FOXNEWS: 9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!

TMoreno

It's official:
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12846&title=9-11-report-is-a-cover-up-from-start-to-finish
Now that "TV says so" do you still believe the official story?
Make no mistake, FOX NEWS can't say the truth: 9/11 was a Zionist Inside Job, they just can't hide the facts anymore. However we are moving in the right direction:).

longshanks

TV also says ' it could be you' but I've never won the lotto. Something dodgy there....

meglome

It's funny that we're listening to Fox news.

gizmo

I lost interest after "FOXNEWS".

I rolled my eyes after "Zionist Inside Job".

:rolleyes:

meglome wrote: »

It's funny that we're listening to Fox news.

I'd consider it more tragic tbh.

Boo Radley

Forgetting for a second that this is Fox News - an infamous scaremongering, propaganda machine - all that is being said here is that there was incompetence of the highest order before 9/11 which lead to the events of that day. All people involved in the report, according to these interviews, went out of their way to ensure that failings in communication and the like were not disclosed to the public in full. Thus covering their arses.

If all of that is true it only supports that there was no CT to make 9/11 happen but perhaps there is a CT to prevent the public finding out exactly who failed to protect them through incompetence.

This actually discredits the 9/11 CTs often preached on this forum.

TMoreno

Boo Radley wrote: »

Forgetting for a second that this is Fox News - an infamous scaremongering, propaganda machine - all that is being said here is that there was incompetence of the highest order before 9/11 which lead to the events of that day. All people involved in the report, according to these interviews, went out of their way to ensure that failings in communication and the like were not disclosed to the public in full. Thus covering their arses.

If all of that is true it only supports that there was no CT to make 9/11 happen but perhaps there is a CT to prevent the public finding out exactly who failed to protect them through incompetence.

This actually discredits the 9/11 CTs often preached on this forum.

No. It discredits the people who say that the 9/11 official report is true.
I think this is an attempt to divert the attention about the real questions: Building 7, what did hit the Pentagon, what were those Mossad agents arrested during 9/11 were doing etc...

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

Forgetting for a second that this is Fox News - an infamous scaremongering, propaganda machine - all that is being said here is that there was incompetence of the highest order before 9/11 which lead to the events of that day. All people involved in the report, according to these interviews, went out of their way to ensure that failings in communication and the like were not disclosed to the public in full. Thus covering their arses.

If all of that is true it only supports that there was no CT to make 9/11 happen but perhaps there is a CT to prevent the public finding out exactly who failed to protect them through incompetence.

This actually discredits the 9/11 CTs often preached on this forum.

The bit in bold you haven't provided any reason at all why this is the case; just danced around the subject.

So how does a coverup and lies support the fact that there isn't a coverup?

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The bit in bold you haven't provided any reason at all why this is the case; just danced around the subject.

So how does a coverup and lies support the fact that there isn't a coverup?

Apparently you didn't read the bit where I pointed out that the video suggests they were covering up the fact that communication failings were what lead to 9/11 and not a massive conspiracy by the government.

If there was a massive government agenda to make 9/11 happen wouldn't they just use incompetence between agencies as the perfect excuse? That is what the video here suggests is being covered up, incompetence.

So to answer your question if people are lieing and covering up information that highlights failings in agencies with regard competence and communication it only supports that there were these failings and that they were ultimately responsible for the events. So one kind of cover up can in fact help debunk another kind of cover up.

TMoreno

Boo Radley wrote: »

Apparently you didn't read the bit where I pointed out that the video suggests they were covering up the fact that communication failings were what lead to 9/11 and not a massive conspiracy by the government.

If there was a massive government agenda to make 9/11 happen wouldn't they just use incompetence between agencies as the perfect excuse? That is what the video here suggests is being covered up, incompetence.

So to answer your question if people are lieing and covering up information that highlights failings in agencies with regard competence and communication it only supports that there were these failings and that they were ultimately responsible for the events. So one kind of cover up can in fact help debunk another kind of cover up.

They did use incompetence as an excuse. Like for the non existing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They said they had bad intelligence. We could also suggest that they lied. They can't use the same excuse all the time. They get away it with too easily and too many people die because of that:mad:

Black Swan

The GW Bush administration was the ultimate in "incompetence" that led America into the worst recession since the Great Depression; so what else is new? Further, Fox News is known to be biased in its reporting, primarily interested in providing entertainment for its dedicated viewers, which in turn impacts on ratings and advertising revenue; not a credible news source for 9/11.

Boo Radley

TMoreno wrote: »

They did use incompetence as an excuse. Like for the non existing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They said they had bad intelligence. We could also suggest that they lied. They can't use the same excuse all the time. They get away it with too easily and too many people die because of that:mad:

Agreed on the Iraq point, but all the OP video does is show that there was possibly even more incompetence in agencies than was included in the report. That’s assuming the video is accurate of course, which is debatable considering that it was put out by Fox who often misquote and put incredible spin on things.

If the information in the video is accurate there would be a legitimate call for a new independent inquiry into what degree of incompetence there was, and what agencies were responsible. This video does nothing to further the CT that 9/11 was an inside job.

fontanalis

Oh my god, I odn't believe it. Fox has a news station.
Anyway aren't they the main stream media?

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

Apparently you didn't read the bit where I pointed out that the video suggests they were covering up the fact that communication failings were what lead to 9/11 and not a massive conspiracy by the government.

If there was a massive government agenda to make 9/11 happen wouldn't they just use incompetence between agencies as the perfect excuse? That is what the video here suggests is being covered up, incompetence.

So to answer your question if people are lieing and covering up information that highlights failings in agencies with regard competence and communication it only supports that there were these failings and that they were ultimately responsible for the events. So one kind of cover up can in fact help debunk another kind of cover up.

Your not making any sense.

Lies and coverup = no coverup

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your not making any sense.

Lies and coverup = no coverup

That looks like an old Fox news trick right there. I didn't say that lies and a cover up = no cover up. I said that one type of cover up can disprove a theory of a different cover up by default. Really, it isn't that confusing.

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

That looks like an old Fox news trick right there. I didn't say that lies and a cover up = no cover up. I said that one type of cover up can disprove a theory of a different cover up by default. Really, it isn't that confusing.

"can" or does?

And how?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I swear. I just don't understand you.

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"can" or does?

And how?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I swear. I just don't understand you.

Okay, maybe I wasn't articulating myself well (not being sarcastic).

So, here's how I see it. The 9/11 CT has it that the report is completely fabricated etc. because the shadowy figures in the government colluded to cause the attacks on NY and pentagon etc. The report in this case is supposed to cover up this master plan.

So, along comes another CT as highlighted in the OP. This says the authors of the report covered up the extent to which the agencies involved messed up, were incompetent and how badly they communicated. This is a very different cover up to that proposed by the first CT above.

If the second CT cover up is true, it would discredit the first CT cover up because it would prove that in fact the events of 9/11 were caused by incompetence - since the degree of incompetence is what is being covered up - among agencies and NOT caused by people colluding to create the attack.

Therefore, a cover up (the second) CAN disprove another cover up theory (the first).

TMoreno

meglome wrote: »

It's funny that we're listening to Fox news.

Foxnews has been against the Truth movement from the beginning. Now they say 9/11 report was a cover up. Don't you find this interesting? The so called debunkers should be more humble. They only rely on Jewish main stream media before believing anything. TV tell them that the offical story is a pack of lies and yet they still claim that the official story is true. That is denial:mad:.

gizmo

TMoreno wrote: »

Foxnews has been against the Truth movement from the beginning. Now they say 9/11 report was a cover up. Don't you find this interesting? The so called debunkers should be more humble. They only rely on Jewish main stream media before believing anything. TV tell them that the offical story is a pack of lies and yet they still claim that the official story is true. That is denial:mad:.

So we're not meant to believe TV when it gives the "official" report on 9/11 but we are meant to listen to it when it says it was a cover-up? Did Fox News suddenly grow a conscience that I'm not aware of or maybe, just maybe, they're using a sensationalist story to get more viewers?

uprising2

I didn't see this video till now, explosive admissions.

Do any of the people who STILL believe the commission report is truth ever think why so many AMERICAN'S are speaking out, these aren't people on a street in the middle east somewhere, saying some disturbing things about their own countrymen, leaders, rulers etc, what would they get from lying.
I wonder how the other whitewash in london will go, thats another thread.........

U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, "Everybody on the 9/11 Commission was covering for someone".

Former CIA Intelligence Officer Michael F. Scheuer, "It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUiBOGOs2Nc

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=anthony_shaffer

Barnacles

In fairness and with respect, It was FOX who were first to scream "this is definitely a concerted terrorist attack" !!
People who are skeptical of the 911 truth movement have stuck to to that for 10 years.
Now FOX are suggesting that their previous statement (above) might not be entirely true... And those who were previously skeptic of anything other than FOX, are now skeptical of only FOX.

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

I didn't see this video till now, explosive admissions.

Do any of the people who STILL believe the commission report is truth ever think why so many AMERICAN'S are speaking out, these aren't people on a street in the middle east somewhere, saying some disturbing things about their own countrymen, leaders, rulers etc, what would they get from lying.
I wonder how the other whitewash in london will go, thats another thread.........[

U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, "Everybody on the 9/11 Commission was covering for someone".

Former CIA Intelligence Officer Michael F. Scheuer, "It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom".

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=anthony_shaffer

See I think Boo Radley hits the nail on the head here

Boo Radley wrote: »

Okay, maybe I wasn't articulating myself well (not being sarcastic).

So, here's how I see it. The 9/11 CT has it that the report is completely fabricated etc. because the shadowy figures in the government colluded to cause the attacks on NY and pentagon etc. The report in this case is supposed to cover up this master plan.

So, along comes another CT as highlighted in the OP. This says the authors of the report covered up the extent to which the agencies involved messed up, were incompetent and how badly they communicated. This is a very different cover up to that proposed by the first CT above.

If the second CT cover up is true, it would discredit the first CT cover up because it would prove that in fact the events of 9/11 were caused by incompetence - since the degree of incompetence is what is being covered up - among agencies and NOT caused by people colluding to create the attack.

Therefore, a cover up (the second) CAN disprove another cover up theory (the first).

You'll probably recall that most of us 'debunkers' have said all along that it's possible (and probably likely) that individuals in the US were covering up incompetence and ineptitude, i.e. covering their asses. The report suggests this is exactly what they did. It's one thing covering your ass so you don't look stupid and quite another to cover up the mass murder of your own people.

Athlone_Bhoy

Do people actually still believe this wasn't an inside job?

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Do people actually still believe this wasn't an inside job?

Yup or at least I've seen no evidence for it. Why do you think it was an inside job?

K-9

gizmo wrote: »

So we're not meant to believe TV when it gives the "official" report on 9/11 but we are meant to listen to it when it says it was a cover-up? Did Fox News suddenly grow a conscience that I'm not aware of or maybe, just maybe, they're using a sensationalist story to get more viewers?

Blaming big Government is the in thing on Fox at the minute. Even though they supported that particular big Government, maybe it's a subliminal thing?

gizmo

K-9 wrote: »

Blaming big Government is the in thing on Fox at the minute. Even though they supported that particular big Government, maybe it's a subliminal thing?

Or maybe they realise that the Republican party, despite threatening the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and Senate, still don't have a credibly Presidential candidate and that those politicians who are leading the charge on the above two houses are complete fruit and nuts? :pac:

--Kaiser--

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Do people actually still believe this wasn't an inside job?

I think you'll find that most rational thinking people have no reason to believe it's an inside job. People that are easily influenced by poor, unsubstantiated arguments and grainy Youtube videos are another story.

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think you'll find that most rational thinking people have no reason to believe it's an inside job. People that are easily influenced by poor, unsubstantiated arguments and grainy Youtube videos are another story.

:pac:

Think your in the wrong forum mate - Sleeping and Dreaming is here '
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=827

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac:

Think your in the wrong forum mate - Sleeping and Dreaming is here '
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=827

Wrong forum for rational arguments

Well, forgive my insolence so far in the last two days I've read posts by people saying;
i) The Holocaust was a hoax.
ii) No planes hit the WTC.
iii) US Government masterminded 9/11.
iv) Chilean miner story was a hoax.

Athlone_Bhoy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think you'll find that most rational thinking people have no reason to believe it's an inside job. People that are easily influenced by poor, unsubstantiated arguments and grainy Youtube videos are another story.

So why did the CIA meet Bin Laden in Dubai hospital weeks before the attack? You might not find out about it but I seen the doctor who was treating Bin Laden and he swore they did meet him.

How many cameras does the Pentagon have outside? Why is it they never showed the video of the plane hitting straight away. I think they released some type of video which I'm sure you'll admit looks nothing like a plane.

I'm not saying the US government were behind it but they certainly could have stopped it. Bin Laden determined to attack USA using planes ring any bells?

A terrorist attack happened that day but it was by state terrorism. The people in the US deserve to know the truth. You tell a lie long enough you'll convince yourself that it's real.

I'd rather watch youtube any day than Fox news that's for sure.

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So why did the CIA meet Bin Laden in Dubai hospital weeks before the attack? You might not find out about it but I seen the doctor who was treating Bin Laden and he swore they did meet him.

Did they? Because I met the doctor and he told me it was all a lie. See how this doesn't really constitute evidence?

How many cameras does the Pentagon have outside? Why is it they never showed the video of the plane hitting straight away. I think they released some type of video which I'm sure you'll admit looks nothing like a plane.

They've plenty of cameras looking at the ground and the building. They don't have cameras looking up at the skies. There doesn't seem to be any point since it's beside an airport.

And why wouldn't they use a plane? Do you not realise it's easier to rig a plane so that it can be remotely controlled and all communication blocked, than it would be to hijack a plane, land it, kill the passengers, launch a missile, have it hit the pentagon, pay hundreds of people to say it was a plane, plant plane parts int he area and sneak some of the passenger remains into the crash site? Does it honestly sound like a likely explanation?

I'm not saying the US government were behind it but they certainly could have stopped it. Bin Laden determined to attack USA using planes ring any bells?

How many planes travel around america each day? How many likely targets could there be? How many times a day does the US recieve some sort of threat? Nothing like 9/11 had happened before, so it's hardly surprising that no one expected it to happen like that.

A terrorist attack happened that day but it was by state terrorism. The people in the US deserve to know the truth. You tell a lie long enough you'll convince yourself that it's real.

Thought you weren't saying the US government were behind it?

I'd rather watch youtube any day than Fox news that's for sure.

You'd be a fool to blindly believe either, tbh.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

They've plenty of cameras looking at the ground and the building. They don't have cameras looking up at the skies. There doesn't seem to be any point since it's beside an airport.

There really was a point on 9/11 though. The Pentagon was hit 90 mins after the twin towers. There was a real possibility that there was more hijacked planes in the air at the time and the Pentagon was an obvious target. In fact Cheney had foreknowldge that the Pentagon was to be hit according to then Transport Secretary Norman Minetta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

If I'm not mistaken the plane was cutting daisies on the Pentagon lawn before it hit. How did all the cameras miss this?

Athlone_Bhoy

humanji wrote: »

Did they? Because I met the doctor and he told me it was all a lie. See how this doesn't really constitute evidence?

And what is proof they didn't do it? Oh Bin laden on tape talking about that were in fact fake. Look up CIA faking Bin laden tape, hell it's even on Ron Paul's website look it up.

humanji wrote: »

They've plenty of cameras looking at the ground and the building. They don't have cameras looking up at the skies. There doesn't seem to be any point since it's beside an airport.

That's right because the plane came down from the skies straight down into the center on the Pentagon, oh no hold on didn't it hit the side of the building?

humanji wrote: »

And why wouldn't they use a plane? Do you not realise it's easier to rig a plane so that it can be remotely controlled and all communication blocked, than it would be to hijack a plane, land it, kill the passengers, launch a missile, have it hit the pentagon, pay hundreds of people to say it was a plane, plant plane parts int he area and sneak some of the passenger remains into the crash site? Does it honestly sound like a likely explanation?

Hundreds of people to say it was a plane? I'd like to see some proof of that if you don't mind.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/51339/9_11_New_3D_Analysis/

humanji wrote: »

How many planes travel around america each day? How many likely targets could there be? How many times a day does the US recieve some sort of threat? Nothing like 9/11 had happened before, so it's hardly surprising that no one expected it to happen like that.

Do they get threats from Russia saying an attack was about to happen hell even France told them something was coming up and on that day there was an exercise with no jets around whatsoever to do anything. How can a plane crash in a field (the plane the passengers were said to over power the hijackers) and there be nothing left of the plane? Just a hole in the ground the engines and all the rest magically vanished.

humanji wrote: »

Thought you weren't saying the US government were behind it?

You'd be a fool to blindly believe either, tbh.

They certainly knew it was gonna happen.

Let's say it was the planes and all the rest can someone please explain how a building think it's called number 7 something like that which wasn't hit by anything can fall down the exact way the twin towers fell?

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

And what is proof they didn't do it? Oh Bin laden on tape talking about that were in fact fake. Look up CIA faking Bin laden tape, hell it's even on Ron Paul's website look it up.

Hearsay and conjecture? Hardly conclusive, is it?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

That's right because the plane came down from the skies straight down into the center on the Pentagon, oh no hold on didn't it hit the side of the building?

So do you want to show me a diagram of the Pentagon and the surrounding are that highlights all the cameras and where they were pointing?

How many fixed cameras were pointing at the Twin Towers? That's actually a genuine question, I honestly don't think I've ever seen anything other than hand held camera shots of it.

Anyway, security cameras point at a building, at points that need observing. They're's littls reason to have them pointing at an area that doesn't exactly give access to the main building and that's patrolled by guards.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Hundreds of people to say it was a plane? I'd like to see some proof of that if you don't mind.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/51339/9_11_New_3D_Analysis/

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

And that's a conspiracy site.

So do you honestly think that it's plausible that it wasn't a plane? What do you think happened the real plane and the passengers? Do you think real planes hit the WTC? If so, why use planes there and not at the Pentagon? Why risk it all on something so convoluted that Wile E. Coyote would have nothing to do with it?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Do they get threats from Russia saying an attack was about to happen hell even France told them something was coming up and on that day there was an exercise with no jets around whatsoever to do anything.

They get many threats all the time. They weren't even positive that there was going to be an attack there and the general assumption was that it would be an attack on US interests abroad or something similar to the attempted bombing of the G8 Summit the previous July. They are not all-knowing. The US is a big place and without knowing the exact details, they can't be expected to stop any event that might happen around the globe.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

How can a plane crash in a field (the plane the passengers were said to over power the hijackers) and there be nothing left of the plane? Just a hole in the ground the engines and all the rest magically vanished.

Are you saying there was no plane? Or that it was shot down? Because personally speaking, I wouldn't be surprised if it was shot down after the three other planes hit, but that the media was told of the heroic fight to take over the plane by the passengers, as it is better for the families to hear and it would paint the US airforce in a bad light. Although I'm not saying that that is 100% what happened.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

They certainly knew it was gonna happen.

They were told that there was a possible attack being organised.

Athlone_Bhoy

I see I'm in CT. I take this is just your opinion?

Divorce Referendum

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

I see I'm in CT. I take this is just your opinion?

We can say for certain that all of your posts are just opinion/hearsay.

Athlone_Bhoy

Your honestly trying to cliam the pentagon probably one of the most guarded places in the world didn't catch the attack on tape? What about the video they released which clearly showed a plane in one frame then just a big explosion. What about the other pictures where they said the camera picked up nothing these cameras are some of the best in the world yet they couldn't pick it up. A gas station right across from the pentagon had it's video taken by the government 5 mins after the attack all of whom say there was no plane. Why won't they release I think it's 70 videos they're keeping secret.

You said how many cameras seen the attack on twin towers. So your saying it may not have even infact been a plane?

Of course it was shot down like I said where was the plane? How can you justify telling the families something else I would want the truth! If they can cover up the shooting of the plane do you not think it's possible they're lying about more stuff?

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Your honestly trying to cliam the pentagon probably one of the most guarded places in the world didn't catch the attack on tape? What about the video they released which clearly showed a plane in one frame then just a big explosion. What about the other pictures where they said the camera picked up nothing these cameras are some of the best in the world yet they couldn't pick it up. A gas station right across from the pentagon had it's video taken by the government 5 mins after the attack all of whom say there was no plane. Why won't they release I think it's 70 videos they're keeping secret.

Firstly, the Pentagon is an office block owned byt the US military. It isn't that important a building. The military has bunkers around the US where all the real work is done. It is not one of the most guarded buildings in the world and I'd doubt it'd even be in the top 1000. What it is is a symbol of the US military and so it is perfect for a symbolic attack, as was the WTC.

Secondly, the cameras are just cameras. They're nothing special. And how many were pointed at that wall? Do you know, or are you just assuming there must be loads of them?

And I've no idea why they don't release the other videos. But if they were clever enough to fly a missile into the side of the building, would you not think they'd have had a better solution to stopping footage from being leaked than to going around to every singly person who might have gotten some and hoped that they'd all hand it over? Would they really leave that to chance?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

You said how many cameras seen the attack on twin towers. So your saying it may not have even infact been a plane?

What? I asked if you think planes hit the WTC.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Of course it was shot down like I said where was the plane? How can you justify telling the families something else I would want the truth! If they can cover up the shooting of the plane do you not think it's possible they're lying about more stuff?

You'd tell the families that their loved one died cowering in their seats while the airforce shot them down? That's pretty heartless. It's better for them to believe their loved ones died as heroes trying to stop the hijackers.

And since there's no proof that the plane was actually shot down then then there's no way to know if there's a coverup.

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Your honestly trying to cliam the pentagon probably one of the most guarded places in the world didn't catch the attack on tape?

What has guarded got to with video? Is there a rule that says you have to have a lot of both? Though you seem to have some difficulty understanding that most cameras point at the ground and never up into the air.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

What about the video they released which clearly showed a plane in one frame then just a big explosion.

I'd guess because the plane flew in front of the gate camera that was pointed at gate level and not at the ground.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

What about the other pictures where they said the camera picked up nothing these cameras are some of the best in the world yet they couldn't pick it up. A gas station right across from the pentagon had it's video taken by the government 5 mins after the attack all of whom say there was no plane. Why won't they release I think it's 70 videos they're keeping secret.

Yes all those cameras that were pointing at the ground and wouldn't show anything. And where are you getting best in the world from?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

You said how many cameras seen the attack on twin towers. So your saying it may not have even infact been a plane?

Huh?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Of course it was shot down like I said where was the plane? How can you justify telling the families something else I would want the truth! If they can cover up the shooting of the plane do you not think it's possible they're lying about more stuff?

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several other plane crashes that look similar. The one at the pentagon was smashed into the building and burned. I fail to see the mystery.

Athlone_Bhoy

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several other plane crashes that look similar. The one at the pentagon was smashed into the building and burned. I fail to see the mystery

So one plane crashed in field. Passengers took control and gave their lives to save others? Seems like to tell doesn't it rather than we shot you down.

One at the Pentagon crashed into it and then caught on fire and it burn the plane quicker than anything would in the world. I guess your going to say it was so hot the engines burned because of the heat? After all isn't that what brought the twin towers down? :rolleyes:

Yes all those cameras that were pointing at the ground and wouldn't show anything. And where are you getting best in the world from?

Pointing at the ground? What were they doing looking for ants? Well I doubt they bought them down in argos.

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several other plane crashes that look similar. The one at the pentagon was smashed into the building and burned. I fail to see the mystery.

Where did the engines go? Where's their bodies? Look at link below

You'd tell the families that their loved one died cowering in their seats while the airforce shot them down? That's pretty heartless. It's better for them to believe their loved ones died as heroes trying to stop the hijackers.

Oh come on don't have to put it like that. How is better? I think it's heartless telling people lies.

And since there's no proof that the plane was actually shot down then then there's no way to know if there's a coverup.

Ok so the plane crashed into a field

Don't know about you but that doesn't exactly look like a plane crash to me!

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

What has guarded got to with video? Is there a rule that says you have to have a lot of both?

What kind of a question is that?

1. Cameras are also there to watch the guards
2. I think it would much better serve the "debunkers" if they didn't argue against their own common sense. It's the Pentagon ffs and you somehow believe that it is reasonable that they couldn't catch a ****ing passenger jet crashing into the side of it?

meglome wrote: »

Though you seem to have some difficulty understanding that most cameras point at the ground and never up into the air.

And you seem to have some difficulty understanding that the crash site was essentially at ground level. It's not as if the plane travelled from "up in the air" to the crash site faster than the speed of light is it?

meglome wrote: »

The one in the field was embedded into the ground as you would expect. Maybe you should look at some info not on CT sites and you'll see several

And again with the strawman argument. You have no idea if he gets his "info" from "CT sites" or otherwise do you? So why make such a claim?

Athlone_Bhoy

It's the Pentagon ffs and you somehow believe that it is reasonable that they couldn't catch a ****ing passenger jet crashing into the side of it?

Some seem to think it's a chipper with one camera at entrance door facing down.

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world, I think it also has more security cameras than any other building in the world although I think it's top secret exactly how many they have.

And I've no idea why they don't release the other videos. But if they were clever enough to fly a missile into the side of the building, would you not think they'd have had a better solution to stopping footage from being leaked than to going around to every singly person who might have gotten some and hoped that they'd all hand it over? Would they really leave that to chance?

They got all videos within minutes. There's a garage across from the Pentagon it clearly would have showed the crash yet the pentagon wont release it.

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So one plane crashed in field. Passengers took control and gave their lives to save others? Seems like to tell doesn't it rather than we shot you down.

One at the Pentagon crashed into it and then caught on fire and it burn the plane quicker than anything would in the world. I guess your going to say it was so hot the engines burned because of the heat? After all isn't that what brought the twin towers down? :rolleyes:

Air France crash in Toronto a few years ago. Plane slid into a gully after overrunning the runway, all the passengers and crew got off. Fire crews were there in 10 minutes and most of it is gone. I can show you more examples if you like. So as a fact we can now tell the small pieces left at the Pentagon would not be unusual given the circumstances.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Pointing at the ground? What were they doing looking for ants? Well I doubt they bought them down in argos.

Walk outside now and get me a picture of a working camera that isn't pointing towards the ground. I'm not saying they are focusing at the pebbles on the ground but they will be pointing down.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Where did the engines go? Where's their bodies? Look at link below

They found bodies and engine parts. Look through this link http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Ok so the plane crashed into a field

Don't know about you but that doesn't exactly look like a plane crash to me!

Course showing the picture that looks least like a plane crash would explain that. There are plenty of other plane crashes you could compare too if you choose.

http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/P200059_1.jpg

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What kind of a question is that?

1. Cameras are also there to watch the guards
2. I think it would much better serve the "debunkers" if they didn't argue against their own common sense. It's the Pentagon ffs and you somehow believe that it is reasonable that they couldn't catch a ****ing passenger jet crashing into the side of it?

1. By that logic every military installation in America is absolutely covered in cameras, which they are not. I'd contend when you have armed military guards you need way less cameras.
2. Yes i think it's reasonable. The pentagon is right next to a large international airport. How the fukk could they protect it from planes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Pentagon,&sll=38.861565,-77.044373&sspn=0.043642,0.074673&ie=UTF8&t=k&radius=2.41&split=1&rq=1&ev=p&hq=Pentagon,&hnear=&ll=38.857823,-77.048149&spn=0.043243,0.053129&z=14

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you seem to have some difficulty understanding that the crash site was essentially at ground level. It's not as if the plane travelled from "up in the air" to the crash site faster than the speed of light is it?

Yup the plane hit at the ground and first floor levels, no question. But it didn't approach at that height. It came down, no mystery.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And again with the strawman argument. You have no idea if he gets his "info" from "CT sites" or otherwise do you? So why make such a claim?

I don't know where he gets his info from. But he's stating things as fact which can be easily shown not to be fact. It's only CT sites that have this very selective overview of events.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Some seem to think it's a chipper with one camera at entrance door facing down.

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world, I think it also has more security cameras than any other building in the world although I think it's top secret exactly how many they have.

I've seen pictures of a small number of cameras, even now ten years after the attack. Should be easy to show more if they were actually there. So feel free to show us.

As has been pointed out to you already it's an office building next to an international airport. One of the two runways points directly at it. Unless you close the airport or move the building it could never be as secure as you imagine.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

They got all videos within minutes. There's a garage across from the Pentagon it clearly would have showed the crash yet the pentagon wont release it.

I've seen pictures of the cameras at the service station and one of the hotels. And sure enough they point down and would not have seen the plane as far as I can see.

Dark_by_Dezign

Not official till its on RTE news

meglome

Dark_by_Dezign wrote: »

Not official till its on RTE news

They definitely mentioned 911 on the RTE news so it must have happened.

zuroph

fox (contradiction) news.

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Oh come on don't have to put it like that. How is better? I think it's heartless telling people lies.

Think about someone you love dying in some sort of incident. Would it be a better thought for you that they died fighting, or that they died cowering in fear? Seriously, would you honestly like to think of loved ones crying in terror?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Ok so the plane crashed into a field

Don't know about you but that doesn't exactly look like a plane crash to me!

In fairness, that's hardly a good photo of the area. And neither of us are air crash investigators, so it's only opinion. It's still not evidence of anything.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

It's one of the most guarded buildings in the world, I think it also has more security cameras than any other building in the world although I think it's top secret exactly how many they have.

It's an office block and little else. Before 9/11 you could even get tours of it. It was by no means one of the most guarded buildings in the world.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

They got all videos within minutes. There's a garage across from the Pentagon it clearly would have showed the crash yet the pentagon wont release it.

And what if they didn't get them all? Pretty much everyone has a camera phone these days. There was a news station across the road. Why would they just cross their fingers and hope they got everything?

And again, if they can fly two planes into the WTC, why would they decide to not do it to the Pentagon? It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Athlone_Bhoy

humanji wrote: »

Think about someone you love dying in some sort of incident. Would it be a better thought for you that they died fighting, or that they died cowering in fear? Seriously, would you honestly like to think of loved ones crying in terror? .

Like I said I'd want the truth.

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, that's hardly a good photo of the area. And neither of us are air crash investigators, so it's only opinion. It's still not evidence of anything..

So plane engines can vanish? If the plane was to crash there would be parts of the plane everywhere.

humanji wrote: »

It's an office block and little else. Before 9/11 you could even get tours of it. It was by no means one of the most guarded buildings in the world.

Just an office block? It's the Department of Defense headquarters!! You seem to think anyone can come and go as they please.

humanji wrote: »

And what if they didn't get them all? Pretty much everyone has a camera phone these days. There was a news station across the road. Why would they just cross their fingers and hope they got everything?.

Exactly everyone these days has some type of camera so why is there no video of a plane going into the Pentagon?

humanji wrote: »

And again, if they can fly two planes into the WTC, why would they decide to not do it to the Pentagon? It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

So some guys with little experience with planes can basically land a plane keep it going then go straight into the Pentagon.

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Like I said I'd want the truth.

That's pretty heartless though. How they spent their dying minutes is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Making the families feel a little less bad about the situation is the more humane option.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So plane engines can vanish? If the plane was to crash there would be parts of the plane everywhere.

Like I said before, I'd be more inclined to believe that it was shot down. But the total lack of evidence would mean that it's still just conjecture.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Just an office block? It's the Department of Defense headquarters!! You seem to think anyone can come and go as they please.

But it's just an office block. It's where the paper work gets done. And it's not the most secure place in the world, considering the large amount of civilians that move in and out of there every day.

Take a trip over there and have a look around and you'll see what I mean.

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Exactly everyone these days has some type of camera so why is there no video of a plane going into the Pentagon?

Maybe there was none taken because people were shocked at seeing a plane hit a building? You do also realise there's no footage of a missile hitting the building? Doesn't that prove that it wasn't a missile?

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So some guys with little experience with planes can basically land a plane keep it going then go straight into the Pentagon.

That's much more plausible that the bizarrely convulted scheme involving hijacking a plane then making it disappear and then launching a missile with no one seeing it etc etc.

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So plane engines can vanish? If the plane was to crash there would be parts of the plane everywhere.

Since you didn't answer me at here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68544766&postcount=42. I'll just show you this. This the only footage I've ever seen of a plane crashing into reinforced concrete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

Only little scraps left, just like the pentagon... weird that.

Would you like me to show you pictures of other plane crashes that look very like the flight 93 one? Since you find it so hard to believe.

Maybe you and BB would address how the Pentagon can be so well protected right next to an International Airport and right in line with one of the two runways.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

1. That plane is tiny
2. There is no pictures at all of whatever wreckage was left
3. And most importantly that is quite clearly a plane. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. That plane is tiny
2. There is no pictures at all of whatever wreckage was left
3. And most importantly that is quite clearly a plane. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon

Ah cmon now.

Show me a video of a missile hitting the pentagon.
So the announcer is lying when she says it vapourised.Carol Vorderman must be in on this too.

I take it then you believe it was a missile BB that hit the pentagon?