September 11

[Fancy]

The windows are small and at the speed the plane was going it's understandable some witnesses wouldn't have noticed them. Other witnesses did identify the plane though.

[vinnied]

OK, just so I'm straight on these truck bombs. The Mossad has a truck full of explosives that it is going to explode on 9-11, and to help in this secret conspiracy with the US Government they thought it would be a good idea to paint the side of it with a huge mural of a plane crashing into the WTC? Makes sense.

Thought it was of a plane crashing into new york? other then your laughing emoticon, can you prove that recording is a fake? Regardles of what you believe, I am open to facts on both sides of the debate
As for mossad, Oh yeah, thats right. The israeli's were merely there "to document the event". Oops bad choice of words. Thats ok though, its been explained what he really meant.
Wonder what ever happened to that video tape they were making?

[zzontar]

Yeah... Well, I wouldn't want to hold your hand and treat you like a child but this video shows 30 camera angles that 99% of the population would recognize this as nothing other than a Boing 767-222 aircraft with a United Airlines paint scheme.

Hmmmmm, I just see a jet... I wouldn't bet 10 bucks that it's a United Airlines jet according to the footage. Maybe it is, but to say it's obvious to 99% of the people? No.

[goatboy]

OK, just so I'm straight on these truck bombs. The Mossad has a truck full of explosives that it is going to explode on 9-11, and to help in this secret conspiracy with the US Government they thought it would be a good idea to paint the side of it with a huge mural of a plane crashing into the WTC? Makes sense.

Thought it was of a plane crashing into new york? other then your laughing emoticon, can you prove that recording is a fake? Regardles of what you believe, I am open to facts on both sides of the debate
As for mossad, Oh yeah, thats right. The israeli's were merely there "to document the event". Oops bad choice of words. Thats ok though, its been explained what he really meant.
Wonder what ever happened to that video tape they were making?

No, of course I can't prove it was fake as much as you can't prove it was real. How about my question why would the Mossad paint the side of an explosive filled truck with a mural depicting a plane crashing into NY? Like most of the arguments, it doesn't make sense.

If it was a military operation, why not use a real 767 painted in United colours? Why risk thousands of people seeing an actual military plane when using a fake United jet would be just as easy and more logical.

Ct'ers are trying to make bits ad pieces fit a convoluted conspiracy where common sense says if it truly were one they would have done it a lot differently.

[vinnied]

No, of course I can't prove it was fake as much as you can't prove it was real. How about my question why would the Mossad paint the side of an explosive filled truck with a mural depicting a plane crashing into NY? Like most of the arguments, it doesn't make sense.

" There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck "

you will find that on page twenty of a govt report called

Saving city lifelines: lessons learned in the 9/11 terrorist attacks

http://www3.cutr.usf.edu/security/docum ... 5B1%5D.pdf

only discrepancy between the audio, and the report is the actual explosion. So the only thing I cant confirm was if the van exploded? audio track says it did.

[kompili]

Nice video zyzzx, but I see nothing that shows it is the plane that you are talking about. All I see is a dark plane, no windows, like the witnesses said a military plane. Here is a real video's of the plane, and the people that saw it.

[GenesisGT]

Nice video zyzzx, but I see nothing that shows it is the plane that you are talking about. All I see is a dark plane, no windows, like the witnesses said a military plane. Here is a real video's of the plane, and the people that saw it.

UA73, positively radar identified, professional pilot confirms UA 767-200 with the controller, controller visually spots aircraft and watches it fly into WTC2, all recorded. CT response it was a military drone.

These facts are not even responded to, the typical CT answer, if the facts prove different then what a CT believes then just ignore it, or change the subject and blame the media and the gov't.

Why is direct evidence ignored?

[Fancy]

All I see is a dark plane, no windows

At the speed and angle, you wouldn't be able to see the windows.

[kompili]

Even the witnesses, who were there said there were no windows. I thought that is what you believed in, in the witnesses, or is it just the witnesses that fit your agenda.

[Nebula]

Even the witnesses, who were there said there were no windows. I thought that is what you believed in, in the witnesses, or is it just the witnesses that fit your agenda.

What if there were witnesses who saw windows? CTs regularly dismiss any witnesses who saw something that goes against their whimsical theories.

[Fancy]

Even the witnesses, who were there said there were no windows. I thought that is what you believed in, in the witnesses, or is it just the witnesses that fit your agenda.

How could they see windows at the angle shown? They aren't living room picture windows.

[zyzzx]

Hmmmmm, I just see a jet... I wouldn't bet 10 bucks that it's a United Airlines jet according to the footage. Maybe it is, but to say it's obvious to 99% of the people? No.

Dipping into the alcoholic breath spray again? The profile shown is of a Boing 767-222 not that of any other plane type and certainly not the profile of a military plane as presented by those above. It is most certainly obvious, it most definately is nothing other than a Boing 767-222. To think otherwise is to simply ignore what is quite simply overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and frankly shows a biased need of some to refuse to admit their error. I can certainly agree the colouring is difficult to see, but to deny the fact that it is none other than a 767-222 is simply rediculous.

[kompili]

UA73, positively radar identified, professional pilot confirms UA 767-200 with the controller, controller visually spots aircraft and watches it fly into WTC2, all recorded. CT response it was a military drone.

When did this come out, how many days or years after 9/11, just so they could get the story straight. It must of been the only thing that was positively identified long after the fact.

[Fancy]

Rescue workers found bodies strapped in seats from the plane and eye witnesses identified the passenger plane.

[kompili]

Dipping into the alcoholic breath spray again? The profile shown is of a Boing 767-222 not that of any other plane type and certainly not the profile of a military plane as presented by those above. It is most certainly obvious, it most definately is nothing other than a Boing 767-222. To think otherwise is to simply ignore what is quite simply overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and frankly shows a biased need of some to refuse to admit their error. I can certainly agree the colouring is difficult to see, but to deny the fact that it is none other than a 767-222 is simply rediculous.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a drone. The case for a 767-200 strike at WTC1 is very weak and will no doubt remain highly controversial until a full scale investigation by professionals from all fields is carried out to resolve the matter for once and all.