One for Parky

[Park Life 71]

 

 

 

Where is Donnie these days?

[Shearergol 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

[Renton 22909]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

Perhaps the answers don't actually make sense?

 

So the engine punched the hole in the 3rd ring of the building, and then vanished? OK, it's an answer, but why are you so happy to believe it? Do you know what the engines are made out of, and what the melting point is?

 

There's plenty of things you've ignored too Renton, but that's ok isn't it. There are plenty of people (experts no less ) who said it wasn't a plane hitting the pentagon - are these a plant by the craaaaazy conspiracy theorists?

 

OK, so the guy was a plant, and all the news networks either were duped or were complicit. Do you really believe this?

 

As I'm not a structural engineer or materials scientist I'm really not going to get into an argument about whether what happened is possible or not, what's the point? How would I know? I'll put my trust in the experts, the vast majority of which support the official story of events.

 

You in the meantime are welcome to believe the internet loons if you want. But instead of asking yet more questions, or the same ones over and over again, why not try and answer some for a change?

 

What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers?

Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile?

Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence?

If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi?

 

The thing is, extrordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence. As a rule of thumb it's always best to choose the most simple and plausible hypothesis to explain something until proven otherwise. And so far, the conspiracy theorists haven't come close to explaining anything.

[Renton 22909]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

 

aahh snopes.com, the source of irifutable truth.

 

 

Pretty good site and very useful I think, a lot more reliable than the conspiracy sites and what's more they are independent. Unless they are in on it too!

[Jimbo 175]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

 

aahh snopes.com, the source of irifutable truth.

 

 

Pretty good site and very useful I think, a lot more reliable than the conspiracy sites and what's more they are independent. Unless they are in on it too!

 

 

Agreed, I just don't believe every thing just because they say so, bit like the US government.

[Park Life 71]

Gets worse Bush's brother part of the security company incharge of WTC....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo...ted&search=

 

Edited February 20, 2007 by Parky

[Shearergol 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

Perhaps the answers don't actually make sense?

 

So the engine punched the hole in the 3rd ring of the building, and then vanished? OK, it's an answer, but why are you so happy to believe it? Do you know what the engines are made out of, and what the melting point is?

 

There's plenty of things you've ignored too Renton, but that's ok isn't it. There are plenty of people (experts no less ) who said it wasn't a plane hitting the pentagon - are these a plant by the craaaaazy conspiracy theorists?

 

OK, so the guy was a plant, and all the news networks either were duped or were complicit. Do you really believe this?

 

As I'm not a structural engineer or materials scientist I'm really not going to get into an argument about whether what happened is possible or not, what's the point? How would I know? I'll put my trust in the experts, the vast majority of which support the official story of events.

 

You in the meantime are welcome to believe the internet loons if you want. But instead of asking yet more questions, or the same ones over and over again, why not try and answer some for a change?

 

What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers?

Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile?

Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence?

If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi?

 

The thing is, extrordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence. As a rule of thumb it's always best to choose the most simple and plausible hypothesis to explain something until proven otherwise. And so far, the conspiracy theorists haven't come close to explaining anything.

 

Was gonna respond until I saw that.

 

Patronising wanker you are sir.

 

How did people on the plane use mobile phones by the way? Can't see that on snopes.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire.

 

I believe you . Is there actually a tower in existence with the same internal support design? I believe it was unique at the time to hold the unprecedented amount of floors, and ideas had moved on by the time anything similar in height was built? It's rather simplistic to generalise this to just a fire in a tall building.

 

Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse.

 

Apologies, but I'm not aware of this fire. I know it wasn't the result of a jetliner impact though.

 

How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer?

 

Perhaps due to differences in impact? Both planes hit at different floors and different heights. No doubt the resulting internal events would have been different. Again, this is a simplification of a complex system.

 

What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

Furniture? Paper? Plastic? Carpets? Wood? People? Pretty much anything will burn in extreme circumstances. What else was happening to cause the smoke seen other than things burning?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished?

 

I am saying that have you any reason to doubt that it wouldn't, seeing as how the exact circumstances have never occured before? Are you saying there was no plane?

 

How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

Again, what evidence are you using to say they should be the same? Do you have information to suggest the 2 scenarios should produce the same results? Or is this based on a simplification also?

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

Perhaps, being a small light object it was not affected by the crash in the same way as bodies or black box recorders? If this is totally beyond the realms of possibility, what does it prove?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories.

 

Apart from the thermite and the melting steel? As I have already said, it is hard to disprove non-existant theories. Parky failed to offer a single one (except the insurance scam he won't explain), only questions, much like the ones above. Do you have any alternative theories? Or just more questions? Questions I have raised have gone unanswered. It is also hard to counter theories such as the CIA plot when as seen even the basic facts are found to conflict.

 

The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Why? Because it is totally impossible? There are absolutely no examples of this kind of metaphor anywhere in the universe?

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I haven't pored over the official explanation for holes. I am happy with I think happened, until proved otherwise.

 

 

[Shearergol 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire.

 

I believe you . Is there actually a tower in existence with the same internal support design? I believe it was unique at the time to hold the unprecedented amount of floors, and ideas had moved on by the time anything similar in height was built? It's rather simplistic to generalise this to just a fire in a tall building.

 

Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse.

 

Apologies, but I'm not aware of this fire. I know it wasn't the result of a jetliner impact though.

 

How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer?

 

Perhaps due to differences in impact? Both planes hit at different floors and different heights. No doubt the resulting internal events would have been different. Again, this is a simplification of a complex system.

 

What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

Furniture? Paper? Plastic? Carpets? Wood? People? Pretty much anything will burn in extreme circumstances. What else was happening to cause the smoke seen other than things burning?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished?

 

I am saying that have you any reason to doubt that it wouldn't, seeing as how the exact circumstances have never occured before? Are you saying there was no plane?

 

How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

Again, what evidence are you using to say they should be the same? Do you have information to suggest the 2 scenarios should produce the same results? Or is this based on a simplification also?

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

Perhaps, being a small light object it was not affected by the crash in the same way as bodies or black box recorders? If this is totally beyond the realms of possibility, what does it prove?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories.

 

Apart from the thermite and the melting steel? As I have already said, it is hard to disprove non-existant theories. Parky failed to offer a single one (except the insurance scam he won't explain), only questions, much like the ones above. Do you have any alternative theories? Or just more questions? Questions I have raised have gone unanswered. It is also hard to counter theories such as the CIA plot when as seen even the basic facts are found to conflict.

 

The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Why? Because it is totally impossible? There are absolutely no examples of this kind of metaphor anywhere in the universe?

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I haven't pored over the official explanation for holes. I am happy with I think happened, until proved otherwise.

 

 

 

So simply, you don't really care?

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire.

 

I believe you . Is there actually a tower in existence with the same internal support design? I believe it was unique at the time to hold the unprecedented amount of floors, and ideas had moved on by the time anything similar in height was built? It's rather simplistic to generalise this to just a fire in a tall building.

 

Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse.

 

Apologies, but I'm not aware of this fire. I know it wasn't the result of a jetliner impact though.

 

How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer?

 

Perhaps due to differences in impact? Both planes hit at different floors and different heights. No doubt the resulting internal events would have been different. Again, this is a simplification of a complex system.

 

What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

Furniture? Paper? Plastic? Carpets? Wood? People? Pretty much anything will burn in extreme circumstances. What else was happening to cause the smoke seen other than things burning?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished?

 

I am saying that have you any reason to doubt that it wouldn't, seeing as how the exact circumstances have never occured before? Are you saying there was no plane?

 

How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

Again, what evidence are you using to say they should be the same? Do you have information to suggest the 2 scenarios should produce the same results? Or is this based on a simplification also?

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

Perhaps, being a small light object it was not affected by the crash in the same way as bodies or black box recorders? If this is totally beyond the realms of possibility, what does it prove?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories.

 

Apart from the thermite and the melting steel? As I have already said, it is hard to disprove non-existant theories. Parky failed to offer a single one (except the insurance scam he won't explain), only questions, much like the ones above. Do you have any alternative theories? Or just more questions? Questions I have raised have gone unanswered. It is also hard to counter theories such as the CIA plot when as seen even the basic facts are found to conflict.

 

The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Why? Because it is totally impossible? There are absolutely no examples of this kind of metaphor anywhere in the universe?

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I haven't pored over the official explanation for holes. I am happy with I think happened, until proved otherwise.

 

 

 

So simply, you don't really care?

 

Another simplification?

 

Do you spend your entire life questioning every fact you think is a fact that is in your head? I'm sorry, but that is one hell of a daft statemnt in response to what I said.

[Shearergol 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

There are dozens of security cameras around the pentagon. You're claiming none of them actually face the building itself? (apart from the one which only took 5 frames, none of which showing a plane?)

 

Just to point out (for Renton mainly) that I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't see how it's accurate?

[Jimbo 175]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

 

Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site?

[Shearergol 0]

 

Another simplification?

 

Do you spend your entire life questioning every fact you think is a fact that is in your head? I'm sorry, but that is one hell of a daft statemnt in response to what I said.

 

I haven't pored over the official explanation for holes. I am happy with I think happened, until proved otherwise.

 

You said it, no?

[Mags 1]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine.

[Jimbo 175]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

 

Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site?

 

what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ??

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

There are dozens of security cameras around the pentagon. You're claiming none of them actually face the building itself? (apart from the one which only took 5 frames, none of which showing a plane?)

 

Just to point out (for Renton mainly) that I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't see how it's accurate?

 

Do you have plans of the field and angle of view of all cameras at the impact site? Do you have an accurate estimate of the speed and angle of descent of the plane? Do you have any knowledge of the frames per second of said cameras? Based on this information, do you have an estimate of how much footage should theoretically be available, but is being withheld? I am pretty sure I have seen some amateur footage as well as frames from the Pentagon

[Shearergol 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

 

Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site?

 

what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ??

 

Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

 

Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site?

 

what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ??

 

I asked you, you are the one claiming the existance of reams of missing footage.

[Shearergol 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

There are dozens of security cameras around the pentagon. You're claiming none of them actually face the building itself? (apart from the one which only took 5 frames, none of which showing a plane?)

 

Just to point out (for Renton mainly) that I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't see how it's accurate?

 

Do you have plans of the field and angle of view of all cameras at the impact site? Do you have an accurate estimate of the speed and angle of descent of the plane? Do you have any knowledge of the frames per second of said cameras? Based on this information, do you have an estimate of how much footage should theoretically be available, but is being withheld? I am pretty sure I have seen some amateur footage as well as frames from the Pentagon

 

I'd love for you to post the amateur footage showing the plane, as the rest of the world hasn't seen it. I'll await your post with anticipation.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine.

 

The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

 

Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site?

 

what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ??

 

Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before.

 

It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact?

[Jimbo 175]

Seems amazing that considering all of the amateur footage of the planes hitting the world trade center that no one filmed anything approaching, or hitting the Pentagon.

[Mags 1]

Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off

 

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

 

The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine.

 

The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky.

Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed.