|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 18:14:10 GMT -5
The engines went through the pentagon and broke up, a lot of parts such as the compressor casings and nickel superalloy turbine blades were found inside the pentagon. So how have I lied ? The engines did break up, the turbine blades weren't attached to the disc after it smashed through walls, that disc made it through to the inner courtyard of the Pentagon but the engines weren't intact they were smashed to bits in the crash. I didn't say the nose I said nose gear and wheel from the undercarriage. Smaller, but very heavy and with a lot of inertia. You disregard the statements of Pentagon and FEMA staff involved in the clean up and reconstruction. 125 Pentagon staff were killed in that attack mate. You ignore photographic evidence of what is quite obviously the wreckage of an airliner. You disregard the eyewitnesses (including seven pilots) who stated on record that they had seen a An American Airlines 757 crash into the pentagon. You disregard the FDR data, you disregard relatives who were phoned from the planes. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with you when you take such an obstinate stance ? They went through the Pentagon without doing any damage? I think he's trying to say both engines went through the same hole as the fuselage. But an engine part is in the picture he provided and appears in front of the hole, by several feet. The other problem is that the engines are a few feet on either side of the nose. So Shred, that begs the questions, how in your opinion did both engines go through the same hole as the fuselage and for bonus points, please explain your theory on how that engine part appears OUTSIDE the Pentagon when you said the engines are inside the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by cheknurpulse on Mar 30, 2013 18:31:38 GMT -5
They went through the Pentagon without doing any damage? I think he's trying to say both engines went through the same hole as the fuselage. But an engine part is in the picture he provided and appears in front of the hole, by several feet. The other problem is that the engines are a few feet on either side of the nose. So Shred, that begs the questions, how in your opinion did both engines go through the same hole as the fuselage and for bonus points, please explain your theory on how that engine part appears OUTSIDE the Pentagon when you said the engines are inside the Pentagon. I am not an engineer or anything. But how exactly would that happen? Did the "wings" fold up or something?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 19:06:18 GMT -5
Chekn, of course the wings folded up, they were made of a MALEABLE flexible material that is capable of bending and tearing, what did you expect? As for Bob, more debris: Nosewheel 757 nosewheel on serviceable plane: 757 main wheels made in similar style: Engine parts removed from inside of Pentagon: And if you don't believe me, write to the Pentagon and ask them. I'm sure they'd help. After all, 125 of their colleagues were killed that day.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 23:16:51 GMT -5
"of course the wings folded up"What do you mean "of course"? You know this how? You saw it? Wings always "fold up" in an airliner crash by design? You posted this picture, I don't see that the wing "folded up". The engine is where it should be. And even if the wings "folded up", why are you ducking my questions? I'll repeat them in case you missed it: "how in your opinion did both engines go through the same hole as the fuselage and for bonus points, please explain your theory on how that engine part appears OUTSIDE the Pentagon when you said the engines are inside the Pentagon."Answer if you can. If you can't give a reasonable answer then you're just making things up. "As for Bob, more debris:"And your point? I know the 3 rings of the Pentagon were penetrated and it caused a lot of destruction which means there was debris. What are you trying to show when you show debris? I don't see any airplane parts in the first picture of the debris, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, nothing that would identify an airliner crash. In the second picture it shows one alleged wheel out of context. There's no reference point in the picture. Where was the alleged wheel? Where are the other wheels? There are at least 10 of them. The last picture you claim were airplane parts removed from inside the Pentagon. And you know this how? Where does it say that in the picture? All the other pictures are wheels on an intact airplane. What does that have to do with anything? "if you don't believe me, write to the Pentagon and ask them. I'm sure they'd help."Why should I ask a part of government anything? All they do is lie. Even if I asked, you actually believe they would tell me anything? Why don't you ask and see if they tell you anything if you're so sure they will help? Get back to me and let me know how you made out. "After all, 125 of their colleagues were killed that day."Whose colleagues are you talking about? And even if they were the colleagues of the Pentagon(?), how does that guarantee anyone in the Pentagon will tell me or you anything? Why are you so sure they will help? They haven't done anything to help so far in the past 11+ years since 9/11 except wage illegal wars, massacre innocent people and engage in war crimes including torture.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 31, 2013 5:12:47 GMT -5
I think you forget, that the plane in that picture hadn't been flown through a building.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 31, 2013 8:55:27 GMT -5
I think you forget, that the plane in that picture hadn't been flown through a building. So you don't want to answer any of my questions. I take it it's because you have no answers and all you do is make things up as you go. Here's a link to a picture of the damage an airliner made that did crash into the wall of the building: 2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/R5C6hXdW1ZI/AAAAAAAAAcU/SNEMy1SveEc/s1600-h/wtc1+hole+high+res.jpgIt seems to look exactly like the outline of the plane with the wings exactly where they should be, they didn't "fold". The plane was allegedly flown at about the same speed and it was a similar plane. Here's the one hole in the Pentagon before the wall collapsed: Compare the two and you can easily note the huge difference. There is not one single sign of wing damage completely unlike the WTC crash. Also look at the size of the two holes where the fuselage allegedly penetrated each wall. In the WTC picture, it's approximately 2 floors tall, the Pentagon one is less than 1 floor. You can see that just by the height of the man in front you can use for reference and the windows over the hole.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 31, 2013 14:19:55 GMT -5
That's only the hole in the INNER wall of the pentagon. The outer wall hole was much greater, almost the width of a 757, and when you take into account wing folding, exactly the width it should be. Material evidence on the ground, the eyewitnesses and the airlines who lost their planes prove you WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 31, 2013 15:26:59 GMT -5
That's only the hole in the INNER wall of the pentagon. The outer wall hole was much greater, almost the width of a 757, and when you take into account wing folding, exactly the width it should be. Material evidence on the ground, the eyewitnesses and the airlines who lost their planes prove you WRONG. You're still pushing your ridiculous "wing folding" theory even after I showed you that a similar crash into the wall of WTC1 shows a near perfect outline of a similar plane WITHOUT any "wing folding". Your claim seems to be that the fuselage and both wings along with both engines went into the same hole, except that you still haven't answered why an engine part was found a few feet OUTSIDE the wall. I'll ask you again, do you actually believe most of the readers are %$&@? Why do you insist on pushing such an insane theory that not only do you have NOTHING to base it on but makes absolutely no sense? And here's a picture of the outer wall damage (last picture at the bottom of the page) that shows NO damage made by the wings or the tail section. And if you know the official story intimately as you claim, the plane came in at an angle, not directly head on, so the damage to the wall should be even greater than the actual damage seen. That it is as you claim "exactly the width it should be" is beyond absurd. Maybe you expect people to just take your word for it and not bother to look at these photos. 911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 2, 2013 3:42:12 GMT -5
The outer walls of the Pentagon were considerably stronger than the outer walls of the wtc's. 757 wings are made of metal, which is maleable. 757's are not designed to fly through concrete. eyewitnesses including 7 off duty airline pilots saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. Given that three other jet airliners were hijacked that day why can't you believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 2, 2013 7:40:47 GMT -5
You avoided addressing anything I asked you and all you can do is repeat yourself. You think if you repeat yourself enough times your theories will come true? "The outer walls of the Pentagon were considerably stronger than the outer walls of the wtc's. 757 wings are made of metal, which is maleable. 757's are not designed to fly through concrete."
That does NOT explain the photographic EVIDENCE that clearly shows no damage from the wings. It also doesn't explain why the hole is too small, why there's not nearly enough airliner debris, why there's a COVER-UP (especially of the videos), the impossibility of the trajectory flown by a non-pilot and many, many other details. "eyewitnesses including 7 off duty airline pilots saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon."Eyewitnesses claim they saw an airliner headed in the direction of the Pentagon, then saw an explosion at the wall. If a man is poisoned and dies, then after he's dead someone shoots the dead body in the head. The police discover the dead body. Do you think they will assume he died from poisoning or from a bullet to the head? The point of the question is that without a REAL investigation, there is NO WAY to determine what may have happened. This site has eyewitnesses to explosions at the Pentagon: 911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/explosive.html"Given that three other jet airliners were hijacked that day why can't you believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon ?"Why do I have to "believe" anything you're asking me to believe? When and IF there's ever a REAL independent criminal forensic investigation into 9/11, I'll examine the reports, the evidence, the science, the logic, who the witnesses are and what they have to say, and anything else appropriate, then I'll make a determination. Unless and until that ever takes place, my position is that EVERYTHING we were fed by government is either a LIE or is SUSPECT.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 2, 2013 18:03:11 GMT -5
The wings didn't do much damage to the Pentagon, they folded up, the engines, fuselage, cargo containers and undercarriage did most of the damage. Oh by the way, more evidence that Airliners aren't difficult to fly: Swedish un-licenced pilot flew Jetliners for 13 years before his arrest, once landing with only one engine after a bird-strike. www.eturbonews.com/15498/unlicensed-pilot-gets-light-fineSo licence holding pilot Hani Hanjour would have had no difficulties in lining up the Pentagon and crashing into it in the perfect VFR weather conditions of the 11th Sept 2001. Evidence that jet engines are quite fragile: Boeing 757 flight out of Manchester suffers engine damage from Heron (yes just a Heron), and had to turn back and land: if an RB211-535e can't cope with a low speed collision with a Heron then it's not surprising that an RB211 would come apart after smashing through the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 2, 2013 20:24:46 GMT -5
"The wings didn't do much damage to the Pentagon, they folded up"Still pushing your idiotic nonsense, eh? They not only "didn't do much damage", they didn't do ANY damage at all, folded, unfolded or non-existent. Try to quit peddling your quackery, don't you find it embarrassing? "more evidence that Airliners aren't difficult to fly"Your "evidence" is insignificant, you've already been contradicted by quite a few real pilots. At least take the time to read their comments, I gave the links more than once. Not that anything matters to you, only the bulls**t you try to peddle. "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]"licence holding pilot Hani Hanjour would have had no difficulties in lining up the Pentagon and crashing into it in the perfect VFR weather conditions of the 11th Sept 2001"But real pilots who have over 20 years experience have an almost impossible time duplicating that same feat in a simulator. Sure, Hanjour got himself a "license". I can probably get a license too without flying a single minute, all I need is a computer and a decent printer. Then there's this: "... when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday]
"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."And this: "On 27 November 2009 PilotsFor911Truth.org published a simple fact about the flight of Flight 77 which makes a conventional hijacking scenario impossible - according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. The status of the door was polled every 5 seconds from 12:18:05 GMT to 13:37:09 GMT, and each poll logged the door as closed (a CSV file of the log can be downloaded here).
No-one entered the cockpit of the plane during the flight, therefore it was not flown into the Pentagon by an Arab hijacker.
What caused Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon? Electronic hijacking is a strong possibility..." whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html"Evidence that jet engines are quite fragile: Boeing 757 flight out of Manchester suffers engine damage from Heron (yes just a Heron)"Airline engines can fail when they suck birds into them, that has NOTHING to do with the FACT that the titanium component is nearly indestructible. Apples and oranges (as usual). Thanks for nothing, you haven't made any case at all about your 9/11 theories, just repetitive quackery.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 3, 2013 3:30:14 GMT -5
1) Actually I have recreated Hanjour's crash in a simulator it was a piece of cake. 2) I am a real pilot albeit a GLIDER pilot (the best kind in civil aviation because we only get ONE shot at landing and fly without engines to give us extra range). I was gliding on Sunday as it happens, I took an aerotow, (formation flying) a more difficult maneuver than Hanjour ever had to undertake and quite dangerous too if the glider (which has more efficient wings and thus more lift) over flies the tug it can put the tug into a lethal unrecoverable dive. 3) The point is that an RB211 isn't wholly titanium is it? It has non titanium parts which fail quite easily. 4) This Rolls Royce Trent partly exploded mid flight after a fuel leak in 2010 www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1335354/Qantas-A380-engine-failure-spotted-duty-pilot-using-flight-entertainment.htmlDebris from the engine cowling: The Trent design is based upon the RB211 design (which was originally developed for the L1011 Tristar). And Hanjour didn't fly like an ace he didn't even try to. All he did was turn, line up, hold off and crash. Passengers who phoned their loved ones reported airsickness. Why do you keep trying to make excuses for the Hijackers ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 3, 2013 8:32:05 GMT -5
"1) Actually I have recreated Hanjour's crash in a simulator it was a piece of cake."
Yeah, I do it every day too for practice on my X Box. I also ate a piece of cake. And wings conveniently fold up like a piece of paper just before planes crash so they don't cause any damage. Who are you trying to sell your bulls**t to? Do you have any reason to believe I swallow your crap?
"2) I am a real pilot albeit a GLIDER pilot"
Congratulations. I'll take the words of REAL pilots over an anonymous bulls**t artist. Thanks for your bulls**t though but it is getting really boring.
"3) The point is that an RB211 isn't wholly titanium is it?"
No that's not the point, that's your bulls**t.
"4) This Rolls Royce Trent partly exploded mid flight after a fuel leak in 2010"
Thanks for that newsbit but this discussion is about the Pentagon and what happened on 9/11.
"And Hanjour didn't fly like an ace he didn't even try to."
That's about the only thing you say that's most likely true. He probably wasn't even on any airplane on 9/11.
"Why do you keep trying to make excuses for the Hijackers ?"
What excuses did I make for what hijackers? And what does your lie have to do with 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 3, 2013 14:19:30 GMT -5
1) I wish I was as eloquent as you.
2) Check your Inbox pal. I'm not anonymous to you.
3) Yes it is the point, two RB211-535e's came apart inside the Pentagon.
4) You tried to make out that the hijackers weren't responsible or capable.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 3, 2013 15:48:36 GMT -5
"1) I wish I was as eloquent as you."
It won't help you, trust me on that.
"2) Check your Inbox pal. I'm not anonymous to you."
I did and you're still a nobody trying to peddle bulls**t.
"3) Yes it is the point, two RB211-535e's came apart inside the Pentagon."
That's your story, the visual evidence clearly shows you're a liar trying to make a claim that anyone who's not blind can see is a lie.
"4) You tried to make out that the hijackers weren't responsible or capable."
I don't need to try to make out they're incapable, anyone with half a brain can figure that out. As to responsible, that depends who the "hijackers" really are.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 3, 2013 16:34:38 GMT -5
1) I was being sarcastic. 2) You're the nobody peddling the "bulls**t" mate. 3) Lamp posts knocked over by the plane, passenger calls from plane to loved ones, generator hit by plane, debris from plane, eyewitnesses including 7 pilots show you're lying as are your heroes. 4) You make claims you can't back up. Onus is on you to prove your lies and you haven't because you can't. Your fallback position of " I don't know what happened" is wimpy and pathetic. You claim the "official story" isn't true when you can't back up your alleged contradictions with hard evidence. That's pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 3, 2013 20:45:28 GMT -5
"1) I was being sarcastic."
I figured that out Einstein but I wasn't.
"2) You're the nobody peddling the "bulls**t" mate."
Nope, I'm not "peddling" anything. I'm not eating up the crap you've been fed and regurgitating it ad nauseum Mr. 100%. You don't have to accept that I'm not buying your bulls**t, it makes no difference to me.
"3) Lamp posts knocked over by the plane, passenger calls from plane to loved ones, generator hit by plane, debris from plane, eyewitnesses including 7 pilots show you're lying as are your heroes."
Whatever you say if what you spew incessantly makes you feel better.
"4) You make claims you can't back up."
I don't make any claims other than I don't buy fairy tales on faith. What I post I've researched from those who are experts in many different fields, video and other evidence, testimony and other facts, logic and plain common sense. These are all tools intelligent people use. You don't bother with these because you just suck up what you're told like a sponge.
"Onus is on you to prove your lies and you haven't because you can't."
I don't lie because unlike you, I haven't made up anything. Furthermore, I don't need to prove anything to you, it's not my job.
"Your fallback position of " I don't know what happened" is wimpy and pathetic."
If you say so. You know everything 100% so sleep tight son, everything is ok in fairyland. I don't know what really happened because unlike your silly claim, no one does other than those who were involved.
"You claim the "official story" isn't true when you can't back up your alleged contradictions with hard evidence."
I don't need to back up anything for you. What I accept as truth is what I accept as truth, what I know are lies I know are lies. Whether you agree or not means nothing to me.
"That's pathetic."
Coming from you, it's totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 11:23:09 GMT -5
Scale reconstruction for you:
Time you stopped lying Bobby time you woke up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 11:55:59 GMT -5
I like that cartoon, it kind of reminds me of the WTC7 cartoon. In other words, it isn't fact, it's theory. It isn't fact because all of it is computer simulated animation spliced with the only frames that were ever released that do not show what hit the Pentagon and other photos.
There are numerous other problems with it. I'll give you a short list.
1. It contradicts the photograph of the hole in the Pentagon. There is no sound so no one is narrating the video. However, it does show dark colors where the video claims there was "major damage". The problem is that there was no major damage to much of the area surrounding the entry hole in the Pentagon where the cartoon claims there was major damage. So the animation is already false in just that aspect.
2. It clearly shows that the wings and the engine disappeared into the wall of the Pentagon intact. In other words, it contradicts your claim that the wings "folded". However again, reality is that the photos show NO DAMAGE where the wings and the engines disappeared into the wall.
3. I have no clue who the person is who created the video other than he seems to work for some computer animation company and what he created is strictly his opinion.
4. There are photos intermixed in the video that show a small number of airplane parts out of context and some that are being picked up by hand. There is NO WAY that an entire airplane's parts can easily be picked up by hand and that there are only a very few parts on the lawn. Where is the rest of the plane?
5. The animation claims there's some kind of camera that would have clearly showed whatever hit the Pentagon but there's nothing that has been released that shows any frames from that alleged camera.
That's only a small sample of the problems with the video. I'll review it some more later and post what I notice.
"Time you stopped lying Bobby time you woke up."
I'm wide awake and as far as lying, please show me where I've lied if you can. You just posted an animation that clearly contradicts your folding wing theory and when I asked you for a link that supports or agrees with your theory that you hold as 100% fact, you did not respond. So who exactly is lying?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 13:34:54 GMT -5
1) no it doesn't, the hole in the C ring section was in the innermost section. 2) It's a 3d model, not a physical replica just some polygons to represent the 757 there's no friction between the Pentagon's Polys and it's Polys. It is a reconstruction of the flight path not the disintegration of the plane. 3) The starboard wing hit first, the Port wing was still flying momentarily, the hole in the C ring indicates that the plane yawed to starboard in it's final moments due to resistance from the Pentagon to the starboard wing. 4) Parts: Pentagon wall scarred by starboard wing Aluminium from 757 still bearing American Airlines livery.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 13:53:41 GMT -5
"I'll review it some more later and post what I notice."
Ok, here's more contradiction:
At 3:39, the video says "unscathed lawn and cable spools", yet as you keep watching the alleged path of the plane, it's clear that the bottom of the plane should have at the very least disturbed the cable spools and more likely destroyed them. The animation just shows the plane going right through the spools as if they were invisible.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 14:05:23 GMT -5
"1) no it doesn't, the hole in the C ring section was in the innermost section."The picture I'm referring to is the OUTER WALL (see last picture at the bottom of the page), not the one I posted earlier: 911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html"2) It's a 3d model, not a physical replica just some polygons to represent the 757 there's no friction between the Pentagon's Polys and it's Polys. It is a reconstruction of the flight path not the disintegration of the plane."Whatever that means. Ok, so where's the "folding wings"? "3) The starboard wing hit first, the Port wing was still flying momentarily, the hole in the C ring indicates that the plane yawed to starboard in it's final moments due to resistance from the Pentagon to the starboard wing."Again, I wasn't referring to the C ring, I was talking about the OUTERMOST WALL where the plane hit FIRST which is clearly shown (minus some smoke) in the photo I provided a link to. Nothing you're saying supports your folding wing theory. The rest of your post consists of the same tired out of context pictures that have NOTHING TO DO with the hole in the Pentagon which had NO DAMAGE surrounding it, the folding wings and disappearing engines or the FACT that there's not enough debris to make up a large commercial airliner, not to mention numerous other problems.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 14:20:11 GMT -5
"I'll review it some more later and post what I notice."Ok, here's more contradiction: At 3:39, the video says "unscathed lawn and cable spools", yet as you keep watching the alleged path of the plane, it's clear that the bottom of the plane should have at the very least disturbed the cable spools and more likely destroyed them. The animation just shows the plane going right through the spools as if they were invisible. But the plane was flying, why would it scathe the lawn ? As for the cable spools They look pretty disturbed to me. Your arguments get weaker and weaker.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 9, 2013 14:46:22 GMT -5
Effect of load brought that part of the pentagon crashing down after the supports were weakened. The Pentagon was built in sections, connections between sections broke under load. Eyewitness statement: "2) It's a 3d model, not a physical replica just some polygons to represent the 757 there's no friction between the Pentagon's Polys and it's Polys. It is a reconstruction of the flight path not the disintegration of the plane."The 757 in the reconstruction is a digital model not a real metal aircraft, it only looks like one, it's made of polygons and nurbs curves with a bitmapped picture for details. It does not have true physical properties. It wasn't designed with the complexity of a real 757. Your weak argument ignores the real 757 which broke up and the evidence of aircraft debris, and witnesses to the plane as it flew towards and crashed into the Pentagon. "3) The starboard wing hit first, the Port wing was still flying momentarily, the hole in the C ring indicates that the plane yawed to starboard in it's final moments due to resistance from the Pentagon to the starboard wing."THE HOLE IN THE PENTAGON WITH 'NO DAMAGE SURROUNDING IT' WAS IN THE C RING. WAKE UP. Evidence of the wing's collision with the outer wall is here: The outer wall is clearly damaged, the wing clearly was pushed back. Steel and aluminium metals are ductile malleable and bendy. You're getting confused. It was the C ring hole which had no damage surrounding it. I'll say again, the A Ring entry hole looked like this after the roof collapse: A considerable amount of damage, and quite wide too. And you haven't said anything about eyewitness reports such as that of First Responder Allyn E Kilsheimer. You're evasive because you cannot handle the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 9, 2013 18:47:48 GMT -5
"But the plane was flying, why would it scathe the lawn ?"
I didn't say I had an issue with the lawn although it's really strange that the alleged plane never hit the lawn but caused that kind of damage at ground level.
"As for the cable spools"
The cable spools are virtually undamaged as anyone can see but the animation shows the plane's bottom going through them as if they were invisible.
"They look pretty disturbed to me."
Sure, if you wear biased glasses everything looks the way you want it to look. I think it's you who's "disturbed".
"THE HOLE IN THE PENTAGON WITH 'NO DAMAGE SURROUNDING IT' WAS IN THE C RING. WAKE UP."
The last link I provided was NOT a picture of the C ring wall, it was a picture of the OUTER WALL before the wall collapsed, you wake up. All the pictures you show were taken after the wall collapsed. It's OBVIOUS you're trying to confuse the issue. The picture you posted that allegedly shows an almost invisible outline of the alleged wing does not match the picture I gave you the link to. And if that picture is really an indentation mark of the wing, it certainly contradicts your wing folding up theory.
"you haven't said anything about eyewitness reports such as that of First Responder Allyn E Kilsheimer."
I was focusing on many issues that I have a problem with that don't make sense relative to the official account. Eyewitnesses may have seen a plane and may have believed that a plane crashed into the Pentagon as a result. However, that may not be the case. There are alternative possibilities and I already described one of these. That is not to say that what I described actually happened but it is to say there are other possibilities and other possibilities should never be automatically discounted without investigation. You automatically discard anything that doesn't match the official account, that is incredibly narrow minded but that is your sponge brain mentality.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." — Albert Einstein
"You're evasive because you cannot handle the truth."
The truth certainly does not come from you and I haven't been evasive about anything nor have I lied about anything unlike you. Asking questions about issues that make no sense and posting opinions is not evasiveness or lying. You wouldn't know or you pretend not to know the difference. Just saying the above does not make it true, you have yet to provide a link where you believe I lied.
"Your arguments get weaker and weaker."
If you want to talk about whose arguments are weak, once again you failed to provide a link to anyone who supports or agrees with your wing folding theory. So you're the only one on the planet who believes that theory.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 10, 2013 3:50:59 GMT -5
Regarding the lawn the plane never hit the lawn as it was still flying just like these aircraft: The cable spools were damaged, but obviously nowhere near as bad as the Pentagon. Very wide area of damage, wing marks on walls, why put spools there if inside job conspiracy ? Why strike Pentagon at all if inside job conspiracy ? Building hit by cruise missile for comparison: Far smaller area of damage much neater. How could a cruise missile damage Pentagon and lamp posts and this generator ? How could a cruise missile leave RB211-535e engine parts, 757 parts including undercarriage, flight crew body parts, explode on the outside gouge a massive hole inside pentagon and blow a hole in the C ring ? How could a cruise missile fool 104 eyewitnesses including off duty pilots ? How could a cruise missile fool the first responders and clear up workers ? How could a cruise missile leave aviation grade aluminium sheeting on the lawn of the Pentagon bearing AA livery ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 10, 2013 8:19:25 GMT -5
Very interesting that picture of a damaged wall hit by a cruise missile, it looks eerily similar to the Pentagon's damaged wall before it collapsed.
As to all your questions, yes those are all very good questions if it was a cruise missile. That's why I suggested one possibility that the airliner that flew toward the Pentagon may have been a decoy to make people believe it crashed into the Pentagon and may have actually been the vehicle that delivered the cruise missile then flew over the Pentagon. That's just sheer speculation of course, it's not necessarily what happened but like I said, nothing should ever be discounted, especially since there never was any criminal investigation into any aspect of the events of 9/11. All these fake investigations were set up to support the official story that came out within days of 9/11.
Here are other sample questions that you'll never ask:
1. How did any airliner, missile or other object approach the most heavily defensed building in the world without being shot down or any defense mounted? From what I understand, the Pentagon has a missile defense system that detects any approaching object and fires immediately if it doesn't transmit the proper "friendly" code. It is on record that Cheney ordered a STAND DOWN.
2. How did a commercial airliner fly a 270 degree downward spiral at near break up velocity and hit the Pentagon wall at ground level without touching the lawn?
3. How could a non-pilot who couldn't fly a paper airplane execute such a maneuver? And yes I know all about your "piece of cake" nonsense, REAL PILOTS have REAL OPINIONS about that and common sense dictates that that would be virtually impossible.
4. Why would "terrorists" fly into a newly reinforced wall that just happened to be the area where an audit was taking place regarding Rumsfeld's announcement the prior day about a missing $2.3 trillion? There would have been much more massive damage if a plane slammed into the Pentagon in a crash dive and preferably hit areas occupied by high ranking personnel.
5. Why did the flight recorder indicate that the cabin door was never opened?
6. At least 2 witnesses claimed there were explosions at the Pentagon prior to the crash.
There's plenty more but these are just a small sample of questions that have never been investigated, never mind answered. Like I said, you believe everything about 9/11 is 100% settled so you'll never bother to ask the REAL TOUGH QUESTIONS.
And on a side note, I'm still waiting for that link from anyone on the planet that supports your folding wing theory. I take it there is no such thing since you still have not provided it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 21:13:15 GMT -5
I've read all these posts.
I declare Shred the clear winner.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 10, 2013 23:39:41 GMT -5
I've read all these posts. I declare Shred the clear winner. I didn't know it was a contest but if it is I fully agree. He wins top prize for being the best at parroting the official fairy tale. I proudly lost that one hands down. But you didn't have to read any of these posts, just read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, the first one and the final one that contradicts the first one. Just memorize these and you too can become a skilled parrot. Be careful not to get confused by NIST's contradictions, they can trip up the most skilled parrots. Also don't forget to include all the publicly admitted lies from the 9/11 Commission Report or else you'll lose valuable points.
|
|