Mike Lee on No Planes, Protecting the house and other 911 aspects

reply to post by mikelee


Sorry Mike, I have confused you. I have hit the wrong quote button when editing and it has made it look like that I have posted the no plane stuff - when actually I just replied to someones post/reply about no planes and the first tower impact.

Sorry for the mishap - I'm definitely not a "No Planer"

reply to post by mikelee


This one too Mike, I didn't post that, my reply - was this last sentence:

"You mean it was days before anyone saw the first plane impact, everyone saw the second plane live, remember"

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Skyline666]

Originally posted by mikelee
Common sense reasoning indicates that the passengers died when the two planes in NYC hit the WTC Towers. Providing there is no other evidence to support any no plane stance.

I was talking about shanksville and the pentagon...

However, it isn't about the evidence for a no plane stance, it is about the lack of evidence for a plane...

Originally posted by Jezus
The problem is you are making assumptions based on your own speculation.

Regardless of what really happened to the passengers, the family members or anyone else would have no more information than we do.

The passengers are an unknown variable. Anything could have happened to them.

Not knowing one variable does not refute the rest of the evidence.

reply to post by Jezus


I have already posted my opinion in the Pentagon and Shanksville in my thread. Just as everyone else I too am searching for evidence regarding those two sites.

reply to post by Skyline666

reply to post by Skyline666


Exactly, except for the people on the ground in NYC, in their condos/apartments watching that is.

I've said before that if 93 didn't crash there, then something was already there they've wanted. I thought that once I read about the eminent domain thats trying to be imposed on the people who live there. I don't know what happened, but if it didn't crash there, then what is there?

reply to post by Skyline666


I didn't see it live. I had 3 stations on and they all had to tell me and show me the the footage. I don't know how I missed it.

reply to post by Myendica


Fox news captured it on live television. As did other media outlets, the claim of "the second plane was not televised until the next day" is not correct in it's entirety as seen in the video below.

1st & 2nd plane on Fox

[edit on 3/20/2010 by mikelee]

More than anything else to date, the gov prosecutor presented the cockpit voice recorder which provided the following....

During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the contents of the cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 were played for the jury. On April 12, the government released a transcript of the recording, but not the recording itself. A report two years prior to the publication of the Commission's Report -- when the crash time was widely recognized as 10:06 -- stated that "the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage."

Just that in an of itself proves the plane's hull was breached as in having been shot down or was shot up by a responding fighter jet.


Then we have this video slip of the truth by Don Rumsfeld....




Given these two items alone I cannot see how anybody could believe in either "no plane" or the OS regarding flight 93. But, we have this also to suggest what happened to flight 93 that backs up the above two shoot down references.....

Flight 93 shot down, admitted by AWACs crewman on BBC

Originally posted by warisover

Originally posted by mikelee

I'll tell what then, its the evidence indicating that it was shot down.

Mike, there were no planes shot down over Pennsylvania, the debris that was found 7 miles away was supposed to be dumped over the crater(that was caused by shooting a missile into the ground) when it was realized that they missed their target they quietly collected the fake evidence

This seems the most likely scenario. The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757, full or incomplete. There is a cover up going on concerning flight 93 and it consists of other theories meant to discredit the most damaging evidence to the official story. Also, the reason for nonsensical theories is meant to create the impression that there is infighting and confusion within the 911 truth community.

Mike, there were no planes shot down over Pennsylvania, the debris that was found 7 miles away was supposed to be dumped over the crater(that was caused by shooting a missile into the ground) when it was realized that they missed their target they quietly collected the fake evidence

The most plausible & sensible scenario for flight 93 is that it was shot down.

Originally posted by mikelee
Still I just cannot believe none of the no plane theories because of one important question: Where are the passengers then?

...too many negatives up there - makes your statement appear to say the opposite of what you wanted to say...


...i've noticed that (in person) the askers of that question always have a "glazed over" look to their eyes... some ask as if they believe the answer to that question is a valuable key that will unlock the truth about what really happened that day - but - some ask as if its the most powerful debunker out there and they always leave me with the thought that they dont want the truth to come out...

...after i saw the second plane hit wtc2 - the only viable question was, "how does an aluminum vehicle crash into a steel and concrete building and cut through it like a hot knife through soft butter without the vehicle losing its wings or tail - and - go all the way through the building and come out the other side with its nose in tact?"...

...i've heard / read lots of explanations since that day but none that make any sense to me - because - i've seen the damage a concrete divider on the highway can do when 80,000 pounds of tractor/trailer smacks into it...

...the glazed-over folks always say "but i saw it with my own eyes!" and, in their minds, thats a logical explanation... i tend to trust my eyes too, lol, but i've never perceived whats shown on tv as anything but convoluted reality at best...

...if you ask the glazed-over folks what would happen if they slammed an aluminum soda pop can into the side of a brick or concrete wall, they know it will smash the can and wont hurt the wall but they're incapable of applying that reality to the wtc towers - so - they always ask "what happened to the people?"...

...there are a lot of valid questions but "where are the passengers?" is not one of them because they're dead... i dont know where they were killed but i doubt any of the alleged passengers died at the pentagon or near shanksville...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


I both, agree and disagree with your opinions. Respectfully of course

The passengers must be a focal point though, because without them then we could look into the "no plane" side. however, as any seasoned investigator must do because it simply make the most sense, we have to gow ith what evidence is avalible. Currently that encompasses that they died in the crash therefore the no plane theory does not hold water for any reason.

Neither does the hole in the ground theory either...

If flight 93 vanished into a hole in the ground that was made up of soft dirt. Then how did two other airliners that hit two steel structures manage to do that and leave debris? Thats a nagging question and one that cannot be answered by the hole in the ground theory regarding flight 93. The only possible explanation is that it was shot down. We all know there were two other crash/debris fields and that was stated in the media on 911.



[edit on 3/25/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...if you ask the glazed-over folks what would happen if they slammed an aluminum soda pop can into the side of a brick or concrete wall, they know it will smash the can and wont hurt the wall...

Huh?

You are talking about a small aluminum soda can that weighs, what? An ounce or so?

Moving as fast as a person can possible move it, with his/her arm...not even CLOSE in comparison!

Look....go crack a physics book, and do the calculations for yourself.

Airplane weighs over 200,000 pounds, and velocity is upwards of 730 feet per second.

(Might want to convert everything to metric, makes the math easier...just remember to keep the units straight).

Those numbers, above, are conservative BTW.

Outer sections of WTC Towers were connectd by bolts, etc. ALL the strength was in a vertical direction, a tremendous force laterally caused bolts and other connectors to shear/snap.

Oh, and the "nose-out" nonsense?

If you got that from the liar "Simon Shack" and his silly film, then you should Google some more, you will find many ways it has been proven false.

come out the other side with its nose in tact?

It didn't. That was a digital manipulated frame used to suggest that. There was no "nose" of any aircraft on that day.

There are other angles of that same video and after seeing them side by side running at the same time with 3 different monitors, I can personally tell you that it is debris without any doubt.

i've heard / read lots of explanations since that day but none that make any sense to me - because - i've seen the damage a concrete divider on the highway can do when 80,000 pounds of tractor/trailer smacks into it...

Totally different crash scenarios with very different variables. The two, in the layman's eyes (and mind) may seem similiar but thats it. Tractor/trailers do not travel at 500+ mph and that fact along can dispell many variances others who look for conspiracy try to connect.

the glazed-over folks always say "but i saw it with my own eyes!" and, in their minds, thats a logical explanation... i tend to trust my eyes too, lol, but i've never perceived whats shown on tv as anything but convoluted reality at best

True and I agree. I think we all should use our better judgement when seeing whatever on TV however, a few drops of good 'ol common sense usually is enough to cut through the smoke & mirrors and manipulated video & images.

if you ask the glazed-over folks what would happen if they slammed an aluminum soda pop can into the side of a brick or concrete wall, they know it will smash the can and wont hurt the wall but they're incapable of applying that reality to the wtc towers - so - they always ask "what happened to the people?"...

Again very different scenarios here. A Coke can cannot be made by the human hand to travel into the wall at the speed at which an airliner would. However, using a cannon one can fire a pumpkin at a car and it'll go right through the metal. Why? Its those different forces at work, propelling the pumpkin with enough energy that it all travel through the metal. And the pumkin is a heck of a lot softer than a Coke can! Understanding the science can quickly answer many questions. But many people would rather believe that there was this dramatic, conspiracy based, dark side to it all. When usually in life, the mundane and simplier answers are the ones that are based in fact.

[edit on 3/25/2010 by mikelee]

there are a lot of valid questions but "where are the passengers?" is not one of them because they're dead... i dont know where they were killed but i doubt any of the alleged passengers died at the pentagon or near shanksville

Yes the passengers are dead...by an aircraft accident that is.

Flight 93 was shot down. My mind is made up there and I know this this is what happened.
But I'm still looking at the Pentagon scenario. But as I have said in the past, I cannot prove nor come to the absolute conclusion in my own mind a missile hit the Pentagon with any concrete solid evidence, so for now I must go with an aircraft hit it. And theorefore killed those on board.

For now.