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
1…7891012

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    amazing, an underground plane! Like to see a picture of that.


  • Options
    #333
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones






  • Options
    #334
    sellerbarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭sellerbarry


    If it was a plane that hit the pentagon leaving a perfectly rounded (small) hole in the building through numerous concrete walls,
    Why? then didn't the same type of plane (no sorry, two of the same type of planes) leave the same damage in the twin towers?. i.e going through building and coming out other side leaving a nice neat hole????????????????????;)


  • Options
    #335
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    The Pentagon was hit by a 757, the WTC was hit by two bigger 767s.

    Not all buildings are built the same you know. Thats why they all look different.

    Shessssh, the logic is seriously lacking here.


  • Options
    #336
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    In best CT style this thread seems to have moved off the Pentagon being hit by a remote controlled plane or a missile to WTC7 being a controlled demolition. I think every time we have discussed 911 in here, once we move away from the 'big picture' and look at the details the subject always keeps changing as the details don't actually show what the CT's say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    sellerbarry wrote: »
    If it was a plane that hit the pentagon leaving a perfectly rounded (small) hole in the building through numerous concrete walls,
    Why? then didn't the same type of plane (no sorry, two of the same type of planes) leave the same damage in the twin towers?. i.e going through building and coming out other side leaving a nice neat hole????????????????????;)

    As has been stated a number of times the ground floor of the pentagon is open plan so anything that smashed through the front wall and doesn't hit any of the support pillars has a reasonable chance of hitting the back wall. If the object is big enough, with enough momentum it could easily smash through the 2 layers of brick that are in the back wall. So something like an engine would easily leave the damage we see in the picture. There is no mystery.


  • Options
    #338
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    As has been stated a number of times the ground floor of the pentagon is open plan so anything that smashed through the front wall and doesn't hit any of the support pillars has a reasonable chance of hitting the back wall. If the object is big enough, with enough momentum it could easily smash through the 2 layers of brick that are in the back wall. So something like an engine would easily leave the damage we see in the picture. There is no mystery.

    Show us the picture of the plane hitting the Pentagon.


  • Options
    #339
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Show us the picture of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
    This still? What will it take to convince people that the pentagon wasn't ring fenced with HD cameras filming everything at 60fps?


  • Options
    #340
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Show us the picture of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

    Show us a picture of a missile hitting the pentagon.
    Show us a picture of the wreckage of the plane being planted.
    Show us a picture of the missile zig zaging over the highway to knock over the lamp posts.

    Show us a picture of the camera you think should have captured a picture of the plane hitting.


  • Options
    #341
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    King Mob wrote: »
    Show us a picture of a missile hitting the pentagon.
    Show us a picture of the wreckage of the plane being planted.
    Show us a picture of the missile zig zaging over the highway to knock over the lamp posts.

    Show us a picture of the camera you think should have captured a picture of the plane hitting.

    You say that the a plane crashed, you show the picture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TMoreno wrote: »
    You say that the a plane crashed, you show the picture.
    But pictures of the plane hitting and the wreckage are already on this thread.


  • Options
    #343
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    humanji wrote: »
    But pictures of the plane hitting and the wreckage are already on this thread.

    Those pictures don't show the plane hitting the building when more than 80 surveillance camera filmed the Pentagon that day. All the tapes were confiscated by the FBI.


  • Options
    #344
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    You say that the a plane crashed, you show the picture.
    No such picture exists.
    Can you show any pictures of the crap you have to claim?
    Picture of the missile?
    Picture of the wreckage being placed?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    Those pictures don't show the plane hitting the building when more than 80 surveillance camera filmed the Pentagon that day. All the tapes were confiscated by the FBI.
    Now you see, unlike you I don't believe everything I'm told.
    As such I would love to see something to back up this claim.


  • Options
    #345
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    King Mob wrote: »
    No such picture exists.
    Can you show any pictures of the crap you have to claim?
    Picture of the missile?
    Picture of the wreckage being placed?


    Now you see, unlike you I don't believe everything I'm told.
    As such I would love to see something to back up this claim.

    September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.


  • Options
    #346
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.

    1) you don't state a source for this, so I'm going assume it's from a CT site you're blindly buying into.
    2) without a link to an actual source it's no different to you just claiming it.

    So can you actually show the source or are you just believing everything you are told?

    Are you going to answer my questions?
    Picture of the missile?
    Picture of the wreckage being placed?


  • Options
    #347
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    You say that the a plane crashed, you show the picture.

    There is none that i know of but I'd take a guess given how you've answered things in this thread that you'd say it was faked anyway. I've read all the evidence and it seems self evident that it was a big passenger plane that was flown into the pentagon.
    King Mob wrote: »
    No such picture exists.
    Can you show any pictures of the crap you have to claim?
    Picture of the missile?
    Picture of the wreckage being placed?

    This is it exactly. No evidence at all for a missile or any of the things the CT's claim but obviously it's true :confused:
    TMoreno wrote: »
    September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.

    Even if we ignore the question of whether there was hi-res video cameras at the pentagon, not that I've seen any proof there was. Video cameras point at the ground not up into the sky so I don't know what you'd expect to see from these cameras generally.


  • Options
    #348
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    King Mob wrote: »
    1) you don't state a source for this, so I'm going assume it's from a CT site you're blindly buying into.
    2) without a link to an actual source it's no different to you just claiming it.

    So can you actually show the source or are you just believing everything you are told?

    Are you going to answer my questions?

    I don't have a picture of a missile. I never pretended that I had one contrary to you. You are sure that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you don't have any proof of that.
    Regarding the source just Google Jacqueline Maguire and Pentagon.

    Talking about answers did you read the NIST report on WTC7? Did you? Do you have something o hide? I did read it and it was well debunked in my previous post along with the sounds and the witnesses who heard the explosions.


  • Options
    #349
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    I don't have a picture of a missile. I never pretended that I had one contrary to you. You are sure that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you don't have any proof of that.

    Not having an actual picture of the crash isn't the same as having no proof. Hundreds of eye-witnesses, happened in front of a busy highway in rush hour, pictures of the aftermath showing plane debris, passengers remains found in the debris, literally thousands of people who worked on the site and as far as i can tell not one has an issue with the official version. On the other hand we have two or three people who said it was 'like' a missile, and a big silver plane flying past at 500mph would indeed be like a missile. I cannot even begin to fathom, if anyone keeps an open mind here, how they could think it was anything but a big passenger plane.


  • Options
    #350
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    I don't have a picture of a missile.
    Gasp!
    What a shocker.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    I never pretended that I had one contrary to you.
    Were I have I ever said I had a picture of the plane hitting the pentagon?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    You are sure that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you don't have any proof of that.
    Well there's the wreckage and the witnesses and the bodies....

    But you don't have a picture of the missile.
    What proof do you have?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    Regarding the source just Google Jacqueline Maguire and Pentagon.
    Still not a source.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    Talking about answers did you read the NIST report on WTC7? Did you?
    Not all of it.
    But Meglome is right, you guys do enjoy trying to change the subject to something esle when you focus too hard on any particular details.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    Do you have something o hide?
    Yes. But I can't tell you.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    I did read it and it was well debunked in my previous post along with the sounds and the witnesses who heard the explosions.
    Funny how these witnesses are reliable.
    How about the witnesses that saw a plane crash into the pentagon?


  • Options
    #351
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    King Mob wrote: »
    Gasp!
    What a shocker.


    Were I have I ever said I had a picture of the plane hitting the pentagon?


    Well there's the wreckage and the witnesses and the bodies....

    But you don't have a picture of the missile.
    What proof do you have?


    Still not a source.


    Not all of it.
    But Meglome is right, you guys do enjoy trying to change the subject to something esle when you focus too hard on any particular details.


    Yes. But I can't tell you.


    Funny how these witnesses are reliable.
    How about the witnesses that saw a plane crash into the pentagon?
    The official declaration of Jacqueline Maguire:
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/doubletreeaffadavit.pdf

    She just says that none of 85 the videos show the impact of the plane.

    In any case the picture released don't show a plane hitting the building.
    I don't change the subject I just come back to one of your question as you asked me if I read the NIST report. I did read the NIST report but you did not do it entirely. Big difference. You can't defend a report you don't read.

    I never said I had the proof that a missile hit the Pentagon. Where did you read that? I said it could be a missile or a drone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    The official declaration of Jacqueline Maguire:
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/doubletreeaffadavit.pdf
    Wow and I only had to ask for that three times.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    She just says that none of 85 the videos show the impact of the plane.

    In any case the picture released don't show a plane hitting the building.
    So how many of those should have shown a plane exactly?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    I don't change the subject I just come back to one of your question as you asked me if I read the NIST report. I did read the NIST report but you did not do it entirely. Big difference. You can't defend a report you don't read.
    Ah, you mean a question I asked in a different thread, weeks ago?

    That's what we call changing the subject.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    I never said I had the proof that a missile hit the Pentagon. Where did you read that?
    Well you seem pretty adamant that a plane wasn't the culprit.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    I said it could be a missile or a drone.
    And it couldn't be a plane?

    Oh and no it couldn't have been a missile or a drone because neither would be wide enough to take out the lampposts.
    Or leave wreckage and bodies consistent with a plane....


  • Options
    #353
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wow and I only had to ask for that three times.


    So how many of those should have shown a plane exactly?


    Ah, you mean a question I asked in a different thread, weeks ago?

    That's what we call changing the subject.

    Well you seem pretty adamant that a plane wasn't the culprit.

    And it couldn't be a plane?

    Oh and no it couldn't have been a missile or a drone because neither would be wide enough to take out the lampposts.
    Or leave wreckage and bodies consistent with a plane....

    Do you know what a drone is? It's a plane without pilot.
    I am not changing the subject I answered to your question. How can you comment on NIST report if you don't read it? What don't you answer this simple question. For the third time I am asking this simple question. Anything to hide?


  • Options
    #354
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Do you know what a drone is? It's a plane without pilot.
    You mean like this?
    US-drone101.jpg

    Ones that are smaller than normal planes by design?

    Or are you now claiming that it was a normal plane that was retro fitted to be a remote controlled one?
    If this is the case, doesn't that negate all your arguments?
    And how exactly do you know it was a drone?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    I am not changing the subject I answered to your question.
    A question from weeks ago?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    How can you comment on NIST report if you don't read it? What don't you answer this simple question.
    Ah you see here's the thing.
    I didn't say I didn't read it.
    I said "Not all of it." I have read summaries and the important parts.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    For the third time I am asking this simple question. Anything to hide?
    And I said yes I do have something to hide. I just can't tell you because I'm hiding it.


  • Options
    #355
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    TMoreno wrote: »
    The official declaration of Jacqueline Maguire:
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/doubletreeaffadavit.pdf

    She just says that none of 85 the videos show the impact of the plane.

    You aware that her affidavit swears that she has examined a picture of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon, arent you...?!!biggrin.gif

    Why would you link to this in support of your position?

    Oh, and I presume that your statement above that 'She just says that none of 85 the videos show the impact of the plane' is a typo........because otherwise it is just a lie. Or you are unable to read? Which is it? Typo, lie, illiteracy?


  • Options
    #356
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    drkpower wrote: »
    Typo, lie, illiteracy?

    A bit less aggression, thanks


  • Options
    #357
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    drkpower wrote: »
    because otherwise it is just a lie. Or you are unable to read? Which is it? Typo, lie, illiteracy?
    I would much rather prefer to be illiterate than have the pleasure of reading your constant, snidey little weasel comments.


  • Options
    #358
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones


    drkpower wrote: »
    Or you are unable to read?
    A literate person would recognise this as a statement, not a question.

    Which is it? Typo, lie, illiteracy?

    That should read: "Typo, lie OR illiteracy?"

    Being generous, 5/10 for literacy.


  • Options
    #359
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    TMoreno wrote: »
    The official declaration of Jacqueline Maguire:
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/doubletreeaffadavit.pdf

    She just says that none of 85 the videos show the impact of the plane.
    Hold on a sec though.

    Maguire says all of the following:

    56 of the tapes did not show the Pentagon building, the crash site, nor the impact.
    A further 16 of the tapes showed the Pentagon building, but not the crash site, nor the impact
    That's 72 of the 85 tapes.
    Of the remaining 13, 12 only showed the Pentagon post impact.

    Thats 84 of the 85 tapes accounted for.

    The 85th "tape" is clarified to be the CD-Rom which contains the time-lapse shots from the security cameras in the parking lot. These are the pictures we know about, which have been publically released.

    Now...you claimed that "more then 80 surveillance cameras filmed the Pentagon that day". Maguire's testimony doesn't agree with you at all. There were over 80 tapes seized....but that's an entirely different allegation.
    In any case the picture released don't show a plane hitting the building.
    The case for a plane having hit the Pentagon doesn't rest on there being a photograph of same. There is no relevance to there not being photographic evidence of the event, unless someone can reasonably show that there should be such evidence.

    Thus far, the closest you've come is apparently suiggesting that 56 tapes which don't show the Pentagon are amongst the footage from surveilalnce cameras filming the Pentagon.


  • Options
    #360
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I would much rather prefer to be illiterate than have the pleasure of reading your constant, snidey little weasel comments.
    Joshua Jones wrote: »
    A literate person would recognise this as a statement, not a question.

    That should read: "Typo, lie OR illiteracy?"

    Being generous, 5/10 for literacy.

    Did you guys think that my caution only applied to one person?

    (That's rhetorical, in case you even think about answering)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    I never said I had the proof that a missile hit the Pentagon. Where did you read that? I said it could be a missile or a drone.

    It could have been a dragon or an alien interstellar craft cause there as much evidence of those as there is for a missile or drone.


Advertisement