Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Yes Mr. Crew Chief, I know you are a huge source of knowlege regarding pilot training. :gun:

93 wasn't shot down because it wasn't there. It was all an elaborately staged event. All day long, and ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. Crew Chief,...

I was a C-5, DCC, and from such a position I knew that United 93 crashed near Shanksville and did not land anywhere else. You seem to have forgotten that passengers and crew remains were recovered from the crash site near Shanksville along with wreckage from United 93, which was a B-757-200 series aircraft and only a certain number of those aircraft were built and can be accounted for. As I have said before, you cannot switch such aircraft and it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to expose a switched aircraft, so with that in mind, there was no way the government could have pulled off such an attack and not get caught.

How long did time go by before the specifics of the Watergate scandal was revealed? It has been over 11 years and yet not one shred of evidence of a 9/11 false flag operation has surfaced.

I know you are a huge source of knowlege regarding pilot training. :gun:

Well, I have been a pilot since the late 1960s.

...93 wasn't shot down because it wasn't there.

On the contrary, recovery crews and others, including coroner Wally Miller, have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93. United 93 was tracked by radar to the location of the crash site near Shanksville and that is where the radar contact ended.

In addition to radar evidence and visual confirmation, we have photo confirmation of wreckage from United 93 and I would like to add that there is no radar data that paints United 93 in the sky after the B-757 crashed and ATC confirmed the loss of radar contact on United 93 near the crash site and remember, United Airlines, operator of United 93, confirmed the loss of United 93.

In addition to ATC communications and radar data, further evidence supporting the crash site of United 93 is based on the flight recorders and infrared satellite data. Question is, where is your evidence that United 93 landed anywhere else?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, or you assume he spoke perfectly when he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower.

"...he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower."...being what you assume..

Not that it matters anyway.

If he "really meant he saw that a plane HAD hit the tower", he still said he saw it on the school's TV set, Which is impossible, as we know. You want to change what "he really meant" there? Perhaps..er.. that he watched it on his rec room TV set??

Nah, much better for you to assume he needed a live feed of everything right?

Better for you to actually read what I've said, so you won't put words in my mouth.

I think he most likely had a live feed of the first plane hit. But I certainly never said or implied whatsoever that he "needed a live feed of everything".You hatched that egg. And now there's egg on your face, so to speak.

Hilarious that you call him an utter moron but at the same time want him to be the indispensible mastermind of the operation.

Hilarious that you leap to massive, entirely wrong, conclusions about my position.

He is indeed a moron. In no way is he the "mastermind" of the operation. I'd be amazed if he knew how to organize his wardrobe closet, :su

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower."...being what you assume..

Not that it matters anyway.

If he "really meant he saw that a plane HAD hit the tower", he still said he saw it on the school's TV set, Which is impossible, as we know. You want to change what "he really meant" there? Perhaps..er.. that he watched it on his rec room TV set??

Why impossible to see at the school? There was coverage on every network showing a plane HAD hit the tower. It is far more likely he was talking about the results, a plane had hit the tower, than the actual impact.

Better for you to actually read what I've said, so you won't put words in my mouth.

I think he most likely had a live feed of the first plane hit. But I certainly never said or implied whatsoever that he "needed a live feed of everything".You hatched that egg. And now there's egg on your face, so to speak.

Hardly. You've still not given any reason why he would have a live feed in the first place. I doubt there would be a reason for anyone to have a live feed of the first impact. And I doubt you'll come up with a good reason.

Hilarious that you leap to massive, entirely wrong, conclusions about my position.

Only person jumping to conclusion here is you Mr. live feed.

He is indeed a moron. In no way is he the "mastermind" of the operation. I'd be amazed if he knew how to organize his wardrobe closet, :su

Then no reason whatsoever for him to have a live feed of the first crash and far more likely he saw the aftermath on the news like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why impossible to see at the school? There was coverage on every network showing a plane HAD hit the tower. It is far more likely he was talking about the results, a plane had hit the tower, than the actual impact.

Bush said...

"...and I saw an airplane hit the tower.."

"..I had seen this plane fly into the first building"

Nobody knew it was a plane, or an internal ex[;osion, or anything else at the time Bush "saw" iit on a TV. News reports were not claiming it was a plane that hit the tower. It was all a matter of speculation at the time. So even if your version was correct, it makes no sense - because it wasn't known to be a plane that hit it, yet Bush said it was a plane.

He said he saw it - on two seperate occasions. You don't like him saying it, so you make up your own version of it to excuse the reality of it.

And you think elementary schools like to watch TV in a hallway, I suppose. What a joke.

Hardly. You've still not given any reason why he would have a live feed in the first place. I doubt there would be a reason for anyone to have a live feed of the first impact. And I doubt you'll come up with a good reason.

He is still (supposedly, anyway) the Chief in Command. The President, the great leader in charge of such matters. Just because he happens to be a moron does not mean he has no access to a live feed. Not to mention that his staff might want to know if the plans are being executed in real time.

He may be a stooge, but the people around him are certainly not clueless. Even you can see that.

Then no reason whatsoever for him to have a live feed of the first crash and far more likely he saw the aftermath on the news like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush said...

"...and I saw an airplane hit the tower.."

"..I had seen this plane fly into the first building"

Nobody knew it was a plane, or an internal ex[;osion, or anything else at the time Bush "saw" iit on a TV. News reports were not claiming it was a plane that hit the tower.

Yes, they were. Here is a radio program that was getting their news from the TV. The time is from right before the second impact.

They also said a plane has crashed in the tower

It was all a matter of speculation at the time. So even if your version was correct, it makes no sense - because it wasn't known to be a plane that hit it, yet Bush said it was a plane.

Except they were all saying it was a plane, albeit likely a small one.

He said he saw it - on two seperate occasions. You don't like him saying it, so you make up your own version of it to excuse the reality of it.

The only person making up their own version is you, Mr. live feed.

And you think elementary schools like to watch TV in a hallway, I suppose. What a joke.

You think he was only in hallways? That he NEVER went into an office? Have you been in a school lately? Every school I've seen since the late 80's has TVs in every room. Highly likely that those in the office where he likely spent some time were watching the news that DID say a plane had hit the tower.

He is still (supposedly, anyway) the Chief in Command. The President, the great leader in charge of such matters. Just because he happens to be a moron does not mean he has no access to a live feed. Not to mention that his staff might want to know if the plans are being executed in real time.

He may be a stooge, but the people around him are certainly not clueless. Even you can see that.

A live feed that there is no reason to exist. Still far more likely that he saw the results on the news like everyone else. Keep up the humor Turb!

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush said...

"...and I saw an airplane hit the tower.."

"..I had seen this plane fly into the first building"

Nobody knew it was a plane, or an internal ex[;osion, or anything else at the time Bush "saw" iit on a TV. It was all a matter of speculation at the time. So even if your version was correct, it makes no sense - because it wasn't known to be a plane that hit it, yet Bush said it was a plane.

Think again!

News reports were not claiming it was a plane that hit the tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower."...being what you assume..

Not that it matters anyway.

If he "really meant he saw that a plane HAD hit the tower", he still said he saw it on the school's TV set, Which is impossible, as we know. You want to change what "he really meant" there? Perhaps..er.. that he watched it on his rec room TV set??

Better for you to actually read what I've said, so you won't put words in my mouth.

I think he most likely had a live feed of the first plane hit. But I certainly never said or implied whatsoever that he "needed a live feed of everything".You hatched that egg. And now there's egg on your face, so to speak.

Hilarious that you leap to massive, entirely wrong, conclusions about my position.

He is indeed a moron. In no way is he the "mastermind" of the operation. I'd be amazed if he knew how to organize his wardrobe closet, :su

Agreed!

To my knowledge there are only 2 recordings of impact with the first tower. One from a fixed parking lot camera that is extremely short, and inconclusive as to type of aircraft. But clearly something struck the tower.

The other is the notorious and controversial Naudet brothers video, which makes it clear that it was a Boeing.

I'm still undecided as to which is correct.

Anyway, point is that Bush could not have seen the first impact. But he is a known liar, so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed!

To my knowledge there are only 2 recordings of impact with the first tower. One from a fixed parking lot camera that is extremely short, and inconclusive as to type of aircraft. But clearly something struck the tower.

It was clear the aircraft was a B-767.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's clear to you Sky is very murky to others. You are a terrific cheerleader for the official narrative, but you either deny or overlook the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's clear to you Sky is very murky to others. You are a terrific cheerleader for the official narrative, but you either deny or overlook the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the official story.

The evidence has taken side with the official story and you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary. :no: To put it in another way, you have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story. I have noticed that you have been contradicting yourself time after time.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't necessarily take the "immediate response" circumstance out of the picture, but it also doesn't make SkyEagle wrong, and would seem to be dependant upon whether the incidents that day had been officially deemed "terrorist attacks" at the time the decision(s) were made. And while it seems that the "immediate response" exception would take precidence over requests that require Presidential approval, there is nothing in 3025.1 that deals with the authorization to use deadly force against civilians, aside from the following blanket definition

and this list of priorities:

My emphasis added. But is that enough to justify deadly force against US civilians...?

Firstly, thank heavens for someone who, unlike skyeagle, can focus and coherently discuss an issue. Second, I agree that “immediate response” takes precedence in situations involving threat to life and/or property. Whilst shootdown authority is not specifically mentioned, the text can be interpreted to mean any military action to mitigate the threat. Could that include deadly force against civilians? I don’t see any reason why not. As General Arnold said, We will take lives in the air to save lives on the ground.”

If this interpretation of the directives was invalid, then why did the 9/11 Commission state, It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...”? The 9/11 Commission seem to be aware that the directives provide a quite valid legal defence, if needed, for anyone who took the decision to shootdown another hijacked airliner after circumstances witnessed at the WTC and Pentagon, even in lieu of higher authorisation.

Of course skyeagle is wrong on this point. He believes that a shootdown could only possibly occur with Presidential approval, and that is far from the case. It is a completely ineffective argument to attempt against a case for the shootdown of Flight 93.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...”?

I don't think you understood what I have said. There was no shootdown order before United 93 crashed and President Bush; the Commander-in-Chief, issued the order and that order was passed down the chain of command. That is how it worked and what happened.

You also ignored the fact the military had no idea where United 93 was until after it crashed, which is another nail in the coffin on the claim that United 93 was shot down. What you are telling me is that you have no clue how things work in the real world. :no:

Recap time:

10:09 AM1 minute, 57 seconds

"The fighter pilots do not know if they have permission to shoot down planes. A commander tells them they do not. (Warning: profanity at the end of the clip)"

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

The time listed is after United 93 crashed and yet you've claim that United 93 was shot down, and you made that claim despite the fact there were no shootdown orders issued while United 93 was airborne.

Simply making things up in your mind just ain't gonna get it. You either post evidence or you don't, and if you fail to do so, you have no case. :no:

Interview with Vice President Cheney

"VICE PRES. CHENEY:

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."

--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001

So once again, you will notice the time of that message was after United 93 crashed, in other words, there was no shootdown order prior to the crash of United 93, which basically throws cold water on your claim that United 93 was shot down.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following directives show that you don’t have a clue: -

: -

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

Your first mistake: under routine circumstances, authority is not restricted to the President but extends to the Secretary of Defence. Of course, apart from, as stated above,
“with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d.”
.

Reference d of the directive above, refers to the directive below...

: -

Immediate Response
. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1.

Which in turn refers to the directive below...

: -

Imminently serious condition resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as “Immediate Response.”

Nothing there giving authority for commanders to go over the head of the President of the United States. Let's do a simple review.

9-11 Fighter Pilot: We Wouldn't Have Shot Down Hijackers

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."

As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.

Coincidentally, at the very moment, the plane slammed into Tower One.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes." When United Airlines Flight 175, piloted by Atta's hijack-partner Marwan Al Shehhi, crashed into Tower Two at 9:02 a.m., the two F-15's were about 71 miles - eight minutes away - from Manhattan.

By the time "Nasty" got word of a second hijacked plane, it had already smashed into Tower Two, he told the paper. But the idea that the F-15's, had they been scrambled earlier, might have been able to shoot down the hijackers is pure conjecture, "Nasty" told the paper.

At the time, military pilots had no such standing orders. Absent a presidential directive they had no authority to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky.

http://www.freerepub...ws/737242/posts

As I have said earlier, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. I might add that the F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD's air defense techniques and protocols nor trained to shoot down airliners and Shanksville was NOT a "weapons-free" zone. In other words, United 93 was well within the safety zone over Shanksville when it crashed since the "weapons-free" zone was within the Washington D.C. area and nowhere near Shanksville.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing there giving authority for commanders to go over the head of the President of the United States.

Yes there is you numpty. It’s written plain as day in Directive 3025.1, “When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters...”. You obviously have reading and/or comprehension difficulties and/or are deliberately ignoring black and white facts.

Further, the red text in the link you have quoted is media commentary/opinion which is not always the most accurate, and is in reference to the hijacked Flight 11; the first airliner to impact a target – at which time commanders could not know there was an imminent and serious threat to life and/or property which might prompt them to “Immediate Response” so the pilot comment is no surprise: "If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash". Not so, when it came to Flight 93 which is the proposed subject of a shootdown – awareness had increased and U.S. air defenses had upped their game by that point over an hour after the first crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how do we prove it was shot down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm ... if it was shot down then there would be wreckage at Shanksville. But if there was no wreckage then it couldn't have been shot down.

Oooh, post #666 ... how cool is that? :clap:

Edited by Kludge808

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how do we prove it was shot down?

Kludge is right - to anyone who does not accept the evidence that an airliner at least may have crashed at Pennsylvania in the first place, I would not even try to prove a shootdown. To anyone else, please see my posts #1997 & #1999 for a basic overview of the evidence: -

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4157141

How do we prove it beyond anyone's doubt? Physical inspection of the debris to check for damage type and/or explosive residues might have done it, though obviously that was not carried out and it’s now too late. Failing that, we need a whistleblower. The pilot who pulled the trigger is the obvious candidate or someone from or connected to the chain of command involved, of which there were numerous; NORAD, the Secret Service, regional commands. Though I see no reason anyone should be rushing to reveal this when the shootdown and cover-up were necessary and in interest of protecting the United States and pilot responsible. Perhaps in another 20-40 years someone will speak out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is you numpty. It’s written plain as day in Directive 3025.1, “When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters...”. You obviously have reading and/or comprehension difficulties and/or are deliberately ignoring black and white facts.

What conditions? Just because an aircraft is hijacked is not justification to shoot down an airliner. You are misinterpreting what the directive means. Check it out: Brig. Gen. David F. Wherley, Jr., the 113th Wing commander, was on-site, trying to determine whether the unit had authorization to launch fighters.

... the red text in the link you have quoted is media commentary/opinion which is not always the most accurate, and is in reference to the hijacked Flight 11; the first airliner to impact a target – at which time commanders could not know there was an imminent and serious threat to life and/or property which might prompt them to “Immediate Response” so the pilot comment is no surprise:

How would they have known if another airliner had planned to strike a building? Without orders, vectors, and briefings, how would a pilot know which aircraft was United 93 or not? In fact, how would a pilot know if a particular aircraft was hijacked? Even if they intercepted the airliners, they were in ID mode only with no orders to shoot down anything and as I have said, there were no such orders issued during the time that United 93 was airborne.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash".

And that is what the pilots would have done because they had no idea that American 11 was going to crash into WTC1. Dealing with bombers and fighters is one thing, but dealing with an airliner is another.

Not so, when it came to Flight 93 which is the proposed subject of a shootdown – awareness had increased and U.S. air defenses had upped their game by that point over an hour after the first crash.

Without an order, there was no way that United 93 was going to be shot down near Shanksville, especially in the area where it crashed. The pilot went on to say:"... there are plenty of hard reasons to not shoot somebody down. We were really in an ID posture--and trying to really be careful."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how do we prove it was shot down?

There are many ways to determine whether an aircraft was shot down or not. Radar data for one, which no such evidence exist for United 93, ground-to-air communications and intercept vectoring instructions for which there are none for United 93.

Secondly, satellite data can be used in conjunction to confirm whether an aircraft was shot down or not, but no such data exist for United 93; in other words, black box, seismic, radar, and satellite data can all be used to determine whether an aircraft was shot down or not and yet no such data exist that supports a shoot down and when you tie in the ATC and NEAD communication tape along with the technical data it is evident the military had no idea where United 93 was in order to vector interceptors to its location and when used used in conjunction with the communication tapes, they will prove that United 93 was not shot down at all.

Even while F-16s were flying CAP over Washington D.C., aircraft were still flying below those fighters despite Washington approach broadcasting this message: 'Anyone flying within 25 mi. of the Washington Tacan is authorized to be shot down.' How far is Washington D.C. from Shanksville?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we prove it beyond anyone's doubt?

Simple! Satellite data.

Physical inspection of the debris to check for damage type and/or explosive residues might have done it, though obviously that was not carried out and it’s now too late.

First of all, you have to place interceptors in the location where United 93 had crashed, and radar data does not depict fighters near United 93 when it crashed and remember, the military had no idea as to the location of United 93 and we have that ATC communication tape where the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed, and since the military was unaware of that fact in order to vector interceptors to United 93, effectively drains the claims of 9/11 conspiracist folks.

...Failing that, we need a whistleblower. The pilot who pulled the trigger is the obvious candidate or someone from or connected to the chain of command involved,...

The President of the United States is at the top of the chain of command and he did not issue the shootdown order until after United 93 crashed and we have reviewed the video statement of the pilot that 9/11 conspiracist have claimed was responsible for pulling the trigger. In his video statement he said nothing about shooting down United 93. In case it was missed, here is his video.

[media=]

[/media]
...of which there were numerous; NORAD, the Secret Service, regional commands.

The F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD techniques and its protocols nor were they in the communication loop of NEADS and NORAD. To further underline that point, Lt. Colonel Phil Thompson said it best when he said:

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise..."

He was the chief of safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kludge is right - to anyone who does not accept the evidence that an airliner at least may have crashed at Pennsylvania in the first place, I would not even try to prove a shootdown. To anyone else, please see my posts #1997 & #1999 for a basic overview of the evidence: -

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4157141

How do we prove it beyond anyone's doubt? Physical inspection of the debris to check for damage type and/or explosive residues might have done it, though obviously that was not carried out and it’s now too late. Failing that, we need a whistleblower. The pilot who pulled the trigger is the obvious candidate or someone from or connected to the chain of command involved, of which there were numerous; NORAD, the Secret Service, regional commands. Though I see no reason anyone should be rushing to reveal this when the shootdown and cover-up were necessary and in interest of protecting the United States and pilot responsible. Perhaps in another 20-40 years someone will speak out.

That's rich Q, even for you.

It cannot be proven, but you're going to pass on the ATTEMPT to prove it simply because you have a skeptical audience. :tsu:

You're exactly right though, if it HAD been shot down the shooter would have become a national hero. Finally, the mighty NORAD and Pentagon did what they were supposed to do. But no such luck. And if it had been shot down with box cutter bearing arabs onboard, they would have invited the world to peruse the various debris.

Instead, the feds cordoned off an area in the woods and let nobody in, not even the local authorities and coroner. They fed him DNA samples, and he signed off on the death certificates.

And if they had shot it down, the unit would not have been still communicating with ACARS 30 minutes later.

Discretion is the better part of valor Q, and I commend you for knowing when to fold 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead, the feds cordoned off an area in the woods and let nobody in, not even the local authorities and coroner.

Ever been to a crime scene where yellow tape cordoned off an area?

They fed him DNA samples, and he signed off on the death certificates.

Not sure where you are going with that when family members confirmed their deaths as well. In addition:

Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone. Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total

...and if they had shot it down, the unit would not have been still communicating with ACARS 30 minutes later.

United 93 was not responding after the B-757 crashed. Call the folks at ARINC as I have done and let them clue you in on ACARS.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn it folks, I already told you what happened. To repeat myself - which is really bad form, I know - I'll tell you all again what happened.

A B-52 can carry 20 AGM-86 cruise missiles, 12 externally and eight internally. The AGM-86 has a nominal range of slightly under 700 miles and flies at around 500 kts. While they don't usually fly in formation, it's well known by those of us who Know Things About Stuff they can and are quite adept at it. It is also well known among us All Knowing Ones that all airliners as well as many other aircraft can be controlled from a remote location, specifically Raven Rock, although most airline crew & maintenance techs don't know about this and those who do are government agents sworn to utmost secrecy. It's obvious, really, except to those blinded by the Official Version who refuse to see the Truth.

So anyway, on to the events of 9/11 ...

All hands know and accept that all four flights took off as usual. The conspiracy begins, however, before that since the alleged hijackers weren't even aboard them. All indications they were came from the government's coverup. At some point in each aircraft's flight, with each one being somewhat different, all four were indeed hijacked but by operatives at Raven Rock who took command of the aircraft.

Flights 11 and 175 turned out to sea then turned South at what as essentially a wave top altitude. In their place were two 767s that had been painted to look like the original aircraft but had no one aboard. Instead they were loaded with fuel and explosives so they made a Really Big Badaboom when they hit the WTC. The collisions also set off timers for later explosive charges that brought the buildings down in a rather neat pile.

Flight 93 did, in fact, dive but it did so to get it under the radar while it also flew back East. Anyone who saw this low level flight was silenced in any of a number of ways ranging from bribes to termination and/or disappearance. The crater which was supposed to be where it crashed was caused by several of the aforementioned cruise missiles flying into the ground where the "physical evidence" had previously been planted.

Flight 77 presented a special case which was quickly managed by having several more cruise missiles flying into the building in formation to cause a large enough impact point while the 757 overflew the building. In what was probably the finest example of split second timing, the C-130 seen in the area did a low level drop of the alleged wreckage then got out of the way of both the cruise missiles and the 757.

All of the radar, ATC, ACARS, FDR etc data was faked and witnesses were hand fed testimony that either agreed with or was totally against the Official Version. The latter helped spread the multiple conspiracy theories while hiding the real conspiracy.

Where did the airplanes wind up? Andrews was too obvious so they went to Pax River NAS where they were repainted white with the windows covered over and the assorted identifiers faked. The passengers and crew were loaded back aboard and the aircraft flown - again from Raven Rock - to a scattering of black ops airfields where they were moved to the well known white trucks and transported to the various UN NWO camps where they have been ever since.

There is so much more but it's all obvious to those of us who are Truly Discerning Thinkers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas Skyeagle ! on your Six ! :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.