Originally posted by Rolfeysome interesting stuff...didn't have time for whole movie but the stuff about the plane NOT hitting the pentagon has largely been discounted. check out www.snopes.com for more info.
this is a link to a documentary looking at 9-11. generally i do not watch these things but this is suprisingly good, and scary.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
by the way, don't think they ever found much plane debris from the trade centres either but clearly a plane hit it....just cause there are no big pieces doesn't mean it didn't crash.
Matthew's Story
Matt is 15 years old. Because Matt has mental retardation, he has been receiving special education services since elementary school. These services have helped him tremendously, because they are designed to fit his special learning needs. Last year he started high school. He, his family, and the school took a good hard look at what he wants to do when secondary school is over. Does he want more education? A job? Does he have the skills he needs to live on his own?
HELLO MATT!
Originally posted by MaxWaxHello Matt, I'd suggest trying your hand at checkers first before attempting chess.
Matthew's Story
Matt is 15 years old. Because Matt has mental retardation, he has been receiving special education services since elementary school. These services have helped him tremendously, because they are designed to fit his special learning needs. Last year he started high school. He, his family, and the school took a good hard look at what he wants t ...[text shortened]... want more education? A job? Does he have the skills he needs to live on his own?
HELLO MATT!
However, you could try being a comedian because everyone already thinks you're a joke.
Originally posted by uzlesschecked it out. i'd watch the whole footage, it seems far more believable than the link you have supplied.
some interesting stuff...didn't have time for whole movie but the stuff about the plane NOT hitting the pentagon has largely been discounted. check out www.snopes.com for more info.
by the way, don't think they ever found much plane debris from the trade centres either but clearly a plane hit it....just cause there are no big pieces doesn't mean it didn't crash.
let me know what you think after
Originally posted by RolfeyIndeed. It poses a few troubling questions. I'm sure the US gov. can find some way of explaining them away or have people forget about them, though.
i saw it today myself and felt it's questions were fair and do deserve answers, hence i spread the word on here.
Originally posted by RolfeyI watched this a while back, and being a pilot myself, and done classes on Airline Transport Management, Air traffic control, FAA, NTSB, and studied FAA test crashes for studies Etc., and I can tell you, whoever put up this video don't know what their talking about. Its easy to convince people of something if they only get part of the story.
this is a link to a documentary looking at 9-11. generally i do not watch these things but this is suprisingly good, and scary.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
For example, Its the law that all Part 135 flights file an IFR flight plan, which is tracked by radar at all times, from takeoff to landing. The movie says ATC thought the plane was a military plane, but the fact is that every airliner has a transponder which bounces back the airline information to ATC, which is on the data tag on every airplane display, On that video of the radar picture it didn't have a data tag which means that it was made up.
They also was talking about a high speed stall, lol they dont know anything about stalls, I can do it in the same plane on my Flight Simulator,
Also they say their is not enough wreckage at the pentagon for it to be a plane, go to http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm and click on "Jet verses Wall" and that will clear that up.
They also edited the clip where the FAA did the flight test, you can see the real clip at http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
They also use "eye witnesses" to back up their story, I did a study in my Aviation Law class which looked at different crashes, and the eye-witnesses were way off and way different, and it almost imposable to go by there story's
They say that cell phone use is almost imposable at high altitudes, I'm not sure why they said that, but I have always used my cell phone at high altitudes with perfect reception.
Also I don't think whoever made the movie knows what a Helli-pad is, they said it was a marking for the attack lol
That 9-11 movie is probably made up by someone from Hollywood who is a Bush Hater.
There is still some Fishy stuff, I'm not at all saying their isn't, like the Stock market, and the other explosions, I think they should be investigated..
1 edit
Originally posted by flyUnitygood website you linked to. i shall peruse more at my leisure. the jet versus wall was good footage but unless i'm mistaken it was a very different plane? the video from loose change highlights the hole size compared to the plane - can you offer explanation for that? what about the lack of "skid" marks on the grass?
I watched this a while back, and being a pilot myself, and done classes on Airline Transport Management, Air traffic control, FAA, NTSB, and studied FAA test crashes for studies Etc., and I can tell you, whoever put up this video don't know what their talking about. Its easy to convince people of something if they only get part of the story.
For example ike the Stock market, and the other explosions, I think they should be investigated..
can the data tags be faked? as they are programmed in the first place i assume so. also, assuming the government had something to do with it this would it be an easy task?
i agree fully with your eyewitness comments, but how about the firemen radioing to each other about the other blasts, and the melted metal in the lower building?!
no idea about the cell phones, will take your word for it. no denying that the passengers calls were weird though.
i love bush, just not the presidential type.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rolfeyyea, the plane in the link was a different plane, but built with the same material, and maybe even built stronger because of the high G factors, Its a little smaller engine too, but built with the same metal.
good website you linked to. i shall peruse more at my leisure. the jet versus wall was good footage but unless i'm mistaken it was a very different plane? the video from loose change highlights the hole size compared to the plane - can you offer explanation for that? what about the lack of "skid" marks on the grass?
can the data tags be faked? as they are ...[text shortened]... ng that the passengers calls were weird though.
i love bush, just not the presidential type.
The whole in the wall appears smaller then the plane, Im not sure why, maybe because the plane hit it at an angle, or maybe cause the concrete structure ripped them off, To tell you the truth, Im quite stumped on that one.
And the lack of skid marks? didnt the plane hit the building withought hitting the ground?
And about ATC keeping track of the airlines with the Data tags, ATC was still part of the FAA at that time, so its possable that they couldve done something, however not withought raising alot of suspicion with alot of people, I know from experiance that they moniter you pretty well when your flying, but then again, if the FAA grounded all planes, there wouldve been a heap of confusion, so they mightve not been monitering everything.
As far as the other blast, and the melted metal from the lower stories, I dont know, I have no experiance about this stuff, so not sure how or why, or IF its even true
Wouldnt explosions on the lower floor cause the building to fall from the bottom? Instead if fell from the top.
In short, planning something like this wouldve involved way to many people for it to be this quiet, There is no way that goverment could do something so secretly.
Have you ever read the book "Lets Roll"? Its has alot of facts about 9-11 and would probaly clear things up quite a bit.
Originally posted by flyUnityThat is great stuff, but transponders have knobs with a selection labelled "OFF". Now, I'm picking the hijackers couldn't give a rats about IFR law. It is possible that they switched the transponder off, ATC picked them up on primary radar, and concluded the unidentified aircraft was military.
For example, Its the law that all Part 135 flights file an IFR flight plan, which is tracked by radar at all times, from takeoff to landing. The movie says ATC thought the plane was a military plane, but the fact is that every airliner has a transponder which bounces back the airline information to ATC, which is on the data tag on every airplane display ...[text shortened]... n that video of the radar picture it didn't have a data tag which means that it was made up.
2 edits
Originally posted by KalsenI didnt know that Airlines can turn off their transponder, I thought only GA aircraft can, I may be wrong on that though, but what Im saying is that the aircraft is being tracked, and recorded, (Im pretty sure its recorded) now even though the transponder is off, they can still see where the plane came from, which means that ATC would know if it was the planes that that hit the WTC
That is great stuff, but transponders have knobs with a selection labelled "OFF". Now, I'm picking the hijackers couldn't give a rats about IFR law. It is possible that they switched the transponder off, ATC picked them up on primary radar, and concluded the unidentified aircraft was military.
EDIT, According to this link, I see nowhere where it says that ATC thought it was military planes, they were just slow in finding that the aircraft was hijacked
http://webarchive.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=39642
Edit 2: Oh I see that the transponders could be turned off back then, sorry about that, I also see that they lost radar contact for a couple min when above clevlend, which means there was a small possibility that they couldve switched planes, however, Im still doubting it