Pentagon Strike Bogus.

[VH80-84]

I see a misconception on this thread. The 757 took off from Dulles and headed west, not toward the Pentagon. The hijackers got control of it over WV, turned it around and flew to DC. They apparently could not get the plane to hit their intended target and instead chose an easy one: The Pentagon.

The video in the OP has pics that were cropped. There was much more damage than just the hole. The damage also matches the size of a 757 despite the claims made.

More than one part of the 757 was found on the scene.

Most people could not identify a 757 from a CRJ sitting on the ground, how they going to know what kind of plane it was going by at hundreds of miles per hour? A fast aircraft high up is easy, but right in their face?

Trafic was indeed disrupted. Pics of light poles knocked onto the roadway by the 757 exist with cars among them..

Those video cams probably didn't see much. It is unlikely they were pointed in the right direction. Further, a plane going that fast would be a blur.

It's amazing what people will believe just because of a picture or a video. Never hrard of Photoshop?

Could go on and on but the point is made.

[Sgt Schultz]

You know, it's a good thing we have so much video of the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers, becasue if we didn't these same paranoid conspiracy kooks would be saying that it really wasn't planes that hit, it was Dick Cheney in an SR-71 with missles. They already say the towers suddenly "exploded" as it is.

For some Americans, if they don't see it with their own eyes, or see multiple videos of it - then it didn't happen.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
Matt, I took the liberty of reproducing the relevant part of your quote......



Relevant to THAT subject matter, that is. Not to this thread.

As for what the Discovery channel or the History Channel says, while I'll admit to watching them occasionally myself, the 9-11 related shows I saw on both this past weekend were unbelievably skewed in favor of the BCE's unsubstantiated official story as opposed to a factual basis. For example they had a theory on what would cause the WTC towers to "pancake", but the theory doesn't work unless you accept that part of the "official story". It doesn't account for any of the flashes seen, and explosions heard, by eyewitnesses in NYC, which are likely indications of a controlled demolition bringing the buildings down, which would obviously mean the charges had been placed before that day, since there would not have been time to wire some 160 floors (between the 2 towers) with charges that morning, especially given the chaos AND no elevators.

This isn't Bumfuck, USA. How the hell would anyone do that to both of the HUGE towers without anybody seeing? Remember, this is NYC. There's always someone out and about, especially in Manhattan.

And then there's the workers during the day. You mean to tell me, that with a demolition crew bought over and silenced by the BCE, that they were able to wire and cover-up wiring multiple nights even -- cuz there's no way they did it all in one night -- and not forget to pack something away or just leave something out they weren't suppose to. And let's not forget the massive security crew for both towers, the other World Trade buildings, the World Finance buildings, and the other buildings in the surrounding area.

Too many eyes, too many ears, too many mouths. Someone would have come forward or leaked information to somebody.

Just too many people to keep their eyes on and to make sure they didn't spill whatever they may have seen.

damn Ford, even professional architects and engineers have discussed and agree with what happened to the Twin Towers. Yet, somehow, they are all fooled by the BCE? You don't think that there are architects who disagree with Bush politically? Yet somehow they are all blind to his hand in 9/11?

But I suppose you'll tell me that the Port Authority installed the charges when it was installing the sprinklers so that it could sell the building to the city. That's it! the NY/NJ Port Authority is in the BCE!




"I feel this way about it. World trade means world peace and consequently the World Trade Center buildings in New York ... had a bigger purpose than just to provide room for tenants. The World Trade Center is a living symbol of man's dedication to world peace ... beyond the compelling need to make this a monument to world peace, the World Trade Center should, because of its importance, become a representation of man's belief in humanity, his need for individual dignity, his beliefs in the cooperation of men, and through cooperation, his ability to find greatness."

— Minoru Yamasaki, 1960s

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You know, it's a good thing we have so much video of the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers, becasue if we didn't these same paranoid conspiracy kooks would be saying that it really wasn't planes that hit, it was Dick Cheney in an SR-71 with missles. They already say the towers suddenly "exploded" as it is.

For some Americans, if they don't see it with their own eyes, or see multiple videos of it - then it didn't happen.

We have so much video of the second crash. Which, btw was described by an eyewitness (who happenned to be a FAUX News employee, and likely a loyal Busheep) as a cargo plane with no windows.

No question that it was a 767, but only whether or not it was actually a passenger plane. And then, of course there's the question of "special equipment" on that particular plane.

As for the first crash, the only thing we have is a split second of footage from a barely focused camera, courtesy of the French filmakers. Granted, it's hard to draw too much information from what was seen at all, but it certainly doesn't appear that the object striking the first tower had the wing span of a 757. Rather the noise heard in the French documentary immediately before impact sounds to me like a smaller plane that is flying too low. And indeed the initial reports of the first crash seemed to indicate exactly that, a small plane that flew into the tower, leading to the original supposition that a freak accident had occurred.

[Guitar Shark]

FORD, seek mental help immediately.

[SweetSecrets]

Originally posted by freak
Even more funny is how some manage to ignore the laws of physics and mountains of evidence to support paranoid delusions.

Although I am not one of these.... sometimes their is safety in ignorance. Ever seen the Matrix?

[SweetSecrets]

"there" not "their"!! God, I must seem like a sheep! Excuse me.

[Big Train]

Ford, you are drawing out even posters who never post in this forum ALL AGAINST YOU. It's not just for the "sieg Heil" types as you like to call us regular dissenters (Elvis, JA, Freak, BBB, myself). Your grasping at straws and looking stupider by the post.

Just accept it and let it go.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

For some Americans, if they don't see it with their own eyes, or see multiple videos of it - then it didn't happen.

uh...seeing multiple videos doesn't always help some people, either.



the great thing about conspiracy theories is that they only require conjecture and incomplete and distorted proof.

after all, the LACK of actual, definitive proof is only further evidence of a coverup, intentionally hiding the "real" proof...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
But I suppose you'll tell me that the Port Authority installed the charges when it was installing the sprinklers so that it could sell the building to the city. That's it! the NY/NJ Port Authority is in the BCE!

Well, it's evident that Rudy Guiliani and Bernard Kerik at least were involved in whatever coverup took place. The BCE probably sent Kerik over to Iraq to run the police there in hopes he wouldn't make it back. As you say, too many eyes, too many ears, too many mouths....

Installing the charges along with the sprinkler system, actually would be a great plan, but you're assuming that the BCE were the ones planting the charges. There are other possibilities.....

As everybody knows, the WTC had been bombed once already.This had to lead to discussions of what would happen IF the building ever was wounded to the point where it might be in danger of falling over. The twin towers were like the concrete equivalent of two full grown Redwoods in the middle of a Christmas tree farm, and if something toppled those trees, it wouldn't be a very merry Christmas for who or whatever was under them. This being the case, why not wire the building with explosive charges, to be used as a "self-destruct safety measure" in the event that the toppling of the building was imminent. A controlled demolition, dropping it more or less straight down would be infinitely safer than risking the toppling over onto lower Manhattan.

Think that sounds ridiculous?

Consider WTC 7, which collapsed later in the afternoon of 9-11-01. No plane hit this building, and no jet fuel burned it, or allegedly compromised the steel frame. As a matter of fact, the WTC landlord, Larry Silverstein, has since admitted that he gave the order to "pull" the building. Or in other words, bring it down.

Now keep in mind that the power was out in the entire WTC complex, indeed all of Manhattan, due to the attacks. So between no lights and no elevators, there would have been no possible way for WTC 7 to have been wired for a controlled demolition on that day. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that the charges existed in the building already, and all they had to do was to hook up an electronic detonator. I would further guess that there were deliberate gaps left in the circuit of the explosives so they could not be set off accidentally, or by a disgruntled employee. And needless to say, they probably kept this news to as few people as possible for security reasons.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Full Bug
I hate how you compare Bush to Hitler, thats an insult to everyone who has half a brain and to those who died in the gas chambers, lame....Maybe some people would take you seriously if you didnt make such retarded statements like that.....And I hear that you are again editing other members posts, same old FORD eh?

Say it, Bug!

[FORD]

It's even more tragic that someone who still lives in a country with a (mostly) free press like Canada would choose to believes the lies he reads from brainwashed sheep in here.

[jacksmar]

“no live video existing of the first tower crash”
Wrong again.

“My heart sank reading the list of peoples names, by the way.”

My thought exactly.

There is footage for the pentagon and lots of it. There are a couple of sites with vid stills as well.

An eye witness or two and more video.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html#17th

And for every fucking loser that likes Nirvana, what would it take to re-unite those assholes? Two more bullets.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
It's even more tragic that someone who still lives in a country with a (mostly) free press like Canada would choose to believes the lies he reads from brainwashed sheep in here.

Oh yeah, he formed his opinion from reading a message board...

Why do you underestimate everyone ??

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by jacksmar
And for every fucking loser that likes Nirvana, what would it take to re-unite those assholes? Two more bullets.

Haha!