| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes, rather what we have been saying.
Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest what is said there, not for us, but your own benefit.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking of getting that debunking 911 myths book to check it out but don't think I will; when I first discovered this stuff, the first critic piece I read was the original PM article - It freaked me out, because I thought it was so poor it made me think if this was the best the opposite view could offer, the CT must be true. There's lots of thought provoking critic stuff out there, but I think PM are rubbish. They didn't even do very well against Dylan Avery & chum on Democracy Now.
It's interesting how the article highlights 'the left' as 'conspiracy prone', when it seems much of the radical left hates the truth movement and as many truthers seem to come from the right.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like most people here, I have looked at both sides of the argument and I admit that some of the critics occasionally raise a point that makes some sense.
There has also been a great deal of focus on the events at the WTC and Pentagon, but not so much on Shanksville. The latter being difficult to debate due to the lack of evidence either way, the completely fragmented aircraft and a hole in the ground being the only real physical evidence. We had a few photos of supposed debris, but still it remains for me the most unexplored area of 9/11.
But to move the point of my post;
I spent some time on the American equivalent of this site and because of the physical proximity of many of the posters to The Pentagon, there was a lot of fine detail covered. We rely on unconfirmed hearsay and websites for virtually all our info, but these guys were on the ground there interviewing and following up on the minutiae.
The critics there were in a constant toing-and-froing with the truthers, but the thing that has interested me the most was 'what' hit The Pentagon.
The first link above supplied by hampton has a quote concerning the hole made by whatever struck;
| Quote: | | First of all, the hole was actually ninety feet wide, according to the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute put out. |
The picture below was taken virtually after the impact, before the section collapsed creating the much larger hole.
Whilst I accept that the body of the aircraft would have essentially been fragmented and it is arguable that there would be no recognisable sections simply lying on the lawn;
Can any of the critics highlight a hole that appears to be ninety feet wide?
Why is there only a tiny isolated fire - given the huge quantity of aviation fuel that was supposedly present? This surely would have been spread along the entire section given the fuel was spread along the length of the wings.
Where are the fragmented pieces of aircraft - I see absolutely no bits, tiny or large whatsoever?
Naturally, I accept that this has been debated many times, but I simply have never had these questions answered satisfactorily.
Besides, the 9/11 debate has slowed and we even got onto the whole 'kumbaya' campfire song thing over in the General section because things are so slow. I think it would be productive just to revisit this familiar topic again and clarify the thinking of both sides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i notice no one has attempted to answer this question yet. yet it has a lot to do with why so many people do not beileve the offical version, and was the first alarm bell when i totally beileved the offical version. it will be intresting to see critics answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Can any of the critics highlight a hole that appears to be ninety feet wide?
Why is there only a tiny isolated fire - given the huge quantity of aviation fuel that was supposedly present? This surely would have been spread along the entire section given the fuel was spread along the length of the wings.
Where are the fragmented pieces of aircraft - I see absolutely no bits, tiny or large whatsoever?
|
The report doesn't propose a 90' hole, it proposes an initially 90' wide damage path for debris that did enter the building :
"Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the
building, the most severe damage was confined to a region that
can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the
trajectory of the aircraft in plan, with a base width at the aircraft
entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft
path of approximately 230 ft (figure 6.6)."
The report itself
www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
answers your points regarding the fire, with photos/clips of the fireball, fires and internal fire damage. Many more are available on CT and counter-CT websites.
There are many freely available photos of plane debris on the Pentagon lawn.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | Can any of the critics highlight a hole that appears to be ninety feet wide?
Why is there only a tiny isolated fire - given the huge quantity of aviation fuel that was supposedly present? This surely would have been spread along the entire section given the fuel was spread along the length of the wings.
Where are the fragmented pieces of aircraft - I see absolutely no bits, tiny or large whatsoever?
|
The report doesn't propose a 90' hole, it proposes an initially 90' wide damage path for debris that did enter the building :
"Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the
building, the most severe damage was confined to a region that
can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the
trajectory of the aircraft in plan, with a base width at the aircraft
entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft
path of approximately 230 ft (figure 6.6)."
The report itself
www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
answers your points regarding the fire, with photos/clips of the fireball, fires and internal fire damage. Many more are available on CT and counter-CT websites.
There are many freely available photos of plane debris on the Pentagon lawn. |
The 90ft hole - I quoted directly from the CT debunk site supplied by hampton. However, you say, and I quote;
| Quote: | | entry point of approximately 90 ft and...... |
So either the entry point (hole) was 90ft or it wasn't?
The picture shows no 90ft hole.
The fire - I am acutely aware of all the points about the fire being so minute, however given all aspects of what has just literally happened in the attached picture - the counter debates do not stand up. A huge commercial airliner has just flown into a building and there is the equivalent of my neighbour's November 5th bonfire?
As for the pictures of debris on the lawn - yes there are a few showing sporadic items taken from lawn level after services and people have started to attend/appear. But the supplied picture was taken prior to punters legging over the site and it shows zippo/nada/nothing in the way of 'bits'.
Of course, we could simply say the picture has been electronically manipulated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
The picture shows no 90ft hole.
|
There is a reason for that
| Quote: | | Of course, we could simply say the picture has been electronically manipulated. |
Or in fact, it is something much simpler. Look at this picture of the collapsed section of the pentagon. Note the position of the building on the far left hand side, and compare it to the position of the same building in your photo. Your photo appears to show too far left along the building. It seems that it doesn't show a 90ft hole, because that hole is just off the right hand side of the picture...
Large version here: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Johnny Pixels wrote;
| Quote: | | Or in fact, it is something much simpler. Look at this picture of the collapsed section of the pentagon. Note the position of the building on the far left hand side, and compare it to the position of the same building in your photo. Your photo appears to show too far left along the building. It seems that it doesn't show a 90ft hole, because that hole is just off the right hand side of the picture... |
You highlight big flaws in the official report;
Of course the 'hole' is in fact further along and not in the picture I supplied. This would seem strange given its size and the person capturing the suppied image would simply not bother to record it.
The official report does not show a photo of the 90ft hole, only an artist's simulation, again strange.
However, if you look at the image I just knocked together of both my picture and the official mockup - note the generator standing in the foreground.
The official version has us believe the 'hole' is at ground level - very clear from the official version.
However the generator (marked) and its fence stand well above ground level and just a couple of feet from this 90ft hole. They still sit there untouched by either huge passenger jet flying into them or enormous explosion and fireball. How is this possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
So either the entry point (hole) was 90ft or it wasn't?
The picture shows no 90ft hole.
|
No, your proposition is a false dilemma. The RC external pillars survived except where the fuselage and one of the engines entered (and landing gear?, working from memory here). Two or three smallish holes. Other parts of the aircraft penetrated either side of the pillars. The extent of penetration was 90' wide, but the holes themselves were much smaller. I don't see what's difficult to understand here.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
The fire - I am acutely aware of all the points about the fire being so minute, however given all aspects of what has just literally happened in the attached picture - the counter debates do not stand up. A huge commercial airliner has just flown into a building and there is the equivalent of my neighbour's November 5th bonfire?
|
As mentioned, the report quoted shows the original fireball.
Here's another view of the fire, to keep you going:
| telecasterisation wrote: |
As for the pictures of debris on the lawn - yes there are a few showing sporadic items taken from lawn level after services and people have started to attend/appear. But the supplied picture was taken prior to punters legging over the site and it shows zippo/nada/nothing in the way of 'bits'.
Of course, we could simply say the picture has been electronically manipulated. |
Jim Hoffman does an excellent debunk of Pentagon CT at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
I've got £10 that says you know all this stuff perfectly well and are trying to get some debate started on a site that has gone deadly quiet ...
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's possible for a number of reasons. It flew over it is the most obvious. The wings aren't the same thickness as the height of the body, so it won't automatically wipe out everything within a box drawn around the outer limits of the plane. Secondly, that's not the generator.
Large image here: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-006.jpg
That white thing is a vent. The generator is that black charred thing, which I believe did get hit by the plane on its way in.
And on another point, I learned yesterday that UAVs and commercial aircraft never fly in the same airspace. When the US government flies a UAV to patrol the Mexican border, it has to shut down hundreds of square kilometres of airspace to civil aircraft. The reason for this is that they have no collision avoidance warning system. Therefore flying a UAV through Washington airspace, close to a major airport is a great risk, because if it gets picked up by ATC, they can't contact the pilot directly, so there is no way of fooling ATC into thinking it is a civilian plane. There is also no way of guaranteeing that the UAV can make it to the Pentagon without being spotted or colliding with an airliner. And all other airliners DO have collision avoidance, so if the UAV gets within a few thousand metres of another plane, the pilots will be warned of its presence.
So it can't have been a UAV.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is good, we seem to be covering some ground.
Admittedly, I incorrectly labelled the untouched vent as the generator - but this is semantics - the structure and fence are untouched regardless of it being the outside lavatory or private cimema.
The report shows the flight path of the aircraft and I have extended the dimensions to show the projected impact area. As pointed out the 'hole' does not appear in the photo I supplied, the nose of the aircraft hitting directly behind the vent - this is from the official report.
There is no sign of the 90ft hole behind the vent as it appears to move about and change size and quantity depending on who is responding, Ignatz saying;
| Quote: | | working from memory here). Two or three smallish holes |
The picture in the official report must be drastically incorrect - for as I have pointed out - the nose of the plane strikes DIRECTLY behind the vent. So even allowing for slight mistakes, the wing and engine would strike at the very least between the building on the left and the vent - but no damage to the exterior wall (perhaps the engine on the other wing penetrated because it was heavier?).
So I guess the official report and the 90ft single hole aspect is incorrect?
No-one has explained why there are zero pictures of the 'hole' yet - all the photographers recording everything but the hole itself?
Also, we get photos of wreckage taken ground level - but the image I supplied shows a pristine, uncluttered lawn and an untouched vent just feet from an exploding Boeing airliner??!!
I don't know what is difficult to understand here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The report refers to a damage pattern, in a triangle, as posted by Ignatz above:
"Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the
building, the most severe damage was confined to a region that
can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the
trajectory of the aircraft in plan, with a base width at the aircraft
entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft
path of approximately 230 ft (figure 6.6)."
It does not imply that there is a hole 90ft wide, but the damage was confined mainly to a triangular region (viewed from above) that had a base of 90ft
As can be seen from the car park security gate film, the fireball goes upwards, not outwards towards the lawn, and again, that photo is considerably to the left of the impact.
The plane strikes the Pentagon at an angle, so it slows down on the right hand side that impacts first, so the left hand engine will not be travelling as fast as the right when it finally impacts. This could account for the discrepancy that you see.
Checking the relative distances between the damaged generator and the vent structure on your diagram, then the portion of the vent fence that may have been hit is again, just out of the photo.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It will be useful at this juncture to establish what has been submitted and challenged thus far;
The first link supplied by Hampton clearly states;
| Quote: | | First of all, the hole was actually ninety feet wide, according to the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute put out. And Professor Sozen of Purdue, one of the authors of that report, has an explanation. |
There seems to be some obvious confusion by the critics/ctdebunkers –apparently there was not a 90ft hole then – instead this has now been whittled down to a kind of ‘rough triangular area’ where the plane/object hit, the left side ‘slowing down sufficiently so the left engine and wing did somewhat less damage.
JP says;
| Quote: | | It does not imply that there is a hole 90ft wide, but the damage was confined mainly to a triangular region (viewed from above) that had a base of 90ft |
Does not imply there is a hole? Well on the contrary, the image in the official report clearly shows a hole in the side of the building at ground level. There is no implication – a picture of a hole is a picture of a hole. Either there was a hole or there wasn’t? The aircraft/object also supposedly flew in at an angle – yet the damage is at right angles to the front of the building?
There is then the huge discrepancy however with the structure housing the vent and its surrounding fence. JP says;
| Quote: | | Checking the relative distances between the damaged generator and the vent structure on your diagram, then the portion of the vent fence that may have been hit is again, just out of the photo. |
This makes no sense given the images supplied from both the official report and the photos taken at the site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | It will be useful at this juncture to establish what has been submitted and challenged thus far;
The first link supplied by Hampton clearly states;
| Quote: | | First of all, the hole was actually ninety feet wide, according to the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute put out. And Professor Sozen of Purdue, one of the authors of that report, has an explanation. |
There seems to be some obvious confusion by the critics/ctdebunkers –apparently there was not a 90ft hole then ..... |
No, clearly there is no 90' hole. Let's just agree on that. Notable lack of a 30 yard hole. It wasn't there, and the report doesn't claim it was.
There's a strong presumption that Hampton's quote contains a crude analysis/misquote/misinterpretation of the report where a frontal 90' damage zone is translated into a "hole".
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is all very interesting.
I'm glad i sparked a sensible debate.
My thoughts on the pentagon:
Is there a definitive answer to whether the pentagon had missile protection?
Why haven't all the videos been released including the petrol station tapes confiscated by the fbi?
Which bit of the plane did that debris come from?
In a national geographic documentary the plane both disintergrated and managed to pass through
3 thick reinforced concrete rings to leave a small exit hole.
What's the tip made of? depleted uranium?
Is it true that they managed to hit a recently reinforced section on the opposite side to
donald "i got aspartame approved" rumsfeld, military top brass and the command centre?
Rumsfeld is quoted as saying he felt a "jarring thing"
Does anyone have access to the reports in which pilots have been quoted as saying
"you would need to be an expert to complete the descent needed to hit the pentagon"
Were the flight recorders recovered?
In lockerbie and other crashes the plane has been pieced back together.
Dr. rm bowman is a very convincing man, what does he say about the pentagon?
A coincidence:
Olson, whose wife was on the plane, was the lawyer who argued the case for bush to be president after the florida debacle.
On 17 march 2002, defending the US before the supreme court against charges of murder by the cia,
he said "it's easy to imagine infinite situations where the gov might legimately give out false information.
It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete info and even misinfo by gov may sometimes
be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
New York Times 15 sep 2001
"during the hour or so flight 77 was under hijacker control, to the moment it struck the west side,
military officials in the east side were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control about what to do"
"despite defence plans and despite two planes having already hit the wtc, fighter planes,
scrambled to protect washington, arrived 15 mins too late"
[Norad (under pentagon control) wasn't informed until 9.24am.
Having seen what happened in new york why weren't fighters scrambled as a matter of course?]
Newsday 23 sep 2001
Pentagon spokesman airforce lieutenant colonel vic warzinski
"the pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way"
cnn.com 26 oct 1999
"pentagon never considered dowing stewart's learjet, president would have to make decision"
While payne stewart's lane was on autopilot "officers on the joint chiefs were monitoring the
learjet on radar screens inside the pentagon's national military command centre"
cnn 17 sep 2001
Quoted pentagon officials saying they were never made aware of flight 93 until it crashed.
Armed forces radio & tv service:
General myers (3rd in command under president & defence secretary)
"i was about ready to meet senator max cleland... i heard on the tv that a plane had hit the wtc...
so we walked in and we did the office call"
"sometime during that call the second tower was hit. nobody informed us. but when we came out, that was obvious.
then right at that time somebody said the pentagon has been hit"
[so he was in the meeting during the whole thing. how convenient.
you couldn't make it up!]
"immediately somebody gave me a phone and general eberhart of norad
talked about what was happening and the actions he was going to take"
[bit late!]
larry king live 5 dec 2001
Donald "i got aspartame approved" rumsfeld was not given any warning of flight 77.
"...someone walked in, handed me a note that a plane just hit the wtc. I went to get my cia briefing,
and the whole building shook within 15 mins."
[The 1st plane hit the wtc at 8.46 & the pentagon was hit 9.38. Rumsfeld says he was given a note
saying a plane had "just" hit the wtc and within 15 mins the pentagon was hit. So, he wasn't told for 40 mins?
So, many millions heard before 9am yet he didn't know until 9.20? And why wasn't he told of the 2nd hit at the same time?]
There's more but i'll let you get on with this little lot first 
_________________
Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hampton asks;
| Quote: | | Is there a definitive answer to whether the pentagon had missile protection? |
There has never been any evidence whatsoever to suggest The Pentagon had missile protection other than agents with shoulder mounted launchers.
| Quote: | | Why haven't all the videos been released including the petrol station tapes confiscated by the fbi? |
Imposible to say definitively. Possibly they show something that detracts from the official story, possibly they are being held back to help bring down The Truth Movement if they show the right model of aircraft. Any number of reasons.
| Quote: | | Which bit of the plane did that debris come from? |
Ask the person who planted it.
| Quote: | In a national geographic documentary the plane both disintergrated and managed to pass through 3 thick reinforced concrete rings to leave a small exit hole.
What's the tip made of? depleted uranium? |
I thought it was the landing gear not 'the plane'.
| Quote: | Is it true that they managed to hit a recently reinforced section on the opposite side to donald "i got aspartame approved" rumsfeld, military top brass and the command centre?
Rumsfeld is quoted as saying he felt a "jarring thing" |
No clue.
| Quote: | | Does anyone have access to the reports in which pilots have been quoted as saying "you would need to be an expert to complete the descent needed to hit the pentagon" |
Pilots can give differing opinions and I wouldn't listen to any of it.
| Quote: | | Were the flight recorders recovered? |
Impossible to be certain.
| Quote: | | In lockerbie and other crashes the plane has been pieced back together. Dr. rm bowman is a very convincing man, what does he say about the pentagon? |
You are comparing a completely different scenario - this supposedly involved an aircraft flying into a concrete kevlar reinforced vertical surface at 500mph with loaded fuel tanks - I know of no other 'crashes' like this - what are you going to piece together? Would they bother, it is not as if the cause wasn't known? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thank you telecasterisation. honestly!
you are really helping me to consolidate my arguements.
what do you think about the media quotes?
these guys are either totally corrupt or so incompetant it's unbelievable that they kept their jobs or even got promoted!
_________________
Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflecter
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 486
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hampton,
Ive no idea if anything I suggest here is right or not but it springs to mind.
| Quote: | | Is there a definitive answer to whether the pentagon had missile protection? |
I dont think there has been a definative answer, its more of an assumption. A likely one but kept under wraps.
| Quote: | | Why haven't all the videos been released including the petrol station tapes confiscated by the fbi? |
The Citgo tape was released and showed nothing but the customers and cars on the forecourt. The doubletree hotel tape got released a few days ago. Infowars and pilots for truth have it / are checking it. It shows an explosion and no plane but is not spectacular.
| Quote: | In a national geographic documentary the plane both disintergrated and managed to pass through
3 thick reinforced concrete rings to leave a small exit hole.
What's the tip made of? depleted uranium? |
The impact floors, ground and first are all one ring apparrently. Count the windows on the front and inner rings for floors, so the object passed through only 2 walls. The nose should be carbon mainly but I agree it sure as hell was strong. DU is supposed to be within the wings for balance or similar I heard and Leuren Moret the DU scientist apparently got some readings from the area. Clean up crews in yellow at the the Pentagon and Shanksville getting decontamination may support this idea. In addition, the footage of an F15/16 strapped to a rail at 500mph hitting a reinforced concrete block designed to mimic a nuclear reactor, show the admittedly smaller but harder aircraft simply disintergrates. Most bizarre but a possible explanation for lack of debris.
| Quote: | Is it true that they managed to hit a recently reinforced section on the opposite side to
donald "i got aspartame approved" rumsfeld, military top brass and the command centre?
Rumsfeld is quoted as saying he felt a "jarring thing".
|
Yes they did hit the renovated section. I believe it housed the Naval command center and also the accountants looking into the misplaced 2.3 trillion. I have no idea if any of that is accurate but former Scholars member David Hawkins made a huge deal of both facts, with links to Nortel taking over radar somehow.
| Quote: | | Were the flight recorders recovered? |
No idea but the NTSB did release the FDR animation to SnowyGrouchs FOIA. Though it appears bogus and not in tally with the offical version.
| Quote: | | In lockerbie and other crashes the plane has been pieced back together. |
According to Rowland Morgan with regards U93, the fact its a murder case and not an accident means the NTSB gets overruled by FBi and this doesnt have to happen. Convenient in the least.
| Quote: |
A coincidence:
Olson, whose wife was on the plane, was the lawyer who argued the case for bush to be president after the florida debacle.
On 17 march 2002, defending the US before the supreme court against charges of murder by the cia,
he said "it's easy to imagine infinite situations where the gov might legimately give out false information.
It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete info and even misinfo by gov may sometimes
be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
New York Times 15 sep 2001
"during the hour or so flight 77 was under hijacker control, to the moment it struck the west side,
military officials in the east side were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control about what to do"
"despite defence plans and despite two planes having already hit the wtc, fighter planes,
scrambled to protect washington, arrived 15 mins too late"
[Norad (under pentagon control) wasn't informed until 9.24am.
Having seen what happened in new york why weren't fighters scrambled as a matter of course?]
Newsday 23 sep 2001
Pentagon spokesman airforce lieutenant colonel vic warzinski
"the pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way"
cnn.com 26 oct 1999
"pentagon never considered dowing stewart's learjet, president would have to make decision"
While payne stewart's lane was on autopilot "officers on the joint chiefs were monitoring the
learjet on radar screens inside the pentagon's national military command centre"
cnn 17 sep 2001
Quoted pentagon officials saying they were never made aware of flight 93 until it crashed.
Armed forces radio & tv service:
General myers (3rd in command under president & defence secretary)
"i was about ready to meet senator max cleland... i heard on the tv that a plane had hit the wtc...
so we walked in and we did the office call"
"sometime during that call the second tower was hit. nobody informed us. but when we came out, that was obvious.
then right at that time somebody said the pentagon has been hit"
[so he was in the meeting during the whole thing. how convenient.
you couldn't make it up!]
"immediately somebody gave me a phone and general eberhart of norad
talked about what was happening and the actions he was going to take"
[bit late!]
larry king live 5 dec 2001
Donald "i got aspartame approved" rumsfeld was not given any warning of flight 77.
"...someone walked in, handed me a note that a plane just hit the wtc. I went to get my cia briefing,
and the whole building shook within 15 mins."
[The 1st plane hit the wtc at 8.46 & the pentagon was hit 9.38. Rumsfeld says he was given a note
saying a plane had "just" hit the wtc and within 15 mins the pentagon was hit. So, he wasn't told for 40 mins?
So, many millions heard before 9am yet he didn't know until 9.20? And why wasn't he told of the 2nd hit at the same time?] |
It all beggars belief really. Olson is convenient (he mustve hated his lady!  ). Minetta shows Cheney and the Pentagon were well aware of the approaching craft, if his testimony is valid, so lieutenant colonel vic warzinski is talking rubbish. The two Generals Eberhart and Myers didnt have jurisdiction to do a damn thing thanks to the Airline Piracy changes on June/July 1st putting Rummy n Cheney in the hot seats, who as you say are otherwise engaged, so their conversation is just more hot air.
Thanks for that last piece about Rummy, I hadnt heard that before but thats some time discrepancy. Hey whats 2.3 trillion or a few minutes here and there?
I take it Aspartame is off your menu then? Sound choice just incase. I was saddened to find it wasnt the cause of my wifes ME for 6 years as she was a heavy consumer and took the abstinence test to no avail. I think its dangerous, as more recent reports than the FDA etc rely on have shown. If it is.....what a bunch of b******!
Regards
_________________
The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Shanksville. The latter being difficult to debate due to the lack of evidence either way, the completely fragmented aircraft and a hole in the ground being the only real physical evidence. |
The hole in the ground with the smoke bomb in it? 
I guess its understandable. The US Government would naturally want to cover-up shooting the plane down and murdering their own people... right?
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Shanksville. The latter being difficult to debate due to the lack of evidence either way, the completely fragmented aircraft and a hole in the ground being the only real physical evidence. |
The hole in the ground with the smoke bomb in it?
I guess its understandable. The US Government would naturally want to cover-up shooting the plane down and murdering their own people... right? |
I actually hadn't looked at it like that. Whilst yes it is murder if the whole thing was orchestrated, to the world, the plane had been hijacked, 3 previous planes had deliberately hit buildings, so essentially the government were in their rights to shoot number 4 down.
Many people, and I am one of them, are of the opinion that the scenario involving the 4th plane was a lot more fluid and to construct a scenario involving gung-ho passengers who fight back at their captors generated the equivalent of a bucket load of pride in the American people.
This is conjecture of course, but as I said, there is virtually nothing we know about the 4th plane. We have seen practically no wreckage, no exploding fireball on dodgy video and for me, there has been no 'closure'. The other 3 hit what we assume was their intended targets, but everything about plane 4 is guesswork. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Shanksville. The latter being difficult to debate due to the lack of evidence either way, the completely fragmented aircraft and a hole in the ground being the only real physical evidence. |
The hole in the ground with the smoke bomb in it?
I guess its understandable. The US Government would naturally want to cover-up shooting the plane down and murdering their own people... right? |
You really can't have it both ways, and support both theories like that, hard though it is for truthshirkers to reject any conspiracy theory. You have to decide, either the plane was shot down, so the wreckage is genuine, or the wreckage is fake, nothing but a hole in the ground with a smoke bomb in it, therefore the plane was not shot down.
Or you could be sensible and decide that the wreckage is genuine and there is no evidence at all that the plane was shot down.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks reflecter.
they must have known flight 77 was heading in their direction.
125 pentagon employees dead.
why no evacuation?
surely this should have lead to court marshall for incompetance.
_________________
Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hampton wrote: | A coincidence:
Olson, whose wife was on the plane, was the lawyer who argued the case for bush to be president after the florida debacle. |
hehe... far cheaper than a divorce huh!?
The department investigating a missing trillion dollars of DoD funds was sadly ( ) decimated by this wholly random act of terrorist violence! ... All the records were gut-wrenchingly lost, a sad (and expensive) day for America.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i heard there was some enron files in wtc7.
i wonder what else was in the wtc & the uk fire at iron mountain (massive document storage unit)?
_________________
Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | You have to decide, either the plane was shot down, so the wreckage is genuine, or the wreckage is fake, nothing but a hole in the ground with a smoke bomb in it, therefore the plane was not shot down. |
Err... no not quite. The hole in the ground with no wreckage, no bodies and the smoke bomb was fake. The real crash site was much farther away and covered an ~8mile radius indicating high altitude destruction = shot down. Rumsfeld is actually on tape saying it was shot down but ...
The heroic bs story was to stop the relatives or public asking too many questions.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hampton wrote: | | i heard there was some enron files in wtc7. |
That's right, Enron, Worldcom all the scandals involving major neo-con contributors and the SEC 
The whole Op was a major house cleaning event. Very well planned, very clever. But not clever enough, we hope.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | hampton wrote: | | i heard there was some enron files in wtc7. |
That's right, Enron, Worldcom all the scandals involving major neo-con contributors and the SEC
The whole Op was a major house cleaning event. Very well planned, very clever. But not clever enough, we hope. |
Well planned? Clever? You've got to be kidding!
Despite this house-cleaning event and the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, these businesses are extinct, their top executives are in prison, legislation is in place that threatens Wall Street.
What Enron files could they have destroyed that could have possibly dealt a bigger blow to the company or Wall Street?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Thermate wrote: | | hampton wrote: | | i heard there was some enron files in wtc7. |
That's right, Enron, Worldcom all the scandals involving major neo-con contributors and the SEC
The whole Op was a major house cleaning event. Very well planned, very clever. But not clever enough, we hope. |
Well planned? Clever? You've got to be kidding!
Despite this house-cleaning event and the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, these businesses are extinct, their top executives are in prison, legislation is in place that threatens Wall Street.
What Enron files could they have destroyed that could have possibly dealt a bigger blow to the company or Wall Street? |
Don't confuse a decent CT with inconvenient facts, Chipmunk. Next thing, you'll be telling us that vital corporate documentation is held in multiple forms in separate locations. 
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hampton
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 310
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
didn't price waterhouse cooper shred lots of documents?
how many executives went to jail & how long did they get?
did any major shareholders loose all their stock?
on another note is it correct that the federal reserve hasn't ever had it's accounts audited?
and the eu doesn't use double-entry book keeping and no accountant will sign-off on the accounts.
_________________
Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
