Hi Guys and Girls


Sorry if this is a dumb question and it’s already been covered!

But….

Regarding the passengers on these flights! I watched the internet video last night if I got this wrong then im sorry -but if the passengers were not on the planes What the hell happened to them??????


Do I live in fantasy land? Could they still be alive?

Missy

You've hit upon one of the big mysteries I'm afraid, there is no straight answer to this one... <_<

If you Google "Operation Northwoods" and have a look at the original false flag attack plan that was put forward but knocked back by John F Kennedy in the 60's, it will give an idea of what couldhave happened to them.
If what Dylan and Co' in Loose Change say is right and the passengers were taken to an airport and the planes switched, I see no reason why those "passengers" couldn't have been "in on it" and carrying falsified passports. . .

There is alternate theories about possible remote controlled "drone" aircraft, which is not outwith the realms of possibility as this was also mentioned in the Northwood's plan.


Going off topic for a second. . . :unsure:
If you're in the UK then you might also be interested in http://www.last-man-out.com/ it's the UK tour by William Rodruguez who was one of the janitorial staff on duty in the twin towers on 911 and was the last man pulled from the rubble on that day. If you are interested in what really happened you NEED to see one of his talks!

Also please check out http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/ which is the UK forum page!

Hope this helps, I'm sure someone will be along soon to add to this or prove me wrong. . . :P :P

Loose Change asks a series of questions and makes a series of claims, not all of which I believe. You'll have to decide for yourself what makes the most sense to you based on the evidence you've examined up until now. Personally I don't know whether the passengers are alive or not, but really there are easier ways to determine and show that 9/11 was an inside job. I've decided not to get too hung up on things that I don't have enough evidence on to come to a strong conclusion.

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious... No, they're dead. They died as the planes hijacked by the terrorists crashed into their targets in NYC, Washington DC and in Pennsylvania (well, that wasn't the target, but you understand what I mean).

Of course the passengers of the planes that were hijacked by Israeli's are dead. Why risk detaining the passengers and having one of them eventually speak out when you can just slam the planes into the targets in the first place?

Thats why I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon on the simple fact that the medie claims they will show a video finally showing a plane hitting the Pentagon. When they show the video, it just shows an explosion and no plane. Its obviously done on purpose.

Theyre dead.

If the 9/11 planes were drones, then the originals were ditched at sea or the great lakes via remoe control or onboard system override (Seemingly possible for a modified 757/767)

I highly doubt that the accused could actually fly the planes as alleged. They were well known as terrible pilots.

Remotely controlled actual flights with covertly modified civil aircraft? Maybe. That would explain the need to apparently purposely suppress the black box recoveries. (WTC)

Yet the chance for delays that could jeopardize such an inside job would be great, hence a reasonably good chance for drone aircraft.

There was at least one 'live-fly' wargame aircraft airborne on 9/11, maybe more.

The planes seem to have traveled over 'holes' in the primary radar coverage (allowing for mid-air plane switching ala 'Operation Northwoods') and recovered debris has never been formally ID'd by the NTSB.

Who knows until the debris is officially ID'd.

Ya funny NO black Boxes showed up for any of the planes, can anyone elaborate on any other plane accident where they did not get the Black Box? Man they find them in the Oceans when planes go down.
This was the biggest BLUFF ever in the US history. Makes me glad I live in Canada.

Yah thats sad a black box not being found

Have you watched "Painful Deceptions"? In the last five minutes of part one a theory is put forth about the passengers of flight 77.

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

They probably died. The government killed so much people, why let those passengers live? It's just easier for the government.

Anyway that is what I think if I'd believe in the bomb-theorie.

see this is the debate we were having the other night...if the passengers are dead then y use fake planes....and we all know a plane did NOT hit the pentagon..

so did they have some agreeement with the gov? do their families know they are alive and they all have an agreement? I will admit that is hard to take it b/c how can people be so vile...

A quick point about Operation Northwoods: as appallingly deceptive as the plan was, a quick read-through of the relevant sections will reveal that nowhere did it suggest actually killing American citizens. The plan was to remove passengers (who would be government agents) during a secret swap and then crash a drone into the ocean, alleging that it had been shot down by Cuban fire. It's quite a leap from a bloodless frame-job to deliberately killing 3,000 innocent people.

This is incorrect. The black boxes for Flights 93 and 77 were recovered, although the cockpit recorder on 77 was too damaged to provide much useful information. As for the black boxes of Flights 11 and 175, they were buried in the middle of thousands upon thousands tons of collapsing rubble. How many other plane crashes have occurred under those conditions?

Also, I really hope that nobody on this forum is seriously suggesting that the hijacked plane victims are actively participating in some kind of cover-up conspiracy. Think about it: if Todd Beamer really did agree to take part in this monstrous scam and fake phone calls, etc., that means that he chose to let his wife and three children believe he died tragically on Flight 93. Would you be willing to look Lisa Beamer in the eyes and tell her that her husband was that kind of man?

So when it suggests carrying out terrorist acts in Florida it means breaking windows and shooting empty Coke cans does it?

"Terrorist acts" could mean a lot of things. Empty buildings, phone threats, bombs which would be conveniently located and "defused" before they could explode, etc. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that there were any scenarios in Northwoods where American citizens would actually be killed. Can you point to a specific example?

Don't get me wrong, I in no way am expressing support for this strategy; thank God President Kennedy and Secretary McNamara were there to shoot it down. But the commonly-made assertion that the government was plotting a 9/11-type scenario forty years ago is flat-out misleading.

But even if they were, even if Northwoods had been everything that it is often purported to be, an aborted strategy four decades old still wouldn't prove anything about what a completely different administration run by an entirely seperate group of men did or did not do six years ago.

Look at it this way (logically) we have a government who in the past and aimlessly thrown lives away for it's own gain (SOMALIA 1993) we also had little evidence that a plane actually hit the pentagon...5 pictures and unreliable sources (as we know, reliable sources taken by FBI) and we also know that the government has the ability to drone 747's and 757's for long periods of time. So looking at these things makes it seem like that yes, there was a plan of some type. As we have also stated, no black boxes or plane parts...yet human bodies. Titanium has a melting point of about 5kF while oxygen is less than OF. These just seem rediculous, however, if it looked reasonable at the moment of the accidents, then it would seem completly plausable. People being pissed would do w/e the government would say for them to do. They also ask/say in LC that "Who will give a damn and do something about it?" well sadly, anybody who tries to give a damn is snuffed out in multiple ways (whether being "convinced", fired, or humiliated) So looking at this logically, a plane couldn't have hit the pentagon, the bodies were probably bodies of workers who died from the explosion, our government has the reason and ability to execute this plan, and it worked by pissing us off at the time causing us to rush into war.

A litany of eyewitness testimony, plane debris found at the scene, air traffic controllers, a C-130 cargo plane which tracked Flight 77 up until it impacted the Pentagon, not to mention a 757-sized hole in the side of the building, and you think there's "little evidence"?

Also, if you're going to claim that the Pentagon was struck by a drone 757, that would mean it was in fact a plane that hit the building.

I addressed this point just a few posts ago in this very thread:

"This is incorrect. The black boxes for Flights 93 and 77 were recovered, although the cockpit recorder on 77 was too damaged to provide much useful information. As for the black boxes of Flights 11 and 175, they were buried in the middle of thousands upon thousands tons of collapsing rubble. How many other plane crashes have occurred under those conditions?"

Also, numerous plane components were found at the Pentagon.

And yet the producers of Loose Change have not died in mysterious accidents; Alex Jones has not inexplicably disappeared; Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen are still successfully continuing their careers; and thousands of websites just like this one are allowed to freely continue existing. I'm sorry, but I really haven't seen a lot of evidence for some massive ex post facto conspiracy to hush dissent on the official story of 9/11.

It could have and it did, as I pointed out in my first paragraph of this post. Do you have credible evidence otherwise? And what about your drone theory?

So why did DNA testing positively identify them as the passengers who had been aboard Flight 77?

I simply cannot accept the idea that the U.S. government, the geniuses behind such fiascos as Watergate, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Iran-Contra affair could possibly pull off such a massive operation competently and covertly.

First of all, ty for the constructive critical views, i love discussions :D

1. First of all, I do not mean the fact that a plane hit the pentagon. Truthfully, I have no idea what ht the pentagon. I was using the drone theory at the WTC crashes. For the pentagon, you do see a 757 size hole, but ok...where are the WINGS? the TAILFINS? The wingspan of the plane would increase the damage by 1/2, considering the large wings...but the only damage visible is the 757 hole of just what looks like the base/cargo area of the plane.

2. As for the black boxes...all I can say is that I had no idea that they were found...completly my fault there :P

3. When I said that people who were critizing the government were dissapearing....I should have worded it differently. After seeing LC, we know that Kevin Ryan after his statement was fired, The creator of the WTC (who's name escapes my mind atm.... :angry: ) Changed his statement about the WTC collapse in only one weeks time. We have instances of people going on the media and literally getting thrashed by the news and whatnot about their claims. Hotrob, i was wondering if you saw the video posted on a forum here about the man who asked questions at the confrence and got booed out by people (showing that if a person asks a question about a subject like that would be instantly considered an idiot or liar) and also was backlashed by the men holding the confrence....

4. DNA testing in my opinion is intresting. As stated in LC, a governmental facility did the DNA testing...so just offering a idea, maybe the government "altered" the DNA so that it would show the results they wanted...

5. The government again in my opinion, does have the ability to do acts of war easily. I will always fallback on Operation Northwoods, main reason is because that in 1960, our government was thinking of using acts of terrorism for their better gain. The Watergate incident was (imo) a laughing stock. The way that it was performed was terrible...and the evidence was overwhelming that the government did it. However, I look at this as maybe reverse psychology. Exactly what you are saying is true...but what if it's how the government WANTS you to think? If an incident like 911 happened again, a big group of people might say "well in the past with government problems and fiascos...there would be no way that they would be able to pull this off.." so instantly taking the government on the "Subject" list.

6. Again, thx for the critical views hotrob, lets make the discussion bigger :D

Ah, my mistake about the drone theory. As to the size of the hole, I think a 75-foot wide opening seems plenty big enough. A 757 has a wingspan of roughly 125 feet, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the hole should have been 125 feet wide. The ends of the wings, for example, can't be expected to cause the same amount of damage to the building as the fuselage area.

The wings and tailfins were most likely torn apart by the violent high-speed impact with a reinforced wall. I don't find it hard to believe that no large pieces of the plane remained intact after a deliberate kamikaze-style strike.

Props to your for being willing to revise your position. That's the problem with something like 9/11; so many rumors and misinterpretations get thrown around, it's a pain trying to find the original material. Before long, it's like a giant game of Internet Telephone.

Kevin Ryan... was that the Underwater Laboratories guy?

Without a name, I don't want to guess who you're referring to or what statements he changed. But bear in mind that it shouldn't be unexpected for people to change their positions as new evidence comes to light during an ongoing investigation. What was the original statement and how did he change it?

Unfortunately, very few videos work on my current computer. I do agree that the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't get the best portrayal in the mainstram media or the best reception in the public forum. Part of that might be presentation. No offense (and I don't mean to imply that the following group includes you), but it doesn't help that SOME (again, by no means all) 9/11 Truthers are also Holocaust Deniers and whatnot. It doesn't help that people such as Dylan Avery do tasteless things like distribute CT flyers at events like the premiere of "United 93", where the victims' families are in attendence. The man's certainly entitled to share his beliefs with others, but that was just a reprehensible choice of setting. If a person's going to speculate that the passengers on Flight 93 weren't heroes, maybe it's not the best idea to do it in front of their widows and children.

That said, I do think that the media should be a place where ideas from many perspectives are displayed and debated equally, and I agree that it's unfair how many 9/11 Truthers are dismissed out of hand as crackpots and lunatics. All you can do there is endeavor to present your ideas reasonably and clearly and hope that in time the public comes to see them as such.

This is not impossible, but it would be exceedingly difficult. I've always felt that one of the principle problems with any of the alternate theories regarding 9/11 are the vast quantities of people who would have to be involved. In this case, a fair number of workers, lab technicians, and so forth from the various crash sites would have to be involved. Wouldn't at least one of those people have pulled a Deep Throat?

...man, why couldn't the Watergate informer have picked a different code name? I hate making comparisons to him, because they always sound incredibly dirty.



You make a fair point in this last post. If I were a government covert planner, this is the type of attitude I would want people to have. I remember reading a book once where someone tells a CIA director, "Public relations must be a nightmare for you guys. The only operations of yours that anyone hears about are the appalling disasters. After a while, everyone starts thinking of your agency as bunch of fumbling idiots." The CIA guy looks at him and replies, "And what makes you think we don't want that?"

It's an interesting idea, but I still think that the number of people (which varies depending on the theory, but it pretty sizeable in almost all of them) involved who weren't professional black-ops veterans (FEMA, NIST, air traffic controllers, etc.) is too big to keep a lid on.

And yeah, thanks to you too for the critical thinking.

Has anyone viewed InPlane Site? Actually, the hole in the Pentagon was only 16 ft across in the initial explosion and after a time had passed the upper wall collapsed and created a hole about 65ft wide. The initial pictures of the Pentagon had a small hole in the side of the building. Thats on news footage everywhere. Once the upper wall collapsed, it made the hole about 65ft wide. View the news clips, u can see the upper wall stil intact and then it collapses.

I KNOW that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, I would suspect a missle or drone of some type. Plus some of the survivors did say it looked like a missle. I suggest getting the dvd and check it out yourselfs.

For the lack of salvage, that alone says that something isn't right about that.

This is a common misconception caused by several misleading photographs. I've seen the picture often used to justify this argument. You're thinking of something like this:




Notice, though, that a good part of the building's ground floor is obscured by smoke and by water from the emergency vehicles. Take a look at this shot from a few seconds later (taken, by the way, directly from Loose Change):



The documentary attempts to use that photo to prove that a 757 could not fit into the hole shown in the first picture. But if you move the plane-outline down slightly (and remember that the jet did not hit the building dead-on, but at an angle), it's a much better fit. My guess is the upper-level hole was caused by the raised tail-section, but that is speculation.

What about the eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon, some of whom identified it as clearly a commercial aircraft? What about the C-130 which tailed Flight 77 up to the minute of impact? Which witnesses said they saw a missile?

I respect your point of view but there were also spectators that said a missle hit the Pentagon as well. I see the salvage you are talking about, but I did not see that in the official news releases that day, no where was there any "plane parts" that I myself could see. Also, the fire damage isn't consistent with the BOOM we seen at the Twin Towers.

The engine that you showed, the first pic is NOT a engine of a 757. Its way to small to even come close to that size. I see your point but I also see something else going on here.

Thanks

i'm also suprised, i've only seen half of those pictures about the pentagon "crash" some i've never even seen before :ph43r:

no, i have to say that no you do NOT know what happened. Where you there? Did you have a clear eye view of the situation and not in a car with limited visability? Did you have a video recorder of the crash? A dvd is something that is easily altered, changed, i know, i've edited a ton of dvd's... Also the eye witnesses were mixed about the situation. Not all of them said that they saw a missile. Some said a 757 or commercial airliner hit it. Some said that it was a private airliner, and some say that they saw a helicopter leaving the area. The video that was passed out from the government looks nothing like a plane in my opinion....but it just looks like a white blur, too short for a plane.

TruTh, could the government have done up a missile or drone to look like a 757?

drone...yes i belive that they do HAVE a 757 drone... a missile i'm not sure. Also when the plane crashed into the WTC....it didn't go through the building. Basically i belive that the plane went into the building and blew up on the inside...that still doesn't explain the internal implosion but it kind of explains the plane. A missile wouldn't have a wingspan that long in my opinion. It would ruin the top speed of the missile. The faster the impact, the bigger explosion (i think, not sure :ph43r: )

truth,

All I'm saying is that in every major crash of an airliner that wing parts, engines, cockpits, fuselage ect were found. The pieces they found were big enough for you to pick up. This isn't consistent with any typical aircrash involving commerical, military or private alike. Planes don't just disentigrate, and if it did, it would be the first time in aviation history.

My point is that I KNOW that a 757 did not hit the pentagon due to the inconstencies in salvage, fire damage and a few eyewitness reports. The fire damage isnt consistent like what we seen with the Towers. So I stand by my point.

of course i dont' think that a 757 hit the pentagon, with the WTC who knows, but this is about the passengers. I personally think that the idea and speculation of the 757 hitting the pentagon is rediculous because just as you said 1. No wings were found, 2. there was a PART of an engine...not able to connect to a 757 *not sure about this* but with the WTC maybe they did use a drone airplane. Personally, i belive that a missile hit the pentagon, causing the stashed parts within the reconstructed area to fly all over the place. It sounds rediculous...but it's what i belive.

If it was in fact a false flag attack then the passengers are probably dead. Body count is directly proportional to sympathy/anger after all.

A good example is the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. If a few ships had been damaged would the country have really supported a war? Probably not. The utter destruction of the US Pacific Fleet and death of many Naval and Army personnel, however; gave FDR free reign for conducting the war.

I mean we know FDR wanted to get involved in Europe. We know the Magic transmission warning that something would happen sat in Washington for hours before Pearl. We have the declaration of war against Japan AND Germany despite the fact that Germany was not involved in the bombing in anyway.

Scary parallels eh?

I've heard this claimed before, but I haven't personally been able to find any witnesses who actually said anything along those lines. If you have, would you mind posting their names and a link to the source?

Perhaps the newspeople you saw were being kept away by firefighters and rescue workers. At any rate, these pictures do show plane debris in and around the Pentagon. Isn't that in and of itself significant as evidence?

The construction of the buildings was very different. I don't think explosions of identical natures could or should be expected.

It's not an entire engine, just a piece of one.



I know there are many more points to address that have come up while I was away, but I've got to go now. I'll be back on later today, hopefully.

I really think that if there wasn't a video of the first plane hitting the WTC tower that people would be saying it was a missile too. What good would hitting the pentagon with a missile do anyways. That'd just make alot more work to do to hit the pentagon with a missile, blow up the plane that supposedly hit it, plant a bunch of evident, and keep it all a perfect secret.

I can't wait for a video to surface and made public showing it being hit by a plane.

How would one obtain a manifest of all the passengers, claimed to have been on all four planes? If someone has already done that, could you please forward that?


If all four planes were indeed passenger planes, loaded at major airports, then there would have to had been witnesses which could step forward and give details about the passenger lists, luggage checks, ticket sales, plane inspections and the sort. Right?

I only ask this because of the footage that shows the bottom side of the second plane at WTC, which clearly shows a device attached to it's underside, just under the cockpit. And then of course the impact of the plane, clearly showing a flash as the nose of the plane came into contact with the side of the building. And if there were indeed explosive devices mounted to the bottoms of these planes, then how could all of the ground crews and their mothers not have noticed them?

For all whom give discredit to this, watch the footage. There is a device, there is a flash. And that flash was the penetrating device needed to get the aluminum shell of the plane into the stainless steel reinforced building. If I could fill an aluminum can with kerosene and hurl it a stainless steel wall at 500+ mph, just to prove it wouldn't ignite and penetrate the steel, I would.

It's just a theory, but could it have been possible that the time frames we were told of, by the governmental media, was false? Could it have been that there really was only one, crashed passenger plane with all of the passengers? Could it be, that the two planes in New York were not loaded, at all, with anything other than fuel, explosives and remote guidance systems? After all, out of 4 alleged planes, we know without any doubt that the Pentagon was hit by a Tomohawk/Cruise Missle. This cuts the plane count down to 3. What happened to the 4th, if there was a 4th?
All this would give credence to thoroughly investigate the passenger manifest of said planes. And now, another outline as THEY would have us believe:

A. Four planes are hijacked by 19 men.
B. Two planes divert to WTC, one to the Pentagram(gon), and one to the white house.
C. There were hijacking drills being carried out on the same day, prompting Numskull(NORAD) to stand down from interception.
D. The towers, all 3, collapsed on their own.
E. Osama did it. Let's get him.

My contradiction:

A. There were only three planes. Two bound for NY and one purposefully crashed to dispose of the unfortunate passengers.
B. Two planes, operated by remote, fully fueled carrying a medium grade explosive at the nose are used to create the diversion and panic.
C. One, video verified non-passenger jet, crashes into the pentagram leaving a tiny entrance wound-without also leaving behind its engines, wings, tail section.
D. The two NY bound planes did not take off from a commercial airport, where hundreds of witnesses may have asked, "What's that on the bottom of that plane?"
E. There were passengers. But, they could not have all been on four different planes.
F. In the timeline given, if there were two other passenger planes, they would have to had been diverted simultaneously to give passage of the remote controlled planes. "But then, where are the other two real planes, if this theory is worthy?"
Would they have been crashed together in that field, but reported as a single plane crash?

As I said, this is my theory, and mine alone. I have not disclosed this with Alex Jones or Dylan Avery or any other film maker. This is the first time I have disclosed these thoughts, at all. I'm just looking for a better answer than what we have. Because, if those things on the bottom of the plane(s) were indeed fixed warheads, then there is no way in all of creation that they would have been able to get them passed the scrutiny of airport security, baggage handlers, maintenance technicians and other passengers. NO WAY!

Until next time,
bow to none but one

TruTH911,

That is an excellent point about the staged debris, being hit by a warhead. If you watch Terrorstorm, you'll see some photographs, from inside of some type of large office, which has a small, scale model of the pentagram, scale model plane debris lying inside the courtyard and outside of the impact site, all being set up by a bunch of folks, trying to determine what would happen "should a large plane crash into the building."
I highly recommend getting Terrorstorm, just to see those pictures, as well as any other video you can obtain.

So, your hunch is much more than a hunch. Good post.


Bow to none but ONE.