The Lie of 9-11 and it's after effects

[Robert W]

The Bushes are NWO to the bone.

I was not aware you are a cabal believer.

 

[wist43]

Who is the establishment, as you define this group? Give me names. What firms are you naming? I will listen to serious honest dialogue. Now you send me chasing to gladio. Fine, can you recall the video site? Can you show it on youtube?

I've linked you to the Gladio video several times. Here is the link to the one on Rumble, but as I said, Rumble can be moody.

And yes, there is a copy on YouTube, but you can't link it, you can only watch it directly from YouTube. Just type in Nato's Secret Armies, it's a 47 minute video.

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

Now you are just being stupid. Of course the plane hit the Pentagon, it was witnessed and caught on video. It left a giant hole and many bodies. Just because a jet is made of light aluminum and hollow ribs to be light enough to fly, it still weighs many tons, about 150 tons, and was moving probably 300 mph when it hit--- and I guess they didn't teach you about kinetic energy when you were in high school.

Kinetic energy, that is why when a 12 foot rock hit Arizona 50,000 years ago, it left a crater a mile wide, and why when a 6 mile wide rock hit the Yucatan Peninsula, it killed the dinosaurs and most life on Earth.

Oh and, change my words, misquote me again, and I'll report you for a gross rule violation. I never said anything about "tissue paper like metal." I said that jets were made practically of tissue paper--- to be as light as possible while holding up to flying and landing, meaning as thin and light as possible.

U Wanna See Stupid, then Look in Your Mirror.
The Security Camera Videos, from the Gas Station across the highway from the Pentagon, have never been released.
That also goes for the Pentagon Parking lot, with the exception of One Security Camera, at a gate, that shows what more so, resembles a very large drone, than a Jet Air Liner.



Now insert Your "Tissue paper like metal" into this conversation.

You Believe that instead of it totally collapsing on impact, with a sizable amount of "Identifiable Wreckage", embedded in to the Office of Naval Intelligence that it actually bored a hole further in to the Pentagon. In Fact, the plane's wings conveniently "Folded back", & The "Tail Fin" folded down, & followed the fuselage in to that "Hole". And that the resulting fire, for the first time in Aviation History, completely destroyed the Plane, & it's contents.



Now as far as Your "Rock",..... And the "Asteroid",....They weren't made out of "Tissue thin Metal".
Now to an Immediate Problem. You need to Rethink Your Accusation:
"Jets are made practically of tissue paper--- to be as light as possible while holding up to flying and landing." Post# 389

You were properly quoted in Post# 396

So,....I Responded with "Tissue paper like metal", bore a hole in to the Pentagon, with no readily available evidence of a Jet Airliner having crashed? Now if You are so knowlegable about planes etc., Were You, & Are You now stating that Planes are not made of ""Tissue paper like metal""?

Now if this a ploy to silence me, that Ain't Gonna Happen, but If You Feel that It's necessary to report me, over My Statement of "Tissue paper like metal", then do so. Hopefully They will have More Common Sense than You, & see that No Rule was broken.

 

[wist43]

U Wanna See Stupid, then Look in Your Mirror.
The Security Camera Videos, from the Gas Station across the highway from the Pentagon, have never been released.
That also goes for the Pentagon Parking lot, with the exception of One Security Camera, at a gate, that shows what more so, resembles a very large drone, than a Jet Air Liner.



Now insert Your "Tissue paper like metal" into this conversation.

You Believe that instead of it totally collapsing on impact, with a sizable amount of "Identifiable Wreckage", embedded in to the Office of Naval Intelligence that it actually bored a hole further in to the Pentagon. In Fact, the plane's wings conveniently "Folded back", & The "Tail Fin" folded down, & followed the fuselage in to that "Hole". And that the resulting fire, for the first time in Aviation History, completely destroyed the Plane, & it's contents.



Now as far as Your "Rock",..... And the "Asteroid",....They weren't made out of "Tissue thin Metal".
Now to an Immediate Problem. You need to Rethink Your Accusation:
"Jets are made practically of tissue paper--- to be as light as possible while holding up to flying and landing." Post# 389

You were properly quoted in Post# 396

So,....I Responded with "Tissue paper like metal", bore a hole in to the Pentagon, with no readily available evidence of a Jet Airliner having crashed? Now if You are so knowlegable about planes etc., Were You, & Are You now stating that Planes are not made of ""Tissue paper like metal""?

Now if this a ploy to silence me, that Ain't Gonna Happen, but If You Feel that It's necessary to report me, over My Statement of "Tissue paper like metal", then do so. Hopefully They will have More Common Sense than You, & see that No Rule was broken.

I never found much when researching for the surrounding surveillance videos.

Has there been anything released other than those sketchy parking lot shots?? Which were themselves proven to be altered

 

[toobfreak]

U Wanna See Stupid, then Look in Your Mirror.

Dude, you are so far off the mark on everything, you are not even worth debating, educating or arguing with. You are too boring for any of that; off to Iggy with you.

I usually don't talk to most people until they've been here at least a year, and now we know why. Now go back to flying your model planes into your model Godzilla in the bathtub as you both blow bubbles.

 

[candycorn]

I've linked you to the Gladio video several times. Here is the link to the one on Rumble, but as I said, Rumble can be moody.

And yes, there is a copy on YouTube, but you can't link it, you can only watch it directly from YouTube. Just type in Nato's Secret Armies, it's a 47 minute video.

Yeah, nobody cares.

You were asked what major point in the 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT was wrong.

You don't seem to have an answer....

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

Where did the people go? Where are the passengers and crews on the planes? Were they all in on it? If the plane didn't hit a building, or drill itself into the ground, then where are the people that boarded the planes? They disappeared. Where are they?

"

"Ya'll, Jet Air Liners do not disintegrate upon impacting buildings such as the Pentagon, nor when crashing in to the ground"

None of Your Questions Irish were directly tied to My Statement.

But If You Believe the Government Story,.... The people disappeared with the wreckage

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

I never found much when researching for the surrounding surveillance videos.

Has there been anything released other than those sketchy parking lot shots?? Which were themselves proven to be altered

Wist, the only video that I've found/heard of, is the one at the gate. To me, that is mind boggling.

Matter of fact,.... No Video, nor Videos, have surfaced that clearly show a Jet Air Liner crashing into the Pentagon.

 

[candycorn]

"

None of Your Questions Irish were directly tied to My Statement.

But If You Believe the Government Story,.... The people disappeared with the wreckage

Yeah, nobody cares.

Please tell us what major thing the 9/11 Commission Report got wrong. So far, you've not listed a single thing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I was not aware you are a cabal believer.

To the bone.

 

[Robert W]

To the bone.

The UN is not new at all. I am 87 and was a boy when it started. His son no doubt also supported the UN. I assumed you meant a new order that was as you appear to believe bosses US presidents.

 

[wist43]

Wist, the only video that I've found/heard of, is the one at the gate. To me, that is mind boggling.

Matter of fact,.... No Video, nor Videos, have surfaced that clearly show a Jet Air Liner crashing into the Pentagon.

I found news reports of the Feds going around collecting any and all videos - never to be seen of course.

If the official version were true, the videos would show that, and the Feds would be showing them ad nauseum (which of course has not happened).

On the other hand, if the government has everything to hide, they'd never produce any of those videos (which of course is the case), and the 1 video they did release would be altered and show nothing (which is of course, also the case).

Things that make you go hmm

 

[Robert W]

Wist, the only video that I've found/heard of, is the one at the gate. To me, that is mind boggling.

Matter of fact,.... No Video, nor Videos, have surfaced that clearly show a Jet Air Liner crashing into the Pentagon.

Well, you seem not to know this, but the Pentagon has a highway running past it on the side it got hit. Witnesses in cars showed up to testify they saw the airliner hit the Pentagon. Sure, as fast as it flew, no doubt no driver had time to whip out his camera to video the crash.

 

[wist43]

I believe Bush gets a bad rap over Iraq and Afghanistan. I also understand that he did very well in both wars. I really don't understand why you go after him. What names can you supply of this international cabal? Please don't tell me to watch hours of video. This is your issue and you must know a lot here that you can personally explain.

Robert, watching a documentary is easier to understand than for me to write volumes in explanation.

Yes, I've forgotten more on these subjects than most people will ever know, but to have a worthwhile dialogue you at least need to have a baseline understanding - understanding enough to ask the right questions.

If you still think Bush was one of the good guys, then you're missing the big picture.

Watch the videos I recommended.

 

[The Irish Ram]

"

None of Your Questions Irish were directly tied to My Statement.

But If You Believe the Government Story,.... The people disappeared with the wreckage

Truth, the Government is about the last thing I would trust, but take the plane that went down in a field. If it didn't go down, where are all the people? If the second plane didn't fly into the building, where did it go? 246 people disappeared that day, and they were all on planes. Where are they now?

 

[The Irish Ram]

The UN is not new at all. I am 87 and was a boy when it started. His son no doubt also supported the UN. I assumed you meant a new order that was as you appear to believe bosses US presidents.

The UN used to be run pretty much the way we told it to run. It has taken in so may Muslim countries, that the UN is run the way the Muslims tell them to run.

[1/16]Israeli soldiers use a camera to inspect what the military described as a Hamas command tunnel running partly under UNRWA headquarters, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip, February 8, 2024. REUTERS

The UN, the WEF, NATO, WHO, CDC are all working in unison for the Great Reset. Digital ID's and virtual wallets will give them the power they need to pull it off.

 

[Robert W]

The UN used to be run pretty much the way we told it to run. It has taken in so may Muslim countries, that the UN is run the way the Muslims tell them to run.

[1/16]Israeli soldiers use a camera to inspect what the military described as a Hamas command tunnel running partly under UNRWA headquarters, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip, February 8, 2024. REUTERS

The UN, the WEF, NATO, WHO, CDC are all working in unison for the Great Reset. Digital ID's and virtual wallets will give them the power they need to pull it off.

Let's examine the UN members.
First all of it.

193 member countries
As of now, there are 193 member countries in the United Nations. This includes 193 sovereign states, with two non-member observer states also recognized.

There are 57 Muslim member countries

Frankly would you kick the Muslims out so they played no role? There are far more non-Muslim states who have more to say about actions.

If you were in the smaller group, would you feel very powerful?

 

[wist43]

Truth, the Government is about the last thing I would trust, but take the plane that went down in a field. If it didn't go down, where are all the people? If the second plane didn't fly into the building, where did it go? 246 people disappeared that day, and they were all on planes. Where are they now?

You have to understand a few basic facts, then unravel the mess from there.

If the passenger planes that took off from Newark, et al, could not have withstood the physical forces of flying that far above VMO, and yet still perform extraordinary turns at those speeds, then it stands to reason that the planes that hit the towers and Pentagon were not the original passenger planes.

The unraveling of this fact, and it has to be a fact - if for no other reason than only a modified and reinforced aircraft could withstand the forces imposed - then it further stands to reason that the passenger planes were "swapped out" midair with modified and reinforced drones.

This is not only plausible, and likely, it has historical precedent, at least in terms of operational proposal in the Pentagon plan named Operation Northwoods.

Northwoods was presented to John F Kennedy in 1963, and it is basically the same scenario as what played out on 9/11.

Swap passenger jets out with similar looking drones in midflight, crash the drones into targets, and blame "terrorists" to manipulate public opinion, etc.

From there, it also makes sense that the original passenger planes were landed (there is, or was, evidence that this took place somewhere in Ohio), the passengers disembarked and sequestered (the phones calls were conducted at this time), and then they were all killed. Gassed would make the most sense. Kills them all at once, no trauma for the killers.

To be sure, that is how I would have set it up.

 

[Robert W]

You have to understand a few basic facts, then unravel the mess from there.

If the passenger planes that took off from Newark, et al, could not have withstood the physical forces of flying that far above VMO, and yet still perform extraordinary turns at those speeds, then it stands to reason that the planes that hit the towers and Pentagon were not the original passenger planes.

The unraveling of this fact, and it has to be a fact - if for no other reason than only a modified and reinforced aircraft could withstand the forces imposed - then it further stands to reason that the passenger planes were "swapped out" midair with modified and reinforced drones.

This is not only plausible, and likely, it has historical precedent, at least in terms of operational proposal in the Pentagon plan named Operation Northwoods.

Northwoods was presented to John F Kennedy in 1963, and it is basically the same scenario as what played out on 9/11.

Swap passenger jets out with similar looking drones in midflight, crash the drones into targets, and blame "terrorists" to manipulate public opinion, etc.

From there, it also makes sense that the original passenger planes were landed (there is, or was, evidence that this took place somewhere in Ohio), the passengers disembarked and sequestered (the phones calls were conducted at this time), and then they were all killed. Gassed would make the most sense. Kills them all at once, no trauma for the killers.

To be sure, that is how I would have set it up.

You are still very troubled. And of course that is your privilege. I sure wish you would go to a local airport and get genuine pilot training. It would help you focus so much better. Your terminology is not actually correct. The Arabs never used higher than the planes could stand maneuvers and the forces were only a bit higher than the ordinary trips. Get to a local airport. Consider it part of your research.

https://www.seattle911visibilityproject.in/911_aircraft.htm

9/11: The Aircraft​

Note:
This material is not intended to fit any theory.
Various pieces of information are merely brought together.



11/02/07: R. A. Herbst BAAE(1969); ME(1980) with 24 years of experience

As a Boeing flight controls and simulation engineer.

Flight_175_impossible_speed

Can a 767-200 fly at 500mph+ at 700ft altitude?

If you ask any member of "Pilots for 911 truth" they will verify that the "767-200 can fly at 500mph+ at 700ft altitude". They will also verify that the alleged flight 77 could have flown it's alleged trajectory. It is an entirely different matter at to wither they actually did.

In a letter to Joel Harel, a Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE) member who published a paper The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training, a senior 757 captain noted: “Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

This says that pilots have attempted to fly this maneuver in full-up flight simulators, and although they failed, the simulator did not "crash" due to excessive speed. Simulation engineers have the job of assuring that the flight simulator is indistinguishable from the real aircraft in terms of performance. Still, the fidelity of simulations outside the usual flight envelope can be questioned.

If you do not believe "Pilots for 911 truth", or pilots who have tried these maneuvers in flight simulators, you can figure out the answer on your own:

Here is how you figure out how fast a 767 can go: link

The answer is: 493 knots = 567.334 267 876 mile/hour (mph) official max cruising speed

This is normally considered at high altitude. The velocity never to be exceeded (Vne) is typically at least 50 knots higher than Vmo, (see notes below) but few documented numbers are available. Vne at low altitude would normally be lower than at high altitude. Vne relates to the structural capabilities of the aircraft.

Here is how you figure out how fast a 767 can go at 700 ft (basically sea level) Link

We see that the "speed limit" is much lower at sea level than at 30k. 403 mph at sea level, and 581 mph at 30000 ft. But now the rubber to the road question is, how much beyond the "speed limit" can a Boeing 757 or 767 airplane be taken? To exceed Vmo/Mmo is not catastrophic. Boeing notes higher speeds can be authorized. To quote the Boeing Flight Ops review: "At speed in excess of Vmo/Mmo ... normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured." What they are saying is that an airplane can be taken somewhat beyond Vmo/Mmo by a skilled pilot. We would expect a safety factor of at least 10%, probably more like 20% or 30%, before structural damage may result.

How much beyond the "speed limit" can a Boeing 757 or 767 airplane be taken? Pilots For 9/11 Truth asked that question over a year ago, and still do not have an answer. It is fairly well established that Vmo is about 400 mph at sea level, but no solid numbers for Vne have been documented. While this question is still in the hopper, the assumption by Pilots For 9/11 Truth has been that all of the alleged maneuvers of the airplanes on 9/11 were within the scope of a skilled pilot and the Boeing aircraft.

The "flight 175 Impossible speed" Thrust-Drag Argument has been mentioned on the internet.

The argument is basically this: thrust must increase 134-fold to maintain the same 542 mph it had at 35,000' altitude down at 1,000' altitude. I believe this is definitely wrong. First, the quantity given for air density in this "thrust/drag argument " is incorrect: The air density quoted is for 35000 meters, or 114829 ft, not 35000 ft. At 114829 ft, not only would you not be able to breathe, but you would also explode, so it looks like someone got meters and feet mixed up in thier calculations.

The 757 or 767 has enough engine thrust to go about as fast at sea level as at 30000 ft. Here is why I believe that: Thrust increases by about the needed amount to compensate for the difference in air density between the higher and lower elevation.

At lower altitudes and denser air structural damage may occur due to vibration or flutter, while at higher altitudes and thinner air, structural damage due to shock waves may occur. That’s what the "speed Limits" are all about. The key question is, by how much can a 767 (or 757) exceed Vmo without incurring structural damage , and at this point, we just do not know.

Notes:

The first note shows that typically Vne is at least 50 knots higher than Vmo

Professional Pilots Rumor Network (PPRuNe) www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=282962
Kiwiguy (fom Australia)
type *** Vmo Mmo (kts)
B747-200 375 445
DC-8-73 352 406
DC-9-30 350 425
DC-10-30 356 400

"FAR Part 25 no longer requires demonstration of Vne"

"The B757-200 however has a Vmo below 10,000 ft of just 250 knots because the windshield isn't certified to withstand bird strike above 313 knots. Above 10000 ft the 757 Vmo is limited to 350 kts... The Vmo limit [of 250 kts] is a windscreen issue only"

******

The value of "velocity to never exceed" (Vne) is stated informally by several internet sources to be:
767: 514 kts. (Professional airline pilots discuss airliner approaches)
[www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread290046/pg2]

****** Recreational Aviation Australia notes that for smaller aircraft, a Vne of approximately 1.4 Vmo is typical

******

Different opinions:
One source says: "In the case of 757 and 767 their VMO is structurally limited to 313 knots... Vne is the limit at which control of an aircraft may" [www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread290046/pg1]





WTC attack air vehicles

11/17/08: Phil Tompson
(Note: click on each of these images to expand them twice)
Frames showing anomalous air vehicle during WTC attacks
Phil Tompson: Notes on frames

11/02/07: Ace Baker
Official video of Flight 175 entering WTC2.
(Why does the airplane appear to emmerse itself in the building before "exploding"?)



Pentagon attack air vehicle

2009: Phil Thompson
The issue of a missing tail number for Flight 77 is apparently resolved

3/23/08: R.A. Herbst
Flight77 Anomalies

 

[wist43]

You are still very troubled. And of course that is your privilege. I sure wish you would go to a local airport and get genuine pilot training. It would help you focus so much better. Your terminology is not actually correct. The Arabs never used higher than the planes could stand maneuvers and the forces were only a bit higher than the ordinary trips. Get to a local airport. Consider it part of your research.

Here ya got for the umpteenth time - the radar and ATC conversations are right there.