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: 14887
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 159.
#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?! : )
Two Floors My Ass...
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet. Have you see the photos of the other skyscrapers, literally in hell fire throughout, yet those buildings stand? I have.
A) The fire did not act alone. B) It did not fall into it's own feet. 1 fell into the DB Building* and 2 fell into the south facade of 7. I worked at 1 Liberty Plaza on 9/11 and did diasster recovery work that necessitated me going into the building a week or so later. You could clearly see that the towers fell over as well as down. Windows in about 20 floors of the western facade of 1 Liberty were gone... Piece of WTC 1 in DB building... YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
It fell straight down war, you can't deny that fact. So yes, it fell into it's own footprint, but sure there will be debris in the immediate area. What did you expect it to do, drill a whole for itself into the ground and fall into it?
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary? Did the conspirators come in with a huge crain when noone was looking and put that piece of WTC 1 into the DB Building and take that huge assed scoop out of it as well?
You fool, do you see any buildings with the top section of the WTC impaled into them? The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
Wha...huh? I challenge you to post a pic of any controlled demolition wherein the debris field was as far outside of its paramerers as it was at WTC...hell...the collpase of WTC 2 demolished the atrium of the WFC across the street... When Pittsburgh had 3 Rivers Stadium brought down it stood yards from the new field which wasn't even scratched...
I challenge you to post a pic of ANY other 110 story building that has collapsed, whether by demolition or any other cause. THEN you can compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
In other words, you cannot. Here's a clue doofwipe...buildings brought down by demolition doesn't pulverize and strem "confetti" over a wide swath of earth. It IMplodes...
In other words, there ARE no examples of 110 story skyscapers falling down. So YOU cannot. Here's a clue doofwipe...buildings brought down by demolition doesn't pulverize and strem "confetti" over a wide swath of earth. It IMplodes... Explain how a solid steel core can implode. If there WERE demolitions going off on key floors throught the building, would you expect the debris to "implode" or to be ejected outwards?
Sure there is...the WTC on 9/11....it was because of the 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™. :P
Yeah, that was some potent stuff. If they had made one more big batch of it the whole world would have probably gone up in a big fireball if it ever detonated.
Very potent...so potent, we haven't seen the likes of it since! : )
I hope they lost the formula for that $#it. It is just way too powerful and dangerous to be in human hands.
I'm sure they have more of this crap and it's in "human" hands....though they truly be monsters by any other name.
There are no replies to Comment # 159. End Trace Mode for Comment # 159.
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?
#77. To: litus (#68)
#79. To: war (#77)
#93. To: litus (#79)
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet.
#98. To: war (#93)
YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
#101. To: FormerLurker (#98)
It fell straight down war,
#115. To: war (#101)
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary?
#119. To: FormerLurker (#115)
The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
#120. To: war (#119)
I challenge you to post a pic of any controlled demolition wherein the debris field was as far outside of its paramerers as it was at WTC
#123. To: FormerLurker (#120)
#125. To: war (#123)
In other words, you cannot.
#152. To: FormerLurker, James Deffenbach, war (#125)
In other words, there ARE no examples of 110 story skyscapers falling down.
#153. To: litus (#152)
#155. To: James Deffenbach (#153)
#158. To: litus (#155)
Very potent...so potent, we haven't seen the likes of it since! : )
#159. To: James Deffenbach (#158)
Replies to Comment # 159.
