Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by BRAVO949


Sigh.......what part of "Air Show" is not understood here?

One might think the an NZ Air Force pilot who flew a multi-million dollar plane at 350 nautical miles an hour that close to the ground would have landed and been greeted by a courts-martial.

THAT is what occurs in Air Shows!

Special authorizations are granted, and exceptions to many rules are given. Else, the AIr Shows would be very, very boring!!

DO yourself a favor,and go see one some day!

Here's another sort of Air Show....."Fleet Week" in SFO, last October, 2010!:





Not high speed or anything, but again....this requires special approval from the FAA (and other authorities).

So it looks like 350 knots to you but it does not look like 350 knots to me.

What does that prove.

I was at an airshow at Nellis one afternoon when a F-22 flew right over the crowd at an angle relative to the show line. It was going really fast but I don't think it was even going 350 knots.

The difference being that it could at 30 meters above the ground and pilots flying fighter / attack aircraft train for that sort of thing because it is part of what they are expected to do in cambat.

You are not seriously telling us that the New Zealand Air Force encourages their pilots to do stupid things like fly transport planes that close to the ground at 350 knots?

Wouldn't it be easier to admit you are wrong like your jumbled physics lecture from a few pages back?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

I don't think that NZ Air Force plane (ProudBird's contribution) was going anywhere near 350 knots....

Sure looked like 350 knots to me. There is another version of the same airshow, with the soundtrack and the event announcer mentioning the speed. This is how the audience knew what was happening.

Also, the climb at the end is the result of all that excess speed...that's how it works, trading excess speed for altitude. It is a short-term event, though.

BTW, the maximum (Vmo) speed (it is merely a published Limitation...all airplanes have some figure to use as a guide) for the 757 is 360 knots. It is well within the capability of the airplane.


Now......This is silly:

If air forces could get a 757 or 767 to fly at tree top level at 350 knots then the A-10 would have have never been developed.

I am at a loss for words, there...it is so absurd.

"We" could have just slung two Howitzers under a 737 and saved billions.

Yeah. Riiiiiiight.

Seriously, if a 757 can fly 350 knots, slightly higher than a radio anenna on a jeep then it could drop a bowling ball on a tank and knockit out.

SRSLY?

A bowling ball?

edit on Fri 18 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by impressme
[

Explosives needed to clear each floor in less than 200 milliseconds would certainly have been noticed. Thermite can't do it. Given that, the collapse must have been gravitationally driven.

What experts are claiming “200 milliseconds”?

You my friend do not know what type of Thermite was used or how it was applied; no one does for that matter. What we do know is enough thermite was found in the WTC dust sample that proves Thermite was one of the ingredients that were used and it had no business being in the dust sample to begin with.
Most ATS members know your unhealthy stance on any outside science that doesn’t support the pseudo-science of NIST.

I suppose all these people are liars to?
Information that you seem to ignore.

[color=gold]118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...

I know that your belief system is challenged every time someone does not accept demolition as a cause of collapse, but take heart; there may be some evidence, somewhere, laying undiscovered on a youtube video waiting for a "researcher" to find.

That is untrue; however since you are so interested in my belief system instead of the OP or our conversation I find it amusing that you believe that I depend on YouTube videos for my truth.

What does my beliefs systems have to do with your” opinions” to what you believe happened to the WTC?

At lease my belief system do not subscribe to 911 fairytales and outrages NIST lies that you so dearly have been defending year after year.
I have asked you a number of questions and you completely ignore them, typical response from one who defends the pseudo NIST report.

Experts in simple arithmetic are claiming less than 200 milliseconds per floor. How many floors collapsed and how long did it take? Divide the time is seconds by the number of floors for an average time. Its actually closer to 150 milliseconds but either is too fast to clear with 'silent' explosives.
Although only red paint was found in the dust sample, it really wouldn't matter what type of thermite was claimed; no thermite acts consistently fast enough to clear a floor as fast as the gravitational collapse.
Certainly there were some things exploding in the towers. Transformers, fire extinguishers, and sealed containers of all sorts exploded. That does not equate to demolition.
Your statement about 'fairy tales' and 'outrageous NIST lies' is consistent with your desire for a conspiracy. I don't know what you mean by a 'pseudo NIST report.'

reply to post by BRAVO949


Oh, for Pete's sake! This is ridiculous. Experience tells me the speed of that 757 in the video....visually, and by the sound it makes.

A larger jet, a bit farther way but at the same speed as a smaller fighter jet, just closer. The larger jet will appear to be slower, because of the distance. It's perspective.

Here's a B-52, at about the same speed as that Royal New Zealand 757:




Here's an F-14 breaking the sound barrier, AT Sea Level (obviously):




To reach Mach 1 at Sea Level, it is going at least twice the speed of the bigger jets. 661 knots is the speed for Mach 1 at that altitude.

But, it is probably going even faster, since to be stable it has to transition through the Mach 1 zone, to about 1.1 or 1.2.

M 1.1 = 727 kts
M 1.2 = 793 kts.


NOW...here another bomber, this time the B-1B. Listen to the announcer, F/F to 1:50. "Over 500 MPH". (That is around 435 knots):



Finally, one more for comparison. Another B-1B breaking the sound barrier....over Mach 1. This one was (I looked it up) in Santiago, Chile. The elevation there is 1,700 MSL. Speed of sound is 645 kts at that altitude:



(NOTE: The jet here is farther away from the viewers...some of the footage is zoomed in, to make it appear closer. The boom is delayed the right amount of time, considering the distance....regardless of the silly comments in the comments section. 1,000 feet away, sound takes about one second to reach you, roughly).


Enjoy............................

reply to post by pteridine

What experts are claiming “200 milliseconds”?

Experts in simple arithmetic are claiming less than 200 milliseconds per floor.

Again, I will ask you who are all these experts ? Your comment are nothing but your “opinions.”

Although only red paint was found in the dust sample, it really wouldn't matter what type of thermite was claimed; no thermite acts consistently fast enough to clear a floor as fast as the gravitational collapse.

There you go again making up fallacies that all Jones found in the dust samples was red paint and nothing else. Not only are you being disingenuous you are telling a big fallacy against proven science. Shame on you!

Certainly there were some things exploding in the towersTransformers, fire extinguishers, and sealed containers of all sorts exploded. That does not equate to demolition.

I am glad that you agree there were explosions in the WTC as to your opinion I do not doubt those thing you say did explode, however those thing alone would not be enough energy to bring down all three WTC. What experts on A&E are claiming that there is too much energy, right from the onset?

Your statement about 'fairy tales' and 'outrageous NIST lies' is consistent with your desire for a conspiracy. I don't know what you mean by a 'pseudo NIST report.'

Your statement of the WTC just naturally falling down do to office fires and jet fuel is also consistent with your desire for the OS conspiracy. How does that work for you?

You do not know what “pseudo” means?

Yes NIST is a proven “pseudo” report.
Yes, I stand by my definition “pseudo” like I believe it's possible that you could be a “pseudo” chemist, your arguments are illogical.
The fact is for any anyone to accept your conspiracy one must throw away all logic.

I see you still have ignored my source and I again I will ask you, do you believe all these people are liars?
Your refusal to answer this question will tell me that you believe that they are mostly telling the truth and you will not answer on the grounds their stories do not support the OS and your conspiracy theory in what you want people to believe.

[color=gold]118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...

reply to post by ProudBird


Why do you keep showing vids of fighter jets?

It's already been explained that fighters have a different wing configuration, and they don't create the same amount of lift a passenger plane does. Their lift comes from their higher speed. Passenger planes are slow and heavy thus need a wing that creates more lift at lower speed.

Military planes are deigned to fly at low altitude at high speed, passenger jets are not.

Why do you think the F14 has variable sweep wings?

Wing planform

The wing planform is the silhouette of the wing when viewed from above or below.

See also Variable geometry types which vary the wing planform during flight.
[edit] Aspect ratio
Main article: Aspect ratio (wing)

The aspect ratio is the span divided by the mean or average chord.[5] It is a measure of how long and slender the wing appears when seen from above or below.

Low aspect ratio - short and stubby wing. More efficient structurally, more maneuverable[citation needed] and with less drag at high speeds.[citation needed] They tend to be used by fighter aircraft, such as the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and by very high-speed aircraft (e.g. North American X-15).

Moderate aspect ratio - general-purpose wing (e.g. the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star).

High aspect ratio - long and slender wing. More efficient aerodynamically, having less drag, at low speeds. They tend to be used by high-altitude subsonic aircraft (e.g. the Lockheed U-2), subsonic airliners (e.g. the Bombardier Dash 8) and by high-performance sailplanes (e.g. Glaser-Dirks DG-500).

secure.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by ANOK


IF you would go back and follow the conversation.....the point of those videos (and, notice that they were not all fighters) ..... the point was to use as a reference to another video that showed a Boeing 757 at an Air Show. The 757 high speed flyby was at 350 knots.

Some people couldn't grasp that, or said it didn't "look" like that speed.

Those other videos then were to be used for comparisons, because each of them had a verifiable speed associated with it, for the airplane being featured.

I realize that not everyone has the experience to judge just from one video, so using several helps (hopefully) to let them wrap their minds around the concept, and the comparative appearance.

This thread was, and still is, about the events at the Pentagon. Solely. Assertions that American 77 could not fly as fast as it did, at low altitudes were made. Now, those claims have been refuted. Many times over.

reply to post by ProudBird


So we should bow to ProudBird's wisdom and ignore NASA, Boeing and the FAA.
All documentation, wind tunnel testing, precedent, EAS, aerodynamics are moot.

Okay.

How about i join Pilotsfor911Truth and put the same "facts" on their forum? See what they say?
I'll not be posting by proxy, I'll leave the link here. Or maybe you could drop in and educate these ignernt people?

Yes....he is. Balsamo is. His "highly qualified assemblage" are primarily just names that once in the past signed on to his BS playhouse....but don't actively participate any more. Sadly for them, their names are still being trotted out. Must be embarrassing for them.

That's funny (yes, I check out these things for myself), but Pilotsfor911Truth has had a steady stream of membership over the years ever since they were formed.

Sep 18 2011
Pilots For Truth Welcomes 54 New Core Members!
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Oct 6 2009
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Welcome 15 New Core Members! Here We Grow Again! pilotsfor911truth.org...

Mar 1 2010
Pilots For Truth Welcomes 26 New Core Members!
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Nov 17 2010
Pilots For Truth Continues To Grow - New Core Members Added
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Feb 11 2011
Pilots For Truth Welcomes Twenty New Core Members
pilotsfor911truth.org...

I mean, why do you keep telling fibs?!

reply to post by ProudBird


Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

That's funny (yes, I check out these things for myself), but Pilotsfor911Truth has had a steady stream of membership over the years ever since they were formed.

If there's one thing Truthers have proven in 10 years it's that there are idiots in every profession. No profession is immune to having the politically disenchanted, the senile, the mentally disturbed and just plain stupid people. It occurs randomly in all professions.

If you keep touting how your tree fort gang are so credible we might just have to start posting how most of the bigger names among truthers and well known Internet Sites have BOTH banned and rejected the stupid theories of CIT and the pronouncements from the pfffft group that you're so proud of...

Is there a reason you're not addressing "Operation Accountability". It's been quite a while now for that to produce results, but there's no information that I can find. You're not ashamed of the results are you? After all, winning these Debates that is the topic of this thread ought to be accomplishing something. I'm having a difficult finding something worthwhile that has been accomplished. I know the answer, but your ashamed to talk about it, aren't you.....

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

What experts are claiming “200 milliseconds”?

Experts in simple arithmetic are claiming less than 200 milliseconds per floor.

Again, I will ask you who are all these experts ?

Your comment are nothing but your “opinions.”

Although only red paint was found in the dust sample, it really wouldn't matter what type of thermite was claimed; no thermite acts consistently fast enough to clear a floor as fast as the gravitational collapse.

There you go again making up fallacies that all Jones found in the dust samples was red paint and nothing else. Not only are you being disingenuous you are telling a big fallacy against proven science. Shame on you!

Certainly there were some things exploding in the towersTransformers, fire extinguishers, and sealed containers of all sorts exploded. That does not equate to demolition.

I am glad that you agree there were explosions in the WTC as to your opinion I do not doubt those thing you say did explode, however those thing alone would not be enough energy to bring down all three WTC. What experts on A&E are claiming that there is too much energy, right from the onset?

Your statement about 'fairy tales' and 'outrageous NIST lies' is consistent with your desire for a conspiracy. I don't know what you mean by a 'pseudo NIST report.'

Your statement of the WTC just naturally falling down do to office fires and jet fuel is also consistent with your desire for the OS conspiracy. How does that work for you?

You do not know what “pseudo” means?

Yes NIST is a proven “pseudo” report.
Yes, I stand by my definition “pseudo” like I believe it's possible that you could be a “pseudo” chemist, your arguments are illogical.
The fact is for any anyone to accept your conspiracy one must throw away all logic.

I see you still have ignored my source and I again I will ask you, do you believe all these people are liars?
Your refusal to answer this question will tell me that you believe that they are mostly telling the truth and you will not answer on the grounds their stories do not support the OS and your conspiracy theory in what you want people to believe.

The report was a real report, hence not a 'pseudo' report. The fact that you didn't like it doesn't make it pseudo. As a reference, the authors of the Jones/Harrit paper are excellent examples of 'pseudo chemists.'

I will help you with the advanced math. How many seconds did it take for WTC #1 to collapse? Pick a number that you like. How many floors were between the impact point and the ground? 80? 90? Pick a number that you like. Divide the seconds for collapse by the floors that collapsed and you'll have and average time for the collapse of each floor. No 'experts' needed. You can finally be an expert, too, if you trust your own long division skills.
Steven Jones' methods in his Bentham paper were not up to the standards of the scientific community. He does not understand chemistry very well and his coauthors know little more than he. We have gone over this many times on other threads.
Now you can show that you can actually think for yourself and are more than just a stooge for the truther community. Pick any thermite that you want. Describe where you will place charges so that they are not immediately obvious to the external viewer. You can use as much as you want. Describe how you will time the charges and time their action on the building. Show how your plan will allow each floor to be demolished in the time you calculated.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

That's funny (yes, I check out these things for myself), but Pilotsfor911Truth has had a steady stream of membership over the years ever since they were formed.

If there's one thing Truthers have proven in 10 years it's that there are idiots in every profession. No profession is immune to having the politically disenchanted, the senile, the mentally disturbed and just plain stupid people. It occurs randomly in all professions.

If you keep touting how your tree fort gang are so credible we might just have to start posting how most of the bigger names among truthers and well known Internet Sites have BOTH banned and rejected the stupid theories of CIT and the pronouncements from the pfffft group that you're so proud of...

Is there a reason you're not addressing "Operation Accountability". It's been quite a while now for that to produce results, but there's no information that I can find. You're not ashamed of the results are you? After all, winning these Debates that is the topic of this thread ought to be accomplishing something. I'm having a difficult finding something worthwhile that has been accomplished. I know the answer, but your ashamed to talk about it, aren't you.....

edit on 19-11-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Still not able to produce a response to my post on your ridiculous "NOC debunk" Reheat?

Tell me, did Frank Legge and Warren Stutt ever find a single pilot tp endorse their ridiculous paper?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I have to laugh at your pigeon holing of aviation personnel who have actually identified themselves compared to the JREF "experts" such as yourself and "Beachnut"!

That certain people distanced themselves from solid evidence based on disinformation is irrelevant to me.

Now tell me. Can the OCT aircraft line up with the directional damage from North of Columbia Pike? (Third time asking)

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ANOK

 

IF you would go back and follow the conversation.....the point of those videos (and, notice that they were not all fighters) ..... the point was to use as a reference to another video that showed a Boeing 757 at an Air Show. The 757 high speed flyby was at 350 knots.

Some people couldn't grasp that, or said it didn't "look" like that speed.

Those other videos then were to be used for comparisons, because each of them had a verifiable speed associated with it, for the airplane being featured.

I realize that not everyone has the experience to judge just from one video, so using several helps (hopefully) to let them wrap their minds around the concept, and the comparative appearance.

This thread was, and still is, about the events at the Pentagon. Solely. Assertions that American 77 could not fly as fast as it did, at low altitudes were made. Now, those claims have been refuted. Many times over.

edit on Sat 19 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Wow, ProudBird.

You show a video of a 757 at 350 knots and claim that this proved "Flight 77" could have reached that speed at low altitude. Are you actually serious?

1. The aircraft obviously wouldn't have been carrying the alleged fuel load of "Flight 77" of 82336 kg

flickcabin.com...

Or passengers or luggage. Do we even know if it had seating seeing as how it was due for modification?

Yes or no?

2. That aircraft flew in on a shallow descent (almost level).

Did "Flight 77" according to the NTSB released (alleged) FDR data? Or did it need a rapid, sharp descent and pull up? (Funny enough your video actually shows how it was more likely that a flyover was possible!)

Yes or no?

3. The aircraft is allegedly flying at 350 knots. "Flight 77" was allegedly travelling at 540mph (580mph according to Stutt/Legge), in a descent and pulling gs. That's VMO+150knots.

Funnily enough the aircraft in the video is flying within its limits according to the flight safety envelope you keep denying!



Does it fall within the safety envelope? Yes or no?

Another fail.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


???

You already admitted that you are a layperson when it comes to flying, and aviation. SO, this is utterly wrong, and it seems that you simply made it up:

1. The aircraft obviously wouldn't have been carrying the alleged fuel load of "Flight 77" of 82336 kg

Obviously couldn't carry a "fuel load" of 82,336 kg because that FAR exceeds the capacity!!! Maximum fuel capacity in gallons is 11,490. At about 6.7 lbs/gal, that is about 77,000 pounds (35,000 kg) American 77 was NOT fueled to capacity.

Not only is your assertion that weight would matter to the speed completely off the mark, your statement above fails the comprehension test, based on your own source!

You say the "fuel load" was 82,336 kg?? Nope. The number in the chart you sourced showed the total airplane gross weight --- 181,520 pounds. Converting pounds to kilograms......then the proper answer in metrics is 82,509 kg.

Still...that is total gross weight. A typical Boeing 757 with Rolls Royce engines has an empty operating weight (OEW) of around 128,000 to 129,000 pounds.

That version of the 757 that crashed had a maximum take-off weight of 240,000 pounds. So, at only 181,250 it was no where near maximum. In any case, even at maximum weight, the airplane has a LOT of excess engine power, and is a very good performer. It is a joy to fly, because it is quite nimble.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


LOL...

That's funny (yes, I check out these things for myself), but Pilotsfor911Truth has had a steady stream of membership over the years ever since they were formed.

Rob Balsamo is an "expert" at creating sock user names. He's had perhaps 20 here, (so far)....maybe even more, hard to keep count.

It is most likely he artificially inflates the figures at his pet site....he is the Administrator, and can do whatever he wants.

The real key is to check the actual levels of participation, NOT just the roster numbers.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


You don't read very well do you? Something getting in the way of your comprehension. I have no intention of arguing with you. You have nothing new and this is the same old trite garbage you've been arguing for several years.

That even truthers reject your crap is very telling about what you have to say. I have more important things to do than sit here and argue with an obsessed delusional truther that is rejected by numerous others in the truth cult, particularly on a zombie like issue that makes less sense than a 2 year old trying to play chess.

You obviously wish that I were the only one who needed to answer questions. If you'll look back you'll note that I began by asking a question, which has yet to receive an answer and I know exactly why.

No, in that you are rejected by the fringe of the fringe in the truth cult and you have no traction outside of an Internet Site, there is little value in refuting anything you have to say. Your garbage has been crushed numerous times (ALL OF IT) over the years and there is little danger that it will gain traction anywhere else. As I said I have better things to do with my time. No one needs to further refute anything you have to say. That has already happened numerous times as you have defeated yourself with nonsense....

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Oh, gawd! Not this old canard again!!!

Every so often it gets dusted off and trotted out. I mean, really?? Maybe you might reconsider hanging around the "PfT" so much, and believing every ridiculous claim they throw out. Try meeting some real airline pilots, and get a chance to learn some facts. They are also going to be better company.

Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard was just a woman who answers the phone, and answers questions! as a public relations service of the Boeing Co.

She is NOT an engineer, nor is she a pilot! You can hear it plainly in the recording.....she's obviously scanning through books and documentation to try to find the answer. She knows about as much about flying as you do, it seems.

And, the Canadian on the phone, asking the questions? (And, leading questions at that!!)..... The whole event was a set-up, and then used for the purposes of Rob Balsamo and his propaganda. The man on the phone sounds very much like Rob's (former) good friend. That friend has an account here at ATS. They are no longer friends.

Also, when you check the YouTube account of the video you posted?? The user name is "johndoeXLC". That is Rob Balsamo's account on YT.

The 13 NoC witnesses prove an inside job.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

2. That aircraft flew in on a shallow descent (almost level).

Did "Flight 77" according to the NTSB released (alleged) FDR data? Or did it need a rapid, sharp descent and pull up? (Funny enough your video actually shows how it was more likely that a flyover was possible!)

A "shallow descent"? Yes, and so did American 77. The descent is shown clearly in the FDR information.

Not "sharp" or "rapid".

And, well......sure. The Pentagon is not a tall building, and one certainly could aim at it Kamikaze-style and then pull up to miss it. Similar also to the way some dive-bombers make their runs.

But, obviously that did NOT happen.

Look at the map. Look at the city the jet would have flown over IF it had merely overflown the top of the Pentagon. Yet, not one person saw it. Nobody.

But, even more important.....it is NOT on the radar recordings from the Tracon, nor the 84 RADES.

And of course, well......DNA, personal effects, 757 wreckage....eyewitnesses who saw it hit, etc.

WHY is this fantasy still getting any traction?????

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Funnily enough the aircraft in the video is flying within its limits according to the flight safety envelope you keep denying!

You posted that crap from Balsamo, again?!?

It was a freaking Air Show!! They can get temporary authorization to "break the rules" about maximum speeds below certain altitudes, and in certain types of airspace. This is normal and typical for Air Shows.

But, they don'tn exceed the normal airplane limits!!

I am sorry, but this is like poking needles into my eyes, trying to explain what every professional pilot already knows to someone who has allowed themselves to be seduced by the garbage spewing from the "PfT"!!

And, for the umpteenth time.....The "Vg Diagram" is fake! It is completely fraudulent, especially when he added all that text to make it look as if it's an "official" Boeing publication. In fact, perhaps someone should contact Boeing and let them know?? They might get their lawyers involved.

Hey! That's a splendid idea! (Oh, and be sure to send them over to "PfT"....they can probably use a good hearty laugh!)


Here....from "beachnut", it is one of the best descriptions of the sham, and lies and delusional practices that make "PfT" what it is today:

Vg diagram for a T-38, how would we fake it using a T-37 diagram? Someone needs to explain to Balsamo you can't fake a Vg diagram for an aircraft just adding numbers to another Vg diagram.
i286.photobucket.com...


Balsamo makes up his diagram. He takes numbers from one aircraft and insert them in a generic Vg diagram. TiffanyInLa/Balsamo took a Vg diagram like this. Exactly like this one.
i286.photobucket.com...


Arbitrarily added speeds from a 767 to make it a fake 767 Vg diagram. Balsamo explains this is what he did and then claims 990 broke up in-flight, which is a lie which dovetails with the fake Vg diagram.

i286.photobucket.com...


Balsamo, posing as a girl sock at ATS and other forums, took a Vg diagram and inserted Vspeeds for a 767. Making up evidence to support his delusions, hiding behind a sock.

(edit): Source link

Absolutely, positively spot-on. Every word of it.

(The "990" reference up above is to Egypt Air 990. That was a suicide crash as well. Balsamo has constantly mis-stated the facts regarding that event, in order to pimp his delusions about 9/11).