So, where did the passengers go?

[SidneyCarton]

Hey y'all, I lurk here every once in a while, and have noted the current ongoing controversy regarding those who insist that no planes were involved in 9/11. As this position at present neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm, I will not argue against it. However, in the interest of curiosity, how does one account for the passenger deaths recorded on that date? One must either assume that:

1. These people are still alive.

2. These people were killed in order to further the illusion.

3. These people never existed at all, and are mere figments of data.

I find option three to be the least likely, do to the phone calls recorded from passengers. However, I won't be surprised if there are any number of explanations on this subject as well. While I have no doubt that this subject has been exhaustively explored here, I have not yet seen a really convincing argument about what happened to the passengers, so please enlighten me.

Let the bloodletting begin.

[Sezu]

1. John

moved the Island.

[SidneyCarton]

2. Okaaaaay.

[Make7]

3. We have to go back. ( n/t )

[SidneyCarton]

4. This would be cute if I actually watched Lost.

[JackRiddler]

5. 4. No-planes theory is an intentional distraction...

Set up to focus energy on constructs that obviously couldn't be true, that in the case of the WTC are clear parodies. The latter idea especially is promoted by a minority of self-proclaimed truth researchers who simultaneously (this is the tip-off) demand loyalty to their ideas from all other 9/11 truth researchers and accuse them of being COINTELPRO if they don't go along. Many of them specialize in delivering barely restrained death threats.

[frog92969]

6. Unless you include the Pentagon,

and maybe Flight 93.

[vincent_vega_lives]

12. Lets get this straight.

Who are you talking about?

[JackRiddler]

13. Sure.

Haupt, Webfairy, Smart, Fetzer, Woods, Reynolds, Siegel et al. And Haupt's happy enabler on the bedunker side, ScrewLooseChange. You can do further research yourself, it doesn't concern me much beyond the occasional note.

[vincent_vega_lives]

14. What about DU posters?

That's who I'm refering to. Are they disinformants or just dupes?

[JackRiddler]

15. Why are you asking me to potentially violate DU rules?

In the abstract, I did hear a story recently about how one DU user is actually a Republican blogger who on his site endorses National Review and Instapundit and labels this site part of the "moonbat left." But I wouldn't know anything else about it. Thanks.

[Twist_U_Up]

24. one ?

really ?

;-)

[dailykoff]

7. My guess is some of each, with #2 including targeted killings.

As best I've been able to figure, there was only one lost plane, the one that blew up over PA, which was carrying the hapless passengers (not all that many if any) transferred from the other flights, but mainly military and intel personnel who for one reason or another knew a little too much or were otherwise inconvenient.

My guess is that they thought they were playing a real-time wargame. If the storm-the-cockpit scene happened, which I kind of doubt, it was probably a "scenario," and none of them expected to be blown to smithereens.

[wildbilln864]

8. That's about what I have speculated...

I believe planes hit the towers. But maybe not the pentagon. All the planes were well below capacity. Some of the planes weren't even supposed to fly that day IIRC. Maybe one of the planes held all the passengers we're told were on two seperate planes.
Possibility? :shrug:

[dailykoff]

9. heya bill, my take on the planes in NYC

is that there was probably at least one plane, the second one, but that it was a fly-by, and neither tower was actually struck by aircraft. That explains the witnesses who swear to hearing and seeing a plane, but it also explains why there's no actual evidence of airline crashes, apart from a very dubious CNN clip showing the plane melting into the tower.

[Bassman66]

20. Good grief!

Is there one single image or video of a plane flying past the towers?

(the answer is no).

Why would fakers think they would be able to control all the public images after the event?

Use your head.

[dailykoff]

22. In the official footage, the plane flies behind the 2nd tower

and then flames shoot out of the sides of the building. The plane could simply have taken a sharp turn away from the cameras at that point and stayed out of the frame. It's not like they hadn't thought all this through.

[SDuderstadt]

23. The really comincal thing about this post is that...

the poster is actually serious.

[SidneyCarton]

26. Not really,

I just wanted to see if any of the "no planers" could actually give a rational explanation to this nagging question, so far, no good.

[balantz]

27. I posted an interesting link, but it got deleted.

It is hard to discuss things I've found when they get removed.

[SDuderstadt]

28. It's all part of a huge plot;..

to "keep the truth from coming out".

[balantz]

29. Thanks for the info n/t

[SDuderstadt]

30. I knew I should have used the sarcasm smiley n/t

[Bassman66]

31. Ridiculous!

"A sharp turn".

You're having a laugh.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Believe it or not...

this poster (DK) is serious.

[dailykoff]

34. Planes don't turn?

All it had to do was stay out of the frame, so the camera could also have simply zoomed in on the "crashes." I haven't looked at it lately but I'll see if I can find a copy. Anyway there's a reason the FBI begged witnesses to send them any photos or videos they had of the "attack."

[Bassman66]

35. Do you know what the turning circle of a 737 is?

Apart from being physically impossible, they supposedly did that to fake one video, why?
What about the other 44 videos?

[Bassman66]

36. So you're saying that the fakers way of controlling...

..the images after the event is to appeal to the public to send their images to the FBI (whilst destroying the original?)

Really?

Have you thought this through for more than 2 seconds?

[geek_sabre]

38. a jetliner traveling 350mph+

turning on a dime? Someone's been watching too much Wil. E. Coyote.

[dailykoff]

40. Who said it was a jetliner?

I said plane. :shrug:

[truedelphi]

42. I was watching YouTube videos of John Lear today

He seems to be saying that missiles took out the buildings, and that holograms of the aircraft simulated planes hitting the towers.

[dailykoff]

43. Interesting, I'll look for it.

I remember the missile theory, and while I wouldn't rule them out, I think their purpose would have been to produce the initial pyrotechnics, as the towers themselves seem pretty clearly to have had explosives distributed all through the structures, and a single blast on any level wouldn't have been able to destroy the floors beneath it.

[mhatrw]

10. Good question. I would assume that they are dead any way you slice it.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. It doesn't rule out LIHOP. It doesn't rule out MIHOP. It doesn't even rule out bizarre no plane theories.

[AZCat]

16. Yes. If they're vicious enough to blow up buildings full of people...

they won't have qualms slaughtering a few hundred more. I don't agree with this theory of course, but I don't see the passengers as a sticking point for the various conspiracies.

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. You think LOST is just a show? (n/t)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. I guess Barbara Olsen reincarnated?

[SidneyCarton]

19. Who's Barbara Olsen?

Do you have evidence of a supposedly dead passenger who is alive? I would be interested in seeing that...

[Recursion]

33. You mean the well-published and frequently-on-tv former wife...

...of the then-US-Soliciter-General?

There's a hell of a lot more evidence of her having existed than of my having existed.

Why she and she alone on that plane managed to get a call out is a fair question, sure, but saying Barbara Olsen never existed is not going to go very far.

[JackRiddler]

21. What would that have to do with the official story either way?

It's a religious question.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

25. kick!

[davidwparker]

37. Enlightment: There are people sitting in jail right now for murder where the

bodies have never been found.

[go west young man]

39. I'm not sure what happened to the people on the planes but I am

certain that the Pentagons rooftop cameras would prove once and for all whether a plane or a missile struck the building. But the government has decided to keep that video evidence from the public. That fact alone should give all people reason to doubt the "official" explanation. That camera evidence would also prove once and for all if people were looking out the windows when the plane struck the building. If it did.

[Hectic Eclectic]

44. ...be certain they don't want you to know.

... remember, the Pentagon is one of the most heavily fortified buildings in the world. Security cameras roughly every 50 feet. We KNOW there is more video SOMEWHERE - if not, then it was intentional.

Remember the testimony of the gas station owner that the Feds showed up less than 30 minutes after impact to confiscate the video from his security camera, the one pointed right at the crash site?

No one ever saw that.

You ever see arial footage of that part of the pentagon lawn taken about a week before the crash? Ever notice the odd "line"... of discolored grass that follows the EXACT path that the 'plane' took that morning?

Yep...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. what line?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.