IPB




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
Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility, PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
Omega892R09
post Jan 15 2011, 08:02 AM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dundas42 @ Jan 13 2011, 10:04 AM) *
Best Regards from Northern Ireland
Iain

'ere! What you doing using my Avatar pic'?

Will cause confusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bernie
post Jan 15 2011, 06:33 PM
Post #22





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 3-November 10
Member No.: 5,412



QUOTE (panthercat @ Jan 12 2011, 04:01 PM) *
As for magic, I believe the airplanes, at least in the tower videos were there to distract our attention from what actually happened.


Of course they were! A conjurers trick, 'keep watching my moving hand, while the other one has the pigeon up its sleeve'. I'd go somewhat further and suggest the two WTC planes were remote controlled B737's most likely 'seeking' a homing device planted in the buildings.

I have long believed this after seeing images of the Jet Engine lying under an awning in Murray St following the impact on the south tower where in one video clip, a flaming object can be seen hurtling out of the side of the Tower. The Jet engine in Murray St was identified by Boeing mechanics and other train spotting types as a CFM56 model, far smaller than the B767 Engines. Needles to say it was disposed of with indecent haste to parts unknown just as was most of the other evidence.


I posted this suggestion in another forum some weeks ago and received an interesting reply from a former Air Traffic Controller, which I paste below:

“I was an FAA air traffic controller at one time. “Full-performance-level” is what they called those of us who were completely qualified, i.e. certified at all control positions. Prior to that, I was a combat air controller in the Navy aboard a carrier. All this is only to say that I have seen and experienced quite a lot in the way of civil and military aviation. Later in life, I also did some construction engineering, including several types of concrete and steel bridge structures.
I doubted the official story since day one. The more I heard or read, the more my doubt was confirmed.
What prompted me to respond to your particular post is mention of the Boeing 737.
Let us take for granted that I have flash recognition of aircraft types. Kind of goes along with the work I once did. The first image I saw on television of that aircraft hitting the tower, my mind identified it as a 737. However, your post is the first I have seen a 737 mentioned.
On another but related topic, we had remote-control systems of our aircraft in the Navy fleet as early as 1973. The system was called Link 4A or “Dolly.” On recovery aboard the carrier, the system was so exact that the aircraft would hit the same spot on the flight deck every time. Among the reasons I remember this is because a computer programmer had to tweak the software so recovering aircraft would not hit the same spot. The fear was that it would over-stress the flight deck. So, it does not surprise me in the least that aircraft could be remotely and precisely controlled to collide with those towers.
There are other aspects of my experiences and the events of 9/11 that place me with the disbelievers.
That people continue to support the official story is amusing. If I were younger, I would probably be very angry”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 01:44 AM