911 - Points to discuss

Bubba HoTep · 17-04-2009 04:10AM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I have been. Apparently you have not.
Can you show any evidence of a missile strike that isn't dependent on claimed gaps in the evidence for a plane? Yes or No?

WHERE IS YOU EVIDENCE FOR A PLANE ON VIDEO? since there are 3 videos?

this has been talked to death on the thread, we cant move on, i have ALREADY established this, and asked if you guys would like to move the topic on to something else, it is stalemate

so.....

unless you are trolling, would you like to pick another topic to focus on of your choice?

17-04-2009 04:16AM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

WHERE IS YOU EVIDENCE FOR A PLANE ON VIDEO? since there are 3 videos?

this has been talked to death on the thread, we cant move on, i have ALREADY established this, and asked if you guys would like to move the topic on to something else, it is stalemate

so.....

unless you are trolling, would you like to pick another topic to focus on of your choice?

The videos don't clearly show a plane, they are consistent with a plane .
There is a ton of physical evidence for a plane however.
Can you show any evidence at all that this physical evidence was planted?
And can you show any evidence for a missile strike? Or is it based only on the claimed gaps in the evidence for the plane?

How about that for the next topic? Can you show thee evidence is planted?

meglome · 17-04-2009 04:18AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96phB4fIk7E

It's a thicker wall and a smaller section of wall but it shows you what can happen. And obviously smaller plane too.

meglome · 17-04-2009 04:29AM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

unless you are trolling, would you like to pick another topic to focus on of your choice?

I was going to ask you this, are you trolling? You have no evidence for a missile and you're attached to the story like it's a parasitic twin.

I'm actually confused and honestly I'd hate to be on trial with you on the jury, because you're literally blanking a load of evidence for what happened. If there was a reasonable amount of evidence for a missile I'd get it but there's feck all so I don't get it.

At the moment I don't even see the point of moving to another topic, this is one of the easier things with 911 to prove. BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY WITNESSES.

And please someone explain to me how it wouldn't be the stupidest idea ever to fake this crash, next to a very busy highway in broad ****ing daylight, in the middle of a big city. If they even crashed into one of the other segments away from the highway there might be some creditability in the story but doing it right in front of everyone, seriously.

Bubba HoTep · 17-04-2009 06:02AM

meglome wrote: »

I was going to ask you this, are you trolling? You have no evidence for a missile and you're attached to the story like it's a parasitic twin.

I'm actually confused and honestly I'd hate to be on trial with you on the jury, because you're literally blanking a load of evidence for what happened. If there was a reasonable amount of evidence for a missile I'd get it but there's feck all so I don't get it.

At the moment I don't even see the point of moving to another topic, this is one of the easier things with 911 to prove. BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY WITNESSES.

And please someone explain to me how it wouldn't be the stupidest idea ever to fake this crash, next to a very busy highway in broad ****ing daylight, in the middle of a big city. If they even crashed into one of the other segments away from the highway there might be some creditability in the story but doing it right in front of everyone, seriously.

please off all the poeple on this thread, i dont want to get into tit for tat crap with you of all, as i do infact like your posts for being genuine and level

but can i ask you to just read or reread my posts regarding the missile, i want to make this clear. i am not attached to the missile theory at all, i have said it more than once. none of the "evidence" for a plane sways me in any way, there is however a huge hole and videos of a blast, the hole was created by something, and im inclined to think it was a missile, i am not however stuck on this, as im open to other plauseable causes. i have never said it has to be, or could only be a missle, but a missile fits the bill for me so far according to the evidence, also, check the thread, i wasnt the one repeatedly bringing up the missile

what i am stuck on is, for me, there is no plane, for you there is, so its stalemate, hence why i asked would ye like to move onto other areas, alas when i do im repeatedly asked about a damn missile.....

so what do ye want to do?

Bubba HoTep · 17-04-2009 06:06AM

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96phB4fIk7E

It's a thicker wall and a smaller section of wall but it shows you what can happen. And obviously smaller plane too.

thats a re-enforced, armour plated, high speed fighter jet no?

you cant compare that to a passenger jet....

you could compare it to a missile tho..:P

6th · 17-04-2009 09:32AM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

sweet f*ck, are you drunk? illiterate? american? have you read ANY of the last few posts???????????

1 more post like that and you'll be taking a break from the forum. An apology to the poster you directed it at would show a level of maturity that would be appreciated.

The_Kew_Tour · 17-04-2009 02:06PM

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96phB4fIk7E

It's a thicker wall and a smaller section of wall but it shows you what can happen. And obviously smaller plane too.

well at least the wings when through on this one so it actually proves that the wings should have been shown in the Pentagon if anything...

Nice One:D

meglome · 17-04-2009 02:29PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

well at least the wings when through on this one so it actually proves that the wings should have been shown in the Pentagon if anything...

Nice One:D

Nice try but this is smaller plane with shorter wings. It's also a fighter so the wings would need to withstand greater forces per sq mm.

Of course i'd be happy to rethink that if we had some way to explain away all the other evidence.

meglome · 17-04-2009 02:31PM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

thats a re-enforced, armour plated, high speed fighter jet no?

you cant compare that to a passenger jet....

you could compare it to a missile tho..:P

Not armour plated, just a standard fighter. How heavy would it be if it was armour plated?

The_Kew_Tour · 17-04-2009 02:32PM

meglome wrote: »

Nice try but this is smaller plane with shorter wings. It's also a fighter so the wings would need to withstand greater forces per sq mm.

Of course i'd be happy to rethink that if we had some way to explain away all the other evidence.

Yes, this type of video can I think back up both claims really. Can see your point.

17-04-2009 02:56PM

There a a few questions I've asked that seem to be ignored.

Can anyone show any evidence for a missile that doesn't rely on claimed gaps in the evidence for a plane?

Can anyone provide evidence that the wreckage indicating a plane was in fact placed there?

Can anyone explain why there is no witnesses that claim that they saw the evidence being planted despite some of the evidence was in full view of the public?

Can anyone show there was other cameras that where capable of seeing the plane?

Yes or no answers please.

meglome · 17-04-2009 03:32PM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

please off all the poeple on this thread, i dont want to get into tit for tat crap with you of all, as i do infact like your posts for being genuine and level

You're right sorry about that, I don't want it to be tit for tat.

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

but can i ask you to just read or reread my posts regarding the missile, i want to make this clear. i am not attached to the missile theory at all, i have said it more than once. none of the "evidence" for a plane sways me in any way, there is however a huge hole and videos of a blast, the hole was created by something, and im inclined to think it was a missile, i am not however stuck on this, as im open to other plauseable causes. i have never said it has to be, or could only be a missle, but a missile fits the bill for me so far according to the evidence, also, check the thread, i wasnt the one repeatedly bringing up the missile

Okay we have lots of evidence for a plane. We don't, and it looks like we never will, have footage of the crash itself. So all we have is the evidence for a plane and pretty much nothing else. So I'll tell you what, how do you explain away all the evidence for a plane? To get to another theory we have to either ignore the evidence of a plane or explain it? So which are you going to do?

I mean it could have been a supersonic pigeon soaked in petrol that crashed into the Pentagon but given the evidence and the balance of probabilities that's very very unlikely.

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

what i am stuck on is, for me, there is no plane, for you there is, so its stalemate, hence why i asked would ye like to move onto other areas, alas when i do im repeatedly asked about a damn missile.....

so what do ye want to do?

Literally hundreds of people saw a plane (it was broad daylight in the middle of a big city) http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
Thousands cleaned up the site, they either reporting seeing bits of bodies and plane or had no reported issue.
The lampposts are knocked down exactly in the position that eye-witnesses saw the plane. (and to the exact size of a 757).
They found people and stuff belonging to people from the plane at the crash site. See here and here.
There are plenty of bits of wreckage and bodies too, see here and here.
The plane hit next to main highway, on which there was a traffic jam (you'd imagine this would be the worst possible place and time to fake an attack). Also this is the easiest place for say an average pilot to approach the building.
We can show that an aircraft crashing into a concrete fronted building wouldn't leave much debris and more than that the plane could be literally shredded, here (and other examples).
The damage to the pentagon is consistent with a big jet hitting it, see here and here.
Why a plane could go though all three pentagon rings and out the other side, here.
There is no evidence of pieces of plane being planted, the building was right next to a busy highway for all to see.

[Edit:] One of the main proponents of the no plane theory who now says it was a plane, here and here.

Now all you need to do is explain away all of this and then I haven't the slightest problem believing it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

bonkey · 17-04-2009 04:29PM

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

@ bonkey *post 152*

"At least we agree that is an assumption, which means that the entire argument of there being cameras which would capture this event is based on an assumption, rather than on evidence."

here you are picking on the word assumption itself. the same way a creationist when speaking about evolution would say " ah but its just a theory of evolution" as if the word theory made it any less real.

A creationist tries to downplay the meaning of the word theory - trying to conflate the scientific meaning of the term with the colloquial usage

I am not trying to downplay the strength of anything. I'm am trying to make clear that it is a position which is not supported by evidence, which is what an assumption is.

I'm trying to get agreement on simple, non-complex points, so that we can leave them aside and move on.

I, meglome and others have asked for the evidence of these cameras existence. None has been forthcoming, but instead of evidence we've had a lot of arguments about why its reasonable to conclude they exist.

All I'm doing is asking we all accept that no-one here can offer the evidence asked for...that we do not have evidence of the camera's existence. Once we get that, we can absolutely move on to discussing how reasonable the argument is which leads to the belief that they exist.

or how the media would have the word conspiracy associated with crazy, when that is not at all what the word means.

Or how you have now twice tried to link my position with creationism...

my assumption is based on observable evidence,

If there is observable evidence, then its not an assumption.

If there is observable evidence of CCTV cameras at the Pentagon which should have shown the approach of the plane, then please...by all means....direct us at this evidence. That's all I've been asking for...the evidence supporting this claim.

again, while there is a teeny tiny possiblity that for some really really odd really really strange reason they dont have cctv, it is still the least likely, and least believable.

my assumption has weight

We can argue about the likelihood and believability of the position once we reach an agreement on whether or not there is evidence of these camera's existence.

Do you agree that you do not have such evidence?

jonbravo · 18-04-2009 04:50PM

whats are the points to discuss about the hijacker's, how did they hijack and is their a conspiracy about who attacked on september 9th 01!?

meglome · 19-04-2009 08:24AM

jonbravo wrote: »

whats are the points to discuss about the hijacker's, how did they hijack and is their a conspiracy about who attacked on september 9th 01!?

I think 911 was was carried out by the 19 named hijackers, who crashed planes into the twin towers, the pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

I'd still very much like all the points I complied about the Pentagon to be addressed on the previous page. If it wasn't a plane it should be easy to do that, right?

Kernel · 20-04-2009 12:43AM

It's amazing how well the disinfo works at keeping people bickering, instead of talking about the elephant in the room.

That 911 was an inside job. :cool:

meglome · 20-04-2009 01:53AM

Kernel wrote: »

It's amazing how well the disinfo works at keeping people bickering, instead of talking about the elephant in the room.

That 911 was an inside job. :cool:

And you may not believe this but I'd be happy for you to show me this. But every time we try it the discussion peters out once the details are put in front of you and you can't address them. Or else we go back to the bigger picture again since the fine details don't match up.

Do you think a plane hit the pentagon?

And really why would you need a disinfo agents, the 'truth' movement is well capable of embarrassing and confusing itself on a regular basis without the slightest bit of help.

The_Kew_Tour · 20-04-2009 03:08AM

No dig at anybody here but can somebody show me plane hit the Pentagon?

Once seen we will the "truth" movement will rest in peace...

until then let us find the truth

The_Kew_Tour · 20-04-2009 03:12AM

86 cameras showed what happened that day one surely has one that shows the plane

20-04-2009 03:15AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

No dig at anybody here but can somebody show me plane hit the Pentagon?

Once seen we will the "truth" movement will rest in peace...

until then let us find the truth

Can you show a missile hitting the pentagon?

Can you show the wreckage of the plane being planted at the site?

Can you show the damage being faked?

Can you show where the plane supposedly disappeared or where the passengers are for that matter?

Can you show that other cameras in the pentagon should have shown the plane and that footage was subsequently covered up?

Can you show any evidence for a missile strike that is not dependent on supposed gaps in the evidence for a plane?

Please just give clear straight answers for each of these in the interest of truth.

Because we can show evidence that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.
In fact it was shown repeatedly in this thread or did you miss it?

meglome · 20-04-2009 02:40PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

No dig at anybody here but can somebody show me plane hit the Pentagon?

Once seen we will the "truth" movement will rest in peace...

until then let us find the truth

I would love if there was footage of a plane hitting the building or not. But from my experience in here I'd guess there are many people who would think this footage was faked anyway. Especially as it would be low quality.

adrian280582 wrote: »

86 cameras showed what happened that day one surely has one that shows the plane

I'll try this again. Security cameras rarely if ever look to the air they look at the ground. So it could be 186 cameras and I'd suggest it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. And in 2001 they still would mostly be low frame rate vhs recorded stuff that the quality would be fairly low on. I had a walk about around town there and I saw plenty of security cameras but they were all pointing at the ground. Even if you could explain to me why the security cameras would be looking into the air then that would help your story.

Can you explain away all the evidence I listed on the previous page? If can then honestly I'll accept it might not have been a plane. But in the meantime with so much backup for it being a plane I'll continue to believe it's a plane. Either we can prove it or not within reason and I believe we have proved it within reason. Some of main guys behind the no plane theory now say it was a plane and they were mistaken.

And answer King Mobs questions please because even if you could explain how it could be something other than a plane then that would be something. But so far you seem to be saying I don't believe it was a plane, just cause I don't. And I believe it was a missile, just cause I do. I'm saying look at all this evidence and from that I think it's a plane.

bonkey · 20-04-2009 08:47PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

86 cameras showed what happened that day one surely has one that shows the plane

86? Really?

I'm aware of 4 - two from the Pentagon, one from the gas station, one from the hotel.

What are the other 82?

The_Kew_Tour · 20-04-2009 10:25PM

meglome wrote: »

I would love if there was footage of a plane hitting the building or not. But from my experience in here I'd guess there are many people who would think this footage was faked anyway. Especially as it would be low quality.

I'll try this again. Security cameras rarely if ever look to the air they look at the ground. So it could be 186 cameras and I'd suggest it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. And in 2001 they still would mostly be low frame rate vhs recorded stuff that the quality would be fairly low on. I had a walk about around town there and I saw plenty of security cameras but they were all pointing at the ground. Even if you could explain to me why the security cameras would be looking into the air then that would help your story.

Can you explain away all the evidence I listed on the previous page? If can then honestly I'll accept it might not have been a plane. But in the meantime with so much backup for it being a plane I'll continue to believe it's a plane. Either we can prove it or not within reason and I believe we have proved it within reason. Some of main guys behind the no plane theory now say it was a plane and they were mistaken.

And answer King Mobs questions please because even if you could explain how it could be something other than a plane then that would be something. But so far you seem to be saying I don't believe it was a plane, just cause I don't. And I believe it was a missile, just cause I do. I'm saying look at all this evidence and from that I think it's a plane.

From my previous posts I agree I suppose I do look more like a wanting believer with a stubborn stance then person who looking maybe to seek the truth.

As I have stated before I would be more then willing to accept it was a plane if there was the proof that there was from my eyes and Im not just talking about the footage of actually seeing the plane but other questions about the angles this plane took in approching washington the fact that Honjour was simply out of his depth in flying a plane and fact that eye witness reports have shown many different descriptions of what happened. Also the fact of the amount of lies that have come out since about the speed of plane etc which at end of day makes for a conspircay to take a open discussion all round

I am not looking for a conspiracy, but from what I have studied about the impact and damage that the Pentagon took that day from people I have spoken to and researched from then I have to raise my eyebrows about some the official reports from what happened that day

Most your points and links from your previous post I cannot argue with and you have showed your evidence for your side but the difference is for me its the LACK of evidence which bothers me much more then the simple evidence which we have been shown.

The_Kew_Tour · 20-04-2009 10:28PM

bonkey wrote: »

86? Really?

I'm aware of 4 - two from the Pentagon, one from the gas station, one from the hotel.

What are the other 82?

Yes from the official reports stated in previous new york times, washington post and los angels times as well as coverage on this in Fox news before

Penn · 20-04-2009 10:33PM

The thing I'd like to know is, if they used planes to hit the Twin Towers and with the one that crashed in the field, why would they use a missile to hit the Pentagon? Why was that one different? Surely they'd either use planes for the four of them or missiles for the four of them?

meglome · 20-04-2009 11:18PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

From my previous posts I agree I suppose I do look more like a wanting believer with a stubborn stance then person who looking maybe to seek the truth.

As I have stated before I would be more then willing to accept it was a plane if there was the proof that there was from my eyes and Im not just talking about the footage of actually seeing the plane but other questions about the angles this plane took in approching washington the fact that Honjour was simply out of his depth in flying a plane and fact that eye witness reports have shown many different descriptions of what happened. Also the fact of the amount of lies that have come out since about the speed of plane etc which at end of day makes for a conspircay to take a open discussion all round

I am not looking for a conspiracy, but from what I have studied about the impact and damage that the Pentagon took that day from people I have spoken to and researched from then I have to raise my eyebrows about some the official reports from what happened that day

Most your points and links from your previous post I cannot argue with and you have showed your evidence for your side but the difference is for me its the LACK of evidence which bothers me much more then the simple evidence which we have been shown.

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing. What's lacking exactly? There's evidence to show the plane impacted as officially believed. And I've shown you how a plane can be shredded if crashed into concrete. As far as I understand it these are two of the three main points that are used to say it wasn't a plane. So we're left with saying Honjour couldn't make the turn but the autopilot could make the turn for him so it's irrelevant. And as has been pointed out no sane pilot would make the turn but he was going to kill himself so no problem there.

You say you're not looking for a conspiracy but there is a wash of evidence for it being a plane so I don't get the issue. Eye witnesses are indeed unreliable but it's one thing if you're not sure what colour trousers a robber was wearing and quite another whether you saw a huge jet roar past you at low level.

The_Kew_Tour · 20-04-2009 11:35PM

meglome wrote: »

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing. What's lacking exactly? There's evidence to show the plane impacted as officially believed. And I've shown you how a plane can be shredded if crashed into concrete. As far as I understand it these are two of the three main points that are used to say it wasn't a plane. So we're left with saying Honjour couldn't make the turn but the autopilot could make the turn for him so it's irrelevant. And has been pointed out no sane pilot would make the turn but he was going to kill himself so no problem there.

You say you're not looking for a conspiracy but there is a wash of evidence for it being a plane so I don't get the issue. Eye witnesses are indeed unreliable but it's one thing if you're not sure what colour trousers a robber was wearing and quite another whether you saw a huge jet roar past you at low level.

The video you showed is proof no doubt but people said the wings folded in your video the wings went straight through so that begs the question. If the wings did fold then the wings should have been shown in the impact site and if the wings did not fold like the video you showed then the impact should have been much wider then what it hit. So who or what should we believe

Well lack of evidence is proof of nothing very true indeed hence why we beg to differ.

meglome · 20-04-2009 11:53PM

Oh one other important point a Tomahawk Cruise missile is roughly 5.5m long and 0.5m in diameter. A 757-200 is 47.3m long, 38m wide and 13.6m tall(including wheels). Given how quickly it all happened you could miss many details but honestly even someone partially sighted could tell the difference.

meglome · 21-04-2009 12:03AM

adrian280582 wrote: »

The video you showed is proof no doubt but people said the wings folded in your video the wings went straight through so that begs the question. If the wings did fold then the wings should have been shown in the impact site and if the wings did not fold like the video you showed then the impact should have been much wider then what it hit. So who or what should we believe

Well lack of evidence is proof of nothing very true indeed hence why we beg to differ.

Obviously the two planes are not the same and the size of the concrete was much smaller. The wings on the the fighter will be more rigid and much shorter.

The point of the video is it shows how the plane was literally shredded which in turn proves that the wreckage from the Pentagon is consistent with the crash. I'll tell you what you show me all the similar crashes that are not consistent with the wreckage from the Pentagon, as all the ones I've seen are. I've even provided links with those pictures too.

I've provided proof, I'm waiting for yours.

911 - Points to discuss

Comments