I want to know how a rookie pilot with ZERO experience in a 757 was able to fly it with such precision that he got a direct hit on the Pentagon. One that was so bad his flight instructors didn't think he would have been able to fly a Cessna 172. At more than 500mph he was able to negotiate over other low lying buildings and the interstate highway, not bounce off the ground at all in the field, and hit the side of the building perfectly. My dad spent 23 years as a fighter pilot in the military, 15 commercially flying the Tri-Star, 747-400, and new 777, with over 14,000 hours in the cockpit..... and he says there's no F'ing way.

It's been almost 10 years since the attack and everyone knows the official story. So get me the video from the hotel that had direct, unobstructed, clear, no "take the distance and measure 4x3 for scale" yadda yadda bullshit footage of the entire field and would have seen the plane hit the Pentagon. If the official story was true they would have released this footage, but they haven't. And until they do I'm not buying that a commercial jet aircraft hit it (because it's not true).

This is the footprint of a plane hitting the WTC:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...SN9ygePVdA&t=1
This is the damage at the Pentagon:
http://logicalscience.files.wordpres...1/pentagon.jpg

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.

I watched his podcast on the other page, I'd never seen it before. Loved it! I think I've agreed with everything he's had to say too.

I don't think people should get so negative though. Something that it seems gets lost, is how there has NEVER been a time that I am aware of where the average person has had so many rights, been so safe, or been so comfortable.

Conspiracy theorists sometimes make me scratch my head when they are so shocked or outraged. When has there NOT been those with power, or those who have abused their power? When has it ever been BETTER?

That said, we shouldn't all just roll over and be slaves because things are better now than they've ever been. Things can always improve.

Let's assume that there is an evil overlord society pulling strings at the top. They would be LOVING the conspiracy theorists babbling and doom and gloom. They would love people to think that they are omnipresent, and for people to fear them. They would love rumors that they're aliens, or Atlanteans or whatever the fuck.

Fact is, they would be vastly outnumbered by everybody else. Fear of them would protect them. Fearing evil helps perpetuate it :(

Fear after 9/11 was a gateway for a lot of terrible things.

Dude, where's your 'Thanks' button?

With regards to 9/11, I've always thought that if it were an inside job, the simplest way to do it would be just to hijack the fucking planes and actually crash them just like the official story.

u know how they say iraq ppl drove the plane into the twin towers, i wonder how the iraq ppl were able to pilot the plane all the way there ? , and where did they hijack the plane?

:facepalm:

Ask SkinnyPupp.

I find it absolutely bizarre that the entire left wall looks like its been sliced vertically perfectly.

The only explanation is that it was a collapse afterwards, sure, but that means the initial footprint is even smaller.

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

There appears to be wing damage there. There are over a hundred people who witnessed with their own eyes the impact and there are hundreds more who found evidence of an American Airlines jet inside and outside the pentagon as well as bodies of passengers. If nothing with wings hit the pentagon then its classed as a missile and missiles aren't designed to punch through multiple rings of a building. Their energy is spent at initial impact (which would have caused an explosion outward from the building as well) or exploding inside but nothing like that would cause the hole over 300ft from impact. I ask you how a wingless missile was capable of knocking down multiple street lamps on its path to impact, one lamp I can recall striking a taxi on the highway. And most importantly, if it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers of flight 77? Were the phone calls made, the acts of heroism, in keeping others informed of their situation, the last goodbyes to loved ones; are they all fakes?

Need further evidence that a plane's wings won't penetrate a concrete and steel reinforce building? Empire State Building in 1945: a B-25 with a 62ft6inch wing span manages to punch just an 18ft by 20ft hole through the building with one engine managing to exit through the other side of the building and travelling another block. What happened to the wings?
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9...dgcrash2kk.jpg

:facepalm:

Did you even look at the difference between the two photos?
Allow me to introduce you to decades old military technology:


They have winged, guided or controllable versions that look just like aircraft these days. They're also multi-charged and designed to punch through numerous layers of armour or bunker. I'm just going to assume you've never heard of depleted uranium either.

Your B25 comparison is brutal. A B25 made of aluminum traveling at a MAXIMUM of 285mph will of course not do anything near the damage of a steel and titanium constructed jet liner traveling at over 500mph. The mass and speeds are unbelievably different so this is not even close to a credible argument. It's also a hypocritical one from you, because if you actually believed this you would know that the B25 incident is why the WTC was constructed to withstand much heavier and faster aircraft hits. Yet you say these hits were enough to bring down the entire structures. Right.

I'm not going to argue every little detail of the incident with you, but having been surrounded by both the military and commercial airline industry for more than 25 years there is no way you're going to convince me Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

the most coincidental part about 9/11 is that norad was running war games exactly at the time of execution, you'd think the us would be secure at all times

how convenient for terrorists

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-3235p-020.jpg

I see no evidence of:

-Rolls Royce Engines
-Fuselage

-Anything resembling plane garbage. ie:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200903/r352229_1616419.jpg

what of the over 100 witnesses, a number of them having a militiary/aviation background who saw a commercial jet strike the pentagon. What of the passengers on Flight 77 who made phone calls, giving updates and last goodbyes to loved ones? You are correct, a missile can do some of the damage that was done to the pentagon but it was also proven that an aluminum plane can penetrate a concrete and steel structure and continue out the other side of a building.
http://www.truthnews.com.au/storage/...n/wreckage.jpg

Most commercial airliners flying today and more so 9 years ago were constructed of aluminum not steel or titanium. Yes the mass and speeds of Flight 77 and the B-25 were different but so were the buildings they struck. The Empire State Building was build of concrete and steel to the standards of the 1920's. The Pentagon: "It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out."

As to the B-25 crash somehow making an argument that planes should not have been able to do the damage they did to the WTC towers - I never claimed the impacts alone brought down the buildings and the evidence agrees with me. The B-25 was low on fuel, lost in fog trying to find a place to land. An engine from the plane continued on through the building and traveled another block. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were deliberately flown into steel buildings at high speeds and loaded with fuel, taking out key columns It has already been shown that concrete and steel react differently to impacts and fire than what occurs in a steel structure alone. The resulting fires from the jet fuel as well as the office furniture contributed much more to the collapse than the initial impacts.

this was already posted before but apparently you didn't watch it. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4?blend=2&ob=1#p/u/43/YTNRkb7AaQk

Aren't you in the process of trying to become a fighter pilot with aspirations of getting into the F35? I sure hope the military conducts thorough testing on their candidates so that a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in simple logic gets to take the controls of a $100mil jet fighter.

Wow, so anyone who thinks different is now a nutjob? You're a fuckin idiot buddy and you need to pipe the fuck down.

or one with such an aviation background who believes the majority of commercial jets in use today are constructed of steel and titanium rather than aluminum which even someone with zero background can distinguish.

So you use as an example a picture of a plane that catches fire after overshooting a runway to a plane that smashes into the ground/building? Typical apples to oranges comparison of a truther.

Wikipedia has a nice page listing all the major commercial airline crashes. You can find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rcial_aircraft


Here's a picture of a similarly sized plane, an Airbus 321 that slammed into the side of a hill. Where did all the wreckage disappear to?

If you sift through the cases from the Wikipedia site and look at aircraft that have crashed by overshooting or made emergency landings, they look like the picture you provided - the plane suffered damage from fire, not from impact. You look at pictures at planes that crashed into the side of a hill or large structure you will see lots of examples of planes with very little left to identify.


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/imag...h103134524.jpg

Thankfully in Canada everyone is entitled to an opinion and to voice it as they wish, that is a freedom I wish to defend. I'm not making any wild accusations I'm just stating my opinion on what I think did (or did not happen). The official story used to be that the world was flat, but not everyone chose to believe it...

Oh, poor poor baby. Did I make you angry?


I don't want my tax dollars going to train people who believe in fairy tales or who claim to be scientific but ignore evidence that's right in front of their eyes. This is not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of physical evidence.

I meant steel and titanium components but failed to make that point more clear. Anyways, carry on nitpicking...

didnt the architects of the wtc say the towers can withstand more than 1 airplane hits

Frank De Martini once said he "believed" the towers could withstand multiple hits but that wasn't a tested or calculated theory. He was speaking of a scenario in which a 707, empty of fuel and flying at low speeds trying to land at LaGuardia or Newark, would unintentionally crash into a tower. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were slightly bigger planes, full of fuel, flying at much higher speeds than a plane looking to land. The increased energy factor of the 2 impacts as well as the fully loaded fuel tanks were not factored in the initial construction nor Frank DeMartini's beliefs. Despite the increased impact energy, the two WTC towers did manage to absorb the impact of the planes as evidence of their remaining upright for nearly an hour after impact. But adding the resulting fires, which were not factored into calculations, weakened the remaining steel columns causing collapse.

How do you know the hijacker was a rookie pilot who couldn't fly a Cessna 172? Nobody identified Hani Hanjour as being the pilot of the plane - they only say he was one of five hijackers that attended school in the US and was seeking to become a pilot.

That's like saying they filmed one of the hijackers buying a swiss army knife so he was the only one armed on the flight. Can you imagine the hijackers sitting around getting ready and the leader asks "OK, who's got the knife" and they say "Larry was in charge of bringing the knife, but they made him check it in his baggage".

Common sense would dictate that they all brought knives/weapons just in case one or more would have been forced to check it. Likewise, it makes sense that more than one of them was a pilot in case during the struggle one of them was injured. For all we know, Hani Hanjour could have been the backup pilot and was trying to brush up before the hijcaking (he tried to rent the Cessna only weeks before 9/11).