Wing scars on Pentagon

[ultima1]

Here is a photo of what is supposed to be wing scars on the Pentagon.

Problem is that if it is wing scars the angle of the wing would mean the other wing would have been dragging the ground, there are no photos of wing scares on the ground in front of the crash site.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/starboard-wing2.jpg?t=1275665300

[ultima1]

Bumped

[camreeno]

This is not evidence. I'm sorry but a few crooked pillars doesn't prove anything for me. We have to remember that the plane was flying at over 500 miles per hour, so the sheer kinetic energy involved would have done much more damage, and not just some crumbling cement that looks like it could have been done with a sledgehammer.

[ultima1]

We have to remember that the plane was flying at over 500 miles per hour, so the sheer kinetic energy involved would have done much more damage, and not just some crumbling cement that looks like it could have been done with a sledgehammer.

Well sorry but the photo shows more then just crumbling cement or a sledgehammer hit.

Also if you look at most crash sites you will find that the wings survive, wings will usually shear off when hitting a obsticle.

Remember the wings are made of thin, fragile aluminum and would not have caused a lot damage do the fact that impact force would have either sheard them off or crumpeled them.

Either way there is no photgraphic evidence of wings or wing debris at the Pentagon.

[camreeno]

Well sorry but the photo shows more then just crumbling cement or a sledgehammer hit.

Also if you look at most crash sites you will find that the wings survive, wings will usually shear off when hitting a obsticle.
Remember the wings are made of thin, fragile aluminum and would not have caused a lot damage do the fact that imapst force would have either sheard them off or crumpeled them.
Either way there is no photgraphic evidence of wings or wing debris at the Pentagon.Where did the wings go? (you sound like you agree 9/11 was an inside job, so I'm with you) I find it funny how gatekeepers of the official story say that the light poles fell down near the building, indicating the "wings" knocked them down. Well if the wings were intact to knock over the poles, then where did they go? They wouldn't have vaporizes, as the melting point of aluminum is not achievable with the heat from jet fuel.

Look. There is far more evidence to suggest a plane didn't hit the Pentagon than did. There's no reason to look back. The very fact that all the footage supposedly showing the crash was confiscated from all the surrounding buildings indicates an inside job. If a plane hypothetically hit it then they would have nothing to hide and would just show us the footage. The fact that they don't speaks volumes.

Then people say "Oh well they're keeping the footage from us becase they need to use it to catch the terrorists". Nonsense. Haven't they had enough time to do that? It's been almost 9 years for god's sakes...

[dude111]

(you sound like you agree 9/11 was an inside job, so I'm with you) I dont know what to think .... Sounds like he believes the official BS story and is trying to talk about the ODDITIES of it..

[ultima1]

Where did the wings go? (you sound like you agree 9/11 was an inside job, so I'm with you)

Well thats the million dollar question. if a plane did hit where did the wings go. I have seen no photographic evidence or official reports of wings or wing debris at the Pentagon

I find it funny how gatekeepers of the official story say that the light poles fell down near the building, indicating the "wings" knocked them down.

If the wings did hit the light poles they would have either been damaged or sheard off. Also according to the oficial story onw wing hit a generator in front of the building but yet there is no wing debris in the area.

There is evidence that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

[ultima1]

I dont know what to think .... Sounds like he believes the official BS story and is trying to talk about the ODDITIES of it..

I do not believe the official story, i am looking for the truth of what happend that day.

[camreeno]

Well thats the million dollar question. if a plane did hit where did the wings go. I have seen no photographic evidence or official reports of wings or wing debris at the Pentagon



And for some reason we're told that the passports of the "hijackers" just flew out of the plane and descended to the ground unscathed? Yet we have no piece of the wings in sight? Somehow flimsy paper can outbeat steel and aluminum?

[ultima1]

And for some reason we're told that the passports of the "hijackers" just flew out of the plane and descended to the ground unscathed? Yet we have no piece of the wings in sight? Somehow flimsy paper can outbeat steel and aluminum?

Well i guess it could be possible, i mean look at all the paper debris that was reported to have survived from Flight 93.

There is another problem though i have with the amount of evidence that was left behind in cars and luggage. I mean if this was supposed to be so well planned why was so much material left behind?

[apollo_gnomon]

Because suicide bombers no longer need the things that were in the cars. Once they're dead, the attack has been executed and all evidence they leave behind is irrelevant to their personal interest.

Covering one's tracks thoroughly is time intensive and requires detailed attention. Why would suicide bombers bother to cover the tracks leading up to their own deaths?

[ultima1]

Why would suicide bombers bother to cover the tracks leading up to their own deaths?

Well that had planned out everything else so well, took months to recon flights and take flying lessons.

But they could not take a little time to make sure they did not leave things behind?

[apollo_gnomon]

But they could not take a little time to make sure they did not leave things behind?
What purpose would that serve? It would take time away from prayer and meditation - very important moments for them. This is in the "steeling yourself" period of not looking back.

Criminals who want to live after commiting the crime have motivation to scrub the scene. These men were not trained for that mission.

Also, they're headed to heaven. We're irrelevant infidels. They have zero reason to care.

[ultima1]

Criminals who want to live after commiting the crime have motivation to scrub the scene. These men were not trained for that mission. .

Who is talking about after commiting the crime?

I am talking abuot during the planning stage they plan not to leave anything behind. Its that simple.

Before they board the planes they make sure they do not leave anything behind. Its that simple.

[merlincove]

Well sorry but the photo shows more then just crumbling cement or a sledgehammer hit.

Also if you look at most crash sites you will find that the wings survive, wings will usually shear off when hitting a obsticle.

Remember the wings are made of thin, fragile aluminum and would not have caused a lot damage do the fact that impact force would have either sheard them off or crumpeled them.

Either way there is no photgraphic evidence of wings or wing debris at the Pentagon.

Wings aren't as 'thin and fragile' as you might imagine.

They are an integral part of the planes structure, they carry the negines, remember and the sheer inner structure of them make them in regard to load bearing is pretty impressive.

Sure, at their tips they are pretty fragile, but consider the stresses that they are exerted to when flying in normal conditions let alone turbulent ones and you will see just how strong they are.

If you are looking for wing scars at the pentagon you are looking for rocking horse shit, because they simply dont exist.

No plane equates to no wing scars, simples. :D

[camreeno]

Well i guess it could be possible, i mean look at all the paper debris that was reported to have survived from Flight 93.

There is another problem though i have with the amount of evidence that was left behind in cars and luggage. I mean if this was supposed to be so well planned why was so much material left behind?Flight 93 didn't even crash. It was grounded at Cleveland Hopkins airport on 9/11. The "crash site" in Shanksville, PA was nothing more than a ditch with trash dumped into it. It was a scam just like the Pentagon case. There actually wasn't any luggage found at either the Pentagon, Shanksville, or, surprisingly the Towers. The planes that few into the Twin Towers were military jets, and if you look at analyzed pictures you'll see that a device is attached to the fuselage on flight 175 (which supposedly hit the South tower) as you'll see in the documentary "911 in Plane Site".

No "hijackers" boarded any of the airplanes. In fact none of the so-called terrorists boarded the planes. They were not even on the flight lists or the official FBI autopsy lists (according the The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy). The only "evidence" we have of the "hijackers" getting anywhere near those planes were some serveillance footage of the guys getting checked at the luggage screening gates. From then on there is no confirmation they boarded the planes.

Even if they did board the planes, it hardly matters, because the inconsistencies are still mountainous. Consider the fact that the planes were far less occupied compared to the average passenger flights on those courses, and why were seemingly most of the passengers from the Federal government? What are the odds of that? Those couple tidbits alone demolish the theory that these were just ordinary flights that were "hijacked".

[merlincove]

This is not evidence. I'm sorry but a few crooked pillars doesn't prove anything for me. We have to remember that the plane was flying at over 500 miles per hour, so the sheer kinetic energy involved would have done much more damage, and not just some crumbling cement that looks like it could have been done with a sledgehammer.

when a plane comes into land it is doing a little over 100 - 150 mph, anything eklse will tear the plane to pieces at low / ground level altitude.

Large passenger planes are designed to fly at 500mph at high altitude, at altitudes below average cloud level, and pretty much below 2 - 5 thousand feet planes will not hold to such high speeds.

Look at a plane taking off, they accelerate to relatively low speeds, usualy less than 200mph, and if you ever get chance look at the wings, specifically the tips - they reverb a lot, and i mean a lot. When you're sitting in a plane, typically a 747 or 737, the amount of wing reverb at those speeds is prettty obvious. At higher speeds, in low altitude, those wings would be flapping about so much that the plane would not be responsive to any pilot input.

Whatever hit the pentagon, i think is pretty obvious that it wasn't a plane, or at least not the one the official story tells us.

Do cruise missiles have wings?

:rolleyes:

[ultima1]

Sure, at their tips they are pretty fragile, but consider the stresses that they are exerted to when flying in normal conditions let alone turbulent ones and you will see just how strong they are.

Yes, wings can handle stresses in flight, but they are not designed to take hitting something.

Thats why you have wings or wing debris at a lot of crash sites.

Also look at the fact that birds hitting wings even at low take off speeds will put holes through them

[ultima1]

Flight 93 didn't even crash. It was grounded at Cleveland Hopkins airport on 9/11.

Actually that was Delta flight 1989. It was confused for Flight 93 for a while.

[merlincove]

Yes, wings can handle stresses in flight, but they are not designed to take hitting something.

Thats why you have wings or wing debris at a lot of crash sites.

Also look at the fact that birds hitting wings even at low take off speeds will put holes through them

is that actually a fact?

i know birds can ruin an engine, but putting holes in wings at low take off speeds? are you sure?

[ultima1]

is that actually a fact?

i know birds can ruin an engine, but putting holes in wings at low take off speeds? are you sure?

Here are some photos of bird strikes on a 767 that happend on take off as the plane ran into a flock of small birds. Notice the holes in the nose section and the wings.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird3.jpg?t=1275982244

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird1.jpg?t=1275982274

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird5.jpg?t=1275982302

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird4.jpg?t=1275982330

[truegroup]

Here are some photos of bird strikes on a 767 that happend on take off as the plane ran into a flock of small birds. Notice the holes in the nose section and the wings.

You mean softy old birds can do this to a plane? Tell kooskoets, he says it can't happen, one weak think will cause damage to a stronger one.

Bird ..................... Plane
Titchy ..................... Huge
500gms ..................... MUCH more

blah blah frickin' blah

[ultima1]

You mean softy old birds can do this to a plane?

Yes i can show lots of photos and reports of bird strikes like this.

Oh and as far as the information bellow your signature line, the moon landing was not faked, i have evidence to prove the moon landing did happen.

[merlincove]

Here are some photos of bird strikes on a 767 that happend on take off as the plane ran into a flock of small birds. Notice the holes in the nose section and the wings.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird3.jpg?t=1275982244

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird1.jpg?t=1275982274

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird5.jpg?t=1275982302

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird4.jpg?t=1275982330

thanks for those :D

case proved then.


:D

[truegroup]

Yes i can show lots of photos and reports of bird strikes like this.

Oh and as far as the information bellow your signature line, the moon landing was not faked, i have evidence to prove the moon landing did happen.

Please, look at that link. Humour me.

[ultima1]

Please, look at that link. Humour me.

I have, and have facts that the moon landing happened and as a matter of fact we still have equipment on the moon that is till being used.

[truegroup]

I have, and have facts that the moon landing happened and as a matter of fact we still have equipment on the moon that is till being used.

You have NOT looked at it. If you have and you think I support the Hoax theory, you are an imbecile. WATCH IT ALL. It's 2 minutes long.

[noewhan]

You have NOT looked at it. If you have and you think I support the Hoax theory, you are an imbecile. WATCH IT ALL. It's 2 minutes long.

Lols. I thought it was a serious flash movie, until the reflection / guy with camera.

http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

Photoshoped stuff to the max. However, NASA does photoshop photos of the Moon.

You're confusing lol.

[ultima1]

You have NOT looked at it. If you have and you think I support the Hoax theory, you are an imbecile. WATCH IT ALL. It's 2 minutes long.

Then you should not state about positive proof of hoax if you do not believe it is a hoax. Thats being an imbecile.

Why don't you look up the retroreflectectors that were placed in the moon by the Apollo missions and are still in use today.


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

[truegroup]

Then you should not state about positive proof of hoax if you do not believe it is a hoax. Thats being an imbecile.

Why don't you look up the retroreflectectors that were placed in the moon by the Apollo missions and are still in use today.


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

It's there for suckers who think the Moon is a Hoax. They click on it and see it's a piss take. It's called IRONY. And how ironic, that it caught a believer who thought it was real, so didn't actually watch the bit where the astronaut pees in a toilet on the Moon. Anyway, I re-worded it just for you.

Perhaps if you looked at some of my previous posts you would see that not only do I firmly believe in the Apollo Moon landings, I actually enjoy showing HBs how they have been fooled.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539&page=1
That has died a death now, no-one wants to defend the 'Aussie genius'.

And currently having fun here:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119328

Feel free to join in.


p.s. Look at my third signature link. A photo given to a trade mag, a few days after the mission, showing the dreaded 'c' rock, without the c. ie. The original photograph.

[ultima1]

Feel free to join in.

I have been on moon hoax forum and was banned when i stated i had proof that it was real.

Thats why i went off when i saw the wording before your link.

[truegroup]

I have been on moon hoax forum and was banned when i stated i had proof that it was real.

Thats why i went off when i saw the wording before your link.

Which forum?

The link I posted was on this forum.

[ultima1]

Which forum?

The link I posted was on this forum.

Oh i do not even remeber the name anymore.

I also was banned on the JERF 9/11 forum for posting facts about 9/11.

[truegroup]

Oh i do not even remeber the name anymore.

I also was banned on the JERF 9/11 forum for posting facts about 9/11.

Well, post some of your evidence here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119328

The guy is going on about astronaut 'wires', fluttering flags etc. Same old BS.

[ultima1]

Well, post some of your evidence here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119328

The guy is going on about astronaut 'wires', fluttering flags etc. Same old BS.

Done, put the evidence of the reflectors that are still used today.

[apollo_gnomon]

I have been on moon hoax forum and was banned when i stated i had proof that it was real.

Thats why i went off when i saw the wording before your link.

When was this? I've been playing this game for a while, I might help you remember which one.

[ultima1]

When was this? I've been playing this game for a while, I might help you remember which one.

Oh this was years ago.

[apollo_gnomon]

Oh this was years ago.

Before or after 2005?

[ultima1]

Before or after 2005?

NO big deal, i have posted on the moon landing thread on this forum.

[dude111]

Flight 93 didn't even crash. It was grounded at Cleveland Hopkins airport on 9/11. The "crash site" in Shanksville, PA was nothing more than a ditch with trash dumped into it. It was a scam just like the Pentagon case.Exactly!!

I found an article stating Flight 93 was in cleveland on 9.11 if you remember IN THIS THREAD > http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76824

But try telling this to A BRAINWASHED MSM IDIOT!! (EVEN SHOW THEM THE ARTICLE!!) They still wont listen!! (They are too controlled)

I do not believe the official story, i am looking for the truth of what happend that day.Im sorry i doubted you,im sick of whats going on in this country!!

Im glad your on our side :)

[ultima1]

Exactly!!
I found an article stating Flight 93 was in cleveland on 9.11 if you remember IN THIS THREAD

Sorry but it was Dalta flight 1989 that landed at Cleveland not Flight 93.

Remeber Flight 1989 was confused for Flight 93 for a while.

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel.shtml
As an aside, the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked.

[merlincove]

Sorry but it was Dalta flight 1989 that landed at Cleveland not Flight 93.

Remeber Flight 1989 was confused for Flight 93 for a while.

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel.shtml
As an aside, the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked.

Two planes downed at cleveland that day.

Flight 93 didn't even crash. It was grounded at Cleveland Hopkins airport on 9/11. The "crash site" in Shanksville, PA was nothing more than a ditch with trash dumped into it. It was a scam just like the Pentagon case.Exactly!!

It is interesting that the video proclaimed that flight 93, landing at Cleveland also housed 200 passengers, pretty much the total number of pax in all 4 planes.

the 'telephone calls' are also very suss, with voices that can be heard saying 'well done, you did good,' etc after one call home from the plane.


That there was no plane at Shanksville is pretty obvious looking at the ground field, and that there is no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon, again looking at the limited damage is pretty obvious to any open eyed viewer.

[merlincove]

Flight 93 - YouTube

[dude111]

Sorry but it was Dalta flight 1989 that landed at Cleveland not Flight 93.

Remeber Flight 1989 was confused for Flight 93 for a while.Why would UNITED incorrectly ID one of thier own planes??

United identified the plane as Flight 93.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Plane+Lands+In+Cleveland%3B+Bomb+Feared+Aboard&btnG=Search

I saw 1 link from 9/11 debunker there where the guy who wrote the article tried to say it was a mistake when he wrote that!! (Ya right,someone threatening him to remove it and say that IS WHAT MOST LIKELY HAPPEND!!)

[merlincove]

i kna it's old, but loose change tells a very compelling story.

[ultima1]

Two planes downed at cleveland that day.


One was Dalte Flight 1989 and the other was reported to be a NASA plane.

[ultima1]

Why would UNITED incorrectly ID one of thier own planes??

Who said United incorrectly identified the plane?

Due to the fact that Flight 93 had its transponder off when flight 1989 got close to it in flight the air traffic contrllers mixed up the 2 flights for a while.

[merlincove]

One was Dalte Flight 1989 and the other was reported to be a NASA plane.

According to loose change.

flight 93 and D1989 landed at Cleveland.

10.00 am. Cleveland airport closed to foot pax and evacuated.

10.10 am. Delta 1989 lands at Cleveland. Evacced at 12.30 to FAA HQ. 69 passengers.

10.45 Flight 93 lands at cleveland and evacced by 11.15. 200 passengers.

One plane evacced into FAA headquarters, one plane evacced into NASA research centre.

[ultima1]

[QUOTE=merlincove;1058949162]
10.45 Flight 93 lands at cleveland and evacced by 11.15. 200 passengers.QUOTE]

Flight 93 was not carryig 200 passengers.

[merlincove]

[QUOTE=merlincove;1058949162]
10.45 Flight 93 lands at cleveland and evacced by 11.15. 200 passengers.QUOTE]

Flight 93 was not carryig 200 passengers.

how do you know?

the official story says it wasn't, but the official story is now well and trully out of the water here.

200 pax = all the 4 planes accountable passengers. The film then alludes to all the pax on all the supposed 'planes' being evacced to one secure location, for un-known but wholly assumable reasons.

So how many pax were on flight 93?

the official line as per the official story (so some of it can be beleived?) or the assumed evacced amount as discussed in the film?

[ultima1]

[QUOTE=ultima1;1058949212]
200 pax = all the 4 planes accountable passengers.

When and how did all the passengers from the other planes get on Flight 93?

You should think and come up with facts before posting.

[merlincove]

[QUOTE=merlincove;1058949234]

When and how did all the passengers from the other planes get on Flight 93?

You should think and come up with facts before posting.

So you believe the official story?

ok, your a pax on an internal flight, the FBI arrive as you are boarding and explain that due to security reasons blah blah blah....

Whatcha gonna do?

They buss you to a waiting plane, explain that you will only be delayed for a short time, plane fills up, blah blah blah.

i dont' know man, i wasn't there, were you there?

:rolleyes:

When TPTB are pushing a world wide agenda, are they gonna let a few misguided pax get in the way and foul it up?

they either drug the pax through the air con, or they move the pax out of the way, yeah?

Last thing TPTB need is for a hero to turn the situation around and one of the Towers to collapse when it was never hit by a plane lol.

Maybe there weren't 200 pax on 93, maybe there was, who knows?

What makes sense is, if those planes were flown into the towers, and given that there is no debris at either Shanksville or the Pentagon, something happened to those assumed passengers. Supposing that there were any pax on those flights at all.

Flight 93 went somewhere, and it is plainly obvious that it didn't ground in Shanksville.

Flight 77 went somewhere, and it is plainly obvious that there was no plane at the Pentagon.

The pax, if there were any, and if the 'numbers' were not just screen generated passengers, of those planes went somewhere, do you have a better explination hwere they went to?

[ultima1]

So you believe the official story?

NO i do not beleive the official sotry i can post facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt.

ok, your a pax on an internal flight, the FBI arrive as you are boarding and explain that due to security reasons blah blah blah..

They buss you to a waiting plane, explain that you will only be delayed for a short time, plane fills up, blah blah blah.

Well do you have any kind of reports or evidence that this happened. Since you were not there and i was not there we need to have sometign called facts and evidence, along with the official reports.

[merlincove]

NO i do not beleive the official sotry i can post facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt.

Well do you have any kind of reports or evidence that this happened. Since you were not there and i was not there we need to have sometign called facts and evidence, along with the official reports.

As i posted from the loose change film earlier, where 2 planes were reported to have landed at Cleveland, one at 10.10 and another at 10.45, one of the planes had 69 pax, the other, later plane had 200 pax, and it is this later plane, reported by Mayor White (?) @1.25 on the vid:

Flight 93 - YouTube!

that had 200 pax = flight 93.

it is interesting to note that there are two planes at Cleveland, one of which has 200 pax, which equates to the combined total of 4 aircraft.

Do you see the correlation?

[ultima1]

it is interesting to note that there are two planes at Cleveland, one of which has 200 pax, which equates to the combined total of 4 aircraft.

Do you see the correlation?

I still do not see any actual facts, evidence or official reports that support your theory/fantasy.

[lightgiver]

Here is a photo of what is supposed to be wing scars on the Pentagon.

Problem is that if it is wing scars the angle of the wing would mean the other wing would have been dragging the ground, there are no photos of wing scares on the ground in front of the crash site.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/starboard-wing2.jpg?t=1275665300

No Plane hit the pentagon

have you inquired to the whereabouts of all the 911 plane wreckage

you know where it is being stored like with lockerbie,for forensic analysis

Inside job

even a child can see that


after ground was broken for construction on September 11, 1941

The Pentagon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ultima1]

No Plane hit the pentagon

have you inquired to the whereabouts of all the 911 plane wreckage

you know where it is being stored like with lockerbie,for forensic analysis

Inside job

a child can see that

Yes i have inquired about the plane wreckage, but as posted before the serial numbers for the parts are not being released to ID the parts if we knew where they were at.

[merlincove]

I still do not see any actual facts, evidence or official reports that support your theory/fantasy.

is there an official report that says that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, or that a plane did not down in Shanksville?

If there is an official report to that effect i haven't seen it. :D

Of course that doesn't mean that simply because there is no official report unfounded suspicions are correct, i hear what you are saying :D

My point was to highlight a possible construct of 200 pax landing in Cleveland airport.

Of course that factor can not, and probably will never be verified. In the same way that it can not and perhaps never will be verified that planes 93 and 77 don’t fit the official story.

It is all open to conjecture. And that conjecture is thought provoking.

TBH, i gave up on the 911 thing some time ago, it is enough to know that we were lied to, that 911 was an inside job.

Going over old ground, no matter how many times will not change that.

The video is there, and the accusations are there, and they do add more intrigue, and more questions to the debate, but at the end of the day, the truth is buried so deep, the evidence or official reports that you ask for is all lost.

Ok, so it is only circumstantial, and it carries no weight.

But neither does the No Planes theory, the shooting down or crashing of flight 93 and the misrepresentation of a cruise missile for flight 77. Where are the official reports that discuss those?

You are asking for something that does not and will never exist.

All we are doing is speculating, at best. Because the official story is a lie, we can see that and we’re trying to piece together the pieces that we have. Those pieces are thin on the ground and we do speculate in order to get those pieces to fit – seems that loose change is speculating in the right direction imo.

We're just digging through the BS to see how big that lie is.

Take on board what fits and discard the rest :D

[ultima1]

is there an official report that says that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, or that a plane did not down in Shanksville?


Well i have a FOIA request filed with NSA about a intell report that states either flight 93 or 1989 were intercepted by fighters, that disagrees with the official story that no fighters were near any of the planes.

This report may state that flight 93 or 1989 were shot down.

[coco]

No Plane hit the pentagon

have you inquired to the whereabouts of all the 911 plane wreckage

you know where it is being stored like with lockerbie,for forensic analysis

Inside job

even a child can see that


after ground was broken for construction on September 11, 1941

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

BAM! That is what I've been saying for years!!! Why haven't they picked up as many pieces as possible to reconstruct as with Lockerbie - Thank you LG.

Because there weren't any bloody pieces of plane to pick up and glue back together for forensic analysis. They didn't want to venture there. They knew they could not.

Watching the only film available for the public to see, something of high speed hit the Pentagon but it wasn't passenger jet size.

I started to wake up a tiny bit when I saw the hole in the building that day on the news before the building collapsed. It was an emotional day and I quickly shrugged it off at first because it didn't occur that the hole was wrong for a large plane but luckily it bugged me, nagged me, then I had to fight disbelief within myself.

Hasn't been such an easy journey but a large hurdle has been overcome. So, a missile hit the Pentagon. Look at the only video available because as with the OKC bombing, all perimeter surveillance tapes were taken by agents from local businesses.

[ultima1]

BAM! That is what I've been saying for years!!! Why haven't they picked up as many pieces as possible to reconstruct as with Lockerbie - Thank you LG. .

Whats funny is that Flight 800 hit the water at high speed and broke into millions of pieces but the Navy was able to gather enough to do a reconstruction of the plane.

[coco]

Whats funny is that Flight 800 hit the water at high speed and broke into millions of pieces but the Navy was able to gather enough to do a reconstruction of the plane.

Exactly.

[ultima1]

Exactly.

Fuuny also how you can find lots of infomration on other avitation crime scenes but almost nothing on the 9/11 crime scenes even through FOIA requests.

[merlincove]

Well i have a FOIA request filed with NSA about a intell report that states either flight 93 or 1989 were intercepted by fighters, that disagrees with the official story that no fighters were near any of the planes.

This report may state that flight 93 or 1989 were shot down.

Well if that turns around (any set time scale?) it will hopefully blow a hole in the official story - but what are the real chances of that happening?

Not so up on Foi's etc, are they duty bound to respond directly to the points raised - or as an official investigatory body do they hold weight to veto any request?

Not trying to neg it out, i hope it is as revealing as we'd all hope here :D

Respect

[coco]

Fuuny also how you can find lots of infomration on other avitation crime scenes but almost nothing on the 9/11 crime scenes even through FOIA requests.

The criminals are not that stupid as to let the cat out of the bag about themselves.

[ultima1]

Not so up on Foi's etc, are they duty bound to respond directly to the points raised - or as an official investigatory body do they hold weight to veto any request?

Thier are certain rules that the agency must follow when recieving a FOIA request as far as responding to (like the letter i have responding to my request) and they must try to get you the infomrmatino requested.

However there are rules about about what infomration can be given out also.

[coco]

Additionally, what information they release can be heavily censored, such as blacking out portions of text.

[camreeno]

i kna it's old, but loose change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE) tells a very compelling story.I'm sure everyone here is already familiar with that. You're acting like no one has heard of it :D. As if a Scientologist wouldn't be familiar with Tom Cruise.

[camreeno]

Exactly!!

I found an article stating Flight 93 was in cleveland on 9.11 if you remember IN THIS THREAD > http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76824

But try telling this to A BRAINWASHED MSM IDIOT!! (EVEN SHOW THEM THE ARTICLE!!) They still wont listen!! (They are too controlled)

Yeah, it's all about cognitive dissonance. People just reject these things because they decide on their beliefs purely by what others believe. You should watch the debate between the two people from Popular Science magazine, and the two guys behind Loose Change (Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas). The Popular Science guys are a complete joke. They get by on red herrings, sidestepping, or ad hominen name attacks. One of them is actually the editor in chief of the magazine, and instead of giving a straight answer to why there wasn't any debris at the pentagon, he just goes "Oh the thing with conspiracy theories is...".

It's just classic. Watch it:

9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 - YouTube

[dude111]

Thanx for the video!!

[ultima1]

Additionally, what information they release can be heavily censored, such as blacking out portions of text.

Well the information i asked for was classified so i had to ask for a declassified version.

[ultima1]

bumped.

[eyeballkid88]

Well the information i asked for was classified so i had to ask for a declassified version.

lol....

meaning here's a load of useless information....

meaning here's a load of stuff you already know, excluding the real info...

[ultima1]

meaning here's a load of stuff you already know, excluding the real info...

No, it means the documet still would show reasonable doubt in the official story, and it would hold up in court.

[dude111]

Unfortunetly there are more people who listen to Obama "DONT QUESTION THE OFFICIAL 9/11 REPORT" then there are of us!!

SCREW HIM!! (He is just as much involved as BUSH saying stuff like this)

[ultima1]

Unfortunetly there are more people who listen to Obama "DONT QUESTION THE OFFICIAL 9/11 REPORT" then there are of us!!

SCREW HIM!! (He is just as much involved as BUSH saying stuff like this)

Funny how freedom of speech ends when you want to talk about 9/11.

[coco]

Funny how freedom of speech ends when you want to talk about 9/11.

Ain't that the truth.

[ultima1]

Ain't that the truth.

Why are people so afraid to talk about 9/11?

[coco]

Why are people so afraid to talk about 9/11?

Good question and one I don't know the answer to. As for myself, I've never been adverse to speaking about it.

Perhaps people just want to put it behind them?

[ultima1]

Good question and one I don't know the answer to. As for myself, I've never been adverse to speaking about it.

Perhaps people just want to put it behind them?

I think its that people want to live in their safe fantasy world and not face the reallity of somthing other then what they were told happened.

[coco]

I think its that people want to live in their safe fantasy world and not face the reallity of somthing other then what they were told happened.

Good observation and probably the most likely reason. It's too easy to watch TV or read internet news rather than read a book - a non fiction book or perform other sorts or research.

You're right, there is comfort in the illusion.

I had an old, retired Marine come in the office yesterday. He was hopping mad as he'd been ripped off from an ad we published. The ad came in to us from a national distributor.

The crux is he felt that no one was helping him, he visited some agencies but he said their hands were tied with the matter.

He stated he was a Marine and fought in three wars - he was in his 80's - he said he was ashamed he served this country only to have it behave with such apathy. He said if he knew America would become a callous and greedy nation, a nation filled with scams and liars he would rather seen it go to hell then fight for it. Truth is the US has been about money, scams and liars well before the 20th century but it is more proliferate now.

He ranted on about Washington, how no one cares about anything but credit ratings. I just let him vent, he had to get it out.

For him, the illusion was fading quickly now that he is in his late years.

[eyeballkid88]

I think its that people want to live in their safe fantasy world and not face the reallity of somthing other then what they were told happened.

(cough) moon (cough)

If that is the case how come you are fighting so aggressively on the moon thread??

Are you bi polar?

[eyeballkid88]

Good observation and probably the most likely reason. It's too easy to watch TV or read internet news rather than read a book - a non fiction book or perform other sorts or research.

You're right, there is comfort in the illusion.

I had an old, retired Marine come in the office yesterday. He was hopping mad as he'd been ripped off from an ad we published. The ad came in to us from a national distributor.

The crux is he felt that no one was helping him, he visited some agencies but he said their hands were tied with the matter.

He stated he was a Marine and fought in three wars - he was in his 80's - he said he was ashamed he served this country only to have it behave with such apathy. He said if he knew America would become a callous and greedy nation, a nation filled with scams and liars he would rather seen it go to hell then fight for it. Truth is the US has been about money, scams and liars well before the 20th century but it is more proliferate now.

He ranted on about Washington, how no one cares about anything but credit ratings. I just let him vent, he had to get it out.

For him, the illusion was fading quickly now that he is in his late years.

Shame he was conditioned and brainwashed enough to kill other human being for his masters before he actually recognised he was killing for the bad guys.....

[ultima1]

If that is the case how come you are fighting so aggressively on the moon thread??


Becasue i have done something called research (something it seems you know nothing about) and know thier is evidence that proves the moon landing. Just like there is not enough evidence to prove the 9/11 story.


Shame he was conditioned and brainwashed enough to kill other human being for his masters before he actually recognised he was killing for the bad guys.....

Its a poor shame that he is not even intelligent enough to figure out that i was in the Air Force and not trained to kill anybody, just your brianwashing that prejudges people.

I have a backgrpund in avitaion and law enforcement so basic common sense and basic intelligence let me know that something was wrong witht he media 9/11 story.

[eyeballkid88]

Its a poor shame that you are not even intelligent enough to figure out that i was in the Air Force and not trained to kill anybody, just your brianwashing that prejudges people.

I have a backgrpund in avitaion and law enforcement so basic common sense and basic intelligence let me know that something was wrong witht he media 9/11 story.

lol...... I wasnt even talking about you...

[eyeballkid88]

[QUOTE=ultima1;1058974416]Becasue i have done something called research (something it seems you know nothing about) and know thier is evidence that proves the moon landing. Just like there is not enough evidence to prove the 9/11 story.




[QUOTE]

And where does that information come from?

[ultima1]

lol...... I wasnt even talking about you...

Well you stated the same thing about me before.

[ultima1]

And where does that information come from?

Government and professional research sites.

Also sites like,

FAA.com
NTSB.com
FBI.com
NSA.com

And basic websites.

[eyeballkid88]

Well you stated the same thing about me before.

And your comment was 'if its me or the bad guy Im going home to the family... '

Maybe it made you feel big pretending to be involved, particularly after having been battered in every debate you involve yourself in..

[eyeballkid88]

Government and professional research sites.

Also sites like,

FAA.com
NTSB.com
FBI.com
NSA.com

And basic websites.

And where do they get there info from?

[ultima1]

And where do they get there info from?

Oh, i see do you think they are in on some kind of fantasy global conspiracy?

I see you know nothing at all about government agencies, only what you have been told.

[eyeballkid88]

At last we are getting down to it...

Thank fuck this has been boring me to tears for 2 days...

Ok so if its not a conspiracy where does 9/11 fit in?

What has your "research" concluded??

[ultima1]

Ok so if its not a conspiracy where does 9/11 fit in?

Who said 9/11 was a conspiracy?

What has your "research" concluded?

As stated many times, theie is enough evidence to show resonable doubt in the official story.

I am waiting on documents to show more facts on what happened.

[eyeballkid88]

So you dont think 9/11 was a conspiracy?

[eyeballkid88]

Faster Ultima, Ive got to go to work.....

So what do you think, Conspiracy, incompetance, coincidence(Norad exercise drill, pancake theory, oops the buildings fell) what is it?

What will this info confirm or deny??

[ultima1]

So you dont think 9/11 was a conspiracy?

The only conspiracy so far is the conspiracy the official story is based on that terrorist conspired to hijack planes.

Not enough evidence yet for any other conspiracy.

[ultima1]

Faster Ultima, Ive got to go to work.....

So what do you think, Conspiracy, incompetance, coincidence(Norad exercise drill, pancake theory, oops the buildings fell) what is it?

What will this info confirm or deny??

I do not deal in theories only facts and evidence.

[eyeballkid88]

I do not deal in theories only facts and evidence.

So from the facts and evidence you have looked at do you think there is a conspiracy?

[eyeballkid88]

The only conspiracy so far is the conspiracy the official story is based on that terrorist conspired to hijack planes.

Not enough evidence yet for any other conspiracy.

So you dont beleive that terrorists conspired to hijack planes?

[eyeballkid88]

Im just gonna have a quick wank in the shower before work..

Get of you fence you soft prick...

Or say, I dont know, Im not sure... Have an opinion... Stop gaying it up so heavily..

cheers :D

[ultima1]

So you dont beleive that terrorists conspired to hijack planes?

I just stated they did conpsire, please read post or if you cannot have someone read them for you.

[ultima1]

Im just gonna have a quick wank in the shower before work..

Get of you fence you soft prick...

Or say, I dont know, Im not sure... Have an opinion... Stop gaying it up so heavily..

cheers :D

Sorry you cannot understand about not dealing with theories, and wanting to get the facts.

[eyeballkid88]

You dont think its a conspiracy, perfect fantastic, thank god!

I knew I had you wrong I knew Id misunderstood it....

Well that has made my morning, I knew I was saying things you couldnt understand....

Ok, so mr. evidence man, what is your opinion about that fateful day based on the "evidence"

(pours coffee, butters toast)

[ultima1]

You dont think its a conspiracy, perfect fantastic, thank god!

I knew I had you wrong I knew Id misunderstood it....

Well that has made my morning, I knew I was saying things you couldnt understand....

Ok, so mr. evidence man, what is your opinion about that fateful day based on the "evidence"

(pours coffee, butters toast)

Well lets look at the facts.

I believe that since the government had some prior warnings they might have been able to stop 9/11 if they had raised the security level at the airports, since some of the hiajackers were flagged.

[eyeballkid88]

"I believe" isnt a fact...

Can you prove that they had prior warnings or is this another one of your theories...

[ultima1]

"I believe" isnt a fact...

Can you prove that they had prior warnings or is this another one of your theories...

Yes i can prove they had prior warnings, Kind of like Pearl Harbor.

Thier were several foreign and domestic intell agencies wraned the government that something was going to happen involving hijackings. (the one i work for was one).

Also it was in the Presidents Daily Brief.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm
The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning in last week's testimony by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice before the commission investigating the September 11th attacks.