Did the USAF Help pull off 911?

reply to post by impressme

---

Then, once again, you fail to do the simple research. It is not hard to find dozens of links on ATS to various official websites that show the evidence.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

Then you said below



Swampfox, I am asking only YOU and no one else. Stop deflecting the question. What was the undisputed scientific evidence that has convince you one hundred present that the OS is one hundred percent true?

Come on Swampfox, beside your true patriotism and loyalty to the military and our government, there has to be one undisputed scientific evidence, about the WTC, or WTC 7, or the Pentagon crash, or the Shanskville,PA crash or the fraudulent911 commission report or the fraudulent NIST report that has convinced you one hundred percent that the OS is all true. Instead of deflecting and obscuring show me this evidences so I can believe the OS is true. The other reason I am asking you this question is to see if you are being credible. You want everyone to believe you, don’t you.

If you ask me what “undisputed, scientific, evidence” that has convince me that the OS is a lie. I can supply the answer with creditable internet sources and scientific evidences that will tear the OS to pieces. I will supply you an answer after you have answer my question.

I asked you a simple question.



You have not answered the question

If this is your answers:



What evidences? Where is it? This ought to be good, show it?
What, the four airplanes that have never been confirmed to belonging to United or American airlines? No serial numbers on change out parts no maintenance records on said planes, nothing!

What, the WTC blown to pieces in front of 503 very creditable eyewitnesses that went on record stating that they were in, and “saw”, and “heard” explosions at the basements and sublevels of the WTC while the tower were still standing. Between Steven Jones scientific discoveries, that has been peer reviewed, the eyewitness accounts, and the fact that NIST was force to admit freefall, proves demolition.

What, the plane at the Pentagon? There are no records or time change parts or serial numbers of crash debris, nothing the FBI admitted the plane crash was never investigated. Strangely only ONE airliner engine was recovered and still no proof it belong to said plane. What happened to the other one it flew away. LOL
Photos taken right after impact at the Pentagon show “NO” airplanes crash debris lying on the lawn? More photos taken several hour later show debris lying on Pentagon lawn, only goes to prove the airplane debris was planted. Eyewitness account by very creditable people saw the plane or object approaching the Pentagon on the South side of the Citgo station. It was also “proven” that the Pentagon lawn and the foundation of the Pentagon “were undamaged.” The government tells a story of this event but the evidences does not support it.

What the plane that crashed in Shanksville PA? It has now been proven that flight 93 was last verified, (information verified under the FOIA) to been miles away PAST the alleged crash site.



pilotsfor911truth.org...

So, that is why the FBI refuses to give serial numbers out to investigator because they will find out they belong to bone-yard scraps and not to United or American Airlines.

Why do you believe in the OS, and what credible scientific evidence has convinced you that the OS is absolutely true? Please show your “sources”.

Please. Do your own already on-life-support credibility a favor by not referencing the PfT club. They have been proven time and time again to be the most non-credible source on a large number of fronts regarding these issues.

If you want to be taken seriously in these discussions, please tell us what the reason is why the FBI is not giving you aircraft serial number parts.

reply to post by trebor451

---

who are you to tell me what I can post and not post? As far as credibility, I can post any sources I choose. I favor “Pilots for 911” Truth, than you. You have lost all credibility with me,



Really, then why don’t you demonstrate this made up nonsense for all to see?



Just as soon as you start answering questions and supplying sources instead of insults and ridicule. I don’t care if you take me seriously or not because, my information is not going to appease you anyway. It doesn’t matter what I post or anyone else who doesn’t believe in the OS, you will always ignore it, and you have demonstrated that repeatedly.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by impressme]

I like your Q impressme....

Turning the tables on them, asking what credible evidence they may have that would lead them to believe the insanely ridiculous official story is a good ploy which I suspect has some rattled, hence the lack of answers from swampie and Co....

Till they answer that simple question, you deserve to ignore them...I would...

Pilots for Truth has no credability issues either that I am aware of....they are asking awkward Q's that cant be asked....

...but that doesnt mean they lack credability...it means you are attempting, poorly, to pin that on them, because what the professionals state is in stark contrast to the OS..and you know it.

Nice one impressme....there dodging of your Q speaks volumes....

Trebor

You said Pilots For Truth have credability issues " on so many fronts..."

Care to name, say, three of them????



[edit on 3-11-2009 by benoni]

The military has been corrupted over the years, taking their orders from the 'shadow government.'

The 'grunts' blindly take orders without question...THIS is the genius of the military industrial complex....THIS is how they can pull off 'false flags' and other crimes..and the grunts at the bottom are so dumb that they don't even know what's going on...even to the point that they will DEFEND this criminal organization...

With all the evidence pointing to an inside job it's amazing to me that there are still 'grunts' pretending not to see it..

Keep up the great work impressme.....I love to see grunts with egg on their face..

reply to post by benoni

---

Yeah, I'm still waiting for impressme to tell me how an invisible laser can make a reflection in a buildings window. Avoid and deflect. Avoid and deflect.

But other than that, you guys can keep rockin' on with your bad selves.

Andrew Basiago makes an interesting claim about the US letting 911 happen due to time paradox. Simply put his claims include that he worked on a time travel team that used a Chronovisor to look at future events for the US Government and that early lessons learnt were that you cant mess with time and future events without dire consequences.

911 was known about and that contingencies of every kind were made like moving in emergency teams the day before, Rumsfeld being relocated to opposite side of the Pentagon to where it was attacked. Bush slipped up and said that he had witnessed the first impact on a tv ( chronovisor ?) when the pictures of the first impact turned up at a later date. The only thing they couldn't do was stop it, to do so would be to adversely affect the world and spin us off onto a parallel time line that is not our destiny.

I also wondered about flight 93 and perhaps the reasoning behind why the cover up there was due to it blinking out of existence.

Great Fiction but interesting none the less.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by mazzroth]

reply to post by jerico65

---

You have not answer the question that I ask you first.
















You truly amaze me! You still have not answered my “first” question to you. You know the question ? Yet, you keep playing your deflecting and avoiding of answering the question.

Your claim:



I then ask you to prove it?



You have not been able to prove it was a reflection. No one has, this is only “your opinion”.

jerico65, I am still waiting for you to prove it was a reflection?



jerico65 where did you get the idea that this question was asked just to me? Check your reading comprehension.



DOES ANYONE KNOW one4all, was asking “everyone” not just me.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme

---

On my post of 1 Nov 09, at 1643, I directly ask you what you think it was. So much for your reading comp.

Prove it was a reflection? OK, that ATS thread is from someone that thinks he saw a laser designator reflection in a window. I told you that a military laser designator is invisible, and how can something invisible make a reflection at all?

It looks like it probably was a sun reflection. Prove it? Well, it was sunny on 9/11. Just look at any videos taken that day, or maybe get really ambitious and dig up the old weather reports. Sun was shining; there's your proof.

Think it was the USAF that was part of 9/11? They are just now deciding whether we wear our PT tshirts tucked in or outside of our PT shorts. We've had these uniforms since 2005.

reply to post by rainfall

---

You've never been in the military before, have you? Grunts (and I doubt you rate being able to use that term) aren't dumb, contrary to popular opinion here on ATS.

But if you're getting some mileage out of that opinion, you just keep on running with it.

It's not keeping me up nights.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by jerico65]

reply to post by jerico65

---

*probably was a sun reflection*

That does not prove anything and that was your opinion.



What does the USAF uniforms have to do with this topic?

over 24 hours later, and still no one has stepped up and answered your Q...


Tells me everything.....

Yep, and it's a damn good one. Highly reflective glass, bright shiny sun. It's a sun reflection. Sure ain't a reflection from a military laser designator.

And if you want proof, get a piece of glass and walk outside when the sun is shining. There you go, there's your proof.

And you're opinion of it is???????



Humor. Showing that the AF still can't get it's collective crap in one basket most of the time, and they helped pull this off?

But back on track, quiet avoiding and deflecting: What's your theory or opinion that the reflection was? You know, since you are so demanding of everyone else supplying proof. I'm just looking for your opinion.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by jerico65]

reply to post by jerico65

---

I don’t know what it is, and neither do you. You can’t prove it is a reflection.

I will say this again, that does not prove anything and that was your opinion.
Your opinion is, it is a reflection. It could be a light, we do not really know.

If you want it to be a reflection in your mind, your certainly entitle to your beliefs, as I am with mine.
It’s funny that this light is in one circular spot, usually a reflection would most likely be a large area, not just one tiny spot.

“avoiding and deflecting” find your own words instead of parroting mine. I know you can think of something original on your own.

i think something is up with 9/11 and it is deffenetly to do with the usaf if u look at the cnn video of the twin towers just before 9/11 happened you see a little bit off smoke suddenly appear at th foot off the first twin tower that falls many people miss this but the foundations off the twin towers are quiet large and i was looking up 9/11 yesterday on google and i stumbled across this document called 11 remarkable facts about 9/11 here is the link click it and have a look see what you think

Sitting at the airbase in Qatar, and have yet to find anyone who knows of a targeting system that has a laser visible to the naked eye.......still looking though.......

reply to post by impressme

---

And you keep getting lost in your words. You keep using the word "scientific" as if its some magical word. Gate agents testifying they checked the hijackers aboard the flights isnt "scientific". Air traffic controllers testifying they observed the airliners take off isnt "scientific". Radar operators saying they tracked the aircraft isnt "scientific". A Army rescue specialist reporting he finds whats left of human beings strapped into whats left of airline seats isnt "scientific".

Work on your vocabulary.

And you sir need to brush up on your recognition of a question when you see one....


...which you havent answered, scientifically or otherwise!!

Answer the Q....!!

Stop the deflection....its obvious what you are playing at.....

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

Shouldn’t that be “ An Army…”?
Shouldn’t “whats” be what’s? (twice)
“isnt” should be isn’t.
The period goes inside the quotation marks after “scientific.”



Work on your grammar before you kick sand.