Jump to content

9/11 EXPOSED IN 10 MINUTES


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

 

while you are as slippery as an eel

 

baffling why you couldn't give a clear answer after you posted a video of a jet fighter crashing headfirst into an imoveable concrete barrier

 

 

i didn't say i did think that. I was asking you if you were drawing a comparison between the official account of the impact and the impact of a jet fighter smashing headfirst into a concrete barrier which you posted above

 

 

Point 1...nope. I gave you clear answers and you went off comparing Lewis Hamilton and Reg Varney! Posted 7.24 yesterday....I suggest you read stuff before you go off 1/4 cocked.

 

Point 2...baffling what stopped you reading the posts at the top of this page.

 

Point 2....good. Because I feel some no planery coming from you and it would have been absurd quoting a plane witness account to justify details of the crash.

 

Now what? You gonna say something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey man, don't waste your time engaging with Comedy Time. He is a shill who is here to rebuke/refute absolutely anything you say, regardless of what evidence or lack of on his part you provide.  

BITCHUTE VIDEO LINK: 9/11 EXPOSED IN 10 MINUTES   Hi guys,   After attending the Trafalgar square march I signed up here - I have made a very short documentary in my free time..

Have a few memes          

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

You say Arabs as though they haven't got the same capabilities.

 

Sustained absolute maximum speed...pushing the engines to their limit will cause permanent damage to the plane. They're built to withstand quite a bit and I very much doubt any pilot has taken any large passenger plane even close to give an accurate opinion. According to "some" pilots should be your statement. Because others have no problem with it.

 

I'm guessing the terrorists weren't bothered about screwing the plane up. A minute or so at screaming speed. Well possible.

You seem to be the only one to get all the proper records because according to flight instructors, "the terrorists" couldn't fly anything so it's not because they were Arabs but because they were incompetent.

 

Reference to maximum speed, I would take the word of an experience pilot before yours... well, unless you are an experience pilot? 

How many hours do you have under your belt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wideawake said:

You seem to be the only one to get all the proper records because according to flight instructors, "the terrorists" couldn't fly anything so it's not because they were Arabs but because they were incompetent.

 

You don't need to be a good pilot to crash a plane.

 

2 hours ago, wideawake said:

Reference to maximum speed, I would take the word of an experience pilot before yours... well, unless you are an experience pilot? How many hours do you have under your belt?

 

Correction, you would take the word of SOME pilots who would not know the maximum speed of the aircraft since they would not even go near the VNE speed. Boeing would be better qualified to give this information.

 

But hey let's run that up the flagpole shall we?

Evil perps meeting:

 

Evil overlord: So we are in agreement. No planes and video fakery, kill the passengers, burn them blah de blah.

Evil underling 1: Yes your highness. Leave it to me. I'll make those blinking planes look so real.

Evil underling 2: Yes and I'll make them look like they are going 580 mph.

Evil Overlord: Don't be an arse, they can't go that fast at 1000ft.

Evil Underling 2: Ahaaa, but nobody will notice.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

You don't need to be a good pilot to crash a plane.

 

 

Correction, you would take the word of SOME pilots who would not know the maximum speed of the aircraft since they would not even go near the VNE speed. Boeing would be better qualified to give this information.

 

But hey let's run that up the flagpole shall we?

Evil perps meeting:

 

Evil overlord: So we are in agreement. No planes and video fakery, kill the passengers, burn them blah de blah.

Evil underling 1: Yes your highness. Leave it to me. I'll make those blinking planes look so real.

Evil underling 2: Yes and I'll make them look like they are going 580 mph.

Evil Overlord: Don't be an arse, they can't go that fast at 1000ft.

Evil Underling 2: Ahaaa, but nobody will notice.

 

 

 

 

Some kind of a smart answer when there is none to be found...

You have a link to your professional pilots stating it is easy to crash a plane in NY WTC?

You have a link that would state you can go at 500mph at low altitude without having it falling apart?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wideawake said:

 

Some kind of a smart answer when there is none to be found...

You have a link to your professional pilots stating it is easy to crash a plane in NY WTC?

You have a link that would state you can go at 500mph at low altitude without having it falling apart?

 

Yes. A smart answer and of course you ignored it. If it wasn't possible for the plane to do these speeds, what crazy world has the MASSIVE team involved creating video showing it doing so!? Kinda dumb don't you think? Answer please.

 

You can find pilots stating any number of things but the aircraft MUST have a tolerance way higher than the figures quoted for passenger service. I posted a pilot account on one of the threads. Even a shallow dive will get the airspeed building quickly - it's called gravity. There's numerous forums where New Yorkers talk about the planes flying over their apartments and places where experts discuss max speeds and bad pilots. Have YOU gone looking for any of that?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Yes. A smart answer and of course you ignored it. If it wasn't possible for the plane to do these speeds, what crazy world has the MASSIVE team involved creating video showing it doing so!? Kinda dumb don't you think? Answer please.

 

You can find pilots stating any number of things but the aircraft MUST have a tolerance way higher than the figures quoted for passenger service. I posted a pilot account on one of the threads. Even a shallow dive will get the airspeed building quickly - it's called gravity. There's numerous forums where New Yorkers talk about the planes flying over their apartments and places where experts discuss max speeds and bad pilots. Have YOU gone looking for any of that?

 

 

 

 

Obviously you haven't been looking and tell me to look for an answer. You remind me of a poster on another forum about the very same subject... maybe you are the same person.  🧐

Edited by wideawake
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wideawake said:

Obviously you haven't been looking and tell me to look for an answer. You remind me of a poster on another forum about the very same subject... maybe you are the same person.  🧐

 

I didn't tell you to look for anything, I asked if you did... you almost certainly went looking for conspiracy stuff only. I couldn't give a shit who I remind you of. Diving planes accumulate speed very quickly. The planes are built to exceed guidance and tested accordingly.

 

What crazy world has the MASSIVE team involved creating video showing it doing "impossible" speeds.  Kinda dumb don't you think? Answer please.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

I didn't tell you to look for anything, I asked if you did... you almost certainly went looking for conspiracy stuff only. I couldn't give a shit who I remind you of. Diving planes accumulate speed very quickly. The planes are built to exceed guidance and tested accordingly.

 

What crazy world has the MASSIVE team involved creating video showing it doing "impossible" speeds.  Kinda dumb don't you think? Answer please.

 

I asked you if you had links reference your statements as it is obvious you are not an experienced pilot and you come back with bs questions because? You can't back up what your are stating here?

Any other day, you would fill a page full of links but... not today?

 

Go play somewhere

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wideawake said:

 

I asked you if you had links reference your statements as it is obvious you are not an experienced pilot and you come back with bs questions because? You can't back up what your are stating here?

Any other day, you would fill a page full of links but... not today?

 

https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

 

Dude, you are afraid to answer the obvious question. You people are very fond of making claims and statements without considering the obvious implications.

 

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.

 

17 minutes ago, wideawake said:

Any other day, you would fill a page full of links but... not today?

 

 

And routinely they would get ignored. As will the one I just posted.

 

17 minutes ago, wideawake said:

Go play somewhere

 

Flouncey flounce.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

 

Dude, you are afraid to answer the obvious question. You people are very fond of making claims and statements without considering the obvious implications.

 

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.

 

 

And routinely they would get ignored. As will the one I just posted.

 

 

Flouncey flounce.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

 

To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it

Yes, like everything else that happened on 9/11. Luck and coincidences and no camera footage of anything for National Security.

Not even proof of "the terrorists" boarding the planes. The planes were remote controlled or they were missiles. I suspect the latter.

Btw, don't believe what FEMA or any other organization sponsored by the government publishes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wideawake said:

To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it

Yes, like everything else that happened on 9/11. Luck and coincidences

 

 

Hey, you ramp up the old conspiracy-speak. Coincidences occur all over the world every day and some ridiculously unfeasible. The pilot said it wasn't difficult. OK? You failed as I expected to acknowledge that. The pilot said he and his fellow pilots agreed with this...you still going to ignore that?

 

7 minutes ago, wideawake said:

no camera footage of anything for National Security.

 

Such as? Planes hitting the buildings? CCTV footage of passengers boarding? Footage of the plane parts?

 

7 minutes ago, wideawake said:

Not even proof of "the terrorists" boarding the planes.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-14347433

 

7 minutes ago, wideawake said:

The planes were remote controlled or they were missiles. I suspect the latter.

 

Yeah ok. The latter involves disposing of the planes, the bodies, sprinkling DNA and engine parts, manufacturing videos, magic plane shaped impacts etc....

 

A ridiculous claim. Particularly since numerous people actually saw the bloody planes.

 

7 minutes ago, wideawake said:

Btw, don't believe what FEMA or any other organization sponsored by the government publishes.

 

Uhuh. A self reinforcing argument.  Here, try reading it...

 

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@wideawakeYou suggested I should put some links up.

 

Shanksville similar to...... American Eagle Flight 4184: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184

 

Engines at the Pentagon:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

 

Full analysis of Pentagon Impact:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

 

Another Pilot looks at the issues:

https://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

@wideawakeYou suggested I should put some links up.

 

Shanksville similar to...... American Eagle Flight 4184: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184

 

Engines at the Pentagon:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

 

Full analysis of Pentagon Impact:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

 

Another Pilot looks at the issues:

https://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you,

First of all, I don't use Wikipedia as a reference... not reliable

The expert pilot you linked twice, well here a quote from the link.

 

Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel blogger and author. His Ask the Pilot column, from which portions of this website have been adapted, ran in the online magazine Salon.com from 2002 until 2012.

Patrick has appeared on over 300 radio and television outlets, including CNN, PBS, the BBC and National Public Radio. He is regularly cited in print publications worldwide, and was voted one of the “25 Best Bloggers” by TIME magazine.

When does he get to fly airplanes to get his hours and become an expert? 🙄

And another one.

 

At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.

Yeah, hurting for links much?

Give it up mate, I see you're pushing the official narrative and will go to any length to convince anyone. 🤥

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 4:51 PM, Comedy Time said:

Point 2....good. Because I feel some no planery coming from you and it would have been absurd quoting a plane witness account to justify details of the crash.

 

Now what? You gonna say something?

 

'No planery'?

 

what you mean like saying that it was likely a tomahawk missile that hit the pentagon...something like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two differing accounts of 9/11 by or about KLAUS SCHWAB, President of the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset, who just happened to be visiting New York on 9/11 oh vey!

 

“What Sept. 11 demonstrated more forcefully than ever is that religion can be terribly abused for violent purposes that can affect us all,” said Rabbi David Rosen, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee and a participant at the economic forum. “You have to strengthen the moderates who can make religion a constructive force rather than a destructive one,” Rosen said. “You can´t ignore religion in terms of political and social processes.” In fact, the founder and president of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, was having breakfast with Rabbi Arthur Schneier at his Park East Synagogue in New York when the two jets struck the World Trade Center, Schneier said. Schneier, who heads the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, a coalition of business and religious leaders in New York, had intended to discuss increasing the participation of religious leaders at the economic forum."

 

https://www.jta.org/2002/02/05/lifestyle/religion-has-role-at-economic-forum

 

"On September 10 2001 my wife and I arrived in New York as I was to receive the Candlelight award from then-UN-Secretary-General Kofi Annan. That night we had a very inspiring conversation with Annan and many members and partners of the World Economic Forum. That next morning, September 11, I was planning to attend a meeting with newspaper editors directly across from the twin towers. For sheer coincidence, the meeting was rescheduled and I was on my way to the Upper East Side instead. What happened next I still find hard to grasp. On my way to the meeting, my taxi driver said “something” had happened in Lower Manhattan."

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/why-9-11-reminds-us-we-must-respond-to-fear-with-openness/

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wideawake said:

Thank you,

First of all, I don't use Wikipedia as a reference... not reliable

 

Yeah, hurting for links much?

Give it up mate, I see you're pushing the official narrative and will go to any length to convince anyone. 🤥

 

 

Wiki is fine for general stuff that can be corroborated. A similar crash and it broke into tiny bits. That should convince an honest truther.

 

I'm not pushing the official anything! I'm dissecting your unofficial claims. They are all huffenpuff.

 

The qualified pilot said it could be done and most of his peers agreed. Your response was to ignore this and talk about coincidence 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wideawake said:

 

Btw, I forgot to mention about your evidence of hijackers boarding.

Ever wondered why the video is sooo blurry? It was supposed to have happened on Sept 11,2001... not in 1954.

 

Hand waving noted. The evil perps unable to get some look alikes and HD quality 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Wiki is fine for general stuff that can be corroborated. A similar crash and it broke into tiny bits. That should convince an honest truther.

 

I'm not pushing the official anything! I'm dissecting your unofficial claims. They are all huffenpuff.

 

The qualified pilot said it could be done and most of his peers agreed. Your response was to ignore this and talk about coincidence 

Your qualified pilot didn't have time to fly planes, he was too busy writing blogs, showing off on CNN, doing everything but flying planes and did you noticed that he started going public in... 2002?

Geez, another coincidence. Just on time to debunk conspiracy theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Hand waving noted. The evil perps unable to get some look alikes and HD quality 🙄

You won't even admit it's a piss poor video. It's pretty bad when phones can get better videos then the security camera at an airport. 🙄

Btw, where's the video of all the other 'terrorists"?

Edited by wideawake
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wideawake said:

Your qualified pilot didn't have time to fly planes, he was too busy writing blogs, showing off on CNN, doing everything but flying planes and did you noticed that he started going public in... 2002?

Geez, another coincidence. Just on time to debunk conspiracy theories.

 

So only your "qualified pilots" count and this is an ad hominem argument.

 

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/98119-your-opinion-9-11-piloting-2.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

'No planery'?

 

what you mean like saying that it was likely a tomahawk missile that hit the pentagon...something like that?

 

So after all your faffing around you are a no planer?

 

Now we are into the following territory:

  • Nobody must see the Tomahawk missile. Including air-traffic control.
  • A team must be quickly assembled to invisibly and very quickly sprinkle plane parts all over The Pentagon. Emergency services on route + news teams/helicopters.
  • The actual plane and all passengers must be disposed off.
  • The bodies must be burnt and mashed and a team/person to sprinkle the DNA quickly all over the crash site(s).
  • A team to launch the missile from somewhere.
  • A team to set charges to bust the internal walls and set aircraft fuel charges.
  • Somebody to set the charges to blow the light poles and the generator.
  • Somebody/a team to create the general shape of a plane in the wall with explosives

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wideawake said:

You won't even admit it's a piss poor video. It's pretty bad when phones can get better videos then the security camera at an airport. 🙄

Btw, where's the video of all the other 'terrorists"?

 

It's a poor CCTV video and this is a strawman argument. The quality of video makes no difference. Can't find any other video. There was many years ago. Don't care really. I withdraw the claim.....we can't see them boarding. There.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pentagon is the most CCTV'd building on the planet and a clear video was also taken from the hotel across the road but this video was swiped by FBI on the day of the attack

 

Yet the only clip that has been released of the pentagon attack appears to show a missile rather than a plane striking the pentagon

 

Why won't they just release a video of a plane hitting the pentagon?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Macnamara said:

The pentagon is the most CCTV'd building on the planet and a clear video was also taken from the hotel across the road but this video was swiped by FBI on the day of the attack

 

Yet the only clip that has been released of the pentagon attack appears to show a missile rather than a plane striking the pentagon

 

Why won't they just release a video of a plane hitting the pentagon?

 

So if you actually do a reductive comparison of two frames on the CCTV footage you get a plane and you dude are ignoring the big obvious list!

 

The plane had 3 times more kinetic energy than a Tomahawk.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...