911 - Points to discuss

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

thats just it, we are not satisfied that there is evidence of a plane at, *the complete lack of believable wreckage* being just one reason

however! none of us can say 100% for sure that it was in fact a missile, its just that from the damage we can see and the 3 videos (dont forget them!), a missile, to us, is the most plausible

Well there is believable wreckage it's just dismissed as a cover up.

Perhaps you can provide evidence of a missile independent from "a plane shouldn't have left this damage" or "a plane could go that fast" type of arguments? Positive evidence of a missile rather than negative evidence of a plane?

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

thats just it, we are not satisfied that there is evidence of a plane at all, *the complete lack of believable wreckage* being just one reason

however! none of us can say 100% for sure that it was in fact a missile, its just that from the damage we can see and the 3 videos (dont forget them!), a missile, to us, is the most plausible

Just from a fairly brief fire. So is this unbelievable too?

Or how about this one from a fire... unbelievable?


So these planes are disintegrated just from fire, what would be left after a big impact? a relatively small number of scattered pieces perhaps?

You guys keep saying it's unbelievable but we are showing you in pictures it isn't.

Bubba HoTep

@ 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.

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

my assumption is based on observable evidence, 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

BertrandMeyer

Those pictures were photoshopped. I can tell by the pixels.

Bubba HoTep

meglome wrote: »

Just from a fairly brief fire. So is this unbelievable too?

Or how about this one from a fire... unbelievable?


So these planes are disintegrated from fire what would be left after a big impact, a relatively small number of scattered pieces perhaps?

You guys keep saying it's unbelievable but we are showing you in pictures it isn't.

you see the top pic you posted there, do you see the amount of wreckage, and large area it covers,? something akin to this would be expected logically at the pentagon site

not there tho...

funny that eh?.......

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

you see the top pic you posted there, do you see the amount of wreckage, and large area it covers,? something akin to this would be expected logically at the pentagon site

not there tho...

funny that eh?.......

Both planes just sat there and burned, then within minutes the fire engines came and put them out. What do you think would happen if you took one of those planes and also rammed it into a big concrete fronted building at high speed and it then burned. What I'm guessing is some smaller bits of wreckage would get blasted out and pretty much everything else would get incinerated. Except maybe some large steel objects which would be found in the wreckage of the building, all of which the pictures show.

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

you see the top pic you posted there, do you see the amount of wreckage, and large area it covers,? something akin to this would be expected logically at the pentagon site

not there tho...

funny that eh?.......

Have actually seen the pictures from the pentagon site?
You do know that most of the plane was inside the hole?

You say large area and it's really only where the plane touched the ground and a little bit around the fuselage.

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

my assumption is based on observable evidence, 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[/B]

I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, really. There is no observable evidence that the Pentagon has cameras all around as you suggest. You think it should, a complete assumption based on other assumptions. It's up to you and anyone who believes these cameras are there to prove they exist but no one has. It's like groundhog day, you can keep saying must, should, etc but can't offer any proof.

And the funny thing is even if these cameras existed and there was footage it is highly unlikely they'd show a damn thing. The cameras would cover the perimeter and point at the ground and in 2001 would be low frame rate vhs. This whole camera conversation is an utter red herring.

Bubba HoTep

meglome wrote: »

Both planes just sat there and burned, then within minutes the fire engines came and put them out. What do you think would happen if you took one of those planes and also rammed it into a big concrete fronted building at high speed and it then burned. What I'm guessing is some smaller bits of wreckage would get blasted out and pretty much everything else would get incinerated. Except maybe some large steel objects which would be found in the wreckage of the building, all of which the pictures show.

they were repotedly there within minutes for the pentagon also....

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

they were repotedly there within minutes for the pentagon also....

So any witnesses or evidence to show the wreckage was placed?

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

Have actually seen the pictures from the pentagon site?
You do know that most of the plane was inside the hole?

You say large area and it's really only where the plane touched the ground and a little bit around the fuselage.

if you can show me pictures of large amounts of dead plane "inside the hole" please do...

yes a large area covered with dead plane s.h.i.t.e, in other words, lotsa wreckage, as you would find from a large plane

it doesnt just disintigrate

and the famous pics of the tiny, *shiny* fresh cut looking, non burned looking shrapnel of "wreckage" doesnt cut it (you know the pics i mean)

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

they were repotedly there within minutes for the pentagon also....

I have no argument with that. But it we take it for a moment it was plane it crashed into the building and set it on fire. A big building full of other things that will burn. How long did it take to put the fire out minutes or hours? I honestly don't know but however long it was we know from the pictures it doesn't take long to incinerate a plane, add the burning building around it and you're not likely to have much left even if it was minutes.

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

if you can show me pictures of large amounts of dead plane "inside the hole" please do...

yes a large area covered with dead plane s.h.i.t.e, in other words, lotsa wreckage, as you would find from a large plane

it doesnt just disintigrate

and the famous pics of the tiny, *shiny* fresh cut looking, non burned looking shrapnel of "wreckage" doesnt cut it (you know the pics i mean)

And you realise that there is a large hole that extend quite far into the building right?
There is tons of these pictures eariler in the thread showing this as well as the wreckage.
So why wouldn't they scorch the supposedly placed wreckage to make it more convincing?

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

if you can show me pictures of large amounts of dead plane "inside the hole" please do...

yes a large area covered with dead plane s.h.i.t.e, in other words, lotsa wreckage, as you would find from a large plane

it doesnt just disintigrate

and the famous pics of the tiny, *shiny* fresh cut looking, non burned looking shrapnel of "wreckage" doesnt cut it (you know the pics i mean)

The impact would blast back some of the lighter pieces, serious kinetic energy released on impact. The plane would be incinerated in minutes just like I keep showing you.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

Bubba HoTep

meglome wrote: »

I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, really. There is no observable evidence that the Pentagon has cameras all around as you suggest. You think it should, a complete assumption based on other assumptions. It's up to you and anyone who believes these cameras are there to prove they exist but no one has. It's like groundhog day, you can keep saying must, should, etc but can't offer any proof.

And the funny thing is even if these cameras existed and there was footage it is highly unlikely they'd show a damn thing. The cameras would cover the perimeter and point at the ground and in 2001 would be low frame rate vhs. This whole camera conversation is an utter red herring.

it is not an "assumption based on assumption", it is an assumption based on the entire observable western world. its the pentagon lack of cctv which is the odd one out, the only damn building without cctv apparently, not one bit believeable, based on my 1st hand experience of actual buildings. the burden of proof is on you guys


look at it this way, most people in the world have 10 toes. so i would assume you do too, if you said you had only 7, i wouldnt believe you.(even tho, of course the possibility is there) you would have to prove it. the burden is on you

see where im coming from?

you gotta stop hiding behind the word assumption itself. its got weight

meglome

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yawn

Screw loose change http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&ei=zjNySe-6Bouk-wGi06TkCw&q=Screw+Loose+Change+Movie&hl=en

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

it is not an "assumption based on assumption", it is an assumption based on the entire observable western world. its the pentagon lack of cctv which is the odd one out, the only damn building without cctv apparently, not one bit believeable, based on my 1st hand experience of actual buildings. the burden of proof is on you guys

No it's not.
CCTV isn't used to monitor every square inch of the outside of a building.
It usually only monitors entrances. The pentagon has it's own police force so they simply don't need around CCTV.
And even if they did, why would they point in the right direction to catch the plane? Would they have the right frame rate to catch it?
So why not show exactly the cameras in the pentagon that should have shown the plane?

BertrandMeyer

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I found it to be a horrible misrepresentation, misquoting, selective use of rules, etc. But some good points were made in there. The entire issue of 9/11 being an inside job... the problem arises when you look at all these claims at face value. For some means that one is misusing incorrect positions, it involves too many factual errors and sweeping theories.

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

And you realise that there is a large hole that extend quite far into the building right?
There is tons of these pictures eariler in the thread showing this as well as the wreckage.
So why wouldn't they scorch the supposedly placed wreckage to make it more convincing?

you were the one that said the plane was "inside the hole", show me...

as for scorching the placed wreckage, i agree, it would have made it look convincing, but you have to remember this, this was done by criminals, and criminals are humans like you and me, not some infallible super villians. criminals **** up too, hence the truth movement investigating

think of it as a crime scene, where the criminals are trying to make a murder look like a suicide, except they ****ed up, and people are realizing that the pieces presented do. not. fit

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

you were the one that said the plane was "inside the hole", show me...

There's pictures of it all through this thread.

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

as for scorching the placed wreckage, i agree, it would have made it look convincing, but you have to remember this, this was done by criminals, and criminals are humans like you and me, not some infallible super villians. criminals **** up too, hence the truth movement investigating

think of it as a crime scene, where the criminals are trying to make a murder look like a suicide, except they ****ed up, and people are realizing that the pieces presented do. not. fit

So they plan the single most elaborate hoax ever in the history of the world and they "forgot" to make convincing wreckage to leave around the site?
You realise how simply ridiculous that sounds right?

Bubba HoTep

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you mean Zeitgeist, and the 2nd part, zeitgeist: addendum

they are on google video, THESE ARE A MUST WATCH FOR EVERYBODY i mean that with all my heart, check them out

also the esoteric agenda is good, but only AFTER zeitgeist

and the corporation, great documentery

meglome

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

it is not an "assumption based on assumption", it is an assumption based on the entire observable western world. its the pentagon lack of cctv which is the odd one out, the only damn building without cctv apparently, not one bit believeable, based on my 1st hand experience of actual buildings. the burden of proof is on you guys


look at it this way, most people in the world have 10 toes. so i would assume you do too, if you said you had only 7, i wouldnt believe you.(even tho, of course the possibility is there) you would have to prove it. the burden is on you

see where im coming from?

you gotta stop hiding behind the word assumption itself. its got weight

Dear sweet Jesus. In 2001 it was not common to have a lot of security cameras in most places and even if you did they generally wouldn't be high quality. Many places did have cameras, the Pentagon did at the entrances.

The whole camera question is a red herring. The cameras would show the ground around the pentagon and would not show a plane approaching from the air. This is an utterly pointless conversation.

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

There's pictures of it all through this thread.

So they plan the single most elaborate hoax ever in the history of the world and they "forgot" to make convincing wreckage to leave around the site?
You realise how simply ridiculous that sounds right?

again, if there is a pic, please at least point me to the post?

why is it ridiculous? this isnt the F*cking movies my man! all of this sh*t had to happen within hours of each other, carried out by lots of people, in an as secret manner as possible, so stuff can and does go wrong

these are not comic book/ movie evil villians, they are people, like you and i, committing crime, and stuff can get left out

who knows, maybe they ran out of time?

maybe they didnt think people would pick up on it and didnt give it much attention in the planning


can i ask you, have you ever been a victim of/seen/taken part in crime? was it flawless? doubt it, thats how people get caught

Bubba HoTep

meglome wrote: »

Dear sweet Jesus. In 2001 it was not common to have a lot of security cameras in most places and even if you did they generally wouldn't be high quality. Many places did have cameras, the Pentagon did at the entrances.

The whole camera question is a red herring. The cameras would show the ground around the pentagon and would not show a plane approaching from the air. This is an utterly pointless conversation.

i dont agree that its pointless

i do agree we are getting nowhere on the thread with it so how bout we leave it on the "maybe" pile:)

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

again, if there is a pic, please at least point me to the post?

why is it ridiculous? this isnt the F*cking movies my man! all of this sh*t had to happen within hours of each other, carried out by lots of people, in an as secret manner as possible, so stuff can and does go wrong

these are not comic book/ movie evil villians, they are people, like you and i, committing crime, and stuff can get left out

who knows, maybe they ran out of time?

maybe they didnt think people would pick up on it and didnt give it much attention in the planning


can i ask you, have you ever been a victim of/seen/taken part in crime? was it flawless? doubt it, thats how people get caught

And maybe the wreckage was blown away by the explosion before they became scorched?

Faking convincing evidence.
It's a rather important part of a plan to convince people that a plane had struck when it was actually a missile.
It'd be the first thing on my list.

So any progress on the independent evidence for a missile?
Any progress on finding a camera that should show the plane?

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

And maybe the wreckage was blown away by the explosion before they became scorched?

Faking convincing evidence.
It's a rather important part of a plan to convince people that a plane had struck when it was actually a missile.
It'd be the first thing on my list.

So any progress on the independent evidence for a missile?
Any progress on finding a camera that should show the plane?

there are 3 videos already in the thread, fairly early on posted by bonkey i think, all 3 show a blast, not one shows a plane

adding more to the whole missile (or similar) aspect to this

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

there are 3 videos already in the thread, fairly early on posted by bonkey i think, all 3 show a blast, not one shows a plane

adding more to the whole missile (or similar) aspect to this

So no, no progress then?

If you actually read the post you know why the plane isn't clear in that video.

Bubba HoTep

since we are just going around and around with the pentagon, any of you want to discuss another area of why you are so sure of the official story?/

King Mob

I wouldn't call in going in circles.
We've shown clearly there is no evidence to support a missile.

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

So no, no progress then?

If you actually read the post you know why the plane isn't clear in that video.

more of the round in circles

there are 3 videos, three all showing a blast, therefore, are filming the correct area to see a plane, yet no plane, just a blast

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

more of the round in circles

there are 3 videos, three all showing a blast, therefore, are filming the correct area to see a plane, yet no plane, just a blast

So you haven't actually read any of the points made about the video at all have you?

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't call in going in circles.
We've shown clearly there is no evidence to support a missile.

for the sake of the thread there are LOADS of apsects we can focus on for 911, it doesnt all weigh on the pentagon, and since you guys nor i have nothing more to offer on the subject and are stuck, would you like to move it on with a reason you believe the official story?

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

So you haven't actually read any of the points made about the video at all have you?

what in the hell are you talking about, I am in the original discussion about the videos!

are you trying to troll or something?

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

for the sake of the thread there are LOADS of apsects we can focus on for 911, it doesnt all weigh on the pentagon, and since you guys nor i have nothing more to offer on the subject and are stuck, would you like to move it on with a reason you believe the official story?

The point of the thread was to look a single aspect closely.

Are you actually able to show independent evidence showing a missile strike?

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

what in the hell are you talking about, I am in the original discussion about the videos!

are you trying to troll or something?

Then you'll know that it is because those video cameras had a slow frame rate hence why it doesn't show the plane clearly.

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

The point of the thread was to look a single aspect closely.

Are you actually able to show independent evidence showing a missile strike?

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

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

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

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?

Bubba HoTep

King Mob wrote: »

Then you'll know that it is because those video cameras had a slow frame rate hence why it doesn't show the plane clearly.

what are you talking about?!?!?!?!?

are these jets you speak of going at light speed? if you look at the other 2 videos, not just the stills/frame video, you can see that even tho they are of low quality, the frame rate is fine enough to capture a HUGE JET on it

King Mob

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

what are you talking about?!?!?!?!?

are these jets you speak of going at light speed? if you look at the other 2 videos, not just the stills/frame video, you can see that even tho they are of low quality, the frame rate is fine enough to capture a HUGE JET on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ This one you mean? Not exactly clear is it?

Bubba HoTep

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?

King Mob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?