The official government and media conspiracy theory says that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by 5 fanatical Islamic terrorists on 9/11, and flown into the Pentagon, killing all 64 people on board along with 125 people in the Pentagon. From Wikipedia:
American Airlines Flight 77 was American Airlines' morning, daily scheduled transcontinental flight, from Washington Dulles International Airport, in Dulles, Virginia to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. On September 11, 2001, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 757-223—was hijacked by five al-Qaeda terrorists and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, as part of the September 11 attacks.
Less than 35 minutes into the flight, the hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make telephone calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, were killed, as were 125 people in the building. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed; firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park contains a bench for each of the victims, arranged according to their year of birth, ranging from 1930 (aged 71) to 1998 (aged 3).
Upon further investigation, there is no evidence to support any of these claims. For starters, let's have a listen to what CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre had to say about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11:
From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
After the U.S. Justice Department released the rather pathetic photos supposedly showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, Jamie McIntrye had a change of heart:
McIntrye's rather Orwellian about face should not surprise anyone. 9/11 was a hectic day, and not everyone had their script in front of them, including McIntyre. After all, it's been common knowledge for years
Criminal elements of the media clearly were and remain involved in the 9/11 deception and cover up.
In Enver Masud's "Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie 56;The 9/11 Commission Report'," we learn:
I live less than a mile from the Pentagon, and began examining this issue in early 2002. The first question I asked when I looked at the Pentagon shortly after that tragic day in 2001 was, “where’s the plane?”
I began to suspect the official account of 9/11 when I learned that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down.
According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. [...]
Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”
Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York):
“As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”
Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.” [...]
Masud emphasizes the importance of the September 12th and September 15th, 2001 Pentagon news briefings, and what they revealed:
At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 7783;, “Boeing 75783; were not even mentioned.
How significant is this?
With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 7783;, “Boeing 75783; were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!
Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugherresponded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”
When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher responded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.” [...]
At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.
When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”
Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.
Dr. James Fetzer has explained in detail the fact that a Boeing 757, even piloted by an experienced and well-trained pilot (which was not the case with Hani Hanjour, the alleged Arab hijacker that flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon), could not possibly perform the feats described by the official government conspiracy theory:
The probability that a real Boeing 757 could have hit the Pentagon and not left debris from its wings and tail or even its engines-not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage-is zero. The probability that the alleged trajectory could have been flown in violation of the laws of aerodynamics is even less than zero-since violations of these laws is not physically possible. The probability that the trajectory, if it were possible, could have left a smooth, green, unblemished lawn is zero. The probability that debris would have been planted or that smoke would have been simulated, had this event involved the crash of a real Boeing 757, is likewise extremely low. That all of these things would have occurred if the alleged impact were contrived, however, is very high. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable alternative. [...]
The conclusion that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon appears to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's been conclusively proven that in-flight phone calls were impossible in 2001. Why did Ted make up this story? Or, who told him to tell these lies? Where is Barbara now? Is it apparent to you by now that the media is a major part of the crime gang that pulled off 9/11? Are you aware that Zionist Jews with a particular agenda own most of the major corporate media and entertainment productions in this country?
Are those incapable of contemplating the fact that the "hijackings", planes, videos, and many of the victims on 9/11 were a major fraud, just like the rest of the official government conspiracy theory? It seems rather obvious to me that this is indeed the case.
We still don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, so it would be wise to keep an open mind about everything.
A MISSILE on the other hand does NOT rely on wings to achieve lift, it uses THRUST and the lift created by the fuselage itself to maintain altitude, descend, or climb. Short wing-like STABALIZERS or FINS can STEER the missile in the desired direction, but they do not provide lift as wings do on regular aircraft.
okay, i see your point.
my point is this... you say it could not have been a 757 because of ground effect.
there's lots of reasons, listed on this thread, that cast serious doubt on the official 757 conspiracy theory, but your ground effect argument is not one of them.
There is no debris on the lawn after the Pentagon Attack that is consistent with the crash of a 100 tonne airliner.
There is some debris from an aircraft, but nothing like what the crash of an airliner.
There are 8 foot tall cable spools for fiber optics that were just in front of the point of impact: they weren't even knocked over!
The debris is an eloquent witness to the Pentagon Attack, but not the crash of a Boeing 757.
* The original Pentagon press conferences said there was no significant sized debris from an airliner.
* There is insufficient debris on the lawn of the Pentagon for it to have been the crash of a Boeing 757.
*The upright cable spools are independent proof in their own right that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11.
* The debris is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757.
*The debris is consistent with the crash of a small jet aircraft, or possibly an unmanned AV if it were capable of launching a "bunker-buster" missile.
* At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris.
* The sole piece of crash debris purporting to be from a Boeing 757 was probably planted as it comes from the wrong side of the plane.
*Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel.
Also worrying is that some of the photos of the debris removal work at the Pentagon long after the attack indicate that they are taking against contamination, perhaps because of the presence of Depleted Uranium.
BTW, an example of a cruise missile that does NOT "fly" like a standard aircraft is the Moskit SS-N-22 Sunburn missile. It can cruise at Mach 2.2 just 9 feet off the ground...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
a cruise missile that does NOT "fly" like a standard aircraft
yup.
it looks like it must have been a missile of some sort.
i think, given everything that's happened since, that would be a provisionally safe assumption... everything's falling into the PNAC pattern... everything.
my point is this... you say it could not have been a 757 because of ground effect.
there's lots of reasons, listed on this thread, that cast serious doubt on the official 757 conspiracy theory, but your ground effect argument is not one of them.
The Laws of Physics and Aerodynamics certainly DO pertain to whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon. MY point it, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have "flown" as it did just prior to impact.
Not only GROUND EFFECT (increased lift as an aircraft approaches the ground) came into play, but the simple fact is that an airplane will NOT descend UNLESS the nose was pointed down (which it wasn't), OR unless power and speed is reduced, decreasing lift (instead its engines were gunned causing it to accelerate).
Thus, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.
Whether you find it relevant or not, is irrelevant.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have "flown" as it did just prior to impact.
i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.
too bad the supposed pilots of that 757 couldnt even fly cessnas.
too bad that the tail, which was 50 or 60 feet above the ground, was sucked into that little hole without a trace.
it's useless arguing over, because i doubt if any 757 pilot is gonna demonstrate his skill by flying into a building.
i have to say, before i'd be willing to try it, that i'd need a few hours of practice --in type-- flying at extremely low altitudes... but i have no doubt that it could be done.
it's not as if there is no such thing as radar altimeters.
i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.
I'd bet that NO ONE could pull off the PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It wouldn't be impossible if speed were reduced and an actual almost landing was attempted, but that is not what happened, and the nose would not, COULD NOT, have been level for such an attempt.
How does an aircraft descend from treetop level (in a matter of a fraction of a second I might add) at 500+ mph while accelerating with the nose level?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Even the stunts in the movie "Airplane" were more believable.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
How does an aircraft descend from treetop level (in a matter of a fraction of a second I might add) at 500+ mph while accelerating with the nose level?
you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.
you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.
So there ya go. You POINT THE NOSE DOWN.
What part of the NOSE WAS LEVEL do you fail to understand?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you're a proven idiot, you wont say how much flight time you have, and i think we're cluttering up what is an otherwise informative thread.
And as someone else pointed out the other day, I'm beginning to suspect that you're an asshole whose purpose here is to disrupt.
I'm relating KNOWN and PROVEN scientific principles, EASILY found by looking up any information on aerodynamics. You are trying to say the impossible is possibile, and that I'M the idiot for trying to tell you that what is impossible, is IMPOSSIBLE.
It doesn't matter how many minutes, days, or years I have in a cockpit of a jet, a rocket ship, or a f'ing go-cart.
Facts are facts, and apparently your purpose here is to dismiss the ONE set of facts which PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt Flight 77 did NOT, COULD NOT, have been what hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001.
Again, you have even just now admitted that the ONLY way for a 757 to descend while accelerating at tree top level is to POINT THE NOSE DOWN. The NOSE WAS LEVEL when the aircraft impacted the Pentagon you dolt, otherwise it would not have penetrated as it did. In fact, I'd like to find ANY pilot who could descend from treetop level to an altitude where the engines were a mere three feet off the ground in a fraction of a second without digging a trench, no matter the speed. The fact that the aircraft was flying in excess of 500 mph makes it even that more ridiculous.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you were a lot more fun to argue with when we were arguing about chemtrails... you had no evidence of a chemtrail project, while i had logic on my side... and the fact that even alex jones has backed off from his chemtrail promotion project must be a blow.
now you're caught... you cant admit to vast amounts of flight time without exposing yourself to inconvenient questions about chemtrail support apparatus at airports.
in this thread, i know what i'm talking about, and, seeing as how you're unwilling to say how much flight time you have, you apparently dont.
the fact remains: the official conspiracy theory is unbelievable, which renders your theories about aerodynamics irrelevant.
in this thread, i know what i'm talking about, and, seeing as how you're unwilling to say how much flight time you have, you apparently dont.
I will freely admit I have never flown a plane. That being said I don't know how any number of hours of flying time in any aircraft would make you able to do something which would appear impossible even for experienced pilots. And you have to keep in mind that, according to the official fairy tale, the guy who was supposedly flying this particular plane--the one they alleged hit the Pentagon--wasn't qualified to fly a Cessna.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
you were a lot more fun to argue with when we were arguing about chemtrails...
I have never spoken with you concerning chemtrails.
You signed up on this forum on 8/16/2011, just a few weeks ago.
The only other topic I have spoken with you in the time you've been here is concerning religion.
So you ARE you really? It is obvious that you've singled me out on this particular thread because you can't refute the facts I present, so now you are engaging in character assassination to "prove your point".
Like I said, it does NOT matter if I'm a pilot or not, planes go UP if they accelerate UNLESS the nose is pointed down, or their wings fall off. I don't need to be Chuck Yeager to know that.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
I never said that. What I did say was that imo you couldn't reasonably believe that an inexperienced pilot, one who couldn't even rent a Cessna, could do tricks with a big commercial airliner that even skilled pilots with many hours of flight time said were impossible.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
And you have to keep in mind that, according to the official fairy tale, the guy who was supposedly flying this particular plane--the one they alleged hit the Pentagon--wasn't qualified to fly a Cessna.
But then our "friend" Lead&Lag will eventually say it must have been someone other than Hanjour who flew the airplane.
And now he's trying to put words in your mouth saying that "any discussion of 757 aerodynamics is irrelevant".
We have us a shillster I do believe.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you couldn't reasonably believe that an inexperienced pilot, one who couldn't even rent a Cessna, could do tricks with a big commercial airliner that even skilled pilots with many hours of flight time said were impossible.
i'm glad you agree with me.
and your position makes discussion of 757 aerodynamics irrelevant.
#67. To: lead.and.lag, TwentyTwelve, Original Intent, RickyJ, wudidiz, James Deffenbach, ALL, *9-11* (#65)
So L&L, have you been on this forum before, and if so, under which handle?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
i've left some clues... if you're too dense to put it together, deal with it.
in the meant;ime, we're fucking this thread up.
the official conspiracy theory is not credible, that's the main point... and maybe what's more to the point, the longer people think about it, the more people will see how haywire it is.
our job, here, is to present the facts, let people think, let them eventually get around to entertaining thoughts of what is, most likely, the truth...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.
how much flight time do you have?
Kids think that when you pull the trigger on a cap gun all the Injuns are supposed to fall down. Similarly, in kid-think, a pilot can do anything with a plane. He just points its nose where he wants it to go.
In this case the pilot, if he was indeed flying a 757, would have had a hell of a time controlling such a craft in these circumstances, not only because he was doing near acrobatic maneuvers but also because he was flying nearly 200 miles an hours faster than the aircraft was designed to do at sea level.
As I remember, I've seen heard it reliably cited on some of these threads that a 757 cannot even achieve 500 mph under its own power in any kind of controlled flight at that altitude.
Of course some folks believe aircraft can to well nigh anything. These folks have a lot of flight time themselves because they are bird brains.
Of course some folks believe aircraft can to well nigh anything. These folks have a lot of flight time themselves because they are bird brains.
LOL. Folks like that are worse than just ignorant of facts, they're convinced they KNOW things, and damn any evidence contrary to what they "know".
Just like the super duper "Magickal Jet Fuel" on 9/11 could cause the WTC towers to "fall" into themselves at near free fall speed, it HAS to be true because only KOOKS believe it's impossible.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Another relevant thing is, one shouldn't mix alcohol with flaming and shilling - particularly when you are trying to maintain a certain identity. It takes concentration to stay in character.
the biggest problem, here, is that it's irrelevant.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
If it were IMPOSSIBLE for something to occur, and facts are laid out describing WHY it's impossible, it more than certainly IS relevant to a discussion of why something didn't happen the way it was reported.
the second biggest problem is, nobody seems to know what they're talking about.
Well in YOUR mind perhaps, but if you are seriously interested in this subject, you should do a bit of research on the matter. Here, let me help...
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
And as far as trying to descend while ACCELERATING, ANY person knowledgeable about aircraft knows that an airplane can only descend WHILE ACCELERATING by pointing the nose down. This obviously did not happen since the aircraft flew into the Pentagon with its nose level, besides the sheer impossibility of flying so close to the ground at 500 mph in the first place.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Another relevant thing is, one shouldn't mix alcohol with flaming and shilling -
well, i have a problem with being accused of flaming and shilling.
first of all, i flame people who believe in chemtrails, because they have no proof of the existence of chemtrails, or chemtrail support apparatus, or chemtrail workers... and even our lord prophet, the almighty alex jones, seems to have abandoned his chemtrail project.
if i'm shilling, i have no idea who i'm shilling for, other than what seems, to me, to be the truth... and i got to admit, my version of the truth doesnt seem to pay so well.
meanwhile, we've successfully derailed the thread from a discussion of a bullshit offical conspiracy theory to a discussiom of me.
And as far as trying to descend while ACCELERATING, ANY person knowledgeable about aircraft knows that an airplane can only descend WHILE ACCELERATING by pointing the nose down. This obviously did not happen since the aircraft flew into the Pentagon with its nose level, besides the sheer impossibility of flying so close to the ground at 500 mph in the first place.
Makes good sense.
BTW: shills and flamers and disruptors often do us a service in that they force posters on one side of an issue to dig for facts, credible opinion, and documented support for arguments and contentions that they might not otherwise have felt constrained to unearth and present.
first of all, i flame people who believe in chemtrails
You're the one that brought the subject up bud, and are using that as an excuse to ridicule what I have to say, even though I never spoke with YOU on the topic.
But if you wish to drag the conversation towards that topic, let's just say that there's ample evidence that chemtrails DO in fact exist.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
i think it's good thing if you steer the thread off onto a completely irrelevant direction.
the more iganorance, the more confusion, the more likely that people who know what they want will get what they want.
i got to say that you're the idiot sho supposedly believes in chemtrails, so you're an outcast from the getgo.
the thing that is so pathetic is ron paul, who is so desperate for media outlets that he panders to the chemtrail/abiotoic oil guru, alex jones.
although appaently, in a bid for respectability, alex jones has abanodoned chemtrails and abiotic oil, much to the consternation of his braindead worshippers.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
