911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

drkpower

Steviemak wrote: »

Very little to go on there. People died in the Pentagon so bodies would be expected. I just don't see evidence to satisfy me that a 767 hit the ground floor of the pentagon without making a mark on the lawn from the angle it was supposed to hit.

So how do you explain all of the aircraft debris?
And how do you explain that DNA from the passengers was found at the pentagon?

drkpower

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the photos themselves, I think they are all legit, not tampered with. The thing is what you are being told of what your are looking at in the photos may not be accurate at all.

People took photos in Roswell, some said this is a UFO, others said no this is a weather balloon, crashed probe... whatever. All on the same pic. Its like asking someone to make pictures looking at the clouds as they pass by. They can be alot of things and different from one person to the next.

Are you suggestinng that the photo of landing gear is not landing gear?
That the photo of fuselage with markings that look like AA markings are not fuselage?

The photos are not that ambiguous.

kryogen

not after reading this thread, but ill give my thoughts

there is no way in high heaven that 747 hit the pentagon that day

that is all

enjoy the debate

Captain Chaos

kryogen wrote: »

not after reading this thread, but ill give my thoughts

there is no way in high heaven that 747 hit the pentagon that day

You're right it didn't, a 757 did according to the official story.:pac:

Captain Chaos

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggestinng that the photo of landing gear is not landing gear?
That the photo of fuselage with markings that look like AA markings are not fuselage?

They are those parts sure, but they could be from any crashed airliner in storage in NTSB hangers around the US. There is no way to dis prove that.

kryogen

Captain Chaos wrote: »

You're right it didn't, a 757 did according to the official story.:pac:

well played sir

you get what i meant though

bonkey

Steviemak wrote: »

All they have to do, ala NY, is release the video footage from the CCTV cameras in the local businesses. Job done. We've seen NY from every angle why not DC.

Which CCTV footage from businesses has not been released?

The CITCO gas station? Released.
The Doubletree hotel? Released.

Andrew33

Like seriously! who cares?

bonkey

Andrew33 wrote: »

Like seriously! who cares?

The people interested in discussing the topic, obviously.

If you're not one of them, then do them the courtesy of leaving them to have their discussion in peace.

MOH

odonnell wrote: »

6) coincidence - the alleged passenger plane just happened to hit the side of the pentagon which had recently been reinforced in solid concrete - 9 walls deep or so. Of a 6 sided building, its a 6:1 chance of hitting one of the non reinforced sides.

Um, what?

1. It's a pentagon. It's got 5 sides.
2. 1 reinforced side and four others, give a 4:1 chance ...
3. ... of hitting the reinforced side. The chances of hitting a non-reinforced side are 1:4

Steviemak

bonkey wrote: »

Which CCTV footage from businesses has not been released?

The CITCO gas station? Released.
The Doubletree hotel? Released.

Thanks Bonkey. Do you have a link to those videos? I'd love to see them as it would satisfy me that a plane did hit the pentagon and i can get on with more important things. All I can find is the few frames from the Pentagon security cameras which don't actually show a plane to my satisfaction.

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

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

taken completely out of context.listen to the entire broadcast.the snippet you posted is when he is asked to confirm whether or not the plane crashed just short of the pentagon and slid into the side of the building.

earlier in the broadcast he explains how he has seen large pieces of glass from the cockpit and other debris.

uprising2

seannash wrote: »

taken completely out of context.listen to the entire broadcast.the snippet you posted is when he is asked to confirm whether or not the plane crashed just short of the pentagon and slid into the side of the building.

earlier in the broadcast he explains how he has seen large pieces of glass from the cockpit and other debris.

He saw large pieces of glass from the cockpit?, the windscreen survived but the plane and engines disappeared, then he says "Donald Rumsfeld heard the crash and ran out of his office to help victims onto stretchers", FFS, he contradicts himself in his report.

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

He saw large pieces of glass from the cockpit?, the windscreen survived but the plane and engines disappeared, then he says "Donald Rumsfeld heard the crash and ran out of his office to help victims onto stretchers", FFS, he contradicts himself in his report.

thats not really why i was posting that.it was more the cocky way you threw out that clip as proof but you failed to take into account the whole story that was broadcast.


as for the other issues raised in that video theres no point in argueing with you on that because as frustrated as you feel argueing with people who arent aware of the truth(as you say) its equally frustrating for people to argue with you as you jump around from theory to theory without addressing the questions that are asked to you.


did the clip you posted about McIntyres report represent the full story like the clip i posted did.

aernt you in fact just twisting McIntyres live report to suit what your theory is on events,which is what you fight so very hard on here to show people how the mass media bend the truth.
seems a little ironic

argosy2006

uprising2

seannash wrote: »

thats not really why i was posting that.it was more the cocky way you threw out that clip as proof but you failed to take into account the whole story that was broadcast.


as for the other issues raised in that video theres no point in argueing with you on that because as frustrated as you feel argueing with people who arent aware of the truth(as you say) its equally frustrating for people to argue with you as you jump around from theory to theory without addressing the questions that are asked to you.


did the clip you posted about McIntyres report represent the full story like the clip i posted did.

aernt you in fact just twisting McIntyres live report to suit what your theory is on events,which is what you fight so very hard on here to show people how the mass media bend the truth.
seems a little ironic

Well he did say what he said, there wasn't really much plane to see, a few plants here and there but no plane, how can you come to the conclusion it was a plane, he says there was nothing but pieces you could pick up in your hand, so where is the plane?, david copperfield must have been just off camera.

I bent nothing, what I posted was the complete video on youtube, I didn't add to it or take away from it, I simply posted it, but still he didn't really see any solid evidence of a plane, so your the one twisting it, not me.

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

Well he did say what he said, there wasn't really much plane to see, a few plants here and there but no plane, how can you come to the conclusion it was a plane, he says there was nothing but pieces you could pick up in your hand, so where is the plane?, david copperfield must have been just off camera.

I bent nothing, what I posted was the complete video on youtube, I didn't add to it or take away from it, I simply posted it, but still he didn't really see any solid evidence of a plane, so your the one twisting it, not me.

Where you aware of the full video report when you posted the edited version?(simple yes or no will suffice)

now that you are aware of it do you still think the edited video was a fair representation of the full report by McIntyre?(again yes or no will suffice)

if yes why did you choose to ignore it.
If No can you now see how misleading your post is and how it discredits you.

im not asking you this to catch you out more so just to show you that people who are for these conspiracy theories can also have an agenda and will bend certain fact to suit there argument.

for your own info i actually believe something fishy is afoot in regards the 9/11 thing but not to the extent that you seem to believe.
i dont think your input ever helps any argument in thread such as these as you never answer the follow up questions asked by the sceptics.


also even if you were right about all your conspiracy theories how will affect you life for the better knowing all this truth.
i couldnt give a toss as long as it doesnt affect my day to day life.
What are you hoping will be the outcome if these things were proved true.
How will it benefit you in your day to day life?

Steviemak

Can somebody please point me to the videos of the plane hitting? Every video of the Pentagon impact i have been able to find on the net is planeless.

I understand from Bonkey that they released video tapes of the impact recorded by a local hotel and petrol station. Does anyone have a link? Thanks

uprising2

seannash wrote: »

Where you aware of the full video report when you posted the edited version?(simple yes or no will suffice)

now that you are aware of it do you still think the edited video was a fair representation of the full report by McIntyre?(again yes or no will suffice)

if yes why did you choose to ignore it.
If No can you now see how misleading your post is and how it discredits you.

im not asking you this to catch you out more so just to show you that people who are for these conspiracy theories can also have an agenda and will bend certain fact to suit there argument.

for your own info i actually believe something fishy is afoot in regards the 9/11 thing but not to the extent that you seem to believe.
i dont think your input ever helps any argument in thread such as these as you never answer the follow up questions asked by the sceptics.


also even if you were right about all your conspiracy theories how will affect you life for the better knowing all this truth.
i couldnt give a toss as long as it doesnt affect my day to day life.
What are you hoping will be the outcome if these things were proved true.
How will it benefit you in your day to day life?

No
Yes
No

If you couldn't give a toss why the fukk waste your time here asking me questions?

How will knowing the truth help me in my day to day life?
How will believing crap and living in denial help you in yours?

If theres anymore questions muddled up in there sort them out, but if you don't give a toss maybe don't come back posting, post on something that you actually have an interest in.

uprising2

Steviemak wrote: »

Can somebody please point me to the videos of the plane hitting? Every video of the Pentagon impact i have been able to find on the net is planeless.

I understand from Bonkey that they released video tapes of the impact recorded by a local hotel and petrol station. Does anyone have a link? Thanks

Bonkey must know where they are, I've never seen any video of a plane impacting anything at the pentagon, I can't wait to see them myself.

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

How will knowing the truth help me in my day to day life?
How will believing crap and living in denial help you in yours?

well thats kinda my point.it doesnt affect anything i do in my day to day life and either should knowing the "truth" be such a crusade for you if its of absolutely no benefit to you in your day to day life.

like i said if al this was to be proved true how would you benefit other than to turn around and tell people i told you so.
your circumstances wont change.either would mine.

cant you see that all this debate is totally pointless at this level?

Podman

You forgot to photoshop in a load of wreckage.

argosy2006 wrote: »

squod

chompy wrote: »

You forgot to photoshop in a load of wreckage.

meglome

This part of the 9/11 conspiracy is an interesting one. In that it's one of the easier things to prove within reason happened as the official report says. A big plane flew over a big city and hundreds of people saw it, it flew over a highway in rush-hour. I'm not seeing the mystery unless we accept a few out of context quotes and ignore everything else.

Ping Chow Chi

meglome wrote: »

I'm not seeing the mystery unless we accept a few out of context quotes and ignore everything else.

ahh but quotes taken out of context are all that is required as proof by some people

Podman

sbsquarepants

meglome wrote: »

This part of the 9/11 conspiracy is an interesting one. In that it's one of the easier things to prove within reason happened as the official report says. A big plane flew over a big city and hundreds of people saw it, it flew over a highway in rush-hour. I'm not seeing the mystery unless we accept a few out of context quotes and ignore everything else.

I don't believe it would be possible to take a p'iss on the pentagon fence without being caught on at least a dozen video cameras, but a commercial jet liner can fly straight into the building and we have to rely on word of mouth and crappy footage from a garage down the road to prove it!
It's the pentagon for god sake, nothing absolutely nothing, no matter how small goes unrecorded from every angle, there is most likely a satelite peering down on it 24/7 recording every second of every day.
Whatever hit this building, it certainly was not a jumbo jet!

Di0genes

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't believe it would be possible to take a p'iss on the pentagon fence without being caught on at least a dozen video cameras, but a commercial jet liner can fly straight into the building and we have to rely on word of mouth and crappy footage from a garage down the road to prove it!
It's the pentagon for god sake, nothing absolutely nothing, no matter how small goes unrecorded from every angle, there is most likely a satelite peering down on it 24/7 recording every second of every day.
Whatever hit this building, it certainly was not a jumbo jet!

The plane flew so low that it clipped light poles on an eight lane highway at rush hour on a Tuesday morning.

It was a plane.

TMoreno

Di0genes wrote: »

The plane flew so low that it clipped light poles on an eight lane highway at rush hour on a Tuesday morning.

It was a plane.

I think it was a drone. The damages don't match the size of a Boeing 757.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

The plane flew so low that it clipped light poles on an eight lane highway at rush hour on a Tuesday morning.

It was a plane.

And you have seen those poles right ?

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

And you have seen those poles right ?

Er yes





Like I said.



Thats the flight path of the plane, it was flying a few dozen feet above the ground, passing over an eight lane highway during rush hour.

Put simply if a jumbo jet flew over the red cow roundabout at that height at that time in the morning, people would have noticed it was a plane.

TalkieWalkie

That must be why there were no holes from the wings in the Pentagon, they were smashed off by the poles right ? :eek:

TalkieWalkie

911 Commissioner says missile hits the Pentagon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73psegkg69c

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That must be why there were no holes from the wings in the Pentagon, they were smashed off by the poles right ? :eek:

One wing clipped a generator outside the pentagon. And a plane's wings are essentially thing strips of metal filled with fuel. So they disintegrated.

As to your clip isn't it always amazing that the government lies to you, except when you find that it's telling the truth you want to hear :pac::cool::P:(:eek::p;):D:):P

In this instance he's describing the plane was turned into a missile by the terrorists. In the same way an orange is an orange unless it's thrown at someone then it becomes a projectile and an orange.

We'll just add the concepts of metaphors and simile to the list of things you seem to have trouble understanding.

Di0genes

TMoreno wrote: »

I think it was a drone. The damages don't match the size of a Boeing 757.

You understand the concept of size and scale right? The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world.



Thats a pretty big hole.

TalkieWalkie

Yeah, it doesnt have xtra large windows though. Before the roof and wall collapsed, the hole was small, you can see that in the pictures that I posted which you have obviously overlooked. Don't kid yourself. A plane did not make that little hole. Ask yourself, would a large plane make a hole that small ? even a plane without wings...

Take another look - then forget all the bullsh8t you been fed by the press :P


EDIT... Originally, the hole was no bigger than the fire truck

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

One wing clipped a generator outside the pentagon. And a plane's wings are essentially thing strips of metal filled with fuel. So they disintegrated.
.

Did the wings disintegrate prior to hitting the building ? coz they didn't seem to leave any marks :eek:

Would a large plane fit into this hole ?

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Would a large plane fit into this hole ?

Nope...but none of the official accounts claim that one did, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

TalkieWalkie

You really think that one of these..


made this hole ?


and didnt even knock down the "no parking" sign ?

tony 2 tone

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Would a large plane fit into this hole ?

What size is a 757 and what size is the hole?

TalkieWalkie

bonkey wrote: »

Nope...but none of the official accounts claim that one did, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I think we both know where this is leading bonkey

bonkey

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't believe it would be possible to take a p'iss on the pentagon fence without being caught on at least a dozen video cameras, but a commercial jet liner can fly straight into the building and we have to rely on word of mouth and crappy footage from a garage down the road to prove it!
It's the pentagon for god sake, nothing absolutely nothing, no matter how small goes unrecorded from every angle, there is most likely a satelite peering down on it 24/7 recording every second of every day.

You are, of course, entitled to believe (or not believe) whatever you like.

Evidence of these camera's existence, however, would go a long way to suggesting that there is a reason to believe they might have caught the plane (or not, if you're so inclined).

In the almost-9 years since the event, no-one's been able to find any such evidence.

TalkieWalkie

tony 2 tone wrote: »

What size is a 757 and what size is the hole?

About this size



and this size

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

About this size



and this size

That'd be the exit hole on the far side of the building.

Pity there isn't a facepalm smilie on this forum.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

That'd be the exit hole on the far side of the building.

Pity there isn't a facepalm smilie on this forum.

Ok, im reverting back to the 911 plane remote controlled idea

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok, im reverting back to the 911 plane remote controlled idea

Except the y'know phone calls, and that a 747 doesn't have fly by wire capability.

Other than that your theory is about as solid as the other one you quickly dropped.:cool::pac::cool::rolleyes::D;):p:o:

TMoreno

Di0genes wrote: »

Except the y'know phone calls, and that a 747 doesn't have fly by wire capability.

Other than that your theory is about as solid as the other one you quickly dropped.:cool::pac::cool::rolleyes::D;):p:o:

Show us the pictures of the plane crashing into the Pentagon if they exist.
The hole and the damages have been done by a cruise missile or a drone.

Di0genes

TMoreno wrote: »

Show us the pictures of the plane crashing into the Pentagon if they exist.

Security footage has been released.

The hole and the damages have been done by a cruise missile or a drone.

Evidence

TMoreno

Di0genes wrote: »

Security footage has been released.



Evidence

Not true. There is no single picture of a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Di0genes

TMoreno wrote: »

Not true. There is no single picture of a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Om9_Lbco6A