4um: Pilots Analyze the Government Provided Radar Data of the Planes of 9-11

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11
See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Pilots Analyze the Government Provided Radar Data of the Planes of 9-11
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 24, 2012
Author: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-inter
Post Date: 2012-09-24 19:34:06 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 2738
Comments: 145

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-intercepted/
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 125.
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
Alleged aircraft hit the buildings????
One can see where this is going. Another waste of time.
Another review by "EXPERTS" that cannot..."AUTHENTICATE"... the government provided material, well then the inference is it may all be LIES, all BOGUS, BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING, WHY WASTE YOUR TIME.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-24 20:38:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#3. To: Cynicom, tom007 (#2)
Alleged aircraft hit the buildings????

Are you trying to say that it is 100% certain that the aircraft which struck the towers are the ones reported as being hijacked? If you bothered watching the video, you'd more than likely understand why and how that is highly unlikely.

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-24 21:16:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#5. To: FormerLurker (#3)
Are you trying to say that it is 100% certain that the aircraft which struck the towers are the ones reported as being hijacked? If you bothered watching the video, you'd more than likely understand why and how that is highly unlikely.

I dont think so.
I'll stand with my flying telephone poles. Am organizing a panel of "pole" experts as we speak, to address the "alleged" 9/11 event that never happened.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-24 21:59:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
Cyni, 9/11 happened alright, just not the way the talking heads and the politicians claim it did.
What do you make of that van on the George Washington Bridge pulled over on 9/11 after the attacks, you know, the one that was filled with tons of explosives and driven by Israelis?

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-24 22:31:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#7. To: FormerLurker (#6)
What do you make of that van on the George Washington Bridge pulled over on 9/11 after the attacks, you know, the one that was filled with tons of explosives and driven by Israelis?

Good starting point.
Ever notice however there are no panels of experts to prove or disprove they ever existed?

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-24 22:46:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
Ever notice however there are no panels of experts to prove or disprove they ever existed?

News reports from that day, along with FBI documents, indicate they did in fact exist.

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-24 23:10:13 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#10. To: FormerLurker (#8)
News reports from that day, along with FBI documents, indicate they did in fact exist.

However, there has never been any independent panel of "experts" that can "prove" the government is lying.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-25 5:21:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#12. To: Cynicom (#10)
However, there has never been any independent panel of "experts" that can "prove" the government is lying.

Ever hear of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or the producers of this video Pilots for 9/11 Truth?
The government story of the WTC collapse is physically impossible. The Israelis who were arrested on 9/11 with tons of explosives were released with charges.
How much more factual evidence is necessary? Would it take Sean Hannity to report that the government lied on 9/11 to make it so?

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-25 9:25:46 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#14. To: FormerLurker (#12)
How much more factual evidence is necessary? Would it take Sean Hannity to report that the government lied on 9/11 to make it so?

This is what I spoke of...
"What do you make of that van on the George Washington Bridge pulled over on 9/11 after the attacks, you know, the one that was filled with tons of explosives and driven by Israelis?"
I would like to see a panel of experts or anyone to revisit that.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-25 9:36:49 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#14)
I would like to see a panel of experts or anyone to revisit that.

Who needs a panel of experts when you got the cops on their radio?

Now you can empanel a jury of pointy heads, Cyni. ; ]

randge posted on 2012-09-25 10:57:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: randge (#22)
Having been involved with lesser events with the government and military, over many years, I can safely say that, things get screwed up, people misspeak, misunderstand, and it takes great effort to untangle things.
Recall that no one of responsibility ever stood up and called a halt to the madness. It was a lowly FAA person that finally took the bull by the horns and ordered everyone down until it could be sorted out.
Cheney and Bush did nothing,none of their boot lickers did anything, the world was gone mad.
A peon stepped up, called a halt to everything. The VP was as useless as tits on a rain barrel and Bush was hiding in Louisiana.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-25 12:05:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#41. To: Cynicom (#28)
Having been involved with lesser events with the government and military, over many years, I can safely say that, things get screwed up, people misspeak, misunderstand, and it takes great effort to untangle things.
Recall that no one of responsibility ever stood up and called a halt to the madness. It was a lowly FAA person that finally took the bull by the horns and ordered everyone down until it could be sorted out.
Cheney and Bush did nothing,none of their boot lickers did anything, the world was gone mad.
A peon stepped up, called a halt to everything.

What? Where did you get the impression that an FAA person ordered SCATANA implemented rather than the Military?

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-25 18:14:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#48. To: GreyLmist, Phant2000, All (#41)
After this young man, before pointing negative fingers, do a check on the subject.
Here is the mans name and the story.
ANYONE THAT HAD ANY INTEREST IN 911 SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS GENTLEMAN FROM DAY ONE, NOT YEARS LATER.

"Man who grounded 4,000 planes on 9/11 was on first day of his job
As terrorists seized control of four airplanes on Sept. 11th, 2001, Ben Sliney, chief of air-traffic-control operations at the FAA's command center in Herndon, Va., gave the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation and redirect any in the sky to the nearest airport. It was his first day on the job.
On Sept. 11th, 2001, terrorists hijacked four American commercial jets with the intention of crashing them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. The terrorists were successful in three of their four targets with the fourth plane's assault on the Capitol building was thwarted by heroic passengers on board. While we now know no other planes were hijacked, at the time, each of the 4,000-plus flights in American air space were potential risks.
But due to Ben Sliney, the Federal Aviation Administration's National Operations Manager on duty that fateful morning, possible harm, at least by the thinking at the time, was averted. Sliney made the gutsy — and completely unprecedented — call to ground every single commercial airplane in the country.
Man who grounded 4,000 planes on 9/11 was on first day of his jobWhat makes the call — which, without direct order from the President and the bureaucracy above him, was his and his alone to make — all the more gutsy is that Sept. 11th, 2001, was Ben Sliney's first day on the job as an FAA National Operations Manager.
Although that's not to say Sliney was some neophyte making a cowboy-like call. He had 25 years of experience in air traffic control as part of FAA management, including a leadership position at New York TRACON, which has responsibility over all air traffic for New York City's three major airports and the smaller, regional airports in the New York City area. But the decision to ground the planes — that was entirely Sliney's.
In fact, it's such a great story that when Universal Pictures decided to turn the heroism of the passengers of United Flight 93 into a movie, they not only didn't overlook Sliney's role — they asked him to play himself in the movie. Which he did.
Sliney's decision is a great testament to the belief that doing the right thing sometimes requires a risky choice. Sliney made the right one."
Cyni...

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-25 19:39:35 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#55. To: Cynicom (#48)
ANYONE THAT HAD ANY INTEREST IN 911 SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS GENTLEMAN FROM DAY ONE ...

Maybe a video would be more convincing? See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295417-1

Phant2000 posted on 2012-09-25 20:20:53 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#56. To: Phant2000 (#55)
Thanks...
Friend of mine had that job a few years ago after I retired.
Many people are afraid of or are unable to recognize reality.
That is what we have here. There is no excuse for being obtuse about something when it is obvious to others that an enlightened background is missing.
Failure to avail oneself of what is available is basis for forming wrong opinions that defy gravity.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-25 20:27:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#58. To: Cynicom (#56)
Many people are afraid of or are unable to recognize reality.
That is what we have here. There is no excuse for being obtuse about something when it is obvious to others that an enlightened background is missing.
Failure to avail oneself of what is available is basis for forming wrong opinions that defy gravity.

I love you C

But that post was marvelous nonsense.

tom007 posted on 2012-09-25 20:46:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#74. To: tom007 (#58)
But that post was marvelous nonsense.

I was taught civility, long ago.
The first example drummed into my thick head was this:
"Winston Churchill once said..."It costs me nothing to be civil to a man, even though I intend to hang him tomorrow".
ON this forum, I am very often labeled as dumb, stupid, ignorant and those are the kind and generous ones. At times posters use language that describes what they really think.
At the end of the day, I will have proven myself ignorant at best, but I did try to be civil doing it.
Did not cost me a cent.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-26 3:33:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Cynicom (#74) (Edited)
I did try to be civil doing it.

Malarkey. What you tried to do here in your responses to me is exempt yourself from civility with an autocratic double standard equating any attempt to debate you as finger-pointing, rudeness, verbiage, gross verbiage, lack of self- enlightenment and intelligent discourse, negativity and so on.
Edited for spelling.

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 4:08:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: GreyLmist, Cynicom (#76)
What you tried to do here in your responses to me is exempt yourself from civility with an autocratic double standard equating any attempt to debate you as finger-pointing, rudeness, verbiage, gross verbiage, lack of self- enlightenment and intelligent discourse, negativity and so on.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who knows he's full of shit. He pulls out the "civility" canard when he's had his ass handed to him on a plate an can no longer defend his position. Then he runs away.

F.A. Hayek Fan posted on 2012-09-26 7:50:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#81. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#78)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who knows he's full of shit. He pulls out the "civility" canard when he's had his ass handed to him on a plate an can no longer defend his position. Then he runs away.

Perhaps my civility classes would be beneficial?????
People that do not function well in open society find such very helpful.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-26 9:35:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#82. To: Cynicom, F.A. Hayek Fan (#81)
Perhaps my civility classes would be beneficial?????
People that do not function well in open society find such very helpful.

Because...they're not functioning well or they'd know better than to take a class in civility from you, Mr. Double Standards Autocrat?

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 9:53:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#83. To: GreyLmist (#82)
Because...they're not functioning well or they'd know better than to take a class in civility from you, Mr. Double Standards Autocrat?

Fan would feel much better if he were a Fan of Salma Hayek.
She has a calming effect on men that are troubled.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-26 9:56:37 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: Cynicom (#83)
The comments coming from so many on all the forums on the internet sure do lend insight to the whys and wherefores of this country's status.
So many attack when opinions differ, yet few offer up anything worth considering for solving today's problems. Insults and name calling come fast and furious, but too few have, can or will hold rational discussions.
There is so much to be learned from history as well as from the views and opinions of those we share space with on this earth. There is little to be gained from challenging the rights of others to differ.
Rational and respectful discussion can bring not only enlightening knowledge, but acceptable compromise. Irrational and disrespectful communication not only encourages silence, but also limits ideas, views and suggestions that could well lead to excellent solutions, not just mediocre attempts at "putting out fires".
I hope the day comes when the majority of people on this world show respect to others.

Phant2000 posted on 2012-09-26 10:45:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#87. To: Phant2000, Cynicom (#85)
I hope the day comes when the majority of people on this world show respect to others.

How to phrase this question for Cynicom without rankling him by using the word "you"...I'm gonna venture going with this: Is Kissinger an alumni of the Cynicom Class of Civility?
Henry Kissinger Says Luke Rudkowski Is A Sick Person for Questioning Him on NSM 200
video

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 11:38:35 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#88. To: GreyLmist, Phant2000 (#87)
Henry...
I recall in real time the appearance of this evil person.
Henry like von Mises, Hayeks and others were the offspring of the Rockefeller money.

Henry was a nobody,enlisted person in the military, suspected Russian spy with the code name of Bor. He was a nobody, going nowhere until Nelson Rockefeller bought and paid for him.
When Henry was turned loose into the political arena, Rockefeller gave him $50,000 cash to tide him over until a "position" was found for him.
Anyone that read his """best seller""""" Nuclear weapons and Foreign Policy"""" knew he was another Ayn Rand in the making.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-26 11:55:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#91. To: Cynicom (#88)
suspected Russian spy with the code name of Bor.

That says something treasonous about G.W. Bush's selection of Kissinger to commandeer the 9/11 Commission.
9-11 Commission - Wikipedia

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.
[sic]
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was established on November 27, 2002, by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger initially appointed to head the commission.[2] However, Kissinger resigned only weeks after being appointed, because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business.[3]

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 12:23:38 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#92. To: GreyLmist (#91)
Grey...
If you have time to waste, read Kissingers book. I read it when very young and came away with one thought in mind. What did he say and what in hell is he talking about.
Henry can babble on endlessly and say nothing.
Turtle reminded us of one of his bad habits, I seem to recall from somewhere in the past that Henry also had body odor.
I am gonna look up Salma Hayek and forget you and Fan even exist.

Cynicom posted on 2012-09-26 12:40:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#94. To: Cynicom (#92)
and forget you and Fan even exist.

Is that so? Well then, just don't go forgetting that in reality holograms do exist.
John Lear - 9/11 & Strategic Perception Management

Until we meet again here...

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 15:32:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#95. To: GreyLmist (#94)
Lear mixes truth with fiction. Those impacts at the WTC most certainly weren't holograms, and to my knowledge, holograms appear transparent, not as solid objects.
It would be especially difficult if not impossible for a hologram to be visible in bright daylight from miles away, and then there's the matter of the impact damage itself.

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-26 15:44:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#96. To: FormerLurker, *9-11*, *No Planers* (#95)
to my knowledge, holograms appear transparent, not as solid objects.

CNN Shows Off Hologram Technology - Presidential Election 2008
Uploaded by ArchangelSandalphon on Nov 4, 2008
Jessica Yellin shows up on CNN New York from Chigago in a hologram

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 15:49:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#98. To: GreyLmist (#96)
One other thing GL, since when do you trust CNN to be giving you truthful information?

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-26 16:37:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#99. To: FormerLurker (#98)
One other thing GL, since when do you trust CNN to be giving you truthful information?

Since when don't you trust CNN/MSM video on 9/11 imagery issues?

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 17:02:53 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#101. To: GreyLmist (#99)
Since when don't you trust CNN/MSM video on 9/11 imagery issues?

Thing is, it wasn't just CNN which had live video from 9/11, it was all the other networks airing simultaneously, including international networks such as the BBC.
Besides, for the reasons mentioned it is pretty much impossible that the flight of the aircraft could be faked with a hologram.
It borders on science fiction, whereas the remote controlled plane theory isn't within that realm, it is actually quite possible and plausible.

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-26 17:47:58 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#102. To: FormerLurker (#101)
Cross-referencing Post #59 at 4um Title: Let US start a thread on WHO Did 911
Excerpts:

Remote control could not ensure that a plane (civilian, military, or drone) wouldn't break apart outside of the buildings on impact (endangering people on the street, leaving contradictory evidence behind, and messing up the cover story for the destruction of the Towers) but CGI could.
EXERCISES INCLUDED MOCK TV NEWS REPORTS
It is known that simulated television news reports had been used in training exercises before 9/11. For example, a two-day exercise was held at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, in June 2001, called "Dark Winter," based on the scenario of a smallpox attack on the United States. This exercise, according to New York magazine, included "simulated news clips from an imaginary cable news network called NCN."

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 18:02:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#103. To: GreyLmist (#102) (Edited)
Remote control could not ensure that a plane (civilian, military, or drone) wouldn't break apart outside of the buildings on impact (endangering people on the street, leaving contradictory evidence behind, and messing up the cover story for the destruction of the Towers) but CGI could.

And the Starship Enterprise could have just blasted away with its phasers.
Thing is, a remote controlled missile (which the aircraft would have been) has a very damn good chance of hitting its target.
For CGI to have faked EVERYTHING seen on network TV, ALL of the on scene reporters and camera crews would had to have been in on the grand conspiracy, ALL of the first responders who witnessed the 2nd impact would had to have been in on it, and ALL of the NYC inhabitants who witnessed the event would had to have been in on it.
There is just WAY too much chance of something going wrong, where if people saw a blast without an aircraft striking the tower, it would have drawn INSTANT attention. Besides that, there would have been SOME video of that occuring, being that MANY people were recording the smoke coming from the North Tower by that point in time.
That's besides the fact all of the news stations would have had to simultaneously blend CGI into live video, and had the explosives go off in the towers at the precise time to make it appear the CGI aircraft actually impacted the South Tower at the correct moment.
Not only would thousands, if not tens of thousands of people been involved, the technical feasibilty of such a hoax is pretty farfetched. CGI is good these days, but not THAT good. There is no evidence of fakery in the live videos, although no planers HAVE faked their own later videos to "make their point".
Why do you keep falling back with this science fantasy scenario GL? Aren't actual documented facts and scientific evidence enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job, carried out with the help of the Mossad?

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-26 20:15:53 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#106. To: FormerLurker (#103) (Edited)
Thing is, a remote controlled missile (which the aircraft would have been) has a very damn good chance of hitting its target.

But in the post I replied to, you said remote control planes -- not missiles. The issue isn't about whether remote control missiles can hit their target. Surely they can with a high degree of accuracy but with more risk of error and discovery than CGI. I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers. Initially, there were about 40 videos that were in evidence and what's unusual is that there weren't many more if many people in the area were recording. I've spent a lot of time addressing your concerns and would like to hear your explanation for why there was little to no smoke damage at the WTC [Towers and Bldg. 7 too] as well as how WTC 1 was insignificantly impacted by flying projectiles when WTC 2 was demolished. No Planes research doesn't threaten investigations of 9/11 as an inside job carried out with the help of the Mossad, or controlled demolition determination.
Edited for grammar and bracketed insert.

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-26 21:36:26 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#110. To: GreyLmist (#106)
I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers.

Yeah OK GL. We had discussed the "Smoke and Mirrors" video in length on the last 9/11 thread. It was blatently obvious that the video was a collection of fraudulent clips which were actually doctored from the original CBS live video.
THAT is what I mean by faked video, and you should know that. It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know what I'm talking about here. It's quite obvious that "no planers" view it as their "smoking gun" where in reality it's an obvious fake designed to propel their theory into the limelight.

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-28 0:18:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#114. To: FormerLurker (#110)
Me: I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers.
FL: Yeah OK GL. We had discussed the "Smoke and Mirrors" video in length on the last 9/11 thread. It was blatently obvious that the video was a collection of fraudulent clips which were actually doctored from the original CBS live video.
THAT is what I mean by faked video, and you should know that. It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know what I'm talking about here. It's quite obvious that "no planers" view it as their "smoking gun" where in reality it's an obvious fake designed to propel their theory into the limelight.

It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know that video was a Media alteration. I thought you finally understood that the last time we discussed it.

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-28 2:23:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#118. To: GreyLmist (#114)
It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know that video was a Media alteration. I thought you finally understood that the last time we discussed it.

The author of the video, and titorite were trying to pass it off as original footage from the morning of 9/11. You were playing the "media made it" angle, yet you say there's some ORIGINAL video which shows the same thing, or similar "abnormalities". That is pure BS.
This is getting tiring, and I have better things to do with my time than to play this game for another 7 days straight.
Is it your mission in life to bog down every 9/11 discussion with this crap?

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-28 8:34:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#119. To: FormerLurker (#118)
No, I said it was a Media alteration -- about umpteen times -- and that there are smoke anomalies in other MSM videos. The poster of the video stated in the Description section that it was posted as it was found. I linked to the webarchived-site where it was found for comparison, as well as the NIST video of the PBS documentary that the Smoke and Mirrors video referenced. titorite simply submitted it here as a smoke anomaly and didn't know the details about it. You are bogging down discussions by having to repeat things over and over and it still doesn't get through to you or doesn't stick with you. I do think this is a game for you and I have better things to do too.

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-28 9:04:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#122. To: GreyLmist (#119)
You are bogging down discussions by having to repeat things over and over and it still doesn't get through to you or doesn't stick with you. I do think this is a game for you and I have better things to do too.

To me at least, someone who constantly posts disproven BS as if it were going to become true if it's repeated often enough, is doing more than just "bogging down" a thread.
It's more like disrupting the discussion with ridiculous fiction which has no basis in fact.
I'd say the chances of your "no plane" theory being true are 0%. I wouldn't even give it a fractional percentage.
You're ignoring the improbablities and impossibilities, and hopping on things which aren't even there to begin with.

FormerLurker posted on 2012-09-28 15:50:13 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#125. To: FormerLurker (#122) (Edited)
To me at least, someone who constantly posts disproven BS as if it were going to become true if it's repeated often enough, is doing more than just "bogging down" a thread.
It's more like disrupting the discussion with ridiculous fiction which has no basis in fact.
I'd say the chances of your "no plane" theory being true are 0%. I wouldn't even give it a fractional percentage.
You're ignoring the improbablities and impossibilities, and hopping on things which aren't even there to begin with.

No comment on your opening two paragraphs other than they read somewhat differently with that 2nd comma in the 1st than you probably intended.
After 11 years, the remote control theory still has Zero actual evidence supporting it -- just speculation. You might disagree with No Planes analyses but, like it or not, it is checkable evidence submitted for open review.
As for disrupting the discussion, I posted a link to more effeciently address your concerns on the video subject that you inserted here as a rerun, so as not to bog down this thread with that as an off-topic distraction. This is a list of the issues that I've posted about here, which I think are more topically relevant but that you didn't choose to comment on, as you have so about No Planers:
1. The confusion noted in the opening video over Cape TRACON's ability to contact Otis AFB when Cape TRACON is Otis AFB.
2. SCATANA procedures
3. Non-authority of Vice Presidents to issue Defense orders
4. The Israeli vans issues
5. The propagation of 9/11 myths that can jeopardize national security
6. Post #73 on the boarding time of alleged hijackers of alleged Flt. 11 being the same as the scheduled take-off time and the possibility that the official story indicates that some sort of special arrangements were made to accomodate seating them.
7. G.W. Bush treasonsously appointing suspected Russian spy, Henry Kissinger, to commandeer the 9/11 Commission.
8. Another request for your explanation as to why there was little to no smoke damage at the WTC [Towers and Bldg. 7 too] as well as how WTC 1 was insignificantly impacted by flying projectiles when WTC 2 was demolished.
9. Art Students in-residence at the WTC in the strike-zone during the months leading up to 9/11 attacks.
On the issue you mentioned at Post #70 in reference to the destroyed FAA tape, I find it hard to believe that the pieces were dropped into different trash cans around the building if the intent was really to destroy the tape without trace-evidence of its contents. Just my opinion. If you'd like to select a topic from the above list to talk about or would like to discuss something else relevant to the Pilot's for 9/11 Truth subject of this thread, fine by me. Also fine by me if you don't want to chat again about anything else here.
Edited to expand the numbered list.

GreyLmist posted on 2012-09-29 3:17:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 125.
There are no replies to Comment # 125.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 125.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um