Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 44
136
<< 41  42  43   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I do get it, but obviously you are back-peddling on the issue. Hand waiving doesn't make it go away. This is the second time that you have brought up the issue with your claims that you will search and find it to prove that it is in your own words 'fact'.

It is a simply task to search within a thread. If you debated with WW in a 9/11 thread then all you have to do is click on that thread find one of WWs posts, click on the drop down menu and then click on 'posts in thread'. It will generate all WWs posts specific to that thread. Over to you or will it simply be a case of more back-peddling and hand waiving?

TJ




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by backinblack
 

I do get it, but obviously you are back-peddling on the issue. Hand waiving doesn't make it go away. This is the second time that you have brought up the issue with your claims that you will search and find it to prove that it is in your own words 'fact'.
It is a simply task to search within a thread. If you debated with WW in a 9/11 thread then all you have to do is click on that thread find one of WWs posts, click on the drop down menu and then click on 'posts in thread'. It will generate all WWs posts specific to that thread. Over to you or will it simply be a case of more back-peddling and hand waiving?
TJ


Ease up Tommy..
Firstly I cant rememver what thread it was in.
Secondly, have you seen how long Weeds posts are??
I dread reading few heaps of them. Each is an essay...

But why is a new member like yourself so concerned??
Are you close to Weedwhacker??


And like I said..I KNOW what was written and I only care what I think, not what YOU think..K?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Stop trying to divert away from the subject. There can't be many WW posts that you haven't replied to in a thread? Search your own posts then within that thread click on WWs drop down menu and click on 'find all posts'. It is all about fair play. You are the one that goes on about politeness and courtesy within posts. I simply noted that this is the second time that you have attempted to call out WW on this issue.

No doubt you will in future attempt to bring in up again? It obviously annoys you so isn't it only fair that you provide the evidence via a search like you promised and finally put the matter to rest. It isn't my fault that you can't find it after you said you would on two occasions. Politeness and courtesy costs nothing, Either retract or put up rather than dodging the issue. It is nothing personal, but purely fair play. My last word on the subject.

TJ



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by backinblack
 


Stop trying to divert away from the subject. There can't be many WW posts that you haven't replied to in a thread? Search your own posts then within that thread click on WWs drop down menu and click on 'find all posts'. It is all about fair play. You are the one that goes on about politeness and courtesy within posts. I simply noted that this is the second time that you have attempted to call out WW on this issue.

No doubt you will in future attempt to bring in up again? It obviously annoys you so isn't it only fair that you provide the evidence via a search like you promised and finally put the matter to rest. It isn't my fault that you can't find it after you said you would on two occasions. Politeness and courtesy costs nothing, Either retract or put up rather than dodging the issue. It is nothing personal, but purely fair play. My last word on the subject.
TJ


LMOA, are you WW's mate..?
I SERIOUSY don't give a flying whatever about what you think..
Maybe u2u ww how well you've done..


If and when I can be bothered going through countless, long winded posts of nothing, I will..
Till then, why don't YOU actually add to the debate?
edit on 26-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I think a big problem with 9/11 research is peoples selective memories. Especially if one has an eclectic research passion (other deep subjects) it is kinda hard to keep track. Therefore there should be a home-thread that has all the anomalies listed that one can refer to. It could have different coloured text for the theory and refutations---so for example: some experiences pilots claim that trying to guide a plane at low altiude is virtually impossible esepcially with a passenger jet---so NOW there would be a resource thread I could search that item

Another? WHY are there no CCTV cameras of the actual plane crashing in or flying near--head for--approaching etc--the Pentagod from DIFFERENT angles? orrrrr are there? I had heard that the Pentagon was one of the most CCTV busy places going?

Someone here mentioned body part inside the Pentagon but said it was to nasty to link to. As much as I can imagine that, I am an adult so please can someone link me to this info I've never seen please? I already have seen horrendous pics of people who jumped from the towers.

thats enuf for now

But yeah. We need a thread that just lists the clues/theories and in different coloursed textxs the added evidence and the refutations

Just an idea

And we also need detectives for truth. People who know how the criminal mind works.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zimishey
I had heard that the Pentagon was one of the most CCTV busy places going?


You should not believe anything you read on the damn fool conspiracy sites.


so please can someone link me to this info I've never seen please?


Do a search for Moussaoui trial photographs



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by zimishey
I had heard that the Pentagon was one of the most CCTV busy places going?


You should not believe anything you read on the damn fool conspiracy sites.


so please can someone link me to this info I've never seen please?


Do a search for Moussaoui trial photographs


Dont patronize me. IF you have evidence that the Pentagon isn't thick with CCTV cameras link it please?

What Moussaoui trial photographs got to do with it? I just google images that, and all I saw was a blow up of a supposed plane part. I had asked to see pics of body parts proven to be from plane passengers at the Pentagon. Where are the links to these photographs please?
edit on 20-2-2011 by zimishey because: added info



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





Of course the public who believes every word the cowardly main stream media tells them and is led blindly into an unknown future will never know the reality of that incident on 911.


Just in case you were not aware the news media is nothing but a propaganda tool. In the fight against NAIS (Animal ID) and the new "food safety" law, farmers found the media is completely and utterly controlled. Stories were suppressed, false information broadcast nationally and honest journalist fired. The decision was made to take control of the US food supply and nothing was allowed to get in the way. Certainly not the truth.



U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

(the takeover of the media)
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...

Who controls the media www.nowfoundation.org...

Interlocking Directorates
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests:
www.fair.org...



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek the wings they shattered on impact, along with the tail.


OMGee, What a gem of a theory.
Definitely a classic since according to these blind os trusters, of course 2 wings and a tail will shatter into unrecognizable pieces on impact
leaving almost no trace of that impact upon an exterior wall that wasn't near as strong as the steel columns 2 planes wings and tail penetrated at the wtc without any impact resistance or crash physics whatsoever.


If only these pseudo-skeptics could be consistent, their lack of critical thinking skills might not be in question.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zimishey
 



Um, no, its up to you to provide proof of how "busy" the Pentgon was with cctv on 9/11/01.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by zimishey
 



Um, no, its up to you to provide proof of how "busy" the Pentgon was with cctv on 9/11/01.


Of course it is. All the 'trusters' believe every word of the grandest fairy tale ever told. It's like proven gospel.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


And it all gets back to, I have more evidence to back up my Gospel, than any truther has to back up theirs. So, if you want to believe the Brothers Grimm version of 9/11 (it was PNAC, the Mossad, Willy Wonka's Oompa Loompas) go right ahead. Say hi to Alice for me too.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Your understanding of physics seems woefully inadequate. As well as investigation skills. But, when the only sources come from "9/11 conspiracy" sites it's understandable to have skewed viewpoints.



2 wings and a tail will shatter into unrecognizable pieces on impact leaving almost no trace of that impact....


>sigh<

This is a close-up of the area of just the right wing....the weakest part of wing, outboard of where the engines are mounted:





... upon an exterior wall that wasn't near as strong as the steel columns...


Huh??? You can't compare the Pentagon to the WTC Towers equally. The exterior components of the Towers being "steel" is an irrelevant distraction from the fact that they were in SEPERATE pieces, that could break away at their attachment points. Which accounts for the way the jets there penetrated, and PUSHED in the exterior pieces. The energy of momentum was tremendous. Millions of Joules (I have read the exact figure somewhere...I believe was calculated at about 10 million Joules).

Compared to a more solidly-built concrete weight-bearing column....on the lower floor of the builidng.

Here's where your non-comprehension of physics is evident:


...2 planes wings and tail penetrated at the wtc without any impact resistance or crash physics whatsoever.


NO....there was "impact resistance". The Pentagon is a much more solid structure, though. Entirely different construction methods.

Oh, and although the footage of the United 175 impact doesn't reveal it to the naked eye, because the Human eye and brain can't discern these tiny differences, in real time....I have seen a video that examined the footage more precisely, and shows a certain amount (very small) deceleration of UAL 175 as it is entering the building. WIll hunt it on YouTube....I think I know what thread someone posted it in...

....BTW, keep in mind the time periods we're talking, here. A Boeing 767 is 159 feet, 2 inches long. It was moving at approximately (low estimate...was likely faster) ~750 feet per second. Do you see, there? Divide 159 by 750. Because, the whole airplane would have entered in less than one second. How much less??

Try about 0.21 seconds total time. 2/10 of a second. Two-tenths of a second.

Would any rational, thinking adult with all of his/her faculties expect an object that weighed about 300,000 pounds to make any significant, and obvious to the naked eye, change in velocity in that short span of time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this, the YouTube maker used a red animation outline around United flight 175 as a reference of motion....to show the constant velocity of the airplane in flight, prior to impact. THEN, you can see the slight slowing (very slight) during the building penetration:

edit on 21 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Your understanding of physics seems woefully inadequate. As well as investigation skills. But, when the only sources come from "9/11 conspiracy" sites it's understandable to have skewed viewpoints.

2 wings and a tail will shatter into unrecognizable pieces on impact leaving almost no trace of that impact...
>sigh<
This is a close-up of the area of just the right wing....the weakest part of wing, outboard of where the engines are mounted:


>SIGH<

And You're repeating an argument that I've seen several here debunk already which you evaded and failed to refute or present any counter-argument to. this being one of them www.abovetopsecret.com...

So what I've said still stands and no need to debunk your argument cuz its already been done.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
. upon an exterior wall that wasn't near as strong as the steel columns..

Huh??? You can't compare the Pentagon to the WTC Towers equally. The exterior components of the Towers being "steel" is an irrelevant distraction from the fact that they were in SEPERATE pieces, that could break away at their attachment points. Which accounts for the way the jets there penetrated, and PUSHED in the exterior pieces. The energy of momentum was tremendous. Millions of Joules (I have read the exact figure somewhere...I believe was calculated at about 10 million Joules).
Compared to a more solidly-built concrete weight-bearing column....on the lower floor of the builidng.


No, Its only irrelevant to those needing a distraction from all the evidence supporting NRPT that you nor anyone has been able to disprove.

So you need to first explain where the tail and wings went over at the pentagon including a far better explanation of the impact markings and hole that doesn't exist.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Here's where your non-comprehension of physics is evident:
"...2 planes wings and tail penetrated at the wtc without any impact resistance or crash physics whatsoever"

NO....there was "impact resistance". The Pentagon is a much more solid structure, though. Entirely different construction methods.
Oh, and although the footage of the United 175 impact doesn't reveal it to the naked eye,
because the Human eye and brain can't discern these tiny differences, in real time....I have seen a video that examined the footage more precisely, and shows a certain amount (very small) deceleration of UAL 175 as it is entering the building. WIll hunt it on YouTube....I think I know what thread someone posted it in...


bull#... there was NO RESISTANCE at all, and there's plenty of visual evidence to support that which is clear enough to discern the most basic crash physics to the naked eye not to mention other evidence supporting the Nrpt which when all taken in context, prove no real planes hit the towers.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
In this, the YouTube maker used a red animation outline around United flight 175 as a reference of motion....to show the constant velocity of the airplane in flight, prior to impact. THEN, you can see the slight slowing (very slight) during the building penetration:

edit on 21 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


very slight?
yeah well, thats nothing more than an OPINION... but most people with common sense can see otherwise.

and using this one video when there's others that SHOW a more detailed perspective, doesn't help your case either.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by thepixelpusher
 

Good FSM, not the 84 videos again?!


A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.


Oh, so I'm supposed to believe that the numerous cameras that rimmed the Pentagon never got video of the attack craft in flight?!! You're kidding, right?? I'm not falling for that weak explanation.





new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 41  42  43   >>

log in

join