What's with all the conspiracy theories?

[iluvatar5150]

Btw - there are missiles that resemble planes from a distance. Google: JAASM

Yeah, except that a JASSM is only 14' long.

To give you some perspective as to what that looks like in real life:

That's a B-52 next to an AGM-86 ALCM (air-launch cruise missile). The B-52 is roughly the same size as a 767-200 (though the 52's wingspan is wider), but the ALCM is 20' long - i.e. ~50% bigger than the JASSM.

"From a distance," you'd barely be able to see the missile.

Also, high explosives like those used in military munitions don't cause the giant, slowly growing fireballs you see in the videos, rather they cause a big bang and a lot of debris, but only a very quick fireball. Big slow fireballs like you see in the movies typically come from some sort of burning fuel.

-Dan.

 

[Trainlady]

You talk as if you were there. There is no video of "bodies", "burning airplanes", "seats", "luggage" etc. There's photo "evidence" - if you can believe it - like the "engine" that managed to make it's way under a piece of scaffolding - and that isn't even the right size.




I don't doubt people saw *something*. Early reports had people saying very different things. A small commuter plane, a missle, a plane without windows etc. They witness reports don't all match. And some of the witnesses are Actors. Like Mr. Harley Guy who "saw it all" and explained to us why the towers fell on that day to boot! He had the answer before anyone else did! Guess it was just a smart average NY joe...



^^ Take note also what the reporter asks the black man @ 2:33 and how that man responds. Interesting choice of words, don't you think? Pay careful attention

Of the witnesses who all agreed it was a large jet airliner (on 911) - they all HAPPENED TO HAVE HIGH POSITIONS IN THE MEDIA. Guess they had better eyes (or agendas)...

As for people you say you know who saw the plane on that day - well television is a strange animal - it can convince people they saw things they did not see. This has been proven. See:



Btw - there are missiles that resemble planes from a distance. Google: JAASM

I WAS there. Somewhere around 15,000 of us got out of those buildings alive. Tens of thousands more were outside in the neighborhood. We are very real, no actors needed. These people are not as stupid as you so desperately want them to be.

No thanks, don't need to see the dumb videos with their accompanying scripts. I've seen them all before. And I know that nothing I could say would possibly persuade you away from your beliefs in this matter. I also know that if I were to continue this conversation, your ultimate claim will be that I am a paid CIA shill who trolls message boards to spread false information. What I posted is for the benefit of the logical people, not the cult members. Good day to you.

 

[Nekoda]

I WAS there. Somewhere around 15,000 of us got out of those buildings alive. Tens of thousands more were outside in the neighborhood. We are very real, no actors needed. These people are not as stupid as you so desperately want them to be.

No thanks, don't need to see the dumb videos with their accompanying scripts. I've seen them all before. And I know that nothing I could say would possibly persuade you away from your beliefs in this matter. I also know that if I were to continue this conversation, your ultimate claim will be that I am a paid CIA shill who trolls message boards to spread false information. What I posted is for the benefit of the logical people, not the cult members. Good day to you.

Well, I can say for certain that your friends who "saw the plane" are lying or they were influenced by the T.V. reports after the fact. Yes, I'll repeat - your friends are lying or are misled by what they saw in the media.

It is not possible for those particular airliners to reach those speeds at ground level for those periods of time without:

A) Breaking up
B) Being uncontrollable to the point of navigating a path to hit towers barely wider than their own width.

As for who you are - I have no idea. We're on the internet, remember?

 

[Smidlee]

Well, I can say for certain that your friends who "saw the plane" are lying or they were influenced by the T.V. reports after the fact. Yes, I'll repeat - your friends are lying or are misled by what they saw in the media.

It is not possible for those particular airliners to reach those speeds at ground level for those periods of time without:

A) Breaking up
B) Being uncontrollable to the point of navigating a path to hit towers barely wider than their own width.

As for who you are - I have no idea. We're on the internet, remember?

OR they are wrong about the planes airspeed.
As far as people seeing different thing this is normal since you see your brain recreation of the world around you and not exactly what your eyes see. It's normal for someone to see a blur of a plane then see the video of a plane and claim they saw a plane. This is why lawyers have stated there is such of things of having too many witnesses as there will be contradictions. If there are no contradictions in people story then this is evidence of being scripted.

 

[Trainlady]

Well, I can say for certain that your friends who "saw the plane" are lying or they were influenced by the T.V. reports after the fact. Yes, I'll repeat - your friends are lying or are misled by what they saw in the media.

It is not possible for those particular airliners to reach those speeds at ground level for those periods of time without:

A) Breaking up
B) Being uncontrollable to the point of navigating a path to hit towers barely wider than their own width.

As for who you are - I have no idea. We're on the internet, remember?

They are not people who were lying or misled by the media. One of the people who saw the plane coming is an engineer who was at his desk on the north side of 72 and looked out to see a plane flying over manhattan straight toward the building. There was no "media" present up there. We didn't watch this on TV or watch videos years later. Another woman who saw the plane coming was on the north side of 82, and in fact, was one of the people who always said that when they came back it would be with planes (and lived to say "I told you so!"). The idea that you actually think that people who lost friends and coworkers they'd known for 20 years and who saw and experienced the things they did that day would lie--for WHAT reason you even would THINK they would lie is beyond me--shows that you have very little grasp on the reality of what went on that day.

I have no idea what you mean by "ground level". One plane hit at 900+ feet and the other between 780 and 850 or so. And it's curious that you don't address all the plane parts I mentioned in my earlier post. Trust me, when you see burning parts of a plane surrounded by pieces of human beings, the image is in your mind forever.

Sorry, dude, yes, we are people on the Internet, but I know far too many real live people who were present at the WTC on that day and then worked at the WTC site and Fresh Kills afterwards to take much stock in what people in the hinterlands think they are seeing by watching YouTube. It's as if your thinking is based on what you've seen on TV and in movies.

 

[Trainlady]

OR they are wrong about the planes airspeed.
As far as people seeing different thing this is normal since you see your brain recreation of the world around you and not exactly what your eyes see. It's normal for someone to see a blur of a plane then see the video of a plane and claim they saw a plane. This is why lawyers have stated there is such of things of having too many witnesses as there will be contradictions. If there are no contradictions in people story then this is evidence of being scripted.

Let me see if I can make this clear to you. There was no video to see. Nothing to influence what was seen.

Mike, an engineer, is sitting at his desk on the north side of 72 in One.

Marcia, an admin assistant, is in the ladies room on the same floor when all of a sudden the toilet breaks away from the wall and water starts gushing out all over the floor. She's the office space coordinator for the floor, so she thinks a pipe burst or something inside the wall and she has to report it to office space services. She opens the ladies room door and walks out into the hall.

There is Mike, trying to speak and having difficulty saying what he is trying to say. He finally manages to spit out, "A plane. We were just hit by a plane."

Exactly what video are you talking about here?

Haven't ANY of you people ever actually spoken to those of us who were in the building???? I don't mean on the Internet, because of course you have your ridiculous assumptions about us lying. But all of the volunteers at the WTC Tribute Center - 400 or so people -- are part of the 9/11 community--survivors, family members, people who worked at the cleanup at the site or Fresh Kills, residents of the neighborhood. We've written articles and have been interviewed for books (like Tower Stories, 102 Minutes, etc.), have participated in evacuation studies and psychological studies. Engineering conferences are held on the collapse sequence in order to modify building designs and life safety features in skyscrapers. (NOTE: This is NOT a cue for someone to post the link to that idiot Richard Gage and his league of clowns, most of whom are neither architects nor engineers and NONE of whom were ever involved in the WTC before or after 9/11.)

Yet, there is this whole realm out there who somehow believes "the government" was involved in all this--exactly how is never really clear, it just happens in the movies so it MUST be feasible, right?--and the same bad information is passed around so often that no questions are never asked.

It is mind-boggling. And the funny part is that many of the engineers and others close to the disaster and cleanup have no idea that you guys even exist. When told, they simply shake their heads and laugh.

If it weren't so insulting, it would be amusing, and at the very least, an interesting study of social phenomena.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, I can say for certain that your friends who "saw the plane" are lying or they were influenced by the T.V. reports after the fact. Yes, I'll repeat - your friends are lying or are misled by what they saw in the media.

It is not possible for those particular airliners to reach those speeds at ground level for those periods of time without:

A) Breaking up
B) Being uncontrollable to the point of navigating a path to hit towers barely wider than their own width.

How do you know this?

Why would the airplane break up or be uncontrollable at those speeds? It's rated to fly at Mach 0.8, and AFAIK, no one is claiming it exceeded that. Either way, aircraft are engineered so that they can withstand forces beyond their ratings.

Why don't you tell us all of what you know about airplanes. Tell us about your education or your experience. What sort of flying you've done or what kind of engineering classes you've taken. You've already demonstrated a readiness to comment on what is and is not possible with a camera despite a gross lack of understanding of photography. Am I correct in assuming that your experience in aviation is similarly limited?

And now you're telling a person who was at ground zero what she and her co-workers saw?

Methinks you overstate your knowledge a bit.

-Dan.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

The name calling and labelling usually follows when the responder has no point. The label "conspiracy theorist" is a thought stopper. if we dropped the labels, and simply discussed evidence, facts, crap or whatever it may be, this place might actually live up to its name ...a "forum".

^^ This.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Nekoda, its been nice dealing with you. But after reading some threads about why others have letf this forum, I am going to join them. Good luck to you and God bless you. Sorry, but I have had enough.

This is what happens when people, including staffers, troll these threads with dismissive attitudes.

We all need to raise our standards of what is acceptable with regard to our replies.

I'm one of those people trying to piece things together and come up with some sort of narrative that makes sense. But it's exceedingly hard to do so when these threads are so loaded with discouraging posts full of personal attacks.

 

[iluvatar5150]

This is what happens when people, including staffers, troll these threads with dismissive attitudes.

Actually, it's what happens when no limits are placed on the sorts of discussions people can have.

I think most of the people who frequent these boards are looking for honest conversation and are open to there being genuine disagreements between folks. They want to inform and to be informed.

What turns a lot of people off are conversations overrun with people who repeatedly post claims that are nonsensical, previously debunked, and absurd on their face to anyone who's even remotely objective.

I'm dismissive of Nekoda's claims because they are easily proven false and/or better explained by the "official" story. It's quite easy to see that these claims are just stuff being repeated from other places online w/o any real attempt to verify their accuracy.

-Dan.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Actually, it's what happens when no limits are placed on the sorts of discussions people can have.

I think most of the people who frequent these boards are looking for honest conversation and are open to there being genuine disagreements between folks. They want to inform and to be informed.

What turns a lot of people off are conversations overrun with people who repeatedly post claims that are nonsensical, previously debunked, and absurd on their face to anyone who's even remotely objective.

I'm dismissive of Nekoda's claims because they are easily proven false and/or better explained by the "official" story. It's quite easy to see that these claims are just stuff being repeated from other places online w/o any real attempt to verify their accuracy.

-Dan.

That's why I said "we all". From the look of this thread, no one is posting very well without getting personal. You included. Being frustrated, which I understand, with inaccuracy is one thing. Taking it to a personal level is another. And yes, there are limits here as spelled out in the Community Rules:

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.

If *everyone* followed them (really all over CF) I wouldn't have to speak up like this. I really don't want this sort of thing to be on the "Topics Which Shall Not Be Named" list.

 

[Trainlady]

^^^ Good reminders. I am fairly new to this forum--joined a while ago but haven't frequented here too much, and so when I used an unkind word in one of my earlier posts, I was amused when editing to see the "Bless and do not curse bless and do not curse" message. I changed my word.

I wonder sometimes what is wrong with me for engaging in discussions on these threads. I do get frustrated spending time explaining things only to be answered with the same old same old repetitious YouTube videos and robotic responses.

As a survivor, I'm aware that the replay is starting to buzz in the back of my head due to the approach of the anniversary--happens every year. As someone who pre-9/11 loved history, especially historical disasters, and then found herself in one, I feel almost an obligation to write about it. I'm part of the WTC Tribute Center, where I volunteer occasionally as a tour guide on the memorial, and it's important to me that the stories are told. And there are so many stories! So many interesting facets of what happened that day, far more fascinating than the Internet conspiracy tales, and yet they get lost in the mess. Every time I meet someone new from Tribute--a firefighter who was the only one of his unit to survive; an electrician volunteer firefighter from LI who spent his days helping find bodies and parts thereof on the pile telling how it would take all day to uncover three feet with a brush and then have to leave at the end of the day, never finding out if those feet were attached to anything else and if it was three people or two; a woman who walked a burned colleague down 80 flights of stairs--there is just so much out there that people aren't even interested in due to their own political agendas.

I find it particularly odd that those with the CT agenda have not read any of the more reliable and well-researched books about the day and the aftermath. 102 Minutes, the Fight to Survive Inside the WTC is really good, very, very accurate (not the same as the TV documentary of the same name). American Ground: The Unbuilding of the World Trade Center is an excellent journal of what it was like on the pile in the early days after 9/11. Tower Stories has first-person accounts of survivors, family members, rescue workers, the volunteers who supported the workers on the pile, etc. Touching History, written by a Continental pilot, explains a lot about the 1970s-era radar equipment that NORAD had and interviews pilots, military and commercial, who were in the air that day. Without reading any of these, how can someone even form an opinion of what did or did not happen that day? Through YouTube videos accompanied by the twist of people who were not even remotely involved in the events of the day? Really?

Anyway, I personally do tend to get frustrated in responding to some of these people, so thanks for the reminder to keep it focused on the post and not the poster.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

^^^ Good reminders. I am fairly new to this forum--joined a while ago but haven't frequented here too much, and so when I used an unkind word in one of my earlier posts, I was amused when editing to see the "Bless and do not curse bless and do not curse" message. I changed my word.

I wonder sometimes what is wrong with me for engaging in discussions on these threads. I do get frustrated spending time explaining things only to be answered with the same old same old repetitious YouTube videos and robotic responses.

As a survivor, I'm aware that the replay is starting to buzz in the back of my head due to the approach of the anniversary--happens every year. As someone who pre-9/11 loved history, especially historical disasters, and then found herself in one, I feel almost an obligation to write about it. I'm part of the WTC Tribute Center, where I volunteer occasionally as a tour guide on the memorial, and it's important to me that the stories are told. And there are so many stories! So many interesting facets of what happened that day, far more fascinating than the Internet conspiracy tales, and yet they get lost in the mess. Every time I meet someone new from Tribute--a firefighter who was the only one of his unit to survive; an electrician volunteer firefighter from LI who spent his days helping find bodies and parts thereof on the pile telling how it would take all day to uncover three feet with a brush and then have to leave at the end of the day, never finding out if those feet were attached to anything else and if it was three people or two; a woman who walked a burned colleague down 80 flights of stairs--there is just so much out there that people aren't even interested in due to their own political agendas.

I find it particularly odd that those with the CT agenda have not read any of the more reliable and well-researched books about the day and the aftermath. 102 Minutes, the Fight to Survive Inside the WTC is really good, very, very accurate (not the same as the TV documentary of the same name). American Ground: The Unbuilding of the World Trade Center is an excellent journal of what it was like on the pile in the early days after 9/11. Tower Stories has first-person accounts of survivors, family members, rescue workers, the volunteers who supported the workers on the pile, etc. Touching History, written by a Continental pilot, explains a lot about the 1970s-era radar equipment that NORAD had and interviews pilots, military and commercial, who were in the air that day. Without reading any of these, how can someone even form an opinion of what did or did not happen that day? Through YouTube videos accompanied by the twist of people who were not even remotely involved in the events of the day? Really?

Anyway, I personally do tend to get frustrated in responding to some of these people, so thanks for the reminder to keep it focused on the post and not the poster.

You're welcome.


And thank you for all the info. Maybe you can start a thread some time next time there's a 9/11 event.

 

[Smidlee]

Let me see if I can make this clear to you. There was no video to see. Nothing to influence what was seen.

Mike, an engineer, is sitting at his desk on the north side of 72 in One.

Marcia, an admin assistant, is in the ladies room on the same floor when all of a sudden the toilet breaks away from the wall and water starts gushing out all over the floor. She's the office space coordinator for the floor, so she thinks a pipe burst or something inside the wall and she has to report it to office space services. She opens the ladies room door and walks out into the hall.

There is Mike, trying to speak and having difficulty saying what he is trying to say. He finally manages to spit out, "A plane. We were just hit by a plane."

Exactly what video are you talking about here?
.

The two you didn't watch at post 180. I'm not saying you or Mike didn't see the plane clearly which in this case seeing a video wouldn't make a difference. So my post wasn't directed at you.
What Nekoda refer to can works both ways. Someone could have thought they saw a missile then later believe it was a missile after watching truthers you-tube videos.

 

[Trainlady]

The two you didn't watch at post 180. I'm not saying you or Mike didn't see the plane clearly which in this case seeing a video wouldn't make a difference. So my post wasn't directed at you.
What Nekoda refer to can works both ways. Someone could have thought they saw a missile then later believe it was a missile after watching truthers you-tube videos.

Nekoda's post was directed at me. He said my coworker was either lying or was influenced by a video. That made no sense whatsoever.

I personally did not see the plane approaching, just to be clear. It would not have been visible to me where I was walking at impact. I only felt the effects-floor jerking side to side, fire blowing out of a nearby elevator, dropped ceiling crumbling--and having been there in 1993, knew that this event was worse (in 1993, the building just shook and we lost power). I only knew that a plane hit us from someone in the stairs who had a Palm Pilot or a cell phone or something and was getting some info from outside, and I saw the burning plane pieces on the Plaza upon exiting One's mezzanine. Those pieces were likely from the plane that had just hit Two, since around the 4th floor there was a huge explosion and the building shook hard. That and the fact that the line had stopped dead on the mezzanine and people were looking out and screaming made me piece together later that the second plane had just hit at that point. (At that moment, however, I didn't realize that the other building had been hit.)

 

[Nekoda]

They are not people who were lying or misled by the media. One of the people who saw the plane coming is an engineer who was at his desk on the north side of 72 and looked out to see a plane flying over manhattan straight toward the building. There was no "media" present up there. We didn't watch this on TV or watch videos years later. Another woman who saw the plane coming was on the north side of 82, and in fact, was one of the people who always said that when they came back it would be with planes (and lived to say "I told you so!"). The idea that you actually think that people who lost friends and coworkers they'd known for 20 years and who saw and experienced the things they did that day would lie--for WHAT reason you even would THINK they would lie is beyond me--shows that you have very little grasp on the reality of what went on that day.

"Trainlady" - would you be convinced if someone on a message board that you don't know from Adam claimed to be there, had friends who were engineers and who all saw a missile, not an airplane?

I didn't think so. I am to you, as you are to me, complete strangers on an internet forum. Asking me to take your word for it is about as convincing as asking you to take my word for being an "eyewitness" or claiming to have friends who were.

I have no idea what you mean by "ground level". One plane hit at 900+ feet and the other between 780 and 850 or so. And it's curious that you don't address all the plane parts I mentioned in my earlier post. Trust me, when you see burning parts of a plane surrounded by pieces of human beings, the image is in your mind forever.

It's called air density. At those lower altitudes air density is about 3 times as thick as it is at cruising altitude (35,000 feet). What that means is:

A) You need multiple times the engine power to reach those speeds at that air density

B) You need an aircraft that is built to withstand the G forces at that speed at that air density

C) You need an aircraft that is maneuverable and controllable at those speeds at that air density.

Boeing 767's don't fit that bill. Their engines don't put that kind of power out at that altitude to reach those speeds at that altitude, they would have broken up at those speeds at that altitude, and they are not controllable at those speeds at those altitudes - especially not by some amateur arab pilots who had just learned to fly.

Numerous pilots and engineers have come out with similar findings.

I'll believe solid science over some T.V. fiction and paid actors any day.

 

[IanCG]

"Trainlady" - would you be convinced if someone on a message board that you don't know from Adam claimed to be there, had friends who were engineers and who all saw a missile, not an airplane?

I didn't think so. I am to you, as you are to me, complete strangers on an internet forum. Asking me to take your word for it is about as convincing as asking you to take my word for being an "eyewitness" or claiming to have friends who were.



It's called air density. At those lower altitudes air density is about 3 times as thick as it is at cruising altitude (35,000 feet). What that means is:

A) You need multiple times the engine power to reach those speeds at that air density

B) You need an aircraft that is built to withstand the G forces at that speed at that air density

C) You need an aircraft that is maneuverable and controllable at those speeds at that air density.

Boeing 767's don't fit that bill. Their engines don't put that kind of power out at that altitude to reach those speeds at that altitude, they would have broken up at those speeds at that altitude, and they are not controllable at those speeds at those altitudes - especially not by some amateur arab pilots who had just learned to fly.

Numerous pilots and engineers have come out with similar findings.

I'll believe solid science over some T.V. fiction and paid actors any day.

The 767s didn't reach those speeds at that altitude, you think they flew at less than a 1000 feet since take off?

You were just told this, and you ignored it. You are not thinking about this rationally, and you're convinced that you are.

Every single thing you have cited for evidence has been proven to either wrong, misleading, or a product of your failure to understand how things work. When you run out of arguments for one thing, you seamlessly jump to something else that supports your view. It's confirmation bias and classic conspiracy theorist behavior.

 

[Nekoda]

The 767s didn't reach those speeds at that altitude, you think they flew at less than a 1000 feet since take off?

According to "official sources" - such as the NTSB - the UA 175 was flying when it hit the WTC. Just shy of 600 mph.

Pilots and Engineers say not possible.

An no, it's not necessary to believe your straw man argument that the airplanes flew below 1000 feet for the entire flight.

You were just told this, and you ignored it. You are not thinking about this rationally, and you're convinced that you are.

Told what? A strawman argument?

Every single thing you have cited for evidence has been proven to either wrong, misleading, or a product of your failure to understand how things work. When you run out of arguments for one thing, you seamlessly jump to something else that supports your view. It's confirmation bias and classic conspiracy theorist behavior.

If you believe every counter argument is valid an "everything" I've said has been proven wrong - well I think it's a bit like the pot calling the Kettle black - you have your own confirmation bias.

But fill me in. What did OBL and the hijackers gain from 911? The collapse of some buildings and some lost lives? Cool trade off for getting invaded, then occupied for 10+ years with many thousands more lives lost.

Now ask yourself what the Banks, Corporations and Military Industrial Complex in general gained from 911.

 

[Btodd]

According to "official sources" - such as the NTSB - the UA 175 was flying when it hit the WTC. Just shy of 600 mph.

Pilots and Engineers say not possible.

Which ones? Pilots for 9/11 Truth? And have you actually checked with a multitude of pilots/engineers on the issue, or not?

But fill me in. What did OBL and the hijackers gain from 911? The collapse of some buildings and some lost lives? Cool trade off for getting invaded, then occupied for 10+ years with many thousands more lives lost.

Now ask yourself what the Banks, Corporations and Military Industrial Complex in general gained from 911.

Why did you change the subject? It was about whether or not the planes hit the buildings. This is also classic conspiracy-theorist behavior. Since your claim is that it's 'CGI', have you had multiple videos of the 2nd Tower being hit analyzed, or has anyone else, to confirm that they're CGI? Were all of the people in the immediate area who saw this also CGI? Have you tried to find any of them, and maybe ask them real questions? It seems that you think that throwing out some absurd 'it's all fake' theory, without any positive evidence for it, is supposed to convince people that the whole thing was a giant illusion. Back up your claims, please.


Btodd

 

[Trainlady]

"Trainlady" - would you be convinced if someone on a message board that you don't know from Adam claimed to be there, had friends who were engineers and who all saw a missile, not an airplane?

I didn't think so. I am to you, as you are to me, complete strangers on an internet forum. Asking me to take your word for it is about as convincing as asking you to take my word for being an "eyewitness" or claiming to have friends who were.



It's called air density. At those lower altitudes air density is about 3 times as thick as it is at cruising altitude (35,000 feet). What that means is:

A) You need multiple times the engine power to reach those speeds at that air density

B) You need an aircraft that is built to withstand the G forces at that speed at that air density

C) You need an aircraft that is maneuverable and controllable at those speeds at that air density.

Boeing 767's don't fit that bill. Their engines don't put that kind of power out at that altitude to reach those speeds at that altitude, they would have broken up at those speeds at that altitude, and they are not controllable at those speeds at those altitudes - especially not by some amateur arab pilots who had just learned to fly.

Numerous pilots and engineers have come out with similar findings.

I'll believe solid science over some T.V. fiction and paid actors any day.

No worries. As I told you, I've had these conversations with people who believe as you do for a number of years now. I don't expect to convince you of anything whatsoever--your mind is closed to any other possibilities. These types of beliefs are very similar to a religious conviction, in my observation.

In earlier years I did get angry, primarily because I saw firsthand how your group verbally abused some of the elderly people at the anniversaries who were on site to mourn their dead adult child, calling them "shills for Cheney" and other nasty epithets. It was ugly, and yes, I realize that everyone who believes in the CD or no-plane theories will cry out that they would never do such a thing--but, some of you did, and I witnessed it. I truly thought that with some education and better information, believers in some of these alternative ideas would see that they had been mislead and had been given wrongful information. I came to know that it was a fruitless exercise.

So, fear not, No-Planer, I come not to convert you! But the forums are open to all, and if I feel that there are some details that others might be interested in, I will post it. It was an event that affected and changed my life forever; there are people out there who are truly interested in the details of that day; and, I am a writer and a storyteller, so obviously, I'm not going to keep it to myself. Peace.