The Neo Cons, did they attack and kill, to shift the world hard right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0

If flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagen, which basic maths prove, what happened to the passengers ... where they murdered by the Hard Right?


Why are the Americans more interested in getting Assange than they are with getting the murderers amongst themselves?

The alleged data from the black box, the G Force, the trajectory it was supposed to have travelled is aeronautically impossible ... and has been scientifically proven aeronautically impossible.

http://domesticenemies.net/index.php/the_attack_of_9_11_was_aeronautically_im?blog=2

All the nutjob theories about 9/11 have been debunked.

Yes conspiracy theories are around, many think Elvis is still alive.

http://www.debunking911.com

No it hasn't.

We saw the planes flying into the WTC, yet not the Pentagon. The video was confiscated. No vision of the Pentagon lawn for nearly 10 minutes. A lack of large fuselage, wings or recognisable parts of the tail.

Prior to the collapse of the building, windows were intact where the stabiliser should of hit. Columns where the right wing and engine should of impacted had been blown up and out, rather than push in. Damage, primary ground level, so the plane would of slid on it's belly, the engines would of dug into the foundations. Foundations were fully intact in all after photos. No evidence of charring to the ground, a common result in similar plane crashes.

And the scientifically validated fact, the reported speed and other values from alleged black box data, the G forces required for a 757 to descend to the level of the light polls and pull up low and level as required by the evidence of the physical damage to the Pentagon is aeronautically impossible.


This has not been debunked.

____ wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

The alleged data from the black box, the G Force, the trajectory it was supposed to have travelled is aeronautically impossible ... and has been scientifically proven aeronautically impossible. http://domesticenemies.net/index.php/the_attack_of_9_11_was_aeronautically_im?blog=2

Since when did a spiral dive losing 7000ft altitude in 3 minutes become aeronautically impossible, a 757 can climb at over 5000ft per minute.

The g forces are not that high, a 757 is rated to 2.5 g and the commercial pilots never get anywhere near this or passenges end up soaked from their drinks.
There is a factor of safety of 2 which means these planes can take 5 g yet that is not allowed due to being close to the limits for strength.
Look for the 747 doing a barrel roll on youtube.

What you nutjobs dont realise is your nutjob missile theory has even bigger flaws, how does a missile zig zag and knock down 5 light poles now that is aeronautically impossible when you consider these missiles dont have control surfaces to allow it to zig zag like the nutjobs claim

____ wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

No it hasn't. We saw the planes flying into the WTC, yet not the Pentagon. The video was confiscated. No vision of the Pentagon lawn for nearly 10 minutes. A lack of large fuselage, wings or recognisable parts of the tail. Is it just the pentagon you have doubts with or do you follow the nutjob theory on the WTC towers as well? Prior to the collapse of the building, windows were intact where the stabiliser should of hit. Columns where the right wing and engine should of impacted had been blown up and out, rather than push in. Damage, primary ground level, so the plane would of slid on it's belly, the engines would of dug into the foundations. Foundations were fully intact in all after photos. No evidence of charring to the ground, a common result in similar plane crashes. The plane did hit 5 light poles before impacting with the Pentagon,newtons law states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction which means the light poles whacked the plane just as hard as the plane whacked the poles, aircraft are not designed to withstand impacts with light poles there are many NTSB reports of planes crashing shortly after impact with light poles. Does the aircraft debris left on the lawn after impact with light poles fit in with newtons law? And the scientifically validated fact, the reported speed and other values from alleged black box data, the G forces required for a 757 to descend to the level of the light polls and pull up low and level as required by the evidence of the physical damage to the Pentagon is aeronautically impossible. Bullshit it is not scientifically valid fact you plucked that bullshit from your ass, you are clueless about flight if you claim it is aeronautically impossible. .

So how do the nutjobs explain the aircraft debris at the Pentagon?

How does a missile zig zag to knock down 5 light poles can any nutjob put up a theory for this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

____ wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 3:40am:

The Neo Cons, did they attack and kill, to shift the world hard right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0 If flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagen, which basic maths prove, what happened to the passengers ... where they murdered by the Hard Right? Why are the Americans more interested in getting Assange than they are with getting the murderers amongst themselves?

yeh, well, I can only choose to believe 9-11 actually happened!  ::) ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

____ wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 9:20am: The alleged data from the black box, the G Force, the trajectory it was supposed to have travelled is aeronautically impossible ... and has been scientifically proven aeronautically impossible. http://domesticenemies.net/index.php/the_attack_of_9_11_was_aeronautically_im?blog=2 Since when did a spiral dive losing 7000ft altitude in 3 minutes become aeronautically impossible, a 757 can climb at over 5000ft per minute. The g forces are not that high, a 757 is rated to 2.5 g and the commercial pilots never get anywhere near this or passenges end up soaked from their drinks. There is a factor of safety of 2 which means these planes can take 5 g yet that is not allowed due to being close to the limits for strength. Look for the 747 doing a barrel roll on youtube. What you nutjobs dont realise is your nutjob missile theory has even bigger flaws, how does a missile zig zag and knock down 5 light poles now that is aeronautically impossible when you consider these missiles dont have control surfaces to allow it to zig zag like the nutjobs claim

Hey, you should have seen the Quantas plane join in the fun at the first Perth Red Bull flying thing-a-ma-jiggy a few years back and do a fly by the river in front of the city: when it lined itself up abruptly in line witht he river the back sort of sunk a bit as it took the algning turn and for a split second you imagined a frightening scenario!

Cool....

Obviously I don't get watch many air shows(read none) but watching abig plane like that sink as it turned before resuming normal level flight was quite fun!

.. and just a little bit freaky?!!?  8-) 8-)  :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

Since when did a spiral dive losing 7000ft altitude in 3 minutes become aeronautically impossible, a 757 can climb at over 5000ft per minute. The g forces are not that high, a 757 is rated to 2.5 g and the commercial pilots never get anywhere near this or passenges end up soaked from their drinks. There is a factor of safety of 2 which means these planes can take 5 g yet that is not allowed due to being close to the limits for strength. Look for the 747 doing a barrel roll on youtube.

I think the case is that a newly trained pilot could not perform those manoeuvres unless Allah is indeed greater then God.

Amadd wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 6:47am:

Quote: Since when did a spiral dive losing 7000ft altitude in 3 minutes become aeronautically impossible, a 757 can climb at over 5000ft per minute. The g forces are not that high, a 757 is rated to 2.5 g and the commercial pilots never get anywhere near this or passenges end up soaked from their drinks. There is a factor of safety of 2 which means these planes can take 5 g yet that is not allowed due to being close to the limits for strength. Look for the 747 doing a barrel roll on youtube. I think the case is that a newly trained pilot could not perform those manoeuvres unless Allah is indeed greater then God.

Are you trying to suggest someone might have trouble with pushing a joystick forward then titling it to the right and maybe applying a little rudder?

There is somethng called a trackball that indicates how much rudder is needed so how hard can it be?

You dont even have to know if the plane can do loopdeloops at 500mph. You dont have to know what knocked down the light poles.

All you need to know is that you have an image of the pentagon before the face of the building collapsed some time after the crash. There was no scare of a plane in that image. Even if you can explain why the wings did not scare the building, you cannot explain why mega tonne engines, made of almost indestructible material compared to concrete walls, did not make a scare on the face of the building.

Quote:

Are you trying to suggest someone might have trouble with pushing a joystick forward then titling it to the right and maybe applying a little rudder? There is somethng called a trackball that indicates how much rudder is needed so how hard can it be?

Yes I know that as a turn coordinator.


Assuming that he hadn't flown a 747 previous to his final mission, I would say that he would've required great help from Allah to pull off the manoeuvre.
However, "wikipedia" states that the terrorist was in fact a commercial pilot with extensive training.
Others sources state that he miserably flunked a check flight in a Cessna only a couple of weeks earlier.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

You dont even have to know if the plane can do loopdeloops at 500mph. You dont have to know what knocked down the light poles. All you need to know is that you have an image of the pentagon before the face of the building collapsed some time after the crash. There was no scare of a plane in that image. Even if you can explain why the wings did not scare the building, you cannot explain why mega tonne engines, made of almost indestructible material compared to concrete walls, did not make a scare on the face of the building.

Well, close enough I supppose for practical purposes!  :-? :-?

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

____ wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 9:20am: The alleged data from the black box, the G Force, the trajectory it was supposed to have travelled is aeronautically impossible ... and has been scientifically proven aeronautically impossible. http://domesticenemies.net/index.php/the_attack_of_9_11_was_aeronautically_im?blog=2 Since when did a spiral dive losing 7000ft altitude in 3 minutes become aeronautically impossible, a 757 can climb at over 5000ft per minute. The g forces are not that high, a 757 is rated to 2.5 g and the commercial pilots never get anywhere near this or passenges end up soaked from their drinks. There is a factor of safety of 2 which means these planes can take 5 g yet that is not allowed due to being close to the limits for strength. Look for the 747 doing a barrel roll on youtube. What you nutjobs dont realise is your nutjob missile theory has even bigger flaws, how does a missile zig zag and knock down 5 light poles now that is aeronautically impossible when you consider these missiles dont have control surfaces to allow it to zig zag like the nutjobs claim

Where is all that thick black smoke coming from? Notice the fire upper left.

plenty can be done under a smoke screen.

---