VIDEO.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY

Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press, witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

A lot of effort should now go into finding out who these passenger victims really are. It should not be difficult to find out about these people. Half the hijackers are alive, there is no reason not to suspect a similar situation for the 'passengers'.

CNN 9/11 Victim Mini-Site:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade...75.victims.html

Legacy 9/11 Victims:
http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/Home.aspx

Pi

This was done years ago. see team8plus.org............

Jeff Petersen was a British guy. He was 23. He was aboard flight 77 going to visit his cousin. He was 6 feet tall, brown hair and blue eyes.


There, I just made a person up. Do you think its hard for the criminals to do that? keep in mind all the technology they possess, they could even create faces and create lives and fake evidence proving their existense. Will we ever know what happened? If enough of us do someting about it then hell yeah we will!!!

So there were no passengers on any of the planes?

Now I think I've just about heard everything.

Talk about idiotic.

Where were these witnesses? What were their physical locations in relation to the Towers at the time of each strike? Because distance and angle can have a major effect on how much a person can actually see. Bear in mind, we're talking about aircraft moving at well over 500 miles per hour and approaching with very little warning to the witnesses below.

Now, I know some people might be inclined to jump on these words and twist them to support the "no plane" theory. I'd like to head that off by saying that, while eyewitness testimony can be notoriously unreliable, it is far from inconsequential. I do not believe eyewitness testimony is especially useful in identifying the precise make and model of the planes that struck the buildings (although it should be considered that there are also witnesses who very firmly believe that they did see a passenger airliner), but it does conclusively establish that they were in fact planes.

There is a reason why detectives don't rely exclusively on eyewitness testimony when conducting investigations. It is very useful in establishing a foundation, but it is not always conclusive proof of anything.

How long do you think it would take for an investigator to establish that no such person existed? They would call his family. They would call friends. They would check with the airlines and his place of employment.

Now, I do not deny that government agencies create fake identities all the time. It is a very useful technique for undercover and covert operatives. However, the men and women who take on these aliases do so with the intent of keeping a low profile. Think of all the news stories and interviews after 9/11. Think of all the investigation, both from the government and from private sources. How long could a cover story possibly endure such scrutiny?

You're talking about people with children. Hell, some of the passengers were children. You're talking about people with brothers and sisters and parents. One passenger, Barbara Olson, was the wife of the United States Solicitor General. The problem with so many 9/11 "Truthers" is that, to them, the passengers are just names printed on a manifest. They don't think about the families and friends they left behind, or the emotional heartbreak it caused them.

I have no problem with discussing possibilities like bombs in the World Trade Center or a missile hitting the Pentagon. But when people start going after the victims, that I really get annoyed by.

Why, did one wave at you from the plane window as it flew through NYC on 9/11?

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be funny?

Well, since you asked, yes. Yes, it is so. The plane was moving at an incredibly high speed and many of the people who saw it were caught off-guard. Most of them barely would've had time to register it as anything more than simply "a plane" before it hit. The mind has a way of filling in the gaps with details that it thinks "should be there" and this prove to be a huge obstacle in reconstructing a traumatic event.

Luckily, we have more than just eyewitness accounts to help piece together the exact identity of what struck those buildings.

A big, grey plane with no windows on the side

USAF KC-767 Tanker?





Someone else fingered the KC-767 Tanker as the probable culprit:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=9781

Are these pictures supposed to prove something?

Doesn't prove it was an AA flight.
Doesn't prove it wasn't.

Right. Many twin-engine planes share similar profiles. I don't see how these pictures advance your theory one way or the other.

I like the fuel tanker theory. it works on many levels. If the tanker(s) were rigged to explode at impact it could explain the reason that there were no plane parts found.
Sure makes that guy on the discovery channel look even more ridiculous. He's the alleged worker on the 77th floor that ducked under his desk and sais he could see the wings. Somehow he manged to get out alive.
Still it leaves the question what was flight 93 all about. If it was a tanker that was rigged but maybe the pilot was able to override the remote controls and that's why they shot it down. (smoking hole???) Perhaps it was destined for wtc7.

I have deepest respect for all the passangers, crew members and pilots who were killed. I can only hope that their murderers will be cought.

Um, it took me all of thirty seconds' reading on Wikipedia to learn that the maiden flight of a Boeing KC-767 took place on May 21, 2005. Aircraft of that specific type hadn't even been built in September of 2001.

In the first place, plane parts were found at the Pentagon and at the United 93 crash site. In the second place, the scarcity of plane parts at the World Trade Center might have something to do with the fact that two colossal skyscrapers collapsed around them.

I find it hard to believe that either Tower could have survived the impact of a plane that was not only fueled, but carrying powerful explosives that detonated on collision.

I'm unclear as to your point. Are you saying that this worker wasn't really in the building at all? Is he lying about what he saw? Or simply confused? If it was a fuel tanker hitting the buildings, why couldn't he have still seen wings?

Why would the conspirators choose a pilot for one of their aircraft who wasn't a willing accomplice, seeing as they apparently had so many dedicated black-ops types at their disposal?

Also, none of this accounts for the phone calls from the passengers or the remains found at the crash sites.

Okay, it's education time AGAIN....Please board a plane and try and make a phone call from your cell after you've been in the AIR...Good Luck, won't happen and not possible.
Why do you ask 2 dogs F**ing..because it takes at least 45 seconds for your cell to shake hands with the tower and at 500 miles in hour it is NOT possible.

Hey, if you do it and can show me proof...I'll back you up until hell freezes over, until then, stop spouting Official Government bull. back to you GW.

BTW...this has already been tried and FAILED. Can You ROGER that???

I tend to avoid doing things on a plane that people flying the plane specifically ask me not to do. But I understand that, although reception is usually bad and calls are quite frequently dropped, it is possible to actually connect.

You're also forgetting that most of the calls were made using the built-in Airfones, which are specially designed to work in flight.

Uh, I'm really not sure what you're saying here. Would you mind rephrasing?

At any rate, see above re: Airfones.

Again, I'm not going to do something on a plane that goes against regulations for in-flight behavior. But ask yourself, if it's really so definitively impossible for a cell phone call to get through from a plane, why would the conspirators make that a part of their story? Why not just have ALL the calls be made from Airfones?

I see... so because a certain person in a certain aircraft with a certain cell phone in a certain part of the world couldn't make a call, it's completely impossible that any person in any aircraft with any cell phone in any part of the world could EVER make a phone call?

Also, none of this explains why the people who received the calls (in many cases family members or close friends) are entirely convinced that the calls were legitimate.

Does anyone actually know any passenger or passenger family member that was on one of the 911 flights? Has anyone spoken to a person who actually received a phone call from their family member aboard one of the flights? No?

Since everything we have been told about 911 is a lie, why believe the passenger lists? Remember that the Northwoods plan suggested using agents with false identities posing as college students. Remember the AA flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled flights on 9/11.

Check out this interesting piece of research, 911 Passenger List Oddity at: http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

This is a topic worth much more research.

What are you suggesting? That they didn't exist?

Let me ask you something: have you even made an effort to speak to anyone who received a phone call from one of the passengers aboard the hijacked flights? Have you made any real effort on your own that involves getting up from your keyboard and maybe driving to where these people live, before you assert this type of thing? Or are you just taking the word of whoever's website backs up your pre-formed opinions?

I think my question was clear. Have you spoken to any surviving relatives? Why don't you check out the passenger oddity link?

I have no way of knowing if these people are real or not. What I am suggesting is the possibility that all of them were not real. We have no reason to trust the news media or the government just because they publish a list of names. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I'm just presenting ideas. I wouldn't know how to begin to contact any of these people, would you?

I don't think its much of a stretch for anyone on this forum to believe we're being lied to. That's why we're here. Check out the link and see what you think.

Dear hotrob1017...I guess you are one of those rare individuals that never runs a yellow light and goes exactly the speed limit, whether it is 45, 55 or 25....we are all unworthy of you and your presence here.

Get over yourself....I personally know pilots of jets and guess what...they laugh at people like you, you are also the person that stays belted in until you arrive at the gate and stay seated until the light goes off....what are you a CIA wannabe or couldn't be????

Hey, there is so many openings right now with the NSA, CIA, FBI and all of the other acronyms, why don't you apply for a job with them and then report back to us, how does that sound and some of us will pay you for giving us the low down on what is going on....Gosh darn it sorry, I forgot you are one of those individuals that never crosses the line.

Hey good luck living with your head buried in the sand, it may come in handy with the NWO.

Thank You ogrady for the link...very informative. Hopefully hotrob1017 will check it out, survey says, not likely....oh well, another brain bites the dust.

BTW, you belong in the skeptics area, do you believe, they made a special place just for you.

Well, DarkDragon, thank you for crafting a post with absolutely zero content relating to the topic of this thread. There's a term for the tactic of substituting petty personal attacks for legitimate points or arguments: ad hominem.

We're talking here about the planes used on 9/11 and the people who were aboard them. Why don't we all stick to discussing that instead of degrading an otherwise civil debate with insults and juvenile taunting?

Hotrob1017...I'm not going to get in to it with you, it is very apparent which side you are coming from when you quote Reagan, says' a lot about YOU.

So get this, it is alright for you to dissect everyone's opinion but as soon as someone calls you out on it you attempt to jump down their throat's? You are gonna need to do better than that around here...let's stick to facts in evidence, not your spoon fed government bull, can we agree on that???.

So, you did not answer the question about the passenger's that 'ogrady' asked, you kinda pulled a bush on that one, never answer a question if you do not already have an answer LAW 101....so is your silence the answer?? or is answering a question with a question is the best you can come up with??

This just makes me wonder about your intellect and your reason for being here..like I previously stated there is a place on this Forum called Skeptics area, I know you will make many friends there. Are you sure you are not a SLC member???, because if you are, you are doing a great job of making them look bad.

I come from a "side" with a different take on the events of 9/11 than you. Doesn't mean we have to attack each other personally. Why can't we keep our posts on topic and maintain a civilized, intelligent debate?

I offer my own opinions on the theories proposed here about the attacks. If someone wishes to refute my positions or suggest a reasonable new perspective, I welcome the different point of view; if I still don't agree with them, I still try to stay polite even as I post a counter-argument. I admit that I wrote rather harshly when responding to ogrady, but I do feel that he should make more of an effort to establish contact with the family members of the 9/11 victims before advocating this theory.

DarkDragon, let's take a look at your first post directly addressing me:

Where are the facts of this post? What evidence is being presented? This entire post consists of jabs at me personally, without a single direct comment on the passengers aboard the hijacked aircraft on 9/11. I agree that discussion here should be grounded in reason, evidence, and factuality. So let's all stick to that from now on.

I've seen that link before and I still don't think much of it. If you want, I'll share my thoughts on this one:

According to Sammartino, Ellen Mariani claimed that she was "the only relative of all the passengers that died on Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower." I'll put the bad grammar aside (read literally, this says that Ellen Mariani claims to be the only person who was related to every single passenger on the hijacked flight) and look at what's actually being implied here.

I don't know if she is being taken out of context or if this unfortunate woman actually believes it, but the statement as it is presented by Sammartino is flat-out absurd. None of the other passengers had family? That's a stretch. I've seen memorials and the non-existent family members seem pretty abundant.

Frankly, I'm confused as to her point. She seems to believe that her husband was, in fact, a victim in these attacks and I don't understand why she would be skeptical that other people's family members were.

Mr. Sammartino undercuts his own point a few paragraphs later, when he calls the SSDI a "privately-owned website that is not affiliated with Social Security." Yet the link he provides is to a .gov URL, with a heading that proclaims "The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration." I have to wonder if he even looked at this source that he is basing his conclusions on.

I did manage to Google a website that provides a search engine for the SSDI and entered the names of several deceased relatives. None of them came back. It seems that without knowing the person's actual Social Security number, you can't be guaranteed a result.

His link to the list for the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund is apparently dead, so I can't check the numbers he provides. Even if I take them on faith, though, I don't see what it's supposed to prove. According to him, the Comp Fund was set up as "hush money", presumably to keep people from going public about the suspicious circumstances of their loved ones' deaths. Yet only a few of them (according to Mr. Sammartino) actually applied for the money. So they refused payment of hush money? Then why haven't they come forward? His points are confusing, somewhat contradictory, and ultimately inconclusive.

So, yeah, that's my opinion of the link ogrady provided.

I'm not really here to make friends. I'm here for the same reason you are: I care about the truth. If 9/11 was in fact an inside job, I'd want to know about it and I'd want to see justice done to the people responsible. If somebody here can provide a reasonable, well-evidenced theory that differs from the official account, sign me up for the revolution. I've yet to see an account that really convinces me, but I try to dialogue with the proponents and explain why I believe that they've read the facts wrong.

Look, if I really wanted to be a mindless sheep, I wouldn't be posting here. I want to talk with people and explore new ideas. I like to think that most posters are here for the same reasons, which gives us much more in common than we think. Do you disagree with my points, DarkDragon? Then, by all means, continue posting your perspective and I'm sure the debate will be richer for it. Together, we can all work to establish a better image of the truth behind the events of that terrible day.

hotrob1017, I have read your post and yes you have made very valid points in your response. Can we both agree that we can both disagree?, and still both of us can come up with very valid points in their post. All I ask is that no more personal attacks to anyone on these boards, when I see that someone is being attacked for their personal views I tend to become very protective and it is the nature of my JOB. * Retired *

We are currently in the most bizarre times in our lives due to 911 and I think that this is exactly what our Admin may want. Just a sad sign of the times.

I wish us both the best in finding the truth, one that we can all live with.

Fair enough.

Hey Everyone, a couple of guy's were able to get their story printed...

Debunker's bring it!! We OWN you now, just didn't want you to know. Remove gloves and slap that Debunker, figuratively please.

Great Job ross11988...keep on keeping on.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...335/-1/NEWS0401

I try that link and a "404- Resource Not Found" message pops up on the website. Has the article been moved?

The title of the OP is 'Made the Paper' in the lounge or type in ross11988, search his posts'....Please No Personal Attacks.

Are you referring to the letter entitled "Planes Didn't Topple the World Trade Center"?

Yes hotrob1017, that is the story.

Gotcha. But reading through it, I'm not seeing what new information or evidence it brings to the discussion.

A good friend of mine lost his uncle aboard Flight 93. I tend to believe him and also the family members of the passengers aboard the planes which hit the towers.

If you're going to make such outrageous claims otherwise, you should be prepared to back it up with some pretty amazing evidence.

Has anyone ever seen a family member of one of the victims onboard of flights 11, 77 or 175? Personally I did not, so if someone can post a YouTube or Google Video link ....

Ron, if you take a look at the post directly preceding yours... you know, the one you just quoted...

I'm not looking for relatives of pasengers on board of flight 93. For me that one is not that clear what happened with that flight, but the planes 11, 77 and 175 did not hit any of the buildings as we look at the evidence. So have relatives given interviews which can be found on YouTube or elsewhere?

There are other models of grey plane with no windows.

excellent thread pi3

check out this link

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-09-05/...ion.cgi.36.html

the majority of listed passengers probably didnt exist as there were no compensation claims made by anyone

good stuff