patrick.net

RayAmerica says

It was a cruise missile, and not an airliner that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Like the missile hole in PA, where the plane remnants didn't survive, but jihadi ID and clean boxcutters (scattered in after the fact) remained miraculously unscathed.

Ceffer says

Like the missile hole in PA, where the plane remnants didn't survive, but jihadi ID and clean boxcutters (scattered in after the fact) remained miraculously unscathed.

I'm not sure, but I think this is an official forensic photo of the flight 93 debris field.

RayAmerica says

I'm not sure, but I think this is an official forensic photo of the flight 93 debris field.

Oops. My bad. How could I dare question the official narrative?

I'm glad I could help out. Now off with that Tin Foil Hat for good and no more of this conspiracy nonsense.

RayAmerica says

I'm glad I could help out. Now off with that Tin Foil Hat for good and no more of this conspiracy nonsense.

Yes, I'm back to the regular nonsense now.

RayAmerica says

Trained, experienced airlines pilots are on record stating that NO PILOT could have manually flown a jet airliner into the Pentagon. at altitude.

Why not? That is not much different than doing a visual approach and landing on a runway. In both cases the pilot has an aimpoint. Of course, I am talking about a trained pilot proficient in landings, which I hear those hijackers never practiced landings.

RayAmerica says

One of the main reasons is that a plane requires much higher altitude in order to have sufficient lift needed to maneuver the plane.

That makes no sense, as lift actually decreases with altitude due to less dense air. This is why the takeoff run is longer. at higher elevation airports.

Making Pancakes

HeadSet says

I am talking about a trained pilot proficient in landings, which I hear those hijackers never practiced landings.

They weren't even proficient in flying their propeller driven trainer plane. Do you have any idea what it would take to fly a jet airliner of that size MANUALLY? If experienced airline pilots say that THEY couldn't accomplish what an amateur flight student did, don't you think that is a red flag?

HeadSet says

\
RayAmerica said:
One of the main reasons is that a plane requires much higher altitude in order to have sufficient lift needed to maneuver the plane.

That makes no sense, as lift actually decreases with altitude due to less dense air. This is why the takeoff run is longer. at higher elevation airports.

Do some research. You simply cannot fly a jet airliner at say 500' off the ground. It needs thrust, lift and speed to maintain elevation. Flying close to the ground eliminates all of that.

The_Deplorable says

If memory serves, they were flown out of the USA within hours of their arrest.

Didn't happen. They were kept in the US for 71 days, this source says 2 months, and repeatedly interrogated, then finally turned over for deportation. Note this source is very much pro-Pali, anti-Zionist as well as anti-Ukraine and anti-neocons (see their latest stories on the right margin) so they're arguing against the site's own bias/interest.

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/09/11/dancing-israelis-9-11-plotters-spies-scam-artists/

It was the Saudis, including Princes and their spouses who supported AQ symps and hijackers, that were whisked out on the only non-military flight allowed immediately after 911. Which "Facten Cheka" say "No Commercial Flights" as a misleading half-truth. Yep, it wasn't commerical, it was diplomatic/government.

RayAmerica says

Do you have any idea what it would take to fly a jet airliner of that size MANUALLY?

If it is anything like the KC-135, I know that personally.

RayAmerica says

Do some research. You simply cannot fly a jet airliner at say 500' off the ground. It needs thrust, lift and speed to maintain elevation. Flying close to the ground eliminates all of that.

Absolutely false. My buddies flying B-52s used to fly much lower than 500 ft for hours at a time on practice missions. I also personally flew a KC-135 at about 500 ft AGL over Norway for about 100 miles during a route from England to Bodo so we could check out the scenery (ATC cleared us for that since there was virtually no traffic in that area). Another neat trick often done is to fly the plane down the 2 mile long runway while keeping the wheels about 20 ft above the pavement. In this case, being that close to the ground actually increases lift, through something known a "ground effect."

NuttBoxer says

Just an empty field where for the first and last time in human history, a plane completely disintegrated on impact.

You "know" this because the propaganda box told you this is the case.

We have LONG ago been beyond the point we can trust anything from the "legacy media".

Our news media, works very hard, to sell us bullshit, not to be accurate, not to educate. It's VERY easy to tell the truth, but instead they constantly lie. That's their purpose, to sow confusion and discord.

Onvacation says

Making Pancakes

The Champlain Tower dispelled the notion that the only way a building would accelerate is by placed explosions.

Here's the thing, if Bad Guys working in our government, in conjunction with other bad state actors from other countries, to plan to have guys fly a plane into the TWC, and it brought the building down. Then why all of the extra drama? If the facts weren't murky and cloudy by all of the arm chair physicists, making hay about what must have happened, and the sinister theories that are just over the top. It just gets in the way from any real meaningful investigations. It's why the Congressional hearings were upended and railroaded. They could never get to the facts, that certain agencies benefited from the collapse. Even if they weren't to blame, a thorough investigation should have ensnared those coincidental crimes, regardless who and how the towers came down.

But if you make it into a Flat Earth UFO discussion, then fhe facts gets lost on stupidity and retardation.

We need to fly a fully loaded jet into a Concrete bunker as thick as the Pentagon and see if the wings collapse and fold in, and makes a bore hole like happened, or will it make a slit, like people expect to see. Will those wings hit with the same force and inertia as the fuselage?

Also we have to fly a plane into a steel and glass tower and see what happens.

People say, "Well they have computer models!" To which I say "The Models were Wrong" is not an uncommon phrase. Models behave according to the physics as the developer understands it, makes those models. They are not an analog of Nature, they are an analog of the creators thought process, and his personal oppions, based on his best educated guess .

Tenpoundbass says

Then why all of the extra drama? If the facts weren't murky and cloudy by all of the arm chair physicists, making hay about what must have happened, and the sinister theories that are just over the top. It just gets in the way from any real meaningful investigations.

That's the point of doing it. To muddy the waters. That's the entire point.

If I say 'I think the government had a hand in 9/11 to start 20 years of useless war", to a random person, I have to spend an hour after that explaining "no, they planes weren't holograms, no I don't believe in nano-thermite whatever the fuck that is, no don't believe directed energy weapons were involved, NO I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon" etc etc etc etc.

The reason all this CRAZY BULLSHIT is promoted is to prevent reasonable discussion.

You want to quickly determine what is bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=directed+energy+weapons+9%2F11

If you can find it on YouTube, it's bullshit. You can tell the most crazy bullshit on YouTube, but if you tell the truth, your video becomes "misinformation". It's easy to know what is true by finding out what is false. You cannot tell the truth about a controversial subject on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook.

Now having said that, you can lie your ass off on BitChute, Rumble, and GAB, but you cannot be correct on the Big 3. You can see what is bullshit by seeing what is allowed to be seen on the Big 3.

original link

HeadSet says

Absolutely false.

So apparently you believe that flunky students that were trained on little propeller driven trainers were able to fly commercial jet airliners MANUALLY. Got it.

RayAmerica says

HeadSet says

Absolutely false.

So apparently you believe that flunky students that were trained on little propeller driven trainers were able to fly commercial jet airliners MANUALLY. Got it.

Talk to a pilot. Once you learn to fly one plane, they are all basically equivalent. It's like moving from a pinto to a bus. Sure, it's not identical, but you can handle it.

RayAmerica says

HeadSet says

Absolutely false.

So apparently you believe that flunky students that were trained on little propeller driven trainers were able to fly commercial jet airliners MANUALLY. Got it.

No, you are deflecting. I said "Why not? That is not much different than doing a visual approach and landing on a runway. In both cases the pilot has an aimpoint. Of course, I am talking about a trained pilot proficient in landings, which I hear those hijackers never practiced landings."

I was pointing out that your statement "You simply cannot fly a jet airliner at say 500' off the ground. It needs thrust, lift and speed to maintain elevation. Flying close to the ground eliminates all of that" is totally out to lunch.

richwicks says

You "know" this because the propaganda box told you this is the case.

We have LONG ago been beyond the point we can trust anything from the "legacy media".

Our news media, works very hard, to sell us bullshit, not to be accurate, not to educate. It's VERY easy to tell the truth, but instead they constantly lie. That's their purpose, to sow confusion and discord.

Conspiracy researchers go through facts and details before saying something is a lie. Conspiracy theorists just throw shit on the wall. Provide some rationale to justify your statement, or stop throwing shit. Not that the media would lie, we all know that. But WHY they would lie in such a terrible fashion as to instantly draw attention to the lie by how badly it's told.

I mean if you can stand down all air defense in the US to achieve your goal, how hard would it have been to stage a real plane crash in a field, rather than that bullshit.

richwicks says

Talk to a pilot. Once you learn to fly one plane, they are all basically equivalent. It's like moving from a pinto to a bus. Sure, it's not identical, but you can handle it.

If a person learns to drive in a Toyota Corolla and is able to back into a driveway, do you think that person can just step into a Kenworth and back the 50-foot trailer into a tight loading dock at Walmart? Just wondering.

richwicks says

Talk to a pilot. Once you learn to fly one plane, they are all basically equivalent. It's like moving from a pinto to a bus. Sure, it's not identical, but you can handle it.

We already are, and sounds like @HeadSet disagrees.

You're whole take here is a contradiction of itself. You say the media report of the disintegrated plane crash in the field is fake, but the media report of the hijackers who stunk at flying single prop performing highly skilled maneuvers is legit. Your source is derided, or applauded as it's suits your opinion.

Watch Corbett, or do some real research, and stop detracting with half-cocked theories.

Headset,

I don't wish to drone on and one about this, but I'm curious to hear your take on this.

Do you believe that students that have been trained to fly in a prop driven trainer could successfully MANUALLY fly a commercial jet airliner? More specifically, conduct the maneuver that was required at the Pentagon?

Again, and this can't be emphasized enough, a maneuver that experienced commercial pilots said could not be done.

If experienced commercial pilots could not perform this manual maneuver, how were the hijackers able to?

Headset,

Just out of curiosity, what do you think happened at the 47 story Building 7 for it to suddenly collapse into its own footprint?

I think that there were enough reliable witnesses in DC that day, that saw the plane fly over the city that we can can say a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon.

Misc says

I think that there were enough reliable witnesses in DC that day, that saw the plane fly over the city that we can can say a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon.

Any clue as to why all the security cameras that day just somehow malfunctioned?

Misc says

I think that there were enough reliable witnesses in DC that day, that saw the plane fly over the city that we can can say a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon.

the problem with your statement is that we have all learned that if you are a witness that supports the narrative, your statement will be published...however if your statement doesn't support the narrative, it will be covered up.

To me amazing is that government can sell to people some unbelievable stories, without any proof. Things which are against logic, math, chemistry, physics, people with professional experience and many people just unconditionally believe in that. Now if we take in account how many residents in US and around the world have so called college degree, that question the value of all that education. This gives confidence to government, CIA, FBI, that only they are smart and everybody else just plain stupid.

RayAmerica says

Do you believe that students that have been trained to fly in a prop driven trainer could successfully MANUALLY fly a commercial jet airliner?

I have a problem believing the hijackers were that lightly trained. How did they navigate to their targets? That takes detailed knowledge of how to use aircraft navigation systems. Two of the flights took off from Boston and were hijacked enroute to California, but somehow the hijackers were able to take the plane from a spot in mid-state NY and fly directly to the WTC? The hijackers also knew how to turn off the transponder (Mode C) to prevent Air Traffic Control from following them.

>RayAmerica says

Again, and this can't be emphasized enough, a maneuver that experienced commercial pilots said could not be done.

I would put those commercial pilots into the same category as those medical doctors who said that if you get the vaxx, you will not get Covid. If you have an object in sight, you can fly into it. All you need to do is keep the object in the center area of the canopy screen where the object no longer moves across the screen and just grows (the opposite of collision avoidance, where if one sees and object growing but not moving, take action). But like I said, I think the hijackers were more trained that we were told.

RayAmerica says

Headset,

Just out of curiosity, what do you think happened at the 47 story Building 7 for it to suddenly collapse into its own footprint?

I have no idea. I was talking about flying.

NuttBoxer says

Conspiracy researchers go through facts and details before saying something is a lie. Conspiracy theorists just throw shit on the wall. Provide some rationale to justify your statement, or stop throwing shit.

I am not going to waste a SINGLE moment even considering the possibility that was is reported on either the propaganda box, or print legacy media is even worth paying attention to.

You can spend an entire lifetime proving they lie constantly. I am not going to waste any effort trying to convince you they are a completely unreliable source of information. If you cannot see the obvious by now, after 4 years of "Russia hacked our elections", what can I say?

I simply don't care AT ALL what our government, or our propaganda systems said about 9/11. If we had a REAL media, there's plenty of stories of the century to report, but we don't have a real media. We KNOW who did 9/11. It was US, Israeli and Saudi intelligence. We arrested people, caught people, traced the money, unredacted documents. What's the point in doing this? After you're done doing it, nobody will believe you anyhow. You have to unwind all that bullshit in their mind given to them from 20 years of propaganda.

HeadSet says

If a person learns to drive in a Toyota Corolla and is able to back into a driveway, do you think that person can just step into a Kenworth and back the 50-foot trailer into a tight loading dock at Walmart? Just wondering.

Why are you making this comparison?

I can drive any size truck forward, no problem. I might be sloppy at it, I might be dangerous, doesn't matter when I'm just aiming to hit a wall with it, does it?

NuttBoxer says

You're whole take here is a contradiction of itself. You say the media report of the disintegrated plane crash in the field is fake,

No.

I'm saying ignore the media. They fucking lie, and you goddamned know this, and it's been shown to the case BY ME to everybody here, over and and over and over again and I'm fucking tired of having people STILL point to what was reported in our FUCKING PROPAGANDA, as if it's true.

I really don't care what happened to flight 93. Who cares? Our GOVERNMENT DID THIS. Fuck them. Why are you wasting energy on minor details? Our government did a false flag, murdered about 3000 people to start 20 years of fucking war which killed millions and has cost trillions.

RayAmerica says

Again, and this can't be emphasized enough, a maneuver that experienced commercial pilots said could not be done.

For fucks sake ASK ONE. I have. I know you haven't, because I've gotten this answer more than once, and the answer it "yeah, it wouldn't be a problem".

REpro says

To me amazing is that government can sell to people some unbelievable stories, without any proof. Things which are against logic, math, chemistry, physics, people with professional experience and many people just unconditionally believe in that.

They are movies, dependent on unquestioned obedience to the good faith intentions and credibility of the government. That credibility is finally bankrupt, run out and expired. Thus, we can see all of the movies that were always fake.

I remember our good buddy Gary who flogged us with this stuff to his ongoing ridicule and persecution. I told him my position was to table conspiracy theories until I achieved the self education to decide one way or another, which requires time, attention and investigative labor.

Some I won't investigate, like Sandy Hook, just because I don't think that they served their false flag purpose, anyway, so I don't care enough to investigate.

Apparently, the aliens bred us with a subservience gene that masks the psychopathic motives of authority. The dynastic psychopaths know that we have this built in weakness, the bedazzlement of the pomp and righteousness of authority with their fancy suits, costumes and rituals, and this weakness produces their solemn craving for that focus of power that makes the sheep self destructive in their loyalties.

We are now experiencing their entirely unmasked hatred and contempt for the populations, whereas earlier, they were fearful of revealing their true motives.

HeadSet says

Absolutely false. My buddies flying B-52s used to fly much lower than 500 ft for hours at a time on practice missions. I also personally flew a KC-135 at about 500 ft AGL over Norway for about 100 miles during a route from England to Bodo so we could check out the scenery (ATC cleared us for that since there was virtually no traffic in that area). Another neat trick often done is to fly the plane down the 2 mile long runway while keeping the wheels about 20 ft above the pavement. In this case, being that close to the ground actually increases lift, through something known a "ground effect."

I would imagine Late Cold War pilots, say F-111 pilots, trained by flying Nap of the Earth for hours at a time, as they would have to in the Classic WW3 scenario.