911 - Points to discuss

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

You do realise you posted a link to a piece of video that directly refutes your assertion?

Also if planes cannot fly at that height and speed, how on earth do you expect missiles to pull off that trick?

Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read

Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

BECAUSE THE SODDING PLANE WAS TRAVELLING AT 530MPH, OR 730FT PER SECOND, THAT'S THE LENGTH OF BETWEEN 5-7 FOOTBALL PITCHES A SECOND

No security camera is equipped to capture something travelling that fast. Very few cameramen could get a shot of that, never mind an amateur photographer, who could grab a shot.

A professional camerman who knew the plane was coming, could possibly have caught the plane.

Essentially you're expressing incredibility watching CCTV footage of a guy being shot. You're amazed that none of the cameras show the bullet flying through the air.

actually this got me thinking if a plane was going at 530mph like you say then people who saw "clearly" that it was american airlines they must have one hell of good eyesight to be able to explain everything in prob no more then 2 secs max dont you think

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

Pssst Stublebine retired over 25 years ago. In '83.



Well I'm 0 for 2 at the moment.




So we've clarified Fetzer is nuts, Stubblebine ain't active in the military, and wasn't for nearly twenty years before 9/11.

I can prove Marrs is another member of scholars for 911 truth, and I can prove Stanish lost his licence.

Lets not forget your argument was that these people were "experts" and you believed their authority in this matter.

you can prove quiet lot. you being on and on but still come back to same points every single time..Im afrad then i have come with same answers everytime

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

seen the photo you were on about and have say got me second taughts but on your first point I am accepting a plane crash IF and only IF this person has footage of the plane then surely for all arguments sake if its proof then why not show it..

basically till footage (one photo can claer all this remember) is shown to clearly show a plane hit the pentagon then the argument of the inside job team will always be of strong in my view

King Mob already asked the first obvious question so I'll move along.

If we accept what the eye witness says, then A. It a was a plane and B. There should be footage taken after the crash. This would not show the actual plane as it was taken after the crash but would show small pieces of plane just like the other pictures do that were also taken after the crash.

The argument for an inside job will always be strong because even when you show evidence to the contrary people still choose to believe it. Personally I hope I'm keeping an open mind.

jonbravo

adrian280582 wrote: »

Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read

Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now

what if it was both missile and plane, or even remote controlled!?
if a person told me in 2001 he/she seen a plane, they seen a plane...
if the crime scene doesnt add up why!? were did the wings of the plane go!?

Diogenes

adrian280582 wrote: »

Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read

Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now

Wrong!

Cruise Missiles can travel at sub and super sonic speeds.Both are far in excess of 326mph.

actually this got me thinking if a plane was going at 530mph like you say then people who saw "clearly" that it was american airlines they must have one hell of good eyesight to be able to explain everything in prob no more then 2 secs max dont you think

No theres a world of difference between passively observing something , and taking out a camera, switching it on, trying to focus on the object and filimming it.

meglome

adrian280582 wrote: »

Yes I said that on my post I was well aware of it read my second paragaph justd proves that ylou dont read you only read what you want to read

Missiles at max go at about 326kmph from what i have seen in real life and studied in middle east..never been proven so no use but there are reports that korea are able ship missiles at over 400 but not proven yet now

A Tomahawk Cruise missile flies at 550 mph or 880 km/h.

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

I call this the "until everyone can prove all alleged photos of bigfoot, are in fact guys in furry suits, I maintain that bigfoot exists" logic.

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

The_Kew_Tour

meglome wrote: »

A Tomahawk Cruise missile flies at 550 mph or 880 km/h.

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

I'll ask again.

If you argee that there is no footage of what actually hit the building and that what ever did hit it was traveling too fast to see, why do you believe a missile hit the pentagon?

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?

adrian280582

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?

adrian280582

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.

jonbravo

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.

adrian280582

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?