Female F-16 pilot recounts her role on 911

[blck]

Female F-16 pilot...

 

[911]

Best material I saw is this link here: https://isgp-studies.com/911 and one Italian made documentary which run for hours. Extremely well made and completely objective without ever placing blame on anyone, just asking and debunking official story. Sadly, I don't know the name.

Archer, I think that was "Zero", the doc made with Italian writer Dario Fo:

 

[Kona]

Female F-16 pilot...

Shes probably known as @fightermom_314 or @bomber_babe or something similar.

Aloha!

 

[SlickyBoy]

Occam's razor only means the more assumptions you make, the less likely the story is - and there's a shitload of tin foil hat what ifs in this one.

I've had the displeasure of seeing first hand military propaganda operations. Long story short, they often fuck up even the simplest of missions. The most recent example is here.

Most days they couldn't count their nuts twice and get the same number, let alone pull of some lurid "let's fake everybody out by getting rid of the tail of the aircraft!" number. Sorry, that's really all there is to it.

In case that wasn't clear enough, the aircraft tail and debris weren't there in the first place, the debris was gathered from the area, with crash zones several miles away, and arranged/staged at the alleged crash site. Debris fields as far away as 8 miles from the mine shaft site were sealed by the FBI and people were prevented from going there.

Even if the Boeing was, possibly, shot down out of absolute and urgent necessity, it is still better for everyone, families included of course, to believe and enforce the official narrative. A rare occurrence where red-pilling is unnecessary, I'd say.

It would have been a white lie if the authorities had ordered the Boeing shot down, doing it for the greater good, and concealing this fact with the "Let's Roll" passengers fighting back narrative, resulting in the hijackers plowing the jet into the PA countryside.

There is however a much more troubling aspect to this, which makes this whole white lie scenario impossible: the staging for the site had to be prepared beforehand, with the open mine shaft spot selected in advance and prepared, torn up by an A-10 run (crater clearly visible -see video-, created by an A-10 spotted by local witnesses). The mine shaft site had a large, still smoldering crater in it.

The passenger jet had to be shot down very close to that spot, so its path had to be tightly controlled, which doesn't jibe with the saudi hijackers narrative...

There was no white lie, no staging of any sites, the government didn't shoot down any planes, and it isn't unusual for crash sites to be roped off from the public during the investigation.

You may also want to take a closer look at that tail section - it is not from a Boeing 757. Flight 93 was a 757-200, which has a standard tail. That picture shows an aircraft with a T-tail, reportedly from a the crash of Vladivostok AIR Flight 352.

Please stop this.

 

[Repo]

Most of the worst conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if their supporters held the "contrasting evidence" to the same standards as the official story. See the flat earth thread. So many "unanswered" questions have been answered over and over and over again.

 

[Leonard D Neubache]

No matter how outrageous a conspiracy is (or how inrageous) the powers that be have established a fairly bulletproof system of eternally muddying the waters.

Simply carry out your operation and then seed a bunch of conspiracy theories that range from the realistic through to the ultra-ridiculous.

Is it possible that the 9/11 hijackers were traceable to the CIA?

I don't know. Ask the guys claiming there weren't any actual planes.

 

[SlickyBoy]

There's people out there supporting a "no plane" theory-?

 

[Number one bummer]

Most of the worst conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if their supporters held the "contrasting evidence" to the same standards as the official story. See the flat earth thread. So many "unanswered" questions have been answered over and over and over again.

Exactly. If I omit contradicting evidence while pedaling half-truths, I could make a case for any theory.

One example is the moon theories that point out "nobody can survive deep space radiation." Then they fail to mention the fatal radiation damage that was done to lunar astronauts. The heart failure rate is four times higher in lunar astronauts than it is in low orbit astronauts and even NASA test pilots.

The rabbit hole of conspiracies gets tiresome. As soon as a conspiracy starts to lose steam, it is labeled as a false-flag conspiracy thus "legitimizing" another guy's conspiracy. Thus the conspiracy is that the conspiracy is a conspiracy in itself, built to either support or degrade another conspiracy.

 

[Leonard D Neubache]

From the link:

Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites.

Muddying the waters. This allows the counter-shills to insult serious investigators by tossing out "are you one of the 'no plane' guys?"

 

[911]

Occam's razor only means the more assumptions you make, the less likely the story is - and there's a shitload of tin foil hat what ifs in this one.

I've had the displeasure of seeing first hand military propaganda operations. Long story short, they often fuck up even the simplest of missions. The most recent example is here.

Most days they couldn't count their nuts twice and get the same number, let alone pull of some lurid "let's fake everybody out by getting rid of the tail of the aircraft!" number. Sorry, that's really all there is to it.

In case that wasn't clear enough, the aircraft tail and debris weren't there in the first place, the debris was gathered from the area, with crash zones several miles away, and arranged/staged at the alleged crash site. Debris fields as far away as 8 miles from the mine shaft site were sealed by the FBI and people were prevented from going there.

Even if the Boeing was, possibly, shot down out of absolute and urgent necessity, it is still better for everyone, families included of course, to believe and enforce the official narrative. A rare occurrence where red-pilling is unnecessary, I'd say.

It would have been a white lie if the authorities had ordered the Boeing shot down, doing it for the greater good, and concealing this fact with the "Let's Roll" passengers fighting back narrative, resulting in the hijackers plowing the jet into the PA countryside.

There is however a much more troubling aspect to this, which makes this whole white lie scenario impossible: the staging for the site had to be prepared beforehand, with the open mine shaft spot selected in advance and prepared, torn up by an A-10 run (crater clearly visible -see video-, created by an A-10 spotted by local witnesses). The mine shaft site had a large, still smoldering crater in it.

The passenger jet had to be shot down very close to that spot, so its path had to be tightly controlled, which doesn't jibe with the saudi hijackers narrative...

There was no white lie, no staging of any sites, the government didn't shoot down any planes, and it isn't unusual for crash sites to be roped off from the public during the investigation.

You may also want to take a closer look at that tail section - it is not from a Boeing 757. Flight 93 was a 757-200, which has a standard tail. That picture shows an aircraft with a T-tail, reportedly from a the crash of Vladivostok AIR Flight 352.

Please stop this.

I guess the author of this article felt he had to post a picture of a real plane crash from Siberia, which had actual plane parts and debris, like all plane crash sites do, as opposed to the hapless craterred pile of dirt with no plane parts at Shanksville, PA. Because according to the official version, the Boeing 757 instantly disappeared upon impact. Supposedly, 85% of the plane burried itself in the ground and the rest of the plane hit the ground then bounced off up to 8 miles away.

There is no other passenger plane crash anywhere where planes completely vaporized... Yet another 9/11 singularity, like the 3 steel-structure skyscrapers that collapsed on their own footprint at near freefall speed because of a localized fire burning on a few floors for an hour or two.

The author placed that picture of the Siberian crash close to the picture of a PA barn and an explosion (presumably the plane crashing, though there is no fire from jetfuel visible, it looks like the mushroom cloud from a shell or a bomb), and just under the text "United 93 went down in Pennsylvania. Passengers aboard the plane fought back against the hijackers, and crashed in an isolated field.", suggesting that this was the actual PA crash photo.

The Siberian crash site looks very similar to the Shanksville site, a large green meadow surrounded by forest, I guess that is also why that pic was chosen.

 

[Repo]

911, the least you could do if your going to deny the official story is actually read up and understand what the official story is, and then counter it. As it stands, you aren't even getting the official story right so without that minimal effort theres no point having a discussion.

 

[911]

Most of the worst conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if their supporters held the "contrasting evidence" to the same standards as the official story. See the flat earth thread. So many "unanswered" questions have been answered over and over and over again.

Just out of curiosity Repo (and others fully on board with official 9/11 narrative), do you also believe in the official version for the JFK assassination too (Lee Oswald single gun theory)?

From the link:

Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites.

Muddying the waters. This allows the counter-shills to insult serious investigators by tossing out "are you one of the 'no plane' guys?"

Muddying the waters is a very good way to put it Len. They would usually combine elements of truth with some outrageous features that "poison the well", see Icke's exposing the Saville story, the private/Rothschild-owned fractional reserve debt system and slapping the reptilian shape-shifting crap on top of it...poison pill.

Along the same lines, the "no plane" thing is partially true too, because there was no plane hitting the Pentagon (unless you believe a Boeing could pull 5gs on a tight 270 turn and fly 6m off the ground at 800km/hr smack into the first floor, where the entire plane, wings, engines and tail, collapsed into a small hole leaving nearby glass windows unscathed). And there was no plane on the Shankville dirt pile either, so "no plane" is exactly half right, 2 out of 4. You take that base of truth, then slap that "no plane hit the WTC" poison pill on top of it.

 

[911]

911, the least you could do if your going to deny the official story is actually read up and understand what the official story is, and then counter it. As it stands, you aren't even getting the official story right so without that minimal effort theres no point having a discussion.

The official story of Flight 93 is that the plane was hijacked, and passengers Beamer, Bingham and co. made a bunch of phone calls, including cellphone calls at high altitude, then rushed the hijackers, and the terrorist pilot plunged the 757 into the ground, smack into the middle of that Shanksville gash.

Most of the plane vaporized and/or disappeared into the meadow, while the rest of it bounced off and ended up in debris fields, some which 6 to 8 miles away from the impact point. That's one hell of a bounce through the forest (with no trail). This was, more or less, the official explanation for why there were no visible plane parts at the alleged plane impact point.

The first part of that official narrative is a heroic tale, which automatically makes one a commie traitor denier for being skeptical about it. The second part is physically impossible, another 9/11 singularity which was never observed among the dozens of jet plane crashes in decades past.

 

[SlickyBoy]

The Siberian crash site looks very similar to the Shanksville site, a large green meadow surrounded by forest, I guess that is also why that pic was chosen.

The pic was chosen because the author is about as thorough as any other conspiracy kook with the facts. Based on the lack of rebuttal to the evidence provided, I guess we've finally gotten past the "they moved the tail of the aircraft - It's a setup!" story?

Good. That's progress.

And yes, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK.

 

[911]

The Siberian crash site looks very similar to the Shanksville site, a large green meadow surrounded by forest, I guess that is also why that pic was chosen.

The pic was chosen because the author is about as thorough as any other conspiracy kook with the facts. Based on the lack of rebuttal to the evidence provided, I guess we've finally gotten past the "they moved the tail of the aircraft - It's a setup!" story?

Good. That's progress.

And yes, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK.

The author of that article must have been compelled to present that Siberian crash picture as the Shanksville alleged crash spot, because that dirt crater in the middle of a gash with no airplane parts or debris doesn't look like a real crash scene.

As Zel pointed out, that whole article is BS.

 

[Repo]

I am not as well read on the JFK assasination so I have no opinion on that. The only bone I'll throw regarding 9/11 is that officials are likely not disclosing how much was known beforehand and know now, and may have allowed certain events to proceed.