Jack White Posted May 22, 2008 Author Share Posted May 22, 2008 The leading theory is that the plane was flown by remote control to mid-Atlantic and was deep-sixed. Less credible are the theories that many of the "passengers" did not exist...just as the 19 arabs did not exist. Those that "did exist" were carefully picked to die for various reasons. The $1,000,000 hush money given to next-of-kin may be a clue. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Downs Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Salut Mr. White, What's eerie is i just thought of that idea, and told my flatmate last night. "The simplest thing to do, would be to drop the plane into the ocean". Logically, the same thing would have to apply to the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon. I have documentation on the remote operation of commercial sized aircraft (not just spy drones) which include take off and landing. Have you seen the video in question, and where did you hear of the (or any) plane being dumped in the ocean? Regards, Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 Salut Mr. White,What's eerie is i just thought of that idea, and told my flatmate last night. "The simplest thing to do, would be to drop the plane into the ocean". Logically, the same thing would have to apply to the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon. I have documentation on the remote operation of commercial sized aircraft (not just spy drones) which include take off and landing. Have you seen the video in question, and where did you hear of the (or any) plane being dumped in the ocean? Regards, Randy If you check 911 websites, you will find quite a few theories. Yes, I have seen the video of the remote flying and deliberate crashing of big jetliners. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 A quite remarkable 911 video... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 Another good video at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1edxEbf4WOQ&...feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 Click: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I don't think that is correct at all, Jack. I'll show why in the next post. Randy, "In Plane Site" is consider by most of the truth movement to be government disinformation, ridiculous propaganda to meant to discredit the truth movement because it is so obviously false. That will give you some idea of the film's credibility. I watched it once and couldn't keep up with noting down all the errors. As is apparent, I am a basic "official theory" believer. The one aspect of Flt 93 I am prepared to consider is that the aircraft was shot down by a US fighter, in order to stop it reaching it's intended target, and subsequently the US government does not want that act made public. The facts don't seem to support that theory, but I consider it to be somewhat plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Check this:http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-t...to-hit-wtc.html Very persuasive. Killtown has the most comprehensive website on the net re 911. Jack Hahahhahahahaha! Stop it, Jack, you're killing me. You are such a comedian. Killclown.... hahahah! What? You MEANT it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC Nothing of the sort. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC Nothing of the sort. Jack Then you must be blind. You see the corner buckle inwards and the top collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Another good video at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1edxEbf4WOQ&...feature=related Now, this so-called fuselage coming through. If that is a fuselage emerging as a largish object, then where did it go to in the subsequent footage? We don't see anything like it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhXioCl5AjU On the other hand, if it is part of the engine, then we do see it continue to exit and follow a ballistic trajectory. I wonder what would happen if we compared the size of the object exiting, as compared to the known size of the fuselage? I believe we'll find that the exiting object does NOT match the size of the fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 This is a rather long video, about 28 mins, but well worth watching. Pay particular attention to the sequence at about 11 mins. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82...50&hl=en-CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 Another good video at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1edxEbf4WOQ&...feature=related Now, this so-called fuselage coming through. If that is a fuselage emerging as a largish object, then where did it go to in the subsequent footage? We don't see anything like it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhXioCl5AjU On the other hand, if it is part of the engine, then we do see it continue to exit and follow a ballistic trajectory. I wonder what would happen if we compared the size of the object exiting, as compared to the known size of the fuselage? I believe we'll find that the exiting object does NOT match the size of the fuselage. Another NON-ANSWER. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC Nothing of the sort. Jack Then you must be blind. You see the corner buckle inwards and the top collapse. The CROPPED video shows one corner of the building collapsing, BUT DOES NOT SHOW WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING. Of course that corner collapsed when the whole building collapsed, but from this cropped video clip NO CONCLUSIONS MAY BE DRAWN about what else was happening. The point is irrelevant anyway, since it was impossible for the entire building to collapse AT FREE FALL SPEED as if there was NO RESISTANCE from the floors below. That is impossible. This is basic physics. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now