Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

911 - Points to discuss

Options
24567…18

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    espinolman wrote: »
    I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !

    Okay let's ask some questions on this:
    1. Where are all the people from the plane?
    2. How did these people get off the planes before they crashed?
    3. How did DNA (small bits of bodies etc) that is a direct match to the people who are missing get into the rubble?
    4. Why are there no sounds of explosives, like you'd expect from a controlled demolition?
    5. Show how it is possible to have a clean and untraceable nuclear device?
    6. How would you neatly make this nuclear (and presumably powerful) device destroy the building at the exact point the planes hit?

    etc etc...


  • Options
    #33
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    meglome wrote: »
    This is one of the most important things and none of the CT sites seems to mention it's importance. The WTC7 building had a very specific design and as it turns out some design flaws. To directly compare another building collapse you'd have to find one with this specific design, which you won't. So we can compare apples and oranges and wonder why they are not the same. Or we can accept that apples and orange are just not the same to begin with.

    It's true during the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid the building didn't collapse but the entire steel section of the building collapsed. The rest of the building was concrete which is not affected by fire the way steel is.


    why then have so many engineers come forward, to say otherwise?

    the sheer amount saying otherwise is staggering, why, what have they to gain from saying it was a controlled demo?

    and it doesnt just hang on WTC7, theres the pentagon, theres the phonecalls from the planes, theres lack of video for the pentagon, lack of wreckage,"war games", where were the jets of the mighty US military to shoot them down and on and on.....

    there are so many documentaries(loose change etc etc) that say otherwise, why?


  • Options
    #34
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    meglome wrote: »
    Okay let's ask some questions on this:
    1. Where are all the people from the plane?
    2. How did these people get off the planes before they crashed?
    3. How did DNA (small bits of bodies etc) that is a direct match to the people who are missing get into the rubble?
    4. Why are there no sounds of explosives, like you'd expect from a controlled demolition?
    5. Show how it is possible to have a clean and untraceable nuclear device?
    6. How would you neatly make this nuclear (and presumably powerful) device destroy the building at the exact point the planes hit?

    etc etc...

    1. I said the planes' were remote controlled into the towers , i did not say the people were not on the plane , i think they were and so were the pilots' , but the planes' were taken over remotely and the pilots were at the controls but could do nothing , thats' what i think.
    2. They did not get off the planes'.
    3. Obvious .
    4. Thermite is not an explosive , and if it was not thermite then something else that does'nt make noise !
    5. I don't know , i think anything is possible .
    6. maybe it was planted near the top of the towers' and then detonated .


  • Options
    #35
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    meglome wrote: »
    Okay let's ask some questions on this:
    1. Where are all the people from the plane?
    2. How did these people get off the planes before they crashed?
    3. How did DNA (small bits of bodies etc) that is a direct match to the people who are missing get into the rubble?
    4. Why are there no sounds of explosives, like you'd expect from a controlled demolition?
    5. Show how it is possible to have a clean and untraceable nuclear device?
    6. How would you neatly make this nuclear (and presumably powerful) device destroy the building at the exact point the planes hit?

    etc etc...

    1.killed most likely
    2.the planes that crashed may not be the same planes as had the passengers originally,
    3.ask yourself, who is telling you that there was DNA, and also how is it they found the some passports of the "hijackers" while everything else burned? (some of which later reported to have turned up alive!!)
    4.there are some, in some videos, and lots of videos of witnesses and firefighters saying they heard explosions, but if you take for granted for the sake of arguement that its an inside job, im sure in the age of nanotechnology etc that they can find a way to muffle most of these, or even have a newer way of demolishing that is perhaps less explosive than the usual
    5.i actually think that is a silly suggestion to begin with.
    6.as above.why would it need to be nuclear at all?




    i have to say that i have been taking for granted that everyone here has seen loosechange or similar, am i wrong?


  • Options
    #36
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    why then have so many engineers come forward, to say otherwise?

    the sheer amount saying otherwise is staggering, why, what have they to gain from saying it was a controlled demo?

    and it doesnt just hang on WTC7, theres the pentagon, theres the phonecalls from the planes, theres lack of video for the pentagon, lack of wreckage,"war games", where were the jets of the mighty US military to shoot them down and on and on.....

    there are so many documentaries(loose change etc etc) that say otherwise, why?

    The vast majority of engineers agree with the official version so why do the smaller amount who cry conspiracy count for more?

    What I'm trying to do here is look at each small detail. And see can we come to any final conclusion on each one. There's lot's of splatter effect about, so many supposedly connected things but are they really connected? The devil is in the details.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    just found this

    Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

    Posted by sakerfa on April 6, 2009
    A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

    The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.
    Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
    The paper ends with the statement, “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
    Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.
    The presence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings calls into question the official story that the buildings were destroyed by the airplane collisions and fire alone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official government agency that investigated the building collapses, did not test for residues of explosives.
    Richard Gage, AIA, said, “This peer-reviewed scientific study of the disturbing contents of the WTC dust is yet another smoking gun proving to the over 600 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) who I represent that a real investigation must be carried out immediately as to the actual cause of the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11.”
    One of the paper’s co-authors is AE911Truth researcher/editor Gregg Roberts. When Roberts signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new 9/11 investigation, he wrote, “What struck me on 9/11 was how much dust was created.” Now, over 7 years later, Roberts has an intimate appreciation for that dust. The steel was removed and destroyed very quickly after the catastrophe, despite loud protests from fire fighters and others. It was destruction of the primary evidence at a crime scene. The dust, however, remains as a key piece of physical evidence.
    The nine coauthors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.
    Source: AE911Truth


  • Options
    #38
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    so may i ask you this (i know its a bit off topic) but why would soooooo many find issue with the "proof" offered?

    I'm not into speculating as to why people believe the things they believe.

    You seem to believe these things. Why not make your case as to why you find them credible. Why not pick one of these things and make your case as to why you find it credible?
    why then have so many engineers come forward, to say otherwise?

    the sheer amount saying otherwise is staggering, why, what have they to gain from saying it was a controlled demo?

    Rounded to the nearest percent of engineers worldwide, the "staggering" number who have come out to say otherwise is....0%.

    Rounded to the nearest percent of relevantly qualified engineers worldwide, the "staggering" number who have come out to say otherwise is...again 0%.
    and it doesnt just hang on WTC7, theres the pentagon, theres the phonecalls from the planes, theres lack of video for the pentagon, lack of wreckage,"war games", where were the jets of the mighty US military to shoot them down and on and on.....

    Meglome posed a series of questions and you asked what his intention was.
    He clarified that he wanted to go through small issues in detail before moving on - an approach you called "brilliant".
    You offered brief sketches of answers, which I critiqued.
    Rather than sticking to those small issues, responding to my critique and going into the detail that he wanted (an approach, I point out again, you hailed as brilliant), you've responded with a barrage of subject-changing.

    Do you not want to try out his brilliant approach? Would you rather pick a different point to examine in detail?


  • Options
    #39
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    1.killed most likely

    So you now need more people involved in this conspiracy to have these people killed. You also need people to kill innocent people and not ever tell anyone. Why not just fly them into the buildings?
    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    2.the planes that crashed may not be the same planes as had the passengers originally,

    And where did these huge planes go to? It's been over seven years surely they could be found if they exist. Notwithstanding the bits of plane found match exactly with the missing planes. And you need lots more people in on the CT to hide them.
    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    3.ask yourself, who is telling you that there was DNA, and also how is it they found the some passports of the "hijackers" while everything else burned? (some of which later reported to have turned up alive!!).

    So we take it that even more people are in on the CT to fake up the DNA. Starting to get very messy now with the number of people we need to have involved. See what I'm saying?
    There were some confused stories about the hijackers but look for the later stories and they sort this out. All the named people are missing so maybe it was them??
    Light objects will get blasted out heavier items won't. So you would expect to find these small items, it would be strange if you didn't not the other way around.
    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    4.there are some, in some videos, and lots of videos of witnesses and firefighters saying they heard explosions, but if you take for granted for the sake of arguement that its an inside job, im sure in the age of nanotechnology etc that they can find a way to muffle most of these, or even have a newer way of demolishing that is perhaps less explosive than the usual

    Of course people heard explosions. There were three big buildings on fire at the end of the day. These buildings were full of things that would burn and things that if burned might explode.

    As soon as we start inventing ways to make our theories work we're in trouble. Either sound can be dampened to such an extent or it can't. I would suggest given the circumstances it would be near impossible to do.

    For example this is the text you will find on many CT sites: "I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us."

    But this is the full text, do they say the same thing?
    "I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows."
    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    5.i actually think that is a silly suggestion to begin with.
    6.as above.why would it need to be nuclear at all?

    I agree it's ridiculous yet some people fully believe it.
    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    i have to say that i have been taking for granted that everyone here has seen loosechange or similar, am i wrong?

    Yup I've seen them and they are great at selectively quoting a lot of things. Look for the full quotes and context.


  • Options
    #40
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    meglome wrote: »
    The vast majority of engineers agree with the official version so why do the smaller amount who cry conspiracy count for more?

    What I'm trying to do here is look at each small detail. And see can we come to any final conclusion on each one. There's lot's of splatter effect about, so many supposedly connected things but are they really connected? The devil is in the details.


    and i have to say i commend you for it, and you are correct the devil is in the details,

    however i must admit im a net addict, and in the years since 911 almost everything from engineers that i have seen disagree with the "official story" unless they are involved some way with the government,

    i dont want the fact the its an inside job to be true, i wish it wasnt, it makes me angry sad and scared, but everything i have read and seen has brought me to this conclusion...

    believe me, if anyone wants the official story to be true, i do



    if anybody hasnt seen loose change (there are others but this is a great start) here it is

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en


  • Options
    #41
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Woger wrote: »
    Teh stupid, it burns.

    If you can't post in a civilized manner then dont. Please read the forum charter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    if anybody hasnt seen loose change (there are others but this is a great start) here it is

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

    Loose Change is certainly not a great start. There is literally nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny.


  • Options
    #43
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    and i have to say i commend you for it, and you are correct the devil is in the details,

    however i must admit im a net addict, and in the years since 911 almost everything from engineers that i have seen disagree with the "official story" unless they are involved some way with the government,

    i dont want the fact the its an inside job to be true, i wish it wasnt, it makes me angry sad and scared, but everything i have read and seen has brought me to this conclusion...

    believe me, if anyone wants the official story to be true, i do

    The problem with the web is the vast majority of the information on it about 911 is those supporting/pushing the conspiracy. It makes it very difficult to find balance. Read http://www.911myths.com as he really tries to find balance and your eyes will be really opened to how much bull**** there is out there.


  • Options
    #44
    apoch632
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭apoch632


    To all those who say it was an inside job. Can I just ask a few questions.

    Why is american competence and ability to pull something like this off always taken as a given. This is the same country and system that couldn't keep a break in at a hotel covered up. Is it not possible that (for lack of a better expression and I apologise) that America pretty much got bitch slapped by a bunch of determined people


  • Options
    #45
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    bonkey wrote: »
    Loose Change is certainly not a great start. There is literally nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny.


    well, while i was about to make a post saying that while i admit that im not the most articulate in making my points, i was going to try and explain why i have the opinions that i do with refs. point for point from here on in, rather than being broad, so we could keep the discussion going, as i was intrested in the points you had to offer

    but since you feel that loose change has "nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny" i reckon that anything more i bring up would be wasting my time

    ah well


  • Options
    #46
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    ok how about this one question and see if we can take it from here?

    the FBI took every cctv video from all the surrounding buildings of the pentagon and would not release them, execpt for a video of stills that doesnt even have a plane in it...

    why keep those cctv videos hidden, especially since people were crying out and demanding to see them?


  • Options
    #47
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    but since you feel that loose change has "nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny" i reckon that anything more i bring up would be wasting my time

    I said "literally nothing", not "nothing" and I stand by it.

    You presented Loose Change and said its good, but didn't discuss any of the material in it.

    In the interests of balance, I offer screwloosechange. Like you, I'll take the easy approach, and not discuss any of the material in it.


    If that much reading isn't your thing, just check out the top (stickied) post.

    Loose Change was discussed to death here over the years. I doubt very much that you'll find posters here who believe in a 911 conspiracy and were around for those discussions who'll argue that Loose Change is a good and valuable source.


  • Options
    #48
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    ok how about this one question and see if we can take it from here?

    the FBI took every cctv video from all the surrounding buildings of the pentagon and would not release them, execpt for a video of stills that doesnt even have a plane in it...

    why keep those cctv videos hidden, especially since people were crying out and demanding to see them?

    The videos you refer to were never the property of the FBI. This is an important point....they can seize evidence and hold on to it as long as they deem necessary (something I disagree with, but is a side issue) but it never becomes theirs. For this reason, the FBI cannot choose to release the video to the public. They can keep it as evidence, or return it to its owners, but thats it. The Justice Department can, in certain circumstances, request/insist that the material be released.

    The Pentagon CCTV videos (two of them) was released by the Justice Department in May 2006. Prior to that there were some stills which are often confused as being the video. I can't remember offhand how they came to be released.

    JudicialWatch issued a Freedom-of-Information request for the remaining videos. This was a way to do an "end run" around the fact that the FBI wouldn't (and couldn't) voluntarily choose to release it.

    The FOI request was processed, and ultimately accepted.

    On September 115, 2006, the Citgo video was released.
    On December 03, 2006, the Doubletree video was released.

    In both cases, one can identify the explosion, but the resolution and camera direction prevent anything more useful from being seen.

    Naturally, there are those who claim the videos have been doctored....apparently because the video doesn't show what they want it to.


  • Options
    #49
    ,8,1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 256 ✭✭,8,1


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    but why would the US gov/military want that?

    Because the US Government changes every few years.

    According to the standard inside job theory as espoused by Jones et al ("Bush did 9/11") once Bush is gone from office the problem is solved.

    Sure it may have been an inside job but who was on the "inside"? The Administration? The CIA? Military? The standard inside job theory puts all the blame on Bush and Cheney - once they go the problem is solved would be the natural endpoint of that.

    I think involvement of groups who have a continuity of influence across many Administrations should be considered.

    I also think there was outside intelligence agency involvement, namely by the Mossad.

    (Should major intelligence agencies such as the Mossad be thought of as "outside" in the first place? Probably not.)


  • Options
    #50
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    bonkey wrote: »
    I said "literally nothing", not "nothing" and I stand by it.

    You presented Loose Change and said its good, but didn't discuss any of the material in it.

    In the interests of balance, I offer screwloosechange. Like you, I'll take the easy approach, and not discuss any of the material in it.


    If that much reading isn't your thing, just check out the top (stickied) post.

    Loose Change was discussed to death here over the years. I doubt very much that you'll find posters here who believe in a 911 conspiracy and were around for those discussions who'll argue that Loose Change is a good and valuable source.


    im not trying to discuss loose change only, i mention it here just so i can know if we have at least that in common, and i have been discussing material from it, hence my point about the pentagon videos


  • Options
    #51
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    bonkey wrote: »
    The videos you refer to were never the property of the FBI. This is an important point....they can seize evidence and hold on to it as long as they deem necessary (something I disagree with, but is a side issue) but it never becomes theirs. For this reason, the FBI cannot choose to release the video to the public. They can keep it as evidence, or return it to its owners, but thats it. The Justice Department can, in certain circumstances, request/insist that the material be released.

    The Pentagon CCTV videos (two of them) was released by the Justice Department in May 2006. Prior to that there were some stills which are often confused as being the video. I can't remember offhand how they came to be released.

    JudicialWatch issued a Freedom-of-Information request for the remaining videos. This was a way to do an "end run" around the fact that the FBI wouldn't (and couldn't) voluntarily choose to release it.

    The FOI request was processed, and ultimately accepted.

    On September 115, 2006, the Citgo video was released.
    On December 03, 2006, the Doubletree video was released.

    In both cases, one can identify the explosion, but the resolution and camera direction prevent anything more useful from being seen.

    Naturally, there are those who claim the videos have been doctored....apparently because the video doesn't show what they want it to.

    what has the videos not being the property of FBI got to do with them not being shown? its not as if the videos have copyrighted or private content on them, they are videos of the pentagon, what reason would any of the video owners have for not wanting them to be shown? considering the circumstances they all would want there cctv to be shown

    aside from those, the pentagon is surrounded by its own cctv cameras, apart from the video of stills (showing a blast, yet no plane) they havent shown any of them, why? surely this would be something they themselves would like to be shown

    the doubletree video you mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ is no different than the video of stills, it shows a blast, and again, no plane

    i cant find the citgo video, if you have a link that would be great

    and why wait until 2006 to release them? no reason at all they couldnt be shown in 2001


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"
    ,

    You do realise that flight 77 flew about 50 feet over an 8 lane highway during the middle of morning rush hour moments before crashing into the pentagon. It was witnessed by hundreds of people, including a good friend of mine.

    Flight%2077%20flight%20path%20from%20pentagonresearch.jpg

    Notice the detail on the image, the plane was so low at that point it was clipping lampposts.


    Furthermore fire crews from no less than five counties were on the site within minutes of the crash. For your theory to hold water hundreds of men and women who work in the emergency services are heavily implicated.

    You claim to have discussed this at length, have you considered the possibility that you are wrong?


  • Options
    #53
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    what has the videos not being the property of FBI got to do with them not being shown?

    Everything, assuming you'd like the FBI to act in a law-abiding manner.

    The videos are not the property of the FBI. The laws which allow them to seize evidence do not allow them to arbitrarily decide what to do with that evidence. They cannot legally make a decision to release them to the public.
    its not as if the videos have copyrighted or private content on them, they are videos of the pentagon, what reason would any of the video owners have for not wanting them to be shown?
    I never said that the owners didn't want them to be shown. I said that the FBI didn't have the right to decide to show them.

    Had there not been a Justice Department decision to release the videos, then either the FBI would have held on to them, or released them back to the owners.

    The Justice Department could also not arbitrarily decide to release the content. They released it after a FOI request was received for that specific information.
    aside from those, the pentagon is surrounded by its own cctv cameras, apart from the video of stills (showing a blast, yet no plane) they havent shown any of them, why? surely this would be something they themselves would like to be shown
    The Pentagon is not surrounded by its own CCTV cameras. The US military rely on armed guards patrolling the perimiter.

    I'm open to correction on this, though, if you can provide evidence that these CCTV emplacements exist, and/or show previously-released footage from them.
    the doubletree video you mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ is no different than the video of stills, it shows a blast, and again, no plane
    Agreed. The citgo video shows even less. The point is that the resolution, framerate and field-of-view all combine to the point where one wouldn't expect to see a plane.
    i cant find the citgo video, if you have a link that would be great

    here you go
    and why wait until 2006 to release them? no reason at all they couldnt be shown in 2001
    The tapes were seized, held and released in accordance with the law. The reason it wasn't done differently is that to do so would have been illegal.

    I, for one, am not going to criticise any government agency for doing its job in accordance with the law, rather than acting against the law to pander to hte wishes of a small minority of the public. I oppose the notion that the public are better served by a government agency which acts illegally in order to pander to the wishes of a small-but-vocal minority.


  • Options
    #54
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    if anybody hasnt seen loose change (there are others but this is a great start) here it is

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

    Three years ago the "director" and "producer" of Loose Change admitted in a televised debate with a NY tour guide;

    "We'll be the first to admit that our film contains factual errors"

    Yeah, thats a great place to start.


  • Options
    #55
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users Posts: 34,054 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    ok how about this one question and see if we can take it from here?

    the FBI took every cctv video from all the surrounding buildings of the pentagon and would not release them, execpt for a video of stills that doesnt even have a plane in it...

    why keep those cctv videos hidden, especially since people were crying out and demanding to see them?

    Agree with you

    Once they show me the plane hitting the pentagon I will be happy enough to conisder my taughts that it was an inside job in the first place..

    Until then I think he have to be open about this


  • Options
    #56
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    adrian280582 wrote: »
    Once they show me the plane hitting the pentagon
    <snip>

    What reason do you have to believe there is footage showing the plane hitting the Pentagon?

    This ties back to what I have already mentioned.

    There are allegations that the Pentagon has CCTV, but no evidence.
    There are claims that the Citgo and Doubletree videos should show something (and claims that they are doctored because they don't)...but no evidence to back that up.


    I've yet to see, for example, a single, dedicated soul manage to get their hands on CCTV footage showing a plane flying overhead. This would show that a plane of similar size, at unquestionably sufficient distance, travelling at comparable speed should show up on CCTV in the first place. Why is that? For all of these people crying foul...why have none of them thought to do a simple experiment to demonstrate that we should expect to see what they claim?


  • Options
    #57
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users Posts: 34,054 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Diogenes wrote: »
    You do realise that flight 77 flew a about a hundred feet over an 8 lane highway during the middle of morning rush hour moments before crashing into the pentagon. It was witnessed by hundreds of people, including a good friend of mine.

    Flight%2077%20flight%20path%20from%20pentagonresearch.jpg

    Notice the detail on the image, the plane was so low at that point it was clipping lampposts.


    Furthermore fire crews from no less than five counties were on the site within minutes of the crash. For your theory to hold water hundreds of men and women who work in the emergency services are heavily implicated.

    You claim to have discussed this at length, have you considered the possibility that you are wrong?

    My Aunt was seeing distance from where it happened never saw a plane..

    Does not mean she is right though. But it did get me questioning the whole thing must say..

    Funny I remember a CNN program and there were people saying they never saw plane fly over the buidling moments before it hit the pentagon..

    I think everybobdy sees what they want to see I suppose.

    For me if I had family that died in the pentagon I would want to see that plane hit the building


  • Options
    #58
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users Posts: 34,054 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    bonkey wrote: »
    What reason do you have to believe there is footage showing the plane hitting the Pentagon?


    its the most secure building in the world with the most cameras on it surely one has it..


  • Options
    #59
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    adrian280582 wrote: »
    its the most secure building in the world with the most cameras on it surely one has it..

    How do you know how many cameras it has.

    My Aunt was seeing distance from where it happened never saw a plane..

    Where exactly was your aunt?
    Funny I remember a CNN program and there were people saying they never saw plane fly over the buidling moments before it hit the pentagon..

    Which CNN program.
    For me if I had family that died in the pentagon I would want to see that plane hit the building

    Heres a funny thing, of the families of people who died that day, would you care to guess how many people belong to the so called truth movement?

    I don't want to go into precise figures but 1%?-2%? These are the people who are most heavily invested in this tragedy, and they are satisfied with the official investigation. Perhaps they are angry with intelligence failures, and mistakes in the run up to the events of that day, but the vast, vast majority agree that 19 hijackers took control of three planes, two of which crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field.


  • Options
    #60
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users Posts: 34,054 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Google "Pentagon the most secure building in the world"

    you get plenty of answers


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    adrian280582 wrote: »
    its the most secure building in the world with the most cameras on it surely one has it..

    The Pentagon has armed soldiers guarding it. Could you explain how security cameras will add to the security that men with guns offer?

    To that end...what evidence do you have to believe that rhere are any cameras on the building?


Advertisement