IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was UA175 Controlled By Remote?

cicorp
post Mar 2 2016, 11:27 AM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 8-December 10
From: Washington, DC
Member No.: 5,499



>Was UA175 Controlled By Remote?

A jet taken over by Remote Control looks like a plane taken over by hijackers.

Boeing patented ATALS in 2003 (not 2004 as CNN reported) and the technology was available in testing by 9/11/2001.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlS_scRORr8

Boeing filed ATALS patent: February 19, 2003
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...p;RS=PN/7142971

Remote Control Take Over - simplest explanation for how 9/11 was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irf_QV-AUU4
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 3 2016, 10:51 AM
Post #22





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for all that Cicorp. No doubt in my mind that the aircraft that struck the south tower was a drone.

Christopher Bollyn theorizes that by way of satellite, modern airliners can be commandeered, just as this system would do.

He says the Airbus is more easily commandeered than the Boeing, but I have no knowledge about that, and no opinion.

But it does seem MH370 is a candidate for such an event, in retrospect. Also the Russian airline Airbus some months back might have been commandeered, given the strange way the crash site in the desert looked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Sep 8 2016, 05:19 AM
Post #23





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 132
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 3 2016, 10:51 AM) *
Thanks for all that Cicorp. No doubt in my mind that the aircraft that struck the south tower was a drone.

Christopher Bollyn theorizes that by way of satellite, modern airliners can be commandeered, just as this system would do.

He says the Airbus is more easily commandeered than the Boeing, but I have no knowledge about that, and no opinion.

But it does seem MH370 is a candidate for such an event, in retrospect. Also the Russian airline Airbus some months back might have been commandeered, given the strange way the crash site in the desert looked.


I think the only reason there were people manning the Mayor's Bunker in building 7 was to assist in targeting procedures on the WTC Towers. I'm betting there was a lazer targeting procedure, just to make doubly certain they hit where they wanted them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 12 2016, 01:37 PM
Post #24





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (excontroller @ Sep 8 2016, 06:19 AM) *
I think the only reason there were people manning the Mayor's Bunker in building 7 was to assist in targeting procedures on the WTC Towers. I'm betting there was a lazer targeting procedure, just to make doubly certain they hit where they wanted them.


My theory is that those in Rudy's bunker were there to begin the demolition process, push the button.

And I've always wondered if they didn't push the wrong button first. Second tower to be hit was the first tower to come down. Was that the plan?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Sep 13 2016, 11:55 PM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 626
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 12 2016, 01:37 PM) *
My theory is that those in Rudy's bunker were there to begin the demolition process, push the button.

And I've always wondered if they didn't push the wrong button first. Second tower to be hit was the first tower to come down. Was that the plan?



I certainly can go along with that theory amazed.
Why the South tower first?

If they had 100 buttons to push, maybe a mistake, but two buttons? smile.gif

Maybe they forgot to label the buttons, or the button labeler got them backwards? smile.gif

Seriously, it has been posited that the fires were going out faster in the South tower due to most of the fuel having exploded
outside the tower. So better to demolish the tower while there was still some life to the fire.

And you know what, I don't think anyone including the MSM had a clue about this at the time (that WTC1 'should have' come down first).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 23 2016, 03:25 PM
Post #26





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Part of what brought down the towers was nuclear, with several hotspots visible from space for weeks. Not office fires, for sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Nov 23 2016, 10:10 PM
Post #27





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 626
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 23 2016, 03:25 PM) *
Part of what brought down the towers was nuclear, with several hotspots visible from space for weeks. Not office fires, for sure.


Well I don't go further than the whole 'collapse story' is totally absurd.
I don't get into specifics about which explosive(s) were used.

If there is ever an investigation on this, let those details come out then.
The important thing is to get word out to the general public that 9/11 was a false flag attack
and the destruction of the towers is the biggest in-your-face give away.

Not only is it physically impossible for the top floors to crush the floors beneath them beyond just a few,
but please, let anyone on this planet explain to me how WTC2 (South tower) could tilt over to the side
at least 20 degrees and then as it continued to fall to the side managed to crush each floor below it,
DEAD SQUARE ON, taking out all columns on each floor at the same time.

Or to ask another absurd question, would WTC2 have 'collapsed' in the exact same way had the tower not started to
tilt over 20+ degrees? Had it started to 'collapse' straight down like WTC1?

Or in other words, does tilting over 20 degrees make any difference in the physical world we live in? smile.gif




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 25 2016, 09:52 AM
Post #28





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,143
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I certainly understand and respect your position Mike.

And I think that likely several tactics were used. I think thermite in some form was employed, but IMO Jeff Prager makes a compelling case for the nuclear theory.

Neither thermite nor ordinary office fires could have caused all the damage observed, emphasis on ALL the damage observed. IMO the only theory that can explain all the damage observed is the nuclear theory. From the hotspots seen from space, to the strangely burned vehicles, to the radiation sickenesses observed in those who worked on the pile, to horizontal ejection of massive pieces, molten metal here and there for 90 days, the only coherent explanation is tactical nuclear devices.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiLa_CyFAIM

If this link works, it is a fascinating analysis I had not seen before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th March 2017 - 11:45 PM