9/11 was an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roscoe, they have not insulted you. Instead, you have gone out of your way to try to wind people up by insulting them in the hope of getting a response. In fact, you even boasted about it:



While they may dismiss you outright for the conspiracies you spout, your ridiculous agent provocateur routine has gotten my attention. Which is usually a very bad thing. Whether you continue to post here will depend entirely on your behaviour. I hope I have made myself clear enough for you.

Have a nice day.
:)

So the monkey pictures are OK by you then?

I am actually trying to get someone into a serious discussion (I do respect that even if they disagree) but the nature of your condition makes you behave in a specific manner towards anyone who tries to make you think the unthinkable.

All I've had so far is a kind of religious belief that everything the Government says is unchallengeable.
 
9/11 Truthers Are Idiots


Some people are so ideologically married to certain beliefs, that nothing will ever sway them. One of the best examples of this is the 9/11 Truth movement. These people believe that the government carried out the attacks on September 11 and blamed radical Islam for it so that they could chip away at our civil liberties and start new wars.

There are a few things that the 9/11 "Truthers" regularly spout off as proof that the attacks were carried out by the government, including Building 7, the phone calls from the hijacked planes, and the way the twin towers collapsed. Each of their "theories" can easily be disproven by science and common sense.

They talk about how the collapse of the twin towers looked similar to controlled demolition videos of other buildings sometimes seen on television. Controlled demolition takes weeks or even months to set up, depending on the size of the building. In Detroit, a 33 level structure took three months to properly wire and set up for demolition.

Controlled demolition requires cutting into nearly every beam and structural support. With two buildings over 110 stories tall that were open 24 hours a day, with billionaire businessmen paying thousands of dollars in rent per square foot, it would have been impossible to pull off without anyone knowing, as people would’ve wondered what was with all the construction crews.

One of the biggest things to note of all is that while controlled demolition happens from the bottom up, the twin towers collapsed from the top down, proving it was a natural collapse and not a controlled demolition.

People have pointed out that fire cannot melt steel. Well duh! Fire doesn’t melt steel. It does however weaken steel, and that’s all that’s needed. Once the steel was weakened enough, the laws of physics took over and the building buckled. The airplanes careening into the buildings did enough damage, but when you add in steel softened by raging fires, it was more than enough to bring the structures down.

The Truthers point out the speed at which the buildings fell, but conveniently leave out crucial information. Both towers fell close to freefall because the buildings were mostly air. The twin towers were not composed of solid concrete. They were designed to be incredibly lightweight. As each floor subsequently gave way, they were in near-freefall.

The Truthers talk about how Building 7 collapsed without an airplane hitting it, but fail to understand the structural impact that two 110-story buildings falling in on themselves had on it. Also, thousands of tons of debris hit Building 7, damaging the structure and starting fires.

Conspiracy theorists also claim that the phone calls from the hijacked planes must have been faked because no one can make a phone call from 30,000 feet. True, but they weren’t at 30,000 feet. They’d only been off the ground for a short time before being hijacked. After that, they had to bring the planes to a lower altitude so that they could strike their targets. If people can make a phone call from the top floor of a skyscraper, they could have done so while inside a low-flying plane.

So according to these geniuses, the phone calls that were received and the messages that were left describing terrorists were all faked, meaning that the government would have known who was going to be on the plane well in advance, gotten their voiceprint, and in some cases even had a conversation with a trusted loved one. This from the same government that left General Colon Powell looking like an idiot at the United Nations two years later, and could not prevent PFC Bradley Manning from stealing crucial information. They’re giving the government way too much credit here.

If the government had really wanted to bring the towers down, they could have gone about it much easier. A few properly wired trucks could have been driven into the basements and set off. Being nearly identical to the 1993 attempt, the suicide bomber aspect would’ve been equally plausible. Only a few security cameras would have required tampering, which would’ve been much easier to pull off than faking hijackings, phone calls, and so on.

Conspiracy theorists like Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones cater almost exclusively in devious plots, which is why they view everything as a conspiracy. To this day they’re still fooling people with slick videos, edited phone recordings, photos where the debris at the Pentagon was edited out, and catchy slogans.

There is no conspiracy surrounding 9/11. The U.S. government was not the enemy, Dylan Avery is not the plucky hero, and this is not the grand arena. Radical Islamic fundamentalists found the simplest method of getting around defenses that had grown relaxed and bloated, and the U.S. tragically paid for it.

When it comes to September 11, perhaps Bill Clinton said it best.


http://www.policymic.com/articles/7677/9-11-truthers-are-idiots
 
Of course in my 10 point fact posts back up somewhere, one of the motives that drives conspiracy nutters is political leanings.
 
Of course in my 10 point fact posts back up somewhere, one of the motives that drives conspiracy nutters is political leanings.

What? Even the Chairman of the 911 Commission?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

Are these politically motivated too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPS-cSzUmWk

Here's who Bush wanted to chair the 911 Commission initially until the 911 advocates (The Jersey Girls) had him removed. There's warrant for his arrest in France.

Henry-Kissinger-Illuminati-Bilderberg-Group.jpg


interesting badge he has on since your selected theme is political motivation. Google Daniel Estulin
 
I take it you know that shortly after the Pentagon was hit 'FBI agents' confiscated 64 (yes 64. They said so) video surveillance CCTV footage.

I don't care. This is a lack of evidence for anything.

Two of these cameras are pointed at the highway that passes close to the Pentagon. They could not fail but catch the plane crossing. NOTHING!!! according to the FBI.

Who says they could not fail? That is total baloney. The frame rates these things operate on and the speed of the plane, angle it was pointed etc.

So it's official THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON

What a typical trufer conclusion. Apart from eye witnesses, the security footage itself released the part of my post you totally ignored -

We just have to keep quiet the military people who fired it. We have to have magic lamp post detonators that simulate wing impacts. We have to have a few plants on the scene who said it was a plane. We have to completely fabricate the flight and all people on it and their verifiable disappearance, or dispose of them somehow with nobody noticing. We have to coerce ATC into thinking the plane followed the track to the Pentagon. We have to have a few plants to sprinkle aircraft bits around the area. We have to make sure the impact looks like a plane impact. Easy.

Number 3 looks favourite, number 2 the best hoax option, number 1 is as feasible as little pink fairies at the bottom of my garden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbo1hyXsuQ

This should get things going.

MY post is getting things going. Now respond to it properly. Here's another video for you to sidestep -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8B-AvIt6V4

And another showing the surveillance footage is the plane -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00
 
I don't care. This is a lack of evidence for anything.

Can you see what you're saying here.

THERE'S NO PLANE. THE VIDEO EVIDENCE RELEASED BY THE FBI SAYS SO.



David C said:
Who says they could not fail? That is total baloney. The frame rates these things operate on and the speed of the plane, angle it was pointed etc.

SO WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE THAT A PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON? I'M USING STRAIGHT LOGIC HERE.



David C said:
What a typical trufer conclusion. Apart from eye witnesses, the security footage itself released the part of my post you totally ignored -

We just have to keep quiet the military people who fired it. We have to have magic lamp post detonators that simulate wing impacts. We have to have a few plants on the scene who said it was a plane. We have to completely fabricate the flight and all people on it and their verifiable disappearance, or dispose of them somehow with nobody noticing. We have to coerce ATC into thinking the plane followed the track to the Pentagon. We have to have a few plants to sprinkle aircraft bits around the area. We have to make sure the impact looks like a plane impact. Easy.

HA HA!!!! The old eyewitness gambit gets wheeled out. So all eyewitnesses are reliable are they? Including those eyewitnesses that reported bombs in the WTC complex.

Yes?

or is it the old selective eyewitness syndrome we have here. Yes Fire fighters who reported bombs going off in the twin towers are mistaken but eyewitnesses filing out of a Government building all under the Official secrets act are reliable are they?

well you may be right. I particularly like the eyewitness at the Pentagon who saw the "SECOND PLANE" overfly the Pentagon. Yes this 'reliable' eyewitness HEARD the explosion and then saw the plane fly over. Got lots more on that but you people have to be rationed. This is a goody.

David C said:
Number 3 looks favourite, number 2 the best hoax option, number 1 is as feasible as little pink fairies at the bottom of my garden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbo1hyXsuQ

Remind me again of number three.

Nice animation though. Wouldn't it have been better if Scooby Doo had made an appearance though?



David C said:
MY post is getting things going. Now respond to it properly. Here's another video for you to sidestep -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8B-AvIt6V4

And another showing the surveillance footage is the plane -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

Love the bit about the light poles.

I take you've not seen the black box data that was formerly released then.

It shows the aircraft too high.

Then we have the EYEWITNESSES at the CITCO garage who saw the plane on the north side of the garage. But they're policemen what do they know.

The north side path would miss the light poles.


Oooops!!!!!

Wait until you hear the testimony by the Taxi driver. keeping that one up my sleeve.

By the way the FDR Black Box data shows the aircraft going 530 mph. perhaps you'd like to telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their aircraft can do 530 mph 12 metres above sea level. Hold the telephone away from your ear whilst they laugh at you.
 
Last edited:
So the monkey pictures are OK by you then?
Well it would only be unacceptable to someone who has issues telling the difference between a monkey and a chimpanzee.

I am actually trying to get someone into a serious discussion (I do respect that even if they disagree) but the nature of your condition makes you behave in a specific manner towards anyone who tries to make you think the unthinkable.
If you wish to get someone into a serious discussion, it might behoove you to not start off by asking if their head is up their bottom.

All I've had so far is a kind of religious belief that everything the Government says is unchallengeable.
Not at all.

I guess not all see conspiracy theories in everything and anything. For example:

Oh really?

So what does this guy mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

This is Thomas Kean - The chairman of Government sponsored 911 Commission.
A video that lasts just a few seconds and says nothing of the context in which Kean makes that sentence. Hardly proof of a conspiracy or an inside job. Find me the whole press conference and show me where he says it was a missile, then you might have a point.

The Commission's findings are so far from what you seem to be misrepresenting from Kean's comment in that press conference, which 9/11 truther's draw so much on is not about a Government conspiracy and the report itself says nothing of a conspiracy and instead.

The reason he said it was set up to fail is because of lack of funds and because the Commission itself was so wholly political in nature. So no, it does not support your theory that it was an inside job, far from it.

Here's who Bush wanted to chair the 911 Commission initially until the 911 advocates (The Jersey Girls) had him removed. There's warrant for his arrest in France.
Yet another falsehood.

The person who was initially meant to chair the Commission was Henry Kissinger, who resigned as chair due to a possible conflict of interest with his business ties.
 
roscoe

I take it you know that shortly after the Pentagon was hit 'FBI agents' confiscated 64 (yes 64. They said so) video surveillance CCTV footage.

As any competent investigator would do to see if those cameras caught the aircraft in flight, 3 did. The rest are the property of their owners, not kept by the FBI and not subject to a FOIA request.

By the way the FDR Black Box data shows the aircraft going 530 mph. perhaps you'd like to telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their aircraft can do 530 mph 12 metres above sea level.

It is above the DNE speed for that altitude, the mechanics back at the shop would be pissed about all the damage it did to the airplane(mostly landing gear door and access panel damage), but then, they didn't bring the aircraft back, did they? The aircraft that hit Tower 2 was going 520 mph, I don't think the hijackers cared one bit about what the manufacturer said about avoiding damage from overspeed operation at low altitudes, why do you? The aircraft that dove into a Pennsylvania field was most likely supersonic at impact. It came straight down and some pieces were found miles away from that, having separated from the plane well before impact.

SO WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE THAT A PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON? I'M USING STRAIGHT LOGIC HERE.

No, that's just straight idiocy here.

images


images


That's a nose gear. It had a serial number that showed it came from that particular aircraft. It was found near the back wall INSIDE the damaged area of the Pentagon, along with two engines, passenger DNA and remains and enough evidence to indicate the idiocy of everything you say about no plane hitting the Pentagon.

I take you've not seen the black box data that was formerly released then.

It shows the aircraft too high.

You are obviously unaware that altimeters are set to the altitude of the departing airport before the plane takes off and depend on air pressure to sense with, aren't you? (what am I saying, you aren't aware of anything factual at all). Altimeters of that sort are often off by hundreds of feet between two points with different weather conditions(aircraft have been known to hit mountains their altimeter showed they were higher than). Approaching aircraft are given the "Field Altitude" so that they can adjust their altitude indicator to be accurate at the place they are wanting to land. No such adjustment was done as the hijackers approached the Pentagon, so their altimeter was inaccurate(wish it had been inaccurate in the other direction, they might have flown into the ground short of target). That's why new altimeters are radar based, they are much more accurate as they actually measure the distance to the ground by measuring the time it takes for a radio beam to return instead of deriving altitude by measuring changing atmospheric pressure. But the one recorded by the BB is still air pressure based and thus subject to a correction factor depending on the atmospheric pressure at the time and place of the accident compared to the atmospheric pressure at the calibration point where and when they took off. NIST knew this, you obviously don't(or you wouldn't make such a lame argument).

This is stupidity on parade here, not any kind of scientific inquiry. And this is typical of Troother logic, it works fine as long as you don't investigate anything beyond a superficial level, it falls apart on the least bit of closer examination. The fact remains that the only people responsible for the attacks of 911 are the assholes that flew those planes into buildings and those who helped them do it. I used to argue with them over at Break for News, I was Grumpy there, too. They finally threw me out, but the place was disintegrating before I left. Now it's rare to see the Flaming Loon, they've become a rare bird. I think it has to do with their difficulty in finding mates, but it could be the attrition of the circular firing squads.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Hand wave of evidence in 4...3...2...1....

By the way the FDR Black Box data shows the aircraft going 530 mph. perhaps you'd like to telephone Boeing and ask them if one of their aircraft can do 530 mph 12 metres above sea level.

Actually I did. My father worked for Boeing many years as Stress Engineer. He helped design the 737, 747, 767, and 777. I asked him this many years ago, and he just laughed and said "sure they could".
 
roscoe



As any competent investigator would do to see if those cameras caught the aircraft in flight, 3 did. The rest are the property of their owners, not kept by the FBI and not subject to a FOIA request.



It is above the DNE speed for that altitude, the mechanics back at the shop would be pissed about all the damage it did to the airplane(mostly landing gear door and access panel damage), but then, they didn't bring the aircraft back, did they? The aircraft that hit Tower 2 was going 520 mph, I don't think the hijackers cared one bit about what the manufacturer said about avoiding damage from overspeed operation at low altitudes, why do you? The aircraft that dove into a Pennsylvania field was most likely supersonic at impact. It came straight down and some pieces were found miles away from that, having separated from the plane well before impact.



No, that's just straight idiocy here.

That's a nose gear. It had a serial number that showed it came from that particular aircraft. It was found near the back wall INSIDE the damaged area of the Pentagon, along with two engines, passenger DNA and remains and enough evidence to indicate the idiocy of everything you say about no plane hitting the Pentagon.

Grumpy:cool:


Firstly Sonny.
Do yourself a favour and stop warning me about me throwing insults whilst doing that very thing yourself. OK?

This is of course a symptom of your condition. Cognitive Dissonance.

I've deleted the last piece of utter drivel indicative of a mind that has gone into delirium. We're talking about the altimeter reading fed into the FDR and this is from the RADAR altimeter.

Let's cut to the quick here

As any competent investigator would do to see if those cameras caught the aircraft in flight, 3 did. The rest are the property of their owners, not kept by the FBI and not subject to a FOIA request.

Erm! The FBI said there were no images of the plane on the video footage not released. Nice try - No banana.



It is above the DNE speed for that altitude, the mechanics back at the shop would be pissed about all the damage it did to the airplane(mostly landing gear door and access panel damage), but then, they didn't bring the aircraft back, did they? The aircraft that hit Tower 2 was going 520 mph, I don't think the hijackers cared one bit about what the manufacturer said about avoiding damage from overspeed operation at low altitudes, why do you? The aircraft that dove into a Pennsylvania field was most likely supersonic at impact. It came straight down and some pieces were found miles away from that, having separated from the plane well before impact.

How about them being concerned as to whether they can control the aircraft? Would that concern these hijackers in their attempt to hit the building? At that speed there would be so much wing flutter the aircraft would be totally uncontrollable. But hey don't ask me ask Boeing, telephone them. Go on, they need a laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4

305620.gif


Please sir he's tampering with a crime scene. So are they taking the wreckage off or putting it on? Perm any one from two. Perhaps you could explain why these people should feel the need to touch these pieces at all given the circumstances of what has just happened. One going one way and his compadre going in another direction.

here's another image to help you.

pentagon4.jpg


and another

pentagon3.jpg


Anyone for Tennis?

And Another

pl2.jpg


Check out the light poles.

+++++++++

So we have a wheel stub.

Wasn't it you who said that the whole plane had disintegrated?

Did it disintegrate or didn't it.

Oh and can we have some confirmation that image came from the Pentagon or did it come from another crash? Serial number on that wheel snub please front and centre NOW!!!!

Have you actually seen this serial number lodged inside this MILITARY COMPLEX? Or are you making this up and merely repeating what you've been told?
 
Last edited:
index.1.jpg


Here's an image taken from a VIDEO on an "AL QAEDA" website showing how much he hates America etc etc etc. It shows Ahmed Al Haznawi of Flight 93 fame moving about in front of an image of the explosion when the plane hit the towers.

ERM???????

How?????

They took it down before we could send them the donkey ears.
 
roscoe

Firstly Sonny.
Do yourself a favour and stop warning me about me throwing insults whilst doing that very thing yourself. OK?

Kiss my rosie red. I've been here a long time, I was here when it was the old site. So far I've managed to walk that fine line between putting up with trolls and giving them their just deserts. I think I can handle your pathetic drivel.

This is of course a symptom of your condition. Cognitive Dissonance.

And we all recognize projection.

I've deleted the last piece of utter drivel indicative of a mind that has gone into delirium. We're talking about the altimeter reading fed into the FDR and this is from the RADAR altimeter.

Wrong. Altimeters are pressure based, the radar altimeter is part of the landing system and were new in the 757. The FDR did not have a channel to record it's output as radar altimeters were not in use when their Federally mandated design and construction was finalized(after changing from metal foil to electrical means of storage in the 70s). In addition, in the FDR's next redesign they were changed to record GPS data for altitude in the following years, they skipped right over radar altimeters.

Erm! The FBI said there were no images of the plane on the video footage not released. Nice try - No banana.

Yes, my point exactly. Without an image of the plane they were of no value to the investigation and reverted to the possession of the original owners with privacy protection and all that. Three of the videos were of use to the investigation and were subject to the FOIA so they were released. But even if there had been no video or still pictures of the aircraft the remains of the aircraft were still inside and in front of the Pentagon, it isn't like the FBI was saying there was no plane, just no photo of the plane. It's like you are claiming that the car wrapped around a telephone pole can't be proven to be the car that hit the pole because no one caught the event before it happened in a photo. It's pure idiocy, not logic.

How about them being concerned as to whether they can control the aircraft? Would that concern these hijackers in their attempt to hit the building? At that speed there would be so much wing flutter the aircraft would be totally uncontrollable.

And yet they managed to do just that in Washington and in NY. Three times. Your objection does not survive the evidence. I don't care if they were buzzing like a chain saw and flapping like a bussard, the fact remains that the debris and bodies(or parts thereof)were found inside the Pentagon, all the serial numbers and DNA matched, so it is a FACT that a plane that took off from the ground ended up inside the Pentagon even if no photos were available. Fortunately, we have much better documentation of even the very first impact...

[video=youtube;Ys41jnL2Elk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ys41jnL2Elk[/video]

And the second one...

[video=youtube;NpUKM0MFNaM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM#t=215[/video]

Grumpy:cool:
 
I'm still waiting roscoe, for news of the revelation of a multitude of new evidence invalidating the present findings and telling the world it was an inside job......I won't hold my breath though, as your side-stepping that and other questions is quite adept.
 
roscoe said:
Have you actually seen this serial number lodged inside this MILITARY COMPLEX? Or are you making this up and merely repeating what you've been told?
Clearly, none of us were inside the Pentagon on or just after 9/11 to see or not see the evidence of the crash. We are all relying on evidence made available to us by others - mostly by the US government. It seems that you want to pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe out of the same pool of evidence, while making up stuff as you go along regardless of how it fits with the evidence. Don't try to put that shoe on anyone else's foot: only one person here is doing that stuff and it is you. As is typical with this sort of thing, that's either religion, delusion, trolling, or some combination of the three.

origin said:
roscoe said:
Jeez I'm good.
You really do believe that, don't you?
I believe it. Roscoe lives in a different world than we do, one with very different priorities and measures of success than we are used to. In his world, being banned is a badge of honor. In common with our world, roscoe is highly dedicated, tenacious and puts a significant amount of effort into his craft, all of which are virtuous. What determines good and bad is how/to what end these virtues are used. For good or bad, Roscoe is very good at getting banned for being a crackpot troll.

I read a book called "Among the Truthers" where the author gets into the world of the "truthers" and finds out who they are and what makes them tick. Typically, they are highly intelligent and otherwise seemingly normal people. The Rosanne Barr quote he posted is apt, but not quite on point:

"Intelligence looks like insanity to drooling imbeciles."

Often the insane are intelligent, but setting that minor flaw aside, the quote cuts both ways and roscoe aught to know that Rosanne has a history of mental problems. She is/was the insane one and roscoe is similarly also misusing his mirror, believing it to be a window.

Now, roscoe, here's what you need to ask yourself: what is your goal here? If you enjoy getting banned as an affirmation of the Rosanne quote, so be it, but I would think that over time that would be unfulfilling. I would think that you would have as your goal getting your message out and convincing others of its validity. If that is what you want, then you are going about it the wrong way. As I say to others with similar issues: you cannot get people to accept your message by behaving like a crackpot/troll. Moreover, the more you get banned for similar behavior, one would hope you would eventually start asking yourself if the world can really be populated by so many insane imbeciles -- maybe "they" aren't the problem, you are?
 
've deleted the last piece of utter drivel indicative of a mind that has gone into delirium. We're talking about the altimeter reading fed into the FDR and this is from the RADAR altimeter.

Proof, please.

Erm! The FBI said there were no images of the plane on the video footage not released. Nice try - No banana.

Erm! Meaning what? Where did FBI representatives say this? Did these cameras have the right angle to see the airplane crash into the Pentagon? What was their shutter speed relative to the terminal velocity of the aircraft? Would they even be able to catch it? You realise that these cameras were probably simple traffic monitoring jobs with a very slow shutter speed. This video demonstrates the exceptionally poor performance of these cameras; you will note the ridiculously bad coverage of a police vehicle moving through at 1:05, so unbelievably laggy that the major conspiracy in this tale has now become why in God's name these people are so cheap with their electronics.

How about them being concerned as to whether they can control the aircraft? Would that concern these hijackers in their attempt to hit the building? At that speed there would be so much wing flutter the aircraft would be totally uncontrollable. But hey don't ask me ask Boeing, telephone them. Go on, they need a laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4

I listened to your clip. Nothing on there about controlability. Next.

305620.gif


Please sir he's tampering with a crime scene.

So your paranoia appears to extend so far that you object with evidence collection. Let me ask you this: are we allowed to photograph the site? Or would that interfere with the synthesis of the conspiracy?

This is elaborated below:

So are they taking the wreckage off or putting it on? Perm any one from two. Perhaps you could explain why these people should feel the need to touch these pieces at all given the circumstances of what has just happened. One going one way and his compadre going in another direction.

So the direction that his (presumably) fellow officer is going is now also suspect. Let's be clear here: you object to the fact that they are picking up pieces of the aircraft - and, I should mention here, you have no idea who these people are; my expectation is that they're officials helping to collect pieces of the aircraft. That would make sense. As such, why would they not touch pieces of the aircraft? Your specific concern however is the direction that the two individuals are traveling while doing so. Because, as everyone knows, after a suicide attack on a federal building, one always picks up evidence while walking in the same direction. Jesus, we've all seen the X-Files, haven't we? Can't fool us, man.

here's another image to help you.

pentagon4.jpg

Thankyou - that image was extremely helpful. This is a flat-aspect shot of the Pentagon wall. There are no light poles here. Should there be? This is not the aspect of the plane strike, and so cannot support your hypothesis. Why have you included this photo?

pentagon3.jpg


Anyone for Tennis?

Is there a reason for this image? Please indicate in full.

And Another

pl2.jpg

You're getting closer to the angle of attack, but are now too far to the right. This is also not on the aspect of the angle of the plane strike leading up to the building. Why was this picture selected to represent your position? Did you really think this was the right angle, or were you simply repeating what you'd been told?

So we have a wheel stub.

Wasn't it you who said that the whole plane had disintegrated?

Your defense is now resting on his use of language? Wheel stubs, being quite solid compared to the hull (which is obviously what he was referring to), wouldn't be expected to disintegrate. Can you now please address the existence of the wheel stub - and other aircraft parts - in the wreckage, please.

Oh and can we have some confirmation that image came from the Pentagon or did it come from another crash? Serial number on that wheel snub please front and centre NOW!!!!

Please address your correspondence to the nearest FBI Field Office. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top