Common Sense

[Gravy]

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html


Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.

Piece this together, Einstein: http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

 

[Architect]

It's easy, really:

Evidence, evidence, evidence.

And it has to be unequivocal, none of this "looks like, if you squint a bit" rubbish.....

 

[CHF]

Has a false flag operation ever happened in the world? Yes.
Has a country ever killed it's own people as a pretext to fight an external enemy? Yes.
Has Israel ever engaged in any false-flag operations? Yes.
Any of those against the US? Yes.

And have Islamic militants ever hijacked planes? Yup.

Oh dear. Now what?

 

[DavidJames]

28IQ:

I'll paraphrase something I said to you before. I would love to sit on a jury watching a DA present a criminal case against you using the same logic you have presented here. Now here's the rub, loser, I would not vote guilty, yes even for you, if that was all the DA had.

 

[Architect]

Why do I bother, especially when my knee is killing me!

Jings, crivens, help ma'boab.

Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes.

Whoah! What do you mean "could have"? That's an awfully big statement! Do you mean:

"In principle, given clear access and regardless of whether discovered or not, could explosives per se have been used to demolish a building such as WTC. "

But so what? Just because it is theoretically possible in no way proves it happened in the absence of EVIDENCE.

Had explosives ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? Yes.

Yes, and concrete too. Always after extensive preparatory works covering weeks, if not months.

Had a plane impact ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? No.

Had an aircraft ever hit one at that speed, in those circumstances? Yes

Had a fire ever brought down a steel-structured high-rise pre 9/11? No

.

Had any steel structured high rise building even been hit by this combination of aircraft impact and fire? No.

Have steel framed structures failed due to fire? Yes.

Is the risk of this acknowledged in Buildings Standards and Codes worldwide, all prior to 11/9? Yes.

Had hurricane-like (debris) exterior damage ever made a steel-structured high-rise totally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at quasi-free fall speeds? No.

Did the towers suffer hurricane like exterior damage. No.

Did the tower collapse symmetrically? No.

Did the towers collapse at quasi free-fall speeds? No.

What are the odds that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters and plastic knives

19 armed pilots with stanley knives, weapon of choice for your average Glasgow gang and responsible for several murders in that fair city every year? Yes.

could have hijacked four commercial airliners with a 100% success rate, and then proceeded to maneuver these aircraft

Arguably 75 % success rate.

And using autopilot/GPS they flew them. Yes.

(past the world's most elite and advanced military defense system)

Which hadn't scrambled because it wasn't in a position to respond to internal threats. No.

to three exact destinations while hitting 100% of their targets?

75%. You're not very good at this maths thing?

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist?

Aha, it was the nasty Joos that did it. Proof?

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD?

Proof?

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations.

Proof?
http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html

Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.

You don't have a theory, or even a hypothesis. You have vague and wooly, half formed accusations with no substantive evidence.

Try harder. Eejit. I'm fair scunnered with your pathetic attempts.

 

[negativ]

Since Wikipedia is apparently the only source apart from prisonplanet that matters to any CTist, I suppose I might as well post this:

Is there ample reason to shy away from using Wikipedia as a primary source? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


Has Wikipedia ever been found to be utterly fraudulent? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy


Is that why parodies of Wikipedia are frequently funny? Yes.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews...days;_resurrected_leader_appears_to_followers

 

[Pardalis]

Now... start piecing everything together...

...while doing drugs and listening to Tool.

You forgot the most important steps to start seeing conspiracies.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Piece this together, Einstein: http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

 

[Architect]

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

Yup, but not in the way you think you mean!


Mes amis americanes, the new Scots word for today is Keech. A perfect description for 28th's spurious arguments.

 

[uk_dave]

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

Louder than words.

 

[Firestone]

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

This is at least the third time that you accuse the "zionists" of carrying out the attacks of 9/11 !

When will you start giving EVIDENCE for your evil and baseless accusations?
When will you apologize for making fun with Mark Bingham?

When will you address the many questions you have cowardly evaded until now by running away from threads?

When?

 

[Firestone]

I want you one on one in our own thread...

Apparently that is the wet dream of every CTist: one on one with Gravy!

What has Gravy done wrong?

 

[DavidJames]

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

I wouldn't say speak so much as mumble incoherently.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Since Wikipedia is apparently the only source apart from prisonplanet that matters to any CTist, I suppose I might as well post this:

Is there ample reason to shy away from using Wikipedia as a primary source? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


Has Wikipedia ever been found to be utterly fraudulent? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy


Is that why parodies of Wikipedia are frequently funny? Yes.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews...days;_resurrected_leader_appears_to_followers

Go verify all of the information from my post through other sites and resources. Those are all well documented events.

 

[Gravy]

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

First, please read Apathoid's analysis of the feasibility of remote takeover of the Boeing 757/767 and let us know what you think.

Second, are you forgetting that I already accepted your gunslingin' challenge? All you had to do was provide evidence for what we were discussing.

You chose that time to take a vacation from the JREF forum.

Yes, your 600+ posts certainly do speak for themselves.

 

[Quad4_72]

Probably a typo. Have you tried using common scents?

Haha. You would think that it was a typo, but when it is the title of the thread and used throughout their post, typo goes right out the window.

 

[Horatius]

Now that's just crazy talk. Are you some sort of Warlock?

Nope, just the Tribe Scientist. Always remember:

East takes you In,
In takes you West,
West takes you Out,
Out takes you East,
North and South bring you back.


With all due respect to Larry Niven.

 

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

You claim to be able to piece together evidence and see the big picture.

So put all your proof together and give me a logical narrative of what you think happened on 9/11.

You'll be the first twoofer to do this so you should be quite excited by the opportunity.

No more "just asking questions." I want to see a logical narrative.

Batter up!

 

[fuelair]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?

And where do you flip hamburgers, little troll?
Stop insulting your betters and go earn your HS degree. Thanks!!

 

[negativ]

Not bloody likely. I'm still waiting (well, not really) for him to tell us what sort of evidence he would expect to find if 9/11 really happened pretty much as described in the Commission report. He also will not say what evidence could hypothetically be found that would cause him to change his mind.

(unless I missed it, in which case... my bad)