Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mons Venus on July 28, 2010, 11:49:56 AM
-
AP July 28 2010
ISLAMABAD — A passenger jet that officials suspect veered off course in monsoon rains and thick clouds crashed into hills overlooking Pakistan's capital Wednesday, killing all 152 people on board and scattering body parts and twisted metal far and wide.
WTF? I thought ALL jets Vaporize on impact. ??? ??? ???
-
even physics gets a day off now and then
-
even physics gets a day off now and then
;D ;D ;D
-
Maybe the World Trade Center and Pentagon were harder then solid stone that's hundreds of feet thick?
???
-
Maybe the World Trade Center and Pentagon were harder then solid stone that's hundreds of feet thick?
???
I like how that video tonymctones posted months ago showing pictures of airline parts littered all over the Pentagon gets conveniently ignored. ::)
-
I like how that video tonymctones posted months ago showing pictures of airline parts littered all over the Pentagon gets conveniently ignored. ::)
yep. enough to fill the back of a pickup truck.
-
yep. enough to fill the back of a pickup truck.
Maybe the Pentagon Airliner was constructed w/ Vaporizing parts ?
You know....less mess to pick up. :D :D :D
-
yep. enough to fill the back of a pickup truck.
The fuck would you know? You said you didn't have time to watch that video despite logging another 100 posts about 9/11 after saying that.
-
There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.
That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."
-
There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.
That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."
Umm Yeah... Riiiiggghhtttt...Ok. Inhale a little slower with the next joint
-
There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.
That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."
There will come a time when YOU will be labeled a CT'er for believing the official 911 lie. People will call YOU a CT'er.
-
AP July 28 2010
ISLAMABAD — A passenger jet that officials suspect veered off course in monsoon rains and thick clouds crashed into hills overlooking Pakistan's capital Wednesday, killing all 152 people on board and scattering body parts and twisted metal far and wide.
WTF? I thought ALL jets Vaporize on impact. ??? ??? ???
Maybe america should have all of its planes made in Pakistan
-
Umm Yeah... Riiiiggghhtttt...Ok. Inhale a little slower with the next joint
I did that and saw the Jet Liner crash into the empire state building like you told me about.
-
There will come a time when YOU will be labeled a CT'er for believing the official 911 lie. People will call YOU a CT'er.
Not if science, common sense, and skepticism are still around.
I don't believe the "official 911" story is 100% true. That's more than obvious. But to believe that wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon with out any concrete evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pure baseless CT'er mind frame.
-
The crash of the Pakistani Jetliner was really just a hologram being projected from the same studio in California where they faked the original moonlanding.
Wake up people.
-
I did that and saw the Jet Liner crash into the empire state building like you told me about.
You're still puffing too deep or you have mixed your weed with coke...
I said a JET crashed into the Empire State building...Keep facts straight.
-
There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.
That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."
Not if science, common sense, and skepticism are still around.
I don't believe the "official 911" story is 100% true. That's more than obvious. But to believe that wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon with out any concrete evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pure baseless CT'er mind frame.
I swear if you dont quit making sense and let these morons ramble on about things that can be disproven in 2 secs with google Im going to slap the common sense right out of you ;)
-
Not if science, common sense, and skepticism are still around.
I don't believe the "official 911" story is 100% true. That's more than obvious. But to believe that wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon with out any concrete evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pure baseless CT'er mind frame.
From watching the only surveilance video of the Pentagon crash the overwhelming evidence is that it was not an airliner. The object is simply not large enough. More evidence is the fact that the hole was too small initially prior to the collapse of the wall and the fact that there was no damage to the lawn in front of the pentagon. Those three pieces of evidence are not baseless.
How can a huge ass ariliner be flown 10 feet above the ground by a novice hijackker pilot and not scrape the grass as it slams into the ground floor of the pentagon a mere few feet off the ground? Explain that away.
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/r_how_great.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Petagon_Lawn_001.png)
(http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg)
-
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main)
-
The crash of the Pakistani Jetliner was really just a hologram being projected from the same studio in California where they faked the original moonlanding.
Wake up people.
lol. I was thinking the same thing.
-
From watching the only surveilance video of the Pentagon crash the overwhelming evidence is that it was not an airliner. The object is simply not large enough. More evidence is the fact that the hole was too small initially prior to the collapse of the wall and the fact that there was no damage to the lawn in front of the pentagon. Those three pieces of evidence are not baseless.
How can a huge ass ariliner be flown 10 feet above the ground by a novice hijackker pilot and not scrape the grass as it slams into the ground floor of the pentagon a mere few feet off the ground? Explain that away.
all been debunked....
like many ct'ers i assume you have never even looked at the evidence against the ct's you believe in?
-
all been debunked....
like many ct'ers i assume you have never even looked at the evidence against the ct's you believe in?
You have to debunk it. Claiming it has been debunked without actually doing it does not work. You don't need a 100 pages to debunk it. You should be able to debunk it in one paragraph at most. I looked for a debunking theory on the smooth lawn and have been unable to find a satisfying one. Please provide one if you can find it! I'll be the first to accept a plausible explanation.
'Anybody can put out a passenger list" - Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson)
-
You have to debunk it. Claiming it has been debunked without actually doing it does not work. You don't need a 100 pages to debunk it. You should be able to debunk it in one paragraph at most.
'Anybody can put out a passenger list" - Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson)
answer the question...have you ever looked at evidence the contradicts your ct? or is loose change your main source?
-
"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."
-
lets also look at this...what proof do you have that a missle hit the pentagon?
-
From watching the only surveilance video of the Pentagon crash the overwhelming evidence is that it was not an airliner. The object is simply not large enough. More evidence is the fact that the hole was too small initially prior to the collapse of the wall and the fact that there was no damage to the lawn in front of the pentagon. Those three pieces of evidence are not baseless.
How can a huge ass ariliner be flown 10 feet above the ground by a novice hijackker pilot and not scrape the grass as it slams into the ground floor of the pentagon a mere few feet off the ground? Explain that away.
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/r_how_great.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Petagon_Lawn_001.png)
(http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg)
Hi, quadzilla. Why are you posting on a gimmick, dickhead?
-
"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."
well that sure prove the video I just posted wrong...like you said
[/quote]You have to debunk it. Claiming it has been debunked without actually doing it does not work.
-
answer the question...have you ever looked at evidence the contradicts your ct? or is loose change your main source?
tell me why the video is wrong tarzan...
-
Quadzilla is just as brain-dead on his gimmick as he is on his quadzilla account. ::)
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO!
Don't fall into the CT'er abyss!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
answer the question...have you ever looked at evidence the contradicts your ct? or is loose change your main source?
This video does not answer the three issues that you said were debunked:
1. Small hole
2. Smooth lawn
3. Too small object in surveilance video flying a few feet above the ground.
I am not addressing the debris issue which can easily be faked by trucking in pieces and staging photos. Debunk the three items listed.
-
This video does not answer the three issues that you said were debunked:
1. Small hole
2. Smooth lawn
3. Too small object in surveilance video flying a more few feet above the ground.
I am not addressing the debris issue which can easily be faked by trucking in pieces and staging photos. Debunk the three items listed.
it addresses the hole...THIS SHOWS THAT YOU DIDNT EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
about the pentagon...WATCH THIS
what proof do you have that the debri was trucked in tarzan?
-
it addresses the hole...THIS SHOWS THAT YOU DIDNT EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WATCHED THE VIDEO. WHERE EXACTLY DO THEY ADDRESS THE IMPACT HOLE SIZE?
-
I WATCHED THE VIDEO. WHERE EXACTLY DO THEY ADDRESS THE IMPACT HOLE SIZE?
LOL I apologize I thought that was a different video...the loose change vs the popular mechanic one...watch the 2nd vid about the pentagon
what evidence do you have that the debri was trucked in?
-
about the pentagon...WATCH THIS
what proof do you have that the debri was trucked in tarzan?
(http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/precollapse.jpg)
(http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/pentagonrightafterattack-medium-init-.jpg)
(http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/Pentagonlawn.jpg)
Pre-collapse of the outer wing of the Pentagon
(http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/pristinelawn.jpg)
Post-collapse: Note pristine condition of lawn and presence of fire trucks right after "attack"
Fire engines arrived almost immediately. Right after the (whatever it was that hit, the lawn is smooth, green, unblemished with no debris. Later, debris starts showing up. Men in suits were walking around participating in distribution of debris.
(http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/menlawn4.jpg)
(http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/debrisonlawn.jpg)
Men in suits adding debris to the pristine Pentagon lawn after "attack"
-
LOL and how do you know the timeline of those photos?
you say right after the attack but the fire is already out...
LOL so you really have nothing just photos that could be interpreted 20 different ways?
-
(http://www.rense.com/general70/Pentagontarp500.jpg)
And enlisted men are seen carrying a very large box, covered with a blue tarp. Could this be a box full of debris they are bringing out to make the crash look more plausible?
Fetzer believes that an A3 Skywarrior and a missile hit the building.. The A3 Sky Warrior is also called the Whale- the largest plane ever designed to take off from an aircraft carrier. Part of an engine was found-about the right size for Skywarrior. (However, this also could have been planted evidence).
-
(http://www.rense.com/general70/Pentagontarp500.jpg)
And enlisted men are seen carrying a very large box, covered with a blue tarp. Could this be a box full of debris they are bringing out to make the crash look more plausible?
Fetzer believes that an A3 Skywarrior and a missile hit the building.. The A3 Sky Warrior is also called the Whale- the largest plane ever designed to take off from an aircraft carrier. Part of an engine was found-about the right size for Skywarrior. (However, this also could have been planted evidence).
LOL please give me a link to that photo tarzan, well see if it stands up to the 2 sec google test...
-
LOL and how do you know the timeline of those photos?
you say right after the attack but the fire is already out...
LOL so you really have nothing just photos that could be interpreted 20 different ways?
The outer wall collapsed about 30 minutes after impact. In these smooth lawn photos the wall is still standing so it is less than 30 minutes after impact. Yet no plane debris. You mean to tell me agents had removed the debris in less than 30 minutes after impact???
And LOL what other evidence do you have besides photographs? That IS the only evidence along with videos. Unless you want me to go back in time and stand on the lawn right before it happens.
-
(http://www.rense.com/general70/Pentagontarp500.jpg)
And enlisted men are seen carrying a very large box, covered with a blue tarp. Could this be a box full of debris they are bringing out to make the crash look more plausible?
Fetzer believes that an A3 Skywarrior and a missile hit the building.. The A3 Sky Warrior is also called the Whale- the largest plane ever designed to take off from an aircraft carrier. Part of an engine was found-about the right size for Skywarrior. (However, this also could have been planted evidence).
The Skywarrior has the J-57 jet engine, that thing is archaic and very small. The plane that hit the pentagon is a high bypass turbofan engine, which is literally 20 times the size of a J-57. The pics show the turbine wheel, and the circumference of that turbine wheel is greater than the J-57 itself, including the cowling.
-
LOL please give me a link to that photo tarzan, well see if it stands up to the 2 sec google test...
It is on many sites. Here is another found at:
http://911review.org/Wget/www.rense.com/schwarz_A3_engine.html (http://911review.org/Wget/www.rense.com/schwarz_A3_engine.html)
(http://911review.org/Wget/www.rense.com/img/tent-1.jpg)
-
It is on many sites. Here is another found at:
http://911review.org/Wget/www.rense.com/schwarz_A3_engine.html (http://911review.org/Wget/www.rense.com/schwarz_A3_engine.html)
(http://911review.org/Wget/www.rense.com/img/tent-1.jpg)
LMFAO your link shows that what is being carried in is actually a tent....
-
(http://www.rense.com/general70/Pentagontarp500.jpg)
And enlisted men are seen carrying a very large box, covered with a blue tarp. Could this be a box full of debris they are bringing out to make the crash look more plausible?
Fetzer believes that an A3 Skywarrior and a missile hit the building.. The A3 Sky Warrior is also called the Whale- the largest plane ever designed to take off from an aircraft carrier. Part of an engine was found-about the right size for Skywarrior. (However, this also could have been planted evidence).
WOW!!!!!!
They're carrying something under a blue tarp. That's some serious scientific proof of something!!! ::)
Fetzer also believes high energy beams from space knocked down the towers. Must be true...it's the only plausible explanation. ::)
-
WOW!!!!!!
They're carrying something under a blue tarp. That's some serious scientific proof of something!!! ::)
Fetzer also believes high energy beams from space knocked down the towers. Must be true...it's the only plausible explanation. ::)
the link he cited as proofs shows it to be an empty tent...I really dont know why that is supposed to be proof...
tarzan can you speak to this?
-
(http://www.rense.com/general70/Pentagontarp500.jpg)
And enlisted men are seen carrying a very large box, covered with a blue tarp. Could this be a box full of debris they are bringing out to make the crash look more plausible?
Fetzer believes that an A3 Skywarrior and a missile hit the building.. The A3 Sky Warrior is also called the Whale- the largest plane ever designed to take off from an aircraft carrier. Part of an engine was found-about the right size for Skywarrior. (However, this also could have been planted evidence).
LMFAO its an asembled tent like a tent for a car port...there is no box if you look at the labeled pic you posted it labels the inside as hollow...follow the link you posted and it shows its a tent...
again have you looked at info that contradicts your ct?
-
another ct angle bites the dust, this one took more than the usual 2 sec google search but still not to long at all...
makes you wonder if any of these ct nuts have ever looked for info that contradicts their ct's
-
another ct angle bites the dust, this one took more than the usual 2 sec google search but still not to long at all...
makes you wonder if any of these ct nuts have ever looked for info that contradicts their ct's
LMAO - what has been debunked?? I posted three issues and then you introduced you debris argument to run away from the three issues I raised. If you think that is the way to debunk theories then I guess yeah you win! *sarcasm inserted here*
AGAIN DEBUNK THIS - I REALLY WANT YOU TO BECAUSE IT IS HORRIBLE THINKING THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN FOREIGN TERRORISTS WERE BEHIND IT - PLEASE GIVE IT A REAL SERIOUS TRY!:
1. Small hole
2. Smooth lawn
3. Too small object in surveilance video flying a few feet above the ground.
-
another ct angle bites the dust, this one took more than the usual 2 sec google search but still not to long at all...
makes you wonder if any of these ct nuts have ever looked for info that contradicts their ct's
I concede it looks like a tent. Will check this out more tomorrow and the other video you referenced regarding the impact hole. In the meantime please address the three issues...
Thanks.
-
The outer wall collapsed about 30 minutes after impact. In these smooth lawn photos the wall is still standing so it is less than 30 minutes after impact. Yet no plane debris. You mean to tell me agents had removed the debris in less than 30 minutes after impact???
And LOL what other evidence do you have besides photographs? That IS the only evidence along with videos. Unless you want me to go back in time and stand on the lawn right before it happens.
-
LMAO - what has been debunked?? I posted three issues and then you introduced you debris argument to run away from the three issues I raised. If you think that is the way to debunk theories then I guess yeah you win! *sarcasm inserted here*
AGAIN DEBUNK THIS - I REALLY WANT YOU TO BECAUSE IT IS HORRIBLE THINKING THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN FOREIGN TERRORISTS WERE BEHIND IT - PLEASE GIVE IT A REAL SERIOUS TRY!:
1. Small hole
2. Smooth lawn
3. Too small object in surveilance video flying a few feet above the ground.
about the pentagon...WATCH THIS
what proof do you have that the debri was trucked in tarzan?
watch this video tarzan it addresses the hole and the lawn...
the reason I asked about your theory was not to run away, it was to show you there is much more proof towards a plane hitting the pentagon than a missle...
-
-
LOL so what you have is first gut reaction of a news program? LMAO that proves it....
watch and learn mons, watch and learn...dispute this video...
again what evidence do you or anybody have that a missle hit the pentagon?
all the evidence points to an airplane that is unless you have information that you have been keeping to yourself?
-
Why discuss jet engines when no PLANE was involved?
Oh that's right.....it VAPORIZED. puff! :D :D :D
-
Why discuss jet engines when no PLANE was involved?
Oh that's right.....it VAPORIZED. puff! :D :D :D
actually it didnt vaporize brain child there was wreckage there even the news reporter in YOUR clip said so...
again what evidence do you or anybody else have that a missle hit the pentagon?
-
actually it didnt vaporize brain child there was wreckage there even the news reporter in YOUR clip said so...
again what evidence do you or anybody else have that a missle hit the pentagon?
With HUNDREDS of cameras surrounding the Pentagon.....not ONE picture of a 757 crashing into it.
But hey.... Sully Sullenburger's Jetliner was caught on video landing in the Hudson. ;)
-
With HUNDREDS of cameras surrounding the Pentagon.....not ONE picture of a 757 crashing into it.
But hey.... Sully Sullenburger's Jetliner was caught on video landing in the Hudson. ;)
LMAO first off brain child that is not evidence that a missile hit the pentagon thats ignorant evidence that a plane didnt hit the pentagon...but nevermind the countless eye witness testimony, the plane wreckage found at the scene the body parts etc....right?
that stuff was all bused in, right? or carried in under the cover of empty tents right tarzan?
lol what evidence do you have that a missile hit the pentagon? dispute the plane wreckage found at the scene...
-
LMAO first off brain child that is not evidence that a missle hit the pentagon thats ignorant evidence that a plane didnt hit the pentagon...but nevermind the countless eye witness testamony, the plane wreckage found at the scene the body parts etc....right?
that stuff was all bused in, right? or carried in under the cover of empty tents right tarzan?
lol what evidence do you have that a missle hit the pentagon? dispute the plane wreckage found at the scene...
Show me 757 wings...tail...luggage.. ..titanium engines.....body parts....
Don't blink watching this. ;)
-
Show me 757 wings...tail...luggage.. ..titanium engines.....body parts....
Don't blink watching this. ;)
LMFAO i see a blurred object which by all reasoning is an airplane...thats your proof buddy?
lol show me any part of any missile... ::)
there is plenty of plane wreckage at the site...how do you think it got there? you think they carried it in under tents like tarzan?
many eye witness testimonies...statements from the coroner
-
Show me 757 wings...tail...luggage....titanium engines.....body parts....
Don't blink watching this. ;)
I already highlighted this in a previous post, but you and the band of idiots chose to ignore it. A turbine wheel is visible in the video posted, by the looks of it, it is part of the HPC N2 shaft, and is the correct size for a high bypass turbo fan medium thrust engine which the 757 employs.
-
I already highlighted this in a previous post, but you and the band of idiots chose to ignore it. A turbine wheel is visible in the video posted, by the looks of it, it is part of the HPC N2 shaft, and is the correct size for a high bypass turbo fan medium thrust engine which the 757 employs.
LMFAO what say you mons?
-
Hahahhaa, you idiots are defending a goverment that means to make you a 3rd world country soon. This was all planned.
-
Hahahhaa, you idiots are defending a goverment that means to make you a 3rd world country soon. This was all planned.
LOL im sure you have proof to back that up...any proof, any shred of decent proof...
nope you either huh?
so that makes 3 ct nuts that have been run off from this thread...240 you wanna try your luck?
-
Shouldnt you be cleaning up oil down there..... ;D
-
Shouldnt you be cleaning up oil down there..... ;D
LOL Ill take that as a no...maybe youre just in the know like mons is as well and you have this top secret intel that we are not privey to?
im in houston we have no spillage down here brosky
-
LOL Ill take that as a no...maybe youre just in the know like mons is as well and you have this top secret intel that we are not privey to?
im in houston we have no spillage down here brosky
Yeah, but you need a job. You post too much.
-
Yeah, but you need a job. You post too much.
LOL its 10 oclock at night down here broham...
-
LMFAO i see a blurred object which by all reasoning is an airplane...thats your proof buddy?
lol show me any part of any missile... ::)
there is plenty of plane wreckage at the site...how do you think it got there? you think they carried it in under tents like tarzan?
many eye witness testimonies...statements from the coroner
Yeah....plenty of wreckage. 80 tons to be exact. ::)
-
LMFAO i see a blurred object which by all reasoning is an airplane...thats your proof buddy?
lol show me any part of any missile... ::)
there is plenty of plane wreckage at the site...how do you think it got there? you think they carried it in under tents like tarzan?
many eye witness testimonies...statements from the coroner
No Tony, sorry but you are grasping at straws. The blurred object is simply not large enough to be an American Airliner. This coupled with the fact that we KNOW there was no skidmark damage on the grass as the "plane" supposedly slammed into the Pentagon ground level makes it all but impossible to be an American Airliner as stated in the official explanation. That is a fact my friend.
The plane wreckage you speak of are shown in later photos after the walls have collapsed. However in the immediate aftermath the photographs do not show plane parts, bodyparts etc. And to be honest with you those plane parts that the personell are carrying are shiny wrinkled objects devoid of burn marks. They look artificially placed. I still maintain they were placed on the site after the impact by people.
Yes those were tents on the site. Who knows what they used them for. Perhaps various things.
(http://www.rense.com/general70/219.jpg)
(http://www.rense.com/general70/218.jpg)
(http://www.rense.com/general70/220.jpg)
Anyway the main issue for me is not the tents or debris but:
1. Small impact hole in Pentagon Wall.
2. No damage to lawn right after impact.
3. Blurred object in video too small to match American Airliner.
-
LOL im sure you have proof to back that up...any proof, any shred of decent proof...
nope you either huh?
so that makes 3 ct nuts that have been run off from this thread...240 you wanna try your luck?
What proof does he have that you are defending a gubment that wants to turn you into a 3rd world slave? Just (A) look around you what's going on in the job market and political arena and (B) you ARE defending them.
That's proof right there!
-
LOL im sure you have proof to back that up...any proof, any shred of decent proof...
nope you either huh?
so that makes 3 ct nuts that have been run off from this thread...240 you wanna try your luck?
I'll make it easy for you to put the SIMPLE puzzle together tonymctones. ;)
-
LMAO first off brain child that is not evidence that a missile hit the pentagon thats ignorant evidence that a plane didnt hit the pentagon...but nevermind the countless eye witness testimony, the plane wreckage found at the scene the body parts etc....right?
that stuff was all bused in, right? or carried in under the cover of empty tents right tarzan?
lol what evidence do you have that a missile hit the pentagon? dispute the plane wreckage found at the scene...
Never said it was a missile.....just NOT a 757 jetliner.
Explain why this eye witness did NOT see a 757 either. ^^^
-
Never said it was a missile.....just NOT a 757 jetliner.
Explain why this eye witness did NOT see a 757 either. ^^^
You are such a ra-tard, if anything this video proves you wrong. He is saying, yes I saw an airplane fly into the Pentagon. He says it looked like a 20 passenger jet liner. Now, with a plane flying at hundreds of miles per hour and someone not expecting a plane to fly into a building during another ordinary day at work, don't you think his eyewitness account may have been skewed? Drive your car on the interstate and give an accurate account of a car you see going the oppositee direction while you are both traveling at 70mph. You may get the basic jist of what you saw, but definitely not accurate to a fault. He saw an airplane fly into the building, sorry he didn't catch the tail number and carrier, but he got the jist of it. An airplane ;)
-
You are such a ra-tard, if anything this video proves you wrong. He is saying, yes I saw an airplane fly into the Pentagon. He says it looked like a 20 passenger jet liner. Now, with a plane flying at hundreds of miles per hour and someone not expecting a plane to fly into a building during another ordinary day at work, don't you think his eyewitness account may have been skewed? Drive your car on the interstate and give an accurate account of a car you see going the oppositee direction while you are both traveling at 70mph. You may get the basic jist of what you saw, but definitely not accurate to a fault. He saw an airplane fly into the building, sorry he didn't catch the tail number and carrier, but he got the jist of it. An airplane ;)
Sorry I agree with the General.
-
Sorry I agree with the General.
A bit off topic, but are you the guy who claims to have been a pilot on here? I can't remember if thats you or someone else.
-
A bit off topic, but are you the guy who claims to have been a pilot on here? I can't remember if thats you or someone else.
No...I'm not a pilot.
-
No Tony, sorry but you are grasping at straws. The blurred object is simply not large enough to be an American Airliner. This coupled with the fact that we KNOW there was no skidmark damage on the grass as the "plane" supposedly slammed into the Pentagon ground level makes it all but impossible to be an American Airliner as stated in the official explanation. That is a fact my friend.
The plane wreckage you speak of are shown in later photos after the walls have collapsed. However in the immediate aftermath the photographs do not show plane parts, bodyparts etc. And to be honest with you those plane parts that the personell are carrying are shiny wrinkled objects devoid of burn marks. They look artificially placed. I still maintain they were placed on the site after the impact by people.
Yes those were tents on the site. Who knows what they used them for. Perhaps various things.
(http://www.rense.com/general70/219.jpg)
(http://www.rense.com/general70/218.jpg)
(http://www.rense.com/general70/220.jpg)
Anyway the main issue for me is not the tents or debris but:
1. Small impact hole in Pentagon Wall.
2. No damage to lawn right after impact.
3. Blurred object in video too small to match American Airliner.
did you watch the pop mechanics video?
it explains botht the small hole and no skid marks...
-
I'll make it easy for you to put the SIMPLE puzzle together tonymctones. ;)
LMAO first off I know just off the top of my head a number of these videos have been debunked...
youre overlooking the eye witness testimony that says otherwise...the evidence that says otherwise...
you have no evidence as in PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to dispute a plane hit the pentagon...there is physical evidence to say one did and eye witness testimony... ;)
-
No...I'm not a pilot.
Why did you post a picture of a pilot standing next to his fighter jet with his face blacked out and claimed that it was you then? ???
-
Why did you post a picture of a pilot standing next to his fighter jet with his face blacked out and claimed that it was you then? ???
I'm not a pilot. I took this picture before riding shotgun with a buddy @ MacDill AFB.
-
I'm not a pilot. I took this picture before riding shotgun with a buddy @ MacDill AFB.
Bahaha. You're such a lying weasel. Can't even keep your stories straight, gimmick.
-
LMAO first off I know just off the top of my head a number of these videos have been debunked...
youre overlooking the eye witness testimony that says otherwise...the evidence that says otherwise...
you have no evidence as in PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to dispute a plane hit the pentagon...there is physical evidence to say one did and eye witness testimony... ;)
Amazing huh?
-
There are so many other variables that contribute to a result like that, including, speed, amount of fuel, angle of impact etc.
That for most CT'ers is too advanced for simple logic like, "this plane didn't disintegrate therefore the WTC's ones are fake."
See that's your entire problem. You are so obsessed with debunking everything you can't think outside the box. CTers......lol......yeah there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Your government loves you. They would never use 9/11 to increase government bureaucracy a hundred fold. They would never use 9/11 as an excuse to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and corporate profits. They would never use 9/11 to take away your freedoms and spy on law abiding Americans. LOL There is no such thing as MkUltra. Operation Northwoods never happend. Jeb Bush and George Bush had nothing to do with the savings and loan scandals of the 80s. Reagan was the greatest President that ever lived. The Franklin Scandal never happened. Iran Contra was a big misunderstanding. ::)
-
Ahh, the old tried and true "I can't prove you wrong but I'll call you a sheep and act like that means my CT is correct" tactic. How idiotic and lame.
-
Ahh, the old tried and true "I can't prove you wrong but I'll call you a sheep and act like that means my CT is correct" tactic. How idiotic and lame.
Again, debunk this. I have asked so many times in this thread and nobody can debunk it. If it is easy to debunk you don't need to post some video or link. In your own words using logic since you are so level headed please debunk this:
1. Impact hole too small at Pentagon.
2. No damage to lawn right after impact. Why?
3. Blurred object in video too small to be American Airliner.
-
Piled with flawed logic and assumptions.
See that's your entire problem. You are so obsessed with debunking everything you can't think outside the box.
Assumption. It not about thinking outside the box, its about looking in and out of the box for what it is. Just the facts, and the facts don't support most CT's. In this world there are plenty of hidden agendas, CT's and such, but this instance, the 9/11 CT is just as baseless as the moon landing one.
CTers......lol......yeah there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Your government loves you.
Assumption. You are assuming I think there's no such thing as a conspiracy. For me to do that would make me as stupid as a CT'er who thinks a missile hit the pentagon from baseless evidence and logic compared to the mountains of evidence that says a jet plane hit it.
They would never use 9/11 to increase government bureaucracy a hundred fold. They would never use 9/11 as an excuse to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and corporate profits. They would never use 9/11 to take away your freedoms and spy on law abiding Americans.
Assumption & Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc (I'll let you look that up)
LOL There is no such thing as MkUltra. Operation Northwoods never happend. Jeb Bush and George Bush had nothing to do with the savings and loan scandals of the 80s. Reagan was the greatest President that ever lived. The Franklin Scandal never happened. Iran Contra was a big misunderstanding. ::)
Assumption. Never really looked deeply into any of these so I cannot definitively say one way or the other, however, you have no problem assuming i don't and do believe in such things (classic CT'er ad hoc, hom). However, i have done mounds of research into 9/11 mainly because of many posters on GB who have opened my mind to it. I was like many at first and used the many assertions and anomilies to paint a the picture of a conspiracy but when the facts were fully researched, wieghed and examined, the main elements of 9/11 CT'ers feel flat and couldn't stand up to a wet noodle.
-
We really shouldn't waste our time on this.
Many of the smartest people in the world believe nothing out of the ordinary occurred on 9/11, many of the smartest people in the world believe something did happen.
Whatever you believe, you're probably not going to change your opinion now unless you want to.
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
-
Again, debunk this. I have asked so many times in this thread and nobody can debunk it. If it is easy to debunk you don't need to post some video or link. In your own words using logic since you are so level headed please debunk this:
1. Impact hole too small at Pentagon.
Based on what? Why is the hole too small? Why do you think it should bigger?
2. No damage to lawn right after impact. Why?
Why do you think there should be? It is because you found other pictures of the same plane that hit the pentagon at the speed and angle and in the same place that produce a burned lawn? Or is it because you found pictures of different planes that hit different grassy areas at different speeds, weight and fuel loads?
3. Blurred object in video too small to be American Airliner.
From a 420 x 320 pixelly web cam that recorded the crash from a great distance?
-
We really shouldn't waste our time on this.
Many of the smartest people in the world believe nothing out of the ordinary occurred on 9/11, many of the smartest people in the world believe something did happen.
Whatever you believe, you're probably not going to change your opinion now unless you want to.
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
I agree, but sometimes it is fascinating to see how people construct their conclusions.
I predict, 30 years from now the 9/11 CT movement will be larger and stronger. A larger percentage of people will believe there was a conspiracy.
-
"Part of the lawn was in-tact so I know, with 100% certainty, that it was a missile." ::)
-
, i have done mounds of research into 9/11 mainly because of many posters on GB who have opened my mind to it. I was like many at first and used the many assertions and anomilies to paint a the picture of a conspiracy but when the facts were fully researched, wieghed and examined, the main elements of 9/11 CT'ers feel flat and couldn't stand up to a wet noodle.
Have you published any papers on the subject? Have you written any books on the subject? Your use of the tired old label "CTer" shows your mindest and proclivities. It's easy to jump on the interent and do "research". You can find just about any information on a variety of subjects to prove or disprove your point. One simple question for you......is it so hard to wrap your mind around the possibility that even if 9/11 happened exactly how you think it happened that the US government or entities within the US government allowed it to happen or even worse were complicit in it? I mean would that be such a huge shock to your view of the world? That's the biggest issue I have with people like you. You see the world the way you want to see it. If you knew anything about history and some of the shit I mentioned which people like you chaulk up to "conspiracy theory" you'd realize that US government complicity in the events of 9/11 or at best turning a blind eye with full transparency that it was going to happen and not stopping it.......is a very real possiblity and most likely what happened. And the events of 9/11 were used as a launch point for a huge increase in government bureaucracy, the Patriot Act,and never ending wars on terrorism.
-
Bahaha. You're such a lying weasel. Can't even keep your stories straight, gimmick.
I NEVER said I was a pilot. Please repost where I said I flew planes. ::)
-
Here we go again:
Have you published any papers on the subject? Have you written any books on the subject? Your use of the tired old label "CTer" shows your mindest and proclivities.
Ad Hoc and assumption lol So because i haven't written and published any papers and have not written books on the subject i am not informed on the events of 9/11, the evidence, and the many different arguments for and against a CT?
I am starting to see why based on how you try to discredit me in this instance, why you are a CT'er. Makes total sense.
It's easy to jump on the interent and do "research". You can find just about any information on a variety of subjects to prove or disprove your point. One simple question for you......is it so hard to wrap your mind around the possibility that even if 9/11 happened exactly how you think it happened that the US government or entities within the US government allowed it to happen or even worse were complicit in it?
More Assumption. I've said many times especially on this forum that i do NOT believe the "official 9/11 report" is 100% correct. that's more than obvious it's not exact.
I mean would that be such a huge shock to your view of the world?
Here we go more assumption and this "assumption" seems to be the crux of your point. And now you are using the whole "sheep" card. lol
That's the biggest issue I have with people like you. You see the world the way you want to see it. If you knew anything about history and some of the shit I mentioned which people like you chaulk up to "conspiracy theory" you'd realize that US government complicity in the events of 9/11 or at best turning a blind eye with full transparency that it was going to happen and not stopping it.......is a very real possiblity and most likely what happened.
The funny part here is that your whole issue with me is based on a false assumption. Do you feel angry about it?
And the events of 9/11 were used as a launch point for a huge increase in government bureaucracy, the Patriot Act,and never ending wars on terrorism.
So there's no possibility and likelihood that the increase in government bureaucracy and the Patriot Act were made possible because events like 9/11 helped the proponents push the funding/votes through? And that one of these wars is being fought in a limited PC, ROE style, in a country who has never been conquered successfully by a modern army? (of course, not right? People like me don't know history)
I will say this, you are a consistent assumer. You should be proud of that. Consistency is usually the difference between occasional winners and true champions. You are well on your way to being a champion assumer. Props to you. I mean that.
-
And you don't find it the least bit odd there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Oh wait.........you'll probably give me the line that it's because of the increase in government bureaucracy and the fact we are fighting the terrorists over there. Some Mexican can dig a tunnel under our border and funnel millions of dollars worth of drugs yet a sophisticated, well funded terrorist organization hasn't been able to launch ONE......not even ONE terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. NO suicide bombings, no angry Muslims with machine guns shooting up school buses and malls..........not one hijacking of gas trucks and driving them into schools and malls. I can think of a 101 ways a terrorist could easily wreak havoc on US soil yet it has never happened. The only thing that has happened is that 14 hijackers with box cutters managed to hijack several planes and fly them into the heart of NYC. You don't even have to study 9/11 in any great detail to see just how idiotic that is. LMAO!
And you can't even answer the question. Just answer the fucking question............Do you find it IMPOSSIBLE for the US government to have been complicit in the events of 9/11. It's a pretty easy question to answer. It's either yes or no. Do you find that the US government could never ever think of being complicit in something like 9/11. See you can't answer that question because it goes against everything you believe in and stand for. Let me guess.......you're probably ex military like all the other morons on this forum who toe the official line on all things military and goverment. LOL........The blind leading the blind.
-
Based on what? Why is the hole too small? Why do you think it should bigger?
Because of the size of the 757 and the claimed impact speed (500 mph). The amount of energy released and the ensuing explosion would have created a much larger hole compared to the cross section of the cockpit.
(http://www.physics911.net/images/7-pentmorris.jpg)
Unbroken windows beside primary hole:
(http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/pentagon_montage.jpg)
Why do you think there should be? It is because you found other pictures of the same plane that hit the pentagon at the speed and angle and in the same place that produce a burned lawn? Or is it because you found pictures of different planes that hit different grassy areas at different speeds, weight and fuel loads?
No, it is because the plane has vertical and horizontal dimension to it with the rolls royce engines below the wings. To fly a 757 five-ten feet above the ground would be impossible without basically crashing into the ground. Therefore during its approach it would have crashed and skidded on the lawn and then slid into the side of the building. The lawn would have been a mess. Do you really think a novice hijack pilot could do something which professional pilots have claimed is impossible to do? You can't have a neat hole on the first level of the Pentagon and not have damage on the lawn. That would not be possible because of the vertical dimension of the 757. The 757 would certainly have dragged the ground.
From a 420 x 320 pixelly web cam that recorded the crash from a great distance?
The bulding is part of the 420x320 pixel video and you can scale the building relative to the object. And the blurred object is not the size a 757 would have been relative to the building.
(http://static.flickr.com/95/213362608_198054090f_o.gif)
How large the object that was released was:
(http://static.flickr.com/60/213349494_669d31d605_o.gif)
How large the object should have been:
-
^^^ Great post!
-
Ozmo you should post that CT article again. :)
-
And you don't find it the least bit odd there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
I do. But probably for a different reason than you think.
Oh wait.........you'll probably give me the line that it's because of the increase in government bureaucracy and the fact we are fighting the terrorists over there.
No, actually not. (assumption)
Some Mexican can dig a tunnel under our border and funnel millions of dollars worth of drugs yet a sophisticated, well funded terrorist organization hasn't been able to launch ONE......not even ONE terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. NO suicide bombings, no angry Muslims with machine guns shooting up school buses and malls..........not one hijacking of gas trucks and driving them into schools and malls.
Very true. But 1 premise's validity doesn't make another one true.
I can think of a 101 ways a terrorist could easily wreak havoc on US soil yet it has never happened.
I know one for sure and have posted here before.
The only thing that has happened is that 14 hijackers with box cutters managed to hijack several planes and fly them into the heart of NYC. You don't even have to study 9/11 in any great detail to see just how idiotic that is. LMAO!
Not really. Especially when you consider it hadn't ever been attempted.
And you can't even answer the question. Just answer the fucking question............Do you find it IMPOSSIBLE for the US government to have been complicit in the events of 9/11.
Calm down. I just find it kind of to be a stupid question. Of course its not "impossible". The issue that should be discussed before you assume any conclusion here is to what degree was America complicit? And it what way? Was it certain? Was it likely? Possible? or unlikely? or remote? How does the information and evidence back up each premise or conclusion?
It's a pretty easy question to answer. It's either yes or no. Do you find that the US government could never ever think of being complicit in something like 9/11.
i find there are people that may be in the government that feel any end justifies the means, however, I do not think there are that many people in important positions in agencies, facilities and departments that they would be that murderous and diabolical in such numbers that they could decide history at their will. and when you weigh in the fact that there are likely many many more people of good standing moral and ethical principles in our military. Or it might be as you suggest, Dr. Evil's minions control the entire world.
See you can't answer that question because it goes against everything you believe in and stand for.
Dissappointing. Another assumption. But, if you really are interested in finding out my answer, quantify the question for me as i implied earlier and you will get my answer.
Let me guess.......you're probably ex military like all the other morons on this forum who toe the official line on all things military and goverment. LOL........The blind leading the blind.
sigh...........
Well you are a consistent assumer.
I am not ex-military, I do question the government a lot. I just try and be realistic.
-
Because of the size of the 757 and the claimed impact speed (500 mph). The amount of energy released and the ensuing explosion would have created a much larger hole compared to the cross section of the cockpit.
How do you know? Prove that it would have created a larger hole.
Don't cut and paste some jack ass crack pot vid, prove to me, using your own research, facts, etc.. in simple words that that plane should have with full certainty created a larger hole.
-
Also, Tarzan, are there any frame by frame sequenced pics of those vids?
I think i see something.
-
Because of the size of the 757 and the claimed impact speed (500 mph). The amount of energy released and the ensuing explosion would have created a much larger hole compared to the cross section of the cockpit.
(http://www.physics911.net/images/7-pentmorris.jpg)
Unbroken windows beside primary hole:
(http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/pentagon_montage.jpg)
No, it is because the plane has vertical and horizontal dimension to it with the rolls royce engines below the wings. To fly a 757 five-ten feet above the ground would be impossible without basically crashing into the ground. Therefore during its approach it would have crashed and skidded on the lawn and then slid into the side of the building. The lawn would have been a mess. Do you really think a novice hijack pilot could do something which professional pilots have claimed is impossible to do? You can't have a neat hole on the first level of the Pentagon and not have damage on the lawn. That would not be possible because of the vertical dimension of the 757. The 757 would certainly have dragged the ground.
The bulding is part of the 420x320 pixel video and you can scale the building relative to the object. And the blurred object is not the size a 757 would have been relative to the building.
(http://static.flickr.com/95/213362608_198054090f_o.gif)
How large the object that was released was:
(http://static.flickr.com/60/213349494_669d31d605_o.gif)
How large the object should have been:
NeoScums won't touch THIS post tarzan.
Great job !!! :)
-
I'm not a pilot. I took this picture before riding shotgun with a buddy @ MacDill AFB.
How did you get an incentive flight and what was/is your AFSC?
-
for my first 28 years, I laughed at CTers. I was just naive, and I believed everything the news told me. I believed the US did the right thing 100% of the time, morally.
Then, I realized there were some real holes in the 911 story (which even the 911 commission authors admit), and I swung too far to the other end. I believed every CT.
Today, I realize some are true, and some are not. Yes, there were very detailed warnings about 911 which were given to people like Mayor Brown and pentagon brass, and not the folks on those planes. This is fact, not CT. From Brown's own mouth.
The world isn't run by a bunch of evil men at a giant boardroom desk plotting microchipped enslavement. But at the same time, it's also not the plain vanilla version you read in your 6th grade social studies book. yes, we sold WMD to saddam in the 80s and gave him permission to invade kuwait. yes, we ignored some real intel on 911. Yes, we invaded iraq even after the UN proved there were no WMD. There's lots of shit that happens because yeah, our govt wants to make gains. It's fact. We do some cold hearted shit. Deal with it.
But "the sky is falling" isn't true either. in 40 years, we'll have a continually weakening economy, we'll be in another war caused by an attack which might have been shady (gulf tonken, lucitania, you name it), and CTers will still be saying it's the end of the world. And in 40 years, the squeaky clean version of history some of you numbskulls subscribe to (cause ignorance is bliss) still won't have come true.
-
OUCHHHHHH CT'ERS WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
adressess the lawn tarzan...
-
OUCHHHHHH CT'ERS WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
adressess the lawn tarzan...
;D
Onto the next one for them.
-
OUCHHHHHH CT'ERS WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
adressess the lawn tarzan...
Thanks for link tony. I am going to watch it right now.
Here is a video for you. This is the best and most professional video yet bar none! They have eye witness testimony, animation flights paths the works. It is long though so be prepared.
-
How do you know? Prove that it would have created a larger hole.
Don't cut and paste some jack ass crack pot vid, prove to me, using your own research, facts, etc.. in simple words that that plane should have with full certainty created a larger hole.
The proof is the fact that the footprint of the plane (including wings, engines, cockpit) is larger than the initial impact hole. How can that be? Yes the Pentagon is a solid structure but there was still a hole so it was not strong enough to resist penetration. The speed and mass of the airplane would have obliterated a much larger section. In the same way that a 1 mile asteroid would cause a much larger explosion and destruction than it's initial size.
Here is a picture of a 3 pound bird that flew into a plane's wing and actually cutting into the aluminum. It can do that because of the velocity x mass.
(http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/68_bird-wing.jpg)
The same laws would apply if a lighter yet massive airplane slammed into a solid building like the Pentagon.
-
The proof is the fact that the footprint of the plane (including wings, engines, cockpit) is larger than the initial impact hole. How can that be? Yes the Pentagon is a solid structure but there was still a hole so it was not strong enough to resist penetration. The speed and mass of the airplane would have obliterated a much larger section. In the same way that a 1 mile asteroid would cause a much larger explosion and destruction than it's initial size.
Here is a picture of a 3 pound bird that flew into a plane's wing and actually cutting into the metal / wood. It can do that because of the velocity x mass.
(http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/68_bird-wing.jpg)
The same laws would apply if a lighter yet massive airplane slammed into a solid building like the Pentagon.
LOL according to who?
LMAO those pics do nothing but bolster the argument for a small whole...a bird did that, A BIRD DID THAT...the plane that hit the pentagon ran into a building...a building that was built to withstand BOMBS!!!!!!!!
lol if a bird does that much damage to a plane what do you think a plane will do to a bomb resistant building?
-
adressess the lawn tarzan...
Watched the video. In his animation he is actually showing the left engine dragging the ground to make it work. It is but a mere inches above the ground. The turbulence would have caused damage to the lawn as well as the dragging of the engine. He also admits at the end that the reports are that it supposedly banks to the left and he is working on it to make it work.
His theory on the fishey lens is interesting however the building is also subject to lens distortion. The airplane size is questioned RELATIVE to the building.
-
lol if a bird does that much damage to a plane what do you think a plane will do to a bomb resistant building?
A lot more which is the whole point! The original point was the hole is too small. The bird weighs a lot less than the plane but because of the speed of impact it penetrates the much stronger material. Do you really want to argue that a bird's body is stronger than an aluminum airplane??! If you do then next time think twice before getting on one with 300 passengers.
In the same way that the weaker bird can penetrate the aluminum wing of a plane can a weaker aluminum airplane penetrate and create a hole equal or larger than it's footprint in a reinforced concrete structure - because it is supposedly flying at a high velocity which amplifies the force of impact.
-
A lot more which is the whole point! The original point was the hole is too small. The bird weighs a lot less than the plane but because of the speed of impact it penetrates the much stronger material. Do you really want to argue that a bird's body is stronger than an aluminum airplane??! If you do then next time think twice before getting on one with 300 passengers.
In the same way that the weaker bird can penetrate the aluminum wing of a plane can a weaker aluminum airplane penetrate and create a hole equal or larger than it's footprint in a reinforced concrete structure - because it is supposedly flying at a high velocity which amplifies the force of impact.
LOL youre leaving out density...the birds body is much more dense than that section of HOLLOW wing...the building is alot more dense than the airplane with is HOLLOW...
that is why the bird does that amount of damage to the plane and the plane didnt do that much damage to the reinforced bomb resistant building...
-
the plane didnt do that much damage to the reinforced bomb resistant building...
Weird. I recall the plane - complete with its composite nose - punching competely through THREE OF THE FIVE reinforced rings (buildings) of the pentagon.
That is the problem with the official story. It claims the plane both disintegrated AND drilled a very clean hole thru the buildings. See the pic yourself of the THIRD building with a nice clean hole through it. (Remember, the plane hit at the TOP of the image)
(http://physics911.net/images/exit3.jpeg)
So to be clear- the plane and its hollow body, hollow wings, and composite nose managed to drill through THREE reinforced buildings, and deliver this very clean hole (after going thru three buildings). Do you see why so many people believed it was a nice missile slicing that hole?
-
LOL youre leaving out density...the birds body is much more dense than that section of HOLLOW wing...the building is alot more dense than the airplane with is HOLLOW...
that is why the bird does that amount of damage to the plane and the plane didnt do that much damage to the reinforced bomb resistant building...
The building is also hollow in that regard - relative to it's volume the walls are thin.
Nice try though.
-
Weird. I recall the plane - complete with its composite nose - punching competely through THREE OF THE FIVE reinforced rings (buildings) of the pentagon.
That is the problem with the official story. It claims the plane both disintegrated AND drilled a very clean hole thru the buildings. See the pic yourself of the THIRD building with a nice clean hole through it. (Remember, the plane hit at the TOP of the image)
(http://physics911.net/images/exit3.jpeg)
So to be clear- the plane and its hollow body, hollow wings, and composite nose managed to drill through THREE reinforced buildings, and deliver this very clean hole (after going thru three buildings). Do you see why so many people believed it was a nice missile slicing that hole?
It's such a joke it's not even funny.
:P
-
The holes in the wall are what always made the pentagon thing now make sense to me. I mean, the video frames, whatever. Not that hard for anyone to alter them and see whatever they'd like.
But those holes... it makes no sense. The plane SHOULD HAVE disintegrated. We've ALL seen the video of the fighter jet turning to dust hitting only a brick wall, right? youtube it. Makes sense. And we're supposed to believe a MUCH SOFTER plane managed to disintegrate hitting SIX very solid brick/steel reinforced walls - and it managed to punch a hole TOO?
i dunno... I'm not gonna argue CTs all night... there's no point... but really guys... you can't have it both ways. Plane disintegrates AND it retains the mass and energy to drill through six steel/brick walls - NEATLY AND CLEANLY?
-
tony, i'll assume you didn't know about those clean holes thru the outer rings.
See what google can find for you. For me, they never have made sense. I think an airliner would be dust, hitting the strongest part of one of the strongest buildings in america. They're soft.
Anyway, i'm not trying to pwn/own in this argument. I'd really like your take on how such events happen - the plane vaporizing AND the clean identical holes thru all 6 walls (2 on each ring).
-
Picture an empty aluminum can being shot through a piece of 3/4 inch drywall.
Ain't happening.
-
Picture an empty aluminum can being shot through a piece of 3/4 inch drywall.
Ain't happening.
yeah...
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
This wall is concrete. The plane is traveling about as fast as the Boeing. It turns to powder dude. Just dust. Gone. The wall doesn't budge.
So how does a commercial airliner - softer and wider (think displaced energy delivering LESS concentrated energy) - slice so cleanly thru those walls?
I'm baffled by it, to be honest. That plane should have been dust.
-
yeah...
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
This wall is concrete. The plane is traveling about as fast as the Boeing. It turns to powder dude. Just dust. Gone. The wall doesn't budge.
So how does a commercial airliner - softer and wider (think displaced energy delivering LESS concentrated energy) - slice so cleanly thru those walls?
I'm baffled by it, to be honest. That plane should have been dust.
Oh yeah, I've seen that. It is baffling, I can't even stand to talk about this stuff anymore.
One wall would have been an incredible stretch, let alone three... ;D
-
Oh yeah, I've seen that. It is baffling, I can't even stand to talk about this stuff anymore.
One wall would have been an incredible stretch, let alone three... ;D
We argued this stuff 5 years ago. Accepted our own truths and moved on.
You gotta admit... it's kinda cute to see people arguing about it, when it's so new to them. Tony spends all this time telling us the plane vaporized - and he was probably unaware of the clean hole sliced thru 6 walls of three buildings.
-
Picture an empty aluminum can being shot through a piece of 3/4 inch drywall.
Ain't happening.
Add a little bit of water and saw dust to the can and try again. I would bet it would go through if the speed is fast enough. The plane was not empty according to the government. It had humans in it, fuel, seats, luggage. All these things ALSO have mass.
64 people at 140 pounds average = 4000 kg = 4 tons alone.
The point being the plane would have made a bigger hole. However I also doubt there would have been a neat hole in the inner ring.
-
We argued this stuff 5 years ago. Accepted our own truths and moved on.
You gotta admit... it's kinda cute to see people arguing about it, when it's so new to them. Tony spends all this time telling us the plane vaporized - and he was probably unaware of the clean hole sliced thru 6 walls of three buildings.
Yes, I remember you schooling me on this stuff years ago. Memories... ;D
-
yeah...
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
This wall is concrete. The plane is traveling about as fast as the Boeing. It turns to powder dude. Just dust. Gone. The wall doesn't budge.
So how does a commercial airliner - softer and wider (think displaced energy delivering LESS concentrated energy) - slice so cleanly thru those walls?
I'm baffled by it, to be honest. That plane should have been dust.
This concrete is a lot thicker than the Pentagon walls. About 6-8 times I would guess. And it is a solid block whereas the Pentagon wall had window opening to weaken the wall. But I agree with you it (plane) could not have gone all the way through to the inner ring.
-
Ill go back and watch your videos 240, I actually did know about the holes and if you watch the pop mechanics guys debate the loose change guys they explain the reasoning for that...
I assume youve watched that and can give reasoning to disbelieve them?
This is the problem with the ct's you have 2 different ct's citing the same evidence as reasoning for their ct but on different sides of the evidence...
tarzan thinks that it should have created more damage, 240 says less LOL
at any rate I would like to see evidence real or physical evidence...not circumstantial evidence that a missle or at the very least not a plane hit the pentagon...
we have physical evidence to say that one did, where is the physical evidence to say a missile did?
-
I dont have any videos to present to you, tony.
I dont have any evidence for you. You can go out and find your own.
-
Ill go back and watch your videos 240, I actually did know about the holes and if you watch the pop mechanics guys debate the loose change guys they explain the reasoning for that...
I assume youve watched that and can give reasoning to disbelieve them?
This is the problem with the ct's you have 2 different ct's citing the same evidence as reasoning for their ct but on different sides of the evidence...
tarzan thinks that it should have created more damage, 240 says less LOL
at any rate I would like to see evidence real or physical evidence...not circumstantial evidence that a missle or at the very least not a plane hit the pentagon...
we have physical evidence to say that one did, where is the physical evidence to say a missile did?
Do yourself a favor and watch the video below - around the 68 minute mark - 74 minute mark they interview the cab driver on the bridge that was "struck" by a pole. With a hidden camera he admits that he was driven to the bridge in a van and that the operation is bigger than him and he contradicts himself on camera but off camera is candid and truthful. They have police officers and Pentagon workers who were all witnesses giving interviews that contradict the official account of the flight path per data recorders and flight control. Their observed path of the airliner makes it impossible for the plane to have hit the lamp posts as stated. The theory is that the airliner was shadowed by a smaller plane and that the airliner flew over the Pentagon and the smaller plane actually crashed into the building.
This video busts a hole right through the lie.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)
-
I dont have any videos to present to you, tony.
I dont have any evidence for you. You can go out and find your own.
LOL bro the one video you suggested to me(loose change) was debunked in 2 secs of google research, I agree that the official story isnt what happend, but all the physical evidence points to a plane hitting the pentagon...I agree that certain things seem weird when you first look at them but a pitcher being able to move the baseball seems weird to until you understand the reasons behind it...
ive asked many times and have never gotten a yes from you ct guys...have you seriously looked at evidence that goes against your ct's and your specific ct points?
Like I said there is physical evidence to support the idea that a plane hit the pentagon and nothing but personal opinion to support otherwise...all im asking for is evidence to support your theories...
have you seen the pop mechanics video that explains the holes 240?
-
Do yourself a favor and watch the video below - around the 68 minute mark - 74 minute mark they interview the cab driver on the bridge that was "struck" by a pole. With a hidden camera he admits that he was driven to the bridge in a van and that the operation is bigger than him and he contradicts himself on camera but off camera is candid and truthful. They have police officers and Pentagon workers who were all witnesses giving interviews that contradict the official account of the flight path per data recorders and flight control. Their observed path of the airliner makes it impossible for the plane to have hit the lamp posts as stated. The theory is that the airliner was shadowed by a smaller plane and that the airliner flew over the Pentagon and the smaller plane actually crashed into the building.
This video busts a hole right through the lie.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)
Ill watch the video when I get a chance
answer me this then, what happend to the flight? the ppl? the pilots?
-
see tony... i could spend all night debating this... but really... pitting youtube clips against each other? REALLY?
One of the sides is full of shit. You don't think they'd have pretty convincing video clips as well? You give a guy enough $ and time, he can make a youtube video as to why Santa is real. Or not real.
I'd like to hear the hole explanation in YOUR OWN WORDS, dude. Don't refer me to pop mech... you missed the debates where they made shit up, and their editor is a cousin of chertoff, bush's right hand guy.
So use your own words, or just refer me to google. Pitting videos against each other all night is gayer than arguing santa vs easter bunny..
-
see tony... i could spend all night debating this... but really... pitting youtube clips against each other? REALLY?
One of the sides is full of shit. You don't think they'd have pretty convincing video clips as well? You give a guy enough $ and time, he can make a youtube video as to why Santa is real. Or not real.
I'd like to hear the hole explanation in YOUR OWN WORDS, dude. Don't refer me to pop mech... you missed the debates where they made shit up, and their editor is a cousin of chertoff, bush's right hand guy.
So use your own words, or just refer me to google. Pitting videos against each other all night is gayer than arguing santa vs easter bunny..
240 - yes however have you seen the video above? These are REAL witnesses and one of them admits on camera to a coverup - a witness that was on the bridge when the airliner supposedly flew over the bridge and knocked the lamp post through his cab. This video is an answer to all those people trying to debunk the 911 CT by saying "But what about the witnesses? Are they all in on it too?"
-
see tony... i could spend all night debating this... but really... pitting youtube clips against each other? REALLY?
One of the sides is full of shit. You don't think they'd have pretty convincing video clips as well? You give a guy enough $ and time, he can make a youtube video as to why Santa is real. Or not real.
I'd like to hear the hole explanation in YOUR OWN WORDS, dude. Don't refer me to pop mech... you missed the debates where they made shit up, and their editor is a cousin of chertoff, bush's right hand guy.
So use your own words, or just refer me to google. Pitting videos against each other all night is gayer than arguing santa vs easter bunny..
LOL same could be said for you brosky...why if you can discredit their words...not them their words and points than do so...ive b=presented those points many times and youve never discredited them..so go ahead...
my words...all the physical evidence points to a plane hitting the pentagon...only circumstantial to support yours...
-
I do not think there are that many people in important positions in agencies, facilities and departments that they would be that murderous and diabolical in such numbers that they could decide history at their will. and when you weigh in the fact that there are likely many many more people of good standing moral and ethical principles in our military. Or it might be as you suggest, Dr. Evil's minions control the entire world.
LMAO! So in other words you have no fucking clue just how fucking corrupt and tyrannical the US government is. This entire paragraph explains your ENTIRE mindsent. It's hilarious because most of the shit I mentioned previously you've never even heard of. Mkultra have you heard of that? Operation Northwoods? Oh wait it's all tin foil hat conspiracy shit. You're fucking clueless dude. You've got the mindset of many Americans who see the world through their rose colored glasses or atleast the US government. I guess you don't believe there is any conspiracy behind the USS Liberty right? I mean it was all an accident? ::) Someone like Hitler could never rise to power because the US government is your best friend and there are too many good people working day and night to protect and defend the Constitution. You obviously have no clue who really pulls the strings in the world. I suggest you research banking and the powerful banking families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. But that is just conspiracy shit right? You are so fucking naive dude it's pathetic.
-
LMAO! So in other words you have no fucking clue just how fucking corrupt and tyrannical the US government is. This entire paragraph explains your ENTIRE mindsent. It's hilarious because most of the shit I mentioned previously you've never even heard of. Mkultra have you heard of that? Operation Northwoods? Oh wait it's all tin foil hat conspiracy shit. You're fucking clueless dude. You've got the mindset of many Americans who see the world through their rose colored glasses or atleast the US government. I guess you don't believe there is any conspiracy behind the USS Liberty right? I mean it was all an accident? ::) Someone like Hitler could never rise to power because the US government is your best friend and there are too many good people working day and night to protect and defend the Constitution. You obviously have no clue who really pulls the strings in the world. I suggest you research banking and the powerful banking families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. But that is just conspiracy shit right? You are so fucking naive dude it's pathetic.
I didn't realize nurses had TS-SCI clearances..... :o
-
LMAO! So in other words you have no fucking clue just how fucking corrupt and tyrannical the US government is. This entire paragraph explains your ENTIRE mindsent. It's hilarious because most of the shit I mentioned previously you've never even heard of. Mkultra have you heard of that? Operation Northwoods? Oh wait it's all tin foil hat conspiracy shit. You're fucking clueless dude. You've got the mindset of many Americans who see the world through their rose colored glasses or atleast the US government. I guess you don't believe there is any conspiracy behind the USS Liberty right? I mean it was all an accident? ::) Someone like Hitler could never rise to power because the US government is your best friend and there are too many good people working day and night to protect and defend the Constitution. You obviously have no clue who really pulls the strings in the world. I suggest you research banking and the powerful banking families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. But that is just conspiracy shit right? You are so fucking naive dude it's pathetic.
More assumptions, ad hoc etc.. you are such a bore.
But your tin foil hat is interesting.
Again, you haven't done anything to further any of your points except use ridicule to make them. What a joke. At least Tarzan is putting together a real argument. You on the other hand have only shown just how stupid you are. Go back and re-read all my responses to you, see if you can gleam the jest of what i am saying to you. :D
-
The proof is the fact that the footprint of the plane (including wings, engines, cockpit) is larger than the initial impact hole. How can that be? Yes the Pentagon is a solid structure but there was still a hole so it was not strong enough to resist penetration. The speed and mass of the airplane would have obliterated a much larger section. In the same way that a 1 mile asteroid would cause a much larger explosion and destruction than it's initial size.
Here is a picture of a 3 pound bird that flew into a plane's wing and actually cutting into the aluminum. It can do that because of the velocity x mass.
(http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/68_bird-wing.jpg)
The same laws would apply if a lighter yet massive airplane slammed into a solid building like the Pentagon.
Here, research this one show me the hole shaped like a C-130.
Planes going fast enough into concrete pretty much disintegrate.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641205192 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641205192)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2005/Dec/Week1/1359450.jpg)
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41094000/jpg/_41094644_longshotgetty416.jpg)
(http://www.fouman.com/history/img/Tehran_C130_Plane_Crash_Mehrabad.jpg)
-
I didn't realize nurses had TS-SCI clearances..... :o
They all do, real life is just like a summer block buster. :D
-
Planes going fast enough into concrete pretty much disintegrate.
Yes, agreed.
Somehow, on 911, the disintegrating plane managed to punch a perfect hole thru 6 concrete walls. Here you see the SIXTH hole that was punched. Clean as a whistle - odd, considering it was a fireballing, disintegrating composite nose of a plane, hitting its 6th wall.
(http://physics911.net/images/exit3.jpeg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=343964.0;attach=378939;image)
-
Yes, agreed.
Somehow, on 911, the disintegrating plane managed to punch a perfect hole thru 6 concrete walls. Here you see the SIXTH hole that was punched. Clean as a whistle - odd, considering it was a fireballing, disintegrating composite nose of a plane, hitting its 6th wall.
(http://physics911.net/images/exit3.jpeg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=343964.0;attach=378939;image)
You know i was just thinking that if it was a cruise missile it wouldn't have done that. It would have exploded on impact. If it got that far it would have exploded there.
And yes, what disintegrates is the frame and skin.
-
Yes, agreed.
Somehow, on 911, the disintegrating plane managed to punch a perfect hole thru 6 concrete walls. Here you see the SIXTH hole that was punched. Clean as a whistle - odd, considering it was a fireballing, disintegrating composite nose of a plane, hitting its 6th wall.
(http://physics911.net/images/exit3.jpeg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=343964.0;attach=378939;image)
At this point anyone with semi critical thinking skills can understand what happened on 9-11. Unstruck buildings fall on their footprint at the speed of gravity.....80 ton Airliners 'Vaporize' on impact....NORAD decides to take the day off....etc ::)
-
You know i was just thinking that if it was a cruise missile it wouldn't have done that. It would have exploded on impact. If it got that far it would have exploded there.
And yes, what disintegrates is the frame and skin.
You're thinking conventional missile. There are other options:
Let's look at what kind of missile would enter by such a small hole, penetrate 6 walls and several intervening columns to create a nice round exit hole.
(http://www.the7thfire.com/images/calcm-evolution.gif)
No explosion, just a concrete tip. Commonly used in war to penetrate 10 stories of bunker or building BEFORE exploding. Suppose they didn't want a massive explosion at the end - just a nice hole outside for the cameras.
Seriously dude, suppose hypothetically you fly a concrete-tipped dud into the same 6 reinforced walls (and center column which was penetrated too), and you fly a plane into these same walls. You'd probably expect to see this clean sliced hole with the missile, not the plane. Looking at the evidence - throwing out politics and motive and everything else - it seems more likely a concrete missile could make that hole, than a composite nose airliner which had already disintegrated ;)
-
Here, research this one show me the hole shaped like a C-130.
Planes going fast enough into concrete pretty much disintegrate.
Each accident will be unique.
Here is another example of flight El Al Flight 1862 that crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmermeer (colloquially "Bijlmer") neighbourhood (part of Amsterdam Zuidoost) of Amsterdam.
What's interesting about this Israeli flight is that it carried Uranium. In 1997, however, an expert testified in the Israeli Knesset that dangerous products would have been released during combustion of the depleted uranium in the tail of the Boeing 747.
(http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/bijlmermeer_ap.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Bijlmer747crash.jpg)
Complete section of building is gone. Notice the damage to the gardens around the building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862)
-
Each accident will be unique.
Exactly!
So to say the plane that hit the pentagon should have done "this or that" is baseless to the extend of it should have made a bigger hole as you said in #1 of your 3 questions.
-
You're thinking conventional missile. There are other options:
Let's look at what kind of missile would enter by such a small hole, penetrate 6 walls and several intervening columns to create a nice round exit hole.
(http://www.the7thfire.com/images/calcm-evolution.gif)
No explosion, just a concrete tip. Commonly used in war to penetrate 10 stories of bunker or building BEFORE exploding. Suppose they didn't want a massive explosion at the end - just a nice hole outside for the cameras.
Seriously dude, suppose hypothetically you fly a concrete-tipped dud into the same 6 reinforced walls (and center column which was penetrated too), and you fly a plane into these same walls. You'd probably expect to see this clean sliced hole with the missile, not the plane. Looking at the evidence - throwing out politics and motive and everything else - it seems more likely a concrete missile could make that hole, than a composite nose airliner which had already disintegrated ;)
But why would they? Why would they want to punch a hole through 6 buildings just have every novice in the world say it was a missile? Why not just exploded where it hits?
-
Exactly!
So to say the plane that hit the pentagon should have done "this or that" is baseless to the extend of it should have made a bigger hole as you said in #1 of your 3 questions.
Well the example you posted is unique in the sense that it crashed into the top floor. Who knows maybe it skimmed the top floor? Do you have more info about it? It does not appear like it slammed into the building with it's whole body.
-
But why would they? Why would they want to punch a hole through 6 buildings just have every novice in the world say it was a missile? Why not just exploded where it hits?
Instead of asking that question which only THEY could answer, why not address the contradiction coming from you that the plane would vaporize when crashing into a concrete structure yet somehow simultaneously penetrate through 6 walls and leave a neat hole at the inner wall that is almost as big as the impact hole.
-
Instead of asking that question which only THEY could answer, why not address the contradiction coming from you that the plane would vaporize when crashing into a concrete structure yet somehow simultaneously penetrate through 6 walls and leave a neat hole at the inner wall that is almost as big as the impact hole.
Were there any solid objects of enough density on the plane to punch through?
-
Well the example you posted is unique in the sense that it crashed into the top floor. Who knows maybe it skimmed the top floor? Do you have more info about it? It does not appear like it slammed into the building with it's whole body.
It wouldn't matter. The whole point, is your point, every crash has so many factors and variables, so to definitively say it should have made a larger hole and therefore it wasn't a plane, is flawed logic and incorrect.
-
The truth will surface. Just give it time. ;)
-------
A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a timeline of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks by not warning those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.
Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.
The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.
"What they don't want is for this to go into discovery," said Gallop's attorney, Mr. Veale, speaking to RAW STORY. "If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we've got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We've got the law on our side."
The lawsuit's full text follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___
APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________
Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded
vs.
DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.
________________________ __________________
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This case arises from the infamous Attack on America of Sept 11, 2001, and especially on the Pentagon; and is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the attack on the part of key U.S. Government officials, beginning with and led from the top by Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Myers, then acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plaintiffs allege that these and other government officials, whose identities will be ascertained from their proven or evident relevant roles and activities, and who are named herein as 'John Doe' defendants, together with other known and unknown operatives and functionaries, official and otherwise, engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, or a set of related, ongoing conspiracies, in which the concrete objective was to facilitate and enable the hijacking of the airliners, and their use as living bombs to attack buildings containing thousands of innocent victims; and then to cover up the truth about what they had done.
2. The defendants' purpose in aiding and facilitating the attack, and the overall object of the conspirac(ies), was to bring about an unprecedented, horrifying and frightening catastrophe of terrorism inside the United States, which would give rise to a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public, and in Washington. This would generate a political atmosphere of acceptance in which the new Administration could enact and implement radical changes in the policy and practice of constitutional government in our country. Much of their intention was spelled out prior to their coming into office, in publications of the so-called Project for the New American Century, of which defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld were major sponsors. There they set forth specific objectives regarding the projection of U.S. military power abroad, particularly in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and other oil-producing areas. They observed, however, that the American people would not likely support the actions the sponsors believed were necessary, without being shocked into a new outlook by something cataclysmic: “a new Pearl Harbor”. By helping the attack succeed, defendants and their cohorts created a basis for the seizure of extraordinary power, and a pretext for launching the so-called Global War on Terror, in the guise of which they were free to pursue plans for military conquest, “full spectrum dominance” and “American primacy” around the world; as they have done.
3. In pursuit of the goals of the conspiracy, the named and unnamed defendants knowingly and by agreement committed a series of acts and omissions which were aimed at and did generally accomplish the following objectives:
+ To permit the men they later identified as the hijackers and any immediate accomplices to enter and remain in the country, and carry out the activities, movements and communications needed in their preparations for the hijacking, free from interference by police or counter-terrorist authorities; and then allow the groups of these men to book passage, all on the same day, and board the flights;
+ To cause normal operation of the regular off-course airline flight interception practice of the US Air Force, in cooperation with civil flight control authorities, to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove its protections, at least on that day, and thus permit three of the four apparently hijacked planes to reach their targets and crash into them (or appear to do so...);1
+ To cause the normal operation of ground and air defenses which guard the Pentagon from external attack to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove or negate the building's normal protections, and thus permit an airliner, believed to be hijacked by possible suicide bombers, and following a forbidden, descending flight path, to reach the Pentagon undeterred;
+ To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York;
+ To arrange, thereafter, and fabricate, propound and defend, as part of the conspiracy, an elaborate, highly complex and sophisticated cover-up, centering around the Report of the 9/11 Commission, and continuing to this day. To this end, defendants misappropriated the highest authority of government to block, misdirect and otherwise evade any fair, independent investigation of the evidence, and officially if implausibly explain away the evident wholesale failure of America's defenses with misinformation, omissions and distortions, withheld and destroyed evidence, and outright lies.
4. In the attack on the Pentagon, in particular, plaintiff avers that the official story, that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon and exploded (causing the plaintiff’s injuries), is false. In fact, the bombing was accomplished another way, so as to limit the damage, protect the defendants, and only make it appear that a plane had been crashed into the building. This claim is supported by data from the plane’s supposed “black box”, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile. This is supported by the lack of any photographic evidence of a wrecked airliner at the Pentagon, compounded by the record of reported refusal by the U.S. Department of Justice to release some 85 video tapes from surveillance cameras in locations at or near the Pentagon, which it has declared exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.
5. Whatever way the bombing of the Pentagon was accomplished, however, and whatever else may or may not have been done by defendants to facilitate the hijackings that day, it is clear the defendant top commanders would have had and did have, at a profound minimum, enough foreknowledge, on that day and in the intelligence information they received beforehand, to have sounded a warning in time for plaintiff and others to evacuate the building, and thereby avoid much if not all the death and injury which occurred. In the end, more than half an hour passed after flight controllers first sounded the alert on Flight 77, while all concerned were fully aware of the suicide crashes in New York; plenty of time for the Pentagon to be evacuated. ‘Top gun’ jet fighter-interceptors under defendants’ command, available with time to spare, were not summoned; and the people in the building, including plaintiff and her infant, were not
warned. This was the result of unlawful conspiracy among these highest-level commanders, and others, who acted knowingly and intentionally to have the Pentagon attacked or to allow it to be attacked, without warning, with deliberate indifference to and in reckless and callous disregard for the fundamental constitutional and human rights of plaintiff and her child, and many other people, dead, injured and bereaved.
6. Plaintiff April Gallop brings this action for herself and as next friend of her son Elisha Gallop now aged 7, who was a two-month-old baby in her arms on that day, her first back from maternity leave. She was a career member of the US Army, a ranking specialist with top secret clearance, who had served six years, two-and-a-half of them in Germany, before being assigned to the Pentagon in 2000. Her desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall. As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.
7. Plaintiff and her baby both suffered substantial head and brain injuries, which seriously affect them still today. Plaintiff charges that, because of the conspiracy alleged herein, she and her child and others were injured by acts of terrorism participated in by defendants. Further, as more fully described within at Pars 57-59, she and her child were and subsequently have been denied fundamental rights — including by acts of retaliation against her for raising painful questions about what occurred — as the cover-up continues.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:
a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;
b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and mechanisms of plaintiffs’ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave — giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead, defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;
c. Under the Terrorism Acts, 18 U.S.Code 2333(a), for acts of terrorism brought about by actions wholly outside the scope of defendants’ duties, in perversion of their authority, and beyond the bounds or color of any law; and therefore not exempt or immune under the provisions of Sec. 2337, the application of which to exonerate these defendants would be unconstitutional.
9. Venue for the case is set by the special provisions of the Air Transportation Safety Act of September, 2001, 49 U.S.C. 40101, Subsection 408((IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) (3), bringing all claims arising from events of 9/11 to this honorable Court .
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff APRIL GALLOP is an American citizen, resident of the State of Virginia, a member until this year of the U.S. Army, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11, claiming for herself and for her minor child, ELISHA GALLOP, who was just two months old on 9/11/01, and was with her when the building was hit. Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to appoint her as guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action and related matters.
11. Defendants are DICK CHENEY, the Vice President of the United States; DONALD RUMSFELD, formerly and at relevant times Secretary of Defense of the U.S.; Gen. RICHARD MYERS, then acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; all sued in their individual capacities. Additional named, unknown defendants are other persons who were and are co-actors and co-conspirators in sundry phases of the (terrorist) undertaking complained of herein, whose identities, and some of whose precise places or functions in the plot(s) alleged herein are not yet known or fully known, but who certainly include high-ranking members of the Defense Department, the Military, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies. Such persons are named and alleged as co-defendants, designated as John Does Nos.1-X and hereby notified of this action, pro tanto, to be identified for the record and impleaded by plaintiffs as the particulars of both culpable and innocent acts and omissions by everyone involved in these events become known.
-
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”
January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. Full Article
-
But why would they? Why would they want to punch a hole through 6 buildings just have every novice in the world say it was a missile? Why not just exploded where it hits?
Um, already, every novice in the world, along with many professionals, believe it wasn't a plane. They needed a hole but they couldn't put a lawn full of bodies on tv, now could they?
But if you want to talk about motive... how about the DoD announcing the day before 911, that they lost 2.3 trillion bucks. Or, the nice war for oil, bases, minerals, whatever in afghanistan it would lead to.
LOL @ you going from holes to "why". maybe they wanted to minimize damage.
-
RLOTLMO!!! LMAO!!! LOLOLLOL!!!!
Ok...now that the laughter is out of the way....are 9-11 Fire Fighters CTers now?
-
Um, already, every novice in the world, along with many professionals, believe it wasn't a plane. They needed a hole but they couldn't put a lawn full of bodies on tv, now could they?
But if you want to talk about motive... how about the DoD announcing the day before 911, that they lost 2.3 trillion bucks. Or, the nice war for oil, bases, minerals, whatever in afghanistan it would lead to.
LOL @ you going from holes to "why". maybe they wanted to minimize damage.
What's the ratio? Whats the ratio of people qualified to say one way or another? there are what.....2 million engineers in the world?
There's always "qualified" people on both sides of any fence. However, the overwhelming majority, (ratios pending prolly 99.99% haven't been tripping over the available evidence saying it is full of holes)
Some of you thinking seems questionable here:
Motive doesn't prove guilt.
As far me going from holes to why............. I'm just trying to have a conversation with you, not trying to win a debate. If you are in the "debate" mode like we were many many times i can switch to that.
On top that, its a reasonable question that puts the idea of a missile in question: why would they need to punch a hole through? Why not have a huge explosion, and say the bodies evaporated?
-
LMAO!!!!!! RLOMATO!!!! LOL !!!!
Secondary explosions.
-
Yeah, that HAS TO BE A BOMB and the noise proves it. ::)
-
^^^ MIT Engineer. A CTer as well? ::)
-
-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies)
Why People Believe in Conspiracies
After a public lecture in 2005, I was buttonholed by a documentary filmmaker with Michael Moore-ish ambitions of exposing the conspiracy behind 9/11. “You mean the conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to attack the United States?” I asked rhetorically, knowing what was to come.
“That’s what they want you to believe,” he said. “Who is they?” I queried. “The government,” he whispered, as if “they” might be listening at that very moment. “But didn’t Osama and some members of al Qaeda not only say they did it,” I reminded him, “they gloated about what a glorious triumph it was?”
“Oh, you’re talking about that video of Osama,” he rejoined knowingly. “That was faked by the CIA and leaked to the American press to mislead us. There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since 9/11.”
Conspiracies do happen, of course. Abraham Lincoln was the victim of an assassination conspiracy, as was Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand, gunned down by the Serbian secret society called Black Hand. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy (although some conspiracists think Franklin Roosevelt was in on it). Watergate was a conspiracy (that Richard Nixon was in on). How can we tell the difference between information and disinformation? As Kurt Cobain, the rocker star of Nirvana, once growled in his grunge lyrics shortly before his death from a self-inflicted (or was it?) gunshot to the head, “Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
But as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once told me (and he should know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.
Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition.
Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black helicopters and the New World Order. “When something momentous happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both equally fictional.
-
Count this MIT Engineer in.