Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes

 

This is the first reply to any post of mine in any thread where you sound like a sensible, sober person. You have referred to my posts as BS more than once. I frankly do not think you are the same person.

Ok about the missed comma. When you include it the meaning becomes clear that it was not an attack on JW.

Your position on the large load of the top section on the remaining floors is a valid argument. I may be wrong and you may be right. We may both be wrong. It may have been a controlled demolition which is clearly argued above by the author of this thread.

You may be right about the source of the dust. It may not include iron.

I am beginning to see now you may be the same old person all along.

Now to the DEW. You have not read my posts. I have already said in two posts in this thread that I am not a DEW person. Why do you ask me to explain its operation? I have never seen a DEW. How would I know how it works?

You are wrong to say there is no evidence of it in use. The destruction of the WTC is abundant evidence of a new technology. There has never been an event like it. Not a volcanic eruption. Not a controlled demolition. Not an earthquake. Not a nuclear explosion. Not a high rise fire. Nothing. The WTC destruction is itself evidence of something new.

Here are some simple observations.

The falling steel structures trail dust.

The seismic data does not indicate collapse.

The dust cloud of this size and density that lingered for days and was inches thick in the street is unusual in a controlled demolition.

Some things like automobile engine blocks suffered damage while nearby paper did not burn.

The pressurized oxygen tanks at the site (for the firemen) exploded.

The twisted shapes of the steel beams that survived are unique to this event.

The vertical motion combined with the vertical speed (almost free fall) has never been seen before.

The nature and shape and smallness of the debris pile is unusual.

The speed of "fall" of the towers is almost that of free fall. Gravity alone can account for this. Not controlled demolition or a pancake type event.

All the evidence is circumstantial. The evidence does not prove pancake or controlled demolition or DEW. It does indicate that a new technology is likely at work.

Because these WTC events are not conventional we look for a nonconventional explanation. One guess is that the entire steel structure all at once weakened and changed to dust. Without support what remained collapsed. Some new technology caused the molecules of iron to lose cohesion.

reply to post by leostokes


Leostokes, I specifically requested that you not reply to them nor bring up the DEW again.

In fact I asked you not to reply to them to keep the last page open, as that was in part the purpose of their post to run it into a new page so as to hide or disappear the evidence presented on the last page. But it appears that you caught onto that..

Very disappointing I have to say. You're not being helpful in the least by failing to recognize when you're being baited for no other reason that to try to poison the well and obfuscate the evidence that was presented, by association.

You didn't see through their shinanigans, or you just don't care and aren't even concerned with the same things that I am, nor the purpose of this thread.

Yes I'm more disappointed in you now, than them, and for all I know it's just another tactic to cloud the issue and try to muddy it over with disinfo.

Please do not persist, and let them be entirely ignored unless they raise a valid point that's on topic, but it was all nothing but hand waving and blanket statements with only one aim, which you've just played right into.

Please just stop. Couldn't you see the tactic being used? Sure you did, you understood the hint, and then you complied (even hinting back, by the way the post quote was re-rendered..).

And for them, the only response will be to serve up still more valid evidence that would not have been presented otherwise, but it will have nothing to do with speculative conjecture designed to serve no other purpose than to distract and cloud and muddy.

NAM

All the evidence is circumstantial. The evidence does not prove pancake or controlled demolition or DEW

That's false. it's physical evidence the actual occurrence of destruction, which proves according to the laws of physics including the first and third law of motion and conservation of momentum, that there was in fact a precision engineered controlled demolition of some kind, regardless of the type of explosives or method employed. We've already covered that though earlier, over and again.

Stop stoking this thread, it's disgraceful after what we've shown, to do that. Stop it now. No need to reply. As to those others, I can handle them and what they're doing (with the awareness of what they're doing). no problem. Theirs is another type of the same kind of activity.

I have to humbly ask you to stop participating in this thread. Thank you.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Waits by the door for Swat with Milk and Cookies and the desktop tower on the front porch.

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by superluminal11


What kind of post was that. Either post something on topic, or don't post anything at all.

You people are sooo predictable!

I called it, right here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For conclusive supporting evidence validating the OP and this thread's title.

Start HERE part way down the last page page 28, and continued in subsequent posts on the same page.

lambros56
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

TextNot trying to be snarky at all, just very clear, and disciplined, given what's at stake here and what we're really looking at, so please don't take my long meticulous replies the wrong way, thanks.

Well NAM.....
I think you've made it very clear.
This is one of the best 9/11 threads on ATS and they decide to put it in HOAX.....

I have always believed the planes were souped up remotely controlled and you make a clear case.
You have answered everything thrown at you in a clear and exact manner and I applaud you. For that and all the research you have put into this thread.

Thank you lambros56, and sorry for mistaking you for someone else in my reply which as it turns out was not for them, but for you.

NAM

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes

 

Someone else posted: All the evidence is circumstantial. The evidence does not prove pancake or controlled demolition or DEW

T%o which you replied:
That's false. it's physical evidence the actual occurrence of destruction, which proves according to the laws of physics including the first and third law of motion and conservation of momentum, that there was in fact a precision engineered controlled demolition of some kind, regardless of the type of explosives or method employed. We've already covered that though earlier, over and again.

There are no laws of physics in the real world that support this - 9/11 truthers have to make up their own physics and play make beklied it is the real world

It doesn't matter how much you tell yourself this nonsense - it remains complete rubbish - repeating drivel never makes it true.

I have to humbly ask you to stop participating in this thread. Thank you.

What a shame for you that your wish to censor the debate has no effect here.

reply to post by leostokes


...betrayed, by nothing but 4 or 5 carriage returns, oh well, what can I do about that?

NAM

**ATTENTION**

Please be advised that no member may request another to stop posting in any given thread. Be they the OP or not. If a member is in violation of the Terms & Conditions, please file an alert and staff will deal with the subsequent actions.

The 'gate keeping' of conversations will not be tolerated.

~Tenth
ATS Super Moderator

Aloysius the Gaul

It doesn't matter how much you tell yourself this nonsense - it remains complete rubbish - repeating drivel never makes it true.

You just saying that, over and over again doesn't make it true and mere incredulity isn't an argument or a response or rebuttal to the evidence that's been presented here.

And everything makes a difference somewhere at some level no matter how small or big it makes no difference. What matters here is that we all fell victim to a bad policy, a REALLY bad one, but in having the courage to really see it and recognize it for what it is and represents, there's hope for a better world even one capable of serving justice to the many victims, ourselves included who swallowed the Big Lie slight of hand black-op psy-op, and I too was in that same boat at one point, even though it was rather unsettling and astonishing to me, even then as to how those buildings came down like that, it was surreal and "unimaginable". I even wrote a supportive letter to President Bush and sent it through the Canadian attache or whatever. I bought into it hook, line, and sinker. It "changed the world" after all, but did it, really?

And if anything that's the point of this thread, to look back on the event with open eyes and an open mind and ask ourselves the question of what REALLY happened, and were we "hoaxed" by a Big Lie?

Well in hindsight, looking back through the actual occurrence of the event itself including the destruction of the twin towers (and building 7) and the specific way and manner in which those buildings were both completely destroyed, first one (hit seconds, but lower down), an hour later and then the other about a half hour after that, in the exact same manner, all 95 stories, to within 4-6 seconds of the time it would take for any freely dropped object if dropped in nothing but AIR alone - it would appear that what's been presented and discovered, right here yes, in the process of researching for this thread, is that this is not a hoax, the official story is.

It, not this hread's content, is what cannot be believed in light of the physical "causation" of the two events, of the planes flying (as observed) and hitting the buildings, and then what the buildings did afterwards - running back through self evident truth, based in the laws of physics, that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives, and not as a result of the plane impacts, and then going back to that apparent causal mechanism, the planes, with the south tower plane clocked at 510 knots maneuvering like a fight jet, at about 700 feet altitude. Then to the buildings an hour and an hour and a half later, exploding from the top down in a high precision engineered controlled demolition, to within seconds of absolute free fall wherein there simply isn't enough time for every single weld and joint to fail, all along the remaining structure, as if travelling faster than the speed of sound (not unlike the south tower plane as an expression of equivalent airspeed).

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I'm sorry, you're right, my bad.

I realize I can't stop anyone from posting whatever they want.

Best Regards,

NAM

Please stop. Enough. You've convinced Rosie O'Donnell that George Bush ordered it, and that Wolverine and Aquaman were flying the planes. Good job. I get how you fool Rosie. But what are you trying to accomplish. You've already 'fooled' yourselves! But anyway, yes. I am 10000000000000000000000000000000000 % convinced, a small round digital artifact from a crappy camera ABSOLUTLEY proves, that it wasn't aquaman flying one of the planes. It was probably Thor.

reply to post by tencap77


Ridicule isn't an argument or a rebuttal.

For corroborative evidence that the explanatory hypothesis offered in this thread is valid, please review pages 27 and 28 of this thread, it's there, and it proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

reply to post by tencap77


Furthermore, the evidence presented in pages 27 and 28 of this thread prove in incontrovertible and unequivocal terms, that there was no one physically on board the aircraft that impacted the south tower, on 9/11.

As to what ultimately happened to the originating flight 175, and it's passengers is unknown.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


..on a lighter note...

Once we are given the opportunity, to clearly see and recognize the 9/11 official story for the Big Lie that it really is - then it loses it's significance and thus it's power to shape policy and history "even as the experiencing generation passes away" (Zelikow)

While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May (member of Zelikow's 1998 think tank) and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene.'

The Official Story - by Philip D. Zelikow

Which then brings us back to a bright, cloudless, blue skied sunny September morning, with very light winds to the N/W.. (not good passport flying-fluttering weather).

If it's a lie then it's a lie. It HAS no transcendent significance or importance and no real meaning except as we might begin to pay homage, and historical justice (as a point of learning), to the 2996 people who died, by remaining committed to what's true and real. They deserve as much so that something of value and substance might be LEARNED from it in regards to what never to do or to be, ever again. It's a bind on such evil and wickedness based on nothing more than what's real and true, because the official story (O.S.) simply cannot be believed or accepted because to believe it we must divorce ourselves from reality and believe in the unbelievable, and only because the truth of the matter is just too hard to take and is something that we, especially if we are proud American citizens, that we simply cannot accept, that one's own government or elements therein could conceive and carry out such an atrocity, on it's own constituents no less.

But is that really the more patriotic position to take in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

Courage then is what we need, the courage to face the truth and the reality of it as it is and in the process reclaim, for the little man and the downtrodden, the sacrificed, the exploited (including exploited patriotism) and all those who've been victimized by it's abuse of power - nothing less than the very cause and course of history as we look both back and forward to a better day and a brighter tomorrow for the sake of everyone's enlightened mutual best interest, and boldly march fourth to unheard cheers from heaven and if there's a groan to be heard in the midst somewhere, then so be it.

And if there are tears to be shed, then let us be the ones to shed them, and also be the first to smile again for all the right reasons in the realization that all is NOT lost and that the pre-9/11 innocence is still available and then it (the lie) loses all it's power, yields and hands over whatever power it might have retained, as a lie - for the sake of a truly just and noble historical pursuit that is worthy of the human being.


Best Regards,

NAM

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Why would Boeing build a prototype before 2001, when the first aircraft wasn't ordered until 2002? You don't build airplanes to test until you have a firm order in hand. You wind tunnel test until you have a firm order in place. Italy was the launch customer for the KC-767, and didn't award the contract until 2002.

It costs a lot to develop a new plane, even a "bolt on" package like the KC-767. You can't just slap a boom on it and call it a tanker. You have to repipe the fueling system, do wind tunnel testing for aircraft flying near it, to make sure it's not going to flip them or something... It's a lot of work, and it's expensive. So there's no way Boeing would have done it without an order in hand.

edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

This makes no sense at all. Prototypes are built usually a number of them, they are well tested before they can possibly sell them.

And of course they could have produced them special in return for the Tanker Contract they eventually would be given.

When the Pentagon announced that Boeing had won last Thursday company officials were pleasantly surprised, but they knew the government had gotten quite a bargain.

www.forbes.com...

reply to post by Char-Lee


The actual identify of the aircraft is irrelevant. It doesn't matter either whether that's an image artifact in the blurry image of the plane in the 2nd post in this thread, or evidence of a refueling boom port.

All that matters is that it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that the plane was not and could not possibly have been flight 175, N612UA, and was therefore a remotely piloted, modified version of the Boeing 767.

It was almost assuredly filled with additional fuel, incendiary and explosives to ensure total destruction of the aircraft on impact and, for the pyrotechnic "shock and awe" fireball display for the collective viewing horror of the observing world, as a global "psy-op" which was completed by the total destruction of the buildings whereby the plane impacts and resulting fires were sold as the fake, apparent causal mechanism of destruction.

Setting aside the refueling boom port evidence which is inconclusive at best, there is nothing much really which would distinguish such a plane from the KC-767 Tanker Transport, however, as far as hardened structures, more powerful engines, advanced avionics, lots of space for extra "stuff" (seating removed) etc. but it makes no difference what "model" it is or what it might be referred to as other than that it MUST have been a modified, military application variant-retrofit of the standard Boeing 767 commercial airliner.

There's no need to prove that a Tanker Transport Beoing 767 prototype was in existence, to prove conclusively, as we've done, that the south tower plane MUST have been a modified aircraft, and could not possibly have been flight 175, N612UA.

It's elementary, and the evidence is conclusive.

reply to post by Char-Lee


Prototypes are not built until someone pays for them, and for the testing. No company is going to spend millions or more, on the off chance that someone might be interested in it. They build them after someone sends out an RFP, and finally offers a contract for a prototype, and flight testing.

Yes, prototypes are built and flown, AFTER there is interest in them and a contract is offered.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I did come across this, however.

Boeing started working on the concept of using a Boeing 767 as a tanker in 1999 when it assembled a team to undertake preliminary design development. The following year, wind-tunnel testing and proximity trials took place from NAS Patuxent River, Md, using a civilian 767-300ER and a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet which acted as a small category receiver and a Lockheed S-3B Viking as a medium-sized one. The aim of these tests was to check the viability of the 767 as a platform for aerial refuelling by ensuring receivers could fly smoothly in the aircraft’s wake, crucial for the precise close formation manoeuvring required of receiver aircraft. In June 2002 a USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III was also flown behind a -200ER to assess the effect on a large aircraft as well as one with a T-tail. The 767 received a good Cooper-Harper rating, the accepted industry scale for this subject. Indeed, Boeing claims that it performed better than any other aircraft in service today as a tanker. As a result, Boeing officially launched the programme in March 2001.
www.aviation-news.co.uk...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


They made a small model and put it in a wind tunnel, and took a commercial stock 767 and flew an F-18 Hornet off the wingtips, and behind the tail, where the drogue units will be located to make sure that there were no problems caused by airflow off the 767 that would prevent it being used as a tanker.