Willease's 9/11 Enigmas

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostThu Sep 01, 2011 6:47 pm » by Electrobadgr


rydher wrote:To take it to the next step. Then what happened to the people and the planes that were 'supposedly' flown into the towers?

Full disclosure, I'm not buying it was anything but the AA jets that were flown into the towers. I personally know an eye witness that didn't see the first plane but saw the second. He was an old Navy friend that I was stationed with and is more than capable of identifying a civilian airliner and a missile.


Sorry mate but the absence of an answer to that question doesn't make the official story any more cohesive. I would question whether any of the so called passengers even exsisted in the first place, given that no family members were awaiting their arrival at the respective airports. I would also question whether or not the so called flights left the airport given that they were listed as being both still in service and not having flown at all on 9/11, but hey, i did learn that from a web doc so i am sure that is reason enough for so called 'skeptics' to refute these claims. I don't have any answers for you, plenty of questions though...

Whilst i am sure you friend is what would be described as a 'reliable witness', i wasn't there, i only saw the same dubious footage as the rest of the world, forgive me for not taking your friends word for it .
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostThu Sep 01, 2011 6:49 pm » by Rydher


Fair enough.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7596
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:34 pm

PostThu Sep 01, 2011 7:13 pm » by Flecktarn


you dont need a pilot to fly a plane today ,airbus can fly a plane by remote control ,,and just look at the aeroplane crash videos they were flown by remote to test the impact damage ,even old planes have been converted to be target drones flown by remote ,,and just think some people will still argue that the earth is flat ,,,,,,911 raises still to many questions
ImageImage

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostThu Sep 01, 2011 7:16 pm » by Electrobadgr


While we are on the subject, check this out, literally just stumbled across it (gotta love facebook for some things) :D

:rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :rtft: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:

http://www.factoverfiction.com/article/3032

Truly a Bizarre Passenger list for Flight 77 that Crashed into the Pentagon (Article)


We [WWW]are told that there were 64 passengers were on board Flight 77. We count 59, including 6 crew members. We presume they mean 59 passengers and crew, plus 5 Hijackers Patsies. There is no Arab name on the list of victims as reported by the media (see Passenger Links below).

The capacity of Flight 77 was 239 passengers, and with 53 passengers aboard, that is an occupancy rate of 23%. We have flown a great deal in Europe and North America, and never at any time in the last decade have we flown a trans-continental flight that was 3/4 empty (this is of course pre-9/11). The numbers appear number of passenger - loadsout-of-whack, thankfully. And so, a lingering question is why the passenger loads on the four planes hijacked in US skies are being described by industry officials as “very, very low.”

Many investigators suspect the terrorists at the very least shopped for flights with low passenger loads, making it easier for them — presumably armed only with knives and box cutters — to prevent passenger uprisings. …

“They wanted the numbers to be on their side.”

And they were: staggeringly so. [WWW]CNN

Three of the transcontinental flights departed for the West Coast with at least two thirds of the seats empty. Only 37 of the 182 seats were occupied — including four by hijackers, at least two in first class — as United Airlines’ Flight 93 left Newark for San Francisco. Through July, airlines in the United States reported flights on average were 71 percent capacity this year.

There is no evidence that the hijackers actually “shopped for flights” at all. In some cases we are told that they simply purchased their tickets over the Internet.

But this is truly a bizarre passenger list. Well, if you look at the occupations of the passengers of Flight 77, you get a strange feeling that something is wrong with this picture:

For a random collection of passengers, this is a very impressive manifest. We use the results of Killtown’s work on the passenger list, which was drawn from the canonical sources of 9/11 victims biographical information on the Internet: the numbers in square brackets are the numbers in Killtown’s listing .

a senior scientist with the US Navy, retired Army. [12] A third-generation physicist whose work at the Navy was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. They don’t even know exactly why he was headed to Los Angeles on the doomed American Airlines Flight 77.
a Boeing engineer in Integrated Defense Systems; he served in the US Air Force for four years, and for the National Security Agency for 14 years. [36]
a director of program management at Raytheon, US Army (ret.) [28] who helped develop and build anti-radar technology for electronic warfare. Raytheon‘s website notes that they are leaders in every phase of the Precision Strike kill chain; are the world’s leading organization at Missile Defense; provides state-of-the-art technology to detect, protect and respond to terrorism and provide Homeland Defense; and that their technology forms the eyes, ears and brains of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems, from the Predator to the Global Hawk.
a retired naval aviator who worked for Veridian Corp., a defense contractor, who was working with military aircraft and weapons systems [56] A Navy test pilot who worked on the development of the F18. “He had done a number of black programs — which means top-secret,” said his son. “We were given no details.”
an electrical engineer with defense contractor BAE Systems. [41] largest technical support supplier to the US Navy. BAE Systems is an industry leader in flight control systems, which are present on nearly every US military aircraft. BAE electronic warfare systems such as their jamming system are vital to the US Navy operations.
2 Boeing propulsion engineers: a lead Propulsion Engineer and a Project Manager with Boeing Satellite Systems, [32] and a lead engineer for Boeing Satellite Systems. [40]
a software architect with Lockheed Martin Corp., US Army (ret.). [42] A manager in the systems and software architecture department.
a Vice President for software development, EMSolutions and retired Lieutenant Commander, Navy. [18] He spent 20 years in the US Navy, where he developed high capacity signal processors, multi-processor application software and innovative signal processing algorithms. EMSolutions maintains a facility security clearance, and has contracts with Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and BAE Systems.
a technical group manager at Xon Tech, a defense-related research and development firm [46] He previously worked as an engineer at the Naval Research Lab. Also a technical manager of Xon Tech [53].
a retired Navy Rear Admiral, former Navy pilot, and retired American Airlines pilot. [24]
a senior executive at the Defense Department. [29] A budget analyst/director of the programming and fiscal economics division who worked at the Pentagon.
a former Navy electronics technician worked as a Department of Defense contractor with Vrendenburg Co. in Washington [57]
managing partner and co-founder of Stratin Consulting. and retired Marine Corps Lieutenant and Vietnam War veteran [26]
a lawyer who had worked with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. [49]
and of course, there was Barbara Olson, attorney, CNN Commentator and wife of the United States Solicitor General. [39]

The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines passengers are simply astronomical! There are more top secret security clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America.

Especially astounding in this bizarre passenger list is the preponderance of Navy personnel amongst the 4 armed services, and the tilt toward propulsion and guidance systems amongst all of the possible secret technologies. It’s almost as if someone put this list together thinking that Navy personnel were expendable – or needed to be expended.

This looks like a charter flight for the military-industrial complex; it’s almost as if this plane should have taken off from the Pentagon, rather than supposedly crashing into it.

For a complete breakdown of the passenger list with pictures,names,ages and backgrounds click here: http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/passengers.html

Article Source:http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight77Passengers.shtml
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Initiate
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:31 am

PostFri Sep 02, 2011 6:16 am » by Thetamplar


Wow ... that's some compelling evidence that would definately hold up in a court of law when stacked with all the other evidence there is.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostFri Sep 02, 2011 11:59 am » by Electrobadgr


One piece of many pieces of damning evidence of an inside job!
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am

PostFri Sep 02, 2011 2:58 pm » by Hackjames


electrobadgr wrote:One piece of many pieces of damning evidence of an inside job!


I agree that the flight capacity and occupants are beyond suspicious, given the context. I didn't see offhand where the actual data Killtown used came from, but there were enough mainstream citations in his piece that I feel comfortable assuming it is accurate (unless someone claims differently).

Speculatively, let's say there were no passenger airliners at the Pentagon or in Shanksville (I doubt there were, myself). That notion does lend credence to the idea that there might not have been planes at the WTC complex that day either. However, I don't think there has been a strong enough case made for the simultaneous editing of all the mainstream network footage.

I could understand being skeptical about the eyewitness accounts concerning the first plane, but I find it more difficult to accept that, after the first plane had hit, the presumable high numbers of people viewing the event hallucinated, imagined or misinterpreted the second plane entirely.

Maybe the WTC planes were empty drones. The masterful "piloting" would be much easier to account for, were that the case (although, in fairness, I do recall sever commercial airline pilots testifying that those planes could not physically preform the observed maneuvers at all, regardless of who/what flew them).

Regardless, I appreciate your approach to this topic, even if you have the unenviable distinction of being involved in some kind of legal proceeding in a professional capacity. ;]
This is your world. You're the creator.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4742
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:32 pm

PostFri Sep 02, 2011 3:01 pm » by Will69ease


hackjames wrote:
electrobadgr wrote:One piece of many pieces of damning evidence of an inside job!


I agree that the flight capacity and occupants are beyond suspicious, given the context. I didn't see offhand where the actual data Killtown used came from, but there were enough mainstream citations in his piece that I feel comfortable assuming it is accurate (unless someone claims differently).

Speculatively, let's say there were no passenger airliners at the Pentagon or in Shanksville (I doubt there were, myself). That notion does lend credence to the idea that there might not have been planes at the WTC complex that day either. However, I don't think there has been a strong enough case made for the simultaneous editing of all the mainstream network footage.

I could understand being skeptical about the eyewitness accounts concerning the first plane, but I find it more difficult to accept that, after the first plane had hit, the presumable high numbers of people viewing the event hallucinated, imagined or misinterpreted the second plane entirely.

Maybe the WTC planes were empty drones. The masterful "piloting" would be much easier to account for, were that the case (although, in fairness, I do recall sever commercial airline pilots testifying that those planes could not physically preform the observed maneuvers at all, regardless of who/what flew them).

Regardless, I appreciate your approach to this topic, even if you have the unenviable distinction of being involved in some kind of legal proceeding in a professional capacity. ;]


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4742
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:32 pm

PostSun Sep 04, 2011 7:56 am » by Will69ease


I was watching George Bush in the 9/11 interview which is aired on National Geographic Channel. In it he says he was in the back of a secret service car heading to Andrews AFB.
The young driver was driving really fast so he says "slow down, al qaeda isn't here." But later,
when he is in a meeting with his security advisers, the CIA at this point in time, first suggested that al qaeda might be behind the attacks. If this is so, why would he say that to the driver earlier? If you get the chance, watch the video on TV and record it. The fucker is still lying about it.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/s ... s/10915_00

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4742
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:32 pm

PostSun Sep 04, 2011 8:22 am » by Will69ease


will69ease wrote:I was watching George Bush in the 9/11 interview which is aired on National Geographic Channel. In it he says he was in the back of a secret service car heading to Andrews AFB.
The young driver was driving really fast so he says "slow down, al qaeda isn't here." But later,
when he is in a meeting with his security advisers, the CIA at this point in time, first suggested that al qaeda might be behind the attacks. If this is so, why would he say that to the driver earlier? If you get the chance, watch the video on TV and record it. The fucker is still lying about it.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/s ... s/10915_00

At 2:45 he makes statement to driver. At 6:50 the CIA suggests for the first time al quida.
[youtube]qi-UTaDY6pY&feature=related[/youtube]


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook