Northwoods rose to the highest level in the military, the CJCS and was killed by Kennedy, who refused to go along with it. How is it that you don't know that already? Was Project T/P Ajax, not a real CIA and British intelligence covert operation as well? Is that just another made up story by conspiracy theorists, too? Ajax, is what got us involved in Middle Eastern affairs and put us on the very dark path of regime change for the sake of Oil. Lastly, the only understandable confusion is that which Official Story Tellers want to proliferate about 911. I'm not confused. I've flown two of the aircraft allegedly involved in 911 in my career as a pilot. I know what the Boeing 757 is capable of doing and I know what the F-15 is capable of doing. Only one of those aircraft were truly involved that day and its called the Eagle, not the 75. Now, if you would like to attack the message instead of the messenger, I'd appreciate it a great deal. "Like a new Pearl Harbor," is precisely what 911 was all about.
That's why I read page one of your blog and decided that false premise trash is not going to improve my understanding of 911, but it will feed the delusions that 19 terrorists pulled off the biggest hit on America, with their marching orders coming from a guy allegedly living in a cave. How absurd is that. I'm come on, seriously? A cave? And, then what - we found the guy, took him out and then as sign of "respect" we dumped his body in the ocean? What! Are you kidding me? I'm supposed to believe such balderdash and just keep walking? The crappy stories that we put up with from our government is embarrassing. No wonder people from other countries think were are a bunch of flaming morons who can't think for ourselves. It is ludicrous to be told that a Boeing 757 slammed into the earth at Shanksville, with a 40-degree nose down angle while inverted, drills a hole in the ground sufficient to cause the earth to simply swallow the aircraft whole, while debris is found EIGHT 8 MILES away in New Baltimore! That's nutty nonsense and no truly thinking person can simply walk away from that kind of blither without having some serious questions about the official "version." Eight ( miles way from the impact crater that swallowed a 75 whole after an extremely low angle of attack CFIT? What - was there a hurricane or tornado floating through Shanksville, at the time, sufficient to carry heavier than air materials EIGHT 8 MILES away? Come on, guys. Give me break. Fess up. Let this official story nonsense go. Just let it go. Acceptance is the first step to healing. You will never come out of this Official Story Addiction, until you at least admit that there are huge irreconcilable problems with the official account. The healing process takes time, but you can do it. I know it sucks, realizing that we have a rogue government. I know that it turns your entire world view paradigm upside down and on its head. I'm not naive to that reality. But, you cannot look at Shanksville, or the Pentagon and conclude that Boeing 757 aircraft have left behind their Crash Site Signatures at both locations. Every weapon leaves behind its unique Signature. If you are going to use commercial aircraft as your weapon of choice, then that weapon will leave its own finger print in its wake. Yet, we don't see that either at the Pentagon, or at Shanksville. There was barely any fire at Shanksville, yet we are told that a Boeing 757 loaded with fuel, slammed nearly straight into the earth - leaving no Jet-A fuel contamination that was discovered through environmental testing? That makes no sense. No hydraulic fuel contamination? No Jet-A contamination. No large fires? Trees not sprayed with Jet-A and set ablaze? Come on.
I KNOW about Northwoods,and despite your pumping it up,it was STILL not a 'false flag' And yes,you are confused if you keep making these claims of yours Also,I have NO proof you flew anything.. And you're misapplying the Pearl Harbor quote...as truthers often do...pearl harbor was the catalyst to shift our naval power another way
Entire theory relies on the false claim Mineta and Cheney were in the PEOC before AAL77 hit the Pentagon. I have proven that wrong in another thread, and here. I have also shown you a link with over 150 items of evidence, including facade damage and vertical stabilizer damage consistent with a 757. You refused to even look. I'm not going to bother with someone who wont even click a link but will write a wall of text and expect everyone to play to your rules. Get over yourself. Debunked > http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ Done.
I have noticed your unwillingness to engage Primus in a discussion of the facts, so, now you ignore him. That doesn't seem like a reasonable exchange of opinions as to what actually occurred, does it? The man seems to have most all of his bases covered quite thoroughly. Why do you want to ignore his conclusions? Do they make you uncomfortable?
Have there EVER been false flag events, perpetrated by the US? Northwoods was one of several that I know about. Do you acknowledge any?
I ignore him because I have shown him; 1. a link which answers/refutes his claim regarding Norman Mineta, which he refuses to work through. And 2. A link which provides overwhelming evidence that AAL77 hit the Pentagon, which he again refuses to even view. I have been doing this **** for far too long to put up with ignorant f*cktards who refuse to even take the time to click a link which answers their questions. I'm over it. Stuff it. 9/11 is a done and dusted topic, and I have limited patience with d*ckheads. If you are honest and genuinely interested in answers to questions, then I'm happy to assist. If you are the type of "truth"er like Primus, impervious to correction, and completely unwilling to even click on a suggested link, I have no time for you at all.
Nothing will since you ignore obvious facts from the people that were there and fill your mind with fantasies from people that weren't.
What did you just admit to? Let me repeat that statement a little louder so that everybody can see it more clearly for what it is. You just said: Thank you for that glaring admission in this court room. As a witness for the defense, you would be useless after making such an admission under oath. You are hereby done in this discussion of whether or not the PEOC chatter was about Flight 93 or Flight 77. However, I will deal with your nonsequitur follow-up below for posterity sake. Since we are sharing sources of information and experience that make us qualified to discuss this subject intelligently, I'll more of my background with you. As well as being a former Boeing 75 check pilot, I was a systems analyst and enterprise software systems engineer/consultant out of Silicone Valley, back when the software industry was booming. Raw data is my middle name. Today, I am an international currency trader and I developed the automated systems and algorithms that I use in my business, based on my experience in the software industry and my knowledge about data. Those systems are based on raw data research and analysis. I got my start in the enterprise software business at the then 3.5 billion company called Oracle. As you might imagine, working with the dominant RDBMS company in the world in a technical capacity, I learned some things about "data." I moved from Oracle, and worked as a systems engineer and consultant in the field and had assignments/projects in and around the D.C., Arlington and Virginia triplex areas under a new NDA for each project. On September 11th, I happened to be operating a Boeing 757, out of Denver Now, that understand a bit about me - shall I know something about your background, skills and qualifications that make you competent to discuss this matter with the seriousness that it deserves? Really - all 600 gigs? Let me ask you a few quick questions: 1) What is the time/date stamp of the FOIA return/response for each component of the 600 gigs now on your hdd? 2) What is the time/date stamp of the FOIA request(s) for each component of the 600 gigs now on your hdd? 3) Who was FOIA requester for each component of the 600 gigs now on your hdd? (just give first name - I can find out the rest) 4) How many of those 600 gigs were analyzed by the 911 Commission before it put out its report? 5) Are you aware of the fact that FOIA requester information is available to the public by request? The time 8:41 shows up on: page 6 (in 2 instances) and page 454 (in notes to chapter 1). None of those references in the 911CR ever make mention of Otis being put on battle stations at the time you say your "raw data" tells you. The 911CR on page 20 at paragraphs 6 and 7 reads as follows (image taken directly from page 20): You keep harping on red herrings because you don't have a valid rebuttal to the point that these fighters were indeed staged off the northeast coast of the United States, while commercial aircraft were allegedly being used in an air attack on civilian sites. So, you would rather sit here and pontificate about "raw data" that was not delivered to the public immediately after 911, but years after, instead of deal with the fact that these F-15s were carving circular holes in the sky off-shore because there was no target to vector them to the intercept. Yet, you claim that my evidence is baseless and pure conjecture when the evidence that I present comes directly from the Official Story having been forced down the throats of the American People. So, at the end of the day, relative to this thread, what have you proven with your statement? You have proven to everyone on this board that you do not have faith in the Official Story, so you have to use gigabytes of data that was especially prepared for you years after the fact, in order to engineer a story that still does not explain how the chatter inside the PEOC was about Flight 93 and not Flight 77. That and that alone is all you have proven here. PUBLIC WARNING: If you are using data that was man-ufactured after the fact by those with a vested interest in covering their own butts and not released to the public until years after 911, then said "raw data" is subject to a myriad of ridicule and speculation. Really? Thank you for re-opening this can of 911CR worms. There are several problems with this account: 1) Boston Center did not follow protocol in seeking military assistance regarding Flight 11. (CR911 pg. 20 par. 2) 2) At 8:37:52, Boston Center contacts NEADS which was "the first notification given to the military at any level" that American 11 had been highjacked. (911CR pg. 20 par. 2) This contradicts what Lt. Col. Dan Nash, says in his made for television interview about how Otis was informed that American 11 was a possible highjack. In the full video below, starting at 0:20 seconds through 1:00 minute in the following video, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, says that Otis received the first call directly from the FAA about American 11. The interviewer stops Lt. Co. Nash, and even confirms that Otis received that call direct from the FAA and Lt. Col. Nash, goes on to confirm how that was odd. Yet, the 911CR clearly says that the very first call about American 11 being a possible hijack from the FAA went to NEADS, not to Otis direct. So, tell me - which source is lying? Contradiction #1 starts at 0:20 through 1:00: [video=youtube;j7lAJN1rmHk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lAJN1rmHk[/video] But, that's just the beginning of direct contradictions from Lt. Col. Dan Nash. It gets even worse. On the one hand, he says that no sooner than they established battle stations they got the visual signal to scramble. On the other hand he says the following: Contradiction #2 starts at 3:21 through 3:32. That statement directly contradicts 911CR pg. 20 par. 6 and 7, which clearly states the following: Thus, NEADS had neither heading nor altitude to give the pilots for the intercept because the hijackers had allegedly turned off the transponder. Once again, Mineta, had not yet cleared U.S. airspace at 8:46. Therefore, the north eastern seaboard was filled with civilian aircraft, especially commercial aircraft operating under FAA Part 121 rules, creating a huge (massive) HUD problem for the F-15s in civilian airspace at intercept throttle settings and speeds. And, your Unofficial Conspiracy Theory gets even worse when Lt. Col. Dan Nash, offers this added little gem of a statement: Contradiction #3 starts at 4:28 through 4:35: Contradicted by the following (911CR pg. 20 par. 7): So, they NEVER vectored to Manhattan. They were explicitly instructed to remain clear of New York area air traffic. Which lie do you believe? But, this story is about to get worse, if that is even possible at this point. Here's why. In the exact same video, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, offers up another physical impossibility. At 5:10 in the video, he says this: Well, that would be physically impossible. Why? You see, Otis AFB is roughly 167 nautical miles to New York City, as seen here: What you see here, is the visual horizon with a south westerly heading towards New York City, from between Otis' runways 14 and 05, from approximately 10,500 feet AGL. The pin located at the top of the pic is where New York City, is located: If Otis scrambles at 8:46, gets wheels up by 8:53 and Flight 11 makes contact with the first tower at 8:46 (911CR pg. 32), then that leaves 7 minutes for the smoke from building one to reach an altitude that makes it visible from 150-167+ nautical miles away. Vx is best airspeed for Max Climb Angle and Vy is airspeed Max Climb Rate. To reach the highest altitude over the shortest distance on the ground, you would use IAS for Vx. Converse, to reach highest altitude in the shortest amount of time, you use IAS for Vy. In the case of the F-15 on a scramble to a target at altitude, it would most likely use something close to Vy, as time is of the essence. The F-15 can reach a lousy 10,500ft AGL in mere seconds using Vx with AB. However, because getting to the intercept vector is time sensitive, using something closer to Vy and not Vx, it would have no doubt taken longer. These are highly variable things under such situations, but I would estimate under the circumstances and conditions that I can imagine, it would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 minutes (could have been more) - give or take a few seconds on either side. Thus, if wheels are up at 8:53 and FL105 comes at close to 8:55+, that places the F-15s near 10,500ft AGL with 9 minutes for the smoke from T1 to have risen high enough over New York City, to be seen from 150-167+ nautical miles away. This is not even remotely plausible. Even with the top floor of T1 being at 1,347ft AGL, 10,500ft AGL at 150-167+ nautical miles away is nowhere near high enough after 9 minutes. But, it gets far worse than that for the Official Story and your claims here. Why? Once again, we turn to the official document that desperately want to ignore. Let's continue the expose of the Official Horror Story. The "Altitudes Don't Add Up." In the video above at time 4:29, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, says "...we flew that altitude and heading as fast as we could towards Manhattan." That "altitude and heading" was supposed to have been the same altitude and heading that vectors them to the New York City area. Intercept vectors are designed to bring the interceptor to an altitude GREATER THAN or LEVEL WITH the target being intercepted. According to your story, Otis was scrambled at 8:46 with wheels-up at 8:53. Now, turn to 911CR page 6 starting at the very last paragraph and ending at the top of page 7. It reads as follows: Near 8:44, Flight attendant Sweeney, tells Michael Woodward, in the American Flight Services Office in Boston, the following: Now, take close look at Flight 11's primary Radar Ground Track showing the actual Flight Path Study showing ground paths, times and altitudes allegedly using both Transponder and Primary Radar Returns. Pay special attention to legend letter "G.": Now, connect the four blue highlights above and you get the following contradiction: - At 8:37:30, Flight 11 is diving from FL290 at 3,200 feet per minute - At 8:44, Sweeney confirms the aircraft is "way too low." - Otis scrambles at 8:46 allegedly with both an "altitude and heading." - Letter "G" on figure 1. AA-11 Radar Ground Track. You see, this yet again how we KNOW without question that the Official Story is total lie. Why? Because, the scramble order according to Lt. Col. Dan Nash, came WITH an ALTITUDE exactly 9 full minutes AFTER Flight 11 had initiated a 3,200fpm dive on Manhattan. But, that's not all folks. 3,200fpm x 9 minutes = 28,800 feet of loss altitude by Flight 11, BEFORE Otis was scrambled at 8:46. Flight 11, allegedly made that dive from FL290 (29,000ft). That leaves Flight 11 at an altitude of 200 feet precisely at the moment when Otis was said to have scrambled at 8:46 WITH an "ALTITUDE" and a heading. According to Lt. Col. Dan Nash, Otis was contacted directly by the FAA who broke protocol and was supposed to contact the military through NORAD. Thus, the altitude information given to Otis, was direct from the FAA and therefore should have been current. 9 minutes is more than enough time for the scramble orders to reach the pilots sitting in battle stations. So, here the problem for you: A) If Otis scrambled up to the "altitude and heading" of Flight 11, then that altitude would have been no more than a few hundred feet off the ground at best. Thus, it would have been impossible for Lt. Col. Dan Nash, to "see the smoke" in New York City, from 150 to 167 nautical miles away, if you can't even see that same smoke from 10,500 feet at the same range. B) If Otis scrambled up to an "altitude and heading" well above Flight 11's 200 foot altitude in its 3,200fpm dive, then it would have been physically impossible for the F-15s to physically make the intercept because they would not have been able to see the aircraft at that range, as there was no transponder returns from Flight 11 at that time. This is what happens when you try to spin webs of deceit. Somebody with some common sense and real world experience is going to come along at some point and expose the holes in the Official Story Fabric, big enough to fly a Boeing 787 straight through without concern of hitting anything - other than the lies being told. You are using worthless data that you call evidence. I am using the 911 Commission Report itself and FIOA NTSB Flight Data from Flight 11's FDR (allegedly) and yet you want me to go get a time stamp on an interview that took place in broad daylight and in earshot of the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, at precisely the same TIME the alleged Flight 77 slammed into the side of the building in question? Unreal. I suggest you go get some real data and stop pretending to be a Data Analyst on YouBoob. I would further suggest that you come out of fantasy land and start using the same darn Official Spoke Story that we ALL MUST USE, the Official 911 Commission Report. Because, if you are using anything else, then you are NOT using the data backing the Official Story having been propped up before the American People as the so-called TRUTH. Now, here's the question again: How on earth did the "young man" know what nobody on earth was supposed to know, other than the alleged hijackers themselves and the terrified passengers on-board Flight 77, allegedly on its way to the Pentagon? All your nonsense has been proven right here in this thread to be junk analysis, as I have meticulously unraveled every single piece of sludge that you have tried throw on the wall in an attempt to make something stick. Yet, after exposing ALL of your points to the light of day for being flat out wrong, we end up right back with the statements of this "young man" and no clear answers from anyone, about how he knew what nobody else was supposed to know in that PEOC. Reference: Figure 1. AA-11 Radar Ground Track source.
Then how do you explain the signatures up to the CJCS? One of their options was to use a commercial aircraft in an incident that would generate support for war. Does that not read like a false flag to you? Claims? Do you see me making claims or posting references to the 911 Commission Report and then showing its contradictions? There is a difference between a claim and a contradiction. Furthermore, if my questions about all these contradictions were mere claims, then you would have isolated at least one of them by now, and demonstrated WHY it is false. Yet, all you have done is post nonsequitur reply that attacks the messenger but NEVER the specifics of the actual message. Nonsequitur reply is the hallmark of being stomped into the ground with the weight of TRUTH. If you could reply on the merits you would have by now - clearly. That's your problem, not mine. You have not posted your Name, Address, Telephone Number, or any details about yourself - yet, I'm supposed to believe that your statement about someone just making claims is real? Come on. Wake Up. If you cannot or refuse to open your eyes and see that every neocon from Kristal to Wolfowitz, wanted regime change in Iraq, before Bush 43 took office, then I really do feel sorry for you. There 90 page manifesto even told you what they were up to in the title of the document itself: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century." What "resources" do you think they were referring to. They knew they were not talking about U.S. offshore drilling because neocon operatives have been moaning about regime change in Iraq, for years prior. Rumsfelf, Wolfowitz and Zoellick, sent a letter to Clinton back in 98, declaring that Saddam, would pose a threat to our country and the entire Middle East, if he were allowed to maintain a stockpile of WMD, that they already knew did not exist. Their statement of a "New Pearl Harbor," was telling you that because Bill Clinton refused to go along with their regime change plans, that they felt the process of transformation would be a long haul, until they could get someone in the White House, just as insane as themselves. That individual came along in the form of George W. Bush, the 43 President of the United States of America. Soon after, we got our "New Pearl Harbor" and the march on Iraq, by way of Afghanistan, was underway. Yet, no mass stockpiles of WMD were ever found in Iraq, post Bush 41 push back of Iraq, just short of Baghdad in 1990. This is not rocket science my friend. You should get caught up, in a hurry. Entire reply is a total nonsequitur and completely ignores the entirety of what's been posted. That's one (1) of many contradictions in the official story related to Flight 77, that I have posted here. You call it a false claim, but you have not put anything forward that is believable which contradicts what the man himself has stood by for 13 years. You've done nothing but run and hide from every single DETAIL and reference within the Official Story that I have provided for you. You then admit right here in this thread, that you don't use the 911 Commission Report as the basis for your arguments. You'd rather rely on YouBoob and the 600 gigs of "raw data" that now sits on your hard drive. You've created a "story" inside the official story. That fact in and of itself speaks volumes about the Official Story. The fact that you are so afraid of the Official Story, as to find the need to create your own Un-Official Story, is downright laughable on its face. You have proven nothing of the sort, because you have just admitted that you DO NOT use the Official 911 Commission Report. That report is the official story that was sold to the American People. The fact that you are so afraid of that report, should send chills down the spine of anyone having paid attention to your blog. Furthermore, simply claiming that you have done something when the written record clearly says otherwise, is another nonsequitur type reply that won't pay the bills. You can claim that you've proven something in this thread wrong, but until you actually post something here that is valid, verifiable and NOT a direct contradiction of the Official Report, then you have proven absolutely nothing here. No you have not, because THERE ARE no such photos that come from the Official Record. So, what are you posting and who do you think you are kidding? You cannot find vertical stabilizer damage at the Pentagon that is consistent with and commensurate with a Boeing 757 having slammed into the facade at over 480kts IAS. That photo simply does not exist anywhere in the public record. You cannot find left or right wing damage at the Pentagon that is consistent with and commensurate with a Boeing 757 having slammed into the facade at over 480kts IAS, because no such videos or photos exist. You cannot USE video and/or photos that show the Pentagon AFTER it collapsed and caved in, as that does not show the damage immediately after impact. If you have photos or videos that actually show Vertical Stabilizer, Left Wing, Right Wing, Left Engine and/or Right Engine damage that is CONSISTENT and COMMENSURATE with something the size of a Boeing 757 impacting at over 480kts IAS, the feel free to post it here. If you do, then you will be the first human being on planet earth, to have ever done so. Do you have either video or photos that nobody on earth has not seen a billion times before? Of course, not. You are posting the same stuff that's been in the public domain for years - else, you have to be posting doctored photos and those (there are plenty of them floating around out there) simply DO NOT count as valid evidence. This is BEFORE the collapse. Look left. There is ZERO damage consistent with the Left Side of the 124 foot wingspan of a Boeing 757 seen anywhere in this pic - period: One of the most telling things about this pre-roof collapse photo, is the fact that at the point of impact, there is no damage that matches the 12ft 4in diameter of the Boeing 757. Whatever struck the Pentagon, penetrated straight through the upper portion of the 1st floor. There is nothing here showing the Vertical Stabilizer which should have easily been seen in this photo nearly 40+ feet above the small hole with flames coming out on the ground floor. The wings of the Boeing 757 extend for 124 feet tip-to-tip. There is NO damage consistent and/or commensurate with anything have slammed into in this photo spanning 124 feet - period: What you see here in the facade both right and left comes from the outward compression of hot gasses as they emerge from the building, which is precisely what bomb damage assessment tells you that you should see after the delivery of high velocity penetration type of explosion. This is NEITHER the Crash Site Geometry, nor the Crash Site Physics that are expected as being consistent and commensurate with a Boeing 757 colliding with a free standing concrete/steel reinforced structure. Look left and look right at the point of impact. There is NO facade damage consistent and/or commensurate with the wingspan of a Boeing 757 at 124 feet tip-to-tip - period: Look left and look right at the point of impact. You see nothing but surface stress fracturing consistent and commensurate with the outward force being placed on the building from inside after high speed penetration and delivery of ordinance and/or an explosive payload. You do not see horizontal damage consistent and/or commensurate with the 124 feet wingspan of a Boeing 757 - period. This is NOT a component of the wing or fuselage section of the Boeing 757. Nor, is this a component of the blended wing-body section of a Boeing 757. Take a close look at the curvature of this piece. That degree of camber is FAR to steep to come from the wing of a Boeing 757. The surface camber of the Boeing 757 wing would not show its curvature in a piece this small, given its much larger aspect ratio. Any Aeronautical Engineer can tell you that the aspect ratio of this piece is inconsistent with that of the much larger aspect ratio (which determines camber angle) of the Boeing 757. Thus, this piece could not have come from a Boeing 757: I saved one of the best pics for last. This is one of the earliest photos take of the Pentagon after it was struck and BEFORE official crews arrived and began tearing up the facade. No, folks. Your eyes are not deceiving you! Yes, folks. The HOLE is on the 1st floor and nowhere near wide or high enough to match the nearly 14 foot external fuselage diameter of the Boeing 757. This single photo should awaken a lot of people: This photo should have won a Pulitzer Prize. It speaks VOLUMES about the cover-up. You theory was done a long time ago when you stepped outside the 911 Commission Report and decided to concoct your own Un-Official Blog of malarkey.
Welcome to the agony of defeat and ignorance of the facts. Yes, the facts do make him and ever other Official Story Teller very unconfortable indeed. He's already admitted that he refuses to use the very same document that's been the poster child for describing the official events of September 11th, 2001. So, he's already nullified his own blog with that admission. He's got to be fully aware of this fact. I've countered every single one of his objections here with facts taken directly from the 911 Commission Report. He then follows up by telling me that he's not interested in what the 911 Commission Report has to say. By definition, that means he's produced his own Theory of Events. So, I took his own facts and pointed out how Otis was either vectored to an altitude and heading that would have made it impossible to intercept, or the official story was a fabricated. You cannot see smoke over New York City, from 150-167 miles away at 200 feet, which is where Flight 93 would have been in its descent. I don't for one minute believe they were vectored to an altitude of 200 feet, as that would make no sense at all. They had to have been vectored to a much higher altitude. And, that is where their story falls apart because the AA-11 Radar Flight Path Analysis, vouched for by the NTSB and released under FOIA, clearly shows at point "G" that FLight 11 was in a dive at 3,200fpm from FL290. At that RoD (rate of descent) it places Flight 11 at 200ft in 9 minutes, which is a descent of 28,800 feet in 9 minutes - all of which took place before Otis was scrambled with "altitude and heading." So, that begs the obvious question, why would the FAA who is tracking Flight 11 via primary radar at this time, feed Otis bogus information that is 9 minutes old, when the primary radar sweeps are much shorter than that. None of it makes any sense and it smells of a cover-up after the fact.
I've never claimed anything about myself champ,I've nothing in my life to prove to you....keep up your delusions..they are for now,amusing CJ has your number as well
As I have stated for you twice already, I visited your thread on this site. Because you launched your tread with the false premise that I then brought back here and exposed as such, I concluded that you could not possibly end up in the right place - thus, there is no need to review anything else. How do you sit on a runway with an IFR plight plan having a magnetic heading of 090 for 750 miles, launch your aircraft, then fly a magnetic heading of 045 for 750 miles and get outraged because you ended up in the wrong damn place? That is precisely what your link does. Furthermore, it matters not what you link does, if your link does not align itself with the facts. And, since we know fully understand that you are not interested in facts, we can also fully understand that your links won't help us understand the details behind the Pentagon or Shanksville. Because you have violated the Prime Directive by walking away from the 911 Commission Report, which is the soul of the Official Story, you have committed information treason and abandoned your post in the process. This makes you an Un-Official Story Teller, one of many out there who are still lost and confused. Or, you are being paid to spread sewage camouflaged fact. No one's ego can sustain the bludgeoning you have taken here, without a payday at the end of the road - unless you really enjoy the pain of reading all these facts that contradict the Official Nonsense. Whether you are a paid cyber operative or not (yes, the CIA, NSA and FBI has them), matters not one wit to me. What matters to me inside this thread is but one thing: How on earth did that "young man" come to know what at the time, no one else was supposed to know about Flight 77? You can dance around that question until you are blue in the face but it won't change the probative value of the question that has still not yet been answered by the Official Bull. Your idea of overwhelming evidence is to throw up as much mayonnaise on the wall as you can and then go make yourself an "I win" sandwich, when the underlying premise screams at you that your overwhelming evidence is founded on quicksand. You can look at a building with no horizontal damage at the height of the wings and still conclude that a Boeing 757 slammed into it at better than 480kts indicated airspeed. You can look at 40+ feet above the impact point, see zero damage commensurate with a Boeing 757 vertical stabilizer slamming into it at better than 48kts indicated airspeed and still delude yourself into concluding that the Official Story is true. You can observe a cookie cutter hole three rings deep with a diameter that is nowhere near that of a Boeing 757, and conclude that somehow, the National Geographic made for television docudrama was correct in its "liquefaction" theory holding that a commercial aircraft fragmented into tiny little pieces that maintained enough kinetic energy to pass through internal structures leaving them intact, yet carving a nicely "shaped" undisturbed whole flush through the back of A-E drive at a distance that more 131 feet GREATER THAN the entire length of the aircraft itself (which is one of the most dumbest things I've ever heard) while at the very same time, not carrying enough kinetic energy through the hole to deposit the vast majority of its remaining parts somewhere on A-E drive (which is the dumbest concept of all regarding Natgeo's Science Fiction Series). If you had spent more time studying your physics in college, this would not be such a challenge for you today. You can watch that same National Geographic science fiction comedy drama as it also tells you about its "Chicken-Wing Shear Theory," whereby somehow both wings of the Boeing 757, slam into the exterior of the Pentagon, get sheared off simultaneously even though their impact angles were vastly different, then miraculously attach themselves to the fuselage that is entering a hole far too narrow for itself let along collapsed wings on its side, where the wings still have enough energy to penetrate the building WITH the fuselage but while also NEVER making the whole LARGER that JUST the diameter of the fuselage in the process. You don't need a degree in mathematics, physics and aerodynamics as I have, to understand the maximal stupidity in such a story. All you need is common sense, a little self-pride and a willingness to be honest with yourself long enough to admit that such a bizarre and conflicting set of physical events seems at least on the surface to stretch credulity and boggle the human mind. Yet, somehow, you are ok with all this science fiction. Well, my dear friend, I feel sorry for you. How anyone can be this deluded is beyond my ability to comprehend. If your links don't link BACK to the "Official Story" contained in the Official 911 Omission Report, then your link don't mean squat because by definition your links MUST be predicated on something OTHER than what the government has told the American People, as I have pointed out for you with respect to Otis and the "altitude & heading" nonsense that you rely upon. If my math is wrong, prove it. If my performance estimate of the RoC of the F-15 is wrong, prove it. If my descent calculations deriving a 9 minute time frame to reach 200ft for Flight 11 at precisely at the time Otis is scrambling with alleged "altitude & heading," then prove it. If you have evidence of how a fighter intercepts an airborne target without clear radar track, prove it. If you know how a fighter can pick out one of dozens (at least - I'm being very generous with that number) of commercial aircraft in the exact same area with similar characteristics as Flight 11, and determine that as the bogey aircraft, then prove it. If you can find someone OTHER than DICK Cheney himself, who will say that they say Mineta walk into the PEOC after Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, then prove it. Caution: I don't want to hear a damn thing Dick Cheney, has to tell me about 911. So, don't provide a link to anything that wick SOB has to say. No, you are not over it. You are clearly underneath it. Clearly being buried by the weight of truth and direct impeachment of the 911 Omission Report. No. 911 is by no means over pal. You wish it was over, but I suspect that in the not so distant future, there is the possibility that public opinion will be so great that the government will have no choice but to re-open the matter and conduct a genuine investigation of the facts with INDEPENDENT audit, coverage and input. THEN, we can get into some of these glaring contradictions that I am pointing out for you right now, in the 911 Omission Report. Those contradictions need a full public airing. If that were the case, then you would have demonstrated where what you call unfounded assumptions are incorrect. All you have done is post a link to a blaaaauuugh that does nothing but start off on the WRONG foot and serves to only confuse people. How do we know? Because, you have injected into this thread, the very false underlying premise that you say represents the truth AND you admitted here that you do not obtain your information from the 911 Commission Report, which must make the authors of that report extremely happy with you. Yes, I love the truth. It is only the supermarket clown who thinks that he's insulting someone by calling him a "Truther." Those who love truth will honestly seek it out, while those who revile it, will seek to destroy it. We KNOW what camp you belong to.
Any Aeronautical Engineer can tell you that it would be a part of a flap or aileron or wing tip or rudder or elevator or something else entirely.
It was President Kennedy who shot down what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had already approval. It took a sitting President to stop "just a PLAN." What if we had just such a President on September 10th, 2001? None of us would be hear arguing this matter - would we? Of course, we know what happened to Kennedy, don't we? It lead to yet another ridiculous Official Story, that a lone nut case took a bolt action rifle, targeted a moving motorcade from distance of 265 feet over the top of tree leaves and proceeded to strike a partial moving target while working the bolt action firing mechanism through three cartridges of 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano. Missed 1, contact 2, contact 3. Anyone knowing anything about firearms knows that target reacquisition after recoil management on a moving target is the toughest part. Manipulating a bolt action rifle and managing recoil would have made target reacquisition even more difficult. And, then there's pesky "grassy knoll." There's always a problem with Official Stories. That story was bull then and it is bull now.
Can you please show some fraud, other than that Official Story Tellers mount on websites continuously? Why not just show it, instead of proclaiming it with mere insinuation. No one can claim that my posts are not very detailed, very thorough, very factual and referenced upon the 911 Commission Report. Attack the facts instead of the messenger all the time - if you have what it takes to do so, of course. - - - Updated - - - More conjecture and no substance in rebuttal of what you see here, I take it? - - - Updated - - - Yet, no reply to the contradictions outlined in the official story that you support, I see. - - - Updated - - - Who cares. What about the contradictions that were laid out for you in full view?
Neither the flaps, aileron, wing tips, rudder (especially) or elevator (especially) on the Boeing 757 have this level of camber. Period. If you have spent any time whatsoever, around the 75, then you would recognize that much from the word go.
Enough people clearly saw an airliner, specifically an American Airlines airliner to debunk any 9/11 conspiracy theory. - - - Updated - - - Well, since you know exactly what it could not be, tell us exactly what it is? Tell us the camber, the radius, ect. Tell us how much time you have spend around a 757. Tell us the basis of your awesome aeronautical expertise.
I didn't say a fraud. I said 'Fraud. Try reading for comprehension, if you can. By the way ... Why can't 'truthers' tell the truth?
Joint chiefs could have approved it all day long,the president was the one who had to decide to implement it or not....no big mystery there And it was shown,Oswald COULD have fired the three shots......It's not really surprising you think the assassination was a hoax as well as 9/11,Most truthers are silly that way How about the moon landing?
