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 Pentagon plane remote controlled?
Options
Comments
-
How do you know it's free fall exactly?
Please go in to do detail, and provide video evidence.
Take a look at this.. (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090109042817239)In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. Part I [of this video] chronicles NIST's attempted obfuscation and eventual admission of freefall. Part II demonstrates that their replacement theory is based on fabricated evidence and is a continuation of the coverup. Part III will spell out the significance of NIST's admission of freefall.NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary. This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet.Comment at YouTube: Some viewers have questioned the details of the measurements shown in this video. I have created a FAQ page to deal with these questions. See www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf
"..experts, upon seeing the video, could tell immediately that it actually was a controlled demolition. In 2006, for example, a Dutch filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of the collapse of WTC 7, without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing the video, Jowenko said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this." (link) (more)
Firemen hear WTC7 explosion
"Building is about to blow up"
"decision to 'pull' building"
'Pulling' a building takes weeks of preparation and planning. If they can 'pull' it on the day, that means they were planning the demolition for weeks prior.
"close your eyes and forget about what your doing, just like normal"
0 -
-
Yes I have seen that.
Now how exactly does it show a free fall?
Have you actually read the NIST report yourself?
Do you speak dutch?"..experts, upon seeing the video, could tell immediately that it actually was a controlled demolition. In 2006, for example, a Dutch filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of the collapse of WTC 7, without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing the video, Jowenko said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this." (link) (more)
Do you know what an out of context quote is?Firemen hear WTC7 explosion
"Building is about to blow up"
"decision to 'pull' building"
"Pulling" a building is a term for demolition by actually pulling a building down with cables.'Pulling' a building takes weeks of preparation and planning. If they can 'pull' it on the day, that means they were planning the demolition for weeks prior.
They used this technique to demolish the remains of WTC6 during the clean up.
And yes it absolutely takes weeks of preparation and planning and rigging and structural work.
Have you any evidence for any workers doing any of this in WTC7 prior to 9/11?
Also why (assuming that it's something other than another silly out of context quote) did he admit this on film, in a freely available documentary?
And why (again assuming it's an admission) would they have only made the decision to "pull" it on the day, despite all the "preparation and planning " beforehand?
And why would such a decision rest with a business and a fireman?
And blindly believe everything the CT sites tell you...."close your eyes and forget about what your doing, just like normal"0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I was hoping there may be some factual evidence, not just hearsay. For example, the two videos confiscated by the fbi that allegedly show an aircraft, these videos alone (if they were to show just an aircraft) would shut me up about the Pentagon.The facts surrounding the aftermath of the collision.
I'm with you on the 'rescue takes priority' thing, but It's not likely that anyone had to be rescued from under table-sized pieces of aircraft on the Pentagon lawn.In any situation, rescue operations have higher priority then crime investigation. That evidence was collected rather than risk losing it or having it damaged by the ongoing rescue operations is not "tampering and contamination"...or if it is, its nothing unusual. It is, rather, making a pragmatic decision.
Moving the so-called evidence was deliberate, and it is very unusual for any crash site to be 'doctored' before air crash investigators have a chance to examine it.
That's the way it would have happened if there was any justice in the world, or even if proper procedure had been followed, however..The material was moved from the site to a secure location, using GPS-tracked vehicles, and then kept there until such times as the investigation team had declared that they had taken the samples they wanted / needed, and that the remainder could be disposed of.
"The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed."[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
"..fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]" (link) (cleanup crew)So if the people investigating the scene didn't feel those beams were key, and that they had taken what they wanted...then surely the "as soon as they could be moved" has to be understood to mean "as soon as the investigating team said they were finished with them".I'm questioning the allegation that an alumunium nose cone punched through several re-inforced walls.
There weren't several re-inforced walls, nor did any official account I'm aware of suggest that it was an aluminium nose cone which caused the hole in question.
These two images are from post #24
The aircraft illustrated is lined up with the nose directly to the impact hole, and in line with that is the cockpit, navigation equipment, passenger cabin, landing gear, etc. I cannot imagine an aluminium nose cone making that hole either, unless it's path was cleared by, say, a missile.
I had guessed at 4 reinforced outside walls, considering that they are 4 Outside walls of the Pentagon that have definately been penetrated. The Pentagon is the strategic headquarters of the Department Of Defense of the most powerful country on Earth, I don't think it's walls would be made from anything less than the best materials.
You can clearly see the 'exit' hole on the other side of (effectively) three complete buildings. There may be more obstructions there too.. for example dozens of concrete/steel reinforced supporting pillars (to hold a five storey building), internal partitions and high security doors inside the building, photocopiers, desks, chairs, etc.
The line of holes are arranged in a straight line from the first impact, all the way to the exit. See the angle of impact is in line with the entrance and exit holes.
It is reasonable to assume that at least the outside walls would be steel reinforced concrete, it is supposed to be one of the most secure buildings on Earth.
All of the internal support pillars are reinforced, and any of which are capable of deflecting ballistic aircraft parts.
I've spent most of the day looking through that pdf..
page 19 (fig 5.8) shows that the E ring (external) wall is steel reinforced concrete.
page 21 (5.16) shows the 'exit' wall is also steel reinforced concrete.
page 22 (5.29) shows that the floor beams are reinforced
So the outside walls are reinforced, that would mean the projectile travelled through four reinforced walls, and every support column in it's way.
"Something" indeed! One official report says it was landing gear that went the full distance..Something ended up causing that hole, after going through the -inforced outer wall, the wall with hole, and whatever lay in between. I've no question about that.
The idea that there were several re-inforced walls in the way, and the suggestion that it was an aluminium nosecone....that's what I don't agree with.
I find it hard to believe that a building capable of completely disintegrating an aircraft would allow landing gear to travel unobstructed and apparently in a straight line through concrete and steel columns and walls, at an angle, perhaps as far as the length of the plane.
Accomplishing that would be a lot easier if there was a missile, followed closely by an airplane.
If it were me, I would use a modified J-STARS, a military plane identical to a 767 except for a special compartment on the underside.
I know I've seen two of these planes recently.. ah yes, the World Trade Center.Did it mention any of the buildings, other then those directly impacted by planes? No, it didn't.
Why is it suspicious that one specific building from all of the ones which were "collateral damage" was not singled out? Wouldn't it be the other way round...that if they picked out one building from all the collateral damage, that would be suspicious.
(1) Evidence of Thermite explosives was found in rubble from all three buildings at ground zero. (2) There is video evidence of an explosion prior to the wtc7 collapse. (3) An independant engineer verified that the building collapsed inward- exactly like a controlled demolition does. (4) The wtc plaza owner stood to make millions from the day's events, from the insurance and through the stock exchange.
If you ask me, Building 7 .. demolition.
I wouldn't say "completely" wrong, as the passport was produced afterwards, and it did survive.So you at least accept that your claim that htey were the only intact fragments was completely wrong, then. That's at least one item down.
If this was the only piece of paper-based material which survived....then I'd find this curious to be sure.
It wasn't. Plenty of paper survived.
If you find that suspicious, though, thats entirely your perogative. You found it suspicious that it was the only intact thing...and then admitted that "of course" it wasn't.
Now you find it suspicious that it was paper...almost suggesting that there was something unusual about a paper artefact surviving.
No doubt you'll accept that other paper survived, and that its still suspicious.
I don't wish to be misrepresented in this regard, or to come under attack because of a simple mistake, which was acknowledged.
It is suspicious to me that this particular paper artefact survived a fireball and a building collapse only to be found within 24 hours, considering that it was supposedly at the center of the action.
I believe the passport was planted afterwards.The official version is that debris caused the hole.
You'll find the official details of it here.
Incidentally, in that document, you'll also find diagrams and details of what - exactly - the debris went through between the outer wall and the wall to the AE "corridor" (the so-called "exit hole"). Perhaps you'd be so good to show me the "several reinforced walls" you refer to, or indeed where the "four large holes in a dead straight line" were....as the simple existence of these walls would be sufficient to show that the official account is wildly inaccurate.
I outlined why I believe there are at least four reinforced walls.
At least two reinforced walls are definately there and can be seen in photographic evidence in the pdf, another two walls are supporting 5 floors and if they are not reinforced, then would still be very thick.
The angle of the projectile's approach and the angle of the line of holes are the same.
Does this mean that "The official account is wildly inaccurate", like you say?
On a side note: Mythbusters is on tv right now.. They are testing whether a sniper can be shot by another sniper, through his optical scope.
Four out of four times, the sniper bullet they fired was stopped by the glass of the target lenses, and blew the scope apart.
If glass can stop or deflect a rifle bullet, surely steel reinforced concrete walls and columns can stop or deflect aircraft landing gear or 'debris' at half the speed.
I may have forgotten to include something and tried not to make errors, but I'm done with this post for now
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »Based on the passenger list of up to 21/58 passengers being involved with the defence industry, could the fix have been in? i.e. were the passengers complicit? Did something other than that plane hit the Pentagon?
Doesn't really matter what hit the pentagon in that case.
I would ask one question,why would they do that hit the pentagon?
I am not trying to quash the theory of the possibility,i just would like to know what the thinking is behind it and what was gained by doing that.
Thanks 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIF1Ozeefvo
Advertisement