you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 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 -  (5 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.

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

You've made some specific claims, that I strongly suspect you have no evidence for whatsoever.

If you do, fine, show me.

If you don't, I think that that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

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

Do your own research. Don't be lazy. Follow the crumbs. It's not a secret and there's no shortage of people on SaidIt that are awake to the many corrupt levers of power and their history that is obfuscated from the general populace.

Ask your specific questions and you'll get specific answers if they're available. Not knowing something is just as important as knowing something. Some things are unknowable and those who pretend to know can be just as dangerous as liars.

General vague skepticism is just as moot as general vague dismissals. I won't be snared into wasting energy with timesucks.