What to expect if the 9/11 truth bomb does drop

a reply to: Salander

the airplanes were real, but they were not American 11 and United 175.

If not American 11 and Uited175 what were they ???

Is there some sekrit underground aircraft factory cranking out 767 ??

You do realize it takes hundreds of skilled technician months to assemble a 767

Your lack of logic is amazing ……….

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Answering my own question, no, it would not change your mind.

The average person who still believes the official narrative 18 years later does not want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" noted, that person simply cannot handle the truth. That's what cognitive dissonance is all about.

The average Truther just keeps mindlessly parroting the same pointless lines without thinking about what they're saying. As has been demonstrated here

a reply to: Salander

No, the airplanes were real, but they were not American 11 and United 175.

Ok,

who care if you think it was military or not the planes they said it was,

you agree there were planes that hit the buildings?

Going back to what you said about the quite a few examples

how many of those building that were burning for longer than the trade centers were hit by planes that started the fires?

You are talking about comparisons so if you haven't got buildings hit by planes of the same size, weight and velocity you cannot make a comparisons can you?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: Salander

HEY, i'm still waiting for an answer (from Neutronflux or anyone else) as to why the USA invaded the wrong countries after 9/11. You are wasting your time talking to some posters here as you can probably see. Let them be the KING in their own world, we all know what the objective is...

wrong thread buddy, however

so in your mind to ask this and expect an answer from the poster you are asking must indicate you think they were part of the decision makings and high levels of Government to do so?

Are you that much of an idiot?

a reply to: InhaleExhale


Oh sorry to tell you but there is no teen section on ATS. That is what teens do, calling people names when people don't believe their BS. When you grow up, come back so we can have a civilized conversation. In the mean time don't bother answering to this post as I don't talk to immature people or IDIOTS for that matter.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

calling people names when people don't believe their BS.

I was asking you a question not calling you any names

because yes I agree with what you just said, that you post BS.

When you grow up, come back so we can have a civilized conversation.

You just said you post BS

what more is there to discuss?

In the mean time don't bother answering to this post as I don't talk to immature people or IDIOTS for that matter.

You see now that is what you said I did when I asked if you were one.

Talking about teens, why do you display the intellect of one hence why I asked what I did?

How do you expect the poster to answer why the US invaded wrong countries?

Why even ask in this thread?

a reply to: kwakakev

Somebodies mom or dad died that day they could make it their personal crusade to get justice for them, a Martin Luther King type for 9/11 justice.

a reply to: firerescue

They were drone aircraft.

The Naudet video, several versions of it apparently, was a hoax.

The second aircraft was photographed by many. It was not a stock 767, and that was corroborated by the very UNstock engine that landed on the sidewalk blocks away.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

They were drone aircraft.

The Naudet video, several versions of it apparently, was a hoax.

The second aircraft was photographed by many. It was not a stock 767, and that was corroborated by the very UNstock engine that landed on the sidewalk blocks away.

Your opinion has been debunked many times. Would you care to state the actual evidence, or are you just like most conspiracists. You use right out false information, items out of context, misquotes, and pseudoscience to trumpet the false arguments of the truth movement charlatans that exploit 9/11 for bits of fame and fortune!

Ramble on, NF, ramble on.

originally posted by: Salander
Ramble on, NF, ramble on.

You are the one that doesn’t provide evidence.....

You can turn it upside down all you want, but at the end of the day, some rich mofo's got their will, and here we are in one hell of a mess!

a reply to: Salander

What falsehood from the truth movement con are you going to regurgitate today with zero supporting evidence?

The second aircraft was photographed by many. It was not a stock 767, and that was corroborated by the very UNstock engine that landed on the sidewalk blocks away.

a reply to: Salander

So what was the engine ?

The engines on this particular 767 (United 175) were Prat Whitney JT9D - 7R40 which are used on several popular
aircraft

aviation-safety.net...

Again - who and where was it built, considering that would require numerous highly skilled technicians

Almost 20 years and nobody has breathed a word ……...

a reply to: firerescue

I think the below link has been posted for Salander’s benefit more than once....

With no rebuttal from Salander

www.metabunk.org/explaining-the-9-11-murray-st-engine-from-flight-175-n612ua-that-hit-wtc2.t9022/

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: firerescue

It was the type of P&W used on the 747. Likely installed on the candidate aircraft to replace the KC-10 and KC-135 tankers in USAF inventory.

About a dozen such aircraft were delivered to USAF some years earlier from the Israeli company that converted them from standard to a tanker configuration.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

It was the type of P&W used on the 747. Likely installed on the candidate aircraft to replace the KC-10 and KC-135 tankers in USAF inventory.

About a dozen such aircraft were delivered to USAF some years earlier from the Israeli company that converted them from standard to a tanker configuration.

That is not backed by the actual video, radar, nor the wreckage. More false narratives by you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Did you personally see the wreckage?
Like, were you there sorting through and documenting the wreckage on the day it happened in New York at ground zero?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

Did you personally see the wreckage?
Like, were you there sorting through and documenting the wreckage on the day it happened in New York at ground zero?

Who is lying about the wreckage? Do you have proof?

www.metabunk.org/explaining-the-9-11-murray-st-engine-from-flight-175-n612ua-that-hit-wtc2.t9022/

www.metabunk.org...

By: benthamitemetric

I just received in the mail a copy of Above Hallowed Ground: A Photographic Record of September 11, 2001, which was published by the Photographers of the New York City Police Department in 2002.

Though perhaps not quite so composed as Joel Meyerowitz's indispensable tome Aftermath, the collection of photos in this book is incredible and this should be a ready reference for anyone with a deep interest in understanding the events of September 11 and the recovery at Ground Zero.

Of interest to this thread--the book contains a section dedicated to documenting some of the aircraft pieces identified by the NYPD on scene, including the Murray Street engine:

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Pictures of Air Craft debris from 9/11
m.youtube.com...

United Airlines Flight 175

www.911myths.com...

Debris
Wreckage and personal effects were recovered from the scene. Some of these shots are labelled only as plane fragments from ground zero, and not specifically identified as coming from Flight 11 or 175.

United Airlines Flight 175 Crash Evidence
www.911myths.com...
Some argue that United Airlines Flight 175 didn't crash into the World Trade Centre on 9/11. We believe they're wrong, though, and will post the evidence to show that on this page.