Charlie Sheen on CNN
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,794
From: Hanover, PA
Originally Posted by HeathenBrewing
Originally Posted by matt_a
I haven't watched the super long videos about the "theory", so this may have already been explained...I don't know. But did anyone explain, if the events didn't really happen the way we were told, what happened to 4 plane-loads of passangers? Where did they go?
But as George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), pointed out, NONE of the "found" parts have part numbers or serial numbers on them; not at the Pentagon and not at Pennsylvania. For production control, manufacturers stamp such 'part' numbers on virtually EVERY piece of an aircraft. The major components are found with the manufacturer's serial numbers.
Research other plane crashes and see if you can find even one (when the plane is recovered) where investigators were unable to find one marked part.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,457
From: Earth
Originally Posted by matt_a
Okay see...I'm trying to take this seriously, but you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask about serial numbers on plane parts. I asked about 4 plane loads of passangers. Where are they if they weren't in those planes?
I am not blowing you off. I do not know what happened to them.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 229
From: NC
Originally Posted by matt_a
Okay see...I'm trying to take this seriously, but you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask about serial numbers on plane parts. I asked about 4 plane loads of passangers. Where are they if they weren't in those planes?
As with a crime scene investigation, you simply can't ignore all the other incrementing evidence because you don't know what the suspect did with the murder weapon's bullet casings.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,457
From: Earth
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
Well, I challenge your assumption that the picture posted shows "the BULK of the fuel". What are you basing this on? Similar tests of planes hitting 100 story skyscrapers?
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 229
From: NC
Originally Posted by HeathenBrewing
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
Well, I challenge your assumption that the picture posted shows "the BULK of the fuel". What are you basing this on? Similar tests of planes hitting 100 story skyscrapers?
Senior Member
Scion Society
SL Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,253
From: Sanger, CA
I've got to say. This has been some of the best reading on scionlife yet.
Tip of the cap guys. All well thought out and informed rebuttled (minus the bigfoot washing a black helicopter statments)
Also in my opinion of course the question asked:
"Why would the government bring down its own towers and kill so many people?"
If air traffic controller saw deviences in flight plans and notified the proper authorities and the government knew something was up....
Why wouldn't they scramble f-16s and shoot down the aircraft. To save the towers and the people in them. ...
Would it be, to save the people who were aboard the aircraft.. wich were going to perish anyway.....
Do the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?.....
Tip of the cap guys. All well thought out and informed rebuttled (minus the bigfoot washing a black helicopter statments)
Also in my opinion of course the question asked:
"Why would the government bring down its own towers and kill so many people?"
If air traffic controller saw deviences in flight plans and notified the proper authorities and the government knew something was up....
Why wouldn't they scramble f-16s and shoot down the aircraft. To save the towers and the people in them. ...
Would it be, to save the people who were aboard the aircraft.. wich were going to perish anyway.....
Do the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?.....
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,167
From: Center Point, AL
Originally Posted by HeathenBrewing
Originally Posted by oldmanatee
Big flame=bulk of fuel
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,167
From: Center Point, AL
Originally Posted by TimmyT
I've got to say. This has been some of the best reading on scionlife yet.
Tip of the cap guys. All well thought out and informed rebuttled (minus the bigfoot washing a black helicopter statments)
Also in my opinion of course the question asked:
"Why would the government bring down its own towers and kill so many people?"
If air traffic controller saw deviences in flight plans and notified the proper authorities and the government knew something was up....
Why wouldn't they scramble f-16s and shoot down the aircraft. To save the towers and the people in them. ...
Would it be, to save the people who were aboard the aircraft.. wich were going to perish anyway.....
Do the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?.....
Tip of the cap guys. All well thought out and informed rebuttled (minus the bigfoot washing a black helicopter statments)
Also in my opinion of course the question asked:
"Why would the government bring down its own towers and kill so many people?"
If air traffic controller saw deviences in flight plans and notified the proper authorities and the government knew something was up....
Why wouldn't they scramble f-16s and shoot down the aircraft. To save the towers and the people in them. ...
Would it be, to save the people who were aboard the aircraft.. wich were going to perish anyway.....
Do the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?.....
Senior Member
SL Member
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,736
From: In the Hot Tub
Originally Posted by TimmyT
If air traffic controller saw deviences in flight plans and notified the proper authorities and the government knew something was up....
Why wouldn't they scramble f-16s and shoot down the aircraft.
This also ties into the "How did the pilots get overpowered in a tiny cockpit?" My answer: Hold your boxcutter to the stewardess's throat and say "Get Out Here".
I'm just saying that there's as many holes in the holes in the story as there are holes in the story... Hmmm, well it made sense before i typed it I think.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,457
From: Earth
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
That is POST-9/11 thinking that you are using. Prior to that event, there were different procedures in place (and/or not enforced evenly and/or complacentcy) The protocol was to comply with hijackers, for one thing. Hijackings were used to take hostages for bargaining or to get to some destination. They didn't expect for them to be turned into suicide missiles. At least that's my perception.
"NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction. [p. 17, 9/11 Commission Report.]
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
This also ties into the "How did the pilots get overpowered in a tiny cockpit?" My answer: Hold your boxcutter to the stewardess's throat and say "Get Out Here"..
Do you really think this military pilot would value one life over the hundreds of possible deaths if the terrorists took control of the plane?
I'm just saying that there's as many holes in the holes in the story as there are holes in the story... Hmmm, well it made sense before i typed it I think.
[/quote]
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,167
From: Center Point, AL
There are a lot of things that had never happened before that day.. Computer models aren't always right, fluid dynamics is tricky, sounds are hard to determine in a panic situation...If 2 skyscrapers were burning above your head, do you honestly think you can hear and determine each sound......I can almost promise if I was trapped in a burning building, one of those explosions you hear will be me crapping in my pants......
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,120
From: six-two-six
^^^ Exactly. All this after-the-fact speculation and other "data" is being put forth simply to make your own conclusions.
Noboday has answered the "why would they do it" questions yet.
Why?
Why would the US government or anyone in it do this?
Scott
Noboday has answered the "why would they do it" questions yet.
Why?
Why would the US government or anyone in it do this?
Scott
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,457
From: Earth
Originally Posted by slboettcher
Noboday has answered the "why would they do it" questions yet.
Why?
Why would the US government or anyone in it do this?
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 229
From: NC
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
Originally Posted by TimmyT
If air traffic controller saw deviences in flight plans and notified the proper authorities and the government knew something was up....
Why wouldn't they scramble f-16s and shoot down the aircraft.
Well, there is no other way of putting this, but that line of thought is simply not true. There are many examples where they scrambled jets for much less.. Just one example is Payne Stewart's private jet. When they lost communications:
Originally Posted by NTSB report
At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8
About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.
About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification "TULSA 13 flight" were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. The TULSA 13 lead pilot reported to the Minneapolis ARTCC controller that he could not see any movement in the cockpit. About 1125 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot reported that the windshield was dark and that he could not tell if the windshield was iced.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8
About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.
About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification "TULSA 13 flight" were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. The TULSA 13 lead pilot reported to the Minneapolis ARTCC controller that he could not see any movement in the cockpit. About 1125 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot reported that the windshield was dark and that he could not tell if the windshield was iced.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 229
From: NC
Originally Posted by slboettcher
^^^ Exactly. All this after-the-fact speculation and other "data" is being put forth simply to make your own conclusions.
Noboday has answered the "why would they do it" questions yet.
Why?
Why would the US government or anyone in it do this?
Scott
Noboday has answered the "why would they do it" questions yet.
Why?
Why would the US government or anyone in it do this?
Scott
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,120
From: six-two-six
Originally Posted by HeathenBrewing
Originally Posted by slboettcher
Noboday has answered the "why would they do it" questions yet.
Why?
Why would the US government or anyone in it do this?
Senior Member
SL Member
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,736
From: In the Hot Tub
Originally Posted by HeathenBrewing
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
That is POST-9/11 thinking that you are using. Prior to that event, there were different procedures in place (and/or not enforced evenly and/or complacentcy) The protocol was to comply with hijackers, for one thing. Hijackings were used to take hostages for bargaining or to get to some destination. They didn't expect for them to be turned into suicide missiles. At least that's my perception.
"NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction. [p. 17, 9/11 Commission Report.]
Originally Posted by HeathenBrewing
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
This also ties into the "How did the pilots get overpowered in a tiny cockpit?" My answer: Hold your boxcutter to the stewardess's throat and say "Get Out Here"..
Do you really think this military pilot would value one life over the hundreds of possible deaths if the terrorists took control of the plane?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,457
From: Earth
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
Wow, that's a pretty definitive "WRONG" Does that address what airlines instructed their pilots to do in a hijacking situation? Looks like the military line only...
The government was obviously aware of the threat…why not tell all the agencies that could be affected? I know government work is slow, but 6+ years to relay that information? Incompetence at best.
Originally Posted by TheScionicMan
Calls for speculation, inconclusive..
A flawless conclusion? No.
The most likely conclusion? Quite possible.
------------------------------
Still, this topic has little to do with how the terrorists managed to get to the Pentagon in the first place. Lets play along and say the terrorists did "get rid of" any pilot interference. Then what?
After all, I am playing along with you.....can you play along with me?
