|
Post by shred on Mar 31, 2013 5:10:05 GMT -5
So ? Rick Rescorla predicted a kamikaze air attack on the towers years before it happened. He also predicted the 1993 bombing. He personally saved 2700 lives that day. He explained also what motivates terrorists to hate and attack the USA.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 31, 2013 9:38:06 GMT -5
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking." - Condoleeza Rice Yet it was on TV months before and there were several war game simulations going on prior to and ON 9/11 that used those exact scenarios. "Nobody Could Have Predicted it" - George Bush Yet he was warned numerous times of an impending attack in detail prior to 9/11. "He explained also what motivates terrorists to hate and attack the USA."Yes the motives for those in government who wanted a terrorist attack on the US are quite clear: www.newamericancentury.org/Members: Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 31, 2013 14:15:23 GMT -5
George W Bush is an idiot who failed at managing every business he ever ran. He was pretty incompetent as President also.
If you want to believe he's clever that's your right, but the evidence is that he's thicker than two short planks.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 31, 2013 15:07:39 GMT -5
George W Bush is an idiot who failed at managing every business he ever ran. He was pretty incompetent as President also. If you want to believe he's clever that's your right, but the evidence is that he's thicker than two short planks. Agreed, however no one ever said Bush masterminded the 9/11 inside job, at least I certainly don't believe that. Whatever was planned was planned by more than one person and Bush was likely only an accomplice. He wasn't even bright enough to watch what he was saying about what he claimed he saw on "live television" about the first plane crash, which of course never appeared on "live television". Then there's this:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 2, 2013 3:47:15 GMT -5
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden planned it in revenge for perceived crimes against Muslims by the USA and Israel (which is supported by the USA).
19 men hijacked the planes, 4 of those men were licence holding trained commercial pilots.
If the people behind the plot didn't think a 767 or a 757 would be enough to damage the buildings they attacked they'd have hijacked 747's instead.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 2, 2013 7:45:39 GMT -5
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden planned it in revenge for perceived crimes against Muslims by the USA and Israel (which is supported by the USA). 19 men hijacked the planes, 4 of those men were licence holding trained commercial pilots. If the people behind the plot didn't think a 767 or a 757 would be enough to damage the buildings they attacked they'd have hijacked 747's instead. All the above is what you've been fed and your speculation. It's meaningless. Anyone can regurgitate the official fairy tale, that only requires a mind similar to a sponge. Are you a sponge?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 3, 2013 14:23:25 GMT -5
The established consensus is not a fairy tale. Your sources are the liars and I've proven that and exposed you as a liar in the process. Your false claims about nano thermite for example.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 3, 2013 15:37:57 GMT -5
The established consensus is not a fairy tale. Your sources are the liars and I've proven that and exposed you as a liar in the process. Your false claims about nano thermite for example. The only thing you've ever established is that you're a fraud who makes things up as he goes to try to support a documented and admitted lie. For what purpose? Only you would know that. I'm sure most people aren't %$&@ enough to believe that airplane wings fold up in a crash. I'm sure most people are not %$&@ enough to believe flying a large passenger commercial airliner is a "piece of cake". So your bulls**t may work for the ignorant and gullible but educated intelligent people won't buy your crap. No matter, you helped me post a tremendous amount of information that others can help themselves to. So thanks for your help.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 3, 2013 17:23:06 GMT -5
LOL I'm sorry did the planes hijack themselves Aluminium and steel are quite capable of bending and twisting and the greater the force against the wing the greater the deflection bending and twisting. We're back to the physics of bending moments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_momentThe wings of a 757 are essentially made of the same stuff that the wings of an L188 Lockheed Electra were made of back in the 1950's one such Electra was N9705C whose crash on 29/9/1959 is blamed upon cycles of reverse wing bending which brought about structural failure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_Flight_542This proves that aluminium and steel are susceptible to bending moments and breaking moments, they're also susceptible to damage by torsion and tension compression and shear forces. More evidence here: www.netc.navy.mil/nascweb/sas/structures_stress_strain.htmWings are connected by spars. Spars are bolted together between wings at a join through the fuselage by pins that are designed to withstand normal shear forces to stop the spars acting as scissors, but if both wings are pushed back with sufficient force, both spars inside the fuselage are thus pivoted forwards. The locking pins cannot stop this forward motion and the spars separate from each other and the pins. Do you understand ? Gliders have two interconnecting spars, airliners have four interconnecting spars. This Nimrod MRA4 has two large spars which interconnected through the fuselage So the wings are pushed back, the engines torn from their mountings, the engines traveling forwards breaking apart as they go through concrete. The fuselage now without it's wings but with forward momentum, penetrates further than the wings, nosewheel penetrating furthest. Engines being flatter they don't make it as far. In truth the engine components probably ran out of energy inside the Pentagon building and were moved out of their later in the clean up. But the facts are this: Passengers on the hijacked jets phoned their loved ones. Hijackers of the hijacked jets included 4 commercial pilot licence holding pilots. Witnesses including 7 off duty Pilots and Mike Walter saw the hijacked jets crash into two skyscrapers and the DOD building (Pentagon). Debris at the Pentagon site corresponds with fragments of an American Airlines 757. The remains of Passengers and aircrew were found inside the Pentagon including corpses still strapped to airline seats. Lamp posts were knocked down by an Aeroplane as big as a 757 and a generator was damaged by an aeroplane as big as a 757. Like Oscar Pistorius, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 3, 2013 17:24:04 GMT -5
The 2nd fuselage is that of a retired Delta Airlines 757 btw.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 3, 2013 21:00:38 GMT -5
Thanks for all that but it's all irrelevant to what actually happened on 9/11. You're still pushing your folding and disappearing wing nonsense but the evidence that wings don't fold and disappear when they crash into walls is on the photos of the WTC hole. So it seems in your fairytale land they only fold when crashing into the Pentagon because you can't explain why the wings and engines caused no damage other than come up with your ridiculous folding theory.
"But the facts are this:"
Those are your facts, they have no meaning to me. Like I said, you're a nobody and I get my information from real experts, real evidence and real facts. Reality is airplane wings and engines cause massive damage to walls when they hit the wall at high speed. You don't need to be a rocket scientist, pilot or brain surgeon to see that on the pics of the World Trade Center tower.
"you haven't got a leg to stand on."
Last I checked I have both my legs and they work just fine.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 4, 2013 3:39:12 GMT -5
You seriously expect the wings to remain completely rigid as they're being smashed through concrete by the thrust of the engines and inertia of the mass of the plane ? The Pentagon building wasn't like the WTC's it was far stronger. The wings spars are flat there's nothing to stop them bending back in the face of such immense force. I'm going to give you a list of witness statements including that of Pentagon survivors. One was addressed directly to a 'truther' called Killtown. Pilot Aziz El Hallan was a Pentagon witness: Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head." Mark Willams: "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him. 'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' " source: usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm#more"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats." –Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept. source: rense.com/general68/pass.htmMore witnesses: www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 4, 2013 17:28:09 GMT -5
"You seriously expect the wings to remain completely rigid as they're being smashed through concrete by the thrust of the engines and inertia of the mass of the plane ?"
No I expect them to continue their paths into the wall in similar fashion as what happened when the planes crashed into the WTC towers. That means both wings should have caused similar damage to the walls. Wings don't "fold up" and disappear.
"The Pentagon building wasn't like the WTC's it was far stronger."
And?
"The wings spars are flat there's nothing to stop them bending back in the face of such immense force."
There's nothing to stop the wings, with the attached engines from slamming into the wall just like they did with the WTC towers. That's a simple law of physics.
"I'm going to give you a list of witness statements including that of Pentagon survivors."
They don't explain why the wings and engines caused no damage to the Pentagon walls where they should have caused massive damage and neither do you no matter how much you want to dance around that OBVIOUS problem.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 4, 2013 17:58:32 GMT -5
Yet another skyscraper totally engulfed in flames refuses to collapse in its own footprint at near free fall speed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 5, 2013 3:55:42 GMT -5
Apples and oranges, it's not built the same nor was it damaged by a 500mph collision from a 767.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 5, 2013 4:12:11 GMT -5
"You seriously expect the wings to remain completely rigid as they're being smashed through concrete by the thrust of the engines and inertia of the mass of the plane ?"
No I expect them to continue their paths into the wall in similar fashion as what happened when the planes crashed into the WTC towers. That means both wings should have caused similar damage to the walls. Wings don't "fold up" and disappear. If the walls were steel like the WTC's they would have as steel is maleable. Concrete once set is not maleable. "The Pentagon building wasn't like the WTC's it was far stronger."
Made of concrete which isn't maleable and bendy. Despite this the entry hole was 75 feet wide. Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" "The wings spars are flat there's nothing to stop them bending back in the face of such immense force."
The wings (which are hollow, and skinned with a light aluminium sheet) weren't strong enough to cut through concrete and were pushed back, the wing tip spars sheared off the wings were pushed back as the plane enters the building, The connection where the spars join through the fuselage is pushed forwards and breaks apart, once inside the building a 'forest' of concrete pillars rips most of the aircraft to pieces the really heavy bits like the engine parts and undercarriage parts travel furthest, hence the smaller hole in the C ring section. Simple Physics.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 5, 2013 15:10:18 GMT -5
Apples and oranges, it's not built the same nor was it damaged by a 500mph collision from a 767. It's not "apples and oranges" because I wasn't comparing it to anything. I merely said "Yet another skyscraper totally engulfed in flames refuses to collapse in its own footprint at near free fall speed". However if you do want to compare it to another fire, try WTC7, it wasn't damaged by a 500mph collision from a 767 either. It seems in your world only the WTC towers were built to automatically collapse from fires.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 5, 2013 15:23:35 GMT -5
"If the walls were steel like the WTC's they would have as steel is maleable. Concrete once set is not maleable."
So the walls of the WTC towers were made of steel, that's a new fabrication. And even if that's true, what does that have to do with the FACT that the concrete walls of the Pentagon were not damaged by the wings and the attached engines?
"the entry hole was 75 feet wide."
The picture of the hole before the collapse of the wall of the Pentagon is the width of 2 adjacent windows and the height of barely 1 floor. It isn't more than 20 feet at most and that's a stretch. Why are you making things up? (That's rhetorical, you always make things up)
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 7, 2013 17:11:37 GMT -5
The outer columns of the WTC's were made of Steel and clad in Aluminium. science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc1.htmThe Pentagon's concrete walls resisted the outer parts of N644AA's wings and sheared them off. But not the fuselage and the inner parts of the wings where the chord is thickest and the engine nacelles. Why therefore would it be surprising to you that it's rudder was also sheared off ? On the 12 of November American Airline's Airbus A300 N14053's suffered the loss of it's rudder in flight after unnecessary and excessive rudder input from the pilot. Airliners are fragile. They aren't designed to fly through concrete or steel. In flight the wings of airliners can flex and wobble just like those of a glider. If you watch this video carefully, you'll see the wings of this 737 wobble at one point because of their elasticity. As the remains of the 757 progressed through more concrete inside the Pentagon towards the C ring less of the plane continued to travel forwards because the strong concrete building is breaking it apart. When the wreckage gets to the C ring and the nose wheel punches a hole into the courtyard it's not surprising that the wings didn't make it that far. Allyn E Kilsheimer was a first responder at the Pentagon, he picked up parts of the plane which had airline markings on them, he stood on a pile of debris which he discovered contained the black box, he held parts of uniforms from crew members in his hands including body parts. Now either he's lying or your 'experts' are. I say your 'experts' are lying. ................................ Anyway I don't know where you live but if there's a gliding club near you or a powered flying club, I strongly recommend that you try an air experience flight just for the sheer enjoyment you'll get. The costs of gliding lessons are quite cheap and even powered flying lessons are quite affordable. PC flight simulators are good too, but I recommend flight yoke, throttle quadrant rudder pedals and instruments such as these: All the principles of straight and level flight, visual flight rules and instrument flight rules can be learned on a decent home simulator such as FSX or X Plane 10. They're excellent training aids. This here's a video of simulator pilot with no hours of real flying time who takes off flies and lands a Cessna 172 without any assistance from the flying instructor: X Plane is used and endorsed by Nasa, Boeing, Piper, Scaled Composites, Japan Airlines, National Test Pilot School, Cessna, and the Federal Aviation Administration.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 7, 2013 23:15:10 GMT -5
"The Pentagon's concrete walls resisted the outer parts of N644AA's wings and sheared them off."So you're saying the outer parts of the wings hit the wall first then "sheared them off". If that's true how is that possible since the outer part of the wings are further back than the part that's attached to the plane and the engines are most prominent (i.e. they would have hit the wall first before the rest of the wings)? Also, I take it you're saying before they hit the wall, both of them. So where did the wings and the engines go in your opinion? They disappeared or they both got sucked into the 20 ft or so wall? And you saw this or are you making this up as you go? "Why therefore would it be surprising to you that it's rudder was also sheared off ?"
The tail section is 40 ft high, that got sheared off and disappeared too before it hit the wall? There's no damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the tail section. The hole is no more than maybe 12 ft high and that's generous. There's no damage to the wall and windows above the first floor, which is considerably shorter than the height of the tail section. So you saw this too or are you making this up as well? The rest of your post is totally irrelevant, it does not explain how and why there's no damage to any part of the wall around the hole which is about 12 ft high and 20 ft wide, at most. Your post is total bulls**t in terms of what happened to the Pentagon. You also failed to defend your 75 feet wide lie, which is an OBVIOUS lie to anyone looking at a picture of the hole. Here it is again in case you missed it. It's the last picture: 911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 8, 2013 6:53:56 GMT -5
No Sherlock, the inner parts of the wings hit first, the wings on a 757 are swept back, the chord is thickest at the wing root and thinnest at wing tip and thus weakest at wing tip. All of your post is idiotic. You ignore the most basic of facts including witness statements and physical wreckage all because you're puzzled how a metal airliner could be so fragile as to disintegrate when flown through concrete.
Learn about metals before you make such absurd statements again.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 8, 2013 8:55:18 GMT -5
"No Sherlock, the inner parts of the wings hit first, the wings on a 757 are swept back"
So you're saying the inner parts of the wings hit before the engines? And here I thought you said you were a pilot who knows everything about a 757. The inner parts of the wings could never have hit first because the engines extend well in front of the wings. So the engines would have had to hit first, before any part of the wings Watson.
The wing span is 124 ft and the engines are mounted a little more than 1/3 of the way from the fuselage, that means they're about 40+ ft from the fuselage. Unless the engines disappeared, there should be massive damage to the walls of the Pentagon about 40 ft on either side of the main hole. The engines after all, are partly made of nearly indestructible TITANIUM.
"All of your post is idiotic."
Could that be because I'm trying to figure out your insane theory that you're making up (i.e what the $%#$@ are you talking about?) and failing to answer a very simple question? You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that what you claim happened actually happened unless you saw it yourself and it makes zero sense anyway.
"You ignore the most basic of facts including witness statements and physical wreckage all because you're puzzled how a metal airliner could be so fragile as to disintegrate when flown through concrete."
It's you who ignores the most basic FACTS and LOGIC. There was NO DAMAGE from the wings and engines and this is CLEAR on the photos. You don't need eyewitness statements to see that in the photos. Furthermore, the hole made by the plane is way too small for the entire plane and the wings with the engines, not to mention the tail section which is over 40 ft high. Your bulls**t about "learning about metals" and "eyewitness statements" has ZERO to do with these simple FACTS and the LOGIC. The plane, according to the official THEORY, went in at an angle, not even head on, so the damage to the CONCRETE wall of the Pentagon should have been far greater than the damage (the hole in the wall) seen in the photograph. Even more idiotic is your folding wing THEORY where the wings folded so much that both wings, engines and tail section went into the exact same hole as the fuselage but yet the hole is not large enough to fit just the fuselage. Then there's the little problem about making up a story about the hole being "75 feet wide" when it's clear in the picture that that's completely false and your failure to address your made up measurement.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 8, 2013 9:28:09 GMT -5
How the hell were the wings going to survive going through a concrete wall ? The most basic facts are it did happen and you're wrong.
It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter how many idiots think like you. Your movement is wrong, it ignores witnesses and physical evidence. it ignores and attacks any fact that is inconvenient to the movement.
Your movement isn't interested in truth, your movement set out from the outset with an ulterior motive to sell a story, to sell an unsubstantiated allegation of inside job. Your movement has ignored all metallurgical evidence regarding the performance of steel in fire. Your movement has ignored the hijacking of four jetliners. Your movement has alleged that the twin towers were rigged for controlled demolition, initially claiming that conventional explosives brought down the towers (the exploding planes would have triggered any explosives had there been any). Then because everyone realised how ridiculous that was, saint Steven Jones came along on his white elephant with his thermite hoax and gullible morons fall for this guff.
A 757 is built light to fly efficiently without requiring massive amounts of fuel. No airliner is built to crash especially not through concrete.
Over 100 eyewitnesses saw the 757 crash into the Pentagon. Case closed get over it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 8, 2013 11:28:19 GMT -5
"How the hell were the wings going to survive going through a concrete wall ?"
That is NOT questionable, the real question is how the hell is it possible that the wings and the engines caused NO DAMAGE to the concrete walls? You're ignoring a very simple question or trying to answer it by making up a ridiculous folding and disappearing theory. How the hell is it that the hole in the wall of the Pentagon was TOO SMALL to fit the entire plane, wings, engines and tail? Again you ignore something that's so basic and trying to explain it with a THEORY that makes NO SENSE. Your THEORY is a THEORY, NOT FACT, and it makes ZERO SENSE. Do you get it? I'm sure you do but you're trying to play games that anyone with half a brain can figure out is a silly game.
"The most basic facts are it did happen and you're wrong."
The most basic facts are that you were told that's what happened. I'm not wrong and I can't be wrong because I don't know what really happened and what we were told happened MAKES NO SENSE just based on the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, among a thousand other things. It makes no sense on many other aspects (e.g. the non-pilot who flew a trajectory that even a seasoned pilot would have a nearly impossible time matching) based on COMMON SENSE.
"It doesn't matter what you think"
It apparently matters to you because you're trying your damnedest to convince me of something that makes NO SENSE.
"Your movement is wrong, it ignores witnesses and physical evidence. it ignores and attacks any fact that is inconvenient to the movement."
There are people that are organized in a loose "movement" and there are those who just plain don't believe the official story for OBVIOUS reasons. The vast majority do not believe the official story is true because it makes no sense and there are HUGE HOLES in it, not to mention ADMITTED LIES. It is NEVER WRONG to question anything and especially it is NEVER WRONG to question government for OBVIOUS reasons. It is ALWAYS WRONG to accept what one is told by government or ANY authority on faith as truth. That's the mentality of a robotic sheep or a sponge.
"Your movement isn't interested in truth"
Really? So why would they be called "truthers" or a "truth movement"? Should they be called "liars" and a "lying movement" instead? This label is used by those who try to discredit anyone who has questions about the official story and does not accept it as fact. These people ONLY want the truth and nothing but the truth, you are trying to contradict reality.
"your movement set out from the outset with an ulterior motive to sell a story"
It's you who's been sold 100% (as you described it), including all the admitted lies. The difference is I haven't been sold on any story. I haven't paid for anything and I'm not a sponge like you who just sucks up everything you're told as "truth", including the lies. The rest of your post is just some nonsense about my "movement" and regurgitation of the official story. I don't have any movement other than bowel movements and my body motion. I don't need any "movement" to tell me what to believe and what not to believe. I also don't need government and definitely not you to tell me ridiculous bulls**t that any idiot can see makes no sense.
"Case closed get over it."
Well if it's closed for you why aren't you getting over it? Why are you incessantly and rabidly posting your bulls**t in this forum? Do you actually believe you're going to convince me that the official story, including the admitted LIES are 100% true? Are you trying to shut me up? Is that your agenda? The "case" is far from closed for me, in fact, it has barely scratched the surface. There was NEVER ANY INVESTIGATION of 9/11. All those that pretended to be investigations were designed to be deliberate COVER-UPS or to be less kind, CRIMINAL FRAUD. So if it's "closed" for you, then why are you still here trying to convince me of your bulls**t? You should be content that it's 100% settled for you. I have literally thousands of questions about 9/11 and I'm sure when some of those get answered if ever, I'll have more questions based on the answers.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 4:04:50 GMT -5
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; Issac Newton. Plane hit Pentagon, plane went into Pentagon, parts of Pentagon resisted the weaker parts of the wing where the chord is thinner, hence aluminium wing debris on lawn. You are the liar, please stop your lying and have respect for those who died in the Pentagon the WTC's and at Shanksville.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 8:18:03 GMT -5
According to your theory, the plane's wings folded up and both wings, engines and the tail went through the same hole as the rest of the plane, which upon visual examination, is smaller than the fuselage. Except that there's a picture of what looks like one engine part several feet in front of the hole, another that looks like it may be a wheel part, and some part that looks like it may be an airplane part at quite a distance from the hole. You claim it's part of the wing but you make many unsubstantiated claims. I take it in your theory, most of the rest of the plane disintegrated as it disappeared into the wall because there does not seem to be enough recognizable debris that makes up an entire airplane. None of the pictures I've ever seen show enough airplane parts and certainly none you've provided, all of which I've seen before. According to you, there are many witnesses but the pictures don't seem to match up with what they claim or there are none that support their claims. There's not one single picture of a dead body in its seat or an airplane seat that I've ever come across. There's not one single picture of the object that hit the Pentagon. By comparison, there are videos of both planes that hit each WTC tower and there are pictures and videos of the holes in the buildings which match the outlines of the planes, including the wings and engines. These did NOT fold up and disappear. So out of curiosity, can you please provide a link from a source that agrees with your airplane wing folding theory? Or are you the only one on the planet who believes in your theory? I've never heard that anywhere other than from you. "You are the liar, please stop your lying and have respect for those who died in the Pentagon the WTC's and at Shanksville."First, as I already said, I'm not lying and and I can't be lying because I don't make up stories. When I say this is what I believe, it's not a lie, it's what I believe. Unlike you, I don't say this is definitely what happened and it's 100% true (such as your folding wing theory or NIST's column 79 theory that you agree with 100% as fact). That would be lying. You ought to learn the difference. Second, questioning what happened on 9/11 is not disrespectful to those who died, those who survived or those who lost loved ones on 9/11, it's the just the opposite. I would not be wrong in saying most of them want to know the truth. And third, do you actually believe these people are disrespecting their loved ones who died on 9/11? patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlOr these people: Or these people (click on the videos): nyccan.org/Or these people: www.911independentcommission.org/members.htmlThere's also this: 911blogger.com/node/6902
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 11:40:42 GMT -5
Not a theory. It happened. Time you stopped lying look at what really happened mate. Get out of fantasy land. Aeroplanes aren't designed to fly through concrete. In fact airliners are not even crash tested. They're only designed to fly. Part of an aerofoil, perhaps a leading edge slat. Looks like a plane part to me. American Airlines part Undercarriage part, cruise missiles do not have these. Starboard wing impact evidence. Starboard wing impact photo two. Aluminium skin debris painted in American Airlines Livery. It was NOT an inside job, your sources are WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 13:30:02 GMT -5
"Not a theory. It happened. Time you stopped lying"
So you start off a paragraph with a lie then you're telling me to stop lying. You have a serious mental issue. I asked you to provide just one link that supports or agrees with your wing folding theory and all you can do is tell me "it happened".
"Get out of fantasy land"
Sorry but I live right here on earth, not in your world where airplane wings fold up and disappear and fires cause skyscrapers to collapse at near free fall speed in their footprints.
"Aeroplanes aren't designed to fly through concrete."
Your bulls**t diversions do not support your theory. I have never questioned that airplanes fly through concrete, why do you pretend that I question that? The rest of your post consists of irrelevant pictures taken out of context that have NOTHING TO DO with the problem(s)/issue(s) I keep bringing up.
"It was NOT an inside job"
That's your opinion, mine is the opposite. Neither is a lie, they're both opinions/beliefs. What is a lie is your claim that airplane wings fold and that you assert it as truth. That's an entirely made up theory that no one else on this planet has even claimed, at least no one I ever heard and certainly no one you can show.
"your sources are WRONG."
My sources are many and they include, video EVIDENCE, photographic EVIDENCE, eyewitness testimony, opinions from experts of all kinds, science, logic, admissions from those who published the official account, all the documented accounts of those in power and on the inside on 9/11, common sense and many, many other sources. To say all these sources are wrong is the height of ignorance.
Tell me Einstein, what is your source for the airplane wing folding theory? Your imagination?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 15:03:30 GMT -5
I have not lied to you Bob. You have lied to me. I'm asking you to stop lying and face the truth. You are the one peddling the "bulls**t" mate.
Your sources are liars. Their evidence is doctored and misquoted and FAKE. Stop lying and face the facts. Parts of an American Airline Jet were found in the pentagon. Parts of aviation grade glass backed aluminium were found on the lawn from the wings, which had American airlines livery on them.
Of all the people who were there at the Pentagon, not one, supports your theory.
Now to get back on topic, here's a scientific documentary which explains how the twin towers were destroyed:
It is the first full scientific account of why the twin towers collapsed. It preceded the NIST reports by years. Eyewitnesses are interviewed, Structural engineers interviewed, Leslie E Robertson is interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 18:57:48 GMT -5
"I have not lied to you Bob. You have lied to me."
I have caught you in numerous lies and fabrications. You have yet to provide a link or a quote from any of my posts where you believe I lied. You have yet to provide a link that supports your wing folding theory.
"Your sources are liars. Their evidence is doctored and misquoted and FAKE."
This is childish nonsense. Just another perfect example of your lies and fabrications. Is that your best argument?
"Of all the people who were there at the Pentagon, not one, supports your theory."
I suppose you asked everyone of them if they support "my theory" that I haven't even posed? What theory is that?
"here's a scientific documentary which explains how the twin towers were destroyed"
The BBC is the same entity that brought the news of the collapse of WTC7 about 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. Yes that's real "scientific". I would say the BBC should get into the clairvoyant business.
"It is the first full scientific account of why the twin towers collapsed. It preceded the NIST reports by years. Eyewitnesses are interviewed, Structural engineers interviewed, Leslie E Robertson is interviewed."
Thanks, I've seen similar "accounts" from the History Channel, National Geographic and Popular Mechanics. And since it's that old, it was not able to take into account anything that has been uncovered since it was released. That's a huge amount of knowledge that makes it outdated and therefore largely irrelevant. All of these lamestream "documentaries" parrot the official story, and some even contradict it (i.e. Popular Mechanics has never retracted its pancake collapse theory). Not one of these question anything about the official account and most, if not all, denigrate those who do question the official account by labeling them "conspiracy theorists". That's not true journalism, it's the hallmark of a propaganda outlet.
|
|