IPB




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Asking For Some Clarification..., What is and is not likely...

beatles64
post Jan 29 2008, 04:37 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



I am posting this in hope that other users can help me put the multiple theories surronding the airplanes into a more clear perspective. I guess the best way for me to do this is to first admit that I dont know too much about what would or would not have been possible with the aircrafts (i.e. could they have been remotely flown, could they be different aircrafts, missle at the pentagon, etc...)

I am doing this at the risk of being labeled a nut, but I am hoping someone can help clear this up with some detail, since there are so many competing theories that seem to have supportive evidence.

I guess to start I would like to ask if anyone can clarify some of the info found on youtube suggesting that there were descrepencies in the airplane speeds, sizes, and approaches as they hit the South Tower...can anyone provide more supportive evidence that these were not the planes stated? Or is it just a matter of perspective, quality, etc...

Again most of this is outside of my knowledge, and any help is greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 29 2008, 06:39 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Almost don't know where to begin, Beatles.

Everything about the official story is suspect, and has been from the beginning.

The Kean Commission was a coverup, and it ignored more evidence than it considered. A fine example of that is the testimony of Willie Rodriguez which was taken behind closed doors and not included in the final report. It's job was to protect the guilty and provide smoke and mirrors for the media to manipulate.

The USAF has been flying aircraft by remote control for at least 40 years and have become quite good at it.

There is no evidence that there were Boeings at either Shanksville PA, or at the Pentagon. Pilots For Truth analyzed Flight Data Recorders provided by the government, and each analysis contradicts the official version.

Architects & Engineers for Truth did an elaborate study of all the available evidence, that which was not thrown away by the government, and came to the conclusion that the 3 buildings at WTC were brought down by controlled demolition.

It was an inside job, is all that's certain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Jan 29 2008, 07:31 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



Thanks amazed!...I am quite familiar with the many flaws in the 9/11 story, and have been researching almost daily since I first saw Loose Change (the first 9/11 film I was aware of) about 2 years ago.

With the airplanes, I guess what I am asking would be this:

Has the possibility of remote controlled airplanes been completely ruled out or verified
(by this I mean do the professionals here KNOW through their research they were
remote, or is still 'highly suspect' at this point?)

I have similar questions with the damage to the buildings:

Why such a large hole in the first tower, but smaller in the second and Pentagon?
Is this just due to the approach patterns of each or is there another explanation?


I know a lot of this might seem like a repeat, but I am new to this and did try to find some of these answers before posting but was for the most part unsuccessful.

Again, I appreciate all the help and any responses that come, Thank You.

This post has been edited by beatles64: Jan 29 2008, 07:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 29 2008, 09:03 PM
Post #4


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



@ beatles64,

First of all, welcome to our forum.

Beyond that, I'm going to suggest that you be willing to entertain a level of uncertainty that many find difficult to bear. Everyone wants to know the facts and details of what happened but the simple and damning fact is there is far more that we do not and, perhaps, can not know than we do know for a certainty.

Consider, for example, that in each instance where we've been told a commercial airliner crashed on 9/11, the identities of those craft have NOT been positively verified. The government assumes that it knows which flights crashed where but has provided almost zero public evidence to verify these assertions. Imagine an instance where there has been a murder and the murder weapon is missing -- destroyed in the commission of the crime in such a way that its precise ownership and identity can not be determined. This makes it very difficult for an investigator and prosecutor to press a case. Now imagine that happening four times in one day. Now imagine that in each instance the "murder weapon" is alleged to be a commercial airliner.

That is what we have on 9/11 -- four aircraft that can not be positively identified used as murder weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

Why can't even ONE of these aircraft be positively identified? Well, THAT is a most interesting question. The basic (non)answer is because either no engine or other aircraft part survived with identifiable catalog numbers on them AND the government refuses Freedom of Information Act Requests for what numbers they may, in fact, have.

It is very difficult to get information that isn't suspect regarding 9/11. The identities of the aircraft is suspect. What is not suspect is that the government is refusing to positively identify those craft.

This is just one example of the problems a rational and intelligent person faces attempting to get definite answers to questions related to 9/11. There is a cover-up -- and it is a cover-up that is ongoing to this day. The cover-up includes a lot of misinformation and disinformation that has been put into the public domain to "bury the bone deeper" (so to speak). The research Pilots for Truth has done makes clear, for example, that the Flight Data Recorders have been tampered with -- and, even so, do not validate the government's own hypothesis of what happened.

It is a conundrum -- and it is a counter-intelligence operation. No one is supposed to know the truth. You are supposed to either believe what you're told by the government officials OR, if you want to dig for yourself, you have to endure the slings and arrows of conflicting data and misinformation. Or, as I am suggesting, be willing to endure a level of uncertainty many find difficult.

It boils down to this: There is much we do not know and can not know absent a genuine, non-partisan and transparent investigation with the power to subpoena, put officials under oath and cross-examine. That we have not had anything close to such an investigation is the biggest clue there is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Jan 29 2008, 09:14 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



Thanks a lot for that Painter...helps to put things in perspective sometimes when you hear someone else's words

I suppose leaving this post open for reply would end in repeating our thoughts for all to hear, but then again brainstorming is certainly not going to hurt.

I guess what I am saying is this could probably be closed if needed, since it is apparent that most conclusive information about 9/11 is currently sealed from the general public.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 29 2008, 09:48 PM
Post #6


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (beatles64 @ Jan 29 2008, 05:14 PM)
<s>
I guess what I am saying is this could probably be closed if needed
<s>

No need at all.

Lets see if others have anything to say.

Never be surprised if you find different people expressing differing opinions -- especially in this place. LoL. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 29 2008, 10:05 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Once again... Welcome to the forums Beatles...!

Now you know why i replied the way i did via PM...

We have some wise people here on this forum... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Jan 30 2008, 06:33 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



Wise people indeed...I am beginning to fall in love with this place..a great GREAT source of information that is always open to discussion..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 30 2008, 04:42 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (beatles64 @ Jan 29 2008, 04:31 PM)
Has the possibility of remote controlled airplanes been completely ruled out or verified (by this I mean do the professionals here KNOW through their research they were remote, or is still 'highly suspect' at this point?)

Hi Beatles,

I did some research on the remote aircraft question and put together the following resources.

The technology to control aircraft remotely is VERY real, and has been used in rudimentary or not-so-rudimentary forms since August 1944. This could be considered a "history of the UAV" if you will. I saw an Associated Press article a while back about over 500,000 UAV flight hours during 2007, and I don't remember hearing of many accidents or shootdowns.

Remote B-720 "controlled crash" at Edwards AFB on 1 Dec 1984
Controlled Impact Demonstration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/index.html

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1988000639.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1989006539.pdf

See any of the following US military designations: MQ, RQ, Q, BQ, MB, Drone, Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), UAV, UCAV

Here are some related patents (all after 9/11/2001, but Research and Development is not an overnight thing)
http://www.pat2pdf.org/

US Patents
6995688
6845302
7193520
20030052798
7142971

Boeing BQ-7 Aphrodite- approved 26 Jun 1944, first flown on 4 Aug 1944, a "radio controlled assault drone... to be flown from Great Britain against very hardened and/or heavily defended German targets...."
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/bq-7.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_14.html
[now what famous Manhattan and Pentagon air "crashes" does this remind you of- Operation Northwoods was actually a little behind the times, I'd say...]

unmanned Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
http://www.uswarplanes.net/b17.html
QB-17L, QB-17N, MB-17G
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeing/qb-17n.htm

MB-17G (only one exists #44-83624, I believe)
http://www.amcmuseum.org/Collections/Aircr...ingFortress.htm
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/presbrcp.htm

QB-17G, Q-7 drone- first made in May 1946
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/q-7.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_24.html

Boeing QB-17G- 15 May 1953
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1953.htm

QB-47 Stratojet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-47_Stratojet#QB-47
MB-47B, QB-47
http://www.aerofiles.com/_boe.html

DASH- unmanned QH-50A helicopter flight on 12 Aug 1960
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/dash_history.htm

QH-50A
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/qh-50a_models1.htm

QH-50C
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/qh-50c1.htm

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...fc8ba45&k=33368

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001308.html

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001094.html

Boeing UCAV- 27 Sep 2000
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/n...ase_000927n.htm

http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/X-45/timeline.htm

RAFT
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_rec/procee...hors/levine.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/...r-hijacked.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-d.html

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/locator/t...f/1924-/b/q.htm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ible/article.do

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/control.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uav.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../an-tsq-198.htm

This post has been edited by dMole: Jan 30 2008, 04:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Jan 30 2008, 09:59 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



Wow....a LOT of information there, thanks a lot.


This is what starts to scare me more and more about the official story of 9/11...the massive body of evidence assembled by the various 9/11 truth groups becomes much like a slippery slope, and still so few are taking notice, when it seems a lot of aspects not only don't add up, they can be completely dis-proven, or in this case, completely countered to where it becomes a real, logical possibility.


Thanks again for all the info.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 30 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



So few are taking notice for a variety of reasons.

The biggest reason is that there is a magnificent coverup on the part of the government and the media.

The next biggest reason, IMO, is the inherent defense mechanisms in the human psyche. People simply do not want to face the fact that their government has attacked them. Some people can handle it, and some people simply cannot.

Cognitive dissonance, is what the shrinks call it. Wilful ignorance, the attorneys call it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Jan 31 2008, 03:24 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



I agree most people seem to be aware, but many choose not to act or not to let it become a large scale concern for them.


I am still curious about the impact damages. I am not sure if a pilot could answer this, but I would like to try to leave that open to discussion. The large hole in the NT, versus smaller in the ST and Pentagon.

I can understand the difference easier in the two towers because of the videos showing the airplanes impacting in different ways, but still have a hard time with the pentagon....do any of the pilots believe this is conclusive of what did or did not hit the towers/pentagon?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 1 2008, 11:41 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



With all due respect Beatles, perhaps you are focusing too much on the tree and neglecting to look at the whole forest?

Who cares how big the holes are? The whole thing is a lie, pardon the pun. laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Feb 2 2008, 04:13 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



i do see your point, and the pun is quite clever actually...unfortunately I don't have one of my own to follow sad.gif

This post has been edited by beatles64: Feb 2 2008, 04:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 27 2008, 12:52 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Lest we forget- those unmanned NASA and USSR space flights of the 1950s and 1960s would have needed what kind of technology exactly?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Jun 4 2008, 01:36 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



I am unfamiliar with these flights...can you provide a link?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 4 2008, 02:32 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi Beatles,

There have been dozens, rather hundreds of unmanned spaceflight launches.

Wiki sorts them by year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight#H..._of_spaceflight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_exploration

Russian/USSR launches:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/chronology_XX.html

See also the Wiki timeline, starting in 1957.

I wouldn't exactly rule out the possibility of "classified" and military launches that don't often get listed either... whistle.gif

EDIT: Wow, who dropped all those paperclips?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jun 4 2008, 02:37 PM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ May 25 2008, 03:52 AM) *
Lest we forget- those unmanned NASA and USSR space flights of the 1950s and 1960s would have needed what kind of technology exactly?

A very large gun, a shell and masses of gun cotton IIRC.

Oh! And a gun club to organise it. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jun 4 2008, 02:40 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Jun 2 2008, 05:32 PM) *
EDIT: Wow, who dropped all those paperclips?

Werner von somebody or other. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anduril
post Aug 21 2008, 03:28 AM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 118
Joined: 24-May 08
From: Bristol, England
Member No.: 3,418



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 29 2008, 11:39 PM) *
Almost don't know where to begin, Beatles.

Everything about the official story is suspect, and has been from the beginning.

The Kean Commission was a coverup, and it ignored more evidence than it considered. A fine example of that is the testimony of Willie Rodriguez which was taken behind closed doors and not included in the final report. It's job was to protect the guilty and provide smoke and mirrors for the media to manipulate.

The USAF has been flying aircraft by remote control for at least 40 years and have become quite good at it.

There is no evidence that there were Boeings at either Shanksville PA, or at the Pentagon. Pilots For Truth analyzed Flight Data Recorders provided by the government, and each analysis contradicts the official version.

Architects & Engineers for Truth did an elaborate study of all the available evidence, that which was not thrown away by the government, and came to the conclusion that the 3 buildings at WTC were brought down by controlled demolition.

It was an inside job, is all that's certain.



A word of caution regarding what you see on the TV, and other government propaganda...

http://www.garry.tv/?p=623

Amazing, eh?

Anduril
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 24th July 2014 - 08:59 AM