911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

drkpower · 26-02-2010 2:55am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

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.

So those pictures are fakes then?
They are available on many websites, including conspiracy theorist sites.

Steviemak · 26-02-2010 3:03am

If you notice most of the debris pictures you reference are taken inside the 3rd ring. Do you believe plane parts could penetrate this far inside a reinforced concrete building.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:05am

Steviemak wrote: »

If you notice most of the debris pictures you reference are taken inside the 3rd ring. Do you believe plane parts could penetrate this far inside a reinforced concrete building.

Sorry?
You said you have never seen any evidence of plane parts at the Pentagon. I posted some. Now you say that most of them couldnt have gotten where they are.

How do you explain their presence, wherever they are?

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 3:06am

drkpower wrote: »

So those pictures are fakes then?

Never said that, you did. What I said was you could have linked a far more legit source. Why the attack stance? Not like what you are seeing?

Angus Og · 26-02-2010 3:06am

The only people to die were those renovating the part of the Pentagon, and the officers brave enough to answer the call. Never be afraid to speak the truth. Karma will get the guilty in the end. Only the good die young.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:08am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Never said that, you did. What I said was you could have linked a far more legit source. Why the attack stance? Not like what you are seeing?

Where is my attack?
Are you feeling defensive?

So you dont doubt the photos then?

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 3:08am

drkpower wrote: »

How do you explain their presence, wherever they are?

Planet evidence perhaps, not like it does not happen. And that fact that they is very little parts of a destroyed airliner left support the theory of planeted evidence.

Steviemak · 26-02-2010 3:08am

drkpower wrote: »

Sorry?
You said you have never seen any evidence of plane parts at the Pentagon. I posted some. Now you say that most of them couldnt have gotten where they are.

How do you explain their presence, wherever they are?

You say they are plane parts. i never did. I asked do you think plane parts could penetrate this far into a reinforced building.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:09am

Steviemak wrote: »

You say they are plane parts. i never did. I asked do you think plane parts could penetrate this far into a reinforced building.

Are they not plane parts?
If they are, how do you explain their presence?

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 3:10am

drkpower wrote: »

Where is my attack?
Are you feeling defensive?

So you dont doubt the photos then?

You were implying that I was dissing your sources you linked to even though I never said anything about the material itself just were you chose to get it from.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:12am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

You were implying that I was dissing your sources you linked to even though I never said anything about the material itself just were you chose to get it from.

You said it was the 'The worst source on the internet' i could have gotten them from. That is more of an 'attack' than anything i have said:rolleyes:

Anyway, you are not doubting the photos - thats the main thing.

Steviemak · 26-02-2010 3:13am

drkpower wrote: »

Are they not plane parts?
If they are, how do you explain their presence?

I have no idea what they are. You say plane parts penetrated 3 rings of reinforced concrete designed to block all but the most powerful missiles. I didn't.

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 3:15am

drkpower wrote: »

You said it was the 'The worst source on the internet' i could have gotten them from. That is more of an 'attack' than anything i have said:rolleyes:

And it probably is, you want to give yourself a bit of credibility when you are trying to argue your own truth, thats all.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:15am

Steviemak wrote: »

I have no idea what they are. You say plane parts penetrated 3 rings of reinforced concrete designed to block all but the most powerful missiles. I didn't.

Do they not look like plane parts to you? the landing gear, the aluminum with AA couloruings....?

If they are not plane parts, what are they and how did they get there?

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:16am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

And it probably is, you want to give yourself a bit of credibility when you are trying to argue your own truth, thats all.

If you dont doubt that they are actual photos, what does it matter where they come from and how does it affect my credibility when i post accurate photos.....?
:rolleyes:

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 3:22am

There's nothing wrong with the photos themselves, I think they are all legit, not tampered with. The thing is what you are being told of what your are looking at in the photos may not be accurate at all.

People took photos in Roswell, some said this is a UFO, others said no this is a weather balloon, crashed probe... whatever. All on the same pic. Its like asking someone to make pictures looking at the clouds as they pass by. They can be alot of things and different from one person to the next.

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 3:24am

Steviemak wrote: »

Looks clear to me

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn_files/Pentagon_lawn.jpg

compared to

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn_files/FedEx_Boeing_727.jpg

But in fairness the latter did not hit a building but it does make a bit of a point.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:24am

Steviemak wrote: »

Looks clear to me

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn_files/Pentagon_lawn.jpg

compared to

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn_files/FedEx_Boeing_727.jpg

What about these photos?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#analysis

Or these pictures of human remains accepted as evidence in a us court case?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

Are they all fake? Were they planted?

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:26am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

But in fairness the latter did not hit a building but it does make a bit of a point.

Not much of a point - its apples and oranges, really

Steviemak · 26-02-2010 3:32am

drkpower wrote: »

What about these photos?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#analysis

Or these pictures of human remains accepted as evidence in a us court case?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

Are they all fake? Were they planted?

Very little to go on there. People died in the Pentagon so bodies would be expected. I just don't see evidence to satisfy me that a 767 hit the ground floor of the pentagon without making a mark on the lawn from the angle it was supposed to hit.

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:33am

Steviemak wrote: »

Very little to go on there. People died in the Pentagon so bodies would be expected. I just don't see evidence to satisfy me that a 767 hit the ground floor of the pentagon without making a mark on the lawn from the angle it was supposed to hit.

So how do you explain all of the aircraft debris?
And how do you explain that DNA from the passengers was found at the pentagon?

drkpower · 26-02-2010 3:40am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the photos themselves, I think they are all legit, not tampered with. The thing is what you are being told of what your are looking at in the photos may not be accurate at all.

People took photos in Roswell, some said this is a UFO, others said no this is a weather balloon, crashed probe... whatever. All on the same pic. Its like asking someone to make pictures looking at the clouds as they pass by. They can be alot of things and different from one person to the next.

Are you suggestinng that the photo of landing gear is not landing gear?
That the photo of fuselage with markings that look like AA markings are not fuselage?

The photos are not that ambiguous.

kryogen · 26-02-2010 4:04am

not after reading this thread, but ill give my thoughts

there is no way in high heaven that 747 hit the pentagon that day

that is all

enjoy the debate

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 4:07am

kryogen wrote: »

not after reading this thread, but ill give my thoughts

there is no way in high heaven that 747 hit the pentagon that day

You're right it didn't, a 757 did according to the official story.:pac:

Captain Chaos · 26-02-2010 4:08am

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggestinng that the photo of landing gear is not landing gear?
That the photo of fuselage with markings that look like AA markings are not fuselage?

They are those parts sure, but they could be from any crashed airliner in storage in NTSB hangers around the US. There is no way to dis prove that.

kryogen · 26-02-2010 4:11am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

You're right it didn't, a 757 did according to the official story.:pac:

well played sir

you get what i meant though

bonkey · 26-02-2010 10:53am

Steviemak wrote: »

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.

Which CCTV footage from businesses has not been released?

The CITCO gas station? Released.
The Doubletree hotel? Released.

Andrew33 · 26-02-2010 11:01am

Like seriously! who cares?

bonkey · 26-02-2010 11:55am

Andrew33 wrote: »

Like seriously! who cares?

The people interested in discussing the topic, obviously.

If you're not one of them, then do them the courtesy of leaving them to have their discussion in peace.

MOH · 26-02-2010 6:09pm

odonnell wrote: »

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.

Um, what?

1. It's a pentagon. It's got 5 sides.
2. 1 reinforced side and four others, give a 4:1 chance ...
3. ... of hitting the reinforced side. The chances of hitting a non-reinforced side are 1:4

911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

Comments