An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Have you seriously thought this through?

The demolition of the buildings assured the total destruction of the planes and everything in them (except for a passport...). My belief is that the original planes were switched with military versions, without passengers, which were guided to an exact target like a missile. If the buildings had not been dustified, the evidence of that would have been obvious.

Really? total destruction except one lonely little passport eh? That's false and provably false. Please take a moment and review the physical evidence that has already been featured in open court in relation to this case.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui

The passport survived because it was blown away from the building. That big blast on impact? That wasn't just fire but debris from the plane's interior, human cargo and property they carried as they disintegrated into the side of the tower. Not to be too graphic...but I'm sick of people claiming complete inaccuracies regarding this when full color photographic evidence from that trial flat contradicts for anyone to casually read and view.

The link above contains 1,202 pieces of evidence submitted and recorded as part of that murder trial for 9/11. A hell of a lot more than a passport survived at the New York attack site to remove any possible question about what hit the towers, who was onboard before being murdered in the attack and what happened to them. Pieces of the planes went all over lower Manhattan and were still being found for years (literally) afterward. (I believe one wayward piece was located not that long ago..having been missed for the weird spot it ended up in...one of countless pieces of civilian airliner)

edit on 3-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Funny that all that survived but we have no flight-data recorders, isn't it?...

You didn't get my point.

reply to post by soulwaxer


I got your point entirely. I simply disagree with it and point to a veritable mountain of evidence showing a large amount of civilian airline debris which survived along side the passport debris. ID documents in various states of charred and torn were found around the attack site, when people stopped long enough to start looking at what they were walking and driving over the top of.

Among other things to be recovered were serial numbered pieces of the airliners used to crash into the towers. There is only one way that could have been faked by a plane swap, as some here suggest and the OP suggests in this and/or other threads.

They'd need to know..and be positive..which civilian planes would be lined up for THOSE specific flights, in that specific time slot for that scheduled run. No mistakes...and imagine what would have happened to see a last minute equipment change as often happens in civilian air travel?

ASSUMING....those weren't the same airliners? A random change at Boston Logan would have had the wrong evidence dropped ....and what a wild ride that would have been eh? Finding a piece of landing gear with a serial number to a plane sitting in a hangar because it didn't take off as scheduled ...would be awkward.

This just starts to touch on the level of coordination it would have required to fake what we saw for the literal events of that morning, in even a basic way. Many many other things would have had to be controlled for the unthinkable stakes this represented to ONE THING going wrong or ONE GUY screwing up. Had the Government done this, and then been caught? The President losing his office would have been the very least to have happened.

.....It's one of the many reasons I don't buy active involvement. TOO much to lose in what was done in a way to leave FAR too much to chance and hope for all to work out. The slapstick and ad-hoc nature of this is entirely consistent with Al Qaeda fighting elements ...like what destroyed our 2 Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania before 9/11. The war didn't start in Manhattan...it just slapped America too hard to ignore anymore...and maybe that IS the "Pearl Harbor" style conspiracy we're looking at here.

Maybe letting that slap happen was what this had been all about.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

I got your point entirely. I simply disagree with it and point to a veritable mountain of evidence showing a large amount of civilian airline debris which survived along side the passport debris. ID documents in various states of charred and torn were found around the attack site, when people stopped long enough to start looking at what they were walking and driving over the top of.

Among other things to be recovered were serial numbered pieces of the airliners used to crash into the towers. There is only one way that could have been faked by a plane swap, as some here suggest and the OP suggests in this and/or other threads.

They'd need to know..and be positive..which civilian planes would be lined up for THOSE specific flights, in that specific time slot for that scheduled run. No mistakes...and imagine what would have happened to see a last minute equipment change as often happens in civilian air travel?

ASSUMING....those weren't the same airliners? A random change at Boston Logan would have had the wrong evidence dropped ....and what a wild ride that would have been eh? Finding a piece of landing gear with a serial number to a plane sitting in a hangar because it didn't take off as scheduled ...would be awkward.

This just starts to touch on the level of coordination it would have required to fake what we saw for the literal events of that morning, in even a basic way. Many many other things would have had to be controlled for the unthinkable stakes this represented to ONE THING going wrong or ONE GUY screwing up. Had the Government done this, and then been caught? The President losing his office would have been the very least to have happened.

.....It's one of the many reasons I don't buy active involvement. TOO much to lose in what was done in a way to leave FAR too much to chance and hope for all to work out. The slapstick and ad-hoc nature of this is entirely consistent with Al Qaeda fighting elements ...like what destroyed our 2 Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania before 9/11. The war didn't start in Manhattan...it just slapped America too hard to ignore anymore...and maybe that IS the "Pearl Harbor" style conspiracy we're looking at here.

Maybe letting that slap happen was what this had been all about.

Have you ever heard of fabricating evidence after the fact?

And as for your last comment; "letting that slap happen"... You DO realize what that means don't you? That means LETTING 3000 people get murdered in the most horrible way immaginable, for political purposes. Can you please explain your moral basis for not going all-out to prove this opinion of yours?

reply to post by soulwaxer


Yes, I most definitely have heard of fabricating evidence after the fact. That is the suggestion often brought up for this case, in fact. Often, it seems to be the whole core of the case in theories.

I wasn't always quite this strong in my feelings about the physical events. (I must always make a BIG BIG distinction between the physical events and what came before and after, in relation to the events). One is a matter of physical record with physical evidence all over the place to verify...and always has been.

What really changed me..was open speculation about what may be, may not be and what even existed. Despite having read books over the years by men who were at Ground Zero and really, being someone who should have known better? I persisted with the truth theories ..just to tweak a nose or two sometimes, as much as I wasn't sure.

Then a dear friend who I'd known was an NYPD detective during that period..but HAD NOT known worked directly within Ground Zero in the first couple weeks, just let loose and unloaded with a gattling gun. I've NEVER been talked to quite how I was that night and I've certainly never been torn apart as viciously as I was then ......I had every bit of it coming too.

So, I'm a bit more careful in throwing away clear, physical and real world evidence to just speculate that 'maybe' in some alternate timeline of events which no evidence whatsoever exists to prove, a wild chain of events MAY have happened to make our lying eyes totally wrong for what so many personally and directly saw happen...and what was collected in large objects to prove the facts of the event on the basics, anyway.

9/11: The Big Lie
9/11: Who Benefited the Most?

reply to post by soulwaxer

And as for your last comment; "letting that slap happen"... You DO realize what that means don't you? That means LETTING 3000 people get murdered in the most horrible way immaginable, for political purposes. Can you please explain your moral basis for not going all-out to prove this opinion of yours?

Indeed. I felt chills down my spine a few times here on ATS how people so lightly...the Os people..."sure the intelligence community knew something and perhaps even the president knew something, but you see, agencies weren't sharing information...so...that's it...it's just you know...incompetence...and that...you know...national security and stuff...we can't disclose much"

Somebody knew and let it happen. Helloooooou ?!???

3000 people died...apparently not enough. And how many more first responders deceased or waiting to be ? But you see...they only knew about it...but they didn't do it. The main thing here is to save face.

reply to post by soulwaxer


Yeah and thats impossible to pull off with people and reporters everywhere. Come on you cant be that naive to possibly believe they rigged buildings to explode had airplane parts on stand by to drop depending on what plane was used. Would have had to kill the passengers and not make a mistake couldnt fly them out of the airport so you're insinuating that the people on the plane were killed at the airport before take off. Your whole theory of switching a plane is stupid the easiest thing if the government wanted to pull this off is simply trick some fanatic in to doing it. You're not going to get the coordination of the thousands of people needed to pull off your conspiracy without someone talking.Who planted the explosives? Who killed the passengers? Who set up the wreckage to be found? In order to pull this off you would need fire department and police involved. People also at the FAA then forensics which examined the wreckage and the bodies. To pull off any of this would be impossible so why try makes more sense to have someone just do it less people involved.

Not to metion your arguing on very old information Where you aware the government presented evidence at the trial Zacarias Moussaoui. There was evidence entered into exhibits eye witness testimonies all of which you discount with your theory. Here take a look at the information the government gathered to show he masterminded the attacks.Theres even some pictures of bodies found on the plane to prove there where people onboard!

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

What really changed me..was open speculation about what may be, may not be and what even existed. Despite having read books over the years by men who were at Ground Zero and really, being someone who should have known better? I persisted with the truth theories ..just to tweak a nose or two sometimes, as much as I wasn't sure.

Then a dear friend who I'd known was an NYPD detective during that period..but HAD NOT known worked directly within Ground Zero in the first couple weeks, just let loose and unloaded with a gattling gun. I've NEVER been talked to quite how I was that night and I've certainly never been torn apart as viciously as I was then ......I had every bit of it coming too.

You should have stood your ground.

soulwaxer

- SIGH -

MarioOnTheFly
wow...so you're using John Lear here...to promote arguments for the OS side ?

What a jump to conclusion. All I did was use what John Lear said on Coast To Coast AM, and two other websites, that indicated he thought a non-pilot could be trained to accomplish the piloting of the passenger jets on 9/11. It's relevant on several levels…
1) An accomplished pilot, and pilot instructor, stated the possible
2) It merely refutes one element of alternative scenarios
3) It shows how those involved in the Truth Movement alter their stories to suite circumstances

Better contact him and tell him that. John Lear claims no 767 hit those buildings. Period.

See above. He changed his story.

reply to post by soulwaxer

soulwaxer
Do you actually believe what you wrote here? That a group of muslim heroes took it up for their people to make a statement, which they sure must have realized would result in their even more complete destruction??

Firstly, if you are going to debate with me, please don't try to skew my words. At no point did I refer to them as "heroes" - that is a construct you have just created.

They were terrorists. Murderers. Scum. No one who flies an airliner full of people into a building could ever be called a "hero". Furthermore they were extremists. Fanatics. They did, however, act according to their own skewed beliefs.

Now, to answer - since when has the possibility of death and destruction bothered those who are either already dead, about to be or who are hell bent on bringing it to others?

Don't you see that? It didn't matter to them because they were, in essence, dead anyway

I don't see much progress being made on their behalf.

You don't?

You don't think that slamming three airliners into buildings in the US was symbolic?

You don't think the ultimate destruction of the towers (albeit probably entirely unforseen by them, and Bin Laden admitted as much) was symbolic?

You don't think the knee-jerk reaction of the USA into responding by invading Afghanistan and creating the Iraq debacle, leading to billions of dollars being spent - potentially ruining the US and British economies in the process, the loss of allied soldiers and the creating of a paranoid mindset within the USA, and the demonising of the USA across a good section of the world and causing cracks in established alliances because of those things actually aids their cause?

Terrorism is about making statements. Its about causing terror and its about bleeding a superior enemy to make a political point. They couldn't take on the USA head on, so they did it another way.

By the way, you yourself implied that they had suffered at the hands of US/Western/Capitalist foreign policy for nearly a century. So did they just imagine this, or was it truly Western policy?

historical facts start here
I suggest you read up on the partitioning of the middle east, post WW2, the overthrow by MI5 and the CIA of the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 over oil (and the installation of a pro-western Shah), the use of proxy forces in the region by both sides of the Cold War superpowers, the way the Mujahadeen were dumped by the CIA when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, and the way that the Reagan administration provided chemical weapon precursors to Saddam Hussein which ultimately led to them being used in the Iran/Iraq war AND the gassing of the Kurds in 1988, the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 and the lack of promised US support to overthrow Saddam Hussien in 1991 at the end of the first gulf war leading to further reprisals against the rebels from the Hussein regime as reasons why people in the region might just have been a little pissed off with the West.
historical facts end here

And if it was truly Western policy, doesn't my version of history fit a little more snugly?

Given the above, no.

I would suggest that if my "opinion" is the right one, we are f****d a thousand-fold.
soulwaxer

Indeed you are. The consequences of your opinion being right would simply end the USA in a bloody civil war and your entire way of life would be shattered.

Again, these are my opinions (apart from the historical facts above) . I don't present them as absolutes. I'm discussing issues.

Since people are speculating:

The real passengers would have to be killed just about the same time as the 'swapped' plane impacted the tower(s).
What would their contingcy plans be if the 'swapped' plane carrying the now deceased real passengers crashed just after takeoff?
That would mean that the real bodies would be strewn all over some randon neighborhood when they were reported to have impacted the towers.
Can you say egg on face?

There was just too many things for our government to pull off perfectly.
The same government that can't copy someones insurance website and call it Obama Care, 12 years later.

dragonridr
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Your whole theory of switching a plane is stupid the easiest thing if the government wanted to pull this off is simply trick some fanatic in to doing it.

Is that really how you would do it if you were the government? REALLY???

Trick some fanatics with no passenger-jet experience into flying them into a tiny target, thereby bypassing US defense?

Wow. They sure got lucky with that.

If I was the government, I would use the best tech I had, involving the fewest possible amount of people. Which happens to be exactly what they did. All the facts point towards this.

As for the tech, right after 911, DRONES were employed in the Middle East. A drone is a remotely controlled arial vehicle capable of carrying missiles that hit their targets with laser precision while being controlled from the other side of the planet... These things have wings, wing flaps, and engines, just like an airplane. They can obviously be controlled remotely and very precisely thanks to being packed with high definition optical tech, and all kinds of sensors. What makes you think that they couldn't equip a large plane with this technology?

Maybe you are suggesting that this tech was only invented after 911? If so, are you kidding me?

soulwaxer

samkent
There was just too many things for our government to pull off perfectly.

To some extent, I disagree.

In early-2002, people began meeting at St. Bart's Church in Manhattan, meetings of people that eventually started calling themselves "9/11 Truth."

Mere months after the attack, mainstream investigative reporters from several newspapers, magazines, and one network were either attending, or sending feedback/info to others at the meeting. The going concern, in those early months, was that a small and efficient highly-classified clandestine group had manipulated and assisted mideast contacts into orchestrating the attacks. There was even leaked information that came out three months before the attacks (Stew Webb?), that a major false flag was being organized. A "Dove Of Oneness" impersonator also leaked (independently) similar information.

That scenario is exactly what a "government" could pull off perfectly: a small number of people influencing those already predisposed to attack.

reply to post by soulwaxer

If I was the government, I would use the best tech I had, involving the fewest possible amount of people. Which happens to be exactly what they did. All the facts point towards this.

So.. essentially, you're saying those weren't airliners filled with innocent victims about to die, but remote controlled military drones? Hmmm.... I see...

If I may ask something I've asked everyone else to ever posit that theory? 4 planes of real people took off. Those plane loads of real people had real friends, family and lives to lead. None of them were ever seen again by anyone, anywhere.

What happened to 4 aircraft and the hundreds of people inside them, if not what we watched become of those aircraft on that morning? That isn't a minor detail, but if one wants to even suggest remote controlled aircraft ..as your post there openly does..then the fate of the REAL planes and REAL people must, by necessity, be explained.

I've yet to ever hear an explanation which made sense, let alone had any evidence to support it ..in even the smallest way?

reply to post by neformore

You are not following me.

When I say "heroes", I mean it from their own point of view, as you see it. That doesn't mean that it is your point of view.

IF there were hijackers in the planes, then they are not the ones I am referring to when I say that they got f***ed in the end, just for making a statement. No, I am talking about the "master muslims" who would have planned this, from their secure position in a cave... You know, like Osama Bin Laden, and all his religious extremist brothers still in the homeland. The ones that have been hunted down ever since. In OBL's case, he even got fake-buried in the sea. Or do you think he had balls of steel, endless confidence, Allah behind him all the way...? He just KNEW that he could pull off this little feat and so he just went for it, from his cave?

Listen to yourself, because it really is disturbing.

soulwaxer

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

If I was the government, I would use the best tech I had, involving the fewest possible amount of people. Which happens to be exactly what they did. All the facts point towards this.

So.. essentially, you're saying those weren't airliners filled with innocent victims about to die, but remote controlled military drones? Hmmm.... I see...

If I may ask something I've asked everyone else to ever posit that theory? 4 planes of real people took off. Those plane loads of real people had real friends, family and lives to lead. None of them were ever seen again by anyone, anywhere.

What happened to 4 aircraft and the hundreds of people inside them, if not what we watched become of those aircraft on that morning? That isn't a minor detail, but if one wants to even suggest remote controlled aircraft ..as your post there openly does..then the fate of the REAL planes and REAL people must, by necessity, be explained.

I've yet to ever hear an explanation which made sense, let alone had any evidence to support it ..in even the smallest way?

Yes, remote controlled military drones. Why is it easier for you to believe that 19 men flew fully loaded jets square into the heart of the US, into oblivion, from a cave?

I don't know what happened to the real passenger jets. But there are several possibilities. Use your imagination.

soulwaxer

SkepticOverlord

samkent
There was just too many things for our government to pull off perfectly.

To some extent, I disagree.

In early-2002, people began meeting at St. Bart's Church in Manhattan, meetings of people that eventually started calling themselves "9/11 Truth."

Mere months after the attack, mainstream investigative reporters from several newspapers, magazines, and one network were either attending, or sending feedback/info to others at the meeting. The going concern, in those early months, was that a small and efficient highly-classified clandestine group had manipulated and assisted mideast contacts into orchestrating the attacks. There was even leaked information that came out three months before the attacks (Stew Webb?), that a major false flag was being organized. A "Dove Of Oneness" impersonator also leaked (independently) similar information.

That scenario is exactly what a "government" could pull off perfectly: a small number of people influencing those already predisposed to attack.

Exactly what i tried to tell him far easier to set up some terrorist with the funds and training needed then try to actually fake it. There was an airplane it did crash there were passengers on board so this leaves either they acted alone or with help. We all ready know the Saudi government supported them and the US government protected the Saudis. So the only question left is did the US government help the saudis or did they cover it up after the fact.

Yes, remote controlled military drones. Why is it easier for you to believe that 19 men flew fully loaded jets square into the heart of the US, into oblivion, from a cave?

Because there are thousands of teenagers flying Microsoft Flight sim in their basements.

I gather you have never taken on eof those 'introductory' flights at a local airport?
I took one decades ago. $35 for a half hour of pilot experience. You actually takeoff, fly and (might) land the plane from start to finish.

These crazy conspiracy theories never explain each and every aspect that would have to take place. They always concentrate on one small segment and then claim the whole thing is a cover up.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

What a jump to conclusion. All I did was use what John Lear said on Coast To Coast AM, and two other websites, that indicated he thought a non-pilot could be trained to accomplish the piloting of the passenger jets on 9/11. It's relevant on several levels…
1) An accomplished pilot, and pilot instructor, stated the possible
2) It merely refutes one element of alternative scenarios
3) It shows how those involved in the Truth Movement alter their stories to suite circumstances

1) I don't get it. Of course it's possible. If it weren't nobody would ever be a pilot. Is this a distraction of some kind ? Whether one can learn to pilot a passenger jet is a non issue...whether he can do it without ever stepping foot in one and performing like a 3 times world acrobatics champion on the first go...is what wonders my tiny brain. I know from experience...that experience matters....and that's not on several levels...it's on all levels.

2) I don't see how. They never stepped foot in the the cockpit before that morning. Do you feel that some pilot instructor instructed them to fly the way they did ? Dangerously to the limit ? To what purpose ? I really doubt their flight "behavior" was planned and rehearsed. The whole "road trip" was a wild set of unbelievable success stories one after another.

3) I'm not mistaken...you claim he said a non pilot could be trained...but how is that a change from a no 767 hit those buildings ? He simply stated someone could be trained...but there are many other reasons why he states no 767. Pilot skill is just one potential obstacle in that event. Did he explicitly state that he now thinks those were 767's ?

btw. OS has also be changed, shifted, much secretly covered, shredded to bits, reinvented, names of hijackers changed, passenger lists altered...and I'll stop there. I wouldn't blame John Lear if he changed his story...it only shows he is willing to accept new ideas or evidence contrary to his initial opinion.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


As I pointed out previously, I was linking to what John Lear previously said about the specific claim that an non-pilot couldn't do it. That's it.

I'm not a pilot. There are pilots active in this thread. Direct your questions to them.