling down, or on the street (other than the pieces that were conveniently planted).

[Americus]

186. Excellent job of exposing the BS factor in a OCT'er. Fine work, s9b. n/t

n/t

[seatnineb]

190. Thanks Americus (and Spooked)!

[StealthyDragon]

216. have you got the balls to say one of the above is Fake

Have you noticed the number of fake pentagon photos out there?

A lot of photo shopping was done that day.

[seatnineb]

226. If Greyl and the Boss were shown this video:

And if the above video was given a stamp of approval by the FBI......

Greyl and the Boss would most probably think it was authentic!

[Bolo Boffin]

227. Come back from Hypothetical Land, seat9b

That video doesn't have the FBI seal of approval, and it's obviously fake.

So explain to me why after almost five years and access to the most sophisticated digital imagery fakery available, that the FOIA produced only this very blurry video which only barely shows the plane that hit the Pentagon (yes, I will admit that - why not? It's true!). They could have produced the slickest thing imaginable.

Here's the truth: any video released by the government that shows anything but what you want to see there is something you and your friends will automatically discount. It matters not if it accurately shows what happened that day. Your thesis is unfalsifiable, and that's why reason and logic stubbornly elude you in this matter.

[seatnineb]

228. You are talking bullshit............

Truth is that any video will have to encompass and reconcile all the different(and contradictory) details that were recounted by the eyewitnesses.....

Like star witness Frank Probst diving out of the way so as to avoid getting hit by the engine of AA77......

He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.
http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.htm

That is one reason why they can't release the video......

[mirandapriestly]

162. If you really believe that

then why did you need to exaggerate before? You're back to the tooth fairy, that means you don't have any arguments left. Credible? Like the guy who saw the plane come into his office and now he is an evangelical preacher using his experience as evidence of God? Maybe you can post a "credible" witness, although you guys seem to be unable to link.

[MervinFerd]

163. What exaggeration?

10,000 or more is a reasonable wild guess.

The point is:

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!

There were ENOUGH witnesses. And their testimony is corroborated by much other evidence.


I am sure several witnesses have turned to God as a result of their experiences. So?


I mentioned the Tooth Fairy in order to ridicule your opinions.
You are arguing a ridiculous point. And making a fool of yourself.

[mirandapriestly]

165. 10,000

Now you are saying a lot less. I've actually proved my point which is that there were far less witnesses than commonly believed, that is all I am saying and you have gone from 10,000 to "a few thousand". How am I making a fool of myself, specifically? You can't even disprove a point that you consider "ridiculous" without resorting to comments like "Do you believe in the tooth fairy?" I'm not saying "no planes", I'm saying "not that many people saw what hit the towers (and Pentagon). At what point you guys were saying "millions". One poster even included the "millions who watched it on TeeVeee" as eye witnesses - that is a PERFECT demonstration of how viewers can be fooled by repetitive imagery on tv without even realizing it

[MervinFerd]

167. Then what IS your point?

I am not backing down on the number of witnesses.

I'd still guess the number of witnesses was above 10,000, especially for the second plane. But that's just a wild guess.

I -am- saying
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

There were plenty of witnesses.

If you are not claiming that there were No Planes, then

WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT!!??

There is vast, indisputable evidence that planes hit the buildings. What does the exact number of witnesses matter?

----
How many witnesses saw the Sun rise this morning? Perhaps all that stuff about the Sun rising in the East is just a Government plot.

THE SUN REALLY RISES IN THE WEST!!

WHHEEE!!!!

THIS IS LIBERATING.

[StealthyDragon]

172. but the turbine part and the wheel don't appear to me to be planted.

What makes it different than any other piece of deception?

[theboss]

170. So, now NO planes were involved

I guess that classmate of mine who died when his plane hit the tower is living in Aruba.

[StealthyDragon]

173. You maybe closer to the truth than you think

[theboss]

179. Yea

Because it is so easy to hide 4 airplanes full of people.
They went through one of those invisible mountains, like where the Justice League hangs out.

[seatnineb]

181. Who was your "friend"?...which plane was he/she on?

[theboss]

183. Why is that needed?

He was on flight 11.

[seatnineb]

189. Cos'in the medium of the internet...it 's easy to make shit up......

Not saying that you are....but you could be....

So what is the name of the passenger....

[theboss]

196. And giving you a name proves that I'm telling the truth?

Couldn't I just look at a passenger list?

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you. Where are the Flight 11 passengers?

[Americus]

200. Yes, you COULD just look at a passenger list. That's what I'd expect you

to do if you were pressed and felt pressured to put up or shut up. But you aren't about to do that, because you know that if you did, you'd be opening yourself up to further examination, and THAT would expose you as a peddler of bogus claims.

[theboss]

201. So...wait...I'm lost

Your argument is that if I don't personally know someone who died on September 11th, no one died on September 11th?

Anyway, I went to college with two people who died on that day. One - who I knew fairly well - died on Flight 11. One - who I think I got drunk with once but can't be entirely sure - died in the Towers. I went to an elitist college in New Jersey. 13 Alums died that day.

I've just revealed an awful more about myself than I typically comfortable in doing in a forum like this.

Oh, I also had a date with a secretary in the Pentagon scheduled for that night. Needless to say, it was cancelled.

Though we did go out a few weeks later. We watched the Steelers-Bengals game at Theismann's in Alexandria.

Any other questions?

(Oh...and one of my friend's wife was working on the remodeling on the part of the Pentagon that was hit. She was a little freaked out that day as she was not sure if her workers were in the building and was not sure what was going on on Capitol Hill, where my friend worked. It was a busy week here).

[seatnineb]

204. Just say the name of the Passenger...........n/t

[theboss]

208. This is stupid

I've already told you what college I went to and where I live. Why don't I just give you my credit card numbers while I am at it.

His first name is Chris.

[greyl]

210. That's an efficient description. :) nt

[theboss]

211. This forum is addictive, isn't it?

I try to stay out of here, but every now and then, I check out to see what's the latest word in kookery.

[greyl]

212. Hehe, a little bit. :) nt

[Americus]

220. So, "kookery" is one of your special interests?

Everyone's entitled to their own special interests, but your interest in kookery doesn't add any credibility to your 9/11 stories.

[seatnineb]

224. Means nothing.......just words on an internet page.

I am not interested in you.......

Just give the passenger's full name.

Is it really that difficult?

[StealthyDragon]

214. Anyway, I went to college with two people who died on that day. One - who

Have you ever read page ten of Operation Northwoods?

[seatnineb]

202. No it does not........

As for the wherabouts of the passengers......who knows?

But then again......are you not interested into who really hijacked your "friend"'s plane

Police and law enforcement sources said the two brothers suspected in the Boston hijackings were Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Abbas Bukhari, who up until recent days had lived in Vero Beach, Florida. Both of their homes have been searched, the sources said.
The two rented a car, a silver-blue Nissan Altima, from an Alamo car rental at Boston's Logan Airport and drove to an airport in Portland, Maine, where they got on US Airways Flight 5930 at 6 a.m. Tuesday headed back to Boston, the sources said."

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200109/13/eng20010913...

Did not think so....

[theboss]

203. According to you, there is no plane

I'm comfortable with official explanation as far as the mechanics of what happened.
I'm still pretty pissed that our government is so incompetent as to allow it to happen.

My question has always been, if the government is going to hijack planes and then fake having planes crash into things....why not just crash the fucking planes into things?

I've never understood why these masterminds would add another layer of deceit of hiding the planes, which seems like the most complicated part of the plan. It strikes me as something a Bond villian would do.

[Americus]

205. It sounds like you just haven't done any research, and you should...

* If you want to know the truth about what happened to all those people you say you knew personally.

* If you really do want answers to the questions you asked.

* If you want your opinions, questions, and conjectures to be informed opinions, questions and conjectures.

[seatnineb]

207. Well if Ameer Bukhari died 1 year BEFORE 9/11........

....but still managed to hijack your friend's plane....


Ameer Bukhari had died in an air collision above the St. Lucie County International Airport exactly a year before the attacks
(Palm Beach Post, 9/21/01)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.ter... /



Then anything is possible....

[theboss]

209. Except he didn't hijack the plane

He's been cleared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameer_Bukhari

I really don't see how mistakes in reporting are proof of conspiracy.

[seatnineb]

223. What the fuck are you talking about.........

It was Law Inforcement sources who said the Bukharis were the hijackers.

Law enforcement sources also tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston, one of those two flights that wound up slamming into the World Trade Center.”
(CNN, 9/12/01 3 p.m.)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.ter... /

The media was merely transmitting the information given to them by those law enforement sources.......

Try harder.

[StealthyDragon]

215. I'm comfortable with official explanation as far as the mechanics of what

Really?

[greyl]

185. What's your mother's maiden name? nt

[Americus]

187. Why is THAT important? Do you not want him to answer s9b's question?

That's the purpose of your deflection question, isn't it? Fact is, doing that is your only purpose here, isn't it? Do you realize you're becoming a caricature, like the other gentleman(?)?

[greyl]

191. It's not.

You're scaring me.

[seatnineb]

192. Par for the course at TC (Troll Central)!

[StealthyDragon]

213. Because it is so easy to hide 4 airplanes full of people.

First off.......the jets weren't full.

Secondly (if you haven't noticed) we are missing the physical evidence of the last two.

[DrDebug]

230. I'm convinced as well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92675#95194

[seatnineb]

231. WoW!........great find DrDebug!....n/t

[mirandapriestly]

232. I'm so glad you are pursuing the "Marsh angle"

there is definitely the pieces of something there, just like it was no accident the Pentagon was "hit" in that one section!

[DrDebug]

233. Maybe the Pentagon was no-missile and no-plane as well

I can't see either. They could have used the same trick.