100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
volant7
on
Sun 08/14/11 06:41 AM
|
|
heres their own pic wheres the impact from the wings?
look how the poles are undamaged how did they fit the plane between them? there is no way you could fit a plane through there http://news.yahoo.com/photos/pentagon-memorial-1309389892-slideshow/;_ylt=AvqFTWhza5YJgN5gDvYl60ZfaP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTNoMG1hdDZzBHBrZwNlNDkxNzJmYy0wNjRmLTM5Y2EtYjFkYi1mNzQ4ZjQ5NjNmZGUEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhRmVhdHVyZWRDYXJvdXNlbAR2ZXIDNjIxNzI0MDYtYzJkYS0xMWUwLWJiZWEtYWY4NzAxNzM5NmI2;_ylg=X3oDMTFtbjZqNHVyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3MtZ2FsbGVyeQR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fpentagon-memorial-1309389892-slideshow%252Ffile-tenth-anniversary-september-11-20110803-082202-849.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wings are not going to penetrate reinforced concrete. They are just gonna be destroyed. In fact the plan was pretty much destroyed at that speed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also where is the logic in attacking the pentagon? The WTC would have been enough for their agenda had it been an inside job. If a missile was used it would have exploded on the initial entry point but not made the other impact holes further in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/14/11 09:36 AM
|
|
I think it was a plane, not a missile.
I think the CIA orchestrated the attack for the COMPANY. The agenda was to push through political agenda's like war, the patriot act and putting more troops in the middle east. There might have even been an attempt at some sort of coup (against the white house and Bush) that failed, or at least that has been suggested. In any case, George Bush and company made the best of the situation and got troops into Iraq, the Patriot act etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
volant7
on
Sun 08/14/11 09:36 AM
|
|
i mean theres not even a mark.
how did it sneek past the poles? the wtc was made of 4 inch thick steel tubes yet the wings cut right threw it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, in reality, where most of us live, there were poles knocked over by one wing, and the engine of the other wing clipped a generator.
But, I don't need to prove that. You see, the argument is that no plane hit the Pentagon, and the original basis of that claim is that there was no debris on the lawn outside the Pentagon. That is what stood out to people during those first few photos and videos to make them question. At that point, the hole wasn't even visible because of smoke and fire. So the hole argument is secondary and irrelevant if I can prove there was indeed debris - a large amount of debris - from a plane striking the building. I've already done that, and I even showed shiny silver pieces with red/white/blue markings, consistent with the markings of American Airlines. So argue all you want. You're wrong. Face it. The whole missile theory is based upon a false premise. Furthermore, I've refuted - with evidence - the lack of debris near the impact. And shown that the debris had markings consistent with the alleged airliner. The debris debunks all of the Pentagon conspiracy theories. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i mean theres not even a mark. how did it sneek past the poles? the wtc was made of 4 inch thick steel tubes yet the wings cut right threw it What poles are you talking about? They did find a large piece of a wing in front of the building. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it was a plane, not a missile. I think the CIA orchestrated the attack for the COMPANY. The agenda was to push through political agenda's like war, the patriot act and putting more troops in the middle east. There might have even been an attempt at some sort of coup (against the white house and Bush) that failed, or at least that has been suggested. In any case, George Bush and company made the best of the situation and got troops into Iraq, the Patriot act etc. yes it really doesnt matter one way or another problem reaction solution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i mean theres not even a mark. how did it sneek past the poles? the wtc was made of 4 inch thick steel tubes yet the wings cut right threw it Poles are individual different points of impact. A cement wall is one. The poles already have large forces going up and down on them to support weight. The reinforced cement walls are there to protect from outward forces not weight forces. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
volant7
on
Sun 08/14/11 09:48 AM
|
|
i mean theres not even a mark. how did it sneek past the poles? the wtc was made of 4 inch thick steel tubes yet the wings cut right threw it What poles are you talking about? They did find a large piece of a wing in front of the building. the ones in the first photo there was a small hole at the base of the building first but they hosed it with water until it collapsed look at the huge light poles in front of the building. the first hole was at the base of the building. http://news.yahoo.com/photos/pentagon-memorial-1309389892-slideshow/;_ylt=AvqFTWhza5YJgN5gDvYl60ZfaP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTNoMG1hdDZzBHBrZwNlNDkxNzJmYy0wNjRmLTM5Y2EtYjFkYi1mNzQ4ZjQ5NjNmZGUEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhRmVhdHVyZWRDYXJvdXNlbAR2ZXIDNjIxNzI0MDYtYzJkYS0xMWUwLWJiZWEtYWY4NzAxNzM5NmI2;_ylg=X3oDMTFtbjZqNHVyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3MtZ2FsbGVyeQR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fpentagon-memorial-1309389892-slideshow%252Ffile-tenth-anniversary-september-11-20110803-082202-849.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/14/11 09:56 AM
|
|
The reason I think they were planes is because it would be the
simple solution in planning the attacks. Why go to the trouble to replace real planes with missiles or different planes? That seems like an extremely complicated operation and what would be the purpose of doing that? Some of the conspiracy theories just don't make any sense. But a lot of things still don't make any sense, and I don't see anything wrong with questioning the official story. Why shouldn't we? Why should we stand for all this "classified" b.S.? The flight schools and airlines in Florida are connected to the training of foreign students and the terrorists and also involved in fraud that cheated a lot of good people out of tuition and student loans for the school and then went Bankrupt. There were dummy companies in Florida calling themselves air lines who never sold any tickets. They were just running shipments of drugs from Mexico with mysterious planes registered to the CIA. The cover-up is some people scratching other people's back and doing favors to hide their wrong doings which include training terrorists, and drug smuggling operations. Its probably all tied into the CIA sending weapons to Mexico. Lots of sheeat going on here that they are covering up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I think they were planes is because it would be the simple solution in planning the attacks. Why go to the trouble to replace real planes with missiles or different planes? That seems like an extremely complicated operation and what would be the purpose of doing that? Some of the conspiracy theories just don't make any sense. But a lot of things still don't make any sense, and I don't see anything wrong with questioning the official story. Why shouldn't we? Why should we stand for all this "classified" b.S.? The flight schools and airlines in Florida are connected to the training of foreign students and the terrorists and also involved in fraud that cheated a lot of good people out of tuition and student loans for the school and then went Bankrupt. There were dummy companies in Florida calling themselves air lines who never sold any tickets. They were just running shipments of drugs from Mexico with mysterious planes registered to the CIA. The cover-up is some people scratching other people's back and doing favors to hide their wrong doings which include training terrorists, and drug smuggling operations. Its probably all tied into the CIA sending weapons to Mexico. Lots of sheeat going on here that they are covering up. the ones that hit the wtc were planes for sure.now who was driving them well never be sure. they hit the buildings wingtip to wingtip they could of been drones? at the pentagon there was a tiny hole at the base with no wing damage to the building at all.and the videos they put out shows the tip and then explosion.im surprised by now they didnt have gorge lucus edit in the plane. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Sun 08/14/11 10:57 AM
|
|
In that photo, the light posts aren't even in the angle of approach. They are off to the right of the hole, but to the left of the approach. That's the only picture in that set showing the damage and light poles.
Sheesh!  Here's another view...  If you want to see more photos, just type "photos light poles knocked over Pentagon 9/11" in a Google search bar. There are plenty of pictures of the light poles knocked over. Some people just don't bother to look, I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so I started this saying I wasn't sure about a plane hitting the towers given the media's ability to fake things for television via graphics and such, but now.....I don't believe it was planes anymore. And this video shows why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE There are 3 things to notice here, 2 of which I really hadn't seen before. 1. When the plane supposedly hits the 2nd tower, the nose of the plane goes entirely through it untouched out the other side. There is no way it would be physically possible for that to actually occur, as SOME kind of damage would have to be done to it upon impact. 2. The plane seems to magically appear out of nowhere. There was no indication of a plane being anywhere near the tower, until it suddenly just appeared on screen and hit it. This also does not add up, and says to me that it was videoshopped in. 3. A camera view from the ground showed NO plane hitting the 2nd tower, just an explosion. It was only LATER that the plane was added into the shot, but from what I could see it was NOT in the original. These things lead me to believe there was no plane hitting at the very least the 2nd tower, if not the 1st one as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Sun 08/14/11 05:37 PM
|
|
Here's an even better video. I don't see any plane here do you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkXH1pkaMRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Sun 08/14/11 05:45 PM
|
|
Two more videos, in the first one an eyewitness speaks about what she saw. Nowhere does she mention a plane hitting, and when she's asked what kind of plane it was that hit and that there were reports of a plane hitting, she said she didn't even know that. Then in the 2nd, a reporter is on the phone with ABC as the 2nd plane supposedly hits, and he says outright there was no plane, it just exploded. Who are you gonna believe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvOVR5GLD3c&feature=related |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, in reality, where most of us live, there were poles knocked over by one wing, and the engine of the other wing clipped a generator. But, I don't need to prove that. You see, the argument is that no plane hit the Pentagon, and the original basis of that claim is that there was no debris on the lawn outside the Pentagon. That is what stood out to people during those first few photos and videos to make them question. At that point, the hole wasn't even visible because of smoke and fire. So the hole argument is secondary and irrelevant if I can prove there was indeed debris - a large amount of debris - from a plane striking the building. I've already done that, and I even showed shiny silver pieces with red/white/blue markings, consistent with the markings of American Airlines. So argue all you want. You're wrong. Face it. The whole missile theory is based upon a false premise. Furthermore, I've refuted - with evidence - the lack of debris near the impact. And shown that the debris had markings consistent with the alleged airliner. The debris debunks all of the Pentagon conspiracy theories. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two more videos, in the first one an eyewitness speaks about what she saw. Nowhere does she mention a plane hitting, and when she's asked what kind of plane it was that hit and that there were reports of a plane hitting, she said she didn't even know that. Then in the 2nd, a reporter is on the phone with ABC as the 2nd plane supposedly hits, and he says outright there was no plane, it just exploded. Who are you gonna believe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvOVR5GLD3c&feature=related Dude people were there and saw the plane. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I think they were planes is because it would be the simple solution in planning the attacks. Why go to the trouble to replace real planes with missiles or different planes? That seems like an extremely complicated operation and what would be the purpose of doing that? Some of the conspiracy theories just don't make any sense. But a lot of things still don't make any sense, and I don't see anything wrong with questioning the official story. Why shouldn't we? Why should we stand for all this "classified" b.S.? The flight schools and airlines in Florida are connected to the training of foreign students and the terrorists and also involved in fraud that cheated a lot of good people out of tuition and student loans for the school and then went Bankrupt. There were dummy companies in Florida calling themselves air lines who never sold any tickets. They were just running shipments of drugs from Mexico with mysterious planes registered to the CIA. The cover-up is some people scratching other people's back and doing favors to hide their wrong doings which include training terrorists, and drug smuggling operations. Its probably all tied into the CIA sending weapons to Mexico. Lots of sheeat going on here that they are covering up. the ones that hit the wtc were planes for sure.now who was driving them well never be sure. they hit the buildings wingtip to wingtip they could of been drones? at the pentagon there was a tiny hole at the base with no wing damage to the building at all.and the videos they put out shows the tip and then explosion.im surprised by now they didnt have gorge lucus edit in the plane. lol http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/damage.html http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/composite.html Regions in which the Pentagon's west facade were punctured were restricted to the first and second floors. The puncture on the second floor was about 18 feet wide and extended to the top of the second floor, about 26 feet above the ground. The region with punctures on the first floor was about 96 feet wide. widest point 96 feet wide 26 feet tall. Yea that is a small hole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Mon 08/15/11 03:06 PM
|
|
I am beginning to believe that the people making these claims of
"no planes" have never really researched and analyzed the events on their own. The reason being that is plenty of eyewitnesses and physical evidence to corroborate that planes did indeed hit the WTC and the Pentagon. As far as the "fancy flying", the airliner clipped at least 5 light poles plus a generator before striking the Pentagon. It didn't even approach the building dead on - it came at the Pentagon from roughly a 30 degree angle to the face of the building. Furthermore, plane was in a gradual descent, like a landing approach. It flew over highways, bridges, and cars clipping the tops of the light poles as it approached. As far as the Cesna thing, he could have been faking that during the training. If he wasn't capable of doing the job, do you think he would have given the toughest target to hit? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
|
