Re: The 911 Coincidence Guide
This "NO RISK OF SURVIVORS" is really bugging me right now.
I need to work it through.
For deductive reasoning purposes, I will refer to the aircraft as hijacked.
If three of the hijacked aircraft actually hit the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, I'll assume they carried passengers.
If this was the case, why would it have been said there could be "no risk of survivors?"
The planes would have had to have been hijacked for this theory to hold weight.
If there were survivors from any of the four aircraft, they could attest to what occurred on the plane and that would be that it was overtaken by a couple of Muslin men with boxcutters.
So, the "no risk of survivors" doesn't seem to apply to that scenario.
If drones hit the Pentagon and Twin Towers and didn't carry passengers then the "no risk of survivors" would relate to the four planes that left their respective airports and disappeared into thin air.
So, Flight 93 was an actual hijacking. We know this, right, because there were phone calls made to loved ones describing what was happening.
This could have been a production; the flight landed elsewhere and LORD only knows what was shot down in Pennsylvania leaving a pre-recorded black box behind.
There was some type of a hole. Any parts of the aircraft recovered? It could have been pre-planned as their target; that specific area. A missle into the ground.
The four aircraft landed elsewhere and the "no risk of survivors" applies to that scenario, of course!!