View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: It was a bomb not a plane |
|
|
Well done Andrew Watson for finding this
Here we have an eye witness report stating categorically that it was a bomb and not a plane at WTC 2
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andyb Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
do you know where he was standing? Could he not have been on the opposite side to the plane? He could have looked up and only seen the fireball? I'm less inclined to believe the Pentagon story yet there are numerous witnesses saying they saw a boeing coming in. You can't base a case on witness testimony. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, because he saw no plane simply means he didn't see a plane.
There are a myriad of witness who all have conflicting stories of what they 'saw' on that day.
Take The Pentagon for instance = missiles with wings, small plane, big plane, no plane, three planes, two planes, one man and his dog - which is correct?
He is just some guy who says one thing whilst another says something else - I don't get why such a big deal is made of him specifically? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
telecasterisation wrote: | Agreed, because he saw no plane simply means he didn't see a plane.
There are a myriad of witness who all have conflicting stories of what they 'saw' on that day.
Take The Pentagon for instance = missiles with wings, small plane, big plane, no plane, three planes, two planes, one man and his dog - which is correct?
He is just some guy who says one thing whilst another says something else - I don't get why such a big deal is made of him specifically? |
So who do you believe - the Fox news reporter or the witness? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | telecasterisation wrote: | Agreed, because he saw no plane simply means he didn't see a plane.
There are a myriad of witness who all have conflicting stories of what they 'saw' on that day.
Take The Pentagon for instance = missiles with wings, small plane, big plane, no plane, three planes, two planes, one man and his dog - which is correct?
He is just some guy who says one thing whilst another says something else - I don't get why such a big deal is made of him specifically? |
So who do you believe - the Fox news reporter or the witness? |
Either can be telling the subjective truth as they experienced it.
Establishing the objective truth is something else again. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 eruditely responded;
So who do you believe - the Fox news reporter or the witness?
This is a bizarre question;
The news reporter said;
Quote: | RICK LEVENTHAL: That's what we're told, a second plane, we saw it on television. |
Yes I believe that is what he was told and what he saw on the television. I have no reason to doubt this - it is what I also saw and was told.
As for the witness, it is possible he saw no plane and that is what he believes - I have very little to go on with him. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallious Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No plane or no Big Boeing theorists like to cite the highly dubious official theories of the Shanksville and Pentagon incidents as an endorsement for suspicious aircraft events at the Twin Towers. However, with a little consideration it should be clear that the nature of the Pentagon and Shanksville events actually suggest events at the Twin Towers were exactly as they looked.
Lets take a quick look at the pentagon NP scenario versus the Towers...
- Unlike the twin towers, there is currently no video of a plane crashing into the pentagon.
- Unlike the twin towers, the majority of pentagon witnesses have contradictory accounts.
- Unlike the twin towers, there is evidence of secret service intimidation and foresight, gathering video evidence from all cameras in the area and 'briefing' witnesses.
- Unlike the twin towers, as far as I'm aware a black box was recovered from the pentagon 'crash'.
- Unlike the twin towers, the Pentagon video(s) which has been released are clearly suspect even to the untrained observer.
- Unlike the twin towers, bodies from the Pentagon plane were found.
- Unlike the twin towers, The pentagon structural damage does not conform with a big Boeing impact.
The Shanksville incident features a wealth of similar evidence and contradictions. When we contrast these events with the WTC opperation, it seems to me that NPT's have some fundamental questions to answer...
Firstly.. How could two operations, with so few witnesses and no video evidence fail so badly to convince that the planes existed, while attacks on perhaps the most famous landmarks in the world, in broad daylight have so little evidence which favours the No Plane theory? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallious wrote: |
Unlike the twin towers, bodies from the Pentagon plane were found. |
I am not doubting you here, but have you ever seen any evidence to support there were Pentagon plane bodyparts found? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallious Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
telecasterisation wrote: | Fallious wrote: |
Unlike the twin towers, bodies from the Pentagon plane were found. |
I am not doubting you here, but have you ever seen any evidence to support there were Pentagon plane bodyparts found? |
I've seen pictures of charred body parts that were said to be plane passengers. However, this is another thing that doesn't fit about the pentagon crash, AFAIK none were positively identified.
I expect someone could track this down real fast! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallious wrote: | telecasterisation wrote: | Fallious wrote: |
Unlike the twin towers, bodies from the Pentagon plane were found. |
I am not doubting you here, but have you ever seen any evidence to support there were Pentagon plane bodyparts found? |
I've seen pictures of charred body parts that were said to be plane passengers. However, this is another thing that doesn't fit about the pentagon crash, AFAIK none were positively identified.
I expect someone could track this down real fast! |
The only charred Pentagon body/bodypart pictures were established to be Pentagon workers and not plane passengers. I would be interested if anyone could supply a link to a quote stating otherwise with images.
I would also add, passenger bodyparts from the Ground Zero have been most certainly reported to have been found - I don't understand why you draw the comparison stating otherwise? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 348 Location: Norfolk
|
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing that makes no-planes at the Towers more difficult to sustain is this:
If they were able to fake all those videos of WTC2 being hit by a 767. why on earth didn't they also fake the Pentagon crash? Even stranger , why make such a total hash of the Shanksville crash site and not leave half a plane sticking out of the ground? That's what I would have done. They should have asked me.
I find the ineptitude of so much about 9/11 strangely at variance with a massive conspiracy. We know it was a conspiracy, and that it was succcessful. so maybe the mistakes they made were not bad ones from their pint of view. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|