Mags 1 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can I just say, that seeing as Parky influenced this thread, I officially hate him. Had a huge debate about religion at work, and wanted to come home to some peace ......technically the blame lies with Renton.. **tongue formly in cheek** Fact is NONE of you are american. You know fuck all about it, so shut up. Thank you. *dons crash helmet and waits* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can I just say, that seeing as Parky influenced this thread, I officially hate him. Had a huge debate about religion at work, and wanted to come home to some peace ......technically the blame lies with Renton.. **tongue formly in cheek** Fact is NONE of you are american. You know fuck all about it, so shut up. Thank you. *dons crash helmet and waits* Only Bush and he's friends know exactly what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again? Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Please, just tell me the closing speed of the plane, the length of trajectory that would be visible from that camera angle, and the number of frames per second of that camera, and estimate how many missing frames of a plane there should be from that camera. I want you to do it, because I am happy to accept facts and evidence as an explanation of events, rather than take an absence of something as proof of something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags 1 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Thank you so much for that. Delete is so not going to work now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15870 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can I just say, that seeing as Parky influenced this thread, I officially hate him. Had a huge debate about religion at work, and wanted to come home to some peace ......technically the blame lies with Renton.. **tongue formly in cheek** Fact is NONE of you are american. You know fuck all about it, so shut up. Thank you. *dons crash helmet and waits* You wouldn't need a crash helmet unless you knew for sure there was an incoming hit. Co-conspirator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags 1 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can I just say, that seeing as Parky influenced this thread, I officially hate him. Had a huge debate about religion at work, and wanted to come home to some peace ......technically the blame lies with Renton.. **tongue formly in cheek** Fact is NONE of you are american. You know fuck all about it, so shut up. Thank you. *dons crash helmet and waits* You wouldn't need a crash helmet unless you knew for sure there was an incoming hit. Co-conspirator! You might think so but you have no proof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) Contradictions The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully. To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon. To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes). To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes). To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings. The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling. The nose of an aircraft ? Let us imagine for a moment that we had not been told that the aircraft had disintegrated, melted and evaporated. The question then is: Is it possible for the nose of an airliner to penetrate three buildings and, as it leaves the third, produce a perfectly circular hole, 2 ½ yards wide ? The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it." Edited February 20, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again? Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Please, just tell me the closing speed of the plane, the length of trajectory that would be visible from that camera angle, and the number of frames per second of that camera, and estimate how many missing frames of a plane there should be from that camera. I want you to do it, because I am happy to accept facts and evidence as an explanation of events, rather than take an absence of something as proof of something else. Technically, I'm talking about the camera which faces the impact site, which I thought you were too? It is extremely unlikely that a camera at this current angle would be able to show a missle hitting the pentagon at 350/400mph, granted. Hence why this is the one camera which had its footage released, eh So back to the point, where's the footage from the camera shown in the photo posted, which was confiscated? The absence of any photo or video evidence of a plane hitting is a huge decider in this, given the amount of footage the government are refusing to release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again? Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Please, just tell me the closing speed of the plane, the length of trajectory that would be visible from that camera angle, and the number of frames per second of that camera, and estimate how many missing frames of a plane there should be from that camera. I want you to do it, because I am happy to accept facts and evidence as an explanation of events, rather than take an absence of something as proof of something else. Technically, I'm talking about the camera which faces the impact site, which I thought you were too? It is extremely unlikely that a camera at this current angle would be able to show a missle hitting the pentagon at 350/400mph, granted. Hence why this is the one camera which had its footage released, eh So back to the point, where's the footage from the camera shown in the photo posted, which was confiscated? The absence of any photo or video evidence of a plane hitting is a huge decider in this, given the amount of footage the government are refusing to release. It's as clear as day, they can't afford to release any significant amount of footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I'm gonna leave you ladies to it now. I'll join back in tomorrow when it gets to 20 pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15870 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. I know precisely sod-all about 9/11 and the arguments in this thread, but is it really out of the question that there's plenty of footage but they're deliberately not releasing it for security reasons? Waving a big flag and shouting "Look, terrorists, this is how little protection our major buildings have and how easily our defences are breached!" seems a little counterproductive somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6701 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. They did!! It's just conspiricists such as yourself deny that it's what it actually is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags 1 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. They did!! It's just conspiricists such as yourself deny that it's what it actually is.... Not a plane surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6701 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 drone missile i suppose And where the fuck was it fired from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags 1 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 drone missile i suppose And where the fuck was it fired from? SSH's arse? Just guessing here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22413 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. I know precisely sod-all about 9/11 and the arguments in this thread, but is it really out of the question that there's plenty of footage but they're deliberately not releasing it for security reasons? Waving a big flag and shouting "Look, terrorists, this is how little protection our major buildings have and how easily our defences are breached!" seems a little counterproductive somehow. Going back to Alex's point about the internet conspiracy theorists actually being useful to the US government by distracting people from some embarassing lapses in security that day, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they deliberately witheld conclusive video evidence. I seriously can't believe people are reading much into this and ignoring all the other evidence that points to a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon. Namely: A plane went missing, reported hijacked. It was tracked heading to Pentagon where its radar signature disappeared. There is photographic evidence of the impact including, clearly, airoplane parts (people might deny these are from a 757 but I have no reason not to believe it). There are numerous eye witness accounts. There are numerous expert testimonies that agree the impact site is what would have been expected. Etc, etc, etc. Now, why won't Shearergol, Jimbo, or Parky comment on how it is possible for such an internation conspiracy to persist, when over 100 CIA staff were killed and are surely keen to get to the truth? So far, all my questions have been ignored. Honestly, it's like arguing with THREE LeazesMags! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. I know precisely sod-all about 9/11 and the arguments in this thread, but is it really out of the question that there's plenty of footage but they're deliberately not releasing it for security reasons? Waving a big flag and shouting "Look, terrorists, this is how little protection our major buildings have and how easily our defences are breached!" seems a little counterproductive somehow. Going back to Alex's point about the internet conspiracy theorists actually being useful to the US government by distracting people from some embarassing lapses in security that day, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they deliberately witheld conclusive video evidence. I seriously can't believe people are reading much into this and ignoring all the other evidence that points to a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon. Namely: A plane went missing, reported hijacked. It was tracked heading to Pentagon where its radar signature disappeared. There is photographic evidence of the impact including, clearly, airoplane parts (people might deny these are from a 757 but I have no reason not to believe it). There are numerous eye witness accounts. There are numerous expert testimonies that agree the impact site is what would have been expected. Etc, etc, etc. Now, why won't Shearergol, Jimbo, or Parky comment on how it is possible for such an internation conspiracy to persist, when over 100 CIA staff were killed and are surely keen to get to the truth? So far, all my questions have been ignored. Honestly, it's like arguing with THREE LeazesMags! Perhaps cause they CIA knew very little about it...And infact have sufferred the most in the aftermath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6701 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 this is the US government we're talking about here - there's no way they flew a plane elsewhere and have hidden it for the past 6 years. They'd never be able to manage it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 drone missile i suppose And where the fuck was it fired from? A helicopter? The evidence released by the government doesn't show a plane by the way. Apart from the footage that SSH saw. Renton, there were plenty of people who claimed it WASN'T a plane which hit, and then some later changed their statement. Many people (experts) still say it wasn't a plane. They have the opportunity to prove a plane hit the building, yet they have absolutely no factual evidence to show the public? Where the fuck are the engines? Seriously, these don't just disappear. How come you're ignoring the post from Parky about the nose cone of the plane (something which I mentioned earlier)? Is it because you've already been given the answer, despite the fact that the answer is pretty much scientificially impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22413 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 drone missile i suppose And where the fuck was it fired from? A helicopter? The evidence released by the government doesn't show a plane by the way. Apart from the footage that SSH saw. Renton, there were plenty of people who claimed it WASN'T a plane which hit, and then some later changed their statement. Many people (experts) still say it wasn't a plane. They have the opportunity to prove a plane hit the building, yet they have absolutely no factual evidence to show the public? Where the fuck are the engines? Seriously, these don't just disappear. How come you're ignoring the post from Parky about the nose cone of the plane (something which I mentioned earlier)? Is it because you've already been given the answer, despite the fact that the answer is pretty much scientificially impossible? Pretty ironic considering every last point I have made regarding the whereabouts of the plane, air traffic control, the witness I saw on TV, etc, has been ignored. Anyway, more tommorow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously. I know precisely sod-all about 9/11 and the arguments in this thread, but is it really out of the question that there's plenty of footage but they're deliberately not releasing it for security reasons? Waving a big flag and shouting "Look, terrorists, this is how little protection our major buildings have and how easily our defences are breached!" seems a little counterproductive somehow. Going back to Alex's point about the internet conspiracy theorists actually being useful to the US government by distracting people from some embarassing lapses in security that day, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they deliberately witheld conclusive video evidence. I seriously can't believe people are reading much into this and ignoring all the other evidence that points to a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon. Namely: A plane went missing, reported hijacked. It was tracked heading to Pentagon where its radar signature disappeared. There is photographic evidence of the impact including, clearly, airoplane parts (people might deny these are from a 757 but I have no reason not to believe it). There are numerous eye witness accounts. There are numerous expert testimonies that agree the impact site is what would have been expected. Etc, etc, etc. Now, why won't Shearergol, Jimbo, or Parky comment on how it is possible for such an internation conspiracy to persist, when over 100 CIA staff were killed and are surely keen to get to the truth? So far, all my questions have been ignored. Honestly, it's like arguing with THREE LeazesMags! Pwned tbh!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22413 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 drone missile i suppose And where the fuck was it fired from? A helicopter? The evidence released by the government doesn't show a plane by the way. Apart from the footage that SSH saw. Renton, there were plenty of people who claimed it WASN'T a plane which hit, and then some later changed their statement. Many people (experts) still say it wasn't a plane. They have the opportunity to prove a plane hit the building, yet they have absolutely no factual evidence to show the public? Where the fuck are the engines? Seriously, these don't just disappear. How come you're ignoring the post from Parky about the nose cone of the plane (something which I mentioned earlier)? Is it because you've already been given the answer, despite the fact that the answer is pretty much scientificially impossible? Right, it's the morning. Shearergol, I have already stated that I think it is pointless for any of us to argue about the resultant carnage a 757 flown at 400 mph into a reinforced concrete structure like the Penthouse. There was a docucumentary about a year ago where experts of good repute explained how the impact occurred and how you would expect the damage seen and almost nothing would be left of the plane (I think it was on channel 4 but not sure). I have seen the holes the engines made and they are no way compatible with any sort of missile I can think of. At the end of the day, I am going to put my trust into academics and experts of world repute rather than some blogger on a dodgy website. I do think it's strange though how originally the conspirators claimed more damage would have been cause, now they seem to be suggesting no damage at all should have been done as for some reason the front of a plane is designed to crumple (first I've heard of it and can think of no reason why this should be the case). But then nothing surprises me in the world of 9/11 conspiracies any more. Even when two planes were filmed multiple times hitting one of the world's most famous landmarks, they claim it was dynamite that took the towers down. Honestly, I think you need to take a step back and give your head a shake. If you can explain to me how it is possible for American air traffic control and plenty of civilian witnesses to be in on it then maybe I would be more willing to accept your spin on events (the fact that different eyewitnesses described different planes is to be expected btw, humans are very poor at recalling their observations, especially one involving low flying objects travelling at immense speed). Where is the missing plane? Won't you even speculate? Finally, your point about mobile phones seems bizarre. Are you suggesting that the phone calls of distressed passengers to their loved ones were manufactured live by some agency? How the fuck did they do that? Or maybe, just maybe, the relatives of the deceased are in on it too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4084 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now