See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 32650
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 143.
#3. To: Artisan (#0)
Oh, they'll be out in force. It might take them a day or two, but for every new revelation shining light on the 911 Inside Job they have a spin very quickly. Either they will attack the film as altered or they'll have some other spin such as the Radar was incompetent. They won't hold water but for the Sheeple who don't want to look at reality they will grasp at any spin straw to avoid looking. They want the "Nightly Nooze" to tell them what they think.
if the identifying radar system is in real time as he claimed then it is pretty damning evidence of remote controlled drone planes. I don't know antyhing about such systems which is why i pinged the pilots. Anyway, we all know the truth but to what end ? There is more than enough evidence but most politicians, clergy, academics and influence peddlers won't look at or acknowledge any of this. And time has gone on and it's almost 10 8 yrs past. Anyway, it's fun to expose their lies. people do know, in general, but what comes of it? we shall watch.
I'm confused, "tracked on RADAR" 1 hr after it hit the WTC?
Only if you believe this shit are you...
The shit in the video or the Gov't shit?
The government's shit is mosty likely the closest to what happened. If anything got covered up it's how little attention the Boosh's were paying when it went down...
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
Your prediction was akin to predicting that if you pulled your pants down and tried to blow yourself in Times Square people would look. PS: Claiming that "WE BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!" is the same thing as self- felating in Times Square.
Explain this. See how the top of the tower is tilting on an angle? Simple physics would determine that the top of the tower should have toppled over and tumbled, as there is less resistance to the air than there would be to the steel and concrete below it, thus it would have continued it's rotational movement and toppled over. Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
You mean like what happens in a controlled demolition? Well, this is different....the plane hit the building (which was specifically designed to withstand the impact of a direct hit by a plane), and the plane had fuel (no matter that the fire was limited to just a couple floors, as opposed to other towers which have also had intense fire but never collapsed)....and because of the intense flames (limited to two floors?)....the structural beams just melted.......and can't you just believe these people already?! : )
You forgot that it was Magickal Jet Fuel™ that can change properties at will and burn hotter than the sun. And they only ever made one batch of it and it was all used that day as evidenced by the fact that other skyscrapers have burned longer and fully engulfed since then, yet none of them fell. Not one. And some had burned before that day too and not one of those fell either. Steel skyscrapers just can't handle that Magickal Jet Fuel™.
All this makes me question an engineer who would design a building to take the direct impact of a jet and not take into account for that jet to be able to hit the building it had to be flying and be loaded with FUEL. At the very least that explains alot of engineering blunders.LOL.
The "707" scenario was based upon the B-25 impact on the Empire State Building...moving slowly as if lost in the fog and low jet fuel...
If that was the true scenario. Wouldn't that be stupid on their part with an airport so CLOSE. Just asking.
Huh? You're saying that the WTC complex should not have been built because NY has airports?
#144. To: war (#143)
Negative. Comment about your post 132.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestany debunkers?
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#6. To: Artisan (#4)
#7. To: Itistoolate (#6)
I'm confused
#8. To: war (#7)
Only if you believe this shit
#11. To: Itistoolate (#8)
#14. To: war (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#14)
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
#59. To: war (#17)
#68. To: FormerLurker (#59)
Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
#73. To: litus (#68)
#130. To: James Deffenbach (#73)
You forgot that it was Magickal Jet Fuel™ that can change properties at will and burn hotter than the sun. And they only ever made one batch of it and it was all used that day as evidenced by the fact that other skyscrapers have burned longer and fully engulfed since then, yet none of them fell. Not one. And some had burned before that day too and not one of those fell either. Steel skyscrapers just can't handle that Magickal Jet Fuel™.
#132. To: phantom patriot (#130)
#141. To: war (#132)
The "707" scenario was based upon the B-25 impact on the Empire State Building...moving slowly as if lost in the fog and low jet fuel...
#143. To: phantom patriot (#141)
If that was the true scenario. Wouldn't that be stupid on their part with an airport so CLOSE. Just asking.
Replies to Comment # 143. You're saying that the WTC complex should not have been built because NY has airports?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 143.