candycorn
Diamond Member
A question we ponder is how many socks you're going to try to create...15, 30...what is it?
9/11 facts to discuss....
- Thread starter creativedreams
- Start date
A question we ponder is how many socks you're going to try to create...15, 30...what is it?
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #82
You missed my edit so here you go...
A question I ponder is if the tree fort built within the World Trade Center 7 in which it had its terrorism fighting 23rd floors walls and windows reinforced; did this terrorism fighting headquarters have the 23rd floors walls and windows reinforced to make sure none of the remote operating equipment or wireless detonating controls were damaged from flying debris from the planes impacts?
Wouldn't it have made a perfect vantage point to be precise on impact floors of World Trade Center 1 & 2 and a subsequent setting of a detonating sequence for wireless explosives?
To be sure to get world support to obtain one of the most strategic squares on the worlds chessboard?
candycorn
Diamond Member
Didn't miss it; just don't care.
I mean, why should anybody trust you when you create sock after sock to try to bolster your insane movement? At least fess up and try to start clean you daft ****.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #84
So basically 9/11 may have simply been a move of sacrificing a pawn to take a rook and gain a strategic square to stay in the match on the worlds chess game?
candycorn
Diamond Member
Patriot911
Rookie
- Banned
- #86
Look at a map and you will see just how retarded your claim is. If your claim is based on how good the view the "pilots" would have in order to precisely place the planes, why is it the entire south tower is between WTC 7 and where Flight 175 came in from? They wouldn't have been able to see ANYTHING of the incoming plane, much less where to hit. As for Flight 11, it came in right over WTC 7 which means they would have had MILLISECONDS to try and line up the plane.
Regardless, you don't fly a REAL remote control plane like you do a toy remote control plane. You have cameras on the plane that show you basically what the pilot would see. Which means you wouldn't have people set up in WTC 7 to guide the planes in.
Your whole theory makes zero sense. Now run away from the fact your bullshit is nothing but a foul smelling pile of feces.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #87
Look at a map and you will see just how retarded your claim is. If your claim is based on how good the view the "pilots" would have in order to precisely place the planes, why is it the entire south tower is between WTC 7 and where Flight 175 came in from? They wouldn't have been able to see ANYTHING of the incoming plane, much less where to hit. As for Flight 11, it came in right over WTC 7 which means they would have had MILLISECONDS to try and line up the plane.
Regardless, you don't fly a REAL remote control plane like you do a toy remote control plane. You have cameras on the plane that show you basically what the pilot would see. Which means you wouldn't have people set up in WTC 7 to guide the planes in.
Your whole theory makes zero sense. Now run away from the fact your bullshit is nothing but a foul smelling pile of feces.
Look at the map and see how the nearest tower to WTC7 has hit to be sure debris went away from it...
It was in the news just before 9/11 about remote flying boeing planes was successfully tested and this was developed to be able to take over a plane in the event of a terrorism hijacking....
Hmmm...very interesting...
Hmmm...WTC7 had a terrorism fighting treefort built 23rd floor....
Hmmm...very interesting...
Last edited:
candycorn
Diamond Member
Look at a map and you will see just how retarded your claim is. If your claim is based on how good the view the "pilots" would have in order to precisely place the planes, why is it the entire south tower is between WTC 7 and where Flight 175 came in from? They wouldn't have been able to see ANYTHING of the incoming plane, much less where to hit. As for Flight 11, it came in right over WTC 7 which means they would have had MILLISECONDS to try and line up the plane.
Regardless, you don't fly a REAL remote control plane like you do a toy remote control plane. You have cameras on the plane that show you basically what the pilot would see. Which means you wouldn't have people set up in WTC 7 to guide the planes in.
Your whole theory makes zero sense. Now run away from the fact your bullshit is nothing but a foul smelling pile of feces.
Look at the map and see how the nearest tower to WTC7 has hit to be sure debris went away from it...
It was in the news just before 9/11 about remote flying boeing planes was successfully tested and this was developed to be able to take over a plane in the event of a terrorism hijacking....
Hmmm...very interesting...
Hmmm...WTC7 had a terrorism fighting treefort built 23rd floor....
Hmmm...very interesting...
Nobody cared on AWE.
Nobody cared on Political Forum
Nobody cares here either sockboy;
Nobody finds you the least bit interesting.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #89
Something tells me your **** isn't very clean....
Patriot911
Rookie
- Banned
- #90
Way to expose your extreme dishonest for all to see, CD. I showed you how your theory was impossible. Do you address it? No. You run away like the scared little bitch that you are and pretend Flight 11 was flown in from that angle to spare WTC 7 from debris.
So how did they guide in flight 11? They couldn't see the plane AND the North tower at the same time. How does one "precisely guide in" a plane when you can't see the plane AND the target at the same time? For flight 175 they couldn't even see the plane!
Now keep on trying to cover the FACT you're full of shit and you know it.
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKiT2-94XU&feature=related]YouTube - The most dangerous 911 video ever![/ame]
William Cooper predicts an attack in the name of Bin Laden in June of 2001. He was killed in November 2001 following an arrest warrant for........
William Cooper predicts an attack in the name of Bin Laden in June of 2001. He was killed in November 2001 following an arrest warrant for........
candycorn
Diamond Member
Something tells me you and your legion of socks will never amount to anything...9 years; zero progress.
Oh wait, I know, why don't you post a bunch of pictures of blubbery mouthbreathers standing behind signs...that seems to get the troops enraged.
Oh wait, you've tried that and nobody cared about them, or you either.
That must suck...to be so irrelevant that you not only have to create sock after sock, to suck at it so bad they're discovered immediately, and when they aren't immediately discovered, they are totally irrelevant in virtuality; just as you are in reality.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #93
Way to expose your extreme dishonest for all to see, CD. I showed you how your theory was impossible. Do you address it? No. You run away like the scared little bitch that you are and pretend Flight 11 was flown in from that angle to spare WTC 7 from debris.
So how did they guide in flight 11? They couldn't see the plane AND the North tower at the same time. How does one "precisely guide in" a plane when you can't see the plane AND the target at the same time? For flight 175 they couldn't even see the plane!
Now keep on trying to cover the FACT you're full of shit and you know it.
You don't need to see the plane to remote operate it.
There are developed computer programs in use to fly planes on precise coarses.
It was in the news just before 9/11 about remote flying boeing planes in the event of a terrorism hijacking.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Way to expose your extreme dishonest for all to see, CD. I showed you how your theory was impossible. Do you address it? No. You run away like the scared little bitch that you are and pretend Flight 11 was flown in from that angle to spare WTC 7 from debris.
So how did they guide in flight 11? They couldn't see the plane AND the North tower at the same time. How does one "precisely guide in" a plane when you can't see the plane AND the target at the same time? For flight 175 they couldn't even see the plane!
Now keep on trying to cover the FACT you're full of shit and you know it.
You don't need to see the plane to remote operate it.
There are developed computer programs in use to fly planes on precise coarses.
It was in the news just before 9/11 about remote flying boeing planes in the event of a terrorism hijacking.
So tell us; what do you need to remote operate a plane? Gee...this should be good. Maybe you can have Mountainman look it up for you...or Iron Ranger, or Basspro or Maximus....et. al.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #95
Way to expose your extreme dishonest for all to see, CD. I showed you how your theory was impossible. Do you address it? No. You run away like the scared little bitch that you are and pretend Flight 11 was flown in from that angle to spare WTC 7 from debris.
So how did they guide in flight 11? They couldn't see the plane AND the North tower at the same time. How does one "precisely guide in" a plane when you can't see the plane AND the target at the same time? For flight 175 they couldn't even see the plane!
Now keep on trying to cover the FACT you're full of shit and you know it.
You don't need to see the plane to remote operate it.
There are developed computer programs in use to fly planes on precise coarses.
It was in the news just before 9/11 about remote flying boeing planes in the event of a terrorism hijacking.
So tell us; what do you need to remote operate a plane? Gee...this should be good. Maybe you can have Mountainman look it up for you...or Iron Ranger, or Basspro or Maximus....et. al.
You need a terrorism fighting headquarters just like the one built in World Trade Center 7
candycorn
Diamond Member
Non-answer as always.
No fuckwad...tell us what is needed to remote control an aircraft. I know what it takes; I want you to say it.
C'mon bitch-boy...spill it.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #97
It was in the news just before 9/11 about now having technology to remote operate boeing planes in the event of a terrorism hijacking.
There is technology used in computer programs to plug in precise flying routes for remote operating planes.
The World Trade Center 7 had a tree fort built in it to fight terrorism. This tree fort terrorism fighting headquarters had its 23rd floors walls and windows reinforced.
candycorn
Diamond Member
This is why your movement goes nowhere and nobody cares about you or your movement; create some more imaginary friends to play with dumbfuck.
The answer is that you need a satellite to control aircraft...and the allegation that somehow our satellites were used is simply a non-starter.
But please keep preaching your bullshit about treeforts and other shit long debunked on 3 message boards.
Thanks for the battin' practice.
Check Please.
creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #99
You are correct...you need a satellite
Satellites are used daily and have been for many years to remote operate planes.
Computer programs to place planes on precise flying routes also have been in use for many years.
Non-starter?
Triton
King of the Sea
Creative Dreams, you are dealing with "Candycorn Logic"
If Candycorn says that commerical airplanes cannot be remote controlled, they cannot be remote controlled, period.
Why? Because Candycorn said so.
If Candycorn says that commerical airplanes cannot be remote controlled, they cannot be remote controlled, period.
Why? Because Candycorn said so.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Filed under "Duh": Democrats "rattled" by new book they hid Biden's frailty.- Started by odanny
- Replies: 2
-
-
Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Martin – The Scale of Corruption within the DOJ and FBI are “Much, Much Worse Than People Think”…- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
