Former Rooski Nucular Intelligence Officer To Blow the Reveal Entire 911 Plot

[ElMondoHummus]

As I said your book is the 'Report of the 9/11 commission'. Find all answers in it.

No more dodging. Provide evidence. Name your sources, quote from them. Provide support for your statements. As you can see above, I did so for mine.

 

[911thology]

answer

This is incorrect. As Mark Roberts pointed out:

• 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
• 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
• 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
• 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
• 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
• 7 said it was a Boeing 757.
• 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
• 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
• 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
• 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
• 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
• 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
• 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.​

• 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. ​

• 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.​

• 3 took photographs of the aftermath.​

• Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."​

• 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. ​

Furthermore, the object tracked by radar was most definitely not moving at supersonic speeds. On top of that, post-crash debris was that of a jet, not a missile. Furthermore, no missile carries humans; corpses of passengers known to have been on Flight 77 were found in the debris, still strapped to their seats.

On top of that, FL77 was indeed witness by another airplane, with the pilot testifying to what he saw.

911thology's claim is not only presented here with zero supporting evidence (in other words, he merely states the claiim, he provides no proof for his statement), but is contradicted by the weight of the evidence that has been recovered.

Flight path study:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Pentagon witness statements:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

Mark Roberts' collection of links to evidnece:
Summary of evidence:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

This claim is demonstrably untrue.​

Then is bad luck for you, guys. Go to buy the Report of the 9/11 Commision. I suggest you take it in a hard cover. It lasts longer and more suitable for home library. Find all answers to your questions there.

 

[Jackanory]

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.

You owe me a new PC monitor. Just spat radioactive coffee all over mine. My ribs hurt and I broke my chair.

Wow. 150 kiloton delivered by the fat controler on Thomas the tank engine from beneath WTC7. Cool. When do you release the sequel?

 

[DavidJames]

I live in Bangkok, not in the US. I presented it to the following Embassies in Bangkok:
US Embassy (Justice Department and military intelligence).
French Embassy (intelligence and the Ambassador).
Italian Embassy (the Ambassador)
Australian Embassy (to whom it may concern)
CNN
BBC
ABC
NBC
ITV
Associated Press
AFP
Reuters

How was the evidence presented, to whom and in what format and do you have any documentation to prove you presented it?

 

[beachnut]

... missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach and could hardly be seen at such a speed. ...

No sonic boom! This is as dumb as your nuke did the WTC in. Dumber.

BTW, you can see an object flying 2.5 MACH; you lied again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-pBXw9kR0 MACH 3

The sonic boom would be a big deal and there was no sonic boom. Like your nuke delusion, you can add this as your next moronic delusions about 911.

 

[911thology]

answer

Which part is your answer in of the 26 parts?

In part 16, but you will not be able to understand it clearly without watching at least parts 7 to 11.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Then is bad luck for you, guys. Go to buy the Report of the 9/11 Commision. I suggest you take it in a hard cover. It lasts longer and more suitable for home library. Find all answers to your questions there.

That is the second time you dodged. I provided links to witness statements, a video of a pilot's testimony, a link to the flight path study which includes the radar data, as well as a general summary of the evidence, including pictures taken in the immediate aftermath.

You, on the other hand, have provided zero proof. Here is your opportunity. Take any element of the above - the images, for example, or the pilots statement - and explain why it is wrong. Provide proof for why you are right and the images do not show a Boeing jet, or why the pilot did not see an American Airlines jet. Don't just state, and don't just write off. Defend your argument.

 

[911thology]

answer

No sonic boom! This is as dumb as your nuke did the WTC in. Dumber.

BTW, you can see an object flying 2.5 MACH; you lied again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-pBXw9kR0 MACH 3

The sonic boom would be a big deal and there was no sonic boom. Like your nuke delusion, you can add this as your next moronic delusions about 911.

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

 

[Sabrina]

If you prefer these then I could only wish you good lack. Satisfy yourselves with the most publicly available 'Report of the 9/11 Commission' and with memories of former presidents. I wish you all the best. Sincerely.

So we're simply supposed to take your word for it? And exactly who are you again? An anonymous poster on a message board, from what I can tell. Why should I trust you over the many hundreds of experts who have studied the events of 9/11 and have found not a shred of evidence to support your odd idea that mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers and a missile was used to hit the Pentagon?

 

[911thology]

answer

How was the evidence presented, to whom and in what format and do you have any documentation to prove you presented it?

In a form of DVD with video files recorded on it. For the US - also my book in paper form printed out and as a file. No, I did not claim any receipt. I simply gave the stuff to the officials and that's it.

 

[911thology]

request for clarification

You owe me a new PC monitor. Just spat radioactive coffee all over mine. My ribs hurt and I broke my chair.

Wow. 150 kiloton delivered by the fat controler on Thomas the tank engine from beneath WTC7. Cool. When do you release the sequel?

I didn't quite understand your new question. Could you make it in a form suitable to undersand and to answer?

 

[911thology]

answer

No more dodging. Provide evidence. Name your sources, quote from them. Provide support for your statements. As you can see above, I did so for mine.

In my book actually I have a lot of references, but they are too multiple to mention them here. In the movie too there are some most important references. Watch the movie and you will see them.

 

[911thology]

answer

Insufficient. If you cannot explain it, summarize the points. But once again, do not refer us to a video. We do not have the time nor inclination to wade through videos.

Compromise: Tell us at which point (i.e. "It's at the 4 minutes, 30 second mark") of the video contains your evidence, and possibly one of us will relent to view it. But simply steering us towards the video is not acceptible.

You don't have time to watch the movie, but demand I have to answer you questions? It is unfair and disrespectful to my precious time. I can tell you 'which point' providing you ask me precisely which answer you wish to hear.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first.

http://www.sky-flash.com/boom.htm

As an aircraft flies at supersonic speeds it is continually generating shock waves, dropping sonic boom along its flight path, similar to someone dropping objects from a moving vehicle.

... The sound heard on the ground as a "sonic boom" is the sudden onset and release of pressure after the buildup by the shock wave or "peak overpressure."

The overpressure generated by a flying object leading to a sonic boom is constant, it does not disappear once the object reaches the sound barrier.

 

[911thology]

answer

So we're simply supposed to take your word for it? And exactly who are you again? An anonymous poster on a message board, from what I can tell. Why should I trust you over the many hundreds of experts who have studied the events of 9/11 and have found not a shred of evidence to support your odd idea that mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers and a missile was used to hit the Pentagon?

You don't owe me anything and it is precisely vice versa. Don't like my ideas? Get lost. Don't want to watch my movies? Get lost. Don't like who I am? Get lost. I am not going to marry you anyway. I want me to get lost? I will oblige you and do so any time.

 

[Drudgewire]

This makes the difference between humans and zombies.

Well, that and the whole "brain eating" thing.

 

[tj15]

In part 16, but you will not be able to understand it clearly without watching at least parts 7 to 11.

Why did the pulverization stop at the outer walls? It pulverized stuff inside the outer walls, but the outer walls did not get damaged?

I don't see where in part 16 you talk about the outer walls. Why didn't the nuclear blast break through the outer walls of the towers?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You don't have time to watch the movie, but demand I have to answer you questions? It is unfair and disrespectful to my precious time. I can tell you 'which point' providing you ask me precisely which answer you wish to hear.

tj15 asked it above:

I have another question:

How did the outer walls of the towers manage to survive the nuclear blasts and not show any damage (to the outer walls) while stuff inside the towers was turned to dust?

Your answer was not precise:

In part 16, but you will not be able to understand it clearly without watching at least parts 7 to 11.

Where in part 16? And yes, we do not have time nor inclination to view multiple movies. Do no play the disrespect card here; you are the one failing to respect us by not providing proof and dodging questions with references to your videos. You bring the evidence to us. It is your claim to prove.

 

[I Ratant]

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

.
What a maroon!
The very high Mach sonic boom from the Space Shuttle as it approaches from over the Pacific Ocean to land at Edwards Air Force Base is heard/felt by millions of people for hundreds of miles along the flight path.
A Mach 2.5 sonic boom at sea level would break all the windows in all the cars along the flight path of the object, for quite some distance to either side of the flight path... at the very least.
The size of the object making the sonic boom has a major effect on the amount of disturbance that is created.
The Shuttle passes over my house many miles up on landing, yet my house shakes in a manner similar to a nearby earthquake.
You really don't know jack about anything, do you?
I wonder why ignorance if not willful stupidity is a characteristic of the typical truther?

 

[911thology]

answer

[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/Homer-Facepalm.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.sky-flash.com/boom.htm



The overpressure generated by a flying object leading to a sonic boom is constant, it does not disappear once the object reaches the sound barrier.

I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject. I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.