It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 08:58 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Hani Hanjour and the Pan Am International Flight Academy

Reads like a movie scrip, probably another CIA made up document.

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:22 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

Evidence please. No evidence, no case.

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: wildb

Read line # 40.

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:34 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Evidence please. No evidence, no case.

I am entitle to my "opinion" just like you are.
edit on 5-11-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:43 AM
a reply to: Informer1958

In other words, you have no evidence to back up your claim.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 01:56 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

You don't have any either, check out his flight-trainer.

“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

“What they needed was more flying hours, more training on simulators of large commercial planes such as Boeing 747s and Boeing 767s, as well as studying security precautions in all airports.” However, apparently bin al-Shibh does not mention exactly when or where such additional training took place, if in fact it did.

That talking-point is moot, he had no skills and no autopilot-functions at his disposal. He would've been screwed either way, with license or without, as he lacked any experience.

Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Dropout Who Never Flew a Jet

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

Your disinfo is boring, SkyTV. Try some honesty from time to time, I'll switch channels now. Skip the BS!

edit on 6-11-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:04 PM

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Read line # 40.

Line 40 of your link? your link won't open for me,,

I think this is a better read anyway..

Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:15 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Oh, my.

This just does not help the OS.

Like I always believe, Hanjour documents were fabricated by the CIA.

Thanks for finding this lovely jewel.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:40 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

Yep, reality has a tough stance in the official conspiracy-theory.

Hanjour documents were fabricated by the CIA.

Obviously. This visa-story supports your theory:

Fun-fact in all of this, as always, the ... irony:

The flight school again alerts the FAA about this and gives a total of five alerts about Hanjour, but no further action on him is taken. The FBI is not told about Hanjour. [CBS NEWS, 5/10/2002] Ironically, in July 2001, Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams will recommend in a memo that the FBI liaison with local flight schools and keep track of suspicious activity by Middle Eastern students (see July 10, 2001).

Pretty good site, you can find anything with a quick search and all sources are linked.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 03:26 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you for this source, I am going to check this out.

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 04:38 PM

Hanjour’s application is denied as he says he wants to stay in the US for three years, raising concerns he might become an immigrant. Hanjour also says he wants to attend flight school in the US, changing his status to “student” from “tourist” after arrival. However, this is another reason Steinger denies the visa application, “because he has been in the States long enough to decide what he wanted.” Hanjour will return to the consulate two weeks later and successfully obtain a visa from Steinger using a different application (see September 25, 2000). [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/21/2004, PP. 13, 174-5 pdf file] Steinger will later give a series of conflicting explanations about why she reversed her decision and issued the visa (see August 1, 2002, January 20, 2003, and December 30, 2003). After 9/11, a former consular official named Michael Springmann will say that while serving in Jeddah during the Soviet-Afghan War he was sometimes pressured to reverse denials of visa applications by the CIA for apparent mujaheddin (see September 1987-March 1989).
Entity Tags: Shayna Steinger, US Consulate, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Office, Hani Hanjour, Michael Springmann
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

I just took a snip out of this source and as I always have said the CIA was defiantly involved. Why am I not surprised.

It is evident that the CIA had their dirty hands in getting Hanjour visa processed.
edit on 6-11-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:03 PM
a reply to: wildb

It works for me, so I don't know what to say!

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:05 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

From your link.

The flight school again alerts the FAA about this and gives a total of five alerts about Hanjour, but no further action on him is taken. The FBI is not told about Hanjour. [CBS NEWS, 5/10/2002] Ironically, in July 2001, Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams will recommend in a memo that the FBI liaison with local flight schools and keep track of suspicious activity by Middle Eastern students (see July 10, 2001).

Now, what would Hani Hanjour and other 9/11 Middle Eastern hijackers be doing taking flying lessons?

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:15 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Now, let's take a look here because it is apparent the Hani Hanjour finally obtained his commercial pilot license.

Hani Janjour's Commercial Pilot License

With his commercial pilot license in his hand, his name just happens to show up on the manifest of American 77.

Hani Hanjour's Name on American 77 Passenger Manifest

Which is why his picture is shown here, thanks to al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda Release 9/11 Maytyr Videos of 9/11 Hijackers

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:04 PM

This above first low fly-by example by skyeagle409 on page 24 of this thread is a totally misleading one, if meant to be compared to the Hani Hanjour extreme speeds example of the last five seconds of Flight 77, before impact into the West wall of the Pentagon, as taken from its recovered DFDR.

The above shown plane, a KC-135, for sure does not fly at top speed, PERIOD.
He himself thinks that that plane flew at high speed :

One of the videos depicted a KC-135 at high speed very low to the ground.

Well, compare it to my next second post its videos first minute, with the rocket sledge going 500 MPH / 900+ KMH.
And see it for yourself, after seeing from a perpendicular viewpoint, that rocket sledge racing through your angle of view. Then look again at his KC-135, and compare the speeds.

See for some more of my reasons why his KC-135 example is so misleading this post of mine.. And this one too. If you're there, just read the rest of the posts on that page 24 too. And up to this's a good course in thread disturbing tactics, since I asked many times to prove my O.P.-calculations wrong, no answers ever.
Just endless repeats of the officially endorsed end-speeds up to 945 KMH. And of course at such top speeds it's totally impossible to have an existing NoC curvature-flying plane. No need to keep repeating that ad infinitum.

On the other hand, it aids enormously in disrupting a valid thread which is focused on finding reasons WHY on earth 25 NoC-witnesses all should be wrong in their placement of the airplane they saw.
This stubbornly repeating to no end of officially endorsed SoC (South of CITGO gas station) end speeds, while knowing (as self claimed experienced pilots) very well they are not applicable to an alternatively proposed TOTALLY DIFFERENT NoC flight path which MUST have been flown with much lower air speeds than those in the last 5 seconds of the officially endorsed SoC flight path, to fulfill the curvature, the bank angle and the SPEED of its trajectory. Which flight path is known by the sometimes extensive descriptions of all those 25 witnesses of a NoC flying plane. Based on where they pointed out they were standing when the plane came first in their eye sights, where it flew then, and where they lost sight of it.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:12 PM
And this strange stubbornness is probably also a reason why another respected pilot like Reheat also doesn't want to look at the NoC turn evidence in the opening posts. And introduced a ridiculous high bank angle of 73 degrees, because he too clenched to the Flight 77 its official DFDR end speeds of over 900 km/hr, and then tried to couple those speeds in online calculators to a predictable outcome of 73+ degrees bank angles as the lowest possible angles in a totally unreal curved trajectory, that of course was never observed by the 25 NoC witnesses.

Sadly enough, they can't bring themselves to even the slightest form of doubt about the official 9/11 stories. While it is logical to expect that the 9/11 planners have wasted quite some time, years probably, to plan and foresee every little detail of the execution of the plan, and spent for sure even more time to calculate their responses on every eventual development afterwards.

These two pilots and many like-minded readers with them, miss-interpret the quintessence of this thread, because they will never see any wrongdoing in the behavior of governments and their institutions. And thus believe all official stories as told or ordered by corrupt politicians, corrupt top military brass, and not to forget : corrupt main stream news reporters.

The official story trajectory in the last 5 seconds, proposed Flight 77 as flying in a straight line at top speed (530 to 545 MPH = 473 knots = 954 KMH ) in that dense air with the plane its belly a few meters off the ground.
The pilot in the above video posted by skyeagle409 did by far not fly at his plane its top speed, and did not want to keep flying for half a mile with his plane's belly at 10 to 5 meter above ground level and straight while aiming at a very low impact in a solid brick wall, at first floor level, +/- 3.30 m above soil.

This KC-135 pilot in the above video posted by skyeagle409 ascended swiftly after the 100 meters that he took that plane at its lowest height above ground level. Which is done in these kind of air show demonstrations by following a quite steep parabolic curvature to near ground level and then ascending up again in the same but reverse curvature back up again. Like a passengers car in a roller coaster, the downward curve is flown by acceleration through G-force by pushing the steering column or stick down, with no extra energy input needed, the following upwards curve follows by just pulling the stick.
But this KC-135 pilot DEFINITELY did not fly so low above ground AT TOP SPEED, and that is the misleading part of it, which skyeagle409 as a self mentioned pilot, surely should know by heart, as a result of his pilot education.
Show us a passenger plane like Flight 77, flying at its TOP SPEED of 945 KMH, for half a mile in a STRAIGHT trajectory, just a few meters above ground, and we will believe your comparison, but this above video is just misleading the aeronautical inexperienced readers.

In this above KC-135 video you hear the pilot pushing full throttle already at the end of its downwards curve, to be sure that he had enough reserve power left, to get out of his dive.
This fly-by was also assisted by the ground effect affecting this plane's wings, thus lifting those wings and plane upwards with some additional force.
If this pilot would have opted to fly from there on also for five seconds in a STRAIGHT line and at TOP SPEED, just a few meters above the soil, he would have had to push and pull his stick repeatedly to compensate for the pushing-up effect of the still present near-ground effect, in other words, the plane its wing surfaces are under the influence of the still existing ground effect, caused by the disturbed air flow vortexes at both wing tips, which results in an upwards force that pushes the whole plane up, when not compensated by any pilot input, such as a short push on the steering column to change the position of the ailerons downwards on all 4 wing surfaces, followed directly by a slightly less forceful pull on the steering column to keep the plane's belly on a somewhat erratic straight path about 5 to 3 meters above the soil, until it has flown half a mile at that height above ground. And all of that repeated pushing and pulling of the steering column has one reason only, to battle the ground effect.

Ground effect is getting less at higher air speeds. However, it is still present at top speeds of 900+ km/hr in such dense air just a few meters above ground level.
Only some kind of digital autopilot functions can compensate fast enough for that small but important ground effect at a top speed of 473 KTS / 545 MPH / 954 km/hr, to result in a straight line trajectory, if manually done, it will result in a VERY bumpy ride.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:19 PM
My following example, titled "Speed", shows in the first minute a rocket powered sledge on rails, going 500 miles per hour and slamming into a car at the end of the 700 feet track.

Watch the side view of that rocket driven sledge at 0:55 and 1:00, racing from right to left over your screen, and realize that 545 MPH = 473 knots was the speed read-out in Flight 77 its recovered DFDR (digital flight data recorder) when the plane hit the Pentagon West wall. This rocket sledge goes 45 MPH slower, but still accelerates very fast to 500 MPH.
Everyone can see that it goes MUCH FASTER than the KC-135 in skyeagle409 his video.
Thus, he can't use it to show "how easy it is to fly so low above ground".

The recovered Flight 77 DFDR its last 10 seconds readout (or some more) must have been falsified, when we believe all those 25 NoC witnesses who MUST have seen a much slower flying plane, otherwise that observed NoC-plane never could have flown North of the CITGO gas station, while also impacting at that EXACT spot on the Pentagon west wall, a few seconds later.

Just use the in my O.P.'s-posted, online turn and bank angle calculators, and try to change my exact calculated turn radius, bank angle and speed, for a NoC flying B-757 in my first opening posts, and you will suddenly understand why I keep hammering at all the flight physics "experts", who seem to be at least, experienced pilots, but either lack on the imaginative side of their aeronautical education, or are just the stubborn type.
I strongly oppose their opinions, that a NoC flying Flight 77 never could have impacted the Pentagon west wall.
Of course it could, but only when flying at about half the speed as written (by whom?) on the last 5 seconds of the Flight 77 DFDR.
They all make the same grave error in their proposals, they keep clutching to the registered end speeds from that recovered DFDR, that was lost by the FBI for 48 hours, before it magically turned up again on a FBI station manager's desk. Time enough to alter the last few seconds of it.

Just as the French did with the first Airbus demonstration flight that went down in the woods behind the runway at Mulhouse airport, after a perfect low flyby, because the faulty flight software did not allow for a fast pull up. The AUTHORITIES chose to wreck the career of the very experienced test pilot, instead of admitting that their precious toy was still not perfect.
Look up the Mulhouse Airbus disaster.
The alteration only came to light because an early photographer on the crash scene, took a picture of the CVR and DFDR that were carried away by a air-crash disaster inspector, and later in court, two differently striped flight recorders turned up. Originally the stripes were horizontally placed near the bottom of the recorders in that photo, the falsified ones in court had diagonal stripes. And of course showed no software glitch but a pilot error.
10 Years later it was proven by a Swiss team of court ordered air crash researchers that the court recorders were falsified, but then the pilot's career was already toast, and Airbus Industries had become a main player in the passenger planes market.

So, lesson learned, when the economic stakes are too high, never trust ANY government's explanations.
Just look at what is happening with the investigation of MH17 and the "lost radar tracks" of the BUK rocket that shot it out of the air.
The EEG countries do not want to muddy the economic waters between them and Russia any further, so they both choose for the easy way out, they again "lost" vital information.

There is just one specific curved NoC-trajectory thus possible, flown in a 35 degree bank angle, at a specific much slower speed than shown by the recovered DFDR from Flight 77.
But that speed was still faster than a Formula One race car, which explains why eyewitnesses who were close to that trajectory, all described the plane as flying very fast, since most people have just that as a comparison, a top speed racing car on television or at a race track.
Which moves indeed very fast.
Not many people have seen with their own eyes, a huge passenger plane flying half a mile at 900+ KMH from left to right, just about hundred meters / yards in front of them, while all the time moving in a straight line, a few meters above ground.
Tell you what? I.m.h.op., NONE.

Thus, also not those 25 NoC Flight 77 witnesses.
Aeronautical physics forbids it, when filling in all known data.
They saw a plane flying in a curved turn around the north side of the CITGO gas station, just about 60 meters north of the northern CITGO canopy, flying with a turn radius of 2.053 Km, and flying in a (near) standard right bank angle attitude of 30° up to 35°, at an initial speed -when entering the turn- of 234.109 KTS ( 269.4 MPH). See my O.P.'s.
Here you can see from 18 of the NoC witnesses, their positions (tiny blue squares) on an aerial map of the area.

The yellow radius center pins were placed by Reheat, who at that time (2008) tried to ridicule the NoC witnesses by introducing a slalom at top speeds, which is of course not what they witnessed, and what not one official story doubter ever proposed.
Later he changed his early proposal to the 73 degrees bank angle one, with AGAIN, those top speeds in his second explanation, which is of course just as ridiculing as his first one, since EVERY NoC witness described a plane flying in a standard, 30 to 35 degrees bank angle.
In short, his proposals do not fit the reality of the witness reports, not at all.

This "Speed" video is offered, so the forum reader can see how a 473 KTS / 545 MPH / 954 km/hr flying plane trajectory will REALLY look like, when a plane is seen racing from one boundary in your eyesight, to the other.
From a viewing distance of a few 100 meters at most, but for the NoC main group of witnesses, less, or much less than a hundred meters / yards.

That rocket sledge FOR SURE goes MUCH MUCH faster than the KC-135 plane in the first video example posted by skyeagle409.
And that rocket sledge still goes 45 MPH slower than Flight 77 in its last officially endorsed five seconds, if you still option to believe the last seconds of data from the recovered DFDR.

Which last seconds could however easily have been tampered with, as all these NoC eyewitness statements strongly indicate.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:26 PM
Now look at skyeagle409 his second example on page 24, in the same post.
A plane with totally different flight characteristics than a commercial B-757. It's a "small" jet fighter, with a LOT less wing surface than a B-757. And not really flying top speed either.
And that jet fighter comes straight to the camera, in a fly-over, not passing sideways from the camera, from right to left as in the NoC scenarios, which makes it quite difficult to guess its speed, while it nearly strafes the daredevil's head, who's standing on the center line of that runway.

Another remark :

skyeagle409 : Hani Hanjour obtained a commerical pilot license

His "comm ER ical" typo perfectly reflects all our doubts on the reality of Hanjour's license.
Indeed his US license is just that, comical. When compared to the facts of his pilot skills.
As his last US flight-school instructor told the press from the beginning, in all his early days interviews, given to the main press cartels :
"The man (Hani Hanjour) couldn't fly at all, and couldn't speak English properly enough to even understand basic instructions".
All pilots have to be able to communicate with ground stations in English, beside their mother tongue, when applying for a US commercial plane certificate from a US flight school.
The question is, did Hanjour show that (false) certificate to that last instructor, and wouldn't it be a logical expectation that the authorities would have been warned by that instructor, since Hanjour's skills did not match his US endorsed license AT ALL .?
Answered in this post by wildb on page 26.! They did try to warn the aviation agency : no response :

NYTimes : Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

His next post :

skyeagle409 : All of the documented light poles on record. BTW, a pilot can handle an aircraft much quicker than an autopilot. Just thought that you would like to know that.

That does NOT apply when flying at top speed a few meters above ground, the ground effect will constantly try to push the wings slightly upwards, you can't keep flying five hundred meters in a straight line above the soil at top speed in such dense air, that's impossible, such a plane when handled manually, by a human hand, will repeatedly jump up and down after each correction with the steering column.
At just 3 meter above the ground, a plane at its top air speed, only wants one thing.
To go upwards.
With a human hand controlling that plane, it would have missed the roof line of the Pentagon.
Or would have buried itself in the lawn.
WHEN the autopilot functions really were switched off, as the DFDR shows.

On the other hand, software, and hardware connected directly to ailerons, can handle erratic bumpy behavior to keep a plane flying in a straight level line, much better than a human hand, at TOP speeds.
A bumpy ride even at top speed, caused by ground effect which is still present even at such high speeds. Not so heavy as at lower speeds, but it's still present.
The clearly altered DFDR even shows a straight downward flight path over the last 500 meters. That means the pilot must have fluttered his wrists to push and pull the steering column constantly up and down. While using an increasing amount of force in the push down milliseconds, to persist in a lower and lower height above ground.
At 473 KTS = 954 km/hr, says the DFDR from Flight 77.
Lots of further intelligent Americans want to believe this fairy-tale as told by DFDR decriptors, about the last minute of Flight 77.
At a speed of 954 km/hr, without the aid of digital auto pilot functions, it's impossible for a pilot to fly that last half mile / 700 meters manually, in a straight descending line, ending 3 meters above ground, over roads and grass. Without autopilot functions.

I challenge any pilot reading this board, to fly manually (so autopilot functions are not switched-on), in a straight line 5 meters above soil, for about half a mile, with the belly of their commercial airliner at 5 to 3 meters above ground level, at 954 km/hr.
Aiming in that dense air at a 3.3 meters high, thin (paper) object at the end of a half mile track. We like them to survive the experiment, thus the choice of a paper target.
Its IMPOSSIBLE to fly manually, straight and level at top speeds, that far, at 5 to 3 meter above ground. Flight physics won't allow you.

But the Flight 77 recovered DFDR shows such a magic behavior in the last 5 seconds, and also shows that already 10 minutes earlier, all autopilot functions were switched OFF.
Any human pilot in THAT situation (the last five seconds of his life) would have never been able to DIRECTLY compensate through his steering column for the upward forces acting on the plane's wings as a result of the loss of the two wing tip vortexes, and keep doing that far faster than any human hand can do that, at such a proposed top speed, during 5 long seconds.

And the official story tellers working the media relentlessly over the past 14 years, wanted us to believe that the erratic fast bumping as shown in this below graph of the last 10 seconds of Flight 77, is caused by fluttering of plane parts where the measuring equipment (pitot tubes) was attached to.

Plain old bull manure. Just look up where the pitot tubes of a 757 that measure airspeed are situated. Not at thin aluminum parts like wing ends which will flutter first.

They are situated under the front belly, extending from a solid smooth piece of aluminum. And they themselves are very sturdy and massive, and short.
Only on supersonic fighter planes are they longer, because of this : link.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:29 PM

Post by skyeagle409 : If you check your own witnesses, they describe American 77 slamming into the Pentagon at a high rate of speed, not at the slower airspeed that you speak of.

The airspeed is already fixed by the standard bank angle as seen from Flight 77 and shortly after described by the NoC-flightpath witnesses, resulting in a small possible bank-angle degrees grouping of 30 to 35 degrees. To those angles belong also again a small group of turn radii, and a small group of air speed possibilities.
The top right small bank angle drawing of about 30 degrees in the below picture is what all witnesses described, especially the cemetery personnel, while the bottom large bank angle drawing is used by Reheat, while he knows that not one of the NoC-witnesses described anything abnormal like that. No one would forget to mention a 900+ KMH plane, flying at such a crazy large bank angle :

The 234.109 KTS ( 269.4 MPH = 434 KMH) airspeed I proposed in my opening posts, and which I proved to be easily flown NoC at a near standard bank angle of 35 degrees and ending up in the Pentagon's west wall, is still a lot faster than the top speed of a Formula I race car on a straight part of the race track.
I would have described that speed, as witnessed by those 25 NoC witnesses, also as a "high rate of speed" if asked by reporters.
You just have to view a few Formula I videos, to see with your own eyes how fast these cars speed at 350 km/hr through your field of view. And the NoC plane flew faster...

However, when those 25 NoC witnesses really would have seen a plane flying at a top speed of 900+ KMH / 500+ MPH, like in the rocket sledge video, the ones that had viewed that plane from sideways, would have for sure emphasized on the ultra short time that that plane would have raced through their viewing field. Just like in that above posted rocket sledge video.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:33 PM
The whole meaning of this thread is to emphasize on the fact, that when you know through witness reports the observed bank angle of a plane that flies in a curved turn trajectory, which trajectory and THUS radius is also quite precise known through witness reports and their positions, then the resulting calculated speed, via online turn/bank-calculators, is bound to be in a very small air speed grouping, all around a 270 MPH air speed, as I proved with my online turn & bank-angle calculator screen shots in my opening posts.

If the NoC plane would have flown at top speed as Reheat and skyeagle409 try to convince the readers to be the only possible solution for the 25 NoC-eyewitnesses huge official story problem, it would have been witnessed flying in a crazy large bank and at a crazy speed and in a much straighter turn with a far longer radius, and it would have been impossible to even come near the impact point on the west wall, it would have missed the whole Pentagon building by a few hundred meters.
Both these ATS-members base their viewpoint on this huge problem for their official viewpoint on the recorded end speeds in the last 5 seconds of the recovered DFDR (900+ KMH).

The sinister part of especially the CIT interviews with the two Pentagon Police men at the CITGO gas station, is the fact that not even one small main news channel EVER tried to interview those two AGAIN.
And believe me, they ALL KNEW about this earth shattering CIT interview, and should have fallen over these two in masses. Immediately after CIT put those interviews online.
It didn't happen, EVER.!
It's these small but very indicative discrepancies in main stream news gathering, that makes it totally clear HOW immensely powerless the mean stream press has become.
And how easy the financial and industrial conglomerates, together with the military brass, control all levels of the US society, already for decades. They crippled (paid off the leadership) the Unions, they infiltrated every citizen initiative to try to regain any kind of control mechanisms on their white and black projects spending sprays, they effectively broke the back of basic democracy, you live under a theocracy with unlimited powers, based on a huge military and a bought off parliament.

new topics

top topics

<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in