9/11 missles or not

there are so many people that say on 9/11 they swore they didnt see planes they saw missles they swore they did but the gov't said no they were planes we have video proof witch they did but they could have easily made that vid it could be a fony and at the pentagon every buddy swore it was a missle too but once again they said it was a plane and they couldnt find any parts of the plane and that was when they said it burnt up and there are no remains then the next morning there were pane parts sitting in front of the pentagon and they said that somebody must of found it in the rubble and took it out but the question is how it was a million pound thing and they wouldnt beable to get it out in one night with a crane they say it would have been impossible please tell me what u think

Some punctuation wouldn't go astray Nomai.
In reply to your post there are witnesses who are unsure that what they saw on 9/11 were commercial aircraft but I do not believe there are that many who actually claim to have seen missiles.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by pmexplorer]


[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 30-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

does the punct reallly matter

NOMissiles.... none nadda, zip zilch...

there are people here on this site who watche the AIRPLANES hit the towers...

I know two people in NY who witnessed AIRPLANES impact the towers...

alright thanks for ur help then it was just bugging me

I have to agree with the no missile Idea.....


The 1st reports were a DC 10 or some cargo plane. Therefor it kinda rules out a Middle for me I think. If there were missiles people would have said something or messed up along the way..

Kinda like the pentagon incident where I know of 2 people who screwed up when they were talking about 9/11.

So no missiles here.

Originally posted by nomai
does the punct reallly matter

Yes it does reallly (sic) matter. Lack of punctuation makes for very hard reading and most ppl, including me sometimes, won't even bother to read it. If you want to be taken seriously make your posts as readable as possible. Full stops with two spaces after, comas with one, and paragraphs instead of one block of text. As you have it now it's hard to make sense of what you're trying to say. Not a dig at ya, just a friendly suggestion...

You might also find this handy...

Spell Checker

In my own opinion, the notion of a missile being used against the Pentagon came about strictly because of how poorly described the incident was in the official report.

When writing the report, someone decided that the word 'vaporized' would be a good term for the aircraft that hit the Pentagon (as well as the one that plunged into the ground in Pennsylvania following the passengers rushing the cockpit).

Vaporized, for anyone who knows the term's actual meaning, is utterly the wrong verb to be using - and some individuals doing independent research took the word literally. The whole thing was blown-up out of proportion from a grammatical error, in otherwords.

If the word 'disintegrated' had been used instead (which is what the aircraft ACTUALLY did), I don't think the whole issue would even have been bred.

It sort of reminds me of the old 'channels' instead of 'canals' grammatical error in reference to Mars, back in the day.

EDIT: ...It just occurred to me of the irony in mentioning how serious grammatical errors can become in a thread with an OP like this one.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by GrinningMoon]

Lack of physical evidence of plane remnants and anything but a round hole is what is debated about the pentagon. It has also been mentioned it could have been one of the manless craft.

There is debates that there were missles ON the planes that hit the towers.

I believe this is a good site to debate it for yourself: Missles launched from planes as they hit?

The best thing, is to study the evidence for yourself, and don't listen to just mine or anyone else's opinion on the matter ... for until there is full disclosure, the truth is not know.

Anyone that debates disclosure, explain why all the videos and pictures are not shown ... why there are gag orders ... and even the victims families that wish for their family members tapes to be released to the public ... a court oder is preventing it. With secrecy, one can only come to the conclusion of deception, lies, and corruption.

They need to prove the truth, for they have been proven liars with Iraq, and the agencies have admitted to what are basically acts of treason in the past. It is nice how they disclose it once all those people are no longer around; isn't it?

Yes, punctuation and spacing helps ... even if you don't do it grammatically correct; it allows for people to separate thoughts instead of it being a jumble of words.

Originally posted by elevatedone
NOMissiles.... none nadda, zip zilch...

there are people here on this site who watche the AIRPLANES hit the towers...

I know two people in NY who witnessed AIRPLANES impact the towers...

did you see it happen? guess that makes it heresay if you didnt.

different people saw different things. i cant say for sure if anyone who saw the twin tower impacts that saw something other than the jets in the official story was trained or able to tell the difference. I can however say more than one person who was trained to know the difference witnessed something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon.

its all heresay to me because i didnt witness any of it live so i have to go with what i can find. when officers in the military say it wasnt flight 77 and then on top of that the tapes are never released i certainly in no way shape or form can conclude that an airplane hit the pentagon.

Well I did watch it.......live, ~5 blocks away out my office window. Those were passanger planes....and no missles were launched. I was ~600 feet away on the ground when the first building collapsed....there was no nuke or multiple explosions from a CD.

It amazing that so many videos can be doctored to show that planes hit the towers when it was missles (that was scarcasm).

[edit on 30-7-2007 by ferretman2]

Originally posted by ferretman2
Well I did watch it.......live, ~5 blocks away out my office window. Those were passanger planes....and no missles were launched. I was ~600 feet away on the ground when the first building collapsed....there was no nuke or multiple explosions from a CD.

It amazing that so many videos can be doctored

to show that planes hit the towers when it was missles

(that was scarcasm).

[edit on 30-7-2007 by ferretman2]

i cant say if the explosions were from cd or not, but you can watch the explosions and hear firemen talk about them all you want on the internet .

also you saw both planes hit? interesting. would you mind showing us the location on google earth?

ok but people say that the twin towers should've just lost everything were the pane hit and up. If u watch the building they practically implode. Does anybody have any awnser for that.

The real conspiracy is why on Earth does this conspiracy theory exist? I think the questions asked may be honed better and certain people don't want that.

Well we do have a police report of a missile being fired form the Woolworth builidng at the towers, we have a photo of some damage to the Woolworth building. I will have to find them but i think thier were some reports of people hearing a missile who were near the building.

Also if i was a terrorist who wanted to hit the Pentagon, and i knew how heavy and thick the walls were i would send in a missile to take out the wall and then send the plane in to do more damage (if i was using a plane)



[edit on 30-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by jprophet420


did you see it happen? guess that makes it heresay if you didnt.

different people saw different things. i cant say for sure if anyone who saw the twin tower impacts that saw something other than the jets in the official story was trained or able to tell the difference. I can however say more than one person who was trained to know the difference witnessed something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon.

its all heresay to me because i didnt witness any of it live so i have to go with what i can find. when officers in the military say it wasnt flight 77 and then on top of that the tapes are never released i certainly in no way shape or form can conclude that an airplane hit the pentagon.

Ok first of all hearsay is actually unverified information... The fact that planes hit the towers WAS verified. This bodes true for the Pentagon as well. This information WAS verified through countless eyewitnesses and evidence retrived at the crash site.

Please tell me... what officers in the military said it wasnt flight 77. And since THEIR information or statements can NOT be verified..that makes THIER statements hearsay.

Thanks

ULTIMA1, Only one person went mad and saw a missile that day then? That's pretty good. Should have been a fair increase in UFOs and paranormal activities as the nutters got it out of their system. The building itself could have been damaged in any way, and the police don't seem to have made much of a case of a report. Planes carry massive amounts of fuel which is why they account for so much in carbon emissions, and do not need a further missile. The point is, you do not need to go for loony theories when there is so much evidence of any government going wrong. Start taking them on on the obvious stuff.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by redled]

[edit on 30-7-2007 by redled]

[edit on 30-7-2007 by redled]