911 - Points to discuss

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

had my own little theory but im wiser then to go down this petty route. anyway

Think about what you said.. You have said that plane was travelling at 730ft per second 530mph im not sure you realise how quiet fast that is. if true then dont you think that most people would not even had time to really make out what plane was.

god bless the americans eyesight thats all i will say

Just so we're clear you're happy to discount eyewitnesses when they dispute your account, but like videos when people say "It sounded like a missile"

What a charming and whimsical world you inhabit.

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

yes your right sorry should have meant at the time and the type missle that would have struck the pentagon

What time and what type of missile?

King Mob

adrian280582 wrote: »

yes your right sorry should have meant at the time and the type missle that would have struck the pentagon

Tomahawks have been in service since the 70s.

What type of missile was used against the pentagon and how do you know?

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

Just so we're clear you're happy to discount eyewitnesses when they dispute your account, but like videos when people say "It sounded like a missile"

What a charming and whimsical world you inhabit.

well you do believe you that plane can travle at 530mph at that height so.......................

meglome

jonbravo wrote: »

what if it was both missile and plane, or even remote controlled!?

What would the point be? the plane is a big flying bomb, full of fuel and kinetic energy. How was the plane fitted with this remote control device when it was in regular service?

jonbravo wrote: »

if a person told me in 2001 he/she seen a plane, they seen a plane...

Lot's of people have been saying they saw a plane since 2001 and are still saying it (all of them) but the so called 'truth' movement doesn't want to believe them.

jonbravo wrote: »

if the crime scene doesnt add up why!? were did the wings of the plane go!?

But the crime scene does add up. The 'truth' movement says the hole in the building couldn't be from a plane and there should be more plane wreckage. But I've posted the pictures of an Air France plane which show most of the plane is gone from just a brief fire. The wings would snap back and go into the hole with most of the rest of the plane.

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

well you do believe you that plane can travle at 530mph at that height so.......................

And your evidence that a plane can't fly at that height and at that speed, is a youtube video of plane travelling at high speed at very low altitude.

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

well you do believe you that plane can travle at 530mph at that height so.......................

Ever been at an air show? Saw the Euro fighter at one doing some serious speed (no idea what it was though) but had no problem seeing the distinct shape of the fighter and it is way smaller than a 767 passenger jet.

And to be honest the exact speed of the plane doesn't take way from the fact that so many people saw one.

The_Kew_Tour

from physics evidence from what was researched the max a missile would have been to hit pentagon would have been travllling at no more then 300-325kmph

Just to clear that up

tomahawk would have caused greater destruction and there to control and there angle of destruction is not as accurate hence why I myself would disgard a tomeahawk from hitting the pentagon..

jonbravo

Diogenes wrote: »

And your evidence that a plane can't fly at that height and at that speed, is a youtube video of plane travelling at high speed at very low altitude.

and can it turn at a height and speed do you think while tryin to hit a low target without flipping!?

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

from physics evidence from what was researched the max a missile would have been to hit pentagon would have been travllling at no more then 300-325kmph

Just to clear that up

tomahawk would have caused greater destruction and there to control and there angle of destruction is not as accurate hence why I myself would disgard a tomeahawk from hitting the pentagon..

Any evidence to support any of this?

King Mob

adrian280582 wrote: »

from physics evidence from what was researched the max a missile would have been to hit pentagon would have been travllling at no more then 300-325kmph

Going to link to this research? Why wouldn't the missile be able to travel faster?

adrian280582 wrote: »

Just to clear that up

tomahawk would have caused greater destruction and there to control and there angle of destruction is not as accurate hence why I myself would disgard a tomeahawk from hitting the pentagon..

Ok if it wasn't a tomahawk what type of missile was it and more importantly: how do you know it was a missile?

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

And your evidence that a plane can't fly at that height and at that speed, is a youtube video of plane travelling at high speed at very low altitude.

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

meglome

jonbravo wrote: »

and can it turn at a height and speed do you think while tryin to hit a low target without flipping!?

Is that the plane that hit the Pentagon did?

BertrandMeyer

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.

King Mob

jonbravo wrote: »

and can it turn at a height and speed do you think while tryin to hit a low target without flipping!?

You mean like over a runway so people at an airshow can see a great flyby?

Diogenes

jonbravo wrote: »

and can it turn at a height and speed do you think while tryin to hit a low target without flipping!?

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.

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

Ever been at an air show? Saw the Euro fighter at one doing some serious speed (no idea what it was though) but had no problem seeing the distinct shape of the fighter and it is way smaller than a 767 passenger jet.

And to be honest the exact speed of the plane doesn't take way from the fact that so many people saw one.

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

jonbravo

meglome wrote: »

What would the point be? the plane is a big flying bomb, full of fuel and kinetic energy. How was the plane fitted with this remote control device when it was in regular service?



Lot's of people have been saying they saw a plane since 2001 and are still saying it (all of them) but the so called 'truth' movement doesn't want to believe them.



But the crime scene does add up. The 'truth' movement says the hole in the building couldn't be from a plane and there should be more plane wreckage. But I've posted the pictures of an Air France plane which show most of the plane is gone from just a brief fire. The wings would snap back and go into the hole with most of the rest of the plane.

from what i've read the crime scene didnt add up, everything about this subject ......within the conspiracy there are many conspiracy theories i'll discuss no more..........maybe when 30 years goes by......!?

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

from physics evidence from what was researched the max a missile would have been to hit pentagon would have been travllling at no more then 300-325kmph

Just to clear that up

tomahawk would have caused greater destruction and there to control and there angle of destruction is not as accurate hence why I myself would disgard a tomeahawk from hitting the pentagon..

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.

King Mob

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

You realise the pentagon is a fairly big target right? I don't think they where going for pinpoint accuracy.

Are you going to answer any of my questions?

Diogenes

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

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

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.

King Mob

Diogenes wrote: »

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

I would:o

jonbravo

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

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

jonbravo wrote: »

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

And here you go.

The_Kew_Tour

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

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.

King Mob

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

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

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

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

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

King Mob

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

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

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

Diogenes wrote: »

And here you go.

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

The_Kew_Tour

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

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

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

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

King Mob

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

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

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

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

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

.

bonkey

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

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??