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
-
So what did the damage so?
As for the burden of proof, the only substantive investigation performed has found conclusively that a plane hit the pentagon, the passengers on that plane have been identified, parts of the plane have been identified, the alleged perpetrrators have been identified.....so, eh, yeah, the burden of proof is on you to disprove that......:rolleyes:
Show me the plane. And debate over. I see the planes that hit the WTC.
In fact i don't believe I have even heard from an eye witness that saw a plane hit the Pentagon. I am not a Conspiracy nut. I'm just interested in the facts and i haven't seen any. You say a plane hit the Pentagon - that's cool then show me. I don't know what hit it and i certainly don't believe something unless I can evaluate the evidence myself. Unfortunately i have been unable to see any evidence. The official investigation leaves me with more questions than answers. All they have to do, ala NY, is release the video footage from the CCTV cameras in the local businesses. Job done. We've seen NY from every angle why not DC.0 -
Show me the plane. And debate over. I see the planes that hit the WTC.
In fact i don't believe I have even heard from an eye witness that saw a plane hit the Pentagon. I am not a Conspiracy nut. I'm just interested in the facts and i haven't seen any. You say a plane hit the Pentagon - that's cool then show me. I don't know what hit it and i certainly don't believe something unless I can evaluate the evidence myself. Unfortunately i have been unable to see any evidence. The official investigation leaves me with more questions than answers. All they have to do, ala NY, is release the video footage from the CCTV cameras in the local businesses. Job done. We've seen NY from every angle why not DC.
You say something else hit the pentagon; show me that (see how this one goes round and round). The simple fact is that the only investigation done shows that it was a plane; it is for you to show otherwise, or to show that the official report was a cover-up. And try to use some evidence.
I also have questions; and I would like to see the CCTV; and I question why it hasnt been released. But to base your argument on: "shoe me the plane, then refuse to accept the evidence (the official report) that there was a plane; and then declare that it was all alie" is intelllectual dishonesty.0 -
You say something else hit the pentagon; show me that (see how this one goes round and round). The simple fact is that the only investigation done shows that it was a plane; it is for you to show otherwise, or to show that the official report was a cover-up. And try to use some evidence.
I also have questions; and I would like to see the CCTV; and I question why it hasnt been released. But to base your argument on: "shoe me the plane, then refuse to accept the evidence (the official report) that there was a plane; and then declare that it was all alie" is intelllectual dishonesty.
I have no idea what hit the pentagon. Some reports even referred to a car bomb. I honestly have no idea therefore i cannot surmise. I've been told it was a plane yet I see zero evidence from any pictures or videos of the initial impact. I didn't even say the official report was a cover up. A cover up by who? I have actually have no political agenda. By the way its not up to me to do anything as I'm claiming nothing except what i see myself. Intellectual dishonesty is believing in something when certain evidence is being withheld and you are being asked to take a leap of faith. I am taking no such leap. Did the official report contain pictures taken from the CCTV cameras showing the plane hit? Because, just a guess, but those pictures would have killed the debate, no?0 -
By the way its not up to me to do anything as I'm claiming nothing except what i see myself.
I dont disagree with much of what you say.
But you did say there was "no evidence of a plane". There is evidence of a plane and it is all in the report. I agree that we (the public) have not been shown all of this evidence. There are publically available photos that show some plane parts. Would I like more? Yes. But that does not mean that a plane did not hit the pentagon.
I can accept doubt; I can accept questioning. What I cannot accept is that because there is doubt and because there are questions, that that means that the official report is untrue/a lie/a cover up. That is intellectual dishonesty.0 -
I dont disagree with much of what you say.
But you did say there was "no evidence of a plane". There is evidence of a plane and it is all in the report. I agree that we (the public) have not been shown all of this evidence. There are publically available photos that show some plane parts. Would I like more? Yes. But that does not mean that a plane did not hit the pentagon.
I can accept doubt; I can accept questioning. What I cannot accept is that because there is doubt and because there are questions, that that means that the official report is untrue/a lie/a cover up. That is intellectual dishonesty.
In the report? A report we both agree is not providing us 'the public' with all the the information. You enjoy using the term intellectual dishonesty while referring to an incomplete report. Again I am not claiming any lies or cover up - it is you who are constantly referring to that.
On the plane i'm afraid i haven't seen evidence to my satisfaction. What I have seen is an untouched lawn, untouched foundations and small impact zone - thats what i've seen.0 -
Advertisement
-
In the report? A report we both agree is not providing us 'the public' with all the the information. You enjoy using the term intellectual dishonesty while referring to an incomplete report. Again I am not claiming any lies or cover up - it is you who are constantly referring to that.
On the plane i'm afraid i haven't seen evidence to my satisfaction. What I have seen is an untouched lawn, untouched foundations and small impact zone - thats what i've seen.
Whether is a complete report and whether the public have been given all of the information are two different things. As an example the report on Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital is a complete report; but all of the information that went into that report has not been released to the public. That is reltively common.
And i dont know where you get th idea that it was an untouched lawn? And the impact zone was big enough for a 757 according to what i have seen.0 -
Whether is a complete report and whether the public have been given all of the information are two different things. As an example the report on Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital is a complete report; but all of the information that went into that report has not been released to the public. That is reltively common.
And i dont know where you get th idea that it was an untouched lawn? And the impact zone was big enough for a 757 according to what i have seen.
I try to work from a position of having all information to hand. If i don't have all information to hand i tend to reserve my judgement as I have in this case. You are sure based on a lack on information. I am not sure based on lack of information.
On the lawn. I did not see evidence on a plane's engine dragging along the lawn before the ground floor impact. I'm sorry but I didn't. If you did please post pictures. All evidence welcome.
The plane that is said to have hit the pentagon would have, based on pictures, a bigger impact zone. I not saying it didn't just that the impact zone seemed smaller than that and i have yet to hear an explanation as to why that is. Again. please share your evidence cos I don't know what hit the pentagon.0 -
I try to work from a position of having all information to hand. If i don't have all information to hand i tend to reserve my judgement as I have in this case. You are sure based on a lack on information. I am not sure based on lack of information.
On the lawn. I did not see evidence on a plane's engine dragging along the lawn before the ground floor impact. I'm sorry but I didn't. If you did please post pictures. All evidence welcome.
The 767 not 757 that is said to have hit the pentagon would have, based on pictures, a bigger impact zone. I not saying it didn't just that the impact zone seemed smaller than that and i have yet to hear an explanation as to why that is. Again. please share your evidence cos I don't know what hit the pentagon.
I am not sure. But until I see evidence that adequately counters the official report, I am not going to believe the 'other guy'. I dont disbelieve all government investigations just because all of the information thta goes into those investigations hasnt been made public.
As for the plane/impact zone etc, there is plenty of info/videos online (as there is for the opposing view, of course).0 -
having read through the thread just there, I dont want to fly in the face of anyone or cause any arguments etc so I just wanted to say something I think is relevant to the thread.
There are things we need to all remember here, facts that we shouldnt forget when berating one another, but mainly that what we are all going on is the report of a third party. Suspicious statistics and so called expert witnesses are just third parties offering their opinion, informed or otherwise and I think we should maybe do less berating and more impartial reasoning. Lets also remember that the blame assigned for these attrocities is also classed as 'conspiracy theory' - the government of the united states of america has formed a theory on who conspired to attack the wtc - allegedly.
Now, regarding the pentagon - there are certain 'facts' as alleged by expert witnesses, media...statisticians etc which point out the evidence against impact by 757. A few of these are as follows:
1) There was no evidence of a 757 having hit the pentagon. There are fragments of an aircraft scattered around, these fragments were observed to be either not from a 757 (see engine components), or simply not present (there were no engines found in or around the building from a 757, allegedly)
2) Damage to the building wasnt consistent with that of an airplane collision - the hole formed went through several solid concrete walls, the hole of impact was too narrow, and there was no trace of wing or engine impact on the building adjacent to the impact hole. surely two 10 tonne engines (were they pratt and whitneys?) would cause glass windows to break and at least some kind of mark on the walls.
3) The claim was that most of the plane disintegrated due to fire. This would be the first plane to do so, so completely.
4) Only FIVE frames of video were released showing nothing on approach, but showing an explosion. One of these 5 frames should at the very least have shown an aircraft the size of a 757. At one of the worlds most secure buildings, are we to believe that footage, of todays standards and not 5 grainy stills, is unavailable or restricted access? If restricted, why?
5) Precedent. - There IS precedent of the US military formulating strategy involving drone (unmanned aircraft) passenger jets with faked passenger itinery, masked as identical to a real passenger plane carrying the same fake passengers (consisting of CIA agents posing as students etc) - taking off at the same time, flying to a rendezvous point, parting ways...the drone gets blown up, the passenger jet lands, is remarked and the CIA agents disembarked to resume their normal identities. This was part of the plan mentioned a few pages back with which the US aimed to frame Cuba and form a foundation upon which to invade. Kennedy rejected it and fired the author. NASA have been using remote control passenger planes since the '70s.
6) coincidence - the alleged passenger plane just happened to hit the side of the pentagon which had recently been reinforced in solid concrete - 9 walls deep or so. Of a 6 sided building, its a 6:1 chance of hitting one of the non reinforced sides.
7) Piloting - the alleged pilot was said to have had average piloting skills. The alleged 757 was tracked to do a steep bank then proceed at something like 550mph toward the pentagon at a dive, pull up and fly straight into the SIDE of the pentagon at about 15ft over a couple of hundred yards. There are few pilots able to do that with a 757, let alone the fact that hitting several lamposts on the way would almost certainly crumple & ignite the wings prior to hitting the pentagon, yet there is no debris in the skid trail.
8) Engineering - solid concrete, 9 walls thick, managed to get itself an 18foot hole in one end, and a hole a few feet in diameter at the inside end, accompanied by a white flame explosion. A 757 doesnt punch through solid concrete walls 9 deep, or whatever number it was....It crumples, ignites and burns out. The building exhibits something more akin to a tomahawk having impacted.
So.... again, these are only facts as stated by the so called experts and statisticians etc... but in my opinion, for whatever it counts, you have to weigh up the facts on one side, and the facts on another before labelling anything as hocus pocus - there appear to be many more pieces of evidence disproving the official line, than the other way around. Im no conspiracy theorist in terms of david duchovny type stuff...but I think youd have to be pretty blind or willing to look at the official line and not question it in the face of the overwhelming evidence on one side, and none being forthcoming on the other. Theres precedent - this we know ....why is it such a far stretch?0 -
I am not sure. But until I see evidence that adequately counters the official report, I am not going to believe the 'other guy'. I dont disbelieve all government investigations just because all of the information thta goes into those investigations hasnt been made public.
As for the plane/impact zone etc, there is plenty of info/videos online (as there is for the opposing view, of course).
Thing is mate, and i agree with where youre coming from on most pages here, but you have to think of it like this - if this was a courtroom...and someone said HE DID IT! without producing a single shred of convincing evidence (5 frames which show nothing) ...and on the other hand the other lawyer is just overflowing with facts and figures to say that the prosecutor is lying - do you still believe the prosecutor because you simply doubt the defendants supporting evidence or dont understand it?
This is the issue i have with the whole debate actually...0 -
Advertisement
-
Thing is mate, and i agree with where youre coming from on most pages here, but you have to think of it like this - if this was a courtroom...and someone said HE DID IT! without producing a single shred of convincing evidence (5 frames which show nothing) ...and on the other hand the other lawyer is just overflowing with facts and figures to say that the prosecutor is lying - do you still believe the prosecutor because you simply doubt the defendants supporting evidence or dont understand it?
This is the issue i have with the whole debate actually...
Thing is, though, that in a court, the evidence is presnted to that court, not to the public, and the court decides, not the public. The court, in this case, was the 9 11 commission. Whether we trust that body is another question. But the fact that the public does not have all the info does not mean the comission (the court) got it wrong.
This is the issue i have with the whole debate actually.0 -
Thing is, though, that in a court, the evidence is presnted to that court, not to the public, and the court decides, not the public. The court, in this case, was the 9 11 commission. Whether we trust that body is another question. But the fact that the public does not have all the info does not mean the comission (the court) got it wrong.
This is the issue i have with the whole debate actually.
I wasnt being sarcastic. I see where youre coming from but you have to remember that in any court there are expert witnesses who report on their findings - these expert witnesses have largely been government bodies and those other few hundred who were on scene or who commented are the ones being cast as CT'ers. The expert witnesses of the public wouldnt be ignored in that courtroom - they would be the ones formulating the evidence. The commission presented evidence which, when closely scrutinised by the public experts, turns out to be (allegedly) pure fabrication.
I dont trust the government comission and I trust the public with less agenda. For me, the information the public DOES have, is proving the comission to be liars. That surely warrants closer inspection.0 -
I wasnt being sarcastic. I see where youre coming from but you have to remember that in any court there are expert witnesses who report on their findings - these expert witnesses have largely been government bodies and those other few hundred who were on scene or who commented are the ones being cast as CT'ers. The expert witnesses of the public wouldnt be ignored in that courtroom - they would be the ones formulating the evidence. The commission presented evidence which, when closely scrutinised by the public experts, turns out to be (allegedly) pure fabrication.
I dont trust the government comission and I trust the public with less agenda. For me, the information the public DOES have, is proving the comission to be liars. That surely warrants closer inspection.
The experts that provided evidence to the commission were not all government bodies. And of course, if you entirely disbelieve the commission report (and the evidence provided by many) does it not necesarily foolow that you believe that the cover up extends to all of these eople, surely running into the thousands?
How credible is that?0 -
I am not sure. But until I see evidence that adequately counters the official report, I am not going to believe the 'other guy'. I dont disbelieve all government investigations just because all of the information thta goes into those investigations hasnt been made public.
As for the plane/impact zone etc, there is plenty of info/videos online (as there is for the opposing view, of course).
Who's the 'other guy'? What other government investigations?0 -
-
7) Piloting - the alleged pilot was said to have had average piloting skills. The alleged 757 was tracked to do a steep bank then proceed at something like 550mph toward the pentagon at a dive, pull up and fly straight into the SIDE of the pentagon at about 15ft over a couple of hundred yards. There are few pilots able to do that with a 757, let alone the fact that hitting several lamposts on the way would almost certainly crumple & ignite the wings prior to hitting the pentagon, yet there is no debris in the skid trail.
That is the big one right there. The alleged pilot has only ever flown Cessna type aircraft and only had very few flight hours logged on it. Now stick him in a medium sized airliner that has a top speed 5 times that of his training aircraft, has never flown the type before and he is able to perfectly judge at what height to level out from a high speed dive to avoid touching the ground and perfectly get the entire aircraft into the side of a 5 story building without hitting anything else, or skimming the ground early or skimming the top floor off the building, he got it perfect. You most likely need a heads up display and fighter jet agility to do that with any degree of accuracy like what was done.
He must have amazing skill or he got amazingly lucky. Imagine the amount of airline pilots that fly the 757 every day, have 1,000s of hours on the type, how many could actually pull that off in a simulator. Take average joe tango with a max of 100 hours (being generous) in a Cessna and he can do that with a 757 with maybe an hour at the controls.
There is something wrong somewhere with the so called facts of the investigation.0 -
The experts that provided evidence to the commission were not all government bodies. And of course, if you entirely disbelieve the commission report (and the evidence provided by many) does it not necesarily foolow that you believe that the cover extends to all of these eople, surely running into the thousands?
How credible is that?
What cover up? You are the one bringing in all the conspiracy theories. I am just looking at the available evidence. Just because I can't see the evidence to explain a plane hitting the pentagon doesn't mean that I then have to explain how a 'cover up' was perpetrated. That is not my concern.0 -
Captain Chaos wrote: »That is the big one right there. The alleged pilot has only ever flown Cessna type aircraft and only had very few flight hours logged on it. Now stick him in a medium sized airliner that has a top speed 5 times that of his training aircraft, has never flown the type before and he is able to perfectly judge at what height to level out from a high speed dive to avoid touching the ground and perfectly get the entire aircraft into the side of a 5 story building without hitting anything else, or skimming the ground early or skimming the top floor off the building, he got it perfect. You most likely need a heads up display and fighter jet agility to do that with any degree of accuracy like what was done.
He must have amazing skill or he got amazingly lucky. Imagine the amount of airline pilots that fly the 757 every day, have 1,000s of hours on the type, how many could actually pull that off in a simulator. Take average joe tango with a max of 100 hours (being generous) in a Cessna and he can do that with a 757 with maybe an hour at the controls.
There is something wrong somewhere with the so called facts of the investigation.
He wasnt trying to 'hit the building without hitting anything else' nor was he trying to avoid skimming the ground early '. He was trying to hit a fairly massive building. Anywhere.
And he had a cmmercial pilot's license with over 600 hours of flying experience. Have you seen the size of the pentagon. Anyone could have hit that thing!!0 -
-
There was no Pentagon plane. It was hit by a missile. What's the problem, everything was setup for that day. Just like the towers. Don't blame the people, it was the work of certain people. People seeking a war in foreign countries.
What makes me so sad is the fact that people like me have died over there. People who were lied too. Guys just like me, guys with no interest in murdering foreigners, but who ended up as tools. I find it really sad because people I used to know may have died over there. When we were young it seemed to be a game. But they're long gone now. Their only crime was being honest and being willing to die for their country. It's so easy to look back and say, sad eh?
It really is.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
He wasnt trying to 'hit the building without hitting anything else' nor was he trying to avoid skimming the ground early '. He was trying to hit a fairly massive building. Anywhere.
Then why not take the easy option and hit the middle of it in a 45 degree dive, instead of trying the impossible of leveling out the airliner at low level and high speed with a much smaller target profile to hit and risk messing up his task compared to what he would have in front of him if he dived right at it.
How the pentagon was hit is the typical low level approach of an AGM-84E/H Harpoon/SLAMMER or a BGM-109 Tomahawk missile. From the damage caused it was most likely the AGM-84 if it was a missle at all which seems a possibility, and is slightly more believable than the flight profile of that 757.0 -
Captain Chaos wrote: »Then why not take the easy option and hit the middle of it in a 45 degree dive, instead of trying the impossible of leveling out the airliner at low level and high speed with a much smaller target to hit and risk messing up his task compared to what he would have in front of him if he dived right at it.
.
I dont know.
Why is there no evidence of a missile and lots of evidence of a plane and DNA evidence of passengers. Are there passengers on a missile....:rolleyes:0 -
I have no opinion on the 9 11 commission. It seems to lack full disclosure, but hey, that seems to be how these things work.0
-
Except you disbelieve its findings... no opinion..?I have no opinion on the 9 11 commission. .
Btw, here are some pictures of the plane you were looking for. First link on a simple google search - try it sometime.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg10 -
I dont know.
Why is there no evidence of a missile and lots of evidence of a plane and DNA evidence of passengers. Are there passengers on a missile....:rolleyes:
Because missiles tend to explode and not leave anything behind, a cruise missile is relatively small and easier to hide if they wanted to, but airliners tend to leave alot of parts behind as they don't have warheads designed to vaporise the entire thing yet this airliner almost managed to. The engines pods and all the landing gear should have survived more or less intact in major easy to ID parts, being the strongest part of of an aircraft. I#d love to see those two engines at the crash site or even being removed from the building which they should not have got even past the first ring.0 -
Except you disbelieve its findings... no opinion..?
Btw, here are some pictures of the plane you were looking for. First link on a simple google search - try it sometime.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
The worst source on the internet you could have picked there. That site is a waste of bandwidth full of for the most part loonies making up crackpot theories. You should have used a google search link instead to help your cause.0 -
Captain Chaos wrote: »Because missiles tend to explode and not leave anything behind, a cruise missile is relatively small and easier to hide if they wanted to, but airliners tend to leave alot of parts behind as they don't have warheads designed to vaporise the entire thing yet this airliner almost managed to. The engines pods and all the landing gear should have survived more or less intact in major easy to ID parts, being the strongest part of of an aircraft. I#d love to see those two engines at the crash site or even being removed from the building which they should not have got even past the first ring.
The landing gear and engines were found - they are in the pictures posted in the link above.
How does a missile leave behind landing gear and passenger DNA?0 -
Advertisement
-
A missile struck the Pentagon. As air traffic controllers said, no plane coud do that.
I agree with you that it wasn't a proper airline's jet that hit the twin towers.
The first day I saw it, I said 'Terrorism'. I actually liked G.W. before it. I just thought, here's another Jimmy Carter, J F Kennedy. He believes what they tell him.
He's nothing but a pawn, let's face it.0
Advertisement