The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: Salander

You may enjoy this link.Wikipedia

In March 2007, Reynolds filed a Request For Correction (RFC) with NIST citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers and making claims of faulty physics in NIST's computer animations of planes impacting the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11. Reynolds stated, “There were no planes, there were no hijackers. I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is.”

a reply to: D8Tee

Thank you, that is interesting trivia. There is a sprinkling of truth here and there, rather like bread crumbs....

a reply to: Salander


This graphic shows the profile of a 767 with a wingspan of 155' superimposed on the impact hole of the North Tower, whose width was 207'.

a reply to: Salander

Got to hand it to you....you stick to your misinformed beliefs no matter what.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Got to hand it to you....you stick to your misinformed beliefs no matter what.

Who is to say you might be misinformed?

a reply to: Informer1958

Well we all know for certain YOU have been misinformed don't we.

a reply to: Informer1958
And this weekend the Nation went to the mat for 9/11 truth and justice worldwide. Praise Allah.
The Nation of Islam thanks you for your support.NOI what happened and why

Kevin Ryan, editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, revealed several important facts and raised critical questions to a packed audience at the Stephen’s Convention Center Feb. 25.
“We have come today as a continuation of last year’s Saviours’ Day celebration and observation to focus on scientific analysis. The scientific analysis of some unanswered questions particularly about the events of September 11, 2001,” said Robert Muhammad, Southwest Region student minister of the Nation of Islam who facilitated the session.
Robert Muhammad described Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gage as capable, qualified men able to present facts, not hyperbole or “wild conspiracy theories” and to ask questions that need to be answered. “Today, we have to get some answers and we have to what? Connect the dots,” he added.

And Remember:
Do what the Nation of Islam just did: Find a way to spread the truth in your community.

Be prepared to receive further guidance and enlightenment from the man of God himself, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. He is ALWAYS on time, right and exact, leading us to Divine Truth.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Well we all know for certain YOU have been misinformed don't we.

Hit and run lately?

Who is the leader of the Truth Movement, is there one?

Me, I am

And I'm a seasoned pilot and trained observer, dang, I'm 64 today.......they're trying to make me a Governor

What we have here, is an age of amazing display...of evil raising its ugly azz head.

Logic was already tossed, and the tail numbers of the aircraft do not jive with the story.

We caught em lyin.....yep

In Texas we don't take no stuff.

a reply to: D8Tee

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Happy Birthday.

Logic was already tossed, and the tail numbers of the aircraft do not jive with the story.
I wasn't aware of this, someone who is more familiar with the aircraft numbering system (hint Zaphod) could maybe explain this?

You mean this?

It’s an interesting postscript that Flight 93 was spotted on April 10th, 2003 at Chicago’s O’Hare by David Friedman, a United Airlines employee who records all of his flights. The tail number, N591UA was spotted on Flight 1111, a United Airlines 757. And according to the FAA, both N591UA and N612UA, Flights 93 and 175, are still valid. But Flights 11 and 77 are listed as destroyed. Not to mention that they were not even scheduled to fly on September 11th.

Link

a reply to: D8Tee

I see the graphic of the airliner drawn over it, good work, but I don't see the point?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

I see the graphic of the airliner drawn over it, good work, but I don't see the point?

Evidence that a 767 and not a smaller plane hit the tower obviously.

a reply to: D8Tee

Thank you for a straight answer.

The South Tower was struck by that size airplane, we agree. Beyond that cannot be determined from that photo, except on extremely close inspection, over years.

a reply to: Salander

What I'd like to talk about is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I don't understand whats been happening with him for the last decade, know anything about that?

a reply to: D8Tee

I can only speculate, as I was not involved in any of it. I have no personal knowledge of his actions.

As I see it he is simply a character in the big morality play we watch on TV News, and of course today the internet. Likely once in his life a CIA asset.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Hold on Mr. Thumpy. Just because it's on display in the Smithsonian and described as you say it is, DOES NOT MEAN that what is on display is really and truly from any of the airplanes involved on 911. The Smithsonian, a wonderful facility to be sure, is very much in the good graces of the CIA. It very much tells the stories in the official ways.

Years ago, several TV stations covered the Iron Mountain connection as the repository for all the "aircraft debris" from 911.

Many suffer from cognitive dissonance. If it doesn't agree with their preconceived beliefs they just KNOW it must be fake.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

Thank you for a straight answer.

The South Tower was struck by that size airplane, we agree. Beyond that cannot be determined from that photo, except on extremely close inspection, over years.

You do understand there is the moment of collapse initiation for WTC 2 on video? Can you explain a theory that would supersede the NIST conclusion.

Link to video of WTC 2 buckling...
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes, I do understand that, but it changes nothing as to the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the NIST report.

The NIST report starts with an assumption and then works to reach that assumption as a conclusion. Extremely political in nature (thanks to Evans and Bement) and extremely unscientific. It's a joke.

a reply to: Salander

No, The NIST goal was to explain what happen at the WTC. To collect evidence and samples. To explain what was seen in the video I referred.

The question was, " Can you explain a theory that would supersede the NIST conclusion." in the context of the WTC 2 inward bowing and collapse video.