DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Sept clues was one person (Ace Baker), that's not "they".
If you wake up from a dream, did you just do "research"?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
9/11 No Planers who claim no planes struck the WTC, and think all the video is fake
- Thread starter Tinfoil Hater
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no planers
If you wake up from a dream, did you just do "research"?
There was a bogey and you denying it doesn't make it not true.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
And thousands of eyewitnesses who saw planes are of no matter.
Now your up to speed.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
There was no Bogey, you are making it up and unable to source your insane idiotic claims. You can't source the bogey statement, you must of made it up, another lie. Failed on RADAR, failed on video, and you have no clue what Bogey means, so you say UFO, a thing that does not exist.
Bogeys are always planes. But you live in fantasy land, where ET is in the Bogey. Good luck with your UFO claims.
After 911, there are no bogeys because "we" have tapes of all RADARS used in the USA. We take the tapes and see where each "bogey" started from, and ended. Thus, after the fact, there are no bogeys. So you are unable to make rational conclusions because you don't do RADAR, you do lies and insane claims.
Last edited:
You could have ten million say they saw something, but all are debunked by video that disputes their lies or misinterpretations.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Compressed video garbage is not evidence of anything other than the people who think they're relevant are quite insane.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
September Clues... isn't that the one where the filmmaker was confused as to how a woman 2 miles away saw the second plane crash?
I remember pointing out to one of the believers of that mess that my dad saw it happen all the way from Reidsville, NC & they still couldn't figure out how that was possible.
Provided by
Quick definitions from WordNet (bogey)
▸ noun: an evil spirit
▸ noun: (golf) a score of one stroke over par on a hole
▸ noun: an unidentified (and possibly enemy) aircraft▸ verb: to shoot in one stroke over par
Hey, look at the bogey moving at maybe 50 mph with no wings or propeller.
Quick definitions from WordNet (bogey)
▸ noun: an evil spirit
▸ noun: (golf) a score of one stroke over par on a hole
▸ noun: an unidentified (and possibly enemy) aircraft▸ verb: to shoot in one stroke over par
Hey, look at the bogey moving at maybe 50 mph with no wings or propeller.
And there's plenty of good quality footage that shows aircraft clearly; you need to consider trying some new sources.
You say that but there isn't an image that isn't black with no windows. Then, the average joe can agree no boeing because it's black with no windows.
You can't interpret video, you make up lies and this is another lie based on your fantasy.
Why can't you address RADAR?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf
Why don't you do real evidence? We have all seen why you were fooled by video, why can't you analyze the RADAR? Why can't you do some math to explain your claims?
Last edited:
I have no fantasy, just video. When did they lose contact, 8:46?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf
RADAR, beats your talk, your baseless lies. You not only have a fantasy, you are posting idiotic lies, the dumbest lies.
You can't get anyone to support your lies, that is how stupid your lies are. You can't explain on technical aspect of video, or RADAR. All you have to support your idiotic claims, hearsay, more lies, and fantasy.
Explain the source for the bogey? you can't, can you?
When did they lose contact? With what? Please explain your next great claim.
Last edited:
They lost contact with it at some point, I thought it was 8:46. It doesn't matter because the official flight path is at odds with what was shown on Tv. That was proven years ago and my work just adds to the absurdity of planes.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
You are desperately defeated. The propeller refers to it being a chopper, it can't be cuz it had no blade.
More ignorance not knowing the difference between a rotor & a propeller. This while crowing victory after proving his own statements false time & again.
Also note how he couldn't deny that he didn't notice that an airplane is an aircraft proving his earlier statement false. I predict that his desire to be right will not allow him to admit his mistake.
You debunked yourself again. The exact size of a 767. How old are you?
Oops, they were Flight 11 and 175. Oops, you don't do RADAR, you don't understand science.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf
What next? You proved the impact were 767s at 470 knots and 590 mph. If you did physics and a little structural engineering you could stop posting lies and apologize for yourself instead of terrorists.
Last edited:
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Not a blob.
Compus
Compus