In your post # 220, you gave a link, ok, NONE of the reports listed there had anything to do with physical aircraft wreckage. They covered a lot of other ground, but no discussion of the physical aircraft wreckage. total FAIL!
I vote no... the right and left are so at each others throats a secret like that could never even be attempted
So, you didn't bother reading them ... and you won't admit that you were wrong about them not existing. Got it. Have a nice day.
To expose this for the forum, the titles of these reports listed in the link you provided: >NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording (one ea. for the flights ) >NTSB report, "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" >NTSB report, "Flight Path Study- Where is the INFORMATION about the physical evidence?
I dare you, if you have the chapter & verse references to where this INFORMATION exists, please provide it, otherwise the default is that you are bluffing with NO information at all, and all of these "reports" have absolutely NOTHING to do with accounting for physical evidence of any of the airliners.
The 9/11 operation, was clearly done from inside, and at the very top levels of the administration at the time. Promoting anything different, is simply not telling the truth.
There are liars and then there are just plain confused people. its a function of the psychological warfare that is going on.
with the implication that if I can not supply specific indictments of individuals who are conducting this psychological warfare, then said warfare must be a figment of my imagination ...... right? This is yet another feature of the psychological warfare, people defend the official story to the exclusion of all else. note the statements such as "there is absolutely no evidence to disprove the official story" when in fact there is abundant evidence, however the people defending the official party line, will not recognize any evidence that opposes the hijacked airliners story.
The evidence is abundant, it just depends on what you consider valid evidence. The fact of the manner of destruction for the towers & 7, the fact that there isn't any accounting for the alleged airliners. These things are not figments of anybodies imagination, they are facts. maybe you don't like these facts, but they are what they are. I have asked in a previous post, what is the origin of a graph that alleges to show acceleration at greater than g for WTC7 during its "collapse"(?) the graph is attributed to "FEMR2" whoever that is, note that for any bit that matters in the evidence dept. people such as Dr. Sunder or David Chandler or Johnathan Cole publish under their real names, whats up with this "FEMR2" ?
The true smoking gun of 9/11 is the Pentagon event. All security footage is classified except for some blurry frames that show nothing. There was no serious plane wreckage found. The Pentagon and White House area is a closed flying zone and had ground to air missiles to defend against all kinds of aerial guests The most unlikely thing that could happen is the attack on the Pentagon.
You couldn't be more wrong...The pentagon was on the flight path of one of the busiest airports in the country,if not the world,and there were NO 'ground to air missiles' guarding the pentagon.
Too bad the flight went past the White House at a distance of one mile from the actual building before heading for the Pentagon, according to air traffic controllers. Few people know that. The White House does have ground to air missiles.
Because it isn't true. AA77 came within six miles of the White House, but was not on a heading with it.
Since the transponder had been turned off, there is a problem knowing the altitude ( unless military radar was tracking it ) anyhow at altitudes above 20,000 ft the aircraft is probably part of "normal" air traffic and so isn't an issue, at lower altitudes, the aircraft would be most certainly be considered a threat. The controlled airspace around the Capital extends for a good bit more than 6 miles and any aircraft that was too low and flying a course that was not on approach to Ronie RayGun airport would also set off alarms, question is how low was the alleged "FLT77"? is there any data on exactly where it was, including altitude, and if the altitude data is included, then military radar was tracking it, that means our military knew that the alleged "FLT77" was flying in controlled airspace. This then begs the question if our military knew that something was on its way toward the PENTAGON, what sort of alarms went off and exactly when did these alarms go off and what ( if anything ) was done in response?
I agree about the nature of the smoking gun for the events of 9/11/2001, there are a number of things that can be called the smoking gun. & ya, the PENTAGON hit is yet another one.
