T1B

I hope this doesn't take two years to solve......



A little tri-lingual music while you make your decision..... cue final jeopardy

Well, just disappearing at 37,000 feet suggests a bomb. And that implies Mossad. So yeah, it's the usual stirring of the fear through false fire. Notice only fifty or so passengers, and ten staff. Just like 9/11, these numbers are in conflict with the usual airline policy of delaying or reassigning a flight until the plane is filled to some quorum.

Stay Scared...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, just disappearing at 37,000 feet suggests a bomb. And that implies Mossad. So yeah, it's the usual stirring of the fear through false fire. Notice only fifty or so passengers, and ten staff. Just like 9/11, these numbers are in conflict with the usual airline policy of delaying or reassigning a flight until the plane is filled to some quorum.

Stay Scared...

If you think it's Mossad, then why didn't you vote for the joos? Afraid the mossad is watching? Scared?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Just like 9/11, these numbers are in conflict with the usual airline policy of delaying or reassigning a flight until the plane is filled to some quorum.

And just like your last 1000 posts you prove beyond a doubt you have no clue what you are talking about.

They're saying the plane swerved 90 degrees to the left, and then 360 degrees to the right before plunging first to 15,000 feet, then 10,000 feet, before dropping off radar. I'll go with pilot error.

Goober McTuber wrote: I'll go with pilot error.

Yeah he fukked up and couldn't do a full Ollie with the plane while being bayonetted in the throat.

Or strangled. Or becoming red mist after having been exploded. etc.

Goober McTuber wrote:They're saying the plane swerved 90 degrees to the left, and then 360 degrees to the right before plunging first to 15,000 feet, then 10,000 feet, before dropping off radar. I'll go with pilot error.

um.."360 degrees to the right"?

I can do that...

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Just like 9/11, these numbers are in conflict with the usual airline policy of delaying or reassigning a flight until the plane is filled to some quorum.

And just like your last 1000 posts you prove beyond a doubt you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sure, says the total fraud who claims to be a pilot. Let's see Fake Seater squirm and evade...

Fake Seater knows that a 757 has large fuel tanks in its wings, and yet when flight 77 supposedly struck the pentagon, its wings supposedly struck FIVE light poles and yet apparently suffered no damage--let alone burst into flames... Gee, how could that happen? After all, here's the effect of an airliner hitting a bird




And yet Fake Seater is mumbling some bullshit that the steel light poles were designed to 'break away" and so no damage to a plane at 500 mph...

Seriously, along with babs, Fake Seater is the most bullshitting fraud on this palsied forum.

Never mind the car going 10 miles an hour that knocked over the same designed street lights. It plays far better when you just make stuff up to fit your narrative.

Just like the airlines cancel flights unless they are full no matter the downstream costs.

What did I make up? Flight 77 supposedly hit five steel poles with its wings while going close to 500 mph. And those wings were full of fuel (because the center tank is used first--you know this, right?). Of course the wing should have sustained immediate crippling damage and burst into flames. And yet nothing happened. As for a hypothetical car hitting the steel pole, yes it will sustain damage in direct relation to its speed. Those poles don't just snap off at the base from a minor impact. What, are you totally SQUIRMING for some desperate out?

As for airlines routinely delaying or rescheduling flights due to low passenger total, this is standard and you should be familiar as well--if you weren't a total fraud.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for airlines routinely delaying or rescheduling flights due to low passenger total, this is standard and you should be familiar as well

Link?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:the wing should have sustained immediate crippling damage and burst into flames.

Wrong. Plenty of times planes have hit trees going much slower and the trees are snapped, not the plane's wing. Trees are not designed to break away like a street light is. Plus the faster the plane is moving the easier it is to cut thru the stationary object.





In neither accident did the wings snap off of the plane or immediately burst into flames. The reason the Air France plane caught on fire was due to the almost straight drop onto its belly.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for a hypothetical car hitting the steel pole, yes it will sustain damage in direct relation to its speed.

Sure, your Toyota Corolla with its plastic bumper will take some damage when it hits a street light at 10 mph. On the other hand Derron's truck with its ranch hand grill might have a paint scratch while the pole is laying on the ground at the same speed.

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for airlines routinely delaying or rescheduling flights due to low passenger total, this is standard and you should be familiar as well

Link?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:the wing should have sustained immediate crippling damage and burst into flames.

Wrong. Plenty of times planes have hit trees going much slower and the trees are snapped, not the plane's wing. Trees are not designed to break away like a street light is. Plus the faster the plane is moving the easier it is to cut thru the stationary object.





In neither accident did the wings snap off of the plane or immediately burst into flames. The reason the Air France plane caught on fire was due to the almost straight drop onto its belly.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for a hypothetical car hitting the steel pole, yes it will sustain damage in direct relation to its speed.

Sure, your Toyota Corolla with its plastic bumper will take some damage when it hits a street light at 10 mph. On the other hand Derron's truck with its ranch hand grill might have a paint scratch while the pole is laying on the ground at the same speed.

What utter bullshit. As for airlines regularly delaying or rescheduling because of low passenger numbers, they do, especially if there are several flights a day on the route that they can consolidate. But obviously both flights would need to be less than 50% full for them to be able to consolidate.

As for your meaningless vids, they have nothing to do with a 757 supposedly hitting five steel poles and not seeming to endure any damage (not that it would matter, since the entire plane would magically enter a small hole--and temporarily in an instant become basically a fluid mass, which would immediately retain its original form and continue to pierce the recently hardened and reinforced pentagon wall like a...well, a missile, punching right through three layers--missing various columns while reforming--and exiting with absolutely no debris or black box)...

Sure, keep on your tedious troll denial, and continue to attempt to look in the mirror. :wink:

You're quite confused, fat fuck. Trolling is the incessant posting of fake and intentionally provocative bullshit ( that one knows is false or distracting). This would certainly describe Fake Seater's nonsense, and similarly several others around here. You do not qualify because you can't even fake a fake take.

As for the obvious falsity of the official 9/11 story--and the catastrophic results of the New Pearl Harbor agenda--there's nothing whatever fake or unimportant or uninteresting. If you're overwhelmed with fear, muttering in your bowl of gravy, well that's your sad and pathetic existence. But keep your dreary nothingness to yourself.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:This would certainly describe Fake Seater's nonsense

Yeah videos where one can see it with their own eyes is nonsense.

You should get a medal for your trolling. You got me to bite again.

Fake Seater, there's nothing whatever in your vids that has anything to do with an airliner--with full fuel tanks in its wings--striking a series of steel poles with those wings. Your suggestion that they just snap off with minimal effort is ludicrous, just as the suggestion that the 757 could fly at 500 mph at ground level, or that it could magically punch a hole through the reinforced (kevlar mesh) wall and three rings of the pentagon. You're a total fraud--and make no mistake, you're the one trolling, with your childish evasions and idiotic explanations. How do you look in the mirror?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:there's nothing whatever in your vids that has anything to do with an airliner--with full fuel tanks in its wings--striking a series of steel poles with those wings. Your suggestion that they just snap off with minimal effort is ludicrous,

Right an A320 with fuel in its wings plows thru trees snapping them off with no immediate damage to the wings. Never mind the trees aren't designed to break away while the light poles are.

Now I know you're kidding. The A320 BLEW UP after it ran into the forest. The tree boughs it initially struck are obviously soft and leafy, and yes they give way.

As for the pic of the caved in nose from a bird hit, you're pretty squirming and evasive on that. As well as with the impossibility of a 757 to fly full speed at ground level. And the fact of the huge airliner not disturbing the lawn. And the supposed disappearance of a 757 into a tiny hole--without breaking windows or leaving debris. Or the fact of the supposed 757 penetrating three rings of the pentagon--after the very wall it struck had just been reinforced. Yeah, you really don't offer a damn thing to support your absurd acceptance of the official story. Why?

The A320 crashed due to loss of lift, not because it ran into trees. The gear was shoved up thru the wings which pierced the fuel tanks. The wings weren't harmed from the tree strikes.

As for the nose cones, you do know that those are some of the thinnest weakest parts on the plane. Behind them lives the weather radar, so naturally they are thin and not full of reinforcement.

And you're suggesting that the wings on 757 are not lightweight, and are somehow designed to withstand running into a series of steel poles at 500 mph?

When does your squirming little dance conclude? How long can you pretend that a 757 magically entered that reinforced wall, making just a small hole (without breaking windows) and penetrated three rings? What the fuck kind of moronic clown are you? Do you actually have kids? People who rely on you to act sanely? I really doubt it.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And you're suggesting that the wings on 757 are not lightweight, and are somehow designed to withstand running into a series of steel poles at 500 mph?

How "lightweight" would a 757 wing full of jet fuel be if one suddenly cut through you at 500 mph? Wouldthe.wing explode, or would you still be around to pester this Board with your awkward brand of social retardacy?

BTW, L-TRipe, how many fully-fueled cars explode after clipping a light pole at 50 mph?

Yes, if an airliner somehow hit a human being with its wing while flying it would immediately crash.

As for cars running into steel poles and exploding, yes, it happens with frightening regularity...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GColnCQmc7w

As for the tedious fraud, Fake Seater, attempting to squirm his way out of the basic obvious falsity of the official 9/11 story, no, he has once again shown himself to be an embarrassing clown.

No a 757 would not immediately crash if it somehow hit a human. A Delta 757 lost a portion of its wing in flight and it landed safely.

No a 757 wing is not lightweight. Aviation grade aluminum is quite strong and yes the wing can go thru the hollow light poles. If it can snap trees at approach speed, it can easily knock down light poles that are designed to break at 500 mph.

Your obdurate bullshit seems bottomless. When pressed one way, you squirm another direction. When presented with a plethora of impossibilities surrounding the official 9/11 story, you cling to one tedious claim--which makes no sense itself. That you are an appalling fraud is clear. The question remains...why? Why would anyone want to soldier on in lock-step support of an obviously faked false fire operation?

Of course you lamely claim to have aviation expertise, but you sure as fuck can't deny that this guy's expertise far surpasses anything you've ever known...
http://consciouslifenews.com/911-prove- ... e/1145271/

And yet, like a tedious right-wing stooge, you just march along?

And you still don't have an original take. Back on ignore for you.

As for this crash the strange part to me is the window faults on the copilot's windows. Could indicate fire or that they were damaged in some sort of blast. This combined with the turns and lack of a radio call seem to indicate a sudden event that left the plane on the edge of control for a few seconds before it became uncontrollable on its way to the sea.

Left Seater wrote:And you still don't have an original take. Back on ignore for you.

As for this crash the strange part to me is the window faults on the copilot's windows. Could indicate fire or that they were damaged in some sort of blast. This combined with the turns and lack of a radio call seem to indicate a sudden event that left the plane on the edge of control for a few seconds before it became uncontrollable on its way to the sea.

An original take? How about the truth as an original take? How about a hundred or so various aspects of the official story that completely fall apart upon basic scrutiny? Of course you're going to curl up and pretend you've made some kind of sense. How pathetic.

As for the current mystery, it's basically a toss up between the Mossad false fire brigade and the actual handful of jihadists who would plant a bomb, etc.

But one thing's clear and that's the demonstrated fact of your being a total fraud.

'Scuse me, you wallowing hippo, but did you say pilot? AS in real pilots with real expertise? Well, dig in fat boy, because I've got a whole bunch!

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Sure, real pilots who are not politically biased or fake shills (like Fake Seater). And they all call total bullshit on the official 9/11 story, and provide details. And of course you can't refute any of their conclusions. But then again, you can barely read.

So go guzzle your gravy and stop gnawing my ankle.

Now, as far as the ludicrous notion that some completely untrained idiot could suddenly fly like Chuck Yeager, let's consider this recreation of the supposed final descent into the pentagon..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0


As for the interesting "news" of a possible pilot suicide..hmm...in a time when Trump can be the actual nominee, nothing would really surprise me.

Knowing what we know about moooslims and planes, one would have to be a real dimwitted dolt to vote "mechanical failure". At least 3 people that post here are retards!

I wanted to respond to the poll but I couldn't find "Pikkkle's a cum slurping moron." so I didn't bother.

The crazy comes in all forms. This will probably have Tin Foil Nick damn near giddy.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/egyptair ... edition=uk

Turkish air pilots see UFO and now think it brought down EA804.

:doh:

Pretty sure he will start linking us up to these idiot pilots for the next ten years or so.

Left Seater wrote:The crazy comes in all forms. This will probably have Tin Foil Nick damn near giddy.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/egyptair ... edition=uk

Turkish air pilots see UFO and now think it brought down EA804.

When tRump gets elected he'll build a wall to keep the aliens out.

Let's remember that "UFO" doesn't necessarily mean extra-terrestrial. It could well have been a new type of drone. As to who could and would do it, and why, most roads in these devious matters lead to and from the Mossad.