911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Bugs bunny???, answer the question

What happened to the Fighter Jet in your video when it hit the wall?

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Bugs bunny???, answer the question

Cartoon style outlines happen only in cartoons....not in the real world. The wings would have broken off and followed the bulk of the plane in through the hole created by the nose of the craft. I mean it's pretty clear and logical. To expect 2 nice outlines of wings is fanciful to say the least

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

What happened to the Fighter Jet in your video when it hit the wall?

It didn't go through..

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

Cartoon style outlines happen only in cartoons....not in the real world. The wings would have broken off and followed the bulk of the plane in through the hole created by the nose of the craft. I mean it's pretty clear and logical. To expect 2 nice outlines of wings is fanciful to say the least

They broke off and then followed the rest through?, FFS, stop watching them cartoons.

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

It didn't go through..

Do i have to post the difference between a Jet hitting a wall thats nearly as thick as the jet and a 100 ton 757, So Dont try and be smart, the Jet disintergrated on impact. Which is what would of happened to the 757.

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

I'm afraid you are the one who hasn't a clue and I have no idea why you posted those videos. I notice you still haven't commented on the photos of the aircraft debris at the Pentagon.

Look at this pic, now WHERE are the other holes in the trajectory???, and why is the debris on the grass all nice and shiny, freshly polished, should it not be scorched with such a massive explosion???????as for the wheels, they are wheels, but they could be anywhere.

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Do i have to post the difference between a Jet hitting a wall thats nearly as thick as the jet and a 100 ton 757, So Dont try and be smart, the Jet disintergrated on impact. Which is what would of happened to the 757.

Yes I agree, so what punched out the fukking hole multiple walls later???

PirateShampoo

Gas Explosion for all i know, your asking me to give a possable answer from 1 photo at a bad angle, if it was a missile attack like you say then there would also be mulitpal holes.

fontanalis

uprising2 wrote: »

Can you show me the damage the engines and wings caused please.

i thought you said aluminium wouldn't cause damage!!!
Anyway, aren't the wings the lightest part of the plane?

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

as for the wheels, they are wheels, but they could be anywhere.

Strawman argument.

Can you explain why a 757 wheel hub was found in the Pentagon?

fontanalis

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Sorry, i dont understand what you mean?

The nose of which craft?

Of a passenger jet, which would explain a circular shaped explosion?!

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Gas Explosion for all i know, your asking me to give a possable answer from 1 photo at a bad angle, if it was a missile attack like you say then there would also be mulitpal holes.

Well I've altered the pic a little with a new red line, and a smaller missile could have passed through the trajectory and exited at that point.

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

Strawman argument.

Can you explain why a 757 wheel hub was found in the Pentagon?

Because it was placed there.

uprising2

fontanalis wrote: »

i thought you said aluminium wouldn't cause damage!!!
Anyway, aren't the wings the lightest part of the plane?

Yea and filled with fuel, that burns, which isn't consistant with any pic.

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Well I've altered the pic a little with a new red line, and a smaller missile could have passed through the trajectory and exited at that point.

Why cant you use the same angle for something coming off the plane like the black box.

uprising2

Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, what is forgotten is a plane/missile/whatever shouldn't have ever got anywhere fukking near the most heavily fortified building on the planet a few hours after 2 planes hit the WTC's, is that fact alone not a cause for suspicion?, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea and filled with fuel, that burns, which isn't consistant with any pic.

Yes it is :rolleyes:

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

Because it was placed there.

Why did they use a missile and pretend it was a plane, when they used two planes up the road and another plane across the road.....?!!:D

It is genuinely hilarious how 'truth-seekers' contort themselves and choose the most bizarre version of the 'truth'.....!

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, what is forgotten is a plane/missile/whatever shouldn't have ever got anywhere fukking near the most heavily fortified building on the planet a few hours after 2 planes hit the WTC's, is that fact alone not a cause for suspicion?, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

Hardly a few hours.......The Pentagon attack happened 50 minutes after the first WTC attack. Anyway no matter how fortified the Pentagon is, there is not much you can do about a 100 ton plane flying in at over 500 mph!!

fontanalis

uprising2 wrote: »

Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, what is forgotten is a plane/missile/whatever shouldn't have ever got anywhere fukking near the most heavily fortified building on the planet a few hours after 2 planes hit the WTC's, is that fact alone not a cause for suspicion?, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

That's some doublespeak right there.

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hardly a few hours.......The Pentagon attack happened 50 minutes after the first WTC attack. Anyway no matter how fortified the Pentagon is, there is not much you can do about a 100 ton plane flying in at over 500 mph!!

Maybe while your watching it on your radar coming your way for a while you could probably send a couple of F16's maybe, just a thought.

uprising2

fontanalis wrote: »

That's some doublespeak right there.

Almost 9 years on your still as oblivious to the truth, why the fukk do I waste my time?, I don't know, but seriously burst that little bubble your in some day and wake up and smell the coffee.
That's me done here, have a nice illusion/life.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe while your watching it on your radar coming your way for a while you could probably send a couple of F16's maybe, just a thought.

Well for one I doubt that civilian air traffic controllers would have a hot line to the nearest airbase. Plus can you imagine it, the US Air Force shoots down a civilian aircraft, the CTers would have a field day!!

fontanalis

uprising2 wrote: »

Almost 9 years on your still as oblivious to the truth, why the fukk do I waste my time?, I don't know, but seriously burst that little bubble your in some day and wake up and smell the coffee.
That's me done here, have a nice illusion/life.

Once my bubble bursts I'll be on here spreading the troof.

thecommander

uprising2 wrote: »

why the fukk do I waste my time?,

Only you can answer that Uprising.

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

That's me done here, have a nice illusion/life.

Run away; run away!!:p

squod

Off topic, opinions on the vids/pictures of the alleged attached pod on flight 175 which struck WTC building?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4

fontanalis

squod wrote: »

Off topic, opinions on the vids/pictures of the alleged attached pod on flight 175 which struck WTC building?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4

WTC7 makes so much sense now!

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

Run away; run away!!:p

PM sent please reply

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

PM sent please reply

"run away, you think i'd run away from you?, believe me in fukking real life you'd be the one fukking running."

Haha:D

fontanalis

drkpower wrote: »

"run away, you think i'd run away from you?, believe me in fukking real life you'd be the one fukking running."

Haha:D

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

No I'm asking YOU, do YOU believe an aluminium aircraft made it all the way from the entry point to the exit point?

As opposed to a far smaller missile, with far less kinetic energy, and a body made of....what....lightweight steel or aluminium?

For the record...I don't believe an aluminium aircraft amde it all the way from the entry point to the exit point. The official account of the crash agrees with me.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

Actually fukk this bolllox, I'm done with this, no....zzzzzzzzzzz

More comments like this, and you will be done with it.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

As opposed to a far smaller missile, with far less kinetic energy, and a body made of....what....lightweight steel or aluminium?

For the record...I don't believe an aluminium aircraft amde it all the way from the entry point to the exit point. The official account of the crash agrees with me.

Ever heard of a bunkerbuster or any other supersonic missile?

The 2nd part I don't understand, you don't believe an aircraft made it through, but the official account you agree with?
What would that be?, the landing gear caused it?

PirateShampoo

I think the offical explanation on that hole is that one of the Black Boxs caused it.

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

I think the offical explanation on that hole is that one of the Black Boxs caused it.

Well then when then do go at Iran I would recommend they fire black box's at 500mph at the underground bunkers, they should do the job easily.

PirateShampoo

I'm getting the impression that you think the plane should of disintegrated on impact with the wall and that everything should go in a straight line.

Well it doesn't.

Are you saying you believe a missile did this damage?

uprising2

Will everybody here give 30 sec's of your lives, watch this video that I already posted, but I'll post again as nobody seem's to have watched it, Please, Please,Please watch this from 1:00-1:30, and please explain what you just saw and how you explain it being possible.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

Ever heard of a bunkerbuster or any other supersonic missile?

The thing abpout supersonic missiles is that like every other supersonic device, they create a sonic boom.

No-one reported hearing a sonic-boom.

As for bunker-busters....they're not missiles, they're bombs....nostly because they're very, very heavy. Ignoring that such a bomb couldn't follow the flight-path that was followed (it could only approach on a ballistic arc), it also wouldn't produce the effect of an explosion at the outer wall and a small amount of damage deep further in. Rather, it would punch through the outer wall as a small, solid mass, continue penetrating, and eventually explode deep within the building, resulting in the mos amount of damage there.

So the entire profile is wrong for that.

The 2nd part I don't understand, you don't believe an aircraft made it through, but the official account you agree with?
What would that be?, the landing gear caused it?

Neither I, nor the official account of events, believe the aircraftt penetrated through several rings of the pentagon in any sort of intact form.

As far as I recall, the hole you show a picture of was claimed to have been caused by an engine which (obviously) was no longer attached to the airplane...I could be wrong on exactly what piece of debris though.

The point is that there's a significant difference between suggesting that the aircraft made it that far, or that some part of debris from the aircraft made it that far.

As to the pictures showing the lack of damage along the path to that hole....I'd suggest that people count the windows, and compare with the number of floors. You'll find that the next ring in is covered, which would mean that an engine, travelling at or near ground-level, would be below that ceiling. One ring further out again, and hte angle of the photo only lets you see the top three floors, so again you wouldn't see much of anything at or near ground-level.

If you look at the picture posted by PirateShampoo on post 66, you will see fire damage along almost-exactly the red-line drawn on your pics. Different perspectives.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Will everybody here give 30 sec's of your lives, watch this video that I already posted, but I'll post again as nobody seem's to have watched it, Please, Please,Please watch this from 1:00-1:30, and please explain what you just saw and how you explain it being possible.

What the dude in the video conveniently (intentionally?) forgot to mention is that the upper floors of the section hit by the pane did not collapse for 45 mins after the event by which time the bulk of the fire had burned out - thus preventing significant smoke damage on the upper floors. Concrete doesn't tend to burn very well for too long.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

Will everybody here give 30 sec's of your lives, watch this video that I already posted, but I'll post again as nobody seem's to have watched it, Please, Please,Please watch this from 1:00-1:30, and please explain what you just saw and how you explain it being possible.

Given that its only 30 seconds long, could you perhaps describe what it is that you want people to watch.

I'm one of those lucky few who find myself regularly with an inernet connection I can't stream video over.

squod

bonkey wrote: »

Given that its only 30 seconds long, could you perhaps describe what it is that you want people to watch.

I'm one of those lucky few who find myself regularly with an inernet connection I can't stream video over.

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

It also references the size of plane it was which allegedly which struck the building and the size of hole it made in the collapsed building.

Earlier CNN footage told how the building had just collapsed roughly 40mins after impact. The reporter on the ground witnessed no plane, or plane debris at that time.

The official line is fantastic, as are the stories of UFOs striking the pentagon.

fontanalis

squod wrote: »

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

It also references the size of plane it was which allegedly which struck the building and the size of hole it made in the collapsed building.

Earlier CNN footage told how the building had just collapsed roughly 40mins after impact. The reporter on the ground witnessed no plane, or plane debris at that time.

The official line is fantastic, as are the stories of UFOs striking the pentagon.

So did a witness see a missile, bunker buster, the hindenberg etc
What happened the plane and passengers?

squod

fontanalis wrote: »

So did a witness see a missile, bunker buster, the hindenberg etc
What happened the plane and passengers?

I presume you can watch a video without me having to explain it to you, personally I'm not so interested. Just answering Bonkey's request, poor fella can't watch youtube.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

It also references the size of plane it was which allegedly which struck the building and the size of hole it made in the collapsed building.

Thanks for that. I'll check it when I have video access again...

Earlier CNN footage told how the building had just collapsed roughly 40mins after impact. The reporter on the ground witnessed no plane, or plane debris at that time.

Assuming you're referring to Jamie McIntyre, it depends who you believe.

McIntyre himself has clarified that this is not what he was saying.
The site I've linked to above also recommends that rather than trusting transcripts, anyone's interpretation and/or editing of the piece, you should watch it yourself. There's a link on teh page, but (with no video access right now) I've no idea if its still working.

squod

Not so interested, thanks anyhow. Joe public in the US voted after September 11 2001. They were over eighteen and made their' minds up for themselves as to wether they wanted to be accomplices or not IMO. Pointless worrying about it now.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

Given that its only 30 seconds long, could you perhaps describe what it is that you want people to watch.

I'm one of those lucky few who find myself regularly with an inernet connection I can't stream video over.

Ok bonkey since you don't have youtube, actually it's not streaming,press play then pause it, leave it long enough and it will download, anyway from the still of my video in your post, if you look at the bottom left side of the "play" symbol, where the ladder crosses it, you will see a little white thing just directly below it, almost touching the ladder and corner of the play symbol, this Bonkey is a paper book open on a stool, the paper is not scorched whatsoever, does it not seem a little strange?.

Now here's a pic of the 757, actually I'll copy and paste:

In the below photos: on top is the turbine rotor recovered from the Pentagon 9/11 crash scene which is from a much smaller engine and is from a loud high performance engine like the ones used by the military. On the bottom is a picture of a Boeing 757 Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 engine which is the same exact type as mounted in Flight 77, it's much bigger and has "commercial" fans in the turbine rotor (bigger, more fuel efficient and designed for less noise). The rotor found at the crash site doesn't even come close to the "official" story. [FONT=Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

The only parts retrieved from inside the building
where piled up here in front of the building.
Note the small engine rotor in the foreground.



Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 engine rotor

http://donsplace.us/pentagate/

Now while these pics don't go along with a missile hitting the pentagon, as missiles dont have turbine rotors, it certainly isn't from a 757, can you see the problems some of us free thinkers have with this whole story bonkey, and what conclusion can one come to except it's a big lie.

[/FONT][/FONT]

Edit: just for reference here's a pic of the fire, now judge where the open book would be in this fire

humanji

With regards the engines, the second picture is the front of the engine. The first picture is the back. The back is usually about 50% smaller than the front.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

That might have something to do with the fact that the upper floors where the book and furniture were did not collapse until 45 mins after the plane strike by which time the fire had more or less exhausted itself. The upper floors were protected from the fire effects while the floors remained intact. This is pretty basic and I would have thought easy to understand but some people insist on closing their minds completely and not thinking about the reality of the situation.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Not so interested, thanks anyhow.

So if I understand what you're saying....you're interested enough to make the claim, but not interested enough to follow up on the evidence which says that you might be wrong.

Fair enough.