why did the wtc's collapse? conclusive proof

[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?

[lord_casek]

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?

 

 

I have no idea. I'd be being dishonest of I said otherwise.

 

Check this out:

 

 

"For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F–16s, pilots, and crews on alert at Langley Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. I am not going to get into the details because it is important for national security not to reveal what they were doing, but they were very much in harm's way. I will not get into any more detail other than to say, these pilots —the Happy Hooligans, and any others who were involved in that scrambled mission to protect our Nation's Capital, and the region here in the DC area—really were willing to give their lives in a generally undefended position." -S9498, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, September 19, 2001

[russell jones]

I have no idea. I'd be being dishonest of I said otherwise.

 

Check this out:

 

 

"For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F–16s, pilots, and crews on alert at Langley Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. I am not going to get into the details because it is important for national security not to reveal what they were doing, but they were very much in harm's way. I will not get into any more detail other than to say, these pilots —the Happy Hooligans, and any others who were involved in that scrambled mission to protect our Nation's Capital, and the region here in the DC area—really were willing to give their lives in a generally undefended position." -S9498, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, September 19, 2001

 

ahh... Your point? That the planes could have been intercepted (assuming that is possible)?

 

It seems to me, that if one was planning a conspiracy, in which one was going to be faking much of the evidence, that one would provide evidence that supports one's story unambiguously. It is a contradiction to believe that:

 

A. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

B. The faked evidence from the flight data recorder shows that a plane did not hit the Pentagon

 

I'm not saying that either proposition is true in itself, but it is difficult to believe the second if one believes the first. Real evidence sometimes can be interpreted in many ways, fake evidence that is being used to cover up a conspiracy should be as unambiguous as possible wouldn't you think?

Besides this, you are still left with providing evidence or explaining:

 

1. Plane parts at the Pentagon crash site, how were they planted without anyone noticing?

2. Where did the plane go? How were the aircraft controllers and tracking devices fooled?

3. Did any witness see a rocket hit the Pentagon?

4. How did they dispose of the bodies of everyone on the plane and the plane itself?

 

You have speculated on the answers to some of these questions, but you cannot provide actual hard evidence to support any of these claims. There seems to be more holes in the conspiracy theory than the standard theory, but maybe I'm crazy and am missing something.

[lord_casek]

ahh... Your point? That the planes could have been intercepted (assuming that is possible)?

 

It seems to me, that if one was planning a conspiracy, in which one was going to be faking much of the evidence, that one would provide evidence that supports one's story unambiguously. It is a contradiction to believe that:

 

A. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

B. The faked evidence from the flight data recorder shows that a plane did not hit the Pentagon

 

I'm not saying that either proposition is true in itself, but it is difficult to believe the second if one believes the first. Real evidence sometimes can be interpreted in many ways, fake evidence that is being used to cover up a conspiracy should be as unambiguous as possible wouldn't you think?

Besides this, you are still left with providing evidence or explaining:

 

1. Plane parts at the Pentagon crash site, how were they planted without anyone noticing?

2. Where did the plane go? How were the aircraft controllers and tracking devices fooled?

3. Did any witness see a rocket hit the Pentagon?

4. How did they dispose of the bodies of everyone on the plane and the plane itself?

 

You have speculated on the answers to some of these questions, but you cannot provide actual hard evidence to support any of these claims. There seems to be more holes in the conspiracy theory than the standard theory, but maybe I'm crazy and am missing something.

 

 

1. Crates? That part was partially being remodelled.

2. A hangar? Easily. We live in the future.

3. Unsure. There was a witness inside who described it as feeling like a bomb went off.

4/ If you read any of what I was talking about when I mentioned Northwoods, you'd see that the plane in Northwoods was to be filled with CIA agents. Did this happen this time? Maybe. I don't really know.

 

Maybe you are. I'd be glad to flesh it out more.

[Lesbian Fisting]

1. Crates? That part was partially being remodelled.

2. A hangar? Easily. We live in the future.

3. Unsure. There was a witness inside who described it as feeling like a bomb went off.

4/ If you read any of what I was talking about when I mentioned Northwoods, you'd see that the plane in Northwoods was to be filled with CIA agents. Did this happen this time? Maybe. I don't really know.

 

Maybe you are. I'd be glad to flesh it out more.

 

1. They snuck in mangled airliner parts and managed to hide them in the exact place of impact? And threw them across the lawn?

 

2. That would require WAY more people to be involved in the conspiracy and to keep it hidden for this long or long enough to dismantle, then mass grave the civilians? A loooong stretch.

 

3. I imagine a plane exploding into the building I was in would feel like a bomb. When Im hungover, I feel like I was in a car wreck. I wasnt literally, but thats how I can make my point.

 

4. Im reading on Northwoods, but what Ive got so far it doesnt involve killing civilians.

[lord_casek]

1. They snuck in mangled airliner parts and managed to hide them in the exact place of impact? And threw them across the lawn?

 

2. That would require WAY more people to be involved in the conspiracy and to keep it hidden for this long or long enough to dismantle, then mass grave the civilians? A loooong stretch.

 

3. I imagine a plane exploding into the building I was in would feel like a bomb. When Im hungover, I feel like I was in a car wreck. I wasnt literally, but thats how I can make my point.

 

4. Im reading on Northwoods, but what Ive got so far it doesnt involve killing civilians.

 

 

In regards to Northwoods: I already told you, a plane filled with CIA agents posing as college students.