| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think this is a lot closer and a lot more sensible to what happened than the "no plane" theory.
You can't ignore the gaping holes in the sides of the building or the eyewitnesses who saw the planes (with one witness who clearly states that one of the planes was not a standard commercial jet).
The idea that a plane "melts" into a building is making mountains out of molehills. The impact of the planes on the stability of those buildings were, quite frankly, insignificant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:09 am Post subject: Re: Which USAF 767s were used on 911? |
|
|
Sorry, I'm not being a critic or anything, but in the interests of accuracy, I need to point out that none of these USAF versions of the 767 are yet in production, let alone in use.
They're all projects mooted by the DoD amongst others in the wake of 9/11, aimed at helping Boeing through the downturn in demand for its jets, and also replacing some of the ancient stuff the USAF flies. There are a few (less than 8 I think) 767 AWACS in use, but by the Japanese Air Force.
The 707 AWACS based at RAF Waddington fly quite legitimately as part of the RAF (I should know!), and are seen quite often over various parts of the country either participating in exercises or as part of UK Air Defence. They do have national markings, but these are lo-vis so unlikely to be seen by anyone more than a few hundred yards away.
Its possible the US Government does operate some anonymous 'Black' 767's, they certainly operate anonymous 737's qhich have been frequently photographed. One possible way to do this might be to enlist the help of some aircraft enthusiasts who collect and are knowledgable about blocks of manufacturers serial numbers, and their tie-ups with registrations. This might solve the mystery of whether there are 'black ops' 767's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scubadiver said:
The idea that a plane "melts" into a building is making mountains out of molehills. The impact of the planes on the stability of those buildings were, quite frankly, insignificant.
But that is just what the 'planes' do. They pass into the buildings, at least the one on the webfairy vid I saw, like a knife through butter. Planes don't do that, so it is not "making mountains out of moleholes", and therefore their impact was not insignificant.
[/img][/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Headhunter
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 117
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Screw that no plane nonsense.
Btw, the south tower plane was painted with the United livery.
P.S. The Tanker is a re-modification of the pre-existance 767 Commericial airliner, either passenger or cargo. And the development cycle was well under way by 9/11, and yes, the USAF have some very exotic aircraft in their arsenal.
See this presentation for more info on the possible, no PROBABLE validity of this hypothesis.
http://tinyurl.com/y2qm4t
_________________
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lee
Validated Poster
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems to be from In Plane Site.
I reckon the second version,9/11 Ripple Effect, is one of the most overlooked 9/11 films out there. Probably because of Pod Theory. But it could explain why the towers collapsed so quickly if the pod was nuclear or contained some kind of incendiary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lee wrote: | It seems to be from In Plane Site.
I reckon the second version,9/11 Ripple Effect, is one of the most overlooked 9/11 films out there. Probably because of Pod Theory. But it could explain why the towers collapsed so quickly if the pod was nuclear or contained some kind of incendiary. |
The towers were brought down with precision - no bomb on board would be able to achieve the level of symmetrical collapse observed in the twin towers. Even with Controlled Demolition there is the problem of placement and protection of the explosives to survive a plane crash. However it appears that "somehow" it was achieved: presumably some form of wireless detonating mechanism set off under computer control once the floor where the plane had crashed had been identified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jfk
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think this is a lot closer and a lot more sensible to what happened than the "no plane" theory. |
it seems to me that some 'planehuggers' like scuba are considering that it may not have been aa'77 and ua175 that hit the towers. if that is so then scuba is now a 'sockpuppet no planer', because that is actually all 'no planers' allege.
looking at this shot, which shows a ua jet, i wonder if scuba, or anyone who considers that 'drones' may have been used would believe this shot to be fake.
if the 'pod people' are right then there must have been fakery involved, can't have big old pods on display can we!
if anything other than aa77 or ua175 hit the towers then there has to be fakery to cover it up, otherwise it too risky
so maybe a poll on how many 'no planers' there are, i.e people who believe something other than aa77 or ua175 hit the towers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lee
Validated Poster
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It wouldn't be impossible to attach something to the under carriage of a normal passenger jet though would it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | it seems to me that some 'planehuggers' like scuba are considering that it may not have been aa'77 and ua175 that hit the towers. if that is so then scuba is now a 'sockpuppet no planer', because that is actually all 'no planers' allege.
|
untrue, from my conversations with many npt believers it is clear that they believe there was no planes at all used on 9/11.
no plane, not even 'ANY' plane wether it was ua 175 etc or not. they even say there is no evidence what so ever a plane was used.
theres a big difference between believeing no planes were used or some other type of plane was used.
if somebody believes some other type of plane was used they are not claiming there was 'no planes', they take into consideration the evidence that there were planes present at the towers even if it was not the stated planes given by the offical version.
to try and make out those who think there was a plane but not those stated by the offical version are somehow no planers and believe the same as you is very misleading and clutching at straws, especially when the vast majority who believe no planes and yourself included have said many times there is no evidence of a plane and all the footage was faked and all the witnesses lied, and even propose it being impossible that a plane can even breach a wall whilst moving at roughly 500mph. so if npt'ers are only claiming that it was not the stated planes, but there was planes, then their arguements contridict that belief if it is indeed an included theory amongst npt'ers.
and for a npt'er to even consider there could of been planes other than those stated, flys in the face of the evidence and arguements put forward by npt'ers. so i find your comments very contridictive and confusing.
if you really think planes were used but not ua 175, then are witnesses lieing? is the footage fake? and did the plane cause the hole in the towers or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jfk wrote: |
it seems to me that some 'planehuggers' like scuba are considering that it may not have been aa'77 and ua175 that hit the towers. if that is so then scuba is now a 'sockpuppet no planer', because that is actually all 'no planers' allege.
|
Could you stoop to that kind of logic?
Sorry but I am a plane hugger! 
_________________
Currently working on a new website |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflecter
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 486
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony Gosling wrote;
| Quote: | | They had no American Airlines or United Airlines livery and appeared to be entirely windowless |
That seems to be contradicted by a well known photo of a chunk of fuselage found on top of another WTC building in the clean up, which clearly shows a row of windows and if memory serves the correct livery for one of the flights.
I dont have it sorry.
I also think there was plenty of plane debris found or reported on by people at the scene, including a car crushed by part of an engine and another engine in the street. A truck marked 'Plane Debris' is also in photos with various pieces in it.
Don't get me wrong as I am open to the swapped plane theory and UAV drones, as it makes more sense than inexperienced hijacker pilots flying blind, by eye to their destinations. Particularly when there is little to prove any of the alleged boarded the actual flights in question.
_________________
The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
