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: 14570
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 92.
#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?
That was funny.
Hey war I have a question. What are your thoughts on Ron Brown?
Well, you asked war but pinged me too so I will tell you that I believe he was murdered. And so do some of the doctors who examined him.
Ron Brown was about the only topic BAC was honest about. Thought I'd see what war would say if I asked.
#94. To: FormerLurker (#92)
I believe BAC's theory was that if he couldn't dazzle you with his brilliance he would baffle you with bs. His novel-length posts turned most people off of anything he had to say.
By Christopher Ruddy FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW December 3, 1997 A circular hole in the skull of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown could have been a gunshot wound and certainly should have prompted an autopsy, according to an Air Force lieutenant colonel and forensic pathologist who investigated the jet crash in which Brown died. "Even if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you got something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told the Tribune-Review. In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an apparent gunshot wound." However, he also said, "Whether it's a bullet or something else, we don't know." On April 3, 1996, an Air Force jet carrying Brown and 34 others, including 14 business executives on a trade mission to Croatia, crashed into a mountainside. The Air Force, in a 22-volume report issued in June of 1996, confirmed its initial judgment that the crash resulted from pilot errors and faulty navigation equipment. Cogswell, who has approximately 12 years' experience as a forensic pathologist, contends evidence that Ron Brown might have been murdered was ignored. He said the main evidence of possible homicide was a hole found on the vertex, the very top of the skull. "Essentially ... Brown had a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which is essentially the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound," Cogswell added....
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
#70. To: FormerLurker (#55)
Are you BeAChooser?
#80. To: war, James Deffenbach (#70)
That was funny.
#91. To: FormerLurker (#80)
Hey war I have a question. What are your thoughts on Ron Brown?
#92. To: James Deffenbach (#91)
Replies to Comment # 92.
#100. To: FormerLurker (#92)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 92.