Jump to content

Carlos

Members
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

934 profile views

Carlos's Achievements

38

Reputation

  1. Seriously considering bailing. 

     

  2. Wow, the person calling people names objects to INDIRECT banter. Back on topic, answer my question! Black boxes, if one was needed the perps could just fake one, or do you think they exceeded their massive man power list with all the other crap and they decided not to bother
  3. Why are you so afraid to answer? The building exterior shows an inward explosion and nothing was ejected out the entrance hole. How does your no-plane nonsense explain it.
  4. I'm asking questions that you CANNOT answer. Mainly because there is no explanation. Circular reasoning - the videos show exactly what should occur. I don't need to prove that the explosion went inwards as we can see. You are the one making the moronic claim and you know there is NO explanation for it. <thread>
  5. You ran away like a big Jessie. Afraid to answer anything. Regarding the picture YOU need to explain how an explosion goes inwards with no debris coming out of the entry hole. You cannot because it was a bloody plane!
  6. Apparently all because there was a possibility the "big lumbering jet" might miss its target. https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/ " I propose a conspiracy theory that the conspiracy theories are themselves part of a conspiracy, intended to discredit the idea of there being a conspiracy — and to divide and conquer those who might sleuth out certain facts." "1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77. Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots. Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill. The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all. They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building. Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be). Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops. Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it. Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn. If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely. As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt. As somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight. Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do."
  7. Wowie, these two are really getting miffed at anyone taking them to task. Apparently anyone questioning their crazy claims is a shill and all posts are trolling. Notice people that the extremely large elephant in the room stays trumpeting away without them addressing it. Third time. How many people were in on this? 1. How many to distribute airplane parts? 2. How many to distribute DNA? 3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers. 4. Then since DNA was found, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up? 5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many? 6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch? 7. How many to create all those individual films? 8. How many to lace the buildings with explosives? 9. How many to plan it? Oversee it? 10. How did they communicate it all? 11. Where is the paper trail for all of this, or the money trail to pay this huge number off? 12. Adding - "crisis actors" total? The thing is, this has been going on for some considerable time now - SURELY you can answer these questions? It HAS to be part of the who, what, why, where scenario - filling in the dots. At least estimates?? One final question: In the world of high explosives and demolition, all sorts of weird and wonderful techniques are employed to make the direction of the force as required. I am not aware of one that makes metal bend towards the explosion. The impacts showed NO outward ejections at the collision point - what Mickey Mouse world does this happen in? Bent inwards? Can the two noisy no planers please avoid answering anything in this post?
  8. How many people were in on your pantomime? 1. How many to distribute airplane parts? 2. How many to distribute DNA? 3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers. 4. Then since DNA was found at the site, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up? 5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many? 6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch? Every single time you try and nail someone down who has a mad theory they run away from obvious problems. Answers please. nb. The only people name calling around here are mishy and you - shill / moron. But then again being insulted by people like you is almost a compliment.
  9. Rant: That is now the 3rd time you have repeated that lie. Physics applies most certainly but people like you are completely ignorant of it. YOU have no right to invoke "physics" particularly when it works perfectly well with such kinetic energy. What the hell are YOU doing on this forum? This happened nearly 20 years ago and you. together with your bonkers clan have been soiling the internet like an incontinent cat, with your incessant no plane no brain gibberish. For you Occam never even had a razor, he had a rusty blunt spoon that he used to scrape bird poo off of his windscreen.
  10. Arsewater. I said the landing gear did that. How many people were in on your pantomime? 1. How many to distribute airplane parts? 2. How many to distribute DNA? 3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers. 4. Then since DNA was found at the site, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up? 5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many? 6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch?
  11. That is called an ad hominem where you reject the verifiable content and attempt to attack the person who presented it. Hopefully the moderators of this forum will pop up and politely request that the very large pot stops calling the kettle black. You seem a little bit miffed that somebody can be bothered to tear you a new backside. Calm yourself down, have a cocoa or something. It was planes. Four of them. The alternative is absurd, unfeasible and ludicrously difficult - it also involves untold numbers of people. Benjamin Franklin Quotes : Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
  12. Yes. Yes. Almost certainly. Your laughter is like backwash from a toilet. https://www.tnonline.com/20170501/coroner-details-flight-93-crash/ No. That's what happens. Did you see the pretty picture of the burnt out husk that actually landed? This one wasn't maxing out and trying to hit the target straight on! You mean the comedy villains didn't simply setoff a comedy fuel bonfire to placate all the crazies who would "notice" no plane parts? No, It hit the deck at colossal speed and it obliterated itself. The energy ricochet sent parts all over for miles. The clean-up team can corroborate this.
  13. That is called an ad hominem where you reject the verifiable content and attempt to attack the person who presented it. Hopefully the moderators of this forum will pop up and politely request that the very large pot stops calling the kettle black.
  14. I am an anti no-planer. It's bred into me to reject abject stupidity.
  15. You are the one cutting and pasting from your silly repertoire of nonsense. Planes that burst into flames and crash at maximum velocity don't tend to leave much behind. It is a total waste of time casting pearls before swine but anyway. THIS plane landed and caught fire. It didn't crash at 530mph into an enclosed space or come down nigh on vertically and bounce into a million bits: That's with fire engines putting the fire out. Leave it to burn, after you crash it at high velocity into an enclosed space and you'd get bugger all left. Nope, that's physics. High energy impact and long duration burning. Stupid statement. Crashing a plane is so easy even a child could do it. An adult and they just need to point it in the right direction.
×
×
  • Create New...