Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Makes as musch sense as any other theory having a plane hitting the building.

Weapons pod on second plane
x11.putfile.com...

Ahh! You mean the Wing Fairing.

Unless of course they fitted the pod mid-air of course! as that location would stop the undercarriage from operating.

external image









As you can see any 'pod' would interfere with operation of the landing gear:



[edit on 9/3/06 by JAK]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are the one making additional claims about tilted wings and wing damage above the impact hole and bouncing off the helipad. If any of that was claimed "officially" then source it.

Do you know anytihng about 9/11?

perso.wanadoo.fr...

[edit on 7-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

I am amazed. If you are not offering altered evidence from legitimate sources you are now offering a link to a site that talks about wings folding forward on a crashing plane.

This is the best entertainment I have ever seen. If this is representative of your best you better find a new job. I like how the 911 Scholars for Truth petition is there to give it some kind of authenticity or stamp of scholarly review. It is the most absurd abuse of physics I have ever seen. How can you look in the mirror after offering that as evidence?

Wings folding forward indeed! Smith back to school.

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are the one making additional claims about tilted wings and wing damage above the impact hole and bouncing off the helipad. If any of that was claimed "officially" then source it.

Do you know anytihng about 9/11?

perso.wanadoo.fr...

[edit on 7-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

I am amazed. If you are not offering altered evidence from legitimate sources you are now offering a link to a site that talks about wings folding forward on a crashing plane.

This is the best entertainment I have ever seen. If this is representative of your best you better find a new job. I like how the 911 Scholars for Truth petition is there to give it some kind of authenticity or stamp of scholarly review. It is the most absurd abuse of physics I have ever seen. How can you look in the mirror after offering that as evidence?

Wings folding forward indeed! Smith back to school.

Wings folding forward?



That's a new one for me! And they say we conspiracy theorists come up with crazy stuff...

Noooooooooo....not the pod theory again

I'm a skeptic. I believe there could have bombs in the building....or the planes were remote control drones....whatever....but the pod theory is just garbage. Didn't we move on from that one years ago

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Ahh! You mean the Wing Fairing.

Nice blurry pics.

Again.

We've got different BTS take-off times, we've got FAA registry records, expert witness testimony, digital analysis by a Spanish University, a news article detailing it, Boeing's own ten day examination and subsequent refusal to ID the component, for "security reasons".

I dare you or anyone to test me on this. Because I will back everything I've said.

And all you will have are aviation know-nots, blurry pics, and your opinion.

Please. Try me. I am begging you.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Ahh! You mean the Wing Fairing.

Nice blurry pics.

Again.

We've got different BTS take-off times, we've got FAA registry records, expert witness testimony, digital analysis by a Spanish University, a news article detailing it, Boeing's own ten day examination and subsequent refusal to ID the component, for "security reasons".

I dare you or anyone to test me on this. Because I will back everything I've said.

And all you will have are aviation know-nots, blurry pics, and your opinion.

Please. Try me. I am begging you.

Got a link to the digital analysis stuff? Not sure if I've seen that or not. Thanks.

Oh, and it's gonna have to be pretty darn convincing for me to believe that's anything other than the shadowy wing fairing

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are the one making additional claims about tilted wings and wing damage above the impact hole and bouncing off the helipad. If any of that was claimed "officially" then source it.

Do you know anytihng about 9/11?

perso.wanadoo.fr...

[edit on 7-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

I am amazed. If you are not offering altered evidence from legitimate sources you are now offering a link to a site that talks about wings folding forward on a crashing plane.

I am amazed. If you are not offering altered versions of my posts, you're spouting drivel without knowing what you are talking about..

Nice work on editing my posts so things don't even appear in the order I said them I see you like doing it in other threads to other people too.
Altered evidence? Hey arn't you the kid that tried to accuse me of saying something was in the 911Eyewitness video that wasn't?
So how come you didn't come back when I pointed out exactly where it was and your error
I think I understand, you're one of those kids that thinks there are 'sides' to this and I'm the big bad nasty Gubmint man. So you'll do anything to attempt to discredit me, including blatantly lie, alter what I say, change the context of my words and basically just act an arse. Grow up. Pick on genuine faults and concerns rather than lie and make them up, I expect you think a world populated by liars like you would be a good place?
I hope if that ever happens it's hit by an asteroid, I don't care if it kills me too - it'll be worth it.
Is that the usual technique of the '9/11 Lies Movement' - what sham...
How highly representative of the way you collect and present information out of context.

As I said:

Someone's made a good crack at working out the sequence of events surrounding the break-up and trajectory of the aircraft on the site below, it's no definitive answer but it explains a lot:

perso.wanadoo.fr...

My comment 'Do you know anything about 9/11' was in relation to something completely different and was followed by information on a different aspect - namely images and passages from the NIST report showing the official view of the plane being tilted and witness statements to back it up (for those that can't be bothered to go back and check).
Why don't you cut and paste individual words from my various posts and just make something up? You might as well

Why is it impossible that the wings would have sheared off and gone forward on impact? The plane will have slowed down and the wings would have tried to keep travelling, especially with the weight of the engies which were still running at full power. Kinetic energy isn't it?
I'm not saying it's the definitive answer (which I did say when I presented it - but you decided to edit that bit out ), or that it's even correct - but it's more information we can analyse and try and apply to it.
But i guess that sort of attitude doesn't get anywhere with people like you, unless it involves more serious, logical and realistic ideas like holograms, mini-nukes, missiles, pods, global hawks, Ronald McDonald, farting pigeons and more importantly - No-757 your just not interested.

I'm not sure I'm the one that should go back to school.......

FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
transcripts.cnn.com...

The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Like I said, no definitive answer but still another theory.. Is that OK? Sorry that it includes the 757.

I think it's pretty clear the reason that the better footage has not been released, coupled with early revelation that there would be a counter-intelligence program involving 'No-757' theories clearly shows that the whole thing is being done on purpose to detract people away from the important issues - like who? why? and more importantly - what are we going to do about it?
Are we going to sit here and argue about the 757 too the grave while the world warps around us like it is? Looks that way..
They'll probably release the videos when you are on your death bed, just so they can see your grimaced face when you realise you wasted your life on an essentially trivial matter in the grand scheme of things and not only that were wrong all along anyway. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.
Why trivial you ask?
Because even if there was a 757 it does not get the Government, it's agencies, etc automatically off the hook and the same way if it was something else - it may be indicative of nothing other than a huge cover-up for some other reason. It really doesn't matter in the endgame.

Still, it's all good fun arguing about it anyway and I frankly don't care what's going to happen to you or anyone else any more. I've made sure not to have children so when I die, I will be able to rest knowing that it does not affect me or anyone left that I care about.

As for the pod:

Nice blurry pics.

Do you mean the footage stills that you deduce your pod from? Does that include the famous shot which is the clearest available?

It's pretty clear what it is from the pictures, anyone that
can't see that is blind. Just read the entire site at least.
But anyway, just answer one question:

How did the Undercarriage operate? Or was it fitted mid-air?

Oh well, another thread defaced and urinated on by blatant liars and pod people. Have fun peeps, the stench around here is too much for me.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

As for the pod:

Do you mean the footage stills that you deduce your pod from? Does that include the famous shot which is the clearest available?

No I mean the blurry pics you posted.

It's pretty clear what it is from the pictures, anyone that
can't see that is blind. Just read the entire site at least.

Been there done that. They are blurry grainy pics. Try again.

But anyway, just answer one question:

How did the Undercarriage operate? Or was it fitted mid-air?

The pane was fitted somewhere else. That wasn't Flight 175, Tail number N612UA. That was an unmanned military replica. How did it operate? I don't know. Why would you expect me know that? You can find plenty of theories. Here's one:
www.9-11massacre.com...

Here's another:

Something like the MK-77, napalm.

Oh well, another thread defaced and urinated on by blatant liars and pod people. Have fun peeps, the stench around here is too much for me.

In other words...

"I'm an individual on ATS.com who gets away with anything here and now I'm going to leave because I won't be able to counter the info Merc will present"

The case began with the suspicions of a reader

One morning last February a young reader came into the head offices of LaVanguardia.es(Mainstream Spanish Newspaper) with an idea in his head that had occurred to him as he was looking attentively at the videos and photos on 9/11.

There are reader/discoverers. They're readers who get a chance to bring news out and provide their newspapers with an exclusive story. It is initiative which is gratefully received. These readers are efficient spontaneous reporters. That's what's happened in the case of the mystery of the plane which crashed into the WTC in new York on 11 September 2001.

The reader who walked into the editing room of LaVanguardia.es that winter's morning with photos under his arm was attended to by Josep Maria Calvet. The reader, who has asked to remain anonymously as R.R., asked the journalist to look hard at some of the details in the photos: two strange shapes which appeared below the aircraft.

This is how the reporters' work started off the results of which were published in articles in "La Vanguardia" on 22 June and 13 July 2003, and as I commented at the request of a reader, in the last article before the summer holiday season, published on 27 July 2003.

One function of the readers' ombudsman explained in La Vanguardia statutes is to describe the procedure the journalist follows in preparing, elaborating and publishing the story he takes up. The circumstances of this case beg telling the inside story of these reports.

Did "La Vanguardia" come up with this? How did the reporters find out about the mystery of the plane?

Two days after R.R.'s visit, the editorial office contacted Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo to ask him have a look and give his opinion on the shapes or bumps to be seen in the images of the plane seconds before it crashed into the skyscaper.

The office checked that the photos had not been manipulated in any way and that they coincided with the ones held in the newspaper's archives. It was true. There were strange "shapes" or "bumps".

Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La Vanguardia.es head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?

They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn't tell what on earth it was.

Martín de Pozeulo has told the ombudsman that he did not think it was opportune to publish anything as yet on the subject. Data and reliable sources were missing. He says about these "shapes":

"It looked like an optical effect but as that was a totally subjective opinion I showed the photos to fellow photographers and asked them to give their opinion as image experts. They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object, as I did. The reporters persevered.

They consulted another expert, Amparo Sacristán, an image and microelectronics specialist at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya(Spanish University). Her first appraisal encouraged them to go on in their investigation. Doctor Sacristán performed a digital analysis of the photos and concluded that they were shapes not reflections brilliance. The results of this new stage were surprising and disconcerting.

Xavier Mas de Xaxà s, who was working as a correspondent for the "La Vanguardia" in the United States on the 11 September 2001, searched for news, published or unpublished, which could throw some light on the matter. He was gathering information on the poor security at Logan airport (Washington).

Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the "La Vanguardia". His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.

The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from "La Vanguardia".

For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two "La Vanguardia" newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply:

***"We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons."***

It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to "La Vanguardia" readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper's editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the "La Vanguardia" article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.

The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: "Is there any further news?" Answer: "No answer for security reasons". A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate.

www.amics21.com...

Expert Witness:

High-Ranking Military Officers And Airline Pilots Agree Flt 175 Did Not Hit WTC South Tower
By Dave vonKleist
The Power Hour
12-15-5

Startling new revelations about the 9/11 attacks were recently released on The Power Hour radio program. Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, "The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175". After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, "That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted."

( www.thepowerhour.com/news2/replay_aug8_2005.htm )

This shocking conclusion is also being echoed by other military officers and commercial airline pilots.

Glen Stanish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, "The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage". A mysterious "flash" is also seen in the clips that indicate possible incendiary events took place before the planes entered the towers.

Joe Hryczyck:


I work as a F.A.A. licensed airframe & powerplant mechanic for a major U.S. commercial air carrier.

The photos/film footage you see on this website of that Boeing 767 deliberately being plunged into one of the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York City on September 11, 2001 reveal a distinct 'Pod' on the bottom of that Boeing 767's fuselage.

The location of that 'Pod' corresponds with the bottom fuselage panel covering 'Zone 194RL' (to use Boeing's own designation terminology). It is within the space covered by zone 194RL's panel that the aircraft right Environmental Control System (ECS) bay is located. Any other A&P mechanic(s) working for US commercial air carriers using Boeing 767 equipment can verify what I've shared with you. One quick reference from the Boeing Maintenance Manual series would be Boeing's "Fault Isolation/Maintenance Manual", ATA (Airline Transport Association) Chapter 21-51-00, page 104, figure 102.

By removing the AIRCONDITIONING PACK from within the ECS bay covered by zone 194RL's panel, sealing any open air ducts with blanking plates & clamps, and by manufacturing a replacement zone 194RL panel with the necessary aerodynamic bulge, one could easily install a missile launching pylon and missile within the confines of this ECS bay.

Selection of a missile launcher might be of this type:
"...a missile launcher that could demonstrate the launch of an AMRAAM missile from the internal bay of the 'YF-22' prototype...et al" - quoting:
www.edocorp.com...

Selection of a missile might be of this type:
"...the low smoke, high impulse rocket motor reduces the chances of an enemy sighting either the launch or the oncoming missile...et al" quoting:
www.raytheon.com...

Then there is the Boeing 767's "Satellite Communications (SATCOM) System whereby a ground controller in possession of the proper aircraft id 'password' can lock out the human pilot/co-pilot's yoke/rudder/throttle inputs from their cockpit and take over the flight controls of the 767 in question via satellite link up.

The SATCOM system, and its 'command/control' over a wide range of the Boeing's 767 on-board computers can be found in the Boeing 767 Aircraft Maintenance Manual series - ATA chapters 23-25-00 for "Satellite Communications (SATCOM) - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 34-61-00 for "Flight Management Computer System - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 22-00-00 for "Autoflight - General - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 22-11-00 for "Autopilot/Flight Director Power - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 22-15-00 for "Autopilot/Flight Director Interchannel Data - Description and Operation".

There is very little likelihood that the Boeing 767 you see in the video sequence had any Flight Crew or Passangers on it. The "Pod" would have have been noticed by the Airliner's Station Line A&P mechanic entrusted to do the previous night's "Remain Over Night (RON)" servicing and inspection. No A&P mechanic would have signed that particular aircraft's log book off as being "Airworthy" after having viewed such a strange configuration on the bottom of the fuselage.

The official take-off time of Flight 175:

United Airlines Flight 175 was scheduled to depart for Los Angeles at 8:00. Captain Victor Saracini and First Officer Michael Horrocks piloted the Boeing 767, which had seven flight attendants. Fifty-six passengers boarded the flight.40

United 175 pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14. By 8:33, it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31, 000 feet. The flight attendants would have begun their cabin service.

The flight had taken off just as American 11 was being hijacked, and at 8:42 the United 175 flight crew completed their report on a "suspicious transmission" overheard from another plane (which turned out to have been Flight 11) just after takeoff. This was United 175's last communication with the ground.

The hijackers attacked sometime between 8:42 and 8:46.

www.9-11commission.gov...

Lie.



Flight 175 took off at 8:23, NOT 8:14.

That's a difference of nearly 10 minutes. Why are they lying about the take-off time of Flight 175????

To make it worse. The FAA registry show Flight 175, tail number N612UA registered as Assigned/Registered Aircraft"..."Status: Valid" until 9/28/05, despite numerous inquiries about it.



Flight 175 N612UA, is now registered as "cancelled" and not "Destroyed" as of *9/28/05*:

Cancel Date 09/28/2005
Reason for Cancellation: Cancelled

registry.faa.gov...

Look at Flights 11 and 77. Both are listed as "destroyed" since shortly after 9/11:

Flight 11, tail number N334AA

Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Reason for Cancellation: Destroyed

registry.faa.gov...

Flight 77, tail number N644AA

Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Reason for Cancellation: Destroyed

registry.faa.gov...

On FAA registration:

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
(3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
www.risingup.com...

A Certificate of Aircraft Registration should be in the aircraft before an Airworthiness Certificate can be issued. (Refer to figure 3) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration becomes invalid, as described in FAR Section 47.41 when:
3. The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
When an aircraft is destroyed, scrapped, or sold, the owner shall notify the FAA by filling in the back of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration and mailing it to:
Federal Aviation Administration
Civil Aviation Registry, AFS-750
P.O. Box 25504
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

And according to some news reports...


Flight 175 was due to arrive at 12:33

But then turned up missing later on.


So really, what else is so mysterious about Flight 175?

team8plus.org...






[edit on 9-3-2006 by Merc_the_Perp]

you rock, merc the perp.

agent smith has taken to calling everyone retards and nudging olfactory memories with stench descriptions.

i think you're brilliant and you're material reminds me of the scent of roses on a spring breeze.




p.s. check out the SCARY zip code of the owners of flight 175, ...60666, EEEEK!

[edit on 9-3-2006 by billybob]

Well if thy put it by or on the landing gear door, they don't have to worry about opening it again since its not landing. Their is the video of the pod comming out the other side of the building after the plane goes in.

www.areadownload.com...

[edit on 9-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9/3/06 by JAK]

Merc the perp,

Some of these mods are so biased it ain't even funny. I've been warned for having a two-way sarcastic exchange where we were making fun of the "nuke em" people. Yet, I have seen people call Palestinians and Arabs sub human with impunity. Tsk tsk tsk, what a shame.

I guess some people really are subhuman and sarcasm sucks...

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Ahh! You mean the Wing Fairing.

Nice blurry pics.

Again.

We've got different BTS take-off times, we've got FAA registry records, expert witness testimony, digital analysis by a Spanish University, a news article detailing it, Boeing's own ten day examination and subsequent refusal to ID the component, for "security reasons".

I dare you or anyone to test me on this. Because I will back everything I've said.

And all you will have are aviation know-nots, blurry pics, and your opinion.

Please. Try me. I am begging you.

Would like to see the analysis too, or any other information you have...and not all of us are know-nots,, i am a former Air Force Crew Chief

Originally posted by truthseeka
Merc the perp,

Some of these mods are so biased it ain't even funny. I've been warned for having a two-way sarcastic exchange where we were making fun of the "nuke em" people. Yet, I have seen people call Palestinians and Arabs sub human with impunity. Tsk tsk tsk, what a shame.

I guess some people really are subhuman and sarcasm sucks...

JUST TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR...

One person said "Oh well, another thread defaced and urinated on by blatant liars and pod people. Have fun peeps, the stench around here is too much for me."

NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. SARCASTIC MAYBE...BUT IT WAS STILL GENERAL.

Now THIS little shot...

In other words...

quote: "I'm a rude individual with a big mouth who gets away with anything here and now I'm going to leave because I won't be able to counter the info Merc will present"

(Was what he said needed? Stop the obvious bias please.)

So now are we allow to call each other names? Did either of you rewrite the rules here while I was away?

Of course in scripted fashion it is labeled "obvious bias" when you're called on it. How about accepting your own actions rather than just feeling the constant need to place blame on others?

That sounds like a good start.

let's see a warn for smith.

his comment about 'liars' and 'pod people' is directed at members posting on this thread who disagree with him(and i feel implicated, and therefore insulted). he is calling people names, and i would even say it is directed directly at merc the perp(my hero). why is it okay for smith?

you see, if you disagree with smith, you're a 'liar' and a 'pod person', on other threads you're 'retarded' if you don't see things through smith's eyes.

c'mon smitty. lighten up with the deriding tone.

and, yes, i, mr. anderson, have a problem with 'author'-ity.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
JUST TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR...

One person said "Oh well, another thread defaced and urinated on by blatant liars and pod people. Have fun peeps, the stench around here is too much for me."

NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. SARCASTIC MAYBE...BUT IT WAS STILL GENERAL.

Oh right. Of course.

It's all so clear, now.

He wasn't referring to anybody on THE THREAD ITSELF, "NOT DIRECTED AT ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL".

It was only "SARCASTIC"...."MAYBE".

The comment about the stench of urine being the result of 9/11 researchers..or excuse me "liars" and "pod people" (a very endearing term) was just 'sarcasm'.

Of course "IT WAS STILL GENERAL". Directed everybody outside of the thread arguing this point about the "pod", but not the people on the thread...

Oh well, another thread defaced and urinated on by blatant liars and pod people. Have fun peeps, the stench around here is too much for me.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Oh right. Of course.

It's all so clear, now.

I suppose just accepting the comments YOU made are just too much for you. Also editing out my comments (and your original insult) to try and make yourself look better seems to be the game now.

You want to also derail this thread it seems simply because you cannot insult someone.

I think someone needs a time out.

Please continue this thread on topic. Thanks.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. SARCASTIC MAYBE...BUT IT WAS STILL GENERAL.

Oh right. Of course.

It's all so clear, now.

He wasn't referring to anybody on THE THREAD ITSELF, "NOT DIRECTED AT ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL".

It was only "SARCASTIC"...."MAYBE".

/Steve Irwin -on

Look ladies and Gentlemen, it's the rare great crested lizard, or No757eius Taxius. Wow, look at that crest on him! Ohh.. He's getting mad.. he's getting mad.... These nippers have a nasty bite! I gotta watch him carefully.

Woah..

"It was only "SARCASTIC"...."MAYBE"."

did you see that? Did you see THAT?!! He changed it around guys, that's the common 9/11 Lies Movement in action there, a rare sight to catch it like this, but there we have!

Look how:

SARCASTIC MAYBE...BUT IT WAS STILL GENERAL.

becomes....

It was only "SARCASTIC"...."MAYBE".

Amazing guys! We saw it work it's magic but we got away unscathed!

/Steve Irwin -off

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well maybe it was both, Missile and Plane,, Since witnesses at the Pentagon did say they heard what sounded like a missile.

"Military eyewitness at the pentagon being interviewed live on that day stated he saw a helicopter head for the pentagon, go up and over and then saw a fireball. The military eyewitness was then told by the NY radio reporter sitting in NY that the eyewitness was wrong and it was a plane that hit the pentagon." At that moment you can hear the first fighter jets arrive in NYC as both that city and Washington DC lay in flames because?

1010Wins NY Sept 11, 2001

There is a real problem that no real investigation into 2000+ murders in NYC that day, not even one murder investigation, but we are left with nothing but conjecture and missing evidence from those that would govern.

Where were the fighters that were across the street when all this happened? How many hours or cities must burn before a single fighter can respond? Where are the tapes that were confiscated from the surrounding businesses? Why wasn’t there one murder investigation?

Originally posted by Curio
Noooooooooo....not the pod theory again

It is that agent smith again. In his job to obfuscate any thread of its meaning and content. He has moved this thread on debris at the Pentagon to something he is more comfortable with. That is how they work.



He has also produced an incredible link to a French site that shows how the wings will fold forward during impact to explain that lack of debris. A real physics major.

What fighters that were across the street? There were only 21 fighters armed on that day, and *NONE* were "across the street".