911 - Points to discuss

Diogenes · 14-04-2009 12:59AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

look this isbecoming a your stupid imn stupid argument at this stage.

Lets get back on track a little. My point is and was to make you relaise that to spot something at 530mph in that space of time is pretty difficult

Ah so again your argument is now backtracking to "no one knows what it could have been". Your original rational was someone was bound to have capturedit on camera.

Adrian would you like the list of basic factual errors you've made on this thread.

jonbravo · 14-04-2009 12:59AM

Diogenes wrote: »

Flipping? What the Flipping heck are you on about? I can point you towards a licensed former Italian fighter pilot who can explain how breathtakingly easy it would work.

does he speak english!? point him out!!!

meglome · 14-04-2009 12:59AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

im sure it was but not at 530mph been to many in Germany dubai and even one in iran.Im just saying that 530mph is pretty fast to make decisions in small space of time

Again you ignore the second part of what I said, the plane doesn't even need to be doing that speed. The exact speed of the plane doesn't change a damn thing.

14-04-2009 01:00AM

Diogenes wrote: »

Adrian would you like the list of basic factual errors you've made on this thread.

I would:o

jonbravo · 14-04-2009 01:02AM

meglome wrote: »

Again you ignore the second part of what I said, the plane doesn't even need to be doing that speed. The exact speed of the plane doesn't change a damn thing.

i agree.

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:04AM

we do have to point out the part of the Pentagon that was hit was empty and reconstructed part of the Pentagon..

theory being that a tomahawk missle would have not been a better option and casued too much hassle for the government

Diogenes · 14-04-2009 01:04AM

jonbravo wrote: »

does he speak english!? point him out!!!

And here you go.

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:06AM

Diogenes wrote: »

Ah so again your argument is now backtracking to "no one knows what it could have been". Your original rational was someone was bound to have capturedit on camera.

Adrian would you like the list of basic factual errors you've made on this thread.

go ahead make my day:rolleyes:

dont worry dude yout time is coming too

meglome · 14-04-2009 01:06AM

BertrandMeyer wrote: »

I'm really interested for any of those structures would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time it took WTC 7 fell into a bit like going to be budged from your position.

I don't rule out any conspiracy but each time someone tells me some other group must be involved the conspiracy gets less and less likely by default. Funnily this to me is where the real conspiracy might lie. It is known the US Government lie about that because they did. There were over 3000 aircraft in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they were involved no matter what the actual evidence shows. But however incredible we thought all the factors then we can accept that apples and orange are just not the same. Or we can compare apples and oranges and wonder why they believe it was demolished would it not internally crack the poles (main structure) of the towers and the theory applies to or changing the assertions made.

Have to say not really understanding your point here. And that's kinda funny given you seem to have copied text I originally posted mostly verbatim.

14-04-2009 01:08AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

we do have to point out the part of the Pentagon that was hit was empty and reconstructed part of the Pentagon..

So therefore it was a missile?

adrian280582 wrote: »

theory being that a tomahawk missle would have not been a better option and casued too much hassle for the government

So what was the better option?

And for the fifth time how do you know it was a missile?

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:08AM

meglome wrote: »

Again you ignore the second part of what I said, the plane doesn't even need to be doing that speed. The exact speed of the plane doesn't change a damn thing.

it does actually so you telling me if it was going at 20mph it do same damage?

meglome · 14-04-2009 01:11AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

we do have to point out the part of the Pentagon that was hit was empty and reconstructed part of the Pentagon..

theory being that a tomahawk missle would have not been a better option and casued too much hassle for the government

It hit the reconstructed part all right but it wasn't empty. 125 people were killed in the building.

And given that there was a one in five chance of hitting the reconstructed side that isn't terribly unlikely now is it? And we're then back to ignoring all the actual evidence.

meglome · 14-04-2009 01:12AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

it does actually so you telling me if it was going at 20mph it do same damage?

Let's not be ridiculous it would have to be doing easily 100mph to stay flying in the first place.

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:12AM

meglome wrote: »

You do realise that missiles travel at high sonic or super sonic speeds right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

And look this still doesn't explain how so many people saw a big ****ing plane. Nor how the lampposts were knocked down.

lamposts could have been knocked down at anytime..there photo of taxi window being smashed by pole but yet nobody injuried or died from smashing it...ill have go through for link but its out there

14-04-2009 01:17AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

lamposts could have been knocked down at anytime..there photo of taxi window being smashed by pole but yet nobody injuried or died from smashing it...ill have go through for link but its out there

And there's no such thing now as empty cars?
And as we all know all car damage leads to instant death.

Are you going to address any of my points?

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:17AM

meglome wrote: »

It hit the reconstructed part all right but it wasn't empty. 125 people were killed in the building.

And given that there was a one in five chance of hitting the reconstructed side that isn't terribly unlikely now is it? And we're then back to ignoring all the actual evidence.

im not ignoring any evidence im keeping all angles open..

its my taughts and beliefs from what i have read studied and from my own talking with past taliban members and from time I spent in middle east

meglome · 14-04-2009 01:20AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

lamposts could have been knocked down at anytime..there photo of taxi window being smashed by pole but yet nobody injuried or died from smashing it...ill have go through for link but its out there

Ah man seriously, it's a big ****ing highway with hundreds of cars on it at the time. You do realise that often poles on the side of highways are designed to be knocked over in case of an accident?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here but do you want the truth at all? There's plenty to do with 911 that you could argued back and forth but in this case there is a load of evidence to show it was plane.

jonbravo · 14-04-2009 01:22AM

Diogenes wrote: »

And here you go.

Thanks .http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htmand here you go......

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:26AM

meglome wrote: »

Ah man seriously, it's a big ****ing highway with hundreds of cars on it at the time. You do realise that often poles on the side of highways are designed to be knocked over in case of an accident?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here but do you want the truth at all? There's plenty to do with 911 that you could argued back and forth but in this case there is a load of evidence to show it was plane.

I agree I do want the truth. it does raise question that more then 136 people should have seen the plane though if that is the case, i know with angles and directions etc but still..

Im only trying look from both angles I was not into this inside job theory intil I went further into research being honest and it is from there that my belief have got stronger on this.

meglome · 14-04-2009 01:27AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

im not ignoring any evidence im keeping all angles open..

its my taughts and beliefs from what i have read studied and from my own talking with past taliban members and from time I spent in middle east

But you are ignoring the evidence. As I keep saying lots of people have an opinion on 911, the dogs in the street have an opinion on 911 but right now are are looking at the fine details, at what we can prove within reason. So far I'm not seeing the proof for the CT but maybe that will change and if it does I'll be the first to accept evidence.

meglome · 14-04-2009 01:33AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

I agree I do want the truth. it does raise question that more then 136 people should have seen the plane though if that is the case, i know with angles and directions etc but still..

Im only trying look from both angles I was not into this inside job theory intil I went further into research being honest and it is from there that my belief have got stronger on this.

Hang on now you yourself said that if the plane was going very fast people wouldn't be able to see it properly? Not ever car or every person is going to be in a position to see something.

But I'd hope you'd agree trying to fake an attack on one of the biggest buildings in the world, on the section right next to a main highway, in broad daylight, would seem foolish in the extreme.

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 01:35AM

meglome wrote: »

But you are ignoring the evidence. As I keep saying lots of people have an opinion on 911, the dogs in the street have an opinion on 911 but right now are are looking at the fine details, at what we can prove within reason. So far I'm not seeing the proof for the CT but maybe that will change and if it does I'll be the first to accept evidence.

as articles have pointed out hani hanjour was not great at being in the hotseat of a plane yet this guy managed something as difficult as this...

thats why i go back to speed of plane. there saying 530mph but ask any pilot and thats not possible at that height so fact camera theory cannot show plane to me is ticked off list.

also and this has not even been mentioed he would have had too have had help from ground zero if he was to guide this plane into the pentagon all by himself

14-04-2009 01:38AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

also and this has not even been mentioed he would have had too have had help from ground zero if he was to guide this plane into the pentagon all by himself

Says who? The pentagon is a fairly big target and easy enough to spot.

Still waiting for you to address my points.

jonbravo · 14-04-2009 02:03AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

as articles have pointed out hani hanjour was not great at being in the hotseat of a plane yet this guy managed something as difficult as this...

thats why i go back to speed of plane. there saying 530mph but ask any pilot and thats not possible at that height so fact camera theory cannot show plane to me is ticked off list.

also and this has not even been mentioed he would have had too have had help from ground zero if he was to guide this plane into the pentagon all by himself

i will also add this to the quote.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

noodler · 14-04-2009 02:14AM

I have never seen such bias against all available evidence from one person as the user named adrian280582.

300 people on a plane. Each one knowing 50 people (Lets be conservative, family, friends, colleagues). That is 15,000 people already who would have to be bumped off or 'in on it'.

Straight off that is a massive leap for so many people who have no incentive to keep quiet if they felt something untoward was happening.

I will gladly admit some of the evidence looks intriguing, but it would do to me, I have no qualifications to say how a tower should fall. However I was always led to believe that (and sorry if it came up, I got to page 15 in this thread and the repetition by the Pro-CT side was killing me) that high rise buildings, Skyscrapers specifically, were built to collapse inwards to avoid knocking down a significant portion of NYC in the event of an accident.

Finally, one of the videos posted here by the pro-CT side argued there should be massive scorch marks on a significant tract of grass beside the Pentagon like there have been in some of the other plane crashes shown in the video. However, wasn't this incident an exception rather than the rule? Weren't the other plane crashes accidents? Wasn't the hijackers intent to hit the sizable Pentagon target rather than attempt to pull out at the last second?

Anyway, the main problem is the number of people required to pull this off and the risks if it all went badly. You'd have to have thousands upon thousands in the loop and then live in fear everyday that one of them revealing all will lead to the kind of political, social and economic upheaval that the United States has never seen.

meglome · 14-04-2009 02:16AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck

So according to this video the CNN reporter is saying that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon.

But...

When we listen to the full segment that's not what he's saying at all. He was asked specifically about an eye-witness who thought the plane (and he thought it was a plane) had crashed near the Pentagon and not into it. So the reporter is explaining that there is no crash site near the Pentagon, which there isn't.

Sorry can't find the video at the moment but here's the audio.

The 'Truth' movement strikes again.

BertrandMeyer · 14-04-2009 02:25AM

I'm curious; claims of the building did not in practice resist the destruction. However, destroying the support structures throughout the floors... That this can only occur through controlled demolition is incorrect: internal building collapse before the outer facade collapsed could also account for it. The question is just what to keep that was not known, anything but not aviation.

macshadow · 14-04-2009 02:50AM

.

bonkey · 14-04-2009 06:18AM

jonbravo wrote: »

Defender's of the official story have claimed that payne stewarts wayward cessna is the only plane in the last decade to have elicited a military intercept in the US.

No, jonbravo.

Critics of the official account of events insist that Payne Stewart's plane is proof that response times were slow. Responses to that argument need only address Payne Stewart's plane.

However not only does this directly contradict numerous other government reports citing hundreds of other such intercepts incidents,NORD's own spokesman marine corp's major mike snyder told the boston globe on september 15 2001 that its fighters routinely intercept air traffic.

No-one sane would claim otherwise.

The reason Payne Stewart's Cessna is often quoted is because the one hour of "missing" time due to the time-zone change makes it look like the response times were astoundingly quick.

If you believe there is an example that shows that 911 was slow, from amongst these hundreds that have occurred, then all you need do is provide the evidence.

Incidentally, I notice that in this case you're quite happy to quote NORAD's spokesman. Does this mean you believe him?

now to 911.
the FAA confirmed by 8:14 .a.m the first plane had being hijacked.

FAA confirmed hijacking time is hard to corroborate, other reliable accounts push the time of military contact regarding the hijacking back about ten minutes, placing FAA's call to NORAD at around 8:25 a.m

still 21 mins before the first impact,NORAD official lt. col. dawne deskin's of the air national guard confirmed that the military had received hijacking information by 8:30 a.m

The 911 commission report for some reason puts the time of military contact at 8:37:52 a.m
An unsupported , unexplained time that stands a full 23 min's longer than the standard operating procedure would have dictated.

I'm more than happy to address this point, after you clarify that you are accepting official sources as evidence, given that this is what you're referring to.

The_Kew_Tour · 14-04-2009 07:49AM

noodler wrote: »

300 people on a plane. Each one knowing 50 people (Lets be conservative, family, friends, colleagues). That is 15,000 people already who would have to be bumped off or 'in on it'.
.

noodler what you on about 300 people? you do know 125 were killed in the pentagon attack...

and when i have i said these people are still alive??

911 - Points to discuss

Comments