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
13567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Sorry, i dont understand what you mean?

    The nose of which craft?

    Of a passenger jet, which would explain a circular shaped explosion?!


  • Options
    #63
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Gas Explosion for all i know, your asking me to give a possable answer from 1 photo at a bad angle, if it was a missile attack like you say then there would also be mulitpal holes.

    Well I've altered the pic a little with a new red line, and a smaller missile could have passed through the trajectory and exited at that point.
    104821.jpg



  • Options
    #64
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Strawman argument.

    Can you explain why a 757 wheel hub was found in the Pentagon?

    Because it was placed there.


  • Options
    #65
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    fontanalis wrote: »
    i thought you said aluminium wouldn't cause damage!!!
    Anyway, aren't the wings the lightest part of the plane?

    Yea and filled with fuel, that burns, which isn't consistant with any pic.


  • Options
    #66
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Well I've altered the pic a little with a new red line, and a smaller missile could have passed through the trajectory and exited at that point.
    104821.jpg

    Why cant you use the same angle for something coming off the plane like the black box.

    800px-DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, what is forgotten is a plane/missile/whatever shouldn't have ever got anywhere fukking near the most heavily fortified building on the planet a few hours after 2 planes hit the WTC's, is that fact alone not a cause for suspicion?, no....zzzzzzzzzzz


  • Options
    #68
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,149 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Yea and filled with fuel, that burns, which isn't consistant with any pic.

    Yes it is :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #69
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Because it was placed there.

    Why did they use a missile and pretend it was a plane, when they used two planes up the road and another plane across the road.....?!!:D

    It is genuinely hilarious how 'truth-seekers' contort themselves and choose the most bizarre version of the 'truth'.....!


  • Options
    #70
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,149 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, what is forgotten is a plane/missile/whatever shouldn't have ever got anywhere fukking near the most heavily fortified building on the planet a few hours after 2 planes hit the WTC's, is that fact alone not a cause for suspicion?, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

    Hardly a few hours.......The Pentagon attack happened 50 minutes after the first WTC attack. Anyway no matter how fortified the Pentagon is, there is not much you can do about a 100 ton plane flying in at over 500 mph!!


  • Options
    #71
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, what is forgotten is a plane/missile/whatever shouldn't have ever got anywhere fukking near the most heavily fortified building on the planet a few hours after 2 planes hit the WTC's, is that fact alone not a cause for suspicion?, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

    That's some doublespeak right there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Hardly a few hours.......The Pentagon attack happened 50 minutes after the first WTC attack. Anyway no matter how fortified the Pentagon is, there is not much you can do about a 100 ton plane flying in at over 500 mph!!

    Maybe while your watching it on your radar coming your way for a while you could probably send a couple of F16's maybe, just a thought.:confused:


  • Options
    #73
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    fontanalis wrote: »
    That's some doublespeak right there.

    Almost 9 years on your still as oblivious to the truth, why the fukk do I waste my time?, I don't know, but seriously burst that little bubble your in some day and wake up and smell the coffee.
    That's me done here, have a nice illusion/life.


  • Options
    #74
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,149 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Maybe while your watching it on your radar coming your way for a while you could probably send a couple of F16's maybe, just a thought.:confused:

    Well for one I doubt that civilian air traffic controllers would have a hot line to the nearest airbase. Plus can you imagine it, the US Air Force shoots down a civilian aircraft, the CTers would have a field day!!


  • Options
    #75
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Almost 9 years on your still as oblivious to the truth, why the fukk do I waste my time?, I don't know, but seriously burst that little bubble your in some day and wake up and smell the coffee.
    That's me done here, have a nice illusion/life.

    Once my bubble bursts I'll be on here spreading the troof.


  • Options
    #76
    thecommander
    Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    uprising2 wrote: »
    why the fukk do I waste my time?,

    Only you can answer that Uprising.


  • Options
    #77
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    uprising2 wrote: »
    That's me done here, have a nice illusion/life.

    Run away; run away!!:p


  • Options
    #78
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Off topic, opinions on the vids/pictures of the alleged attached pod on flight 175 which struck WTC building?

    robhoward.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4


  • Options
    #79
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    squod wrote: »
    Off topic, opinions on the vids/pictures of the alleged attached pod on flight 175 which struck WTC building?

    robhoward.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4

    WTC7 makes so much sense now!


  • Options
    #80
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    drkpower wrote: »
    Run away; run away!!:p

    PM sent please reply


  • Options
    #81
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    uprising2 wrote: »
    PM sent please reply

    "run away, you think i'd run away from you?, believe me in fukking real life you'd be the one fukking running."

    Haha:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    drkpower wrote: »
    "run away, you think i'd run away from you?, believe me in fukking real life you'd be the one fukking running."

    Haha:D

    handbag.jpg


  • Options
    #83
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    uprising2 wrote: »
    No I'm asking YOU, do YOU believe an aluminium aircraft made it all the way from the entry point to the exit point?

    As opposed to a far smaller missile, with far less kinetic energy, and a body made of....what....lightweight steel or aluminium?

    For the record...I don't believe an aluminium aircraft amde it all the way from the entry point to the exit point. The official account of the crash agrees with me.


  • Options
    #84
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

    More comments like this, and you will be done with it.


  • Options
    #85
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    bonkey wrote: »
    As opposed to a far smaller missile, with far less kinetic energy, and a body made of....what....lightweight steel or aluminium?

    For the record...I don't believe an aluminium aircraft amde it all the way from the entry point to the exit point. The official account of the crash agrees with me.


    Ever heard of a bunkerbuster or any other supersonic missile?

    The 2nd part I don't understand, you don't believe an aircraft made it through, but the official account you agree with?
    What would that be?, the landing gear caused it?


  • Options
    #86
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    I think the offical explanation on that hole is that one of the Black Boxs caused it.


  • Options
    #87
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    I think the offical explanation on that hole is that one of the Black Boxs caused it.

    Well then when then do go at Iran I would recommend they fire black box's at 500mph at the underground bunkers, they should do the job easily.


  • Options
    #88
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    I'm getting the impression that you think the plane should of disintegrated on impact with the wall and that everything should go in a straight line.

    Well it doesn't.

    Are you saying you believe a missile did this damage?


  • Options
    #89
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Will everybody here give 30 sec's of your lives, watch this video that I already posted, but I'll post again as nobody seem's to have watched it, Please, Please,Please watch this from 1:00-1:30, and please explain what you just saw and how you explain it being possible.



  • Options
    #90
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Ever heard of a bunkerbuster or any other supersonic missile?

    The thing abpout supersonic missiles is that like every other supersonic device, they create a sonic boom.

    No-one reported hearing a sonic-boom.

    As for bunker-busters....they're not missiles, they're bombs....nostly because they're very, very heavy. Ignoring that such a bomb couldn't follow the flight-path that was followed (it could only approach on a ballistic arc), it also wouldn't produce the effect of an explosion at the outer wall and a small amount of damage deep further in. Rather, it would punch through the outer wall as a small, solid mass, continue penetrating, and eventually explode deep within the building, resulting in the mos amount of damage there.

    So the entire profile is wrong for that.
    The 2nd part I don't understand, you don't believe an aircraft made it through, but the official account you agree with?
    What would that be?, the landing gear caused it?

    Neither I, nor the official account of events, believe the aircraftt penetrated through several rings of the pentagon in any sort of intact form.

    As far as I recall, the hole you show a picture of was claimed to have been caused by an engine which (obviously) was no longer attached to the airplane...I could be wrong on exactly what piece of debris though.

    The point is that there's a significant difference between suggesting that the aircraft made it that far, or that some part of debris from the aircraft made it that far.

    As to the pictures showing the lack of damage along the path to that hole....I'd suggest that people count the windows, and compare with the number of floors. You'll find that the next ring in is covered, which would mean that an engine, travelling at or near ground-level, would be below that ceiling. One ring further out again, and hte angle of the photo only lets you see the top three floors, so again you wouldn't see much of anything at or near ground-level.

    If you look at the picture posted by PirateShampoo on post 66, you will see fire damage along almost-exactly the red-line drawn on your pics. Different perspectives.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,149 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Will everybody here give 30 sec's of your lives, watch this video that I already posted, but I'll post again as nobody seem's to have watched it, Please, Please,Please watch this from 1:00-1:30, and please explain what you just saw and how you explain it being possible.


    What the dude in the video conveniently (intentionally?) forgot to mention is that the upper floors of the section hit by the pane did not collapse for 45 mins after the event by which time the bulk of the fire had burned out - thus preventing significant smoke damage on the upper floors. Concrete doesn't tend to burn very well for too long.


Advertisement