the "no plane" theory

[atvdave]

The "Conspiracy" of Flight 93 - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[lucky4034]

The "Conspiracy" of Flight 93 - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

If you are looking for me to repost an article from the CIA director labeled "We landed flight 93 in Cleveland and swapped in a drone plane"... don't worry, I won't find one.

Again, I don't put a lot of weight into any no-plane theories (except for maybe the Pentagon crash which as reported is extraordinarily remarkable)... but I won't simply discount it because the government told me so. She asked for a little evidence, and I (as well as yourself to some extent) provided the possibility of it.

I think in a search for truth... exploring all possibilities is the best route.

 

[Denny347]

 

[HoughMade]

You just describes what it's like to hang around a courthouse.

 

[wtfd661]

Never have I come across a pic that sums up exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Denny347]

You just describes what it's like to hang around a courthouse.

They are everywhere.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I have to ask... with your broad range of experience... Can you share some other buildings that have collapsed that fit the Pankcake Theory Model? I'd also be interested to see a couple of cases where high rises have collapsed from fire?

Just 1-2 examples of each would be fantastic...

I'm also interested why we are all so quick to discount the hundreds/thousands of eye witness accounts of firemen and workers who seen/felt/heard explosions before the collapse, during the collapse and after the collapse... from inside the building, outside the building and even underneath the bottom floor parking garage?

Google the 1988 Mexico City earthquake for examples of several types of collapse, then look at the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake aftermath photos. Those are mainly the ones I remember us seeing in training. Of course, the local certified structural engineer who was a Task Force member at the time could have been lying to us, and of course, the guy on the Task Force at the time who had been in Mexico City as a heavy equipment rigger could have been lying to us.

Incidentally, since the WTC towers were essentially exoskeletal, IIRC, does anyone have video of the supposed explosions that took out the lower levels? They would have had to take out the outer structure to facilitate the collapse. Of course, if you were one of millions of folks watching the collapse on television, all you would have seen was the structurally compromised floors collapsing, then the upper stories above them collapsing, and then the rest of the structure collapsing straight down as you would expect from a pancake collapse scenario. And I don't know about anyone else, but I think I remember debris from the upper floors cascading off to the side of the tower as it fell.

 

[g00n24]

After reading through these 7 pages and watching the entire video the OP posted, I can say this thread has been "hijacked"...sorry for the terrible pun.

If (IF) the video evidence the guy shows in the OP is correct and was actually shown the way he present's in the video then he certainly raised some very valid questions. Non of which have been addressed in this thread. The video did not deal at all with how the buildings fell, or why they fell like they did...just what hit the videos and what we were shown.

I think some of the "camera tricks" the director of the video shows can most likely be explained by people who actually know stuff about digital photography/videography in 2001. I know nothing of the sort...however, when he was pointing out the different trajectories of the planes in the videos from very similar angles of view, that was suspicious as hell (again assuming he did not screw with the footage). The other thing that was really strange was the bridge in the background being 7.2 miles away or something like that and showing the footage played by several media outlets and how the bridge was related to the towers...there were several other points raised in the video about shadows and lighting and comparing frames of one video to another and how certain things didn't appear to "line up" as well as one would expect...Interesting points that I certainly haven't ever seen answered (not that I have ever really tried to look into them)

I've never put much effort into the 911 conspiracies except for the missile hitting the Pentagon theory. I always thought it just made sense a building built like the towers would fall straight down if the top portion was significantly weakened...Like I said the guy making the video did raise some interesting points I have never thought about and have never heard addressed before, but again I have never gone out of my way to look into these things.

 

[BravoMike]

1st I'll say that officially it seems that no one in air traffic control or NORAD had a clue of how to handle 9/11 because if the official telling of the story is true, a ton of mishaps occurred to make it possible. In my personal opinion... if you believe the official report, then by default you can not subscribe to a statement like "Particularly at a time when flights were being grounded and identified and followed rather strictly." If that was the case, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Flights were allowed to fly off course for more than an hour without any contact or interception.... Let me repeat that... 4 flights were apparently hijacked, one right after another and flown into high security buildings over a 2hour timespan and none were intercepted or even really tracked.

.

It appears that you don't have a clue as to the operations of ATC or NORAD. Of course a bunch of mishaps happened, hence why the attack was successful. Flights were not allowed to fly off course for more than an hour, more like 30-45 minutes at the longest. Yes planes were grounded and tracked "rather closely", as best they could. Do you even know how planes are tracked within the ATC system or NORAD? Do you know what a transponder is? Do you know what the terms primary target vs. secondary target means? If you had to google any of that, then you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are just making up fantasies about 9/11 to fit your conspiracy theories.

 

[lucky4034]

Google the 1988 Mexico City earthquake for examples of several types of collapse, then look at the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake aftermath photos. Those are mainly the ones I remember us seeing in training. Of course, the local certified structural engineer who was a Task Force member at the time could have been lying to us, and of course, the guy on the Task Force at the time who had been in Mexico City as a heavy equipment rigger could have been lying to us.

Incidentally, since the WTC towers were essentially exoskeletal, IIRC, does anyone have video of the supposed explosions that took out the lower levels? They would have had to take out the outer structure to facilitate the collapse. Of course, if you were one of millions of folks watching the collapse on television, all you would have seen was the structurally compromised floors collapsing, then the upper stories above them collapsing, and then the rest of the structure collapsing straight down as you would expect from a pancake collapse scenario. And I don't know about anyone else, but I think I remember debris from the upper floors cascading off to the side of the tower as it fell.

Wait... so you are telling that to take down the building in a controlled demolition, you have to destroy the outer structure... but in the same breath say that to take down the towers you merely have to heat the inner core with jet fuel?

What I find interesting is that you speak about the collapse with certainty and simplicity... and I won't won't discredit your experience in the Indiana US&R Taskforce, so please don't take this as being disrespectful, but you are basically saying to everyone here... "I watched it on tv and therefore I know with certainty exactly what happened... and believe me because I took a few training lessons in this stuff at the Indiana US&R Taskforce."

There are many of very credentialed engineers who have done more than simply watch the collapse on tv 12 years ago who would disagree with your conclusion.

Here is one example (of many) here for reference: This guy obviously spent many hours searching through the details... maybe more hours than the guys who put out the "official report".

[video=youtube_share;z8W-t57xnZg]http://youtu.be/z8W-t57xnZg[/video]

My point being... there are a lot of well thought out and researched opinions on what likely happened that day. They range from terrorists flying planes into buildings all the way to Illuminati puppet masters setting up controlled demolitions and all stops in between. I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but the truth is in there somewhere and you won't find it if you speak in absolutes or if you immediately discount all possibilities but one.

The guys from the 9/11 Commissions don't even speak in absolutes and have admitted to only getting partial evidence.

 

[lucky4034]

It appears that you don't have a clue as to the operations of ATC or NORAD. Of course a bunch of mishaps happened, hence why the attack was successful. Flights where not allowed to fly off course for more than an hour, more like 30-45 minutes at the longest. Yes planes were grounded and tracked "rather closely", as best they could. Do you even know how planes are tracked within the ATC system or NORAD? Do you know what a transponder is? Do you know what the terms primary target vs. secondary target means? If you had to google any of that, then you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are just making up fantasies about 9/11 to fit your conspiracy theories.

That's interesting... Flight 77 was hijacked for 50min... flew off of radar for some 300 miles into the most secure airspace in the world after 2 planes crashed into the WTC. It then circled Washington DC without a single interceptor anywhere in the sky and then crashed into the worlds most secure building and the only visual evidence we have is a single frame of a white blip from a 7/11 across the street. Maybe you should re-think before you speak so bluntly

 

[atvdave]

The "Conspiracy" of Flight 93 - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

If you are looking for me to repost an article from the CIA director labeled "We landed flight 93 in Cleveland and swapped in a drone plane"... don't worry, I won't find one.

Again, I don't put a lot of weight into any no-plane theories (except for maybe the Pentagon crash which as reported is extraordinarily remarkable)... but I won't simply discount it because the government told me so. She asked for a little evidence, and I (as well as yourself to some extent) provided the possibility of it.

I think in a search for truth... exploring all possibilities is the best route.

Nope... just getting the info out there for all to digest. nothing more, nothing less. I think that you would agree that 2 (or more) side's to a story is better than just one.

 

[BravoMike]

That's interesting... Flight 77 was hijacked for 50min... flew off of radar for some 300 miles into the most secure airspace in the world after 2 planes crashed into the WTC. It then circled Washington DC without a single interceptor anywhere in the sky and then crashed into the worlds most secure building and the only visual evidence we have is a single frame of a white blip from a 7/11 across the street. Maybe you should re-think before you speak so bluntly

I would like to see where you are getting flights hijacked for over an hour. Ok, flight 77 was hijcaked for 50 minutes, not 45 minutes like I remembered. Since you know everything, I will presume the facts that you present are accurate. Speaking of which, if it flew "off radar" for 300 miles, how then could it be tracked?

Ah, the most secure airspace in the world. How exactly is this airspace secured and why is it the most secure in the world? Is there a force field that keeps airplanes out? Your arguments are ludicrous and I will be so blunt, because I do know what I'm talking about.

 

[Bummer]

It truly is amazing footage. I'm quite amazed that this video only has 1400+ views. Thanks for sharing.

There's none so blind as they that won't see.

 

[indyjack]

After reading through these 7 pages and watching the entire video the OP posted, I can say this thread has been "hijacked"...sorry for the terrible pun.

If (IF) the video evidence the guy shows in the OP is correct and was actually shown the way he present's in the video then he certainly raised some very valid questions. Non of which have been addressed in this thread. The video did not deal at all with how the buildings fell, or why they fell like they did...just what hit the videos and what we were shown.

I think some of the "camera tricks" the director of the video shows can most likely be explained by people who actually know stuff about digital photography/videography in 2001. I know nothing of the sort...however, when he was pointing out the different trajectories of the planes in the videos from very similar angles of view, that was suspicious as hell (again assuming he did not screw with the footage). The other thing that was really strange was the bridge in the background being 7.2 miles away or something like that and showing the footage played by several media outlets and how the bridge was related to the towers...there were several other points raised in the video about shadows and lighting and comparing frames of one video to another and how certain things didn't appear to "line up" as well as one would expect...Interesting points that I certainly haven't ever seen answered (not that I have ever really tried to look into them)

I've never put much effort into the 911 conspiracies except for the missile hitting the Pentagon theory. I always thought it just made sense a building built like the towers would fall straight down if the top portion was significantly weakened...Like I said the guy making the video did raise some interesting points I have never thought about and have never heard addressed before, but again I have never gone out of my way to look into these things.

maybe i should've said in the OP that i have a background in audio/video editing as well as Foley sound effects. i went to school for audio engineering in 1997. the technology to edit video "on the fly" has been around for at least decades. when i was in school, the A/V software cost upwards of $2000. now it's available to anyone practically for free. the biggest clues to me in this video are the fake sound effects added into the crash footage: reversed cymbal crashes, fake screams, etc. then of coarse all the discrepancies in the flight path itself. i appreciate someone finally watching the video and commenting instead of the usual nonsensical responses. thanks!

 

[BravoMike]

maybe i should've said in the OP that i have a background in audio/video editing as well as Foley sound effects. i went to school for audio engineering in 1997. the technology to edit video "on the fly" has been around for at least decades. when i was in school, the A/V software cost upwards of $2000. now it's available to anyone practically for free. the biggest clues to me in this video are the fake sound effects added into the crash footage: reversed cymbal crashes, fake screams, etc. then of coarse all the discrepancies in the flight path itself. i appreciate someone finally watching the video and commenting instead of the usual nonsensical responses. thanks!

But of course, how could I have missed that! You guys are insatiable!

 

[Tombs]

When someone manages to explain this:
[video=youtube;3aKj6uJ5Mt4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4[/video]

And show me a clear video of the approach and impact of the plane into the pentagon, then I'll be ready to 'consider' the official story. Till then, you'd have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe things happened the way the media/government claim.
Call me crazy, but it provided a nice cover to get everyones' minds off Rumsfeld losing 2.3 trillion dollars, and got us fighting Israel's wars for them once again.

 

[111NMC]

Dont forget about building 7.
Must have been a couple hundred flaming post-it notes that caused that puppy to pancake.

 

[BravoMike]

When someone manages to explain this:

The media reports falsely often, does it not? But here you suggest that we believe a piecemealed story on YouTube? Ok, you win.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;kcrF346sS_I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I[/video]