Modified boeings or holograms?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You have no idea....do you?

I will try to make it simple. YOU win the lottery, and decide to buy an airplane. Let's say you live in the USA, and register it here.

It will have an "N"-number, as do all registered aircraft in the US.

This is an "N", followed by not more than five digits, not less than two. The digits can be five numerals.....or, one, two, three or four numerals and one or two letters, on the END. (IF two letters on end, then of course, maximum of three numbers in the middle).

"N"-numbers are either randomly assigned, or can be 'tailored' by request.

Now, you have your airplane, and a number....doesn't matter, let's say you were assigned a random pick.

N3457J

Now....this airplane is destroyed one day, for what ever reason. (A tornado, when it was parked on the ground...doesn't have to be a crash, or anything).

A total loss...but, "N" numbers are registered to the individual, or the corporation designated as 'owner'.and associated with the particular aircraft, when appropriate Even if the aircraft no longer exists, the number is still "yours". It may expire, if you don't renew it, and it goes back into the "available" pool. Or, you might (since you're rich) buy another airplane to replace the destroyed one, with the insurance money...and use it, yet again, on the next airplane you own.


Here, look them up: registry.faa.gov...

The registration number ("N"-number) has NOTHING to do with the flight number of an airliner, when it is operating as such....

In some cases, we do operate the jets WITHOUT paying passengers, or cargo....they can be under FAR Pat 91 rules, in that case (same as YOU would operate your own airplane). In that case, the ATC radio call-sign used will be the "N"-number....the flight numbers are used when a commercial airplane is conducting business as an air carrier, FAR Part 121 or Part 135...


That was all me, my descriptions, based on my knowledge and experience.

Here, is more from Wiki:

Although each aircraft registration is unique, some, but not all countries allow it to be re-used when the aircraft has been sold, destroyed or retired. For example N3794N is assigned to a Mooney M20F. It had been previously assigned to a Beechcraft Bonanza (specifically, the aircraft in which Buddy Holly was killed). Also note that an individual aircraft may be assigned different registrations during its existence. This can be because the aircraft changes ownership, state of registration, or in some cases for vanity reasons.

en.wikipedia.org...

Available combinations:

N1 to N9 — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) internal use only

N1A to N9Z

N1AA to N9ZZ

N10 to N99 — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) internal use only

N10A to N99Z

N10AA to N99ZZ

N100 to N999

N100A to N999Z

N100AA to N999ZZ

N1000 to N9999

N1000A to N9999Z

N10000 to N99999

9-11 was definitely an inside job and the pentagon and donald rumsfelds admission of the $2.3 trillion missing are the smoking gun of it all. No video footage of the airplane hitting the pentagon and those that had videos of the action, had the tapes confiscated by authorities.

There is no way in hell someone with absolutely limited flight experience could hit the pentagon, as low as it is and at such an angle, nevermind the fact that the hole was too small to indicate a 757 and that aluminum cannot penetrate hardened concrete.

I don't really care about flight 93 because a government that is willing to kill 3000 american "citizens" is likely to go to any lengths to cover its footprint. For all I know those people on that list from www.unitedheroes.com... could have been taken to guantanamo and executed.

Nice try though.........

Originally posted by yourmaker
i believe there were planes, but that the explosives inside were timed to detonate with the impact of the plane so it could fly into the building cleanly. its the logical assumption one makes after learning about WTC7 and how they had to "pull it". one could then assume they had to pull them all.

I heard all tall modern buildings(skyscrapers) are rigged with explosions so that in case of emergency they can bring the building down in one piece; straight down, rather than have it topple over into other buildings. I don't have proof of this but I will look into it more!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
9-11 was definitely an inside job and the pentagon and donald rumsfelds admission of the $2.3 trillion missing are the smoking gun of it all. No video footage of the airplane hitting the pentagon and those that had videos of the action, had the tapes confiscated by authorities.

There is no way in hell someone with absolutely limited flight experience could hit the pentagon, as low as it is and at such an angle, nevermind the fact that the hole was too small to indicate a 757 and that aluminum cannot penetrate hardened concrete.

I don't really care about flight 93 because a government that is willing to kill 3000 american "citizens" is likely to go to any lengths to cover its footprint. For all I know those people on that list from www.unitedheroes.com... could have been taken to guantanamo and executed.

Nice try though.........

edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Sounds to me that you have got to the stage of putting your fingers in your ears and lah lahhing.

But as you seem to think that there are no relatives of 9/11 flight victims you might care to listen to the mother of UA 93 victim Mark Bingham. And I don't think she has been whisked off to Guantanamo :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by pccat

OMG.. the pods? this was thoughly debunked back when I was still somewhat of a truther..
the is no reason to believe this nonsense.. check out an old CT site here..www.oilempire.us...

I don't recall anyone claiming the planes "were substituted". Is this original research?

The hypothesis that I am aware of is that it was A MILITARY VERSION of the 757, with no windows and the extra pods, whether they were missle pods or remote control pods OR BOTH!

Clearly, unless you are blind, you can see the bulge on this aircraft on that picture. Then compare that bulge to a normal boeing 757 and you will see the difference.

It was neither holograms or modified planes. There were no planes to modify. It was a missile and evidence of missiles outweighs that of planes. The majority of witnesses saw a "small plane". The profile of a small plane and a winged missile are very similar. Search ATS for more information on missiles. I've made many posts debating planes and missiles. The evidence is evident.

The black boxes were recovered as far as I know, just not released. Also there are pictures of the airplane wreckage around ground zero.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

The hypothesis that I am aware of is that it was A MILITARY VERSION of the 757, with no windows and the extra pods, whether they were missle pods or remote control pods OR BOTH!

Clearly, unless you are blind, you can see the bulge on this aircraft on that picture. Then compare that bulge to a normal boeing 757 and you will see the difference.

Pods?? PODS?

What is this - "INVASION OF THE BOEING SNATCHERS".....?

The pods you are so fixated on are the fairings covering the landing gear bays

Here is picture of a Boeing 767

www.airplane-blog.com...

www.google.com...://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/5/2/0018252.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.airliners. net/photo/0018252/L/&usg=__4jDYKehZNblQw4nOeRzH_aJX_CM=&h=609&w=900&sz=63&hl=en&start=82&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=JY81Kl_r6nqkNM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=146&prev=/se arch%3Fq%3Dboeing%2B767%2Bunderside%2Bpictures%26start%3D80%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D20%26biw%3D1011%26bih%3D789%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divns&ei=rxvX TZ7UL8XL0QHk_NiWBw

Notice the bulge under the fuselage - the shot of United 175 was exaggerated by contrasts of light and shadows

reply to post by Niobis


Utterly, tragically, horribly wrong:

It was a missile and evidence of missiles outweighs that of planes.

Whichever incredibly ignorant website is still spewing that garbage, avoid them immediately.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I heard all tall modern buildings(skyscrapers) are rigged with explosions so that in case of emergency they can bring the building down in one piece; straight down, rather than have it topple over into other buildings. I don't have proof of this but I will look into it more!

Explosives in buildings ?

Well you HEARD WRONG ! Which is what you get from parroting idiotic conspiracy sites

Would you work in a building full of explosives? Would any insurance company insure such a building?

Explosives also have a shelf life and over the years deterioate to point where either fail to function or become
dangerously unstable

reply to post by Cassius666

The black boxes were recovered...

NO, that is yet another of the many Internet myths that have arisen. Any Flight Recorder or Voice Recorder that had been recovered would have been made public, as were the others that were from American 77 and United 93.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


What complete nonsense. As said, is obvious you are only now getting "into" this, and the information is coming from the same crackpot sources that are still out there, polluting the Internet.

Fisrt:

...donald rumsfelds admission of the $2.3 trillion missing....

..is incredibly ignorant, and certainly no "smoking gun". Doesn't even make logical sense! But, no....the "missing" money was a description of accounting mistakes, and was only unaccounted for. READ the true info about this subject, not the nutters on conspiracy websites online.

No video footage of the airplane hitting the pentagon...

...is a lie....there is the one parking gate entrance camera, that is all.

... and those that had videos of the action, had the tapes confiscated by authorities.

THAT is a blatant lie, again completely explained when you go to the proper sites.

There is no way in hell someone with absolutely limited flight experience could hit the pentagon...

Already proven a LIE, too...as shown in a Dutch documentary, and by examining the Flight Recorder information from American 77.

... the hole was too small to indicate a 757 and that aluminum cannot penetrate hardened concrete.

Another lie, the size of the entry damage was over 90 feet wide, and the building is NOT a solid wall of "hardened concrete"!!

I don't really care about flight 93 because....

You don't care?!? No....obviously, you don't care about facts and reality....

Originally posted by thedman

The pods you are so fixated on are the fairings covering the landing gear bays

Notice the bulge under the fuselage - the shot of United 175 was exaggerated by contrasts of light and shadows

"lights and shadows" is the same bs cover story they use to debunk ufo sightings.

Give me a break with such pathetic explanations. Its getting really, really sickening!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


There are no "pods" on the belly of United Airlines 175.

You were shown the link to "oil empire"....I don't agree with much of that site, but in this instance, they are absolutely correct. Go back and look at the pictures. Same photos I'd find, and post here, too.

Do you not understand how shiny paint, of a light color (the part of the United paint scheme that was light gray) will show differently, in some low resolution images, photos, screen-grabs from videotapes?? Compared to the darker blue parts?

If not, then there is little hope....because, rational people can comprehend this, easily...especially with all the evidence shown in that other link.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I heard all tall modern buildings(skyscrapers) are rigged with explosions so that in case of emergency they can bring the building down in one piece; straight down, rather than have it topple over into other buildings. I don't have proof of this but I will look into it more!

Explosives in buildings ?

Well you HEARD WRONG ! Which is what you get from parroting idiotic conspiracy sites

Would you work in a building full of explosives? Would any insurance company insure such a building?

Explosives also have a shelf life and over the years deterioate to point where either fail to function or become
dangerously unstable

Haha....and you expect people to tell you that all tall buildings are rigged from the get-go? Who the heck would work under such circumstances in such buildings? Obviously it would be "a secret" but I doubt its really classified because its more-or-less common knowledge within construction firm crews.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You should stick to the *moon is a spaceship* theory.

You made A LITTLE more sense in that thread.

In this thread your all over the place and wrong about EVERYTHING!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Fact is none of the four Boeings were properly identified after their alleged crashes.
The FBI admitted they never investigated any of the plane crashes.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

911blogger.com...

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”

www.opednews.com...

The fact is the government has been caught lying on just about everything concerning 911, but what would one expect when all the evidence supports a False Flag Operation…
Do you really believe if our government committed a False Flag attack on our soil that they are going to tell you?
Fact is the government would use everything in their power to hide their treasonous crime.
The fact is there has never been any evidence to support the government version that these four airplanes were United Airlines or American Airlines.
HEARSAY, nothing more, not one shred of evidence in existence to prove the government’s allegations.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I bring nothing but facts, each time. Much like you could not understand, elsewhere, that the Moon actually rotates on its axis. Seemed it was beyond impossible to find a way to explain that, no matter how many different ways were used, to make the light bulb click on.

I see, here, that the most ridiculous claims by the websites that are so fringe that even the "truther movement" get upset at them, and call them disinfo.....even those sites, for some reason, you have elected to "believe", against all reason and rational thinking, and common sense.

Enjoy the delusions, they must be comforting....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Modified boeings or holograms?
NEITHER!
Get over it.

What were they then? Proof besides the government’s word please? Oh, I get it – remote control systems were already being used on airliners by 911.

There were no "explosives" *planted* inside the buildings.

And your proof is what again?

This is foolish nonsense, has been beaten to death, years ago.

You mean like the OS from which your opinions are based?

reply to post by impressme


More nonsense.....

Oh, I get it – remote control systems were already being used on airliners by 911.

Have covered this, in great detail. The lies don't work, anymore. The ONE case of an "airliner" that was (barely) rigged for R/C was a failure, after all. Not to mention the sheer numbers of people that had to be involved, in that one-off event, and the years it took to prepare. And, the fact that every airframe that is built is tracked, has apaper trail, and doesn't just "appear" out of thin air.....

In any case.....the outstanding evidence is irrefutable, from the radar tracking to the debris in New York City....there is no doubt (except in the most fringe of silly conspiracist websites) that these were the same airplanes that departed from Boston as regularly scheduled passenger flights, and were hijacked.