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.

 

SEPTEMBER CLUES (NEW) second half

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 



a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building



The fuselage of the plane disintegrated into the 78th and 79th floor killing all four onboard the B-25, as well as killing or injuring everyone working in the War Relief Services and National Catholic Welfare Conference offices.



The 4-alarm fire brought every available piece of fire-fighting apparatus to the scene. As the building was evacuated, firemen spent about an hour extinguishing the flames.



The impact of the plane created an 18 x 20 foot hole in the side of the tower. This crash caused extensive damage to the masonry exterior and the interior steel structure of the building. The 1250-foot building was rocked by the impact. Many people who were in the street at the time saw flames shooting from the point of impact, which was at the 913-foot level. The impact was heard as far as two miles away.



So much for minimal damage. The B25 was only travelling around 200mph or less. Imagine if it had been doing 500-550 like the 767 was likely doing. How much damage would've been caused to the ESB then?




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
as if you're more qualified than aviation engineers from the FAA or Boeing and even John Lear, to answer such technical questions about speed etc they've already deemed impossible on 9/11.
Originally posted by Grimstad
Links please
Here's one of the links he provided in another thread:

www.youtube.com...

By the way, that link that HE posted in another thread, debunks what I quoted him saying above. In otherwords, HE provided HIS OWN debunk!
Anyway, here's my detailed post pointing out how:



first i find it funny once again you see an example of bonez ignoring evidence, facts and the context of what i'm arguing as he cherry-picks what he answers and then adds a new issue to the mix to distract and confuse. Typical DISINFO tactics. Nothing new.

so i have no idea how what you've posted debunks what i've said. you make no sense as usual.

but thanks for finding that clip bonez!
was lookin for it since it does add more evidence in *your* debunking.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know, matrix, when you peddle the same lines over and over that have already been debunked, that's the true definition of disinfo artist. Especially when you post something that debunks yourself and you don't even realize it!


and you should know all about how that works now don't you bonez


proof?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that link/post was posted -----AFTER----- the so-called debunking in the link you posted above which answered and DEBUNKED IN DEPTH your pathetic alleged debunk.

now go bury your bone in that hole you dug bonez.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
proof?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can claim that as fact all you want, not a single pilot at PF911T agrees with or supports the disinfo in that claim. Kinda makes one wonder all these years why real pilots at PF911T continue to publicly state they DO NOT subscribe, support or agree with NPT.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
proof?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can claim that as fact all you want, not a single pilot at PF911T agrees with or supports the disinfo in that claim. Kinda makes one wonder all these years why real pilots at PF911T continue to publicly state they DO NOT subscribe, support or agree with NPT.


you can claim all you want that no one agrees.

whether true or not, it still has no bearing on the facts and evidence that disproves the bs you're pushing... so there's really no point in debating whats already been exposed and debunked.

oh well



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
You got to admit a lot of the videos of the crash look really dodgy. I guess it's not out of the question that the same thing happened at the WTC as did with the Pentagon. No plane a Shanksville either.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It gets really frustrating when you guys don't do any research before making claims like the above. No a 767 cannot take off, ascend to an altitude of 1000 feet and reach 550mph. It's engines aren't powerful enough. A 767 CAN come down from a higher altitude, without engines even, and easily reach 550mph. It's called gravity. The 767 that hit the south tower was coming down from altitude and didn't level out until the last 3 or 4 seconds before impact:


And what about the plane that hit the North tower? Was that also doing 550MPH? You know, the one that came in from across the river at a level altitude..?

Actually, let me help you with answering this question:

Here is a video simulation of a plane flying level at 1500FT. Watch as the pilot tries to point the nose DOWN at a speed of only 320Kts! (much slower than the 500MPH+ speed claimed by you, NIST, and FEMA).

Flight 175 speed challenge. 911 'planes' impossible speed



www.youtube.com...

In this simulation, using your excuse of GRAVITY, a plane at around 405 Ktas plane breaks up 12,000 feet and 15 miles from WTC:

Flight 175 reconstruction of final 4 mins 40 secs



www.youtube.com...

As for your claim

Originally posted by _BoneZ_Anything can penetrate anything else with the right velocity. One could say a wood 2x4 couldn't go through a steel car door, but add 300mph winds from a tornado and it goes right through like butter. This just has to do with a simple comprehension of physics.


in which you seem to dismiss Newton laws of Physics -

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

For example, you could throw a piece of wood at a steel door at 300mph and it may go through the door, but throw that same piece of wood at a 6 foot block of concrete and the piece of wood will splinter into a thousand pieces with little or no impact on the concrete block. Further still, throw a 2 foot concrete block at the 6 foot concrete slab and you can expect both concrete pieces to be clearly physically damaged. So when considering force (or inertia) the composition of materials involved MUST be taken into account when theorising on what will happen should 2 different objects come into contact with each other with force applied.

Heres an interesting video of what really happens when a plane hits anything solid -



www.youtube.com...

And you claim there was no digital editing of videos on 9/11?

Your link to the debunk of "September Clues" doesnt explain everything. In fact it doesnt debunk ANYTHING. So a nose cone of a plane doesnt match pixel for pixel what was shown in a video? FACT is - match or no match, you can clearly see the nose of the plane exit the building on the CNN videos (which they tried to black out). Aluminium through solid concrete? Simply impossible..

But then this is commonly how 'debunkers' operate. They attack the source of a claim or video by showing 1 aspect of it is false in the hope people will believe everything else is false. In this respect the 'debunk' fails to address, and in fact completely AVOIDS the fact the nose of the plane can be seen exiting the building and simply tries to discredit the inconsistency of its shape.

And what happened to the blackboxes that were in both of these planes? Well, I dont know for sure if planes hit the WTC's or not on 9/11 - as I said, I wasnt there. The only evidence there were planes is largely from videos provided by the mainstream media. A number of videos supplied by independent witnesses only show explosions. Some eye-witnesses claim seeing planes, some insist there were none. However, no planes would explian why there were no blackboxes to recover. Reminds me of the saying - "When you have disregarded all that that is impossible what you are left with is the truth no matter how implausible"

So what we do know as FACTUAL is there was a lot of dodgy video of planes hitting the WTC's on 9/11 and a lot of actors and media personnel wandering around readily available to confirm what they 'saw' and blame Bin Laden & terrorists for the 'attack', while the rest of the general public were in a state of total confusion. You dont need to find a gun to convict someone of murder. The proof can be circumstantial, and in this case the circumstances speak volumes.



[edit on 25-4-2009 by Nonchalant]



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
So a nose cone of a plane doesnt match pixel for pixel what was shown in a video? FACT is - match or no match, you can clearly see the nose of the plane exit the building...the nose of the plane can be seen exiting the building.

Part of the reason why you believe the things you do and say the things you do is your lack of comprehending the information being given to you.

I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend that a real nose-cone did NOT exit the south tower as there is NO exit hole:



"September Clues" tries to perpetrate the disinfo that it was an inserted plane into the live broadcast and the insert "accidentally" went past the south tower. For that to be true, the pixels would ABSOLUTELY have to match up perfectly. If the plane was inserted, there would be no reason for the insert's nose-cone to change shape.

Therefore, since there was no exit hole, then it was not a real nose-cone and since the pixels do not match, then it was not an inserted plane into the live broadcast. PERIOD. End of story. Been debunked so very long ago. Let it go already. Continuing to peddle it is deliberate and blatant DISINFO!



Originally posted by Nonchalant
Aluminium through solid concrete? Simply impossible..

Not only is it possible, it's likely if the aluminum is traveling at the correct velocity.

Further, have you actually done any type of research before blindly putting all your faith into the NPT disinfo? Nowhere in the twin towers above the lobbies was there solid concrete of any kind. There was 4 inches of a light concrete mix on top of the floor trusses. A light concrete mix to keep the weight down.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
And what happened to the blackboxes that were in both of these planes?

A simple Google search (ya know, RESEARCH) would've answered your question:


9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

A source at the National Transportation Safety Board says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
www.counterpunch.org...



A 9-11 rescue worker recently came forward to say he was told by FBI agents to “keep my mouth shut” about one of the “black boxes” a fellow firefighter helped locate at ground zero
www.americanfreepress.net...


The list goes on and on with the links of websites reporting this.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
The only evidence there were planes is largely from videos provided by the mainstream media.

And independent journalists AND home videos from private citizens. Don't forget the countless thousands of bystanders standing outside watching the whole thing.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
So what we do know as FACTUAL is there was a lot of dodgy video of planes hitting the WTC's on 9/11

As has been stated ad nauseum, you won't have ANY facts unless you obtain the original videos from the media, independent journalists and private citizens, and have them professionally analyzed for fakery. Until then you have opinions and theories only.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
The proof can be circumstantial

Um, circumstantial is not factual. That's why they're both spelled differently.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


Thanks for embedding that "4 and a half minutes of flight 175" video. I found it rather amusing. I hope no one watches it and takes it seriously.
The video maker says, "according to the NTSB time-line, this video is fake". The video maker does not bother to show how they are fake exactly. I have a video on the Video & Media section of abovetopsecret where I take a look at a couple of the declared fake videos. I was not sure so I did the math for myself to see if there was some sort of inconsistency. If you pin it down, you can come to a mathematical analysis of the speeds and angles and distances and positions. My video is not exactly all inclusive because I do not want to bore people with all that. I included enough to where I thought I could evoke a challenge from a no-planer. Now I was willing to accept some sort of theory, if it did not work out. That was not the case because it does.
Not trying to plug my video because it seems to be doing quite well without any promotion, but the title is "The Liberty Island Plane". If anyone would like to raise a dispute over it, I would be happy to discus it.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Part of the reason why you believe the things you do and say the things you do is your lack of comprehending the information being given to you.


Actually, its not a lack of comprehension but more a choice of not accepting what I am told at face value.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend that a real nose-cone did NOT exit the south tower as there is NO exit hole


Again, no comprehension is needed. Simply an understanding of whats real and whats not, and anyone viewing the exit of the plane, debris, or whatever it was in this video -



would have to agree it does not MATCH the damage one would expect to see in the photo YOU provided of the alleged exit hole. It does however match this one:




Originally posted by _BoneZ_Therefore, since there was no exit hole, then it was not a real nose-cone and since the pixels do not match, then it was not an inserted plane into the live broadcast. PERIOD. End of story. Been debunked so very long ago. Let it go already. Continuing to peddle it is deliberate and blatant DISINFO!


Err, whose peddling disinfo again?


Originally posted by Nonchalant
Aluminium through solid concrete? Simply impossible..


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not only is it possible, it's likely if the aluminum is traveling at the correct velocity.


No its impossible. Its basic physics. The tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion varies with mass. A piece of aluminium sheeting cannot penetrate a solid block of concrete no matter what speed it is thrown at it. You harp on about a planes 'force' (aka 'inertia') like it could penetrate anything. But you fail to consider the WTC's inertia and describe its structure like it was made of something only slightly stronger than plywood. You clearly fail to understand mass and inertia.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
The only evidence there were planes is largely from videos provided by the mainstream media.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_And independent journalists AND home videos from private citizens. Don't forget the countless thousands of bystanders standing outside watching the whole thing.


So where are they all? As I said, Ive seen plenty of videos of people claiming to see planes and plenty claiming there were no planes only explosions even though they were right there. Some people said they saw or heard a missile. The discrepancies are numerous.

Oh, and scientific analysis of video footage isnt necessary to prove fakery. You only need to look at video of explosions minus the plane (where other videos taken from the same angle and distance show there was one) to know at least 1 of these 2 same videos is a FAKE



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
No its impossible. A piece of aluminium sheeting cannot penetrate a solid block of concrete no matter what speed it is thrown at it.

And that statement right there goes to show that you not only have no comprehension of simply physics, you have no idea what you're talking about and thus have ZERO credibility. So far, every single no-planer has shown a lack of understanding of simple physics.

Do you ever watch any space movies? Do you ever see that on ships without any protection, a piece of space debris rips through a ship like butter? Most space movies like Star Trek and Star Wars use shields for a reason. Travelling at the speeds they do, a tiny grain of sand would rip through the hull of a ship like the ship isn't even there if the ship is traveling at the correct velocity. NASA is always worried about space debris damaging the shuttle and the shuttle isn't even traveling close to the velocity of ships in space movies.

Aluminum WILL go through concrete at the right velocity just as wood will go through a car at the right velocity. Until you understand that, then you will never understand why what you're peddling is completely false.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
does not MATCH the damage one would expect to see in the photo YOU provided of the alleged exit hole. It does however match this one:

I'm not seeing an exit hole in the image you provide. Care to point it out?



Originally posted by Nonchalant
Oh, and scientific analysis of video footage isnt necessary to prove fakery.

Yes it absolutely is. What happens when someone claims they have video of a real UFO? That video is taken to a professional video studio to be analyzed for FAKERY. The studio can verify whether fakery has been involved or not. For you to prove fakery, you have to obtain the original videos from the source and have them professionally analyzed and checked for fakery. That will tell you conclusively if there was fakery involved or not. Until then, you have ZERO evidence and only OPINIONS, no matter how you spin it.



Originally posted by Nonchalant
You only need to look at video of explosions minus the plane (where other videos taken from the same angle and distance show there was one)

Um, I see the plane in that video also. It's tiny, but it's there. Keep trying...

[edit on 26-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Can anyone shed any light on Simon Shack's theory as to why no other footage except for the official "faked" TV footage and "phony amateur" footage of the attacks exists which he mentions in his imaginary 9/11 Planners' Memo?

"- Activate electromagnetic jamming devices over Lower Manhattan to impede all private video cameras to film the event."

This isn't even possible - you can't "jam" a video camera with an electromagnetic signal can you?

Most of his other points are plausible/possible but not this one

[edit on 26/4/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Do you ever watch any space movies? Do you ever see that on ships without any protection, a piece of space debris rips through a ship like butter? Most space movies like Star Trek and Star Wars use shields for a reason.

Aluminum WILL go through concrete at the right velocity just as wood will go through a car at the right velocity.


This is nothing short of absurd. In effect your saying I can throw anything regardless of mass (eg a banana at 1 million MPH) at anything regardless of mass (eg a 6 foot thick block of concrete) and provided it has enough force or inertia it will go right through like butter?? Mass is everything yet you dismiss it like its totally irrelevant. I can no more shoot a pea through planet Earth at a gazillion miles per hour than I can jump over the moon, yet according to your comprehension of physics I can?? Either you have no understanding of physics, your a lunatic, or your just plain disinfo. Here, have a lesson in physics and take 10 mins to comprehend it www.physicsclassroom.com...

In particular pay attention to MASS..and consider the mass of the WTC in light of the MASS of the 'planes'..

Oh and to help you along - I'll convert the WTC load data into engineering units based on floor areas. Building codes usually express loads in pounds per square foot (psf) or kilograms per square meter (kg/m^2). For example, the specification for a high live-load capacity floor is typically about 150 psf or 750 kg/m^2.

From the dimensions of a WTC Tower I estimate the available floor area per Tower was about 320,000 square meters. Hence, the live load was 331,000,000 kg divided by 320,000 m^2 which is equal to 1034 kg/m^2 or 212 psf. We see from the live load example given in the previous paragraph that 212 psf represents a very high live loading. But let’s look at just how high this load is…..

If the live loading within one WTC Tower really was 331,000,000 kg (more or less), that equals 3,009,091 kg per floor or about 3000 tonnes per floor of solid concrete & steel. Your flimsy aluminium plane weighed 179 tonnes MAXIMUM. In simplified terms, its a bit like throwing a paper plane at a brick. Frank Demartini's statement about the strength of the WTC's really doesnt do them justice (this gives you a better idea of how strong they were contrary to what your media tells you).

Hope this helps..lol

Oh, and quoted because you said it..


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nowhere in the twin towers above the lobbies was there solid concrete of any kind. There was 4 inches of a light concrete mix on top of the floor trusses. A light concrete mix to keep the weight down.


lol..whatever..



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm not seeing an exit hole in the image you provide. Care to point it out?


Sure, its the corner of the building. The part that's not visible in your pic:




Originally posted by Nonchalant
Oh, and scientific analysis of video footage isnt necessary to prove fakery.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_Yes it absolutely is. What happens when someone claims they have video of a real UFO? That video is taken to a professional video studio to be analyzed for FAKERY.


Ah I see, so your claiming that live footage I provided was faked? So the networks faked some of their footage, ie the video that had missing planes, but the dodgy video that included planes wasnt? So wheres the proof what you saw on TV was REAL?


Originally posted by Nonchalant
You only need to look at video of explosions minus the plane (where other videos taken from the same angle and distance show there was one)


Originally posted by _BoneZ_Um, I see the plane in that video also. It's tiny, but it's there. Keep trying...


Umm lets see, the video was taken from what appears to be almost exactly the same distance but its clearly visible in one but apparently if you squint you can also see it in the other? Yea ok..

"I believe it cos CNN told me so"

- Bone_Z



[edit on 27-4-2009 by Nonchalant]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by _BoneZ_ Nowhere in the twin towers above the lobbies was there solid concrete of any kind. There was 4 inches of a light concrete mix on top of the floor trusses. A light concrete mix to keep the weight down.


is there anyone including bonez that can offer any evidence to back that claim up?

NO SOLID CONCRETE OF ANY KIND??


Don't know if there was solid concrete "of any kind" but the FEMA Report Chapter 2 has descriptions of WTC 1 & 2 construction, including:

"Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches."

[edit on 28/4/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nowhere in the twin towers above the lobbies was there solid concrete of any kind. There was 4 inches of a light concrete mix on top of the floor trusses. A light concrete mix to keep the weight down.

lol..whatever..

You can learn more about lightweight aggregate concrete and how it pertained to the WTC at concrete.org.



Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm not seeing an exit hole in the image you provide. Care to point it out?

Sure, its the corner of the building. The part that's not visible in your pic:

Take a look at the pic below:



See how the fake nose comes straight out? You're going to sit there and now assert that the fake nose came out at a 45-degree angle through the corner? The disinfo never ceases does it?

Even though it's tough to tell if there really is a hole there or not, those corners are only 8-feet across. That's less than half the width of a 767 fuselage. Let's see what you come up with next...

*edit to add*



Yep, nothing coming out of the corner at a 45-degree angle here.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
FACT - aluminium doesnt penetrate solid steel.


BUZZ! Wrong. Several tons of aluminum going at 500 miles per hour can and does penetrate steel. And the exterior of the WTC wasnt "Solid steel". It had a multitude of windows. Glass.

Not to mention that the engines are not made of aluminum, they are made of titatium and heavier, harder metals.

try again, please.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


And not to mention on top of that, the planes didn't even cause the steel columns to fail. Only the connectors connecting the columns together failed. In essence, the 350,000 pound planes travelling at 500mph easily broke through the connectors.

But what do no-planers care about facts? They have a set script and they will maintain that script no matter how false.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Another thing too that is missed. Conspirators like to be efficient. they believe strongly in the whole concept of K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid). In otherwords, use tools readily available with minimal involvement.

Thus, why the hell use missiles, holograms, and fake planes, all of which could fail and expose a major conspiracy in broad daylight, when using real planes and real people does the trick without all the complex crap? To do all that would require even more conscious and active participants in the conspiracy, which makes it more risky.

The entities involved with 9/11 didn't need all this fantastic and exotic hocus pocus. Ordinary planes and people, some patsies, sending the Air Force elsewhere to play, and a small team of spooks with demolition skills worked just fine, both in theory and in fact. Sow confusion to jam the defense grid, voila. Instant terror attack, mission accomplished.

I have yet to hear any reason from the proponents of NPT as to why the government would use missiles and drones and holograms instead of real planes and people, which work fine for the task and were readily available.

Plus, the fact that "TV fakery" would not only require the complicity of media outlets nationwide and around the world, but hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers on the street beeing hallucinating idjits.

Unless you believe that a huge chunk of the population is directly involved, it simply is not possible.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


Nonchalant, that video in your post from utube user 'skyarcher' is incorrect, as I've pointed out to him on his utube 'comments' page.

He seems to lack a full understanding of airplanes and their controls.

What he failed to do, in his 'demonstration', is to "trim" the Horizontal Stabilizer. In essence, whether intentionally or not, it 'fooled' the software he was using, MicroSoft I believe.

One needs simply to go fly a real full-motion Level D simulator to see the fallacy of his claims.

The second video, the final four minutes of UAL175, is silly too. He makes a lot of assumptions to slew his results, and bolster his 'claims'. Contrary to his claims regarding flutter, a Boeing isn't that fragile. VMO doesn't mean "the airplane will break up 30 kts above this speed"!! There is a large safety margin designed in.

Consider the TWA B727 back in the 1980s, I believe it was, the infamous 'Hoot' Gibson incident. That airplane exceded limitations, up to nearing, possibly exceding Mach, yet they recovered and landed safely (and immediately changed their underwear
).

Back to UAL175. His entire premise is based on dodgy RADAR 'hits' that the NTSB used to reconstruct the timing of the final descent. Without the DFDR the accuracy of those estimations will suffer.

Here's a high-speed low altitude refutation of his claims:





[edit on 4/29/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The entities involved with 9/11 didn't need all this fantastic and exotic hocus pocus. Ordinary planes and people, some patsies, sending the Air Force elsewhere to play, and a small team of spooks with demolition skills worked just fine, both in theory and in fact. Sow confusion to jam the defense grid, voila. Instant terror attack, mission accomplished.


E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.

Perfecty put Skadi...

NPT-advocates will say that you are ignoring the overwhelming "evidence" and do not have "critical thinking skills"

From where I am standing the "evidence" consists of analysing videos and looking for anomalies and then without actively looking for rational explanations say that the anomalies=no planes




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join