Truth About 9/11

[Pyraine]

More fire for 'eyewitnesses'.



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?

i don't see many documentaries showing accounts opposite to what they are trying to prove

And now I quote myself!

yes, i know, and when re-watching it i knew you'd pick up on this, but this isn't the section that convinces me

Hmm... read this.

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

thanks? now i know the history of cordite

i presume you're saying it's odourless based on the fact it doesn't give off smoke?

 

[Pyraine]

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?

there obviously was no answer, and a brief look at any photos (not specifically from conspiracy theory websites, ones that have no reason to be doctored) you will notice that there are no wings, and judging by the impact it doesnt look like whatever hit the pentagon had such big wings

 

[urbanfox]

you saw the other images of plane crashes


hmm off a boeing 747 i think not



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


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


that hole is too perfect, it's staged



what do you mean?


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

The other images of plane crashes into buildings not the same the material and not the same angles and not the same speeds and NOT buildings under contruction? Yes.

757* So your telling me a plane going foward should also destroy EVERYTHING in back of it?


And not nessecarily the KNOWLEDGE to say it's a missle attack? hmm...

Why would they destroy the windows? Did the plane hit them? No. Wouldn't a missle destroy them? Yes.

The hole is too 'perfect'? Yes, I think you really are becoming a radical concerning this topic...

What 'reason'? Your cryptic posts don't mean ****. Congratulations on finding a video made by ameteurs to allow me to tear it up.

 

[urbanfox]

there obviously was no answer, and a brief look at any photos (not specifically from conspiracy theory websites, ones that have no reason to be doctored) you will notice that there are no wings, and judging by the impact it doesnt look like whatever hit the pentagon had such big wings

Looks like they did answer "there was evidence outside the building".

If this was a 'missile' or 'small jet', please tell me how in the world all that wingspan like damage got there.. please explain?

 

[urbanfox]

Just was the 'airplane wreckage' evidence.

HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE ANY OF THIS.

Don't you find it suspicious that NONE of their photos were planes crashed into objects, JUST THE GROUND.

Oh look, there are skids! No skids at the pentagon! Therefore no plane!

WELL NEWSFLASH THE PLANE DIDN'T CRASH INTO THE GROUND AND SKID TO A STOP.

 

[Pyraine]

The other images of plane crashes into buildings not the same the material and not the same angles and not the same speeds and NOT buildings under contruction? Yes.

757* So your telling me a plane going foward should also destroy EVERYTHING in back of it?


And not nessecarily the KNOWLEDGE to say it's a missle attack? hmm...

Why would they destroy the windows? Did the plane hit them? No. Wouldn't a missle destroy them? Yes.

The hole is too 'perfect'? Yes, I think you really are becoming a radical concerning this topic...

What 'reason'? Your cryptic posts don't mean ****. Congratulations on finding a video made by ameteurs to allow me to tear it up.

So? still enough to prove plane crashes leave wreckages

No, i'm not saying that, although i am saying a plane with, what you said had a full fuel tank, would have exploded, exploded big, and them spools would be gone

Same as above an exploding plane would have made them windows go bye bye

why is that radical? that whole is a perfect circle, i don't think a plane crash leaves any regular shapes in it's path

i'm not being cryptic, or not purposely, the reason is a coverup i thought that was quite obvious

and i don't think you've torn it up, considering i was and still am very open minded on this situation, if you'd have torn it up i think i would be beleiving it to be an AQ attack 100%, granted you've proved wrong pretty much all the eyewitness other than cordite one, i don't see what relevance your wikipedia link had to it

 

[urbanfox]

Now they are examing the holes in the pentagon slamming through the 3 sections. They say a plane can't punch throught that.

BUT SOMEHOW A LIGHTER, LESS STABLE, NOT AS STRONG, MORE FRAGILE MISSLE CAN.

Flying COMPLETELY parallel to the ground through 3 buildings in a perfect straight line..

 

[Pyraine]

Now they are examing the holes in the pentagon slamming through the 3 sections. They say a plane can't punch throught that.

BUT SOMEHOW A LIGHTER, LESS STABLE, NOT AS STRONG, MORE FRAGILE MISSLE CAN.

Flying COMPLETELY parallel to the ground through 3 buildings in a perfect straight line..

nah that flash doesn't go into the detail on this, the website says explosions went off inside.

now i'm getting too tired to prove any points, but you're probably 'winning' anyway, but i'm going to give up till tomorrow

 

[urbanfox]

So? still enough to prove plane crashes leave wreckages

No, i'm not saying that, although i am saying a plane with, what you said had a full fuel tank, would have exploded, exploded big, and them spools would be gone

Same as above an exploding plane would have made them windows go bye bye

why is that radical? that whole is a perfect circle, i don't think a plane crash leaves any regular shapes in it's path

i'm not being cryptic, or not purposely, the reason is a coverup i thought that was quite obvious

and i don't think you've torn it up, considering i was and still am very open minded on this situation, if you'd have torn it up i think i would be beleiving it to be an AQ attack 100%, granted you've proved wrong pretty much all the eyewitness other than cordite one, i don't see what relevance your wikipedia link had to it

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR OWN VIDEO. The plane went through 3 sections.. WHY would it leave mass amounts of wreckage OUTSIDE? Also, YOUR so called evidence is all planes that crashed to the ground.. NOT into buildings or objects... IRRELEVENT?

Once again, look at the evidence, there is an obvious path through the buildings, the 'explosion' was not the plane stopping...

The 'whole' goes along PERFECTLY with a cylinder of a airplane.. Now HOW is that a missle?

Quite obvious coverup? I'm not even an expert on the subject and I'm making your so called evidence look like it was made by a 16 year old. I'm tearing it apart.

Take a look at the wikipedia link, READ IT. Then use common sense on this so called eyewitness and his sense of smell, and the theorys of the conspircacy 'finders'.

 

[urbanfox]

nah that flash doesn't go into the detail on this, the website says explosions went off inside.

now i'm getting too tired to prove any points, but you're probably 'winning' anyway, but i'm going to give up till tomorrow

Umm yes it does? IT SHOWS THE HOLES and gives a detailed analysis of the flight path through 3 buildings.

 

[urbanfox]

For those wondering, ALL of my posts have just been on the first 3 minutes and 34 seconds of this video. I HAVE NOT watched the whole video. I HAVE NOT nitpicked thorugh it to try to find things i could post about concerning it's fallacy's. I HAVE POSTED ON EVERYTHING I SAW IN THE VIDEO, not LEAVING ONE THING OUT.

 

[urbanfox]

I have just watched the rest of the video, maybe a minute or two longer.

It just shows all these locations where there were camera's and how the FBI took these tapes and how they are hiding the information and it hasn't been released.

My thoughts on this:

Well no ****ing ****. Hmm we just got attacked... were not sure what by... were not sure by who.. were not sure if it's going to happen again.

SO THEY GET ALL THE TAPES. Does anyone else think this is the reasonable thing to do? Of course they got the tapes, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

Oh look, they never released the tapes! They are hiding something!

So, if you were a government, you would release tapes ON HOW TERRORISTS USED PLANES TO ATTACK YOU.

Ye, what friggin dumbass would be like oh looky here! here's how they did it! just for reference! don't try to copy it! Ignore our exploitations!


Also, back to selective information...

The video said the staff of the sheraton hotel watched the video before the FBI confiscated it.

THE VIDEO NEVER TELLS THEIR STORY. THE VIDEO NEVER TELLS WHAT THEY SAID. Hmm... maybe because... THEY DISAGREE WITH THIS VIDEO.

 

[urbanfox]

That's it. I'm done. I've made my comments on this video.

If you disagree with me, that's your Godgiven right, but I think the number of holes I showed in this video proves otherwise, but then again, that's up to you guys.

 

[Striapach]

Now they are examing the holes in the pentagon slamming through the 3 sections. They say a plane can't punch throught that.

BUT SOMEHOW A LIGHTER, LESS STABLE, NOT AS STRONG, MORE FRAGILE MISSLE CAN.

Flying COMPLETELY parallel to the ground through 3 buildings in a perfect straight line..

u hear of a bunkerbuster?

well im not sayin the it was a missile or it was a plane cause dunno, but i do believe the US government knew that there was gonna be a terrorist attack on the us,also did the middle eastern companies who had office in the WTC's move out few days b4 the attack

 

[urbanfox]

u hear of a bunkerbuster?

well im not sayin the it was a missile or it was a plane cause dunno, but i do believe the US government knew that there was gonna be a terrorist attack on the us,also did the middle eastern companies who had office in the WTC's move out few days b4 the attack

Yes I have. Now, read this. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

You do believe they knew there would be a terrorist attack. Any supporting information on this? Your speculation (just like mine) means nothing without information to back it up. If they did know, why would they let it happen? Why would they allow or they themselves attack a defense building? You do realise without the pentagon attack the WTC attacks on CIVILIANS was more than enough to persaude anyone to attack the middle east (if that's your theory).

As for Arabs, what does this prove? That they got word from back home? That AQ did in fact do this? Hmm seems more to the fact that AQ did in fact do all of this, does it not? Now surely your not thinking that the US government told the arabs to get out (if they did)? Because that would be ludicrously stupid.

Now, seeing how AQ HATES the US government, IF they didn't do the pentagon attacks, WHY would they claim reponsibility for them? WOULDN'T they try to show that it wasn't them, therefore putting the US population AGAINST the US government instead of FOR.

Hmm... yes.

 

[[Shadow]]

****ing hell urban i asked if people thought it was true not your life story.

http://www.erichufschmid.net.nyud.net:8090/911.wmv

THAT MUST BE REAL THE TV NEVER LIES

 

[urbanfox]

You said you believed it. Well, I simply responsded so that any other idiot wouldn't fall prey to this BS.

 

[[Shadow]]

You said you believed it. Well, I simply responsded so that any other idiot wouldn't fall prey to this BS.

Yes i want other people's opinion's not just yours by the looks of it you think this thread is aimed at you judging by you making 5 posts in a row hijacking the thread

 

[urbanfox]

Aimed at me? No. Hijacked? I think not. Don't expect to post something and it not be criticised, because that's full of more holes than an insurgent's shirt.

 

[urbanfox]

now i'm getting too tired to prove any points, but you're probably 'winning' anyway, but i'm going to give up till tomorrow

It's a new day! And no new posts.