Conspiracy theories

[roydo]

registration codes of two of the airliners still being used years later.

You probably know better than me, but I always thought they related to the route, not that actual plane.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Think he has an open mind on that.

Well, given that the curvature of the earth meant that raiding Luftwaffe bombers flying towards the southern coast during the Battle of Britain remained undetected by RDF because of the curvature (you know where I'm coming from on this, roydo), I think people can sleep easy in their cots tonight knowing that OB2 is not a flat-earther.

 

[Old Blue 2]

You probably know better than me, but I always thought they related to the route, not that actual plane.

The route, you are quite correct roydo, is allocated to the aircraft. like United Airlines Flight 175. But at the manufacturing stage they would be given a discrete reference code not shared with any other aircraft. So take the UK for example. Ours are G-xxxx. Germany's are D-xxxx. And using the Battle of Britain as an example, the Spitfires and Hurricanes had X---- or L---- (letter and four numbers) and the Luftwaffe Werk Nummer were four numbers, different to each individual aircraft.

So that is what I meant when I said I believed those codes were still in use years later.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Well, given that the curvature of the earth meant that raiding Luftwaffe bombers flying towards the southern coast during the Battle of Britain remained undetected by RDF because of the curvature (you know where I'm coming from on this, roydo), I think people can sleep easy in their cots tonight knowing that OB2 is not a flat-earther.

this should also had said '.. the southern coast flying at nought feet (sea level)...'

 

[trueblue84]

Don't talk crap!

Have you got nothing better to say? Jeez...

So, you're only open minded when it suits?

Open mindedness works both ways. You have to be open to the fact that based on the balance of evidence, 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Looking for tenuous links to an inside job to validate what you believe is not open minded. I would be more than willing to change my opinion on what happened, but the evidence just isn't there.

 

[trueblue84]

Neither do I.

Like reports (whether true or not I don't know) of the registration codes of two of the airliners still being used years later.

There's a whole lot of unanswered things, and all I (we) can do is sit on the fence and try to make sense of it all.

All I do is simply put things out for consideration, but still the clowns come after me (as if I'm bothered).

And therein lies my problem with conspiracy theories. So, you don't know if what you are posting is true but you post it anyway? There's a reason why it has never been reported from a reputable source.

 

[Old Blue 2]

So, you're only open minded when it suits?

Open mindedness works both ways. You have to be open to the fact that based on the balance of evidence, 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Looking for tenuous links to an inside job to validate what you believe is not open minded. I would be more than willing to change my opinion on what happened, but the evidence just isn't there.

When it suits? What are you talking about?

'...Looking for tenuous links to an inside job to validate what you believe is not open minded...' But I'm not doing that, if you would but read through all of my posts and take them in. I'm putting out information/views for others to consider. Some may agree, some may disagree. That is the nature of things.

You are simly jumping to conclusions that have no validity. 'When it suits' - what's that supposed to mean? Explain yourself.

 

[LostLegend]

And therein lies my problem with conspiracy theories. So, you don't know if what you are posting is true but you post it anyway? There's a reason why it has never been reported from a reputable source.

Also:

Aircraft registration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although each aircraft registration identifier is unique, some countries allow it to be re-used when the aircraft has been sold, destroyed or retired.

 

[Old Blue 2]

And therein lies my problem with conspiracy theories. So, you don't know if what you are posting is true but you post it anyway? There's a reason why it has never been reported from a reputable source.

You see, in trying to be so smart, you do not know what the actual point is. Try reading this:

911myths

www.911myths.com

The point being, I am NOT being dogmatic about it. I'm not agreeing with what you term 'conspiracy theories'. I just don't know what level of validity can be ascribed to what is presented. Nor to many other things.

You're not very good at deep investigative work, are you...?

 

[trueblue84]

When it suits? What are you talking about?

'...Looking for tenuous links to an inside job to validate what you believe is not open minded...' But I'm not doing that, if you would but read through all of my posts and take them in. I'm putting out information/views for others to consider. Some may agree, some may disagree. That is the nature of things.

You are simly jumping to conclusions that have no validity. 'When it suits' - what's that supposed to mean? Explain yourself.

I don't say things that I don't hold to be true. Posting something and saying "make your own mind up" is an insidious way of giving your opinion without being held to account. When challenged, you just back away and say "I'm not saying it's my view".

What do you believe happened on 9/11 then?

 

[Old Blue 2]

Also:

Aircraft registration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although each aircraft registration identifier is unique, some countries allow it to be re-used when the aircraft has been sold, destroyed or retired.

Which causes no end of problems if separate paper trails are not kept.

 

[trueblue84]

You see, in trying to be so smart, you do not know what the actual point is. Try reading this:

911myths

www.911myths.com

The point being, I am NOT being dogmatic about it. I'm not agreeing with what you term 'conspiracy theories'. I just don't know what level of validity can be ascribed to what is presented. Nor to many other things.

You're not very good at deep investigative work, are you...?

The link you posted ends with the view that there was no record of a flight plan for this registration that the ex UA crew member claims to have flown on, which given is a commercial aircraft would be very odd. Its also printed on the aircraft's tail, so I'd expect more people to notice.

 

[Old Blue 2]

I don't say things that I don't hold to be true. Posting something and saying "make your own mind up" is an insidious way of giving your opinion without being held to account. When challenged, you just back away and say "I'm not saying it's my view".

What do you believe happened on 9/11 then?

Sorry, this: '...Posting something and saying "make your own mind up" is an insidious way of giving your opinion without being held to account...' is totally wrong. It's not deductive reasoning at all. There are things that one can state, and say, 'This can be taken for a fact'. There are others where all one can do is put out the info, and ask what others think. Let me give you a football example: Leading 2-1 at Brighton last season, Brighton were awarded a penalty by VAR - Fact. Was it actually a penalty based on the visible evidence? - totally open to discussion (but I do concede that us blues will always say 'No way!'). You get my point now?

As to what I believe happened on 9/11. Yes, I'll answer that in a serious way.

Two aircraft crashed into the two towers.
What crashed into them? Open mind. One youtube vid shows a bulbous shape under the central fuselage, more akin to a military aircraft than a civilian aircraft, according to the comments. Two aircraft crashed into the towers. Beyond that - discuss.

Flight 93 into a field.
Something into a field. There is speculation both ways. I do not know what to believe.

Pentagon.
Something hit the Pentagon.
Why is there a gap in the CCTV footage relased? I don't know. I can't answer that. All I see is in one frame of a youtube vid a silver thing on the right-hand side, the next, an explosion and ball of flame on the left.
All I can say is that seeing written, that a 7-series Boeing flying at nought feet at the speed stated and then to hit the first floor of the Pentagon without touching the grass at all, leaves me asking the simple question: was that possible?

So for me, there are things that I would like to know more about, but will probably never find out.

 

[trueblue84]

Sorry, this: '...Posting something and saying "make your own mind up" is an insidious way of giving your opinion without being held to account...' is totally wrong. It's not deductive reasoning at all. There are things that one can state, and say, 'This can be taken for a fact'. There are others where all one can do is put out the info, and ask what others think. Let me give you a football example: Leading 2-1 at Brighton last season, Brighton were awarded a penalty by VAR - Fact. Was it actually a penalty based on the visible evidence? - totally open to discussion (but I do concede that us blues will always say 'No way!'). You get my point now?

As to what I believe happened on 9/11. Yes, I'll answer that in a serious way.

Two aircraft crashed into the two towers.
What crashed into them? Open mind. One youtube vid shows a bulbous shape under the central fuselage, more akin to a military aircraft than a civilian aircraft, according to the comments. Two aircraft crashed into the towers. Beyond that - discuss.

Flight 93 into a field.
Something into a field. There is speculation both ways. I do not know what to believe.

Pentagon.
Something hit the Pentagon.
Why is there a gap in the CCTV footage relased? I don't know. I can't answer that. All I see is in one frame of a youtube vid a silver thing on the right-hand side, the next, an explosion and ball of flame on the left.
All I can say is that seeing written, that a 7-series Boeing flying at nought feet at the speed stated and then to hit the first floor of the Pentagon without touching the grass at all, leaves me asking the simple question: was that possible?

So for me, there are things that I would like to know more about, but will probably never find out.

I didn't say anything about facts, though. I said that it is giving an opinion without being held to account. I stand by this. If you believe it was an inside job, you should say so.

The gap in footage at the pentagon is explainable and another user did just that earlier. It is definitely tenuous evidence.

 

[Old Blue 2]

I didn't say anything about facts, though. I said that it is giving an opinion without being held to account. I stand by this. If you believe it was an inside job, you should say so.

The gap in footage at the pentagon is explainable and another user did just that earlier. It is definitely tenuous evidence.

An opinion is an opinion, nothing more. It is a belief held by an individual.

Let's turn the questioning around, eh? Do you believe it was an inside job? Do you believe all four events were terrorist-led 100%. Can you explain away all four events with indisputable facts? Can you explain Towrs 1 and 2 imploding within their 'footprint'? Ditto for Tower 7, which wasn't even hit? How on earth did that go down?

Set to it, tb84, and YOU come up with the answers.