It is BJ. and Stndown is RtWngaFraud Same sentence structure, same misspelled words, same horrible punctuation.
Naybe but not by any debunkers. The OP alone laid the debunkers and Huggers to waste, just look as their loser name calling say nothing responses.
I see the guards have 'taken care of' the uncontrolled dissent being expressed by a few participants trying to discuss the curious aspects of the 9/11 fiasco. Pity. I was starting to enjoy reading the discussions, and appreciating the lack of logical responses being tossed out by the guards. *sigh*
it is truly sad for humanity that people are willing to accept the total fraud promoted by TV, and abandon logic & reason. oh well .....
can YOU personally actually look at the record of WTC7 "collapsing" and attribute that to FIRE? that is chaotic unfocused FIRE? ..... what?
Given that the NIST said WTC7 "collapsed" due to FIRE so I'm just repeating them, MY take on the subject is there had to have been something else, explosives most probably ...... but then again that is MY bit here. Your interpretation may vary ......
The fact that destruction was complete figures into the equation and is a huge factor in deciding just exactly how suspicious the untimely demise of the towers & 7 had to be.....
Thanks. The thread speaks for itself. Any intelligent read makes that clear. What I find most amazing about the "story tellers" is their uncanny ability to offer nonsequitur reply as "substantive debate on the merits." When they grow weary of that, they shift to what they think are personal attacks on an anonymous source on the internet, of whom they clearly know nothing about. When that fails and you pound their nonsensical responses into the dust with facts they can't answer, they either throw up their hands and proclaim "Victory!" at the top of their lungs as they tuck tail and run out the back door while saying how "absurd" the whole thing is, or they become obtusely arrogant and ignore even the most obvious facts that grind against their bone headed theories. The thread has demonstrated the following and backed it up with historical fact: Norman Mineta was likely inside the White House before the Pentagon was struck. PEOC chatter about an in-bound airborne vehicle could not have been about Flight 93. Dick Cheney, was receiving in-bound telemetry on an airborne object heading for the D.C. area. You can't intercept Flight 11 with scramble orders to an altitude where Flight 11 does not exist. You can't see smoke in New York City, from 150-167 miles away at 10,000ft msl. You can't don't intercept an aircraft with a 3,200fpm dive covering 20,000+ down to below 200ft in 9 minutes, while you are at the very same time climbing your aircraft up to altitude. Boeing 757's don't liquify into steel reinforced concrete buildings and THEN manage to maintain enough energy and continuity to punch a cookie cutter size hole that is SMALLER than the diameter of its own fuselage, while not at the very same time carrying enough enough to put so much as a dent into the wall directly behind the exit hole. You can't fly a Boeing 757 into the ground in Shanksville at 40-degrees nose below the horizon while inverted and then manage to recovery debris in New Baltimore some eight {8} miles away. Boeing 757 airframes don't simply disappear into the earth after impact with terrain in a low angle of attack collision, sufficient to make any large scale parts recovery virtually impossible. Official story tellers can't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and Newton's Laws of Motion, merely to make an implausible scenario sound marketable. There was no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon. There was no Boeing 757 at Shanksville. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were flown into towers 1 and 2, after the crew was gassed. Possible input source to Flight 11 and Flight 175, was Satcom ACARS Avionics. The required LRUs would have been replaced on the ground before the aircraft launched on September 11th, 2001. That's not my theory of events, but that is my best guess absent any credible data that demonstrates commercial aircraft involvement at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
The QB-47 was just one example of how they completely ignore what you put in front of them, even when it smacks their previous statement out of the water and demonstrates their lack of understanding. Rather than simply take this opportunity to learn something they don't already know, which may help them understand why 19 neophytes did not take their marching orders from a guy living in a cave in Southern Afghanistan, they would rather uphold that which is unbelievable, that those same 19 neophytes pulled off the biggest and most technologically advanced hit on America since Pear Harbor itself. That is not a plausible story, no matter how the official story tellers manage to slice it. We've been operating remotely controlled heavy airframes for quite some time now. Neither the technology, nor the concept is new. Right at this very minute, public information is being slowly leaked out about how commercial aircraft can be "remotely controlled" by ATC to avert imminent collisions on their scope. The principle idea being that ATC has a more full, broad picture of the "situational awareness" that a flight crew may not have, or may not have the ability to acquire depending on what's going on inside their own cockpit at the time (emergency procedures, etc). How are they going to do this? One way is to link an ARINC solution with the existing Satcom ACARS Avionics package for an "official" solution - or something along those lines. You have to gain authority and control over the aircraft's electronic flight control system in real-time. Not hard to do - in fact, we can and have already done it. These applications have not been standard Part 121/135 operations, so you don't hear or read about them very much. However, it can and has already been done - 911 (probably) being the most notorious example. This is how SAS accomplishes something similar: ACARS Avionics - SAS Notice the logical pathway from the ACARS MU down to the aircraft's FMC/FMS. The FMS (flight management system) is coupled to the AP (autopilot system), which itself is electronically coupled to the aircraft's direct flight control system controlling aircraft yaw, pitch, roll and ultimately throttle position. With access, authority and control of those four (4) inputs, coupled to the aircraft's navigation system through the FMC (flight management computer), you have the ability to operate that aircraft remotely to and from any two points within the fuel range of that particular airframe. This is not rocket science and people can understand this - if they truly want to.
It simply amazes me that people can be so obtuse. It has to be a concerted effort of misinformation. People can't possibly be so blind. Please keep posting, Sir. Your objectivity and honesty are a refreshing change from the usual guard dogs.
How much more does this have to be spelled out for you? Stop placing your foot in mouth. That's Google Earth showing you the distances in broad daylight. Yet, you failed to even open Google Earth on your own computer before posting this? This is the problem with official story tellers. You've caught up in a fog of blithering nonsense for 13 years, such that you can't even see forest for the trees. There is it. Flight 93, allegedly went down at 40-degrees nose below the horizon at roughly eight miles from New Baltimore (8.56 from the center of Somerset County and 7.1 miles from Shanksville, the crash site), with debris having been "recovered" between Club Road and Grasser Road, in New Baltimore. Homework is not what you say it is. Homework, is what the facts actually reveal. Do the math. Do the homework. Stop being lazy. People can read the opening post for themselves and recognize that you just lied to cover your inability to handle the questions being put forth in this thread. If you can't read the opening post and the follow-up posts telling clearly the reason for the photos, then that's a problem with your IQ, and not the problem of others. The the post speaks clearly for itself as a demonstration of how the human brain works between the eyes and the neurotransmitters that fill in the blanks of that which is unseen. If you have difficult understanding that, seek an interpreter because I can't hold your hand anymore on the subject. I've got plenty of inflight photos and video taken over the years, but posting that would be like pointing up to the sky on a rainy day and telling you its "raining." You'd be better off trying to figure out how Dick Cheney, knew that which he was not supposed to know on September 11th, 2001, before the Pentagon was struck and before Flight 93 allegedly slammed into Shanksville, nose first while subsequently disappearing AND leaving debris nearly 8 miles away in New Baltimore at the same time.
I'm not holding my breathe. But, I will gladly address any facts they might have on Flight 77 or Flight 93. The problem is that they don't dare bring any into this thread that they can stand behind for very long. Commercial crash sites are supposed to leave signatures that say they are commercial crash sites. Common sense should tell these people that when you don't see that signature, something is very wrong with the "storyline" being delivered by official storytellers. I'll wait for their "facts."
I see you have done considerable research on FLT77 & :FLT93, however ( just my $0.02 on the subject ... ) FLT11 & FLT175 are very much in question, because both airliners left behind plane shaped cut-outs ( kinda road runner cartoon like ) and both aircraft penetrated completely disappearing inside. funny that..... I'm of the opinion that "FLT11" & "FLT175" are actually FAKE and I do not know how it was done, but what was done give the distinct impression of fraud.
