It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Political Leaders - 9/11 Truth Website Offically Started 3/6/09- 29 Leaders of World Joined So Far!

page: 6
64
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Hey, BoneZ - one thing I have totally learned, some people will NEVER want to know the truth and will deny deny deny! That is going on - even with our current meltdown..... many are in denial.

With 9/11 - people's lives would be turned completely inside out - the majority of people I don't think, could seriously handle the knowledge of what our govt. did.............. for what I believe is an ultimate purpose.... which the end game is happening as we speak!

I have thought many times, what would happen, if someone came out and TOLD the truth, that was involved with 9/11 ............. imagine what would happen to the country........... I have to admit.......... if the truth came out to ALL the people..... we would immediately go into martial law - because of the riots against the govt.

I want the truth out............... but I also think about the end result of that truth!!

As I also see it, the break down is currently underway......... so........ then I believe it we are about to have one break down......... I want the truth out......... so people will then be able to see EVERYTHING more clearly....... including the current situation~

It does drive me nuts, that so many people stick their head in the sand, when I try to show them the truth about 9/11 - but they are also the SAME people sticking their head in the sand, regarding the meltdown we are having....

They always say............ "OH - everything is going to be Just Fine, in a couple of months, we don't have anything to worry about".

I then know, those people will NEVER look at ANYTHING in REALITY - shades are over their eyes.

So when people want to deny, the obvious in the pictures etc. of explosions........ they are using shades............... it is how they are able to COPE - otherwise, truth is too much for them.

You have to go on................ and maybe - someone else will understand truth when they see it, and are willing to take the shades off.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Fine...I will bet my 22 years in military aviation and the combined 87 years of aviation experience of four of my friends that were at the Pentagon and watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon...that it was indeed a 757 airliner that impacted the Pentagon that day.

NOW, shall we break out the tape measure and see who can pee the farthest?


What has your 22 years in the military have to do with 911? Did the military train you to be the expert in commercial airline flight maneuvers, that only top gun pilot knew how to do. Your four friends what are their names, I am sure that they have gone public with their statements I would like to read them. Besides your four friends which I assume are in the military, If they do as they are told and do not disobey orders and do not want to lose their jobs they will say what they are told to say.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA
 


What sort of 'top gun' maneuvers are you blubbering about?

A roughly 270-degree descending turn? You fly past your target, turn around while descending, re-acquire it visually and take aim!

No one's shooting at you, you don't have a care for passenger comfort or airframe stresses....you just 'yank and bank' to aim where you want to go!

I've said it before, will again....I blame Hollywood. It's one thing in a movie like 'Star Wars' to show spaceships defying the laws of physics, that's a fantasy.

Virtually every Hollywood movie about airplanes is wrong on some level...so much so that lay-persons have incredibly incorrect ideas and profound misunderstandings.

AAL77's DFDR data bear out the final moments....a really bad pilot determined to commit murder and suicide.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



What sort of 'top gun' maneuvers are you blubbering about?


Obviously, you have not done your research; I am talking about the plane maneuvers at the WTC. I have read everywhere on the internet, and heard interviews by top gun pilots, making claims, that even top gun pilots, would find some of these maneuvers in a commercial airline nearly impossible. Yet I find it strange that these highjackers could not pass the test to take off or land a Cessna.


so that lay-persons have incredibly incorrect ideas and profound misunderstandings.


Frankly, your analogy is ridicules where not talking about how Hollywood makes movies or space ships or how most people except you, just do not understand how things work.
You must have a very low opinion of the people on ATS who minds are wide open, but don’t agree with your opinions.



I've said it before, will again....I blame Hollywood. It's one thing in a movie like 'Star Wars' to show spaceships defying the laws of physics, that's a fantasy.


I totally disagree with you! I believe most people who have half a brain know the differents between fantasy, and the laws of physics, Id like to think that any grade school kid know that. Too think, that most people thinking is not up to yours, is ridiculous, and ludicrous.


AAL77's DFDR data bear out the final moments....a really bad pilot determined to commit murder and suicide.


I have read there have been some problem with that data and all the data from the other flights. However, I would be more incline to take the word and opinions of real commercial airline pilots, and real fighter pilots who know what the proper protocols are.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

These pilots have a problem with the government data, and they have showed there are inconstancy although government reports.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WonderwomanUSA
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Fine...I will bet my 22 years in military aviation and the combined 87 years of aviation experience of four of my friends that were at the Pentagon and watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon...that it was indeed a 757 airliner that impacted the Pentagon that day.

NOW, shall we break out the tape measure and see who can pee the farthest?


What has your 22 years in the military have to do with 911? Did the military train you to be the expert in commercial airline flight maneuvers, that only top gun pilot knew how to do. Your four friends what are their names, I am sure that they have gone public with their statements I would like to read them. Besides your four friends which I assume are in the military, If they do as they are told and do not disobey orders and do not want to lose their jobs they will say what they are told to say.


What it means, is that I was calling another poster on his BS (BS as in it means absolutely nothing) statement. You saw fit to jump in without following the thread. A common occurance with conspiracy theorists on this board.

Your assumption about the manuevers being "top gun" manuevers just shows you know very little about the subject. BTW, just what IS a top gun manuever anyway? Care to define that? Because there were nothing about those manuevers that a competent pilot could not do.

Next, your post about the pilots not being able to land a Cessna, once again just proves that you really do not know what you are talking about. Try doing some actual research...and not on a conspiracy website.

Finally, your dumb crack about military pilots not wanting to lose their jobs, you truly have some screwed up ideas about the military.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WonderwomanUSA
reply to post by pteridine
 



The towers were not a controlled demolition.


And you have proof of all this, right? Because all you are doing is giving us, is your opinion.
I hope you are not going to say yes, and tell me to read the NIST report because most people know that is a sham. The NIST report dose not stand up to real science and that’s a fact.

You are right about one thing, there is no documentation of any building the size of the WTC being demolished by explosions, however if the WTC where brought down by demolition, explosion just how do you think it would have fell.

It would have fell the same way any building falls when demolition explosion are used and that my friend is what we all saw on TV on the morning of 911.
If a false flag operation was, being done this is exactly how they would go about it.
If you cannot see a cover up, then you have not research 911 well. There is an old saying that is very true, if it blew up like an explosion, and looks like an explosion, and sounded like an explosion, and smell of an explosion, then it is an explosion. Just like WTC 7 and no plane hit that building.


A most interesting "old saying;" probably three hours old, by now. You are probably quoting your pet duck.
Consider how the building would have collapsed had it failed in the way the NIST report claimed. Do you think it would have toppled like a tree? Perhaps a leisurely collapse of a few minutes? How do you distinguish between the NIST collapse and demolition?
In your opinion, what real science does the NIST report not stand up to? I hope you are not going to tell me to read a truther site because most people know they are shams. The truther sites do not stand up to real science and that’s a fact.

Maybe another old saying will help explain it. Ask your duck, again.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA
 


Well, if you're discussing the WTC....two VERY large targets....like I said, you aim.

Have you ever flown a Simulator? I don't mean MicroSoft, I mean a real, full-motion six-axis $20 million dollar Sim.

I have....lots of times. During nearly 22 years at a major airline. (Well, ok, the B727 Sim wasn't as sophisticated....the visuals were not nearly as good....but it did the job, well enough.

Aiming at, and flying into buildings, under bridges....etc, not all that difficult.

(You do NOT do it when the motion is turned on, though!!! Can cause damage to the mechanisms).

Our B757 and B767 simulators were very realistic....even had 'daylight' simulated visuals. About the only thing they could NOT do was re-create a sustained G-Force. But, in the Sim, we're focused on procedures....it's when there is some free time, that we may get to play....for a few minutes.

Do you recall....the first airplane to hit (AAL11) was pretty high up.....I can't help but imagine that Atta thought he could 'topple' the building, as if it were a 'Jenga' tower.....

The second (UAL175) hit lower.....and not quite dead on, he racked that airplane around....his inexperience showed, but unfortunately, it was enough.

Now.....WHICH Tower fell first???

In case you don't remember, it was the Second one hit, even though the First one hit had been burning for several minutes.

Wonder why??? Ironically, it was being slightly off-center, and lower.

The structure at impact point was weakened more severely, it seems. AND the added weight of the upper floors contributed to an earlier collapse, compared to the Tower hit first.

BTW, when I chimed in to this thread, my prior post was concerning AAL77, at the Pentagon. Since I actually live just a few miles away, and knew the First officer (David Charlesbois) I felt compelled to post.

Did ANY of you know that F/O Charlesbois had just been awarded a 'bid' ---Airline lingo for how we promote, via senority, to MD-80 Captain?

(Probably in Chicago, or Dallas....but, like many of us, he would have commuted....the pay increase is worth it!)

So, allow me to summarize, WW (hey, same initials!)

Allegations that in order to hit two buildings, (one at a time) standing over a thousand feet tall, require 'top gun' maneuverability skills? (I'll come back to THIS one...)

AND...the CVR and DFDR recorders from BOTH AAL77 and UAL93 recovered, with data intact? (unfortuanately, AAL11 and UAL175 data lost, for obvious reasons...)

Back to 'top gun'....anyone even KNOW what that means!? It is bandied about so often....in a nutshell, it is about air-to-air combat. Techniques, skill sets, etc.

A 'duel' in the sky, if you will, between you and your opponents.

Hitting a target as big as a building, on the ground....well, it's a cliche'....

EDIT....while I was typing, Swampfox beat me to many of the same points.

Not trying to gang up, or anything. It's just experience talking.....








[edit on 3/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Yawn…. These are only your little opinions nothing more nothing less.
Swampfox46_1999 I have followed many of your comments on these 911 threads for several years now, and you always stay on the attack, and that is a fact. No one can have a civil discussion about anything on 911, with out you insulting everyone who doesn’t believe in your garbage, and I can show thread after thread that you have disrupted and derailed. No wonder people do not want to come in here to discuss anything, and I do not understand why the mods allow it. If this is what is call haveing a decent discussion then I don’t want any part of it.

As fare as I making assumption, about the manuevers being "top gun" maneuvers. I stand correctly, while you are sitting there telling me I need to do my research I will suggest the same with you. However, if you don’t know what top gun maneuvers are that fighter pilots do in fighter jets then YOU do not know what you are talking about.


United States Navy Fighter Weapons School

TOPGUN is the popular name of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor (SFTI) program. SFTI is the modern-day evolution of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School and carries out the same specialized fighter training as NFWS had from 1969 until 1996, when it was merged into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at NAS Fallon, Nevada.


en.wikipedia.org...

video.google.com...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7WZPA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=A _a1SbKhE9C5twfNztWnCQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Anyone can google why don’t you try it some times.


Next, your post about the pilots not being able to land a Cessna, once again just proves that you really do not know what you are talking about. Try doing some actual research...and not on a conspiracy website.


Right, every TV new station carried that tid bit of info, why don’t you try doing some real research instead of tell everyone else. I don’t need to go to a truthers web site for that info. Question for you what is a TRUTHERS WEB site? Your answers will probably be anything that dose not support the government information.


Flight 77: "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"

Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. If we are to believe the story we are being told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could actually fly the planes and who could arrive at the right place at the right time.
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the sources said." ("On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked',"

[edit on 10-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA
 


SwampFox.....wanna take this?

Look....WW....those highly sensationilized 'reports' fail to mention a very simple point: IF YOU CAN TYPE on a keyboard (and, I'm assuming you can, since you're posting) and you can use a few simple keys on the FMC
(that's the 'Flight Management Computer'....actually, the "interface" to the actual FMC, which is down in the E/E Compartment....two of them, one for each side).....

Better to call it the 'FMS'.....that's a better term for the unit, on the Flight Deck (or 'cockpit') that interfaces.....really, I suppose you can 'google' it....I didn't need to, since I've actually used it.....the real thing.

Not great piloting skill required....just a few basics.

Type in a waypoint....can be an airport identifier, an intersection, a VOR, a Lat/Long coordinate, (as in, N39W118, etc.) and 'line-select' from the 'scratchpad' to the 'Legs' page, at the top...and 'voila!' the computer now draws a line on your EHSI that you can follow, by turning the airplane, to your 'new' waypoint!!!!

I dunno.....MAYBE this sort of info is out on MS Flight?? Like I said, I do not own, nor never will pay for that program....I don't need it....it is for 'wannabes'......



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA
 


Secondly, WW....it is the nature of the beast.....NO ONE is allowed to rent an airplane without a 'check-out'. It is NOT like renting a car!!!!!!!

A 'check-out' involves a CFI, employed by the FBO, to ascertain whether the person is actually qualified, irrespective of whether or not he/she presents a valid FAA license.

By 'qualified' I mean....how many hours does he/she have? In what equipment. How are their English skills?

I've read that most of these bozos learned Pipers, down in Florida.

Well, a Cessna 172 handles differently from a Piper Archer, or whatever they learned in. At least, the part that probably gave this particular CFI some concern....landings.

Hmmmm.....seems these guys could not have cared less about landings!!!

I was a CFI for nearly three years....and, I can tell you, I flew with some really bad pilots. I spent five hours, over a period of lessons, trying to teach a student (of arab descent) just how to TAXI!

Still, there were, probably, unscrupolous Schools that would happily take money.....even if it took twice as long compared to normal Students....

Same applies to renting a full-motion Simulator. At, roughly $3,000 to $5,000 per hour. Back then, if you had the cash, few questions were asked......



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


How do you distinguish between the NIST collapse and demolition?


That is not the question that I ask you, now do you want to spin that the correct way?


Consider how the building would have collapsed had it failed in the way the NIST report claimed.


You may have assumed the WTC had collapsed however, NIST has failed to explain why the building came down at the speed that it did. NIST has publicly lied to the media and to the American people saying they did not look in to demolition being used because there were no eyewitnesses, who saw explosions and heard explosions. They are lairs there report is a lie, and has already been proven a lie. The NIST report is not up for peer review the real reason is, because it will not be excepted.


In your opinion, what real science does the NIST report not stand up to? I hope you are not going to tell me to read a truther site because most people know they are shams. The truther sites do not stand up to real science and that’s a fact.


Obviously, you have not read the NIST report, and my opinion is not important in this discussion because it is only an opinion. As for the truthers site being a sham can you provide some proof that they are all shams or are you just giving your opinion.

Would you please show me what a TRUTHERS site is? And please show that their facts are false, with proof, not your opinion.


The truther sites do not stand up to real science and that’s a fact.

Neither dose the OS, and thats a fact.





[edit on 10-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA
 


WW....please, point your eyes to page four of THIS thread, to a video posted by 'CameronFox'.

Shows a building, not as tall, of course, but a close analog to a Tower being intentionally demolished, via explosives.

It actually falls FASTER than the WTC buildiings.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What I said was that we have no way of knowing whether or not that wreckage came from an airliner at all. And we don't. The wreckage that remained has never been verified as even coming from such an airliner. All we know is that some of the wreckage was said to have remained and that it was quickly confiscated and kept secret (just as with all the other aircraft crash sites involved in the attacks). It is quite possible that a real airliner crashed. All I'm saying is that doubt and uncertainty remain because of the government's insistence on keeping all of this "evidence" classified/secret.

You are right. Some of the debris may have even seemed to belong to an airliner. But even if a real airliner did crash on the site we have no way of knowing whether or not such debris was planted. We don't know what exact kind of airliner the wreckage came from nor what exact aircraft the wreckage belonged to. We never have.

with regards to the Pentagon attack, it is interesting how official statements in the FOIA requests contradicted other official government statements and documentation. The government was caught in its own lie regarding what video footage it possessed. That is interesting for a few reasons but mainly just because it shows how insistent they really are about keeping everything as secret as possible.. You can see the link I provided in my last post for more info.

Why the government would lie about the footage of the Pentagon being struck we still don't know. What we do know is that after the smoke from the lawsuits cleared we had a few very inconclusive videos of what happened released/leaked by government officials. That's a whole other can of worms right there. We know that this is probably one of the most videotaped buildings in the world.. Supposedly, in total, 85 videos were confiscated of what really happened and then the government lied about what footage it did have.. And then only after being caught in the lie the government released and/or leaked what are probably some of the most inconclusive videos of the attack. If this doesn't look or sound suspicious, I don't know what does!!!

The videos don't even show airliners of any kind. The only logical conclusions one can reach based on watching the video footage we do have is that either airliners weren't used in the attacks at all or the video framerate and quality just happens to all be too slow and too poor to come to any conclusions other than whatever hit the Pentagon created a massive fireball. That we do know..

The suspicion surrounding the government and the video footage is just one aspect of the Pentagon attack that raises more questions than answers. The way I see it though, the only reason the government would lie in FOIA requests is if the government is trying to keep a lid on something. We see it all the time from the military in FOIA requests related to UFO's. That's a whole other discussion though, LOL!

-ChriS



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


BlasteR (ChriS)

I'd find all of the above more compelling if I hadn't seen the ATC tape transcripts, and the DFDR data.

It is especially interesting to see how neatly the audio transcripts co-incide with the FDR.....as in, when the pilots (the real pilots) stopped responding to ATC, and the FDR traces, and A/P, A/T and FMS inputs line up.....showing a ham-fisted idiot flying the airplane.

Inputs on the MCP are also recorded.....ANY change, whether to or from 'LNAV' to HDG SEL, to VNAV (not that they'd know how to use VNAV) were recorded.

THIS is why I, as you said, tend to consider the 'frame-rate' of the security cameras, for instance, just not designed to record such an attack.

Really, think about it, just the Pentagon for a moment.

It was NOT expected to ever come under attack by a missile. The cameras were designed to cover ground-based incidents....those tend to move a bit more slowly than a missile or jet at 500 MPH.

As to the WTC.....well.....there is PLENTY of photographic evidence there.

UAL93.....all we have are the CVR and DFDR. AND the remains. ONE photo of a smoke cloud, after the fact, if I'm not mistaken.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerLook....WW....those highly sensationilized 'reports' fail to mention a very simple point: IF YOU CAN TYPE on a keyboard (and, I'm assuming you can, since you're posting) and you can use a few simple keys on the FMC


I think DFDR-analysis showed that the hijackers used the AP in LNAV/level change/speed mode, so somebody must have instructed them how to do it.

Also wanna add that the FMS is autotuning the navradios, so it's not nearly as difficult as Pilots for 9/11 truth claims that it is.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Have you ever flown a Simulator? I don't mean MicroSoft, I mean a real, full-motion six-axis $20 million dollar Sim.


Since you are BRAGING, no but I am sure most people can just afford to go out and fly in a 20 million$$$$$$ flight simulator.


I have....lots of times. During nearly 22 years at a major airline. (Well, ok, the B727 Sim wasn't as sophisticated....the visuals were not nearly as good....but it did the job, well enough.


Oh so you are a pilot?


Aiming at, and flying into buildings, under bridges....etc, not all that difficult.


No not at all just, like playing a game given enough skill.


The structure at impact point was weakened more severely, it seems. AND the added weight of the upper floors contributed to an earlier collapse, compared to the Tower hit first.


This is only your opinion only, it is not a fact that been proven, yet, there has not been any kind of investigation that proves that.


Allegations that in order to hit two buildings, (one at a time) standing over a thousand feet tall, require 'top gun' maneuverability skills? (I'll come back to THIS one...)


Who said it would “require” top gun maneuverability skill, to take the WTC down? I never said that. Obviously, you have misread my posts.


AND...the CVR and DFDR recorders from BOTH AAL77 and UAL93 recovered, with data intact? (unfortuanately, AAL11 and UAL175 data lost, for obvious reasons...)





Well. .we already know for a fact the animation was manipulated regarding altitude and altimeter setting on the descent to make the animation aircraft appear lower than actual. That conclusion is concrete.

Of course we wont be throwing anything out regarding this information. Its possible the whole thing was fabricated as i have said many times before..

And now we know that the csv file was manipulated to make the aircraft appear as if it was approaching the pentagon from the south path...


But.. if it were all fabricated.. its as alarming as it being accurate and a conclusion of it all being fabricated should definitely not be dismissed.

We have no doubt that there is definitely a cover-up involved regarding this data... now we just need to determine if there was complicity. Questioning the govt and holding their feet to the fire based on this information will help us determine if some within the govt were complicit.


You keep parroting the same old nonsense without any proof. Just because the NTSB has released this data that you talk about the CVR, and DFDR it does not make them right, or their data, So far, many real pilots have a problem with this info they are claiming it is not correct with other government reports so who lying the government or NTSB?


Back to 'top gun'....anyone even KNOW what that means!? It is bandied about so often....in a nutshell, it is about air-to-air combat. Techniques, skill sets, etc.

A 'duel' in the sky, if you will, between you and your opponents.

Hitting a target as big as a building, on the ground....well, it's a cliche'....


You both have missed the boat on this one. You both are trying to twist what I said around, either you are having a problems reading my posts, or understanding my posts.
If there is a problem in understanding my posts, I would hope you will let me know.


EDIT....while I was typing, Swampfox beat me to many of the same points.

Not trying to gang up, or anything. It's just experience talking.....


Not a gang up! What do you call three poster who seem to know one another, go after one member. Two of the posters who posted before your posting was made, only responded with ridiculing, and insulting remarks. The one thing I will give you credit for is at lease your comments, and responses were not of ridiculing, and snide remarks, which I appreciate.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Inputs on the MCP are also recorded.....ANY change, whether to or from 'LNAV' to HDG SEL, to VNAV (not that they'd know how to use VNAV) were recorded.


Ok weedwacker, we all know you know something about aviation but, please stop with the LNAV, HDG, SEL, VNAV most people on ATS and in the real world do not know what that all means you are just Bragging again its beginning to look as if you are on an ego trip. lol

No one needs to be an aviation expert, to know we are being lied to.
The NAV, and HDG, and VNAV, and SEL are instruments that are selected to input in the cockpit computer for a flight plan in the control panel in the cockpit of the aircraft I am sure you thought I wouldn’t have a clue didn’t you. lol


THIS is why I, as you said, tend to consider the 'frame-rate' of the security cameras, for instance, just not designed to record such an attack.


This may be very true, but we have no real proof of that anyway, and then there are all those other cameras around a half mile radius that had better frame rate that where on that day. Why we are not allowed to see their footage, why all the secrecy and the silents. Why was the FBI so quick to retrieve all those videos that day and what was on them.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW....please, point your eyes to page four of THIS thread, to a video posted by 'CameronFox'.


Oh that video you mean the one of an EMPTY, gutted out, building nothing but sound bouncing off the walls in that one, however the WTC was full and carpet and full of office furniture, and we do not know what kind of explosives that where used in that video that camronfox showed.

It is obvious to me, the perps that blew up the WTC, did not use the same explosives because anyone can tell that explosives are going off in the video. I believe that they didn’t want the sounds of explosion to be heard, but people that where there that day at the WTC said they heard explosions, and saw the flashes go around the buildings and that includes firemen, and police officers, and some first responders, and there statements have gone on record.
If you all want to believe the witness the government cherry pick, to put in their ridiculous report, then you have to believe in the other witness that where there that day as well. Just because the government left out their statements, because it doesn’t fit their story and that’s not what the government wanted the public to hear. It does not mean these creditable witnesses are lying. (I believe them)
Again, camronfox is comparing apples and oranges nothing more.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
64
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join