why did the wtc's collapse? conclusive proof

[russell jones]

Nope. You're wrong. A shit ton of people were involved in the CIA's drug dealing escapades.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/W_plane.html

http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/873

 

 

Those are long articles, care to point out the part that supports your argument?

 

Either way, the secret got out.

 

You claim that 100's of people are keeping the secret of 1000's of our own innocent people being murdered by our own government in one day. But they couldn't keep these other less important and less damaging secrets?

[russell jones]

There were barely any plane parts at the Pentagon.

 

 

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

 

that's a lot of witnesses.

[Lesbian Fisting]

 

The plane crashed IN TO the Pentagon, not at the Pentagon.

[lord_casek]

Really?

[Lesbian Fisting]

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

 

I dont know what your photo is trying to show?

[lord_casek]

A hole too small for a large passenger jet.

 

Show me video of that fucker going into the Pentagon.

[fastZeetec302]

no plane went into the pentagon. we all know bush littered the scene with jet parts.

[Lesbian Fisting]

The hole was made by the landing gear being pushed by the explosion. You think a 757 makes a cartoon punch out on the 3rd ring of the building? Show me a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

[lord_casek]

The hole was made by the landing gear being pushed by the explosion. You think a 757 makes a cartoon punch out on the 3rd ring of the building? Show me a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

 

 

So, you think the wings "melted"?

 

 

 

 

The burden of proof is now upon you. Show me a plane hitting that fucking building.

Oh? You can't? Why? Because only five frames of video were released to the public.

 

When 75 cameras are on that side alone, and they only release five frames....something is rotten in Denmark.

[fastZeetec302]

the wings and tail are like butter when a plane is going 200 mph or how ever fast they go, and then hit something.

[Lesbian Fisting]

And again

 

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#bigplane

 

Show me a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

[russell jones]

So, you think the wings "melted"?

 

 

 

 

The burden of proof is now upon you. Show me a plane hitting that fucking building.

Oh? You can't? Why? Because only five frames of video were released to the public.

 

When 75 cameras are on that side alone, and they only release five frames....something is rotten in Denmark.

 

If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then what happened to it?

[lord_casek]

the wings and tail are like butter when a plane is going 200 mph or how ever fast they go, and then hit something.

 

 

I can cite plenty of crashes where the wings were not like butter. Wanna know how fast that plane was going? Get ready for this because it's quite impossible to pull the maneuver that this non experienced pilot pulled (even impossible for a very experienced pilot)

 

530 MPH.

 

Here's what pilots say:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

 

Remember Ted Olson? He was the Solicitor General. He claims his wife called him via cell phone while the plane was being hijacked. This is how the whole "being hijacked using boxcutters" shit came out. The FBI says no such calls were made during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. http://www.zimbio.com/Ted+Olson/articles/6gELkGlBsd7/FBI+9+11+cell+phone+calls+jets+not+happen

[lord_casek]

If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then what happened to it?

 

 

That's what I'd like to know.

[fastZeetec302]

im saying a plane flying 500 mph or whatever, hitting a building, the wings would be like cardboard.

[lord_casek]

im saying a plane flying 500 mph or whatever, hitting a building, the wings would be like cardboard.

 

 

First: There is no way possible for that to happen. A plane couldn't be that low and stay aloft for long enough to hit the building.

 

Second: If this did happen, where are the wings? Did they just disappear? No marks on the building from wings. Did a black hole swallow them? Why weren't they just sheered off and somewhere outside of the impact zone?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

im saying a plane flying 500 mph or whatever, hitting a building, the wings would be like cardboard.

 

Ayo, last time I heard from you, you were about to "smoke that L" and watch some video's.

 

You got an opinion on them? Or you still talking out of your ass?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

im saying a plane flying 500 mph or whatever, hitting a building, the wings would be like cardboard.

 

If the plane did hit the Pentagon, I doubt it was going 500mph, the wings would be destroyed, but they wouldn't vaporize. C'mon son.

[Lesbian Fisting]

The plane hit at an angle. Not dead on.

 

This video is a good watch.

[lord_casek]

Flight path supplied by NTSB

 

Phone call regarding the data recorder

 

Flight 77 full maneuver

[karmatikal]

someone explain this please

 

[lord_casek]

Looks like the clips are edited.

[russell jones]

That's what I'd like to know.

 

Exactly, was the plane somehow disappeared by the conspirators? That is an extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about those...

 

Regarding the flight data recorder: sometimes in even very controlled experiments, some results or data remain unexplained. A lack of explanation does not imply that any myriad of causes or explanations can be forwarded without supporting evidence.

 

When you look at your favorite conspiracy theories, think about if a preponderance of the evidence available can support the conspiracy theory any better than the official story. I predict you will find far more unexplained holes in the conspiracies theories than in the official story.

[karmatikal]

Looks like the clips are edited.

 

so the official video released by the gov't was doctored?

[lord_casek]

Exactly, was the plane somehow disappeared by the conspirators? That is an extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about those...

 

Regarding the flight data recorder: sometimes in even very controlled experiments, some results or data remain unexplained. A lack of explanation does not imply that any myriad of causes or explanations can be forwarded without supporting evidence.

 

When you look at your favorite conspiracy theories, think about if a preponderance of the evidence available can support the conspiracy theory any better than the official story. I predict you will find far more unexplained holes in the conspiracies theories than in the official story.

 

 

You ever read that Operation Northwoods proposal? It was proposed to fill a plan with CIA agents acting as a college students and then "blow it up", which would be a fake plane. The idea was to get Americans so pissed off at Cuba that we would have to invade. You don't think plans like that just go away, do you?

 

The only thing that's filled with holes is the official story. No pilot could pull the maneuver needed to hit the Pentagon. That's saying a whole lot right there.

 

so the official video released by the gov't was doctored?

 

 

If you want to call five frames "the official video" be my guest. Out of 75 cameras around, 5 frames....

 

Also, the Pentagon has surface to air missiles, big ass turret guns, etc. all over it. They didn't happen to be functioning that day for some reason.

[russell jones]

You ever read that Operation Northwoods proposal? It was proposed to fill a plan with CIA agents acting as a college students and then "blow it up", which would be a fake plane. The idea was to get Americans so pissed off at Cuba that we would have to invade. You don't think plans like that just go away, do you?

 

The only thing that's filled with holes is the official story. No pilot could pull the maneuver needed to hit the Pentagon. That's saying a whole lot right there.

 

.

 

So what did they do with the plane? And all the people who were riding on it who have not been seen since?

 

Just so you know, if you read the Pilots for 911 Truth site, they did not say that the maneuver to hit the Pentagon was impossible. They said that the data from the flight recorder says that it was impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles based on the altitude of the plane as it approached the Pentagon. That is their interpretation of the data. Indeed, they did not say that is was impossible to actually hit the light poles, but that the flight recorder data contradicts that possibility. They specifically state on the same page that you linked that the maneuver was not only possible, but something that any experienced pilot could do. It would take some luck on the first try, but it was possible according to them.

 

Do you have any other evidence that is was impossible?

 

Besides, if the conspirators knew that hitting the Pentagon with a plane was impossible, then why would they use that as their cover up story, if it could be so easily disproven? Why not hit another building? Why hit the Pentagon at all? I am aware of the insurance scam angle for the Twin Towers, but what is the angle for the Pentagon? Also, how did they get plane parts on scene without anyone noticing?

[nsmbfan]

The 9/11 conspiracy theory comes down to how many people are required to pull it off and keep the secret. Anyone with half a brain can see that most of the conspiracy theories require 100's if not 1000's of people to keep their mouths shut about a mass murder committed on their own people for nearly 10 years.

 

 

 

this is right along the lines with the idea of a corporate bailout being necessary, as the corporations are "TOO BIG TO FAIL"

 

 

keeping a secret is clearly impossible. everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

i honestly boggles my mind at the logistics of making something like 9/11 actually come to fruition. so many of the governments fail safes had to have failed simultaneously if in fact the planes were hijacked by terrorists - or if it was even a plane in the pentagons case. it hurts my head to imagine that we're all just collateral damage in a cash game. but it makes more sense than sand niggers and box cutters. period.

 

 

truth is you dont want to believe that you have absolutely no control. you dont want to admit you are owned by your masters. you want to have a good grasp on things. you wear big boy pants everyday. you should have a good grip on reality because what you perceive HAS TO BE REAL... as perception is reality in your case. :confused:

 

 

you don't see wind, yet you know it exists. you feeble minded fuck. /nohate

[lord_casek]

So what did they do with the plane? And all the people who were riding on it who have not been seen since?

 

Just so you know, if you read the Pilots for 911 Truth site, they did not say that the maneuver to hit the Pentagon was impossible. They said that the data from the flight recorder says that it was impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles based on the altitude of the plane as it approached the Pentagon. That is their interpretation of the data. Indeed, they did not say that is was impossible to actually hit the light poles, but that the flight recorder data contradicts that possibility. They specifically state on the same page that you linked that the maneuver was not only possible, but something that any experienced pilot could do. It would take some luck on the first try, but it was possible according to them.

 

Do you have any other evidence that is was impossible?

 

Besides, if the conspirators knew that hitting the Pentagon with a plane was impossible, then why would they use that as their cover up story, if it could be so easily disproven? Why not hit another building? Why hit the Pentagon at all? I am aware of the insurance scam angle for the Twin Towers, but what is the angle for the Pentagon? Also, how did they get plane parts on scene without anyone noticing?

 

 

Same thing they would have done with the Northwoods flight? The plan was to land it, get all the CIA agent "passengers" off, then remotely control the plane (it's been possible for a long time to remotely control airliners) to somewhere over Miami and blow it up mid air.

 

I would speculate that it could have been flown right over the Pentagon (which would account for witness testimony of seeing a plane fly over, and then blast a Global Hawk or whatever, right into the side of the building. Hell, it could have even been bombs in the building with a flyover.

 

 

NILA SAGADEVAN: 9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

 

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/

 

 

 

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Scroll down a little to see the pilots comments.

 

 

This is especially interesting:

 

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

[russell jones]

this is right along the lines with the idea of a corporate bailout being necessary, as the corporations are "TOO BIG TO FAIL"

 

 

keeping a secret is clearly impossible. everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

That is a poor analogy. Go ahead and name a secret of this magnitude that had been kept for more than a decade and I will believe you. Also, think of chances of the secret being revealed, the consequences of the secret being revealed, and what that would mean for the people planning the operation. Then imagine if the planners could conceivably take that risk.

 

If agreeing with Noam Chomsky means I'm feeble minded, I'll take it. :)

[russell jones]

Same thing they would have done with the Northwoods flight? The plan was to land it, get all the CIA agent "passengers" off, then remotely control the plane (it's been possible for a long time to remotely control airliners) to somewhere over Miami and blow it up mid air.

 

I would speculate that it could have been flown right over the Pentagon (which would account for witness testimony of seeing a plane fly over, and then blast a Global Hawk or whatever, right into the side of the building. Hell, it could have even been bombs in the building with a flyover.

 

 

NILA SAGADEVAN: 9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

 

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/

 

 

 

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Scroll down a little to see the pilots comments.

 

 

This is especially interesting:

 

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

 

obviously there's some disagreement in the pilot as truther community about this maneuver. Some think it's possible, some don't. You didn't answer the most important question, which was: If this move is impossible, then why use it as the cover up? Also, why not provide flight recorder information that supports your case?