1810 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 09 April 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

ATC was not affected, yet they had injects on their screen? That's what being affected is Skyeagle. Je-sus.

There were no injects on ATC radar and the data never depicted injects. Where did you get that idea from? I have seen so much confusion from the 9/11 conspiracy side of the  house on radar contacts and aircraft because they have no idea what they are talking about.

They have confused newspaper reports and eyewitness accounts on United 175, United 93, American 77 and American 11, which were later clarified yet the 9/11 conspiracy folks have failed to correct their theories after the clarifications were issued.

Did you reviewed the video where the coroner slammed the 9/11 conspiracy folks for taking his comments out of context? I might add that he was very angry!  Have you read the clarifications in regards to United 93 and Cleveland airport? Where are the corrections from the 9/11 conspiracy folks after the clarifications were issued?

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 April 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 09 April 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

There were no injects on ATC radar and the data never depicted injects. Where did you get that idea from? I have seen so much confusion from the 9/11 conspiracy side of the  house on radar contacts and aircraft because they have no idea what they are talking about.

I think I understand where you are going with this.


To clarify can you inform me what radar screens did have injects on their screens that day?



Are you denying that any and all radar screens had any injects at all or just ATC screens?

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 09 April 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

I think I understand where you are going with this. To clarify can you inform me what radar screens did have injects on their screens that day?

You might want to check with NORAD because the 9/11 conspiracy folks have once again misread communications to NEAD that had nothing to do with false radar blips, so here is where they blew it again!!!.

Quote

Are you denying that any and all radar screens had any injects at all or just ATC screens?

Not on ATC radars. Once again, you have to differentiate simulations from the real thing.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 April 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

OK gents, please fill me in on the video Boo shows above with the strike at the Pentagon?  Has it been revealed as bogus?

So you guys are basing your position that a 757 struck the Pentagon partly or wholly on the lamp poles?  Because the lamp poles are knocked down, there had to be a Boeing, or am I misunderstanding your positions?

[Babe Ruth]

The Toronto Star and several other news outlets reported on the use of injects in the Vigilant Guardian exercise.  December 9, 2001

Others too.  One quoted some controller claiming that the radar screens did not return to normal until after lunch.

You're the one so into 'simulations' SKY.  That's all injects are, is simulated targets on a radar screen.  They are not real airplanes and exist only on the screen.  They are excellent tools to train radar controllers.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

OK gents, please fill me in on the video Boo shows above with the strike at the Pentagon?  Has it been revealed as bogus?

It is bogus and obvious.

Quote

So you guys are basing your position that a 757 struck the Pentagon partly or wholly on the lamp poles?

Nope. Why do you think American Airlines reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon?

[Babe Ruth]

How do you know it's bogus, Sky?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 April 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

How do you know it's bogus, Sky?

The exhaust is bogus along with the explosion.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 April 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

The Toronto Star and several other news outlets reported on the use of injects in the Vigilant Guardian exercise.  December 9, 2001

Others too.  One quoted some controller claiming that the radar screens did not return to normal until after lunch.

You're the one so into 'simulations' SKY.  That's all injects are, is simulated targets on a radar screen.  They are not real airplanes and exist only on the screen.  They are excellent tools to train radar controllers.

Were you aware that the whole mess was based on confusion and nothing to do with false radar blips? It was later admitted by the person who started it all who said that it had nothing to do with radar.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 09 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

So you guys are basing your position that a 757 struck the Pentagon partly or wholly on the lamp poles?  Because the lamp poles are knocked down, there had to be a Boeing, or am I misunderstanding your positions?

You completely missed my point.  If a cruise missle did strike the pentagon as the video is suggesting, then why are there no explanations on the knocked down light poles?

Again I will state, there was no explanation in that video regarding the light posts and theory on how they were damaged.  Hand waving off evidence that doesn't support the no plane theory?  Ithink so.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 09 April 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

How do you know it's bogus, Sky?

The bigger question is, how can anyone in their right mind possibly not know that it is bogus?

[Czero 101]

booNyzarC, on 09 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

The bigger question is, how can anyone in their right mind possibly not know that it is bogus?

I think you provided your own answer there, BooNy...




Cz

[skyeagle409]

Speaking of bogus videos of a cruise missile, look how far some folks will go to doctor photos of cruise missiles and UAVs.


Hoaxed cruise missile photo.




Hoaxed cruise missile photo




Actual Air Force cruise missile photo.





Hoaxed Viking photo.




Hoaxed Global Hawk Photo





Actual Global Hawk photo..

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 April 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Just checked in at PFT and apparently they too consider the video bogus, though for different reasons.  Over there it is more of a dogma developed by CIT.  They claimed a few years ago to have proved beyond any doubt that nothing at all struck the Pentagon.  I disagreed with them.

The rationale offered by Boo is interesting however.  He apparently 'just knows' that it is bogus.

I've always considered that SOME SORT of single engine flying object struck the Pentagon, for that would explain the debris we are shown--few and small wheels, just one small turbine engine.

Oh well, I guess I'll find out when I get to heaven...

[booNyzarC]

Maybe you should have some of the PffffT experts give some rationale for this video too.