Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
lol. sorry have america not got any of them like? or some other kind of explosion - what is undeniable is a 16ft hole in a wall is more consistant with a missile damage than a jumbo jet hitting it - how can, how can you, anyone not possibly question this?

So... Flight 77, a 757 was tracked all the way towards the pentagon, the vast majority of eyewitnesses saw a commercial plane hit, bits of plane were found at the site, along with bodies, the flight and all its passengers are missing... But... But the hole isn't the way you'd expect so it was a missile? (Which I presume was dressed up to look like a plane)?

I vaguely remember controversy over the engine or parts of it, rememebr watching a video where some rolls royce employee (or similar) said that they engine was not a rolls one as claimed... a quick google brought this up.

Its all a bit convienent like the fella who found cockpit wreckage also claiming to have found religious artifacts belonging to the hijackers in the debri...

There are other sites with experts saying those engines are what you'd find on a commercial jet. So that kind if makes that debate evens.
 
So on one hand you're saying they needed a missile to cause damage to such a solid building, then on the other question why there isn't a bigger hole? Haway man.

thats contradictory, the 16ft hole is consistent to cruise missile damage

a jumbo jet impacting the same place would have left a damage footprint completely different, not to mention wreckage everywhere
 
So... Flight 77, a 757 was tracked all the way towards the pentagon, the vast majority of eyewitnesses saw a commercial plane hit, bits of plane were found at the site, along with bodies, the flight and all its passengers are missing... But... But the hole isn't the way you'd expect so it was a missile? (Which I presume was dressed up to look like a plane)?



There are other sites with experts saying those engines are what you'd find on a commercial jet. So that kind if makes that debate evens.

Ok, but the debate on that point is not if they are from a commercial jet, but if they are from THE commercial jet that was supposed to have hit the building - or were they from a similar commercial jet, but someone made a mistake when picking engines to plant and got the wrong model....

Yes the people not to placate a small number of conspiracy theorists.

This was 13y ago of course so digital hd simply didn't exist
fair point, although the military might have had access to such technology back then, you would epect the pentagon to have the best available tech.
 
thats contradictory, the 16ft hole is consistent to cruise missile damage

a jumbo jet impacting the same place would have left a damage footprint completely different, not to mention wreckage everywhere

That's my point. A 757 wouldn't leave an outline if a plane on a building like pentagon. So why you expect to see one I really don't know.

Did the missile have landing gear? Seats? Engines? All which were photographed at the crash site.
 
So... Flight 77, a 757 was tracked all the way towards the pentagon, the vast majority of eyewitnesses source's saw a commercial plane hit, bits of plane were found at the site, bits you could have picked up, uncharred and carried away along with bodies, the flight and all its passengers are missing... But... But the hole isn't the way you'd expect so it was a missile? (Which I presume you presume incorrectly was dressed up to look like a plane)



There are other sites with experts saying those engines are what you'd find on a commercial jet but i thought the engines were vaporised on impact, they certainly didn't make a damage footprint on the front of the building??. So that kind if makes that debate evens.

you know what my views are I'm not going to keep repeating them
 
Last edited:
Ok, but the debate on that point is not if they are from a commercial jet, but if they are from THE commercial jet that was supposed to have hit the building - or were they from a similar commercial jet, but someone made a mistake when picking engines to plant and got the wrong model....


fair point, although the military might have had access to such technology back then, you would epect the pentagon to have the best available tech.

Haway man, so all the planning that went into the entire attack and they got wrong engines to plant? :lol:

Ok, but the debate on that point is not if they are from a commercial jet, but if they are from THE commercial jet that was supposed to have hit the building - or were they from a similar commercial jet, but someone made a mistake when picking engines to plant and got the wrong model....


fair point, although the military might have had access to such technology back then, you would epect the pentagon to have the best available tech.

Was it a plane or a missile? Cos the doubters are saying different things here!
 
That's my point. A 757 wouldn't leave an outline if a plane on a building like pentagon. So why you expect to see one I really don't know.

Did the missile have landing gear? Seats? Engines? All which were photographed at the crash site.

wouldn't leave an outline? what on earth...

that is complete and utter ill informed nonsense how dare you!
 
Told ya. Apparently they are all liars.

Loads more liars here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html (Some duplicated from previous link)

Incidentally it also includes the full quote where this came from...

"the speed, manoeuvrability, the way that he turned, we all thought, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that is was a military plane"

Danielle O'Brien, ATC, Dulles International Airport
interview with ABC news sept 14 2001

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

How odd, that hijackers would fly a plane which they were intending to crash in an unsafe manner. Even odder that the crucial last part of the quote was missing from the post. Must have been an oversight.
 
Haway man, so all the planning that went into the entire attack and they got wrong engines to plant? :lol:



Was it a plane or a missile? Cos the doubters are saying different things here!

Billions of pounds of military hardware, millions of pounds of training - and the USA troops cannot tell the difference between a cameraman and a terrorist with a RPG.
Mistakes happen.

Its not beyond governents to do false flag stuff, germans did it - even planting dead bodies in uniforms etc during the gleiwitz incident.
 
Ok, but the debate on that point is not if they are from a commercial jet, but if they are from THE commercial jet that was supposed to have hit the building - or were they from a similar commercial jet, but someone made a mistake when picking engines to plant and got the wrong model....


fair point, although the military might have had access to such technology back then, you would epect the pentagon to have the best available tech.

plus how did they manage to get through that 16ft hole and into the inside of the pentagon - guess ill just have to accept the official version of events and forget about the whole thing, sorry all
 
So... Flight 77, a 757 was tracked all the way towards the pentagon, the vast majority of eyewitnesses saw a commercial plane hit, bits of plane were found at the site, along with bodies, the flight and all its passengers are missing... But... But the hole isn't the way you'd expect so it was a missile? (Which I presume was dressed up to look like a plane)?



There are other sites with experts saying those engines are what you'd find on a commercial jet. So that kind if makes that debate evens.

The engines at the pentagon were not engines that would have been found on a 757 though...

They are from a commercial jet, just not a 757.
 
[QUOTE="dangermows, post: 18835004, member: 15596"
Was it a plane or a missile? Cos the doubters are saying different things here![/QUOTE]

I have no idea if it was a plane, missile or exploding pizza delivery truck.
Just keeping an open mind and questioning the evidence or lack off.
 
Loads more liars here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html (Some duplicated from previous link)

Incidentally it also includes the full quote where this came from...



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

How odd, that hijackers would fly a plane which they were intending to crash in an unsafe manner. Even odder that the crucial last part of the quote was missing from the post. Must have been an oversight.

The bit in bold is used by the doubters to suggest it therefore couldn't have been a commercial plane :lol:
 
The "16ft hole" nonsense...

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.


And here's another liar...

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
 
[QUOTE="dangermows, post: 18835004, member: 15596"
Was it a plane or a missile? Cos the doubters are saying different things here!

I have no idea if it was a plane, missile or exploding pizza delivery truck.
Just keeping an open mind and questioning the evidence or lack off.[/QUOTE]

Right. Look at the evidence for it being flight 77 and then compare it to the evidence for it being another type plane or missile. Those who are logical will draw a fairly obvious conclusion.
 
Loads more liars here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html (Some duplicated from previous link)

Incidentally it also includes the full quote where this came from...



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

How odd, that hijackers would fly a plane which they were intending to crash in an unsafe manner. Even odder that the crucial last part of the quote was missing from the post. Must have been an oversight.

I read that and chuckled once I realised what was left out when quoted earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top