FOXNEWS: 9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!

Athlone_Bhoy

humanji wrote: »

Did they? Because I met the doctor and he told me it was all a lie. See how this doesn't really constitute evidence?

And what is proof they didn't do it? Oh Bin laden on tape talking about that were in fact fake. Look up CIA faking Bin laden tape, hell it's even on Ron Paul's website look it up.

humanji wrote: »

They've plenty of cameras looking at the ground and the building. They don't have cameras looking up at the skies. There doesn't seem to be any point since it's beside an airport.

That's right because the plane came down from the skies straight down into the center on the Pentagon, oh no hold on didn't it hit the side of the building?

humanji wrote: »

And why wouldn't they use a plane? Do you not realise it's easier to rig a plane so that it can be remotely controlled and all communication blocked, than it would be to hijack a plane, land it, kill the passengers, launch a missile, have it hit the pentagon, pay hundreds of people to say it was a plane, plant plane parts int he area and sneak some of the passenger remains into the crash site? Does it honestly sound like a likely explanation?

Hundreds of people to say it was a plane? I'd like to see some proof of that if you don't mind.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/51339/9_11_New_3D_Analysis/

humanji wrote: »

How many planes travel around america each day? How many likely targets could there be? How many times a day does the US recieve some sort of threat? Nothing like 9/11 had happened before, so it's hardly surprising that no one expected it to happen like that.

Do they get threats from Russia saying an attack was about to happen hell even France told them something was coming up and on that day there was an exercise with no jets around whatsoever to do anything. How can a plane crash in a field (the plane the passengers were said to over power the hijackers) and there be nothing left of the plane? Just a hole in the ground the engines and all the rest magically vanished.

humanji wrote: »

Thought you weren't saying the US government were behind it?

You'd be a fool to blindly believe either, tbh.

They certainly knew it was gonna happen.

Let's say it was the planes and all the rest can someone please explain how a building think it's called number 7 something like that which wasn't hit by anything can fall down the exact way the twin towers fell?

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

And what is proof they didn't do it? Oh Bin laden on tape talking about that were in fact fake. Look up CIA faking Bin laden tape, hell it's even on Ron Paul's website look it up.

Hearsay and conjecture? Hardly conclusive, is it?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

That's right because the plane came down from the skies straight down into the center on the Pentagon, oh no hold on didn't it hit the side of the building?

So do you want to show me a diagram of the Pentagon and the surrounding are that highlights all the cameras and where they were pointing?

How many fixed cameras were pointing at the Twin Towers? That's actually a genuine question, I honestly don't think I've ever seen anything other than hand held camera shots of it.

Anyway, security cameras point at a building, at points that need observing. They're's littls reason to have them pointing at an area that doesn't exactly give access to the main building and that's patrolled by guards.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Hundreds of people to say it was a plane? I'd like to see some proof of that if you don't mind.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/51339/9_11_New_3D_Analysis/

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

And that's a conspiracy site.

So do you honestly think that it's plausible that it wasn't a plane? What do you think happened the real plane and the passengers? Do you think real planes hit the WTC? If so, why use planes there and not at the Pentagon? Why risk it all on something so convoluted that Wile E. Coyote would have nothing to do with it?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Do they get threats from Russia saying an attack was about to happen hell even France told them something was coming up and on that day there was an exercise with no jets around whatsoever to do anything.

They get many threats all the time. They weren't even positive that there was going to be an attack there and the general assumption was that it would be an attack on US interests abroad or something similar to the attempted bombing of the G8 Summit the previous July. They are not all-knowing. The US is a big place and without knowing the exact details, they can't be expected to stop any event that might happen around the globe.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

How can a plane crash in a field (the plane the passengers were said to over power the hijackers) and there be nothing left of the plane? Just a hole in the ground the engines and all the rest magically vanished.

Are you saying there was no plane? Or that it was shot down? Because personally speaking, I wouldn't be surprised if it was shot down after the three other planes hit, but that the media was told of the heroic fight to take over the plane by the passengers, as it is better for the families to hear and it would paint the US airforce in a bad light. Although I'm not saying that that is 100% what happened.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

They certainly knew it was gonna happen.

They were told that there was a possible attack being organised.

Athlone_Bhoy

I see I'm in CT. I take this is just your opinion?

Divorce Referendum

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

I see I'm in CT. I take this is just your opinion?

We can say for certain that all of your posts are just opinion/hearsay.

Athlone_Bhoy

Your honestly trying to cliam the pentagon probably one of the most guarded places in the world didn't catch the attack on tape? What about the video they released which clearly showed a plane in one frame then just a big explosion. What about the other pictures where they said the camera picked up nothing these cameras are some of the best in the world yet they couldn't pick it up. A gas station right across from the pentagon had it's video taken by the government 5 mins after the attack all of whom say there was no plane. Why won't they release I think it's 70 videos they're keeping secret.

You said how many cameras seen the attack on twin towers. So your saying it may not have even infact been a plane?

Of course it was shot down like I said where was the plane? How can you justify telling the families something else I would want the truth! If they can cover up the shooting of the plane do you not think it's possible they're lying about more stuff?

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Your honestly trying to cliam the pentagon probably one of the most guarded places in the world didn't catch the attack on tape? What about the video they released which clearly showed a plane in one frame then just a big explosion. What about the other pictures where they said the camera picked up nothing these cameras are some of the best in the world yet they couldn't pick it up. A gas station right across from the pentagon had it's video taken by the government 5 mins after the attack all of whom say there was no plane. Why won't they release I think it's 70 videos they're keeping secret.

Firstly, the Pentagon is an office block owned byt the US military. It isn't that important a building. The military has bunkers around the US where all the real work is done. It is not one of the most guarded buildings in the world and I'd doubt it'd even be in the top 1000. What it is is a symbol of the US military and so it is perfect for a symbolic attack, as was the WTC.

Secondly, the cameras are just cameras. They're nothing special. And how many were pointed at that wall? Do you know, or are you just assuming there must be loads of them?

And I've no idea why they don't release the other videos. But if they were clever enough to fly a missile into the side of the building, would you not think they'd have had a better solution to stopping footage from being leaked than to going around to every singly person who might have gotten some and hoped that they'd all hand it over? Would they really leave that to chance?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

You said how many cameras seen the attack on twin towers. So your saying it may not have even infact been a plane?

What? I asked if you think planes hit the WTC.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Of course it was shot down like I said where was the plane? How can you justify telling the families something else I would want the truth! If they can cover up the shooting of the plane do you not think it's possible they're lying about more stuff?

You'd tell the families that their loved one died cowering in their seats while the airforce shot them down? That's pretty heartless. It's better for them to believe their loved ones died as heroes trying to stop the hijackers.

And since there's no proof that the plane was actually shot down then then there's no way to know if there's a coverup.

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Your honestly trying to cliam the pentagon probably one of the most guarded places in the world didn't catch the attack on tape?

What has guarded got to with video? Is there a rule that says you have to have a lot of both? Though you seem to have some difficulty understanding that most cameras point at the ground and never up into the air.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

What about the video they released which clearly showed a plane in one frame then just a big explosion.

I'd guess because the plane flew in front of the gate camera that was pointed at gate level and not at the ground.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

What about the other pictures where they said the camera picked up nothing these cameras are some of the best in the world yet they couldn't pick it up. A gas station right across from the pentagon had it's video taken by the government 5 mins after the attack all of whom say there was no plane. Why won't they release I think it's 70 videos they're keeping secret.

Yes all those cameras that were pointing at the ground and wouldn't show anything. And where are you getting best in the world from?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

You said how many cameras seen the attack on twin towers. So your saying it may not have even infact been a plane?

Huh?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Of course it was shot down like I said where was the plane? How can you justify telling the families something else I would want the truth! If they can cover up the shooting of the plane do you not think it's possible they're lying about more stuff?

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several other plane crashes that look similar. The one at the pentagon was smashed into the building and burned. I fail to see the mystery.

Athlone_Bhoy

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several other plane crashes that look similar. The one at the pentagon was smashed into the building and burned. I fail to see the mystery

So one plane crashed in field. Passengers took control and gave their lives to save others? Seems like to tell doesn't it rather than we shot you down.

One at the Pentagon crashed into it and then caught on fire and it burn the plane quicker than anything would in the world. I guess your going to say it was so hot the engines burned because of the heat? After all isn't that what brought the twin towers down? :rolleyes:

Yes all those cameras that were pointing at the ground and wouldn't show anything. And where are you getting best in the world from?

Pointing at the ground? What were they doing looking for ants? Well I doubt they bought them down in argos.

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several other plane crashes that look similar. The one at the pentagon was smashed into the building and burned. I fail to see the mystery.

Where did the engines go? Where's their bodies? Look at link below

You'd tell the families that their loved one died cowering in their seats while the airforce shot them down? That's pretty heartless. It's better for them to believe their loved ones died as heroes trying to stop the hijackers.

Oh come on don't have to put it like that. How is better? I think it's heartless telling people lies.

And since there's no proof that the plane was actually shot down then then there's no way to know if there's a coverup.

Ok so the plane crashed into a field

Don't know about you but that doesn't exactly look like a plane crash to me!

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

What has guarded got to with video? Is there a rule that says you have to have a lot of both?

What kind of a question is that?

1. Cameras are also there to watch the guards
2. I think it would much better serve the "debunkers" if they didn't argue against their own common sense. It's the Pentagon ffs and you somehow believe that it is reasonable that they couldn't catch a ****ing passenger jet crashing into the side of it?

meglome wrote: »

Though you seem to have some difficulty understanding that most cameras point at the ground and never up into the air.

And you seem to have some difficulty understanding that the crash site was essentially at ground level. It's not as if the plane travelled from "up in the air" to the crash site faster than the speed of light is it?

meglome wrote: »

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several

And again with the strawman argument. You have no idea if he gets his "info" from "CT sites" or otherwise do you? So why make such a claim?

Athlone_Bhoy

It's the Pentagon ffs and you somehow believe that it is reasonable that they couldn't catch a ****ing passenger jet crashing into the side of it?

Some seem to think it's a chipper with one camera at entrance door facing down.

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world, I think it also has more security cameras than any other building in the world although I think it's top secret exactly how many they have.

And I've no idea why they don't release the other videos. But if they were clever enough to fly a missile into the side of the building, would you not think they'd have had a better solution to stopping footage from being leaked than to going around to every singly person who might have gotten some and hoped that they'd all hand it over? Would they really leave that to chance?

They got all videos within minutes. There's a garage across from the Pentagon it clearly would have showed the crash yet the pentagon wont release it.

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So one plane crashed in field. Passengers took control and gave their lives to save others? Seems like to tell doesn't it rather than we shot you down.

One at the Pentagon crashed into it and then caught on fire and it burn the plane quicker than anything would in the world. I guess your going to say it was so hot the engines burned because of the heat? After all isn't that what brought the twin towers down? :rolleyes:

Air France crash in Toronto a few years ago. Plane slid into a gully after overrunning the runway, all the passengers and crew got off. Fire crews were there in 10 minutes and most of it is gone. I can show you more examples if you like. So as a fact we can now tell the small pieces left at the Pentagon would not be unusual given the circumstances.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Pointing at the ground? What were they doing looking for ants? Well I doubt they bought them down in argos.

Walk outside now and get me a picture of a working camera that isn't pointing towards the ground. I'm not saying they are focusing at the pebbles on the ground but they will be pointing down.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Where did the engines go? Where's their bodies? Look at link below

They found bodies and engine parts. Look through this link http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Ok so the plane crashed into a field

Don't know about you but that doesn't exactly look like a plane crash to me!

Course showing the picture that looks least like a plane crash would explain that. There are plenty of other plane crashes you could compare too if you choose.

http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/P200059_1.jpg

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What kind of a question is that?

1. Cameras are also there to watch the guards
2. I think it would much better serve the "debunkers" if they didn't argue against their own common sense. It's the Pentagon ffs and you somehow believe that it is reasonable that they couldn't catch a ****ing passenger jet crashing into the side of it?

1. By that logic every military installation in America is absolutely covered in cameras, which they are not. I'd contend when you have armed military guards you need way less cameras.
2. Yes i think it's reasonable. The pentagon is right next to a large international airport. How the fukk could they protect it from planes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Pentagon,&sll=38.861565,-77.044373&sspn=0.043642,0.074673&ie=UTF8&t=k&radius=2.41&split=1&rq=1&ev=p&hq=Pentagon,&hnear=&ll=38.857823,-77.048149&spn=0.043243,0.053129&z=14

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you seem to have some difficulty understanding that the crash site was essentially at ground level. It's not as if the plane travelled from "up in the air" to the crash site faster than the speed of light is it?

Yup the plane hit at the ground and first floor levels, no question. But it didn't approach at that height. It came down, no mystery.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And again with the strawman argument. You have no idea if he gets his "info" from "CT sites" or otherwise do you? So why make such a claim?

I don't know where he gets his info from. But he's stating things as fact which can be easily shown not to be fact. It's only CT sites that have this very selective overview of events.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Some seem to think it's a chipper with one camera at entrance door facing down.

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world, I think it also has more security cameras than any other building in the world although I think it's top secret exactly how many they have.

I've seen pictures of a small number of cameras, even now ten years after the attack. Should be easy to show more if they were actually there. So feel free to show us.

As has been pointed out to you already it's an office building next to an international airport. One of the two runways points directly at it. Unless you close the airport or move the building it could never be as secure as you imagine.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

They got all videos within minutes. There's a garage across from the Pentagon it clearly would have showed the crash yet the pentagon wont release it.

I've seen pictures of the cameras at the service station and one of the hotels. And sure enough they point down and would not have seen the plane as far as I can see.

Dark_by_Dezign

Not official till its on RTE news

meglome

Dark_by_Dezign wrote: »

Not official till its on RTE news

They definitely mentioned 911 on the RTE news so it must have happened.

zuroph

fox (contradiction) news.

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Oh come on don't have to put it like that. How is better? I think it's heartless telling people lies.

Think about someone you love dying in some sort of incident. Would it be a better thought for you that they died fighting, or that they died cowering in fear? Seriously, would you honestly like to think of loved ones crying in terror?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Ok so the plane crashed into a field

Don't know about you but that doesn't exactly look like a plane crash to me!

In fairness, that's hardly a good photo of the area. And neither of us are air crash investigators, so it's only opinion. It's still not evidence of anything.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world, I think it also has more security cameras than any other building in the world although I think it's top secret exactly how many they have.

It's an office block and little else. Before 9/11 you could even get tours of it. It was by no means one of the most guarded buildings in the world.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

They got all videos within minutes. There's a garage across from the Pentagon it clearly would have showed the crash yet the pentagon wont release it.

And what if they didn't get them all? Pretty much everyone has a camera phone these days. There was a news station across the road. Why would they just cross their fingers and hope they got everything?

And again, if they can fly two planes into the WTC, why would they decide to not do it to the Pentagon? It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Athlone_Bhoy

humanji wrote: »

Think about someone you love dying in some sort of incident. Would it be a better thought for you that they died fighting, or that they died cowering in fear? Seriously, would you honestly like to think of loved ones crying in terror? .

Like I said I'd want the truth.

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, that's hardly a good photo of the area. And neither of us are air crash investigators, so it's only opinion. It's still not evidence of anything..

So plane engines can vanish? If the plane was to crash there would be parts of the plane everywhere.

humanji wrote: »

It's an office block and little else. Before 9/11 you could even get tours of it. It was by no means one of the most guarded buildings in the world.

Just an office block? It's the Department of Defense headquarters!! You seem to think anyone can come and go as they please.

humanji wrote: »

And what if they didn't get them all? Pretty much everyone has a camera phone these days. There was a news station across the road. Why would they just cross their fingers and hope they got everything?.

Exactly everyone these days has some type of camera so why is there no video of a plane going into the Pentagon?

humanji wrote: »

And again, if they can fly two planes into the WTC, why would they decide to not do it to the Pentagon? It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

So some guys with little experience with planes can basically land a plane keep it going then go straight into the Pentagon.

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Like I said I'd want the truth.

That's pretty heartless though. How they spent their dying minutes is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Making the families feel a little less bad about the situation is the more humane option.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So plane engines can vanish? If the plane was to crash there would be parts of the plane everywhere.

Like I said before, I'd be more inclined to believe that it was shot down. But the total lack of evidence would mean that it's still just conjecture.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Just an office block? It's the Department of Defense headquarters!! You seem to think anyone can come and go as they please.

But it's just an office block. It's where the paper work gets done. And it's not the most secure place in the world, considering the large amount of civilians that move in and out of there every day.

Take a trip over there and have a look around and you'll see what I mean.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Exactly everyone these days has some type of camera so why is there no video of a plane going into the Pentagon?

Maybe there was none taken because people were shocked at seeing a plane hit a building? You do also realise there's no footage of a missile hitting the building? Doesn't that prove that it wasn't a missile?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So some guys with little experience with planes can basically land a plane keep it going then go straight into the Pentagon.

That's much more plausible that the bizarrely convulted scheme involving hijacking a plane then making it disappear and then launching a missile with no one seeing it etc etc.

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So plane engines can vanish? If the plane was to crash there would be parts of the plane everywhere.

Since you didn't answer me at here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68544766&postcount=42. I'll just show you this. This the only footage I've ever seen of a plane crashing into reinforced concrete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

Only little scraps left, just like the pentagon... weird that.

Would you like me to show you pictures of other plane crashes that look very like the flight 93 one? Since you find it so hard to believe.

Maybe you and BB would address how the Pentagon can be so well protected right next to an International Airport and right in line with one of the two runways.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

1. That plane is tiny
2. There is no pictures at all of whatever wreckage was left
3. And most importantly that is quite clearly a plane. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. That plane is tiny
2. There is no pictures at all of whatever wreckage was left
3. And most importantly that is quite clearly a plane. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon

Ah cmon now.

Show me a video of a missile hitting the pentagon.
So the announcer is lying when she says it vapourised.Carol Vorderman must be in on this too.

I take it then you believe it was a missile BB that hit the pentagon?

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. That plane is tiny

It is its a phantom f4 and it weighs about 30,000 pounds. I doubt it was cost effective or safe to do it with any other plane

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2. There is no pictures at all of whatever wreckage was left

There isnt but in all honesty we can safely say the bit werent massive from the slow mo of the impact

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3. And most importantly that is quite clearly a plane. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon

You are well aware the video that was released had 2fps and would not pick up a plane travelling at 500mph would it. Why ask for something that doesnt exist. But anyway I might as well ask you. Show me a video of what you believe hit the pentagon, missile or otherwise and bear in mind that it must be conclusive with the scale of damage, eyewitness reports and damage a generator shown below on its path

MRPRO03

Reading through posts here, and users are saying that the plane was completed shredded as a result of re-inforced concrete as the footage shows, but pictures show the 'plane' went deeper into the building and caused a fire that made the part of building fall down. The footage there shows, no sign of fire as a result of fuel and the plane did not penetrate through the re-inforced concrete. I would assume that re-inforced concrete at pentagon would have thicker than the one in the footage.

Boo Radley

MRPRO03 wrote: »

I would assume that re-inforced concrete at pentagon would have thicker than the one in the footage.

To be honest I don't know if it is or not. Mind you I'd be surprised if the Pentagon had walls similar to that of a nuclear power plant as in the video above, let alone thicker again.

Again, that said, it may do.

seannash

Boo Radley wrote: »

To be honest I don't know if it is or not. Mind you I'd be surprised if the Pentagon had walls similar to that of a nuclear power plant as in the video above, let alone thicker again.

Again, that said, it may do.

yeah id imagine a nuclear power plant would actually have better reinforced walls than the pentagon.i
d also think the reinforcement was done to protect against bombs and such and not a plane crashing into it.

im sure someone would know,unfortunately i dont.

Divorce Referendum

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Reading through posts here, and users are saying that the plane was completed shredded as a result of re-inforced concrete as the footage shows, but pictures show the 'plane' went deeper into the building and caused a fire that made the part of building fall down. The footage there shows, no sign of fire as a result of fuel and the plane did not penetrate through the re-inforced concrete. I would assume that re-inforced concrete at pentagon would have thicker than the one in the footage.

Good points. The plane was ballasted with water rather than jet fuel in this experiment. The wall was 12ft thick made out of fibre-reinforced concrete.

The walls in the pentagon were brick on the facade with kevlar mesh on the windows and concrete columns and floors in the structure. The concrete in the pentagon certinly wouldnt have been thicker as it was only columns spaced ten feet apart. 12ft concrete would be exclusively for nuclear power plants as outlined in the video. You also have to take into the account the 767 is much bigger, its engines and landing gear which are the hardest parts of the plane.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. That plane is tiny
2. There is no pictures at all of whatever wreckage was left

Sure. But I've now shown pictures of a fairly minor crash which everyone walked away from but the plane is almost gone from just a fire. Then we have this crash test where the plane is clearly shredded against reinforced concrete. Now this concrete is thicker so the plane doesn't penetrate. But this allows us to judge that the pentagon crash is what we should expect and not the other way around. The CT sites say it's not what we should expect but we can clearly see it is.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3. And most importantly that is quite clearly a plane. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon

I'm always surprised by this. There is no video of anything hitting the pentagon but there is a catalogue of evidence for a plane. I'm honestly amazed that people demand video, often the same people who don't believe a plane hit WTC 1 and 2, even with all that footage.

What the No-Plane Theories Imply

1. That the 140-foot wide damage to the Pentagon, including a 96-foot-wide puncture, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane.
2. That fires smelling of burning jet fuel, were produced by some other means, or the photographs were faked.
3. That the aircraft debris, some clearly from an AA Boeing 757, was planted.
4. That the swath of downed lamp-poles matching a 757's wing span were sliced and knocked over by some other means.
5. That smashed objects in the paths of the engines were damaged by some other means.
6. That scores of eyewitness reports of a jetliner were faked, coerced, or coincidentally mistaken.
7. That the identification of Flight77's victims was fraudulent.
8. That Flight 77 and all on board were disposed of at some unknown location.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 requires accepting points 7 and 8.

To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner requires accepting points 3 through 8.

To believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, one has to accept all 8 points.

From a CT site. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
So unless someone can explain all these points then the no plane theory is just nonsense.

I'd ask anyone who believes the no plane theory to read that link and tell me how all that would be faked.

TMoreno

meglome wrote: »

Sure. But I've now shown pictures of a fairly minor crash which everyone walked away from but the plane is almost gone from just a fire. Then we have this crash test where the plane is clearly shredded against reinforced concrete. Now this concrete is thicker so the plane doesn't penetrate. But this allows us to judge that the pentagon crash is what we should expect and not the other way around. The CT sites say it's not what we should expect but we can clearly see it is.



I'm always surprised by this. There is no video of anything hitting the pentagon but there is a catalogue of evidence for a plane. I'm honestly amazed that people demand video, often the same people who don't believe a plane hit WTC 1 and 2, even with all that footage.




From a CT site. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
So unless someone can explain all these points then the no plane theory is just nonsense.

I'd ask anyone who believes the no plane theory to read that link and tell me how all that would be faked.

The 9/11 commission was "set up to fail" and NORAD lied, that's the admission of the two co chairmen Kean and Hamilton.
The NIST report cannot be used in a court and yet people still believe it.

meglome

TMoreno wrote: »

The 9/11 commission was "set up to fail" and NORAD lied, that's the admission of the two co chairmen Kean and Hamilton.
The NIST report cannot be used in a court and yet people still believe it.

I asked anyone to counter all the points in the link (from a well known CT site) to explain how it was anything other than a plane that hit the pentagon. What you seem to have done here is said this.... 'Hmm yes interesting, a lot of info there... MY GOD... LOOK OVER THERE... there's a flying pig.'

This 'set-up to fail' is about people covering their asses. Which as has been explained actually tends to prove they weren't involved, just weren't very good at their jobs.

TMoreno

meglome wrote: »

I asked anyone to counter all the points in the link (from a well known CT site) to explain how it was anything other than a plane that hit the pentagon. What you seem to have done here is said this.... 'Hmm yes interesting, a lot of info there... MY GOD... LOOK OVER THERE... there's a flying pig.'

This 'set-up to fail' is about people covering their asses. Which as has been explained actually tends to prove they weren't involved, just weren't very good at their jobs.

Cover their assess? Are you serious? We are talking about life and death of US citizen and you talk about "covering assess" That is not serious and proves that the entire thing is a fraud.
It's a fact that the NIST report cannot be used in a court. That's the first thing they say IN the report.

meglome

TMoreno wrote: »

Cover their assess? Are you serious? We are talking about life and death of US citizen and you talk about "covering assess" That is not serious and proves that the entire thing is a fraud.

I think Boo Radley puts it very well below.

Boo Radley wrote: »

So, here's how I see it. The 9/11 CT has it that the report is completely fabricated etc. because the shadowy figures in the government colluded to cause the attacks on NY and pentagon etc. The report in this case is supposed to cover up this master plan.

So, along comes another CT as highlighted in the OP. This says the authors of the report covered up the extent to which the agencies involved messed up, were incompetent and how badly they communicated. This is a very different cover up to that proposed by the first CT above.

If the second CT cover up is true, it would discredit the first CT cover up because it would prove that in fact the events of 9/11 were caused by incompetence - since the degree of incompetence is what is being covered up - among agencies and NOT caused by people colluding to create the attack.

Therefore, a cover up (the second) CAN disprove another cover up theory (the first).

TMoreno wrote: »

It's a fact that the NIST report cannot be used in a court. That's the first thing they say IN the report.

Maybe you can show me that?