9/11: The Smoking Gun
- Thread starter yankee451
- Start date
Make my Day... do liars think everryone lies
Dad's stories were true. Look up Reginald Alexander, Dad's Buddy, he was infront of my Dad, Beachy... Reggie's Parachute popped panels ... why, the plane was hit, the pilot turned on the green light to save the men, the plane had not slowed down... was slowing down... the first guy out pop panels, compound fractures both legs. But then you don't do truth, you spread idiotic lies and delusuaional claims.
Dad was 101st... he dropped on D-Day, he was fighting in Bastogne..
You lie about 9/11, I don't lie about my Father.
Watch "Band of Brothers", it is what my Dad did, as a Paratrooper. You tell stories, my dad told the truth. I guess you are use to being lied to. I never said my Dad was on the General's staff - try to pay attention.
Dad joined the Paratroopers righ out of High School. He picked the Paratroopers because he did not want appear to be a "sissy". He picked one of the toughest things to do.
He heard what the General said that day, he was told what the general said, they told the whole unit. Guess the, "he heard", confused you. BTW, the message appears to be written, thus what was said, was also witten, according to the Army it looked like this.
BTW, you have no evidence to refute. And you can't refute my Dad's service, never will.
And you would be wrong, like your claims on 9/11...
Dad's stories were true. Look up Reginald Alexander, Dad's Buddy, he was infront of my Dad, Beachy... Reggie's Parachute popped panels ... why, the plane was hit, the pilot turned on the green light to save the men, the plane had not slowed down... was slowing down... the first guy out pop panels, compound fractures both legs. But then you don't do truth, you spread idiotic lies and delusuaional claims.
Dad was 101st... he dropped on D-Day, he was fighting in Bastogne..
You lie about 9/11, I don't lie about my Father.
Watch "Band of Brothers", it is what my Dad did, as a Paratrooper. You tell stories, my dad told the truth. I guess you are use to being lied to. I never said my Dad was on the General's staff - try to pay attention.
Dad joined the Paratroopers righ out of High School. He picked the Paratroopers because he did not want appear to be a "sissy". He picked one of the toughest things to do.
He heard what the General said that day, he was told what the general said, they told the whole unit. Guess the, "he heard", confused you. BTW, the message appears to be written, thus what was said, was also witten, according to the Army it looked like this.
I assume they told the troops that day...
BTW, you have no evidence to refute. And you can't refute my Dad's service, never will.
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Axxman300
Philosopher
After viewing dozens of videos out of Kyiv of missile strikes today, it's clear this theory is BS.
bknight
Master Poster
But "they" loaded the imaginary missiles with napalm to simulate an explosion of several thousand gallons of jet fuel.
Fonebone
persona non grata
For anyone here still stupid enough to think that it was missiles and not airliners that hit the towers, I'll just leave this here....
Can you post a still of your line drawing and a still of theWTC1 scar please.
I want to study both. Thank you
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
LOL
You had time enough to actually study and get 5 different college degrees in a row.
This has all been studied to death, more than a decade ago. Result: You are wrong. On essentially everything. You get the date right - that's it.
Fonebone
persona non grata
Maybe the missile that created the "left wing plane shaped scar" in the WTC1
North wall had no wings.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/missile
[excerpt] Missile :
:an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike
something at a distance stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles :
such as
a : guided missile : a missile whose course may be altered during flight (as by a target-seeking radar device)
b : ballistic missile : a usually rocket-powered missile that is launched in a high arc under guidance
for its ascent but that is unpowered and unguided once it begins its descent [/excerpt]
--and--
[excerpt] guided missile -a rocket-powered missile which is directed to its target by a built-in device
or by radio waves etc. misil teledirigido [/excerpt]
Fonebone>
The definition bolded describes a projectile of mass propelled toward a target. The projectile that
created the left-wing impression in the
WTC1 tower wall had no wings. The mass fired at the extreme oblique
angle created the scar shaped left wing illusion.
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
And yet the Naudet brothers film clearly shows an airplane with two wings crashing into WTC1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY approximately 1:09
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,382
Instead of coming up with even more outlandish and convoluted explanations for how the facts could possibly fit your imaginary scenarios, have you ever considered that maybe they did it with a plane?
When you hear hoofbeats, you don't think hoofed manatees from the planet Gryxyrg, you think horses.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
You are missing the point of the question.
Yankee451 at least realises that if the tip of the missile had made the first scar then it couldn't have made the subsequent damage, the geometry is all wrong. The missile would either penetrate earlier, or else is would bounce off.
It wouldn't move along the side of the building. (try sketching it).
So he uses this idea of the left wing of the cruise missile causing this damage.
Suggesting a missile with no wings only returns you to the original problem with the idea.
Whereas there are no problems at all with that damage being caused by a jet liner flying into the building.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
What's that phrase conspiratards are always using? Oh yes, that's right....
Do you own research!
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Have not visited in a few months and just caught this thread. The video is hilarious - and that's just the thumbnail.
I had a run-in with Steve De'ak maybe about a year ago in the comment section of his YouTube video on the "Cedar St. Amazing Flying Wall Panel" (or something to that effect). I quickly determined I was dealing with lunacy of the highest order and backed away slowly.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Have not visited in a few months and just caught this thread. The video is hilarious - and that's just the thumbnail.
I had a run-in with Steve De'ak maybe about a year ago in the comment section of his YouTube video on the "Cedar St. Amazing Flying Wall Panel" (or something to that effect). I quickly determined I was dealing with lunacy of the highest order and backed away slowly.
Well ALL twooferism is lunacy of the highest order... especially the "no planer" nonsense... so there's no surprise there!
The "it was missiles" nonsense fails right out of the starting gate. Eyewitnesses on the ground saw airliners, not missiles, ATC radar tracked airliners not missiles. Survivors on lower floors saw airliners not missiles... and that is just for starters
Last edited:
Fonebone
persona non grata
Your critique ended before it started.
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Fonebone said:
No, it isn't. The speed of sound through air at sea level is about 770 mph.
Last edited:
Fonebone
persona non grata
Thank you for your correction.
I will correct my incorrect data and the statement estimating reaction time
will be amended and my comment will be revised accordingly.
Fonebone
persona non grata
In post # 175, I incorrectly stated the speed of sound was 500 MPH.
The correct speed speed of sound at sea level at 70 F is 1100 feet per second
or 343 meter per second which equates to 767MPH.
Thank you Reformed Offlian for alerting me to my error the error.
The flying object disguised as a commercial wide body airliner B767 is calculated to
be traveling at a ground speed of greater than 500 MPH or
733 1/3 FTS (feet per second). Therefore the sound wave created by the flying object
would travel at 1100 FPS, almost twice as fast as the flying object.
The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Ah your most recent pigeon drop. In the Naudet film everyone except no-planers can identify an airplane flying into WTC1, even at 500+ MPH. So no missles didn't cause the big hole in the structure.
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 678
Oblivious to reality, as your posts have historically characterized themselves, your "theory" ignores the fact that the sound of an airliner approaching will precede its overhead arrival by several seconds, at least. This puts your fraction of a second hypothesis into the land of fairy tales. The same can be said for those that were in the buildings when they viewed them. Beyond that, the inside people have these things called "windows", through which they can view objects approaching from quite a distance. A low flying plane would be something of serious interest and a common subject to be brought to the attention of those near the first person sighting/identifying it. So, they will actually have a longer window (pun INTENDED) with which to observe the aircraft.
FYI, disguising a missile as a 767 is no easy task, nor one to go unnoticed by a plethora of people involved and happenstance to its construct and journey.
Also, in regards to your earlier mention of somehow compromising the ATC radar, you may as well have claimed "magic happened", as there is no feasible means to do so in the entire context of 9/11.