911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

squod

bonkey wrote: »

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.

Who says who is wrong? I've heard many explanations of what happened at the pentagon building. Missiles, military aircraft, aliens :eek:, rockets, US government cover-up and the official line. Each argument has it's own merrit.
I simply haven't read any posts from yourself to indicate research you've carried out at all. Yet you call me out on a point. FYI I have followed up, I suggest you do the same.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

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,

The problem is actually that where I was, all I get is a nice little message saying "active content removed".

I'm home now, and have had a chance to look at it...but my thanks for bearing with me.

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?.

Not exceptionally, no.

Don't get me wrong...its a bit weird alright, but I don't see any significant problem with it.

The section that collapsed did so due to a combination of impact damage and resulting fire causing the support columns to fail. I don't believe it has ever been claimed that the entire section, from roof to floor, front wall to back, was engulfed in flames. Its not like the WTC towers, where each floor was effectively one massive open-plan area,

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

As with McIntyre's interview, there doesn't seem to be much agreement on this point either.

Here's one article, just as an example, which shows that it could indeed be a component for the engine its supposed to be from.

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.

I can see the problems you have, yes.

I would say this, however...several claims have been presented as though they were fact. I'm merely pointing out that it is far from clear that these are facts, like they are made out to be.

Ultimately, my feeling is that threads like this always end up with some sort of "scatter" approach. There is no clear, single, "smoking gun" which can be honed in on which shows the official account to be a lie. Instead, there are a myriad of points where doubt can be raised.

For some, that doubt is sufficient. For others, its not. I accept this.

What I do not accept, however, is that there is any sort of "slam dunk" case to categorically show that the official account is false. There is no single point where we can drill to the nth level of detail and reach a firm conclusion that there must have been a conspiracy.

A book on a stool...what does that tell us? A section of the building was on fire. A section of the building did collapse. Is a book on a stool supposed to tell us that it was all staged...that the fire wasn't real...that the collapse was faked? If not...then what does it matter???

The aircraft rotor...far more interesting. If it could be categorically shown that there is no part of a 757 engine, or indeed no part of a 757 at all, which could match this part....then its case closed. Unfortunately, thats not the case. There are parts that it might be. So where does that leave us? We have something which isn't a problem if the official account is true....and isn't a problem if the official account is a complete fabrication. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us which is the case, so its not much use.

I like to consider myself as a "free thinker" as well. I tend to favour one position over another, but I rarely believe in the absolute correctness or wrongness of any. regarding the Pentagon, I've yet to see any evidence I consider as convincing which says that a 757 passenger jet did not crash into the building on September 11, 2001...but I certainly don't rule it out.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Who says who is wrong?

I certainly didn't say you were wrong.

I said you might be wrong, and that there was the other side of the story to be considered. You said you weren't interested.

I simply haven't read any posts from yourself to indicate research you've carried out at all.

Yes, you're right. I've never researched the topic. Amazingly, despite knowing nothing about it, I was able to offer detail to your (vague) claim about "a CNN reporter".

uprising2

But Bonkey, where in the fire would the book be at the moment this pic was taken?, it's 2 windows down and 15-20ft in, this is the same jet fuel that took down the twin towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4tj5RZJHVQ

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

But Bonkey, where in the fire would the book be at the moment this pic was taken?, it's 2 windows down and 15-20ft in, this is the same jet fuel that took down the twin towers.

OK...leaving aside the questionable significance that I've already outlined...

Where was the book?

Here's how I see it.

The plane impacte a section of the building. The main fire that we see roughly corresponds to the impact point. Looking to the right of that large flame, we can see that there's a set of windows and columns....at a rough comparison, the big fireball-like flame is about as wide as the 4 window-sections we can clearly see. Taking really rough numbers, I'm going to put that at about 40 feet.

The section of building which collapsed was, if memory serves, 67 feet across. If we assume that this is centred on the point of impact (which is roughly the center of the fireball-like flames), that puts each edge some 15 away from the edge of the fireball.

So, that would put the book one-and-a-half window-sections (rooms?) away from the fire that we see. Its also positioned close to the top of that big flame, and - as you say - some 15-20 ft (and several walls) in from the front wall.

Its several floors up. Given that the plane impacted low, that means there's almost certainly solid floor seperating it from the burning aviation fuel.

So while I'd readily agree that its a surprising thing to find, I don't find it by any means to be impossible. We can, in fact, see that there's a lot of stuff in the rooms exposed from the collapse which did not catch fire. This is consistent with the majority of the fire occurring on the lower floors, and with the fire

I'd also point out that jet fuel did not take down the twin towers. They collapsed from a combination of structural damage, and steel weakening from the fires which were started by jet fuel. The reason I mention this is not just for accuracy, but because the Pentagon was little different. The impact cause structural damage. The jet fuel started large fires. These fires eventually caused enough damage to cause the failure of supports, leading to collapse. There is nothing in that scenario that requires every combustible object in every room, in or near the collapse area to have been on fire.

Duiske

This video is one of the better ones I have seen about the Pentagon attack. Its almost 1hr 30mins long, but is well worth a look.

There are interviews with police officers, pentagon security workers and other government employees who witnessed the planes approach to the pentagon.
The most amazing interview is with Loydde England, the driver of the cab which was hit by a falling lamp post, alledgedly knocked by the plane.

If these witness's are correct, then there is something seriously amiss with the official report of what actually happened that day.

Sorry, having problems embedding the video, link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&feature=player_embedded#

Podman

bonkey wrote: »

.. the book ...
Its several floors up. Given that the plane impacted low, that means there's almost certainly solid floor seperating it from the burning aviation fuel.

So while I'd readily agree that its a surprising thing to find, I don't find it by any means to be impossible. We can, in fact, see that there's a lot of stuff in the rooms exposed from the collapse which did not catch fire. This is consistent with the majority of the fire occurring on the lower floors, and with the fire
...
... The impact cause structural damage. The jet fuel started large fires. These fires eventually caused enough damage to cause the failure of supports, leading to collapse. There is nothing in that scenario that requires every combustible object in every room, in or near the collapse area to have been on fire.

How can fire which is clearly confined to lower floors, and separated by concrete cause collapse of upper floors and roof?

Also there is a temperature issue, fire by itself does not cause a building to collapse unless the structure is made of wood.

Podman

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

Its the same type of plane as this pilotless aircraft, a Boeing 757 200 NASA 557 ...


But more likely to be a variance of a Boeing E-8C J-STARS


Something like the E-10a, a twin engine that looks identical to the Boeing 767 except for the Radar housing on the bottom. Planes can be modified especially when there is a trillion dollar payoff.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

J-STARS is used for airborne battle management, command & control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Podman

uprising2 wrote: »

...
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.

Actually Cruise Missiles do have turbofan engines, the Williams F107 ...

This one is from an AGM 86 Cruise Missile ...


Seems about the right size to me ...


This is what it would look like when assembled ...


If you ask me, this is the closest you can get to the image of the missile in the released Pentagon pictures from 911.

drkpower

What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?

Its hilarious how truthers, so desperate to question everything about the day, tie themselves up in knots to show that there was a conspiracy....:p

amen

Also there is a temperature issue, fire by itself does not cause a building to collapse unless the structure is made of wood.

that is just so untrue. it doesn't take much to get a fire in a modern building up to several thousand degrees and it can happen fairly quick.

RGDATA!

drkpower wrote: »

What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

squod

RGDATA! wrote: »

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

Excellent point, one I've not heard mention before. Target.

uprising2

amen wrote: »

that is just so untrue. it doesn't take much to get a fire in a modern building up to several thousand degrees and it can happen fairly quick.

Is that fact or fiction?, if its fact please show us some evidence, if you just made it up it's ok.:D

Several thousand degree's, whoa!, thats hot, and it doesn't take much to get it up there fairly quickly, whoa!, and you were thanked for saying that.

uprising2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

Here's another, this can only be launched from an aircraft, then I remembered the mystery plane flying over washington at the time of the pentagon attack.


http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Then cruise missiles come in different sizes, so the rotar size can vary, missile theory still intact, not that I ever doubted it was a missile, just thought the rotar was a "plant".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

humanji

RGDATA! wrote: »

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

Why did it need to hit at that specific angle? Wouldn't any angle have done?

Also, why is it easier to believe that a plane took off, landed secretly without anyone knowing, the passengers and crew "disappeared", a missile launched without anyone seeing from where, and all witnesses to the event paid off or threatened into lying and hiding evidence, than it is to believe that either the plane was remote controlled or the hijackers were real (but were working for the government)?

RGDATA!

humanji wrote: »

Why did it need to hit at that specific angle? Wouldn't any angle have done?

Also, why is it easier to believe that a plane took off, landed secretly without anyone knowing, the passengers and crew "disappeared", a missile launched without anyone seeing from where, and all witnesses to the event paid off or threatened into lying and hiding evidence, than it is to believe that either the plane was remote controlled or the hijackers were real (but were working for the government)?

not sure what you mean about hitting at that specific angle, but that wing of the building was undergoing renovation and a lot less staffed than it would have been normally which could be a motive for hitting that specific side.

it's not my contention that it's easier to believe that plance "disappeared" etc - i know where you are coming from. i was just speculating as to a possible answer to the question posed above:

"What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?"

humanji

RGDATA! wrote: »

not sure what you mean about hitting at that specific angle, but that wing of the building was undergoing renovation and a lot less staffed than it would have been normally which could be a motive for hitting that specific side.

it's not my contention that it's easier to believe that plance "disappeared" etc - i know where you are coming from. i was just speculating as to a possible answer to the question posed above:

"What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?"

Sorry, what I was getting at that is that it's easy enough to aim at a specific side of a building and hit it. The angle was level but not unachievable to a pilot and not impossible for a plane. To me it just seems as easy to maneuver a plane into that position as it was for a missile, so why would they risk using a missile when they could easily have used a plane?

RGDATA!

humanji wrote: »

Sorry, what I was getting at that is that it's easy enough to aim at a specific side of a building and hit it. The angle was level but not unachievable to a pilot and not impossible for a plane. To me it just seems as easy to maneuver a plane into that position as it was for a missile, so why would they risk using a missile when they could easily have used a plane?

I accept the angle wasn't impossible for a plane, but it was, imo, extraordinary for an amateur pilot to pull it off. also I would have thought that it would be easier to maneuver a (presumably much lighter, presumably smaller) missile into the same position but i'm certainly not an expert in aeronautics.
but yeah, i find it difficult to reconcile what happened the "real" plane and the people who were on it if it was in fact a missile that hit the pentagon. i do wish they would release all the other video footage they undoubtedly have.

uprising2

Though not pentagon specific, very relivent here.........where did the people go??

drkpower

RGDATA! wrote: »

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

Perhaps.

However, the level of outrgae would have been no different had the plane just ploughed into the pentagon at any angle, at any point on the whole structure. And the pentagon is huge, so that would have been extremely straightforward.

It is ludicrous to think that the 'perpetrators' would have risked blowing the whole gig, by trying to 'disguise' the missile as a plane, when they could have just crashed the plane anywhere into the pentagon site.

uprising2

I suppose nobody here asking questions about the plane have ever watched the documentary where eyewitness's including DC police men see a plane on a different path to official path, flying low then pulling up as theres an explosion, the cab drivers strange comment when he thinks camera is off, maybe watch something rather than dismiss out of hand.

EDIT:

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

Eqn_wLY9Qe4

Podman

drkpower wrote: »

What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?

A pilot no matter how good cannot be trusted to hit the exact part they wanted destroyed. A pilot may crash the plane into the freeway, or the ground, or Donald Rumsfeld's office.

The day before September 11th it was revealed that $2.3 Trillion dollars was unaccounted for (911 research), that money is still missing. A good while ago I heard that the Pentagon office that was the primary target was one that was assigned with an investigation into America's budget, including the missing money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

drkpower wrote: »

Its hilarious how truthers, so desperate to question everything about the day, tie themselves up in knots to show that there was a conspiracy....:p

Its hilarious (if not so sickening) how liars, so desperate to maintain the official story, tie themselves up in knots to show that there was no conspiracy....:p

Podman

uprising2 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

Here's another, this can only be launched from an aircraft, then I remembered the mystery plane flying over washington at the time of the pentagon attack.


http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Then cruise missiles come in different sizes, so the rotar size can vary, missile theory still intact, not that I ever doubted it was a missile, just thought the rotar was a "plant".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

Missile definately.

All the wreckage "found" that day was a planted. Ordinary aircraft engines also have components of around that small rotor size. A child can see that there isn't enough wreckage to fill a bread van, plus there is no 767 aircraft in the video footage. It's tail section should be roughly the same height as the Pentagon itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

The AGM 86 Missile can be launched from a ship and an aircraft. There was a lot of "war games" on that day so ships launching missiles would have been considered "normal". It had to look like a terrorist attack because America needed it's "Pearl Harbour" to justify military expenditure. The attack itself put everyone into shock, including the members of Congress who backed the war.

Podman

humanji wrote: »

Why did it need to hit at that specific angle? Wouldn't any angle have done?

Also, why is it easier to believe that a plane took off, landed secretly without anyone knowing, the passengers and crew "disappeared", a missile launched without anyone seeing from where, and all witnesses to the event paid off or threatened into lying and hiding evidence, than it is to believe that either the plane was remote controlled or the hijackers were real (but were working for the government)?

It's not easy at all, in fact it's easier to do what your told and go along with the official story, that way you don't have to think - but you do give up your trust to someone who will control you.

"The Emperor has no clothes", smell the coffee.

Like I said before, "It had to look like a terrorist attack because America needed it's "Pearl Harbour" to justify military expenditure."

An event like 911 can bring America to war with the rest of the world, one country after another, forever, or until there is nothing left.
War is very very expensive, and there is always somebody who profits.
I never underestimate people's capacity for greed, there are no boundaries they won't cross to make their fortunes.

Podman

RGDATA! wrote: »

....
but yeah, i find it difficult to reconcile what happened the "real" plane and the people who were on it if it was in fact a missile that hit the pentagon. i do wish they would release all the other video footage they undoubtedly have.

yes, that's quite disturbing.

I am guessing that after the planes landed, the passengers were executed. It would be the only way to guarantee their silence.

Brown Bomber

chompy wrote: »

The day before September 11th it was revealed that $2.3 Trillion dollars was unaccounted for (911 research), that money is still missing. A good while ago I heard that the Pentagon office that was the primary target was one that was assigned with an investigation into America's budget, including the missing money.
....

From the official report of Arlington County

The impact area included both
the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and
Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget

information was in the damaged area.

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire/Documents/after_report.pdf

And another useful "coincidence"

Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm

drkpower

chompy wrote: »

A pilot no matter how good cannot be trusted to hit the exact part they wanted destroyed. A pilot may crash the plane into the freeway, or the ground, or Donald Rumsfeld's office.

The day before September 11th it was revealed that $2.3 Trillion dollars was unaccounted for (911 research), that money is still missing. A good while ago I heard that the Pentagon office that was the primary target was one that was assigned with an investigation into America's budget, including the missing money.

Its hilarious (if not so sickening) how liars, so desperate to maintain the official story, tie themselves up in knots to show that there was no conspiracy....:p

Oh I see....they had to hit the precise spot on the pentagon to hide cover up for the theft of money....... And I thought 9-11 was about an excuse for war.....or was that to allow the US to control its citizens....no, no ... it was for the NWO/worldwide government/lizards to control the citizens.... no, dont be silly, it was for dominance of middle eastern oil...

But to return to sanity for a moment; if precision was the reason they would use a missile rather than a plane, why use a missile? - thats hardly that precise; why not just plant a bomb - then you could be 100% effective.

Again, in answering the question I posed, you just come up with a more incredible soution!! I just dont see why you troofers cant just go with this theory - the US controlled AL Quaeda and paid them to do what they did - it is sooooo much easier, there is actually some credible evidence that you could use to support such a theory and it doesnt fly in the face of what evidence there is out there. Oh, and it avoids the need for making yourselves look really really dumb.

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

Oh I see....they had to hit the precise spot on the pentagon to hide cover up for the theft of money....... And I thought 9-11 was about an excuse for war.....or was that to allow the US to control its citizens....no, no ... it was for the NWO/worldwide government/lizards to control the citizens.... no, dont be silly, it was for dominance of middle eastern oil...

But to return to sanity for a moment; if precision was the reason they would use a missile rather than a plane, why use a missile? - thats hardly that precise; why not just plant a bomb - then you could be 100% effective.

Again, in answering the question I posed, you just come up with a more incredible soution!! I just dont see why you troofers cant just go with this theory - the US controlled AL Quaeda and paid them to do what they did - it is sooooo much easier, there is actually some credible evidence that you could use to support such a theory and it doesnt fly in the face of what evidence there is out there. Oh, and it avoids the need for making yourselves look really really dumb.

Your the one looking dumb, look at the eyewitness accounts, to go with your explanation would be stupid considering you must dismiss almost everything apart from the official account.

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

Your the one looking dumb, look at the eyewitness accounts, to go with your explanation would be stupid considering you must dismiss almost everything apart from the official account.

Eyewitness accounts of almost any event are notoriously untrustworthy. Spend a day in any court; you will see very quickly how the perception of the same event by different people differs greatly, even when those people have no vested interest in the outcome.

Try and go with your own judgment of what seems plausible - and what sounds dumb. And in your case, do that, then reverse it, and then you have the right answer.......

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

Eyewitness accounts of almost any event are notoriously untrustworthy. Spend a day in any court; you will see very quickly how the perception of the same event by different people differs greatly, even when those people have no vested interest in the outcome.

Try and go with your own judgment of what seems plausible - and what sounds dumb. And in your case, do that, then reverse it, and then you have the right answer.......

Listen your posting crap, bringing lizards into it to support your view, open your eyes and smell the coffee, how anybody can still be as dumbed down as you seem to be I'll never know, maybe your just oppressed and your mind is closed to reality.

EDIT:
Maybe a live clip will help you cop on.

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen your posting crap, bringing lizards into it to support your view, open your eyes and smell the coffee, how anybody can still be as dumbed down as you seem to be I'll never know, maybe your just oppressed and your mind is closed to reality.

Oh, its crap, is it.....I've been told then.....devestating retort:eek:

uprising2 wrote: »

open your eyes and smell the coffee

:rolleyes::eek:

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

Oh, its crap, is it.....I've been told then.....devestating retort:eek:


:rolleyes::eek:

Yea Crap, wake up, where's the 757?, look at the live clip, no need to rely on bad eyewitness accounts, now wouldn't it be easier for you to admit there is NO PLANE at the pentagon "crash" site.:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

EDIT:
Here maybe David was at the pentagon.:pac::pac::pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwOV8zVRczM

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea Crap, wake up, where's the 757?, look at the live clip, no need to rely on bad eyewitness accounts, now wouldn't it be easier for you to admit there is NO PLANE at the pentagon "crash" site.:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

EDIT:
Here maybe David was at the pentagon.:pac::pac::pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwOV8zVRczM

Im afraid I cant see your link. Work filters out youtube. ITS A CONSPIRACY, I tells ya.......

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

Im afraid I cant see your link. Work filters out youtube. ITS A CONSPIRACY, I tells ya.......

Yea well it will still be there later, but it's been there for 8 years and your still in fantasy land so I can't see you waking up anytime soon.

Since uprising is now banned for one week, I'm hoping this petty argument will end between you both, drkpower. You've dragged a squabble into two threads, basically destroying both. If, when uprising is unbanned, I see you two squabbling again, I'll ban you both indefinitely.

Podman

drkpower wrote: »

Oh I see....they had to hit the precise spot on the pentagon to hide cover up for the theft of money....... And I thought 9-11 was about an excuse for war.....or was that to allow the US to control its citizens....no, no ... it was for the NWO/worldwide government/lizards to control the citizens.... no, dont be silly, it was for dominance of middle eastern oil...

But to return to sanity for a moment; if precision was the reason they would use a missile rather than a plane, why use a missile? - thats hardly that precise; why not just plant a bomb - then you could be 100% effective.

Again, in answering the question I posed, you just come up with a more incredible soution!! I just dont see why you troofers cant just go with this theory - the US controlled AL Quaeda and paid them to do what they did - it is sooooo much easier, there is actually some credible evidence that you could use to support such a theory and it doesnt fly in the face of what evidence there is out there. Oh, and it avoids the need for making yourselves look really really dumb.

1. If your trying to run a war, you don't want money issues bugging you.. Two birds with one stone.
2. Well actually, Al Quaeda was set up and is run by the CIA.
3. The invasion is about oil, and heroin.
4. A cruise missile (AGM 86 for example) has on-board GPS, can fly for 600 nautical miles and is precise to within 2.5 meters of it's target, it's in the sales brochure.
5. Planting explosives for demolition would be in keeping with the 911 events, and would explain the collapse of that part of the building.

You keep referring to official evidence, but it's a bit watery to be honest. That's what made a lot of people suspicious in the first place.

I can just about tolerate the nonsensical and chaotic references to lizards, but I do wish you'd stop with the name calling.

PirateShampoo

So where is United Airlines Flight 93 that left Newark International Airport with 37 passangers onboard gone?

fontanalis

chompy wrote: »

1. If your trying to run a war, you don't want money issues bugging you.. Two birds with one stone.
2. Well actually, Al Quaeda was set up and is run by the CIA.
3. The invasion is about oil, and heroin.
4. A cruise missile (AGM 86 for example) has on-board GPS, can fly for 600 nautical miles and is precise to within 2.5 meters of it's target, it's in the sales brochure.
5. Planting explosives for demolition would be in keeping with the 911 events, and would explain the collapse of that part of the building.

You keep referring to official evidence, but it's a bit watery to be honest. That's what made a lot of people suspicious in the first place.

I can just about tolerate the nonsensical and chaotic references to lizards, but I do wish you'd stop with the name calling.

How cunning.

kryogen

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So where is United Airlines Flight 93 that left Newark International Airport with 37 passangers onboard gone?

you can follow their progress on Rte 2 on Thursday nights!

or on Sundays i think on sky 1

things are getting very strange there!

Podman

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So where is United Airlines Flight 93 that left Newark International Airport with 37 passangers onboard gone?

Good question..

There is one theory that it was shot down, but where is the wreckage?

Another more likely explanation is that it landed safely in Cleveland and was evacuated. http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm

Dulce still points out, that something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA and 612UA.

drkpower

chompy wrote: »

Good question..

There is one theory that it was shot down, but where is the wreckage?

Another more likely explanation is that it landed safely in Cleveland and was evacuated. http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm

Yes; they perpetrated a massive crime, covered it up (relatively) succesfully, but they put one of the supposedly destroyed plane back into service with the same serial number......:D

Immense FAILURE OF LOGIC!!!

Podman

drkpower wrote: »

Yes; they perpetrated a massive crime, covered it up (relatively) succesfully, but they put one of the supposedly destroyed plane back into service with the same serial number......:D

Immense FAILURE OF LOGIC!!!

I thought you might recognize that ......

UA 591 .... currently flying
Sky Harbor International Airport (Pheonix) to O'Hare International Airport (Chicago), Departs 12.02 pm, gate 5 (info)

UA 612 .... currently flying
Louis Armstrong International Airport (New Orleans) to O'Hare International Airport (Chicago), Departs 5.46 pm (info)

UA 77 .... currently flying
SFO International Airport (San Francisco) to Honolulu International Airport (Hawaii), departs 4.47 pm, gate 86 (info)

UA 11 .... currently flying
O'Hare International Airport (Chicago) to Logan International Airport (Boston), departs 5.39 pm, gate B19 (info)

drkpower

chompy wrote: »

I thought you might recognize that ......

UA 591 .... currently flying
Sky Harbor International Airport (Pheonix) to O'Hare International Airport (Chicago), Departs 12.02 pm, gate 5 (info)

UA 612 .... currently flying
Louis Armstrong International Airport (New Orleans) to O'Hare International Airport (Chicago), Departs 5.46 pm (info)

UA 77 .... currently flying
SFO International Airport (San Francisco) to Honolulu International Airport (Hawaii), departs 4.47 pm, gate 86 (info)

UA 11 .... currently flying
O'Hare International Airport (Chicago) to Logan International Airport (Boston), departs 5.39 pm, gate B19 (info)

Are you trying to sell me a flight or do those flight plans have anything to do with anything?

Captain Chaos

Those are only flight numbers, they get re-used every day. Its the airframe serial numbers you want to look into. They won't be still flying.

Podman

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Those are only flight numbers, they get re-used every day. Its the airframe serial numbers you want to look into. They won't be still flying.

you'll have to ask Dulce about that.

Steviemak

drkpower wrote: »

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'.....!

When it comes to the Pentagon on 9/11 the conspiracy theory is that a 757 hit it because there is absolutely no evidence. No video of low flying plane in a tourist city, no cctv as all confiscated, no wreckage, no fire damage, small hole etc etc.

The conspiracy in this case is that it was a plane cos i don't believe it. Use your eyes - don't believe everything that you are told.

drkpower

Steviemak wrote: »

When it comes to the Pentagon on 9/11 the conspiracy theory is that a 757 hit it because there is absolutely no evidence. No video of low flying plane in a tourist city, no cctv as all confiscated, no wreckage, no fire damage, small hole etc etc.

The conspiracy in this case is that it was a plane cos i don't believe it. Use your eyes - don't believe everything that you are told.

What about using your brain..... and if you do, you will realise that there is no reason to use a missile and pretend it was a plane, when it is clear that they used a plane elsewhere on that day.

Steviemak

drkpower wrote: »

What about using your brain..... and if you do, you will realise that there is no reason to use a missile and pretend it was a plane, when it is clear that they used a plane elsewhere on that day.

I'm actually not debating that. You are asking why "they" used a "missile". I never mentioned a missile. The official line states that a plane was used but i don't see it. I certainly don't have to explain why a missile was used. Used by who?? Who are "they"? The burden of proof is on those who say a plane hit it.

drkpower

Steviemak wrote: »

I'm actually not debating that. You are asking why "they" used a "missile". I never mentioned a missile. The official line states that a plane was used but i don't see it. I certainly don't have to explain why a missile was used. Used by who?? Who are "they"? The burden of proof is on those who say a plane hit it.

So what did the damage so?
As for the burden of proof, the only substantive investigation performed has found conclusively that a plane hit the pentagon, the passengers on that plane have been identified, parts of the plane have been identified, the alleged perpetrrators have been identified.....so, eh, yeah, the burden of proof is on you to disprove that......:rolleyes: