|
Pentagon hit by a missile? (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
heres an interesting question. if the blackbox from flight 77 really does show a completely different flight plan (meaning it was indeed a missile not the plane) surely theres evidence of where that plane flew to after it DIDNT hit the pentagon? then we would know where the plane was,
yeah? let me hazzard a guess that the record ends about the time the missile hits the building. convenient huh? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
On a second thought, seriously, how much evidence do we need to bring up against these government tyranny lovers so that they can finally see that the government was tightly involved in the 9/11 attacks? I guess they hope that Dubya will come out and admit and that will be the evidence they're looking for. Because you know what - most of the evidence was long destroyed. And even the pieces they carefully worked on to conceive, are kicking them in the arse as with this black box data. All the other information will never be revealed, it is protected by the trusted and corrupt barbaric forces within US and its military. All that can be used to convince us of their wrongdoing and evil plans in this Pentagon bombing is aftermath events, common sense, and the little pieces of evidence that managed to sweak through. While in reality, there's little if anything that can ever be done to unleash all the truth. Generals and staffers at the Pentagon cannot be trusted as sources, because it is against them we wage this fight. Same with government agents. So its not a proper idea to use government-produced evidence as convincing evidence that government agencies are clean when it came to these horrendous dark attacks against their own people. Common sense, and overwhelming number of people, majority actually, believe there was a cover-up. Because it makes more sense than some group of terrorists that could barely fly a plane, not even talking about making maneouvres like at Pentagon, at finding their targets without the help from the ground, and with little and crappy training they got (failing their pilot classes), hitting their targets at 100 percent success rate is just plain impossible. Unless, it was assisted by some dark people within US military and government. Any pilot will tell you that if you start flying from Boston and you want to get to New York or Pentagon, you will not be able to do it without air traffic controllers or such similar help from the ground. At 5000 - 10000 feet you dont see cities, not even buildings - and its not exactly easy to see the ground from the cockpit - just clouds. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
heres an interesting question. if the blackbox from flight 77 really does show a completely different flight plan (meaning it was indeed a missile not the plane) surely theres evidence of where that plane flew to after it DIDNT hit the pentagon? then we would know where the plane was,
yeah? let me hazzard a guess that the record ends about the time the missile hits the building. convenient huh? |
The black box data doesnt say 'CAME FROM PENTAGON'. It could've been some other plane they took it from, unrelated to Pentagon. 100 feet above ground, well, there's no Pentagon there, is it? :haha: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
The black box data doesnt say 'CAME FROM PENTAGON'. It could've been some other plane they took it from, unrelated to Pentagon. 100 feet above ground, well, there's no Pentagon there, is it? :haha: |
um, sorry? if the blackbox didnt come from the plane that flew into (or over as you people believe) why on earth are we arguing about it at all? either its flight 77's and different from the official story, or its not and its irrelevant.
serious LOL at you use of "common sense" in the above post. too funny :haha:
so, again answer my question: where does this blackbox indicate the plane flew after the supposed impact? im betting its record ends about the same time as the "missile" impact. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Any pilot will tell you that if you start flying from Boston and you want to get to New York or Pentagon, you will not be able to do it without air traffic controllers or such similar help from the ground. At 5000 - 10000 feet you dont see cities, not even buildings - and its not exactly easy to see the ground from the cockpit - just clouds. |
man i am convinced you are one of the stupidest mothers on this board.
do you actually know any pilots? i do. my mom's last husband for 10 years was a Captain for AA. before that he flew fighter-bombers for TAC (Tactical Air Command).
before getting too complicated, all pilots (all of them) plot their own courses from origin to destination. if they are not on auto-pilot, which BTW THEY program, they are fully independet of ground control flying on either insrtument or line of sight.
air traffic controllers monitor pilot's courses in order to AVOID OTHER AIRCRAFT and recomend to them alternate courses. in addition, they prioritize and organize take-offs and prioritize and organize approach.
quit pulling out of your ass. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Ignorance is bliss, eh? There's just a never-ending wave of personal attacks here on people who speak out to find the truth. Complete disregard to the Pilots movement, an independent movement which CONFIRMED using the black box data that it didnt come from the object that hit the Pentagon. Also, instead of accepting the truth, some people here are offering poor arguments and telling to stop linking videos, and instead ask to do their own research ... thats is just blatantly lame excuse to ignore the information at hand. Some people actually think that we can just drop everything, families, jobs, every-day routines and waste our time writing some research on this thats already done? Christ. To achieve what, Summers? Come on, thats just so silly of you. Isnt finding the videos, information, articles, interviews, photos, etc. is not doing research? Gimme a break.
The evidence against the government story of the Boeing 747 got a final hit in the arse by this clear Pilots for Truth movement, using evidence that doesnt lie. Black box that came from the alleged 747 plane itself. |
Uhm, what about the imaginary pilots who flew an imaginary plane into the imaginary Pentagon whose imaginary wives would still like to know where they are? Does the Pilots movement not care that a few actual pilots actually lost their lives? Maybe they're holed up somewhere in an imaginary pilot cave getting an anal pilot probe? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i really am surprised that people are willing to believe the "no plane theory" without having ANY adequate explanations for what happened to it. seriously, this would be my FIRST point of call when assessing the argument. i dont know why otherwise rational people choose to ignore this glaring contradiction. they attempt to pull the "official" story to pieces, like "omg, why isn't the grass on the pentagon marked!? CONSPIRACY!!!!" yet think its ok to ignore their own (very very serious) problems.
where's the ing plane + passengers and crew people?
until you have an answer you all just look like internet detectives with so much need to believe its embarrassing. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
where's the ing plane + passengers and crew people?
|
Ever seen the movie Millennium? (circa 1989 - you may want to IMDB that one).
It's kooky enough to fit right in with the rest of the CS theories... |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| According to the CT, what's the advantage of hijacking a plane, hiding the plane and all its passengers, and then sending a missle to the pentagon. What advantage does this give over crashing the plane into the pentagon? Why would they do something like that? |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
According to the CT, what's the advantage of hijacking a plane, hiding the plane and all its passengers, and then sending a missle to the pentagon. What advantage does this give over crashing the plane into the pentagon? Why would they do something like that? |
Maybe since a 757 is alot easier to shoot down. I dunno. Im not jumping on any crazy theorys here.
I also have a question that maybe someone can answer here. Doesnt the Pentagon & Washington DC have some of the best defences against an attack? Or am i mistaken? :conf: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Maybe since a 757 is alot easier to shoot down. I dunno. Im not jumping on any crazy theorys here.
I also have a question that maybe someone can answer here. Doesnt the Pentagon & Washington DC have some of the best defences against an attack? Or am i mistaken? :conf: |
There is definitely a lot more restricted airspace in the D.C. area, but I don't know if that means they have some much more sophisticated defense system or something. They probably have a more sensitive radar, but I don't know if that means they can scramble fighter jets etc., faster if they're just tracking a commercial plane. I'm just guessing though--I really don't have any specific data I can point to.
In any event, from one of the links I posted, here's what happens to an F4 going 500mph into a concrete wall (and remember that the Pentagon is one of the most fortified buildings in the world, and the area that was struck had been undergoing renovations and was one of THE most fortified areas in the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...ter_impact2.wmv |
|
|
| XaNaX |
I know a few years ago the 4th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery and their Avenger systems were stationed in the DC area and I've not seen anything to say that they are not still in the area.
This thread is so full of ridiculous conspiracy theory bull. I'm just waiting to see the post that says George Bush personally fired the "missile" that struck the Pentagon |
|
|
|
|
