Who flew those planes into the world trade center?

[Quag]

In your indoctrinated mind "it was those aircraft", but the big problem is that neither you nor the US government can prove it was those aircraft. Telling a story a gazillion times might make the average person believe the story, but it does NOT make the story true.

It has been proven but neither you nor any other truther will admit to reality

 

[Quag]

I haven't dodged anything Mike. All I did was eliminate certain possibilities. Nobody, neither you nor the government nor the media, can prove exactly which airplanes they were. Though Bernie Kerik could find Atta's passport and DL, nobody could find the Flight Data Recorders. Nobody could prove what airplanes they were, and the government will not allow anybody to verify identification by way of viewing the debris. IT IS TOP SECRET, in case you had not noticed.

Therefore, AA11 and UA175 are eliminated because they cannot be proved. Thus, something other than those airliners hit the towers.

They were drones Mike, and we both know it. :mrgreen:

No HD they were proven, failure on your part to understand anything about aviation is not evidence of anything other than your lack of knowledge.
Have you figured out what ground effect is yet?
Didn't think so.

 

[Bob0627]

I'm in the normal mind, not the fringe conspiracy mind.

You know, the real world.

9/11 was a terrorist conspiracy no matter who one believes was involved. Conspiracies are part of the real world. There are many laws that deal with conspiracies. There are many careers in the legal system and law enforcement where one deals with conspiracies on a nearly daily basis. With all these careers, one has to be trained to have a conspiratorial mind to be proficient in their respective career. Many wars have been and are fought because of conspiracies. So what "real world" do you exist in?

 

[Thoreau72]

I'm in the normal mind, not the fringe conspiracy mind.

You know, the real world.

Well if you really believe that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers, then you are kidding yourself. You've been fooled years ago, and have not studied the facts well enough to understand the truth. Along with all the rest of us, you were fooled, and 14 years later still don't know that you were fooled. eace

 

[mike2810]

I haven't dodged anything Mike. All I did was eliminate certain possibilities. Nobody, neither you nor the government nor the media, can prove exactly which airplanes they were. Though Bernie Kerik could find Atta's passport and DL, nobody could find the Flight Data Recorders. Nobody could prove what airplanes they were, and the government will not allow anybody to verify identification by way of viewing the debris. IT IS TOP SECRET, in case you had not noticed.

Therefore, AA11 and UA175 are eliminated because they cannot be proved. Thus, something other than those airliners hit the towers.

They were drones Mike, and we both know it. :mrgreen:

No. We both don't know it.
Again, no source to your insight.

We can eliminate drones, they cannot be proved. Thus the airlines hit the towers.:lamo

HD, you and others are so full of yourselves. At least I have stated each explanation stand on its own merits. Your drone theory fails.

 

[beefheart]

Well if you really believe that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers, then you are kidding yourself. You've been fooled years ago, and have not studied the facts well enough to understand the truth. Along with all the rest of us, you were fooled, and 14 years later still don't know that you were fooled. eace

No, I'm not. You are in the fringe opinion, without any facts or data, just crazy conspiracy theories.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I think that under the circumstances there would be very little backlash against a successful shootdown. But it didn't happen that way.

We know that NEADS was not even informed that Flight 93 was a possible hijack until after it crashed. And there were no assets nearby to deal with it anyway. So Flight 93 wasn't shot down.

By the time Flight 93 was hijacked, much later than the other 3 flights, there was a pretty good understanding of what was unfolding. Passengers aboard 93 had the luxury of being able to find out what happened in New York and DC which the passengers of earlier flights did not. Flight 93 had the fewest hijackers on board, 4 instead of 5 with apparently two of them in the cockpit. That mean only 2 hijackers for the passengers to overcome to gain entry to the cockpit, not 3 or 4. Flight 93 had the least skilled and experienced hijacker-pilot. All of these factors converge to explain what happened.

You could very well be right. Like I said, I'm not all that much into this but I do appreciate your explanation -- it makes sense.

 

[Quag]

Well if you really believe that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers, then you are kidding yourself. You've been fooled years ago, and have not studied the facts well enough to understand the truth. Along with all the rest of us, you were fooled, and 14 years later still don't know that you were fooled. eace

HD the only person you are fooling is yourself

 

[Thoreau72]

No. We both don't know it.
Again, no source to your insight.

We can eliminate drones, they cannot be proved. Thus the airlines hit the towers.:lamo

HD, you and others are so full of yourselves. At least I have stated each explanation stand on its own merits. Your drone theory fails.

You don't seem to get it Mike--AA11 and UA175 cannot be proved. In fact, by virtue of work done by Pilots For Truth and certain flight simulator guys, it has been shown IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft involved to have been ordinary Boeings in service under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations because of the speeds claimed (some say observed, I'm not so sure) by the official story.

Cimino's analysis of the FDR for UA77 show that story also impossible. So does common sense, assuming one has pilot credentials.

Here is a comparison Mike--I am a heretic. While you support and defend the dogma of the Official Story, I denounce that dogma. Your dogma cannot be proved, and I point out that it cannot be proved. I reject that dogma, and that rejection is in today's modern America heresy. Making me a heretic.

Heretics are not always wrong, they are just the sublime example of political incorrectness, if you know what I mean.

Neither you nor the federal government nor the media can prove AA11 and UA175 hit those towers, nor can you prove UA77 hit the Pentagon or that UA93 crashed at Shanksville. You simply cannot prove it.

And we both know that. :mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

No, I'm not. You are in the fringe opinion, without any facts or data, just crazy conspiracy theories.

No sir, as I just mentioned to Mike, I am but a heretic. Anybody who doubts the official story is a modern day secular heretic. We know the dogma advanced by the government and the media is pure bull****, an impossible tale.

Just as Galileo was called a heretic for doubting the official story about the arrangement of the planets and the sun, we are heretics for doubting the official tale of 19 arabs with box cutters.

Carry on.

 

[Mark F]

No sir, as I just mentioned to Mike, I am but a heretic. Anybody who doubts the official story is a modern day secular heretic. We know the dogma advanced by the government and the media is pure bull****, an impossible tale.

Just as Galileo was called a heretic for doubting the official story about the arrangement of the planets and the sun, we are heretics for doubting the official tale of 19 arabs with box cutters.

Carry on.

Massive facepalm

 

[Thoreau72]

Massive facepalm

Yes Mark, massive facepalm and not a shred of proof for you beloved story.

 

[Mark F]

Yes Mark, massive facepalm and not a shred of proof for you beloved story.

So if I produce just a single shred I get to completely falsify your false global generalization there Mr. Galileo?

 

[Thoreau72]

So if I produce just a single shred I get to completely falsify your false global generalization there Mr. Galileo?

It ain't gonna happen Mark. You are UNABLE to produce a single shred that proves your silly story. That is because the story is false, and there is no evidence to support it.

 

[Quag]

It ain't gonna happen Mark. You are UNABLE to produce a single shred that proves your silly story. That is because the story is false, and there is no evidence to support it.

RADAR, DNA, FDRs. Video, eyewitnesses. etc etc etc...
You have yet to provide 1 single piece of evidence to counter any of that. All you have done is shown that as a "flight instructor" you dont know what ground effect is. and somehow think it requires great skill to lose altitude in a steep turn.

 

[beefheart]

No sir, as I just mentioned to Mike, I am but a heretic. Anybody who doubts the official story is a modern day secular heretic. We know the dogma advanced by the government and the media is pure bull****, an impossible tale.

Just as Galileo was called a heretic for doubting the official story about the arrangement of the planets and the sun, we are heretics for doubting the official tale of 19 arabs with box cutters.

Carry on.

Delusions. 14 years without any actual proof, just the usual conspirowank

 

[Mark F]

It ain't gonna happen Mark. You are UNABLE to produce a single shred that proves your silly story. That is because the story is false, and there is no evidence to support it.

Fiterman Hall was damaged beyond economical repair by the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. That is a true fact that is part of the commonly accepted narrative.

You lose.

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

And the goalposts move in 3, 2, 1,...

 

[mike2810]

You don't seem to get it Mike--AA11 and UA175 cannot be proved. In fact, by virtue of work done by Pilots For Truth and certain flight simulator guys, it has been shown IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft involved to have been ordinary Boeings in service under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations because of the speeds claimed (some say observed, I'm not so sure) by the official story.

Cimino's analysis of the FDR for UA77 show that story also impossible. So does common sense, assuming one has pilot credentials.

Here is a comparison Mike--I am a heretic. While you support and defend the dogma of the Official Story, I denounce that dogma. Your dogma cannot be proved, and I point out that it cannot be proved. I reject that dogma, and that rejection is in today's modern America heresy. Making me a heretic.

Heretics are not always wrong, they are just the sublime example of political incorrectness, if you know what I mean.

Neither you nor the federal government nor the media can prove AA11 and UA175 hit those towers, nor can you prove UA77 hit the Pentagon or that UA93 crashed at Shanksville. You simply cannot prove it.

And we both know that. :mrgreen:

Then prove the drones.

What is is HD is you can't prove your position. You use the slant of well it was not AA11 therefore it must be drones.
Much like your mantra of well fire could not have done it, so it had to be CD. The issue is you proving CD.

 

[Mark F]

Then prove the drones.

What is is HD is you can't prove your position. You use the slant of well it was not AA11 therefore it must be drones.
Much like your mantra of well fire could not have done it, so it had to be CD. The issue is you proving CD.

HD can not produce a single SHRED of evidence that proves his silly story is true, not one. Therefore it must be false.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Funny, when he already went over that much...

 

[mike2810]

HD can not produce a single SHRED of evidence that proves his silly story is true, not one. Therefore it must be false.

It is a prime example of not being able to defend an alternative explanation. Starts with a false statement (was not AA11), therefore it must be "drone"

Much like the well it couldn't have been fire induced collapse, therefore it had to be CD. Never mind the specifics of the CD, we don't have any.

Even the dodge around AE911T in that they are just requesting a new investigation and not supporting any alternative explanation. imo not true. They have supported "thermite" and CD.They did reject the energy beam weapon cause.

 

[Mark F]

It is a prime example of not being able to defend an alternative explanation. Starts with a false statement (was not AA11), therefore it must be "drone"

Much like the well it couldn't have been fire induced collapse, therefore it had to be CD. Never mind the specifics of the CD, we don't have any.

Even the dodge around AE911T in that they are just requesting a new investigation and not supporting any alternative explanation. imo not true. They have supported "thermite" and CD.They did reject the energy beam weapon cause.

The government lies.

What more do you need?

 

[BmanMcfly]

The government lies.

What more do you need?

Would be nice to get the truth every once in a while... Well, some of us prefer to know truth at least.

 

[Bob0627]

Would be nice to get the truth every once in a while... Well, some of us prefer to know truth at least.

The problem is that when the US government lies often, if not just about all the time, one can never know if anything it claims is ever the truth, even if it actually is. Who in their right mind would trust a pathological liar and why? And this is why those who question nothing about the OCT and defend everything make no logical sense. It just isn't realistic unless one is an non-thinking automaton.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The problem is that when the US government lies often, if not just about all the time, one can never know if anything it claims is ever the truth, even if it actually is. Who in their right mind would trust a pathological liar and why? And this is why those who question nothing about the OCT and defend everything make no logical sense. It just isn't realistic unless one is an non-thinking automaton.

Ya, the government has even lied in cases where the truth of the matter would not have made them look as bad as what they did say.

Ya, the word is pathological...

I'm amazed that people just embrace the lies, it must be a form of Stockholm syndrome.