Reply With Quote
Yes.
Because that is what happened. No question whatsoever.
Wait, I've got to go; the black helicopters here to deliver my money.
So, I take it that you guys believe that a plane crashed into The Pentagon. No question.
Yes.
Because that is what happened. No question whatsoever.
Wait, I've got to go; the black helicopters here to deliver my money.
That's cool. Have you seen those conspiracy videos? I'm just talking about the pentagon one on this one. I was wondering if everything they pointed out is flawed. I'm being serious here, so no need for jokes. Honestly, when I saw one it gave me a whole lot of doubt.
This might help also:
Pictures of Pentagon (includes shots of aircraft remains INSIDE the building)
Gosh, when you saw a video that uses scary music and someone narrating and trying to get you to believe what they wanted you to believe, you had a whole lot of doubt. How odd.
I mean, the way that they are totally un-biased and don't have an agenda at all (ie Micheal Moore) I would think you'd be left thinking maybe both sides have a point. But wow, you were left with a whole lot of doubt.
Seriously, I love the "don't believe everything the government tells you" type of a spin and yet conspiracy theorists see one movie made by a couple of college kids and it's a for sure thing.
I understand.
In the link I just posted, look at the "human remains" links. There's a picture of a guy still strapped into his seat; looks like he's screaming; horrifying. Obviously the conspiracy sights haven't posted THESE pictures. It, quite frankly, is an insult to the people who experienced that terror on that day, and their families still today.
We KNOW who did this, and it's not our government. The evidence is there, and it has been openly made available to all who care to look for it. It is what it is.
My God, the puncture of c-ring is in a perfect circle.........there is no way it could have been a plane.
There, did it for the conspiracy folks.
Absolutely.
all of this. pointless. must be the al ude. 101A has the maturity level i'm looking for. now back to your dungeon and dragon game.
I've never seen these pics. I'll have to check them out at home.
Must be the al ude? What the are you talking about?
Furthermore, I was unaware that you must be mature to believe everything you see/read on the internet.
Almost 9 pages and not one person who has actually seen In Plane sight has made any comment worth reading. You don't see me talking about the movie broke back mountain if I never really saw the movie do you?
All I see in here is real people asking real questions and they are getting piled on by a bunch of lame wannabe comedians.
If anyone over the age of 16 has seen the movie In plane sight and wants to have a legit debate? feel free to PM me.
Guess you missed the video ChumpDumper posted.
Did you look at the pictures and read the essays from the link above?
From what I understand, the only wannabe comedian here is you.
I don't know if i've seen that one. I've seen a few. I'll have to look it up. What are some points it brings up?
That's why they have pictures of an office desk with books still lying on top with no burn marks? You would think a fire so great that would destroy any evidence of human life would scorch a page or two? And the windows where the wings would have hit as the so called plane hit the building still had the glass and was not even scratched, You would think a Plane that was flying that fast would at least ruffle one of the blinds in the window?
# A fully loaded Boeing 757 weighing 100 tonnes with 30 tonnes of fuel on board would have caused much more fire damage to the Pentagon structure than was sustained.
# Given the physical size and limits of maneuverability of a Boeing 757 at low al ude, it would have been impossible for it to crash only into the ground 2 floors of the Pentagon.
# A fully loaded Boeing 757 hitting a steel reinforced concrete structure at 200-400 m.p.h. would have left massive amounts of debris at the site of the crash, including baggage and bodies, pieces of fuselage, etc. The photographs of fire crews on the scene show that the lawn in front of the point of impact is largely undisturbed and that there is no significant debris.
# The wings of a Boeing 757 span more than 40 meters and contain the majority of the airplane's fuel. The engines are attached to the wings and sheer off from the wings relatively easily on impact. Neither did the wings penetrate the buildings, or is any trace of the wings or the engines found in front of the building.
# The first civilian firefighters on the scene reported finding no fuselage sections on the scene.
As far as the parts they found inside the building not one matches up to any passenger airline used in the country,
The part has already been Identified as an engine part form an unmanned plane like this one,
AE3007H a part made by the rolls Royce company used in unmanned aircraft
Further more the so called flight plan shows the passenger plane coming from the other side of the pentagon. In order to turn the plane around and to level if off so its only 8 feet off the ground is a feat no pilot today has ever done with a commercial airliner. And this was done by some terrorist who failed flight school?
Who is really wearing the tin foil caps in this forum?
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm
I put that puppet on Ignore days ago.
Based upon this thread, I predict that within a couple of months Carlos Mencia will do a skit where he drives a bunch of engineers and scientists batty by hoisting forth nonsensical 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Eyewitness Accounts
All these people are "in on it"?
Those pictures only prove my point even more. I like the one where it shows the hole the missile left at the exit.
No passenger aircraft made in this country has a nose cone that is strong enough to penetrate that so called nuke proof building. And if was made out of this new man made technology and actually made that hole? it would be strong enough to leave some parts behind, Or let me guess it penetrated all those walls and decided to vaporize at the last second? Go Google some missile attack photos and compare them together, keep Googling your doing me a great favor
This piece weighed about 2 pounds and was already Identified as not a part from a passenger aircraft
I like the part where they show a burned body, There goes your theory on how hot the fire was that is so great it burned all the luggage and the black box they claim was not found. You can't have it both ways saying the impact and blast destroyed everything then say you found a body. pick one side of the fence.
That person was never on the plane but was I identified later as a maintenance man working in the area, Nice try though.
That's why they have pictures of an office desk with books still lying on top with no burn marks? You would think a fire so great that would destroy any evidence of human life would scorch a page or two? And the windows where the wings would have hit as the so called plane hit the building still had the glass and was not even scratched, You would think a Plane that was flying that fast would at least ruffle one of the blinds in the window?
# A fully loaded Boeing 757 weighing 100 tonnes with 30 tonnes of fuel on board would have caused much more fire damage to the Pentagon structure than was sustained.
# Given the physical size and limits of maneuverability of a Boeing 757 at low al ude, it would have been impossible for it to crash only into the ground 2 floors of the Pentagon.
# A fully loaded Boeing 757 hitting a steel reinforced concrete structure at 200-400 m.p.h. would have left massive amounts of debris at the site of the crash, including baggage and bodies, pieces of fuselage, etc. The photographs of fire crews on the scene show that the lawn in front of the point of impact is largely undisturbed and that there is no significant debris.
# The wings of a Boeing 757 span more than 40 meters and contain the majority of the airplane's fuel. The engines are attached to the wings and sheer off from the wings relatively easily on impact. Neither did the wings penetrate the buildings, or is any trace of the wings or the engines found in front of the building.
# The first civilian firefighters on the scene reported finding no fuselage sections on the scene.
As far as the parts they found inside the building not one matches up to any passenger airline used in the country,
The part has already been Identified as an engine part form an unmanned plane like this one,
AE3007H a part made by the rolls Royce company used in unmanned aircraft
Further more the so called flight plan shows the passenger plane coming from the other side of the pentagon. In order to turn the plane around and to level if off so its only 8 feet off the ground is a feat no pilot today has ever done with a commercial airliner. And this was done by some terrorist who failed flight school?
Who is really wearing the tin foil caps in this forum?
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm
RTM, if you had a brain you would take it out and play
with it like you do with other things. What an idiot you are. Go hide the black
helicopters are coming for you.
So...Those pictures only prove my point even more. I like the one where it shows the hole the missile left at the exit.
No passenger aircraft made in this country has a nose cone that is strong enough to penetrate that so called nuke proof building. And if was made out of this new man made technology and actually made that hole? it would be strong enough to leave some parts behind, Or let me guess it penetrated all those walls and decided to vaporize at the last second? Go Google some missile attack photos and compare them together, keep Googling your doing me a great favor
This piece weighed about 2 pounds and was already Identified as not a part from a passenger aircraft
I like the part where they show a burned body, There goes your theory on how hot the fire was that is so great it burned all the luggage and the black box they claim was not found. You can't have it both ways saying the impact and blast destroyed everything then say you found a body. pick one side of the fence.
That person was never on the plane but was I identified later as a maintenance man working in the area, Nice try though.
Why did "they" use a passenger aircraft for the WTC, but cruise missiles for the Pentagon.
Could it be that we all saw the planes hit the WTC on the Today show, so the theorists can't dispute that. If THAT video weren't available, there would no doubt be a large drone of people stating that the planes didn't hit the WTC, right?
Where is that flight, anyway? What happened to the plane and people.
Landed somewhere else and summarily executed?
Any hypothesis at all?
Or can you just enlighten as to what DIDN'T happen?
Why don't you come up with a theory and we'll all shoot holes in it.
nvm
It starts off by saying its only made to show some unanswered questions.
It even talks about how folks like the ones you see in this topic will do everything they can to try and argue that it was a passenger plane.
You can download eMule or you can download the movie from Google. I never said I belived anyone, or any movie 100%, all I was asking was a few unasnered questions that I had. Instead it turned into some sort of mini smack off with some insults about Carlos Mancia like he really has to do with the topic.
And to think I am called the troll?
If you have a credit card you can order the video here also.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/
http://www.911inplanesite.com/
They also have a film on how the Troops were lied to in the gulf war about the chemicals they were breathing in.
http://www.thepowermall.com/bookbarn...yond%20Treason
Another topic you can't discuss here unless you want the MTV crowd to attack you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
