Pearl Harbor, believable. September 11th, :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i knew that's what your response would be. more "theory" :haha: neither you, nor any of your ilk, have provided me a shred of evidence/argument to explain why you ignore the hundreds of people that quite clearly saw a plane crashing into the pentagon, some of whom had that big ing jet passing within metres of them.
With respect PKC, I knew that's exactly what your response would be. So my response to that is an equal "what about the hundreds of people who quite clearly saw a missile going into the Pentagon, some of whom had that big ing missile passing above their heads, car roofs. You have no evidence other than someone's word.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
none of you have EVER provided me or anyone else with a plausible explanation of where flight 77, her passengers, her crew actually went. nor how the wreckage (and dead bodies from the flight) actually got there.
We're also told that the bodies were able to be idenitified by their fingerprints or DNA, so what kind of fire can vaopourise aluminiun and steel, and yet leave human bodies in tact?
Actually, sod this, answer me this. Why the hell won't the government release a video of a "big ing plane" hitting the Pentagon? AND, odd how some of the hijackers turn up alive. Ah well, I guess that's more CT bull.
The Arbiter
Well logically anything that involves the pentagon will be classified for military reasons. Seeying how good a plane is at punching a hole in their key military building in an anti-terroist society is probably something they'll be keen to classify.
Personally, I think this hole conspiricy surrounding 9/11 is bull. I thoguht as you did once, but then I found a site that disproves just about every scientific assumption surrounding the theory. I forgot the site and I am unable to find it thanks to restrictions on teh internetz were I am, so I am unable to provide links. Point is: conspiricies theories.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
With respect PKC, I knew that's exactly what your response would be. So my response to that is an equal "what about the hundreds of people who quite clearly saw a missile going into the Pentagon, some of whom had that big ing missile passing above their heads, car roofs. You have no evidence other than someone's word.
1- missiles arent something that are easy to see, especially in comparison with a passenger jet. i find the idea that "hundreds" of witnesses saw a missile to be incorrect. your average person is quite familiar with how planes look, so i am going to trust them when one flew right over their heads. tell me how slow a missile must be travelling to get a proper ID from laymen. your problem here is believing the unlikely because it suits the idea you already have.
quote:
“I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn’t moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. My office called to tell me about the first plane in New York, the reaction was ‘horrible accident.’ And then they called about the second plane, and clearly that meant something much worse was going on. It was only then that I really noticed where I was in that traffic jam. I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.
quote:
"Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast. That plane is going to crash .... The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb"
quote:
"At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car."
quote:
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
^^ there are hundreds of similar accounts on this website.
missiles are really hard to see, planes are not. someone miles away might have seen a missile, but all those up close and personal saw flight 77. please explain to me why all these people that are "up close and personal" could possibly mistake a passenger jet?
quote:
We're also told that the bodies were able to be idenitified by their fingerprints or DNA, so what kind of fire can vaopourise aluminiun and steel, and yet leave human bodies in tact?
honestly, this kind of disingenuous "logic" pisses me off. there are all kinds of things that may or may not survive a fire. there are a million different things that happen in a plane crash. your insinuation, that there is some kind of formula for something that occurs every single time a plane crashes is simply wrong. its a ridiculous notion. these things do happen, but there are no coincidences in CT land! :haha:
quote:
Actually, sod this, answer me this. Why the hell won't the government release a video of a "big ing plane" hitting the Pentagon? AND, odd how some of the hijackers turn up alive. Ah well, I guess that's more CT bull.
provide me with some evidence that there IS actually more video of the plane. it is merely more CT BS, youre right. there is no evidence that there are any more videos. its ridiculous, there were a bunch of hijackings that day, and the idea that the govt "stole" flight 77 so they could shoot a missile at the pentagon is ridiculous, without even questioning what the point of a missile attack on the pentagon is meant to achieve :haha:
ill say again. tell me what happened to flight 77, where AA debris and wreckage came from, what happened to the crew and passengers etc etc etc. or even better, why crash investigators were so easily fooled into thinking it was a plane? you guys must think people in your country are complete morons.
no, you'd all prefer to talk about the few minor inconsistencies. keep up the good work detective!
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
tell me how slow a missile must be travelling to get a proper ID from laymen. your problem here is believing the unlikely because it suits the idea you already have.
Tell me how a plane defies g-force, if the `mere stringg of coincidences` are true. You honestly believe that a plane was able to glide across a lawn, smash into the Pentagon, supposedly the most secure complex in the world, and not ONE video exists, not ONE!! Oh, wait, we have a nose-cone shot.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
or even better, why crash investigators were so easily fooled into thinking it was a plane? you guys must think people in your country are complete morons.
Crash investigators weren`t so easily fooled. THey said themselves they arrived at various scenes, and there was nothing to `investigate`. But these people probably don`t count as evidence in your book.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
or even better, why crash investigators were so easily fooled into thinking it was a plane? you guys must think people in your country are complete morons.
no, you'd all prefer to talk about the few minor inconsistencies.
These aren`t `minor` inconsistencies. These are gaping big holes in the `official` story. If they are merely errors, or mere oversight, then fine, but why weren`t they patched up from day 1. The whole 9/11 thing is riddles with incosistencies, yet you don`t seem to want to confront them. You`re very picky about evidence. You say, "present me with evidence" and then you dismiss for any reason you can pluck.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
keep up the good work detective!
Yes, and let`s try to have a civil conversation without resorting to sarcasm, shall we?
I really think you should consider ALL evidence, and whilst you`ll say "I have, but I haven`t been presented with anything credible", and then you go and post eye-witness accounts from sources like Geocities! I say, you can`t be picky if you really want to be a `detective` about something.
Jeez, you`re gonna laugh. I read History at Uni. I`m not a CT nut, I just look at the evidence that is presented in front of me, like I did when I was studying Byzantium, and then simnply commenting on what I see.
Krypton
I find it funny how the Pentagon, supposedly defended by two air wings or something. I mean, when a damn Cessna flies too close, jets are on it quick. They knew planes were being hi-jacked, they knew which planes it were by how much they diverged from their flight path, and they knew with plenty of time to scramble jets into the air to intercept. Sorry, but nothing adds up. I still think NORAD was purposefully stood down. I'm not one to say the government is responsible for 911, but I'm very suspicious of whether they were complicit in letting it happen.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
Tell me how a plane defies g-force, if the `mere stringg of coincidences` are true. You honestly believe that a plane was able to glide across a lawn, smash into the Pentagon, supposedly the most secure complex in the world, and not ONE video exists, not ONE!! Oh, wait, we have a nose-cone shot.
why? youre making assumptions again. why would the pentagon necessarily have lots of security footage of their front lawn? you keep filling in supposed holes with your own assumptions which is just silly. you havent a shred of evidence that there is footage, so your premise is already built on unsubstantiated nonsense.
quote:
Crash investigators weren`t so easily fooled. THey said themselves they arrived at various scenes, and there was nothing to `investigate`. But these people probably don`t count as evidence in your book.
yeah, so all the plane wreckage just miraculously appeared and nobody noticed anyone planting it through the accident scene. whatever mate. there is just no way you can pull the wool over investigators' eyes in such a fashion. it would become painfully clear painfully quickly that this wasnt a real plane crash.
quote:
These aren`t `minor` inconsistencies. These are gaping big holes in the `official` story. If they are merely errors, or mere oversight, then fine, but why weren`t they patched up from day 1. The whole 9/11 thing is riddles with incosistencies, yet you don`t seem to want to confront them. You`re very picky about evidence. You say, "present me with evidence" and then you dismiss for any reason you can pluck.
no, only people like you think there are THAT many inconsistencies. oh, and course there ARE inconsistencies, why you think anything like this would have a clear and proper A through Z explanation is quite beyond me???
you children simply cant tell the difference between "evidence" and "arguing from doubt". the former presents facts that speak for themselves, the latter tries to look like fact by drawing attention to supposed "inconsistencies" which you then use in massive leaps of faith in building ridiculously stupid notions.
quote:
I really think you should consider ALL evidence, and whilst you`ll say "I have, but I haven`t been presented with anything credible", and then you go and post eye-witness accounts from sources like Geocities! I say, you can`t be picky if you really want to be a `detective` about something.
firstly, that site is merely a portal for all those quotes- had you actually bothered to look at the page yourself, you would see it includes all the source material and where these quotes were lifted from.
quote:
Jeez, you`re gonna laugh. I read History at Uni. I`m not a CT nut, I just look at the evidence that is presented in front of me, like I did when I was studying Byzantium, and then simnply commenting on what I see.
but that's the problem- what DO you see? already you've repeated a number of fallacies or assumption as fact? that's not really compelling "evidence". again, it is absolutely ludicrous for you guys to be complaining about videos (or lack thereof) whilst simultaneously ignoring the massive massive holes in your own logic (where are the plane, passengers, crew, the plane debris etc).
its just silly to be focusing in so strongly on your supposed "inconsistencies" whilst ignoring all the cold hard evidence. tsk tsk.
quote:
I still think NORAD was purposefully stood down
yeah, well i provided a transcript (and actual sound bites) from the NORAD tapes that illustrates this is anything but true, but you keep clinging to your beliefs if you must, its obvious reason and evidence dont count for much with you.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i was going to watch this seriously until i discovered it was a "no plane" pentagon movie :haha: :haha: :haha: ahhhh, you boys crack me up. just goes to show that americans can convince themselves of just about anything :toothless
if you had watched it you would know better than to make ignorant statements like:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
why? youre making assumptions again. why would the pentagon necessarily have lots of security footage of their front lawn? you keep filling in supposed holes with your own assumptions which is just silly. you havent a shred of evidence that there is footage, so your premise is already built on unsubstantiated nonsense.
especially when gentlemen such as Bob Pugh are on record as having observed a lot of things which contradict the "official" theory
Trancer-X
Hani Hanjour must have been extremely talented to have pulled off such amazing maneuvers in that huge plane.
With that being the case, I wonder why his flight instructors were so afraid to fly with him in a Cessna?
quote:
A Trainee Noted for Incompetence
By JIM YARDLEY
Published: May 4, 2002
Although the authorities say none of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were tied to an F.B.I. intelligence alert issued by an agent in Arizona two months earlier, one hijacker, Hani Hanjour, had come to the Federal Aviation Administration's attention earlier last year, when he trained in Phoenix.
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.
Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.
"The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level," said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said.
"He ended up observing Hani in class," Ms. Ladner added, "though that was not his original reason for being there."
Company officials briefed members of Congress about the case, including Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, who made public some of its general details in December.
The aviation agency did not return a call for comment.
Pan Am International, one of the largest pilot schools in the nation, also operated the flight school in Eagan, Minn., near Minneapolis, where the instructors' suspicions led to the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man whom the authorities have said was intended to be the 20th hijacker.
Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.
"There was no suspicion as far as evildoing," Ms. Ladner said. "It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' "
A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly.
Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course," the ex-employee said.
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
Hani Hanjour
Obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999 from the Federal Aviation Administration. The license expired six months later because he failed to complete a required medical exam. In 1996, he received flight training for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., but did not finish the course because his instructors thought he was not proficient enough. He listed his address as a post office box in Taife, Saudi Arabia, but he also has been linked to addresses in San Diego and Hollywood, Fla. His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket.
(this is why I can still appreciate Alex Jones in despite of all his emotional outbursts)
Trancer-X
When asked what size the plane was, witness Michael Kelly said that it sounded like a "small plane" as it flew over him just moments before crashing into the Pentagon.
Trancer-X
Eyewitness Don Wright said that it looked like a small commuter plane.
