Attempting to rephrase a statement? let me elaborate it for you:

the fact that the russian pilot was a non-resident alien at the time in question clearly indicates unfamiliarity inconjunction with his failed attempt to correctly identify commercial planes, these points, though arguable, pose serious flaws to his claim to know a point of origin and destination of the commercial plane in question. Nobody but this person is in question and trying to bring a vague mass of people in towards your sway does little to convince me to your point of view. Do you have anything else to offer to your perspective? as it stands, its doing nothing for me.


ps- flight simulation decor is a nice touch

Inside one of the many other 9/11 threads. But to be honest it shouldn't have been made at all, less then a half-hour of research would have answered the question.

I think explorer said it well.

If your plane in Arizona took some photos of the attacks, it would be worth noting. However, I already answered your sarcastic question -



Remeber? Did you think if you reworded it I would slip up and answer yes this time??

Address the issue?? I guess you didnt catch it the first 2 times I answered you -





um, reading comprehension? Why don't you do us all a favor and drop it.

I ask again. How is a photo showing smoke related to the conspiracy theories?

You've yet to give an answer.

He didn't ask any questions. This goes back to that reading comprehension thing I mentioned. Try to read the thread instead of just skimming through for pretty pictures. He copy+pasted an article and hasn't posted in here after creating the thread. The photos aren't even what the thread is about, its about why the plane was able to fly somewhat close to the WTC and some of the things the pilot said.

The photos show nothing we haven't seen already. The photos we've already seen even show more details.

Did you read the article? Within the first 2 paragraphs is covers the fact that he was living and working in the US and spent his free time flying his plane. This was hardly his first flight in the area, and there are continuous streams of planes on approach paths to every local airport, so it is incredibly unlikely that he wouldn't know where those paths are. I know where several are just from the view from the ground.

you mean the article where it states that the russian pilot who is now living in the US and was flying during the time in question? yes, I read that article and it actually covers it in the first paragraph. living in the area would then mean that he more than likely had a legal visa or green card.

The "smoke" is coming from the WTC.



Even though you have been answered 5 times now -
#1


#2


#3


#4


#5
Even though thats 5 times you have been answered, I know you are going to just re-word it and come back with another post like "so anytime a pilot flys a plane its a conspiracy now??".



second line of the title -


You are right, it is about comprehension. You have been answered 5 times and you don't understand the topic title. Just saying the same thing over and over isnt going to make you right and neither will your childish put downs. I would ask you again to drop it but why waste my breath? I know you wont. So re-word the same question AGAIN and make me give you an answer for a sixth time..............

What do you mean "allowed to fly" I mean christ I am sick of these non New Yorkers explaining how everything is supposed to run smooth as ice during a disaster like this. They shut down the air space, grounded planes, got the entire subway system ground to a halt. The air was not their only priority that day and yet everyone seems to think that any flaw or glitch is somehow evidence that there is some HUGE friggin' conspiracy.

How about this "they did the best they could and probably made a whole bunch of mistakes" I am sure that you all would have hit every single point you are now playing Monday morning quarterback about.

Jeeezus, fine its a conspiracy. Whatever you need to believe.


ETA The most telling piece of evidence of your NEED to have it be a conspiracy is the way in which you are all ignoring the eye witness account of a pilot in the sky who watched the plane go off course and smash into the building. And has the pictures to PROVE IT.

The CTers have stated many times that they don't think this happened and instead of admitting that it DID now they have to take the pilot to task for

A. being part of the conspiracy so he's lying

B. His presence is evidence of another conspiracy.

You want it to be a conspiracy no matter what the evidence shows. And that's really pathetic.

I'm done.

I am not so sure you know what you're talking about here, and I don't know what this paragraph actually means.
This is what was originally said:



He mis-identified the airplane he saw as a Boeing 737, a completely understandable thing.

He also said that the Boeing he saw was flying the same way it ususally does when landing at LaGuardia, probably a bit lower than usual.
Unfortunately, he was incorrect as no aircraft landing at LGA are landing at 500 MPH.

Further, he states that he believes the maneuver performed by the jet he saw was done by an "experienced military pilot..."
This statement is also in error, of course.

Any pilot could turn a jet. It was not an advanced maneuver, and experienced military pilots generally don't fly their airplanes into the sides of buildings.

None of this pilots statements means anything, save that he cannot recognize different types of commercial jet aircraft (which is not a requirement for his Private certificate), he probably doesn't know what the final approach speed of a 767 is (also not required information), and he doesn't realize that turning an airplane is simple, and requires little flight training, and that even he could've done that maneuver (he better have been able to!)...

To wit, Cory Lidle flew his Cirrus in almost identical fashion right into the side of a building just a little while ago...and he was neither seasoned, experienced, nor military.

The only other question asked in the initial post was this:



That question has already been completely answered.

Now, I asked, "What is it that you agree with?"
You did not answer.

I am thinking perhaps you think all this convoluted speculation, based upon lack of understanding of air traffic in the New York area airspace, statements of some flight controller, and the pictures taken by one private pilot who happened to be legally flying in the Manhattan corridor on that morning, points to some sort of conspiracy...to the idea that the Government actually planned and orchestrated this event?

If so, fine. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how untenable it is.

But I think your discussion here has worn out its usefulness at this point.

What does his residency status have to do with anything?

Here's what's important:

1) He was flying his own plane in a perfectly legal manner and happened to have a camera with him.
2) They didn't ground any air traffic until after the second plane hit the WTC.

I really have no idea what the point of this thread is.

Swiss, French, German and Austrian intelligence as well as newsreports had said for weeks before the attacks that something massive in NYC at the WTC was imminent. Hardly a surprise - unless you're blindfolded - or an accessory.

And I don't care what anyone says; if the only thing someone in charge of a country can manage to do upon hearing of an attack upon its own soil is stay silent and frozen in place for eight minutes, then that person is either incompetent or knew something about it all along.

What? Bush would have never found out what happend to the pet goat if he had gotten up and left to do his job.

I really don't understand the amount of people here protecting the governments actions on 9/11.

Ex CIA, FBI and other top government officials all say it was an inside job and not to mention CIA and FBI agents left the bereau because they werent allowed to do there job in relation to catching Osama Bin Laden.

Also the fact that the government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries, in which the Clinton Administration struggle to find a way to accept the offer.

You really think the US Government and its intelligence agencies are not capable of indispicable acts of terrorism on its on soil, well we all know they are, from released documents of Operation Northwoods where America's top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. This is documented information covered by ABC News and others.

Also i guess the Boston Traffic controller speaking out about (like many others) 9/11 being an inside job is a conspiracy "nut" as well....

Cheers

BZRK

Yes its relavent to 9/11 but you're dodging the question.
I ask again, how is a picture showing smoke related to a conspiracy theory(not just 9/11)?


He is not asking the question, its part of the article.

How the hell did you make it through middle school?

I guess I'm not going to get an answer then. "Because I said so" is not an answer.

explorer has no authority here anyways so his opinion is no more important than mine.

I have answered this question repeatedly, do you just like to see yourself post the same thing over and over? whether or not my answer is disagreeable with you makes no difference to me and no I will neither re-type my explanation nor cut n paste it. Scroll back and read it if you want your question answered by my post.

He would have to know what the air zones were he could fly in before he could actually fly there. I'm sure he would have some idea if a plane was flying in a way that would not be expected that something was not right. Buildings are rarely in the planned course of planes. He would also have some idea of where the airports were incase he had trouble with his plane and had to make an emergency landing.

Well, if you've answered it, it made no sense. You've somehow come to the conclusion that he couldn't know the airspace because he wasn't a citizen, that's what I've got from your posts so far.

He WAS living and working here at the time and spending most of his free time flying his plane around NYC, according to the first 2 sentences of the article. You don't spend most of your free time flying around an area without knowing the locations of the airports, wether your a US citizen or here on a work visa.

Not get an answer to what? How smoke is related to a conspiracy. How many time do I need to tell you? The smoke is coming from.............the wtc. The wtc is the center of a conspiracy. Hence, smoke = wtc = conspiracy = this section. Comprende?

I know what you are getting at. You don't think there could be any connection between the pilot who took these photos and a conspiracy. Wow, I get it. So what? Your point is? I understood what was behind your sarcasm since the first post you made here. But guess what? No one cares. Some of us were interested in the post and some of us can see the relavence. Even you admit the relavence -



So, its relavent or not? If its relavent, why cant it be posted here? Cause you say so? If you think something is in the wrong section, tell a mod or move on.

btw ""Because I said so" is not an answer" is true for you opinion as well. Take it up with a mod, if its that traumatic.

You have been asking the same question over and over and just don't like the answer you have been given (over and over), so you keep asking it. You have your answer x8. Do us a favor and stop spamming this thread with the same question over and over. Tantrums might work on mommy and daddy but they don't work here. Get over it.

The smoke, the plane, the pictures, whatever, none of it is further evidence wether it was a conspiracy or not, there's no new info here, so why waste time arguing about it?

Now, if you find something interesting and new in the pictures, feel free to post it.

A bit hypocritical is that not. I seem to remember you asking a question multiple times after you were given an answer. Something to do with "a new pearl harbor" and rebuilding the military. It's pretty ****ing annoying isn't it.

Those are good points and yes he would have to know the air zones which pertain to what is part of the private plane training but his training would not encompass training of commercial planes; their altitudes and navigation. This would not include training for commerical plane pathways for that is outside of the training for private plane use and taking this in conjunction with the points made prior is self evident to a strange occurance to formulate a statement such as:

.

This is why I agree with boggle rather than someone such as mid.

No, it is not. I was giving you a straight answer. You were not givng me straight answer, just like you wouldnt take my answers.

So, your whole tirade is some how to just even some imaginary score? lol boo hoo. Get over it. Perhaps you should stick to ghost hunting or chasing ufos.

No, this really has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory.

You weren't even answering my question. You came up with your own question and answered it.

My first question: Why is this thread in the conspiracy section?
You interepreted this as: How are pictures of smoke coming from the towers related to 9/11?

I then changed my question to: How are photos showing smoke related to a conspiracy theory?
You interepreted this as: How are pictures of smoke coming from the towers related to 9/11? Again.

As you can see they are nothing alike.

I dont even see how you got the whole pictures thing. This thread wasn't about the pictures.

You remind me of someone I know on another forum. They can never admit it when they are wrong and resort to strawmen and hope the other person gets tired of the sh** and quits.

9.11=/=conspiracy theory
event=/=idea

smoke from tower=/=conspiracy theory
thing=/=idea

explosives in building theory=conspiracy theory
idea=idea

The conspiracy section is not for events and things, its for ideas about events and things. No ideas were presented in this thread. The world events section is for events and things.

I hope this isn't too complex for your feeble mind to understand.

lol you need to get a life ghost hunter. I never brought up "smoke" that was your own doing. And for why you continue to go on about this, I have no idea. Complex? lol no, child like. You are mad so you stomp your feet untill someone spanks you. Boo hoo.

Like I said. If you have a problem with where something is posted, tell a mod. Otherwise, get over it drama queen.

You are the one that brought up the photos.

Not only does this prove you brought it up but it also proves you didn't read the first post. Of course you did not specifically mention smoke but that is really all thats in the photo so it is implied.

Of course this post makes absolutly no sense. Relavent to the topic? It is the topic. This is really just a "filler" post.

Relavent to what? Where did I even bring up relavence?

Was this meant to prove the photo (which is not what the thread is actually about) is related to a conspiracy theory?

Now if you would like to make an attempt at actually answering my original question I will ask again.
Why is this thread in the conspiracy section?
You are the one that defended the thread being here so I expect you to eventually give me a straight answer.

Hell, if you hadn't posted anything it would have just been left with that question. I probably wouldn't have even posted in this thread again. Now you want to back off of it. Why is that?

For people who believe it should be addressed in this section so as to share a perspective that is alternative than from a perspective that stems from reigning party lines. This may be the intention but am unsure for I replied only in agreement to boggle's findings.

All the article was - was some quotes that really couldn't have been used in any CTs arguements and some photos.

It also mentions planes flying somewhat close to the WTC, which there is nothing strange there as it was an air zone they were allowed to fly in.

The only things mods do here is occasionally drop in to tell people to stop flaming each other so I don't expect this to be moved.

unless you count the guy who posted them...........................



photos = smoke? if you say so...........................



Just because its not proving a conspiracy, doesnt mean its not relavent. No conspiracy, still relavent.



I don't think so.



omg, are you serious? lol *relavance*



I have. Its relavent. Almost had me that time lol



You mean the question?. You question you will never accpet an answer to?

You are really jumping around with this one. I know it must make sense to you, but how does you not posting again mean I backed off? I just didnt think you would keep going after you admitted this was just your way of settling some score you had with me. Now your back with the same question you have been pretending to not understand the answer to.





Are you saying its not relavent?



Sounds great !



Ah, thats to bad for you I guess.

Descrition of this section:
Conspiracies, Black Projects, and Government coverups.

No conspiracy means it doesn't go here.

So, if someone had an eye witness account of the JFK assasination, they couldnt post it here? Why?

If they could give more details than "I heard a bang and the president died" I wouldn't care. This however gives only "I saw the planes hit the towers" which is useless. We've already confirmed planes hit the towers.

Actualy, it explains what the aircraft in the background of one of the videos is. Or at least what it could be. So, its not useless.

And how does that change anything?

I just figured out where you got the ghost hunter thing from. I'm glad I grew out of that sh**.

Who said it did?

Ashigaru, why don't you save us all further headache and give us your definition of a 'conspiracy'. A guy named Con who pirates videos?
To answer your earlier post, I have far less authority here than you have semantic sensitivity.

Whenever new information comes to light regarding one of the worst terror/unregistered military attacks of all time, and given that the attack suited the arguably preordained purposes of the US government so very neatly, so soon after the Project for the New American Century discussed the ramifications of a new Pearl Harbour, there can be no question that anything that can possibly be gleaned from a Cessna flying close by the scene of the crime, at a most critical point in the governments response, belongs in this here forum.

One does not have to prove that a conspiracy exists before posting in a forum about conspiracies.
I've heard of disinformation. Are you attempting deinformation?

The question is, what is the point of posting it if you're not using it as evidence for or against the conspiracy? By your logic we should post every single picture taken of the area on or around 9/11 here because they are 'relevant'.

The purpose of the forum is to post specific claims. Not to post every picture you can find that shows the same stuff we've seen already.

The original question of this thread, in the title itself, is 'why was it allowed to fly near the towers on 9/11?'

The answer is, he was in unrestricted airspace and it was before they grounded air traffic.

The rest of the posts in this thread are a waste of bandwidth.

That's it!

Precisley what I have been saying. The reason, as asked in the original question (correctly, I might add) has again been stated.

This thread has long ago outlived its usefulness...

Thats what I've been saying fot the last 2-3 pages. They just dont listen.

Yeah, it was before they grounded all the flights and thta is really the long and short of it. As I remember, and I could be wrong about this part of it, there were news helicopters in the area too.

See, I can waste bandwidth too!

If someone has a counter-argument they feel is strong enough to re-open this thread, please contact one of the mods.