Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20-08-2018, 03:14 PM   #181
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
At the end of the day, theres nothing that anyone could ever say which would convince me that what I'm seeing is a real plane impact video or image.
So presmably you must believe that the video of the south tower swaying must also be faked ?

I honestly find your belief to be faith based rather than based on evidence.

What's the single most convincing bit of evidence you would use if you were trying to convince me to believe the same ?
Likes: (1)
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-08-2018, 03:33 PM   #182
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So presmably you must believe that the video of the south tower swaying must also be faked ?

I honestly find your belief to be faith based rather than based on evidence.

What's the single most convincing bit of evidence you would use if you were trying to convince me to believe the same ?
When the inner part of the wings has supposedly completely penetrated the building and the ends of them are still supposedly sticking out and completely in-tact.
Also what I've said before about the building still being in-tact with respect to above.

In-fact, its just one of the most over the top stupid things I've ever seen, it just boggles the mind that someone educated could think it is what its supposed to be.

Last edited by da2255; 20-08-2018 at 06:23 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2018, 03:35 AM   #183
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,888
Likes: 3,838 (2,101 Posts)
Default

I feel moved to say a few words about the best way of approaching investigating things like Apollo or 9/11 or sandy hook ....

IMO it's most important to be able to spell out precisely what your current understanding is ... either type it out or speak it to yourself , keep it brief . An example of this is post two, where I summed up my current understanding in a few lines .... pin it up somewhere , on a forum for everyone to have a pop at , defend it best you can , but don't get overly attached , it will have errors and you will change and fine tune it as you get more information...

It's no good entertaining multiple possibilities at the same time about some part of the event , this is just muddle and confusion and will get nowhere .... decide on the most likely thing ... defend your corner until you have to admit that part needs changing then adjust your model and move on ...we all make mistakes...

This technique will lead you unceasingly to the ultimate truth.....

Evidence certain types of evidence are in a class of their own ,and this must be recognised and it gives a firm foundation on which to move from....

767s cannot fly at the speed and altitude given ... this is 100% ... no question , no doubt ... from this fact many other deductions can follow....

Thermate/thermite was used ... the residue was found in the dust by 6 independent laboratories , this makes this beyond doubt ...a hard fact.

A nuclear fission device/s were used (A bomb) ... government sites giving analysis of the dust give figures with the undeniable fingerprint of the isotopes ... this cannot be denied , it's beyond all doubt ....(see video from da2255)

So your current belief about what happened must include these facts.

Other evidence is less hard ... the sway imparted to the building has been focused on a lot in this thread ... where is the evidence , one or two low quality videos , very easily faked , it may have swayed , but no need to focus on this too much as its questionable evidence....
Likes: (1)
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2018, 04:29 AM   #184
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 524
Likes: 122 (88 Posts)
Default

I have a question or two.
What would be the minimum speed the plane had to hit the tower to cause the damage done.?
At what point in it's flight was the plane supposed to hit 500+ mph?
I ask not to dispute an aircraft hit the tower, but to clarify somethings.
A 767 cannot fly at over 500mph at sea level in straight and level flight fact.
Every commercial plane model must complete a "Flutter Test" to be certified. This is where the aircraft is taken up to altitude and pushed into a relatively steep dive until it hits I think Mach .8. During this time the plane shakes and shudders and if held here for too long bits fall off.
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2018, 06:31 AM   #185
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
At the end of the day, theres nothing that anyone could ever say which would convince me that what I'm seeing is a real plane impact video or image.
Do you not believe the testimonies of NYC residents who saw a plane?

If they forged video / live tv streams, which is possible, you still can not escape that New Yorkers saw planes.

i think it is highly questionable that the French documentary makers (separately) caught both impacts on film - maybe it was a coincidence that they were on the streets and just looking generally in the direction the planes hit each tower. It could be argued that after the first impact the film-maker was in the general vicinity as he tagged along with fire fighters / first responders and was able to get the second impact on film because of that, i guess. But that the brothers got both impacts down is a little suspect.

But New Yorkers saw something hit the towers - what they saw fits A) a military plane with no markings and B) passenger plane with markings.

The planes were silhoted against a bright morning sky - this may explain why some eye witnesses say they saw a black military plane.

i doubt very much that Black Ops government, armed with an unlimited budget, are going to send an unmarked black military plane (with or without windows) when they have the finances and capability of painting a military plane to look like a Boeing passenger airliner.

It's a cat out of the bag thing.

And no footage exists to show a plane that does not (at least) look like a Boeing.

i keep saying this, and returning to it, because it is important. If the planes were travelling at speeds in excess of 500mph - as the OS suggests and 'evidences' - then they were not Boeing airliners.

We can't escape that.

Quote:
QUOTE (Joseph Keith)
Well anyway, I also contacted friends of mine that were still working at Boeing and, because I know that those planes can't fly very fast at sea level. And if you count the frames that it takes in that video -- any of those videos, it is all the same -- it takes six or seven frames. If it takes seven frames to fly its own length which is 159 feet, that means the plane was averaging 465 miles per hour. If it took six frames, that meant the plane averaged 543 miles per hour. Well, according to the Boeing experts or Boeing uh the Boeing people themselves, the engineering department, the plane maxes out -- the specs on the plane -- the power plant will max out at 700 feet altitude at 330 miles per hour. In other words, it can't fly that fast. And, the plane will begin to shake itself apart at about 220 miles per hour at that altitude. So, if the plane were flying that fast at that altitude it would've shook itself apart before it hit the building. You see the engine with the cowlings around them are something like 12 feet in diameter on the 767 and they are built to fly at over 30,000 feet and when you're at 700 feet altitude the air is so thick that when the engine -- you max the rotation of the turbine -- the air, they can't suck the air in and those things start acting as a brake.
There are 3 forces acting on an aircraft at all times... thrust, weight and drag.

Lift is also a force, but as the planes were descending lift is not a relevant force here.

At low altitude, there is far more drag exerted on the plane, it is being asked to work beyond its speed envelope and engine capacity - and to manoeuvre with pinpoint accuracy by inexperienced pilots.

If we take just that one thought into account then the OS becomes a fairy tale.

Establishing conclusive facts is the most sound, logical and rational method of creating a tenable hypothesis to move on with. Regardless of the overall implications of the facts established - what matters is the soundness of the facts and whether they can be clearly established and defended.

It is (generally) conclusive that the Official Story for the events of 9/11 can be shown to be flawed. We can establish that by simply questioning the pilots inability to fly even a single engine Cessna training aircraft let alone a large Boeing - a plane they had never flown, yet managed to fly not once, but on three separate occasions, with pinpoint accuracy.

The OS is at best mistaken and at worst a lie.

We may disagree about the details, or the means, but the established conclusion holds that the OS is fraudulent, and that point needs to be aired. Repeatedly...

The main point here is to question if it is even possible to manoeuvre the aircraft, at high speeds when it is so far beyond its normal operating parameters?

A 767 has a VNO (Normal Operating Vitesse [speed] - through smooth air only) or VNE - [speed] / Vitesse Never Exceed - of 533 mph air speed.

This speed is defined as top speed, in high altitude / thin or smooth air.

At full tilt a Boeing's engines can not maintain airflow through higher density air.

Quote:
Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane.

http://craigmiddleton.co.uk/757/Bigg...0_vmo_mmo.html

At 1000 feet a Boeing 767 has a safe flying speed of (approx) 250knots ph / 287mph. Beyond this it is exceeding A) the amount of air it can safely force through the engines and B) structural integrity.

So, we have got an aircraft WAY out of its envelope at sea level pressure being manoeuvred with pinpoint accuracy by a very inexperienced pilot.

Even if we say the 767 was operating at 100mph more than it's capability, that still leaves us 146mph shy of the claimed speed they impacted with.... So, in effect they were 246mph over their operation capabilities.

In-fact, twice the speed they were capable of at 700 - 1000 feet altitude. With inexperienced pilots at the controls. We know the 'pilots' didn't care about plane safety - their intention (at least in accordance with official lines) was to hit a wall, but they needed to at least maintain vehicle and engine integrity for several air miles - while flying at twice the vehicles capabilities......

We know that this doesn't add up.

We're just arguing about the finer details.

So, the speeds don't add up, and the pilots ability doesn't add up.

The conclusion we can draw from that is that

A) the planes were not Boeing 767's
B) they were not flown by the perpetrators we are told flew them.

But eye witnesses say they saw planes.

Further conclusions remain:
1) the planes were modified Boeing 767's
2) the planes were military craft in disguise
3) the planes were missiles utilising cloaking technology

Occam's razor suggests that the above points are all viable points - given the facts to hand.

Or we can go with Judy's presentation of a death ray, the mini nuke explanation or pre-prepared footage being broadcast.

Secondary explosions - as reported by first responders, and as seen on video footage is a more likely explanation as to why the towers fell than nukes and death rays from space. And eye witness testimonies is more viable than a faked broadcast.

We only need one, independently filmed explosion without a plane at WTC to disprove the plane theory or to disprove the pre-recorded story - and that footage has not yet surfaced.

911 theory is plagued with inconsistent presentations - from Judy and from Richard, and from many other sources, who take 10% of the facts that show the OS to be fraudulent, and then create a whole new fiction around verifiable points - A) & B) above - to hide true facts among lies, deceit and ignorance.

The danger of doing that is that the whole presentation then colours the true facts with hypothesis that is at best questionable.
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha

Last edited by merlincove; 21-08-2018 at 07:06 AM.
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2018, 06:49 AM   #186
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax View Post
I have a question or two.
What would be the minimum speed the plane had to hit the tower to cause the damage done.?
At what point in it's flight was the plane supposed to hit 500+ mph?
I ask not to dispute an aircraft hit the tower, but to clarify somethings.
A 767 cannot fly at over 500mph at sea level in straight and level flight fact.
The argument is that the planes hit high altitude and then dived.

A plane can not take of at - for arguments sake - 200-250mph and then accelerate to maximum speeds while in high density air / before reaching smooth / thin air.

The engines can not regulate the heavy air and reach high speed at low altitude.

A jet fighter can - because it is designed to move through the air at high speeds, has less drag and more force (due to low weight) - but a large Boeing is a different animal and is designed specifically to fly safely at high speed only at high altitude.

It can exceed its design perimeters - ie its VNO / VNE, but the integrity of its engines and structure becomes compromised.

The engine's of a 767 are built to fly (efficiently) at over 30,000 feet and when you're at 1000 feet altitude the air is so thick that the engine, under maximum rotation of the turbine, can't suck the air in to create high speeds, and so, the air effectively acts as a brake.

So, it doesn't matter if the plane is diving, or not - it can't hit its full speed at 1000 feet - the whole thing will force itself to slow down, through wing dynamics, engine capability, drag etc.

(And, of course, the lower it is the more it starts to create Ground Effect - this is most noticeable in the case of the Pentagon. That is to say that the plane creates a vacuum beneath it that pulls it toward the ground.)

But the frames show an impact speed of 533mph.

We need to ask what that tells us?

It tells us that either the footage was fake, or that the planes were not what we have been told they were.

Witnesses saw planes.

So, either the witnesses were mass hypnotised, they are all shills, they saw holograms, or they saw planes - whether disguised or not?
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha

Last edited by merlincove; 21-08-2018 at 08:38 AM.
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2018, 07:27 AM   #187
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2018, 01:11 PM   #188
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post

The conclusion we can draw from that is that

A) the planes were not Boeing 767's
B) they were not flown by the perpetrators we are told flew them.

But eye witnesses say they saw planes.

Further conclusions remain:
1) the planes were modified Boeing 767's
2) the planes were military craft in disguise
3) the planes were missiles utilising cloaking technology

Occam's razor suggests that the above points are all viable points - given the facts to hand.

Or we can go with Judy's presentation of a death ray, the mini nuke explanation or pre-prepared footage being broadcast.

Secondary explosions - as reported by first responders, and as seen on video footage is a more likely explanation as to why the towers fell than nukes and death rays from space. And eye witness testimonies is more viable than a faked broadcast.

We only need one, independently filmed explosion without a plane at WTC to disprove the plane theory or to disprove the pre-recorded story - and that footage has not yet surfaced.

911 theory is plagued with inconsistent presentations - from Judy and from Richard, and from many other sources, who take 10% of the facts that show the OS to be fraudulent, and then create a whole new fiction around verifiable points - A) & B) above - to hide true facts among lies, deceit and ignorance.

The danger of doing that is that the whole presentation then colours the true facts with hypothesis that is at best questionable.
In terms of Nukes, the term "Mini-Nuke" wouldn't really apply here.

I'm sure some here have seen the explosion that took place at the port in Tianjin, China a few years back which was blamed on a chemical explosion. For a start, the blast was enormous but in terms of power, it was the equivilent of around 450kg of TNT (questionable source), nothing near to what was dropped on Hiroshima.

This cold fusion technology that surrounds 9/11 is interesting but so far Im not 100% convinced it was used if Nanothermite was present.

What does interest me though is Hurricane Erin that was sat just off the coast of New York. Regardless of what I think about DJW and RDH's interpretations of empirical evidence, the facts do remain that this Hurricane was present and ultimately just turned around. Its almost like its presence was needed for something.

In regards to air pressure, with a Hurricane sat a few 100 miles away, would the pressure have been much more different than normal in the New York area? In other words would it have allowed aircraft to function better at lower altitudes because of the energy being drawn from the Hurricane?

There is something that links Nanothermite to Haarp. Lasers. But this is only going by what Michu Kaku came out on live news television a few years ago. To quote "Scientists are now firing Trillion Watt lasers up into the atmosphere to effect the weather."

The Haarp array is made up of hundreds of masts, but from what I understand, these masts are extremely portable. All they require is a power source.

So what is Michu Kaku saying? That these masts can create lasers?

The general effect of this technology is to split ions apart in microscopic ice particles found in the atmosphere which result in rain clouds. As he explains it, if this particles aren't present, then weather cannot be altered.

There is also something else interesting in terms of materials used in so called "Chemtrails". The main being an aerosol that contains Aluminium particles.

Nanothermite can be activated using lasers to instantly heat up and ignite the compound.

So if the a HAARP antenna acts like a laser, then they may have been the weapon used to react with the entire structure and the Nanothermite at the same time to blow apart the brittle structure. In other words, a weapon that serves more than one purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYS4sc21mhA

There is also an interesting coincidence that the WTC sat near Battery Park. From what I have found is that Aluminium and Iron are materials being tested to be used for longer lasting batteries. In other words, the WTC building could have in fact been designed like a giant battery with the Aluminium shell covering the steel cores. Sounds daft but if this is the case, an Antenna frequencies placed inside the buildings could have reacted in a way to make all of the steel in building brittle, perhaps one place one each level hidden inside the elevator shafts. Its kind like over loading a battery until it starts to break down. Rust is a product over over charging on the positive terminal where acid and Hydrogen are in high concentration on the terminal.

If people who were claiming to have been lifted up in the air and then thrown across the streets at the time of the collapse, then, it might have been because they were wearing items such as watches that contained materials that would interact with these antennas etc Its either that or it was strong enough to pull the ionic charges in their own bodies.

Sounds totally bonkers, but its like utilizing the weather to fry a chip on a circuit board. Hurricanes produce huge amounts of energy and New York is effectively like a grid circuit board.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...arthquake1.htm

Symbolism.

9= The Hurricane
/= A conduit or Arc (energy channel)
11= The Towers Recievers

Edit: One additional bit of information.

Watch this video. I recently posted it in another thread.

Anomlies in the sky, a flash kind of like lightening but could be unreacted Nanothermite.

https://youtu.be/gC486cRlRjU?t=9m45s

Rumble in distance from WTC kind of like Thunder or discharge of energy. THe most interesting bit of this is that closer to the towers no expolsion could be seen, just a rumble or shake from nearby cameras.

https://youtu.be/gC486cRlRjU?t=10m23s

Direction of the storm possibly running across the line of the two buildings out to sea, hence why South Tower fell first. Directional energy eminating from the storm. A channel conductor drawing energy from the Hurricane.

Just found this.

https://thedailyplasma.blog/2017/09/

Some pretty heavy weather science but if I'm getting this correct, the smoke clouds from the fires were in fact creating an low speed, super charged artifical tornado linking to the Hurricane.

It would explain why the smoke from the collapse just seemed to stop at the edges of Manhattan and lift up into the sky and why smoke fires from WTC 7 were spiraling.


Direction of fire smoke. Out to sea.

https://gizmodo.com/5357310/the-worl...ack-from-space

Last edited by MKUltrad; 21-08-2018 at 03:04 PM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2018, 01:02 PM   #189
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,325
Likes: 4,593 (2,576 Posts)
Default

Im going to post this video for posters to consider the effects of fuel in the wings and its effects upon flight.
When we consider the alleged pentagon turn, descent and speed on has to ask..
How much fuel were those planes carrying?
Is that manoeuvre possible with half full (guestimate) wings of fuel at that altitude?
Has anyone calculated this in relation to the impact sway that has been discussed on this thread?

(this video gives me the same vibe as flat earth did when that surfaced, perhaps these are the new online army we saw getting recruited a few years ago to counter truth seeking)
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2018, 03:59 PM   #190
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,062
Likes: 1,379 (816 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Im going to post this video for posters to consider the effects of fuel in the wings and its effects upon flight.
When we consider the alleged pentagon turn, descent and speed on has to ask..
I haven't watched the video you posted.
The Pentagon manoeuvre was completely impossible...

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I guess that really smart, highly talented Muslim terrorists, that had only been to a regular flying school, could keep a 757 flying. I can even believe that he could crash it in the middle of nowhere (like Shanksville), but flying into a specific skyscraper? No way!

The manoeuvre carried out by the plane that hit the Pentagon is really something special. Not one pilot (born on earth) could pull this off.
Hijacker-pilot Hani Hanjour supposedly pulled off an unprecedented 270° turn at 500 mph, diving 7,000 feet in less than 3 minutes. The last recorded altitude of the plane was 180 feet, because of the (real) air pressure the plane was in fact at an altitude of 480 feet above sea.
The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall for this plane to bring them down. It would have been impossible to descend so fast to hit the Pentagon at ground level.
The story about this feat from pilots that get a little sarcastic: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=322038
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 12:07 AM   #191
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 524
Likes: 122 (88 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Im going to post this video for posters to consider the effects of fuel in the wings and its effects upon flight.
When we consider the alleged pentagon turn, descent and speed on has to ask..
How much fuel were those planes carrying?
Is that manoeuvre possible with half full (guestimate) wings of fuel at that altitude?
Has anyone calculated this in relation to the impact sway that has been discussed on this thread?

(this video gives me the same vibe as flat earth did when that surfaced, perhaps these are the new online army we saw getting recruited a few years ago to counter truth seeking)
The video I believe is misleading in a number of ways.
Most aircraft do not fly with a full load of fuel. Fuel means weight, weight means cost. They carry enough fuel to reach their destinations plus a safety margin in case of diversion etc.
Fuel tanks have baffles to reduce the sloshing effect. Even road/rail tankers have them.
The A380 also has a belly tank so the total fuel is not carried in the wings.
A short video showing the baffle plates inside a fuel tank.

https://captaindave.aero/2017/09/07/...0-fuel-system/
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
Likes: (1)
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 05:02 AM   #192
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Flight 77 left Dulles international in Washington bound for Los Angeles, it got 300 miles (or so) before turning to head back to DC and impact the Pentagon - so the story goes.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...4&postcount=37

LA is roughly 2,700 miles from Dulles, F77 flew only 600 miles and so would have impacted with over 2,000 miles worth of fuel remaining on board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...ines_Flight_77

Bear in mind that on its 'return flight' F77 didn't record any radar trace.

So, it was flying below radar, with almost a full tank of fuel....

Given that F93 had taken off an hour later than scheduled - the conspirators needed a third plane in a hurry. F77 left DC, 20 miles from the Pentagon, flew for over half an hour before being lost to radar.

It then flew back, half an hour to DC. Even though it started it's journey 20 miles from it's target, it flew for just over an hour before finding it.

F11 impacted WTC at 08.46.
F175 impacted WTC at 09.03
F77 found the Pentagon at 09.37 - F77 took off at 08.10, was hijacked at 08.54.

Given that Aircraft Control had lost F77 at or around 08.51 - 08.54, and that WTC had already been impacted at that time, and that clearly America was under attack some 20 minutes later - while F77 was still off the radar ACC still had 35 minutes in which to scramble jets to investigate what had happened to F77 and to mobilise a defence of DC.

F93 was one hour late taking off, it could have been heading toward the Pentagon at 08.28 - and impacting it at approx 09.00 if it had taken off on time.

It turned late - clearly when one studies it's flight, it turned late. I would guess that F93 was on some kind of auto pilot or remote control - as were F11 and F175, and as it took off late, it turned late and was destroyed at approx 10.00 - again, approx 1 hour after it should have impacted a site in DC, either the White House or Pentagon.

F77 was then there to pick up the slack. It was never meant to attack the Pentagon, clearly if it was, Hanjour would have stormed the cockpit soon after take off when the Pentagon was less than 30 miles away. Flying 300 miles to fly 300 miles back is folly when you start 20 miles from target.

Now forget the official story and consider: F93 leaves late, the control device turns it late, it's too far away to make the impact with the Pentagon, so it is bought down.

F77 drops below radar, lands or is diverted and a military plane takes it's place over Ohio, deploys missiles and departs. The missiles perform the stunts recorded and impact the Pentagon.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=218011

There is also some confusion as to which plane was which and doing what from the ACC.
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha

Last edited by merlincove; 23-08-2018 at 05:46 AM.
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2018, 09:48 AM   #193
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
Do you not believe the testimonies of NYC residents who saw a plane?

If they forged video / live tv streams, which is possible, you still can not escape that New Yorkers saw planes.
I will have to say photo/video evidence is always going to trump "someone said something".

They could have even been people like this [email protected]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jViAeSjs3o
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2018, 03:42 PM   #194
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
I will have to say photo/video evidence is always going to trump "someone said something".

They could have even been people like this [email protected]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jViAeSjs3o
Hundreds and hundreds of witnesses.

You think they were all stooges?
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2018, 04:26 AM   #195
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,213
Likes: 1,323 (859 Posts)
Default

Perhaps all of them saw the same thing! (Projected planes) then YES they would be a witness cause threy THOUGHT they saw it!!
Likes: (1)
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2018, 09:10 AM   #196
mishy
Senior Member
 
mishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Not everyone saw a plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

And if you look at the very first news reports (before everyone had the fake video of the second plane hit shoved down their thorats) there are many accounts of no plane/small plane/missile.
__________________
Likes: (1)
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2018, 09:25 AM   #197
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishy View Post
Not everyone saw a plane.


__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2018, 11:04 AM   #198
mishy
Senior Member
 
mishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post


That reminds me, my car needs an MOT.
__________________

Last edited by mishy; 28-08-2018 at 11:05 AM.
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 05:18 PM   #199
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Shakes head at all the claims about 757 speeds and therefore no passenger planes and therefore they had to be disposed of etc......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiv6UvYnf3s



There is a big difference between what an aircraft can do and what it is allowed to do for safety reasons. Manufacturers impose limits based on a number of things, but when the objective is not to spare the plane and not give a crap about it shaking to bits, you can go way beyond that. In addition to generated engine speed, the dive adds considerable velocity. The engines are howling like crazy on the audio for 2nd tower crash....you won't hear engines pushed like that in normal flight because it isn't allowed.

There's no stability issue on low level flying either, ground effect is nowhere near as strong when the surface is uneven or grass...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gk6kiQ7GjA

Pentagon can't fly low level?

https://youtu.be/bMCFo8IwSEs?t=813

Yes it can. All the talk about "experienced pilots" not being able to hit the target is just flannel. Quite clearly the targets were hit.

Let's have it!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 09:51 AM   #200
mishy
Senior Member
 
mishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Shakes head at all the claims about 757 speeds and therefore no passenger planes and therefore they had to be disposed of etc......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiv6UvYnf3s



There is a big difference between what an aircraft can do and what it is allowed to do for safety reasons. Manufacturers impose limits based on a number of things, but when the objective is not to spare the plane and not give a crap about it shaking to bits, you can go way beyond that. In addition to generated engine speed, the dive adds considerable velocity. The engines are howling like crazy on the audio for 2nd tower crash....you won't hear engines pushed like that in normal flight because it isn't allowed.

There's no stability issue on low level flying either, ground effect is nowhere near as strong when the surface is uneven or grass...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gk6kiQ7GjA

Pentagon can't fly low level?

https://youtu.be/bMCFo8IwSEs?t=813

Yes it can. All the talk about "experienced pilots" not being able to hit the target is just flannel. Quite clearly the targets were hit.

Let's have it!

Where's the wreckage?
__________________

Last edited by mishy; 03-09-2018 at 09:51 AM.
Likes: (1)
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.