if you think that all ''911 truthers'' think exactly the same and share the opinions that you seem to think we have, you seem very narrow minded. where are you getting these crazy ideas from?
@wimahlers Interesting. We're looking forward for them to confirm that standard 767's are able to both go at 580mph at sea level and still be controllable.
"We're looking forward for them to confirm that standard 767's are able to both go at 580mph at sea level and still be controllable."
.
The hijackers did not need to control the plane. All the had to do was not to miss a huge buiding. Top, bottom, left, right, half way, in an angle ... all that did not matter, as long as they hit the buildings. And they did.
@wimahlers What YOU must explain to debunk Harrit/Jones is what the located substance is, if not nano thermite; If you claim that earth is flat, you must beat the hypothesis of it being round.
@Thetan1974 Nope! You never have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove god does not exist and I don't have to prove the dust is not thermite. Moving on...
The alternative plane you mention, a KC 767, has the exact flight caracteristics as the UA175 767-222. Then you claim that the plane that hit WTC2 was modified. However, you are unclear, that is you did not mention at all, what exactly is different about whatever you claim is different about the plane discussed.
Stronger engines? What engines?Name it! However, a stronger engine does not change the aerodynamics. And you totally ignore the decent.
@wimahlers "Nope! You never have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove god does not exist…"
Noone ever proved god existence by a peer reviewed scientific report.
So far it's proven in peer reviewed report that it is a thermitic not-naturally-occuring-in-buildings substance never seen in public before. If it is NOT, you have to show what it IS. As simple" as that.
@wimahlers "Then you claim that the plane that hit WTC2 was modified."
To be able to handle that kind of speed at that altitude without breaking apart. Not at all unclear.
"What engines? Name it! Mommie! If the evil troofer can't name the engines, that means that al-Shehhi flew it and and that it WAS the real Flight 175, right mommie?!"
Look and listen carefully @2:49-4:06. watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE
@wimahlers "However, a stronger engine does not change the aerodynamics. And you totally ignore the decent."
Well, it was actually YOU who brought up the engine matter. I never said that it was part of modifying the aerodynamics. But funny enough, you brought up yet another matter that points directly to the cover up and the inside job. Thank you.
@wimahlers "You also totally ignore the FACT that many WWII fighter airplanes were ALSO flying faster than their given maximum speeds.
They can fly faster for the exact same FACT as the Boeing hitting WTC2…"
I'm waiting for your "accredited institutions" to come out and compare WWII fighter jets with Flight 175 and confirm that a Boeing 767 can both go THAT much over its max limits and stay controllable at 1100ft.
@wimahlers "...and I emphasize: IT WAS NOT A LEVEL FLIGHT BUT A DECENT."
And i emphasize to you that even though it was descenting it was already way beyond how fast a standard 767 is able to go even some hundred feet before it went down to the last 1200-1100ft. And the most notable about the steering is the last left turn directing the plane so it hit the tower precisely. 100% impossible for a human pilot.
@wimahlers Another tiny detail: There is NO evidence of any hijackers flying the planes. Regardless of what they had no regards of it doesn't give them supernatural powers over standard airliners.
"At appears UA175 was on full trottle."
Yep - which would make it break apart in mid air before it could reach the tower.
@EdgemanLL2 - claiming that the 9/11 Commission and NIST bibles tell the truth about 9/11 = 100% false.
MY work? I'm not the expert. PF911T and their sources happen to be the experts. Feel free to point out what in their documentary "World Trade Center Attack" is wrong and then find the accredited Boeing and aviation specialists who will claim - based on credible data and experiments - that standard 767's are capable of going 580mph at 1200-1100 ft and still stay controllable.
Translation: "I have no idea what Im talking about. I just heard it on the internet. And since I dont know what Im talking about, it could be 100% bullshit for all I know. But I just blindly repeat it as fact with no REAL idea that its true or not!!"
@EdgemanLL2 Of course I have "no idea" of what I'm talking about when I refer to Boeing and avaiation experts who characterize the manouvres of most notably Flight 175 - but actually all 3 hit-Boeings - as impossible for standard 767s/757s and/or impossible for human pilots.
EdgemanLL2 must be an insider - or else he TOO is just blindly believing in what the 9/11 Ommission and NIST reports tell us. Otherwise you're totally contradicting yourself.
@EdgemanLL2 Btw we're looking forward to hear from the aeronautical and Boeing experts who can confirm that a standard 767s do easily go like UA Flight 175 did and are easily controlled. We have to know that from someone who know what they're talking about, don't we?
@EdgemanLL2 "And since I dont know what Im talking about, it could be 100% bullshit for all I know. But I just blindly repeat it as fact with no REAL idea that its true or not!!"
Interesting. Head 9/11 Commission reporter admit that it is more or less bull in their report: watch?v=MeWDc4kRd90
I'm looking forward hear from the pilots and aviation experts who can disprove the findings and statements of Deets, Furnee, Stanish et al and come out and prove what noone knew about standard 767s.
@EdgemanLL2 So now you're claiming that it must take a Boeing TEST pilot to detirmine wether a 767 would be uncontrollable at that speed and altitude, just because it happens that no test pilot is amongst the hundreds of Boeing pilots, aviation and aeronautical experts who signed the 2 petitions? Moving the goalposts of hypocricy there, eh.
Let's see the Boeing test pilots who come out and defend the claim that a 767 can go 580mph at 1200-1100 ft and still be controllable, ok?
"There is NO evidence of any hijackers flying the planes"
.
Except for the plane witnessesphone calls, the ATC recordings, the AT&T recordings, the NORAD recordings, physical evidence found in the hijackers hotel room, the Hamburg connection and evidence of it, the farewell letters and farewell videos of the hijackers, there odd behavior at the flight schools, the physical evidence found and a lot of other tits of and tats you all deny, there was indeed nothing.
"Yep - which would make it break apart in mid air before it could reach the tower."
(on UA175 flying full trottle).
.
Boeing would be surprised to hear that hitting the gas pedal, so to speak of, disintegrates their airplanes.
What you still are not realising is that commercial pilots are not allowed to take fast curves, quick ascends and decends, high G's ... and all that. Because it does not improve the passengers flying experience. But it does not mean it can't!
@wimahlers "Boeing would be surprised to hear that hitting the gas pedal, so to speak of, disintegrates their airplanes."
Then show me their surprise now that you are so sure. Let's finally have it from a Boeing spokesman who can finally debunk all the experts who have spoken up for 9/11 truth.
"Let's finally have it from a Boeing spokesman who can finally debunk all the experts who have spoken up for 9/11 truth."
.
No! Why should anybody respond to every absurdity uttered by gullible ignorant people? That would be a day job!
Don't be lazy, verify your own claim. Your claim is not true because it evokes a stoically silence. Your claim is met with a stoically silence because it is not worth responding to.
But feel free to present your claim at, e.g., the NTSB.
@wimahlers "What you still are not realising is that commercial pilots are not allowed to take fast curves, quick ascends and defends,"
Look man, you're truly gettingI INSANE here. You're trying to argue that because they're not allowed to, terrorists with no hours of flying a commercial jet are able to do what the real pilots cannot do?? Seriously?
"You're trying to argue that because they're not allowed to, terrorists with no hours of flying a commercial jet are able to do what the real pilots cannot do?? "
.
No!
What I was and am saying is that the hijackers did what commercial pilots are NOT alllowed(!) to do.
And I did show with my video references what a Boeing is capable of if and when you ARE allowed(!) to do.
Again, passengers safety and comfort is a pilot's but not a hijackers first priority.
@wimahlers Let's try it again: The REAL trained pilots have tried numerous times to make what Atta and al-shehhi did in simulators. Of course they didn't go "Oh, I'm a real pilot. So I guess I have to respect the rules of flying!" You're basically nuts arguing that. Numerous of them have tried WITH the respected speeds and the respective altitude, and it cannot be done.
"The REAL trained pilots have tried numerous times to make what Atta and al-shehhi did in simulators"
.
So you claim. In the mean time, game amateurs are having fun hitting high buildings all the time in flight simulators.
What do you say!?! Flight simulator is not the same as the $10,000,000 setup pilots train in? You are absolutely right! That accounts for a more realistic environment. However, Environment-less computer flight simulators are surprisingly realistic.
@wimahlers "I suspect you pulled them straight out of your hat."
No magician's hat here.
I have by now directed you to various Boeing pilots and aviation experts, whos "numbers" you for some reason don't believe, who have told you that it would be absolutely impossible to control the plane with such precision at such speed and altitude. But please provide the numbers from accreduted aeronautical institutions. You really want me to repost?
@wimahlers "No! I said that it was not the hijackers priority to give the passengers a comfortable ride."
And your point is? That given make them become supernatural?
And what I DID(!) show with my video references you laughed away is that "Boeings in general are remarkable agile airplanes ... assuming you disregard any passenger comfort!"
Fine Boeing videos. What has that to do with the matter being discussed. Was it a "Let's see some Boeings work" time off?
@wimahlers "I showed a rollover, a sharp 360 turn and an amazingly (almost) vertical ascend. But you did not understand."
I understood PERFECTLY that you didn't come up with the speed of the planes in your examples - which make me wonder why you want to bring these examples up.
Again you have closed your eyes to the links I have provided.
"In the mean time, game amateurs are having fun hitting high buildings all the time in flight simulators."
Game amateurs?? So ow we have gamers to "confirm" that a 767 easily go at 580mph aT 120--1100 ft in stead og having it confirmed by the "accredited aeronautical institutions" you always refer to? What a loon.
Do you want me to send the video "Pilots For 9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Attack" to the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses. So THEY are now those - after 10 years - who will confirm that standard 767's can easily go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable? Ok. You have an email?
Math is the lagnuage of physics. If your experts are correct, there should be loads or peer-reviwed articles in Aviation pubs confirming planes cant fly fast.
@EdgemanLL2 You had your answer. Not really my problem that you can't accept it. Just shows that your mad - as long as you can't have Boeing confirm that standard 767s easiliy do what Fl. 175 did.
@EdgemanLL2 The speeds, the precision, the impossibility of human pilots being able to pull it aff and the never matched parts is pretty much evidence.
@EdgemanLL2 When are you going to provide the Boeing-confirmation which backs that standard 767's can go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a pilot?
@EdgemanLL2 Fact is that Flight 175 went too fast for a standard 767 at that altitude and that such plane can't be controlled at such altitude unless bringing it down to landing speed.
Now I know where you got all(!) your information from. But you now have to boldly go where others have gone before. It is called: VERIFICATION. Good luck.
@wimahlers We're still wating for the verification from Boeing or other aeronautical institutions that standard 767 airliners ARE able to go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a human pilot - and thereby prove PF911T wrong.
Talking further of verifications: where's the VERIFICATION that:
- Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour piloted the 3 hit-planes
- That the planes that hit are those specific craft we've been told?
@Thetan1974 Let's keep it simple. I confirm that it flew 580 mph. Now PROOF(!) that it is impossible.
But if you refer to a source than it must me a properly VERIFIED(!) source. Verified by at least one accredited scientific institution with the proper subject matter knowledge.
If you think I ask too much then ... tough luck! That is how formal science works for and within every discipline of science. You have no privilege to exempt yourself. Nobody has.
- that it was the standard 767 Flight 175 was suppose to be
On top of that, we have now hundreds of Boeing pilots and aviation experts confirming that a standard 767 would be impossible to control at even 500mph at sea level. Nor would it withstand the air pressure at that speed.
Could you at least have Beoing or an other aeronautical institution confirm it? THEN we can go to what evidence you have for al-Shehhi piloting the plane.
@wimahlers "Let's keep it simple. I confirm that it flew 580 mph. Now PROOF(!) that it is impossible."
Another example from my book "YouTube Debunkers Gettin Really, Really Insane."
An anonymous person calling himself "wimahlers" on YouTube think thats his observation of what hit the south tower going 580mph equals an aeronautical institution's confirmation that standard 767's can go 580mph and stay controllable at 1200-1000ft.
@wimahlers Ok. So are YOU an aeronautical/aviation expert to confirm what Boeing should?
Verify what? Do YOU seriously believe that you're "verifying" that standard 767's go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a pilot by admitting that "Flight 175" went so fast? Do you spot just a glimpse of your own hypocritic and childish insanity here?
And again, I do not know the speeds of the airplane. What the NTSB (and lots of others) did was calculating an estimate. The estimate might even be correct. But, as I said before, it was not a level flight. And a pilot claiming impossible, based on another disaster (Egypt airway) is not convincing at all without VERIFICATION. Your claim, your duty to verify.
In the mean time, what about the engine found? JT9D .
@wimahlers "And again, I do not know the speeds of the airplane."
Really? Didn't you just admit that it was 580mph?
So, you doubt that NTSB has set the speed officially to 580mph?
"And a pilot claiming impossible, based on another disaster"
Again a proof that you don't read my links; It is NOT only "a pilot based on an other disaster." Jesus, you DON't watch the videos to avoid the truth, huh? It is SEVERAL pilots and aviation experts.
"So, you doubt that NTSB has set the speed officially to 580mph?"
.
No! I don't doubt that at all. This was the speed estimated based on the available video material. But, again:
The Boeing that impacted WTC2 had the standard JT9D type engines. You say the speed is impossible for a Boeing 767 with these type of engines. Claiming this you have to explain what made this Boeing go faster. So, again, what made this(!) Boeing allegedly fly beyond its speed limit? Answers?
"It is NOT only "a pilot based on an other disaster." ..."
.
But it was! ... The rest is just UNVERIFIED(!) technical mumbo jumbo to bedazzle the uninformed audiance. Again:
The Boeing that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines. If you claim that the speed is impossible for a Boeing 767 with these type of engines. then you have to explain what made this Boeing go faster. What made this(!) Boeing allegedly fly beyond its speed limit? Please answer?
PF911T used Egypt Air 990 to make some comparisons and calculations. Nothing wrong with those (or have your accredited institutions to confirm the errors. LET's see the debunking of their product. Come on.) And several other aviation experts and pilots agree without having compared to Egypt Air 990.
@wimahlers "... is not convincing at all without VERIFICATION."
So, you admit that your blind believe without any verification or evidence of "Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour" piloting the planes and the planes being those we've been told os your mere believe? Or is it in your world "verified" because Philip Zelikow said so?
I'm not talking engines in specific - nor is PF911T. They're talking standard 767's (and the engines they normally carry, regardless of what those are.)
"So, you admit that your blind believe without any verification or evidence of "Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour" piloting the planes "
.
No! I don't! That is based on evidence. Come on, we have been over this a half dozen timjes, the eye witness reports from the planes, the Hamburg link, the farewell letters and videos, other physical evidence and paper trails, the DNA confirmation, etc.
"I'm not talking engines in specific - nor is PF911T. They're talking standard 767's (and the engines they normally carry, regardless of what those are.)"
.
But you must(!) talk about the engines. It is at the root core of your claim. You accept that the Boeing that impacted was flying to fast for a commercial airlines. But this Boeing had the standard JT9D engines. And all video confirm that the plane shape was a standard Boeing 767. What made it fly faster? Answer.
@wimahlers Could you btw please provide that email so I can finally having the french institution confirm that standard/commercial 767s unproblematically go 580mph at 1200-1100 ft and stay controllable.
Your argument about the plane being in a dive is innane btw: It's the last seconds where it reached 1200-1100 feet we're talking about we're talking about. And along in the dive it would have severe problems with staying intact.
"Your argument about the plane being in a dive is innane "
.
That may very well be the case. I was just mentioning a plausible cause. I can mention another plausible cause: The NTSB calculation may still be incorrect. However, if you accept the speed and stll claim that it is impossible you have to explain the following:
The Boeing 767 that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines. If not the engines, what made this plane fly faster than possible? Please answer.
@wimahlers Further more: How do you know that the engines were STANDARD? Does the pictures alone tell? Or are you - once again - terrified of the investigation into the matter that would might make you want to give up your belief in your neo-religios "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" fairy tale (and maybe send you to the nuthouse)?
@wimahlers "The Boeing 767 that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines."
It did NOT have UNITED AIRLINES 767 standard engines. You REALLY need your pills, pal.
Again: watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE. 3:03-4:07. Now please do your homework, ok??
"The NTSB calculation may still be incorrect."
Of course you want to believe that because it supports your magical "Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour" theory. But hey - its from an OFFICIAL ACCREDITED AVIATION INSTITUTION. Are we going to doubt them now?
Still not VERIFYING your sources? Please do your homework, ok??
Here is an explict approval by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) of engines approved to be used by the 767 models, specifically the 767-200 model. It INCLUDES the JT9D-7 series! See:
tinyurl*com/82whlln
But, of course, I cannot say that UA175 did have this particular engine. But you are wrong about the fact that it cannot have these engines. So no mystery there.
@wimahlers Btw where's the email for that french aeronautical institution.
Btw, you have misunderstood what my purpose of contacting them would be. I am not going to talk conspiracy theories with them; All I want them to do is to confirm what NO aeronautical institution has yet confirmed: That standard/commercial 767's easily go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a pilot.
"Btw, you have misunderstood what my purpose of contacting them would be."
.
No, I understood you perfectly well!
That ias why I explicitly said that showing your biased conclussion based on a non-verified youtube source is not enough. But don't worry, they will either not respond or tell you so.
And, of course, you have to explain away the standard Pratt and Withney engine. Explain how an airplane with a standard engine could not do what you claim it could not do.
@wimahlers The calculations from PF911T are not "non-verified." Neither is it contradicted from ANY accredited aeronautical institution. Nor have any accredited aeronautical institution verified that 767's easily go 580mph at 1100ft and stay controllable.
And in this video there is an original aeronautical testing of what a Boeing craft can withsstand according to wind resistance: watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A
"Nor have any accredited aeronautical institution verified that 767's easily go 580mph at 1100ft and stay controllable."
.
No need to. UA175 showed it did. End of discussion.
And if you still claim it is impossible then you first have to solve the following riddle:
One of the engines found in the streets was a standard type engine for a Boeing 767. Which proves that the impacting Boeing had standard engines. Now, what made this(!) Boeing exceed the speed? Answer!
@wimahlers No need to? So in a sad attempt to end the dissusson you simply state that YOU are convinced that what hit the south tower was a standard UA 767?
Sorry dude. But it's not working. You're certainly NOT making the theory of al-Shehhi piloting that "standard" 767 more plausible than the hypothesis of a remote controlled and modified 767.
@wimahlers A little more of your lunacy to suggest that "Flight 175 did it - that proves that a standard 767 can do it" when we have NO confirmation from any aeronautical institution that 767's can do it or no verification form any pilot that he could do it an a standard 767.
Anothe 100% religious "I will NOT sail out to the abyss to see of it's there" attempt to decide what the truht is - simply built on your fear of it. You could have statet that "No need to" years ago.
Or are you frantically trying to find the cause of what made your Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines fly faster than the Boeing specs?
I say your Boeing, because you believe that the Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines was not UA175, a Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines. What made your Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines fly faster than any other Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines? What was the modification? Care to enlighten us?
@wimahlers "Or are you frantically trying to find the cause of what made your Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines fly faster than the Boeing specs?"
All I can do to find out about that is to have an investigation of the plane parts found. Get it? Still not? Hmm...
"I say your Boeing, because you believe that the Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines was not UA175,"
"I" say that what hit the south tower did NOT have standard UNITED AIRLINES engines. Still not doing your homework?
@wimahlers "What made your Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines fly faster than any other Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines?"
That was (at least) the 5th time you ask. I really recommend you to take your pills now, please. But I can give you the same answer again if you enjoy so much having it.
What made the plane go faster than a standard passenger 767 I cannot possibly know. See, that's what the investigation that you for some reason fear so deeply will hopefully tell.
"that's what the investigation that you for some reason fear so deeply will hopefully tell."
.
Wrong! First you have to provide a plausible suggestion to investigate. You provided none.
So far you admitted a) that the plane that hit WTC2 was a Boeing and b) you don't deny it had the standard engines.
But then you deny it was UA175 even though passenger remains were found in the rubble. Your scenario is NOT consistent and therefore does NOT justify an investigation.
"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
@wimahlers Again, this research proves that what hit the tower did not have standard UNITED AIRLINES 767's engines: watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE. 3:03-4:07. Now please do your homework, ok?
More from the book "YouTube Debunkers Getting Really, Really Insane":
"Now, what made this(!) Boeing exceed the speed? Answer!"
Err, that's what we want that investigation to show. Noone have said it was necessarily the engines. Get it, nutcase? Huh? Still not? Of course not.
@wimahlers More excerpts from the Book "YouTube Debunkers Getting Really, Really Insane."
"No need to. UA175 showed it did. End of discussion."
A sign of religiously feeded madness: What the "debunker" is actually is trying to force on us is that what hit the south tower went 580mph at sea level RULES out that it was remote controlled. At the same times the plane's hit itself proves it was piloted by a terrorist according to the debunker.
These people are going to need doctors badly one day.
"that what hit the south tower went 580mph at sea level RULES out that it was remote controlled"
.
I don't rule out anything. But the fact remains that many of the passengers remains were recovered from the WTC site and DNA identified. And remote control does not explain your speded claim. So, again:
The Boeing 767 that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines. If not the engines, what made this plane fly faster than possible? Please answer.
@Thetan1974 Oh, and please do mind providing context. Because the following is what you ABSOLUTELY belief:
UA175 showed it did. End of discussion.
Meaning - AND NOW IN CONTEXT! - you absolutely believe that the plane that hit WTC2 was flying 580 mph. In fact, you insist it did!
The only difference between you and me is that I call this plane "UA175". And you claim it is another Boeing 767. But a 767 with the same standard JT9D engines. So, how could THIS plane fly faster? Explain!
@wimahlers "And, of course, you have to explain away the standard Pratt and Withney engine."
What are you talking about?
"Explain how an airplane with a standard engine could not do what you claim it could not do."
It is, for the 34th time or so, perfectly explained in the PF911T's documentary "World Trade Center Attack" where they avoid speculating too much in engines.
Here is the engine found in the streets. It is a JT9D type engine.
tinyurl*com/7r3mdrp
Undamaged: tinyurl*com/34qas2
And here is a reference to the type of engines used by a 767. It includes the JT9D type.
tinyurl*com/hd8q4
UA175 was a Boeing 767!
Now here is your problem. If, as you claim, the plane flew to fast than what made it fly faster than normal if it had the engines normally used by a 767 (Note: the JT9D is also used by the 747). Please explain!
But, of course, you have to do more than just sending a youtube reference!
You have to send a reference with the technical details of the investigation, which is relatively easy! All you have to do is refer to the proper NTSB investigations. You can find such references at ntsb(dot)gov
Here is an example, see: tinyurl*com/6mj82bo (on the flight path)
What you say is that it could be done because the terrorists didn't care about flying rules? Seriously, now you're getting reeealy insane. That means that I can get into a formula 1 car and beat all of the greatest drivers because I don't know what the limits of the car is and what it is capable of??
"What you say is that it could be done because the terrorists didn't care about flying rules?"
.
No! I said that it was not the hijackers priority to give the passengers a comfortable ride.
And what I DID(!) show with my video references you laughed away is that Boeings in general are remarkable agile airplanes ... assuming you disregard any passenger comfort!
I showed a rollover, a sharp 360 turn and an amazingly (almost) vertical ascend. But you did not understand.
As long as no standard 767 has been proven to be able to do it, as long as no real pilot have been able to do it and as long as no "accredited institution" - like e.g. Boeing - has come out and confirmed that it COULD be done while PROVING that it could, the hypothesis of RC'd modified Boeings stands.
And what is the speed of the plane? It's btw only going straight forward which has btw nothing to do with hitting a target as a skyscraper. Remember that hit is 50% of the problem here.
Err, again was THAT plane going 570-80mph?? Are you a complete jerk? Seriously? What has perfectly normal legal flying to do with 9/11? You even just "confirmed" that the terrorist was able to pull their magic flying due to "not caring about the rules" - and then you compare THAT to what you just showed?
Well yeah! As to speed they are(!) indeed flimsy examples! I fully admit!
But here is your problem, no truther has ever presented anything better than my examples. Truthers have nothing. Dust and thermite? Totally unconvincing! As eloquently explained by Dr. Greening. See: tinyurl*com/ndzcjc
BTW,, the videos I showed were not speed only! I specifically mentioned the steep 360 degrees turn and steep ascend. Context is bitch, ain't it!
@wimahlers Are you claiming that a standard 767 has been confirmed to go 580mph at sea level and still be controlled, because no " aviation company, institution etc." has said that it couldn't?
@wimahlers DNA can of course have been faked; where are the matchings? But if not, this implys that the passengers were actually on the craft used - whatever craft they were.
@wimahlers d) "body parts and personal belongings were planted on crash sites." THere were no personal belongins on the scenes of the Pentagon and WTC - oh, besides the
Before we continue I have to tell that I can sometimes only respiond with up to 200 letters. That's not optimal. So after a couple of prepared comments, I will return later.
@wimahlers "What is sad about it is..." that FEMA, NIST, USGS or anybody else have failed to explain what the (nano) thermitical substance is and how it has emerged - since it according to you could not be nanothermite, a secret military incendiary-weapon.
As long as NOone has explained from where such a substance naturally originates or what it truly is - if not nanothermite - Harrit et al got the only substantial hypothesis about it.
@Thetan1974 Greening explained that the exsperiment was sloppy ... to say the least.
Some other scientists confirmed this as well. And many of the same, if not all, did not see anything remotely proved to be any derivative of thermite.
I also mentioned the low ignition point from Harrit's own report. Very unlike any known derivative of thermite.
And no! Nobody has to proof something that it is not. You are the claimant, it is your duty to prove that it is what you claim it is.
ctcole is a fucking shill, he is a government bitch.LOL IF YOU HAVE A HALF A BRAIN YOU KNOW THE OBVIOUS THAT 9/11 WAS A N INSIDE JOB.3 TOWERS WERE TAKEN OUT BY 2 PLANES.BUIDLING 7 CAME DOWN LIKE A CONTROLED DEMOLITION.BUIDLING 7 WAS REPORTED GOING DOWN BY THE BBC 20 MINUITES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY DID.A PASSPORT SURVIVED THE WRECKAGE.THE TWIN TOWERS REPRESNETED THE PILLARS OF SOLOMONS TEMPLE. 9/11 WAS A MEGA RITUAL AND DONT YOU FIND IT STRANGE HOW THE NUMBER YOU RING IN AN EMERGENCY IS ........ 911?
you can't deny 9/11 served as the perfect excuse to invade 2 countries, loot their resources, and create a genocide on innocent people, not to mention the start of the "war on terror" creating laws that destroy many of people's liberties. They let it happen, that's what i'm also trying to say, either way, our government got 3000 americans killed and knew that it would happen. Just as bad as putting bombs in the WTC.
if you think that all ''911 truthers'' think exactly the same and share the opinions that you seem to think we have, you seem very narrow minded. where are you getting these crazy ideas from?
MaDMAnHD3 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
"You're hereby going to INSANE extence to avoid the possibility of modified remote controlled Boeings."
.
To use your words ... refitting a Boeing to be a high speed remotely controlled projectile is 50% of your problem.
Details please on how this feat can(!) be accomplished. If you cannot walk the talk then you have seriously lost it. Seriously.
wimahlers 1 week ago
Comment removed
wimahlers 1 week ago
C.
Couldn't have put it in better words myself.
Javis586 1 week ago
@wimahlers Interesting. We're looking forward for them to confirm that standard 767's are able to both go at 580mph at sea level and still be controllable.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974,
.
"We're looking forward for them to confirm that standard 767's are able to both go at 580mph at sea level and still be controllable."
.
The hijackers did not need to control the plane. All the had to do was not to miss a huge buiding. Top, bottom, left, right, half way, in an angle ... all that did not matter, as long as they hit the buildings. And they did.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers "I appeal to known respected and accredited institution who seem to be correct on every investigation they perform..."
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "And I don't appeal to authority."
And you're not a koo-koo who lie to yourself either. Of course not.
It's a little late to you, isn't it?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers What YOU must explain to debunk Harrit/Jones is what the located substance is, if not nano thermite; If you claim that earth is flat, you must beat the hypothesis of it being round.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Nope! You never have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove god does not exist and I don't have to prove the dust is not thermite. Moving on...
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimalhlers "Harrit must first explain the low ignition point."
Harrit cannot explain secret military prior to 2002 nanothermite as long as it is been blocked from being investigated.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 So Harrit is a chemist who does not understasnd chemistry? Extraordinary!
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "So Harrit is a chemist who does not understasnd chemistry? Extraordinary!"
You just keep telling yourself that if that gives you comfort.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
wimahlers' koo-koo "logic".
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Let me summarize...
The alternative plane you mention, a KC 767, has the exact flight caracteristics as the UA175 767-222. Then you claim that the plane that hit WTC2 was modified. However, you are unclear, that is you did not mention at all, what exactly is different about whatever you claim is different about the plane discussed.
Stronger engines? What engines?Name it! However, a stronger engine does not change the aerodynamics. And you totally ignore the decent.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 You also totally ignore the FACT that many WWII fighter airplanes were ALSO flying faster than their given maximum speeds.
They can fly faster for the exact same FACT as the Boeing hitting WTC2, and I emphasize: IT WAS NOT A LEVEL FLIGHT BUT A DECENT.
I don't know how to be any clearer than that. But, given your history, I expect you to either ignore and deny this fact.
Another tiny detail: The hijackers had no regards for safety. At appears UA175 was on full trottle.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers "Nope! You never have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove god does not exist…"
Noone ever proved god existence by a peer reviewed scientific report.
So far it's proven in peer reviewed report that it is a thermitic not-naturally-occuring-in-buildings substance never seen in public before. If it is NOT, you have to show what it IS. As simple" as that.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "The alternative plane you mention, a KC 767, has the exact flight caracteristics as the UA175 767-222."
Interesting - so according to you it could might as well be such a plane disguised as a standard 767-200?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "Then you claim that the plane that hit WTC2 was modified."
To be able to handle that kind of speed at that altitude without breaking apart. Not at all unclear.
"What engines? Name it! Mommie! If the evil troofer can't name the engines, that means that al-Shehhi flew it and and that it WAS the real Flight 175, right mommie?!"
Look and listen carefully @2:49-4:06. watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE
I still can't name what is covered up. Get it?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "However, a stronger engine does not change the aerodynamics. And you totally ignore the decent."
Well, it was actually YOU who brought up the engine matter. I never said that it was part of modifying the aerodynamics. But funny enough, you brought up yet another matter that points directly to the cover up and the inside job. Thank you.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "You also totally ignore the FACT that many WWII fighter airplanes were ALSO flying faster than their given maximum speeds.
They can fly faster for the exact same FACT as the Boeing hitting WTC2…"
I'm waiting for your "accredited institutions" to come out and compare WWII fighter jets with Flight 175 and confirm that a Boeing 767 can both go THAT much over its max limits and stay controllable at 1100ft.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "...and I emphasize: IT WAS NOT A LEVEL FLIGHT BUT A DECENT."
And i emphasize to you that even though it was descenting it was already way beyond how fast a standard 767 is able to go even some hundred feet before it went down to the last 1200-1100ft. And the most notable about the steering is the last left turn directing the plane so it hit the tower precisely. 100% impossible for a human pilot.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 100% false.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@wimahlers Another tiny detail: There is NO evidence of any hijackers flying the planes. Regardless of what they had no regards of it doesn't give them supernatural powers over standard airliners.
"At appears UA175 was on full trottle."
Yep - which would make it break apart in mid air before it could reach the tower.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 "which would make it break apart in mid air before it could reach the tower."
Based on what?
Show your work.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 - claiming that the 9/11 Commission and NIST bibles tell the truth about 9/11 = 100% false.
MY work? I'm not the expert. PF911T and their sources happen to be the experts. Feel free to point out what in their documentary "World Trade Center Attack" is wrong and then find the accredited Boeing and aviation specialists who will claim - based on credible data and experiments - that standard 767's are capable of going 580mph at 1200-1100 ft and still stay controllable.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 "I'm not the expert."
Translation: "I have no idea what Im talking about. I just heard it on the internet. And since I dont know what Im talking about, it could be 100% bullshit for all I know. But I just blindly repeat it as fact with no REAL idea that its true or not!!"
This is why noone takes you fuxheads seriously.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Of course I have "no idea" of what I'm talking about when I refer to Boeing and avaiation experts who characterize the manouvres of most notably Flight 175 - but actually all 3 hit-Boeings - as impossible for standard 767s/757s and/or impossible for human pilots.
EdgemanLL2 must be an insider - or else he TOO is just blindly believing in what the 9/11 Ommission and NIST reports tell us. Otherwise you're totally contradicting yourself.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 "Of course I have "no idea" of what I'm talking about"
Which is why you CANT blindly say "p4911twoofies are right!"
you must be a moron. Too blindly believing internet rumors. lol
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Btw we're looking forward to hear from the aeronautical and Boeing experts who can confirm that a standard 767s do easily go like UA Flight 175 did and are easily controlled. We have to know that from someone who know what they're talking about, don't we?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Only probl em Kooks make the claim, its up to Kooks to prove it.
So unless U can show me Boeing test pilots saying "the plane is uncontrolable at that speed," YOU FAIL
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 "And since I dont know what Im talking about, it could be 100% bullshit for all I know. But I just blindly repeat it as fact with no REAL idea that its true or not!!"
Interesting. Head 9/11 Commission reporter admit that it is more or less bull in their report: watch?v=MeWDc4kRd90
I'm looking forward hear from the pilots and aviation experts who can disprove the findings and statements of Deets, Furnee, Stanish et al and come out and prove what noone knew about standard 767s.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 So, STILL NOTHING from Beeing Test pilots backing up your bullshit?
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
Boeing
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdgemanLL2 So now you're claiming that it must take a Boeing TEST pilot to detirmine wether a 767 would be uncontrollable at that speed and altitude, just because it happens that no test pilot is amongst the hundreds of Boeing pilots, aviation and aeronautical experts who signed the 2 petitions? Moving the goalposts of hypocricy there, eh.
Let's see the Boeing test pilots who come out and defend the claim that a 767 can go 580mph at 1200-1100 ft and still be controllable, ok?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974,
.
"There is NO evidence of any hijackers flying the planes"
.
Except for the plane witnessesphone calls, the ATC recordings, the AT&T recordings, the NORAD recordings, physical evidence found in the hijackers hotel room, the Hamburg connection and evidence of it, the farewell letters and farewell videos of the hijackers, there odd behavior at the flight schools, the physical evidence found and a lot of other tits of and tats you all deny, there was indeed nothing.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@Thetan1974,
.
"Yep - which would make it break apart in mid air before it could reach the tower."
(on UA175 flying full trottle).
.
Boeing would be surprised to hear that hitting the gas pedal, so to speak of, disintegrates their airplanes.
What you still are not realising is that commercial pilots are not allowed to take fast curves, quick ascends and decends, high G's ... and all that. Because it does not improve the passengers flying experience. But it does not mean it can't!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Yes. Theta the moron is under the idiotic impression that planes arent designed to go fast.
LOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Here is a Boeing 737 doing exactly what you claim is impossible:
High speed and high G at ground level.
watch?v=HGbwtAPio5E
Look at the climbing rate of the following Boeing 757. It does not desintegrate!
watch?v=fYZOByowrlU
The next video looks like an "impossible" low level 360 turn (think flight AA77).
watch?v=etFKcl7LyTc
And if you think it is only true for new Boeings see a 707:
watch?v=KLlWvr6jPRw
... and these are just a few examples.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers "Boeing would be surprised to hear that hitting the gas pedal, so to speak of, disintegrates their airplanes."
Then show me their surprise now that you are so sure. Let's finally have it from a Boeing spokesman who can finally debunk all the experts who have spoken up for 9/11 truth.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974,
.
"Let's finally have it from a Boeing spokesman who can finally debunk all the experts who have spoken up for 9/11 truth."
.
No! Why should anybody respond to every absurdity uttered by gullible ignorant people? That would be a day job!
Don't be lazy, verify your own claim. Your claim is not true because it evokes a stoically silence. Your claim is met with a stoically silence because it is not worth responding to.
But feel free to present your claim at, e.g., the NTSB.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers "What you still are not realising is that commercial pilots are not allowed to take fast curves, quick ascends and defends,"
Look man, you're truly gettingI INSANE here. You're trying to argue that because they're not allowed to, terrorists with no hours of flying a commercial jet are able to do what the real pilots cannot do?? Seriously?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974,
.
"You're trying to argue that because they're not allowed to, terrorists with no hours of flying a commercial jet are able to do what the real pilots cannot do?? "
.
No!
What I was and am saying is that the hijackers did what commercial pilots are NOT alllowed(!) to do.
And I did show with my video references what a Boeing is capable of if and when you ARE allowed(!) to do.
Again, passengers safety and comfort is a pilot's but not a hijackers first priority.
Seriously!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Let's try it again: The REAL trained pilots have tried numerous times to make what Atta and al-shehhi did in simulators. Of course they didn't go "Oh, I'm a real pilot. So I guess I have to respect the rules of flying!" You're basically nuts arguing that. Numerous of them have tried WITH the respected speeds and the respective altitude, and it cannot be done.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974,
.
"The REAL trained pilots have tried numerous times to make what Atta and al-shehhi did in simulators"
.
So you claim. In the mean time, game amateurs are having fun hitting high buildings all the time in flight simulators.
What do you say!?! Flight simulator is not the same as the $10,000,000 setup pilots train in? You are absolutely right! That accounts for a more realistic environment. However, Environment-less computer flight simulators are surprisingly realistic.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"The REAL trained pilots have tried numerous times to make what Atta and al-shehhi did in simulators. "
.
Let's try it again...
So you claim! Feel free to present your case at the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA), That is the French equivalent of the NTSB.
But,, no doubt, you are going to claim now that they too are part of the conspiracy!
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "I suspect you pulled them straight out of your hat."
No magician's hat here.
I have by now directed you to various Boeing pilots and aviation experts, whos "numbers" you for some reason don't believe, who have told you that it would be absolutely impossible to control the plane with such precision at such speed and altitude. But please provide the numbers from accreduted aeronautical institutions. You really want me to repost?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "No! I said that it was not the hijackers priority to give the passengers a comfortable ride."
And your point is? That given make them become supernatural?
And what I DID(!) show with my video references you laughed away is that "Boeings in general are remarkable agile airplanes ... assuming you disregard any passenger comfort!"
Fine Boeing videos. What has that to do with the matter being discussed. Was it a "Let's see some Boeings work" time off?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "I showed a rollover, a sharp 360 turn and an amazingly (almost) vertical ascend. But you did not understand."
I understood PERFECTLY that you didn't come up with the speed of the planes in your examples - which make me wonder why you want to bring these examples up.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "So you claim."
Again you have closed your eyes to the links I have provided.
"In the mean time, game amateurs are having fun hitting high buildings all the time in flight simulators."
Game amateurs?? So ow we have gamers to "confirm" that a 767 easily go at 580mph aT 120--1100 ft in stead og having it confirmed by the "accredited aeronautical institutions" you always refer to? What a loon.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "What do you say!?! Flight simulator is not the same as the $10,000,000 setup pilots train in?"
Show me the aeronautical institution that confirms that the simulator and the real thing are that different. From what hat did you pull THOSE numbers?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers
Do you want me to send the video "Pilots For 9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Attack" to the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses. So THEY are now those - after 10 years - who will confirm that standard 767's can easily go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable? Ok. You have an email?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"Do you want me to send the video "Pilots For 9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Attack" to the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses."
.
YES!
Here is their address:
BEA – REC Zone Sud, Bâtiment 153, 200 rue de Paris Aéroport du Bourget - 93352, Le Bourget
But be prepared to be disappointed! Your premature and personal conclusion is likely not shared by this agency.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Thanks, but I asked for an email.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974
.
"Thanks, but I asked for an email"
.
That would be:
rec@bea-fr.org
wimahlers 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 So, still nothing from Boeing backing up your pure bullshit that planes cant fly fast?
Why am I not surprised?
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Eh, did I ever claim that "planes can't fly fast"?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 So thats a NO. Boeing nas never supported your kookspiratard bullshit.
Thanks!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 So Where did Boeing support that standard 767's can easily go 580mph at 1100mph and stay controllable for a pilot?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 YOU make the claim Kook. YOU have to prove it true. No one has to disprove you.
Boeing back up your bullshit yet? No?
Just like your sex life--EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 No, aviation experts and Boeing pilots make the "claim."
No back-up from Boeing to discredit them?
Why am i not surprised.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 So, where is their math?
Math is the lagnuage of physics. If your experts are correct, there should be loads or peer-reviwed articles in Aviation pubs confirming planes cant fly fast.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Where's the math? Right here: watch?v=Eg_GArE7UBQ
But of course you insanely will claim therse truthers "liars" being the kook you are.
Bring the Boeing confirmation i have requested, ok?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 sorry retard. "I saw it on YT so its gotta be true" isnt peer-reviewed.
If they are right, theyve passed peer review. So link to the Av-pubs that puslished their findings. ok?
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 You had your answer. Not really my problem that you can't accept it. Just shows that your mad - as long as you can't have Boeing confirm that standard 767s easiliy do what Fl. 175 did.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 "You had your answer--there is ZERO evidence to back up my claims. Thats why I use YT videos instead of creible sources!"
Yes. I got that answer. Loud and clear! Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 The speeds, the precision, the impossibility of human pilots being able to pull it aff and the never matched parts is pretty much evidence.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 When are you going to provide the Boeing-confirmation which backs that standard 767's can go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a pilot?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 "Thats why I use YT videos..."
Oh dear, an other wiped out debunker "joker"; Facts are facts, nomatter what player presents it.
Seriously, that argument is (also) insane. Insane...
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Yep. Facts are facts. and the FACT is that if it hasnt passed peer review, it has ZERO credibility. Its merely an appeal to authority.
Kooks = FAIL!!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Fact is that Flight 175 went too fast for a standard 767 at that altitude and that such plane can't be controlled at such altitude unless bringing it down to landing speed.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 The FACT is you have no credible basis FOR that claim.
Period!
"I saw it on YT its gotta be true!" LOLOLOL. fuxing morons.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 But if you disagree, show the Boeing confirmation that discredit the findings from PF911T.
Where's you evidence btw that al-Shehhi did it?
That the plane really WAS Flight 175?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
watch?v=WqVdESOo6D4
Thetan says "this is proof we were attacked by alien moose on 911. Its on YT its gotta be true! Imma fuxing idiot!" LMGDAOOOO
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 You keep going at it with the "it's in YouTube" argument? Not grasping how insane you are? Attack the content - not the player.
"If you show a video of 2 + 2 equals 4 and it's on YouTube, it is NOT true - because it's on YouTube!"
EdgemanLL2 - on YouTube
From the book "YouTube-debunkers Getting Really, Really insane."
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 watch?v=Eg_GArE7UBQ
Now I know where you got all(!) your information from. But you now have to boldly go where others have gone before. It is called: VERIFICATION. Good luck.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers We're still wating for the verification from Boeing or other aeronautical institutions that standard 767 airliners ARE able to go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a human pilot - and thereby prove PF911T wrong.
Talking further of verifications: where's the VERIFICATION that:
- Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour piloted the 3 hit-planes
- That the planes that hit are those specific craft we've been told?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Let's keep it simple. I confirm that it flew 580 mph. Now PROOF(!) that it is impossible.
But if you refer to a source than it must me a properly VERIFIED(!) source. Verified by at least one accredited scientific institution with the proper subject matter knowledge.
If you think I ask too much then ... tough luck! That is how formal science works for and within every discipline of science. You have no privilege to exempt yourself. Nobody has.
Good luck!
wimahlers 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers You DIN't confirm that:
- al-Shehhi piloted it
- that it was the standard 767 Flight 175 was suppose to be
On top of that, we have now hundreds of Boeing pilots and aviation experts confirming that a standard 767 would be impossible to control at even 500mph at sea level. Nor would it withstand the air pressure at that speed.
Could you at least have Beoing or an other aeronautical institution confirm it? THEN we can go to what evidence you have for al-Shehhi piloting the plane.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "Let's keep it simple. I confirm that it flew 580 mph. Now PROOF(!) that it is impossible."
Another example from my book "YouTube Debunkers Gettin Really, Really Insane."
An anonymous person calling himself "wimahlers" on YouTube think thats his observation of what hit the south tower going 580mph equals an aeronautical institution's confirmation that standard 767's can go 580mph and stay controllable at 1200-1000ft.
Koo-koo.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974,
.
"An anonymous person calling himself "wimahlers" "
.
Again, VERIFY!
If you had done so you would have known that I am NOT anonymous.
Read my profile. With your rather biased statement you are trying to create yet another consipracy.
So, again, VERIFY!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Ok. So are YOU an aeronautical/aviation expert to confirm what Boeing should?
Verify what? Do YOU seriously believe that you're "verifying" that standard 767's go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a pilot by admitting that "Flight 175" went so fast? Do you spot just a glimpse of your own hypocritic and childish insanity here?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 By the way...
And again, I do not know the speeds of the airplane. What the NTSB (and lots of others) did was calculating an estimate. The estimate might even be correct. But, as I said before, it was not a level flight. And a pilot claiming impossible, based on another disaster (Egypt airway) is not convincing at all without VERIFICATION. Your claim, your duty to verify.
In the mean time, what about the engine found? JT9D .
What is your explanation?
Explain!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers "And again, I do not know the speeds of the airplane."
Really? Didn't you just admit that it was 580mph?
So, you doubt that NTSB has set the speed officially to 580mph?
"And a pilot claiming impossible, based on another disaster"
Again a proof that you don't read my links; It is NOT only "a pilot based on an other disaster." Jesus, you DON't watch the videos to avoid the truth, huh? It is SEVERAL pilots and aviation experts.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"So, you doubt that NTSB has set the speed officially to 580mph?"
.
No! I don't doubt that at all. This was the speed estimated based on the available video material. But, again:
The Boeing that impacted WTC2 had the standard JT9D type engines. You say the speed is impossible for a Boeing 767 with these type of engines. Claiming this you have to explain what made this Boeing go faster. So, again, what made this(!) Boeing allegedly fly beyond its speed limit? Answers?
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974
.
"It is NOT only "a pilot based on an other disaster." ..."
.
But it was! ... The rest is just UNVERIFIED(!) technical mumbo jumbo to bedazzle the uninformed audiance. Again:
The Boeing that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines. If you claim that the speed is impossible for a Boeing 767 with these type of engines. then you have to explain what made this Boeing go faster. What made this(!) Boeing allegedly fly beyond its speed limit? Please answer?
wimahlers 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers AGAIN:
watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A @00:59
NOT based on "another disaster".
innworldreport. net/inn/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2800
NOT based on "another disaster".
PF911T used Egypt Air 990 to make some comparisons and calculations. Nothing wrong with those (or have your accredited institutions to confirm the errors. LET's see the debunking of their product. Come on.) And several other aviation experts and pilots agree without having compared to Egypt Air 990.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "... is not convincing at all without VERIFICATION."
So, you admit that your blind believe without any verification or evidence of "Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour" piloting the planes and the planes being those we've been told os your mere believe? Or is it in your world "verified" because Philip Zelikow said so?
I'm not talking engines in specific - nor is PF911T. They're talking standard 767's (and the engines they normally carry, regardless of what those are.)
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"So, you admit that your blind believe without any verification or evidence of "Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour" piloting the planes "
.
No! I don't! That is based on evidence. Come on, we have been over this a half dozen timjes, the eye witness reports from the planes, the Hamburg link, the farewell letters and videos, other physical evidence and paper trails, the DNA confirmation, etc.
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974
.
"I'm not talking engines in specific - nor is PF911T. They're talking standard 767's (and the engines they normally carry, regardless of what those are.)"
.
But you must(!) talk about the engines. It is at the root core of your claim. You accept that the Boeing that impacted was flying to fast for a commercial airlines. But this Boeing had the standard JT9D engines. And all video confirm that the plane shape was a standard Boeing 767. What made it fly faster? Answer.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Could you btw please provide that email so I can finally having the french institution confirm that standard/commercial 767s unproblematically go 580mph at 1200-1100 ft and stay controllable.
Your argument about the plane being in a dive is innane btw: It's the last seconds where it reached 1200-1100 feet we're talking about we're talking about. And along in the dive it would have severe problems with staying intact.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"Your argument about the plane being in a dive is innane "
.
That may very well be the case. I was just mentioning a plausible cause. I can mention another plausible cause: The NTSB calculation may still be incorrect. However, if you accept the speed and stll claim that it is impossible you have to explain the following:
The Boeing 767 that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines. If not the engines, what made this plane fly faster than possible? Please answer.
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "If not the engines, what made this plane fly faster than possible?"
Oh my god, the INSANE "debunker" ask that same question again? You are simply loosing it, pal!
I guess I have to repeat. (It will be interesting to see how many times):
That's what we want that investigation to show. Noone have said it was necessarily the engines. Get it, nutcase? Huh? Still not? Of course not.
So I guess you DIDN't take your pills?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"Noone have said it was necessarily the engines"
.
Given the same environmental conditions a plane can fly faster for only 2 reasons:
1. Aerodynamics.
2. More powerful engines.
But you agree it was a Boeing 767 and you can't deny the engine found. A standard JT9D engine.
Meaning, we have the same type of Boeing as UA175 (an 767) and the same type of engines (JT9D).
And that is your unsolvable contradiction! The way out is easy. The speed of this 767 is NOT impossible.
wimahlers 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "Given the same environmental conditions a plane can fly faster for only 2 reasons:
1. Aerodynamics.
2. More powerful engines."
Good. Let's have the investigation that will show what was modified on this plane.
"...you agree it was a Boeing 767 and you can't deny the engine found. A standard JT9D engine."
I agree that the engine was what is usually used on a 747 and could thereby not be a (standard) UA 767.
I'm asking for investigation to also answer YOUR questions. Why aren't you?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers Further more: How do you know that the engines were STANDARD? Does the pictures alone tell? Or are you - once again - terrified of the investigation into the matter that would might make you want to give up your belief in your neo-religios "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" fairy tale (and maybe send you to the nuthouse)?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "The Boeing 767 that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines."
It did NOT have UNITED AIRLINES 767 standard engines. You REALLY need your pills, pal.
Again: watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE. 3:03-4:07. Now please do your homework, ok??
"The NTSB calculation may still be incorrect."
Of course you want to believe that because it supports your magical "Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour" theory. But hey - its from an OFFICIAL ACCREDITED AVIATION INSTITUTION. Are we going to doubt them now?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974
.
"watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE. 3:03-4:07."
.
Still not VERIFYING your sources? Please do your homework, ok??
Here is an explict approval by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) of engines approved to be used by the 767 models, specifically the 767-200 model. It INCLUDES the JT9D-7 series! See:
tinyurl*com/82whlln
But, of course, I cannot say that UA175 did have this particular engine. But you are wrong about the fact that it cannot have these engines. So no mystery there.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Btw where's the email for that french aeronautical institution.
Btw, you have misunderstood what my purpose of contacting them would be. I am not going to talk conspiracy theories with them; All I want them to do is to confirm what NO aeronautical institution has yet confirmed: That standard/commercial 767's easily go 580mph at sea level and stay controllable to a pilot.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974.
.
"Btw, you have misunderstood what my purpose of contacting them would be."
.
No, I understood you perfectly well!
That ias why I explicitly said that showing your biased conclussion based on a non-verified youtube source is not enough. But don't worry, they will either not respond or tell you so.
And, of course, you have to explain away the standard Pratt and Withney engine. Explain how an airplane with a standard engine could not do what you claim it could not do.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers The calculations from PF911T are not "non-verified." Neither is it contradicted from ANY accredited aeronautical institution. Nor have any accredited aeronautical institution verified that 767's easily go 580mph at 1100ft and stay controllable.
And in this video there is an original aeronautical testing of what a Boeing craft can withsstand according to wind resistance: watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A
THAT's VERIFICATION.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"Nor have any accredited aeronautical institution verified that 767's easily go 580mph at 1100ft and stay controllable."
.
No need to. UA175 showed it did. End of discussion.
And if you still claim it is impossible then you first have to solve the following riddle:
One of the engines found in the streets was a standard type engine for a Boeing 767. Which proves that the impacting Boeing had standard engines. Now, what made this(!) Boeing exceed the speed? Answer!
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers No need to? So in a sad attempt to end the dissusson you simply state that YOU are convinced that what hit the south tower was a standard UA 767?
Sorry dude. But it's not working. You're certainly NOT making the theory of al-Shehhi piloting that "standard" 767 more plausible than the hypothesis of a remote controlled and modified 767.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers A little more of your lunacy to suggest that "Flight 175 did it - that proves that a standard 767 can do it" when we have NO confirmation from any aeronautical institution that 767's can do it or no verification form any pilot that he could do it an a standard 767.
Anothe 100% religious "I will NOT sail out to the abyss to see of it's there" attempt to decide what the truht is - simply built on your fear of it. You could have statet that "No need to" years ago.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
Thetan1974 Are you still there?
Or are you frantically trying to find the cause of what made your Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines fly faster than the Boeing specs?
I say your Boeing, because you believe that the Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines was not UA175, a Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines. What made your Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines fly faster than any other Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines? What was the modification? Care to enlighten us?
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "Or are you frantically trying to find the cause of what made your Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines fly faster than the Boeing specs?"
All I can do to find out about that is to have an investigation of the plane parts found. Get it? Still not? Hmm...
"I say your Boeing, because you believe that the Boeing 767 with the standard JT9D engines was not UA175,"
"I" say that what hit the south tower did NOT have standard UNITED AIRLINES engines. Still not doing your homework?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "What made your Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines fly faster than any other Boeing 767 with standard JT9D engines?"
That was (at least) the 5th time you ask. I really recommend you to take your pills now, please. But I can give you the same answer again if you enjoy so much having it.
What made the plane go faster than a standard passenger 767 I cannot possibly know. See, that's what the investigation that you for some reason fear so deeply will hopefully tell.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974
.
"that's what the investigation that you for some reason fear so deeply will hopefully tell."
.
Wrong! First you have to provide a plausible suggestion to investigate. You provided none.
So far you admitted a) that the plane that hit WTC2 was a Boeing and b) you don't deny it had the standard engines.
But then you deny it was UA175 even though passenger remains were found in the rubble. Your scenario is NOT consistent and therefore does NOT justify an investigation.
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More excerpts from the book "YouTube Debunkers Getting Really, Really Nuts":
[Screen shots of comments under the video "FINAL JEOPARDY for 9/11 TRUTH: #1" on 2/23/2012]
Notice how the "debunker" Wim (Ahlers?) keeps on like an insane to ask the same question, which only the investigation that he opposes, wil answer.
"What made the plane go faster?"
"What made the plane go faster?"
"What made the plane go faster?"
"What made the plane go faster?"
"What made the plane go faster?"
Mental problems?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants
"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 18 hours ago
@ctcole77 So Millette couldn't find what FEMA, USGS and RJ Lee have found?
Interesting "debunking." I wonder from where he got HIS dust samples from.
Thetan1974 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers Again, this research proves that what hit the tower did not have standard UNITED AIRLINES 767's engines: watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE. 3:03-4:07. Now please do your homework, ok?
More from the book "YouTube Debunkers Getting Really, Really Insane":
"Now, what made this(!) Boeing exceed the speed? Answer!"
Err, that's what we want that investigation to show. Noone have said it was necessarily the engines. Get it, nutcase? Huh? Still not? Of course not.
Time for your pills.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers More excerpts from the Book "YouTube Debunkers Getting Really, Really Insane."
"No need to. UA175 showed it did. End of discussion."
A sign of religiously feeded madness: What the "debunker" is actually is trying to force on us is that what hit the south tower went 580mph at sea level RULES out that it was remote controlled. At the same times the plane's hit itself proves it was piloted by a terrorist according to the debunker.
These people are going to need doctors badly one day.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
.
"that what hit the south tower went 580mph at sea level RULES out that it was remote controlled"
.
I don't rule out anything. But the fact remains that many of the passengers remains were recovered from the WTC site and DNA identified. And remote control does not explain your speded claim. So, again:
The Boeing 767 that impacted WTC2 had standard JT9D engines. If not the engines, what made this plane fly faster than possible? Please answer.
Will you ever answer?
wimahlers 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "Will you ever answer?"
Man. You have seriously lost it.
Will you ever be able to accept that the official story is a scripted, unproven and physics-defying lie?
And if you do, will you be able to stay sane...?
Poor, poor man. Honestly. I pity you guys more and more every day.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "I don't rule out anything."
BWHWAHAHAHAAH RIGHT!
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974
LMAO!
All your comments are going straight to SPAM!
IT MUST A CONSPIRACY AGAINST 911 TWOOFERS!
ctcole77 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 What type of paint creates iron rich micro spheres?
Where's the evidence that Attar, Hanjour and al-Shehhi piloted the piloted the 3 planes?
Where's the evidence of what caused the free fall of WTC 7?
Where is the evidence of OBL being responsible for the attacks?
Thetan1974 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 Where is the evidence of OBL being responsible for the attacks?
Where's the evidence of what hit the towers and the Pentagon were Flights 11, 175 and 77?
If KSM planned 9/11, how does it prove that planes and fires caused the 3 collapses and rules out controlled demolitions?
Why do you fear an investigation of the companies affiliated with the WTC prior to 9/11?
Thetan1974 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 Oh, and please do mind providing context. Because the following is what you ABSOLUTELY belief:
UA175 showed it did. End of discussion.
Meaning - AND NOW IN CONTEXT! - you absolutely believe that the plane that hit WTC2 was flying 580 mph. In fact, you insist it did!
The only difference between you and me is that I call this plane "UA175". And you claim it is another Boeing 767. But a 767 with the same standard JT9D engines. So, how could THIS plane fly faster? Explain!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 So.....Still nothing?
edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdgemanLL2 Of course Edge wins, of course.
(Patting the nutcase on his head to make him feel encouraged. It's important that children, and poeple with downs syndrome, believe in them selves.)
Wan't a wowipop li'l "winner"?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "And, of course, you have to explain away the standard Pratt and Withney engine."
What are you talking about?
"Explain how an airplane with a standard engine could not do what you claim it could not do."
It is, for the 34th time or so, perfectly explained in the PF911T's documentary "World Trade Center Attack" where they avoid speculating too much in engines.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 to add ...
Here is the engine found in the streets. It is a JT9D type engine.
tinyurl*com/7r3mdrp
Undamaged: tinyurl*com/34qas2
And here is a reference to the type of engines used by a 767. It includes the JT9D type.
tinyurl*com/hd8q4
UA175 was a Boeing 767!
Now here is your problem. If, as you claim, the plane flew to fast than what made it fly faster than normal if it had the engines normally used by a 767 (Note: the JT9D is also used by the 747). Please explain!
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers "UA175 was a Boeing 767!"
Did I ever deny that??
"Now here is your problem..."
Now here's YOUR problem: Apparently you didn't watch this carefully from 3:03-4:07: watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974
But, of course, you have to do more than just sending a youtube reference!
You have to send a reference with the technical details of the investigation, which is relatively easy! All you have to do is refer to the proper NTSB investigations. You can find such references at ntsb(dot)gov
Here is an example, see: tinyurl*com/6mj82bo (on the flight path)
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers
What you say is that it could be done because the terrorists didn't care about flying rules? Seriously, now you're getting reeealy insane. That means that I can get into a formula 1 car and beat all of the greatest drivers because I don't know what the limits of the car is and what it is capable of??
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974,
.
"What you say is that it could be done because the terrorists didn't care about flying rules?"
.
No! I said that it was not the hijackers priority to give the passengers a comfortable ride.
And what I DID(!) show with my video references you laughed away is that Boeings in general are remarkable agile airplanes ... assuming you disregard any passenger comfort!
I showed a rollover, a sharp 360 turn and an amazingly (almost) vertical ascend. But you did not understand.
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers
"But it does not mean it can't!"
As long as no standard 767 has been proven to be able to do it, as long as no real pilot have been able to do it and as long as no "accredited institution" - like e.g. Boeing - has come out and confirmed that it COULD be done while PROVING that it could, the hypothesis of RC'd modified Boeings stands.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "watch?v=HGbwtAPio5E"
And what is the speed of the plane? It's btw only going straight forward which has btw nothing to do with hitting a target as a skyscraper. Remember that hit is 50% of the problem here.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974,
.
"Remember that hit is 50% of the problem here."
.
Where did you get your numbers from?
I suspect you pulled them straight out of your hat.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers
"watch?v=fYZOByowrlU"
Err, again was THAT plane going 570-80mph?? Are you a complete jerk? Seriously? What has perfectly normal legal flying to do with 9/11? You even just "confirmed" that the terrorist was able to pull their magic flying due to "not caring about the rules" - and then you compare THAT to what you just showed?
Wake up, man.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers
"watch?v=etFKcl7LyTc"
Yeah, unbelievable how this jet moves like a snail compared to the 9/11 planes. Reeeealy "unbelievable"?
Jesus, wim, you're lost.
watch?v=KLlWvr6jPRw
Uhuh, impressive. You're only missing 2 crucial informations: Speed and altitude.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 So, I present flimsy (vid) examples?
Well yeah! As to speed they are(!) indeed flimsy examples! I fully admit!
But here is your problem, no truther has ever presented anything better than my examples. Truthers have nothing. Dust and thermite? Totally unconvincing! As eloquently explained by Dr. Greening. See: tinyurl*com/ndzcjc
BTW,, the videos I showed were not speed only! I specifically mentioned the steep 360 degrees turn and steep ascend. Context is bitch, ain't it!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Are you claiming that a standard 767 has been confirmed to go 580mph at sea level and still be controlled, because no " aviation company, institution etc." has said that it couldn't?
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimalhers "Yes! But is this confirmed by any aviation company, institution or relevant accredited university anywhere in the world?"
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers DNA can of course have been faked; where are the matchings? But if not, this implys that the passengers were actually on the craft used - whatever craft they were.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
Comment removed
Thetan1974 1 week ago
...surviving titanium passport, "if you believe that one!" as a TV reporter said.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers d) "body parts and personal belongings were planted on crash sites." THere were no personal belongins on the scenes of the Pentagon and WTC - oh, besides the
Thetan1974 1 week ago
And I can't even respond directly. Very annoying...
Thetan1974 1 week ago
Before we continue I have to tell that I can sometimes only respiond with up to 200 letters. That's not optimal. So after a couple of prepared comments, I will return later.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@wimahlers "What is sad about it is..." that FEMA, NIST, USGS or anybody else have failed to explain what the (nano) thermitical substance is and how it has emerged - since it according to you could not be nanothermite, a secret military incendiary-weapon.
As long as NOone has explained from where such a substance naturally originates or what it truly is - if not nanothermite - Harrit et al got the only substantial hypothesis about it.
Thetan1974 1 week ago
@Thetan1974 Greening explained that the exsperiment was sloppy ... to say the least.
Some other scientists confirmed this as well. And many of the same, if not all, did not see anything remotely proved to be any derivative of thermite.
I also mentioned the low ignition point from Harrit's own report. Very unlike any known derivative of thermite.
And no! Nobody has to proof something that it is not. You are the claimant, it is your duty to prove that it is what you claim it is.
wimahlers 1 week ago
Zionist troll faggots, yearning for a rabbi to suck their dick like it had blood on it
FuhrerVonFreiberg 1 week ago
ctcole is a fucking shill, he is a government bitch.LOL IF YOU HAVE A HALF A BRAIN YOU KNOW THE OBVIOUS THAT 9/11 WAS A N INSIDE JOB.3 TOWERS WERE TAKEN OUT BY 2 PLANES.BUIDLING 7 CAME DOWN LIKE A CONTROLED DEMOLITION.BUIDLING 7 WAS REPORTED GOING DOWN BY THE BBC 20 MINUITES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY DID.A PASSPORT SURVIVED THE WRECKAGE.THE TWIN TOWERS REPRESNETED THE PILLARS OF SOLOMONS TEMPLE. 9/11 WAS A MEGA RITUAL AND DONT YOU FIND IT STRANGE HOW THE NUMBER YOU RING IN AN EMERGENCY IS ........ 911?
pinball281 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinball281
"who benefited from 9/11?"
GOOD QUESTION
Let's see.............what did the USA get out of "committing 911"?
1) A bad economy.
2) A democratic Iraq that has economic control over its own oil.
3) A never ending war in Afghanistan.
4) A plethora of scientifically moronic 911 twoofers.
I say the US got ripped off!
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can't deny 9/11 served as the perfect excuse to invade 2 countries, loot their resources, and create a genocide on innocent people, not to mention the start of the "war on terror" creating laws that destroy many of people's liberties. They let it happen, that's what i'm also trying to say, either way, our government got 3000 americans killed and knew that it would happen. Just as bad as putting bombs in the WTC.
username7046 2 weeks ago
@ctcole77 the government let 9/11 happen, like I said on that other video, I'm no truther.
username7046 2 weeks ago
Errata:
"Straman" must, of course be, "Strawman".
It was a typo error. I make many.