Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Hocus

9/11 TV fakery - No planes

432 posts in this topic

I think you've got 3 of those planes figured out. I wish you'd put your research ability into finding out what happened to the one that flew over the Pentagon. (if that's what happened) (if not, why isn't there more wreckage?) I don't buy that disolving into dust and blowing away. KennyB

I have researched all of the flights equally and have no interest in bias or taking sides. The strongest conclusions are that a plane impacted each of WTC1, WTC2 and the Pentagon with another being shot down. There were aircraft in all four cases. There was no tv-fakery, no doctored security camera, no holograms, no flyover.

I entertained the possibility that the limited plane wreckage could have been planted at the Pentagon but there is enough physical, eyewitness and recorded evidence to oppose this (not to mention the logic involved). I think that there is enough wreckage considering that the aircraft flew into a building reinforced to withstand bomb-blasts.

There were pieces of the fuselage (not just the big piece in the foreground but the smaller pieces scattered over the lawn in the background)…

800px-Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

There were pieces of the engine…

photorotor.jpg

engineRemains.jpg

There were more pieces of the engine (not sure if this is another angle of the piece above) and more fuselage (to the left)…

pentagon-engine4.jpg

There was a section of the landing gear…

landingear.jpg

There was a wheel…

p_pentagon_landing_gear.jpg

There was more mangled wreckage (I guess this is what piecies of a plane looks like after crashing into a building and suffering fire damage)…

parody_debris_1.jpg

I really don’t think we should reasonably expect to see anymore than this.

Once the building study by the ASCE is considered and further damage on the approach path, along with the security camera footage, radar data and eyewitnesses, the conclusion that there was an aircraft impact is very strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all the available evidence it's quite clear to an open mind what really happened on 9/11.

Here's the REAL evidence, make up your own minds. No planes where used and the proof is in the videos below.

- 2001 a fake odyssey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNU6xUuvgQc - 9/11 taboo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU - eyewitness see's no second plane

- 9/11 amateur

I'm pretty sure that elements within the government were 100% responsible for the attacks, but honestly, it would be A LOT easier to just hijack the airplanes by remote control and steer them into the targets. Plus we already know for a fact that this is possible because of the declassified Operation Northwoods documents. Just doesn't make sense to go through all the trouble of manipulating all these live feeds and video's on top of making the real planes vanish to who-knows-where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that elements within the government were 100% responsible for the attacks, but honestly, it would be A LOT easier to just hijack the airplanes by remote control and steer them into the targets. Plus we already know for a fact that this is possible because of the declassified Operation Northwoods documents. Just doesn't make sense to go through all the trouble of manipulating all these live feeds and video's on top of making the real planes vanish to who-knows-where.

Commercial jetliners (or basically any large civil or military transport) are not equipped nor designed to be flown by remote control. Smaller drones yes, but large planes present a number of major issues in such an application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those photos were obviously photoshpped which only proves the government cover up.

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commercial jetliners (or basically any large civil or military transport) are not equipped nor designed to be flown by remote control. Smaller drones yes, but large planes present a number of major issues in such an application.

What major issues, mrbusdriver?

NASA were conducting unmanned test flights of Boeing aircraft as far back as 1984. By the time of 9/11, widely available technology in the U.S. had brought accuracy of auto-pilot positional data to within 3 meters. All needed from there would be a link between the ground and aircraft to programme a course. I don’t see any great issue in setting an aircraft up with such a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What major issues, mrbusdriver?

NASA were conducting unmanned test flights of Boeing aircraft as far back as 1984. By the time of 9/11, widely available technology in the U.S. had brought accuracy of auto-pilot positional data to within 3 meters. All needed from there would be a link between the ground and aircraft to programme a course. I don’t see any great issue in setting an aircraft up with such a link.

There was one B-707 (an old 720 I believe) that was fitted with a pretty rudimentary remote control system, no "datalink" type system which would allow it to use navaids and such. Precise control of the aircraft was pretty rough.

Today's technolgy, with everything so automated and digital, it seems it would be possible to refit aircraft with some type of automation. It would be complex and very expensive, and there's no evidence of such a unmanned control system even being anywhere near a operational state. Maybe some brainstorming, but nothing set to hardware or software.

I don't think it would be a popular concept with the flying public...or pilot's unions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's technolgy, with everything so automated and digital, it seems it would be possible to refit aircraft with some type of automation.

I think so too.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commercial jetliners (or basically any large civil or military transport) are not equipped nor designed to be flown by remote control. Smaller drones yes, but large planes present a number of major issues in such an application.

Thats not true. Like I said, the declassified Northwoods documents reveal secret plans by the government to hijack commercial airliners by remote control, and that was back in the 60's. Technology has come a long way since then so I cant even imagine what they could do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not true. Like I said, the declassified Northwoods documents reveal secret plans by the government to hijack commercial airliners by remote control, and that was back in the 60's. Technology has come a long way since then so I cant even imagine what they could do now.

There is an enormous difference in difficulty between the Northwoods idea of flying an airline-type take-off, climb and cruise (no landing required) and the precision guidance required for a 9/11 attack. As mrbusdriver has correctly stated, a one-off remotely controlled crash-landing was attempted in 1984 with limited success. This is not something you would want to try for real without a lot of prior testing.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-003-dfrc.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it won't. They refuse to believe the official or more rational explanations no matter what the real evidence and will do everything they can to rationalize their points away.

Because of that I've personally come to hate debating with them.

But the more rational people should believe the real evidence, no the trumped up junk these conspiracy cultists come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That site doesn’t even explain when Cheney et al came up with the idea.

sigh...you should be ashamed of yourself for believing such ridiculous things and thinking that the US killed three thousand innocent Americans for no reason whatsoever. its a real slap in the face for victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am still wondering why they destroyed other WTC buildings (not the 2 towers) when they had no damage to them and were further away from the 2 towers than some other buildings who still stand today :)

you mean this one?

538px-Wtc7swcornerdamage.jpg

that doesnt look like "no damage" to me

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center

while im at it, for all of you saying "ZOMG CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN"

or " IT WAZ AN MIZZLE, THERE WERE NO WRECKAGE!!1!!"

ddb01bd3f3a1.png

110353b49495.jpg

and dont even try that "that isnt an aircraft tire" crap. anyone who knows planes will tell you that is 100% an plane's tire

Edited by DevilDogPratt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh...you should be ashamed of yourself for believing such ridiculous things and thinking that the US killed three thousand innocent Americans for no reason whatsoever. its a real slap in the face for victims of the 9/11 attacks.

I don’t think “the US killed three thousand innocent Americans for no reason whatsoever”. I think individuals internal and external to the U.S. who hold certain ideologies determined that the sacrifice was worth the gains.

Do you really think that you’re priceless to these people, DevilDog? You or even 3,000 people are not an insufferable loss to a country of approximately 300 million and these lives are not so important as the continued pre-eminence of the country itself. That is the cold, hard fact of the matter in the greater scheme of things – there is no room in these matters for the compassion that you are appealing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres no doubt 4 commercial planes were hijacked and downed, the real question or the more serious question if you like is how much the goverment knew about the terrorist plans prior to 9/11 .the official story satisfies me that different agences identified that these men were dangerous they were tracking there movments.the fbi knew they were having flying lessons etc... but each department failed to communicate with eachother or at best couldnt put 2 and 2 together,being the first attack using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction i cant really blame the agencies for not figuring it out earlier and arresting those scum before murdering ten of thousands not only in the usa but in afghanistan and iraq with the revenge attacks by the usa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...there is no room in these matters for the compassion...

Good, then none shall be given...you're just another "911 dufus" who hasn't a clue...

...I blame the public school system for allowing kids these days to graduate with jello for brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres no doubt 4 commercial planes were hijacked and downed, the real question or the more serious question if you like is how much the goverment knew about the terrorist plans prior to 9/11 .the official story satisfies me that different agences identified that these men were dangerous they were tracking there movments.the fbi knew they were having flying lessons etc... but each department failed to communicate with eachother or at best couldnt put 2 and 2 together,being the first attack using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction i cant really blame the agencies for not figuring it out earlier and arresting those scum before murdering ten of thousands not only in the usa but in afghanistan and iraq with the revenge attacks by the usa.

Yes! Lots of questions regarding the agencies and intelligence services involved: -

Why did the CIA allow known Al Qaeda affiliates into the United States?

Why were the FBI prevented from investigating bin Laden related cases?

Why did the President not react to an intelligence briefing containing specific warnings?

Why was the huge amount of other foreknowledge and warnings ignored?

What links were maintained between the CIA and bin Laden after the Soviet/Afghan war?

Why was it reported that the CIA met with bin Laden shortly prior to 9/11?

How many CIA agents were operating within Al Qaeda and in what capacity at the time of 9/11?

What are the chances the hijackers randomly chose to live with an FBI informant?

What are the chances the hijackers would live right outside the gates of the NSA?

Why have the FBI stated they have no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11?

Why did the FBI Director state there is no legal proof as to the identities of the hijackers?

Why were the attacks reported to be funded by Pakistan’s intelligence service?

What was the role of the Israeli intelligence agents arrested at the scene on 9/11?

There’s plenty more.

Good, then none shall be given...you're just another "911 dufus" who hasn't a clue...

...I blame the public school system for allowing kids these days to graduate with jello for brains.

Is that the extent of your argument – that anyone who doesn’t agree entirely with the official story is a “dufus”? Very Compelling :lol:

So how many barrels of oil do you think you’re worth, UNKOWN_DEAD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is that the extent of your argument – that anyone who doesn’t agree entirely with the official story is a “dufus”? Very Compelling :lol:

thats funny, because you dont seem too willing to accept other people's point of view either, yet you make fun of him. why dont you stop getting brainwashed by all these truther losers and look at the facts. they are all layed out infront of you, just open your eyes and look at them

Edited by DevilDogPratt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, then none shall be given...you're just another "911 dufus" who hasn't a clue...

...I blame the public school system for allowing kids these days to graduate with jello for brains.

But you see they can question...

The questions may be baseless, far fetched or even idiotic.. but they question.

It is such a pity they never listen to the answers (unless the answer seems to give them the result they want).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is an enormous difference in difficulty between the Northwoods idea of flying an airline-type take-off, climb and cruise (no landing required) and the precision guidance required for a 9/11 attack. As mrbusdriver has correctly stated, a one-off remotely controlled crash-landing was attempted in 1984 with limited success. This is not something you would want to try for real without a lot of prior testing.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-003-dfrc.html

Yes but don't forget the advances in technology- GPS most importantly. We have cruise missiles that travel very long distances and can hit a target the size of a car. I don't doubt that the technology exists to steer a large plane into a building. They could have waited for the planes to take off, then took control while in the air and guided them to the targets. We'll never know. But I do think its pretty fishy that they classified those black boxes for "national security". Obviously they don't want anybody to know what was going on in those cockpits. I personally doubt it was a bunch of muslims shouting "praise allah!".

Edited by StrayCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but don't forget the advances in technology- GPS most importantly. We have cruise missiles that travel very long distances and can hit a target the size of a car. I don't doubt that the technology exists to steer a large plane into a building. They could have waited for the planes to take off, then took control while in the air and guided them to the targets. We'll never know. But I do think its pretty fishy that they classified those black boxes for "national security". Obviously they don't want anybody to know what was going on in those cockpits. I personally doubt it was a bunch of muslims shouting "praise allah!".

You have two systems, GPS and the aircraft's autopilot, and you have to link them up in a reliable way. This isn't a trivial task and it involves starting from scratch for each type of aircraft. Just because it works for a cruise missile doesn't mean it works for an airliner, it's a major engineering task which requires a lot more people to be in on the conspiracy.

We do have the flight data recorders for the other aircraft, and they show a marked change in control capability corresponding to the hi-jacks, ie the quality of piloting changed from the smooth style you expect of a trained pilot, or an autopilot, to pretty much what you'd expect from someone with more limited piloting skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats funny, because you dont seem too willing to accept other people's point of view either, yet you make fun of him. why dont you stop getting brainwashed by all these truther losers and look at the facts. they are all layed out infront of you, just open your eyes and look at them

I’m making fun of your reliance on name-calling (which you continue to demonstrate :lol: ), not on your point of view itself.

I asked a number of questions in my last post that remain unanswered. Instead of calling people “dufus” and “loser” why don’t you provide the official answers that you claim are “all layed out” to those questions? When you cannot do that, because there are in fact no official answers (because no real investigation was carried out), you could always come up with some speculation that suits your preferred view and pretend that it’s satisfactory.

The questions may be baseless, far fetched or even idiotic.. but they question.

It is such a pity they never listen to the answers (unless the answer seems to give them the result they want).

Same as above regarding the questions to you, Obviousman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m making fun of your reliance on name-calling (which you continue to demonstrate :lol: ), not on your point of view itself.

I asked a number of questions in my last post that remain unanswered. Instead of calling people “dufus” and “loser” why don’t you provide the official answers that you claim are “all layed out” to those questions? When you cannot do that, because there are in fact no official answers (because no real investigation was carried out), you could always come up with some speculation that suits your preferred view and pretend that it’s satisfactory.

Same as above regarding the questions to you, Obviousman.

you have no hope, im giving up on you :tu:

enjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have no hope, im giving up on you :tu:

enjoy

You said, “… look at the facts. they are all layed out infront of you, just open your eyes…”

Then when I challenge you to answer a few basic questions you immediately “give up”.

I hope this explains why your view is very unconvincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.