Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

12357…57

Comments

  • #202
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    WTC7, a tower was brought down by an office fire is nonsensical.
    I have no doubt this response will be used as a fulcrum to quickly jump off the whole "Skywarrior" thing and jump into discrediting the NIST

    We'll keep this thread on the Pentagon


  • #203
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Big, big difference between cruising speed of 450 knots at 30,000 feet versus doing that speed at almost ground level where air density and drag coefficient is much higher.

    Best case scenario would be the plane would be virtual unresponsive to pilot input at near ground altitude that speed. Worst case is the feckin' wings would just shear right off.

    Now let's put someone at the controls who wasn't even rated to fly a Cessna and suddenly he develops almost Tom Cruise Top Gun type skills and pulls off a maneuver that even professional pilots can't recreate in a simulator.

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

    Do we evaluate the facts and data or keep trying to smash that square peg through a round hole?

    But Skeptics don't want to discuss the glaring inconsistencies with the story, you see that from my time spend on here.

    Four weeks before 9/11 a Flight controller said Hani the incredible could not handle or control a light plane and refused to rent him a plane to travel on his own

    Yet 30 days later he flying along over 500mph an hour and kept the plane level about 5 feet or more off the ground. What did he do in that time that made him able to control and handle a commercial airliner on 9/11?


  • #204
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's been repeated on simulators by amateurs. Pilots (outside of conspiracy forums) have described the maneuver as doable for someone of that skill level

    Reportedly the plane was pushed to its limits for only the final part of it's flight

    No, they haven't I have seen what Skeptics have done. One guy, for example, Mike West (a skeptic) used a home simulator and he tried to pass that off as the real thing. That basically a computer game simulation you try at home. You not experiencing the effects of plane with lift, gravity, drag, weight., speed.


  • #205
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's been repeated on simulators by amateurs. Pilots (outside of conspiracy forums) have described the maneuver as doable for someone of that skill level
    Any proof/links on that?


  • #206
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The first floor is 14 ft.
    So two floors is 28 ft.

    You said it needed 25 feet.

    Curses the conspiracy theory is foiled once again by simple math!


  • #207
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    The first floor is 14 ft.
    So two floors is 28 ft.

    You said it needed 25 feet.

    Curses the conspiracy theory is foiled once again by simple math!

    Where is the damage for that shown on the photograph, genius?


  • #208
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Any proof/links on that?

    Yup have posted a link in this thread to an amateur trying it on a flight simulator

    Am in work now so will post more links (there are several on youtube)

    I can also post pilot responses on the issue (this question gets asked frequently on pilot specific and aviation forums)


  • #209
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Kingmob: this is ground floor, notice the red block dots, the government claims all the columns are missing or broken.

    448715.png


  • #210
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Where is the damage

    A reminder that I have asked for your counter-theory

    You believe a military jet struck the Pentagon

    To repeat the questions -

    1. how many witnesses support this and how many don't?

    2. How many parts were identified as belonging to the particular military jet that you specify? (So far you have provided only one that "looks like" (in your opinion) a part from the military jet. That is not a sufficient answer)

    So far the only information I have from you is that a specific type of jet, flown by unknown, with unknown flight path, unknown details flew into the Pentagon and what happened to the entirity of flight 77 is unknown

    We need much more details on this


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A reminder that I have asked for your counter-theory

    You believe a military jet struck the Pentagon

    To repeat the questions -

    1. how many witnesses support this and how many don't?

    2. How many parts were identified as belonging to the particular military jet that you specify? (So far you have provided only one that "looks like" (in your opinion) a part from the military jet. That is not a sufficient answer)

    So far the only information I have from you is that a specific type of jet, flown by unknown, with unknown flight path, unknown details flew into the Pentagon and what happened to the entirity of flight 77 is unknown

    We need much more details on this

    I remember reading one account, but I have not looked this up in a while. Reports of a small airliner could be a military plane. A3-Skywarrior I described looks like a small airliner for example. It not going to look like a military plane if it was used on 9/11 to attack the Pentagon.

    Planes were suicided in New York before the Pentagon attack. So eyewitness accounts, therefore, may not be reliable. Many of those eyewitnesses had formed a picture in their minds what likely happened at the Pentagon.

    By the way I not ruling out a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. My reservations or doubts I have listed in this thread and many still unanswered by you guys.

    None of the parts I saw at the Pentagon are special items. You find similar items on other planes.


  • #212
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Where is the damage for that shown on the photograph, genius?
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=448710&stc=1&d=1524229700

    I count two floors...

    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170105-085755-y4ow1-jpg.23761/


  • #213
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    By the way I not ruling out a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. My reservations or doubts I have listed in this thread and many still unanswered by you guys.

    There is nothing reasonable about your reservations or doubts in this thread


  • #214
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There is nothing reasonable about your reservations or doubts in this thread

    This was people laugh at Skeptics they don't do research. They just pick the parts they like to talk about and ignore everything else.


  • #215
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=448710&stc=1&d=1524229700

    I count two floors...

    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170105-085755-y4ow1-jpg.23761/

    I comfortable saying now you have no clue what you're looking at, do you? Study the last diagram I posted and the floor damage on the first floor and see if the two sides match up?


  • #216
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Any proof/links on that?

    You probably see guys sitting in front of a home computer thinking they're piloting a commercial airliner!


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I comfortable saying now you have no clue what you're looking at, do you? Study the last diagram I posted and the floor damage on the first floor and see if the two sides match up?
    You said that the plane needed at least 25 feet.
    The two floors are 28ft.

    Why would you think that there should be a hole on the third floor of the far side of the outer ring?

    I think what happened here is that you thought that in original picture you posted, it was showing all the way down to the bottom of the inner ring.
    You never bothered to do something basic like count how many floors there were.
    Now you are deflecting again.


  • #218
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,191 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This was people laugh at Skeptics they don't do research. They just pick the parts they like to talk about and ignore everything else.

    None of these posts are aiming at convincing you personally, that's as impossible a task as you subjectively decide it to be

    Readers can make up their own minds which theory is the strongest


  • #219
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    You said that the plane needed at least 25 feet.
    The two floors are 28ft.

    Why would you think that there should be a hole on the third floor of the far side of the outer ring?

    I think what happened here is that you thought that in original picture you posted, it was showing all the way down to the bottom of the inner ring.
    You never bothered to do something basic like count how many floors there were.
    Now you are deflecting again.

    No, because the reality is the plane has to impact the third floor on the back exit of Ring E

    Now what do you see in regards damage on the floor above the first floor? Where did the nose cone go through the wall and what part of the wall did the top end of the body of the plane go through? Where is the back tail damage to the second floor?

    First floor do you dispute their columns (t section) still standing in the pictures i posted and not pushed inwards and missing?


  • #220
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    None of these posts are aiming at convincing you personally, that's as impossible a task as you subjectively decide it to be

    Readers can make up their own minds which theory is the strongest

    I have found a quote belonging to eyewitness online, checking to see if the quote is not taken out of context and is reliable. If it's reliable he will be the best witness to date (reason) he literally was working close and next to blast zone that day outside. If not reliable I, not post. I have to head away for a bit I am back and research the reliability of this quote.

    He said the plane was White with American airlines colours. American Airlines is a silver colour, and aluminium shines blue depending on reflection of the sun


  • #221
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No, because the reality is the plane has to impact the third floor on the back exit of Ring E
    Because...? You say so...? Because the plane would suddenly teleport upwards?

    You said the plane needs 25 feet. The first two floors are 28 feet. There's plenty of room for the plane to fit.
    Also, are you imaging that the plane would cut a perfect plane shape all the way through like a cartoon?

    Again, I think you just didn't realise that was the 3rd floor.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    He said the plane was White with American airlines colours. American Airlines is a silver colour, and aluminium shines blue depending on reflection of the sun
    And just to highlight how ridiculous your theory is getting:
    You are positing that the conspirators went out of their way to bribe some random taxi driver to say a plane knocked a lamp onto his car, for no reason at all other than the hopes this would convince people.

    But then, for some reason they weren't bothered to strip their fake plane down to it's aluminium/paint it silver/pick an airline that used white planes, because they didn't care about making it believable or cared about the small details. And they also couldn't use a real jet liner for no reason. And they also had to attack it in a specific way that would be impossible for a jet liner, also for no reason.
    And also they decided to attack a place so impossible to attack that it would be suspicious if the attack succeeded (again, for no describable reason.)

    And then they also provided the evidence of the damage inside of the pentagon so they could expose their conspiracy when they had no reason to produce that evidence.

    And also, they found a crack pilot who could pull off an impossible maneuver who was ok with killing himself... for again, no reason.

    Did I miss anything?


  • #223
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because...? You say so...? Because the plane would suddenly teleport upwards?

    You said the plane needs 25 feet. The first two floors are 28 feet. There's plenty of room for the plane to fit.
    Also, are you imaging that the plane would cut a perfect plane shape all the way through like a cartoon?

    Again, I think you just didn't realise that was the 3rd floor.

    Again how many times do I have to repeat?

    The second floor is 14 feet that means there 11 feet of the Plane remaining must strike the wall on the second floor and create a hole. Now you tell me where you think the cone went through the wall on the second floor?

    You have to ignore what the government claimed that 8 columns on the first floor are broken and missing they marked those points in red. Pictures taken after the fire has subsided showed only 4 columns missing on the first floor not 8


  • #224
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    http://www.littlebookofjohn.com/quotes/p/pentagon/2[/url]

    A mysterious plane was seen flying right over the President’s residence. Even some CNN staffers saw it. To this day it has not been officially explained. (9/11 & Pentagon) CNN News, cited Flight 77: The White Plane

    Some of the eyewitnesses reporting a white plane.

    It was white with maroon writing on it. (9/11 & Pentagon) Mrs Hubbard, recorded interview Flight 77: The White Plane

    You just sort of saw the white go by ... It was white. (9/11 & Pentagon) Veronica recorded interview, Flight 77: The White Plane

    I could see the propellers, I could see the windows ... White. It was white ... It was a white plane. (9/11 & Pentagon) Cindy Reyes, interview Flight 77: The White Plane

    More of a champagne ... like an off-white. (9/11 & Pentagon) Sergeant Chadwick Brooks, interview Flight 77: The White Plane

    The Eyewitness I talked about he worked as a fireman in heliport near the blast area
    The aeroplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Airbus 330 - white with blue and orange stripes. (9/11 & Pentagon) Firefighter Alan Wallace, cited Flight 77: The White Plane

    Turning road expecting to see a fighter jet flying over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building and him. (9/11 & Pentagon) Sergeant Maurice L Bease, recorded Major Fred H Allison, cited Flight 77: The White Plane

    They saw the white plane and were puzzled that it was flying so low with no airport in that direction. (9/11 & Pentagon) Vera Goodson Stover, high school media library specialist, cited Flight 77:
    The White Plane

    Dohnjoe talked about smoke before. The theory is we are looking at smoke from an engine? Maybe it, not smoke but a blurred outline of the white plane?



  • #225
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Again how many times do I have to repeat?

    The second floor is 14 feet that means there 11 feet of the Plane remaining must strike the wall on the second floor and create a hole. Now you tell me where you think the cone went through the wall on the second floor?
    What are you talking about?
    You said that the First floor was 14 feet tall.
    The second floor is also 14 feet tall.

    14+14=28.

    So that's more that enough space according to you.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You have to ignore what the government claimed that 8 columns on the first floor are broken and missing they marked those points in red.
    Whoa whoa whoa, that's not what the diagram you posted said.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=448715&stc=1&d=1524232335

    It says: Impacted, missing, broken, disconnected or otherwise without function.

    If you are going to lie about what things say, you shouldn't post them where people can see.


  • #226
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    http://www.littlebookofjohn.com/quotes/p/pentagon/2[/url]

    A mysterious plane was seen flying right over the President’s residence. Even some CNN staffers saw it. To this day it has not been officially explained. (9/11 & Pentagon) CNN News, cited Flight 77: The White Plane

    Some of the eyewitnesses reporting a white plane.

    It was white with maroon writing on it. (9/11 & Pentagon) Mrs Hubbard, recorded interview Flight 77: The White Plane

    You just sort of saw the white go by ... It was white. (9/11 & Pentagon) Veronica recorded interview, Flight 77: The White Plane

    I could see the propellers, I could see the windows ... White. It was white ... It was a white plane. (9/11 & Pentagon) Cindy Reyes, interview Flight 77: The White Plane

    More of a champagne ... like an off-white. (9/11 & Pentagon) Sergeant Chadwick Brooks, interview Flight 77: The White Plane

    The Eyewitness I talked about he worked as a fireman in heliport near the blast area
    The aeroplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Airbus 330 - white with blue and orange stripes. (9/11 & Pentagon) Firefighter Alan Wallace, cited Flight 77: The White Plane

    Turning road expecting to see a fighter jet flying over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building and him. (9/11 & Pentagon) Sergeant Maurice L Bease, recorded Major Fred H Allison, cited Flight 77: The White Plane

    They saw the white plane and were puzzled that it was flying so low with no airport in that direction. (9/11 & Pentagon) Vera Goodson Stover, high school media library specialist, cited Flight 77:
    The White Plane

    All that careful planning... Bribing witnesses to claim things happened that didn't... planting false passports... switching off (non-existing) SAM sites...

    And they forgot to buy some paint for the plane...

    Also, according to the picture you posted and a quick image search, A3 warriors are not white. They seem to be grey, silver or camoed.
    So I guess you have to exclude that explanation.


  • #227
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    All that careful planning... Bribing witnesses to claim things happened that didn't... planting false passports... switching off (non-existing) SAM sites...

    And they forgot to buy some paint for the plane...

    Also, according to the picture you posted and a quick image search, A3 warriors are not white. They seem to be grey, silver or camoed.
    So I guess you have to exclude that explanation.

    Watch this it exposes the secret life of Mohammed Atta and talks with people who knew him in Florida prior to 9/11. You do not find the mainstream media going this deep asking hard questions, like this!

    [/QUOTE]


  • #228
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Watch this it exposes the secret life of Mohammed Atta and talks with people who knew him in Florida prior to 9/11. You do not find the mainstream media going this deep asking hard questions, like this!
    Does it explain why the evil conspiracy couldn't afford a coat of plane paint?


  • #229
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Does it explain why the evil conspiracy couldn't afford a coat of plane paint?

    Alan Wallace a firefighter on duty at the Pentagon described the plane as being white in colour with American Airlines plane paint. The found the America Airlines painted wreckage!

    The investigator in this video discovered Huffman aviation was a front company for the CIA and Atta was a very good friend of the owner. The official narrative he just went there for training lessons this exposes that to be a lie. Atta and white men regularly met in downstairs location in Huffman aviation. Atta girlfriend tells on this video. It important to know who was Atta before 9/11!


  • #230
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Alan Wallace a firefighter on duty at the Pentagon described the plane as being white in colour with American Airlines plane paint. The found the America Airlines painted wreckage!
    Wait, so they painted it, only the wrong colour? Cause you said that American Airlines planes were silver and that witnesses seeing a white plane meant that it couldn't be an American Airlines plane.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106784158&postcount=220

    So I guess the evil conspiracy painted it the wrong colour? Whoops.

    So I like how that they went to the bother of painting the different plane so as to trick people.
    But sill used a different plane cause I guess they didn't care if people noticed.


  • #231
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wait, so they painted it, only the wrong colour? Cause you said that American Airlines planes were silver and that witnesses seeing a white plane meant that it couldn't be an American Airlines plane.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106784158&postcount=220

    So I guess the evil conspiracy painted it the wrong colour? Whoops.

    So I like how that they went to the bother of painting the different plane so as to trick people.
    But sill used a different plane cause I guess they didn't care if people noticed.

    Why don't you watch the video and learn something new about the so-called Terrorists? You will not get this on CNN or Fox News? As a skeptic you should be trying to learn everything you can about a subject you talk so much about?

    The body is aluminium it can be painted white with American airlines colours that make appear to be that plane. The eyewitnesses reported seeing a white plane it not me saying that. If you watched the Pentagon security tape it's a white object that appears and then an explosion.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The body is aluminium it can be painted white with American airlines colours that make appear to be that plane. The eyewitnesses reported seeing a white plane it not me saying that. If you watched the Pentagon security tape it's a white object that appears and then an explosion.
    But you said that American Airlines' colour was silver.
    Now you're saying it's white.

    Which is it?

    If the conspirators did have the this astounding technology to paint an airplane a different colour, then they would obviously do so.
    So pointing out what colour various eyewitnesses report doesn't really mean much of anything and it certainly wouldn't show that it wasn't an American Airlines plane or whatever it is you're claiming.

    It also doesn't make sense for the conspirators to go to the effort of painting a different type of plane in the first place.
    It's a contradiction.
    On one hand, they don't care if someone notices the plane was wrong, on the other, they want to trick people so much they care about little details like paint.

    If they wanted people to think it was a 757, then they would just use a 757.
    There is no reason why they would not.

    So, so far the conspiracy theory has been unraveled with basic counting, basic reading comprehension and now the ability to name colours...

    So one of the witnesses says that the plane had propellers. An A3 doesn't have propellers. How do you square that circle in conspiracy world?


  • #233
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you said that American Airlines' colour was silver.
    Now you're saying it's white.

    Which is it?

    If the conspirators did have the this astounding technology to paint an airplane a different colour, then they would obviously do so.
    So pointing out what colour various eyewitnesses report doesn't really mean much of anything and it certainly wouldn't show that it wasn't an American Airlines plane or whatever it is you're claiming.

    It also doesn't make sense for the conspirators to go to the effort of painting a different type of plane in the first place.
    It's a contradiction.
    On one hand, they don't care if someone notices the plane was wrong, on the other, they want to trick people so much they care about little details like paint.

    If they wanted people to think it was a 757, then they would just use a 757.
    There is no reason why they would not.

    The whole body of the plane is aluminium( silver) did you not know that? American Airlines logo is just painted on the aluminium.

    Yes, it does matter because they are eyewitnesses to the event. Wallace was only 200 feet from the plane he saw the plane coming over the highway and come at the Pentagon, he barely escaped with his life. He was shielded by this Firehouse.

    448769.png


  • #234
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The whole body of the plane is aluminium( silver) did you not know that? American Airlines logo is just painted on the aluminium.

    Yes, it does matter because they are eyewitnesses to the event.
    Right. We're back to silver then. If it was an American Airlines plane, it has to be silver.

    Ok, so then the conspirators went out of their way to paint the plane white which would make it look like it wasn't an American Airlines plane.

    But then they also painted on American Airlines logos and stuff so it would look like an American Airlines plane.

    That don't make sense.

    If American Airlines planes were silver, why would they paint it white? Did they not have silver paint? Or was it that they didn't want to go to the effort of stripping paint?

    Seems like it would be a lot less effort to just use a 757...


  • #235
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    I've wondered things such as the motion of linearity.

    Galileo formulated these equation and they are indisputable.


    So if these 3 equations are immutable and indisputable in any study of Applied Mathematics then why are they being ignored.

    Let's have a very quick look.

    The first law of Galilean Linear motion is this:

    v = u + at

    That means that final velocity equals initial velocity plus the time multiplied by acceleration.


    I'm pretty sure that many are just glazing over right now. That being the case then go up into a tree or on the top of your building and do this

    Drop a stone or a ball or a water balloon. Time it from the time it is released until it hits the ground.

    A few times will allow you to determine the exact height of the building using this equation:

    s = ut + 1/2 at (squared)

    If stand on the top of a building or a tree or a cliff and someone drops a coin or any object and you click your stopwatch from start to when it hits the ground then you can perfectly calculate the height that the object has fallen.


  • #236
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Right. We're back to silver then. If it was an American Airlines plane, it has to be silver.

    Ok, so then the conspirators went out of their way to paint the plane white which would make it look like it wasn't an American Airlines plane.

    But then they also painted on American Airlines logos and stuff so it would look like an American Airlines plane.

    That don't make sense.

    If American Airlines planes were silver, why would they paint it white? Did they not have silver paint? Or was it that they didn't want the to go to the effort of stripping paint?

    Seems like it would be a lot less effort to just use a 757...

    Well, if this happened this way they're going to use a plane that has commercial airliner parts. They don't need to paint all of the plane silver just enough of the plane painted with American airlines colours to convince people it was Flight 77.

    What if 757 plane was not suitable? That's the whole truther argument, the 757 would have broken up, and Hani Hanjour was not experienced to guide the plane to the Pentagon?

    What If the plane was carrying a bomb onboard when plane hit this exploded?. What if there was no flight 77 or it was taken somewhere else that day?

    This plane was heading East and went off radar for 42 minutes, a switch could be made in that time frame.


  • #237
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    I do have a point here

    Sorry for the lecture:pac:


  • #238
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Video from this camera would solve this mystery, but never got released, why not?

    448770.png


    6034073


  • #239
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Well, if this happened this way they're going to use a plane that has commercial airliner parts. They don't need to paint all of the plane silver just enough of the plane painted with American airlines colours to convince people it was Flight 77.
    Ah, so they are just lazy...

    Again, it's a contradiction.
    They can't want to convince people it's a 757 and then also don't care enough to paint the whole plane.
    That makes zero sense.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What if 757 plane was not suitable? That's the whole truther argument, the 757 would have broken up, and Hani Hanjour was not experienced to guide the plane to the Pentagon?
    Assuming these things are true (they're not.)
    So why not just make the plane fly on an easier path that it could do?
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What If the plane was carrying a bomb onboard when plane hit this exploded?. What if there was no flight 77 or it was taken somewhere else that day?
    Again, ignoring that no such thing happened, and flight 77 did exist and contained real people....

    Why not just put a bomb on a 757?
    Why would they need to put a bomb on it when it would only draw suspicion and make it look like it wasn't a plane crash.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This plane was heading East and went off radar for 42 minutes, a switch could be made in that time frame.
    Again, assuming this is true and possible...
    Why not switch with a 757?

    The entire idea is a contradition of motives for which you have to do backflips to get around.

    And it leaves you with the idea that they only half painted an entirely different plane...
    It's silly.


  • #240
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Chrongen wrote: »
    I've wondered things such as the motion of linearity.

    Galileo formulated these equation and they are indisputable.


    So if these 3 equations are immutable and indisputable in any study of Applied Mathematics then why are they being ignored.

    Let's have a very quick look.

    The first law of Galilean Linear motion is this:

    v = u + at

    That means that final velocity equals initial velocity plus the time multiplied by acceleration.


    I'm pretty sure that many are just glazing over right now. That being the case then go up into a tree or on the top of your building and do this

    Drop a stone or a ball or a water balloon. Time it from the time it is released until it hits the ground.

    A few times will allow you to determine the exact height of the building using this equation:

    s = ut + 1/2 at (squared)

    If stand on the top of a building or a tree or a cliff and someone drops a coin or any object and you click your stopwatch from start to when it hits the ground then you can perfectly calculate the height that the object has fallen.

    Can we all agree on the Laws of Linear motion?
    Very simple laws. even an idiot could test and verify them along with geometry and trigonometry. These mathematical principles are inviolate....yes?

    So if something is moving from a starting velocity to a final speed with an acceleration then these equations of motion apply.

    I would like to hear from anybody who would state that the laws of physics or linear motion do not apply in any circumstances.

    The very simple question is "when motion is effect, without interference, can the laws of Galilean Motion otherwise not apply" ?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah, so they are just lazy...

    Again, it's a contradiction.
    They can't want to convince people it's a 757 and then also don't care enough to paint the whole plane.
    That makes zero sense.

    Right now the only explanations I have is they saw another plane that was White Flying around Washington (this is true a White plane was seen and spotted moments before the blast video of that) or they are just mistaken about this plane being clear white and is this colour?

    This what Flight 77 looked like on the ground.

    448772.png


  • #242
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »

    Assuming these things are true (they're not.)
    So why not just make the plane fly on an easier path that it could do?


    Again, ignoring that no such thing happened, and flight 77 did exist and contained real people....

    Why not just put a bomb on a 757?
    Why would they need to put a bomb on it when it would only draw suspicion and make it look like it wasn't a plane crash.

    Again, assuming this is true and possible...
    Why not switch with a 757?

    The explosion was reported to have happened at 9.30am on Sept 12. The clocks stopped near 9.31am. Eyewitnesses reported a 9.31am blast.

    The timeline changed later to 9.37am I always felt they changed the timeline for some reason later?

    I think the timeline change is key to understanding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11


  • #243
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    OK. So people can be mistaken.

    So the fact some witnesses said it's white does not help the idea of your conspiracy.

    Again, it only serves to highlight how silly it is.
    They painted an entirely different plane because they didn't want people to notice. But they obviously didn't care if people noticed it was an entirely different plane.

    Both of these things cannot be true at the same time as they are a contradiction.

    If they wanted to make people think a 757 hit the Pentagon, that's what they would use.
    If a 757 hitting the Pentagon was so impossible to the point that it makes the conspiracy obvious, they would just attack somewhere else.

    The Conspiracy is silly if you actually think about it for more that a second.


  • #244
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    OK. So people can be mistaken.

    So the fact some witnesses said it's white does not help the idea of your conspiracy.

    Again, it only serves to highlight how silly it is.
    They painted an entirely different plane because they didn't want people to notice. But they obviously didn't care if people noticed it was an entirely different plane.

    Both of these things cannot be true at the same time as they are a contradiction.

    If they wanted to make people think a 757 hit the Pentagon, that's what they would use.
    If a 757 hitting the Pentagon was so impossible to the point that it makes the conspiracy obvious, they would just attack somewhere else.

    The Conspiracy is silly if you actually think about it for more that a second.

    To do that you have to ignore the inconsistencies. If the event did not have inconsistencies there be no conspiracy to investigate. And we know it not just truthers who disbelieve the official government story. Members of the 9/11 committee said this after they released their findings and the two leading members wrote a book detailing their frustration with the investigation.

    That's a cover up!
    Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,


    You can not say there were not covering up here?
    Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.



    Did they stand down the defences on purpose?
    In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.


  • #245
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,324 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    OK, so ignoring how so far a lot of your inconsistencies turned out to be based on false things, like the idea of Sam sites...

    Did either of these people or anyone on the commission conclude it was an inside job or that the American government was in involved in the planning or execution of the attacks?

    Do either of them buy or support the silly notion that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

    The answer is no.
    Claiming they support the nonsense conspiracy theories you've swallowed is disingenuous in the extreme.


  • #246
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The found the passport 7 blocks away? It survived a fire in the plane exploding, an explosion in the building and magically travelled 7 blocks, to be found intact with no damage?

    I think he is in the plot that's what he acts like he does not know anything, soon as the camera was not recording when he thought it was off he opened up about this was staged and planned.

    I normally carry my passport in the left inside pocket of my jacket.
    I think most men do. Some slobs keep it in the arse pocket of their jeans and it gets all bent and dog-eared but I prefer to keep mine nice and intact. Anyway if I was in a plane and it hit a building and burst into flames, flames hot enough apparently to melt steel and my passport was found in the rubble I would expect that the jacket in which the passport was carried and the (my) body in which the jacket was wrapped would also be found in the same spot.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    it was reportedly found before the towers collapsed and handed in.



    I just mentioned where it was handed in - in the vicinity of Albany street (it could have been found anywhere) Despite this, there is a photo of Albany street with debris all over the ground, including an intact seat cover (cant post now due to being in work)



    Some stuff survived, as mentioned the planes paper itinerary survived despite being made of.. paper

    The other passport survived relatively intact after being plunged into the ground at 500 mph

    No everything gets "insto-vapourized", material can be ejected intact and relatively intact

    One officer described seeing luggage strewn all over the ground close to the twin towers (before the collapse)

    So how did it get out of the plane? How did it get out of his pocket and out of the plane? Surely his body would have been in the exact spot where this passport was found, no?


  • #248
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    bohsman wrote: »
    It was 2001, not everybody had phones glued to their hands 24/7, radio signals went nuts when you got a text message even. Most people would not have drawn attention to themselves by trying to make phonecalls.
    Pre 2001 hijacking did not lead to instant death, procedures would have involved figuring out where to land to start negotiations.
    Not the first or last ever plane to be hijacked, how has any plane anywhere ever been hijacked?

    bohsman,

    in 2001 the technology did not exist to receive a phone signal above 3000 feet. When my train from work to home hit 110 kmph (that's about 70 mph) the signal dropped out. And that's at sea level in Europe whose GSM technology at the time (and still is) much more reliable and advanced than US mobile phone networks.

    To think that people could call on mobile phones from an aircraft travelling at, possibly 400 mph at a height greater, is inconceivable.

    I'm going to leave aside all the talk about thermite and Operation Northwoods and Israelis dancing in Jersey City or Hoboken or whereever and stick with the physics. The Science has been violated repeatedly by the explanations.

    There are convenient retorts to scientific facts in order to cloud the issue but these are not SCIENCE.

    I, personally, would like to stick to one very irrefutable law of physics and that is the law of motion.


  • #249
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Just to give a heads-up about this technique - gish gallop

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

    ""Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

    The term was coined by Eugenie C. Scott and named after the creationist Duane T. Gish, who used the technique frequently against science-based opponents on the topic of evolution."

    Perhaps we ought to ALL stick to one question then until it has been answered.
    I'm all for that Dohnjoe.


  • #250
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There are a few, but they are bad quality. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference (consider how much high quality footage exists of the airliners hitting the twin towers and the resulting collapse)

    It's also not critical to the case
    • Air traffic control tracked the flight
    • The flight data recorder survived
    • Many witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon
    • Physical wreckage of the plane was found inside and outside the Pentagon
    • 184 of the 189 who died in the attacks were identified forensically (includes passengers and Pentagon workers)

    There are no other credible theories.

    I would like to focus on this issue for a moment.

    Perhaps all the cameras in Washington failed that day. It's possible.
    Perhaps everyone was looking away or distracted. That too is possible.
    Perhaps everyone was not paying attention or going about their late morning business.

    All of that is possible.

    What I have difficulty in believing is that a hole was made in the Pentagon that was half the size of the "girth" of the airplane that was supposed to have inflicted this damage.

    We can discuss engines and wings later, but let's just stick to that very simple question. Why would a plane make a smaller hole than its own size?


  • #251
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    For anyone who doesn't know, the NIST report is a culmination of years of work by a large body of experts and specialists. It's been widely accepted and as far as I know no recognised body of experts anywhere (architects, engineers, etc) have found significant fault with the findings of the report. It didn't produce anything dramatic we didn't know and it largely supported the findings of other less intensive reports/investigations - it just went into a lot more depth

    If someone has found an error(s), it's possible, even reports backed by expert consensus aren't totally infallible

    Unfortunately a lot of these so called "holes" in the NIST are raised by

    a) laypeople who don't understand the complexities or have misunderstood
    b) Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones who just want to discredit the NIST purely because it contradicts their narrative
    c) a + b

    If someone doesn't understand something about a report like the NIST then it only makes sense for them to go to an engineering forum or similar and seek out explanations

    Obviously it doesn't make much sense to be going to conspiracy theory forums - it's the equivalent of not understanding something about the process of vaccinations and going to an anti-vax forum

    I have no doubt this response will be used as a fulcrum to quickly jump off the whole "Skywarrior" thing and jump into discrediting the NIST (calling it now) - but there's already a thread open on the 911 forum on that, so we'll keep "discussion" of that in there - where we are also eagerly awaiting Dr Hulsey's long overdue final report (and peer review) AKA AE911's neverending attempt to keep screwing conspiracy theorists out of money 17 years after the fact

    Dohnjoe,

    If you are so faithful or convinced in NIST reports then you ought to be so confident in their scientific veracity and integrity so that is it unquestionable as to their findings.

    I don't put any faith whatsoever in guesswork or speculation. Not a shred. So .... if you put your faith in NIST findings then how do you feel about NIST not being completely forthcoming with their findings?

    Are you tolerant with cracks and white lies in an investigation or do you want it completely and scientifically proven.....something that is VERY possible?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement