Hey 240:

[240 is Back]

I posted quotes from the media and govt represetatives which very clearly state that THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON LAWN.

Then, I posted pics which clearly show these people were lying.

And you throw out the NIST report. 

please adress the discrepencies.  Did the plane hit the lawn, or didn't it?

[OzmO]

I posted quotes from the media and govt represetatives which very clearly state that THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON LAWN.

Then, I posted pics which clearly show these people were lying.

And you throw out the NIST report. 

please adress the discrepencies.  Did the plane hit the lawn, or didn't it?

again, you focusing on a irrelvant point.   Intial reports in any contastrophy are commonly wrong.

 

[shutupandtrain88]

where are all the witness statements? photos? are they hiding them?  did they destroy them?  why can't anyone find a statement regarding the missile that hit the pentagon?

or the photos of the plane you mentioned that people saw near the pentagon and tower 2?  (sorry if it wasnt on this thread, i'm really tired)  why are you avoiding the NIST report?  where are the 95% of politicians that you believe do the right thing? Fed, state local politicians?

[240 is Back]

where are all the witness statements? photos? are they hiding them?  did they destroy them?  why can't anyone find a statement regarding the missile that hit the pentagon?

or the photos of the plane you mentioned that people saw near the pentagon and tower 2?  (sorry if it wasnt on this thread, i'm really tired)  why are you avoiding the NIST report?  where are the 95% of politicians that you believe do the right thing? Fed, state local politicians?

you seem to have some guts.  Let's not even get into the self attack thing.  Let's keep it simple.

Can you jump into the Q thread that I asked AlG and all them and give you answer please? thanks

[shutupandtrain88]

done

[Brixtonbulldog]

Your pictures refute nothing.  I drove up past the fucking pentagon, stopped my car on the side of the road, got out, and before me lay, what is obviously, either where two engines made contact with the ground or where they came so close the thrust actually tore up the ground.  Entirely plausable as well knowing that full thrust can tear up an asphalt runway after 15 seconds let alone a grassy field in an instant.

This site is NOT right up against the pentagon but less than 1/8th mile away where there is a small hill that the plane flew dangerously close to before impact, and it was clear.  No bulldozer, no bus, no fire truck made this shit.  Other people had done the same as me and were milling about the side of the road. 

I am amazed that you and Jag, instead of making a reasonable assumptions about the things you don't know, are actually seeking out other explanations and then refusing to believe what is widely accepted as what happened simply because you don't want to.

This goes for everything we've been talking about from the plane and the pentagon to the iraq war.  Die hard conservative my ass.  You've bought into all the media has thrown at you.  You and Jag dismiss the most reasonable explanation of why things have happened this way as "propaganda" and claim that anything that doesn't agree with your version of what happened is govt lies and Bush just trying to have his way. 

It's bullshit.  And somewhere in your little minds you know that what's in front of your face is the truth.  It's ugly, it's not what you want to see but nevertheless what happened.  No 911 commission, no CNN, no 911truth BS will change it.

The only thing you've accomplished is to make up more possibilities where there previously were none.   

[240 is Back]

It's bullshit.  And somewhere in your little minds you know that what's in front of your face is the truth.  It's ugly, it's not what you want to see but nevertheless what happened.  No 911 commission, no CNN, no 911truth BS will change it.

So you saw engine marks on the lawn that none of the pictures or video evidence was able to pick up?

Good eyesight, homie

[Brixtonbulldog]

So you saw engine marks on the lawn that none of the pictures or video evidence was able to pick up?

Good eyesight, homie

I was there.  The pictures you provide are too close to be what the shit I was talking about in the first place.  Good logic, homie.

[240 is Back]

I was there.  The pictures you provide are too close to be what the shit I was talking about in the first place.  Good logic, homie.

Okay.
The engines were 24 inches from the ground when the plane hit at 520 MPH. 
Despite this, they left no burn marks on the lawn.

Since you saw burn marks, the plane must have been closer to thr ground than 24 inches.
And since the govt tells us that the plane dropped from the sky, skimmed traffic at about 8 feet off the ground, then dropped to an altitude of 2 feet before hitting, we know the burns you saw couldn't have been made on it's final approach.

So we have one of two possibilities:

The marks you saw were from something else, OR

The Boeing 757 made an earlier appraoch, undetected by any cameras, radar, and people, in which it actually dropped to less than 24 inches off the ground, then did another lap and returned for that miraculous 24-inch dive.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Okay.
The engines were 24 inches from the ground when the plane hit at 520 MPH. 
Despite this, they left no burn marks on the lawn.

Since you saw burn marks, the plane must have been closer to thr ground than 24 inches.
And since the govt tells us that the plane dropped from the sky, skimmed traffic at about 8 feet off the ground, then dropped to an altitude of 2 feet before hitting, we know the burns you saw couldn't have been made on it's final approach.

So we have one of two possibilities:

The marks you saw were from something else, OR

The Boeing 757 made an earlier appraoch, undetected by any cameras, radar, and people, in which it actually dropped to less than 24 inches off the ground, then did another lap and returned for that miraculous 24-inch dive.

The hill it passed over less than 1/8th mile away (with the road on it that I was on)  could have easily been torn up as the plane skimmed very close to it and then left no burns on the lawn right before impact.  Also, since I would say it is a good 10 or 15 feet over the level of impact it is very easy to see a plane dipping below that level once passing the hill and thus creating the thrust marks that I describe. 

Makes impeccable sense. Of course it does require an understanding of the surroundings and path of approach.  Helps to be there to see it.

[240 is Back]

gotcha. didn't mean to be so sarcastiec on ya.

For me, the early reports were very telling.  When the first reporters arrived on the scene, they reported two bomb blasts.  Nothing at all about a plane.  Fox reporters went close, looked in the hole, and reported that they saw zero evidence of any plane, only a bomb.  These are reporters who worked in the pentagon, and who had probably seen many plane crash scenes in their years of media work. 

They just saw zero plane.  Whatever the official story says later, it's the people on the scene first who are the most honest ones.

ALSO-
Early reports are the true info that you get before everyone is given the official storyline to follow.    When the first chopper on the scene for the Flight 93 crash arrived on the scene, they did a flyover the crash site, and that big plane-shaped hole was actually empty.  Just dirt.  They couldn't find a plane, and incidentally just filmed that big empty hole while looking.

An hour later we had 30 guys in FEMA suits, surrounding the hole examining "evidence".  The guys stood around the hole for hours, just looking at what the early camera showed was an empty hole.

My own take is that the 30 guys were supposed to look official for the later cameras, and that they didn't know the local camera crew had gotten that shot.

[Brixtonbulldog]

gotcha. didn't mean to be so sarcastiec on ya.

For me, the early reports were very telling.  When the first reporters arrived on the scene, they reported two bomb blasts.  Nothing at all about a plane.  Fox reporters went close, looked in the hole, and reported that they saw zero evidence of any plane, only a bomb.  These are reporters who worked in the pentagon, and who had probably seen many plane crash scenes in their years of media work. 

They just saw zero plane.  Whatever the official story says later, it's the people on the scene first who are the most honest ones.

ALSO-
Early reports are the true info that you get before everyone is given the official storyline to follow.    When the first chopper on the scene for the Flight 93 crash arrived on the scene, they did a flyover the crash site, and that big plane-shaped hole was actually empty.  Just dirt.  They couldn't find a plane, and incidentally just filmed that big empty hole while looking.

An hour later we had 30 guys in FEMA suits, surrounding the hole examining "evidence".  The guys stood around the hole for hours, just looking at what the early camera showed was an empty hole.

My own take is that the 30 guys were supposed to look official for the later cameras, and that they didn't know the local camera crew had gotten that shot.

I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that it was a plane.  You will believe what you choose.  But as someone who claims to be conservative I think you should re examine your sources of information that lead you to your conclusion.  IMO.

[240 is Back]

I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that it was a plane.  You will believe what you choose.  But as someone who claims to be conservative I think you should re examine your sources of information that lead you to your conclusion.  IMO.

I believe a plane was there - and I believe that the burns you saw could very well have been from the plane.  The CITGO parking lot guy - who has been under a gag order but just said "Fuck it - can't keep quiet anymore" - is going to be featured on the Loose Change DVD coming out in the spring.  He describes a very big plane skimming over the building then doing a fast climb.  Right as the plane passes over the building, the massive bomb blast occurs.  he said it came form a different direction than the official story - something about a canopy of a base 1 mile from the pentagon?

That same plane was spotted flying over the pentagon minutes later (I can pull up pics if you want) by multiple tv stations.  Weird story abut that plane.  It took off, actually 5 minutes AFTER the no-fly ban went into effect.  Story is that it happened to be in DC, then happened to be photographed in Shanksville shortly afterwards.

I believe that plane skimmed the pentagon for all the witnesses.  Then it climbed and was caught by a few cameras.  It was then sent to Shanksville.  I don't know what happened there.  maybe it observed, maybe it droped garbage//debris, who knows.

[Brixtonbulldog]

I believe a plane was there - and I believe that the burns you saw could very well have been from the plane.  The CITGO parking lot guy - who has been under a gag order but just said "f**k it - can't keep quiet anymore" - is going to be featured on the Loose Change DVD coming out in the spring.  He describes a very big plane skimming over the building then doing a fast climb.  Right as the plane passes over the building, the massive bomb blast occurs.  he said it came form a different direction than the official story - something about a canopy of a base 1 mile from the pentagon?

That same plane was spotted flying over the pentagon minutes later (I can pull up pics if you want) by multiple tv stations.  Weird story abut that plane.  It took off, actually 5 minutes AFTER the no-fly ban went into effect.  Story is that it happened to be in DC, then happened to be photographed in Shanksville shortly afterwards.

I believe that plane skimmed the pentagon for all the witnesses.  Then it climbed and was caught by a few cameras.  It was then sent to Shanksville.  I don't know what happened there.  maybe it observed, maybe it droped garbage//debris, who knows.

Absolute garbage... another made up story.  Can't wait.  I can't believe people buy into this nonsense.

[24KT]

You can't believe a darn thing any CITGO gas pump jockey has to say. CITGO is a Venezuelan company, ...and we all know Hugo Chavez has a bone to pick with the devil, president. He's just looking to move up in the corporation, ...maybe he'll get promoted to fries. Not a credible source. NEXT!

[Brixtonbulldog]

You can't believe a darn thing any CITGO gas pump jockey has to say. CITGO is a Venezuelan company, ...and we all know Hugo Chavez has a bone to pick with the devil, president. He's just looking to move up in the corporation, ...maybe he'll get promoted to fries. Not a credible source. NEXT!

You guys crack me up.

[240 is Back]

Absolute garbage... another made up story.  Can't wait.  I can't believe people buy into this nonsense.

Hey man, the reporters were all there when it happened, the whole pentagon press corps.  They just didn't see a plane.  They bugged the penta speaker for days, asking for any pics showing a plane.  They just told them no and that was it.

hey man, let's just look at it this way =-  I'll play devil's advocate... from a utilitarian, PNAC standpoint, and def not my own opinion:

The US did a little shady shit on 911, but in the long run it was worth it.  We secured the infrastructure to be in a good spot for the future afghan-iran-iraq oil pipeline, and our economy is better for it.  The taliban was about to sell its oil pipeline rights to the EU, and iraq/iran would have done that next.  That would really leave us screwed - buying our oil with a Euro surcharge would put it at $6 a gallon and cripple our economy.  

So come on, we minimized life lost on 9/11, we made the world safer, and we secured our futures.  300 million people will live better for the next 100 years thanks to the loss of those 3000.  Worth it in the long run, right?


Can you see how someone in power just might justify this?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Hey man, the reporters were all there when it happened, the whole pentagon press corps.  They just didn't see a plane.  They bugged the penta speaker for days, asking for any pics showing a plane.  They just told them no and that was it.

hey man, let's just look at it this way =-  I'll play devil's advocate... from a utilitarian, PNAC standpoint, and def not my own opinion:

The US did a little shady shit on 911, but in the long run it was worth it.  We secured the infrastructure to be in a good spot for the future afghan-iran-iraq oil pipeline, and our economy is better for it.  The taliban was about to sell its oil pipeline rights to the EU, and iraq/iran would have done that next.  That would really leave us screwed - buying our oil with a Euro surcharge would put it at $6 a gallon and cripple our economy.  

So come on, we minimized life lost on 9/11, we made the world safer, and we secured our futures.  300 million people will live better for the next 100 years thanks to the loss of those 3000.  Worth it in the long run, right?


Can you see how someone in power just might justify this?

It's obvious you will go out of your way to conjure up anything to cling to other than the obvious and most likely story.  I guess you just can't reason with unreasonable people.  Good luck winning the hearts and minds of.......   someone.

[24KT]

Hey man, the reporters were all there when it happened, the whole pentagon press corps.  They just didn't see a plane.  They bugged the penta speaker for days, asking for any pics showing a plane.  They just told them no and that was it.

hey man, let's just look at it this way =-  I'll play devil's advocate... from a utilitarian, PNAC standpoint, and def not my own opinion:

The US did a little shady shit on 911, but in the long run it was worth it.  We secured the infrastructure to be in a good spot for the future afghan-iran-iraq oil pipeline, and our economy is better for it.  The taliban was about to sell its oil pipeline rights to the EU, and iraq/iran would have done that next.  That would really leave us screwed - buying our oil with a Euro surcharge would put it at $6 a gallon and cripple our economy.  

So come on, we minimized life lost on 9/11, we made the world safer, and we secured our futures.  300 million people will live better for the next 100 years thanks to the loss of those 3000.  Worth it in the long run, right?


Can you see how someone in power just might justify this?

Ya mean gas could've been $6 a gallon in the US by now, ...and those PNAC SOBs stopped that? 

Well now I AM pissed!        

[240 is Back]

It's obvious you will go out of your way to conjure up anything to cling to other than the obvious and most likely story.  I guess you just can't reason with unreasonable people.  Good luck winning the hearts and minds of.......   someone.

I'm the most reasonable guy in the world.  I don't trust people who have lied in the past.  Period.  The pentagon press corps made a big deal about there being no plane.   What dog did they have in that race? none.  But the pentagon gained a lot from that attack.

They could just release one video clip and we'd all STFU... Why do you think they won't do this?   They could just test one point of metal from WTC, prove there was no bombs used, and we'd all STFU. 

Why wouldn't they do this?

[24KT]

Because the footage might send secret messages to terrorists silly. 

Because if you test the debris, and it comes back positive for explosive, ...it might teach the terrorists how to take down skyscrapers? Gee 240, ...you're not very bright. 

[240 is Back]

Because the footage might send secret messages to terrorists silly. 

Because if you test the debris, and it comes back positive for explosive, ...it might teach the terrorists how to take down skyscrapers? Gee 240, ...you're not very bright. 

I know.  Luckily, there are kids on here who remember seeing the towers fall while in the 8th grade who know more about this topic than I do.  They are very eager to drop insults to refute the evidence which I present.

[Cavalier22]

if iran gets nukes, they would soon be in terrorist hands

[a_joker10]

I know.  Luckily, there are kids on here who remember seeing the towers fall while in the 8th grade who know more about this topic than I do.  They are very eager to drop insults to refute the evidence which I present.

You don't have evidence.

So there is nothing to refute.

Your photos from the pentagon are not of the flight path and the damage to the front of the pentagon is much greater than you suggest.

But you would know this if you would read the pentagon report.

The points you argue don't match the evidence of the reports.

The people organizing the reports are experts with extensive knowledge in their respective fields.

You are a CTer with a Youtube video.

I will always believe experts over the evidence you show.
Produce a report written by the experts of the same caliber as the NIST investigators.
Then you might actually have some evidence.

Right now you are just making stuff up and using arguments that have been refuted by experts with much more experience then you or any of your CTers.

[Hedgehog]

These are reporters who worked in the pentagon, and who had probably seen many plane crash scenes in their years of media work. 

IMHO, you give these reporters way too much credit.

"seen many plane crashes"?

There aren't that many plane crashes in the USA to begin with. My guess is that there are probably 2-3 real big traffic plane crashes. Every TEN years.

Just a guesstimation though.

And these reporters are most likely (read: for certain) specialised in covering government and legislation.

Not catastrophies.

My point?

I just don't think these reporters have any more expertise on what a plane crash looks like than Joe Blow off the street.


YIP
Zack