What REALLY happened on 9/11, the truth of 9/11... carry an open mind. Options

[Druid]

Too Exclusive haven't you figured out on your own you keep falling back from more and more of your initial points. By now you should be able to reason out for yourself that if 90% of what you claimed is wrong, most likely the other 10% is as well.

Ok just for the sake of argument lets say a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
Now it's easier to make this claim if you ignore what it would mean if that was true
This would be some of the more obvious ramifications.
1) The Government was behind the whole thing, secretly planned everything about 9-11 yet for some reason made all of these little mistakes.
2) American Airlines was also involved as they have never came out and said it wasn't our plane. We're not taking just one person here either, where talking lots of people.
3) Numerous people watching several different radar screens would also have to be involved otherwise someone would of said by now " Nope I watched the plane continue on pass D.C."
4) Were the 60+ people on flight 77 also involved, are they living in luxury at some hidden location, if not what happened to them? If they are not alive this would mean at least the pilots where involved as they flew the plan to a secret location where the passengers where killed.
5) You could claim the plane never existed but this would still mean 100s of people involved such as ground crews, American Airlines, traffic controllers, FAA, etc.

I just don't know how you can sit there and think this conspiracy which would encompass several 100 people at the very least and probably more. yet there isn't be a single whistle blower???
Very doubtful.
Not to mention the lack of a single piece of hard evidence hasn't been found with countless people looking for 3+ years.

All you really have is a picture and the idea it doesn't look like what YOU would think it should look like.

This comes down to the same B.S. most of your other stuff did.
Misleading information wrapped up in a nice presentation to try and show it as facts to support the conspiracy nuts point of view.
I'll give you an example, many of the "No plane hit the pentagon" sites show pictures of aircraft crashes to show the amount of debris than ask the question where is the debris from the plane that was suppose to hit the pentagon.
Very simple when you think about it, they are comparing apples to oranges.
Most of the crash photos they give as evidence probably involve planes trying to make some sort of emergency landing for whatever reason. This would mean possibly gears down, slower speed and as small of an angle of attack compared to the ground.
Huge difference between a failed emergency landing and someone trying to hit a building head on.

[Too Exclusive]

yea frosty ive seen that story. but here's a picture for you:

these are pictures of the whole that the plane that hit the north tower made. the one that hit the south tower made a similar hole... y no hole like that at the pentagon?

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 06/25/05 6:05am

[Too Exclusive]

well as to ur previous claims, flight 77 dissappeared from radar somewhere near ohio. THAT'S A KNOWN, ADMITTED FACT. something only appeared on radar near washington DC (yet they didnt bother to scramble fighters from andrews AFB, only 12 miles away until AFTER the plane hit the pentagon.)

[Too Exclusive]

btw, a former Bush Chief Economist named Morgan Reynolds just came out recently calling the official 9/11 fairy tail bullshit... look him up.

[Silver]

<-------HOLE


looks like hole, smells like a hole....is it a hole?


look at the casement of the windows at the pentagon (in the pic u posted)....its structural integrity is so superior to that of WTC, that im suprised that a plane actually penetreated the building...thought it was more foritified then that. if canada wanted to attack the pentagon they would bomb it right? that building is made to be attacked. we (meaning nato and our national air defense) look outside our borders for an attack not from ith in. that changed from 9-11. dont forget the shock value of all this...


ya know you claim to be smart, but you cant see whythe pentagon would be more durable then the wtc?


answer the questions...


retard....


*EDIT* i dont remember seeing a road by the pentagon near the strike as well as i dont remember seeing a fence? thought it was a grassy area around the pentagon.

This post has been edited by Silver: 06/25/05 9:04am

[Frosty]

I think silver answered your question. The pentagon is MUCH more heavily fortified than the WTC towers, so a big hole would be made in them, and a small one in the pentagon. Same thing happened when the C-130 crashed into the Drury Inn in Evansville, IN bank in June of 1992 (that's my hometown). Big hole, lots of fire. It was put out though before much of the building could collapse.

[Too Exclusive]

first of all silver said he doesnt remember a road by the pentagon. it's called I 395... it's across the grass. second of all, here's my question: MAYBE the pentagon's more durable, but first of all, that whole u pointed silver, that was made AFTER the section collapsed. that wasnt made by whatever hit the pentagon... i posted a picture of the whole made by w/e hit the pentagon... it's 16 feet in diameter, BEFORE THE SECTION COLLAPSED (i posted a picture of it). now you say it's more durable, that may be true. but the question is, WHERE ARE THE WINGS?

now i'm going to say this, correct me on ANY piece of the bellow that's wrong:
u say it's more durable, so by what u say, that means since there was only a 16 foot hole at first before the section collapsed, then only the fusulage went in, right?

that means the wings sheared off... RIGHT?

that means the wings should be on the FRONT LAWN, RIGHT?

well they're not. EXPLAIN.

[Too Exclusive]

and where are the 6 ton each engines?? according to ur theology, that means the wings, the engines, the vertical/horizontal stabilizers should all by on the front lawn? RIGHT?

yet there's NOTHING on the front lawn except a piece or two of scrap metal... there should be TONS of wreckage on the front lawn according to your theology... RIGHT? now tell me, where is it? feel free to stop and correct me on ANY step that i got wrong here.

[Silver]

plane=egg (hollow)

building=Fort knox

you ever see an armor pearceing round from a M1 tank hit another tank? round pearces and the think explodes. you want to see something the size of the plane? compaction from the force of the plane condensed the plane into a small partical.

experiment....paper towel tube and the wall.....

measure the tube and figure the total area of the tube (or box)
smash tube stright into the wall....
remeasure the tube (or box)
what are your results?

are not wings hollow and hold the fuel in them? what do you think caused the fire? an explosive? you ever seen something explode?

experiment # 2

take a M-88 and put it under a can full of tissue with the fuse sticking the entire way out. light the fuse... after the boom how much tissue cought on fire? explain the vast fire damage to the structure? the pic you show has a road right in front of the wall... with a car burning.... the plane almost clipped a light on the highway a few hundred yards away....

were did that car come from? (i never seen it in any pics... if its there i cant and wont dispute that parking was there...
1. there is no crater at the damage to the wall... you admit that the structure is made to be secure right? there would be a crater at the scene.... at 500mph there is nothing left of a 6 ton object.

i drive truck...ever see one hit a bridge at 120

[Silver]

shit forgot to put your nick name in (tard)
retard....

[Too Exclusive]

alright, then how did the HOLLOW fusulage (if the walls of the pentagon were as reinforced as u say they were) go and punch thru THREE rings of the pentagon? (36 inches of steel reinforced concrete) and punch neat holes likes the one in the picture bellow (which is inside the the 3rd ring)

[Silver]

alright, then how did the HOLLOW fusulage (if the walls of the pentagon were as reinforced as u say they were) go and punch thru THREE rings of the pentagon? (36 inches of steel reinforced concrete) and punch neat holes likes the one in the picture bellow (which is inside the the 3rd ring)

wings (what parts didnt explode from the force of impact) folded into the hull of the plane...the wings i dont believe ejected from the planethe heavy parts were the ones to travel the frutherest distance...going into the 3rd ring (that being major steel structural beams of the plane and the solid components of the engines (what was solid enough to with stand the impact the plane also hit at an angle to the ground....lets say it was 35 deg. the ground would have asorbed the impact as well. look at the damage to the wall in the first place so very low to the ground. thought that there were witnesses that sasid that the plane hit the ground first then the building....that i dont know (would have to have been there to see that) the wings were probally shreaded and burried into the cabin which was imbeded in the building and ground. if a missile would have hit it would not have made it 3 rings in. they would not have used a bunker buster, that pen. the ground. i am no rocket scientist but a plane is so very fragile, think about it.

This post has been edited by Silver: 06/26/05 12:31am

[Too Exclusive]

yet it does all this u say it's doing. what u said is just about as outrageous to me as my story is to u.

[Too Exclusive]

ill hit u with something u cant refute AT ALL.

study the frames below... those are 2 out of the 5 frames of video that the FBI have released of "flight 77" hitting the pentagon...

find the 757 in the first frame? why is there a vapor trail from the craft? jet engine vapor trails are NOT visible until about 32,000 feet... it is IMPOSSIBLE for a jet engine vapor trail to b seen at ground level. explain y this craft has a vapor trail?

[Frosty]

First, you kept referring to our "theology." "Theology" means the study of God. So the word choice there is incorrect (Hey, you said point out anything that was wrong there). Silver has already pointed out the other things.

As far as a vapor trail, I thought that was due to the lower speeds generally used at ground level. Even if that's not the case, if it clipped a streetligt, that could have caused some vapor to emit.

And also, you can't see the plane in the first frame, and a plane is much too large to be obscured by the concrete thing sticking up from the ground. So.... where's the vapor trail? It's hard to say that there is a missile there because, at the angle at which the shadows are cast, you would see its shadow on the grass. But there's not one there. I'm not sure what the gray there is. Looks photoshopped to me because a vapor trail would be either more transparent or more defined (if it is just being emitted).

I guess the last question is, if it were a cruise missile, where did all the luggage and plane parts come from (i.e. landing gear)? Were they just randomly placed in that room to make people think it was a plane? And if so, why didn't they scatter when a missile's explosion penetrated the building?

See, your argument seems to work pretty well with these particular photos, but you seem to ignore the other facts that don't sit well with your theory. That's not an insult, just an observation. It seems that when someone points out something that throws a wrench in your theory, you scramble to another piece of your evidence.

The government, to me, has no motive here for doing all this. According to your argument, it was so that Bush could go to war, but the funny thing is that most of the planning would have had to have happened during the Clinton administration! You also have to remember that our government is not some mysterious force acting always of its own interests (although it can, at time); it consists primarily of elected officials in whose best intrest is to serve the people they govern. And as anyone can realize, none of this is in our best interest.

Oh well. Answer me this. Are you even open in the slightest bit to the possibility that they were planes that hit all three buildings, and that there were no charges set to detonate them? If not, there is really no need for you to continue discussing this with us. I tihnk most of us are open to the possibility of what you say being true, but there is just not enough evidence at this point to support it. You have maybe one or two arguments that partially hold, but those aren't enough to settle the matter in my mind.

I hate that this has turned into a heated flame war....