Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
hang on a second. Of course I bend over backwards to avoid getting into a silly row with you but I must point out your double standards to the forum.editor said:Err, I've linked to an interview with the wife of one of the passengers who made calls off the plane.
Here's a picture of her with her baby. Is it a fake?
She's also a published a journal about her experiences. She's currently teaches anthropology classes online from her home for Berkeley College in New York.
Here's her husband:
.
He was Jeremy was the third of six children and worked as a sales manager for this company - http://www.vividence.com/ - and the 1993 collegiate judo champ in the 220-pound class from the University of Rochester (N.Y.), a national-caliber wrestler at Saddle River (N.J.) Day School and an all-state soccer player. (http://tinyurl.com/5sn7z)
Oh, and his brothers have created a website and a charity in Glick's memory.
I'd say that to all but the most deluded of desperate conspiracy fruitcakes, that's more than enough proof that they were "real people".
Now explain the phone calls and prove that everyone - his wife, brothers, friends and sports community - are all lying.
Can you do that? Or is the proof simply too overwhelming for you?
A while ago you were dodging the question of the the eyewitness reports of bombs and devastation in the WTC basements, on the basis that they were 'off-topic'.
But now here you are, going on about the phone calls from flight 93!
You won't answer a single question of mine yet demand that I spend all my posting time adressing yours. Don't be fooled by the 'ignore' facility, people - it doesn't apply to editor
Oh and take it from me: I'm not in the least bit scared of you threatening to bin threads. Seeing as this one is now dominated by you with your usual never-ending cycle of old chestnuts (you are, as usual, the most prolific poster on the 9-11 thread), I don't intend to play an active part. What does it say about your contributions that you are happy to bin them? A lot IMHO.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
Look: the key question is Why Bother? Why not hijack the real plane, or do pretty much anything less nonsensical than missiles/miniature robot drones? Please, help us out here.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
My mistake; I felt that a singular version of the menace was, well, sufficiently menacing, and it is from there I derived my alarming statistic.
Excitingly, the third result for the plural tells us "now there was word from the Mars colony that robot horses were being sighted, running across the dead, empty sea bottoms of Mars"
The sweet, sweet scent of vindication.
Excitingly, the third result for the plural tells us "now there was word from the Mars colony that robot horses were being sighted, running across the dead, empty sea bottoms of Mars"
The sweet, sweet scent of vindication.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
NuTbAr said:steel girders are used in every concrete tower - you're the idiot...figure it out...maybe go have a look at one being built.
t's funny how the pentagon supposedly just finished a project "reinforcing" that exact area...where the only damage is to the structure and why would that be?
because destroying the pentagon wouldn't be a good idea when one is planning a major war for oil now would it?
now go back to the fog you crawled out of...
You fucking twat - the plane entered the Pentagon - through the wall - the nose and everything was inside the building.
Steel girders on Dutch estate as strong as the ones used on the Pentagon?
LMFAO!!
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
But only one for robot horse pentagon shergar moon president 
This is an interesting question.alphaDelta said:
The reason is, there is so little chance of it working! In fact it would be totally impossible. This is why some of us have great difficulty accepting the official version of events. It's not because we like blaming the USA for things and love muslims. It's because the whole thing is totally implausible.
Firstly you would have to train up suicide hijackers. Several of them. This is no easy feat at all. But then they have to wrest control of four aircraft simultaneously (there were some big guys in the pilot's seats that day, and the message went out to lock the cabin doors) - and as soon as one is hijacked the cabin crew are going to punch in the transponder code, escorts will be sent up and then the plane will be shot down before it hits the WTC or the Pentagon. In any case flying these things (particularly into the Pentagon) is likely to be beyond your hijackers.
On 9-11, not one hijack code was typed into a transponder. No escorts managed to intercept the flights. As at least five war games were running involving multiple hijackings, defence staff didn't know whether any were real or not. This should say something.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
But they did 'successfully' hijack at least two planes: you surely can't be debating whether the two WTC aircraft were real too?
Your 'it's impossible' argument is negated by the fact that it actually did happen! So:
1. Why fly two actual planes into the WTC, but then a fake one into the Pentagon?
2. How is building a fake plane, dealing with the real plane and its contents, and then dealing with eyewitnesses, and any other unexpected inconsistencies easier?
Your 'it's impossible' argument is negated by the fact that it actually did happen! So:
1. Why fly two actual planes into the WTC, but then a fake one into the Pentagon?
2. How is building a fake plane, dealing with the real plane and its contents, and then dealing with eyewitnesses, and any other unexpected inconsistencies easier?
No that's exactly it alphadelta! The same reasons apply to the WTC hijacks as the Pentagon one, although the latter is the most extraordinary. It's my belief that flights 11, 175 (WTC) and 77 (Pentagon) were all substituted for drone aircraft (not 'fake' - they are still 'real', just different). All of which fired missiles before impact to make nice big explosions. To me, this seems the only plausible way of getting the job done - even with inside help at the highest levels of the US military.
You can see the missiles being fired at the South Tower when you slow down the footage www.letsroll911.org
You can see the missiles being fired at the South Tower when you slow down the footage www.letsroll911.org
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
Excellent, an answer.
So, what are these?
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.html
So, what are these?
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.html
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
And no, I can't see any missiles - I can see a plane crashing into a tower, as I would expect it to happen.
In your opinion, are those full-size 757s then?
In your opinion, are those full-size 757s then?
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
If the missile is close enough to be seen in the same frame as both the tower and the plane then it's below minimum arming distance
editor
hiraethified
So how did they fake the phone calls then? Where did the original planes go? What happened to the passengers? Where did the pretend jets come from? Who made them? Who flew them?DrJazzz said:
Actually, no, don't bother. A ten-mile long binned thread asked you the same questions and after countless pages you still refused to produce any answers.
I've had enough of your deluded squirming and conspiracy fantasies to last me a lifetime.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
ban?
brixtonvilla
should be Oslovilla, really
"If you slow down the footage from 9/11, what do you see?"
Errr... a plane! Flying into a building!That's your evidence for a missile attack, Dr J? How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
Errr... a plane! Flying into a building!That's your evidence for a missile attack, Dr J? How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
editor
hiraethified
What would be the point in having a missile-firing missile anyway?!cynical_bastard said:
If its loaded with explosives and smashing into a building at hundreds of miles an hour, what possible benefit would there be in adding all the complex electronics to fire another mini-missile when it's a few yards away?
And why run the added enormous risk of implementing such a device in broad daylight when all those (guffaw) internet investigators and (chortle) 'truth-seekers' could see this mysterious missile-firing-missile which was really a pretend passenger plane substituting the real plane that somehow vanished off the face off the earth and the passengers voices expertly mimicked by a team of USG Mike Yarwoods?
Why not just crash the real plane - loaded with fuel - into the building at enormous speed?
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
So that the first missile can blow up the tower and miraculously leave the invisible shapeshifting missile-firing missile-plane unharmed and ready to crash into the already destroyed tower. Obviously.
editor
hiraethified
Of course!cynical_bastard said:
The amazing thing is that to create this mysterious missile-firing-missile-cum-fake 757 it would have taken an immense force of hundreds - if not many thousands - of scientists, designers, engineers, aeronautic experts, missile experts, ballistic experts, workmen, ground staff, control tower staff, pilots, camouflage experts and transportation specialists.
I'd imagine that one or two of them may have been a little put out when they discovered that their work was being used to blow up large chunks of New York and slaughter their fellow American citizens in an attempt to kickstart a (now) increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.
Yet not one of them has uttered a peep!
You'd also think American Airlines might have a thing to say about what happened too, seeing as they lost their aircraft and their profits collapsed post 9/11, but they haven't said a thing either!
And then, of course, there's all the thousands of other conspirators involved in the miraculous disappearance of the other planes and - presumably - the cold blooded murder of their fellow American citizens. Once again, the roll call of people involved in such a monumental cover up would be absolutely immense, but - again - not a peep from any of them has been heard!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
Did I mention the bit about Torvill and Dean yet?cynical_bastard said:
editor said:
here's a snip from an article on a pentagon site:
<snip> Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.
Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.
The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. <snip>
here's the link: http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
the article at the link below gives info pertaining to the many official military and intelligence drills that just happened to be occuring on 9/11... NORAD had two drills...you might want to read it...this info comes from "official" sources...the type you believe..here's a taste..really if you are serious about getting answers
<snip>SEADS CONCEPT PROPOSAL AMALGAM VIRGO 01 SCENARIO: COUNTER TERRORISM 1-2 JUNE 2001. COMBINED (JOINT) TRAINING FOR UNCONVENTIONAL THREAT.
Then you will see a photograph of someone in particular, someone who has become a household name, someone that the Administration has told you was a green giraffe.
That photograph, on NORAD's exercise presentation, is of none other than specifically Osama Bin Laden.
The photo of Bin Laden is, just coincidently, surrounded by planes. Four of them, to be exact. Two of them are unmanned drones.
Those are planes made mostly by Boeing for the US military (and any other country with enough bank) that are pilotless - meaning there's no flight crew. It's remote control. The other two planes are military jets. <snip>
here's the link: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=1142
i suggest you hit the <more> tab at the bottom of first page...that's when it gets very interesting...lot's of links and video, etc. this is stuff being released under the freedom of information act...
editor
hiraethified
Sorry. Is all this irrelevant waffle supposed to prove that Lyz Glick and her husband didn't exist and that all the eyewitnesses of the Pentagon crash suffered mass hallucinations or something?NuTbAr said:
And as for the 'remote control' passenger plane fantasiess, please consult the bin.
Oh, and it's a bit of a convention round these parts to actually answer some of the points made in the post you're quoting instead of going off at a weird tangent.
Similar threads
- Locked
