you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (118 children)

Ah yes, terrorism. That wonderful boogeyman, used throughout history by whichever side currently holds power.

The question one always needs to ask when "terrorism" is mentioned: who is threatened? Is the population threatened, or is the establishment and the government threatened? Are white nationalists out attacking citizens? I have seen no credible evidence for this; any evidence that is presented always traces back to the same extremely biased (and deep-pocketed) sources.

Do whites represent a threat to our corporate/government power establishment, however? Absolutely. 100%. Whites are becoming increasingly tired of being explicitly labeled as hateful/racist/ignorant bigots while watching blacks killing each other in high numbers ignored. Interestingly, blacks are also increasingly realizing that the anti-racist message is nothing but toxic poison for their communities. Blacks who dare disagree are now called racial epithets and labeled as anti-black racists. That's a slap-in-the-face wake-up call if ever there was one. The government/corporate establishment is very scared of the anger building in both the white and the black communities in response to these trends. The establishment's fear makes sense from their own point of view. But is the anger they correctly witness a threat to them or a threat to me? That is the question each of us must answer in our own heart.

[–]Jesus 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (117 children)

Zionists did 9/11

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (116 children)

They know who did 9/11

They were Saudis. Saudi Arabia, as with the rest of the Arab world, are not generally Zionists.

[–]Jesus 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

Nope, saudi arabia had nothing to do with 9/11. Please screw off. That is the gatekeeping narrative espoused by Zionists. Those Saudi 'hijackers', they didn't hijack anything had Mossad and east Germany intel links from the past. They were spooks being tracked and controlled by Mossad to manufacture the narrative that Zionist media would pick up.

[–]Sendnoodles 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Where exactly does this statement fit on the pyramid of debate. How are you contributing to this sites quality with such unfounded and inflammatory claims?

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Zionist Jews did 9/11. You can simply search my posts. I have hundredsmof posts on thr players behind 9/11. None were muslims, not one, that's the truth. Now research and read David Ray Griffin, Graeme MacQueen, Bollyn, empirestrikes back blog, wtcdemolition blog, etc.

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

The Palestinians want to end Jews. - Sendnoodles

Say hi to your Zionist friends in Tel Aviv, shill.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

These guys are as annoying as socks.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

They're actually more annoying to be honest. Socks at least makes some decent points.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You give him way too much credit. That makes him more "reasonable" and therefore more dangerous and potentially influential beyond the core few dozen on SaidIt who get it.

[–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Its his alt I think

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Nope, saudi arabia had nothing to do with 9/11.

All except four of the Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia

Those Saudi 'hijackers', they didn't hijack anything had Mossad and east Germany intel links from the past.

Okay. Does it mention that in the 9/11 commission report? Because it's news to me.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I JUST TOLD YOU NOBODY Hijacked ANY PLANE, period. The planes that flew into the buildings were drones. The operation followed the Northwoods script. This is clearly observed on the arcgis data; where for instance, UA93 was somewhere over Illinois well after it allegedly buried itself into a mine.

The commission report was a scam put out by Zionist Jews to cover up 9/11.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Guy should be expelled from the Us. Oh wait, now he is head of the covid commission.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I have a feeling ActuallyNot is a shill.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps even a shillbot.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

You are very far behind if you take the commission report as truth. Read David Rat Griffin and Graeme MacQueen as well as Bollyn and ten research the arcgis flight data on all the planes. The data proves they were drones.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are very far behind if you take the commission report as truth.

Whoa. Your conspiracy theory has just grown by thousands who are involved in the conspiracy. Do you think it's surprising that no one has leaked? At all?

I'm guessing you've never managed a project?

The data proves they were drones.

Link me to this data.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There are thousands of officals, even former CIA and intel officials that have or had worked for US corp that proclaim that the offical narrative of 9/11 is fraudulent and that the commission report was a cover-up; even former NIST employees came out and sided with Architechs and Engineers for 9/11 truth. The official Straussian mythos that you parrot is what Trump and all the treasonous Zionist parrots.

First, read these books:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51t2tUPu5GL._SL350_.jpg

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51fTgGHE+VL._SY346_.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41r3icjoL5L._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_ML2_.jpg

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51G1lPebj-L._SY346_.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/i/m/AC905484FBADF0A36F4A30A17391D36E35C5693A.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/i/m/374416860A394E8C49F0C8A099719F84D8863009.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/m/b96a90f8b69797b4fbd12c16c331dd7bd56d5fca.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/m/fd813f8d3475925629a64285c7aaa98cb01b6228.jpg


Okay, now about the planes.

  • The holding pattern the F-15's from Otis AFB where put in, officially claimed to have occurred between 9:08 – 9:13, actually occurred earlier and was made necessary because the pilots UNEXPECTEDLY flew faster than the conspirators planned.

  • The unexpected 41 minute delay of flight 93 made the 9:21 false 'phantom 11' report necessary because it was Flight 93 that the F-16s from Langley were suppose to out chasing to draw them away from Washington, D.C. to allow Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon.

  • Langley's Supervisor of Flying, Capt Borgstrum was ordered to fly in an UNARMED F-16 to ensure there was no Supervisor of flying during the Langley scramble. This resulted in the F-16 being sent out over the Atlantic and unreachable!

  • NORAD officials made the mistake of repeating the original plan to the 9/11 Commission (Langley scrambled because of Flight 93 – which hadn't even been hijacked yet!). A de facto confession.

https://archive.li/dOnKx

^ ^ ^ That article reveals that two different "Flight 11" departed from Boston Logan on September 11th.

From 11-22-1963:

"In this 2010 article, the 9/11 Commission reveals that passengers boarded Flight 11 when it had already pushed back How? The final report lies about the boarding data update intervals, calling these times "approximate only"" :

These boarding times from the American system are approximate only; for flight 11 they indicated that some passengers boarded after the aircraft had pushed back from the gate.

"Of course, it's not possible for passengers to board after the plane has pushed back from the gate. What the Commission is claiming here is that if someone boarded at e.g. 7:37, that's rounded up and recorded as 7:50. This is hard to believe."

"In actuality, the boarding data is approximate to within ±15 seconds, not 15 minutes as the Commission would have you believe. The reservation status of a passenger is checked every 15 minutes, but when boarding begins, the EGR system updates in 15 second intervals."

"The passengers boarded a DIFFERENT Flight 11 (the real one) which departed from Gate 26. The SABRE data indicates that Wail and Waleed al-Sheri boarded at 7:31, so boarding probably started at 7:30 and lasted until 7:55 or 8:00."

"Another discrepancy: several passengers and crew (i.e. Richard Ross, Al Filipov and Amy Sweeney) called their families before boarding to tell them that Flight 11 would be delayed. But Flight 11 departed from the gate on time at 7:45, according to the official story. How is this possible?"

"The answer must be that it's a different plane. Al Filipov himself called his wife from the Boston Airport lounge at 7:45. To walk from there to Gate 32 would probably take at least five minutes or more, by which time he'd discover that Flight 11 had already left the gate. So he must've boarded a different plane (specifically, at gate 26) with a later boarding time."

https://web.archive.org/web/20010913185306/http://www.cbsnews.com/earlyshow/healthwatch/healthnews/20010913terror_russian.shtml

Interestingly, the data shows the al-Sheri brothers (two of the accused hijackers) boarding the plane. My answer, if the planes did not have real hijackers? They were playing "hijacker" roles assigned to them in a live-fly exercise. I think the plane departing from Gate 32 was a drone. There were live-fly hijack exercises taking place through-out the week of September 11th. Vigilant Guardian was one of them, in that year's scenario.

I can understand how the flight crew could go along with such a drill, but I'm not sure how random passengers would get involved. By all accounts, the passengers thought they'd be flying a regular flight (for example, Ross was frustrated the plane was delayed because he had to arrive at L.A. for a business meeting).

No passengers from Flight 11 made phone calls (odd, since the airphone system was allegedly working on American Airlines 757s at the time), but passengers from the other hijacked flights did.

That is, the passengers boarded the real, registered aircraft. Looking at the evidence we have, it's certainly wrong according to the official story, in terms of which gate Flight 11 is said to have left from (which is Gate 32). I've long believed that real passenger airliners were swapped with drones on 9/11.

The FAA could only track the drone flights on their radar. En-route facilities don't have what's called "radio direction finding" to determine the origin of radio calls. The airlines tracked the actual registered aircraft through ACARS (the ground station stamps on the print-outs indicating the plane's rough location) and the aircraft situation display.

Interestingly though, NEADS Col. Robert Marr told the 9/11 Commission that he saw United 93 circling over Chicago on radar (or some other source, but it wasn't ACARS). United 93 was never near Chicago's airspace in the official story. So Marr somehow knew that this plane "circling" over Chicago was the real United 93. I don't know if he was getting this information from a superior, if he had some kind of overlay on the display which told him, but he knew where United 93 was. That information wasn't available to the air traffic controllers, because they were fooled by the transponder code changes.

ATC didn't have time to check which planes were flying that day. "United 177" was reported hijacked at 9:25 (along with United 175), but it was later found to be "held at the gate" even though its departure was scheduled in the evening.

The FAA definitely had the filed flight plans for all aircraft flying that day, including those in the live-fly exercises. Somebody filed the correct flight plan for the real passenger aircraft. But, I think this aircraft flew under a different call sign to air traffic control.

According to this document: https://kapitalgate.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/ads-b-guide_jferrera.pdf

Typically, the data block will show the aircraft “Call Sign” (N # or Flight Id) which comes from the filed aircraft flight plan which is matched to the aircraft by the squawk code transmitted by the aircraft.

In normal civil aviation, the transponder squawk has to match the filed flight plan for the aircraft.

The user "Non-equilibrium" posted this:

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,973481,00.html

Military flights involved in covert operations (e.g. the BCCI-connected drug and gun running) disguised themselves as regular civilian flights by altering their transponder code. I think something similar happened on 9/11, possibly through what's called a FAKER exercise (under NORAD).

In the scenario I'm thinking of, the real plane with the flight plan for "American 11" would alter its transponder code (I believe on Mode-S) so it would identify as, e.g. "American 265", and it would call out that identity to ATC. The drone duplicate which was meant to crash into a target could have its transponder code altered remotely, so it would identify as "American 11" to ATC on its data block. So the two planes would definitely have different call signs. But the real aircraft has the flight plan for the route its meant to be flying (e.g. BOS → LAX).

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2010/11/was-flight-93-part-of-military-hijack.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2011/03/was-flight-11-real-world-exercise.html

Webster Tarpley's chart of drills taking place in the months leading up to 9/11, and on day of:

https://www.tarpley.net/docs/drills_of_911.pdf

Tarpley also has a book, 9/11: Synthetic Terror, which is freely available to read. It talks about the various drills which made the 9/11 operation possible, e.g. weakening the air defence by diverting fighters from alert bases to over Alaska, Nevada, and so on.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Here's one example: It reveals the bank would fly drone aircraft in place of real commercial flights. They would change the transponder codes to imitate real flights.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,973481,00.html

"The plane then departed for Czechoslovakia, taking the place of a scheduled Pakistan International Airlines commercial flight that was aborted at the last minute by prearrangement. The 707's radar transponder was altered to beep out the code of a commercial airliner, which enabled the plane to overfly several countries without arousing suspicion. "

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Hijackers Part 1


There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: “His attention span was zero.”

http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our standards.”

http://100777.com/node/237

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm

Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.htm

Hani Hanjour: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet — 7 miles — below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario, with this kind of “situational NON-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Hijackers Part 2


In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these fellows even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” (http://www.loosechange911.com) contains an excellent clip of trucks being swept off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground. Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)

The very same challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“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.”

CONCLUSION

The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

If they weren't at the airports on Sept 11 2001, they couldn't have hijacked the planes. There is exactly zero time and date stamped security images of any of the 19 at any of the 3 airports the 4 planes departed from. This despite each airport having hundreds of cameras covering every area. The absolute "best" you can find is 5 of the 19 at Dulles. This video has no time and date stamps. It is also supposed to be just after 7 am in September when the sun will just be rising yet there is bright sunlight visible behind them. It still leaves 14 unaccounted for. So they were either invisible or could teleport, at least that's what the official conspiracy theory requires you to believe to accept it.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Also, this is a decent in depth investigatory blog on 9/11 worth reading which has been scrubbed by google:

Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93:

https://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html

And the FBI's 'TwinBomb' investigation, yup, the FBI actually referenced bombing the twin towers. What did they find? Hundreds of Mossad agents.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

United 93 received 18 ACARS uplinks after alleged Shanksville crash: CONFIRMED


http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2012/10/united-93-received-18-acars-uplinks.html

This article is long and detailed, but it's well worth reading! It may take a few reads to get through. It did for me. I'll provide a summary of key points.

In order to rule out a plane-swap scenario, the three data sets of RADES radar data (the radar tracks of the flights), air traffic control records, and ACARS (ground-to-air data) should perfectly agree with one another. However, they do not agree. The United Airlines ACARS print-outs strongly indicate that the addressed plane in question was still airborne long after its alleged crash.

The same case for United 175. This evidence supports the plane-swap hypothesis – a sort of 21st century "Operation Northwoods". The ACARS data states that the addressed plane "N591UA" (the registration # of United 93) was in the vicinity of Champaign, Indiana at 10:11 a.m.

Three common objections to the ACARS data are:

  • The plane did not acknowledge the messages because it did not receive them (Stutt's objection, which is dealt with in the article).

  • The ground station printed in the ACARS print-out reflects the pre-planned flight route. This is an unproven, and quite frankly, nonsensical claim.

  • Crashed airliners are capable of receiving ground-station uplinks. This was actually stated as fact by a popular debunker, "Oystein", on JREF forums.

These three objections contradict the known functions of the ACARS protocol set. The "ARINC 618 Air-Ground-Protocol" document is the authoritative source on the ACARS downlink routines, and no indication is offered in the document that:

  • planes which do not acknowledge ACARS messages have not received them (This claim ignores a common problem with plain CSMA algorithm in ACARS protocol). If we assume that the messages weren't acknowledged because "N591UA" crashed (i.e. out of radio contact), the ARINC file would not contain UBLKS post-10:03, and the system would return an IPCUL 231 NO STATION TO response.

  • airlines can manually select which ground-station to send an ACARS uplink from (to the contrary, the selection process is hard-wired and automatic)

  • crashed planes can receive messages (the notion is absurd)

Crucial to our argument is that a crashed plane cannot perform link tests (or "handshakes") with a ground station. Why? Because, as "Woody Box" states:

Each Telex transmission (like ACARS is based on) is initiated by a so-called handshake: a synchronization process between sender and receiver to enable and optimize the transmission of the actual message. This requires an exchange of data between sender and receiver before dispatching the message.

Obviously, a crashed, defunct plane can't exchange data with another party.

This seems implied in the Boeing Avionics manual:

Upon receiving a message, the DSP (ground system) "handshakes" with the aircraft Communications Management function according to the ACARS air-ground protocol.

The significance of the 18 post-10:03 uplinks is that, as the author states:

[a] sent ULBLK (uplink) implies a successful handshake; a successful handshake implies a good VHF connection; a good VHF connection implies that the plane is within line-of sight or at least almost line-of sight of the ground station; and a line-of-sight condition implies that the plane is airborne (exception: the plane is grounded at the airport where the sender is sited – but this was not the case for United 93 at 10:11).

TL;DR: United 93 / N591UA was still airborne after 10:06 a.m. (I put 10:06 because of the debate over a 10:03 /10:06 crash-time).

"Woody Box" also proposes a plausible solution for the failed acknowledgement of the 18 post-10:03 uplinks. In short, it's likely due to the plain-CSMA algorithm which was in use on September 11th, and the "hidden transmitter" problem which corrupts the subsequent downlinks from the aircraft. He speculates that "N591UA" was flying at a low altitude, hence the hidden transmitters in its flight path. I speculate further that it was preparing to land, as IPCUL 231 NO STATION TO are reported after 10:14 a.m. The blog author states that "231" was reported because the output buffer was empty.

"Woody Box" is an excellent researcher. He pretty much single-handedly offered us strong evidence for an Operation Northwoods-like scenario, from a mere couple dozen posts on his blog.

Yet, I do think his analysis of the ACARS data flow's partly incorrect. IPCUL 231 is an immediate rejection (i.e. failed hand-shake), not IPCUL 311. The fact that it appeared so soon after the last 311 error (see message No. 20) seems to me that the plane was no longer airborne, otherwise the hand-shake would succeed (unless it were out of radio contact in-air, in which case a new station would've been selected.) He even states himself that 311 is only sent after 9 unacknowledged uplinks.

Woody Box provides an example of American 11 receiving UBLKs while idling at the airport, so it's possible that United 93 had landed somewhere by 10:12, and disabled CMU by 10:14. That's how I would explain the "231" errors, anyhow. But upon re-reading the last few paragraphs, I think he and I are on the same page.

When paired with this article from another researcher, which examines the ACARS uplink sent to United 175 at 9:51, it's in my view among the best evidence that 9/11 was indeed a false flag, and indirect evidence that drones were used in the attacks. My thinking goes like this:

Planes still airborne past their supposed crash times → Flights were duplicated → (Indirect) Drones struck the Towers and Pentagon → only a State has the resources to co-ordinate an operation with that implied level of complexity and complicity (elements within NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national security state in general...etc.) → 9/11 was a false flag.

http://911acars.blogspot.com/2012/03/ed-ballinger-and-uplink-sent-to-united.html

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

9/11 commission report?

Everyone knows the Ommission Report was bunk.

Citing corruption makes everything you say corrupt.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Everyone knows the Ommission Report was bunk.

I think you might be mistaken about that.

Citing corruption makes everything you say corrupt.

Saying that everything that doesn't align with the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy, is how you end up with literally everything as part of the conspiracy.

Apply occam's razor. There were thousands or people involved in the information gathering for that report. If you think that they all lied, and no one has said so yet, you need your plausibility detector calibrated.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

literally everything as part of the conspiracy.

Until you recognize FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE you won't ever understand.

Every single government and corporation of ever industry bows before the banksters and ultimately the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements which is above all laws (and are into child sacrifices). Everything supports this much simpler concept of power than random chaos and coincidence theory.

Also FYI, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is a concept promoted by the evil-doers to throw you off track.

You need to understand Cecil Rhodes and his rings within rings to control the world. You don't need thousands, you just need the right ones in control.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Cecil+Rhodes+circles+in+circles

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Every single government and corporation of ever industry bows before the banksters and ultimately the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements which is above all laws (and are into child sacrifices).

... no, mate. That was the ancient Aztecs ...

Easy mistake to make, but the BIS an international financial institution, owned by its membership of 63 central banks. The Aztecs used to sacrifice children to Tlāloc in the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan. 500 to 800 years ago.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Funny.

Try learning something about the top of the tyrannical Zionist globalist hierarchy:
https://DuckDuckGo.com/?q=Bank+Of+International+Settlements+human+sacrifice

Their boot-shaped building is ominous.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." ~ George Orwell

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No Arab had anything to do with 9/11 except for pre-fabricated hijacker narratives by Zionist Jew media.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Zionists, Wahhabists, and NeoCons are all bedfellows.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No. They're not.

In particular Wahhabists are antagonistic to the other two.

[–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You are not convincing

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

That's the "official narrative" political theater limited perspective. If you were authentically in search of the truth, any scratch of the surface will reveal how full of bullshit that story is.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What if I was authentically in search of the truth, but also sane?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What if I was authentically in search of the truth, but also sane?

Then search for your truths without the dismissive backhands.

Pejoratives and insults indicate you aren't truth-seeking but here to sow chaos via perpetual nay-saying.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

Securing the realm doc shows that Zionists actually want to destroy Saydi Arabia, eventually. Mossad and Zionist Jews and neocons did 9/11, period. Not one muslim hijacked planes or demolished any building. That was Zionist Jews who did that.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Securing the realm doc shows that Zionists actually want to destroy Saydi Arabia, eventually.

Plausibly. And vice-versa probably. But they've both got more current problems to work through.

Hence why its difficult to believe they got so many Saudis to give their lives for the ... zionist ... cause.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

They didn't. The hijackers were fake. A sham. A contrived pre-fabricated narrative.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

[–]turtlebam 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Some of the reddit pages are not online, we really need to start saving the info offline to be able to re-post it. I think it's safe to assume reddit will delete any important truth material.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Is there any kind of web-scrape archival system you know of?

Perhaps we should /s/AskSaidIt for recommendations and such regarding the /s/Cassy evolution beyond the limits of SaidIt.

Even if the archive platform was not decentralized, I would imagine that it could archive other archives, and/or might be able to zip and torrent for better distribution.

cc /u/LarrySwinger2, /u/Optimus85, /u/d3rr

[–]turtlebam 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Would be very interested in the topic if you make a post.

I do not know what system will work best and could survive any real data purge. I am not well versed on the topic but I think just an old fashioned way of focusing on one or a few subjects one is really interested in; condensing that information in PDF or saving the videos/audio that really matter and keeping them on local drives that are not connected to the internet are best.

I think it must go beyond simply saving and archiving everything, you need to organize all the data you have once you want to really use it, say in 10 years (supposing the current system continues), you want to inform someone about something. You will have to use the language of the day to get the message across. I only save what is important for particular subjects I know are important.

I wouldn't be surprised if a point is reached where they automatically delete the files they do not like remotely (especially on windows 10) Any online system is compromised, AI is getting better and the internet is getting faster everyday.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.

This search engine seems ideal, but would be perfect with web-scrape and archiving and sharing over IPFS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaCy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There's a ton of options out there. I'm not too familiar with any of them, but:

https://github.com/iipc/awesome-web-archiving

https://archivebox.io/

[–]LarrySwinger2Voluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, those are outlinks to Blogspot and they return 404 because they're encoded. You can decode them with tools like this one. You can just copy/paste the part that comes after "url=". It returns the real links:

https://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2012/10/united-93-received-18-acars-uplinks.html

cc /u/JasonCarswell

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

For lose meanings of "true".

So, those photos and videos of the second plane as it struck the tower ... that wasn't a plane, it was merely a drone, clad to look excatly like the plane, and kept at the airport, with the knowledge of air traffic control?

And manufactured as a one-off from an factory somewhere controlled by Zonists?

Is that the gist?

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, a passenger jet drone. So, not a drone in the sense of a small predator drone, but a passenger jet transfixed with remote control. They were able to do this back in the 70's and can do it now. This is probably what happened taken into account the drills and ArcGIS data. Yes. As for where they came from, or what happened after that fact, we do not know. We do know, hoever, that UA93 was flying well after it 'crashed.'

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, a passenger jet drone. So, not a drone in the sense of a small predator drone, but a passenger jet transfixed with remote control.

This remote control system is bolted on to an existing plane as a retrofit?

1) Who made this system?
* Was it a prototype?
2) Where was it fitted?
* What plane was it fitted to?
3) Where are there other examples of this system?

They were able to do this back in the 70's and can do it now.

Okay, show me who is selling and fitting these systems. Or even who has tested one. On a Boeing 767. Ever.

Yes. As for where they came from, or what happened after that fact, we do not know.

Well, having established that it exists, surely you can trace where it came from.

We do know, hoever, that UA93 was flying well after it 'crashed.'

Again. Link me to this data by which we "know" this.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I just sent you the arcGis data. And the post explains in detail about it. I don't have all the answers but UA93 was flying that day after the alleged crash.

What we do know is what I posted in detail to you with sources. Read the long posts I commented to you, there you'll find and can read the data.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You can play the skeptic forever, but instead of questioning Jesus (who knows his shit) about endless details why don't you do some research yourself?

We will never get all the answers simply because (((they))) control most of the information.

IMO, it's better to look at the big picture, the motives, who gains, and if they have a history of perpetual compulsive manipulation, deception, and lies.

Once you realize that "authority" (government, experts, media, corporations, banks, etc) are all liars and part of the globalist's effort for full spectrum dominance and enslavement of all of humanity, then it all makes much more sense.

[–]turtlebam 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Jesus knows what he is talking about. Most entertaining video on this subject: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xgT4RuWP2YL0/

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (56 children)

The HIJACKINGS DID NOT HAPPEN. The planes were switched via drones. Search ARCGIS data points on this. They followed the operation Northwoods script. Flight 175 wasn't even suppose to depart until te night time. The whole thing was an intel op and the hijackings were the scam.

David Ray Griffin, empirestrikesback blogspot, Graeme MacQueen get into these theories.

[–]RightousBob 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

You are arguing with a paid shill. SN and AN are shill accounts run by the same org. From the looks of this exchange that org. might be JDIF.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks. How do you know? I might just block them and focus on posting what I like to post and going from there.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ignore and minimally negate them on occasion but avoid the block feature. It's a shit function.

Mark all your "friends" and their names will be red instead of blue. That helps.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (52 children)

The HIJACKINGS DID NOT HAPPEN.

Yeah. They did. The planes were hijacked. It's why you're not allowed a box-cutter on a plane now, remember?

The planes were switched via drones.

Switched for what?

Search ARCGIS data points on this.

I find my google results to be more pro-scientific, because of my evidence based search history. Why don't you assume I won't find any evidence for your tenuous conspiracy theory, and link me to your best evidence yourself?

They followed the operation Northwoods script.

They assassinated Cuban immigrants, sunk boats of Cuban refugees, shot down hijacking planes, blew up a U.S. ship, and/or orchestrated violent terrorism in U.S. cities?

No they didn't. They flew some planes into some buildings.

Flight 175 wasn't even suppose to depart until te night time.

Flight 175 was scheduled to depart at 08:00 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175#Boarding

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Okay, keep shilling the official Zionist Straussian myth of 9/11 shabbos goy by sourcing Zionist owned wikipedia and the Zionist controlled commission report. Israel thanks you.

Here's the true info on the flights and 9/11:

https://old.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/mvwbu9/claircomatt_phone_records_for_flight_11_77_prove/

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Well if someone posted it to reddit, it must be true.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Shill Screw off. There are primary sources there. I'm done wasting my time with someone who parrots Trump.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Remember, the official flight paths are based off RADES 84 and FAA radar data. Researchers like "Woody Box" have uncovered that the FAA was tracking the drone flights (not on purpose) while the airlines were tracking the real registered aircraft. So, the official flight paths are the paths the drones took. There's no need for them to land somewhere and substitute with the real plane. The drones and real aircraft each took off from the same airports, respectively (except possibly for Flight 11), just at different times. e.g. United 175 and drone "United 175" both took off from Logan International, and United 93 and "United 93" both took off from Newark International. The real, registered aircraft were flying under different flight numbers, however. The live-fly hijack exercises and war games on 9/11, including the insertion of false blips, planes turning off their transponders, etc. allowed the conspirators to trick FAA controllers into believing that planes were hijacked. For example, United 175 actually took off at 8:23 under the call sign "United 177", which was later reported hijacked by regional manager Marcus Arroyo at 9:25 a.m. The real United 177 was only scheduled to depart in the evening of September 11th, but airline officials later claimed that the plane was held at the gate, which is of course not believable, because passengers wouldn't board that flight until the evening. What I think happened was that the plane flying as "United 177" turned off its transponder and merged with another track before crossing into the next sector and becoming "Delta 89" at 9:27. To the controller working "United 177", it probably looked like the flight had dropped off radar, and someone up the chain reported this as a hijack – the report making its way to Arroyo, and this was unusually quick, because Flight 11's controller didn't realize that it was hijacked for about 10 minutes, and the decision loop around that aircraft moved much slower. The aircraft was doing this as part of a sanctioned live-fly hijack drill ran by NORAD, and it enabled the 9/11 attacks to occur. The strongest evidence for drones being used, are IMO the ACARS messages from UAL dispatchers to the hijacked United flights. There were 18 ACARS uplinks received by United 93 after 10:03 (the official crash time). A crashed plane cannot receive uplinks from a ground station, because it wouldn't be able to perform the preceding "handshake", which is a synchronization process between sender and receiver to enable and optimize the transmission of the actual message. The researcher "Woody Box" explains: [a] sent ULBLK (uplink) implies a successful handshake; a successful handshake implies a good VHF connection; a good VHF connection implies that the plane is within line-of sight or at least almost line-of sight of the ground station; and a line-of-sight condition implies that the plane is airborne (exception: the plane is grounded at the airport where the sender is located – but this was not the case for United 93 at 10:11). As to why the aircraft stopped receiving ACARS uplinks after 10:12, nine minutes after its supposed downing in Shanksville – perhaps the aircraft had landed somewhere by then (given the plane's low altitude at that point, as suggested by David Knerr in his FBI interview) and the pilot pulled the circuit breaker. The ACARS messages to UA 93 show that it was in the vicinity of Champaign, Illinois ("GL CMI" in print-out) at 10:10, 7 minutes after its alleged crash. Interestingly, there are two airports near Champaign, Illinois: Willard Airport (operated by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), and Frasca Field, a small, privately-owned airport that is public access. However, I'm not a pilot guy at all, but it seems Frasca's two runways are too short (at 4000') to accommodate a landing 757-200, which I understand needs at least 8000' of runway even for low landing weights. Now if these planes were upgraded with these cell transponders, would this illustrate that maybe the planes followed the Northwoods script? Scenario #8 in Northwoods was definitely an inspiration for how the attacks unfolded. My thinking goes like this: Planes still airborne past their supposed crash times → Flights were duplicated → (Indirect) Drones struck the Towers and Pentagon → only a State has the resources to co-ordinate an operation with that implied level of complexity and complicity (elements within NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national security state in general...etc.) → 9/11 was a false flag.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

What killed the passengers and crew of the real planes?

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

A great amount of the crew happened to be intel agents or connected with high up intelligence officials. Someone did a probability of this and you had a better chance of being struck by lighting two times over. Also, it was likely they were flown under different numbers and the point I'm making is that flight data shows that they were flying well after UA93 allegedly crashed into that field and buried itself and after the two planes hit the facades of the towers.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

A great amount of the crew happened to be intel agents or connected with high up intelligence officials.

How many is this "great amount"?

What was the names of these, and what was the connection with which "high-up intelligence officials" in each case?

And which ones were "intel" agents?

How do you know that they were intel agents?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You are a timesuck.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Who knows if thry even were Killed or were ghosted by a drone and under a different tail number. The point I'm making is the planes were still in Flight and nowhere near where the drones were.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The point I'm making is the planes were still in Flight and nowhere near where the drones were.

As you know, flights paths are all recorded.

Why don't you link me to the recorded location of those flights at the time they were striking the buildings, because I'm having serious problems believing what you're saying.

You claim that there are drones large enough to look like a plane. Show me an example of one on the ground or for sale.

You claim that they can be flown around amongst aircraft, so either air traffic control knows about them, or would be investigating them for violating ATC spaces. Show me when those drones landed at the airport you claim they took off from, according to air traffic control records.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They'll never come clean about it so we'll never know.

Maybe after they admit that the Holocaust is a HUGE exaggeration, then they'll admit they orchestrated 9/11.

Don't hold your breath. Or better yet, do.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They'll never come clean about it so we'll never know.

And the fact that they died when the plane that they were in hit the building is not as plausible as someone is keeping them hidden somewhere for purposes that somehow advance Zionists' agenda?

Maybe after they admit that the Holocaust is a HUGE exaggeration

There were a lot of bodies found. How HUGE an exaggeration are we talking here?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And the fact that they died when the plane that they were in hit the building is not as plausible as someone is keeping them hidden somewhere for purposes that somehow advance Zionists' agenda?

You don't know that. Proof?

There were a lot of bodies found. How HUGE an exaggeration are we talking here?

The magical made up number of 6 million existed long before WWII in the 1800s. 6 million people would literally have been impossible to gas and/or burn - especially in a war with shortages of fuel and food that also impacted the German guards and soldiers. The "death camps" were actually slave labour camps and almost 200,000 people (Jews, other races, communists, socialists, anarchists, pacifists, artists, etc) died of natural causes, typhoid, starvation, and probably some abuse or murders here or there. That's the well documented number.

There are countless other inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright lies surrounding the Holocaust that become glaringly obvious if you can get past the fear of being labeled an "anti-Semite" for just looking into it.

Watch "Spinning Squirrel" on BitChute for more. Don't talk to me until after you do.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Zionist Jews thank you for your belief in their Straussian myth. Again, read Ellias Davidsson, David Ray Griffin, everyone of hos books, and Graeme MacQueen who effectively shows that the consoirators had a pre-fabricated script in place to blame the anthrax attacks on the Saudis, white supremacists, Al Qeada and Iraq. It's funny that the Jew Donald Kagan only a day after 9/11 mentioned that Al Qeada wheeled Anthrax and could use it on American citizens. Of course, MacQueen proves that it wasn't muslims but inteligence assets possibly linked to Mossad who did these attacks as well as 9/11. Not some stupid muslims who couldn't even fly single cesa engine planes.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

On ya, mate.

who effectively shows that the consoirators had a pre-fabricated script in place to blame the anthrax attacks on the Saudis, white supremacists, Al Qeada and Iraq.

Not sure what his evidence was, nor how white supremacists and Iraq are on the same side of any conflict. But 9/11 wasn't an anthrax attack. There were some hijacked planes that were flown into buildings.

Not some stupid muslims who couldn't even fly single cesa engine planes.

The hijackers were known by:

1) Passengers and crew aboard the flights provided information about the hijackers while the hijacking was in progress.

and

2) From luggage and effects left behind, or, in one case, that didn't make the connecting flight.

Their identities isn't a guess. And the majority of them were Saudis.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (31 children)

You are so far behind in the details I cannot help you.

Again, PICK UP THE BOOK about the Anthrax attacks by Graeme MacQueen. The Anthrax attacks were directly linked to the 9/11 attacks and simulated HIJACKERS, which were pre-fabricated and pre-written into the script but were scrapped when neocons and other perps nearly outed themselves. Read the damn book.

THERE WAS NO HIJACKINGS period.

Other than possibly switching the transponder in midair but this doesn't account for the ghosting of Flight 177, which proves, the opposite. That drones were used.

Now screw off shill and go blame 9/11 on muslims somewhere else. I know who did 9/11 and it wasn't your dumb Saudi script that Zionist Haredi mafia Trump likes to bring up.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

THERE WAS NO HIJACKINGS period.

Yeah there was. People on the flights identified that hijackers, and then the planes were flown into buildings.

Other than possibly switching the transponder in midair but this doesn't account for the ghosting of Flight 177, which proves, the opposite. That drones were used.

And these drones that look exactly like older planes, are manufactured where? Can you show me some examples of other drones from this factory? Or where the factory is?

Or are you saying that they were a bespoke 3D printing job, that looked really really good?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

People on the flights identified that hijackers, and then the planes were flown into buildings.

They're all allegedly dead and unverified. Even during the recordings (perhaps pre-recorded), some warned that it's a hoax. Further, there's conflicting stories about what actually took place on those planes.

that look exactly like older planes

Actually there's a lot of controversy about their appearance as they do NOT look exactly like the planes they're supposed to represent, including the paint jobs and bulge on the bottom.

You are being argumentative for the sake of it. Why not leave this forum and go back where you came from?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're repeating "official narrative" propaganda nonsense.

You would do well to learn from Jesus.

Fuck the religious shit but he's precisely on target for everything else.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

my google results

LOL.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

🙄

[–]Sendnoodles 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Literally anti-Zionists

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Nope Zionist Jews did 9/11. Rabbi Dov Zakhiem passemger jet drones flown into beacons. All Zionist Jews were involved in 9/11. The hijacker narrative was to follow the securing realm document but the oil oligarch bush family didn't want to go that route so they and the neocons made a compromise. They both would use 9/11 as pretext for their own agendas but make no mistake about it, PNACERS and Mossad did 9/11.