Reply With Quote
I dont have to pull aviation engineering out of my ass. Although I wouldnt put that past YOU.
They talked about shooting down drones posed as commercial flights. They had a plan to cover commercial passengers and loading. Go back and read it again.
I dont have to pull aviation engineering out of my ass. Although I wouldnt put that past YOU.
Perhaps you should read it again.So again, when were the passengers switched?It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subs uted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum al ude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[14] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the United States what has happened to the aircraft instead of the United States trying to "sell" the incident.
The plane never landed.
I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to prove that drones are built specifically to look like planes but not act like actual planes when they hit buildings.
Not commercial. Chartered. But they took the time to load CIA passengers. If they are willing to sacrifice commercial passengers, drone is not ruled out at.all.
Read it again.
They weren't going to sacrifice anybody.
My point is that it could have easily been a one off. I dont need another example. Gubment has capable engineers and rocket scientists too. Again...no proof necessary
In the 60's. That you know of. We are in the 2000's. And you have no idea whether they would sacrifice anyone to the cause of perpetual war or not.
It gets less easy the more you try to explain it.Why do you demand proof from everybody else?I dont need another example. Gubment has capable engineers and rocket scientists too. Again...no proof necessary
Sleep tight chump.
You have no idea either. Just wild speculation you feel you don't have to prove is even possible.
Debunking is not proof of anything else than error. Why do you demand proof before questions can be asked ( ed up logic!?!?!?!)?
I asked for proof of a claim you made.
That was the question.
Prove that clown pilots were capable of these feats under the xonditions laid out by Lear, or forever stfu.
Thats sarcastic but its an application of your very own logic as applied to the tin foil crowd. And its bull both ways
When did i ever tell you to stfu?
I want to you keep talking. You are beginning to realize how ridiculous Lear's arguments are. You're the one trying to shut down the conversation by saying no proof is necessary for your claims.
Did Einstien prove the theory of relativity before he proposed? Or proposed before proof? Y or N.
Please stay on topic.
We're talking about your theory.
What happened to the passengers? Where were the planes switched?
That's his elementary tactic where he can try best to feel better and pretend to win something. Making his own rules and assumptions and then asking questions based on them. hahaha
Lear doesnt argue drones. I do. Lear provides overwhelming evidence that discredits clown pilots as being capable of going 3 for 3. Try and keep all these facts straight going forward.
Your tactic is not talking about the actual subject and only talking about me.
I asked you about your drone theory.
The truth is, 1) clown pilots pulling off three strikes of extreme difficulty with 100% success is extremely extremely unlikely. Do you argue this? And, 2) beyond that we are limited to conjecture. Of which I dont have time for at the moment. I have a couple more INTERESTING thead topics to drop.
Explained in the pdf I posted. Define "extremely, extremely."You have time for it until you are questioned about it. Then you get flustered and try to change the subject.And, 2) beyond that we are limited to conjecture. Of which I dont have time for at the moment.
Lear had time for conjecture. He said they were holographs.
You cited a man who said the buildings were hit by holographs.
why is there no wikipedia entry for John Lear?
Were the hijackers doing barrel rolls or just flying straight into enormous objects?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
