Reply With Quote
This affidavit never says anything about holograms. Cite? Oh wait...you might want to debunk something first
Ive seen a government plan laid out with sigs from all joint chiefs planning loading cia operatives, then replacing the plane with a drone. given that I think clown pilots like these are incabable of ace manuevers like these, drone at a minimum. Waiting on your debunking skills to tell me what Im allowed to believe though.
This affidavit never says anything about holograms. Cite? Oh wait...you might want to debunk something first
I applaud your efforts thus far. College try and all. You still havent convinced an unbiased jury that clown pilots can do this sort of though.
Hoe many men has he murdered in pits?
You can believe whatever stupid bull you want to.
(Sorry, he calls them holographs, My bad.)
You haven't read anything.Oh wait...you might want to debunk something first
You aren't an unbiased jury.
And you didn't read what I posted.
So this guy is making it even harder to imagine these clowns could pull this off. They have to dive to reach speed before pulling off a massive pull up, going straight at completely level trajectory? Dude just cast more.doubt on clown pilot success. Sorry bro.
They had to descend and gravity helped them achieve that speed.
Saying they were going straight at a completely level trajectory is disingenuous at best. Their actions were the actions of bad pilots. Hani Hanjour hit stuff on the ground before hitting the Pentagon. Good drone pilots wouldn't have done those things. Sorry, bro.
How did he just not increase difficulty tremendously? Way to prove mycase for me via cut and paste.
No error significant to leave debris on the lawn or compromise his aim. Drones get done.
Lear is making the only feasible case for clown pilots. Your guy shows the possibility, but destroys the feasibility.
How did he increase difficulty tremendously? You let the autopilot take you to the target area, then you manually line it up to hit the target.
There was plenty of debris on the lawn and the highway. You didn't read about that either.
Have you read anything about 9/11 aside from this John Lear affidavit?
Serious question.
No. Lear is talking about holographs.How?Your guy shows the possibility, but destroys the feasibility.
Be specific about his paper.
Autopilot wont pull you out of a radical descent meant to push your plane beyond its recommended top speed. I know that. You know that.
Do you even understand what your guy is saying here? Speeds r only possible if your descending, and then once your ay speed you can pull your plane out for a short distance while lining up last sec at 10 mp second?
so the plane is beyond its rated speed, diving, making all kinds of noise, buzzer going off, bloody controls, and your clown pilots pull up for a last seconds straight away approach with a bucking bronco plane and hit dead on the money two for two? DIDNT HAPPEN THAT WAY. Sorry.
More than happy to read your materials and explain the implications to you though, chump.
Got stuff to do broseph. Be back tomorrow.
It didn't.
Right. Not really last second tbh. It's not like they weren't trying to crash a plane.
He sure did explain how it could have happened pretty easily, didn't he. Got you a little upset that it wasn't holographs.
There was a Chinese airliner that broke the sound barrier on an uncontrolled descent and they pulled out of it. ed up the plane, but that's why there are operational limits (not the same as physical limits).
I don't expect you to have an open mind about any of it. I expect you to make up like blood soaked controls.
You never answered if you agree with Lear that it was "holographs."
Do you think it was holographs?
But they didnt have to hit bullseye on such a small target under such horrendous conditions. Could the clowns pull out of such a descent? Yeah. Could they do it and hit dead on target? -fuggin-no.
In what way are the twin towers and Pentagon small?
Give me some comparisons to things you consider to be larger targets.
Even though you you dont think I have a right to question the official propoganda line until I have every thread thread and loose end tied (wtf is wrong with that logic?!?!), I have questions. And holographs are not the answers. But unlike you, Im ok with ambiguity, and accepting what I dont know. You and the crew have a burning need to believe all questions are answered, case closed, gubment doesnt lie, and agents within the gubment never conspire. I know gubment agents conspired to like this 50 years ago. You do too, actually. And the technology is much more conducive to those aims now than it was then. And the profits are much richer these days too.
Twin towers at 208 ft wide? 767 at 170 ft wide?
You have the right to ask questions, but you really should look for answers yourself and not act like a helpless child.
Seriously, if you are taking Lear's affidavit as gospel, you can't think a drone hit the buildings either -- they would have acted just like any plane.
So they weren't planes or drones according to what you believe -- then what do you think actually hit the buildings?
So it's wider than the runway at Bergstrom.
Nice.
Thanks again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
