9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheParadigmShift
 


You didn't mention Rumsfeld's quote in Parade magazine where he mentions a missile tha damaged the pentagon.

Rumsfeld Oct 2001

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.




[Mod Edit - fix BB code]



[edit on 10/1/2009 by Sauron]




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw
They're all laughing at us.


You got that right. Laughing at you because of of your creative imaginations. One of the definitions: "Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.] A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted (sic), as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet."

Read that again - "a weapon...projected" A 90 ton airliner used as a weapon on an attack against a building is indeed, a missile. A manned-missile, in this case. A car can be a weapon, depending on how it is used. A hammer can be a weapon. A pencil can be a weapon. An airliner can be a weapon.

So yes, we are ALL laughing at you and will continue to do so on a regular basis.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by pinch]


Wow, that's how you justify that?!
A 90 ton airliner is still a plane at the end of the day. Not a missile.

You don't serve coffee, watch a movie, decide over chicken or fish
and put on your safety belt on a missile.

Sir put your seat up, the missile is about to land!

hahahaha....



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Why can't people believe an airplane can bring down a building. Think of what would happen if 1 Plane fell on a school. Now imagine 1 plane damaging badly 2 to 3 floors of a building. Thanks to all the naysayer there selling books by the millions. Yes they did use 911 as a gateway to their war on terror. But this # really happened. Plus i dont wanna know how a building ON FIRE WITH EXPLOSIVE WOULD COME DOWN!. It would be messed up. Anyway, Be opened minded on both side. Don't believe because it would be cool in a Evil Empire way.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
And how can three buildings be gutted and weakened then rigged with hundreds of explosives without anyone noticing?


Because they didn't gut them? Because you don't have to gut them? Because they only gut them to make the job easier? Because they weren't conventional demolitions? Because you take the words 'controlled demolition' too literally? Because 'hundreds' of explosives is an assumption based on the box you live in?

What if they used just ONE device? Have you ever thought of that possibility? You do know of that possibility right? You do know that the military has been researching weapons to demolish buildings since the 60's? What do you think they do all day at defense weapons research facilities? What do they do with all our tax money?

I'm not saying this is what happened, only showing you that you are in a box, and if you step out of it a world of possibilities open up, but you're not ready yet, are you?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



You're right they did use one explosive, a bloody great plane.

Now get back in your box like me, its safer in here



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
What I find funny is that people argue that it must have taken hundreds of explosions to bring down the towers if it was to be controlled demolition....yet these same people believe a single plane could do it.

So, a plane can bring a building down...but a plane + a few explosives wouldn't do the trick? Gotcha.

And by the way, I don't know what to believe. All I know is that the 9/11 Commission is chalk-full of fallacies, omissions, and lies. I can't tell you what happened that day, but I can tell you that what is written in the 9/11 Commission is NOT the 100% truth.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:

missile

• noun

1 an object which is forcibly propelled at a target.

2 a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.


"an object which is forcibly propelled at a target."
proof that an aeroplane can be used as a missile. some earlier missiles before the design of the crusiform shape liked very much like UAV's with a charge on them.
also in saying that anything from throwing a rock to a dart is classified as a missile.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The comments made by Bush and Rummy and Co. confirm to me ,yet again, how *SNIP* stupid they all are....

The replies posted above by "believers" really are scraping the barrel of credibility....have any of you guys ever tried your hand at Standup??

Your unbelievably dumb responses sure gave me a laugh.....


Hows the weather today in CuckooLand??


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I like "Pinch's" fly-boy avatar, "Location: Washington, D.C.", and signature:


"Conspiracy theories in general are attempts by people to explain complexity. Instead of acts of God, they become giant conspiracies of all-powerful men...and life is so much more tragically boring and sad than the conspiracy types can handle. So they tell their stories to console themselves about their ignorance. You eat junk, you get fat. It’s as simple as that. Stay away from the junk food." --Thomas Barnett


That's right Pinch ol' boy, we've got nothing better to do than make up wild conspiracies about our government murdering 3,000 citizens in a false-flag terrorist attack that's used to start illegal trillion-dollar wars and murder a million civilians just so we can explain complexity, avoid boredom and console ourselves about our ignorance.

Instead, we should be intelligent, wise and sophisticated by believing the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory that includes 19 al-CIAduh cave-dwellers and invincible bogeyman Osama bin Laden!


Where does the government get these amateur psy-ops buffoons, anyway?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The very fact that after nearly a decade of exhaustive research with thousands of people poring over the record, the footage, the testimony, the commentary - all the Truth Seekers can come up with is dubious interpretations of what made those buildings collapse, and the odd slip up in recordings like this.

Where's the massive documentation of a conspiracy against America. No one has come forward saying they were given instruction to do something treasonous. Where is the timeline, names, places, of The Plot.

The cumulative evidence is about as compelling as someone going through a book and finding typos and grammatical errors and claiming the whole thing is planned disinformation.

Thanks for helping prove to all of us Arab terrorists flew airplanes into those landmarks as a mountain of primary evidence and first hand testimony has already demonstrated.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
why are people so desperately trying to say that he meant planes instead of missile??

They have to be very careful in what they say on these, so that it dosnt get miss-interpreted by papers, and saying the word missile is widely open for interpretation.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I feel like this is turning into Clinton and his remarks to define "is"...

9/11 sparked many controversies. The biggest debate had been
over whether a "plane" or a "missile" hit the pentagon. Plane or
Missile?! Missile or Plane?! Plane or Missile?! You get the idea.

In the case of 9/11.. throw out your oxford dictionary and Mr. Websters.
A missile is a missile and a plane is a plane.

And if it is so evident that a projectile plane or a pencil or a rock
is also a missile, then why would he correct himself?! He would
be right in saying a missile, no?! But it seems he corrected himself.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trolloks
fine, you saw the planes, but your still avoiding answering the question.

How can 2 planes bring down 3 buildings??


It's funny. Some people create lies and conspiracys in order to shelter themselves away from the real world. 2 Planes hit both the North and South Tower of the World Trade Center. The planes hit both buildings at an angle that knocked off a lot of floors and in the process of doing this the plane knocked off whatever fire proofing was covering the steel structure which made it vurnerable.

Jet fuel from both planes heavily covered the fire floors which created "Heavy fire" conditions which cause intense heat. The only way to combat jet fuel successfully is with foam. Now the Twin Towers aren't the only buildings where High Rise Fires have occured that "fear of collapse" was capable. All the Firefighters that went in that building knew the chances of it falling, but they never expected it to ACTUALLY happen.

As for World Trade Center Building #7. This building was "pulled" which is always Firefighter lingo for evacing the building. If I remember correctly Firefighters we're begining suppression of the fires burning through out the building. However I will give you this one and only building..maybe with the addition of the Pentagon. Why this building suddenly collapsed from minor fires and no structural damage from the inital Tower 1 & 2 attack makes no sense what so ever.


Watch this video..It is from a 9/11 Documentary where 2 brothers whom are film producers were embedded with FDNY Engine 7, Tower Ladder 1, and Battalion 1. This documentary also shows the only known footage (that I know of) of inside one of the Towers while the other collapsed.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthAUS
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:

missile

• noun

1 an object which is forcibly propelled at a target.

2 a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.


"an object which is forcibly propelled at a target."
proof that an aeroplane can be used as a missile. some earlier missiles before the design of the crusiform shape liked very much like UAV's with a charge on them.
also in saying that anything from throwing a rock to a dart is classified as a missile.


1. A plane is not "forcibly propelled" unless it gets it's momentum solely from a device such as the catapult used to launch fighters on a carrier. That actually does not happen anywhere as only planes getting their momentum from outside sources are gliders (Or whatever they're called... ). Forcibly propelled implies an outside source providing the initial momentum. Hence the explanations you posted explicitly state different propulsion methods (self-propelled vs. forcibly propelled).

2. A plane is not a "weapon" except in a broad sense. A plane (fighter) can carry weapons. Just as a man can be considered a weapon, but usually is NOT referred to as such. A man can carry weapons. Same difference.

So, no, neither fits the case at hand.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw
They're all laughing at us.


You got that right. Laughing at you because of of your creative imaginations. One of the definitions: "Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.] A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted (sic), as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet."

Read that again - "a weapon...projected" A 90 ton airliner used as a weapon on an attack against a building is indeed, a missile. A manned-missile, in this case. A car can be a weapon, depending on how it is used. A hammer can be a weapon. A pencil can be a weapon. An airliner can be a weapon.

So yes, we are ALL laughing at you and will continue to do so on a regular basis.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by pinch]


Way to add absolutely nothing of substance to this conversation, except for you to reveal how juvenile and petty you are. And rest assured, if you continue to hold other human beings in such contempt, the universe will continue to show its contempt for you. Keep laughing. You'll miss more.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthAUS
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:

Great. Now why don't you look up the definition of an aeroplane and then tell us what allegedly hit the buildings.

Official story believers are that desperate to want to define an aeroplane as a missile using the dictionary as their defence. Ah-huh.

You think that you've read it all, but a few people always manage to surprise.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project Delta
As for World Trade Center Building #7. This building was "pulled" which is always Firefighter lingo for evacing the building. If I remember correctly Firefighters we're begining suppression of the fires burning through out the building.


You don't remember correctly. Actually, you're making it all up. Not only were there no firefighters in WTC 7 the entire afternoon, there was no water pressure and thus no firefighting efforts. But you are right that WTC 7's collapse was highly implausible. It even took NIST 7 years and the creation of a new science principle to explain!

And to think that Larry Silverstein had the authority to "pull" any FDNY firefighters out of any building while at home watching TV is so absurd, it's beyond laughable.

*SNIP*


1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.


Terms And Conditions Of Use

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


You sir are a #ing idiot.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Project Delta
As for World Trade Center Building #7. This building was "pulled" which is always Firefighter lingo for evacing the building. If I remember correctly Firefighters we're begining suppression of the fires burning through out the building.


You don't remember correctly. Actually, you're making it all up. Not only were there no firefighters in WTC 7 the entire afternoon, there was no water pressure and thus no firefighting efforts. But you are right that WTC 7's collapse was highly implausible. It even took NIST 7 years and the creation of a new science principle to explain!

And to think that Larry Silverstein had the authority to "pull" any FDNY firefighters out of any building while at home watching TV is so absurd, it's beyond laughable.

Besides WTC 7, the only thing Silverstein was pulling on 9/11 was his pud while he fantasized about his insurance profits.


Firefighters were indeed near WTC 7 at the time of the collapse. Hence the Evacuation order. And yes they didn't have enough water pressure therefore they had to run supply lines via boat from the river.

A link about WTC 7
911research.wtc7.net...

A Quote from the site... "Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven"

If you go to the section under "fires" on that page, click the photos link. In the photo it shows a Reserve Engine and a Firefighter standing near the Engine.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I find it very interesting that the OP is simply stating 3 FACTS.

1. Tim Roemer slips up and says a missile hit the Pentagon.
2. George W. Bush slips up and describes explosives in the WTC.
3. Donald Rumsfeld slips up saying that United 93 was shot down in PA.

In their own words this was said. Fact: This thread is 100% descriptive
and accurate to the contents included.

You can't deny they said these things?! It's right there on tape.
Freudian Slip perhaps?!

The only thing left to debate is their meanings?!

I am not going to include a picture of a missile and a picture of a plane,
that would be too juvenile.



top topics
 
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join