Did you take time to actually read through the supportive evidence in this string and consider all the scientific testimony ...facts that clearly refute the official "government" report?
Or is it just easier for you to accept what a corrupt government tells you to do and how to think?
I have already provided mountains of evidence ...facts which were carefully researched and compiled by others ...you however have only provided criticism of me.
Notepad, your mountains of evidence. Where are they? Name one irrefutable piece of evidence?
I think you folks need a lesson in critical thought. You should never draw inferences from statements which you have not critically examined first. Your readilness to accept those statements as fact shows an inability or unwillingness to think critically.
For example, the statement that the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, but a missile. You draw this conclusion in spite of eye witness accounts of a jet hitting the Pentagon, and in spite of wreckage found at the scene.
I found it amusing that in the video, the commentaor, or "911 researcher" as you say, pointed out that it could not be the jet in question because a piece of wreckage he saw in the footage appeared to be a jet engine smaller than the jet engine used on the jet which crashed into the the Pentagon.
See the level of assumption involved? He assumed it was a jet engine. He assumed it was not the same size engine that was used on the jet that crashed. He assumed that this proved that no jet crashed into the Pentagon. A lot of extremely irresponsible assuming.
Yes I did watch it. I see a common trait in several of these wild theories. It is the statement of a fact, and then the drawing of a conclusion which is entirely not supported by the fact.
For example, the inference that the Gov't was complicit in the attacks because we failed to shoot the airliners down. I mean, are you people on crack? Since when did we murder hundreds of innocent civilians whenever a plane was hijacked?? To even suggest that we shoot down the airlines indicates a total absence of moral compunction.
And that the crux of the issue. The drawing of rediculous conclusion not based on the facts at hand. It's entirely irresponsible. I'd hate to see you on a jury. You seem ready to convict on nothing more than emotional charged, partisan rhetoric.
Nice of you to respond ...albeit your deduction is shrouded in some sort of blind prejudice.
Why do you only blame, criticize and condemn? ...I'm trying to understand you ...is that basically your nature and how you relate in all your affairs, both public and private?
Instead of categorizing me and anyone else seeking the truth about 911 as being immoral, emotional, wild drug addicts on crack, why can't you just zero in on at least one inconsistency (as you see it) and tell us why you think it's incorrect.
Notepad, your mountains of evidence. Where are they? Name one irrefutable piece of evidence?
I think you folks need a lesson in critical thought. You should never draw inferences from statements which you have not critically examined first. Your readilness to accept those statements as fact shows an inability or unwillingness to think critically.
For example, the statement that the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, but a missile. You draw this conclusion in spite of eye witness accounts of a jet hitting the Pentagon, and in spite of wreckage found at the scene.
I found it amusing that in the video, the commentaor, or "911 researcher" as you say, pointed out that it could not be the jet in question because a piece of wreckage he saw in the footage appeared to be a jet engine smaller than the jet engine used on the jet which crashed into the the Pentagon.
See the level of assumption involved? He assumed it was a jet engine. He assumed it was not the same size engine that was used on the jet that crashed. He assumed that this proved that no jet crashed into the Pentagon. A lot of extremely irresponsible assuming.
Answer those points Notepad, or don't post in this thread again. Point after point has been raised, and you refuse to answer them. Either you don't believe your own propoganda and are just jerking us around, or you have some brilliant reply. Post the reply or drop it.
For example, the statement that the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, but a missile. You draw this conclusion in spite of eye witness accounts of a jet hitting the Pentagon, and in spite of wreckage found at the scene.
It may have been in that video or another I saw but there is securty footage from a few places, one of them being from a BP. Within hours of the incident they were all confiscated by the government but there were a few captures that showed the "airliner" to be flying extremely low. And appearing to be extremely small for the size aircraft. An interesting note is that this "airliner" didn't create too much drag on the areas surrounding that it would have passed through. IE: telephone poles, cars, etc weren't affected or if they were it wasn't in proportion to the size of the plane and the amount of disturbance that should have been cause. Is this evidence that it wasn't a plane? of course not, but its reason to question whether it is or not, and may lead some to believe the answer to that question is an absolute yes this was a plane and some an absolute no it couldn't have possibly been the plane.
maybe drag isn't the right word... but when an airplane goes by something it creates a windforce behind it that pulls things toward the path its on. An airliner of that size and speed at that low of an altitude should've caused damage to many things on the way to the building even if it did'nt hit them.
It was stated in the film that the pentagon has video of what hit the pentagon, but they refuse to release it.
This is not good.
Why? I was in Yokota AFB when it was car-bombed, and they don't release details. The deny damage, because they don't want to give any tips for ideas for any future would be car-bombers.
And I agree certain things can't be public to reduce panic and mass hysteria. But what happens is when enough is witheld there is nothing to base an opinion on. So that's all we have is opinions, although some of those opinion come from those who may know all the facts, maybe they have to mask their opinion for the point of masking those facts? Many people dislike our government, or whateva... but isn't it all for the greater good? I mean after all the the purpose of a government.
Notepad, your mountains of evidence. Where are they? Name one irrefutable piece of evidence?
I think you folks need a lesson in critical thought. You should never draw inferences from statements which you have not critically examined first. Your readilness to accept those statements as fact shows an inability or unwillingness to think critically.
For example, the statement that the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, but a missile. You draw this conclusion in spite of eye witness accounts of a jet hitting the Pentagon, and in spite of wreckage found at the scene.
I found it amusing that in the video, the commentaor, or "911 researcher" as you say, pointed out that it could not be the jet in question because a piece of wreckage he saw in the footage appeared to be a jet engine smaller than the jet engine used on the jet which crashed into the the Pentagon.
See the level of assumption involved? He assumed it was a jet engine. He assumed it was not the same size engine that was used on the jet that crashed. He assumed that this proved that no jet crashed into the Pentagon. A lot of extremely irresponsible assuming.
1 - Name one irrefutable piece of evidence? - exactly, about what?
2 - jet in question [at the pentagon] - jet would be too big to fit the damage
3 - jet engine smaller than the jet engine [purportedly] used - engine part shown has little in common with those of the much larger Pratt and Whitney turbofan used on Boeing 757
4 - no jet crashed into the Pentagon - how could an exit hole this small be attributed to a 757?
Why? I was in Yokota AFB when it was car-bombed, and they don't release details. The deny damage, because they don't want to give any tips for ideas for any future would be car-bombers.
I would accept the word of a few carefully chosen neutral observers of the film, without any details, only that of simply whether or not it was what the pentagon and our government claims that it was, a 757.
1 - Name one irrefutable piece of evidence? - exactly, about what?
Where we not talking about your 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by notepad
2 - jet in question [at the pentagon] - jet would be too big to fit the damage
3 - jet engine smaller than the jet engine [purportedly] used - engine part shown has little in common with those of the much larger Pratt and Whitney turbofan used on Boeing 757
4 - no jet crashed into the Pentagon - how could an exit hole this small be attributed to a 757?
Looks about right. The fuselage from the wings forward would absorb 99% of the impact, and the jet is made of a lot lighter-weight material than the Pentagon walls, so it's about what I'd expect.
And you sure seem ready to accept that that is a piece of a jet engine, and it appears you want to state you know exactly which jet engine and which part of that engine. Probably shouldn't be assuming all that from one video capture.
Where we not talking about your 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Looks about right. The fuselage from the wings forward would absorb 99% of the impact, and the jet is made of a lot lighter-weight material than the Pentagon walls, so it's about what I'd expect.
And you sure seem ready to accept that that is a piece of a jet engine, and it appears you want to state you know exactly which jet engine and which part of that engine. Probably shouldn't be assuming all that from one video capture.
Maybe I'm just not as convinced as you John ...the government claims the plane which hit the Pentagon disintegrated on impact and that's why there was no wreckage found outside the building ...no seats, no luggage, no airplane parts and no people.
Yet a few hours later, all bodies reportedly on the planes had mysteriously appeared at a military base ...all except for one.
How could the plane vaporize into thin air, but not the people?
Why were there no airliner victims seen being recovered from the Pentagon?
Also, aluminum when vaporized is extremely toxic and deadly ...aluminum vaporization would have required several blocks being sealed off to avoid additional casualties ...which never happened.
- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:
- The building stays up. A steel reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong.
- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.
- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.
- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame.
- The fire in the second building goes out.
- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings.
- The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.
In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition — because that's what it is.
- The first tower hit collapses in a similar demolition wave.
There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence.
First watch this video (a wmv file) of a controlled demolition, and observe clouds of debris ejected horizontally by explosions placed at several levels in the building to be demolished.
Maybe I'm just not as convinced as you John ...the government claims the plane which hit the Pentagon disintegrated on impact and that's why there was no wreckage found outside the building ...no seats, no luggage, no airplane parts and no people.
I saw airplane parts in the video of the Pentagon on your own website? Let's not skew the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notepad
Yet a few hours later, all bodies reportedly on the planes had mysteriously appeared at a military base ...all except for one.
How could the plane vaporize into thin air, but not the people?
The airplane did not vaporize into thin air - some parts were seen on your own website. I would be surprised if the bodies were really recovered in tact. Maybe body parts, but usually in airplane crashes like that there is very little left over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notepad
Why were there no airliner victims seen being recovered from the Pentagon?
Just because you didn't see them recovered doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notepad
Also, aluminum when vaporized is extremely toxic and deadly
