IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What If?, Flight # and passengers were ALL fictitious?

Truthissweet
post Nov 23 2014, 10:46 AM
Post #61





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 22 2014, 05:12 PM) *
We need to try to avoid focusing on people and personalities, and just focus on the facts.

Attacking each other is not productive.

And really, who gives a GGD about whether the lady is alive or not, or having had surgery, or not? Not I. Trivia that changes nothing.


Amazed, sorry about the attacking posts but you gotta do what you gotta do.

It is very important whether Olson is alive or if indeed she is Booth. Same goes for any other 'passengers'. It busts 911 wide open. It is the easiest way to show 911 was an inside job. Some researchers like myself are fixated on passengers being alive. Just one alive passenger or crew and heads start rolling.

I believe that the reason that Flight 93 pilot Jeff Dahl's wife committed 'suicide' was because she knew her husband is still alive. She wanted to quit playing the 'game'. There are a lot of variables to the 911 equation and maybe finding someone alive is right now the best chance we have to cracking this case, imho.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 24 2014, 10:12 AM
Post #62





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Nov 23 2014, 10:46 AM) *
Amazed, sorry about the attacking posts but you gotta do what you gotta do.

It is very important whether Olson is alive or if indeed she is Booth. Same goes for any other 'passengers'. It busts 911 wide open. It is the easiest way to show 911 was an inside job. Some researchers like myself are fixated on passengers being alive. Just one alive passenger or crew and heads start rolling.

I believe that the reason that Flight 93 pilot Jeff Dahl's wife committed 'suicide' was because she knew her husband is still alive. She wanted to quit playing the 'game'. There are a lot of variables to the 911 equation and maybe finding someone alive is right now the best chance we have to cracking this case, imho.



For those applying common sense, with a modicum of curiosity and intellectual honesty, 911 has been "busted wide open" for quite a few years now.

And for that, we have the hard work of groups and individuals like Rob and PFT, Gage and AE911 and a number of others. Woody Box, for another example.

The reason it hasn't "busted out" on the MSM is because they are complicit in the public coverup.

Many private citizens are most skeptical and suspicious of the official story, but they just don't talk about it too much in public.

Of course it would be interesting to know the truth about certain trivia like Barbara, but at this stage of the game that doesn't really matter much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Nov 24 2014, 01:49 PM
Post #63





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 24 2014, 09:12 AM) *
For those applying common sense, with a modicum of curiosity and intellectual honesty, 911 has been "busted wide open" for quite a few years now.

And for that, we have the hard work of groups and individuals like Rob and PFT, Gage and AE911 and a number of others. Woody Box, for another example.

The reason it hasn't "busted out" on the MSM is because they are complicit in the public coverup.

Many private citizens are most skeptical and suspicious of the official story, but they just don't talk about it too much in public.

Of course it would be interesting to know the truth about certain trivia like Barbara, but at this stage of the game that doesn't really matter much.


Good post. I agree with what you are saying and I am going to take it in a different direction. And then I'll explain why I am into the alive passenger/crew/non-passenger conundrum.

There are a lot of good 911 sites like this one, LRF and others. Also independent researchers as well. Each of the named has their own particular approach and theory they are trying to express. There is some overlapping. Which is good.

What is not so good is there seems to be a conflict between these groups as to who has the right answer. Too much time wasted on no planes vs. military planes; nano thermite vs. emp vs. mini-nukes; hollow towers vs.
buildings full of employees; dead passengers vs. living passengers and so on. A lot of qualified theories but everyone is on separate but parallel tracks leading to the same hopeful conclusion.

What I propose I am sure has been thought by others. A summit meeting of all the top forum operators and independent researchers. Of course there is a financing issue to put this all on but maybe one day very soon it can happen.

The first order of business is for all these groups is to put into a pile everything they agree on. Next, in another pile will be everything there is disagreement on. For however long it takes each disagreement is decided by compromise. At the end of the summit you will now have one unified front that can stand up in court in whatever country and also the world court.

This unified front HAS to now be sold to the general public by whatever means. Why do all of the above if you can't sell it.

Maybe Rob Balsamo and others are actually planning to do this. If they are it may be without anyone knowing. Which may be the best approach. Going into the 14th year of 911, this summit has to take place. Right now too much time is being wasted rehashing the same thing over and over. This is actually counter-productive.

We pretty much know all the variables that have been and need to be solved. I hope very, very soon there is just one unified front. We don't want another JFK 60 years and counting situation.

About the hopefully living passengers. Think of it in terms of a private investigator working to find someone. Very covert to track down the living dead of 911. The witness protection program is very well set up. A tough nut to crack. I am sure right now as I type this that there are those out there worldwide doing their own tracking. Just one is all it takes. Just one slip up by a Lisa Beamer, a Alice Hogland and other so-called grieving family members brings down 911 without having to go through the manipulated court systems. I think one day soon something big will happen on this front. A gut feeling if you will. There has been excellent research on this part of 911. As there has been on other parts of 911 to include this site. And I am glad to help out in whatever way I can for however long it takes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 27 2014, 11:36 AM
Post #64





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fair enough!

Happy Turkey Day!

The courts are as complicit in the coverup as are the 2 other branches of government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Mar 19 2015, 04:22 PM
Post #65





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Oct 12 2014, 02:23 PM) *
Actually there is a third piece that doesn't fit for me that I forgot to mention.
Flt. 93.

I don't see why the perps would fake a fourth jet crash into an open field.
If someone could provide me with possible explanations that make logical sense, I'd appreciate it.



Mike, I think Flt 93 HAD to be....in order to make the case that the "terrorists" really DID intend to try to take out a target that was more realistic than financial bldgs. This idea that they wanted to hit ANYTHING but the iconic landmarks representing America, has grabbed ME from the moment I sat down to watch, ad nauseum, the constant replays of the planes hitting the WTCs. It struck me as insane, to think they would choose the targets we were TOLD they chose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 19 2015, 07:07 PM
Post #66





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (excontroller @ Mar 19 2015, 03:22 PM) *
Mike, I think Flt 93 HAD to be....in order to make the case that the "terrorists" really DID intend to try to take out a target that was more realistic than financial bldgs. This idea that they wanted to hit ANYTHING but the iconic landmarks representing America, has grabbed ME from the moment I sat down to watch, ad nauseum, the constant replays of the planes hitting the WTCs. It struck me as insane, to think they would choose the targets we were TOLD they chose.


Sorry, but what you wrote doesn't make any logical sense to me.

Financial buildings aren't realistic?
Crashing in a field shows they were going to hit a non-financial building?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 19 2015, 07:10 PM
Post #67





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Nov 24 2014, 12:49 PM) *
What I propose I am sure has been thought by others. A summit meeting of all the top forum operators and independent researchers. Of course there is a financing issue to put this all on but maybe one day very soon it can happen.

The first order of business is for all these groups is to put into a pile everything they agree on. Next, in another pile will be everything there is disagreement on. For however long it takes each disagreement is decided by compromise. At the end of the summit you will now have one unified front that can stand up in court in whatever country and also the world court.


This summit of top 'operators and independent researchers' has already begun.
Check out this website.

http://www.consensus911.org/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Mar 21 2015, 02:58 PM
Post #68





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (MikeR @ Oct 11 2014, 10:42 PM) *
Okay....maybe you CAN get past the idea that the planes
were NOT shown flying into buildings?

Nothing short of willful blindness will allow us to see a Boeing
hitting the Pentagon, nothing will let us see how the plane
could POSSIBLY have crashed.... simply because the damage
to the building, seen on pin-sharp photos in the first 54 minutes
after the Hollywood fireball, was near-absolute zero, and AA77
was cancelled according to the BTS website 9/11/01

The image purporting to be AA11 in the Naudet video is a
totally-implausible blur lacking all aeronautical relevance, anyway
Route AA11 was cancelled according to the BTS website 9/11/01.

A computer-generated-image faking a Boeing on Route UA175 looks
totally unconvincing as its CGI pixels are seen dissolving harmlessly,
with zero force and even less damage, into the pixels representing
a screen version of WTC2. No plane parts and no broken window
glass tells us all we need to know about the intentions of the
photoshop enthusiasm in High Places of secret services here and
presumably abroad too.

We grieve for those who lost their lives that day, but spare a passing
thought for the many who allegedly died but whose live photos appeared
on public, online for close examination, years after 9/11/01.
I refer to photographs taken and published AFTER the subject on the
photo was alleged to have died: too many photographers forgot
to delete exif data, and all these pictures are dated several
years after 9/11.

The 4 planes were faked: everything else presented, in connection
with the Crime of the Century, became totally incredible.

HINT for a hint of the MO behind 9/11, look to the serial genocide and
crimes against humanity being perpeTRAITORed by convicted criminals
and their accomplices in Gaza today.... IYCWIM

MikeR


Mike, I think nobody actually SAW an aircraft fly into the Pentagon. Those few stills they provided show NOTHING in the way of an aircraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Mar 22 2015, 07:18 AM
Post #69





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 19 2015, 06:07 PM) *
Sorry, but what you wrote doesn't make any logical sense to me.

Financial buildings aren't realistic?
Crashing in a field shows they were going to hit a non-financial building?


Mike, what I'm saying is, IF they HATED America, like we're constantly reminded, then WHY wouldn't they select the absolute SYMBOL of America, like either the White House or Congress? I maintain that IF this silly story WAS true, they would have. I maintain that they selected the particular targets BECAUSE of the secondary value these monoliths had. The GOLD BULLION that was stored in the basement vault of WTC could be looted, and, apparently it WAS. The value of the insurance on WTC. AND, a very important point is the loss of the Capitol OR The White House would bring into play the REAL possibility that people would begin to imagine STARTING OVER! The dissolution of the current POLUTED form of government we have allowed to develop could be brought down, in favor of something new and clean. I'm not saying that WOULD have happened, but it certainly opens the possibility, when you lose the foundation of the old. These guys, regardless of their evil, know that. THAT idea woulda scared the crap outta them. There was NO WAY they would've entertained ANY concept of destruction of those two bastions of "THE REPUBLIC". They could've stirred the people to the CORE!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 22 2015, 01:31 PM
Post #70





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (excontroller @ Mar 19 2015, 03:22 PM) *
Mike, I think Flt 93 HAD to be....in order to make the case that the "terrorists" really DID intend to try to take out a target that was more realistic than financial bldgs. This idea that they wanted to hit ANYTHING but the iconic landmarks representing America, has grabbed ME from the moment I sat down to watch,



Sorry, but crashing into a field does not "make the case that the "terrorists" really DID intend to try to take out a target that was more realistic than financial bldgs."

For all we know 'they' were trying to fly to the next most important financial building.

You are making a huge presumption; that you know what terrorists would do, what buildings they would favor to strike.

And let's not forget that the perps were not out to make the operation fit a terrorist's agenda, but rather the deep state's agenda.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 22 2015, 03:11 PM
Post #71





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (excontroller @ Mar 21 2015, 02:58 PM) *
Mike, I think nobody actually SAW an aircraft fly into the Pentagon. Those few stills they provided show NOTHING in the way of an aircraft.


I totally agree! Except for the one guy who worked there, and it sounds like it's his duty to tell the story in his own way.

Besides him, few people were even in a position from which to see the impact point, nobody saw the impact.

There was no Boeing at the Pentagon. nonono.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Mar 22 2015, 03:38 PM
Post #72





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE
Besides him, few people were even in a position from which to see the impact point, nobody saw the impact.


This lying piece of crud said he saw a plane. WUSA in DC Mike 'Shill' Walter.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Mar 22 2015, 11:23 PM
Post #73





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 22 2015, 02:11 PM) *
I totally agree! Except for the one guy who worked there, and it sounds like it's his duty to tell the story in his own way.

Besides him, few people were even in a position from which to see the impact point, nobody saw the impact.

There was no Boeing at the Pentagon. nonono.gif



That is EXACTLY what I believe, too!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Mar 22 2015, 11:30 PM
Post #74





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 22 2015, 12:31 PM) *
Sorry, but crashing into a field does not "make the case that the "terrorists" really DID intend to try to take out a target that was more realistic than financial bldgs."

For all we know 'they' were trying to fly to the next most important financial building.

You are making a huge presumption; that you know what terrorists would do, what buildings they would favor to strike.

And let's not forget that the perps were not out to make the operation fit a terrorist's agenda, but rather the deep state's agenda.


LOL! You're absolutely correct! I am ASSUMING that IF they hated America, they would select a target that would cause tremendous shock and "take the wind out of our sails". To MY THINKING, that would OBVIOUSLY mean a major SYMBOL of America, like the Capitol or The White House. If I'm a crazed terrorist, I'm NOT giving a DAMN about some financial symbol. In fact.....it is the belief of Muslims that, when they loan money (to each other), they do NOT charge interest. I only know this because I had a young Muslim man tell me that. It is absolutely against the teachings of Islam to gain over another man's need.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Mar 22 2015, 11:30 PM
Post #75





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 22 2015, 12:31 PM) *
Sorry, but crashing into a field does not "make the case that the "terrorists" really DID intend to try to take out a target that was more realistic than financial bldgs."

For all we know 'they' were trying to fly to the next most important financial building.

You are making a huge presumption; that you know what terrorists would do, what buildings they would favor to strike.

And let's not forget that the perps were not out to make the operation fit a terrorist's agenda, but rather the deep state's agenda.


LOL! You're absolutely correct! I am ASSUMING that IF they hated America, they would select a target that would cause tremendous shock and "take the wind out of our sails". To MY THINKING, that would OBVIOUSLY mean a major SYMBOL of America, like the Capitol or The White House. If I'm a crazed terrorist, I'm NOT giving a DAMN about some financial symbol. In fact.....it is the belief of Muslims that, when they loan money (to each other), they do NOT charge interest. I only know this because I had a young Muslim man tell me that. It is absolutely against the teachings of Islam to gain over another man's need.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2019 - 10:39 PM