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: 11050
Comments: 145
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-intercepted/
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-105) not displayed.
.
.
.
#106. To: FormerLurker (#103)
(Edited)
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
P.S. As a flase flag op, the perps would likely want a certain amount of visual evidence backed by the MSM to sell their war objectives, etc. What they wouldn't want is for it to be closely examined for flaws that point to them rather than their designated target of "Al Qaeda".
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
A HANDFUL might be plausible, if we were talking about some remote site out in North Dakota or something. BUT, we are not talking about North Dakota, we are talking about the World Trade Center in NYC, where not only were there hundreds if not thousands of first responders already on the scene when the 2nd plane hit, there were news crews with cameras rolling all over Manhatten, along with many private individuals. So no, nobody could convince all those people to "go along", especially with the deaths of 3000 Americans that day. Anyone who would have been approached to do so would have spilled the beans, and the police would have arrested anyone canvassing them to "join the conspiracy". But in the post I replied to, you said remote control planes -- not missiles. I explicity said aircraft that were USED as missiles. We DO have drone technology in case you've somehow been asleep for the past decade or so. Surely they can with a high degree of accuracy but with more risk of error and discovery than CGI. And I'm sure if Captain Kirk was in on this conspiracy, he could have fired phasers at the towers to make them collapse. That'd be a sure fire way to do it wouldn't it. Thing is, not only would it have been impossible to hide such an blatent fabrication in real time in front of millions of people, it would be technically infeasible if not impossible to coordinate a real time explosion that would perfectly mimic an aircraft impact, and superimpose an imaginary aircraft into the video in sync across ALL television networks, from different viewpoints, distances, elevations, and with helicopters flying in the vicinity recording the live events. The debris ejected from the tower is ALSO consistant with an aircraft impact, so what do you think they did, had explosives with debris installed inside the building around the perimeter walls where people were sitting and working? Demolition charges between floors or in the elevator shafts is one thing, but placing them on the outside or inside the perimeter in order to mimic an aircraft impact is something altogether different. 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. Are you high? "Little to no smoke damage"? Are you trying to say there were no fires at all, and THAT was faked too? Do you truly believe what you write? As far as WTC 1, WTF are you talking about in terms of "insignificantly impacted by flying projectiles"? Are you trying to say neither building really collapsed now, that was fake too? In your mind, did the WTC towers ever exist at all? Just so that we can all grasp exactly what it is you DO believe in, care to tell me what part of the WTC attacks you believe did NOT happen?
FL: I explicity said aircraft that were USED as missiles. We DO have drone technology in case you've somehow been asleep for the past decade or so. FL at Post #101: It borders on science fiction, whereas the remote controlled plane theory isn't within that realm, it is actually quite possible and plausible. Me at Post #102: 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. FL at Post #103: Thing is, a remote controlled missile (which the aircraft would have been) has a very damn good chance of hitting its target. Me at Post #106: But in the post I replied to [note: #101], 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. FL at Post #109: I explicity said aircraft that were USED as missiles. We DO have drone technology in case you've somehow been asleep for the past decade or so. ---------- I already addressed the issue of drones in Post #102, as well as civilian and military aircraft: Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You were requested in one sentence to explain what I've asked you about more than once before and you still haven't: Instead of an answer, you made 5 posts ridiculing mine and interrogating me but can't even keep track of your own sequentially. So, I don't care to tell you anything else. I don't claim to have all the answers. You do. You believe remote control technology was used because it existed at the time and Zakheim would somehow profit more in war contracts if it was wasted in plane crash demonstrations on 9/11. You don't believe hologram technology was used even though it existed at the time and for decades prior. You call that the realm of science fiction. That's not been integral to the No Planes investigations anyway. I'm not sure what else you think -- that drone operators did it from Israel? 9/11 was War on America. Obviously, [Edit: the perps] involved in whatever roles here weren't thinking in terms of New Yorkers or any other Americans as "their people" but enemy "collateral damage". You seem to forget that what was seen at first was simply an image that looked like a plane going behind a building and then an explosion. You seem to want your version of what you believe happened to be in the realm of Holocaust Denial if there's any dissent. That's your gatekeeper problem, not mine. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
And perfect insurance was the order of the day. Police / FBI / mossad fakes , clear a street... plant evidence, leave on lookers return to a no longer blocked off street. .. real police and agents take over from there.... This is not an un logical operation... I fail to see how folks like lurker can not get it.. unless it really was to much propaganda in one concentrated dose. Which is what I suspect. ____________________________________________________________ . . . The US government has declared civil war on itself. Its lust for war grew so great... Liberty before death. We run , we live, We fight again, till we win. We did not start this fight. We damn sure did not willingly pay our taxes to buy the bullets and drones that shall be used to kill us. We will correct the violations of this rogue nation....our rogue nation. We will fix this because nobody else can. You will work to help me help us all to fix this failure. After you're done educating yourself, Action!!!
There were Art Students in-residence at the WTC in the strike- zone in the months leading up to the attacks -- lived there, day and night. Entire floors were empty in the Towers that they had access to and could have rigged. They even removed a window for their balcony stunt that involved a helicopter, which I suspect might have been a rehearsal for getting out and getting away under cover of the smoke effects on 9/11 but that plan may have been discarded as too risky. I dunno but someone who claims to want to round up who did it for prosecutions, yet thinks nothing of any of that and would rather argue about No Planers -- it tells me they aren't really serious. Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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? 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.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I still maintain it was all flying telephone poles. During the Viet thing, I had friends flying B-52s over North Vietnam. They could see the SAMS being fired off both visually and on ground scanning radar. They attached the name of telephone poles because that is what they looked like. Carry on.
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. But the author of the Smoke & Mirrors video presents it as if it were actual live footage. In terms of the description on YouTube, the uploader said he obtained it from the terrorist.dk site which is no longer online. In reality, the terrorist.dk site video was from Detroit Public TV. The author of the terrorist.dk site analyzed it and demonstrated how the video had been doctored to make it appear that the plane came out of nowhere, as well as asking why the smoke plumes were doctored, wondering why the REAL footage wasn't impressive enough. So the author of the "Smoke and Mirrors" video was fraudulently claiming that the Detroit Public TV video was actual live footage, even though the site he claimed to have obtained it from was explicity speaking about how it was DOCTORED footage. The "Smoke & Mirrors" author was even disingenious enough to include the ORIGINAL CBS footage at the end of his video, claiming it was DIFFERENT footage than what he had just spent the rest of his time "analyzing", where in fact it was the source of what he had just got done "analyzing". Yep, "Smoke & Mirrors" was certainly an appropriate choice of names for his video, where HE'S the one trying to pull a fast one on his audience. Apparently it's suckered in titorite and yourself. 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. Um no you just lie about what is right in front of your face because you dislike what you see. I mean that planes comes in from UP high, from down low, from a strait horizontal shot , and still you sing and dance and pretend Edited for civility. ____________________________________________________________ . . . The US government has declared civil war on itself. Its lust for war grew so great... Liberty before death. We run , we live, We fight again, till we win. We did not start this fight. We damn sure did not willingly pay our taxes to buy the bullets and drones that shall be used to kill us. We will correct the violations of this rogue nation....our rogue nation. We will fix this because nobody else can. You will work to help me help us all to fix this failure. After you're done educating yourself, Action!!!
It's more like disrupting the discussion As a convenience and PC-functionality courtesy, please use this link for any continuing discussions on the Smoke and Mirrors videos-controversy topic. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I hope the day comes when the majority of people on this world show respect to others. What in the hell is the matter with you? I live in a bubble!!!
I was taught at a young age, keep my mouth shut and my ears open and I MIGHT learn something.
During the Viet thing, I had friends flying B-52s over North Vietnam. They could see the SAMS being fired off both visually and on ground scanning radar. They attached the name of telephone poles because that is what they looked like. Carry on. I was surprised to find a godlikeproductions post today from a Canadian who seems to sort of agree with you but thinks they were British cruise missiles. Am going to post an abbreviated version of it here (and some related info in another post) but first I want to set this link for the thread's 9/11: INTERCEPTED video by Pilots for 9/11 Truth to start at 22:25, which says: "Uh, we want 'em in the Whiskey 386 area." Excerpt from: www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1978389/pg1#33334085 User ID: 23403601 Canada 09/10/2012 06:49 PM Whereas the US NAvy loads, paints and maintains the cruise missiles for the US Navy, after becoming Prime Minister, of Britain, Tony Blair, despite being a "socialist", hence against privatisation, contracted out the maintenance, including painting of Britain's nuclear subs, their cruise missiels (the same as the USA ones) and their fire control systems to... Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiaruy of Halliburton. As each missile resides in a separate silo onboard, no sailor, not even the captain would have seen what his own missiles would have looked like in terms of paintwork once loaded by KBR. in terms of fire control, it would have been easy for KBR to have had a technitian replace a circuit board or two to allow the cruise missiles to be electronically hijacked and for the fire control systems to report that the missiles on a test launch had been destroyed rather than flying on to the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. The next question is one of how missiles actually beat the US Radar defence systems to hit the Pentagon which is supremely defended. The answer lies in the Falklands War. During this, the Exocet and no other Argentine missile did catastrophic damage to the British fleet. The reason for this was revealed at the time. NATO planners long ago realized that a NATO/WARSAW PACT sea battle would last seconds due to the staggering destructive firepower. Radar and missile technicians would have split seconds to respond, so in order to simplify NATO radar systems, a new standard was adopted in which NATO radar systems, including those of the Pentgon, only show… In short, NATO systems as blind to missiles and aircraft belonging to missiles and aircraft of your allies. Hence, a cruise missile launched from a British or French sub would be ENTIRELY INVISIBLE to all of the Pentagon’s radar systems. However, not all systems meet this code and indeed, the base scrambling the jets to head to Whiskey 386 patch of ocean were still fitted with OLD equipment wupon which such missiles would have been clear. So who had the access to these Norad systems? Not just the USA, but also her allies, such as Britain who had contracted their own work out to…KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton. So, where do British subs test fire their missiles? At a place in the atlantic called… Whiskey 386. So were there any British subs in the region? Records on line that I have seen, submitted by one peace grouop in the UK clearly established that HMS Trafalgar left port in the UK on 1st September 2001 to travel via the Americas to the Far East which would have put it in Whiskey 386 or so on 11th September 2001. This peace group who incidentally have nothing to do with the 9/11 movement, established that when HMS Trafalgar reached port in the Far East, her inventory of cruise missiles were down by EIGHT,, indicating a test firing in Whiskey 386 of 8 Cruise missiles on about 11th September 2001. Had this occurred, and they been compromised and electronically hijacked without the sub knowing, they could have been flown straight to the Pentagon and the WTC without a glitch on any NATO radar. Finally, how did they get a dunce like George W Bush to lie? Simple. he didn't. What he said was LITERALLY TRUE, but open to the wrong interprestation, for the WTC WAS hit by hijacked aircraft, but not jetliners, British cruise missiles. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Grey... I give you an A+ for tenacity. Also yall been discussing smoke etc at NYC. There is a photo taken by an astronaut from space station that shows the smoke plume. Perhaps you have seen it?
amazon.com: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies over America on 9/11 by Lynn Spencer Page 149: They appear to be flying to military training area Whiskey 386. Page 151: They're in [Whiskey] 386 and going up north, Foxy responds. Excerpts from historycommons.org | Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC VACAPES) was a participant or observer in the following events: Jets Heading to Training Airspace - Huckabone has spotted the radar returns for the Langley F-16s and notices that, instead of flying north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, the fighters are going east, out over the Atlantic Ocean, apparently toward a military training airspace called Whiskey 386 (see 9:30 a.m.-9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). Navy Controller Unconcerned - Citino and Huckabone speak to the Navy air traffic controller who is handling the three Langley fighters, but the controller appears not to grasp the urgency of the situation. Huckabone says, “Those fighters need to go north toward Baltimore, and now!” The Navy controller asks: “You’ve got [the Langley F-16s] moving east in airspace. Now you want ‘em to go to Baltimore?” Huckabone says yes, and adds, “We’re not gonna take ‘em in Whiskey 386.” Edit to add another excerpt from the historycommons.org page: (10:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Boston Center Controller Notices Unidentified Aircraft Approaching from East An air traffic controller at the FAA’s Boston Center is concerned about an unidentified aircraft flying in from the east, approaching Cape Cod. Colin Scoggins, the military liaison at the Boston Center in Nashua, New Hampshire, has noticed the large, slow-moving target on his radar screen. It is just off the coast and heading directly for Boston. Concerned as to what the aircraft is, he phones the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 242] The facility, known by its call sign, “Giant Killer,” is the Navy air traffic control agency that handles all over-water military operations. [New York Times, 2/10/1997; Spencer, 2008, pp. 143] Scoggins says: “We have a large, slow-moving target approaching Cape Cod and heading for Boston. Do you have it? What is it?” The person at Giant Killer only replies, “We’re looking,” and then mentions, “We’ve got a fleet of ships heading toward the northeast and an Aegis cruiser [a high-tech warship] on the way.” Scoggins is worried that Giant Killer is unable to specifically identify the target he is seeing on his radar screen. It appears to be flying straight toward the Boston Center. He thinks to himself, “If I wanted to use airliners to attack a country, I would take out their air traffic control facilities!” Scoggins continues watching the suspicious aircraft on his radar screen. Shortly afterward, the Boston Center will be evacuated after the FAA’s New England regional office calls it and reports an unidentified aircraft heading toward the facility (see (Shortly After 10:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Spencer, 2008, pp. 242-243] This is apparently a different aircraft to the one Scoggins is tracking. [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/20/2001; Federal Aviation Administration, 3/21/2002 ] Whether the plane Scoggins is tracking is ever identified is unclear. Edited for formatting and to include the historycommons section at 10:20 a.m. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
There is a photo taken by an astronaut from space station that shows the smoke plume. Perhaps you have seen it? Can you post a link for it? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Good heavens, no. It has been on internet for years. If I can find it will send along. If I recall was by American astronaut.
Ok, that would be swell. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
So, what's your opinion of the radar info and such in the godlikeproductions post [Edit to add: at #129]?
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Grey... Several can be found here. Should charge you.
Should charge you. Interesting but maybe I should charge you too for the insepections -- per slide. There's a bunch scattered about there and the smoke is like all over the map, as they say. This one looks like the space station took it from the ground looking up: Pic link: World Trade Center-911-View from space station All those projectiles flying at WTC 1 and nary a scratch on it! When I see films like that and the clips below at 1:27 and 6:30, I wonder why it even fell at all, durable as it was: ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The space shot is within the ground photos display. Hereafter all urls are fifty cents.
Hereafter all urls are fifty cents. Too pricey for me. I saw many space shots there. The one I posted [Edit to add: at #137] was #32 -- 31 clicks to the right from the first and the caption said: World Trade Center-911- View from space station: If you'd care to freely give your assessment of the radar info and such that I asked about at Post #135 regarding the godlikeproductions posting at #129, I'd be interested in hearing it. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Grey... Bet you think I could be taken snipe hunting voluntarily????
No, I really wanted your input on it as a flyer, not a hunting sniper. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You ever been snipe hunting?. Most states have open seasons on snipes.
No, I haven't. If you were thinking about going snipe hunting and would rather not evaluate the radar posting at #129, no problem. Suit yourself. Edited for grammar. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I was in the radar antique days, would never attempt to second guess something I am not qualified to do. We had the first IFF transponders which were very crude, compared to today. Second guessing the people on duty at the time is wading in deep water.
I'd never heard of a British cruise missile theory about 9/11, so thought it would be best to run the "allied" stealth readings by your radar bearings to see what you thought of it. Believe it or not, that was a time that I would have been glad to see one your "Nonsense" remarks.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thing is, a remote controlled missile (which the aircraft would have been) has a very damn good chance of hitting its target.
#107. To: All (#106)
#108. To: GreyLmist (#105)
I do think that some would willingly participate in such a flase flag op, that some might have believed they were participating in a Military excercise and could have been sworn to secrecy about it as a national security necessity, and that most were probably swept into the operation believing it was actually happening, similar to the War of the Worlds broadcast.
"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
#109. To: GreyLmist (#106)
(Edited)
"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
#110. To: GreyLmist (#106)
I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers.
"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
#111. To: GreyLmist (#106)
(Edited)
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.
"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
#112. To: GreyLmist (#106)
"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
#113. To: FormerLurker (#109)
(Edited)
Me: But in the post I replied to, you said remote control planes -- not missiles.
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.
#114. To: FormerLurker (#110)
Me: I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers.
#115. To: FormerLurker (#112)
(Edited)
Just so that we can all grasp exactly what it is you DO believe in, care to tell me what part of the WTC attacks you believe did NOT happen?
Post #106, Me to FL: 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.
#116. To: GreyLmist (#113)
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.
#117. To: titorite, FormerLurker (#116)
(Edited)
#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 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
#119. To: FormerLurker (#118)
#120. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker (#119)
#121. To: GreyLmist, titorite (#119)
(Edited)
"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
#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.
"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
#123. To: FormerLurker (#121)
(Edited)
#124. To: FormerLurker, All, , *9-11*, *No Planers* (#122)
more than just "bogging down" a thread.
#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.
#126. To: Phant2000 (#85)
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".
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#127. To: tom007 (#126)
What in the hell is the matter with you?
#128. To: Phant2000 (#127)
#129. To: Cynicom, *9-11* (#120)
I still maintain it was all flying telephone poles.
"Say again where you want 'em?"
- potential enemy missiles and aircraft
- your own country’s missiles and aircraft
- civilian and neutral country missiles asd aircraft.
#130. To: GreyLmist (#129)
#131. To: All, *9-11* (#129)
(Edited)
Whiskey 386
2 results for Whiskey 386
9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001: NEADS Notices Langley Jets Are off Course, but Navy Controller Seems Unconcerned
#132. To: Cynicom (#130)
yall been discussing smoke etc at NYC.
#133. To: GreyLmist (#132)
Can you post a link for it?
#134. To: Cynicom (#133)
If I can find it will send along.
#135. To: Cynicom (#130)
(Edited)
#136. To: GreyLmist (#135)
#137. To: Cynicom, *9-11* (#136)
Several can be found here.
#138. To: GreyLmist (#137)
#139. To: Cynicom (#138)
(Edited)
The space shot is within the ground photos display.
images.search.yahoo.com- i...r2d6th&.crumb=kqrva0lOWXM
#140. To: GreyLmist (#139)
If you'd care to freely give your assessment of the radar info and such that I asked about at Post #135 regarding the godlikeproductions posting at #129, I'd be interested in hearing it.
#141. To: Cynicom (#140)
Bet you think I could be taken snipe hunting voluntarily????
#142. To: GreyLmist (#141)
#143. To: Cynicom (#142)
(Edited)
#144. To: GreyLmist (#143)
Suit yourself.
#145. To: Cynicom (#144)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
