Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

reply to post by REMISNE

ALSO THE FACT IS THAT YOU WERE BOTH WRONG ABOUT THE LEARJET HAVING A FUEL TANK,

I do so fervently wish you would read my posts more clearly. I invite you to go back, and review (again) what I said regarding the "fuel tank"....

So, where's the apology?

Oh, and an ECM pod, makes sense. Like I said, "for the Sultan who has everything..."

Now....you said "civilian" airplanes, with pods. Except, the Tupelov was NOT "civilian"...the Lear was, of course. BUT, the ECM device has nothing at ALL to do with the alleged (and thoroughly debunked, by now) so-called "pod" alleged on United 175....

The Tupelov was not civilian, any more than THIS is:

Or, this:

Or, this:

There are plenty of examples of BASE commercial airframes that are modified and marketed to military applications and specifications.

In any event, the UAL 175 photos do not, have not, never did show "pods"...even a cursory glance at examples of actual airplanes with additional things hanging off into the airstream show that they would NOT be located in such a way as to interfere with the retraction of the landing gear!! (In location as claimed by the "pod" people...)

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
reply to post by PookztA

 

When I was in Florida, sharing 9/11 with people anywhere and everywhere, I ran into this man who was "crabbing" at the beach, and went into my spiel with him, showing him pics and recording it on camera. This person was a little more unusual then most, because he happened to have lived in New york when it happened, and witnessed everything after the first strike.

And without writing a book here, his testimony was simple. He saw the 2nd plane hit the world trade center. He saw it with his own eyes. And he gave me a very slow and insightful story. Along with many other things he saw that day. And he had no bone in the matter. He was simply telling us his story and only because I bumped into him a little north of Tampa on the beach while he was crabbing.

There is a ton of really great evidence out there that turns unbelievers into believers. But this isn't it.

Just my opinion,

Peace-
Phil

Phil,

Whats the name of the guy that lived in New york when it happened, and witnessed everything after the first strike.


D.Duck

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now....you said "civilian" airplanes, with pods. Except, the Tupelov was NOT "civilian"...the Lear was, of course.

Well sorry to disagree but the Tupelov is a militarty version of a CIVILIAN aircraft.

So i have proven my point that civilian aircraft can carry pods.

Originally posted by REMISNE
So i have proven my point that civilian aircraft can carry pods.

The military version of a civilian aircraft is carrying a radar pod. Get it right.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The military version of a civilian aircraft is carrying a radar pod. Get it right.

Thanks for agreeing with me that a civilian aircraft can carry a pod.

reply to post by REMISNE


If the plane is transformed into a military version, IT IS NO LONGER A CIVILIAN PLANE.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If the plane is transformed into a military version, IT IS NO LONGER A CIVILIAN PLANE.

Sorry but the plane was built as a civilian plane, so no matter what was done to it is still a civilain plane. Just modified for the militaqry.