|
Unable to release any details as it was a secure site but I did see it, is my word not good enough?
|
Originally Posted by madscoob
(Post 10023719)
tony it was covered by a hotel cctv of which members of staff watched in horror , the film was removed by fbi and everyone made to sign a silence document , as for the pentagon , well the facts .
the section that was hit was bomb proofed weeks before coincidence 16ft round hole . ????? a 737 is about 35ft in diameter with a wingspan of around 147ft with 2 engines about 12ft in diameter about 40-50ft apart traveling at about 400mph i think it would make a bit bigger hole than 16ft , each engine weighs about 6tonnes made of titainum and steel and not a single part found , look up the melting point of titaiunum it aint 1500degrees ,there should of been 3holes not one . oh and no wreckage on lawn bigger than people could carry away , and the lawn was recovered by lorries and workers within hours , watch the brief video the fbi released you cant see a plane , numerous people reported smelling cordite , they where all told to shut up and where no doubt made to sign disclaimers as well http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...myths-pentagon |
Originally Posted by lazadude
(Post 10023828)
You confuse it with a Hard Nose Missile.. Performing a manouver that US Air force pilots continually failed to replicate on multiple attempts on simulators.
Originally Posted by lazadude
(Post 10023828)
Call me paranoid, what ever, I just don't believe everything that the media tells me and naturally question things. Like "Where are the wings..."
|
Originally Posted by banny sti
(Post 10023803)
:lol: fook me how do you confuse a plane with something else
|
Originally Posted by banny sti
(Post 10023838)
Unable to release any details as it was a secure site but I did see it, is my word not good enough?
|
Originally Posted by tony de wonderful
(Post 10023863)
Ah so it was a test or something. Not the same.
|
Originally Posted by banny sti
(Post 10023865)
Secure site but was not a test
The point is that witnesses always see events differently. You can imagine how quickly a plane comes and goes at low altitude at speed and when you are on the ground you can only see it from your field of vision which is limited when you are on ground level in an urban environment. |
Originally Posted by jonc
(Post 10023839)
The hole was 75ft not 16ft! :Whatever_
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...myths-pentagon |
Does Maz know about you witnessing a plane crash in to a building at a secure site that you can't disclose, Banny? I'm surprised you didn't mention it a few pages back, I think I would have given this information up fairly early in this exchange. Still, good job Tony asked you if you'd ever seen a plane crash in to a building, otherwise we would never have known. :thumb:
|
Originally Posted by madscoob
(Post 10023719)
tony it was covered by a hotel cctv of which members of staff watched in horror , the film was removed by fbi and everyone made to sign a silence document , as for the pentagon , well the facts .
the section that was hit was bomb proofed weeks before coincidence 16ft round hole . ????? a 737 is about 35ft in diameter with a wingspan of around 147ft with 2 engines about 12ft in diameter about 40-50ft apart traveling at about 400mph i think it would make a bit bigger hole than 16ft , each engine weighs about 6tonnes made of titainum and steel and not a single part found , look up the melting point of titaiunum it aint 1500degrees ,there should of been 3holes not one . oh and no wreckage on lawn bigger than people could carry away , and the lawn was recovered by lorries and workers within hours , watch the brief video the fbi released you cant see a plane , numerous people reported smelling cordite , they where all told to shut up and where no doubt made to sign disclaimers as well Plenty of parts of engines, landing gear, all sorts were found, I don't know why this silly theory persists. However, there is not a mass of witnesses who say they saw a missile strike the Pentagon. Compare that to the large amount of witnesses who saw a plane strike it. Geezer |
Originally Posted by **************
(Post 10023894)
Banny did you choose to ignore my question to you in post #432 in repsonse to your sarcastic remarks about Afghanistan?
yup chose to ignore it :thumb: |
a US police dept did an experiment a few years ago it went like this
A room full of experienced police detectives were sitting in a room having a lecture on something or other when there was a load bang/explosion and some “armed “people ran in and “shot” the lecturer (they were not armed and did not shoot anyone btw) Afterwards they asked the room full of detectives to write down what happened. The organisers of the stunt were shocked to discover that they got 30 different descriptions/versions of the event, with people not sure how many people were involved how many shots were fired, how long it went on for etc etc So during 9/11 it would be very very odd if you did not have someone saying they saw a flying saucer hit the Pentagon. – but hey if you can find one person then you have a conspiracy |
Originally Posted by tony de wonderful
(Post 10023841)
Really? The pilots couldn't fly a plane into the Pentagon?
Originally Posted by tony de wonderful
(Post 10023841)
The media is not one entity in an open society BTW, but you choose to believe an obscure youtube video?
And media is multiple entitys, however if you think that governments cannot silence certain stories etc from being printed/reported, you have a very nieve outlook on these things. |
Originally Posted by lazadude
(Post 10024168)
No, not at the same decent angle / profile and speed with the same aircraft. Majority keep crashing the aircraft. Dont get me wrong, It could have been a sheer fluke by an ignorant pilot who was trained on MS flightsim..
Youtube video..? Honestly have not seen it. And media is multiple entitys, however if you think that governments cannot silence certain stories etc from being printed/reported, you have a very nieve outlook on these things. |
Originally Posted by tony de wonderful
(Post 10024173)
So you think the US gov could silence a conspiracy on this scale? And your historical precedent is?
"Interests of national security" or some other line. I as I've said before, I know this will make me look nuts, but I bet there is allot of stuff that doesn't make it in. Stuff doesn't need a precedent, Theres always a first for everything, especially with how quickly information can be shared now a days. Its just my view on these things. Like a faith in god/jebus/allah or some other opiate of the masses. |
Originally Posted by lazadude
(Post 10024366)
In a word.. Yes.
"Interests of national security" or some other line. I as I've said before, I know this will make me look nuts, but I bet there is allot of stuff that doesn't make it in. Stuff doesn't need a precedent, Theres always a first for everything, especially with how quickly information can be shared now a days. Its just my view on these things. Like a faith in god/jebus/allah or some other opiate of the masses. |
Originally Posted by lazadude
(Post 10024366)
In a word.. Yes.
"Interests of national security" or some other line. I as I've said before, I know this will make me look nuts, but I bet there is allot of stuff that doesn't make it in. Stuff doesn't need a precedent, Theres always a first for everything, especially with how quickly information can be shared now a days. Its just my view on these things. Like a faith in god/jebus/allah or some other opiate of the masses. |
Originally Posted by lazadude
(Post 10024366)
In a word.. Yes.
"Interests of national security" or some other line. I as I've said before, I know this will make me look nuts, but I bet there is allot of stuff that doesn't make it in. Stuff doesn't need a precedent, Theres always a first for everything, especially with how quickly information can be shared now a days. Its just my view on these things. Like a faith in god/jebus/allah or some other opiate of the masses. It would be good for someone to show one concrete piece of evidence for any of the claims of the truthers that has not/cannot be debunked. Even if this happens (and I have yet to see it), it would only be a single thing in a huge sea of evidence that it was Al Qaeda who did it. And if you then say that if one irregularity means a conspiracy, then you have to agree that one the other way means it is as the authorities say. Anything less is idiocy. I wait with bated breath. Geezer |
National geographic +1 channel NOW - 9/11 conspiracies :thumb:
|
Originally Posted by **************
(Post 10024607)
Ah ok you just continue to spout rubbish then and be unable to defend your posts when called on them :thumb:
The feeling is mutual regarding you spouting rubbish, dont hear me complainin about it though do you :lol1: |
Someone pls make a comparison with the Nazis thus killing the thread dead ...
TX. |
Originally Posted by Terminator X
(Post 10024728)
Someone pls make a comparison with the Nazis thus killing the thread dead ...
TX. |
Originally Posted by **************
(Post 10024737)
I'll defend and backup what I say where as you are quite clearly incapable of doing the same.
|
Originally Posted by jonc
(Post 10024734)
Thanks for your input and welcome to the party! :D
For fcuk's sake you can SEE the aeroplanes crashing into the tower!! How much of a mong do you have to be to believe something else? :confused: |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 10024760)
Do these Lederhosen suit me? Look, they've got little embroidered badges on them, depicting the CIA planting Thermite charges in the twin towers. :rolleyes:
For fcuk's sake you can SEE the aeroplanes crashing into the tower!! How much of a mong do you have to be to believe something else? :confused: |
Exasperated corner. :(
|
Originally Posted by **************
(Post 10024787)
what a card she is :lol1:
|
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 10024736)
apparently if you look closely at the smoke billowing out of tower 2 you can make out Hilter's face
|
Originally Posted by **************
(Post 10024787)
Question Time has that yasmin alibhai-brown on it, what a card she is :lol1:
|
Originally Posted by prodriverules
(Post 10024771)
Couldn't agree more Bubba,simples burning aviation fuel weakened the supports and along with the fact an AIRPLANE smashed into the building which was more than ample to bring the towers down.
Evidence can be found here.:cuckoo: http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/200...s-radical.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands