|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 250)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
It would appear that my 'problem' (more of an issue, if you'd like me to clarify) is that you continue to spew outright lies (spew outright government lies), all the while laying serious claims to my mental stability, my grasp on reality, and level of intelligence. |
well, to be fair you do give one several reasons to question some of the above. like here:
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Do you see cop car drive by the camera? That should indicate to you that the camera is capable of picking up movement of an object, up unto and including a massive ing twin-engine jet. |
why do you believe that a car driving through a toll-booth at 5mph in the foreground is comparable to a plane in the background travelling at 500mph?
look at how far that car travels between shots. how far do you think a plane could travel?
im getting ing bored with arguing about inconsequential "anomalies" (that don't even exist).
hundreds of people saw the plane crash, the bodies of those known to travel on the plane were found in the wreckage and matched via DNA, the scene was littered with aircraft debris.
that's all that ing matters, and you guys can bitch and moan about 'flight plans' or 'fake phone messages' or 'AA batteries' or any other idiotic notion and the rest of the world doesn't give a . |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
You can clearly see here the puncture ring. Your wits would have me believe that aluminum can do that to concrete, yet the wingspan did no damage whatsoever? Yea.. I need a grasp on reality.
Where did those wings go? The carriage seemed to go right through the building, yet the six tonne Rolls Royce titanium engines disappeared completely? Do you see why that doesn't make sense? I thought concrete (pardon the pun) thinking was something that that was learned intuitively during childhood.
You've ignored everything else. Please feel free to ingore this thread. :gsmile: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
10 characteristics of Skeptics
A useful guide by shaolin_z
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from genuine skeptics about the claims that they make. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
A Boeing 757 Wing tip - wing tip 124 ft, the Pentagon wall was 65 ft across.
Remember, the planes that hit the Trade Center created a fire so intense that it weakened the steel in both towers and they collapsed; the Pentagon surely doesn't not comply with that scenario. We should be able to get a steady and repeatable outcome when 3 jets of the same nature were used in 3 similar scenarios. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
10 characteristics of Skeptics
A useful guide by shaolin_z
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from genuine skeptics about the claims that they make. |
you don't understand you gullible fool. the onus is on you, its always been on you. im still waiting for an answer re how flight 77 passengers and crew got to the pentagon crash site. to entertain your nonsensical BS this would be one of the earliest questions for which you had a satisfactory answer to. but, in typical CT style you quickly move on...
but they do say mimicry is the height of flattery, so thanks. moving right along to more bull from you:
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Remember, the planes that hit the Trade Center created a fire so intense that it weakened the steel in both towers and they collapsed; the Pentagon surely doesn't not comply with that scenario. We should be able to get a steady and repeatable outcome when 3 jets of the same nature were used in 3 similar scenarios. |
gee i dunno. does the pentagon have anything in common structurally with the WTCs? what do you think kids, do the buildings look at all alike??
man, get a grip. this is rotting your brain. how on earth do you think you could predict the behaviour of any plane crash, let alone the deliberate crashing of a plane at speed...
all 3 of those plane crashes are unique in the history of aviation. if you think you can predict what happens in these scenarios, you are talking out of your ass. the fact that the pentagon crash site was different to the WTC crash sites is completely and utterly irrelevant. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
A Boeing 757 Wing tip - wing tip 124 ft, the Pentagon wall was 65 ft across.
Remember, the planes that hit the Trade Center created a fire so intense that it weakened the steel in both towers and they collapsed; the Pentagon surely doesn't not comply with that scenario. We should be able to get a steady and repeatable outcome when 3 jets of the same nature were used in 3 similar scenarios. |
Your engine theory doesn't really hold water with that video of people saying that they couldn't see markings from Brooklyn. Look how close the engines were to the body of the plane - you can clearly see that the hole in the Pentagon wall is considerably wider than the body - so there you go. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you don't understand you gullible fool. the onus is on you, its always been on you. im still waiting for an answer re how flight 77 passengers and crew got to the pentagon crash site. to entertain your nonsensical BS this would be one of the earliest questions for which you had a satisfactory answer to. but, in typical CT style you quickly move on...
|
I quickly move on? I destroyed you. The hole in the Pentagon does not fit a Boeing 757, the black box does not match the official story, the bodies look fake - there is no identification of the bodies, there is no plane except for a pittance's worth, and you're telling me I'm full of bull? Aluminum doesn't destroy concrete, laddy, no matter what sort of names you call me.
| quote: |
gee i dunno. does the pentagon have anything in common structurally with the WTCs? what do you think kids, do the buildings look at all alike??
|
Concrete, aluminum and steel act the same upon impact, especially when a plane is in question, and all speeds are similiar. In true agent fashion, you confuse the subject.
| quote: |
all 3 of those plane crashes are unique in the history of aviation. if you think you can predict what happens in these scenarios, you are talking out of your ass. the fact that the pentagon crash site was different to the WTC crash sites is completely and utterly irrelevant. |
Not at all, they all happened at essentially the same speed and the all have the same weight, so the impact should have been relatively the same. Physics is a constant in the Universe, remember? :wtf:
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Your engine theory doesn't really hold water with that video of people saying that they couldn't see markings from Brooklyn. Look how close the engines were to the body of the plane - you can clearly see that the hole in the Pentagon wall is considerably wider than the body - so there you go.
|
You really don't understand? How can the body of a plane, made out of exactly the same material as the wingspan puncture through multiple rings of the Pentagon, yet there is no damage from the wingspan? Sorry, that doesn't add up.
| quote: |
PENTAGON EYEWITNESS DEBUNKS OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY
Civilian Pilot Saw Global Hawk and Control Plane
Christopher Bollyn
An eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forward with an astonishing account that debunks the official 9/11 story and corroborates the hypothesis that an unmanned – and weaponized – Global Hawk drone was involved in the attack.
Nearly 5 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, completely debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the 5-sided military fortress housing the U.S. Department of Defense.
Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Maryland, says he was trying to get out of Washington on the morning of 9/11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd. (Virginia Highway 27), the highway that passes alongside the western side of the Pentagon. It was from the shoulder of Highway 27, across from the Pentagon, that Danner says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack.
Danner's eyewitness account corroborates the theory that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, the fortress of the Department of War that was built on a low lying area formerly known as Hell's Bottom. Although Danner's testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft, it is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence and numerous statements made by other eyewitnesses.
Now a multi-billion dollar defense project involving contractors like L3 Communications Titan Group, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., and Raytheon, the Global Hawk is a 44-foot long jet-powered surveillance UAV with a 116 foot wing span that can fly 12,000 miles at an altitude of 65,000 feet at 400 miles per hour. At the time of the attack, however, the U.S. Air Force had only 6 Global Hawks in service. Two of the original Global Hawks reportedly crashed, one at China Lake, California, another "somewhere overseas," according to a spokesman at Edwards Air Force Base where the aircraft is tested.
"Two Global Hawk crashes occurred in the Central Command Area of Operation, which is Southwest Asia," a spokesman for the U.S.A.F. later told AFP. "Both these crashes occurred during support for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, which started after September 11th," he added.
The evidence supporting the theory that a Global Hawk was flown into the Pentagon by remote control has been investigated by this writer in American Free Press. While Danner's testimony corroborates this hypothesis, which is supported by evidence, there is not a single piece of evidence, physical or photographic in the public domain to support the government version that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.. |
|
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
Until people start addressing facts, I'm not addressing anyone. Speculative questions concerning the how of the transportation of bodies by a corrupt government are neither here, nor there, and for the birds and trolls at this point.
You've shown me two pictures of fake bodies, which of whom haven't even been identified. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | Until people start addressing facts, I'm not addressing anyone. Speculative questions concerning the how of the transportation of bodies by a corrupt government are neither here, nor there, and for the birds and trolls at this point. |
These trolls are not here to address facts b.s.e., they are here to argue for the sake of arguing.
Spreading dis-info and posting retarded "lists" to undermine the truth and reality of 9/11. If they did not really care like they say then what are they still doing here posting lies and bull facts that have been addressed for least a few years now.
Makes you wonder.... |
|
|
| Krypton |
Check this out. Steel buildings have fallen due to fire.
| quote: | While there may be no examples of high-rise office buildings completely collapsing due to fire, it bears pointing out that there have been many steel-frame structure collapses due solely to fires. The McCormick Place exhibition hall is one such example, which collapsed in 1967 only 30 minutes after a small fire was accidentally started [23]. Another prominent example is the Mumbai High North Oil Platform [24], constructed of steel and seven stories high, which completely collapsed after burning for two hours following a shipping accident that ruptured oil lines. A third example, occurring after Dr. Griffin’s manuscript was finalized, is the collapse of the Interstate 580 overpass in the MacArthur Maze [25] near San Francisco. This overpass, supported only by steel beams, suffered no impact but collapsed due to the heat of an 8,600 gallon gasoline fire, burning in the open below, after nineteen minutes.
References
[23] Ellen O’Brien and Lyle Benedict (archivists), “McCormick Place Fire,” Chicago
Public Library, Municipal Reference Collection, November 1996. Accessible online at
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago...mick_fire.html.
[24] Colin Bailey, “Case Studies: Mumbai High North Platform Fire,” University of
Manchester online whitepaper, accessible online at
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...aseStudy/Histor
icFires/Other/default.htm.
[25] Demian Bulwa and Peter Fimrite, “Tanker Fire Destroys Part of MacArthur Maze,”
San Francisco Chronicle, 29 April 2007. Accessible online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/
article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL. |
|
|
|
|
|
