a question for plane huggers

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

please see survey

[marky 54]

not sure if hijackers being patsies or remote control.

remote control has an high change of success and precision, the only reason they dont use them as such on airliners is the following reasons.

1. passengers dont feel safe trusting technology alone(what if there was a malfunction).

2. if no pilots were at the controls to take of and land and something went wrong who would take control to save the day?

3. can computers take of large boings and land anywhere around the world and get landing and take off perfect everytime? judge weather conditions? crash land the craft in an emergency? give back visual data to airport controllers?

although they do have auto pilot once in the air, i would imagine a combination of technology and man is better for an airline company because of the margine for error on take of and landing. unmanned aircraft dosnt result in loss of life if they go wrong.

but pilots taking of then remote control is what i think could of happened or pilots take of hijacked by patsies and then remote control.
or it was just hijackers and allowed to happen. i have no way of saying which way and cannot decided.

[marky 54]

but the number one reason why you would no use remote control on airliners alone is what if there were an hijacking? or a fault? can the remote control system judge the best thing to do in these situations? can someone on the ground judge the situation and know whats best? can people on the ground see how and when to land in a field if a crash landing is iminent.

why replace pilots with people on the ground if it did work?
i kind of know where this is going so just thought i'd cut to the chase.

[telecasterisation]

Again we are faced with only loaded options, the people who have not come to a definitive conclusion are not afforded an option.

This is so common with polls, both here an elsewhere, not everyone has reached that comfortable place where you 'know'.

I am certain everyone dies, so I start a poll that poses;

Where do you go after the body dies?

Heaven?

Hell?

Things are not that simple for many.

[Thermate]

All the planes hijacked on that day led winding flight paths across the country until they reached a certain point where their transponders ceased to function and they turned back toward their targets.

In all cases the point at which the transponders stopped working and the flight path "turned" was in close proximity to airfields...

[Mark Gobell]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

Semantic chicanery ! Brilliant tele, just brilliant.

You state that you cannot answer a poll because you don't "know".

I state that the poll didn't ask if people "knew" rather it asks if they "believe".

I quote your use of the word "belief" as being a sound basis for your position on aircraft and 9/11 to highlight your established comfort with the term "belief"

I suggested that the poll has a don't know option.

You then suggest it should have a don't know option.

You accuse me of semantic chicanery !

Marvellous.

The point:

Even though you don't "know" and nobody here, "knows", and the poll actually says "believe" 3 times, - how else could the planes have been flown other than the options posed by the question.

Surely, for a eminently logical person like yourself, who has no problem stating belief as a substitute for knowing, you could offer some alternatives to be added to the poll ?

[Patrick Brown]

I figure the onboard flight computer was used possibly in combination with homing beacon planted in the towers. But we may never know what happened. My personal theory is that the terrorist thought they was going to simply high jack the aircraft. Once they had gained control of the planes everybody was gassed, including the hijackers, and the flight computer took control of the plane.

The flight that some suggest was shot down over Pennsylvania seems not to have gone according to plan. If the poison gas didn't release then it is possible that passengers did try and take control of the plane causing it to crash.

[Mark Gobell]

Super stuff Patrick - I've never even considered that as an option.

It's distinct from remote control and so therefore, if viable, should be considered.

[telecasterisation]

Mark

I accept that you may not have read my many previous posts in many other poll based threads concerning the lack of a 'don't know/not sure' option.

This is just another example of a poll that has limited loaded options that needs an additional 'not sure' option.

I have made this point many times before you again made it today - I acknowledge your desire to offer up ridicule, but you simply weren't as up to speed as you are now. I am sure you will check my claim - this will be easy for you to do and will put your mind to rest.

As for how the planes were delivered in the towers;

I don't know.

[Mark Gobell]

[scar]

[Fallious]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

Well that's an answer. Incredible, given that you are unsure of what the question was.

You have now introduced a new criteria, that being "corroboration".

Up until now I had no idea that corroboration was a pre-requisite for your system of beliefs. Thanks for enlightening me.

Two further q's if that's ok.

If you were to speculate about how the planes arrived at the WTC for example, what would you include as possible options ?

Also, given that you have already said that you "believe" aircraft crashed into the WTC, would you be able to say what in your opinion corroborates this belief ?

[flamesong]

mu

[scar]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

[Mark Gobell]

[Mark Gobell]

[alwun]

as I still understand the myriad concepts incorporating 'belief' remain quite different from the personal solid fact of 'knowing'. They are of course different.

cheers Al..

[telecasterisation]

Having spent some considerable time here, I can state with absolute certainty that I witness people avoid questions continually.

I am genuinely not sure what questions I have avoided - can you specify what questions I have not attempted to answer in detail?

If I have not satisfied you having at least attempted an answer, then I have no answer to give you, I do not have an answer for every question and I am very certain that if I cannot answer a question, I state that I do not know the answer.

You simply keep playing the 'easy-peasy card' with no elaboration as to how something is achieved.

[Mark Gobell]

[telecasterisation]

Mark

I note that you open by opting for the semantic discourse once again. The word ‘people’ can often throw us, it being one of those ‘was it meant to imply a lot or just a very few individuals’. Well, in this instance, you can decide how many based upon researching your own experience, but from my perspective it does not include me.

Is ‘folk’ in some way different to ‘people’? It is far too rustic for me and conjures people with crooked teeth driving tractors.

As for the avoidance of questions, I also note that you cite something not immediately connected to the thrust of 9/11, one which I admit I did not have an answer for at the time. I prefer to internally debate before responding on many subjects and there is often not an answer immediately forthcoming. So to answer it now, no I wouldn’t have answered it, to base a poll on speculation, in my opinion, serves no real benefit. If I have no definitive answer, then I say ‘I don’t know’, this being such an occasion.

The point about ‘easy peasy’ I believe you have misconstrued. You say that planting charges on the exterior of the WTC would be simple, yet make no attempt whatsoever to explain how this could be achieved without being spotted. This is true of every aspect of NPT, the overall concept is merely a freeform ‘idea’ where no-one attempts to fill-in the blanks, just a ‘That would be simple to do’.

Yes, of course those occupying whichever ‘camp’ they have chosen will be aware of those aspects that do not hold water, that are difficult to back up or that have apparent contradictions and opt to avoid discussing those things. You also say you have perused my posts and find little in the way of theory explanation. I really thought I had made my position crystal clear and been most assertive as to my stance which again is;

I thoroughly and completely believe 9/11 did not happen the way we are told. I thoroughly and completely believe that aircraft were flown into the towers. Yet, ask me to tell you the finer detail as to how it all took place and I will say I do not know. To accept any of the contrary views spouted here with no substantiation would be just as foolhardy as those who accept that it did play out along the officially published path.

There are those here who continually switch allegiance, a new theory is proffered and this then becomes ‘the way it happened’. Ask me to speculate and I will tell you that is not my way. I don’t know how 9/11 played out and if someone from NPT would like to supply something other than what has been offered up thus far, then I will view the detail and make a decision based upon that. Merely stating that placing charges on the outside of the building to simulate a plane shaped hole is ‘easy’, doesn’t cut it, there is no evidence to support this. You will not see me elaborate on my ‘theory’, as I have no theory to elucidate.

My current view that 9/11 was fabricated is based upon what I witnessed on the day and in the few weeks following. Of course, all post-produced information could be counterfeit, but, and this is the big one for me, as I discount holograms and I do not believe the feeds we were shown on the day itself were manipulated as they were broadcast, there were genuine aircraft involved. To broadcast doctored footage on the day would involve people outside the loop and this in conjunction with amateur footage which obviously would not concur with what the networks showed if it was altered, highlights NPT has no basis.

I have attempted to debate NPT 'points', but the responses have been so minimalistic - I even attempted it with you and such were your replies - nothing substantiated, just passing remarks.

Until such time as someone, anyone from the NPT camp, stumps up something other than ‘There were no planes’, adds detail, exactly what their thinking is, then I will remain as I am now. If truth be told, I believe that NPT is exactly like my thinking but without the accompanying admission, they suspect something is wrong, it didn’t happen the way we are told, but have no real idea how (only they are not prepared to admit it).