911 - Points to discuss

The_Kew_Tour

King Mob wrote: »

So if she was looking directly at the building the plane was coming from behind her?
Now the plane was moving quite quickly I'd imagine.
Is it possible that she wasn't looking it the right direction at the right moment and simply didn't catch the plane before it hit?

So she asked twenty two people and determined that they all where all looking the right place at the right time to catch sight of the plane?

Huh... you mean witness can be unreliable?

So if it wasn't a plane what was it?

The plane would have been moving at about 180mph at that level fast indeed yes.

she counted about 22 people that she spoke to that day.. Not going get behind that story no point wont change anybodys mind here not weasting my time but thats how many she remember she spoke from trying verify from faces she talked too that morning.

O by the way my her nephew in law has never been able to speak about this to any media since it happened. Only certin higher archery are allowed to receive or throw out information to public media etc

King Mob

adrian280582 wrote: »

The plane would have been moving at about 180mph at that level fast indeed yes.

she counted about 22 people that she spoke to that day.. Not going get behind that story no point wont change anybodys mind here not weasting my time but thats how many she remember she spoke from trying verify from faces she talked too that morning.

So it's possible then that all these people simply weren't looking in the right direction and exactly the right time to catch a glimpse of the plane before it crashed?

adrian280582 wrote: »

O by the way my her nephew in law has never been able to speak about this to any media since it happened. Only certin higher archery are allowed to receive or throw out information to public media etc

You mean follow the exact same policy the intelligence service and the people who work for them follow for everything?
I'm sure her nephew is allowed discuss everything else he does in the pentagon with no restrictions.

And for the third time: if it wasn't a plane what was it?

The_Kew_Tour

King Mob wrote: »

So it's possible then that all these people simply weren't looking in the right direction and exactly the right time to catch a glimpse of the plane before it crashed?

You mean follow the exact same policy the intelligence service and the people who work for them follow for everything?
I'm sure her nephew is allowed discuss everything else he does in the pentagon with no restrictions.

And for the third time: if it wasn't a plane what was it?

a controlled rocket. Not a plane..

it was going so fast nobody really saw it coming. It was not a plane. My granddad was pilot and by his questioning he says there no way plane could have hit the pentagon without a engine being found no wheels no nothing no marks of any wings

King Mob

adrian280582 wrote: »

a controlled rocket. Not a plane..

And how do you know?

adrian280582 wrote: »

it was going so fast nobody really saw it coming. It was not a plane. My granddad was pilot and by his questioning he says there no way plane could have hit the pentagon without a engine being found no wheels no nothing no marks of any wings

And a plane can't go really fast?

Also I'm not an engineer but I'm pretty sure aeroplane wings can't cut into concrete like in a cartoon.

And how exactly would it be impossible to hit the pentagon with a plane? I'd imagine runways are a damn sight harder to hit than something as big as the pentagon.

Bubba HoTep

adrian280582 wrote: »

a controlled rocket. Not a plane..

it was going so fast nobody really saw it coming. It was not a plane. My granddad was pilot and by his questioning he says there no way plane could have hit the pentagon without a engine being found no wheels no nothing no marks of any wings

*agree!*

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

a controlled rocket. Not a plane..

it was going so fast nobody really saw it coming. It was not a plane. My granddad was pilot and by his questioning he says there no way plane could have hit the pentagon without a engine being found no wheels no nothing no marks of any wings

You mean like that engine, which was recovered?

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."

Source

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."

–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept

Also how would a missile hit several lightpoles on either side of the freeway.
Including 5 that it teared from the ground?

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

You mean like that engine, which was recovered?




Source


–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept

Also how would a missile hit several lightpoles on either side of the freeway.
Including 5 that it teared from the ground?

First of all that was not taken from the crash site but from the waste unit which all items were sent too thats been highlighted well inpast now

secondly those lamp posts or whatever could easily be removed from objects other then plane there not that strong

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

First of all that was not taken from the crash site but from the waste unit which all items were sent too thats been highlighted well inpast now

Um wheres your proof of that?

Secondly did Frank Probst just imagine diving to avoid the engine










Also

You could see where the plane had gone in. It sheared off some of the light poles and those were on the ground. There were some plane parts around. We got right up to the building. The frustrating thing is you couldn’t get in because of the smoke.
–Colonel John F. Roser, commander of the Rader Army Health Clinic at Ft. Myer, VA.

We could not see the plane. The only thing that we saw was a piece of the front skin with the “C” from American Airlines by the little heliport control tower. (see photo above)
–Lieutenant Colonel Frank Bryceland

I rushed through Henderson Hall (a close-by Marine barracks) to the Pentagon. Along the way, debris of an airplane wing was on the grass.
–Dr. Duong Nguyen, COL, MC (retired), physician

We noticed pieces of the aircraft that had landed inside the courtyard, and the FBI personnel were marking the location where each piece landed. –Colonel Jonathan Fruendt, Surgeon

But we did go right up by the helipad almost. You could see pieces of the airplane sitting there, and it looked like some cushions or some pieces. –Lieutenant Colonel Bernadette Close

At that point we were able to see the last part of the plane, where it stopped, basically. It was a big 8 by 10 or bigger, I’m just guessing, hole in the wall. You could see the tire, the landing gear, were just forward of it. There was a fire that was burning right up against the wall.
–Sergeant First Class Reginald Powell, radiologist

I remember looking down the corridor, and you could see where part of the plane had busted through the wall, and the firefighters wouldn’t let us in. They were scared the entire wall was going to collapse. You could still see a tire and some unrecognizable little small portion of the plane.
–Specialist Kristopher Leigh Sorensen, Medical Laboratory Technician

Responding to the Pentagon PDF 136

secondly those lamp posts or whatever could easily be removed from objects other then plane there not that strong

I've posted the above image before in this thread. The yellow dots in the flight path are lightposts that were clipped Because several of the lamposts are on either side of the road. In order to hit them all your missile needs to either;

A) Needs to veer wildly around the road

or

Have the wingspan of a passenger plane.

meglome

meglome wrote: »

This might help. Sorry don't have time to discuss the contents of the video but it should be very useful as it shows why it was a plane that hit the pentagon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Guys i'll post this again. It's a computer animation interspersed with real photo's that shows why clearly it is a plane.


Regarding the security camera issue. The first ting that's needs to happen is that we prove that the security cameras even exist in the first place. Saying that they must or should means nothing unless they do and you can show they do.

So with the literally millions of photos that have been taken of the Pentagon over the years (it is and was a big tourist spot) it should be possible to see these cameras. But to my knowledge there are no pictures of these many security cameras, so if we keep an open mind here we might conclude that the cameras didn't exist.

d0gb0y

Not directly connected to 9/11 but one thing to consider is the way the US "started" many of its previous wars. Since the spainish/american war they all start with highly suspicious events.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

True.

Silverstein [The evil Zionist Jew] who owns the lease to the buildings said pull it in an interview.

So the questions that arise about that are as follows:

1. Was he in charge of the fire-fighters to be able to tell them anything?
2. Is 'pull it' a term used in (controlled) demolition?
3. Is 'pull it' a term used by fire-fighters or in fire-fighting?
4. When he said this to the fire chief did they then just pull out of the building and stop attempting to fight the fire?
5. Would this supposedly super clever Zionist [Jew] admit openly to the press he was involved in the biggest CT in history?

They are the questions that spring to mind.

John Kerry admitted that the WTC7 building was taken down in a controlled fashion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI5DcHJZMuc&feature=related

Of course, if you ask too much about this or about Skull and Bones, you may get tazered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYi62QG2AHk

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

Regarding the security camera issue. The first ting that's needs to happen is that we prove that the security cameras even exist in the first place. Saying that they must or should means nothing unless they do and you can show they do.

Excactly.

While I accept that no-one has suggested it is only the lack of videos of impact that is suspicious, what we can say about thevideo issue at this point is this...

If we assume there are unreleased videos, then there is something going on.

We can identify no cameras from where these unreleased videos would have come from. If we assume they exist, however, then there is something going on.

So basically...if we assume there is something being covered up, we can conclude there is something being covered up. We have no evidence of this coverup.

bonkey

adrian280582 wrote: »

a controlled rocket. Not a plane..

it was going so fast nobody really saw it coming.

Which leaves the problem of people who saw it (a plane) coming.

It is entirely possible for people to miss a fast-moving object....no disagreement from me there. This is the most obvious explanation as to why not everyone in the vicinity would have seen the plane. Let us (once again) remember that these events occurred in the vicinity of a busy airport, so the noise of a plane wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to altert them.

However, if it wasn't a plane, then why is there so much agreement from those who saw something that it was? Almost all of the people who saw something flying towards the Pentagon agree that it was a plane. Of those, almost all agree that it was a large aircraft.

If it was a rocket...why do so many people see otherwise?

My granddad was pilot and by his questioning he says there no way plane could have hit the pentagon without a engine being found no wheels no nothing no marks of any wings

Your grandfather is correct. Fortunately, they found an engine, they found wheels, and there are marks of the wings, so by his reasoning, a plane is not ruled out.

Bubba HoTep

@ Bonkey


"So basically...if we assume there is something being covered up, we can conclude there is something being covered up. We have no evidence of this coverup."

there is *huge* amounts of evidence for a coverup (and no im not going to link to *every* piece, as we all know the net is bursting with it)
the people that believe in the official story are the minority, not the other way 'round, because the amount of evidence that is there for a cover up *is* convincing, and appeals to most peoples common sence

"Almost all of the people who saw something flying towards the Pentagon agree that it was a plane."
yes they most likely did, however it didnt hit the pentagon, it launched the rocket


(MOD EDIT: I accidentally edited this post last night - hit the Edit button instead of the Quote one, and didn't realise at all. Sorry. Post restored.)

espinolman

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

but why would the US gov/military want that?

The ones' doing the dividing and conquering would want us to think it was an inside job , to divert our attention from them !

Bubba HoTep

espinolman wrote: »

The ones' doing the dividing and conquering would want us to think it was an inside job , to divert our attention from them !

and who are they?

espinolman

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

and who are they?

I won't discuss it in this thread as it would go off topic .

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

John Kerry admitted that the WTC7 building was taken down in a controlled fashion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI5DcHJZMuc&feature=related

Yeah because if you're involved in mass murder and a massive cover up you'll just fess up on live tv
:pac::pac::D:D:rolleyes::pac::D;)

Of course, if you ask too much about this or about Skull and Bones, you may get tazered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYi62QG2AHk

Idiot refuses to leave the floor, gets abusive and makes stupid comments.
Gets tasered. Essentially stupid self important idiot gets asked to walk away refuses, security tries to remove him, he gets obnoxious, and gets tasered.

Shock horror John Kerry has heard about Greg Palast! and doesn't need some delusional college student to tell him about this ****.

Veni Vedi Vici

Diogenes wrote: »

:pac::pac::D:D:rolleyes::pac::D;)

I'm not sure if those smilies are vague or schizophrenic.

Diogenes wrote: »

Idiot refuses to leave the floor, gets abusive and makes stupid comments.
Gets tasered. Essentially stupid self important idiot gets asked to walk away refuses, security tries to remove him, he gets obnoxious, and gets tasered.

The taser was harsh in my opinion. I agree that if he just left it wouldn't have happened in the first place. The question is should he have been asked to leave.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Was he speaking out of turn?

bonkey

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah because if you're involved in mass murder and a massive cover up you'll just fess up on live tv

or...

Interestingly, if you watch the Kerry video he says right at the end that they "did it in a controlled fashion".

Is "did it" now also a term for "controlled explosive demolition", just like "pull"?

WTC7 was handled in a controlled fashion. They made the decision to withdraw rescue personnel, to cordon off the area, and to ensure there was a minimised risk to further loss of life based on the instability of the building. They monitored the ongoing situation, until the building collapsed as expected.

What, exactly, was uncontrolled about that?

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

John Kerry admitted that the WTC7 building was taken down in a controlled fashion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI5DcHJZMuc&feature=related

Of course, if you ask too much about this or about Skull and Bones, you may get tazered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYi62QG2AHk

So if I ignore the fact you didn't answer my actual questions at all and linked to two videos. And I ignore the fact these videos don't answers those questions either. (In typical CT fashion it should be noted.)

The exercise here is to look at the fine details, if the fine details show conspiracy then I'm happy that the bigger picture does too. Doesn't that sound logical?

The first video has a recording of the guy making claims about the WTC7 and Silverstein, which I can show you right now are not true, to John Kerry. Kerry half heartedly replies to this and to me he doesn't sound very confident in what's he's saying. Leaving aside Kerry is in opposition to Bush, you already told me that there wouldn't need to be many people involved in this conspiracy but at every turn you yourself introduce more people that are involved. So which is it, lot's of people involved or few?

As for the second video I have no idea why the cops dragged the guy away. Perhaps they thought he was a lunatic I can't say. You have to see the full recording or ask the cops.

So I'll answers my own questions.

meglome wrote: »

Silverstein [The evil Zionist Jew] who owns the lease to the buildings said 'pull it' in an interview.

So the questions that arise about that are as follows:

1. Was he in charge of the fire-fighters to be able to tell them anything?
2. Is 'pull it' a term used in (controlled) demolition?
3. Is 'pull it' a term used by fire-fighters or in fire-fighting?
4. When he said this to the fire chief did they then just pull out of the building and stop attempting to fight the fire?
5. Would this supposedly super clever Zionist [Jew] admit openly to the press he was involved in the biggest CT in history?

1. The simple answer is he's not in charge of the fire-fighters before or since. And no one has shown otherwise.
2. No one in 'truth' movement has ever shown that 'Pull it' is a term used in controlled demolition. Yes they say it is but never seem to be able to prove it. You'd think after more then seven years it would be easy to prove, right?
3. Well I checked and I can't that fire-fighters use the term 'Pull it'. The 'truth' movement doesn't seem to be able to show that either. You'd think after more than... etc
4. Well yes we can say as a fact that the fire-fighters pulled out and stopped fighting the fire.
5. We can't prove this but if we assume for a moment that 911 is the super secret super competent conspiracy the 'truth' movement says it then we'd have to wonder why anyone would openly admit it to the media. Seems a very stupid thing to do and if he's that stupid why is he still alive, given the forces that are supposedly arrayed against us all. Or perhaps he really was discussing the fire-fighters pulling out of the building just like he says he was.

Bubba HoTep

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah because if you're involved in mass murder and a massive cover up you'll just fess up on live tv
:pac::pac::D:D:rolleyes::pac::D;)



Idiot refuses to leave the floor, gets abusive and makes stupid comments.
Gets tasered. Essentially stupid self important idiot gets asked to walk away refuses, security tries to remove him, he gets obnoxious, and gets tasered.

Shock horror John Kerry has heard about Greg Palast! and doesn't need some delusional college student to tell him about this ****.

even tho he wasn't obnoxious at all, according to you its perfectly fine for police to use a tazer on you on the grounds of being obnoxious? you are aware that is assualt?

what exactly makes him a "stupid self important idiot"? because he asked questions at the Q&A??

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

even tho he wasn't obnoxious at all, according to you its perfectly fine for police to use a tazer on you on the grounds of being obnoxious? you are aware that is assualt?

what exactly makes him a "stupid self important idiot"? because he asked questions at the Q&A??

Lads could we not discuss a video that didn't have anything to do with the topic anyway.

Veni Vedi Vici

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

what exactly makes him a "stupid self important idiot"? because he asked questions at the Q&A??

If he didn't speak out of turn or interupt then I also fail to understand why meglome's diogenes post regards him as an "idiot".

Bubba HoTep

meglome wrote: »

Lads could we not discuss a video that didn't have anything to do with the topic anyway.

true, its go off topic a fair bit......where were we.......oh ya

so since we all agree that the official story is BS and there is a lot more to it, what now?:p

Diogenes

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

even tho he wasn't obnoxious at all,

He was supposed to ask one question, he was asked to surrender the mike and refused.

according to you its perfectly fine for police to use a tazer on you on the grounds of being obnoxious? you are aware that is assualt?

It really depends on your definition. Security around people like Kerry is a tad more severe than you or I.

what exactly makes him a "stupid self important idiot"? because he asked questions at the Q&A??

Lecturing a former presidental candidate about election results is a bit like a passerby telling Roger Federer about his backhand or Tiger Woods about his follow through.

meglome

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

If he didn't speak out of turn or interupt then I also fail to understand why meglome's post regards him as an "idiot".

I didn't call anyone an idiot. But maybe he was who knows.

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

true, its go off topic a fair bit......where were we.......oh ya

so since we all agree that the official story is BS and there is a lot more to it, what now?:p

Bubba HoTep you said you didn't want to believe 911 was a conspiracy. So far I would suggest that the fine details don't show there is one. Some of things you believed might not be so cut and dried after all. Obviously we haven't covered much but interesting all the same.

And lads let's not start muck spreading, focus.

Veni Vedi Vici

Diogenes wrote: »

He was supposed to ask one question, he was asked to surrender the mike and refused.

Well, I guess he screwed himself there. Maybe he should have made the Skull & Bones question his first.

meglome

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Well, I guess he screwed himself there. Maybe he should have made to Skull & Bones question his first.

Oh sweet ****ing hell. Should I ask the Mods to lock this thread? Start a new one if you want to go on about this.

And seriously a college society?!?! I was in a 'gang' when I was younger and we were always trying to take over the world. :rolleyes:

Veni Vedi Vici

Apologies meglome. That was actually in reference to diogenes post. (post in question has been ammended).