9/11 was an inside job

[roscoe]

Just noticed this.

People splatter. Seats don't. But since you insist:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

Please indicate that

1) The pictures are from the Pentagon and

2) They are Airplane passengers and not Pentagon Employees.

And if you manage that then continue on and provide evidence that Arab hijackers were on board this plane.

on yer go..........

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health-july-dec01-forensics/

Yes they were identifying Pentagon employees.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/#parts

You've really never seen photos of the human remains before?

Yes yes yes very nice very pretty. Which cup is the bullet under etc etc etc.

SHOW ME THE DAMN PLANE???????????????

And who are all thos people running around tampering with a crime scene?

Now, have you googled for the photos of the seats yet or not?



Because of all the other pictures of airliner parts? :shrugs:

Which Airliner? Since American Airlines 77 NEVER TOOK OFF THAT DAY.

And may I remind you that of the 64 CCTV videos confiscated by the FBI immediately after the Pentagon Incident, none of them show a plane and only three of them show an explosion. Isn't it annoying when someone like me lays this undeniable FACT on you.

Because the Pentagon has better structural integrity than a couple of high-rises?

NO S___T SHERLOCK?

Where's the plane? Or do you see a fluffy Pink Bunny Rabbit as well?

Is that a turbofan part in front?

You still didn't answer my question:

You know sometimes I wonder why bother casting pearls before swine.

IT'S A BLOODY CABLE REEL.

The cable reel to the right of this didn't get knocked over by your "AIRLINER". You can see it upright halfway into the yellow box shown above where you say the planes wing went. Followed by the Fluffy Pink Bunny Rabbit called HARVEY. THERE THERE!!!!! NURSE????? WE'VE GOT ONE OVER HERE SEEING THINGS.

ROFLMAO

It's not funny it's tragic

 

[GeoffP]

It misses the light poles old chum.

Neither angle is significantly deviant from the other. Impact site in front of the Pentagon is essentially the same for both lines. What is the point of this direction in the argument? The differences are clearly meaningless.

 

[GeoffP]

Nicely avoided the main point.

AT SEA LEVEL - The AIR IS TOO DENSE.

Prove it, old chum.

2) if it did go that speed the plane would have so much wing flutter it would be uncontrollable for a seasoned pilot let alone Hani Hanjor whom the flight school said could barely fly a Cessna.

VNE exceeds this speed, so you'll have to demonstrate that it occurs in this special case, so to speak.

I'm sorry, but this line of argument is fruitless. It's been shot down already.

 

[GeoffP]

China Air Flight 006

Exceeded VNE.

Did it? This is a case with massive changes in air pressure and altitude. Why do you think this is equivalent? Where was the aircraft built?

 

[roscoe]

Neither angle is significantly deviant from the other. Impact site in front of the Pentagon is essentially the same for both lines. What is the point of this direction in the argument? The differences are clearly meaningless.

Oh boy you're hard work.

THE LIGHT POLES

 

[roscoe]

Did it? This is a case with massive changes in air pressure and altitude. Why do you think this is equivalent? Where was the aircraft built?

Because it wouldn't be controllable at 12 meters above the ground, either for a seasoned pilot or Hani Hanjour who couldn't fly a Cessna.

 

[GeoffP]

What about the plane that overflew the Pentagon and landed at Reagan International?

What about the cops that saw the impact,and didn't see any other aircraft?

By the way if you watch the cops interview again they cannot see all of the Pentagon from where they were.

Oh, so now they don't support you, you think they can't see the impact site. They can, quite clearly, since the photographer taking the video can see it. Done.

I just ignored the remainder of the post since it was a jumble of semi-factoids. If you want to debate issues, we'll go one at a time. Which one did you want to discuss now? Keep in mind the cop witnesses who saw the plane impact and saw no other aircraft; the shop attendants also saw no other aircraft. You'll also have to keep in mind the fact that the angle changes between the direction as indicated by the witnesses you brought up and that of the supposedly "official story" - and I have seen no support that this angle is, indeed, the "official story" - is trivial.

 

[roscoe]

Prove it, old chum.

What would you like me to do? Take you up in a plane or repeat the numerous Youtube clips that you haven't bothered your arse to watch?

VNE exceeds this speed, so you'll have to demonstrate that it occurs in this special case, so to speak.

I'm sorry, but this line of argument is fruitless. It's been shot down already.

Only been "shot down" by someone who is too terrified of watch the goddam youtube clips I've posted.

You're just a time waster but you're useful because while ever you respond to me you keep bumping up this thread to the top of the list.

 

[GeoffP]

Because there were fighters in the air one hour after the first hijack.

Since you did not object to my point, I must conclude that you, like the other hack, think that a missile or bomb struck the Pentagon. Your linked video supports my assumption that this is indeed your stance. Your argument above does not explain why a missile would have been used instead of an actual aircraft, which they managed for the Twin Towers - twice.

Although someone called GIANT KILLER on the NEADS telephone omnibus system sent these fighters (from Langley) into the Whiskey 86 area. The Atlantic Ocean. Thus ensuring the Pentagon bogey was never intercepted. Only four fighters were defending the NEADS sector as everything else was sent away on an exercise. This despite several warnings that there may be possible hijacks being planned.

This is entirely senseless.

This section of the Pentagon had to be hit because this is where the details of the $2.3 trillion budget deficit (announced by Rumsfeld on Sept 10) was being kept.

I see. Even assuming that this assertion is correct - and I have seen no proof that it is - are you implying that the paper budget printout was somehow immune to paper shredders and fire?

 

[GeoffP]

Oh boy you're hard work.

THE LIGHT POLES

The flight path covers almost exactly the same area. There is no substantial difference. Indicate exact pole positions and we'll see.

 

[roscoe]

What about the cops that saw the impact,and didn't see any other aircraft?

The cops didn't see the impact they saw the flyover and the explosion and in their minds put the two together.

Oh, so now they don't support you, you think they can't see the impact site. They can, quite clearly, since the photographer taking the video can see it. Done.

I just ignored the remainder of the post since it was a jumble of semi-factoids. If you want to debate issues, we'll go one at a time. Which one did you want to discuss now? Keep in mind the cop witnesses who saw the plane impact and saw no other aircraft; the shop attendants also saw no other aircraft. You'll also have to keep in mind the fact that the angle changes between the direction as indicated by the witnesses you brought up and that of the supposedly "official story" - and I have seen no support that this angle is, indeed, the "official story" - is trivial.

You're becoming tiresome.

Here's another semi factoid.

WHERE'S THE GODDAM PLANE?

 

[GeoffP]

What would you like me to do? Take you up in a plane or repeat the numerous Youtube clips that you haven't bothered your arse to watch?

I've already watched three clips from you and your friend now. I'll willing to bet you didn't check out my link, did you, even after I asked you to. Seems hypocritical to me, chum.

Only been "shot down" by someone who is too terrified of watch the goddam youtube clips I've posted.

It's gone, chief. VNE is actually above this speed. Let it go.

You're just a time waster but you're useful because while ever you respond to me you keep bumping up this thread to the top of the list.

Works for me. You're losing.

 

[GeoffP]

The cops didn't see the impact they saw the flyover and the explosion and in their minds put the two together.

That appears, objectively, to be a lie. The cops can see the site from where they were standing. The videographer can see the site from where they were standing. Done.

You're becoming tiresome.

Aw. Hey, did you happen to notice the multiple sources posted to you now that indicate how a plane folds up on impact with things? Where's your goddamn objectivity?

 

[roscoe]

Since you did not object to my point, I must conclude that you, like the other hack, think that a missile or bomb struck the Pentagon. Your linked video supports my assumption that this is indeed your stance. Your argument above does not explain why a missile would have been used instead of an actual aircraft, which they managed for the Twin Towers - twice.

This is entirely senseless.

I have absolutely and utterly no idea what happened to the Pentagon all I KNOW is that the official story is a complete load of Bull and a new inquiry is needed.

How's that for sense?

I see. Even assuming that this assertion is correct - and I have seen no proof that it is - are you implying that the paper budget printout was somehow immune to paper shredders and fire?

You want me to guess? Why should I do that?

The official data released does not fit the official story.

 

[GeoffP]

Here's something else for you to watch.

No. No more videos, no more concessions from me until the points you've already posted are done. Moreover, I expect reciprocity regarding stuff I post. There's a bit more reading involved for you, sure: but I bet you can handle it.

 

[roscoe]

That appears, objectively, to be a lie. The cops can see the site from where they were standing. The videographer can see the site from where they were standing. Done.

Yes but the cops story fits the Flight Data Recorder data. Your problem is that the light poles will now be missed.

Aw. Hey, did you happen to notice the multiple sources posted to you now that indicate how a plane folds up on impact with things? Where's your goddamn objectivity?

My objectivity. Look chum. You are sanctioning the invasion of two sovereign countries neither of whom had anything to do with 911. You sanction blowing the arms legs off kids and our own service men and women. And you ask ME where's MY objectivity.

Where's your F_____IN PROOF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8

 

[GeoffP]

I have absolutely and utterly no idea what happened to the Pentagon all I KNOW is that the official story is a complete load of Bull and a new inquiry is needed.

How's that for sense?

Not too good. None of your evidence so far is holding up, and I keep using it to weaken your argument. You don't know why they would take such an absurd step, which underscores the problems in your tale.

You want me to guess? Why should I do that?

I want you to give me a reason that a plane should have been crashed into the building instead of just, you know, shredding the sekrit sekrit papers. Were they made of super-paper?

The official data released does not fit the official story.

Why do you think so?

 

[GeoffP]

Yes but the cops story fits the Flight Data Recorder data. Your problem is that the light poles will now be missed.

Haven't the foggiest what you mean here. So the cops could see the Pentagon and their testimony is that the plane hit it; seems pretty clear to me that you get that too. I think we can call that point concluded.

My objectivity. Look chum. You are sanctioning the invasion of two sovereign countries neither of whom had anything to do with 911. You sanction blowing the arms legs off kids and our own service men and women.

Uh... I am?? How's that, exactly? Bit of a leap there.

Where's your F_____IN PROOF?

Where's yours? All this 'analysis', all this compelling information... and it keeps letting the movement down.

 

[roscoe]

No. No more videos, no more concessions from me until the points you've already posted are done. Moreover, I expect reciprocity regarding stuff I post. There's a bit more reading involved for you, sure: but I bet you can handle it.

Wassup? Scared you'll see something you can't handle?

 

[GeoffP]

Right. Well, all this has, appropriately, inspired me to need to visit the bathroom.

Tell you what: post one new element to this story and I'll review it later.