Truth About 9/11

[urbanfox]

windows intact

Umm... wouldn't this go against the missile theory?

 

[MiloFoxburr]

EDIT: 'kay, that took less time than i'd imagined, here is a nice long semi-documentary for you urban, rip it apart if you can, please, i'd like to be certain

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

No offence your beleiving some text on a website which isnt excatly professionally made Its so incredible easy to not only doctor photos nowadays but quotes from these "eye witnesses" could just as easily be made up bull****.

 

[Pyraine]

No offence your beleiving some text on a website which isnt excatly professionally made Its so incredible easy to not only doctor photos nowadays but quotes from these "eye witnesses" could just as easily be made up bull****.

the first time i saw that flash was from a more organised website with videos and soundbites

 

[Pyraine]

Before i go into that, check this out...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/12/terror/main773198.shtml





Now, didn't that video say that firefighters were kept quiet on the tapes... hmm... seems like the other way around?

More holes in the video

that article relates to the WTC incident, not the pentagon

 

[Pyraine]

Right away this jumps out to me.

Let me get this straight, the people who flew a missile into the pentagon told the makers of this video that a 747 was never found? I think not. This is unbased speculation.

'kay, so where's the boeing?

 

[Pyraine]

Well, if you take a look at that, they are charred from being close to a fire...

Also, they are pretty far from the actual building. If a plane is coming down diagonal to the building, why would they be blown away?

Now please, I hope no one says something stupid like "the plane was flying completely parallel to the ground"...

hmm, i wonder if your face would just be burnt if you were that close to a plane going BOOM

 

[Pyraine]

Umm... wouldn't this go against the missile theory?

no, because it doesn't once mention the weight of explosives used, but judging on the distance from the impact to the windows, if it was a boeing 747, them windows wouldn't be there

 

[MiloFoxburr]

hmm, i wonder if your face would just be burnt if you were that close to a plane going BOOM

Your just being an idiot now Pyraine

 

[Pyraine]

Your just being an idiot now Pyraine

just because i'm not using long words i'm being an idiot?

them spools are burnt, yes, but if a plane exploded that close to them, they would be nothing but small bits of debris

 

[MiloFoxburr]

just because i'm not using long words i'm being an idiot?

them spools are burnt, yes, but if a plane exploded that close to them, they would be nothing but debris

Any other shots of these spools besides the crap res photos on the website that could of been whipped together in about 5 minutes...

I'd actually say your being an idiot for beleiving that website but w/e...

 

[Pyraine]

you haven't seen the website i first saw it from, i was not saying i beleived that photo, i was simply coming up with a point to counter urbans, i want him to come up with something i cannot counter, then i will beleive him, that the pentagon attack was as much AQ related as the WTC was

 

[urbanfox]

...saw a silver commuter jet...

the plane sounded like a high pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over arlington semetary so low that he thought he was going to land on I-395..

The plane, which appeared to hold 8 to 12 people, headed straight for the pentagon..

First, I will adress the text in red. That is the UNEDITED text from the video.

Now, this is the from the actual eyewitness. Notice the part that was taken out of the video... It is in bold.

It was about 9:35 and I was looking out .. our 12th floor windows at 1600 Wilson Boulevard, in Rosslyn, Virginia ... and I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... come down from the south real low ... proceed right on and crah right into the Pentagon. And I watched it come very low over the trees and it just dipped down ... came down right over 395, right into the Pentagon.

Notice the time... the pentagon was attacked at 9:40.

So, he just so happened to see a plane @ 9:35 and somehow that must be the attacker...

Also, notice where HE is and where the PENTAGON is.

I have gotten a map, labeled the areas, and you can see the legend in the top right corner.

 

[MiloFoxburr]

you haven't seen the website i first saw it from, i was not saying i beleived that photo, i was simply coming up with a point to counter urbans, i want him to come up with something i cannot counter, then i will beleive him, that the pentagon attack was as much AQ related as the WTC was

Does it actually matter in the end? Do you think the government in the US is ever gonna come out and say yeah we bombed our own pentagon For that matter why the hell would they... The twin towers was bad enough why the need to extend the damage

Oh and btw where the **** then did these 64 people die
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

 

[Pyraine]

First, I will adress the text in red. That is the UNEDITED text from the video.

Now, this is the from the actual eyewitness. Notice the part that was taken out of the video... It is in bold.



Notice the time... the pentagon was attacked at 9:40.

So, he just so happened to see a plane @ 9:35 and somehow that must be the attacker...

Also, notice where HE is and where the PENTAGON is.

I have gotten a map, labeled the areas, and you can see the legend in the top right corner.

well there's one you've successfully proven wrong in my eyes

Does it actually matter in the end? Do you think the government in the US is ever gonna come out and say yeah we bombed our own pentagon For that matter why the hell would they... The twin towers was bad enough why the need to extend the damage

Oh and btw where the **** then did these 64 people die
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tr...77.victims.html

victims CAN (notice i'm not saying this is a fact) be faked, there is no proof to me these people existed, people can be paid to keep schtum and act like relatives

 

[urbanfox]

that article relates to the WTC incident, not the pentagon

That article relates to the REASON of this thread, not YOUR video.

'kay, so where's the boeing?

Well if a plane crashed into a building... with almost a full tank of high explosive jet fuel... you tell me?

hmm, i wonder if your face would just be burnt if you were that close to a plane going BOOM

When the explosion to the rear would just be a backfire? Probably severaly burned

no, because it doesn't once mention the weight of explosives used, but judging on the distance from the impact to the windows, if it was a boeing 747, them windows wouldn't be there

It doesn't mention because there was no missile?

There was roughly 200ft of damage evidently seen across the building... you tell me?

Also, the "hole" is around the right size for the main cylinder body... care to explain that?

victims CAN (notice i'm not saying this is a fact) be faked, there is no proof to me these people existed, people can be paid to keep schtum and act like relatives

Now your starting to be a radical.

Your telling me countless families 'faked' having such relatives?

 

[urbanfox]

More fire for 'eyewitnesses'.

Some described a large passenger jet, some even specifying an AA 757. One alleged witness (Ford) described it as a propeller plane. Many gave no indication at all as to what kind of plane it was, but were unjustifiably seized upon by supporters of the 757 theory as proof that a large passenger jet hit the building, simply because a witness allegedly said that “a plane“ hit the building. Many claimed to see a large plane close to the scene, but didn’t see it hit the building. Another report, which I decided not to review, and in retrospect should have (Steve Patterson) described it as an 8 to 12 seater jet. And even amongst those who claimed it to be a large plane, there was wild contradiction in how it hit.

So, this video doesn't mention other witnesses, just a witness MILES away from the actual crash...

It also fails to mention eyewitness accounts CONTRARY to their theory, how convienent?

 

[urbanfox]

I heard a very loud, quick whoosing sound... I was convinced it was a missle. It came so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

We heard what sounded like a missle

It sounded like a missle

And now I quote myself!

WHAT documentaries? The documentaries of the gas station guy saying it sounded like a missile? Because we all know civilians are well trained in the different acoustics and sound patterns of missiles and airplanes...

 

[urbanfox]

A bomb went off. I could smell the cordite.

Hmm... read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite

 

[Pyraine]

That article relates to the REASON of this thread, not YOUR video.

sorry i wasn't aware



Well if a plane crashed into a building... with almost a full tank of high explosive jet fuel... you tell me?

you saw the other images of plane crashes


When the explosion to the rear would just be a backfire? Probably severaly burned

hmm off a boeing 747 i think not

It doesn't mention because there was no missile?

not necessarily, it's not like they have the right to go in with a forensics team to find out

There was roughly 200ft of damage evidently seen across the building... you tell me?

i'm pretty sure a boeing would have destroyed them windows

Also, the "hole" is around the right size for the main cylinder body... care to explain that?

that hole is too perfect, it's staged

Now your starting to be a radical.

what do you mean?

Your telling me countless families 'faked' having such relatives?

no, but if the government had enough reason to do this, they could and would

...

 

[urbanfox]

One thing that's confusing - if it came in the way you descrived, at an angle, why are the wings not outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail woul have shorn off...

So.. going god knows how fast... the wings would just have fallen off and landed on the ground... sure...

Where's the pentagon's response?

It shows the question, but not the governments answer... hmmm... selective informatiom?