Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue


The USAF has been flying remotely controlled aircraft, drones, for decades before 911. Anything with the Q designation is a drone.

What does that have to do with your false claim of their being an incorrect engine?

Again, the radar data shows the flight paths from airports to crash cites....

a reply to: Salander

I am well aware of the "Q" designation

Point is none of them use a turbofan engine of the size and configuration found on 911

Drones use much smaller engines as I pointed out do to fact that don't need to lift a human pilot (s) and the ancillary
equipment required to support them

Another hand wave to explain something which doesn't agree with your fantasy......

a reply to: firerescue


Do you know what a QF-103 is? A QF-4?

Their existence makes your post irrelevant.

a reply to: Salander

And you haven’t provided any proof the jet engines recovered at the WTC were incorrect. You have not cited or provided any evidence the engines at the WTC were from a drone. You have not provided any rebuttals to cited material the engines recovered at the WTC were of the proper type for the passager jets used.

You ignore that radar tracked the jets from take off at the airports to the WTC.

a reply to: Salander

Yes numb nutz I know what a QF4 is - retired F4 Phantom II converted to remote control targets

Power plant of F4 (QF4)

Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J79-GE-17A after-burning turbojet engines, 11,905 lbf (52.96 kN) thrust each dry, 17,845 lbf (79.38 kN) with afterburner

Nowhere compatible with airliner engines - is 30 years (several generations) behind that used on Boeing 757/767

Also there is no QF103 - there are (were) QF102 "Delta Daggers" and QF106 "Delta Darts"

Again several generations out of date with airlines

a reply to: Salander

What is like to have your talking points crushed by reality month after month? To keep using arguments proven to have no credibility. What is it like to have no discernment concerning truth, science, and video evidence that highlights the false arguments of the truth movement?

a reply to: firerescue


A drone is a drone sir. Airframe, engines etc, with remote controls. How hard is that? Not very, they've been doing it since the 1950s.

You want me to believe they can do it with an F-4 but they can't do it with a 767? Nonsense, I don't buy into that horse hockey.

Any airliners involved on 911 were drone aircraft.

a reply to: Salander

Your argument was the wrong type of engine recovered at the WTC for wrong type of aircraft that hit the towers? You are proven wrong. Are you switching arguments?

The argument was never could they remotely fly a jet.

But you do need to start your argument by stating where the remotely controlled aircraft took off from, and their flight paths to the towers. And overcome the fact the aircraft that hit the towers were tracked from takeoff to the towers. And one of the jets had two near inflight collisions with other aircraft on the way to the towers.

a reply to: neutronflux


There are so many things wrong with the official story that I've lost track.

The engine found and photographed on the sidewalk would not have been on a stock 767. That's the reality of it. The 767s bought by United or any other airline would not have had that engine. It's just that simple. But those interested in truth are damn lucky that photos were taken by ordinary citizens. Heaven forbid that citizens be allowed to physically inspect such evidence.

This is only one tiny and trivial element of the list of things about the official story that fail.

a reply to: Salander

No doubt this will be another hit and run post by you done any calculations yet

a reply to: Salander

And you totally ignored this thread at metabunk that proves you are wrong.

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

What you mean by stock? Out of the engine options offered? For which generation of engine? After how many technical changes to the engine for safety and efficiency reasons after the original conception of the engine? Engine parts and design stay static over the service life of an engine?

I still find it odd people answer your questions, provide sources why you are wrong, all the while you ignore the simplest and most logical questions.

Again, can you answer....

But you do need to start your argument by stating where the remotely controlled aircraft took off from, and their flight paths to the towers. And overcome the fact the aircraft that hit the towers were tracked from takeoff to the towers. And one of the jets had two near inflight collisions with other aircraft on the way to the towers.

Any airliners involved on 911 were drone aircraft.

a reply to: Salander

So its drones now ....??

You were a more entertaining troll when were pushing "WTC was blown by nukes !"

a reply to: neutronflux


Pretty pictures there at metadunk or whatever it was, but no persuasive argument at all.

What I like about that event is that it destroys the hologram theory.

There are other things besides the engine that show it to be drone. The fairings at the wing roots are not stock either.

The entire 911 story has more defects than you can count.

Close examination of government provided data right after it happened, tower tapes at Boston, showed that 2 different aircraft used the callsign United 175. Trivia, but interesting. Private citizens poring over public information, what little bit is left.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

There are other things besides the engine that show it to be drone. The fairings at the wing roots are not stock either.

The entire 911 story has more defects than you can count.

Want to link to a picture to back your claim up.

Your theories are all defective.

a reply to: Salander

Again, what is stock for a passenger jet? In regards to what options, after what upgrades, for what generation of that design, by the carriers needs, after what service bulletins?

Again, can you answer....

But you do need to start your argument by stating where the remotely controlled aircraft took off from, and their flight paths to the towers. And overcome the fact the aircraft that hit the towers were tracked from takeoff to the towers. And one of the jets had two near inflight collisions with other aircraft on the way to the towers.

a reply to: Salander

Like how you are wrong on the engines, and then you are expected to be believed with another move the goalposts argument that is pulled out of thin air. A fact you never cited with your engine rant.

And....

After 15 years, there is no evidence the claimed hologram technology ever existed. The fact how many projectors that would have to be staged throughout the city. The power those projectors would require to make an image not washed out by the sun. Not to mention the big old projectors that would have been on the twin towers to project the front of the holograms.

Again, can you answer....

But you do need to start your argument by stating where the remotely controlled aircraft took off from, and their flight paths to the towers. And overcome the fact the aircraft that hit the towers were tracked from takeoff to the towers. And one of the jets had two near inflight collisions with other aircraft on the way to the towers.

a reply to: Salander

Can you link to the evidence of two different jets with the call sign. I believe that has been debunked or explain. Probably why you don’t bother with citing a reference.....

Funny how you use false narratives that is not based on actual physical evidence to try to discredit actual physical evidence?

a reply to: wmd_2008


This is way beyond pictures. Analytical Thinking 101

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


This is way beyond pictures. Analytical Thinking 101

Cannot link to a source backing your case because it’s been debunked?

a reply to: neutronflux


Some of us are capable of independent thinking. On this historical event--the attacks at WTC--links mean nothing anymore. Anybody that has been studying this event for more than 6 months understands that there is zero evidence to support the official story. It is such a pathetic story that even the heads of the government commission said in public the commission was set up to fail.

For independent thinkers with curious minds, that means something. This commission served the same purpose as, for example, the Warren Commission. Its purpose was to protect the guilty parties and deceive the public.

Clearly that goal was achieved, as demonstrated by your many posts here.