Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jonnycool]

It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.

The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ?  They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?

And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. 

It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.   

 

That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.

They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.

Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.

Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.

It's 'unbelievably' true.   (although I'm not sure the 'moon landing' example was the best choice when dealing with a conspiracy theory.

The point I tried making earlier was the fact that some people are convinced that there is a conspiracy theory behind most things (Elvis, Diana etc etc,) and they may well be correct in some instances. I'm just not convinced by this one, taking everything into account

[PhilRich]

Anyone remember/see this piece of video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwAhkRciO7k



And I believe no discernible traces of flight 93 were found in or around the impact crater, supposedly for the same reasons as seen in the above video clip?

[Nickbat]

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."

Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do. 

I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)

Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm


However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Gosh...No 'wing' marks !!  :-? 

I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? 

[Unicornrider]

Ok please explain this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related

[Turk]

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."

Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do. 

I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)

Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm


However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Gosh...No 'wing' marks !!  :-? 

I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? 

:-? Deeply grooved impact scratches !?!  It was supposed to have been a commercial passenger airliner, not a hang glider. 

I think 'deeply grooved impact scratches' would be a bit of an understatement seeing as these wings also had a 6 tonne engine hanging underneath each one.

 

[steve_daly]

Ok please explain this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related

Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....

Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.

[Nickbat]

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."

Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do. 

I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)

Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm


However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Gosh...No 'wing' marks !!  :-? 

I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? 

:-? Deeply grooved impact scratches !?!  It was supposed to have been a commercial passenger airliner, not a hang glider. 

I think 'deeply grooved impact scratches' would be a bit of an understatement seeing as these wings also had a 6 tonne engine hanging underneath each one.

 

The engines normally shear off on impact. The leading edge of the wings is up to, say, 10 feet above the engines and obviously much wider in profile. By scratches (the only description I could think of at the time), I mean that, on impact with a substantial wall as at the Pentagon, the wings would fold back on to the fuselage, but may leave tell-tale marks (at least that's my best guess). Essentially, a plane's nose section would create an initial hole, then as the middle section of fuselage follows the wings, being less strong would be folded back/and or torn off and thus create telltale marks (scratches/gouges) as the fuselage continues to travel forwards through the hole.   

[Nickbat]

Ok please explain this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related

Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....

Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.

9:43am on a weekday in September. And are tourists allowed into the grounds of the Pentagon?

There are a lot more tourists in NYC, yet there are very few videos of the first plane impact, the notable exception being the one that was shot by a professional crew who happened to be out and about.
And, of course, the cameraman only looked up when he heard the jet noise and he just happened to be filming at the time. Had he not been been actually recording, he would have missed, such was the time between first seeing the plane and impact. And yet you think lots of tourists would have recorded AA 77's impact?   

And while we're on about it, don't you think ATC staff would have followed Flight 77 right to the site of the Pentagon, even if it was under the radar for the last half-mile and even if its "squawk indent" was switched off by the hijackers. I suppose the government paid them off as well.     

Methinks the conspiracy theorists are clutching at straws.

[Turk]

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."

Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do. 

I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)

Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm


However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Gosh...No 'wing' marks !!  :-? 

I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? 

:-? Deeply grooved impact scratches !?!  It was supposed to have been a commercial passenger airliner, not a hang glider. 

I think 'deeply grooved impact scratches' would be a bit of an understatement seeing as these wings also had a 6 tonne engine hanging underneath each one.

 

The engines normally shear off on impact. The leading edge of the wings is up to, say, 10 feet above the engines and obviously much wider in profile. By scratches (the only description I could think of at the time), I mean that, on impact with a substantial wall as at the Pentagon, the wings would fold back on to the fuselage, but may leave tell-tale marks (at least that's my best guess). Essentially, a plane's nose section would create an initial hole, then as the middle section of fuselage follows the wings, being less strong would be folded back/and or torn off and thus create telltale marks (scratches/gouges) as the fuselage continues to travel forwards through the hole.   

...and vanish into thin air, with not even a shadow of a mark, let alone the kind of devastation two 6 tonne wrecking balls travelling at 500mph would normally leave.

[Nickbat]

...and vanish into thin air, with not even a shadow of a mark, let alone the kind of devastation two 6 tonne wrecking balls travelling at 500mph would normally leave.

I don't know where the engines ended up. I wasn't there. Given the strength of the Pentagon's structure, it is likely they were partly vapourised in the same manner as the F4 test crash in the video posted above. Also, I have no idea of the angle of impact, which would make a great deal of difference.

However, there's no point in contesting this anymore. I think the factual evdience suggests that a Boeing 757 of American Airlines was flown at high speed into the wall of the Pentagon. You don't. I think that it's a stalemate.

[Turk]

Ok please explain this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related

Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....

Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.

9:43am on a weekday in September. And are tourists allowed into the grounds of the Pentagon?

There are a lot more tourists in NYC, yet there are very few videos of the first plane impact, the notable exception being the one that was shot by a professional crew who happened to be out and about.
And, of course, the cameraman only looked up when he heard the jet noise and he just happened to be filming at the time. Had he not been been actually recording, he would have missed, such was the time between first seeing the plane and impact. And yet you think lots of tourists would have recorded AA 77's impact?   

And while we're on about it, don't you think ATC staff would have followed Flight 77 right to the site of the Pentagon, even if it was under the radar for the last half-mile and even if its "squawk indent" was switched off by the hijackers. I suppose the government paid them off as well.     

Methinks the conspiracy theorists are clutching at straws.

 :-? Yep, I can just see them sitting there tracking it...all the way to the Pentagon.

Just like they watched the two WTC planes.

Think about it!  We're talking about an off course jet aircraft heading straight for The Pentagon. 

It is routine policy and practice for fighter jets to intercept planes if they go off course even by 2 miles. In the year prior to 9/11 there were 67 such intercepts.
So why were a total of four planes (well, three planes and one 'plane')allowed to stray off course without being intercepted?

[Turk]

...and vanish into thin air, with not even a shadow of a mark, let alone the kind of devastation two 6 tonne wrecking balls travelling at 500mph would normally leave.

I don't know where the engines ended up. I wasn't there. Given the strength of the Pentagon's structure, it is likely they were partly vapourised in the same manner as the F4 test crash in the video posted above. Also, I have no idea of the angle of impact, which would make a great deal of difference.

However, there's no point in contesting this anymore. I think the factual evdience suggests that a Boeing 757 of American Airlines was flown at high speed into the wall of the Pentagon. You don't. I think that it's a stalemate.

Read as: What the U.S government say. 

Nite 

[Vamps]

Should have gone by Bus......

[Unicornrider]

Its hard too take on board that a government could do that too there own people.
Dictators come in all shapes and sizes...not just short greasy haired moustache wearers..or Slightly over weight Iraqi moustache (hmmm there's a pattern lol) wearer.
Even them good ol boys who smile at the camera while calling you a tosser through gritted teeth can be just as merciless...people just dont except it thats all.

I reckon this sums it up rather nicely....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE

Good night Iggle piggle...

[cem_devecioglu]

unless those towers are made of plane paper 

there is no way that they will collapse in that manner..

remember that those steel back bones are designed to carry hundreds of thousands of tones vertically and also designed to withstand against enormous horizontal wind forces  and fire probabilities etc etc..And imo the engineering team wont sign any risky plans as it can effect their whole life..




and for the pentagon , in the real 9/11 video I have seen the parts/pieces left (interestingly cant find this video now :-?)  which was incomparable with an airplane crash..no engines , no wheels .. And I dont accept the theory that all parts was cut into small pieces and go into the hole.. Pentagon walls are not that thick compared to this f4 crash..

http://wtcdemolition.com/ * please watch the video..

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DemolitionWTC.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/introduction.html

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/   * please watch the video clips..



I hope those are enough