COMMENTS:
'...and the missile that hit this building....'
-Donald Rumsfeld,
He should know.
And all the evidence proves him right.
Amen ;o)
Voted : American Airlines Flight 77
I guess.. I mean that's what the Big Guys tell me. I could feel and hear the BOOM almost 5 miles away, much like an explosion.. but I guess that's what dissentegrated the passenger jet.
by Jyl on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:06pm
[+]
Yeah ken, that is why they found airplane parts (including remnants of landing gear).
Are you calling Rumsfeld a liar Fiddle? LOL!
Rumsfeld isn't a liar.
He's an idiot.
Voted : American Airlines Flight 77
As seen by hundreds of credible eye witnesses, including men, women and children, and as clearly proven by on site investigators, science and forensics.
Oh, and AA airlines is still missing this 757 from their inventory, as are families missing their loved ones that purchased tickets for that flight or were part of the flight crew. All of whose DNA has been identified from body part samples acquired at the crash site.
^^^PURE STINKING STEAMING BULLSHIT^^^
Check out my latest ballot on the subject folk, unlike this one it has a photo attached PROVING as far as any photo can that NO huge airliner hit, Wide head certainly won't be using it, and hasn't here.
BUSTED!
'Oh, and AA airlines is still missing this 757 from their inventory...'
Really Jinn? how come the two planes are still flying then?
Two planes with the same serial numbers as the two that are alleged to have hit the twin towers are still carrying passengers today, so what planes hit the towers?
Answer that.
My comments are my comments. If you can't deal with that its not my problem. I gave what the facts are. And of course you have not proven them wrong. Asking me a silly question certainly does not prove those above facts wrong. And of course you can't prove these facts wrong. Never have, never will.
Voted : Something else (see comment)
Michael Moore hit the pentagon. He knew there was a McDonalds right on the other side of that wall and didn't feel like waiting on line like everyone else. Never get in the way of a fat man when he needs to Supa' size his Big Mac
"Two planes with the same serial numbers as the two that are alleged to have hit the twin towers are still carrying passengers today, so what planes hit the towers?"
Remains of passengers from all four hijacked aircraft have been identified using DNA. In the case of flight 77 ALL the passengers were identified.
Let's extrapolate from Ken's position shall we?
4 aircraft were hijacked but (according to Ken) they didn't crash into any of their targets (or into a field). So what happened?
Were they landed and the passengers murdered and burned - their remains shipped into the crash locations?
It is utterly absurd to ignore solid, physical evidence in favour of groundless conjecture and speculation.
The fact of the matter is that the evidence for the official story is incontrivertible. To suggest otherwise is bordering on insane.
We're still waiting for one single, solitary shred of solid physical evidence to back up ANY of the claims made by conspiracy theorists.
"Check out my latest ballot on the subject..."
Please do check ballot #102709 for some classic examples of misdirection, outright lies, speculation, distortion and logical fallacies from the Conspiracy Theorists.
Voted : Something else (see comment)
Can somebody show a video of whatever hit the Pentagon?
So suspicious that the USA government never shows any videos of whatever it was. I guess it wasn't the plane that they claimed it was.
"I guess it wasn't the plane that they claimed it was."
Well, your guess is wrong.
They found parts of the plane and ALL the passengers.
I personally believe it was a special type of missile that could go in a zig zag line.
Even though there were hundreds of bit of debris, identified as coming from a AA 757, and 90 people that saw a large silver airliner, missing passengers and missing plane, I still think it was a missile, because I'm a bit dim.
The evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon far outweighs any other scenario.
1. The pentagon lawn covered in small silver debris, some of which identifiable as coming from a 757 - with AA lettering
Source - (geocities . com / osram007 / photos / WTCtable3f . jpg)
2. Big chunks of aluminium debris on the lawn and helipad
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / yardparts . html)
3. Aluminium debris painted with the AA green primer inside the building
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / parts . html)
4. Huge holes in the Pentagon wall - These holes are roughly 25 feet high and 90 feet wide (on the ground floor), 16 foot wide on the second floor.
Source - Full extent of damage - (oilempire . us / graphics / hole11 . jpg)
5. 10-12 foot hole/damage corresponding to the right engine
Source - (pentagon . batcave . net / r01750r-_2a . jpg)
6. 10-12 foot hole/damage coresponding to the left engine
Source - (silvereagletaphouse . com / pentagon-1 . jpg)
7. Superficial limestone damage and broken windows(inches thick) corresponding to the left wing
Source - (perso . orange . fr / jpdesm / pentagon / damage / aileGauche1 . jpg)
8. A huge dent and limestone damage corresponding to the right wing
Source - (911review . org / images / pentagon / 356243--2 . jpg)
9. 89 PEOPLE saw a big airliner hit the Pentagon. 2/3 that didn't. None of which described a Global Hawk or a missile.
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / analysis / witnesses . html)
10. Bodies
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / humanremains . html)
11. Knocked down lamp posts that were not in a straight line...
Source - (thepowerhour . com / images / lamp1 . JPG)
12. The landing gear from a boeing 757 - the strongest part of the 757
Source - (whatreallyhappened . com / PENTPLANE / landinggear002 . jpg)
13. Various engine pieces from a 757
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / compressor . html)
Source - (thebiggestsecretpict . online . fr / nwo / inside_pent_engine_remains . jpg)
14. Non profit experts confirming that these engine parts match those used by the RB211 757 RR engines. Which are too big to match those used by the Global Hawk.
Source - (aerospaceweb. org/ question/ conspiracy/ q0265. shtml)
15. Tyre rims and rubber identified as coming from a 757
Source - (whatreallyhappened . com / PENTPLANE / aedrive6 . jpg)
16. A hole on the AE drive on the back wall of the open plan ground floor. With the wheel rim and silver debris. Something a missile could not have done by the way.
Open plan - Source (pentagon . batcave . net / A000-2 . jpg)
Wheel rim - Source (pentagon . batcave . net / trou1_grande--1 . jpg)
17. Internal column damage corresponding to to an object the size of a 757
Source - chapelhill . indymedia . org / uploads / impact-internal-1-big . jpg
Source - e-bias . com / images / orange1 . jpg
Ken Said "And all the evidence proves him right."
LOL. You have pictures of this missile? Perhaps a few fragments of it? How about some witnesses who saw a missile?
{"I guess it wasn't the plane that they claimed it was."
Well, your guess is wrong.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Oct 03, 06 2:03am}
PROVE IT.
We've got hours and hours of videos of the planes that hit the WTC buildings, so surely you can show a video of a clearly recognisable, cearly identifiable HUGE PASSENGER JET hitting the Pentagon...
As I said, it's SO SUSPICIOUS that the USA government never shows any videos of whatever it was. I guess it wasn't the plane that they claimed it was.
{ The fact of the matter is that the evidence for the official story is incontrivertible...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 11:36pm}
Yes, it's incontrovertible NONSENSE.
It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
Until you idiots can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
I already mentioned the reasons why the "plane parts" don't prove anything. They are not scorched, they are not burnt, they are not melted. They look just like old dirty plane parts from an old dirty scrapyard. There appears to be so little, that the quantity could be dumped from the back of a small truck. And surely if a HUGE PASSENGER JET hit the Pentagon then you can show videos of it to PROVE IT.
I'd like to see some SOLID EVIDENCE from a CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT, and VERIFIABLE source about the other bodies definitely not being only workers at the Pentagon. Can you cite some? Please hurry and do so
If there was a plane, then why can't they show a video which CLEARLY has a plane visible from any of those 85 CCTVs? Because A) there isn't a plane, or B) it was a fighterjet like the traffic controllers thought it was!
Lovelynice said - "prove it".
See my second post. The proof is there.
{ See my second post. The proof is there.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Oct 03, 06 4:30a}
No it's not. It's you again claiming that it is when in truth none of what you posted stands any real srutiny.
AS I ALREADY SAID;
I already mentioned the reasons why the "plane parts" don't prove anything. They are not scorched, they are not burnt, they are not melted. They look just like old dirty plane parts from an old dirty scrapyard. There appears to be so little, that the quantity could be dumped from the back of a small truck. And surely if a HUGE PASSENGER JET hit the Pentagon then you can show videos of it to PROVE IT.
I'd like to see some SOLID EVIDENCE from a CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT, and VERIFIABLE source about the other bodies definitely not being only workers at the Pentagon. Can you cite some? Please hurry and do so
Now, if you could just PROVE that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon by showing us the videos of a huge plane hitting the Pentagon from any of those 85 CCTVs, then we "might" believe you. Without such solid evidence, why should we believe the Bush Administration? I see no reason to. It's obvious that they lie all the time about everything else.
"I'd like to see some SOLID EVIDENCE from a CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT, and VERIFIABLE source about the other bodies definitely not being only workers at the Pentagon. Can you cite some? Please hurry and do so"
It's on my user page with some other stuff re the pentagon.
I know, however, that there is no source or evidence you will accept.
The evidence is all out there - you must be too lazy, dumb or unwilling to find it yourself.
Personally I think it's the latter but your recent posts are becoming less and less civil. I wonder why?
^ BINGO!!
{The evidence is all out there...
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Oct 03, 06 7:12a}
Really? So where's the videos showing a huge passenger plane hitting the Pentagon?
{ It's on my user page with some other stuff re the pentagon...
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Oct 03, 06 7:12am}
and it's not very good.
The plane parts are not scorched, they are not burnt, they are not melted. They look just like old dirty plane parts from an old dirty scrapyard. The quantity could've been dumped from the back of a small truck. And surely if a HUGE PASSENGER JET hit the Pentagon then you can show videos of it to PROVE IT.
The plane parts were ripped to shreds!!
Here is picture of a piece of the plane that hit the south tower, no burn marks or scorching.
Just ripped and bent.
serendipity . li / wot / wtc_ch2b / fig-2-29 . jpe
Lovelynice, do you have proof that those alledged videos actually showed anything?
CCTV is typically very poor, considerably less than the basic PC VGA mode (640 x 480), so even if it a camera framed the exact point of impact then you wouldn't get a great picture. Move the camera away for a quarter of a mile, say, point it in a slightly different direction, and the impact area may become only 100 pixels square. Or even less.
The second issue is a combination of frame rate and plane speed. CCTV that's recorded doesn't tend to use broadcast frame rates (25 or 30 frames per second), because it just wastes space; they might use 5 frames a second instead, maybe even less.
It's claimed that Flight 77 was travelling at around 500 mph when it hit the Pentagon. This translates to well over 700 feet per second, which begins to pose a problem for CCTV speeds. Even at 5 fps, for instance, the plane will travel over 120 feet between each frame. You'd still be unlucky to miss it completely, but it does mean you might easily have 2 or 3 frames of a blurred object, at low resolution. I don't think that will be enough to convince anyone.
How do you know that these video were not worse in terms of detail, than the one that was provided? They were afterall furthur away. You just assuming that they showed anything.
Why won't they show the videos of whatever hit the Pentagon Nipple, Widehead' and Fiddle'? :o)
This should be a good laugh folks, I wonder which one of them will dare to try and answer this magnum of a smoking gun anomaly first.
(probably private messaging each other as to how best to wriggle out of this one - which they can NEVER answer)
Ken, can you explain how a missile can travel in a zig-zag line?
"magnum of a smoking gun anomaly"
Precisely. It's an anomaly.
Anomaly hunting is not research. Anomalies that you dredge up are not proof especially when there is a mountain of physical evidence that directly contradicts your claim.
Just because you don't accept or understand a given explanantion doesn't mean that it isn't true.
But don't accept speculation - look at the physical evidence.
"The plane parts are not scorched, they are not burnt, they are not melted"
So? Those parts were on the lawn - not in the building. Speculating about what you think the wreckage should have looked like is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be.
^^^^ Why won't they show the videos of whatever hit the Pentagon Nipple, Widehead' and Fiddle'? :o)
This should be a good laugh folks, I wonder which one of them will dare to try and answer this magnum of a smoking gun anomaly first.
(probably private messaging each other as to how best to wriggle out of this one - which they can NEVER answer)
SEE WHAT I MEAN FOLKS?
You couldn't make it up, the three stooges come to mind, we're just missing Fiddle, and he's probably in Rome while his mates here burn.
i know, ken. just tell us what you daw when you were looking out your window? your office is on that side, right?
"Why won't they show the videos of whatever hit the Pentagon Nipple, Widehead' and Fiddle'?"
What for? They have uncovered the wreckage of a 757 and identified the victims that were on the flight using DNA. Although you don't accept it the damage IS consistent with a jetliner hitting a reinforced structure.
Only an idiot would require video evidence in order to prove that a plane crashed there.
Check the first two links on my user page.
Kenneth, can you explain how a missile can travel in a zig-zag line?
Why can't you answer the question Ken?
'...and the missile that hit this building...'
-Donald Rumsfeld, forgetting his lines from the script.
Ask your friend Donald, he clearly knows the answer to that one. 
Could you please look at the links on my user page and make a relevant, intelligent comment about them please?
Ken, is that Rumsfeld quote the only thing you have left?
The same quote that is preceded with the line "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens"
But I quess as usual prisonplanet forgot to mention that bit.
|
