Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Was There An Actual Hijacking Of Ua93?
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Flight Number > United 93
paulmichael
You may have taken notice that I tend to not group flight UA93 in with the other three 9/11 flights.

As you may well know, the story of flight 93 differs from the rest (per the official government line) inasmuch as it did not strike any target.

I believe that it is a definite possibility that there was an actual hijacking of flight 93 (made possible by a lot of accommodation and assistance from the government and possibly by UA, itself) so as to make the other three flights appear to be cases of genuine hijackings.

Rather than have the hijackers wimp out and return control of UA93's plane to the pilots having failed to go on to dive bomb and crash into a target (I heard that the hijackers made an announcement to the passengers that they were returning to the airport), the powers-that-be decided that it would behoove them to liquidate that flight 93.

Just an idea... just a possibility.

Aside from what I just wrote, I feel that UA93 poses more of a mystery than the other three flights.

P.M.
bmead
QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 26 2014, 11:49 AM) *
You may have taken notice that I tend to not group flight UA93 in with the other three 9/11 flights.

As you may well know, the story of flight 93 differs from the rest (per the official government line) inasmuch as it did not strike any target.

I believe that it is a definite possibility that there was an actual hijacking of flight 93 (made possible by a lot of accommodation and assistance from the government and possibly by UA, itself) so as to make the other three flights appear to be cases of genuine hijackings.

Rather than have the hijackers wimp out and return control of UA93's plane to the pilots having failed to go on to dive bomb and crash into a target (I heard that the hijackers made an announcement to the passengers that they were returning to the airport), the powers-that-be decided that it would behoove them to liquidate that flight 93.

Just an idea... just a possibility.

Aside from what I just wrote, I feel that UA93 poses more of a mystery than the other three flights.

P.M.



They also said this in AA11 in fact on AA11 it was a b.houck i think who said they had heara threat like "return or i kill you"

Personally i think if we look at the radio announcements, it was designed to be confusion and implication, there was never a need to say "sit down be quiet" or "we have some planes" this was unnecessary. I think the only use they served is a extra proof the hijackings were linked not independent. And all flights were remote controlled, the passengers and crew being informed a hijack scenario would be played out as they went, as part of a security exercise. As such all went well until the planes did not respond, then one plane-93 somehow deviate from the course piloted, the controllers realise that they are possibly losing control. There are two options, let the plane land/crash land and some survivors walk away saying, hijackers? no, it was an exercise we were told. Or shoot it to oblivion
paulmichael
QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 26 2014, 08:12 AM) *
They also said this in AA11 in fact on AA11 it was a b.houck i think who said they had heara threat like "return or i kill you"

Personally i think if we look at the radio announcements, it was designed to be confusion and implication, there was never a need to say "sit down be quiet" or "we have some planes" this was unnecessary. I think the only use they served is a extra proof the hijackings were linked not independent. And all flights were remote controlled, the passengers and crew being informed a hijack scenario would be played out as they went, as part of a security exercise. As such all went well until the planes did not respond, then one plane-93 somehow deviate from the course piloted, the controllers realise that they are possibly losing control. There are two options, let the plane land/crash land and some survivors walk away saying, hijackers? no, it was an exercise we were told. Or shoot it to oblivion


What you have presented is definitely plausible and has great merit, I must admit.

However, as stated in another recent post of mine, I have much reason to believe that the crew and passenger rosters for at least flights AA11, AA77, and UA175 were for the most part fictitious if not entirely fictitious, and, so, I believe those three flights (that is, the "original versions") were fictitious as well.

For weeks, after T.V. reverted to normal broadcasting after non-stop coverage of 9/11, Oprah dedicated each and every daily show to the subject of 9/11.

Fairly early on, Oprah had as guests several people purporting to have been on the ground and to have received inflight calls from relatives aboard UA93. For weeks and weeks, Oprah had no one who purported to have received inflight calls from any of the other flights until she had a non-credible person who attested to having received such a call.

Maybe, those telephone calls from UA93 were genuine (except, maybe the "let's roll" call). Maybe the hijacking of UA93 was genuine, and if it was...

This begs the question: how did the hijackers pull off gaining control of the plane with just box cutters? Did someone slip a gun or a body bomb to them? Did someone plant something in the trash pail of the plane's lavatory? Was it someone disguised as a cabin cleaner, a baggage handler, a jetway operator, or a caterer pushing a food and beverage cart on board? Could it have been a mechanic in the maintenance department who planted something on board? Or maybe it was someone in even greater "plain sight" like a security office who conducted some kind of pre-flight walk-through of the cabin unchallenged.

You know, the 9/11 Commission was supposed to investigate the government's failings regarding 9/11. The first thing that should have come into the Commissioners' minds was the possibility that the "hijackings" were facilitated by more than mere box cutters, and they should have interviewed EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY who had anything to do with the 9/11 flights especially security screeners. But, if at least three of those flights were fictitious, then, of course, there would be no one to interrogate who were involved with those "flights." AND THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD NOT WANT TO LOOK INCONSISTENT BY PURSUING THE MATTER FURTHER WITH FLIGHT 93.

P.M.
Albemarle
I think the most plausible explanation of 93 is it was intended to strike WTC7. Because it was delayed, it was not allowed to hit its intended target. You have to account for the fact that WTC7 was wired for demolition. What was the planned explanation for the collapse of WTC7, if not a jet impact?
nonflier
My opinion for what it is worth (0-2cents) is still the same as the day it happened. And that is that the Capitol building was the most likely target. That would help convince Congress to support the war. WTC7 was not noteworthy to most people in the USA. Yes it may have held some secrets that they wanted to destroy but I think they figured the towers coming down gave them enough cover for a CD of 7 also. If you were paying attention to the live coverage that day, it was obvious that they were going to CD it even before it came down so nice and pretty. After all, they did get away with it even though no plane hit it.
bmead
My confusion remains due to the calls, not that they were, but what was said. Did you know guns were reported on 11,175,and 93. So why say that in a fake call? Did those people exist? Yes. It is not impossible to create lies of lives but it certainly expands the difficulty. My current hypothesis is these calls were real according to scripts. We know hijack scenarios were happening and in fact the noraad tapes have a segment around the FIRST problem where one of them says "i never saw so much real world stuff during an exercise" except, only 1 plane has been told to noraad. So much stuff does not apply to a single plane. Anyway, they also do say IS this real world or not. If the war games were of a attack from say russia, a plane hijack is not likely to be confused as part of the scenario.

Who else was on other planes as a coordinator? Lewin was a dab hand at hijack scenarios and may have been controlling the scenario on AALL AND oNG/Sweeney are so calm and calling in because they have no real fear. The planes have similar scripts. Designed by the plotters to incriminate the patsies but to Lewin and each planes coordinator aboard, to look like a scenario to play. Only at the return to airport stage do they realise they cannot, things are going wrong (aa11's return or i kill you! comment may have been Lewin thinking the pilots were in on this and taking them somewhere for something nefarious) But they cannot. Now communications are cut. Sweeney / Ong calls are hijacked and looped from the start (plausible from Ongs) not checked sweeneys yet.
And then the planes crash.

93 as far as i know was the one that lost radar lock, where did it go? was there people of importance on board that were wanted kidnapped? I havent done a passenger check yet so i dont know, i do think that it was excessive risk to fake victims. But i am early in my research so i can't say i unequivocally think x y z is the case
poppyburner
'With the help of a flight attendant sitting next to him, [Todd] Beamer details the numbers of
passengers and crew on the plane. He says the hijackers have divided the passengers into two
groups, with ten of them in first class at the front of the plane, and 27 in the back.
...
A curtain has been closed separating first class from the coach section of the plane.'


~ http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...=lisa_jefferson


'When terrorists took over their plane, Linda [Gronlund] called her sister to express her love,
give her the combination to her safe and say good-bye.'


~ http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/linda-gronlund.htm

'...FBI Agent [REDACTED] had come to [Elsa] STRONG's house and taken the cassette tape from her answering machine because GRONLUND had left a message...that the plane she was on was being hijacked.'

~ http://www.911myths.com/images/5/5f/Team7_...osephDeLuca.pdf

Imo, Gronlund was surely among the handpicked '27' mostly meek passengers aboard the airborne plane.



These however, were probably among the 'ten' back at EWR:

'The entire call lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Lyzbeth [Glick] could not hear
any unusual sounds in the background of the call and the connection was extremely clear, "as if
he [husband Jeremy Glick] was calling from the next room
."

~ http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Team7_...ocs-Packet4.pdf



'[GTE Airfone customer service Representative/Verizone Airfone supervisor Lisa] JEFFERSON noted
that the [Todd Beamer] call had an unusually low amount of background noise.'


~ http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-F...a-jefferson.pdf



'Jack Grandcolas later says, “She sounded calm.” He describes, “There is absolutely no background
noise on her message
. You can’t hear people screaming or yelling or crying. It’s very calm, the
whole cabin, the background, there’s really very little sound.”'


~ http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...k_grandcolas__1

bmead
Yeah thanks Poppy that seems to be a theme common through all the phone calls on any of the flights. No screaming, no static (except on AA11 at one point it sounds like a mute button has been pressed or an interjection on the line-Ong call around the what seat are you in questioning)
But no call i have yet heard even has a tremble in their voice, they all seem quite blasè. like a boring weather report is being discussed.

Only at the end. On AA11 as we are told (no tape) did Sweeney become hysterical and scream and Ong said Oh my god oh my god and was cut off.
Except Ong was severed i believe appx 50 s BEFORE impact.

But what's to scream about, the seats where they are are not going to be showing them aiming for anything different to what they could moments before, by the time they can potentially see anything, they will be embedded in the tower anyway.
poppyburner
QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 27 2014, 05:16 PM) *
Only at the end. On AA11 as we are told (no tape) did Sweeney become hysterical and scream...


I must point out, that this oft reported claim is disputed:

'Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep
breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic."

Those were the last words Woodward heard.'


~ http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132095&page=2
paulmichael
QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 27 2014, 12:16 PM) *
But no call i have yet heard even has a tremble in their voice, they all seem quite blasè. like a boring weather report is being discussed.


I have heard such characterization of the alleged 9/11 inflight calls on a number of occasions.

Such characterizations bolster my supposition that "audio avatars" were used to create those calls. See my prior post in the Alternative Theories subforum entitled: Did The Tapping Of All Phone Calls Include Harvesting Of Voice Samples..., for impersonation of 9/11 inflight phone calls?"

P.M.
paulmichael
QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 27 2014, 07:07 AM) *


poppyburner, here you have one of the several photos that you have posted.

I make no claim that this photo has been falsified in any way. Ditto for the other photos in your prior reply.

What I will say is that for each of most, if not all, photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, a photo of person A could have been halfway morphed to a photo of person B, then a photo of person C could have been halfway morphed to a photo of person D, then those two halfway morphings could have been halfway morphed together to create the final photo of an alleged "hijacker." The process could have been repeated with pictures of real people E, F, G through person Z and beyond to come up with the remaining photos of the other alleged "hijackers."

WHO KNOWS WHAT PHOTOS ARE GENUINE? Who knows what photos are not?

There are lots of bogus photos on the net that are the products of Photoshop and other image manipulation software.

P.M.
bmead
QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 28 2014, 02:26 AM) *
I must point out, that this oft reported claim is disputed:

'Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep
breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic."

Those were the last words Woodward heard.'


~ http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132095&page=2



I took that off a interview by fbi of someone, i will find again but of course i guess we should be looking to woodward as the official version on that
So if the interview was not him i suppose it doesn't hold as much water.

Ill post it up if i find it again.
poppyburner
paulmichael,

The photo portraits in my earlier post, are not of the alleged hijackers, but the Airfone
distress-calling victims, who were booked for UAL 93.

There's no way that the pathetic framing of alleged Flight 93 hijacker-pilot Ziad Jarrah,
in this unsubstantiated propaganda video, is a CGI.

Nor his silent, so-named "martyrdom video"; featuring the equally innocent Mohamed Atta.
paulmichael
QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 28 2014, 11:37 AM) *
paulmichael,

The photo portraits in my earlier post, are not of the alleged hijackers, but the Airfone
distress-calling victims, who were booked for UAL 93.


poppyburner, please go back to the post of mine on which you are commenting, and review it carefully.

I never indicated that the photos in question (meaning the ones in your earlier post) were of hijackers.

I did, in another thread in another forum, posit that the crew and passenger lists for the 9/11 "flights" may have been falsified in whole or in part.

QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 28 2014, 11:37 AM) *
There's no way that the pathetic framing of alleged Flight 93 hijacker-pilot Ziad Jarrah,
in this unsubstantiated propaganda video, is a CGI.

Nor his silent, so-named "martyrdom video"; featuring the equally innocent Mohamed Atta.


Again, go back to my reply above and you will see that I stated "MOST, IF NOT ALL photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers..."

I hope that this clarifies things.

P.M.
realitycheck77
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.
paulmichael
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 06:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.


Hmmm, would you recommend the renaming of this website to PilotsReferringEveryoneToTheGovernmentForTruth.org?

P.M.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 06:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.



Realitycheck you should post here more often so we could get a good handle on where your head is at and where you are coming from.

You don't think the planes crashing into the towers had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that they had previously been wired for destruction and were waiting for the excuse of a planes and fires taking them down?
poppyburner
QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 28 2014, 05:03 PM) *
I never indicated that the photos in question (meaning the ones in your earlier post) were of hijackers.


'poppyburner, here you[sic] have one of the several photos that you have posted.
...
What I will say is that for each of most, if not all, photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers...'


What was I thinking? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Again, go back to my reply above and you will see that I stated "MOST, IF NOT ALL photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers..."


Yes; I'm saying: not all.
poppyburner
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 11:12 PM) *
...finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.


Are you investigating, or do we have to present you with one?

paulmichael
QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 29 2014, 01:07 AM) *
'poppyburner, here you[sic] have one of the several photos that you have posted.
...
What I will say is that for each of most, if not all, photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers...'


What was I thinking? rolleyes.gif



Yes; I'm saying: not all.


OK, while I still maintain that there was no indication in my reply post #11 that the photos that you posted were of hijackers, I will admit that the overall presentation of my reply #11 could have been better to prevent any misinterpretation.

P.M.
tumetuestumefaisdubien
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 12:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.

A claim there a B757 crashed (because an arab hijacker pilot steered it into the ground when he "realised the passengers were about to overwhelm" him) at the infamous site east of Shanksville, leaving only a relatively small ~30ft crater with two "wing markings" spanning barely half the B757 wingspan, virtually no wreckage and causing no major fires - although there must have been dozens of thousands lb jetfuel on board according to the gross weight record in the alleged FDR is one of the most implausible conspiracy theories I've ever seen.
It is so implausible also because we positively know from the officially released radar data and from multiple wittness accouints, that there was another, likely small aircraft which disappeared from the radar at the very same place where the alleged "UA93" crashed - see here.

But back to the topic and this thread question:
I would think that if the UAL93/N591UA B757-222 plane didn't crash at the infamous site east of Shanksville - which looks to me very likely from the complex of available evidence (- and on the other hand there is in fact no known plausible hard evidence linking the UAL93/N591UA - which according to the very official BTS record took off at 8:28 - ~14 minutes before the plane which allegedly crashed - to the plane allegedly crashing at the infamous site east of Shanksville) - it was indeed hijacked - but not by the Jarrah et al, but by the US government, meaning - what is known for decades - it is a terrorist entity which is notabene positively known that its military branch planned similar staged terrorist attacks to get war pretext already in 1962 and which was - according to revelation by Italian president and prime minister and results of decades long investigation also extremely likely involved in the most extensive multiplestate-sponsored terrorist operation in history - the Operation Gladio. So to me seems plausible to postulate it was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that the "UA93" - if it ever existed - was indeed hijacked in any case.
bmead
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 11:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.



If the most plausible answer is based on what we have by way of evidence. Occams razor says Satam al Suqamis passport was a plant


The hijackers should not all have got in the country
The hijackers should never have all made it onto the planes
The ones who were not on watch lists or expired visas should have had their weapons found
Daniel Lewin should have taken out Atta and Al Omari with Chris. Mello tackling Suqami and the two then using force to take on and defeat the Al Shehris

The planes should like with tests conducted on concrete-Burst into dust rather than slice through steel like a hot knife through butter
The FBI should have employed translators who spoke the language they were translating
The investigative bodies would release their proofs

And of course the most OBVIOUS is, if the terrorist group who denied it and denied it and denied it, and planned this brilliant tactical strike. Wouldn't leave video tapes everywhere, tapes that by chance survive army attacks on the locations and are the main thing left there by sloppy (but geniusly clever) terrorists, then despite the new proof, the terrorists still need torture of mind and body to be made to admit to it.
In the case of Khalid Sheik M. He admits also to TWA 800 yet NTSB say no no he lied

And the evidence says the black boxes WERE recovered
The evidence says Atta asked if his bags were definitely on AA11 indicating he wanted them on (or wanted attention drawn to them) if he wanted them on-to be destroyed- why wasn't he wearing his "death suit" and if he wanted them noticed, it could only be so al qaeda would be blamed, if thats because IT WAS al qaeda, why not admit it?


So- whatever way you look at it, the evidence as it is, says NOT a simple terrorist op. The delving into the lies and omissions says, HELL NO WAY!!!!!1
Conclusion up,down or left or right, don't matter-The Government version is full of more holes than a bullet riddled corpse
paulmichael
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 06:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.


realitycheck77, do you realize what you are saying?

What you are calling the only plausible 9/11 scenario just happens to be the only one, that I know of, that defies the laws of physics, this not to mention, defying aviation science, aircraft engineering, the art and science of architecture, the art and science of demolitions, and — you want to know — downright common sense.

Downright common sense, at minimum, would raise questions as to why there were so many irregularities from a proper law enforcement perspective, for example and in a nutshell, the lack of anything that vaguely resembled a by-the-book investigation of all things 9/11, this lack also pertaining to the whitewash known as the 9/11 Commission.

But thank you, realitycheck77, for affording me an opportunity to respond in this manner.

P.M.
amazed!
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 07:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.



I don't find it plausible, for a number of reasons.

No Boeing at Shanksville is one, no Boeing at Pentagon is another, flimsy to NO proof that any airliners were hijacked that day. Cell phone calls as presented were impossible.
realitycheck77
QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 29 2014, 01:32 AM) *
Are you investigating, or do we have to present you with one?




When is the result of your investigation going to be produced? It has been 12 years. I hope though that the conclusions you come to will be plausible ones , or rather the most plausible ones given the evidence. Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence -by declaring it false or faked - are conclusions based on ignoring evidence.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Feb 1 2014, 12:06 PM) *
Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence -by declaring it false or faked - are conclusions based on ignoring evidence.



"Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence... are conclusions based on ignoring evidence."

Now that is a brilliant statement! smile.gif


Can you please provide us any solid evidence that there were hijackers in any of the planes?
realitycheck77
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 29 2014, 01:03 AM) *
Realitycheck you should post here more often so we could get a good handle on where your head is at and where you are coming from.

You don't think the planes crashing into the towers had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that they had previously been wired for destruction and were waiting for the excuse of a planes and fires taking them down?



I don't think the towers were previously wired for destruction because if they had been wired with explosives, the structural steel would have been cut by the explosives. Hundreds and hundreds or structural steel columns with angled cuts at each end. I haven't seen any evidence of it at all. It would have to have been there for everyone to see and photograph afterwards. Anyone who contemplated doing it would know it would be there for everyone to see , firefighters , rescue workers ,any of the hundreds of people working on the site for months. A&E for 911 truth say there there wasn't evidence of the steel being cut. What did the explosives do to the steel supports columns of the buildings to make them collapse? Were they just frightened into collapsing?
So I don't think the planes crashing into the towers had anything to do with the fact that the towers didn't have any explosives in them.
realitycheck77
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 12:43 AM) *
"Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence... are conclusions based on ignoring evidence."

Now that is a brilliant statement! smile.gif


Can you please provide us any solid evidence that there were hijackers in any of the planes?



What form would the evidence take? If a plane was hijacked and the hijackers took over the controls and crashed the plane what would the evidence be that it was hijacked?
amazed!
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Feb 3 2014, 07:38 AM) *
What form would the evidence take? If a plane was hijacked and the hijackers took over the controls and crashed the plane what would the evidence be that it was hijacked?



One would think that AT LEAST the passengers who did the hijacking would have been included on the flight manifest.

For some "mysterious" reason, these names were not included therein.
realitycheck77
QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 3 2014, 09:30 AM) *
One would think that AT LEAST the passengers who did the hijacking would have been included on the flight manifest.

For some "mysterious" reason, these names were not included therein.



Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!
onesliceshort
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 29 2014, 12:12 AM) *
I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.


Definition of "plausible"

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

I find the OCT the least credible, acceptable or valid. If you gratuitously swallow what you've been fed by the media and the den of liars and warmongering whores that manage them, then yes, I could see how some people would see this scenario as "acceptable". Especially when they are content with only the word of the "powers that be".

QUOTE
they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them


That's a bit oversimplified, isn't it? Put some meat on the bones there Realitycheck77.

Edit: Sorry for going OT. Maybe Realitycheck77 would like to open a thread himself in the debate section and list the evidence that supports his claims?
Art
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Feb 3 2014, 01:44 PM) *
Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!

If the hijackers were on the planes, why are there no pictures of them boarding the planes from the security cameras?
poppyburner
QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 28 2014, 12:02 PM) *
I took that off a interview by fbi of someone, i will find again but of course i guess we should be looking to woodward as the official version on that
So if the interview was not him i suppose it doesn't hold as much water.

Ill post it up if i find it again.


Just found this audio from Woodward's colleague at the time:

"She[Sweeney] started screaming and saying something's wrong and now he's[Woodward's] having trouble. And he thinks he might be disconnected."

9/11 The Lost Tapes full documentary - September 11 2001 NEADS NORAD FAA TAPES
@ 16:09
bmead
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Feb 3 2014, 05:44 PM) *
Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!



So if we have not seen the flight manifests then have you?

So you want evidence- Well provide evidence of building 7-you know the one NIST admitted freefall only when real science refused to be quiet and proved it. Then they said yeah but only 2,25s, even which requires still zero resistance, ie NOTHING underneath what happened then, 1 column went and bashed out a whol clump of the building?

Or, explain maybe how Atta car was found only because after the towers got hit, a man who had an argument with a man that could be on any flight in the world, realised he was arguing with a man that didn't want attention brought to himself, so much so he had driven to a different airport so that logan would not see so many middle eastern men arriving all at once, despite that it would show up anyway, and despite that Atta could never have known what other M/E men may be travelling. But you want the flimsy evidence to be the option you take?

Ok well build that case on unlikely, unrealistic, improbable, and coincidence.
Sounds like solid reasoning

Oh and whilst your at it, i assume in future you agree that in homicide investigations, coroners need only examine a finger nail now, no matter what any audio/visual evidence implies.
Since NIST examined LESS than 0.5% of the available evidence, and actively chose specific parts rather than having an independent series of test conducted on tons of material they chose themsleves what they wanted and ignored the rest.

So as of now if the rest of the world s law enforcement does this with a crime scene, you will be okay if your family get convicted as terrorists and sentenced to death on that same % of evidence yes?
bmead
QUOTE (poppyburner @ Feb 5 2014, 04:35 AM) *
Just found this audio from Woodward's colleague at the time:

"She[Sweeney] started screaming and saying something's wrong and now he's[Woodward's] having trouble. And he thinks he might be disconnected."

9/11 The Lost Tapes full documentary - September 11 2001 NEADS NORAD FAA TAPES
@ 16:09



Thank You Poppy
amazed!
QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Feb 3 2014, 01:44 PM) *
Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!


Have I held the originals in my own hands? No.

Have I seen transcripts and copies of them in the media and on the internet? Yes.

The ones first presented did not contain the names of the supposed hijackers.

After that error was pointed out, subsequent copies included the names of the supposed hijackers.
paulmichael
QUOTE (Albemarle @ Jan 26 2014, 12:12 PM) *
I think the most plausible explanation of 93 is it was intended to strike WTC7. Because it was delayed, it was not allowed to hit its intended target. You have to account for the fact that WTC7 was wired for demolition. What was the planned explanation for the collapse of WTC7, if not a jet impact?


Albemarie:

The more that I think about it, the more that I like your take on things better than mine as expressed in the original post here.

I'd like to add — don't you think it odd that when there is a residential fire, the homeowner has no say about what happens to his property once the government takes over, that is, the fire and police departments, yet. of WTC7, Larry Silverstein got to proclaim: "Pull it"?

P.M.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.