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.

 

If 911 is viewed as a crime instead of a terrorist attack, it becomes clear...

page: 16
102
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 



HEBREW ACCENT on flight 11?


Well, why not just listen for yourselves, everyone? And then, those who are more familiar with accents can decide:



(Only one version out there, ust search for more...)




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
You are making me laugh here, if that was your intention.

I don't know where you are from and if English is not you native language then you are doing fine but I don't think you know what upwind and downwind mean.

I am not making any claimns about the second debris field, at all.

The man in the video said that it was six miles from the other site.

As I said my very good friend said the story in the air force on the day it happened was that Flight 93 was shot down by the air force.

The whole story about F-16's not being equiped to knock something out of the air is possible but sounds very suspicious. Why have them fueled up if they are not more threatening than a gold cart.

Isn't it just easier to say Israel did it so we don't have to blame as many American?

No one likes Israel anyway.


Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Reheat
If the aircraft had been shot down the debris field would have been upwind of the crash site, not downwind. That alone proves it wasn't shot down...

BTW, that was only a portion of an engine that landed about 300 yards downwind, not an entire engine... This is not surprising at all and it means nothing except the aircraft crashed at a high rate of speed.


I know! Every time I ask them where was the second debris field, they seem to space out and forget that if the plane was shot down, heavier debris would have been raining down "upwind" or "up stream" of the plane's flighpath. I take it physics and common sense is also not relevant in truther-world. Let's see, we now have math, geography, physics, reading comprehension, critical thinking skill, so far lacking in the Truther-world. How can this ignorance go on?

Remember truthers! If you believe the plane was shot down, please point out any heavier debris that landed along the flight path prior to impact, and where it landed. If that is the method you want to go, then show us the evidence.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Well - man who knows nothing about physics and has proved that over and over again.

I am very familiar with Hebrew accents and Arabic accents and it is 100% a Hebrew accent and any expert who is not a raving Zionist lunatic will agree with me.

Thanks for posting it, though.


Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by BRAVO949
 



HEBREW ACCENT on flight 11?


Well, why not just listen for yourselves, everyone? And then, those who are more familiar with accents can decide:



(Only one version out there, ust search for more...)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


LOL!!!!!!


.....man who knows nothing about physics.....


Oh, that is rich indeed!!!


But, to the real point, here:


I am very familiar with Hebrew accents and Arabic accents and it is 100% a Hebrew accent and any expert who is not a raving Zionist lunatic will agree with me.



SO far, there is only one claimant....I have seen no corroboration of this.

But, let's play along.....and let's say that "Mohammad Atta" was an alias, and the man was indeed some Mossad operative or something. Yet, this person was so poorly prepared that he didn't realize he was on the Comm radio #1, which was still tuned to the Center frequency, when he thought the microphone he was using went to the cabin Public Address?? (PA).

Surely, they would have been more thoroughly trained,, by experts....rather than what we know they really were, and were somewhat self-taught to a great extent, in terms of the cockpit layouts....the little "sniggley" details like how to use the PA (it is slightly different on some older Boeing jets.....perhaps in the simulators they flew overseas).

Oh, and of course.....we have to accept that some number of "Israeli agents" would willingly go on suicide missions, too......right??


edit on Thu 5 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Well - man who knows nothing about physics and has proved that over and over again.

I am very familiar with Hebrew accents and Arabic accents and it is 100% a Hebrew accent and any expert who is not a raving Zionist lunatic will agree with me.


"Any X who is not an Y will agree with me"

Classic "poisoning the well" rhetorical device.


A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process.


Source



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Though it has turned into a bunch of nonsense mud slinging. The debunking derailers are out in force here, proving that this is actually a GOOD POINT. They are SCARED of people thinking in this way. This thread is NOT about whether Flight 93 was shot down. It's NOT about whether a missile hit the Pentagon or not.

THE HOW DOES NOT MATTER UNTIL YOU FIGURE OUT THE WHY.

This thread is about treating the whole thing like a crime scene. The very fact that it was NOT treated as a crime scene in any way speaks VOLUMES. And the fact that these debunkers are still on the case big time, ten years after the fact, also speaks VOLUMES.

If you had taken major insurance out on your house, then six weeks later it burned down, and you refused to let the Fire Marshal inspect the wreckage, but instead called your buddy's demolition firm to come quick, tear down the remains and put it all on a barge going to China, as quickly as possible, do you think the Fire Marshal might suspect something? Do you think this would not get you a one way ticket to an interrogation room?

Then later, you sued the insurance company for double payout, because both sides of your house burned down, and the garage.

Of course, all cops would just accept you saying, "I didn't do it! Hey, look over there, is that Elvis?" and then running to an "undisclosed location" for a month or two. No one would think that looked suspicious.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Though it has turned into a bunch of nonsense mud slinging. The debunking derailers are out in force here, proving that this is actually a GOOD POINT. They are SCARED of people thinking in this way. This thread is NOT about whether Flight 93 was shot down. It's NOT about whether a missile hit the Pentagon or not.

THE HOW DOES NOT MATTER UNTIL YOU FIGURE OUT THE WHY.

This thread is about treating the whole thing like a crime scene. The very fact that it was NOT treated as a crime scene in any way speaks VOLUMES. And the fact that these debunkers are still on the case big time, ten years after the fact, also speaks VOLUMES.

If you had taken major insurance out on your house, then six weeks later it burned down, and you refused to let the Fire Marshal inspect the wreckage, but instead called your buddy's demolition firm to come quick, tear down the remains and put it all on a barge going to China, as quickly as possible, do you think the Fire Marshal might suspect something? Do you think this would not get you a one way ticket to an interrogation room?

Then later, you sued the insurance company for double payout, because both sides of your house burned down, and the garage.

Of course, all cops would just accept you saying, "I didn't do it! Hey, look over there, is that Elvis?" and then running to an "undisclosed location" for a month or two. No one would think that looked suspicious.


Can I have some of your straw? I want to build 15 straw men like you just did.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Dear Aristotle,

9/11 Lead Hijacker / Hebrew Accent



You missed the modifier clause in the equation.

"Any X who is not a lunatic Y will agree with me"

I did not say "no Jew will agree with me that the accent of the 9/11 lead hijacker was Hebrew."

I did not say "no Israeli will agree with me that the accent of the 9/11 lead hijacker was Hebrew."

I did not say "no Israeli Jew will agree with me that the accent of the 9/11 lead hijacker was Hebrew."

I said no raving Zionist lunatic would agree with me.

Further more you seem to be implying that all Israeli Jews are lunatics and that might be seen as anti-Semitic.


Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Well - man who knows nothing about physics and has proved that over and over again.

I am very familiar with Hebrew accents and Arabic accents and it is 100% a Hebrew accent and any expert who is not a raving Zionist lunatic will agree with me.


"Any X who is not an Y will agree with me"

Classic "poisoning the well" rhetorical device.


A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process.


Source



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I have said for years that 9/11 was a crime.

It was a war crime.

It was a war crime that started a war and the greatest result was not an insurance payout or an intel cover-up but a huge milti-trillion dollar war paid for by my tax dollars for the benefit of Israel.

The motivation is as huge as a mountain. Damn near as huge as the cover-up which was piloted by an ultra-Zionist named Philip Zelikow who was an expert at manipulation public opinion after disasters.

Will anyone argue that it was a coincidence.

How about the associated crime of selling short shares in companies that were about to be hit? Wasn't that linked back to Zionists in Canada?

How much of the insurance payout ended up in Israel funding illegal settlements just like Jack Abramoffs money?

blame Israel




Originally posted by CaptChaos
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Though it has turned into a bunch of nonsense mud slinging. The debunking derailers are out in force here, proving that this is actually a GOOD POINT. They are SCARED of people thinking in this way. This thread is NOT about whether Flight 93 was shot down. It's NOT about whether a missile hit the Pentagon or not.

THE HOW DOES NOT MATTER UNTIL YOU FIGURE OUT THE WHY.

This thread is about treating the whole thing like a crime scene. The very fact that it was NOT treated as a crime scene in any way speaks VOLUMES. And the fact that these debunkers are still on the case big time, ten years after the fact, also speaks VOLUMES.

If you had taken major insurance out on your house, then six weeks later it burned down, and you refused to let the Fire Marshal inspect the wreckage, but instead called your buddy's demolition firm to come quick, tear down the remains and put it all on a barge going to China, as quickly as possible, do you think the Fire Marshal might suspect something? Do you think this would not get you a one way ticket to an interrogation room?

Then later, you sued the insurance company for double payout, because both sides of your house burned down, and the garage.

Of course, all cops would just accept you saying, "I didn't do it! Hey, look over there, is that Elvis?" and then running to an "undisclosed location" for a month or two. No one would think that looked suspicious.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Dear Aristotle,

9/11 Lead Hijacker / Hebrew Accent



You missed the modifier clause in the equation.

"Any X who is not a lunatic Y will agree with me"

I did not say "no Jew will agree with me that the accent of the 9/11 lead hijacker was Hebrew."

I did not say "no Israeli will agree with me that the accent of the 9/11 lead hijacker was Hebrew."

I did not say "no Israeli Jew will agree with me that the accent of the 9/11 lead hijacker was Hebrew."

I said no raving Zionist lunatic would agree with me.

Further more you seem to be implying that all Israeli Jews are lunatics and that might be seen as anti-Semitic.


Ha ha ha ha. This is about the weakest response I've had on ATS yet. I don't care about all the things you did not say or imply, I care about the transparent and time-worn rhetorical device you used to preemptively intimidate all those who would dare disagree with you. "I seem to be implying" ??
All I did, the only thing I did, was put your propagandistic language under the microscope and unveil your underhanded debating tactics for all to see. Aristotle? Thanks.

Carry on!

Ha ha ha ha.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


All the highjackers were Muslim extremists.

Islam is the problem in the world today and the fanatic sick individuals it breeds. All these conspiracy theories are a bunch of gibberish.

It begins and ends with these primitive Muslims who fight in the name if their violent religion…



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Drac,

You give me the impression that you love Israel and you feel that Israeli Jews are smart, capable, brave and patriotic.

Am I right about that?

If I am right then doesn't it make much more sinse that a highly trained team of Israeli professionals pulled off 9/11 instead of a group of Muslims who you have total comtempt for?

Usually I want to counter all of you pro-Apartheid Israel arguments but in this case I think you are right. Israel does have some kick-ass training and I think they are just the sort of nation that would have the motivation and know-how to undertake the most successful false-flag operation of all time.

Israel - motivation - know-how - ability to get awy with it - 9/11



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


I suppose the Israelis have committed all of the other Terrorists acts in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the US as well, huh? They have made videos admitting their atrocities and their intent too, huh? If you had anything more than a worthless opinion you'd have already presented it, right?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Israel false-flag master of decpetion



Sounds like you have listed without going into detail several locations in which Israel has pulled off terrorist attacks as false-flag operations.

Israel has had two Prime Ministers who were admitted terrorists. Can you think of another country that can claim that?

Oh, the President of Isdrael was convicted of rape last year, too. Is Israel the only country to have a president convicted of rape?


Listen to the accents hear and you can match them back to the Israeli lead hyjacker on 9/11.



You may have bitten off more than you can chew on this one.

Fallen into a trap as it were.


Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


I suppose the Israelis have committed all of the other Terrorists acts in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the US as well, huh? They have made videos admitting their atrocities and their intent too, huh? If you had anything more than a worthless opinion you'd have already presented it, right?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Your 'expertise' is non-existent, Atta has no such accent, there is no such accent in the transmission from AA 11, and the facts you supply about Israel are not relevant but to further set up your well poisoning rhetorical device so that you may disparage people who call you out on your fabrications as "zionist lunatics".



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
If you can add to the discussion please do.

Why not give us a linguistic analysis of the accent we hear in the recording?

I have provided an analysis for the obvious Hebrew accent in question on anothe thread.

Others agreed with me and the members who did not could not provide a single bit of linguistic evidence to backup their claim.

Go ahead I will wait for you to comment on the accent and tell us how you can priove it is not a Hebrew accent.

You amy want to start with the distinct Hebrew "R" that is so totally different than the Arabic "R".


Originally posted by snowcrash911
Your 'expertise' is non-existent, Atta has no such accent, there is no such accent in the transmission from AA 11, and the facts you supply about Israel are not relevant but to further set up your well poisoning rhetorical device so that you may disparage people who call you out on your fabrications as "zionist lunatics".




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I don't know if someone has debunked these videos of yours, so I will do that here and now.

First of all, let us take the flying in the flight simulator. Any moron, can crash into the pentagon, in a flight simulator. Because in a flight simulator, the rules of gravity don't really apply ... it's a simulator, and it's meant for "visual" simulation, rather than realistic. Basically, in the simulator you fly "through" the pentagon, as well as any other object in the simulator ... anyone can nosedive into it, in a simulator.

When the guy says "What is that warning", "can it do that?" and the other answers "yes, it can".

BEEEP ... that isn't a guy who just came into the simulator and knows nothing about it. Because in the simulator, maybe you can ... but in real life, no you can't. In real life, aerodynamics rule ... the warning signal is there for a reason ... you will start to lose airspeed, and altitude and finally control unless you obey.

And then we come to the test point, where the images of fighter aeroplane is crashing into a stone wall. Hey man ... this is what we have been saying all the time. Because a fighter jet is similar to a missile, while a commercial airliner is not. A fighter jet is not built to fly ... I know it sounds funny, but it's true. It's made to speed through the air, so the wings are minimal only to allow it maneuvers ... so, it's similar to a missile, and the thrust is behind the cockpit in a fighter jet, making it even more like a missile.

A commercial airliner, has the thrust under the wings ... and it is built with aerodynamic capabilities... it's meant to fly. Its nose is not hardened, like a jetfighter, becuase its nose is not mean to break the sound barrier. It's nose is soft. The wings of an airliner are not built to fold ... and the fuel tanks in an airliner, are in the wings base .... so if an airliner explodes, the wings will tear off and not fold into it.

When an airliner slams into a building, there is no "thrust" behind the body of the airliner. The "thrust" is under the wings ... which means, that the engines will thrust forwards, and the body of the plane will thrust back, causing a forward fold of the wings. They are not built for this kind of stress, and they will break causing leakage to the tanks ... and therefore you have the enormous explotion as you see in the towers. An aircraft that crashes, will show enormous amount of debree ... not a small amount. The wings WILL break off ... not just the "TIP" as in a fighter plane. Because a fighter plane, ONLY has wing TIPS.

On an airliner, the forces working on it are UP ... to keep it level to the ground, it must have it's nose DOWN. An airliner, is built to FLY it's built to have the wings lift an enormous weight ... so either the nose is DOWN or the plane is cruising, and using it's flaps to increase airlift. So if it goes head onto something ... the tail section will break off and not follow it into a tube ...

THE FIGHTER PLANE CRASH AND AIRLINER CRASH ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT ASPECTS. A FIGHTER IS BUILT TO BE MORE LIKE A MISSILE ... AN AIRLINER IS NOT.

What you see in an airliner crash, is debree everywhere ... it will be spread about, and it's not going to melt and vapourize. And amongst the debree, you will find TWO jet engines ... because they are basically indestructable in this scenario. You will not just find ONE ... unless it's a fighter plane. And yeah, the parts are far too small, to actually be a part of a commercial aircraft ... because in reality, you have two of these ... and even a fighter jet, will have similar debree as seen on the pictures. The pictures themselves, of the debree, tells you only one thing ... there is TOO LITTLE DEBREE.

The reason people reject these, is not because we don't believe an airliner was the cause ... but because the image does not conform with "normal" plane crash. Kerosine will not burn hot enough to melt and vapourize anything ... period. So, there is something missing from the image ... which makes people question everything about it.

Know this, the engine parts involved show different structural damage ... as if they're not from the same engine. Second, these engine parts will be found in basically ANY engine ... even a fighter aircraft.

The only thing we can say for SURE ... is ... THERE IS TOO LITTLE DEBREE.

And that makes the entire situation ... SUSPECT.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I'm guessing you are not a pilot??


BEEEP ... that isn't a guy who just came into the simulator and knows nothing about it. Because in the simulator, maybe you can ... but in real life, no you can't. In real life, aerodynamics rule ... the warning signal is there for a reason ... you will start to lose airspeed, and altitude and finally control unless you obey.


Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

The only "beep" (which was not a "beep") was the typical alert that is now standard on just about every large jet when you exceed a certain angle of bank in a turn. It is programed to alert at about 35° of bank. This is only because we NEVER exceed that angle in normal operations.

ALSO, for that demo in the "Zembla" video, they disabled the GPWS...(Ground Proximity Warning System...look it up) to remove annoying extra sounds....you can watch the video clip I've found, at the bottom, to hear actual examples of GPWS.

Again, 35° angle of bank is where it "alarms" but only as an advisory......there is no....I repeat....NO danger at that angle, as long as you have sufficient airspeed for for your wing configuration (i.e., flaps and slat settings).

(BTW....in large airliners there is no "stall warning" as you may read about as regards smaller airplanes.....we have what's called a "stick shaker"....when the Air Data Computers detect an approach to stall, they trigger what are essentially motors with an offset weight, that are mounted to the control columns ....OF course, here I refer to Boeing jets, which are not "Fly-By-Wire". Having not flown the Airbus models that use only the electronic joysticks, I will have to look it up. But, we aren't talking about Airbus in regards to 9/11, anyway. Here is a B-737 stick shaker demo ...(This is actual in-flight training, in a real airplane.....NOT a simulator!!):



NOTE...the three "alarms" you hear? That is the Auto-Pilot disconnect sound, for the B-737. Not all Boeing jets have the same A/P disconnect sound.
___________________________________________________________________________
Here's a DC-10 (I also have many hours in...years ago of cours), and it's obviously a simulator, since they went "below" Sea Level (LOL).....you cna hear the stick shaker, the GPWS......and, on the DC-10, that "honk" sound that is continuous? That is just the stabilizer in motion sound....since the person flying was using the stabilizer trim pretty continuously, to relieve his control forces on the elevator:




_____________________________________________________________________________

In training (in simulators) one procedure that must be demonstrated is called a "steep turn".....we fly a level turn, at 45° bank (the Sim Instructor can disable the verbal alert, so it is less distracting). This is a "skills" demonstration, and the intent is to show that one can handle the airplane and also show precision. The altitude must not vary by more than +/- 100 feet, and airspeed control +/- 10 knots. Also, the desired "roll out" heading must be within 10 °. ALL to indicate that a pilot is quite skilled at knowing the "feel" of a particular airplane that he is training on, or currently qualified on.

Anyone who has learned to fly, even to receive a Private Pilot's Certificate knows what a "steep turn" maneuver is. Those who know nothing about flying are best not expected to comment on what they do not understand.


And, the "argument" you make about g-forces (which is what I discern is your point there) is entirely moot.....the aerodynamics of "real" flight are reproduced in the simulators....that's why they have room-sized computers to handle it all. Although it is true that a typical six-axis full-motion simulator cannot re-create the sustained g-forces of real flight.....in actual airline operations, you really do not feel vertical g's very much, at all....the Sims are programmed to "fool" the senses, though, to re-create best as possible. For instance, during the takeoffs, it tilts up.....and uses normal Earth gravity to give the sensation of acceleration....but, since you are are enclosed inside, you see the "world" outside as level, as you are rolling down the runway.....but, it "feels" as if you are "accelerating" horizontally, just as you know how it feels when you are a passenger.....or in your own car. For deceleration, of course, it just tilts down.

Other motion cues are used to fool the inner ear......


Here, I found this by searching on YouTube.....a company that want to sell DVDs apparently. This is a B-737 simulator, a real one.....I should know, have thousands of hours in both this, and the real airplanes.

Like I said, even a Private Pilot with 100 hours under his/her belt knows how to fly, by that point....there are added complexities to learn regarding the large passenger jets, with the many various verbal warnings and alarms.

Also, you'll see in this clip, they actually make steep turns to 60° bank angles.....that used to be the requirement in the USA, more than ten years ago.....now, it is only required to demonstrate skill and finesse as I mentioned, above, at a bank of 45°. (60° is a few orders of more difficult of course, but for an airline pilot, not that much harder...back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this is what was required of us):




I should point out that to those of us familiar with the B-737 cockpit, it's obvious that some scenes in the clip are in one simulator, and some in another. Most of them, to include then opening scenes, are the instrument panel arrangement for what are now called the "classic", such as the B-737-300, -400 and -500 versions. Has two "smallish" CRT screens, one above the other (same for each pilot), and traditional "round dial" engine instruments in the center of the panel. (This is roughly the same as the B-757).

Briefly shown in the clip, and has titles to indicate, is the B-737 'NG' (for "next Generation") version, where the instrument panel has a total of six electronic screens, nowadays they are LCD (not CRT). Two on each pilot's side are side-by-side, and two in the center arranged vertically. These replace the "round dial" engine instruments, and display those indications on the LCD screens electronically. In the B-737 "NG", and the B-767-400 and B-777 and future Boeing designs, these six LCD screens are also called "MFDs", or "Multi-Function" displays. Since you can used "Instrument Switching" controls to choose what information you wish to display on which screen.

[Of course, there are "standard" arrangements that every operator designates as a protocol and "SOP"....but, in case one of the six (or more) suffer a failure, there is a great deal of redundancy in those contingencies.]

These would be your B-737-700, -800 and -900 (next time you fly, you can pay attention to your safety briefing card, it will always indicate the airplane type. Or, just ask....or check the airline's website too...). There are other minor systems differences between the "classics" and the "NG", but that's not important to you....


edit on Fri 6 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CountDrac
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


All the highjackers were Muslim extremists.



This is a racist, anti-semitic remark ... that totally nullifies any other of your remarks or opinions on the subject. Any arguement you have, is hereby of no value ... because all these arguements, are racist in nature.

In your puny little, it appears that you think, that because you support Israel ... you are not a racist. Well, news flash for you ... Jews are the most racist populace on the planet, right before the Chinese and the Japs, I presume. To a zionist, the entire rest of the world are gentiles ... so, a zionist is equivalent or worse than a nazi. The nazis wanted the Jews dead ... the Zionist, wants the rest of the world dead.

So, taking the posution of pro-zionism, makes you worse ... not less racist. it also nullifies any position you make on the subject, because anything you see ... must include "racism" ... which is one of the reasons, the GOP arguments are being questioned in the first place.

The all jumped up, like good zionists and said "muslims!" ... like any good white boy, would have jumped up and yelled "black man!" somewhere in the 60's.

Such thought processes, produce nothing of value ... so, INVESTIGATIONS PLEASE.
edit on 6/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I'm guessing you are not a pilot??



No, I am not a pilot. And you claiming to be a pilot, does not qualify you as a physicist or a mathematician.

The instruments involved can look like anything, nobody cares what they look like. It's a simulator, in a simulated environment ... it's designed in a computer simulated, flat environment ... it does not resemble reality. It is designed to simulate some of the aspects, that you encounter to help you study flying ... and as time goes on, they get better and better ...

But, as a pilot ... can you fly through objects in real time? I didn't think so. In a simulator, the ground isn't even where the ground is ... it's off by several meters, in the best simulators.

The earth is trhee dimensional ... an aeroplane travelling above you, has to travel a longer distance than if at lower altitudes. This is because the earth is a ball ... and higher altitudes, means bigger r, for circumferance. Most simulators do not simulate a true environment, they rely on flight data for approximation.

You cannot rely on them ...

That said, flight simulators are a great game ... for the amateur like me ... it's fun, and I can crash into anywhere, defying the laws of physics.

You climb into your dumb plane, and defy laws of physics ... bye bye and goodbye.

All the arguements hold ... first of all, there is too little debree ... the plane is carried forward by the engines, and not by the body.

Those engine parts, would be all over the place, yet on original frames there is none ... it would have bumped into a pole or two, leaving behind debree to the pentagon. And even if hit the pentagon, the engine would not be in small parts ... unless there were real explosives on the plane ... kerosine will not do the job. It will merely sever the wings from the body .... usually in plane crashes, the wings, engines and tail section are whole ... the nose and the middle section in flames from the fuel.

An aeroplane is not vapourized ... unless there are chemicals involved, that do not belong in a commercial airliner.

The movie itself, is easily thrown away ... the depriss shows two or three objects identified as an engine part. A commercial airliner has two engines, would have had dosens of these basically indestructable objects... which is why people say "it looks as if these were put there as an aftermath". Because originally they are not visible, and only later shown pictures of some debree ... and when that is done ... only few objects, which are far too few in nature.

The arguement of the "truthers" hold, and the debunking movie is just plain crap.

That said, Europe, the UK, Germany and every other nation in the world has been under terrorism. Planes have been blown up, hi-jacket, crashed ... but not once, have you had a plane vapourize. Now, that is totally unique for the US situation. You've had crashes all over the world ... crashed into mountains, nose dive into the ground ... NEVER BEFORE HAVE YOU HAD A PLANE VAPOURIZE.

So, unless you have some extreme chemicals involved, it can't ... and if you do, why? why would it be so important, for whoever did it, to have the planes vapourize?

Terrorists, don't hide their acts ... they go about in plain daylight and tell everyone about it. Their objective is to have a lot of debree ... enourmous site of debree and destruction, as much as possible. So, yeah, the twin towers are phenomenal ... except, kerosine doesn't melt steel and kerosine doesn't vapourize titanium alloy, or even aluminium alloy. It sure can melt aluminium, but it is far from being hot enough to vapourize it.

Is this sticking anywhere to anyones thick skull?

And finally, saying that its all just "planecrash" isn't good enough. Because the US murdered over a million people as a result, without declaring war ... committed crimes against humanity, torture, sodomi
sation of prisoners. And if all this is because the twin towers fell, which is basically because the twin towers were undermined as a project and didn't hold unto building codes ... than that is WORSE, not BETTER.

Because it means, you went out and murdered a million people ... to cover up your own incompetance ... is that you did?



edit on 6/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join