Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

page: 27
90
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
It all started with 3.1 trillion dollars missing and unaccounted for the day before 9/11 in a press conference to the people from bush.


Oh dear, there was no claim of money missing, it was announced well before 9/11 and it was not by Bush - how about you show us this Bush press conference?

Once again a truther shows they are very confused.
edit on 29-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

Rumsfeld announced the missing trillions, the day before 911, and that also does not explain how the fuselage penetrated the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall. Please Reboot.




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The defining question about Pentagon is this: how could the fuselage penetrate the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


And again, IT WASN'T A 747. It was a Boeing 757, which is MUCH smaller than a 747.

Boeing 747:



Boeing 757:



See the difference finally? You're right in that there is no way that turbine came from a 747, but it matches up nicely with a 757. It's too big for a Global Hawk.

RB211:



Look familiar?

RB211 on a 757:



I'm pretty sure that you won't be standing up in that engine.
edit on 11/28/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

So what's your point? This or that engine, this or that airplane model. None of it explains the defining question: how did the fuselage penetrate what the engines could not?


Wow you are just all over the place now huh? Too funny. New investigation, where in any of my post do I say that, hell search the entire database you wont find that sentence under my tag. Who can't follow their posts now, don't worry I wont hold it against you. ^^

this was you first reply to me on a reply zaph made to my post. I was not in your discussion of whether and engine separated or not, I was on the discussion its not a freaking 747 OR a 757. I could give to $%^& less if the engine ended up on the other side of the building when the engine shown is much smaller than either craft. They are trying to sell us that one of the airlines crashed into it when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. If you are going to argue with someone at least know wtf they are talking about and then no one will get confused huh? ^^



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


And again, IT WASN'T A 747. It was a Boeing 757, which is MUCH smaller than a 747.

Boeing 747:



Boeing 757:



See the difference finally? You're right in that there is no way that turbine came from a 747, but it matches up nicely with a 757. It's too big for a Global Hawk.

RB211:



Look familiar?

RB211 on a 757:



I'm pretty sure that you won't be standing up in that engine.
edit on 11/28/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

So what's your point? This or that engine, this or that airplane model. None of it explains the defining question: how did the fuselage penetrate what the engines could not?


Wow you are just all over the place now huh? Too funny. New investigation, where in any of my post do I say that, hell search the entire database you wont find that sentence under my tag. Who can't follow their posts now, don't worry I wont hold it against you. ^^

this was you first reply to me on a reply zaph made to my post. I was not in your discussion of whether and engine separated or not, I was on the discussion its not a freaking 747 OR a 757. I could give to $%^& less if the engine ended up on the other side of the building when the engine shown is much smaller than either craft. They are trying to sell us that one of the airlines crashed into it when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. If you are going to argue with someone at least know wtf they are talking about and then no one will get confused huh? ^^

Since you do not believe the official story, is it really so far off to expect that you are supporting a new investigation? It was not my "first reply to you", it was a comment in your defence to a reply zaph made to you. Confused? You won't be after this episode of SOAP!

I used to haunt these 911 threads on ATS back in 2005 and forward, but no one could answer my questions, and as you can see, they still can't.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


my bad memory gets fuzzy after many years ^^ it was donald rumsfield and it was 2.3 trillion
T R I L L I O N

www.youtube.com...

www.pbs.org...
edit on 29-11-2012 by ~widowmaker~ because: EVIL BUNNIES



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cade
 



"is it really so far off to expect that you are supporting a new investigation?"


Why yes it is, IM pretty sure that's where the fun phrase of assuming comes from.^^ there were two count em two investigations into JFKs murder, the first (public) said Oswald acted alone, the (private) said CIA assassins or at least a minimal government involvement. WACO TEXAS, they set those people on fire alive and killed several of their own people and covered up and was written into the investigation but was redacted. Investigations mean jack $%^& when they are nothing more than a charade to keep the public at bay.

In any event we are obviously arguing two different things so I suggest we call a truce? lol ^^



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by Cade
 



"is it really so far off to expect that you are supporting a new investigation?"


Why yes it is, IM pretty sure that's where the fun phrase of assuming comes from.^^ there were two count em two investigations into JFKs murder, the first (public) said Oswald acted alone, the (private) said CIA assassins or at least a minimal government involvement. WACO TEXAS, they set those people on fire alive and killed several of their own people and covered up and was written into the investigation but was redacted. Investigations mean jack $%^& when they are nothing more than a charade to keep the public at bay.

In any event we are obviously arguing two different things so I suggest we call a truce? lol ^^

Well we are both arguing that the official story is wrong, so it seems wrong to agree on the premise that we are arguing two different things. You are right about the fact that investigations has not changed anything, or so it seems, because we don't know what the world would look like without those investigations of course. But still agree with what you're saying. Still, calling for a new investigation is a legitimate claim for us to make as we point to all the evidence we have and this was not possible with JFK: no internet to share data.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
my bad memory gets fuzzy after many years ^^ it was donald rumsfield and it was 2.3 trillion
T R I L L I O N


And he never said it was missing....



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
my bad memory gets fuzzy after many years ^^ it was donald rumsfield and it was 2.3 trillion
T R I L L I O N


And he never said it was missing....

ha ha, Hello Bruce, don't feel like answering any of my questions do you?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Cade
 


The 2.3 trillion was first publicized in early 2000.

The impact of flight77 left a 95 foot wide hole in the Pentagon.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cade
Rumsfeld announced the missing trillions


Rumsfield never said the money was missing...


the day before 911,


It was known about before that...


while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall.


Here we have a truther made up story again...



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
ATTENTION ALL

Please remember the very strict 9/11 forum rules.


(3) Your Account Will Be Terminated for Any Infraction:

You will receive an immediate account termination for all T&C infractions other than large quotes and off-topic posts. Unless, of course, in the opinion of our staff, your repeated off-topic (or large quotes) are an attempt at disrupting the forum.


Please keep the forum rules in mind lest you want to be banned.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Cade
 


My explanation was several pages ago which you ignored.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


Then explain the fact that the RB-211 turbine matches perfectly to debris at the Pentagon.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


We can't see the Pentagon, either......does that mean nothing exploded there? There is a freeway in between the camera and the Pentagon. I don't see how this is supposed to be a smoking gun. More like almost useless, save for the date and time stamps.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Cade
 


Both fuselage and engines penetrated the building through the 100ft hole in the ground floor. You are confused because you are of the erroneous belief that only the fuselage made a hole in the wall.

This is a claim made by conspiracy sites by lying to you, by showing you only photographs that show 1st floor damage, instead of the ground floor damage which actually existed.

Here's a composite image made of several real photos illustrating the extent of the damage well:


Could you point out where the engines would be?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by sealing
With a 44 foot tall Rudder that 757 had to be feet off the ground .
The Pentagon is 73 feet tall. So he was under 30 ft. And where's the plane if
his approach was anything but a ground hugging 500 mph straightline ?
I see nothing decending in the video.
edit on 29-11-2012 by sealing because: punctuation


Have a look at this analysis of the last few seconds of data from AA 77's fdr :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

The aircraft clipped the first light pole at a height of approximately 31 feet ( that is about 1000 feet from the Pentagon.) The final radio altitude reading was 4 feet. So in the final 1000 feet, which took a little over a second to cover, it descended some 27 feet.

You have proven that a light pole was clipped, but where is the evidence it was an airplane? The question is, if you can arrange a massive coverup on a global scale that fools MOST of the people [I said "most"] is it impossible to make a light pole fall? The light poles does not explain how the fuselage could penetrate the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall. You are accepting two opposing realities, it's called cognitive dissonance. Wake up and cross the two wires in your head.


The point is not that a lightpole was clipped but that several were and their positions left and right required an aircraft with a wingspan like a Boeing 757 ( 124 feet 10 inches ) to accomplish that. The only alternative it seems to me is the silly idea that secret operatives felled them in broad daylight with cars backed up and thousands of people around and no-one saw a thing !

You keep banging on about the engines not penetrating the Pentagon even when you are linked to pictures like these clearly showing engine debris within ;

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
So back to the video. Can the fin be seen sticking out or not?





new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join