PDA

View Full Version : On 9/11 US General says No Plane Hit the Pentagon



KnowledgeSeeker
11-11-2009, 10:54 PM
W4JjlFWGRFc

Will.i_am
11-11-2009, 11:03 PM
George Bush didn't blow up the WTC.

U mad?

KnowledgeSeeker
11-11-2009, 11:06 PM
George Bush didn't blow up the WTC.

U mad?

Muslims or George Bush didn't blow up the WTC.

U mad?

AmericaHardcore
11-11-2009, 11:27 PM
Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.

ghost 009
11-11-2009, 11:29 PM
This is how a 9/11 debate would go in real life.

56gGVh87nLs

ghost 009
11-11-2009, 11:44 PM
Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.


Keep beating the dead horse pussies. No planes hit the world trade centers, the Jews blew up wtc7, no plane also hit the Pentagon, no plane also hit Shanksvile, my dick in your ass phaggots.



phaggots

http://screamingape.groupsite.com/uploads/galleries/x/000/006/d45/no_dude.jpg


My dick in your ass phaggots. You see something new everyday. Holy ****. This is a classic. ROFL

ghost 009
11-11-2009, 11:58 PM
My dick in you're ass phaggots.


Oh by the way

http://current.com/items/88263971_ex-italian-prime-minister-9-11-carried-out-by-cia-and-mossad.htm

Ex-Italian Prime Minister - '9/11 Carried Out By CIA and Mossad' http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembr... I've linked directly to the story as reported by Corriere della Sera, a widely read Italian newspaper. The comments were published on November 30th.

Francesco Cossiga was prime minister of Italy from 1985 - 1992 and during that time he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio; a secret "stay behind" operation carried out by NATO in Italy after WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio

I can only use google translate to get a bare bones translation of Cossigas comments. He is referring to an Osama Bin Laden video tape. The translation is as follows:

"From neighboring environments in Palazzo Chigi, nerve center of Italian intelligence direction, it points out that non-authenticity of the video is evidenced by the fact that Osama Bin Laden in it 'confesses' that Al Qaeda was the author of the assassination 11 September at two towers in New York, while all environments Democrats of America and Europe, with those at the forefront of Italian center, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and carried out by the American CIA and the Mossad with the help of the Zionist world order accused the Arab countries and to induce the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and in Afghanistan."






Its the same thing in every thread on the entire internet. People denying the massive supernova amount of evidence right in front of them.

nutsy54
11-12-2009, 04:03 AM
That video has been debunked endless times. Funny that you guys are always willing to highlight and quote former military personnel - but only the fringe guy who supports your agenda, and never an eyewitness. Of course, he also believes that people have the ability to walk through walls...

jimbob007
11-12-2009, 04:28 AM
No bullet hit JFK either, nor did Diana's car crash- in fact all these people are now living in luxury on a desert island created by the NWO.

jimbob007
11-12-2009, 04:30 AM
As I remember it that thread was already debunked about a month ago.



My dick in you're ass phaggots.


Oh by the way

http://current.com/items/88263971_ex-italian-prime-minister-9-11-carried-out-by-cia-and-mossad.htm

Ex-Italian Prime Minister - '9/11 Carried Out By CIA and Mossad' http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembr... I've linked directly to the story as reported by Corriere della Sera, a widely read Italian newspaper. The comments were published on November 30th.

Francesco Cossiga was prime minister of Italy from 1985 - 1992 and during that time he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio; a secret "stay behind" operation carried out by NATO in Italy after WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio

I can only use google translate to get a bare bones translation of Cossigas comments. He is referring to an Osama Bin Laden video tape. The translation is as follows:

"From neighboring environments in Palazzo Chigi, nerve center of Italian intelligence direction, it points out that non-authenticity of the video is evidenced by the fact that Osama Bin Laden in it 'confesses' that Al Qaeda was the author of the assassination 11 September at two towers in New York, while all environments Democrats of America and Europe, with those at the forefront of Italian center, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and carried out by the American CIA and the Mossad with the help of the Zionist world order accused the Arab countries and to induce the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and in Afghanistan."






Its the same thing in every thread on the entire internet. People denying the massive supernova amount of evidence right in front of them.

BlueBayou
11-12-2009, 05:09 AM
Flight 77 didnt crash into teh penatgon!

It was diverted out to area 51 where the passengers were kidnapped and used for human experramints. A crews missile was crashed into dat der penagon instead.

That makes a hella lotta cents duzent it!?









...

Now for reality













My thread on Flight 77:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=718606

Flight 77 was a real flight with real people that was hijacked and intentionally crashed.

Flight 77 without a doubt crashed into the Pentagon.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the plane as or just before it crashed into the Pentagon. There are major highways all around the Pentagon with heavy traffic. On the very side it hit, the traffic on highway 27/Washington Blvd was stop and go and slow crawl at the time the plane crashed into the building and many people saw it directly from this location, both coming at their direction, and then crashing into the bldg. This is very close to where the airplane came into the bldg.

Many people from various agencies were involved in the aftermath, recovery, identification, and investigation of flight 77's crash into the Pentagon.

The evidence is conclusive to anyone who takes a serious look at the bulk of it. Those who push the idea that Flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon are doing far more harm than good, some unkowingly and some intentionally.

I do not believe many parts of the official story of 9/11 - however this false and easily disprovable theory is not part of the crime.

LifeByTheHorns
11-12-2009, 05:42 AM
George Bush shot down the WTC with missiles.

a_ahmed
11-12-2009, 05:45 AM
The only ones still defending 911/pentagon being done by EEEVILLLL MOZZZLEEMZ FFOM A AA OOOOAAOOOOOAAAAAOAAA CAAAAAAAAAAAAVEEE BRRRRRRRRRRRR


Are the same idiots still supporting the american mad men raging about imperialism in the middle east... not to mention especially those very islamophobes who say things like turn the desert into a glass jar etc...

Fake bin laden videos, media orchestration etc... is for gullible people.

Theres plenty people on the rise waking up.

If you look at all the pentagon footage, pictures etc.. theres no damn plane..... it was a missle most likely and that is it.

If the government is soooooo truthful they wouldnt have stolen all the camera footage around the area... and to this day not disclosed it


.... THREE FRAMES or even less whatever it was from that 'high quality' video shows nothing either.

Fools

haulingboat
11-12-2009, 06:33 AM
I have to admit, its worth asking questions. The damage to the building does not indicate an airplane strike.

How do the airplane wings disinegrate on the outer edge of the building yet the nose cone of the plane penetrated numerous layers leaving a perfect circle in the stone wall?

The offical story defies logic.

jimbob007
11-12-2009, 06:37 AM
Buy this book & this & several other conspiracy theories will be explained-


http://books.scoop.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/david-aaronovitch-192x300.jpg



I have to admit, its worth asking questions. The damage to the building does not indicate an airplane strike.

How do the airplane wings disinegrate on the outer edge of the building yet the nose cone of the plane penetrated numerous layers leaving a perfect circle in the stone wall?

The offical story defies logic.

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 07:06 AM
I have to admit, its worth asking questions. The damage to the building does not indicate an airplane strike.

How do the airplane wings disinegrate on the outer edge of the building yet the nose cone of the plane penetrated numerous layers leaving a perfect circle in the stone wall?

The offical story defies logic.

Sorry bro, doesn't matter how justified your questions may seem. Questioning the federal government is conspiracy theory, regardless of any credentials you may have. It also doesn't matter that what you're saying is not conspiracy theory. You're still a conspiracy theorist:


Buy this book & this & several other conspiracy theories will be explained-


http://books.scoop.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/david-aaronovitch-192x300.jpg

a_ahmed
11-12-2009, 07:24 AM
Sorry bro, doesn't matter how justified your questions may seem. Questioning the federal government is conspiracy theory, regardless of any credentials you may have. It also doesn't matter that what you're saying is not conspiracy theory. You're still a conspiracy theorist:

WOW, strong nazi/fascism in US.

Just like bush/hitler

6K5M0xtxQVQ


Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the attacks of September 11...
Because if nobody questions us then we will get away with murdering 3000 Americans in order to go on our Mideast oil Crusade - Yeah I said it!

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 10:43 AM
WOW, strong nazi/fascism in US.

I don't know about fascism, people just defend their paradigms. They like the idea of having a government looking out for them, it makes them feel safe. Especially when they're made to believe there are evil bogeymen around the world hell-bent on killing them at any cost.

So people have become comfortable with labeling anything that threatens their all-important paradigm as conspiracy theory. As you can see in my sig, its gotten fairly ridiculous. Austrian economics is conspiracy theory guise.

And the greatest irony here is that the government's explanation for 9/11 is conspiracy theory by definition, but no one has a problem with that.

IraHays
11-12-2009, 10:46 AM
Good lord.

Hell, even 90% of CT peeps now agree a plane hit the Pentagon.

dbx
11-12-2009, 10:53 AM
LOFL! I can't believe half the people in this thread even tried to defend that! :D :D :D

a_ahmed
11-12-2009, 11:00 AM
Good lord.

Hell, even 90% of CT peeps now agree a plane hit the Pentagon.

I agree (sarcasm) because we all know 80% of statistics are credible while 19% are questionable and 1% dubious.

.... wut?

Roke
11-12-2009, 11:04 AM
That video has been debunked endless times.

After the CIA and mossad paid this guy a visit?

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 11:05 AM
You are a moran. There are a large number of people that saw the damn plane, including my aunt. I'm pretty sure she's not a lizardman alien Jew nwo plant.

Honestly, I'm sick of your posts. Last night you make a post defending an Imam that called the Ft Hood shooter a "hero", and now a post that's even more out there than 90% of the 9/11 CTs I've seen?

I'm not sure if you have a drug problem or something, but it seems like you have a very weak grasp on reality.


The only ones still defending 911/pentagon being done by EEEVILLLL MOZZZLEEMZ FFOM A AA OOOOAAOOOOOAAAAAOAAA CAAAAAAAAAAAAVEEE BRRRRRRRRRRRR


Are the same idiots still supporting the american mad men raging about imperialism in the middle east... not to mention especially those very islamophobes who say things like turn the desert into a glass jar etc...

Fake bin laden videos, media orchestration etc... is for gullible people.

Theres plenty people on the rise waking up.

If you look at all the pentagon footage, pictures etc.. theres no damn plane..... it was a missle most likely and that is it.

If the government is soooooo truthful they wouldnt have stolen all the camera footage around the area... and to this day not disclosed it


.... THREE FRAMES or even less whatever it was from that 'high quality' video shows nothing either.

Fools

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I have to admit, its worth asking questions. The damage to the building does not indicate an airplane strike.

How do the airplane wings disinegrate on the outer edge of the building yet the nose cone of the plane penetrated numerous layers leaving a perfect circle in the stone wall?

The offical story defies logic.


Why would they fly real planes into the WTC, and then fly a missile into the pentagon claiming it was a plane? Did they just buy off/plant all the people that saw it? What happened to the plane that took off but never landed?

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 11:12 AM
You are a moran. There are a large number of people that saw the damn plane, including my aunt. I'm pretty sure she's not a lizardman alien Jew nwo plant.

There is plenty of conflicting eye witness testimoney regarding the pentagon. People just choose to believe what suits them and disregard everything else out of hand.

a_ahmed
11-12-2009, 11:13 AM
You are a moran. There are a large number of people that saw the damn plane, including my aunt. I'm pretty sure she's not a lizardman alien Jew nwo plant.

Honestly, I'm sick of your posts. Last night you make a post defending an Imam that called the Ft Hood shooter a "hero", and now a post that's even more out there than 90% of the 9/11 CTs I've seen?

I'm not sure if you have a drug problem or something, but it seems like you have a very weak grasp on reality.

Bull****. No one witnessed the plane hitting pentagon and all surveillance cameras were confiscated.

Roke
11-12-2009, 11:17 AM
Why would they fly real planes into the WTC, and then fly a missile into the pentagon claiming it was a plane? Did they just buy off/plant all the people that saw it? What happened to the plane that took off but never landed?

Because a missile is easier to pull off than a plane. Who knows what valuable data was destroyed by the bombing. A day before 9/11 1 trillion was reported missing from the federal treasurey, maybe some key information on that disappearance was destroyed in that attack.

IraHays
11-12-2009, 11:23 AM
Because a missile is easier to pull off than a plane. Who knows what valuable data was destroyed by the bombing. A day before 9/11 1 trillion was reported missing from the federal treasurey, maybe some key information on that disappearance was destroyed in that attack.


ya man. A special missle that zig-zagged, knocking down light poles and hitting a generator before striking the building. Is this the "magic missle theory"?

IraHays
11-12-2009, 11:24 AM
Bull****. No one witnessed the plane hitting pentagon



Congrats, you are the closest I've come to putting someone on ignore. You're ridiculous. If you're just a troll, I applaud you, well done.

ilikebeer
11-12-2009, 11:26 AM
you mean there are still people that think a plane hit the pentagon? lol ignorant ****s.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 11:28 AM
Bull****. No one witnessed the plane hitting pentagon and all surveillance cameras were confiscated.

You are now on ignore.

I think you're only the second person I've had to ignore, but this is just crazy. You have obviously never even bothered with looking at any evidence. Maybe to support your born-again Muslim pro-terrorist ideaology?

I don't know, but in the past week ive seen you support ****philia (because your god figure did it), support a guy that called the Ft Hood shooter a "hero", and now you make this statement? Go and find every eyewitness account and discredit please.

I won't see it, but if it's reasonable I'm sure someone will quoe it.

dbx
11-12-2009, 11:32 AM
Why would they fly real planes into the WTC, and then fly a missile into the pentagon claiming it was a plane? Did they just buy off/plant all the people that saw it? What happened to the plane that took off but never landed?

Why would you waste your own time arguing this silly ass $hit?


Bull****. No one witnessed the plane hitting pentagon and all surveillance cameras were confiscated.

Um...no, you'd be totally wrong. I apologize for not having the time or inlicnation to provide you with video footage that was played and replayed endlessly regarding this matter, and will simply apologize to you on behalf of the Pentagon for not having higher speed rated cameras to show the entire aircraft while bursting into flames when striking said building.

Seriously, how f'cking retarded are you people? :confused: :eek:

a_ahmed
11-12-2009, 11:32 AM
LOL! the truth comes out.

We the evil mozlems are at fault of course!

And sorry but no one witnessed the pentagon plane hitting they HEARD something, those who claim they saw it lied/were government stooges. This has already been covered.

a_ahmed
11-12-2009, 11:33 AM
Why would you waste your own time arguing this silly ass $hit?



Um...no, you'd be totally wrong. I apologize for not having the time or inlicnation to provide you with video footage that was played and replayed endlessly regarding this matter, and will simply apologize to you on behalf of the Pentagon for not having higher speed rated cameras to show the entire aircraft while bursting into flames when striking said building.

Seriously, how f'cking retarded are you people? :confused: :eek:

LOL plz post that video i beg you.

3 frames a minute ey? That's not video, thats bs pictures in fast motion.

AMAZING that the most secured location on the planet supposedly cant afford better video surveillance. Hardcore bs.

And that is why fbi agents had to confiscate video camera tapes from non pentagon locations. hmm

IraHays
11-12-2009, 11:34 AM
LOL! the truth comes out.

We the evil mozlems are at fault of course!

And sorry but no one witnessed the pentagon plane hitting they HEARD something, those who claim they saw it lied/were government stooges. This has already been covered.


Are you like 12 years old or something? Serious.

bradlehman
11-12-2009, 11:35 AM
Because a missile is easier to pull off than a plane. Who knows what valuable data was destroyed by the bombing. A day before 9/11 1 trillion was reported missing from the federal treasurey, maybe some key information on that disappearance was destroyed in that attack.

You think the U.S. Treasury has $1 trillion just lying around? Do you even think about these things before you start stating them as fact? Dare I ask for your source?

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 11:37 AM
LOL plz post that video i beg you.

3 frames a minute ey? That's not video, thats bs pictures in fast motion.

AMAZING that the most secured location on the planet supposedly cant afford better video surveillance. Hardcore bs.

And that is why fbi agents had to confiscate video camera tapes from non pentagon locations. hmm

Security cameras don't record in real time the way I think you're thinking of. It is possible there were framed edited out but we'll never know since the CIA refuses to release any more footage.

And that is the issue. This is like 1/100000 of the footage they have stored, and it doesn't prove anything either way. It is just some red meat to placate people who are determined to believe the government on this no matter what.

dbx
11-12-2009, 11:40 AM
LOL plz post that video i beg you.

3 frames a minute ey? That's not video, thats bs pictures in fast motion.

I now realize that you're serious :(


Security cameras don't record in real time the way I think you're thinking of. It is possible there were framed edited out but we'll never know since the CIA refuses to release any more footage.

And that is the issue. This is like 1/100000 of the footage they have stored, and it doesn't prove anything either way. It is just some red meat to placate people who are determined to believe the government on this no matter what.

And...I now realize that you're serious. I think I have obviously misjudged many here :o

Gentlemen, please.....gather your senses. Jesus H..............

Turco
11-12-2009, 12:06 PM
The translation is as follows:

"From neighboring environments in Palazzo Chigi, nerve center of Italian intelligence direction, it points out that non-authenticity of the video is evidenced by the fact that Osama Bin Laden in it 'confesses' that Al Qaeda was the author of the assassination 11 September at two towers in New York, while all environments Democrats of America and Europe, with those at the forefront of Italian center, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and carried out by the American CIA and the Mossad with the help of the Zionist world order accused the Arab countries and to induce the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and in Afghanistan."

Looks like bird works for Google translation.

Galvatorex
11-12-2009, 12:12 PM
you mean there are still people that think a plane hit the pentagon? lol ignorant ****s.

i know right, morons

Seife
11-12-2009, 12:36 PM
Why would they fly real planes into the WTC, and then fly a missile into the pentagon claiming it was a plane? Did they just buy off/plant all the people that saw it? What happened to the plane that took off but never landed?

The guy in the video asserts that no plane hit the pentagon. Because of your inability to produce evidence to show that indeed a plane hit the pentagon, you proceed to ask rhetorical (?) questions in order to undermine his assertions anyway.

Those questions may reassure you, but no matter how satisfying the answers to those questions might turn out in your mind, there is still a lot of data and evidence which suggests that no plane hit the pentagon.

Now watch out, I am not saying that no plane hit the pentagon. I am just saying that it is a possibility which could be true. But we all know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist also (although we don't have evidence for it - yet).

So let's stick to the evidence and data at hand: if you really want to know what hit the pentagon, why not watch more video footage:


Today, Velasquez still trembles when he talks about the incident that has forever changed the military, government, and technology polyglot that is Northern Virginia. "Even today," said Velasquez, "people who come here tell me they are frightened to come to work. You can see it in their eyes."

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

Maybe watching some of the video footage taken on 911 will give some clues, maybe it won't. Is it a valid question to ask:

"If the FBI has nothing to hide, why won't they publish those videos - especially in regard to the FOIA?"


To conclude:

It is his opinion that no plane hit the pentagon.

It is your opinion that a plane hit the pentagon.

You just have a difference of opinion, what's the big deal? If you want to convince somebody, present evidence for your opinion and maybe you will convince somebody. It is just the absence of this very evidence which makes a lot of people come to different conclusions than yours.

IraHays
11-12-2009, 12:45 PM
To conclude:

It is his opinion that no plane hit the pentagon.

It is your opinion that a plane hit the pentagon.

You just have a difference of opinion, what's the big deal? If you want to convince somebody, present evidence for your opinion and maybe you will convince somebody. It is just the absence of this very evidence which makes a lot of people come to different conclusions than yours.


The difference is there is a mountain of evidence, like plane parts, bodies, eye witness, to support a plane hit the Pentagon.

the only way to ignore is to say sh*t like "they planted 800 pounds of landing gear within minutes after the missel hit".

It's like you will find any reason to disagree with ANY part of the official story. It really rubs people the wrong way.

Will.i_am
11-12-2009, 01:00 PM
The guy in the video asserts that no plane hit the pentagon. Because of your inability to produce evidence to show that indeed a plane hit the pentagon, you proceed to ask rhetorical (?) questions in order to undermine his assertions anyway.

Those questions may reassure you, but no matter how satisfying the answers to those questions might turn out in your mind, there is still a lot of data and evidence which suggests that no plane hit the pentagon.

Now watch out, I am not saying that no plane hit the pentagon. I am just saying that it is a possibility which could be true. But we all know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist also (although we don't have evidence for it - yet).

So let's stick to the evidence and data at hand: if you really want to know what hit the pentagon, why not watch more video footage:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

Maybe watching some of the video footage taken on 911 will give some clues, maybe it won't. Is it a valid question to ask:

"If the FBI has nothing to hide, why won't they publish those videos - especially in regard to the FOIA?"


To conclude:

It is his opinion that no plane hit the pentagon.

It is your opinion that a plane hit the pentagon.

You just have a difference of opinion, what's the big deal? If you want to convince somebody, present evidence for your opinion and maybe you will convince somebody. It is just the absence of this very evidence which makes a lot of people come to different conclusions than yours.
Wrong conclusion.

Correct conclusion:
Grok says a plane hit the pentagon.
The guy in the video is crazy.

Seife
11-12-2009, 01:05 PM
The difference is there is a mountain of evidence, like plane parts, bodies, eye witness, to support a plane hit the Pentagon.

I guess we have to disagree on that "evidence". Also, why do you cite eye witnesses? There are 118 witnesses in New York on record who heard explosions, yet you choose to ignore them. And now you choose to believe those witnesses here ?

In Shanksville, it is totally acceptable for that plane to just have vanished (sorry, I am lumping you together with pure OT'ers for now). At the Pentagon, it more or less vanished as well, but only after it was able to do that:


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RnRejIPRpAY/SlJKpou9wDI/AAAAAAAAF_E/qCfsC8WNNnY/s400/pentagon9-11.jpg

http://www.physics911.net/images/exit3.jpeg

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/attachments/month_0909/911-pentagon-hole-l_lV3FmKIITbkJ.jpg


I know, to you that is not evidence that no ordinary plane may have hit the pentagon, I understand that.

I just interpret the evidence in a way that I am not convinced that the official story must be true.


More argumentation can be found here:

http://www.physics911.net/omholt

IraHays
11-12-2009, 01:11 PM
There are 118 witnesses in New York on record who heard explosions, yet you choose to ignore them. And now you choose to believe those witnesses here ?

Bullsh*t. I have never said once that those people did not hear explosions. I questioned what caused the noises. And everytime I asked how come no explosions were heard when the buildings actually collasped I get no response.

And seriously, you don't see a diffence between "I heard what sounded like explosions" and "I saw (with my own eyes) a 757 slam into the side of the Pentagon"?




In Shanksville, it is totally acceptable for that plane to just have vanished (sorry, I am lumping you together with pure OT'ers for now). At the Pentagon, it more or less vanished as well, but only after it was able to do that:

Not reall relevant to this discussion, but for the record, I have said that it would not surprise me if that flight was shot down.




I know, to you that is not evidence that no ordinary plane may have hit the pentagon, I understand that.



There was evidence of the plane, they identified the bodies and found plane parts. Where did they come from? Planted by the rescue workers? The hole you are showing in your pictures was caused by the front landing gear ripping through the building at 500 mph. If it wasn't the landing gear, what kind of munition makes a giant hole at the impact site and then make a smaller hole through the rest of the building??????

Will.i_am
11-12-2009, 01:14 PM
I guess we have to disagree on that "evidence". Also, why do you cite eye witnesses? There are 118 witnesses in New York on record who heard explosions, yet you choose to ignore them. And now you choose to believe those witnesses here ?


Who ever said there weren't explosions? lol

Seife
11-12-2009, 01:35 PM
Who ever said there weren't explosions? lol

NIST did. That is your friendly government agency which was charged to examine the events of 911. And because of that, they argued that they didn't have to look for explosive residue and could rule out controlled demolition in general. Unignited explosives were of course found by other scientists, but that evidence is ignored.

Don't you know that?

Source: top left video:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html


Bullsh*t. I have never said once that those people did not hear explosions. I questioned what caused the noises. And everytime I asked how come no explosions were heard when the buildings actually collasped I get no response.

Okay.


Not reall relevant to this discussion, but for the record, I have said that it would not surprise me if that flight was shot down.

Of course, I remember. That's why I said that I would lump you together with pure OT'ers. Sorry for that :)


The hole you are showing in your pictures was caused by the front landing gear ripping through the building at 500 mph. If it wasn't the landing gear, what kind of munition makes a giant hole at the impact site and then make a smaller hole through the rest of the building??????

So, if the landing gear can produce a hole like that, why can't the engines do stuff like that? Instead of just vanishing I mean.

They are pretty big and pretty hard to destroy. I would think that if they hit a building at a very high speed that they would also be able to create a nice hole. Also, they would get dented pretty badly I imagine. But vanish?

http://www.libertyforlife.com/images/911/757engine-s.JPG

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 02:17 PM
Bullsh*t. I have never said once that those people did not hear explosions. I questioned what caused the noises. And everytime I asked how come no explosions were heard when the buildings actually collasped I get no response.

There are quite a few quotes of eye witnesses hearing explosions during or just before the collapse. One of the first responders said something like 'it sounded like a machine gun, boom boom boom boom boom, and then the building came down'.


And seriously, you don't see a diffence between "I heard what sounded like explosions" and "I saw (with my own eyes) a 757 slam into the side of the Pentagon"?

Can you source this? I've never seen someone say they saw the plane actually go into the pentagon. What I've seen is people saying they saw a plane flying in the area of the pentagon. Sometimes they say it was flying east to west, sometimes west to east, somethings northeast to southwest, etc.

And the descriptions of the plane vary greatly.

Its the same with the testimoney for the shanksville crash as well.

jimbob007
11-12-2009, 02:39 PM
What a shocker, you will find in any situation that multiple people observe, those people will come out with different versions- let alone something as tragic & colossal as that day.



There is plenty of conflicting eye witness testimoney regarding the pentagon. People just choose to believe what suits them and disregard everything else out of hand.

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 03:04 PM
What a shocker, you will find in any situation that multiple people observe, those people will come out with different versions- let alone something as tragic & colossal as that day.

Yep. But not a single one of them saw a plane go into the pentagon. If you read all of the testimoney there's only one witness that even supports the official story, and that witness is the only one that exists according to the government. Kinda funny how that works.

badreligion
11-12-2009, 03:18 PM
The only ones still defending 911/pentagon being done by EEEVILLLL MOZZZLEEMZ FFOM A AA OOOOAAOOOOOAAAAAOAAA CAAAAAAAAAAAAVEEE BRRRRRRRRRRRR


Are the same idiots still supporting the american mad men raging about imperialism in the middle east... not to mention especially those very islamophobes who say things like turn the desert into a glass jar etc...

Fake bin laden videos, media orchestration etc... is for gullible people.

Theres plenty people on the rise waking up.

If you look at all the pentagon footage, pictures etc.. theres no damn plane..... it was a missle most likely and that is it.

If the government is soooooo truthful they wouldnt have stolen all the camera footage around the area... and to this day not disclosed it


.... THREE FRAMES or even less whatever it was from that 'high quality' video shows nothing either.

Fools

You know for someone who claims that people in America are brainwashed by the mainstream media you do tend to spew talking points that a person would hear from a radical muslim , strong hypocrite.

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 03:28 PM
You know for someone who claims that people in America are brainwashed by the mainstream media you do tend to spew talking points that a person would hear from a radical muslim , strong hypocrite.

Which comments specifically were 'radical muslim' talking points?

badreligion
11-12-2009, 03:31 PM
Which comments specifically were 'radical muslim' talking points?

Most of his anti America talk but I also am refering to a thread that him and I posted in earlier today .

jimbob007
11-12-2009, 03:43 PM
Yes I guess we should just ignore these guys- James Ryan said he identified the AA logo on the tail & that it was low enough for him to see the windows & that it was a silver AA plane. Steve Riskus said that he clearly saw the AA logo with the eagle in the middle & a pilot Donald Timmerman, who lived in an apartment on the 16th floor of a building overlooking the Pentagon had an excellent view & said it was a 757 AA plane.

Also I guess we shoud ignore Afework Hagos, Penny Elgas, Ann Owens, Albert Hemphill & David Marra who reported seeing this non existent plane see sawing back & forth, as the pilot struggled for control.

We should also I suppose ignore the DNA of the pasengers of the plane that did not hit the Pentagon that was found at the scene. No doubt all these people are lying, or are govenment agents, satanic super soldiers, nwo warriors or whatever else those desperate to believe every conspiracy theory going wish to put forward.



Yep. But not a single one of them saw a plane go into the pentagon. If you read all of the testimoney there's only one witness that even supports the official story, and that witness is the only one that exists according to the government. Kinda funny how that works.

Seife
11-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Also I guess we shoud ignore Afework Hagos, Penny Elgas, Ann Owens, Albert Hemphill & David Marra who reported seeing this non existent plane see sawing back & forth, as the pilot struggled for control.

I guess you also believe that a cavemen terrorist who has trouble flying a Cessna can land a 757 precisely in a building without hitting the ground first and while fighting of other pilots and passengers with a boxcutter.

Of course there are lots and lots and lots of people who support the official story. But that doesn't necessarily make it true or any more likely.

There are also lots of pilots in http://pilotsfor911truth.org who say an amateur pilot-terrorist couldn't have done it:

DzR-q0ijbV0

So the experts are somewhat split. Maybe check the reliable evidence yourself and don't listen to other people?

ilikebeer
11-12-2009, 04:22 PM
NIST did. That is your friendly government agency which was charged to examine the events of 911. And because of that, they argued that they didn't have to look for explosive residue and could rule out controlled demolition in general. Unignited explosives were of course found by other scientists, but that evidence is ignored.

Don't you know that?

Source: top left video:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html



Okay.



Of course, I remember. That's why I said that I would lump you together with pure OT'ers. Sorry for that :)



So, if the landing gear can produce a hole like that, why can't the engines do stuff like that? Instead of just vanishing I mean.

They are pretty big and pretty hard to destroy. I would think that if they hit a building at a very high speed that they would also be able to create a nice hole. Also, they would get dented pretty badly I imagine. But vanish?

http://www.libertyforlife.com/images/911/757engine-s.JPG




bump. thousand pound engines going 500mph through the air cant harm windows or concrete... (note sarcasm)

9/11 was an inside job

dbx
11-12-2009, 04:40 PM
I guess you also believe that a cavemen terrorist who has trouble flying a Cessna can land a 757 precisely in a building without hitting the ground first and while fighting of other pilots and passengers with a boxcutter.

Of course there are lots and lots and lots of people who support the official story. But that doesn't necessarily make it true or any more likely.

There are also lots of pilots in http://pilotsfor911truth.org who say an amateur pilot-terrorist couldn't have done it:

I've got to at least share this with you; any a$$hole can fly a commercial jet. How do I know? I've flown a regional jet...in a simulator. My first time...I hit too hard while landing at JFK airport and crashed... but barely. Yes, I worked for an airline for 14yrs and knew several flight instructors, of which a couple invited me to use the simulators when they were available. All I needed was a pilot sitting next to me and telling me easy steps to taxi out, take off...and cruising after that is a piece of f'cking cake. Find a single pilot who would tell me I'm full of $hit. Yeah, I screwed up the landing because I was at too steep an angle...but it was my first time! I "flew around NY" like I'd done it a hundred times. These guys took lessons, dude! And the aircraft were already airborne...and they didn't exactly have to have 3pt landings, eh?

At the very least, cross this BS off you conspiracy list. A monkey could fly a commercial jet after it's airborne, including maneuvering and changing course. Man, you have no idea how silly you guys come off....... It's embarrassing. Seriously.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 05:04 PM
Actually, turbine engines will completely obliterate themselves pretty easily.

The walls are fairly thing, they have an obscene amount of fuel running into them, and the orbital parts are moving very, very quickly. The turbine shaft is fairly fragile. If it's knocked off balance, or broken, the turbine itself will disintegrate almost instantly, and a huge fire will result, easily enough to destroy the housing of the engine.

Seife
11-12-2009, 05:06 PM
I've got to at least share this with you; any a$$hole can fly a commercial jet. (...)
At the very least, cross this BS off you conspiracy list. A monkey could fly a commercial jet after it's airborne, including maneuvering and changing course. Man, you have no idea how silly you guys come off....... It's embarrassing. Seriously.

That's my point.

OT'er will say that flying a commercial airliner is very easy.

Skeptics will say that flying a commercial airliner is very hard.

What's the truth? I can't tell.

But I can use my common sense on the other evidence which is hopefully more decisive.

So, where is the plane again?


http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/pentagon/pentagonxox3.jpg

http://911review.org/_webimages/a18-DSC_0430-1.JPG

http://911review.org/_webimages/b06-DSC_0461-1.JPG


Is this evidence that there was no plane? No.

Is this evidence that there was a plane? No.

Is it reasonable to say that there may have been no plane? You decide.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 05:10 PM
ilikebeer, tossed you on my ignore list also. Dunno why you negged me for putting a ****phile and terrorist supporter on ignore, but I assume you're also down with sex with little children, and think the Ft Hood shooter was a hero, in which case I have no interest in reading your posts.

Won't be able to see anymore of them, so don't both replying.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 05:12 PM
If it wasn't, where did the bodies and plane bits come from?

If it was a missile, how did it leave a plane-sized hole in multiple layer of reinforced concrete?

If it wasn't a plane, why did people report seeing one?

If it was a missile, why didn't people report seeing one?

I don't blindly defend the government story, I think it's very obvious that they're covering for their own incredible ineptitude, but I have a family member that SAW the damn plane, and I have a difficult time believing they are a government plant. *roll eyes*



That's my point.

OT'er will say that flying a commercial airliner is very easy.

Skeptics will say that flying a commercial airliner is very hard.

What's the truth? I can't tell.

But I can use my common sense on the other evidence which is hopefully more decisive.

So, where is the plane again?


http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/pentagon/pentagonxox3.jpg

http://911review.org/_webimages/a18-DSC_0430-1.JPG

http://911review.org/_webimages/b06-DSC_0461-1.JPG


Is this evidence that there was no plane? No.

Is this evidence that there was a plane? No.

Is it reasonable to say that there may have been no plane? You decide.

ghost 009
11-12-2009, 05:14 PM
think the Ft Hood shooter was a hero, in which case I have no interest in reading your posts.

Lol ****, we're making the official story nutters a little sensitive.

Grinners
11-12-2009, 05:22 PM
Whether or not you believe in the theories, it is a positive thing for people to question the government, and it reflects positively on America.

It is freedom and decmocracy at work :)

Seife
11-12-2009, 05:25 PM
If it was a missile, how did it leave a plane-sized hole in multiple layer of reinforced concrete?

You mean this hole?

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/attachments/month_0909/911-pentagon-hole-l_lV3FmKIITbkJ.jpg

It is not plane-sized, it is smaller. What part of an airliner should be able to create such a hole when even an 7,200 pound engine (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211) just vanishes without inflicting comparable (or even noticable) damage?

And, why should it be a missile? If it is not a Boeing 757, it is certainly something else, maybe a missile, maybe something else.

Also, I believe it is possible to plant plane parts and bodies. It is also possible to fly something over the pentagon - even an Boeing 757 - while hitting the pentagon with something else.

Did it happen that way? I don't know. Is it likely? No, it isn't. Is it possible? Yes, it is.

Seife
11-12-2009, 05:30 PM
Whether or not you believe in the theories, it is a positive thing for people to question the government, and it reflects positively on America.

It is freedom and decmocracy at work :)

Constructive post!

Just one remark:

It is the official theory which places an airliner there.

Suggesting that it is unlikely or even impossible for an airliner to have crashed there doesn't establish a theory in itself, it is just a critique of an already existing theory/story.

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 05:33 PM
If it wasn't, where did the bodies and plane bits come from?

Good question. If it wasn't a plane, and it wasn't a missle, what was it? What exactly happened?


If it was a missile, how did it leave a plane-sized hole in multiple layer of reinforced concrete?

Thats an interesting question. The WTC planes weren't even able to get through the twin towers, encountering mostly glass and open air offices. This plane managed to obliterate multiple layers of blast proof defensive walls built specifically to stop a missle.


If it wasn't a plane, why did people report seeing one?

Because there was definatly at least one plane in the area at the time.


If it was a missile, why didn't people report seeing one??

When was the last time you heard of someone seeing a missle in flight?


I don't blindly defend the government story, I think it's very obvious that they're covering for their own incredible ineptitude, but I have a family member that SAW the damn plane, and I have a difficult time believing they are a government plant. *roll eyes*

If you are willing to acknowledge that there's been a cover up, your opinion on what was covered up is moot. Your opinion doesn't have any more credibility than anyone else's.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Lol ****, we're making the official story nutters a little sensitive.

Huh? He negged me for putting a guy who thinks the Ft Hood shooter and who supports ****philia on ignore. I can assume sticking up for a guy like that means you share the same beliefs, pretty simple reasoning for putting him on ignore.

At any rate, not sure where you come off with the "official story nutter" bit. I provided a few explanations, asked a few pointed questions, and said I thought it was ridiculous to say there were no eye-witnesses to the pentagon plane... I happen to be a close relation of one of them.

What sounds more reasonable to you:

A missile hit the pentagon without being noticed by anyone, seriously overpenetrated while doing relatively little explosive damage, and large numbers of 757 parts and dead bodies from passengers on the missing 757 were planted. The plane that took off, along with the people on it, mysteriously vanished, though some parts of it and some dead passengers ended up at the scene of the crash.

A hijacked plane hit the pentagon, slammed through multiple walls, and was blown apart on contact as you'd expect. The wings, where the majority of the fuel is contained, and which are designed to shear off on impact, did so and were vaporized by thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Hundreds of people were not paid off by the government, and a plane (along with a plane full of people) did not vanish into thin air.

To you, which of these sounds more reasonable?

dbx
11-12-2009, 05:38 PM
That's my point.

OT'er will say that flying a commercial airliner is very easy.

Skeptics will say that flying a commercial airliner is very hard.

What's the truth? I can't tell. .


Let me stick with thi^, and not indulge in the additional questions you have issues with. We've had a rapport, right? Although we disagree on some things, I'm going to guess that you don't believe I'd intentionally lie to you about this, OK? Now, I literally know hundreds of pilots. Not one or two. These guys aren't geniuses. Yes, it takes a lot of hard training, a lot of knowledge, and hundreds of multi-engine hours to actually get a commercial license. However, it's really not different from a guy who has to run conduit for an electrician....or a guy who has to run PVC piping for plumbing in a house; they know how to do it (bar any catastrophe), but they just don't have a Master's license. Flying is really no different! I had never ever even tried before this time I previously laid out, but it was as easy as remembering a small handful of simply repetitive steps! Now, lol, my "pal" started making 747's appear in my way on the taxiway and T-storms appear out of nowhere, just to f'ck with me. And no, I couldn't have handled that (btw, these simulators cost approx $15 million each back then, and they're as real as it gets, including cockpit view of programmed areas and "events"). But my point is this...again; You would have to be an absolute moron NOT to be able to fly a commercial jet after it was airborne, especially if you've taken any lessons! Yes, take-offs and landings can be tricky...but only because of tower communication and traffic IRL. But once you're up...any idiot can fly around like a kid playing with a toy. Find a pilot IRL...any pilot..ans ask them for yourself. Unless they're just grandstanding to act important, they will cede that basic operation is pretty straight forward and very simple....under ideal or normal conditions.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 05:49 PM
Good question. If it wasn't a plane, and it wasn't a missle, what was it? What exactly happened?

Good question indeed.




Thats an interesting question. The WTC planes weren't even able to get through the twin towers, encountering mostly glass and open air offices. This plane managed to obliterate multiple layers of blast proof defensive walls built specifically to stop a missle.

It's not accurate to say that they encountered mostly glass. A building that size is not held up by glass. Huge chunks of the buildings were blown out, but you're right that they disintegrated, as one would expect a plane to do when hitting an object like a building (such as the pentagon).




Because there was definatly at least one plane in the area at the time.

Yep




When was the last time you heard of someone seeing a missle in flight?

Not something I look into, but missiles (especially one large enough to cause that much damage) are not invisible, or silent.



If you are willing to acknowledge that there's been a cover up, your opinion on what was covered up is moot. Your opinion doesn't have any more credibility than anyone else's.

Why does stating that there are very likely parts of the official story that are not accurate in any way invalidate my opinion on other parts of the story?

dbx
11-12-2009, 05:49 PM
To you, which of these sounds more reasonable?

No question here, lol.

The funniest thing out of all of this? The people who don't believe it happened like...99% of us do, are basically telling us that they believe our elected officials could pull something like this off and get away with it. Can you imagine how many people would have to be involved in such a cover-up? Clinton couldn't get a blowjob in the privacy of the Oval Office, and senators don't even trust each other to share several committee meeting info for fear of leaks, but people believe something like this could happen? Please!!! 50yrs ago, maybe. Not now. Not by any stretch of your imagination!

Seife
11-12-2009, 05:55 PM
At the very least, cross this BS off you conspiracy list. A monkey could fly a commercial jet after it's airborne, including maneuvering and changing course. Man, you have no idea how silly you guys come off....... It's embarrassing. Seriously.

Also Rudy Dekkers is disagreeing with you, I guess he is more in the "flying an airliner is very hard" camp. He is one of the teachers who gave the alleged terrorists flight-training on Cessnas. It of course said that they received some jet-training after this, the news lady at the end of the clip emphasizes this as well.

Ge_0KI73jPk


I imagine hitting a specific building at ground level must be even harder than landing on a miles-long runway: it is very small and you have absolutely no navigation guidance. Being a first timer doesn't help as well, I imagine.

Therefore it is very skillful how the alleged terrorist was able to spare that pristine lawn:

http://thetruthnews.info/pentagon%20lawn.jpg

dbx
11-12-2009, 06:00 PM
I give up. I tried :).

Outta here............

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 06:01 PM
It's not accurate to say that they encountered mostly glass. A building that size is not held up by glass. Huge chunks of the buildings were blown out, but you're right that they disintegrated, as one would expect a plane to do when hitting an object like a building (such as the pentagon).

If you go from one end of a building like that to the other, you will encounter mostly open air. The outer core is mostly windows, just look at the size of those windows. The plane busts through that, then encounters nothing but air until hitting the core where I'm pretty sure it was finished off, because no more than a few core columns were even damaged in either building.

So thats two layers to completely disintigrate these planes, one of which is at least 80% glass. Neither of them is engineered to stop that kind of an attack. The pentagon is a stark contrast to this.

Another inconsistency is the collateral damage caused by the wings in each building, which again you don't see at the pentagon. All of the visible evidence indicates that whatever hit the pentagon was smaller than what hit the WTC buildings, with more penetrative force, yet made out of materials light enough to leave almost nothing behind.



Not something I look into, but missiles (especially one large enough to cause that much damage) are not invisible, or silent.

You're right, the big ones are, and they can be made to resemble a plane.



Why does stating that there are very likely parts of the official story that are not accurate in any way invalidate my opinion on other parts of the story?

I'm not saying that at all. You said there's been a cover up, and you're sure it is a cover up of incompetance. That is impossible because as you said, there's been a cover up. Until there's an actual investigation done you don't know what was covered up any more than anyone else. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else, though. And if I say I think 9/11 was done by George Bush via his reptilian alien super powers, well, I don't have a right to say you're wrong anymore than you have a right to say I'm wrong, since no one knows.

Seife
11-12-2009, 06:01 PM
The funniest thing out of all of this? The people who don't believe it happened like...99% of us do, are basically telling us that they believe our elected officials could pull something like this off and get away with it. Can you imagine how many people would have to be involved in such a cover-up? Clinton couldn't get a blowjob in the privacy of the Oval Office, and senators don't even trust each other to share several committee meeting info for fear of leaks, but people believe something like this could happen? Please!!! 50yrs ago, maybe. Not now. Not by any stretch of your imagination!

Nice narrative. You can keep writing this stuff forever, it doesn't change the problems of the official story in any way.

Of course the implications are grueling and not likely. But I am not promoting anything likely or unlikely here, merely that the official account of what happened may be impossible.

What do you think is more likely to happen? Something unlikely or something impossible?

Stizzel
11-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Nice narrative. You can keep writing this stuff forever, it doesn't change the problems of the official story in any way.

Of course the implications are grueling and not likely. But I am not promoting anything likely or unlikely here, merely that the official account of what happened may be impossible.

What do you think is more likely to happen? Something unlikely or something impossible?

Comments like that bring up a few questions for me.

1) How often does the CIA fail at carrying out black ops? Or government engages in these activities all the time.

2) People know about Clinton's blowjob because it was all over the media. How many people know that being indicted for perjury saved him from being indicted for illegaly bombing the Sudan and carrying out the Waco massacre?

3) I've never seen a national poll about 9/11 in which the idea that the government lied about the events of that day wasn't over 70%. I don't know what the idea of an 'inside job' polls at exactly but I've seen it as high as 30 to 40%. Is there any factual source for the claim that this is an unpopular idea?

O'Reilly and Hannity will still call you a fringe nutjob for it though, so that is where the perception of reality sits today. Clinton got busted for a blowjob and only crazies question the government.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 06:25 PM
No, I mean this hole

http://911review.org/_webimages/b06-DSC_0461-1.JPG



You mean this hole?

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/attachments/month_0909/911-pentagon-hole-l_lV3FmKIITbkJ.jpg

It is not plane-sized, it is smaller. What part of an airliner should be able to create such a hole when even an 7,200 pound engine (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211) just vanishes without inflicting comparable (or even noticable) damage?

And, why should it be a missile? If it is not a Boeing 757, it is certainly something else, maybe a missile, maybe something else.

Also, I believe it is possible to plant plane parts and bodies. It is also possible to fly something over the pentagon - even an Boeing 757 - while hitting the pentagon with something else.

Did it happen that way? I don't know. Is it likely? No, it isn't. Is it possible? Yes, it is.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 06:42 PM
If you go from one end of a building like that to the other, you will encounter mostly open air. The outer core is mostly windows, just look at the size of those windows. The plane busts through that, then encounters nothing but air until hitting the core where I'm pretty sure it was finished off, because no more than a few core columns were even damaged in either building.

I agree that a plane going it high spreed breaks up pretty easily, but I think you underestimate how though those columns are... they have to hold up a LOT of weight.


So thats two layers to completely disintigrate these planes, one of which is at least 80% glass. Neither of them is engineered to stop that kind of an attack. The pentagon is a stark contrast to this.

Correct, but the Pentagon was also not designed to withstand the impact of an airplane. Also, I think you underestimate how tough the WTC supports are. The amount of weight they have to hold up is tremendous. The force of the collapse demonstrated this, the top of the buildings ended up multiple stories underground.


Another inconsistency is the collateral damage caused by the wings in each building, which again you don't see at the pentagon. All of the visible evidence indicates that whatever hit the pentagon was smaller than what hit the WTC buildings, with more penetrative force, yet made out of materials light enough to leave almost nothing behind.

You have to keep in mind the difference in construction, as you pointed out. Airplane wings will happily rip through glass, but they will explode on reinforced concrete. Have you seen pictures from near the time of the impact? The area of the building around the impact is completely shrouded in flames. THAT is all that was left of the wings. When striking a solid object, they combusted instantly. The turbines in the engines destabilized, tearing them apart, as the wings shattered dumping aerated fuel into the fire, and POOOF.



You're right, the big ones are, and they can be made to resemble a plane.

True, but none are NEAR the size of a 757. Perhaps a Cessna :-)





I'm not saying that at all. You said there's been a cover up, and you're sure it is a cover up of incompetance. That is impossible because as you said, there's been a cover up. Until there's an actual investigation done you don't know what was covered up any more than anyone else. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else, though. And if I say I think 9/11 was done by George Bush via his reptilian alien super powers, well, I don't have a right to say you're wrong anymore than you have a right to say I'm wrong, since no one knows.

I wouldn't call it a "cover up" in that "George Bush is a secret jew reptile alien" kinda cover up. More that certain details about people's **** ups have been left out.

I won't disagree that the investigation was inadequate. If it was not, this conversation would PROBABLY not be happening, heh.

Seife
11-12-2009, 06:58 PM
No, I mean this hole

Oh, so you mean the building which partially collapsed? But that happened only 30 or 45 minutes later (don't have the exact time at hand right now) before that, it looked like this:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/mediakit/pentagon_no-collapse3.jpg

So which hole do you mean exactly, please specify.


Oh and here is a funny clip about the pentagon (don't take it too seriously):

WnEpia9JpYE

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 09:48 PM
Thought y'all might want to check this out: http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/index.html

Rather interesting, answers questions that many have.

GrokTheCube
11-12-2009, 09:54 PM
WnEpia9JpYE

Hehehe, it is a cute video clip.

smokeater
11-12-2009, 10:28 PM
Maj. Gen. Stubblebine retired 17 years before 9/11 and is the same guy who wanted to create super soldiers who could walk through walls and were invisible. Consider your sources.

edit: must have glanced over this. point already made

That video has been debunked endless times. Funny that you guys are always willing to highlight and quote former military personnel - but only the fringe guy who supports your agenda, and never an eyewitness. Of course, he also believes that people have the ability to walk through walls...

BlueBayou
11-12-2009, 11:03 PM
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=718606

Flight 77 was a real flight with real people that was hijacked and intentionally crashed.

Flight 77 without a doubt crashed into the Pentagon.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the plane as or just before it crashed into the Pentagon. There are major highways all around the Pentagon with heavy traffic. On the very side it hit, the traffic on highway 27/Washington Blvd was stop and go and slow crawl at the time the plane crashed into the building and many people saw it directly from this location, both coming at their direction, and then crashing into the bldg. This is very close to where the airplane came into the bldg.

Many people from various agencies were involved in the aftermath, recovery, identification, and investigation of flight 77's crash into the Pentagon.

The evidence is conclusive to anyone who takes a serious look at the bulk of it. Those who push the idea that Flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon are doing far more harm than good, some unkowingly and some intentionally.

I do not believe many parts of the official story of 9/11 - however this false and easily disprovable theory is not part of the crime.

jimbob007
11-12-2009, 11:40 PM
That does not answer the question of what these people all saw, they (including a pilot) did not see a missile- they saw a clearly identifable plane. Nor does it answer the DNA question. Nor does it answer the phone calls made from the plane.

The great skill in flying is landing safely, not flying & then crashing into a large building- the guy was hardly a novice as he had a pilot's licence & the plane was put onto auto pilot most of the way, the unarmed crew & passengers were herded to the back of the aircraft- in front of them were 5 hijackers armed with boltcutters & knives.

The passengers would have been unlikely to fight until late on, because they most likely thought it was just a regular hijacking & that these people were going to make demands- rather than crash into a building, which of course until that day nobody was really contemplating.



I guess you also believe that a cavemen terrorist who has trouble flying a Cessna can land a 757 precisely in a building without hitting the ground first and while fighting of other pilots and passengers with a boxcutter.

Of course there are lots and lots and lots of people who support the official story. But that doesn't necessarily make it true or any more likely.

There are also lots of pilots in http://pilotsfor911truth.org who say an amateur pilot-terrorist couldn't have done it:

DzR-q0ijbV0

So the experts are somewhat split. Maybe check the reliable evidence yourself and don't listen to other people?

ilikebeer
11-13-2009, 12:06 AM
ilikebeer, tossed you on my ignore list also. Dunno why you negged me for putting a ****phile and terrorist supporter on ignore, but I assume you're also down with sex with little children, and think the Ft Hood shooter was a hero, in which case I have no interest in reading your posts.

Won't be able to see anymore of them, so don't both replying.


neg this dumbass!!!!


edit: he tried negging me back for all the reasons he listed which none are true but ended up repping me. haha reps for anyone who negs this guy.

LaChupacabras
11-13-2009, 12:32 AM
Out of all the evidence that something is amiss with the official story I think the Pentagon Plane/no Plane argument is the weakest. Makes the people who don't completely buy what we were told look like complete loons.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 05:56 AM
Seirously, if people do not believe a plane hit the Pentagon there is absolutely no point in discussing other aspects of 911 with them. Your conculsion has already been made, now your goal is to bend everything to fit that conclusion, no matter how ludicrious.

Sushi
11-13-2009, 07:04 AM
I dont know If a missle hit the pentagon....I wasn't there

I dont know if a plane hit the pentagon.....I wans't there

All I have to go by is the survalence tapes released by the government which do not show a plane hitting the Pentagon...

If you blindly believe official government stories with out questioning them..I feel sorry for you, b/c you are nothing more than a product of the establishment

Conspiracy Theories are questions that the government refuses to answer. Some get taken out of context and others are blown out of proportion...

If you believe the official story of JFK asassination and the Gulf of Tonkin incident then you really need to get a grasp on reality

bdaswat
11-13-2009, 07:06 AM
Haha you conspiracy theory guys crack me up, especially if you take it serious. Watch any reputable source, (unbiased government investigation groups, History channel, discovery channel interviews with top scientists) completely make a joke out of any of these arguments.


NOT TO MENTION, the original 9 11 conspiracy theorist guys are 3 college students that made these claims on the internet while going through CNN highlight tapes. WHAT A JOKE!

Sushi
11-13-2009, 07:09 AM
Clinton couldn't get a blowjob in the privacy of the Oval Office, and senators don't even trust each other to share several committee meeting info for fear of leaks, but people believe something like this could happen? Please!!! 50yrs ago, maybe. Not now. Not by any stretch of your imagination!

You have no valid point in with this statement.

Do you believe the media isn't controlled? Focusing on Clintons blowjob was meant to draw attention away from more important issues that were going on.

The media does this all the time right in front of us

IraHays
11-13-2009, 07:13 AM
I dont know If a missle hit the pentagon....I wasn't there

I dont know if a plane hit the pentagon.....I wans't there

lulz, so the only way you can ever be sure of something is to be there when it happens??





All I have to go by is the survalence tapes released by the government which do not show a plane hitting the Pentagon...

That's not all you have to go by. wtf???



If you blindly believe official government stories with out questioning them..I feel sorry for you, b/c you are nothing more than a product of the establishment

You try to hard to be "billy badass don't trust the government" you ignore all the evidence that suggest, indeed a plane hit the pentagon. I feel sorry for you because you have no critical thinking skills and it's going to make your life difficult.




If you believe the official story of JFK asassination and the Gulf of Tonkin incident then you really need to get a grasp on reality

What about the Moon landing? You in on that one too?

Sushi
11-13-2009, 07:28 AM
Haha you conspiracy theory guys crack me up, especially if you take it serious. Watch any reputable source, (unbiased government investigation groups, History channel, discovery channel interviews with top scientists) completely make a joke out of any of these arguments.


NOT TO MENTION, the original 9 11 conspiracy theorist guys are 3 college students that made these claims on the internet while going through CNN highlight tapes. WHAT A JOKE!

What do you say about dozens of scientist whom, studying rubble from the collapse of the WTC, have found nano-thermites present?

It makes sense why all the debris from the collapse was quickly disposed of before allowing a proper investigation as to what caused the towers to collapse...

Its these holes in the official story that bring people to question what the establishment spoon feeds us

Sushi
11-13-2009, 07:52 AM
lulz, so the only way you can ever be sure of something is to be there when it happens??





That's not all you have to go by. wtf???



You try to hard to be "billy badass don't trust the government" you ignore all the evidence that suggest, indeed a plane hit the pentagon. I feel sorry for you because you have no critical thinking skills and it's going to make your life difficult.




What about the Moon landing? You in on that one too?

Your attempt to misconstrue my comments is pitiful at best...

I stated I wasn't there so I did not physically see a plane or a missle...

All available footage does not show a plain or a missle...

No one is trying to be "billy bad ass." The government admitted that the gulf of tonkin incident was a mistake... That is after thousands of US and Vietnamese soldiers were killed

JFK was asassinated b/c he was set to sign Executive Order 11110 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110) that would have abolished the Federal Reserve...

My point is CT's have valid points and valid questions...its just the few that make all questioning the government look like foil hat wearing nut cases

IraHays
11-13-2009, 08:03 AM
Your attempt to misconstrue my comments is pitiful at best...

I stated I wasn't there so I did not physically see a plane or a missle...


I didn't misconstrue anything, you said it again. A lot of people didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon. But the sane people amongst us put 2 and 2 together when we have witnesses who saw the plane, plane parts all over the place and a bunch of bodies of passengers on the plane.

(I know I know, it was all planted...)

carry on..

Sushi
11-13-2009, 08:11 AM
I didn't misconstrue anything, you said it again. A lot of people didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon. But the sane people amongst us put 2 and 2 together when we have witnesses who saw the plane, plane parts all over the place and a bunch of bodies of passengers on the plane.

(I know I know, it was all planted...)

carry on..

I never once said it was planted evidence. you still are missing my point so I will make it as simple as possible for you

If you believe the governmnet does not lie you are dumb...

Here is an obvious lie told and supported by our government
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney

This quote applies to you IraHays

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."
-Adolf Hitler

IraHays
11-13-2009, 08:16 AM
If you believe the governmnet does not lie you are dumb...


That is your point? So to prove this you say an obvious plane crash might not be a plane crash?

Who the f*ck said the government does not lie?

Sushi
11-13-2009, 08:24 AM
That is your point? So to prove this you say an obvious plane crash might not be a plane crash?

Who the f*ck said the government does not lie?

Yes that is my point I stated it in the first post I made. I do not believe the official story in its entirety b/c our government has a strong history of lieing to the masses to achieve their agenda.

Whom is it obvious to? There are people in this thread that swear by a plane there are others that swear by a missle or whatever. I was just stating my opinion on the entire event of 9/11

How in the F*ck are you 37 and have such poor reading comprehension?

IraHays
11-13-2009, 08:28 AM
Yes that is my point I stated it in the first post I made. I do not believe the official story in its entirety b/c our government has a strong history of lieing to the masses to achieve their agenda.

Whom is it obvious to? There are people in this thread that swear by a plane there are others that swear by a missle or whatever. I was just stating my opinion on the entire event of 9/11

How in the F*ck are you 37 and have such poor reading comprehension?


Your point is pointless. Saying the government lies does mean an obvious plane crash is not a plane crash. You're an idiot and with no reasoning skills.

Sushi
11-13-2009, 08:35 AM
Your point is pointless. Saying the government lies does mean an obvious plane crash is not a plane crash. You're an idiot and with no reasoning skills.

Go figure... I have no reasoning skills because I dont question what the media reports?


If the government wanted to end all this CT B.S. all they have to do is release the full survalence tape showing the plane hitting the Pentagon...

If they have nothing to hide why not release the footage they have available?

Why was NORAD (you know...the ones who job is to jump on any plane that falls off course with the intent to prevent a hijacking) not able to repond to the hijackings?

Sushi
11-13-2009, 08:36 AM
seriously though

i'm tired ranting with you.....


back to the topic

IraHays
11-13-2009, 08:59 AM
Go figure... I have no reasoning skills because I dont question what the media reports?


If the government wanted to end all this CT B.S. all they have to do is release the full survalence tape showing the plane hitting the Pentagon...

If they have nothing to hide why not release the footage they have available?

Why was NORAD (you know...the ones who job is to jump on any plane that falls off course with the intent to prevent a hijacking) not able to repond to the hijackings?



The physical evidence at the crash site TRUMPS all of this. Why can't you understand????

notorius1
11-13-2009, 09:07 AM
Why was NORAD (you know...the ones who job is to jump on any plane that falls off course with the intent to prevent a hijacking) not able to repond to the hijackings?

I'd like to know that as well. Why wasn't the Standard Operating Procedure followed like it was supposed to be on 9/11? I forget, there were too many training exercises going on that very morning so the fighter pilots were a little confused as to if it were real-world or just another drill.

Sushi
11-13-2009, 09:10 AM
The physical evidence at the crash site TRUMPS all of this. Why can't you understand????

how does it trump NORAD??

Again I am not saying a missle hit the pentagon. All I'm saying is I think there is more to the story than what was said...

notorius1
11-13-2009, 09:10 AM
The physical evidence at the crash site TRUMPS all of this. Why can't you understand????

What physical evidence? Oh, you must mean Hanni Hanjour's passport that was picked out of the rubble unscathed?

BlueBayou
11-13-2009, 09:26 AM
What physical evidence? Oh, you must mean Hanni Hanjour's passport that was picked out of the rubble unscathed?


I believe you are mistaken or misinformed. Please provide sources and/or evidence about the passport.

Stizzel
11-13-2009, 09:38 AM
I agree that a plane going it high spreed breaks up pretty easily, but I think you underestimate how though those columns are... they have to hold up a LOT of weight.



Correct, but the Pentagon was also not designed to withstand the impact of an airplane. Also, I think you underestimate how tough the WTC supports are. The amount of weight they have to hold up is tremendous. The force of the collapse demonstrated this, the top of the buildings ended up multiple stories underground.



You have to keep in mind the difference in construction, as you pointed out. Airplane wings will happily rip through glass, but they will explode on reinforced concrete. Have you seen pictures from near the time of the impact? The area of the building around the impact is completely shrouded in flames. THAT is all that was left of the wings. When striking a solid object, they combusted instantly. The turbines in the engines destabilized, tearing them apart, as the wings shattered dumping aerated fuel into the fire, and POOOF.




True, but none are NEAR the size of a 757. Perhaps a Cessna :-)






I wouldn't call it a "cover up" in that "George Bush is a secret jew reptile alien" kinda cover up. More that certain details about people's **** ups have been left out.

I won't disagree that the investigation was inadequate. If it was not, this conversation would PROBABLY not be happening, heh.

I don't entirely agree with this but your logic is sound, except to the extent of whats been covered up. The majority of the members of the 9/11 commission wanted government officials indicted on criminal charges.

It is a little ironic, isn't it, that we try to impeach clinton for lieing about a blowjob but when it comes to 9/11, the same line of thinking gets you labeled a nut job. There's more involved with that than a few people covering up their mistakes.


Maj. Gen. Stubblebine retired 17 years before 9/11 and is the same guy who wanted to create super soldiers who could walk through walls and were invisible. Consider your sources.

edit: must have glanced over this. point already made

Can anyone source this? I've heard this claim made too but I've also heard the General talk about what he did while in the army and while some of it is classified so he can't talk about it, he never talks about having tried to walk through walls or kill goats with his mind.

He was a consultant to a doctor...Leffler or something like that, on a military project.

dbx
11-13-2009, 09:42 AM
Here is an obvious lie told and supported by our government
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney

Would you like to see more than a dozen other statements that look the same as that ^, except by democrats, republicans, and other world leaders alike? Oh, and they'd include Bill Clinton and John Kerry, just to name two.

Oh, this brings another simple question to mind for those of you who are complete and utter idiots (where this is involved :)):

So, you're telling us that even though democrats would love to hang Dick Cheney and prosecute Bush for "war crimes"....that they must be playing ball will the big conspiracy too? Because as I'm sure you're aware...as high as the stakes are to take control in DC, that the republican party and leadership was able to control the CIA (you know, those guys who now write "tell-all" books) and have them all remain silent..and the Dems aren't even trying to assert this inane possibility? LMFAO!!! OMFG! You guys are seriously, absolutely devoid of any real life reasoning skills! :confused:

notorius1
11-13-2009, 09:44 AM
I believe you are mistaken or misinformed. Please provide sources and/or evidence about the passport.

Here's something:

"Like the Unscathed Hijacker Passport Found Near Ground Zero, Now Comes Flight 77 Passenger's Perfectly Intact ID Card Found at Pentagon Meltdown

Never before revealed passport of Pentagon victim called by critics 'another piece of bogus evidence' planted by the FBI like the passport, hijacker luggage and other suspicious evidence quickly linking the 19 Arab hijackers to 9/11.

One day after 9/11 the perfectly unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 hijackers, was found several blocks from Ground Zero, even though its next to impossible such a flimsy item escaped the towering inferno unblemished."


http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm



I googled this for the first time today under "9/11 passport"

Sushi
11-13-2009, 09:45 AM
Would you like to see more than a dozen other statements that look the same as that ^, except by democrats, republicans, and other world leaders alike? Oh, and they'd include Bill Clinton and John Kerry, just to name two.

Oh, this brings another simple question to mind for those of you who are complete and utter idiots (where this is involved :)):

So, you're telling us that even though democrats would love to hang Dick Cheney and prosecute Bush for "war crimes"....that they must be playing ball will the big conspiracy too? Because as I'm sure you're aware...as high as the stakes are to take control in DC, that the republican party and leadership was able to control the CIA (you know, those guys who now write "tell-all" books) and have them all remain silent..and the Dems aren't even trying to assert this inane possibility? LMFAO!!! OMFG! You guys are seriously, absolutely devoid of any real life reasoning skills! :confused:

I agree with you.

your post further expands my initial post that the government as a whole lies!
Left wing, right wing they all lie

IraHays
11-13-2009, 10:02 AM
how does it trump NORAD??

Again I am not saying a missle hit the pentagon. All I'm saying is I think there is more to the story than what was said...

If you want to talk about you think maybe Norad messed up or was ordered to not shoot down the plane, that's fine and a different conversation all together. I'm only talking what hit the Pentagon and don't know how anyone could possibly come to a different conclusion.

Sushi
11-13-2009, 10:11 AM
If you want to talk about you think maybe Norad messed up or was ordered to not shoot down the plane, that's fine and a different conversation all together. I'm only talking what hit the Pentagon and don't know how anyone could possibly come to a different conclusion.

the conclusions are made by the holes in the official story. NORAD not responding is directly related to this incident and the 2 planes that flew into the WTC.

Had NORAD been able to operate properly only one or none of the planes would have hit their "targets."

It seems to me as if all the cards were in place for this entire incident to happen everything went off with out a hitch and the response time was a joke.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 10:13 AM
the conclusions are made by the holes in the official story. NORAD not responding is directly related to this incident and the 2 planes that flew into the WTC.

Had NORAD been able to operate properly only one or none of the planes would have hit their "targets."

It seems to me as if all the cards were in place for this entire incident to happen everything went off with out a hitch and the response time was a joke.

I don't think you are following me. The above has nothing to do with what hit the Pentagon.

BlueBayou
11-13-2009, 10:18 AM
Here's something:

"Like the Unscathed Hijacker Passport Found Near Ground Zero, Now Comes Flight 77 Passenger's Perfectly Intact ID Card Found at Pentagon Meltdown

Never before revealed passport of Pentagon victim called by critics 'another piece of bogus evidence' planted by the FBI like the passport, hijacker luggage and other suspicious evidence quickly linking the 19 Arab hijackers to 9/11.

One day after 9/11 the perfectly unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 hijackers, was found several blocks from Ground Zero, even though its next to impossible such a flimsy item escaped the towering inferno unblemished."


http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm

I googled this for the first time today under "9/11 passport"

1) I asked for evidence or even a reference to your assertion that, "Oh, you must mean Hanni Hanjour's passport that was picked out of the rubble unscathed? "
- AGAIN, can you provide anything to back up this claim youve made?


2) You posted something about a PASSENGER's ID card at the Pentagon, and a passport found near the WTC. I already know about both of these and there is nothing either would cause a problem with the assertion that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Also, your source rense.com has long ago and time and again been discredited as a source of anything other than comedy so please find something at least halfway credible for future discussion.

dbx
11-13-2009, 10:22 AM
I agree with you.

your post further expands my initial post that the government as a whole lies!
Left wing, right wing they all lie

Absolutely, "the govt" has always lied to us in various ways. In some cases...it was probably for a good reason, but in most, it was only for covering their own ass. (please, nobody ask for a case when it might have been beneficial, as that could be a thread unto itself).

And here we go; how do we even know our govt has lied to us over the past two centuries? Because people talk. Bar this geriatric, alzheimer's patient General, lofl, can anyone please name a credible source of an American party who would like to crucify Bush/Cheney? No. Please, don't cite these half-assed fringe idiots.

Seife, we've "talked". You're a pretty smart young fella. Stizzel, you surprise me the most! I was totally taken aback when I saw that you also subscribe to this BS. While not only showing competence, intelligence and coherency, you have demonstrated consistency in your views........until this.

Please not the age of the conspiracy theory guys. Yes, I'm dissing you because of age..in this case. I was no differnt than any of you when I was your age. And beside, govt conspiracy is kinda fun, eh? I'm just saying this; when you gain another ten years...you'll realize that our elected officials, no matter how secret you think they can be, are more or less idiots in a vacuum. With today's 24/7/365 news sources....your conspiracy theory will look like Utopia in a fish bowl ;)

Sushi
11-13-2009, 10:27 AM
I don't think you are following me. The above has nothing to do with what hit the Pentagon.

I was addressing your question of how do people come to these conclusions

IraHays
11-13-2009, 10:31 AM
I was addressing your question of how do people come to these conclusions


I was talking about conclusions with what hit the Pentagon.

BlueBayou
11-13-2009, 10:49 AM
Yep. But not a single one of them saw a plane go into the pentagon. If you read all of the testimoney there's only one witness that even supports the official story, and that witness is the only one that exists according to the government. Kinda funny how that works.

You are totally full of **** here, talking out of your ass, and contradicting the facts! There are many people from along and near Washington Blvd who saw the plane crash DIRECTLY into the bldg. Please GTFO out of any further 9/11 discussion until you have educated yourself on the matter at hand first.

ITT there are lots of stupid people who can only look at one disinfo'd polar side of the evidence.

dbx
11-13-2009, 10:52 AM
[u]You are totally full of **** here, talking out of your ass, and contradicting the facts![/i] There are many people from along and near Washington Blvd who saw the plane crash DIRECTLY into the bldg. Please GTFO out of any further 9/11 discussion until you have educated yourself on the matter at hand first.

ITT there are lots of stupid people who can only look at one disinfo'd polar side of the evidence.

You should supply sources here. If not, he's only going to exploit it. You young fellas need to learn how to debate :D

Stizzel
11-13-2009, 10:57 AM
You are totally full of **** here, talking out of your ass, and contradicting the facts! There are many people from along and near Washington Blvd who saw the plane crash DIRECTLY into the bldg. Please GTFO out of any further 9/11 discussion until you have educated yourself on the matter at hand first.

ITT there are lots of stupid people who can only look at one disinfo'd polar side of the evidence.

Cool story bro. There's no such thing as too many ad homs.

If you havn't put your fist through your monitor would you mind providing a source? I asked for one earlier and got no response.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 11:01 AM
Ah, Blue Bayou, by far my favorite CT guy.

Where you been? Just lurking the Misc?

BlueBayou
11-13-2009, 11:07 AM
Cool story bro. There's no such thing as too many ad homs.

If you havn't put your fist through your monitor would you mind providing a source? I asked for one earlier and got no response.

We have been discussing the Flight 77 eyewitness testimony here at this very forum for years and it was beyond conclusive 3 ****ING years ago.

DO WE REALLY HAVE TO KEEP REDEBATING THE SAME PROVEN POINTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AFTER WE GET PAST SOMETHING AND MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE, AND THEN YOU DUMB****S REPEAT THE SAME DISCUSSED **** AGAIN LIKE ITS ALL NEW TO YOU.

Propagandists should be hung by the neck.




http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
all of the necessary refences for verification are there

These are just a few:


===================================
Steve Anderson -- from 19th floor office in USA TODAY building in Arlington
"Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

Jeff and Deb Anlauf -- from 14th floor of Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 miles from explosion
"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). "

Sean Boger -- from heliport control tower
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Donald R. Bouchoux -- in car on Washinton Blvd along side of Pentagon
" The aircraft crossed about 200 yards [should be more than 150 yards from the impact] in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit."

Bruce Elliot -- about to board shuttle in south parking lot
" I felt it was going to ram the Pentagon ... the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames."

Joe Harrington -- in parking lot outside Pentagon
"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd., It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."

Albert Hemphill -- from window of Naval Annex
"He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom."

Terrance Kean -- from nearby 14-story apartment building
" I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

Lincoln Liebner -- running toward a Pentagon entrance
" I was about 100 yards away. You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit. The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass. The plane completely entered the building. I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast."

David Marra -- on an 1-395 exit just west of Pentagon
"The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground. There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building."

Father Stephen McGraw -- on Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building. My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing."

William Middleton -- from is street sweeper in Arlington Cemetary ...
" the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building."

Christopher Munsey --
"The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking "whoomp" as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon. A huge flash of orange flame and black smoke poured into the sky."

Mary Ann Owens -- driving on road next to Pentagon
"Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me."

Christine Peterson -- on road adjacent to helipad
"It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."

Frank Probst -- in the construction yard outside Pentagon
" I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 miles an hour. I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize. It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."

Noel Sepulveda -- in the Pentagon parking lot
"You could hear the engines being revved up even higher. The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low."

Tim Timmerman(Pilot) -- from 16th floor apartment
" ... it had been an American Airways 757. It added power on its way in. The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball. Smoke and flames poured out of a large hole punched into the side of the Pentagon."

Dave Winslow --
"I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon."

========================================









Stizzel youre starting to stink, REAL BAD.

BlueBayou
11-13-2009, 11:11 AM
Ah, Blue Bayou, by far my favorite CT guy.

Where you been? Just lurking the Misc?

I had to take time off for this very reason. Too many dumb**** paranoid schizo's in the R&P to discuss the real conspiracies that are ****ing this world up.

On the one hand youve got mostly sheep and die-hard brown shirts, and on the other youve got those who think that every absolute thing must be part of a magical fantasy world grand conspiracy. Thats the bulk of who posts about 9/11, War on terror, global government etc.

The truth is in the middle about many things, yet few people tend to be there with it.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 11:27 AM
got kind of quite in here...

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 11:31 AM
1) I asked for evidence or even a reference to your assertion that, "Oh, you must mean Hanni Hanjour's passport that was picked out of the rubble unscathed? "
- AGAIN, can you provide anything to back up this claim youve made?


2) You posted something about a PASSENGER's ID card at the Pentagon, and a passport found near the WTC. I already know about both of these and there is nothing either would cause a problem with the assertion that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Also, your source rense.com has long ago and time and again been discredited as a source of anything other than comedy so please find something at least halfway credible for future discussion.

He had the name wrong and the passports weren't unscathed, they did a better job at the Pentagon with the passports than any place else. Specifically from the Pentagon:

This one is cut off so that you can clearly make out his last name http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PE00102A.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PE00114A.jpg


The evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon is zip. The roof didn't collapse until much later, there is a neatly cut out hole in the inner rings of the Pentagon, there are only a couple of pieces of debris that resemble commercial airline debris, there are no skid marks, the grass is still green, where are all of the huge chunks of the airliner and all of the damage that should be associated with it.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

Oh and to answer someone else's question. It does sound more reasonable that something strange happened at the Pentagon because the entire story of 9/11 has holes all over just for every aspect of the story. If every aspect of the story has more than a dozen, sometimes up to the hundreds, of holes why would the Pentagon be any different. I haven't been shown a plane. There are 2 or 3 videos none of which show a plane.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 11:36 AM
The evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon is zip.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/1237283490513.jpg

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 11:47 AM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/1237283490513.jpg

THEN SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!


THIS IS A PLANE CRASH LOOKS LIKE

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/mar2009/5/0/image-1-for-fedex-cargo-plane-crash-gallery-124586053.jpg

http://www.freshnews.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sudanese-plane-crash.jpg

http://i432.photobucket.com/albums/qq44/pushpinderbagga/FedExCrash/FedEx-Cargo-Plane-Crash-Tokyo-Pi-4.jpg




THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK A PLANE CRASH LOOKS LIKE

http://hp3016.k12.sd.us/Event/flight93.jpg

http://www.physics911.net/images/c-pentagon_montage.jpg











http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/1237283490513.jpg

IraHays
11-13-2009, 11:51 AM
THEN SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!



You mean besides the eyewitnesses, plane parts and bodies?


http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/facepalm4.jpg

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 11:54 AM
You mean besides the eyewitnesses, plane parts and bodies?


http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/facepalm4.jpg

Show me plane parts, skid marks, and the amount of damage that are equivalent to what is shown in the first set of photos.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 11:56 AM
Show me a plane part that is equivalent to what is shown in the first set of photos.


http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/b71hd0.jpg

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 12:01 PM
Show me plane wreckage (big ****ing plane parts) and damage in the ground that includes dirt and oil skidmarks that is equivalent to the first set of pictures that I posted.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 12:04 PM
Show me plane wreckage (big ****ing plane parts) and damage in the ground that includes dirt and oil skidmarks that is equivalent to the first set of pictures that I posted.


I could show you landing gear, engines, bodies, other misc. parts of the plane, but you would say it was planted.

Not for you to ask for skidmarks tells me you are really ingorant to basic 911 facts and it's really not worth discussing this with you.

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 12:17 PM
I could show you landing gear, engines, bodies, other misc. parts of the plane, but you would say it was planted.

Not for you to ask for skidmarks tells me you are really ingorant to basic 911 facts and it's really not worth discussing this with you.

What, ignorant to the fact that someone who couldn't fly a small aircraft amazingly and skillfully actually flew a commercial aircraft. Not only flew it, but flew it as fast as he could as low as he could but left no skidmarks yet at the same time blew a hole at the bottom of the Pentagon wall that couldn't be accomplished without the plane skidding therfore leaving skidmarks?

http://www.physics911.net/images/c-pentagon_montage.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_94YYbJFVfDo/SVo8SNWfYqI/AAAAAAAAACc/Q9U47WDd4vg/s400/Roof+Intact.jpg
No skidmarks, hole at bottom of Pentagon.


Yes, please show me the large pieces of the plane resembling what I posted in the first set of pictures. The pictures must be clearly identifiable as the pictures in the first set and it must be large or there must be a lot of that can be pieced together as part of a plane.

IraHays
11-13-2009, 12:20 PM
I had to take time off for this very reason. Too many dumb**** paranoid schizo's in the R&P to discuss the real conspiracies that are ****ing this world up.


It can be frustrating, but it did kill a Friday afternoon!

GrokTheCube
11-13-2009, 01:23 PM
What, ignorant to the fact that someone who couldn't fly a small aircraft amazingly and skillfully actually flew a commercial aircraft. Not only flew it, but flew it as fast as he could as low as he could but left no skidmarks yet at the same time blew a hole at the bottom of the Pentagon wall that couldn't be accomplished without the plane skidding therfore leaving skidmarks?

Please show me why a plane full of fuel crashing into a reinforced conrete building should look anything like what you posted in the first pictures?

Expert testimony please.

Please also discredit all the eyewitness accounts posted earlier in the thread.

Please also discount the plane parts at the scene.

Please also discount the bodies at the scene.

Please explain where the plane went if it did not crash into the pentagon.

Burden of proof on our part has been met. We have provided eye witness testimony that a plane hit the building. We have proven the presence of a plane via wreckage (and eye witness testimony), we have proven that the plane was the hickjacked one via the presence of bodies.

Now that this burden has been met, it is up to you to refute the presented evidence.

Saying "I think there should have been bigger pieces left", or "I think it should have made a bigger hole" is not a refutation.

If you'd like me to take you seriously, please satisfy the above requests, as I, and several others in this thread have been kind enough to supply proof to back our claims. You have presented pictures of the damaged pentagon, and other completely unrelated plane crashes (most of them crash landings at 1/5th the speed this plane was traveling, or less"

Stizzel
11-13-2009, 01:39 PM
We have been discussing the Flight 77 eyewitness testimony here at this very forum for years and it was beyond conclusive 3 ****ING years ago.

DO WE REALLY HAVE TO KEEP REDEBATING THE SAME PROVEN POINTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AFTER WE GET PAST SOMETHING AND MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE, AND THEN YOU DUMB****S REPEAT THE SAME DISCUSSED **** AGAIN LIKE ITS ALL NEW TO YOU.

Propagandists should be hung by the neck.




http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
all of the necessary refences for verification are there

These are just a few:


===================================
Steve Anderson -- from 19th floor office in USA TODAY building in Arlington
"Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

Jeff and Deb Anlauf -- from 14th floor of Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 miles from explosion
"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). "

Sean Boger -- from heliport control tower
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Donald R. Bouchoux -- in car on Washinton Blvd along side of Pentagon
" The aircraft crossed about 200 yards [should be more than 150 yards from the impact] in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit."

Bruce Elliot -- about to board shuttle in south parking lot
" I felt it was going to ram the Pentagon ... the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames."

Joe Harrington -- in parking lot outside Pentagon
"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd., It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."

Albert Hemphill -- from window of Naval Annex
"He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom."

Terrance Kean -- from nearby 14-story apartment building
" I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

Lincoln Liebner -- running toward a Pentagon entrance
" I was about 100 yards away. You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit. The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass. The plane completely entered the building. I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast."

David Marra -- on an 1-395 exit just west of Pentagon
"The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground. There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building."

Father Stephen McGraw -- on Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building. My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing."

William Middleton -- from is street sweeper in Arlington Cemetary ...
" the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building."

Christopher Munsey --
"The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking "whoomp" as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon. A huge flash of orange flame and black smoke poured into the sky."

Mary Ann Owens -- driving on road next to Pentagon
"Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me."

Christine Peterson -- on road adjacent to helipad
"It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."

Frank Probst -- in the construction yard outside Pentagon
" I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 miles an hour. I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize. It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."

Noel Sepulveda -- in the Pentagon parking lot
"You could hear the engines being revved up even higher. The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low."

Tim Timmerman(Pilot) -- from 16th floor apartment
" ... it had been an American Airways 757. It added power on its way in. The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball. Smoke and flames poured out of a large hole punched into the side of the Pentagon."

Dave Winslow --
"I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon."

========================================

You're right, I must have been thinking of Shanksville. If you look at my post history on the pentagon, you'll see that I don't think it was a missle that hit the pentagon. The only feasable argument for a missle would be a bunker buster and I don't see how it would have zig-zagged around inside before exploding.


Stizzel youre starting to stink, REAL BAD.

Damn, my "No really, I'm not a shill" brand of deodorant is wearing off :(

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 03:12 PM
Please show me why a plane full of fuel crashing into a reinforced conrete building should look anything like what you posted in the first pictures?

Expert testimony please.

Please also discredit all the eyewitness accounts posted earlier in the thread.

Please also discount the plane parts at the scene.

Please also discount the bodies at the scene.

Please explain where the plane went if it did not crash into the pentagon.

Burden of proof on our part has been met. We have provided eye witness testimony that a plane hit the building. We have proven the presence of a plane via wreckage (and eye witness testimony), we have proven that the plane was the hickjacked one via the presence of bodies.

Now that this burden has been met, it is up to you to refute the presented evidence.

Saying "I think there should have been bigger pieces left", or "I think it should have made a bigger hole" is not a refutation.

If you'd like me to take you seriously, please satisfy the above requests, as I, and several others in this thread have been kind enough to supply proof to back our claims. You have presented pictures of the damaged pentagon, and other completely unrelated plane crashes (most of them crash landings at 1/5th the speed this plane was traveling, or less"

Not to change the subject but while your at it why don't you show me a video of another building collapsing in the same way that wtc 7 did, also refute the insider trading, intelligence connections, and explosions in the towers, and I'll leave it at that for now.

Here refute this
0YvrKfWkxdw

Or perhaps you would like to stay on the subject of the Pentagon, continuing to ignore the thousands of fallacies of the official story and continue to claim there is no case for 9/11 being an inside job on the grounds of a few small unidentifiable pieces of aircraft, a couple of bodies, and conflicting eyewitness testimony of a plane going 500 mph that is a substantially different situation from the planes that were spotted over ten seconds before they hit the towers.

So we have two buildings for the first time collapsing and vaporizing due to jet fuel fire, then there is another building that is half as tall as the two that collapses from fire created by the debris not jet fuel, there are squibs shooting out of all of those buildings, a third plane crashed in Shanksville and left a tiny hole with no wreckage, another plane hits the Pentagon piloted by a man who couldn't even fly a small aircraft , this man then pilots a much larger aircraft and flies it as fast as he can into a hole at the bottom of the pentagon without skidding the lawn, this plane vaporizes and leaves no large pieces of debris except for debris that can be picked up in your hand and a buried engine that can't completely be seen, the hijackers don't behave like Islamic fundamentalists and have connections to various agencies and organizations around the globe, there is a library of other information that I can list as well.


Now are you going to admit that you can see where we're coming from.

nutsy54
11-13-2009, 03:17 PM
So we have two buildings for the first time collapsing and vaporizing due to jet fuel fireYes... Because there was absolutely no massive structural damage, nor did anything else in those buildings burn. It was all purely some jet fuel that was lit on fire :rolleyes:

How much do you need to falsify the story for it to actually fit the agenda and massive fairy tale you've formed in your mind?

ghost 009
11-13-2009, 03:44 PM
Yes... Because there was absolutely no massive structural damage, nor did anything else in those buildings burn. It was all purely some jet fuel that was lit on fire :rolleyes:

How much do you need to falsify the story for it to actually fit the agenda and massive fairy tale you've formed in your mind?

And this refutes everything else I mentioned let alone refutes what you quoted me on?


I'll ask again can you see where I'm coming from. Meaning can you see why I would think that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, can you see why I don't think that a plane crashed at Shanksville, can you see why I think there is something wrong with the Pentagon, and in regards to the mainstream media reports of bizzare behavior, intelligence connections, insider trading, etc., can you see why I would think differently from the official version considering this was reported by mainstream news outlets.

Specifically in relation to the above, not intelligence failures.

GrokTheCube
11-13-2009, 04:06 PM
Not to change the subject but while your at it why don't you show me a video of another building collapsing in the same way that wtc 7 did, also refute the insider trading, intelligence connections, and explosions in the towers, and I'll leave it at that for now.

Here refute this
0YvrKfWkxdw

Sure:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Done. Any counterpoint?



Or perhaps you would like to stay on the subject of the Pentagon, continuing to ignore the thousands of fallacies of the official story and continue to claim there is no case for 9/11 being an inside job on the grounds of a few small unidentifiable pieces of aircraft, a couple of bodies, and conflicting eyewitness testimony of a plane going 500 mph that is a substantially different situation from the planes that were spotted over ten seconds before they hit the towers.

That honestly made absolutely no sense in terms of structure, but I will try to guess at what you meant.

Yes, hundreds of people saying the saw a plane hit the pentagon is sound basis to believe one did. No, there are no conflicts or inconsistencies beyond what would normally be expected from eye witness testimony at a disaster scene.


So we have two buildings for the first time collapsing and vaporizing due to jet fuel fire, then there is another building that is half as tall as the two that collapses from fire created by the debris not jet fuel,

Refer to article I posted. Gross oversimplification.

there are squibs shooting out of all of those buildings,

See above.



a third plane crashed in Shanksville and left a tiny hole with no wreckage, another plane hits the Pentagon piloted by a man who couldn't even fly a small aircraft

He had a pilot's license. He also had autopilot engaged to take him to his destination.

As for the Shanksville plane, I believe is is very probable that they shot the thing down. I know I would have in a heartbeat if I could make the call. Based on cell phone calls, it sounds like the passengers were about to storm the cockpit anyways.

At any rate, a plane hitting the ground head on from 30,000+ feet likely would create a sizable crater, and vaporize. Yes, it could have been a "Daisy Cutter" style MASSIVE conventional bomb, but I think it's likely someone would have noticed the bomber flying overhead to drop it...


, this man then pilots a much larger aircraft and flies it as fast as he can into a hole at the bottom of the pentagon without skidding the lawn,

Re-read eye-witness testimoney. Wing hit ground, blew apart, rest of plane slammed into building and was obliterated instantly.


this plane vaporizes and leaves no large pieces of debris except for debris that can be picked up in your hand and a buried engine that can't completely be seen,

Yes, duh. This is exactly what one would expect to happen to a hollow object that is fairly rigid carrying fuel with enough potential energy to level at least half a city block


the hijackers don't behave like Islamic fundamentalists and have connections to various agencies and organizations around the globe, there is a library of other information that I can list as well.

Source please, never seen a credible one.



Now are you going to admit that you can see where we're coming from.

I can honestly only see it if one's only source is youtube videos from stoned college kids being like "THAT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S EXPLOSIVES GUYS, LOOK AT ALL THE RUBBLE FALLING OUT FROM THE BUILDING THAT WEIGHS THOUSANDS OF TONS COLLAPSING AT FREE-FALL SPEED RELEASING KINETIC ENERGY ON THE SAME LEVEL AS A SMALL TACTICAL NUKE! HOW COULD THAT MUCH ENERGY POSSIBLE TOSS RUBBLE AROUND?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!"

OR

Listening to clowns like Alex Jones that get rich by playing on people's fears.

There is ONE single piece of evidence I have seen, and that is the supposed "nano-thermite". Honestly, they couldn't get their article published in a real peer review journal. I've read it, and their findings are interesting, but I don't know enough about that sort of chemistry to draw an educated conclusion. All I know is that the article could not get published in a REAL peer reviewed journal (one that is certified), which makes me seriously question its credibility. Also, given the temperatures of the fire, it is not at all impossible for elemental iron to be separated from steel, and bond with molten aluminum, and the chunks of concrete that made up much of the building.

I think a lot of people seriously lack understanding of physics. I think they have no conception of how great the forces involved are with a truly massive object that is both rigid and hollow traveling at obscene speeds striking a solid object with very little give. I think they seriously underestimate the amount of energy found in jet fuel.

A fully fueled 757 has 1,522,150 Mega Joules of potential energy in a turbine engine. This is equivalent to ~364 TONS of TNT. More than a third of a KILOTON. For comparison, the largest conventional munition we use, the MOAB has force equivalent to ~21 tons of TNT.

In fact, this plane had more potential energy in its fuel than the smallest nuclear fission device that we use.

Does that make it a little more clear how we can "believe" that the aircraft was vaporized, and blew a hole through multiple layers of bomb-proof reinforced concrete? There was more force delivered than what would be expected from the largest conventional bomb ever made, and an amount of force rivaling (or exceeding) that of many tactical nuclear munitions developed by the USA and USSR.

Stizzel
11-13-2009, 04:33 PM
Yes... Because there was absolutely no massive structural damage, nor did anything else in those buildings burn. It was all purely some jet fuel that was lit on fire :rolleyes:

Thats true. The structural damage was not 'massive'. These jets represent something like .001% of the mass of each building.

Thats not to disregard the possible role that damage played, but people like to throw around words like 'massive' entirely for the emotional effect they have. Yes, jet liners are huge, yes, the amount of kinetic energy involved is very large. But in relation to the object they were coliding with that is no longer the case.

And no one is saying it is impossible for these buildings to have collapsed from the damage taken. The problem is the way they collapsed, especially building 7. No one can say for certain that an impact from a 747 is or is not sufficient to cause some kind of a collapse, unless you consider the events of 9/11 as proof. Which means the official story if proving itself, which is funny to me.

It might be a valid argument if the government's story wasn't obviously a lie and if NIST hadn't changed its story so many times and refrained from its deceitful antics.

Ghosting
11-13-2009, 04:57 PM
Yes I guess we should just ignore these guys- James Ryan said he identified the AA logo on the tail & that it was low enough for him to see the windows & that it was a silver AA plane. Steve Riskus said that he clearly saw the AA logo with the eagle in the middle & a pilot Donald Timmerman, who lived in an apartment on the 16th floor of a building overlooking the Pentagon had an excellent view & said it was a 757 AA plane.

Also I guess we shoud ignore Afework Hagos, Penny Elgas, Ann Owens, Albert Hemphill & David Marra who reported seeing this non existent plane see sawing back & forth, as the pilot struggled for control.

We should also I suppose ignore the DNA of the pasengers of the plane that did not hit the Pentagon that was found at the scene. No doubt all these people are lying, or are govenment agents, satanic super soldiers, nwo warriors or whatever else those desperate to believe every conspiracy theory going wish to put forward.


Yet they took all the video tapes, so we have to hear it from second hand sources. We should believe them. CT if you dont. OMG. LOL.

GrokTheCube
11-13-2009, 04:59 PM
Yet they took all the video tapes, so we have to hear it from second hand sources. We should believe them. CT if you dont. OMG. LOL.

I believe my aunt.

Just sayin'

Seife
11-13-2009, 07:21 PM
Out of all the evidence that something is amiss with the official story I think the Pentagon Plane/no Plane argument is the weakest. Makes the people who don't completely buy what we were told look like complete loons.

I agree.

Shanksville is more obvious.

WTC 7 can't be any more obvious (Going from full support to full free-fall in a split second through 81 intact columns because 1 column failed, all because of fires and some random damage? Isaac Newton would disagree.)

The Twin Towers are also very obvious.

I grant you all that. And still even the Pentagon delivers adequate material for a nice debate.


Haha you conspiracy theory guys crack me up, especially if you take it serious. Watch any reputable source, (unbiased government investigation groups, History channel, discovery channel interviews with top scientists) completely make a joke out of any of these arguments.

Yeah, just read enough official statements and suddenly you will make out the 757 remnants in this picture:

http://thetruthnews.info/pentagon%20lawn.jpg

Check the evidence for yourself with an open mind, if you come to their conclusions, good for you - it means you live in a fine world.


I'd like to know that as well. Why wasn't the Standard Operating Procedure followed like it was supposed to be on 9/11? I forget, there were too many training exercises going on that very morning so the fighter pilots were a little confused as to if it were real-world or just another drill.

Robin Hordon is a former air traffic controller. He claims that the protocols were changed in summer 2001. Watch this video for more information:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5343541979128778791&ei=lRv-SrjLMaGI2wKI_em-CQ&q=robin+hordon&hl=en


So, you're telling us that even though democrats would love to hang Dick Cheney and prosecute Bush for "war crimes"....that they must be playing ball will the big conspiracy too? Because as I'm sure you're aware...as high as the stakes are to take control in DC, that the republican party and leadership was able to control the CIA (you know, those guys who now write "tell-all" books) and have them all remain silent..and the Dems aren't even trying to assert this inane possibility? LMFAO!!! OMFG! You guys are seriously, absolutely devoid of any real life reasoning skills! :confused:

Again, nice story there. Write as much as you like, there is still no conclusive photographic evidence backing up the official story.

How hard can it be to take a picture of a 200 ton airliner that hit a building?

http://911research.com/reviews/loose_change/docs/delmont1.jpg

Where did the plane go? The building only partially collapsed 30 minutes after the impact - shouldn't the plane be lying in front of the building?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/pent_lawn_impeccable.jpg

You can't deliver any convincing evidence, that is why you have to resort to your "all that CT stuff is soooooo absurd" argumentation.

Forget the political implications for a moment and just ask you this:

Is it really sooooo absurd to assume that maybe no 757 hit the pentagon when there is no conclusive photographic evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon?

But that is not your approach.

Is that your approach:

I don't like the implications of this hypothesis, therefore it cannot be true (no matter the evidence).

Is that scientific?

GrokTheCube
11-13-2009, 08:27 PM
Is that your approach:

I don't like the implications of this hypothesis, therefore it cannot be true (no matter the evidence).

Is that scientific?

I think you missed my previous post.

Would you expect a 757-200 to leave big chunks of debris visible from a quarter mile away if it was hit by a tactical nuke? How about if it slammed into a mountain WHILE being hit with a tactical nuke?

Do you REALLY think that hundreds of eye witnesses, plane parts, and DNA popped out of nowhere? Do you think that the government PLANTED HUNDREDS OF FAKE WITNESSES? Who all happened to by in the right place at the right time?

Pretty sure my Aunt isn't a government plant... Just sayin...

I actually KNOW someone that saw the damn thing.

Ok, now that we have the following evidence for a plane hitting it:

Hundreds of pieces of eyewitness testimony.

Pieces of the plane that was hijacked.

PHOTOS of the pieces of the plane (planted, of course *roll eyes*)

Remains from people on the plane.

Can you show us any REAL evidence of it being a missile? This would mean:

Missile parts.

Photographs of missile parts.

Hundreds of people saying the saw a missile.

ETC

REAL evidence, not "Well, I'm Joe Blow that doesn't know jack all about anything related to the subject, but that hole should have been way bigger. There's no way a hollow, stiff object carrying enough jet fuel to equate to well over 300 tons of TNT would possible be blown into tiny parts hitting a reinforced concrete wall designed to take bomb blasts at 500MPH. In my very expert opinion, the plane should have not only destroyed half the building, but also have been left almost completely intact!"

Do y'all have ANY idea how insane you look trying to argue that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon?

Asking why there's no photographic evidence of the 757 that hit the Pentagon is like asking why there's no photographic evidence of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

Also, frankly, there IS photographic evidence, the pieces are just smaller than you'd like them to be.

KnowledgeSeeker
11-13-2009, 10:31 PM
Hmmm 5 pages and still no one posted images proving a plane hit the Pentagon. Its funny because the people that believe the governments story wont even dare to post the "evidence" of the wreckage.

Since you all are embarrassed to post it, I will. Is this the evidence of a plane crash you all chose to believe? LOL

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg/800px-Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

What happened to the rest of the Boeing 757?

KnowledgeSeeker
11-13-2009, 10:51 PM
And confesses when not knowing he was being recorded.

"This is too big for me"
"Im not supposed to be in it"
"It was planned"

3GHM5f9lVho