Thread in Support of the Official Story

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
The offical story meaning how a jumbo jet somehow completely vaporized on impact except for one of the engines
which was from another class of aircraft all together?

So you got the civil engineers looking at completely dynamic impact? Where are the Mechanical/Chemical engineers input?

Also, I'm not going to believe a word NIST or the government tells me about the pentagon when they are still holding over 80 video feeds directly filming the impact and arn't releasing under "national security."

The only data release of the actual impact is 5 frames? where you can't see anything? except....no jet.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Vardoger because: (no reason given)


So sadly misinformed...
1 - Much more than "one of the engines" survived. www.oilempire.us... and ... www.rense.com...
2 - The engine was *exactly* the same of one of the TWO types of engines that the plane was produced with. www.boeing.com...
3 - There were NOT 80 video feeds directly filming the impact and if you knew a thing about the area surrounding the Pentagon and the locations listed for those cameras you would know this (as a opposed to listening to some dolt on a blog site and taking his word for it that is...)
Videos showed: www.911myths.com...
Key videos released: www.judicialwatch.org...
4 - Then there's the list of eyewitnesses - at least a dozen of whom actually saw the jet *impact* the Pentagon sites.google.com...

Next time you decide to get into a gun battle, I'd suggest you draw from your holster and NOT your zipper...




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by hmdphantom



The "people" via their government were harboring a terrorist and terror organization that was responsible for the murder of 3000 citizens of another country.


So does that mean the American and British citizens via their Government, are guilty of an illegal war in Iraq? What's your justifiaction for this? Wepaons of Mass Destruction?



You should ask the Afghan people, they are doing most of the killing. If any of the Afghan "people" were responsible for 9/11 what would you suggest? Cookies? If you attack another country and kill its citizens you shouldn't expect flowers and kudos.


So, who was behind the 9/11 in your version? Was it Afghanistan? Was it Al-Queda? If it was Al-Queda then the above comment is so wrong on so many levels. Do you even know where the Middle East is and could you point out Afghanistan on the Map?

edit on 14/9/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Seeing as though I do not live in the states I cannot file a FOI. Others have, and have been tossed around in courts only to be given a handful of videos out of the 84 known. Here is a timeline 911research.wtc7.net... These released videos do not show the actual impact or followup.

Their have been numerous pictures taken directly after impact. The debris field is pathetic if we are to believe a full jet struck the pentagon.


"or sit in front of your computer and challenge anonymous posters on the internet to provide you with evidence."

Is that not what you demand on "truthers" which they do provide, numerous times, of actualities that are not even mentioned in "official" reports



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
reply to post by hooper
 


Where is it then? did it burn? disintegrate? vanish? alien took it? but then thought it to be wise to at least leave something and not knowing what engine to use drop whatever one they happened to have in stock on their mother ship?

Big question with the pentagon is. Where is the jet?
a) Leading up to impact
b) Directly before impact (I guess that one frame is supposed to show the nose?)
c) During Impact (I guess the whole length is covered by the fireball eh?)
d) After impact (clean up? oh right...spare parts pick up)

Releasing the 80+ video feeds should clear all that up anything else is an educated guess.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Vardoger because: (no reason given)


Again, see my post above...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
Where is the jet?








posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 



So does that mean the American and British citizens via their Government, are guilty of an illegal war in Iraq?

Nope.

What's your justifiaction for this? Wepaons of Mass Destruction?

Yep.

So, who was behind the 9/11 in your version? Was it Afghanistan? Was it Al-Queda? If it was Al-Queda then the above comment is so wrong on so many levels.

AQ. The above statement stands and is correct.

Do you even know where the Middle East is and could you point out Afghanistan on the Map?

Yep.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
reply to post by hooper
 


Seeing as though I do not live in the states I cannot file a FOI.

Anyone can file a FOIA request, whether or not they are a citizen, anywhere in the world. (Okay, not quite anyone. Fugitives and foreign intelligence agencies aren't included.) If you go to any US government web site, you will usually see a FOIA link at the bottom of the page. Click on that, and it will walk you through writing your FOIA request. Many agencies allow online submission.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger

These released videos do not show the actual impact or followup.





Below is an arial shot of the pentagon taken sept 7 2001. I placed a green box on the location of the 2 security gate cameras. I placed a red circle around the centre of the impact.

Any security videos showing a better, more close up view of the impact would need to be with in that circle and pointed at the point of impact, at the time of impact.

Do you think there are 85 security cameras inside of that circle pointed at the point of impact, at the time of impact ?


edit on 14-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Its funny, I posted the ASCE Building Performance Report and I think there has only been one question pertaining to the report as the "official story". Just one.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
You are aware that no WMD's were ever found in Iraq, right? The only WMD's discovered were Bush's words of mass deception.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadmessiah
You are aware that no WMD's were ever found in Iraq, right? The only WMD's discovered were Bush's words of mass deception.


So? Should we have waited till he had some and then attack?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 



So does that mean the American and British citizens via their Government, are guilty of an illegal war in Iraq?

Nope.

What's your justifiaction for this? Wepaons of Mass Destruction?

Yep.

So, who was behind the 9/11 in your version? Was it Afghanistan? Was it Al-Queda? If it was Al-Queda then the above comment is so wrong on so many levels.

AQ. The above statement stands and is correct.

Do you even know where the Middle East is and could you point out Afghanistan on the Map?

Yep.


Okay obviously I asked closed questions initially.

So:

1) Why is it okay for your country to invade a country that wasn't even behind your version of 9/11? I mean Iraq here.

2) Why do you think that Al-Queda would want to do this to your country?

3) Are you Cass Sunstein using a psuedonym? I know this is a closed question, but a simple yes or no is fine.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Sorry, that's not a legitimate answer or reason to give. Under that belief system we would also need to attack Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Pakistan because hey, they want WMD's or already have them and might attack us if given the chance to.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Hooper, when we ask for an explanation of the collapses what we really want is YOUR explanation, a detailed post explaining why YOU think the OS is correct, with evidence to support your claims.

All we ever get from you is a link to someone else's work. We want to debate YOU not someone else's through a proxy, YOU.

When we reply to a post like this we are debating someone elses work, not YOU. YOU are simply hiding behind other peoples work.

When are YOU going to explain the collapses? Specifically how the laws of motion apply, you know that pesky 'equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation laws', that you proved you are clueless about?


Originally posted by hooper
The building was at rest, it was acted upon by outside forces, therefore the building stayed in motion until it again was acted upon. The equal action and opposite action was the fracture of connected elements

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9/14/2011 by ANOK because: to add the mojo



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 



1) Why is it okay for your country to invade a country that wasn't even behind your version of 9/11? I mean Iraq here.

Self-defense. Not limited to those directly involved in 9/11.

2) Why do you think that Al-Queda would want to do this to your country?

Ask them. Power. Influence. Status.

3) Are you Cass Sunstein using a psuedonym? I know this is a closed question, but a simple yes or no is fine.

Yes. Maybe.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 



Sorry, that's not a legitimate answer or reason to give.

It is for me, sorry if its not for you.

Under that belief system we would also need to attack Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Pakistan because hey, they want WMD's or already have them and might attack us if given the chance to.

Line em' up. Would have absolutley no problem using the military option with anyone who threatens my country. You know what they say - "you don't tug on Superman's cape....."



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Hooper, when we ask for an explanation of the collapses what we really want is YOUR explanation, a detailed post explaining why YOU think the OS is correct, with evidence to support your claims.

What claims? That the buildings collapsed? You need evidence? That there were no explosives? I don't know what that "evidence" would look like.

All we ever get from you is a link to someone else's work. We want to debate YOU not someone else's through a proxy, YOU.

Tell ya what - show me where my proxies are wrong and then I'll debate you.

When we reply to a post like this we are debating someone elses work, not YOU. YOU are simply hiding behind other peoples work.

What do you mean hiding? I paid for it.

When are YOU going to explain the collapses? Specifically how the laws of motion apply, you know that pesky 'equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation laws', that you proved you are clueless about?

When are you going to learn that simply retyping those words over and over and over again does not prove that you have any clue what they mean. First prove you could understand something that complex.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Sorry, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works at all. You're just lying to yourself. You probably weren't aware of this, but Saudi Arabia, Russia and China are in the top 10 nations Americans consider as enemies. Guess who else is considered an enemy in the top ten? America its self! Surprise! Actually, more Americans think we, ourselves, are a greater enemy to us than Russia.

See how stupid what you are saying is?

Under your belief system, we would need to attack ourselves.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Woah, I forgot to add. Under this sort of thinking, Iraq would have had every right to attack us because we posed as a threat to them and also had WMD's. Actually, pretty much half the world would need to attack us under this policy.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 




When are you going to learn that simply retyping those words over and over and over again does not prove that you have any clue what they mean. First prove you could understand something that complex.


Ummm, I think it demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you do not know what you are talking about. Any physicists about to interprate what Hooper was talking about?

That is all.





new topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join