Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1741    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,767 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:27 AM

Its is so sad that the people that died that day,and all the Families that lost loved ones might read this dribble some day ! THe Facts are the Facts ! The Four Aircraft went in and people died ! No Government plots involved at all!
Get a Life people !  Skyeagle what are we going to do wit deez peep`s ?

This is a Work in Progress!

#1742    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,103 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:38 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 22 April 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Its is so sad that the people that died that day,and all the Families that lost loved ones might read this dribble some day ! THe Facts are the Facts ! The Four Aircraft went in and people died ! No Government plots involved at all!
Get a Life people !  Skyeagle what are we going to do wit deez peep`s ?

I don't know, but I thought it was time to reveal that the 911 "no-plane" claim was actually a hoax.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1743    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 22 April 2013 - 11:53 AM

Ok,  thanks sky eagle,  your the aeronautics expert.     So,  None of the airliners involved had flight computers that could be  taken over somehow and controlled from outside the aircraft??

     I just like the explanation of remote control...  if it were true, then you would not need "Highjackers"  on the planes at all...  Or you could have some dudes on the plane that thought they were going to a meeting somewhere.  

  I still can't get over how  19 guys were identified and their pictures  posted on the news  25 hours later...   with no mistakes.. no additions or subtractions since.    I can't buy that one.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#1744    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,036 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 22 April 2013 - 01:11 PM

View Postlightly, on 22 April 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

  I still can't get over how  19 guys were identified and their pictures  posted on the news  25 hours later...   with no mistakes.. no additions or subtractions since. I can't buy that one.

Except it didn't happen that way.  The official list with pictures was not released until September 27th, 16 days later, which is why before that (and only before) there were stories of hijackers still being alive (mistaken identity because the official list had not yet been released.)  CNN identified the wrong people 5 days after on the 16th
http://911myths.com/...ACKSUSPECTS.avi   So no, they were not identified with pictures posted on the news 25 hours later.

http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1745    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 April 2013 - 01:52 PM

Lightly

High quality autopilots have been in use for decades by the airlines.  They have had "autoland" for decades.  Not on all airplanes, but on many.  Category A operations are what the FAA calls such landings.

But drone aircraft have been a reality in the military since about 1947 or so.  Aircraft with no humans onboard, controlled by radio signals from somebody miles away.  Obviously, today they are very common.

My theory is that the 2 aircraft that struck at WTC were drones.  I doubt the authenticity of the Naudet video, and am of the opinion that the first aircraft to strike was a smaller aircraft of some sort.  No doubt the second aircraft to strike was a Boeing 767.

The hijackers did not actually do any hijacking that day.  That was all a story told by way of the media.  Impossible cell phone stories primarily.


#1746    trish1997

trish1997

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 130 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Louisville Ky

Posted 22 April 2013 - 03:26 PM

So that the American people would become so angered.
It would be "our choice" to fight the oil fight.
George Bush created problems to solve them , to guide us around by the nose.
Gov continues to do this... EVEN the firefighters that were there to help have stated , there were explosions in the lower
part of the buildings.. BUT don't listen to them.. RIGHT...  TO this day
not 1 piece of aircraft has been found at the Pentagon site,,,,,,,THE GOV says is was burned up,,,, NEVER has a fire been so hot as to burn evey piece of an airplane... THE airplane burned up, not 1 piece left,,, BUT get this,,,,, THEY FOUND THE HI_JACKERS backpack he had on during the flight.....


YOU can let them guide you by the nose, and beliee evey word they say... I believe the firefighters over the GOV any day of the week..................................


#1747    AlnilamPhiSiriusly

AlnilamPhiSiriusly

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2013

Posted 22 April 2013 - 03:36 PM

View Posttrish1997, on 22 April 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

So that the American people would become so angered.
It would be "our choice" to fight the oil fight.
George Bush created problems to solve them , to guide us around by the nose.
Gov continues to do this... EVEN the firefighters that were there to help have stated , there were explosions in the lower
part of the buildings.. BUT don't listen to them.. RIGHT...  TO this day
not 1 piece of aircraft has been found at the Pentagon site,,,,,,,THE GOV says is was burned up,,,, NEVER has a fire been so hot as to burn evey piece of an airplane... THE airplane burned up, not 1 piece left,,, BUT get this,,,,, THEY FOUND THE HI_JACKERS backpack he had on during the flight.....


YOU can let them guide you by the nose, and beliee evey word they say... I believe the firefighters over the GOV any day of the week..................................
THIS IS WHY JESSE VENTURA IS NOT ALLOWED ON LIVE TV!

http://www.minds.com...-flag-operation

"Every War Starts With A False Flag Operation"

Edited by AlnilamPhiSiriusly, 22 April 2013 - 03:37 PM.


#1748    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:21 PM

Trish

Actually there was SOME debris from an aircraft at the Pentagon, according to pictures.  Assuming it was not planted there.

Trouble is, what debris was in pictures WAS NOT consistent with a 757.  It was more consistent with some sort of single engine aircraft.


#1749    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,103 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2013 - 10:42 PM

View Postlightly, on 22 April 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Ok,  thanks sky eagle,  your the aeronautics expert. So,  None of the airliners involved had flight computers that could be  taken over somehow and controlled from outside the aircraft??

Nothing that the aircrew could not have overcome in the cockpit in overriding a remote controlled system. In addition, because of the installed systems of the B-767 and the B-757, the control system of each aircraft would have had to be redesigned and incorporate the new control system into each aircraft, so once again, did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for a long period of time just so their aircraft could have been illegally modified to fly under remote control and done so under the nose of its mechanics, inspectors and the FAA? I don't think so! 911 Truthers don't think of all the little problems associated with modifying large aircraft and you can't switch airliners either without getting caught, which would have presented another problem because each aircraft is unique, even those of the same make and model.

You also need to remember that the flight attendants were instrumental in the identification of the hijackers by phone, so we know the hijackers were known even before the airliners had crashed. In addition, the flight path data shows that the aircraft were not flown under remote control at all and in the case of American 77, you can see in the data where the autopilot was disconnected and reconnected and disconnected again at which point the sloppiness of the flying technique being performed by the terrorist pilot became clearly evident, and just another indication the aircraft was not flown under remote control by a professional pilot.

.

Quote

I just like the explanation of remote control...  if it were true, then you would not need "Highjackers"  on the planes at all...  Or you could have some dudes on the plane that thought they were going to a meeting somewhere.

Once again, we know the hijackers were on board because they were identified by the flight attendants, and the flight path data shows that the autopilot was disconnected and reconnected and disconnected again and that the transponders tampered with in the cockpit, and to recap, the sloppy aero skills of the pilot was evident in that data as well.  

Quote

  I still can't get over how  19 guys were identified and their pictures  posted on the news  25 hours later...   with no mistakes.. no additions or subtractions since. I can't buy that one.

The flight attendants were instrumental in the identification of the hijackers and other details. Check it out.

Quote

Transcript of Flight Attendant Betty Ong

INTRODUCTION

At 7:59 A.M. on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 took off fourteen minutes late from Boston's Logan Airport. The plane, under the command of Captain John Ogonowski, was bound for Los Angeles with 81 passengers and 11 crew members aboard. Among the passengers were five Islamist terrorists, including Mohammad Atta, the terrorists' leader. As the plane was sitting on the runway waiting for clearance to depart, Atta placed a cell-phone call to Marwan Alshehhi, a terrorist aboard United Airlines Flight 175, to confirm that the coordinated hijacking plot planned for that day was under way.

At 8:13 A.M., the last routine communication took place between the aircraft and ground control. Over the next several minutes, as ground control operators could get no response from the pilot and the plane's IFF ("identify friend or foe") beacon was turned off, they began to consider that the plane had been hijacked. By 8:20, the plane was dramatically off course, and at 8:24 any doubts ground control had were dissipated when the plane made a 100-degree turn to the south. Also at 8:24, ground controllers heard the voice of one of the hijackers, who said simply "We have some planes." At 8:33, ground controllers again heard the voice of a hijacker telling the passengers, "Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

At 8:37 A.M., the plane entered New York airspace. At about 8:38, Mohammad Atta likely replaced the captain at the controls of the plane, although the time when this occurred is uncertain. Meanwhile, ground controllers had contacted the U.S. military, which scrambled fighter jets to pursue the plane.

At 8:46:26 A.M., Flight 11, traveling at a speed of about 470 miles per hour, slammed into the north tower of New York City's World Trade Center between the 94th and 98th floors. At 10:28, the tower collapsed, structurally weakened by 10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel. It was later speculated that the terrorists deliberately targeted a transcontinental flight because its large complement of fuel would maximize the damage it would cause.

At 8:20 A.M., flight attendant Betty Ong placed an Airfone call to an American Airlines reservation desk, where she spoke to Vanessa Minter (the "female voice" below). About two minutes later, Minter patched her supervisor, Nydia Gonzalez, into the call. In turn, Gonzalez later patched in American Airlines manager Craig Marquis (the "male voice" in the second portion of the transcript below).

SIGNIFICANCE

Betty Ong provided the authorities with crucial information about the hijacking. By providing the numbers of the seats occupied by the hijackers, she enabled the authorities to determine their identities. By maintaining her resolve, the information she relayed to ground control over a 25-minute period confirmed that a hijacking was under way. Authorities assumed that other planes might have been hijacked that day, but that their plans were thwarted as the scope of the attacks rapidly became clear and flights were grounded.

Betty Ong was not the only flight attendant who placed a call to the ground that morning. Also on an Airfone was Madeline "Amy" Sweeney, who at 8:20 A.M., placed a call to Logan's flight services manager Michael Woodward. "Listen, and listen to me very carefully," she told Woodward. "I'm on Flight 11. The airplane has been hijacked."

Over the next 25 minutes Sweeney, too, remained on the phone and provided details about the hijacking (her call was not recorded, but reconstructed from Woodward's notes). At one point she said that the hijackers had stabbed the two first-class flight attendants. She also noted, "A hijacker cut the throat of a business-class passenger, and he appears to be dead." At another point she said that the hijackers had shown her a bomb. Still on the phone at 8:45, with the plane flying very low and ground controllers attempting to determine its location, she told them chillingly, "I see the water. I see the buildings.

I see buildings." After a pause, she said quietly, "Oh, my God." At about the same time, Betty Ong was repeatedly saying, "Pray for us. Pray for us."

http://find.galegrou...ial&version=1.0


Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2013 - 10:57 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1750    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 22 April 2013 - 11:09 PM

Thanks for responding skyeagle

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#1751    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:11 AM

View Postlightly, on 22 April 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Thanks for responding skyeagle

He certainly is tenacious and thorough. I have not looked at this thread for a while, I just wanted to see what logically sound arguments there were for executing this "inside job". All the responses were made up of accusations, allegations and innuendos.

I would have thought that skyeagle would have moved on by now too, but he's still fighting the good fight, awesome!


#1752    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:16 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Psyche

Irrefutable evidence can be found in the analysis offered by something over 2000 Architects & Engineers, as to the impossibility of the official story regarding the collapse of the buildings.

Hi BR

That is simply not the case. Any Engineer or Architect without "Truther" at the head of their report disagrees with them. It's a small group with an agenda. Sky has put up countless links that directly refute this claim, surely a repeat performance is not required?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Irrefutable evidence regarding the presence of a Boeing at Shanksville can be found in the statements of Wally Miller and his people, the photographic evidence now 'scrubbed' from the internet, and a follow up interview of Wally Miller in 2011 or 2012 by Christopher Bollyn in his book.

Then why was I able to refute it when you mentioned this the first time? Wally himself denies what you Are saying. You are only promoting the view of a truther, not actual information pertaining to Wally, hell you also said he never met a single person survived by the victims but that was wrong too. When you ignore such information, one can only see your stance as credulous and zealous. There is no substance to these claims. They are only claims.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Irrefutable evidence contradicting the official story at the Pentagon is ample.

Again that too is a negative. In fact, once someone has looked at the truther version of events I fail to see how one can hold this position. We have wreckage, we have lost lives, we have witnesses, we have hurt people, and we have people gleefully celebrating their murderous work, what more does it take?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I have made my own mind up Psyche.  I rely upon various websites, including UM, for information, but I do my own thinking.

This makes more sense to me than anything so far. I do believe you have your own version of events, but I do not see any place where they reflect reality, only truther claims and nonsense. I would suspect you go to Truther sites, Alex Jones and UM, to be frank, those sites would encapsulate everything you have said, but if they were any more than BS I doubt you and I would be having this conversation right now.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

And I forget if I mentioned it to you, but aviation has been my career for something over 40 years.  I am still active and earning a bit of money from it.  I am still active in flight instructing.

So is Skyeagle. So is Hazzard, many people here are pilots, in fact my brother in law holds a pilot license. If this is your expertise, why are we not seeing it? How come you canot provide any sort of detail for your claims, but push stuff and nonsense like the harassment of Wally MIller to create a story? You made claims about miller earlier, and I gave you Wally's own words to prove the CT is wrong. You never replied, as such I can only assume the provided information satisfied your requirement.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Part of the irrefutable evidence for me comes from my experiences in aviation, especially instructing.  I know it is impossible for Hani to do what he is alleged to have done.  It's simply impossible.

Then please elaborate. I have not yet seen a single claim that has not been torn to shreds. If you have something you feel stands to scrutiny, please show us, if we do not agree, at least one can see the reason for your conviction.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Further, Dennis Cimino, an expert in analysis of Flight Data Recorders, discovered that the 'evidence' offered by the federal government in the form of the FDR from "Flight 77" is completely bogus.

Ex flight data recorder analyst, who is again challenged. He seems to have speeds wrong, pitch wrong, no sensors were even connected to the cockpit door that he calls an anomaly, what does he have that is verified?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

You sir, may believe whatever song and dance the government sings for you, but I choose the independent way, and looking at the big picture.

I keep saying, I am in Australia, the US Government has no influence on me. I am on the other side of the world. I do not feel your claims are in any way independent, they seem to be the Truther manual, and you have not looked at big pictures, and I would cite Wally Miller as a prime example. The explanation exists, it fits, the ones doing the song and dance about it, and endlessly it seems, and apt for the rejoicing murderers, are the truthers. Not sure how you see it any other way.

Edited by psyche101, 23 April 2013 - 03:19 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1753    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:24 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 April 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

YOU cannot be considered credible SkyEagle, but Dennis Cimino is very credible.

Your just choosing sides. What claim of Dennis's has proven Sky's version of events incorrect?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1754    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,767 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:26 AM

It wont do any good pshche101 ! THis Babe is like many,many C.T`s not a leg to stand on the more attention we give it the more B.S. that spews out.
I specially like the Drone aircraft bit,and that we talked the flight crew,all lost,and the passengers all dead,and all the other lives that day that perished in that Terror !To get into those drones.
To think in our world of high tech tracking,avaionics,training of those fine pilots and flight crews that a Arm chair C.T. has it all fingered out !

Kinda makes one sick if you really think about it ! Skyeagle & I both have a little bit of Avaition background,I have many,many Retired Commercial & Military pilots friends.
All to the Letter know that this is nonsense ! To even think that it was but what was proven by thousands of experts in the Field is to Run that Flag up the Stupid Pole !
I  guess Babe Ruth didnt know anyone that died that day in THe North East? I did !

Edited by DONTEATUS, 23 April 2013 - 03:28 AM.

This is a Work in Progress!

#1755    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:31 AM

View Postpoppet, on 20 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

I wonder how many 9/11 debunkers have actually read the NIST report, which has never been peer reviewed incidentally, so as far as a scientific paper goes it’s just a theory! And I wonder how many debunkers have taken the time to read the 9/11 commission report overseen by Philip Zelikow.
These two publications are a complete joke with so many omissions and falsehoods that it boggles the mind why anyone would defend such utter nonsense, but I guess some people won’t stray out of their comfort zones to actually do a little research and find it far easier to defend the official conspiracy with a few childish retorts calling people “troothers or twoofers”
The number of people questioning 9/11 is in the millions from scientists, the military, members of governments from all over the world ex CIA and FBI ,medics ,first responders, pilots the list is endless and is growing every day and until there is an independent inquiry these numbers will keep growing .

President of Italy’s Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court
http://www.washingto...inal-court.html

The only people to mention the publications thus far are the truthers are they not? Critical thinkers have done thier level best to provide direct evidence from what I have seen in this thread. The most common rebuttal seems to be the publication itself, which truthers turn a blind eye to when it suits them

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users