9/11 - Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

Werbung:
Didn't you ever wonder how those hijackers passports survived in the ball of flames from the crashing jets? They said they were found close to ground zero. Everything else in the buildings disintegrated except the passports. Too weird to believe.
 
Dave said:
Like I said before, it doesnt matter how many planes there were out there, or what resources were where. If it took them an hour and twenty-two minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane when it had its transponder turned on, there isn't a chance in hell of catching these things when their transponders were off.
Click to expand...

No like you said earlier apparently we know a lot more about Norad than you do. Intercpt jets are supposed to be in the air within 15 minutes of the call......intercept bases have ARMED jets ready to launch 24/7......

The payne stewart issue has NO bearing on this at all. it was a Golfer in a small plane,not 4 jumbo jets full of alleged passengers? and the time you mention is only due to a time zone change......not actual time

are you aware of NORADS mission statement? and are you of the flawwed thought pattern that this is the norm 2 hrs to intercept? if so why bother to even have intercepts? you really think the U.S. Air Force is that inept? and you expect us to believe it as well?

you do have a LOT to learn about Norads Mission and Air Force Interceptor jets......heres a link to a great article for you

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/seal01.htm
here is a snip


It's an airspace that, when I grew up here in DC, I have seen, and friends of mine have seen, commercial aircraft stray into this airspace and be confronted by interceptors that came up from local military bases or other points in the city and wagged back out of that airspace. This is an airspace that's under constant surveillance.

There were some quotes that came out shortly afterwards. This Pentagon spokesperson said, "We had no mechanism to respond." I would suggest that if you're an investigative reporter, that you will find out that they have a very extensive mechanism to respond. That they don't only respond in the case of a crisis emergency like this but they respond when any commercial aircraft goes off course, even for a period of a few minutes. They have interceptors that go up to find out what's happening, why it's off course, if communication to the tower is broken, and that these are procedures that don't need any order from the President. They don't need any order from the Pentagon or anything else. These are standard FAA and NORAD procedures.


Now is it the case, as they were saying, that they had no mechanism, that they didn't have any scrambling planes available here in DC? Absolutely not. Andrews Air Force Base which is ten miles away from here has both the 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, F-16's, multiple planes, the equivalent of two squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base. They also house the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron, the 49th Marine Air Guard which defends the airspace over the DC area and F-18's that are combat ready.

In addition to that there is Anacosta Naval Air Station which houses the DC National Air Guard and DC National Guard, and they have combat-ready jets. These jets are in the air now, after the fact, actively defending the United States. Where were they on September the 11th? Why was nothing put up in the way of this flight?
 
Rokerijdude11 said:
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php
Click to expand...

This article starts out with a semantic point about the search terms. When they put that in quotes it was to stay in line with the conventions of English, not to indicate that the phrase itself was in quotes in the search engine. Semantics!!

Second paragraph...more semantic arguments...

“Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault” Grassroots InfoMedia makes no claim of proof, although we may claim that others claim things, and we advocate investigation due to the mountain of strange, unexplained phenomenon surrounding the events of 9/11.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase: "We don't have proof but we're going to ***** you out for not having proof while citing other people who have proof but keeping ourselves distant enough from them so that if you can prove that they don't have proof we aren't affected. We want investigation because not everything completely adds up like it should in reality where everything is completely, perfectly explicable and nothing is ever, or should ever, be a mystery."

Photos of these objects on the belly of the planes as you can clearly see are not reflections, and both planes have the same pod, are we to believe that they are both reflections?
Click to expand...

Considering that they aren't stated to be "reflections" but glints off the fairings, yes, both planes have them. They do both have landing gear.

"This concerns the article about the anomaly on the 767 (sic) that struck the tower. I have worked on Boeing 767s as a licensed aircraft mechanic for fifteen years and I can tell you there is nothing that even remotely resembles what I see in the photographs on "normal" aircraft." Paul Higginbotham
Click to expand...

A fairing looks a lot different on the ground than it does in the air. Especially moving at that speed with light glinting off of it.

I could keep going, but I have to make lunch. Perhaps someone else would like to take over...?
 
Yup all that can/could be summed up in a sentance but why bother?

its some guys opinions and theories

no proof.....wait did i say it was? no didnt think so just found it of interest

glad you enjoyed it so much
 
You conspiracy theorists need to get your story straight. You can't keep flip flopping "Oh, Bush knew, but didn't do anything" then turn around and said "Oh, Bush planted explosives" or "Bush paid for hijackers training" or "the planes were remote controlled".

Stick to one story.
 
thats a line of shat buddy

because I NEVER said Bush planned it

or that Bush planted explosives

any of that shat you just mentioned

Ive never changed my theory yet???

nor have i layed it out? so your simply full of it
 
KeepOurFreedoms said:
Oh pleasssssssseeeeeeeeee Popular Mechanics has been debunked!!!
Click to expand...

Care to actually address the information presented in the article instead of simply attacking the people saying it?

Rokerijdude, the Payne Stewart has everything to do with this. It was a civilian passenger plane and just like the planes on 9/11, it had simply gone off course for all anybody knew. The problem with your logic is that you are thinking in post-9/11 terms. Today, it would be logical to think that all those fighters are on standby to intercept civilian planes but prior to that, those planes were meant to respond specifically to a MILITARY threat. As the articles I posted earlier clearly state, it would be impossible to launch an intercept in less than half an hour, so I don't know where you are getting your BS that these planes can do it in 15 minutes.
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

M
The thermate at the WTC--9/11.
Replies
0
Views
2K
marcellus
M
michaelr
    • Like
Wtc 7
8 9 10
Replies
143
Views
25K
Rokerijdude11
R
K
Top 10 reasons why no planes hit the WTC on 9/11/01
2 3
Replies
32
Views
19K
Tripoli
Tripoli
USMC the Almighty
9/11
2 3
Replies
39
Views
12K
Gipper
Gipper
K
Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?
Replies
0
Views
2K
KeepOurFreedoms
K
Back
Top