If MILITARY plane(s) were what flew into WTC, then how did the real plane(s), passengers perish?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Guess it depends on which story you believe. I go with the one that came out first. And others by different witnesses at the scene.

soulwaxer

reply to post by soulwaxer

Guess it depends on which story you believe. I go with the one that came out first. And others by different witnesses at the scene.

Please show me where that was said as it shouldn't be hard to do since he supposedly did say that.

And don't come back with do your own research, as you made the statement now it is time to show the proof.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Guess it depends on which story you believe. I go with the one that came out first. And others by different witnesses at the scene.

Please show me where that was said as it shouldn't be hard to do since he supposedly did say that.

And don't come back with do your own research, as you made the statement now it is time to show the proof.

Do your own research. It's easy to find.

soulwaxer

reply to post by soulwaxer

Do your own research. You should have no problem at all finding these claims.

Now I'd tend to really disagree there. You claimed people directly present at the crash site in PA stated they saw no aircraft parts at that location. That's a huge challenge to the generally accepted logic of what happened that day and what I know the physical evidence to indicate at that location. So the burden is on the one making the tall claims.

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway for clarity... I'm in this thread as a member, so can not be a Mod. Credibility is the issue here and that comes strictly in my member opinion.

Up to you tho... I'm not personally hunting for statements I don't believe exist. It's why I asked if you could support the claim in the first place.

reply to post by soulwaxer

Do your own research. It's easy to find.

Well then show me.

You do understand how this works right?

You made the statement now you need to show the proof or else it is just you saying it.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Do your own research. It's easy to find.

Well then show me.

You do understand how this works right?

You made the statement now you need to show the proof or else it is just you saying it.

I don't need to do crap.

Sure, I made the statement, but that doesn't mean that I care about what you think. I am confident in the fact that you will find what you are looking for, IF you are really looking. If you aren't, then I could care less about trying to inform you.

soulwaxer

I just thought of something that does give recent, real world and similar perspective to what happens to an aircraft when it goes in vertical or nearly so. This story had no visible gore either and so it's well within T&C for that aspect to share. As a matter of fact, this story was run here on a couple threads with quite a bit of discussion when it happened.



Nov 18th, last year in Kazan Russia a 737-500 went nose first into the ground. While much speculation ran at the time for how and why for that to result, it was answered soon enough on the mechanics of it, anyway.

Russia says pilot of Kazan crash had put the plane into nosedive

The plane had dropped to a speed of merely 125 knots and was circling around after an aborted landing attempt when that happened above.

Boeing airliner crashes in Russia, 50 killed

That one has a couple pictures of the debris field at a % of the speed known for the plane in PA. One picture does have some larger segments of the fuselage, and another shows the wider field where there isn't much else larger than loose debris. ...again, at a much lower speed and from a much much lower altitude than PA. So it's not directly comparable. PA should have had much worse damage, which it did.

reply to post by soulwaxer

Sure, I made the statement, but that doesn't mean that I care about what you think. I am confident in the fact that you will find what you are looking for, IF you are really looking. If you aren't, then I could care less about trying to inform you.

Then show respect for those who died on that day and quit making false statements that obviously were never said.

I did the research and showed you the results, which totally contradicts what you say so how can anyone believe what your saying if you can't provide the evidence to back your claims?

soulwaxer

reply to post by soulwaxer


First of all, I asked for sworn or official witness statements. I asked it that way because human trash has so harassed and exploited the people of that town, it makes me sick. Your video of mayor Ernie Stull is a good example and you very seriously need to begin looking more carefully at what you post under your name to stand behind as your contributions, IMHO.

There is a reason I'm direct on this, too.

The Mayor was taken entirely out of context and very nearly sued that german crew right to the bitter end for that. Der Spiegel set the record straight clear back in 2003 for how long the correction to that has been out here. It's hard to believe it's still being repeated 10 years later.

► Ernie Stull, mayor of the nearby village of Shanksville recalls

[question] They had been sent here because of a crash but there was no plane?

Ernie Stull: No. Nothing . Only this hole.

[question] I thought it was a crash site…

Ernie Stull: And it is. But there was nothing there to see. The plane had completely disintegrated. Puff. It hit the ground and flew to pieces–completely."

Question: At the very first, what did you think it could be?

Ernie Stull: Well...that a plane had crashed. But when we got here, there wasn’t anything.

Question: What do you mean--there wasn’t anything?

Ernie Stull: Well...there was no plane. There was what you see a hole. and that is the dirt that the airliner threw out--and the hole, about 6 meters deep...and that was all there was." - 9/11 File Unsolved

"When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

Wisnewski disputes accusations that he manipulated Stull and mentions a statement Stull made in the WDR film, in which his description was correctly reproduced: "The airplane was completely destroyed. Bang! It crashed into the ground and disintegrated - completely."
Although this is correct, it amounts to hair-splitting, since Wisnewski and Brunner also suggest in the film that there was no aircraft." - Der Spiegel (09/08/03)

Source

Transcript of German Interview

Der Spiegel Article

If you hadn't known before about the exploitation and abuse of that Mayor's trust being established and widely publicized back then, you certainly are aware of it now. The guy said it directly himself and the town was apparently furious over that specific interview.

Please, don't post anything else dragging townspeople into it with things they didn't say. They've been through enough, in my opinion. If you DO happen across official statements...sworn statements...matter of public record? Then I certainly am interested. Neither of those was that.

reply to post by soulwaxer


So how do you account for these...eyewitness to the plane going down?

www.flight93crash.com...

And what about the eyewitness that last saw the plane before it crashed?

pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...

So if there wasn't a plane were all the eyewitnesses in on this?

Ho boy.

Ah yes the evil PTB magically planted evidence because personal effects of the crash victims survived the crash and collapses. I guess the space shuttle Columbia also was faked because personal items and some fragile items survived the re-entry and break up of the shuttle during its ill-fated return. Also on the Challenger disaster, they recovered an American flag still sealed in its container.

Seriously the "Truth" Movement is desperate when it has to resort to such absurdity.

reply to post by gardener


The "pod" claim has been debunked for almost a decade. There are 43 different angles of the 2nd plane, and not one single video shows anything on the bottom of the fuselage. That means it's just a highlighted wing fairing as indicated in the first link.



As far as the other claims in the video that the plane was "grey" or "black" is somewhat correct:




As you can see, United Airlines colors are grey and dark blue. Since the plane was banking to port (left), anyone on the west-side of the towers would have seen mostly grey paint, and anyone on the east-side of the towers would have seen mostly dark blue, which would be almost black in the shadow of the smoke.

Furthermore, the paint on most planes isn't a solid color. The paint is put on with a very thin coat to keep weight down. Since the paint is thin, the shiny aluminum is visible through the paint.

Konduit
1. Experts say that the wings of a commercial 767 didn't have the integrity to penetrated the steel frame of the WTC, they should have sheered completely off on impact like you see in many other plane crashes.

False. The outer steel columns were assembled in sections via bolts and welds:





None of the outer steel columns were severed from the wing impacts. The wings only penetrated bolts and welds, essentially pushing the outer column sections aside.

All of the floors (except for the mechanical floors) were constructed with lightweight floor trusses:




Had the floors been constructed with steel beams instead of lightweight trusses, we would have seen a much different scenario when the planes impacted. Steel beams in place of floor trusses would have provided more lateral support, reducing the damage to the buildings from the plane impacts.

The combination of lightweight floor trusses, and the outer columns being assembled in sections, allowed the planes to easily penetrate the walls of the towers.



What you're attempting to do here is play the "September Clueless" card , but that has been long proven a deliberate HOAX, and you'll find that hoax thread in the hoax bin.

GenRadek
Ho boy.

Ah yes the evil PTB magically planted evidence because personal effects of the crash victims survived the crash and collapses. I guess the space shuttle Columbia also was faked because personal items and some fragile items survived the re-entry and break up of the shuttle during its ill-fated return. Also on the Challenger disaster, they recovered an American flag still sealed in its container.

Seriously the "Truth" Movement is desperate when it has to resort to such absurdity.

Because how do personal belongings survive but black boxes and 6000 lb hunks of steel that are jet engines don't??
Why is there a debris field of over 8 miles if it was just a nosedive by brave passengers?
If it was shot down then why do almost all eye witnesses say that it had no damage on it?
Is that red bandanna designed to withstand extreme temperatures?
Why is there no fire where the wings, that would of had fuel in them, hit?
The passport has to be the greatest. In a guys pocket or shoot for the sake of argument he had it in the other hand out as he hijacked the plane.
Crashes it into a tower and creates fireballs that blast out all sides of the towers. What I am led to think is that said passport was in front of those fireballs somehow? To the point where there is barley a burn?
And conveniently found by the police cheif with a not so great background that was nominated for a seat in the whitehouse for DHS but had to deny because of his stint in federal prison for, CONSPIRACY, but then went over to Iraq and had was the right hand man over there.

Columbia and Challenger are not the same thing as what is be discussed so I don't see how it fits into your reasoning... Those are not associated with any Truth movement of 911...

DocScurlock
reply to post by gardener

 

I just saw a episode of the BBC's show Sherlock. And Sherlocks brother whom is a M16 Agent was trying thwart a terrorist attack by putting a bunch of dead bodies in a plane and remote piloting it to its destination but allowing the terrorist blow it up some how. His whole plan was to make it look like there was a terrorist attack so the terrorists would believe they completed there mission but no one actually died. Maybe Somthing similar went down in 2001? Just a thought I obviously cant prove any of this theory.

I too just saw that episode yesterday.... made me think!

GenRadek

There was no KC-767 even designed at that time. Wasnt even built till years later.

They let the plans and the manufacturing of them public years later, are you saying the prototype of a drone aircraft would be public? Or that the military doesn't have top secret planes that they don't tell us about till years and years after its intended purpose?

Indigent
I like the angle but why they dint paint the plane just like the commercial one they replace, in the planed operation from the 60s they knew they need to paint it exactly the same, and that was to be blown over the sea, new york is not exactly a barren place it has a few million potential witness. if this was planed with time why they cheap on some paint.

edit on 11-1-2014 by Indigent because: plane

That's right, the south tower plane was painted correctly with the UA livery.

Sremmos80

Because how do personal belongings survive ...

CeeCee Lyles' personal effects (alleged "flight 93" flight attendant)



For more, including the recording of her message on her husbands answering maching wherein a "clue" was given as to the nature of what was really going on, see this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I only found 1 recording of ceecee on the wiki page and i couldn't make out much, is that the one you are referencing too?