A question about bin Ladens' plan on 9/11

reply to post by mithrawept


Because hitting roof in full on dive is much harder than hitting side of building - Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world and measures 921 ft on each side

Also didn't you hear - the hijackers could not fly?

reply to post by MrSpad


Langley Air Force Base could have easily have put jets in the air to defend washington dc....its not a far flight at all..why didn't they?

Ok I have a question about flight 93. If the passengers decided to fight back, why would they crash the plane instead of just subduing the highjackers? That part has never made any sense to me.

Originally posted by bane9907
Ok I have a question about flight 93. If the passengers decided to fight back, why would they crash the plane instead of just subduing the highjackers? That part has never made any sense to me.

This is a transcript of what was recorded on UA 93's cockpit voice recorder :-

i.a.cnn.net...

If you look at the entries towards the end I think it is a reasonable inference that the passengers fought with at least one hijacker on their side of the cabin door and were in the process of battering that door when the plane was put in. I don't see anything there to indicate that any passengers got close to the controls,

aethron has made one of the best observations I have read on this forum about 911.

We have all been told that Osama Bin Laden organsied the whole 911 events. This bloke must be genius organiser.

How did he do all this frrom a cave in Afganistan with a few helpers a satilite phone and maybe a laptop computer. How did he trick the VP of US taking controlof NORAD and orgnising for wargames to b held on the same day to confuse Americas defenses in order to give his hijackers time to do their stuff.

This sort of thing is usally explained as "well he just had some good luck" Most people on this forum are aware of numerous coincidences about 911 so I wont go into them accept to say that I once saw a document entitled "276 coincidencces about 911." As others have observed; if coincidences are only coinciences then why do they happen so often?

Extraordinary luck and numerous coincidences only exist if one accepts the OS. If we see 911 from the perspective of an inside job, all these coincidences and all the "extraordinary luck" dissappear, it becomes simply an expertly planned and executed job, by real professionals.

Imagine how different the impact would be on Americian citizens and hence public opinion and public support for invasion of Iraq, would be if there were no video footage of objects crashing into the twin towers and audio of the woman screaming? (I could easily be wrong but is this the same woman screaming in all the videos from the various angles?)

How important it was for the "amature" camermen who just happended to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time with their cameras pointing in exactly the right direction and elevation? Just another coincidence that happened to suit the US Goverment. Did Osoma Bin Laden "plant" these cameramen there too? No doubt he would have done if he was a US asset and the organiser of the event would'nt he?

Not being from the US I have no idea who these cameramen worked for etc but has anyone researched these people?

cheers

reply to post by Alfie1

This is a transcript of what was recorded on UA 93's cockpit voice recorder :-

i.a.cnn.net...

That is not enough proof; just because our government said this is the recordings it doesn’t mean they are real. You want everyone to continue to take the government word.
The fact is, the government failed to tell us anything substantial, and they hid behind states secrets to keep us away from the real evidence.

Can you prove to me that those recordings are not staged in a backroom some years ago perhaps even before 911 happened?

reply to post by OmiOra



Start here.

www.vanityfair.com...


If you want more let me know.

reply to post by Alfie1


I have never read the transcript before that you posted. That seems like the most contrived thing I have read in a while. It sounds to exact to what the American impression of a terrorist is. People don't yell I'm injured while in a fight.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1

 

This is a transcript of what was recorded on UA 93's cockpit voice recorder :-

i.a.cnn.net...

That is not enough proof; just because our government said this is the recordings it doesn’t mean they are real. You want everyone to continue to take the government word.
The fact is, the government failed to tell us anything substantial, and they hid behind states secrets to keep us away from the real evidence.

Can you prove to me that those recordings are not staged in a backroom some years ago perhaps even before 911 happened?

edit on 27-9-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

The cockpit voice recorder transcript was put in evidence at the Moussaoui trial. Judge, jury and lawyers listened to the actual tape. The defence did not dispute the tapes authenticity.

So far as the tape being faked " perhaps even before 911 happened ", that is absurd. The tape has been played to close relatives of the passengers , some of whom believed they recognized the voices of their relatives. How would fakers know who was going to be on flight 93 that day and get samples of their voices ?

The cvr tape also contains words spoken by a hi-jacker when he thought he was just addressing the passengers but was in fact also broadcasting. These words were heard by other aircraft in the area and were also recorded by Air Traffic Control at Cleveland. So the cvr tape marries up exactly with the atc tape , which itself contains broadcasts from other aircraft also hearing the words from UA 93.

Nonetheless, I am sure you will find some way of declaring it a fake.

reply to post by Alfie1

The cockpit voice recorder transcript was put in evidence at the Moussaoui trial. Judge, jury and lawyers listened to the actual tape. The defence did not dispute the tapes authenticity.

That doesn’t prove a thing, you can drink that cool aid if you want, but don’t pass it to me calling that truth.

There have been many trails where ‘fraudulent evidence” was presented and innocent people were convicted, and most people know that.

Just because the government is the authority of the evidence it does not mean it is truth or real. As far as I am concern there is no real proof that these taps are real, we are all to “assume” they are, and “assumptions” are not the proven facts.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1

 

The cockpit voice recorder transcript was put in evidence at the Moussaoui trial. Judge, jury and lawyers listened to the actual tape. The defence did not dispute the tapes authenticity.

That doesn’t prove a thing, you can drink that cool aid if you want, but don’t pass it to me calling that truth.

There have been many trails where ‘fraudulent evidence” was presented and innocent people were convicted, and most people know that.

Just because the government is the authority of the evidence it does not mean it is truth or real. As far as I am concern there is no real proof that these taps are real, we are all to “assume” they are, and “assumptions” are not the proven facts.

edit on 27-9-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

I knew you would just yell "fake" with your fingers in your ears.

I note you didn't address the other points.

Understand this. Being able to validate or provide evidence, argument, reason etc. to agree with the official story about 1 or 2 points of the 9/11 fiasco does not credit nor discredit the "truther" type theories. If anyone wants to argue a single point, do not think that by claiming victory on that issue it automatically implies all of the 'conicedences' that day, before and since, are dismissed.

9/11 is going to unravel quickly, and then a nation is going to look in the mirror and ask some sobering questions. So may doubt, so many know something, and so few are trying to keep the silence. The dam will burst at some point, and for Americans sake, I hope it is sooner rather than later.

My hopes are with you, the American people, that you can achieve what needs to be achieved.

I wonder if any of the flight 93 transcript was translated to english??
It would be interesting if the suspected hijackers only spoke english on the CVR.

Originally posted by oddnutz
I wonder if any of the flight 93 transcript was translated to english??
It would be interesting if the suspected hijackers only spoke english on the CVR.

If you look at the heading of this transcript :-

i.a.cnn.net...

the Moussaoui trial exhibit, you will see it says " Bolded text = English Translation from Arabic ".

reply to post by aethron


they say its because of the amount of fuel needed for a long flight. fuel adds explosiveness. though you are sorta right, why not flights from cleveland to europe? (maybe theyre arent any) or flights from dulles to europe.. same direction, more fuel... though maybe because an international flight had more security? or their moles at security were only working domestic?.. descent question.

thankyou alfie i missed the key at the top i should be more observant

anyways back on topic and although the op does make sense in some respect it also makes sense to crash the planes with full tanks.

reply to post by bane9907


they say the hijacker crashed the plane 93, because passengers fighting to take it back. though when i listened to faa recordings, didnt seem like they had enough time to realizee the hijacking, and fight back. it seems the plane was hijacked and down in a matter of minutes. i think 93 story is just a feel good story.

reply to post by bussoboy


at first i thought there had to be a leak refering to the wargames and drills, and how they coincided with the attacks, but we announce when we have our drills, soo... its hard to figure out.

reply to post by bane9907

Ok I have a question about flight 93. If the passengers decided to fight back, why would they crash the plane instead of just subduing the highjackers? That part has never made any sense

It was the hijackers who crashed the plane as the passengers were breaking down the coxkpit door

When one looks at the 9-11 incident, the First Question to be answered is WHO PROFITED FROM IT?
In America the only real investigation needed is FOLOW THE MONEY.

Next real question to answer is HOW DID THE BUILDINGS REALLY COLLASPE ?

When we have these answers , this will lead to WHO ?

The Full tank theory does not work because of the actual flight times, the planes burned off too much fuel. Anyway we all know that fuel vapor is much more explosive that the fuel alone. Or maybe this is another law of physics that took the day off on 9-11.

Yes, the FBI did come out publicly and state that they have no evidence that Bin Laden was involved. Makes you wonder why the MSM is still blaming Bin Laden.

Bottom line is one that everyone can agree upon, that a Complete,Open Investigation needs to be done. None of us should fear the Truth., well execpt those who will be going to jail.