Forewarning of major false flag events in 2015

omnithanos

endacl wrote: »

Not in NY. Where were you when all your *ahem* 'evidence' was produced? Trawling echo chamber websites?

You didn't see it live then, you saw a cartoon plane go in one side of the tower & peek out the other side which is impossible. They first inserted digital imagery in live footage at the Superbowl in 1999.
They even showed a cartoon plane hitting the empire state building when that happened in 1945 killing 14 people.

endacl

omnithanos wrote: »

You didn't see it live then, you saw a cartoon plane go in one side of the tower & peek out the other side which is impossible. They first inserted digital imagery in live footage at the Superbowl in 1999.
They even showed a cartoon plane hitting the empire state building when that happened in 1945 killing 14 people.

Yes. That's what I saw. A cartoon plane.

:rolleyes:

Well. That's enough CT forum for this month...

omnithanos

omnithanos wrote: »

I still reckon we'll have a Chicago event this year and an upcoming event in London on the 3rd of August in the next few years.

I really don't understand why flawed official accounts are accepted by the majority when evidence shows the contrary.

So again you're hedging your bets.
Something vague will happen sometime somewhere.

If your theory held any weight, you would be able to make exact predictions with exact accuracy.
You've shown quite clearly that you cannot do this.

But you seem to be ignoring your failure as well as the massive massive holes in all your claims, yet still berate people for believing the "holes" in the official stories.

stuar

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How many planes have this system installed?

You said..........."There is NO system" when there IS a system, how many are installed is irrelevant, it's like saying there is no such thing as a TV because you don't have one.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well he is employed by the Irish Aviation Authority so they seem to think that his credentials are pretty sound.

I hate to be pedantic but the Irish Aviation Authority don't employ "air crash investigator's", the IAA consult the Air Accident Investigation Unit who are employed by the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport.

Timberrrrrrrr

stuar wrote: »

You said..........."There is NO system" when there IS a system, how many are installed is irrelevant, it's like saying there is no such thing as a TV because you don't have one.

The "system" has been patented, it has been tested, it has never been used before.

I hate to be pedantic but the Irish Aviation Authority don't employ "air crash investigator's", the IAA consult the Air Accident Investigation Unit who are employed by the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport.

Ok i'll be pedantic too, he works for the IAA and is on secondment to the AAIU as a crash investigator and is based in the IAA HQ.

degrassinoel

no need to go into specifics any further than that, or it'll become a privacy issue.

galljga1

Going back to the OP

There is no warning of the Charlie Hebdo attack in the ipad air video.

Robin Williams' death was not predicted in an episode of Family Guy, nor was the Boston bombing, which actually happened.

You are using a youtube video to claim that the attack in the museum in Tunisia is a fake. The fact that the dialogue begins with "How terminally corrupt the Zionists are..." may give some indication that the video is 100% unbiased. This is not exactly the pinnacle of investigative journalism.

It is very easy to make a prediction that some event is going to happen somewhere in the world on a particular date and then when it does not happen, claim it was another nearby event, an event which is now the subject of another conspiracy theory. The world is a big place, a lot happens in a day. Widen that window and you really cannot miss.

Re: March 22nd being alluded to many times in films etc, please list same and the associated significance.

Re the old Republic building in Chicago being a target for 2015, I really hope not but if not this year, there is always next year.

stuar

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The "system" has been patented, it has been tested, it has never been used before.

Maybe it was used before, recently even?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwlUmxGyk_w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ItOCRZigI

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok i'll be pedantic too, he works for the IAA and is on secondment to the AAIU as a crash investigator and is based in the IAA HQ.

So he has about the same hands on experience as the average viewer of "Air Crash Investigation", speaking of which, which of these two video's would he consider more realistic, to me both are as realistic as the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H86lIgGkbM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eukZMN11ubE

stuar

degrassinoel wrote: »

no need to go into specifics any further than that, or it'll become a privacy issue.

I agree considering there are 8 staff in total.

Current AAIU staff is made up of eight personnel including:

(1) Chief Inspector of Air Accidents
(5) Inspectors of Air Accidents
(2) Administrative and Support

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

Going back to the OP

There is no warning of the Charlie Hebdo attack in the ipad air video.

Robin Williams' death was not predicted in an episode of Family Guy, nor was the Boston bombing, which actually happened.

You are using a youtube video to claim that the attack in the museum in Tunisia is a fake. The fact that the dialogue begins with "How terminally corrupt the Zionists are..." may give some indication that the video is 100% unbiased. This is not exactly the pinnacle of investigative journalism.

It is very easy to make a prediction that some event is going to happen somewhere in the world on a particular date and then when it does not happen, claim it was another nearby event, an event which is now the subject of another conspiracy theory. The world is a big place, a lot happens in a day. Widen that window and you really cannot miss.

Re: March 22nd being alluded to many times in films etc, please list same and the associated significance.

Re the old Republic building in Chicago being a target for 2015, I really hope not but if not this year, there is always next year.

There are people out there trying to decipher clues they think are being deliberately put into films etc. because they see a pattern of clues which appear to have alluded to events which have already occurred such as 9/11 and the Boston Bombing. The jogger card published in 1995 which tells us it was the lady runner in green who appeared to detonate the bomb which you can see here in this video after the 1min 50 secs mark. She then promptly tosses the device, without looking around, to old bill who catches it while falling and then passes it on to other goons.

Here is the latest on the missing nukes in the USA and the information which suggests that Cleveland was their intended target.

we can only speculate whether they will still go ahead with their nefarious plans in the face of these discoveries.
Perhaps we will get some clues in forthcoming episodes of Family Guy.

stuar

Another thing OP, the number 33 has great significance in the occult.......






EDIT: I was going to manipulate both images to be 33.3 KB, but I'd have been pushing it a bit.........and just missed out on posting it at 11:33

omnithanos

endacl wrote: »

Yes. That's what I saw. A cartoon plane.

:rolleyes:

Well. That's enough CT forum for this month...

I already posted this video showing the images you saw live on 9/11 in post #76.Here it is again with a brief explanation as to why it is fake.

I'm also posting the video which shows the cartoon representation of the plane on 16 seconds which actually hit the Empire State Building in 1945 for comparison.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

There are people out there trying to decipher clues they think are being deliberately put into films etc. because they see a pattern of clues which appear to have alluded to events which have already occurred such as 9/11 and the Boston Bombing. The jogger card published in 1995 which tells us it was the lady runner in green who appeared to detonate the bomb which you can see here in this video after the 1min 50 secs mark. She then promptly tosses the device, without looking around, to old bill who catches it while falling and then passes it on to other goons.

Here is the latest on the missing nukes in the USA and the information which suggests that Cleveland was their intended target.

we can only speculate whether they will still go ahead with their nefarious plans in the face of these discoveries.
Perhaps we will get some clues in forthcoming episodes of Family Guy.

There was a card in a tongue in cheek board game depicting a jogger. That is it. A woman wears a green top in the Boston marathon and something flies out of her hand at the same time as a bomb detonation. What are the chances of that happening? This card has nothing to do with predicting the Boston bombing. Nor have the pentagon card or the terrorist nuke cards anything to do with 9/11. They are simply cards from a game. Also the use of the word 'twin' in Back to the Future and the clock displaying approx 3 minutes to ten have nothing to do with 9/11.

Not sure where you get an attack on Cleveland out of this video. South Carolina maybe. If you do a bit of research you will see that this has been rebutted. Two separate statements one referring to Syria and the other using an attack on some port in south Carolina were conflated to give you 'nuclear attack on south carolina'. I know which version I chose to believe.

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

There was a card in a tongue in cheek board game depicting a jogger. That is it. A woman wears a green top in the Boston marathon and something flies out of her hand at the same time as a bomb detonation. What are the chances of that happening? This card has nothing to do with predicting the Boston bombing. Nor have the pentagon card or the terrorist nuke cards anything to do with 9/11. They are simply cards from a game. Also the use of the word 'twin' in Back to the Future and the clock displaying approx 3 minutes to ten have nothing to do with 9/11.

Not sure where you get an attack on Cleveland out of this video. South Carolina maybe. If you do a bit of research you will see that this has been rebutted. Two separate statements one referring to Syria and the other using an attack on some port in south Carolina were conflated to give you 'nuclear attack on south carolina'. I know which version I chose to believe.

I've already exposed your so called reliable source Wikipedia so you should qualify your rebuttal for credibility.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

I already posted this video showing the images you saw live on 9/11 in post #76.Here it is again with a brief explanation as to why it is fake.

I'm also posting the video which shows the cartoon representation of the plane on 16 seconds which actually hit the Empire State Building in 1945 for comparison.

Not sure of the significance of these videos. Looks like the plane hit side on so the nose did not go through the building. And a B52 crashed into the ESB as depicted by a crude cartoon.

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

Not sure of the significance of these videos. Looks like the plane hit side on so the nose did not go through the building. And a B52 crashed into the ESB as depicted by a crude cartoon.

We know the plane didn't hit side on according to the "official story" because the footage they faked afterwards shows it hitting directly.

Ipso

omnithanos wrote: »

France was settled by the tribe of the Franks.

Spencer?

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

I've already exposed your so called reliable source Wikipedia so you should qualify your rebuttal for credibility.

I do not think I got anything from wikipedia, maybe I did, I looked at a lot of stuff today, can't be bothered to re-check. But if I did, agreed, Wikipedia vs Youtube is entirely absurd.

Boreas

I have to admit I'd never heard of this crash and my first reaction was that the plane was much smaller/lighter, carried a lot less fuel and as a piston engined plane would have been travelling more slowly.

I had a quick look for figures and there is a detailed article on aerospaceweb dot org I can't post a link but it's at question/history/q0311.shtml

The below is a break down of the difference between the two events.

...a number of factors explain why the Empire State Building suffered relatively minor damage while the twin towers were catastrophically destroyed. First, the energy of impact sustained by the buildings differed by orders of magnitude. The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

The article also has some pictures from the crash.

scuba8

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The "system" has been patented, it has been tested, it has never been used before.





Ok i'll be pedantic too, he works for the IAA and is on secondment to the AAIU as a crash investigator and is based in the IAA HQ.

I have spoken to a friend of mine who is an Air Traffic Controler working in Shannon.
He was categoric in stating that there are NO remote control systems installed in any commercial aircraft. To do so would leave them liable to be hacked and overridden by terrorists. To repeat there are no such systems installed in any commercial aircraft.

miss tickle

scuba8 wrote: »

I have spoken to a friend of mine who is an Air Traffic Controler working in Shannon.
He was categoric in stating that there are NO remote control systems installed in any commercial aircraft. To do so would leave them liable to be hacked and overridden by terrorists. To repeat there are no such systems installed in any commercial aircraft.

If you are really interested in whether or not this is possible, here's a starting point and goggle from there.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-03/technology-autopilot-override-pilot-control-boeing-aircraft-developed-circa-2001

Timberrrrrrrr

miss tickle wrote: »

If you are really interested in whether or not this is possible, here's a starting point and goggle from there.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-03/technology-autopilot-override-pilot-control-boeing-aircraft-developed-circa-2001

Developed ...check

Patented .... check

installed & tested .... check


fitted into commercial airlines?

galljga1

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Developed ...check

Patented .... check

installed & tested .... check


fitted into commercial airlines?

What are you trying to imply here?

That this was not fitted to everyplane that crashed since?
That every plane that crashed since was not remote hijacked by Zionist lizards?

Where is your proof?

Timberrrrrrrr

galljga1 wrote: »

What are you trying to imply here?

That this was not fitted to everyplane that crashed since?
That every plane that crashed since was not remote hijacked by Zionist lizards?

Where is your proof?

The proof is in my tappiocca pudding my friend




Hmmmmmm tappiocca puddiiiing

scuba8

miss tickle wrote: »

If you are really interested in whether or not this is possible, here's a starting point and goggle from there.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-03/technology-autopilot-override-pilot-control-boeing-aircraft-developed-circa-2001

The system may be installed in military aircraft, drones for example, but there are no such systems installed in commercial aircraft. That is a fact.

DamagedTrax

scuba8 wrote: »

The system may be installed in military aircraft, drones for example, but there are no such systems installed in commercial aircraft. That is a fact.

actually the Honeywell autopilot system (used on commercial boeings) can allow remote override.

c_man

omnithanos wrote: »

I've already exposed your so called reliable source Wikipedia so you should qualify your rebuttal for credibility.

I can't believe the audacity of someone coming out with this ^ when they use Family Guy clips as the basis of a theory involving a secret murderous cabal running the world

scuba8

DamagedTrax wrote: »

actually the Honeywell autopilot system (used on commercial boeings) can allow remote override.

Again where the Honeywell system could allow remote override it does not.
There are no remote control systems installed in commercial aircraft.
If you can link any commercial aircraft that actually has a remote control facility installed I will of course apologise and defer to your greater insight.

omnithanos

Interesting how our Boston Bomber is being sentenced on April 21st and Apr 21-26 is the Satanic feast of Abduction, ceremonial preparation and holding of sacrificial victim.
https://wesdancin.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/list-of-satanic-holidays-a-must-read/

As tomorrow is April 15th could we expect to see another event such as the abduction of 200 Nigerian schoolgirls (Apr 15 2014), the boston bombing (Apr 15 2013), Hillsborough (Apr 15 1989) or Titanic (Apr 15 1912).

Interestingly Boston was foretold in both an episode of Family Guy 29 days before and American Dad the day before and Titanic was foretold in a novella published in 1898.

http://io9.com/5900083/the-novella-that-predicted-the-wreck-of-the-titanic

DamagedTrax

scuba8 wrote: »

Again where the Honeywell system could allow remote override it does not.
There are no remote control systems installed in commercial aircraft.
If you can link any commercial aircraft that actually has a remote control facility installed I will of course apologise and defer to your greater insight.

no greater insight, just pointing out the the system can allow remote control.

ive no idea if the system is in use commercially or not to be honest. but in the event of certain factions needing one installed on a boeing, it could be done.

if thats the case here, ive no idea but it is definitely a technological possibility.