Is it crazy to distrust the official 911 story?

[Damocles]

Conditioned thought, in my opinion.

While you're talking about individuals, corporations control your nation.

And it is not without amazing irony, that they've done this through the very people and the very party that always talks about "individual freedom."

It is WE the people, not Me the people.

And this is conditioned thought, IMO. The government should never be used to do something that we can do for ourselves. The example you give is just another reason to distrust the government, not a reason to suddenly trust it. It was the government that created the environment that you distrust so much.

Most of the "solutions" for health care, for instance, are simply government subsidies to the same corporations you dislike. They don't fix the cost issues they simply give our money more indirectly, they attempt to hide the issue and call it a "solution". To say "they" used the "party of <insert whatever here>" to do it ignores that the other party just selects different corporations to subsidize and allow to control them.

 

[Litmus]

I agree that we should get corporations and lobbyists out of our government so it can continue its role in the interests of WE the people.

What is patriotism to you?

Populist policy espousal. A full rejection of globalism and fascism.

 

[uscitizen]

But it is our destiny to rule the world!

 

[Damocles]

But it is our destiny to rule the world!

Uscit has been possessed by Bush!

 

[uscitizen]

BWAHAHAHAHA

 

[Litmus]

But it is our destiny to rule the world!

This is a deluded mission implanted into our psyche by pernicious masono-noahide Olam Ha Baathists.

 

[Battleborne]

Wrong................

Some of what you've said is true .. but you're missing the most telling part. Could those simulator pilots execute the kind of manuevers that happened on 9/11? Could simulator pilots who've never been trained on the kind of sophisticated instrumentation in a 767 fly flawlessly all over the country then turn around and find their targets? We're not talking about one or even two Mensa simulator pilots, we're talking about four of them .. flawlessly .. all over the country .. flying precision manuevers that combat pilots couldn't do.

Why would experienced combat and commercial pilots doubt that any of this is possible? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by their courage to take a stand.

Additionally, let's not pretend that simulator pilots flying like Errol Flynn in a movie is the only problem with the 9/11 fairy-tale. It would still be hard to believe if this was the only problem, but there are thousands of things wrong with the fairy-tale and most of them are equally incredible, equally unbelievable.

If a terrorist wants to attack the Pentagon with an airplane, he would fly it right into the center, not take a much more difficult and unbelievable plight path into the sidfe of the building .. that coincidentally just happened to be under construction and sparesly occupied. Then he flys this plane no more than 20 feet off the ground and slams into the Pentagon without leaving a trail of skid marks and burns in the manicured lawn, that was still manicured after the 'attack." You could have went out and played a round of golf on that lawn.

Then incredibly, the same type of plane that melted giant buildings caryying virtually the same amount of fuel, slams into the Pentagon and does relatively minor damage. The roof didn't even collapse until a half hour AFTER the impact. The rooms right next to the impact don't even have burns, soot, and smoke damage to them. An open book lies on a wooden stool without the pages even being singed. A plastic computer monitor sitting on a cabinet is not burned .. RIGHT NEXT TO THE IMPACT SITE .. and the plane flying at 500 mph makes a 16 by 14 ft hole .. the same type plane that melted giant buildings.

And to top this all off, the Pentagon has cameras all over the building and in every room, yet the only photo available is a scuzzy grainy one without detail. What happened to the videos shot by the gas station across hte street from the Pentagon .. which, by the way, should have had every window in the station blown out by a giant plane flying only a few fett above it. The vibrations and noise should have been deafening and the exhuast over-powering. Not only was the video IMMEDIATELY confiscated, everyone in the station was placed on a gag order .. in fact, hunderds of people have been placed under gag orders and told not to speak.

Surely you're not suggesting that there is not enough evidence to raise serious suspicions and call for an independent investigation, not the whitewashed Bush controlled 9/11 Commission variety.

again...! Three of the terrorist pilots stayed within 50 miles of the intended targets...they made a simple turn(after disingaging the autopilot-learned in simulators) in the direction of the targets...proceed forward lined up increased the throttle speed and plowed into the buildings...if the pilots you quoted...say this is impossible...well imho they should not even have a pilots license!
Now the fourth terrorist pilot must have had second thoughts or was incompetent as he traveled over a thousand miles...and lost control of the aircraft and plowed into a field...these are the facts BAC!

 

[blackascoal]

again...! Three of the terrorist pilots stayed within 50 miles of the intended targets...they made a simple turn(after disingaging the autopilot-learned in simulators) in the direction of the targets...proceed forward lined up increased the throttle speed and plowed into the buildings...if the pilots you quoted...say this is impossible...well imho they should not even have a pilots license!
Now the fourth terrorist pilot must have had second thoughts or was incompetent as he traveled over a thousand miles...and lost control of the aircraft and plowed into a field...these are the facts BAC!

First, the pilots I quoted have flown, trained other pilots on, and built the most sophisticated planes in the world and many of them have flown over one hundred combat missions. "They shouldn't have a pilot's license" ?? Could you really be stupid enough to challenge their credentials? What are your credentials that would allow you to make such a mindboggling idiotic assessment?

"So miles from the target" ??

That's not true and I'm afraid that facts are a stranger to you.

These are the facts ...

And there was nothing "simple" about their approaches to the targets.

How to fly a 767 20 feet off the ground at 400mph is not taught on simulators designed to get you a license to fly a Cessna.

Is flying a 767 at near ground level a simple and easy thing to do?

 

[Battleborne]

My bad on the miles...........

First, the pilots I quoted have flown, trained other pilots on, and built the most sophisticated planes in the world and many of them have flown over one hundred combat missions. "They shouldn't have a pilot's license" ?? Could you really be stupid enough to challenge their credentials? What are your credentials that would allow you to make such a mindboggling idiotic assessment?

"So miles from the target" ??

That's not true and I'm afraid that facts are a stranger to you.

These are the facts ...

And there was nothing "simple" about their approaches to the targets.

How to fly a 767 20 feet off the ground at 400mph is not taught on simulators designed to get you a license to fly a Cessna. [There is no difference flying 400 mph at 20 feet than at any altitude...except maybe things that may get in the way...ie:twin towers or the pentagon!]
Is flying a 767 at near ground level a simple and easy thing to do?

I did not catch my error...I meant within 250miles(typo error)...at any rate
all the return approaches were classic common approaches...
Map#1...Left wide turn 180 degree return-simple approach
#2...Sharp (L)turn sloppy but accurate
#3...Left turn-Left turn approach-common
#4...Left turn-Left-turn approach-common

Having said this....the approaches they made at low altitude were not glide slope approaches for landing(complicated)...they were lined up to hit a target...and yes anyone who can fly a small aircraft straight and level could indeed fly a large aircraft at high speed aimed at a large target...airspeed controls the aircrafts ability to stay airborne(lift)...there would be no stall at this speed!


Would you please post what your sources said about this..a link would be nice...what you posted about the experts was your interpretation of what they said!
Thanks!

 

[blackascoal]

I did not catch my error...I meant within 250miles(typo error)...at any rate
all the return approaches were classic common approaches...
Map#1...Left wide turn 180 degree return-simple approach
#2...Sharp (L)turn sloppy but accurate
#3...Left turn-Left turn approach-common
#4...Left turn-Left-turn approach-common

Having said this....the approaches they made at low altitude were not glide slope approaches for landing(complicated)...they were lined up to hit a target...and yes anyone who can fly a small aircraft straight and level could indeed fly a large aircraft at high speed aimed at a large target...airspeed controls the aircrafts ability to stay airborne(lift)...there would be no stall at this speed!


Would you please post what your sources said about this..a link would be nice...what you posted about the experts was your interpretation of what they said!
Thanks!

You're the pilot .. surely you know about the ground effect large aircraft would experience when flying at high speeds close to the ground that would cause the plane to float. Are you sure a link is required for you to know this?

Additionally, why did the pilot take such a much more difficult approach when hitting the center of the Pentagon would have caused far more damage?

You do the math .. plane hits Pentagon, doesn't create any hole or crater in the ground, doesn't create any skid or burn marks, and doesn't collapse the roof even though the tip of the tail was almost as high as the roof.

Explain the flight approach that did this ...

Minutes after impact, roof still intact, no fires, lawn still manicured, light poles and trees still standing, minimum damage to the building .. same plane that melted giant buildings.

 

[blackascoal]

Wouldn't all the cars under this approach have been blown over by a huge jet flying at 400 mph only feet above them? Would any of them?

 

[Battleborne]

First and foremost.............

You're the pilot .. surely you know about the ground effect large aircraft would experience when flying at high speeds close to the ground that would cause the plane to float. Are you sure a link is required for you to know this?

Additionally, why did the pilot take such a much more difficult approach when hitting the center of the Pentagon would have caused far more damage?

You do the math .. plane hits Pentagon, doesn't create any hole or crater in the ground, doesn't create any skid or burn marks, and doesn't collapse the roof even though the tip of the tail was almost as high as the roof.

Explain the flight approach that did this ...

Minutes after impact, roof still intact, no fires, lawn still manicured, light poles and trees still standing, minimum damage to the building .. same plane that melted giant buildings.

There were video pictures of the Pentagon crash...showing the plane briefly before hitting the Pentagon and taking out a couple of light poles...they have since disappeared...
Also you are saying ground float at low altitude is something to worry about...not hardly while landing a ac ground float is a controlled crash(stall)
as for the building minimal damage comment...well the Pentagon was designed to absorb the imapact that it received...what was your point again?

 

[Damocles]

Cars do not get "blown over" by jets.

 

[Battleborne]

Only if the exhaust thrust is ..............

Cars do not get "blown over" by jets.

directly pointed in their direction/level...in this incident the exhaust thrust was way above the vehicles BAC was alluding too! He is grasping for straws to make a stupid case...'Conspiracy Theory' at it's worst!

 

[Damocles]

We used to sit on top of our vehicle outside the fence just before the landing strips. The planes came in much lower than 400 ft and not only was our vehicle not "blown over" but we, ourselves, small humans were also not blown over by the awesome blast of the engines...

I imagine if we were directly behind them within a certain distance we might have had an issue, but not below them as they came in for their landings...

 

[Battleborne]

Exactly.............

We used to sit on top of our vehicle outside the fence just before the landing strips. The planes came in much lower than 400 ft and not only was our vehicle not "blown over" but we, ourselves, small humans were also not blown over by the awesome blast of the engines...

I imagine if we were directly behind them within a certain distance we might have had an issue, but not below them as they came in for their landings...

and if BAC watched the DiscoveryChannel...well golly gee the 'Mythbusters' did a segment on just this type of theory!

 

[blackascoal]

Cars do not get "blown over" by jets.

Oh, so there is no such thing as jet blast effect and not only would cars not have been overturned by windows don't get shattered either.

When I get done working I'll find the images of cars that have been blown over by jet blast effects and you can tell me how such an impossible thing happened and what liberal made all this up.

 

[blackascoal]

There were video pictures of the Pentagon crash...showing the plane briefly before hitting the Pentagon and taking out a couple of light poles...they have since disappeared...
Also you are saying ground float at low altitude is something to worry about...not hardly while landing a ac ground float is a controlled crash(stall)
as for the building minimal damage comment...well the Pentagon was designed to absorb the imapact that it received...what was your point again?

The Pentagon was designed to withstand a 757 flying into it at rocket speed .. hmmm, that's very interesting .. so why wasn't the plane laying outside of the inpenatratable building?

The impact site .. boy they sure make strong glass, don't they?

Didn't even break the fucking windows right above the impact.

Same plane that melted giant buildings.

I know .. Photoshop

 

[Battleborne]

LMAO...at you BAC

Oh, so there is no such thing as jet blast effect and not only would cars not have been overturned by windows don't get shattered either.

When I get done working I'll find the images of cars that have been blown over by jet blast effects and you can tell me how such an impossible thing happened and what liberal made all this up.

Hey try the Discovery Channel...'Mythbusters' segment on this very same issue...!OMG you get denser by the posts just like waterboy!

 

[Battleborne]

Dense-Dense-dense................

The Pentagon was designed to withstand a 757 flying into it at rocket speed .. hmmm, that's very interesting .. so why wasn't the plane laying outside of the inpenatratable building?

The impact site .. boy they sure make strong glass, don't they?

Didn't even break the fucking windows right above the impact.

Same plane that melted giant buildings.

I know .. Photoshop

...........YES!


I already explained that the 'Pentagon' was designed to 'ABSORB' this type of impact!