Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on December 17, 2006, 07:28:48 PM
-
:-\
-
His credentials are pretty f'king good when it comes to analyzing military crime scenes.
Obviously just another delusional liberal
-
Is there another possible scenario? Just curious?
-
The plane flew over, missile hit pentagon, witnesses would have never visually left the explosion unless they actually watched the plane clearly fly into the pentagon that's what they would have seen. Magicians do it all the time and even with big things. That's another possibility.
-
ROTFLMAO!
A 2 star general who retired in 1984 who's primary job was:
Measuring soviet equipment from photographs?
He's no more of an expert or credible source then you 240, or Sandy!!!
And him saying the hole doesn't make sense?
Bumble Bees aren't supposed to fly either... but they do, so is that a conspriracy also?
I've shown pics of a plane crashing into a building and dam near vanishing on another thread.
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/xin_521202070649219235399.jpg)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm)
(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/crash_tehran_cp_9060144.jpg)
www.cbc.ca/.../Tehran-crash-051206.html?ref=rss (http://www.cbc.ca/.../Tehran-crash-051206.html?ref=rss)
Was this a conspiracy too?
You guys will believe anything.
BTW: I have some land for sale just north of you 240 that was deemed a great investment by a retired 3 star general!
-
-
I'm sure 240 and Co. thinks this is digitally altered video footage and the "document" he wanted to show everyone was 100% genuine!
YOU GUYS HAVE LOST YOUR MINDS. YOU NEED TO SEE A THERAPIST!
-
240 stop attempting to pass lame BS like this senile 2-star general as support evidence for your CT theory.
AT least put up some good arguements or good facts
P.S.: don't ask me the "would you beliieve the US Goverment is capable of....." for the 300th time either.
thank you
:P
-
I've drawn no conclusions yet
Can you find the rest of this video. I like to see exactly what remains after the impact and also what the wall looks like
I'd also like the structural information on the concrete wall so I can compare it to the pentagon
At the pentagon the plane (or the landing gear) bored a nice round hole through multiple walls
In the video shown shouldn't the plane go right through that wall
I just need more info so we can make a valid comparison
please go find that so we can discuss it in an intelligent way
I'm looking forward to a meaningful and informative dialogue
-
LOL!
This general supervised Army imagery interpretation for Scientific & Technical Intelligence during the cold war.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yeah that sounds a whole lot better than "Measuring soviet equipment from photographs" HAHAHAHAHAAHAH
BTW you and i could do that.
And domestic engineer sounds better than housewife, Sanitation engineer sounds better that garbage man, and maintenance supervisor sounds better than janitor.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yeah that sounds a whole lot better than "Measuring soviet equipment from photographs" HAHAHAHAHAAHAH
And domestic engineer sounds better than housewife, Sanitation engineer sounds better that garbage man, and maintenance supervisor sounds better than janitor.
yeah the US military sucks, you're so right
-
I've drawn no conclusions yet
Can you find the rest of this video. I like to see exactly what remains after the impact and also what the wall looks like
I'd also like the structural information on the concrete wall so I can compare it to the pentagon
At the pentagon the plane (or the landing gear) bored a nice round hole through multiple walls
In the video shown shouldn't the plane go right through that wall
I just need more info so we can make a valid comparison
please go find that so we can discuss it in an intelligent way
I'm looking forward to a meaningful and informative dialogue
Look at the pictures above.
A c-130 crashed into that biulding.
here's a pic of a c-130
(http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images_skaliert/bild_04_hercules-c-130_960x693_1156105749.jpg)
-
Look at the pictures above.
A c-130 crashed into that biulding.
here's a pic of a c-130
(http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images_skaliert/bild_04_hercules-c-130_960x693_1156105749.jpg)
where's the nice round hole?
-
Another load of crap. Geeze. ::)
-
ROTFLMAO!
A 2 star general who retired in 1984 who's primary job was:
Measuring soviet equipment from photographs?
He's no more of an expert or credible source then you 240, or Sandy!!!
And him saying the hole doesn't make sense?
Bumble Bees aren't supposed to fly either... but they do, so is that a conspriracy also?
I've shown pics of a plane crashing into a building and dam near vanishing on another thread.
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/xin_521202070649219235399.jpg)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm)
(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/crash_tehran_cp_9060144.jpg)
www.cbc.ca/.../Tehran-crash-051206.html?ref=rss (http://www.cbc.ca/.../Tehran-crash-051206.html?ref=rss)
Was this a conspiracy too?
You guys will believe anything.
BTW: I have some land for sale just north of you 240 that was deemed a great investment by a retired 3 star general!
I didn't see your other posts on these crashes. Post some links to info (not photos) and I'll really try to understand what you're trying to tell me
-
where's the nice round hole?
Where's the plane?
-
post more info
like I've always said, I've drawn no conclusions
prove your point - don't just tell me to look at photos and agree with you
-
Where's the plane?
And the pilots, and all of the passengers.
Wait, 240 knows where one is: Barbara Olsen was secretly released overseas. ::)
-
I didn't see your other posts on these crashes. Post some links to info (not photos) and I'll really try to understand what you're trying to tell me
The 9/11 CT'ers contention is that hole was too small for the plane and no debris where phographed that they have access to.
So becuase of that they say it was a missle.
The photos i posted with links to the actuall news stories (not some over dramatic youtube amature documentary) tell fo a C-130 carching into an apartment building.
Each photo has a link to the original news story
Notice the building is very much still intact?
Notice you can't see the plane?
Now watcht the video of the f-4 phantom crashing into the concrete wall.
Combine that with scores of eye witnesses who saw the plane and wittnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon.
Or listin to a crack pot general and get manipulated by 240 persuasive questions casting doubt.
They go something like this: Pretend for a moment the conspracy is a "bumble bee flying"
How could a creature fly with wings that small and a body that big? Look at all the birds you see every day...do any of them have wings that small?
How coudl a bee fly with a body that bumpy? Look at how aerodynamic a eagle's body is?
It's impossible for this bee to fly so it must not really be flying but instead it's a figment of our imagination planted in our brains by the government?
Do you at least believe the govenrment is capable of doing something like this in the past? I need to know what i'm dealing with.
You see what i'm getting at here?
-
this is kinda cheesy, but it shows you damage that could have only been caused by a plane
-
This is too easy and i'm full of myself.
Maybe i should switch sides for a while :P
-
Before i switch should i agrue how the c-130 could have never crashed into that apartment building and the people on the plane were taken to a base an shot? :P
That will get me warmed up before i switch sides. :P
-
Before i switch should i agrue how the c-130 could have never crashed into that apartment building and the people on the plane were taken to a base an shot? :P
That will get me warmed up before i switch sides. :P
like I said, post more direct links to info so I can check it out for myself and decide for myself what the facts are and see if it has any relevence to the event at the pentagon of if there is even enough info to draw any conclusion. Posting a couple of pictures and then telling me what to think is not going to work.
Let's get back to the point of this post for a second
The video is of a person who claims to be a two star general (retired I assume).
He claims to be trained and supposedly an expert in analyzing photos and drawing some conclusion (I'm sure it's much more complicated than that).
He's presenting his opinion
what are your credentials or expertise in this area
Why should I believe your opinion over his or my own
-
&NR
-
so the jews were takin out of the buildings. this gets better and better
-
&NR
What's this got to do with anything
We started out talking about a highly trained person in the US military
This guy's opinion should be considered relevent (i.e worth listening to) until proven otherwise
-
What's this got to do with anything
We started out talking about a highly trained person in the US military
This guy's opinion should be considered relevent (i.e worth listening to) until proven otherwise
there was a witness that saw the plane hit. did you miis that?
-
there was a whole list of people that saw it. traffic was at a stand still,and everyone on the highway saw it... opps your right. the traffic jam and all the witnesses were set up there.. ya your right
-
Do you know anything about what you're dissing right now? And you're using the wrong term there.
what?
-
there was a whole list of people that saw it. traffic was at a stand still,and everyone on the highway saw it... opps your right. the traffic jam and all the witnesses were set up there.. ya your right
please post some link to "everyone on the highway saw it" or traffic jams
-
There are many people who also saw a very small plane. Hell, CNN put witnesses on the air that morning who very clearly saw a helicopter.
Were those witnesses wrong?
See, there are witnesses who saw a 7575, who saw a small 12-person plane, and who say a chopper.
When you have that many different accounts, you cannot rely on their evidence. you go to the videotape. Which they are hiding. Odd?
where are these people that saw a something else hit the Pentagon?
dude, you've seen way to many x-files. and hows that 911 retirement going?
staw man,, or whoever you are. its been how long and you still have no clue about 911? it was 6 years ago and your still asking questions. make up your fuking mind
-
where are these people that saw a something else hit the Pentagon?
dude, you've seen way to many x-files. and hows that 911 retirement going?
staw man,, or whoever you are. its been how long and you still have no clue about 911? it was 6 years ago and your still asking questions. make up your fuking mind
oh right
I should draw some final conclusion
you think 6 years, with more info coming out each year is more than enough time
so I guess I should decide
I lean toward something other than the story about the 19 guys (Saudi's?) with box cutters
pentagon? not sure - looks bad
WTC7? Looks pretty f'ng bad
I'm open to all points of view
try to stay on topic and don't tell me to look at something else and then agree that it proves the first thing
-
240...give it up. People saw the damm plane hit. People I know saw the damm plane hit. Ok i agree, lack of wreckage etc etc. I don't know the first thing about structural engineering or forensics so i really can't comment on what would happen if an airplane hit that building. U can't site this guy as a crediable expert. He's an intel weenie who looks at small things though a magnifing glass. Do u know how many advanced Soviet aircraft popped up that idiots like this misses or said didn't exist.
-
240 when are you going to admit the world really is flat
it's so fucking obvious
-
the same people that believe in this shit, are the same nerds going out at night looking for a ufo, or going out trying to find a bigfoot, or a lake monster. its just entertaining for ya. its reminds me of a show i watched about crop circle researchers. a bunch of guys claimed they were responsible for making the circles. the researches were like "no way you could make some of those". but the guys made every cirlce they asked for. but those researchers still didn't believe it. they want the circles to be made by ufo's so bad they completely ignored the obvious.
in a 911 ct'ers mind. they know they're wrong. but to them its so cool and fascinating that our government would pull this off,, its all they want to believe.
-
the same people that believe in this shit, are the same nerds going out at night looking for a ufo, or going out trying to find a bigfoot, or a lake monster. its just entertaining for ya. its reminds me of a show i watched about crop circle researchers. a bunch of guys claimed they were responsible for making the circles. the researches were like "no way you could make some of those". but the guys made every cirlce they asked for. but those researchers still didn't believe it. they want the circles to be made by ufo's so bad they completely ignored the obvious.
in a 911 ct'ers mind. they know they're wrong. but to them its so cool and fascinating that our government would pull this off,, its all they want to believe.
you could have made the same point with the space bar
-
OzmO -
Why do you think they won't release any of the 85 videos?
Switching issues are we? from the crack pot general to the "85" videos? Maybe cause the crackpot general looks just too stupid now.
I'm going to switch issues on you too..
Why did GOD make the bumble bees wings too small?
-
This man starts his video mocking "the jews were told to get out of the building".
he is one ignorant fucker. You know that, right?
Aside from the fact he's giggling thru the piece, the fact he spouts an outright lie in the opening 6 seconds kinda makes me not to want to watch the rest.
pot, kettle
-
Switching issues are we? from the crack pot general to the "85" videos? Maybe cause the crackpot general looks just too stupid now.
I'm going to switch issues on you too..
Why did GOD make the bumble bees wings too small?
try to stay on topic. I didn't post those videos and I didn't change the subject. Here's what I asked you before and you still haven't responded back. Instead you ask about bumble bees??
like I said, post more direct links to info so I can check it out for myself and decide for myself what the facts are and see if it has any relevence to the event at the pentagon of if there is even enough info to draw any conclusion. Posting a couple of pictures and then telling me what to think is not going to work.
Let's get back to the point of this post for a second
The video is of a person who claims to be a two star general (retired I assume).
He claims to be trained and supposedly an expert in analyzing photos and drawing some conclusion (I'm sure it's much more complicated than that).
He's presenting his opinion
what are your credentials or expertise in this area
Why should I believe your opinion over his or my own
-
the same people that believe in this shit, are the same nerds going out at night looking for a ufo, or going out trying to find a bigfoot, or a lake monster. its just entertaining for ya. its reminds me of a show i watched about crop circle researchers. a bunch of guys claimed they were responsible for making the circles. the researches were like "no way you could make some of those". but the guys made every cirlce they asked for. but those researchers still didn't believe it. they want the circles to be made by ufo's so bad they completely ignored the obvious.
in a 911 ct'ers mind. they know they're wrong. but to them its so cool and fascinating that our government would pull this off,, its all they want to believe.
I agree. Not a whole lot of common sense involved in this conspiracy theory. It's bizarre.
-
try to stay on topic. I didn't post those videos and I didn't change the subject. Here's what I asked you before and you still haven't responded back. Instead you ask about bumble bees??
like I said, post more direct links to info so I can check it out for myself and decide for myself what the facts are and see if it has any relevence to the event at the pentagon of if there is even enough info to draw any conclusion. Posting a couple of pictures and then telling me what to think is not going to work.
Let's get back to the point of this post for a second
The video is of a person who claims to be a two star general (retired I assume).
He claims to be trained and supposedly an expert in analyzing photos and drawing some conclusion (I'm sure it's much more complicated than that).
He's presenting his opinion
what are your credentials or expertise in this area
Why should I believe your opinion over his or my own
, i'm not asking you to believe anything. That's something you need to do on your own. 90% of what you read in this thread is between me and 240.
If you are interested i encourage you to research this yourself.
I've already answered you but i don't think you've read it.
The pictures i posted came with link to the original news story (below the pic). You can google ("plane crashes into building") if you'd like to find them your self.
So i'll say it again:
Teh contention of the 9/11 CTer's is that the a plane would have made a bigger hole than it did in the pentagon therfore it wasn't a plane.
The pics i showed was of a C-130 that crashed into an apartment building in Tehran. Do you see plane debris? Do you see a hole the size of the c-130?
Combine that with the f-4 crashing into the concrete.
Hope this helps you.
-
there are helicopters flying in the area of the pentagon area ALL THE FUCKING time. what does one flying on 9/11 prove
-
I know nothing about those crashes which is why I can't draw any conclusions or make any comparisons to the Pentagon. You've shown 1 photo from each crash. That tells me almost nothing. You're the one who presented this as proof of something so you should be the one to provide more information. I actually have no time to devote to this shit during the week. Since you presented these two photos as some kind of proof here are just a few questions for you: 1. when were the photos taken (i.e how long after the crash), how many bodies were recovered from the plane, Why no holes in the building (assuming we're making some comparison to the event at the Pentagon, Why didn't the building collapse (i.e what make the Pentagon collapse while these buildings did not, Can you find some more photos of the ground (I would say closer to the time of the crash but I have no clue when the photos were taken.) Do you see my point. Two photos is not enough information to draw a conclusion about anything or make any kind of valid comparison.
You've called the two star general a "crackpot" based on what exactly? I'm still waiting for you to show me some reason why a two star general who has been trained to something like this (btw - I'm sure it's much harder to draw a conclusion from a satellite photo or one taken from a spy plane) is a "crackpot" and the fact that he has reached a conclusion to which you don't agree is not relevent.
Again, what are your qualifications to review photographs and draw conclusions.
-
Perhaps this is why you have such a problem objectively seeing the 911 facts.
You honestly don't see the incredible power that 9/11 gave the Bush administration, do you?
You don't believe the ability to wage wars abroad, borrow nearly unlimited, award billion dollar contracts to friendly firms, change history to fit their ideology, and restrict rights at home, would be motivation enough to pull 9/11?
Not at all. It just doesn't pass the common sense test.
-
You've called the two star general a "crackpot" based on what exactly? I'm still waiting for you to show me some reason why a two star general who has been trained to something like this (btw - I'm sure it's much harder to draw a conclusion from a satellite photo or one taken from a spy plane) is a "crackpot" and the fact that he has reached a conclusion to which you don't agree is not relevent.
Again, what are your qualifications to review photographs and draw conclusions.
Sigh, pardon me if i sound like an asshole.
Did you watch the video?
Did you hear what he said he did?
How does what he siad he did for the military in 1984 qualify him as a person who can comment on a plane crahsing into a building? Is he a structual engineer? Is he a demolition expert? Aircraft engineer? Aircraft designer? NO, No, No, No.
For him to make difinitive comments about this makes him a crackpot IMO.
Next, RE: the c-130
I can't paint the picture or my point any more clearer for you. If you want more info, you'll have to do it yoru self as i have suggested. If you don't have time, it's not my obligation to spend my time researching for you.
-
Again, what are your qualifications to review photographs and draw conclusions.
No more than anyone else's on this board.
But I'll for the 3rd time draw point out again:
The contention of the 9/11 CTer's is that the a plane would have made a bigger hole than it did in the pentagon therfore it wasn't a plane.
The pics i showed was of a C-130 that crashed into an apartment building in Tehran. Do you see plane debris? Do you see a hole the size of the c-130
Becuase of this their point isn't valid.
-
Well, no offense, but you lack an understanding of history.
It's happened throughout US history. Faked attacks in order to justify a war. I know you dropped out of the 8th grade and were a parent before you turned 18, and I think that may have affected your ability to learn about these things in college. It's very real. Common sense SHOULD dictate you don't kill 3000 americans to justify multiple wars and control at home. But it doesn't work that way when it comes to billions of dollars, ingrained ideology on both sides, and plain old evil people.
I'm sorry you cannot comprehend this. Must be frustrating for you. It is for me. I sometimes forget I'm trying to convince a child about the intentions of men.
When I did say I was parent before 18?
As I suspected, you are simply unable to handle people who disagree with you. It is actually very childlike. Cannot get an agreement or consensus, lash out and insult people. I see it in kids all the time.
I have no problem aligning myself with the plethora of normal, sane people who believe this conspiracy theory doesn't pass the common sense test.
-
Sigh, pardon me if i sound like an asshole.
Did you watch the video?
Did you hear what he said he did?
How does what he siad he did for the military in 1984 qualify him as a person who can comment on a plane crahsing into a building? Is he a structual engineer? Is he a demolition expert? Aircraft engineer? Aircraft designer? NO, No, No, No.
For him to make difinitive comments about this makes him a crackpot IMO.
Next, RE: the c-130
I can't paint the picture or my point any more clearer for you. If you want more info, you'll have to do it yoru self as i have suggested. If you don't have time, it's not my obligation to spend my time researching for you.
IMO - he sounds like no less of a crackpot than you, I or many other people. He's drawing the same conclusions that many other people have drawn and in the past (presumabley since I know nothing about this person) he received some training from our military and was competent enough to be promoted to 2 star general. Again - what are you qualifications to render any opinion on this
Still no answers to my questions about the two other crashes. You brought it up as proof of something yet you can't answer answer any follow up questions. You present two still photos and draw a conclusion about another event and I'm supposed to just agree with you? How about answering just one question - how many bodies were recovered from the planes in either of those crashes. You must have found those photos somewhere. Can you not even attach a link to some more info. I'd like to draw my own conclusions rather than just agreeing with you based on nothing. Surely the beginning and end of your argument is more than just two still photos.
-
240-
A quick note, a fact is something proved beyond a reasonable doubt. What you conspiracy theorists argue is conjecture.
Conspiracy theory argue based on conjecture not facts. There is little validity in any argument that either of you make unit the scientific community backs up your claims. An uneducated observation is not fact.
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
A conjecture is
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conjecture (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conjecture)
Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
-
Well, no offense, but you lack an understanding of history.
It's happened throughout US history. Faked attacks in order to justify a war. I know you dropped out of the 8th grade and were a parent before you turned 18, and I think that may have affected your ability to learn about these things in college. It's very real. Common sense SHOULD dictate you don't kill 3000 americans to justify multiple wars and control at home. But it doesn't work that way when it comes to billions of dollars, ingrained ideology on both sides, and plain old evil people.
I'm sorry you cannot comprehend this. Must be frustrating for you. It is for me. I sometimes forget I'm trying to convince a child about the intentions of men.
You know what 240.
I buy into the fact that the US government is willing to lie and do shit to start a war.
But i don't think they intentionally killed 3000 people. Becuase it is only by shear luck that 10,000 people weren't killed in the towers.
And as much as i think neo-cons are evil, i don;t think they'd do this themselves, i rather believe they'd allow it to happen.
-
People who claimed the Gulf of Tonken was staged used to be mocked.
They were vindicated when the docs were declassified and it was proved we were never attacked and lied to enter nam.
People who claimed the USS Liberty was fired on intentionally by ISR used to be mocked.
They were proven correct when docs were declassified and it was proven LBJ ordered help NOT assist the ship and that it let to be sunk.
People who claimed JFK was an inside job/conspiracy used to be mocked.
Then it came out a US President falsified the autopsy bullet entry wound, and that the shooter confessed from prison, and Congress admitted there was some sort of conspiracy.
911 is in its infancy. There will be a second investigation and perhaps then your "common sense" can be revised to meet the reality of the world.
Like I've said before, when people I respect start raising questions and filling in the gaps (like what happened to the bodies and the planes), then I'll pay attention. What is sad is it really doesn't matter what evidence is produced to support the fact that we were attacked by foreign terrorists, people like you will continue to believe in their conspiracy theory. You have too much invested in this stuff. It's like the crop circles example cited by kh300. Even when the guys who cut the crop circles came out and admitted it was a hoax, the CTs wouldn't buy it. I think it borders on an illness.
-
IMO - he sounds like no less of a crackpot than you, I or many other people. He's drawing the same conclusions that many other people have drawn and in the past (presumabley since I know nothing about this person) he received some training from our military and was competent enough to be promoted to 2 star general. Again - what are you qualifications to render any opinion on this
Still no answers to my questions about the two other crashes. You brought it up as proof of something yet you can't answer answer any follow up questions. You present two still photos and draw a conclusion about another event and I'm supposed to just agree with you? How about answering just one question - how many bodies were recovered from the planes in either of those crashes. You must have found those photos somewhere. Can you not even attach a link to some more info. I'd like to draw my own conclusions rather than just agreeing with you based on nothing. Surely the beginning and end of your argument is more than just two still photos.
Explain to me how measuring soviet equipment from photo graphs makes him more of an expert at determining whether or not a plane hit a building than you or I.
RE: c-130
I gave you the links to the strories... look em up. Google them. it took me 5 minutes.
I'm at work too BTW.
-
Like I've said before, when people I respect start raising questions and filling in the gaps (like what happened to the bodies and the planes), then I'll pay attention. What is sad is it really doesn't matter what evidence is produced to support the fact that we were attacked by foreign terrorists, people like you will continue to believe in their conspiracy theory. You have too much invested in this stuff. It's like the crop circles example cited by kh300. Even when the guys who cut the crop circles came out and admitted it was a hoax, the CTs wouldn't buy it. I think it borders on an illness.
Okay, more words but no additional info. I have not drawn any final conclusions. When forced to render an "opinion" I have done so but I'm always open to additional evidence . It's kind of hard when someone presents a piece of evidence in support of a conclusion about a third event and then essentially says that you must agree with it and don't ask any follow up questions. If you present the evidence then you should be prepared to answer some follow up questions. That's not so unreasonable is it?
Regarding crops circles - two guys admitted to making some of them. You know what that proves? It proves that two guys made some of them. Nothing more and nothing less. It's obviously got nothing to do with 9-11 but if that's your standard of evidence then I'm starting to question your judgement and ability to look at information and draw logical conclusions. I still woulnd't call you a crackpot though
-
Explain to me how measuring soviet equipment from photo graphs makes him more of an expert at determining whether or not a plane hit a building than you or I
It makes him an expert in that field and lends more credibility to his opinion than either of our opinions .... in my opion.
Lot's of f'ng opinions
-
Explain to me how measuring soviet equipment from photo graphs makes him more of an expert at determining whether or not a plane hit a building than you or I
It makes him an expert in that field and lends more credibility to his opinion than either of our opinions .... in my opion.
Lot's of f'ng opinions
No it doesn't becuase his expertese it's not related to the issue.
Anyone can measure things.
If you know the the size of anyone 1 thing in a photograph like a the tire of a Zil car than you can measure anything. NO brains needed. At least past the 10th grade level.
Hoepfully this answers your 1st question.
-
Okay, more words but no additional info. I have not drawn any final conclusions. When forced to render an "opinion" I have done so but I'm always open to additional evidence . It's kind of hard when someone presents a piece of evidence in support of a conclusion about a third event and then essentially says that you must agree with it and don't ask any follow up questions. If you present the evidence then you should be prepared to answer some follow up questions. That's not so unreasonable is it?
Regarding crops circles - two guys admitted to making some of them. You know what that proves? It proves that two guys made some of them. Nothing more and nothing less. It's obviously got nothing to do with 9-11 but if that's your standard of evidence then I'm starting to question your judgement and ability to look at information and draw logical conclusions. I still woulnd't call you a crackpot though
What additional info? This entire theory makes absolutely no sense. It's absurd. It doesn't pass the laugh test. It is unreasonable to expect me, or anyone else, to buy this nonsense when fundamental questions like what happened to the bodies and the planes cannot be answered.
I cited the crop circles as an example of how some people hold onto their conspiracy theories regardless of the evidence. I believe the 911 CTs have that same mentality.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)
The USS Liberty was not sunk it was fixed in Malta. You are making up information.
You can research the assassination here
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/index.html (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/index.html)
JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswold
As the Warren Commission said.
The Gulf of Tonkin
Seems like an intelligence failure to me. Much like Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident)
The Hanyok article states that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration "in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events of 4 August 1964." Instead, "only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials."
-
OzmO and Beach bum,
can you guys answer this one? thanks!
Conjecture.
Why don't you try to use facts.
-
OzmO and Beach bum,
can you guys answer this one? thanks!
One person is hugely different than 3000. Of course they wouild kill 1 person. but 3000 or possibly 10,000 americans? no.
-
Also,
Motive alone does not hold up as undisputable fact.
-
No it doesn't becuase his expertese it's not related to the issue.
Anyone can measure things.
If you know the the size of anyone 1 thing in a photograph like a the tire of a Zil car than you can measure anything. NO brains needed. At least past the 10th grade level.
Hoepfully this answers your 1st question.
I disagree with your assessment. I think the skills are somewhat transferable. If not then that puts him on the same level as you or me.
BTW - I went back and checked the links. One still doesn't work - I tried last night.
One did work this morning and here's a quote from the article - "I pulled 30 bodies out of the plane. They were all charred," he said.
I thought you said the planes disintegrated so how can someone be able to pull out charred bodies.
How many bodies were recovered from the plane that hit the pentagon???
BTW - I'm sure building standards are much higher in Iran than at the Pentagon or at the WTC. I guess that's why that building in Iran didn't collapse right?
-
Also,
Motive alone does not hold up as undisputable fact.
excellent point.
Confession is not proof either.
-
One person is hugely different than 3000. Of course they wouild kill 1 person. but 3000 or possibly 10,000 americans? no.
And exactly who are we talking about? The president? VP? Who gives the order and who carries it out?
-
I disagree with your assessment. I think the skills are somewhat transferable. If not then that puts him on the same level as you or me.
Exactly how ar the skills of measuring images transferable to Areodynamic engineering, Strucutural engineering, chemistry and explosives?
I disagree with your assessment. I think the skills are somewhat transferable. If not then that puts him on the same level as you or me.
BTW - I went back and checked the links. One still doesn't work - I tried last night.
Yeah, i saw that, i'll repost it later.
One did work this morning and here's a quote from the article - "I pulled 30 bodies out of the plane. They were all charred," he said.
I thought you said the planes disintegrated so how can someone be able to pull out charred bodies.
How many bodies were recovered from the plane that hit the pentagon???
I never talked about charred bodies. I was talking about the lack of plane debris from the crash in both cases of tehran and the pentagon.
BTW - I'm sure building standards are much higher in Iran than at the Pentagon or at the WTC. I guess that's why that building in Iran didn't collapse right?
There are other variables: speed of the plane being one. A c-130 doesn't fly every fast or might not have been flying as fast when it hit. another varieble would be where the plane hit each biulding.
-
more from the article:
The front of the plane was destroyed on impact. A propeller and ripped wing smoldered in front of the blackened building. Flames licked out of the windows of the apartments and thick black smoke billowed into the sky.
"Some people were throwing themselves out of windows to escape the flames. I saw two die like that," a policeman said.
Passerby Hassan Hedayati, his face covered in dust and hands caked with dried blood, was among the first on the scene.
"I pulled 30 bodies out of the plane. They were all charred," he said.
The apartment block, which was still standing, is in the Shahrak-e Towhid neighborhood
Not sure that I see exactly how this applies to the event at the Pentagon. There seems to be more wreckage (from the article not from the photo), there seem to be bodies (none were recovered from the plane at that hit the Pentagon - I could be wrong though so please feel free to correct me on that), the shitty ass building in Tehran is still standing yet the Pentagon suffered a partial collapse.
As you've mentioned there are a lot of variables. I just don't see how this event proves anything about the Pentagon. If anything, this event seems to contradict the popular narrative about the event at the Pentagon
-
No. But when you can show motive, as we clearly can, then we cannot allow the group to investigate itself, as happened with the 9/11 commission.
We've already established that there will be another investigation.
And when you say 1 person is hugely different from 3000... really?
If they'll kill 1, will they kill 5? At what point do you think they would have the decency to say "that's too many dead people"?
Donno, niether do you, i just know that "IF" it was a inside job they had to know they could potentially kill 10,000 americans. So, no way.
Can you look at George bush and say "that man would absolutely NOT have 3000 killed"? he's done it in Iraq with American troops and is still staying the course (even possibly raising force levels in Jan).
You are using Iraq to make a point with 9/11. While it's a decent debating technique these are 2 completely different issues.
He has no choice but to stay his course ATM. Politcally he has no way out ATM.
-
where's the nice round hole?
In your head, if you believe it's a conspiracy!!
-
In your head, if you believe it's a conspiracy!!
I have at least 5 holes in my head that I'm aware of.
Shouldn't you be sucking Rush's nuts right about now?
-
I have at least 5 holes in my head that I'm aware of.
Shouldn't you be sucking Rush's nuts right about now?
lol
This tells me you have other getbig accounts. ;D
Who are you? lol
-
lol
This tells me you have other getbig accounts. ;D
Who are you? lol
I have another account but I rarely ever used it. I just started looking at this site more regularly in the last month or so.
-
You can answer for each of them if you want.
i'm referring to both the group which wrote "rebuilding our nations defenses" (PNAC) and the larger group which many refer to as the invisible govt.
It's beyond your understanding, beach bum. you quit high school to be a parent and can't understand basic economics or US history, so I expect some lame joke here from you.
For the rest of the class, it should be reasonable to believe that if every one of these lofty goals could be achieved with the killing of one stranger, most in govt would advocate it. Two deaths, sure. I guess there's a mental block that comes up between 2 death and 3000 deaths that most people cannot bridge. As terrible as it is, I believe 3,000 was considered an acceptable loss for them in order to justify the actions they have since taken.
PS... Bush won't deny he knew about 9/11 ahead of time.
I quit high school to be a parent about the same time you became a homosexual. And yet, here we are.
-
parts of the airplane including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane were recovered and photographed.
A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims
At 9:12 am, approximately 10 minutes after the American Airlines flight 77 had been hijacked, passenger Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, to report that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.
Minutes later, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States, also reporting that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.
-
parts of the airplane including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane were recovered and photographed.
A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims
At 9:12 am, approximately 10 minutes after the American Airlines flight 77 had been hijacked, passenger Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, to report that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.
Minutes later, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States, also reporting that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.
I stand corrected. I think I did say please correct me if I'm wrong.
If most of Flight 77 disintegrated from hitting the Pentagon's wall and the rest of it burned up after the explosion, how did officials manage to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers onboard inside the building all the way up to the Ring C?
How does the plane basically vaporize or burn so hot that it melts but the bodies are identifiable?
Keep showing me more info and I'll lean more toward your side.
Since I know nothing about the forensic results that the Pentagon I'd have to research it a bit more but yes, bodies do a lot to support the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon.
-
LOL... making up lies when you're exposed? Hi Rumsfeld!!
Dude, you dropped outta school. Which is fine. This shows why you don't have the stat 1 class behind you, to understand the anomalies in the 2004 election. This explains your inability to understand the dollar's decline and ramifications for our children, that would be ECO 1. And a nice History 1815-Present class would have taught you about false-flag attacks.
You're arguing from a disadvantage in that you don't possess knowledge of the things we speak of. Easy for you to blow off what you can't understand.
Don't be embarrassed 240. Stand up and be proud. Embrace your homosexuality. It's part of who you are.
And re education: you are probably the most uneducated person on this board. Anyone who believes our government faked the moon landing, and has been fooling the entire world all this time, is a nut. (That would be you.) If in fact you have a degree from an institution of higher learning, I'd say you are entitled to a refund.
-
I stand corrected. I think I did say please correct me if I'm wrong.
If most of Flight 77 disintegrated from hitting the Pentagon's wall and the rest of it burned up after the explosion, how did officials manage to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers onboard inside the building all the way up to the Ring C?
How does the plane basically vaporize or burn so hot that it melts but the bodies are identifiable?
Keep showing me more info and I'll lean more toward your side.
Since I know nothing about the forensic results that the Pentagon I'd have to research it a bit more but yes, bodies do a lot to support the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon.
dna
-
dna
yes I'm aware of dna but I don't much yet about the specific anaylysis of the remains from Flight 77. Something new for me to learn more about.
-
high school dropout calling the MBA uneducated. MMmmm-kay.
Oh I forgot about the mail order degree. ::) You're an MBA? Bawahahahahahaha! ;D I just had 22 MBA students this semester. All much brighter than you.
-
yes I'm aware of dna but I don't much yet about the specific anaylysis of the remains from Flight 77. Something new for me to learn more about.
There is a whole book dedicated to this.
Who They Were : Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort to Identify the Missing (Hardcover)
by Robert C. Shaler (Author)
-
There is a whole book dedicated to this.
Who They Were : Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort to Identify the Missing (Hardcover)
by Robert C. Shaler (Author)
Does it cover the Pentagon or just remains @ WTC?
-
Does it cover the Pentagon or just remains @ WTC?
That I am not sure about. But similar methods were used in both locations.
-
So your forensics expert now as well.
Good CSI is always looking for more.
-
Pop mechanics said that the DNA for all ten of the WTC hijackers had been found, identified, and tested against DNA obtained from their relatives....
...and it was completely done by 11 AM on Sept 12, 2001.
Sorry for doubting you. But based on your past inaccuracies i'm willing to bet this (in bold) isn't 100% accurate.
-
the fbi was in charge of the testing. but of course, they planted the dna and the testing was totally made up.. right 240?
-
The official investigation ended on November 16, 2001, declaring that 184 of 189 of those killed in the Pentagon attack had been identified. Officials claimed that the remains of all but one of the people on Flight 77 were identified. Human remains were shipped to a DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland for identification by forensic pathologists and anthropologists.
-
What were the DNA results of the terrorists?
Were they able to ID the men who hijacked flight 77 which hit the Pentagon?
They were on the flight manifest and bought tickets, right?
Fair Question - I'm still looking for info on this but there does seem to be some questions
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
-
It was reported that there were
Zero Arab autopsies
Zero Arab tickets
Zero Arab bodies
And of course, none of their names were on it. Also, since Flight 77 was reported to have left from 2 different gates, and many things about he flight BEFORE it took off were very odd, it needs looked at.
And you can't say "well, maybe they kept those hijackers' bodies secret" cause they couldn't release the other 3 planes' worth fast enough.
or, you could say it's just an incredible coincidence that the FIVE missing bodies - happened to belong to the arabs. 184/189 leaves 5 blank slots. That despite magic fuel which defies science and burns hotter than jet fuel, which vaporizes jet engines made of titanium, all people on board - except the terrorists - were ID'd by DNA.
it's a load of crap. Absolute horseshit.
240-
Am I going to have to find the turbine pictures again.
Only certain parts of the jets are made with Titanium both engine turbines and the land gear assembly.
Also the land gear was found as well.
-
wow its almost xmas
-
It was reported that there were
Zero Arab autopsies
Zero Arab tickets
Zero Arab bodies
And of course, none of their names were on it. Also, since Flight 77 was reported to have left from 2 different gates, and many things about he flight BEFORE it took off were very odd, it needs looked at.
And you can't say "well, maybe they kept those hijackers' bodies secret" cause they couldn't release the other 3 planes' worth fast enough.
or, you could say it's just an incredible coincidence that the FIVE missing bodies - happened to belong to the arabs. 184/189 leaves 5 blank slots. That despite magic fuel which defies science and burns hotter than jet fuel, which vaporizes jet engines made of titanium, all people on board - except the terrorists - were ID'd by DNA.
it's a load of crap. Absolute horseshit.
I'll address the other shit later, but the stuff in bold..... You don't fly much do you? I do. Gate switches aren't uncommon even 20 min before a flight supposed to take off. Delays are about 20% of the time most busy airports and 40% of the time if the fight is going through Chicago.
-
it is just one of many. there was no listed flight plan with the airliners - none of the networks understood it that day. i can't list it all offhand but 911 Killtown has a list of like 20 or 30 things which made this flight extra special and certainly worth looking at twice.
Coupled with the complete disappearance of 124 tons of plane material, 189 bodies, all that jet fuel...
man, it stinks to high heaven. Just one unbiased investigation to prove what happened, that's all I want.
first bold is all tainted. If it's the case then you should be able to verify what they said through independent sources... but you don;t have the time do you?
Second bold: is all assumptioins based on the tainted info from a 9/11 CT site.
Try again 240.
Give us something concrete. becuase lately most of what you post is just rhetoric or conjecture based on "alleged and or tainted" facts
-
this site has some decent info too: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html
I'm finding there are some contradictions regardings bodies (some say no bodies, some say charred bodies still strapped in their seats, some say body parts, etc..) and there is also some confusion about exactly how the bodies of the alleged highjackers were identified.
-
If I post a link to a CT site, which contains links to 25 MSM sources, will you look at that?
it's the exact same as if I cut and pasted each link, but it won't take me the 10 minutes to post every one.
No post each link individually. It won't take ten minutes
I'm thinking you are savy enough to use firefox. Use control + T to tab browse 2 windows. If not open 2 exp windows.
1. Highlight link
2. cntrl + c (to copy)
3 cntrl + v (top paste)
-
This is the funny part:
Most of the time what you started the thread with gets so discredited as complete rubbish that you have to resort to throwing out more BUll shit angles.
-
Guess the links don't exsist other than in the fuzzy world of CT land.
-
Guess the links don't exsist other than in the fuzzy world of CT land.
The link I posted works and it's a decent site too: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html
-
The link I posted works and it's a decent site too: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html
that was directed at senior' 240. I saw that site of yours. Good site.
-
I like these points from your site Straw:
1) The perpetrators would have to have decided on what type of aircraft and what the wingspan of the "imaginary" plane would be in advance.
2) They would have to have agreed on a flight-path and predetermined the poles to be "damaged".
3) They would have to have had caused the poles to break up high and at the base assuming an imaginary altitude for the aircraft.
4) They would have to have had total control of all witnesses in the area including suppressing the witnesses who noticed the poles falling for no reason.
5) They would have to have had briefed the controlled witnesses on the type of plane, the flight-path, the poles being hit and the change to the engine sound.
6) They would have to have synchronized the falling of the poles with the explosion at the wall.
Some other points:
He doesn't ask how they made the passengers disappear
Who line the passengers up and killed them
And where the plane went (planes are like cars in that many of their parts are serial numbered) but hiding a whole plane is completely differnt than dismanteling a car.
-
I like these points from your site Straw:
1) The perpetrators would have to have decided on what type of aircraft and what the wingspan of the "imaginary" plane would be in advance.
2) They would have to have agreed on a flight-path and predetermined the poles to be "damaged".
3) They would have to have had caused the poles to break up high and at the base assuming an imaginary altitude for the aircraft.
4) They would have to have had total control of all witnesses in the area including suppressing the witnesses who noticed the poles falling for no reason.
5) They would have to have had briefed the controlled witnesses on the type of plane, the flight-path, the poles being hit and the change to the engine sound.
6) They would have to have synchronized the falling of the poles with the explosion at the wall.
Some other points:
He doesn't ask how they made the passengers disappear
Who line the passengers up and killed them
And where the plane went (planes are like cars in that many of their parts are serial numbered) but hiding a whole plane is completely differnt than dismanteling a car.
you actually read it?
I just looked at the pictures.
seriously - I don't have any CT's. I'm still in information gathering mode. I would address a few of the other points but I'm way too busy this morning. maybe later this afternoon. Time is money (at least right now)
-
you actually read it?
I just looked at the pictures.
seriously - I don't have any CT's. I'm still in information gathering mode. I would address a few of the other points but I'm way too busy this morning. maybe later this afternoon. Time is money (at least right now)
When the water is flowing it's time to pump like hell!
-
OzmO,
The doubletree hotel camera angle, released 2 weeks ago, showed zero plane, even though its timeframe was good enough to show traffic moving and the direct path the plane should have taken.
Whatever blew up at the pentagon exploded at 9:32, stopping dozens of clocks from the blast while the "plane" arrived at 9:37.
I can't believe you can so flippantly blow off an event which stopped so many clocks 5 minutes before the plane arrived. They've never even tried to explain it. Some douchebag here said "I think it's because they don't set their clocks right at the pentagon". Do you have any theories why so many clocks were frozen at 9:32?
You still haven't conceded how stupid this crack pot general's lack of expertese in formulating his opnion was.
And now for the 1000th time you are rotating to another point
-
240,, you havnt read my previous post. the hole in the wall is the size of the fuselage. the wings wernt strong enough to penetrate the building. but, the wings did leave damage.
-
no, my facts are different. your ct sites have a timeline and a story of what they "believe" happend. everything that proves them wrong is either left out,, or the facts get changed.
-
I like these points from your site Straw:
1) The perpetrators would have to have decided on what type of aircraft and what the wingspan of the "imaginary" plane would be in advance.
2) They would have to have agreed on a flight-path and predetermined the poles to be "damaged".
3) They would have to have had caused the poles to break up high and at the base assuming an imaginary altitude for the aircraft.
4) They would have to have had total control of all witnesses in the area including suppressing the witnesses who noticed the poles falling for no reason.
5) They would have to have had briefed the controlled witnesses on the type of plane, the flight-path, the poles being hit and the change to the engine sound.
6) They would have to have synchronized the falling of the poles with the explosion at the wall.
Some other points:
He doesn't ask how they made the passengers disappear - yes the bodies (lack thereof) and autopsy anomolies still remain. Since the FBI took control of the remains how do we really know what happened
Who line the passengers up and killed them - who says that is what happened
And where the plane went (planes are like cars in that many of their parts are serial numbered) but hiding a whole plane is completely differnt than dismanteling a car. have parts with serial # and such been presented anywhere - I don't know so if you do please explain
the info you cut and pasted is from a section where the author attempts to explain the problems with the "no plane" theory
NO PLANE
If there was no plane or an aircraft with a wingspan of less than 100 feet then the light pole damage would still have to be accounted for. The no plane proponents suggest a faking of this damage. I will just list the implications of this scenario since I have not come across a realistic explanation for how this could have been done.
1) The perpetrators would have to have decided on what type of aircraft and what the wingspan of the "imaginary" plane would be in advance.
2) They would have to have agreed on a flight-path and predetermined the poles to be "damaged".
3) They would have to have had caused the poles to break up high and at the base assuming an imaginary altitude for the aircraft.
4) They would have to have had total control of all witnesses in the area including suppressing the witnesses who noticed the poles falling for no reason.
5) They would have to have had briefed the controlled witnesses on the type of plane, the flight-path, the poles being hit and the change to the engine sound.
6) They would have to have synchronized the falling of the poles with the explosion at the wall.
That gives just some idea of what you are up against in a no plane scenario. Keep in mind when you look at the photos in the sidebars there is no evidence of explosives at the upper break or the base of the poles. Also, remember they would have gone to all of this trouble to account for about 12 feet of altitude. Why not just say the plane came in at a slightly steeper angle?
* The information on the poles is representative of the poles in the area. They had different manufacturers and distributors over the years. I could not acquire information specific to the exact poles impacted. One of the main manufacturers is Union Metal.
-
It's kinda cheesy to be arguing the "no-plane" theory, when the DoD has not yet proven the "yes-plane" theory :)
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf)
8)
-
It's kinda cheesy to be arguing the "no-plane" theory, when the DoD has not yet proven the "yes-plane" theory :)
nothing is too cheesy for this place. Besides the author of the website is not arguing for the "no plane" vs. "plane" he's just presenting some issues that would need to be explained (in lieu of additional info) were this event to be the result of something other than the plane that allegedly hit the building. Who's to say the things he has raised are even a complete list.
-
also from the same site:
OFFICIAL STORY SUMMARY
The complex international plot was never discovered by intelligence agencies.
19 Arab hijackers evaded security on 4 different flights from 3 different international airports with knives, box cutters, mace and bombs in their possession.
Hani Hanjour who had been refused the rental of a Cessna 172 3 1/2 weeks prior to 9/11 navigated an aircraft he had never flown before from the Ohio/Kentucky border and located the Pentagon in Washington D.C.. He was reading a 757 manual on the way to the airport which he left in the car.
He violated the most secure airspace in the United States without intercept even though they had the transponder off for 42 minutes and intercept aircraft sat 10 minutes away at Andrews Air Force base. The attacks in New York were being broadcast in the media.
He passed the unsecured White House and flew over the totally unobstructed front of the Pentagon where the "brass" has their offices.
He entered Reagan International airspace while performing a 270 degree turn with a 7000 foot drop in altitude in 2.5 minutes with military precision.
He chose the most obstructed approach path possible out of all 5 sides of the building. And the only path that required an altitude change right at the end in order to level out over the Pentagon grounds.
He hit five 25 foot, 293 pound steel lamp poles, a fence, a 39,500 pound generator trailer, two cable spools, two single-wide mobile home construction trailers and a tree to hit the building without leaving a significant trail of aircraft debris behind.
He selected the only wedge out of 5 that was under renovation for blast reinforcement in case of a terrorist attack. The project was due to be completed that week. The exterior wall was built with 21 inch steel reinforced columns infilled with 8 inches of brick, tubular steel, 1600 pound blast-resistant windows, and Kevlar mesh covered in a facade of 6 inches of Indiana limestone. It was also the least occupied section of the building.
He made an entire 164,010* pound 757-200 more than 50 yards long with wings equal in area to the floor space of a three-bedroom suburban house vanish in between the first and second floor of the Pentagon which is 14 feet between slabs. 12 feet is the diameter of the fuselage. Except for a couple of pieces of the aircraft that had lettering from the AA livery (which is a very small percentage of the exterior surface area of the aircraft) there was very little left behind outside. No tail, no wings, no engines, no horizontal stabilizer, no passenger seats, no luggage and no aircraft cargo. He did not touch the lawn in the process.
The aircraft remained between the first and second floor slabs and traveled 310 feet through the interior walls, 21 inch rebar-cored columns every 10 feet, and office contents to break through the "C" wing wall composed of 8 inches of reinforced brick creating a near perfectly round 9 foot in diameter exit hole. It decelerated in the 40 foot space of the A-E drive and did not chip the opposing wall or leave any visible wreckage in the A-E drive. The Arlington County After-Action Report, the Shoring Report, and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Building Performance Report all attributed the exit hole to the aircraft but none of them explained it.
The FBI confiscated videos from local businesses at about the same time water was initially being put on the building fire.
The Pentagon denied having security video. Five frames of a security video taken from the Pentagon guard shack were leaked. The Pentagon admitted to having video. The 5 frames all have the wrong date, the aircraft is hidden behind a foreground object and the second frame had been artificially brightened from the source.
The FBI admits to having videos, aircraft wreckage, two "black boxes" and the hijackers unidentified remains. They refuse to positively identify the hijacker's remains, release the videos or let the media see the wreckage. The NTSB claims to have downloaded the information from the cockpit voice recorder but before it could be analyzed the FBI confiscated it. The FBI director Robert Mueller said "the agency had not gotten any information from the voice data recorder from Flight 77".
The Pentagon ASCE Building Performance Report was written after the building was demolished with no physical inspection of the impact zone evidence or aircraft debris. There is photographic proof that somebody falsified the condition of at least one significant column near the exit hole. The BPS team was not allowed to see the exit hole.
The FBI did not allow the NTSB to perform a crash investigation. There is no official federally required accident report for any of the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11. Those reports are completed when private aircraft skid off a runway.
The FBI produced a report that says "American Airlines #77, Boeing 757, 8:10 a.m. departed Dulles for Los Angeles, 9:39 a.m. crashed into the Pentagon" and shows 5 photos of Arab men on the FBI Flight 77 Page. One of those men has been reported by the BBC to still be alive. Robert Mueller of the FBI acknowledged, "that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt".
Dr. Marcella Fierro, the Virginia Chief Medical Examiner was refused any participation in processing the human remains. She was so upset she requested and received a letter from then Attorney General Ashcroft transferring responsibility for the medical examinations to the FBI. The remains were removed under armed guard and taken to Dover AFB, Delaware. Despite temperatures that melted an entire 757-200 they claim to have positively identified all but 5 remains from the Pentagon and Flight 77.
There are no Arab names on the original passenger list or the official autopsy report. On the autopsy report all names on the passenger list were identified except for an infant (if they didn't fly under their own names and there are not 5 alias names unconnected with remains, then how did they board the aircraft?).
The State Department produced the longest government report on the Pentagon here. It uses articles from the Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC, and Rense.com to prove that an aircraft hit the Pentagon instead of producing the evidence they are in possession of for the American people.
*This includes the aircraft and fuel. It does not include cargo, luggage or passengers.
-
isn't it odd that the US government was incapable of intercepting the "plane" that hit the Pentagon in spite of all the time they had yet they were out collecting video tape within 5 minutes after the event
not saying it means anything but just seems a bit incongruent to me
-
what would you have liked the military to do if they did intercept them?
-
what would you have liked the military to do if they did intercept them?
they have all kind of scenarios for that. Shooting them down would be one of the options. Sitting around with their collective thumbs up their ass wouldn't be the best choice.
-
Because I believe that this guy had to be pretty good at analyzing scenes such as the Pentagon, where buildings, planes, fire trucks, and other objects are used to determine exact dimensions of original events. Have you seen the original media reports on the Pentagon crash? "A gaping hole in the lawn and 100 feet -wide hole in the building!" These idiotic falshoods would have been the official story if not for fast photogs on the scene.
This general supervised Army imagery interpretation for Scientific & Technical Intelligence during the cold war. I believe his analysis here is just another of the 10,000 small pieces which show probable cause for a real investigation. believe it or don't believe it, but it is obviously worth more than kh300 or similar asshat's guessing analysis. He is a 2-star general who held an important intel position - for you to call him a crackpot because he says no 757 fuselage fit in that round hole which drilled perfectly thru 3 reinforced buildings...
well, perhaps you have a better theory!
You failed your "critical Thinkning course" in college didn't you?
He said he measured soviet equipment from photographs.
Anyone can do that including you and I
He said The hole doesn't match the size of the plane.
We all already agree on this. Everyone knows this. That's not news.
He said becuase of that he doesn't think it was a plane that hit the pentagon.
From what stand point of his "expertese" does he base this on? Becuase he can measure stuff?
Now if he was a physicist and Airplane engineer and he said a plane definatly didn't make that hole then that's one thing. But he isn't.
His opinion is no more impacting than yours or mine in that field.
However,
putting the photographs of the C-130 building and the video of the F-4 into the brick wall tend to support the idea that a plane might not have done the damage you suggest it should have if in fact it was a plane.
Bullding very well intact with the c-130
Very few debris
Concrete wall in video intact
PLane partically dissentigrated.
All of which support the aftermath fo the pentagon plane.
I'm sorry for this. But if you really really believe this guy is a credible authority on physics & Airplane construction you need help.
-
It's kinda cheesy to be arguing the "no-plane" theory, when the DoD has not yet proven the "yes-plane" theory :)
NO, in your opinon which is based on crackpots like your 2-star general as qualified experts, they haven;t proven it.
In a court of law, there is enough evidence and eye witnesses to prove it.
That's why CT'ers are pretty much laughed at becuase they use things like this idiot senile general and "credible witnesses"
-
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Please tell me
1) The diameter of the hole
2) The diameter of a 757 Boeing fuselage.
You been making shit up!!!!!!!!!
Now, even I'm smart enough to know that in a crash like that the concrete if far more stonger then the aluminum shell of the fuselage.
But then again you believe a guy who used to measure images on photographs as an authority on physics and airplane construction.
Yeah, right. ::)
-
As far as this idiot old man goes........ you got nothing.
Unless you have something else to add to help debate your side on this.................
NEXT?
-
isn't it odd that the US government was incapable of intercepting the "plane" that hit the Pentagon in spite of all the time they had yet they were out collecting video tape within 5 minutes after the event
not saying it means anything but just seems a bit incongruent to me
It's not that odd. Collecting the tape might have been part of protocol in an event at the pentagon. And i highly doubt it was 5 min.
Also, straw if you want the real truth start researching NORAD defense proceedures seperate for the events of 9/11, and what happened on 9/11 from non-government and non-CT websites. then go back and compare all the info from all sources, CT sites included.
This is how you conduct a REAL investagation, not the witch hunt 240 has forsaken his god given objectivity for.
-
LOL
Anyone who believes that fucking fairy tale is a grade A sucker.
You mean like the guy who believes a man who measured photographs as an authority on physics and plane construction?
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
It's not that odd. Collecting the tape might have been part of protocol in an event at the pentagon. And i highly doubt it was 5 min.
Also, straw if you want the real truth start researching NORAD defense proceedures seperate for the events of 9/11, and what happened on 9/11 from non-government and non-CT websites. then go back and compare all the info from all sources, CT sites included.
This is how you conduct a REAL investagation, not the witch hunt 240 has forsaken his god given objectivity for.
the timing seem odd to me but then this site is entertainment for me not a religious quest. I'm not an investigator of anything. I'm am kind of curious what makes you an expert in investigative techniques. It sounds like you've already researched the items you've mentioned or at least have some working knowledge so please share. I'm always open to new information. Here's a question maybe you can answer. How many times in 2001 prior to 9-11 were plane intercepted that, for whatever reason entered restricted airspace over DC. I don't know exactly but I'm sure someone here does. What went wrong on 9-11?
-
we both want a real 911 investigation, ozmo.
your continual attacks and insults show a pretty emotional involvement with it. if it turns out we let it happen, it's going to hurt as your position unravels.
Look, 240, i respect you and your beliefs and your intentions.
I just think you are not using your head when it comes to evaluating evidence. I think this so much so that the rhetoric you use to support your arguements in this debate seem so off base that my sarcasism tends to come out.
My postion has been farily consistant:
I believe BUSH KNEW ;Dabout this before it happened.
I don't believe:
WTC's were brought down be explosives
Pentagon was not hit by a plane
Flight 93 demise was something completely outside the official story.
Come back to the point:
How is this General's testimony any more impacting that you or i saying a 16 foot hole is smaller than the plane?
-
Look, 240, i respect you and your beliefs and your intentions.
I just think you are not using your head when it comes to evaluating evidence. I think this so much so that the rhetoric you use to support your arguements in this debate seem so off base that my sarcasism tends to come out.
My postion has been farily consistant:
I believe BUSH about this before it happened. - there seems to be a word missing here - Freudian slip perhaps - maybe you still harbor some doubt? Maybe just a typo
I don't believe:
WTC's were brought down be explosives
Pentagon was not hit by a plane
Flight 93 demise was something completely outside the official story.
Come back to the point:
How is this General's testimony any more impacting that you or i saying a 16 foot hole is smaller than the plane?
Oz- In your opinion - what makes anything the "official" story?
-
Look, 240, i respect you and your beliefs and your intentions.
I just think you are not using your head when it comes to evaluating evidence. I think this so much so that the rhetoric you use to support your arguements in this debate seem so off base that my sarcasism tends to come out.
My postion has been farily consistant:
I believe BUSH KNEW ;Dabout this before it happened.
I don't believe:
WTC's were brought down be explosives
Pentagon was not hit by a plane
Flight 93 demise was something completely outside the official story.
Come back to the point:
How is this General's testimony any more impacting that you or i saying a 16 foot hole is smaller than the plane?
Guess when you got nothing you have nothing to say...........
Are you going to rotate now?
-
Guess when you got nothing you have nothing to say...........
Are you going to rotate now?
didn't I also guess TYPO
BTW - is Bush knowing before the event part of the OFFICIAL STORY
Wouldn't Bush knowing beforehand and doing nothing to stop it something that might be impeachable
-
The official story doesn't "go there".
yes, I am aware of that. Then again, Bush didn't even want an investigation. I guess he didn't see any need to investigate the biggest intelligence and defense failure in our country's history. Does that make sense to anyone on either side of the aisle?
-
Gents pretty good debating,very entertaining. ;D ;D I dont understand why people want to argue so adamantly against you 240, I never got the message that you were claiming to have the end all story on everything that happened that day. I can respect that you are willing to do so much research and continually have at least answers for these guys over and over. Ozmo you seem to debate 240 with more intelligence than most, would say not being ignorant is a start. 8)Hint hint bb. I know who straw is! Wondered where he went. I will say 240 you are still making valid points. Intelligent debates = :)
-
Gents pretty good debating,very entertaining. ;D ;D I dont understand why people want to argue so adamantly against you 240, I never got the message that you were claiming to have the end all story on everything that happened that day. I can respect that you are willing to do so much research and continually have at least answers for these guys over and over. Ozmo you seem to debate 240 with more intelligence than most, would say not being ignorant is a start. 8)Hint hint bb. I know who straw is! Wondered where he went. I will say 240 you are still making valid points. Intelligent debates = :)
I think you're confusing me with someone else. I'm relatively new to this site.
-
thanks L....
Yeah, I don't know any answers, nor do I claim to. I just think we need a real investigation.
Didn't you post a whole list of conclusions last night and then say that anyone who didn't agree with you was a moron and a douchebag?
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2056042529846696837&hl=en
Well, I think I know the answers to the bigger questions.
And I know we did 9/11. And anyone who can't see it, well, they haven't looked at the evidence. I spent the last 6 months arguing it with douchebags who still scream that buildings fall like WTC7 all the time. SO yeah, to me, at this point, they're morons.
But for the sake of discussion, I know we can't convinct any person for it. We know it was an inside job, but we do not yet know WHO beyond the obvious players.
who's we? You may believe (as I do) that the official story is almost certainly incomplete but that's about it at this point. Everything else is speculation. Some of it could possibly be proven true and some of it could be a dead end. There is still lot's and lot's of info that needs to come out before we can draw any conclusions (if ever).
BTW - I share many of your beliefs but I'm still aware that they are just beliefs and can be ammended/changed based on additional data
-
true.
IMO, we = a small group of non-arabs in the US.
just for kicks - how do we know it's not a group that includes arabs, non-arabs, jews, gentiles, athiests, occultists, living both in and outside the US?
-
thanks L....
Yeah, I don't know any answers, nor do I claim to. I just think we need a real investigation.
When you consider that the plane entered the building with one wing fading from view, shredded 0% on the outside, and mainly, looked a hell of a lot like a cruise missile when exiting, I think the case is made we need a new investigation.
Look at this, man... wow...
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=114651.0;attach=129366;image)
I think this picture proves the exsistance of UFO's also:
(http://www.sartelcom.net/ET/ufo_nlo/images/ufo_nlo_sarajevo2_large.jpg)
-
Ozmo, if that pic was taken by CNN in front of the world, and it killed 3000 people, would it warrant an unbiased investigation?
Come on dude, you're better than to use the old alien insults. People who do that are conditioned to associate "crazy" and "loony" with anything contradictory to the official govt acocunt of events. Don't slip into beach bum obscurity.
You know better than to make a grainy video stills as the basis for factual evidence of halograms masking planes............ or do you?
do you?
hmmmmm.
-
Dude, there was a pretty decent video clip. I created the grainy stills to show them, but referred viewers to the video clip to see the digital video of that object coming out of the building.
Yeah?
And the pic of the UFO is much clearer than your video THEREFORE the UFO pic MUST be real!
you've lost your mind.