Page 2 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Jan 2011, 1:55 pm

Or neither the government nor the witnesses are lying.

You know supposedly cops say you can tell when people are lying when everyone has their stories straight. When everything is a convoluted mess you can then assume people are telling the truth after a traumatic event.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

23 Jan 2011, 2:16 am

Lets assume both are not lying.

Where is the physical evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

23 Jan 2011, 6:22 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Or neither the government nor the witnesses are lying.

You know supposedly cops say you can tell when people are lying when everyone has their stories straight. When everything is a convoluted mess you can then assume people are telling the truth after a traumatic event.


These people are Police, they are professional witnesses, they are used to traumatic events, plus, they both whre asked to draw how they remembered the flight path, they both drew a path that was pretty much exactly what the other cop drew. Both of them saw and where looking the complete other direction from the official flight path which would have had the plane fly behind thier backs.

As for the official story being a "convoluted mess", this is nonsense, the officials had the black box, the traffic control radar, the broken light poles and probably a dozen films of the flight path which they have never released even one of to show the public what really happened, dont you find that suspitious?



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

23 Jan 2011, 8:08 am

I am no expert on plane wreckage but the guy who wrote this may be on to something about what really did hit the pentagon,. Maybe it was not a missle and maybe it was a small fighter jet. You's can decide because i can't say what hit it, other than it was not a Boeing 757

Quote:
Simply compare.

Compare the devastation allegedly wrought by large jumbo jets that struck buildings one and two at the World Trade Center with the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Wouldn't you suppose that a much smaller plane hit the Pentagon since the damage was far less?

What hit the Pentagon was very likely an A3 Sky Warrior pictured below.

Image


Pictured below is what I believe is an A3 Sky Warrior remotely controlled firing a missile at the Pentagon before crashing into the building.

Image


Pictured below are the debris images from the Pentagon of what I believe are A3 Sky Warrior aircraft parts. This is called a Diffuser Case.

Image


This is (below) the Diffuser Case from a 757.

Image


This is (below) debris from the Pentagon and appears to be the wheel hub from an A3 Sky Warrior.

Image


This is (below) the wheel hub from a Boeing 757.

Image

Investigate and Expose 911. It's the only chance we have and it's critical to the National Security of the civilian population of the United States.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Jan 2011, 3:48 pm

PatrickNeville wrote:
Lets assume both are not lying.

Where is the physical evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?


Didn't they recover some landing gear from the pentagon crash? If I remember correctly it was too large to be from a military fighter aircraft.

Anyways, the Pentagon was constructed in a manner that is low to the ground, plus it's shape actually helps with structural integrity. Additionally, the aircraft supposedly struck the ground before it actually hit the pentagon which shed a lot of kinetic energy before it finally hit the Pentagon. It is a lot harder to aim a large aircraft to fly into a 2 to 3 story building than a sky scraper. Additionally planes can fly low enough to drop off radar.

Finally, there were 4 planes that went missing, 2 hit the twin towers, one went down in a field, and the 4th hit the pentagon. If this 4th plane supposedly didn't hit the pentagon and it was a fighter that hit the pentagon, where is the 4th plane.



Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

23 Jan 2011, 5:24 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
PatrickNeville wrote:
Lets assume both are not lying.

Where is the physical evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?


Didn't they recover some landing gear from the pentagon crash? If I remember correctly it was too large to be from a military fighter aircraft.

Anyways, the Pentagon was constructed in a manner that is low to the ground, plus it's shape actually helps with structural integrity. Additionally, the aircraft supposedly struck the ground before it actually hit the pentagon which shed a lot of kinetic energy before it finally hit the Pentagon. It is a lot harder to aim a large aircraft to fly into a 2 to 3 story building than a sky scraper. Additionally planes can fly low enough to drop off radar.

Finally, there were 4 planes that went missing, 2 hit the twin towers, one went down in a field, and the 4th hit the pentagon. If this 4th plane supposedly didn't hit the pentagon and it was a fighter that hit the pentagon, where is the 4th plane.


I used to be an aircraft mechanic, one thing I can report is that anything to do with any aircraft is obsessively documented, every hour of flight, every part changed, its recorded and signed for.
Now, a couple of years after 911, somebody posted a list of the current status of civillian planes, this list included the serial numbers of two of the 911 planes, they where recorded as "serviceable".
Now, there is no way they would have been recoded as such if they had been destroyed, belive me, it just doesnt happen.

Dont ask me for a link, it was years ago I saw this, I might even have recorded it to disc, but Iam certainly not going through all my collection to find it for somebody who will refuse to belive anyway, maybe if you do a search you will find it, after these years those planes might now be out of service anyway.

As for your mention of bouncing off the lawn to loose energy, you shoulc look through all the posts where you will see that no real damage was ever done to the lawn.
If the aircraft lost energy anyway, how did it manage to penetrtae 3 rings of the Pentagon?

This is one of the inconsistancies with the official story, they say there are no parts, wings etc, because the plane "vapourisied" on impact, well, if it vapourised, what on earth was left to penetrate a further two rings of the Pentagon?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Jan 2011, 6:01 pm

Nambo wrote:
I used to be an aircraft mechanic, one thing I can report is that anything to do with any aircraft is obsessively documented, every hour of flight, every part changed, its recorded and signed for.


That is true in theory, but not always in fact.

Nambo wrote:
Now, a couple of years after 911, somebody posted a list of the current status of civillian planes, this list included the serial numbers of two of the 911 planes, they where recorded as "serviceable".
Now, there is no way they would have been recoded as such if they had been destroyed, belive me, it just doesnt happen.


Which could have been a paperwork screwup. They recovered enough of the aircraft in that field to for sure say it was one of the missing planes. The first one that hit the World Trade Center was saw by witnesses and the 2nd was also caught on tape. So this theory has 1 too many planes showing up as serviceable to be accurate.

Nambo wrote:
Dont ask me for a link, it was years ago I saw this, I might even have recorded it to disc, but Iam certainly not going through all my collection to find it for somebody who will refuse to belive anyway, maybe if you do a search you will find it, after these years those planes might now be out of service anyway.


Or parts from those planes had been removed prior to 9/11, they screwed up on paperwork, or any number of more plausible explanations.

In this case you are referring to Flight 93, that was actually found to be that there was another plane with similar number designations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Now we could argue a military aircraft destroyed Flight 93 because of the fact terrorists were using the planes as guided missiles, and the Government is lieing about it to make the passengers onboard Flight 93 out to be heros, or simply they don't want to admit authorizing the deaths of American Citizens onboard that aircraft. That is actually a more plausible argument.

Nambo wrote:
As for your mention of bouncing off the lawn to loose energy, you shoulc look through all the posts where you will see that no real damage was ever done to the lawn.
If the aircraft lost energy anyway, how did it manage to penetrtae 3 rings of the Pentagon?


Lost some energy I didn't say all the energy was lost, if that was the case the Pentagon would just have a flaming aircraft as a new next door neighbor instead of going through a wall.

Nambo wrote:
This is one of the inconsistancies with the official story, they say there are no parts, wings etc, because the plane "vapourisied" on impact, well, if it vapourised, what on earth was left to penetrate a further two rings of the Pentagon?


I wouldn't say vaporized on impact, however aluminum (which is what passenger planes are made out of) has a melting point of 660.32 degrees celcius. All it would take is the resulting temperature of the raging inferno to excede that temperature and we would be dealing with a liquid. All four planes had full tanks of fuel, so there was plenty potential for the generation of large amounts of heat.

However, it wasn't a pure vaporization, parts of the plane were recovered (I imagine some parts melted). Supposedly a nose cone, landing gear, a cockpit seat, some passenger belongings, and the data recorders. The fighter you are saying could have hit the Pentagon couldn't have even flown with that kind of landing gear, and a missile could not have carried enough jet fuel for that kind of fire.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

24 Jan 2011, 4:39 am

Inuyasha wrote:
PatrickNeville wrote:
Lets assume both are not lying.

Where is the physical evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?


Didn't they recover some landing gear from the pentagon crash? If I remember correctly it was too large to be from a military fighter aircraft.

Anyways, the Pentagon was constructed in a manner that is low to the ground, plus it's shape actually helps with structural integrity. Additionally, the aircraft supposedly struck the ground before it actually hit the pentagon which shed a lot of kinetic energy before it finally hit the Pentagon. It is a lot harder to aim a large aircraft to fly into a 2 to 3 story building than a sky scraper. Additionally planes can fly low enough to drop off radar.

Finally, there were 4 planes that went missing, 2 hit the twin towers, one went down in a field, and the 4th hit the pentagon. If this 4th plane supposedly didn't hit the pentagon and it was a fighter that hit the pentagon, where is the 4th plane.


I seen this before i went to bed and had a think about it.

I guess the design of the pentagon would make a massive difference, but i'd still have expected a larger hole. not sure for myself though. plus, considering the length of a jet that size should there not have been a larger mark on the ground, seeing as in the plane hit the very bottom of the building?

4 planes went missing as you said..... what was the flight path of the plane that was meant to have hit the pentagon meant to have been? that is a good place to start. if it went over seas there is a good chance it was sunk into the ocean then a missle or fighter craft filled in for that plane. just a possibility.

the things which really bother me is though, is that that nobody was allowed footage of the crash site without being confiscated and no reliable videos have been released of a jet hitting the building. it is perplexing how any government claiming a jet hit a building is reluctant to show all the video evidence of such an event.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jan 2011, 9:52 am

Hundreds if not thousands saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. I was about three miles away on Rte 27 that morning and I saw a heavy commercial airplane flying low toward the Pentagon. I was unable to see it crash into the Pentagon, but I hear the explosion and did not see the plane come up again.

A plane did hit the Pentagon.

ruveyn



Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

24 Jan 2011, 11:35 am

ruveyn wrote:
Hundreds if not thousands saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. I was about three miles away on Rte 27 that morning and I saw a heavy commercial airplane flying low toward the Pentagon. I was unable to see it crash into the Pentagon, but I hear the explosion and did not see the plane come up again.

A plane did hit the Pentagon.

ruveyn


More like Millions wasnt it!
And I bet they all saw evil wide eyed Muslims sitting at the controls reading the Quran.
Shame not a single one of them, or all the surviellence cameras could let us see just one little picture.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

24 Jan 2011, 12:25 pm

Deconspiracy topic

Constructing any conspiracy theory involves stringing together tantalizing pearls and neglecting the pieces that will make the theory unappetizing, unwearable and of course, unpolitical. And making it more complicated that it truly is will absolve the eleven terrorists who did the deed.

Terrorism is an end in itself and exists regardless of religion, ethnicity and politics. Its sole aim is to instill fthe kind of fear that is random and this fear is the weapon of choice of psychopaths and terror groups, employed in a way that cannot be easily analyzed and predicted, making it difficult to know when and how it will happen again.

All three 9/11 acts of destructive terror were different. Our tendency as humans is to make sense of what happened, and some will employ paranoid plotting strategies to explain away these terrible events. In addition, whereas many citizens of Islamic countries rejoiced when learning the terrorists were of the Muslim faith, now people like Nambo are against assuming that these terrorists were "wide-eyed Muslims reading the Quran". The eleven men responsible for using planes as bombs were of the Muslim faith, but to blame the religion for the terror is to ignore Irish terrorists, Dutch guerillas, German Bader Meinhof gangs, and the like. Terror is a political act by groups of individuals who desire to strike randomized fear and to provoke the very paranoia that they themselves harbour. Thus a "War on Terror" is fundamentally fruitless.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

24 Jan 2011, 12:39 pm

Nambo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Hundreds if not thousands saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. I was about three miles away on Rte 27 that morning and I saw a heavy commercial airplane flying low toward the Pentagon. I was unable to see it crash into the Pentagon, but I hear the explosion and did not see the plane come up again.

A plane did hit the Pentagon.

ruveyn


More like Millions wasnt it!
And I bet they all saw evil wide eyed Muslims sitting at the controls reading the Quran.
Shame not a single one of them, or all the surviellence cameras could let us see just one little picture.


I don't think every Muslim is to blame, that is simply foolish. I do wish the moderate muslims would stand up and take a stand against the radical fanatics though.



Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

24 Jan 2011, 12:46 pm

sartresue wrote:
Terror is a political act by groups of individuals who desire to strike randomized fear and to provoke the very paranoia that they themselves harbour. Thus a "War on Terror" is fundamentally fruitless.


You know, when I was in the Navy in the mid 70s, we where told that the armed forces knew where all the Irish terrorists lived, and that the whole lot could be rounded up within two weeks, but that the governmnet didnt want us to, for "political reasons", that means the fear of terror was of some use to them.

Here is a defininition of terrorism:- the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Now, the standard response of western governmnets to true terrorism, is to ignore it, not to let it force you to change your way of life for then the terrorist has won.

Look at what has happened to the western world as a result of 911, have the Islamic countries achieved any goals?, and what are these goals by the way?, all thats happened to Islam is that the full force of the western millitary has been brought to bare on thier home countries and the name of Allah has been defamed.

So who else might have goals then that terrorism has achieved?
Look at America as a result of 911, the Partiot Act, (which incidently was pre-written and just waiting for an excuse to impliment), has been foisted on the American people putting them under more government control and survielence than even the Nazis did.
You have wars now that you must pay for, machines to x-ray you whe you go on planes, Americas being turned into a Police state, and the excuse being 911.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jan 2011, 1:19 pm

Nambo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Hundreds if not thousands saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. I was about three miles away on Rte 27 that morning and I saw a heavy commercial airplane flying low toward the Pentagon. I was unable to see it crash into the Pentagon, but I hear the explosion and did not see the plane come up again.

A plane did hit the Pentagon.

ruveyn


More like Millions wasnt it!
And I bet they all saw evil wide eyed Muslims sitting at the controls reading the Quran.
Shame not a single one of them, or all the surviellence cameras could let us see just one little picture.


At the time, I had no idea what was going on.

ruveyn



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Jan 2011, 1:07 am

Nambo wrote:
That video was posted in response to your post that witnesses had seen an airplane at the Pentagon.

So I posted a clip of two very trustyworthy witnesses.

They witnessed a flight path that was totally differant from the flight path the government tells us and that the black box indicated.

So, the video was posted to order to you to come to one of two conclusions.
Your "Witnesses" where lying.
Or :-
Your governmnet was lying.

You cannot have both, (unless of course you might like to consider that two planes hit the Pentagon!)

As for your last line, "And, by the way, how do you know what the government said?", I presume you have said this in context to the flight path to the Pentagon?

If so, you have just demonstrated that you know very little about 911 except maybe what you have seen on Fox news and therefore what on earth are you wasting everybodies time here for, arguing about something you dont know even the basics of !

No wonder you still belive the government.


You didn't answer my question. Where did you get your information concerning what the government said? Even that first police officer said he wasn't aware of any witness saying what you claim the government said.

Could it be that you know much more than that police officer does?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Jan 2011, 6:56 am

Nambo wrote:
MCalavera wrote:

Weren't you arguing that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Those two witnesses showed how wrong you were. So what do you mean by "out of context"?

And, by the way, how do you know what the government said?



That video was posted in response to your post that witnesses had seen an airplane at the Pentagon.



I saw the commercial flight go down. I was too far away to actually see it crash. But I heard the explosion and I did not see the plane rise up again. I was surprised as hell at what I saw (who wouldn't be?) but I was not hallucinating. When I see a commercial flight less then two hundred feet above the ground nowhere near a runway I get a little shook up.

ruveyn