T1B

Cuda wrote: it was Darth Cheney

Careful. You might get a face full of light sabre if you go Bantha hunting with him.

Why didn't he go hunting with Scalia?

You're wrong, counselor, on the precedent of "I know you are, but what am I?"--though I concur on the "nyaa nyaa" foundational aspect..

As I said at the time: It was apparently a Sting Operation that went bad

LTS TRN 2 wrote:if they have a clear video of an actual airliner coming in (at an impossibly low angle) and blasting a deep round hole in a solid wall

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And how does a relatively lightweight aircraft punch a small round hole through four layers of reenforced concrete and steel?

Huh? A B-25 crashes into a bldg and guess what, it punches a small round hole in a solid steel and concrete wall.


As far as your video from 911 pilots for truth, we went thru this last year, and the year before. Why do they spend the majority of the time telling us that the planes that hit the twin towers can't physically do what they did, yet there are thousands of eye witnesses that saw them do just that? Great, you spent all that time using comparative black box data and explaining V and M speeds but yet spend zero time telling us what the eyewitnesses saw or video footage shows.

Let's even say we believe that what they say is true and a 767 can't do those things. How do we then square that with the video footage we have all seen multiple times? Remember this is exactly what you want to see regarding the Pentagon. You want video footage. Why, if you clearly don't believe what you saw in NYC?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And how does a relatively lightweight aircraft punch a small round hole through four layers of reenforced concrete and steel?

May I suggest some "light" reading, (you can do the google search yourself)

sorry, had your chance.

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:if they have a clear video of an actual airliner coming in (at an impossibly low angle) and blasting a deep round hole in a solid wall

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And how does a relatively lightweight aircraft punch a small round hole through four layers of reenforced concrete and steel?

Huh? A B-25 crashes into a bldg and guess what, it punches a small round hole in a solid steel and concrete wall.


As far as your video from 911 pilots for truth, we went thru this last year, and the year before. Why do they spend the majority of the time telling us that the planes that hit the twin towers can't physically do what they did, yet there are thousands of eye witnesses that saw them do just that? Great, you spent all that time using comparative black box data and explaining V and M speeds but yet spend zero time telling us what the eyewitnesses saw or video footage shows.

Let's even say we believe that what they say is true and a 767 can't do those things. How do we then square that with the video footage we have all seen multiple times? Remember this is exactly what you want to see regarding the Pentagon. You want video footage. Why, if you clearly don't believe what you saw in NYC?

First of all, there are not thousands of witnesses to anything that happened that day. There would have been no video at all of the first strike but for a French documentary team who happened to get one half of one second of the first collision. As for the second, notice how few videos there are. Notice how none of them are clear at all as to the actual identity of that plane. Enlarged pictures reveal what clearly appears to be a huge cylinder attached to its bottom--and the plane has no airliner decals at all. They were both drones.

As far as your supposedly refuting the Pilots For Truth evidence, this is bullshit. All you've done--and continue to do--is to dismiss the idea entirely and offer mocking derision. In fact the pilots are completely accurate in their critiques and you've refuted none of their specific claims.

As for the hole in the Pentagon wall, this was nothing whatever the result of a bulky thin-walled airliner crashing into it and you cannot offer anything to suggest that it was. As for the impossibility of an airliner to fly at 500mph at ground level, you seem to be in a desperate corner of denial here. There's no debate or contention. Yours is a weird cornered position of awkward and pointless flag-waving. As though..."no way could our government do something like that." And this is what's supporting your obstinate denial of the obvious giant holes in every part of the official 9/11 story?

There is no doubt the second plane is anything but a 767.

I don't have to offer up anything. You on the other hand are the one that is high and spreading your conspiracy theory and contradicting eyewitness accounts, therefore the onus is on you to explain everything. And saying things like a plane can't fly close to the ground with its flaps extended or it will immediately crash proves you know nothing of what you speak.

No, I'm offering lots of clear witnesses as far as explosions in the basement of WTC 7 and the towers, and lots of witnesses of the Mossad agents dancing with glee after the first strike. Let's see a clear picture of that second plane with discernible American Airline decals or any sort of identifying numbers. Where is it? Just like the pentagon mystery plane, no one seems to have a picture of it at all. The giant holes in every aspect of the official story are offered in bulk. The onus is on you or anyone who maintains the official story to be accurate to explain your suspended logic. And no, an airliner cannot fly at 500 mph at ground level.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: First of all, there are not thousands of witnesses to anything that happened that day.

He's got a point... Manhatten IS pretty much sparsely populated. And of the few people that live and work there, very few of that already small number are out and about at 9AM.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And no, an airliner cannot fly at 500 mph at ground level.

Although watching him argue this with a professional airline pilot is great theater... if you're really starved for entertainment.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:an airliner cannot fly at 500 mph at ground level.

Nor could a drone that is modeled after a 767 in an attempt to fool the public. Or a military tanker or cargo jet for that matter. So please tell us what we saw since you are all knowing.

Here's what we all saw. And here's all that we saw. Notice the large long cylinder on the bottom of this unmarked aircraft just before it crashes into the second tower.

So...what, still can't see the irregular shape on the bottom of the craft?...look




Now, where is ONE photo of that aircraft with ANY distinguishable markings of American Airlines? Well?

And of course you'll easily admit that there's not ONE picture of the first plane--except for the accidental half-second vid of the crash.

First..say it clearly. Do you actually believe the official story? Yes or no.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Humm, two grainy photos of large planes in the air.

and now for a picture of my cock...































































FAG

mvscal wrote:ham fisted

rack

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Notice the large long cylinder on the bottom of this unmarked aircraft just before it crashes into the second tower.

So you are saying there are two cylinders because there are two different color variations on the bottom of the fuselage? If we are going to base the existence of cylinders based on color differences then please explain the color differences from both of the engine exhausts. They match the cylinder color and are clearly out of place in the other background color.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And how does a relatively lightweight aircraft punch a small round hole through four layers of reenforced concrete and steel?

Relatively light weight ?

767 -300 Max takeoff weight - 350,000
Max Fuel capacity - 16,700 gallons.

Probably was under max weight and fuel, so call it 325,00 and 15,000 gallons of fuel.

Not so light weight and one hell of a bomb hitting something at 500 mph.

But go ahead and call it lightweight you fucking moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Notice the large long cylinder on the bottom of this unmarked aircraft just before it crashes into the second tower.

So you are saying there are two cylinders because there are two different color variations on the bottom of the fuselage? If we are going to base the existence of cylinders based on color differences then please explain the color differences from both of the engine exhausts. They match the cylinder color and are clearly out of place in the other background color.

No, there is clearly a single extra cylinder--as is apparently standard on that drone model.

There is no such extra cylinder on the bottom of an actual airliner. And why aren't there ANY photos or videos of that second plane which can clearly identify it as an American Airlines plane? Hmmm... And about those OBVIOUS controlled demolitions...??

Derron wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And how does a relatively lightweight aircraft punch a small round hole through four layers of reenforced concrete and steel?

Relatively light weight ?

767 -300 Max takeoff weight - 350,000
Max Fuel capacity - 16,700 gallons.

Probably was under max weight and fuel, so call it 325,00 and 15,000 gallons of fuel.

Not so light weight and one hell of a bomb hitting something at 500 mph.

But go ahead and call it lightweight you fucking moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

Bullshit. An airliner is designed for optimal lightness in its frame. As for the fuel, much of it had already been used. But, the basic fact of an airliner punching a smooth round hole through NINE FEET of steel-reinforced concrete is utterly impossible. Add to this that NO ONE saw it in broad daylight amid an extremely intense period of emergency alert. And that the entire roof of the Pentagon is covered with cameras. C'mon, quit the tedious tripe of Rovian denial. For whom are you fronting?

Examine this and let's hear your take.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/gua ... hit-it.htm

So, the lack of clear details in a horribly grainy photo prove it wasn't an airline plane?

Don't ya think that a group with the means to carry out a controlled demo covertly and make the real plane vanish, might have the ability to paint their "drone" to match?

The further you babble on this topic, the further your boot goes up your own ass. I'll bet that thing is buried to your duodenum by now. You'll shortly be kicking your own teeth out from the back side.

No, the lack of any identifying details reveals that we can't say exactly what it was. Where is a clear photo? Perhaps you have some idea as to what that odd cylinder is on the bottom of the aircraft as it slams into the second tower? What? C'mon.

How about the other eight thousand details of the official story that also fall apart under even cursory examination?

88 wrote:Are you suggesting that the 9-11 conspirators were smart enough to build missiles that looked like four missing airliners, but at the same time were so stupid that they forgot to put decals on their fake airliners that matched the four missing airliners?

They didn't have to build them. Look at this carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S72FhJkiquw

Let's not fail to mention all those mannequins tossed from the JC Penny's on the 92 floor.

After all...how else can those body count numbers reasonably be expected to be believed?

I for one would love to see a Felcho VET seeking out the families of those that were on the flights in question and discuss his theories.

88 wrote:And what happened to the actual commercial airliners that took off that day (and all the people aboard them)?

Area 51.

:|

88 wrote:why wasn't it painted to resemble a commercial airliner?

Avoiding a lawsuit from AA was clearly a priority in this plot. I know Stukas were marked on the underside, not sure about airliners.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
No, there is clearly a single extra cylinder--as is apparently standard on that drone model.

There is no such extra cylinder on the bottom of an actual airliner.

Your photos clearly show two color variations separated by the wheel wells and wing spar box in the CNN and Carmen Taylor photos. If it is so clear that there is a cylinder carried externally based on that photo evidence, is it in front of the gear or behind it? What then is the other item?

Also, please explain the same exact color on each of the engine nacels on the CNN and Carmen Taylor photos.

Where is the cylinder on the other two photos? It is clearly gone on the Evan and Pavel photos.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And how does a relatively lightweight aircraft punch a small round hole through four layers of reenforced concrete and steel?

As for the fuel, much of it had already been used.

How did a much lighter B-25 punch a round hole thru the steel and concrete Empire State Bldg?

Since you know how much fuel was used please tell us the fuel capacity and burn rate.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: No, there is clearly a single extra cylinder--as is apparently standard on that drone model.

Please link us up to this 767 drone model that is so common you know what is standard issue and what isn't.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: As for the fuel, much of it had already been used.

The aircraft had just taken off, bound for Cali.

You really are a loon, spouting gibberish.

Seek help.

BSmack wrote:I remember posting after 9-11 that the inevitable result would be the loss of civil liberties. Years later, certain dong slurping retards still demanded to know "What liberties have you lost!"

And the beat goes on...

How ironic the "limited gov't conservatives" have been exposed as nothing more than big government conservatives who hate minorities and faggots.

Water is still wet, fire is still hot, et fucking al.

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote:If the cops canvased the neighborhood knocking on doors, and only entering the places where the residents said "C'mon in, officer", you would run the risk of more cops being blown away or of the dude escaping.

So what? I'm far more comfortable with that outcome than living in a police state. You have lost your mind along with your balls not to mention your freedom.

Yay! Big gov't conservatism!

Left Seater wrote:
Where is the cylinder on the other two photos? It is clearly gone on the Evan and Pavel photos.

How did a much lighter B-25 punch a round hole thru the steel and concrete Empire State Bldg?

Please link us up to this 767 drone model that is so common you know what is standard issue and what isn't.

What is this gibberish? The mystery cylinder is right there in all four photos. What is it? Why have we never seen anything like that on any normal airliner? Well?

As for that B-25 running into the Empire State building, it certainly didn't make a hole through NINE FEET of steel reinforced concrete. Not even close. And i don't think the great building was in danger of a sudden controlled demolition, do you?

As far as the drone model, check it out.
http://x11drone.0catch.com/

R-Jack wrote:I for one would love to see a Felcho VET seeking out the families of those that were on the flights in question and discuss his theories.

This is a typical fallback position for deniers of the obvious falsity of the official story of 9/11. How could anyone just haul off and murder the crew and passengers of four airliners--each flying at about 25% of passenger capacity? It's just too impossible to consider. Right? This is your entire take. Well, consider that when the IDF attacked the U.S.S. Liberty they were perfectly prepared and willing to send the entire ship straight to the ocean floor--everyone on board murdered, period. Right? I mean, you're not going to deny that this was their clear intention during the three-hour attack, complete with machine guns, torpedoes, and napalm. Right? They were looking to sink it--and then perhaps apologize for the "mistake." Well, these same Special Friends were perfectly willing to dispose of the crews and passengers on 9/11. Deal with it. There's no evidence that any of the accused 19 hijackers were even on board any of those planes. Except for the miracle passport found in the rubble--by an FBI agent--three blocks away from the rubble. Huh?

WW

http://www.weather.com/news/landing-gear-found-20130426

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
The mystery cylinder is right there in all four photos. What is it? Why have we never seen anything like that on any normal airliner? Well?

As for that B-25 running into the Empire State building, it certainly didn't make a hole through NINE FEET of steel reinforced concrete.

As far as the drone model, check it out.
http://x11drone.0catch.com/

Again, is it in front of or behind the gear? If it is so clear why is this so hard for you to answer? Where is it in the third and fourth photos?

As for the B-25 and the Empire State Bldg, that plane is a fraction of the weight of the 767, and was traveling far slower that the 767, yet still managed to punch a round hole thru steel and concrete.

Your drone site is a joke. Where is one single photo of this drone? Where is the propulsion system on this drone?

It's right there on the bottom of the aircraft. It's clearly visible in each of the photos? WHAT IS IT? Stop your tedious quibbling and answer...what in your opinion is that unusual bulbous cylinder on the bottom of that aircraft as it slams into the tower? Have you ever seen such a cylinder on any other aircraft?

As for the miraculous discovery of a supposed landing gear 12 years after the fact, this is the same brazen bullshit as the discovering of the alleged hijackers perfectly preserved passport three blocks away--by an FBI agent. That passport provided the only "evidence" of any of the suspects being on the planes. And this miracle landing gear would seem to provide solid evidence that in fact the plane in question was just like we said it was! Well, it's bullshit and the vast array of holes in the official story remain glaring--if one isn't curled in the false safety of denial.

LTS, That is the point. I don't know what you are talking about. There are two silver shadings in the first two pictures. One in front of the gear and another behind the gear. Hence my question, is the cylinder in front of or behind the gear?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
As for that B-25 running into the Empire State building, it certainly didn't make a hole through NINE FEET of steel reinforced concrete. Not even close.

Nine foot reinforced walls sounds odd for a building not in Calais, so I looked it up. Apparently you're a splitter in the truther community, the hardcore refer to it as 'NINE FEET OF STEEL REINFORCED IDIOCY'.

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.ca/200 ... steel.html




You're damaging the cause, '"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments", according to them.

Left Seater wrote:LTS, That is the point. I don't know what you are talking about. There are two silver shadings in the first two pictures. One in front of the gear and another behind the gear. Hence my question, is the cylinder in front of or behind the gear?

Huh? "silver shadings'"? Hmm..I see you're curled there in a tight knot of denial. It's okay, just relax and start breathing like a real human. Look, ....a gang--a consortium--of racist gangsters has gotten over and is running rampant on your shit. (slap..slap.slap) The brazen crime of 9/11 is in effect. :wink:

WW

Dodge and ignore, then repeat.

Ok, I will dumb it down for you. Is the cylinder in front of or behind the gear?

What "gear" are you talking about? Why would an airliner--hijacked or not--have its landing gear down in mid-flight? Look, you can see it. In each photo. Stop pretending it's not there. What is it? Well?.... And why wasn't there a real airplane crash fire at the pentagon--instead of a single quick (rocket) explosion which was promptly extinguished? Why aren't there any photos of flight 77? Why don't the photos of the second plane hitting the tower show ANY sign of American Airlines decals or ID numbers? How do modern steel-framed buildings just collapse in controlled demolition fashion?

Let's be clear. Start here. Do you actually believe the official story. Yes...or No?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What "gear" are you talking about?

Of course, why would I even expect you to know what "gear" is or where it is located on a modern airliner.


Let me re ask the question at a second grade level. Is the cylinder in front of or behind the wing?