Questions about the 9/11 Pentagon attack

reply to post by Lord Jules


Why don't you post some of the internal pics showing masses of wreckage with shredded aluminium wound around columns etc ?

www.rense.com...

Presumably all dumped there while it was a raging inferno ?

Btw Mohammed Atta was not the Pentagon pilot nor was his passport recovered in New York. So much for your care in being accurate.

If you think the security camera records a missile why do you think not a single witness saw one, whereas plenty saw a large plane ? Any missile wreckage identified ?

reply to post by snapperski


I have indicated to you 3 seperate instances of mobile phone usage in passenger planes, not only in 2001 but on 9/11 itself. So far, you haven't attempted to address them.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
there's Mohammad Atta's passport!

You really should not trust the damn fool conspiracy sites you are getting your "facts" from, Atta was not on flight 77, so why do you think his passport would be at the Pentagon?

This is why truthers are considered so silly, their "research" solely consists of visiting damn fool conspiracy sites, which are well known for posting lies!

Originally posted by dereks
This is why truthers are considered so silly, their "research" solely consists of visiting damn fool conspiracy sites, which are well known for posting lies!

I love it...Truthers: silly?... your assertion that a steel skyscraper collapsed because of fire...for the first time in history...two of 'em...on the same day....now THAT is silly...

your cherry picking of posts will not change the truth.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Originally posted by dereks
This is why truthers are considered so silly, their "research" solely consists of visiting damn fool conspiracy sites, which are well known for posting lies!

I love it...Truthers: silly?... your assertion that a steel skyscraper collapsed because of fire...for the first time in history...two of 'em...on the same day....now THAT is silly...

your cherry picking of posts will not change the truth.

edit on 30-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)

I am sure I read somewhere that they both had Boeing 767's smack into them at hundreds of miles an hour. I'll try and find it.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
your assertion that a steel skyscraper collapsed because of fire

Where did I say that? Link?

for the first time in history...two of 'em...on the same day....now THAT is silly

Your damn fool conspiracy sites must have omitted the fact that they were hit by high speed airliners....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
your assertion that a steel skyscraper collapsed because of fire

Where did I say that? Link?

for the first time in history...two of 'em...on the same day....now THAT is silly

Your damn fool conspiracy sites must have omitted the fact that they were hit by high speed airliners....

It's not as bad as your damn fool government sites (NIST) hiding the eye witness testimony of secondary explosions.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Originally posted by dereks
This is why truthers are considered so silly, their "research" solely consists of visiting damn fool conspiracy sites, which are well known for posting lies!

I love it...Truthers: silly?... your assertion that a steel skyscraper collapsed because of fire...for the first time in history...two of 'em...on the same day....now THAT is silly...

your cherry picking of posts will not change the truth.

edit on 30-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)

I am sure I read somewhere that they both had Boeing 767's smack into them at hundreds of miles an hour. I'll try and find it.

Well now, if you were as well informed as you expect others to be you would be aware that the official explanation for the collapse is NOT the impact of the jets, but the FIRE caused by the fuel.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Lord Jules

 

Why don't you post some of the internal pics showing masses of wreckage with shredded aluminium wound around columns etc ?

www.rense.com...

Presumably all dumped there while it was a raging inferno ?

Btw Mohammed Atta was not the Pentagon pilot nor was his passport recovered in New York. So much for your care in being accurate.

If you think the security camera records a missile why do you think not a single witness saw one, whereas plenty saw a large plane ? Any missile wreckage identified ?

It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane.

This coming from your own website. The shredded aluminum could be from the building. And what about the engine that is way too small for a 757? I'm sure the FBI could clear this up if they released more of the security footage or the black boxes, what does rense have to say about that?

Sorry, it wasn't Atta, it was Hani "I can't land a Cessna but I can maneuver a 757 like a military pilot" Hanjour. And

passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was found a few blocks from the WTC

911research.wtc7.net...

So they did miraculously find a passport on the streets of New York that survived the same fire that incinerated a plane and caused molten metal on the world trade center towers. Wow.

So what's your point? Your trying to say I'm omitting posting pictures of indescribable junk you call a plane? Why aren't you mad at the FBI for omitting surveillance video of the pentagon?

edit: about the landing gear, it looks legit, but why could they only find one? shouldn't there be ten of those? four per main gear, two for the nose? why is it they are finding individual parts of things and not the entire set? For example, they found one engine, too small for a 757, but regardless, where is the other?

www.biggles-software.com...

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Originally posted by dereks
This is why truthers are considered so silly, their "research" solely consists of visiting damn fool conspiracy sites, which are well known for posting lies!

I love it...Truthers: silly?... your assertion that a steel skyscraper collapsed because of fire...for the first time in history...two of 'em...on the same day....now THAT is silly...

your cherry picking of posts will not change the truth.

edit on 30-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)

I am sure I read somewhere that they both had Boeing 767's smack into them at hundreds of miles an hour. I'll try and find it.

Well now, if you were as well informed as you expect others to be you would be aware that the official explanation for the collapse is NOT the impact of the jets, but the FIRE caused by the fuel.

No it isn't. This is what NIST said " The impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns; dislodged fire-proofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors, and the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.
No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent fires that the towers experienced on 9/11/01."

You can hardly ignore the high speed impact of airliners or treat them as some sort of irrelevance. I think someone on here calculated the impacts in terms of tons of tnt going off. I don't know how to do that but, if anyone does, I would be interested.

reply to post by Lord Jules


So you think the engine parts in the pics I linked you to are " too small for a 757 ". Well, that is a blow obviously but here is an aerospace engineer who doesn't agree with you :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by snapperski

 

I have indicated to you 3 seperate instances of mobile phone usage in passenger planes, not only in 2001 but on 9/11 itself. So far, you haven't attempted to address them.

because,i've already explained to you twice,and one of the links you posted,talks about a tex msg,you are cleverly trying to defect the fact i've laid down to you already alfie....

then you quote your bible 911myths site yet again,and then make a poor failed attemp to dis-credit prof Dewdney,and his research,now please show me evidence of prof Dewdney incompetence,well you can't,as you have none,and just like 911myths tells you to do on there site,is to try and dis-credit the man....well you failed with that...so stop trying to defect facts...because it dont go with your government story....

now alfie,if you had done some real research into this,and educate yourself on basic cell RF tech of the time,you will understand,why i said someone in the white house made a massive mistake,concerning mobile calls...

once again,dont take my word for it...go check yourself,and maybe like me,who once belived the Government story,you might have a awakening like myself about the lies were told...

they lied about calls,so what else have they lied to us about....

PS:like the others alfie that question me,before in this thread about calls,well clearly they have gone away and research this,and thats why they are no longer making comments about the mobile calls...maybe you should do the same...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Lord Jules

 

So you think the engine parts in the pics I linked you to are " too small for a 757 ". Well, that is a blow obviously but here is an aerospace engineer who doesn't agree with you :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

so where's the rest of the engine, and for that matter, where's the second engine? We have parts of a plane, not a complete plane, so this suggests the evidence was planted.

Originally posted by Lord Jules

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Lord Jules

 

So you think the engine parts in the pics I linked you to are " too small for a 757 ". Well, that is a blow obviously but here is an aerospace engineer who doesn't agree with you :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

so where's the rest of the engine, and for that matter, where's the second engine? We have parts of a plane, not a complete plane, so this suggests the evidence was planted.

i do belive i can tell you alfie answer for that ....IT VAPORIZED....lmfao....

reply to post by Alfie1


This is a 757




And now for the "proof" that a plane crashed at the pentagon:




Sort of missing 99 percent of the plane.


This is an engine of a 757, notice how it dwarfs the man next to it



This is the engine at the pentagon, notice how it doesn't even reach the man's waist. Sort of odd, don't you think?

reply to post by Lord Jules


Did you check inside the building?

As for the engine, that is the entire nacelle pod of the engine. Those are the blades of the engine which are much large than the actual "engine" inside.





This shows the inside guts of the engines.

For scale of the assembly we see here:



More info on the engines recovered below.
www.aerospaceweb.org...

All in all, farely conclusive a 757 impacted the Pentagon. An AA 757 did crash there.

Originally posted by Lord Jules

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Lord Jules

 

So you think the engine parts in the pics I linked you to are " too small for a 757 ". Well, that is a blow obviously but here is an aerospace engineer who doesn't agree with you :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

so where's the rest of the engine, and for that matter, where's the second engine? We have parts of a plane, not a complete plane, so this suggests the evidence was planted.

omg where's the lavatory seat ? it's a stitch-up !

This was a high speed impact into a pretty solid object; what do you expect ?

If you are saying the evidence was planted how do you suppose that was done when the area was initially an inferno and then crawling with first responders ?

reply to post by GenRadek


You got anything that's not a cartoon? Why is it that the only proof you can offer to me is an illustration and not a real picture? Maybe you should work on that to make it a little more convincing.

reply to post by snapperski


You still cannot address the examples of actual cell phone calls I have indicated to you for 9/11 itself.

Here is some more information about the Westmoreland County 911 dispatcher John Shaw who took the cell phone call from Ed Felt on UA 93. You will note that the call was monitored by his supervisor Glen Cranmer.

www.post-gazette.com...

So when you say " they lied about the calls " do you mean the 911 dispatcher and his boss ?

A K Dewdney can say what he likes about phone usage on 9/11 but as there are in fact some well attested cases he is wrong. Am I right in thinking his position is that all the phone calls from the planes were faked using voice-morphing ? ! And, typically, has written a book about it ?

reply to post by Lord Jules


Oh so a cutaway which shows the actual engine and the workings inside is not good enough? Are you serious? You want an actual picture looking just like that? Do you really think that the drawing of the engines is fake? (and then you all wonder why we cant take truthers seriously!)

What about the turbine assembly picture with the worker next to it?

So explain how this picture is not indicative of what is really inside the Rolls Royce engines used on the 757, and the ACTUAL size of said parts?



Its all the proof and facts you need, right there. You make me crack up when you ignore the facts!