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: 14593
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 394.
#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.
Try Phishing somewhere else. No takers here. Twenty Five Ways to Suppress The Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?' 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
Blah Blah Blah... One of the "facts" that you kooks try to morph into misinformation is the one on which FDNY pulled its personnel from 7. Youl idiots claim it means that they blew up the building...
Are you BeAChooser? Regardless, how do you explain the impossible freefall speed of the towers? The undamaged structure below the impact area would not have behaved like thin air, yet the structures (both towers, AND the relatively undamaged WTC7) fell at free fall speeds as if falling through thin air. What's your scientific explanation (and please don't say "pancaking" as even THAT would not occur at free fall speed). Do you not find the fact that all records and evidence pertaining to the Enron investigation was destroyed in the relatively undamaged WTC7 to be just a tad suspicious? What proof is there that the individuals cited as the 9/11 hijackers actually carried out the attacks, especially when some of them are still alive and have been on TV?
Good God no... Regardless, how do you explain the impossible freefall speed of the towers? They did not fall at free fall speed. The towers fell because the weigth bearing walls were actually the outside of the building. Once they were compromised as well as the support trusses it becamse an exercise in simple physics. Do you not find the fact that all records and evidence pertaining to the Enron investigation was destroyed in the relatively undamaged WTC7 to be just a tad suspicious? Uh...considering that they were not I don't find it suspicious at all. the relatively undamaged WTC7 WTC 7 was no "realtively undamaged". Almost teh whole of the South Facade was gone and fires raged within it... What proof is there that the individuals cited as the 9/11 hijackers actually carried out the attacks, especially when some of them are still alive and have been on TV? Wha...chuckle...huh? I'll buy the fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers most likely used aliases...BFD...
They did not fall at free fall speed They fell in about 10-11 seconds, where free fall through air would have been a little over 9 seconds. So you're wrong. The towers fell because the weigth bearing walls were actually the outside of the building. For one, the steel core bore the majority of the weight. For two, the structure supported itself without falling for quite some time. The weight that the structure supported didn't change due to the fires, nor did it change PERIOD. As far as energy exerted due to the collapse of one floor from the height that the planes impacted, there would be minimal extra load the structure would to have needed to support. So that's bullshit. Once they were compromised as well as the support trusses it becamse an exercise in simple physics. Apparently we studied a different sort of physics. Uh...considering that they were not I don't find it suspicious at all. Where were the Enron SEC filings stored? WTC 7 was no "realtively undamaged". Almost teh whole of the South Facade was gone and fires raged within it... Bullshit. Even if true, WTC7 was internally reinforced. Do you think it was incapable of supporting itself without one of it's exterior walls? How do you think it kept from falling while they were building it? You have so many childish assumptions it's sort of humorous, as you have to used really fractured logic to arrive at your conclusions. Oh and BTW, there were no "raging fires", there was a bit of a diesel fire inside but nothing close to a "raging fire". You think that a structure such as WTC7 would simply collapse like a deck of cards due to a relatively small internal fire a bit of damage to an exterior wall? Geesh. I'll buy the fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers most likely used aliases...BFD... The individuals listed as the hijackers are not said to be using aliases, and are indentified with not only their names but their photos. There are at least several individuals identified as hijackers who are still alive, and ARE the people that are so identified.
The collapse of 7 was directlyy attriibuted to one of three vertical support beams being compromised over 13 floors by the heat from the fires. The individuals listed as the hijackers are not said to be using aliases If they weren't who they said that then what else could they have been using?
war: If they weren't who they said that then what else could they have been using? Huh? Are you even an American? You don't speak the language very well...
Family has been here since the 1680's...I typoe fast and multi-task... Me: The individuals listed as the hijackers are not said to be using aliases war: If they weren't who they said they were, then what else could they have been using? Better?
#403. To: war (#394)
Better? Ok, now I can at least understand what you're trying to say. The thing is, there is no evidence that places those individuals onboard those doomed aircraft. They are NOT on the flight manifests from what I gather, and the flight manifests have not been made public, or if they were, they are no longer available. Being that there is a strong possibility that the planes were taken over by remote control (which is QUITE feasibile and possible), especially when you consider the rather precise manuevers performed to line the planes up with the towers, then those individuals could very well have been decoys made to APPEAR as if they had hijacked the planes. It worked out rather well, with the majority of the populace believing it, and those who haven't fallen for it are quickly dismissed as "conspiracy theorists".
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.
#21. To: war (#17)
#24. To: Original_Intent (#21)
#55. To: war (#24)
One of the "facts" that you kooks
#60. To: FormerLurker (#55)
Are you BeAChooser?
#67. To: war (#60)
#176. To: FormerLurker (#67)
You think that a structure such as WTC7 would simply collapse like a deck of cards due to a relatively small internal fire a bit of damage to an exterior wall?
#369. To: war (#176)
Me: The individuals listed as the hijackers are not said to be using aliases
#394. To: FormerLurker (#369)
Huh? Are you even an American? You don't speak the language very well...
Replies to Comment # 394. If they weren't who they said they were, then what else could they have been using?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 394.