Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
Would it clear it up though?

We have millions of clips of the two planes hitting the towers, these are disputed. I've heard people claim it's cgi etc so I imagine footage from the pentagon would be labeled the same.

there might be millions of videos but there's only 2 different clips, i believe, of the planes hitting the towers and the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them, its more that they were brought down in their own footprint, in 10 seconds, in a controlled demolition, with the impact and fuel from the planes being blamed for melting the steel columns

those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts and also could have withstand a 150 year continuous storm - thats provable fact, yet they tell us a relatively small fire that burned for around an hour was enough to bring them down in 10 seconds. at the time they were the tallest buildings in the world

------------

there's cctv footage from the gas station, from the sheraton hotel and from the nearest highway to name 3 which have all been confiscated and would all without doubt clearly show flight 77's final approach and impact into the pentagon - you can't dispute footage of a crime scene which has been confiscated and withheld from the public domain
 
there might be millions of videos but there's only 2 different clips, i believe, of the planes hitting the towers and the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them, its more that they were brought down in their own footprint, in 10 seconds, in a controlled demolition, with the impact and fuel from the planes being blamed for melting the steel columns

those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts and also could have withstand a 150 year continuous storm - thats provable fact, yet they tell us a relatively small fire that burned for around an hour was enough to bring them down in 10 seconds. at the time they were the tallest buildings in the world
You don't know that, it is only in your imaginaton. That is just bollocks. Provide evidence please.

Seriously though, until you start to write like anything other than a 10 year old kid nobody is going to take you seriously. I mean, where else other than their own footprint would you expect tall buildings to fall?
 
You don't know that, it is only in your imaginaton. That is just bollocks. Provide evidence please.

Seriously though, until you start to write like anything other than a 10 year old kid nobody is going to take you seriously. I mean, where else other than their own footprint would you expect tall buildings to fall?

Outside of their own footprint?
Like if they topple over to one side when falling.
 
some or any of the 84 recordings that the FBI are holding that show footage of the pentagon that day, and are currently the subject of a freedom of information act release request by the 911 truth movement, would really without doubt clear up whether it was flight 77 that crashed into it.

the fact is they are holding all of the vital evidence relating to one of the most serious crime scenes in Americas history, and are refusing to make it available to a major movement which represent tens of thousands of their own electorate, including some of the families of people who were supposed to be on the flight, who simply do not believe flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

1. why was it all confiscated in such a rush

2. why are they refusing to release footage which would confirm what so many do not believe.

The FOI return details all of the videos, where they are from, how they were supplied and what they show. There is a huge amount of detail about all of the videos. The videos include things like personal videos made after the crash at the scene, cctv cameras that were pointed at the scene post crash, cctv cameras that are show the smoke but not the actual area of impact etc.

Only one shows the impact and that has been released.

I realise most conspiracy sites choose not to publish the details that have been released as it means another bit of their 'argument' is destroyed, but why haven't you done the simplest bit of research to find out the truth? It's not hard to find the details.
 
some or any of the 84 recordings that the FBI are holding that show footage of the pentagon that day, and are currently the subject of a freedom of information act release request by the 911 truth movement, would really without doubt clear up whether it was flight 77 that crashed into it.

the fact is they are holding all of the vital evidence relating to one of the most serious crime scenes in Americas history, and are refusing to make it available to a major movement which represent tens of thousands of their own electorate, including some of the families of people who were supposed to be on the flight, who simply do not believe flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

1. why was it all confiscated in such a rush

2. why are they refusing to release footage which would confirm what so many do not believe.
So if it wasn't flight 77, then what was it?

there might be millions of videos but there's only 2 different clips, i believe, of the planes hitting the towers and the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them, its more that they were brought down in their own footprint, in 10 seconds, in a controlled demolition, with the impact and fuel from the planes being blamed for melting the steel columns

those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts and also could have withstand a 150 year continuous storm - thats provable fact, yet they tell us a relatively small fire that burned for around an hour was enough to bring them down in 10 seconds. at the time they were the tallest buildings in the world

------------

there's cctv footage from the gas station, from the sheraton hotel and from the nearest highway to name 3 which have all been confiscated and would all without doubt clearly show flight 77's final approach and impact into the pentagon - you can't dispute footage of a crime scene which has been confiscated and withheld from the public domain
:lol:
 
there might be millions of videos but there's only 2 different clips, i believe, of the planes hitting the towers and the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them, its more that they were brought down in their own footprint, in 10 seconds, in a controlled demolition, with the impact and fuel from the planes being blamed for melting the steel columns

those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts and also could have withstand a 150 year continuous storm - thats provable fact, yet they tell us a relatively small fire that burned for around an hour was enough to bring them down in 10 seconds. at the time they were the tallest buildings in the world

------------

there's cctv footage from the gas station, from the sheraton hotel and from the nearest highway to name 3 which have all been confiscated and would all without doubt clearly show flight 77's final approach and impact into the pentagon - you can't dispute footage of a crime scene which has been confiscated and withheld from the public domain

I'd love to see that evidence. And not some hocus pocus internet ranter
 
there might be millions of videos but there's only 2 different clips, i believe, of the planes hitting the towers and the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them, its more that they were brought down in their own footprint, in 10 seconds, in a controlled demolition, with the impact and fuel from the planes being blamed for melting the steel columns

those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts and also could have withstand a 150 year continuous storm - thats provable fact, yet they tell us a relatively small fire that burned for around an hour was enough to bring them down in 10 seconds. at the time they were the tallest buildings in the world

------------

there's cctv footage from the gas station, from the sheraton hotel and from the nearest highway to name 3 which have all been confiscated and would all without doubt clearly show flight 77's final approach and impact into the pentagon - you can't dispute footage of a crime scene which has been confiscated and withheld from the public domain

We have clear video evidence of a plane smashing in to at least 1 tower, this is disputed on many websites by the ct's. My point is, I are no reason the same won't be said if we see footage of one clearly hitting the pentagon.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Bush says he saw the 1st plane hit live. He was in a classroom reading a book for the 2nd so the only live one he could've recalled had to be the 1st one hitting, the footage not being released until days afterwards.

Bush recollects watching a plane hit the towers on a tv before he joins the kids on that day and thinks pilot error (his words). He can't be talking about the 2nd one, because anyone who see's the 2nd plane hit, knows its not pilot error. Ergo he was watching some live secret feed that wasn't available to anybody else. How can that be explained away?

So in his own words....

-He watches the 1st plane hit on tv, thinks pilot error.
-Walks into the classroom, starts reading an upside down book.
-Gets whispered into the ear by the chief of staff informing of the 2nd one hitting.
-Stays there, finishes the talk with the kids and then pays attention to the attack afterwards.
 
there might be millions of videos but there's only 2 different clips, i believe, of the planes hitting the towers and the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them, its more that they were brought down in their own footprint, in 10 seconds, in a controlled demolition, with the impact and fuel from the planes being blamed for melting the steel columns

those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts and also could have withstand a 150 year continuous storm - thats provable fact, yet they tell us a relatively small fire that burned for around an hour was enough to bring them down in 10 seconds. at the time they were the tallest buildings in the world

------------

there's cctv footage from the gas station, from the sheraton hotel and from the nearest highway to name 3 which have all been confiscated and would all without doubt clearly show flight 77's final approach and impact into the pentagon - you can't dispute footage of a crime scene which has been confiscated and withheld from the public domain

"but there's only 2 different clips, I believe of planes hitting the towers" - Are you serious?? (see below)
"the main issue with the towers isn't what hit them" - Welcome to the mind of the FANCIFUL. I'd suggest the main issue is very f***ing much what hit them.


"those towers were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts" - No they weren't.

"there's cctv footage from the gas station, from the sheraton hotel" - There is indeed, I assume you've seen it, pretty crap isn't it? What did you expect?

"and would all without doubt clearly show flight 77's final approach and impact into the pentagon" - Why would it? It's very low resolution CCTV from 2001 or earlier. Why would a gas station be interested in "clearly" videoing & recording the approach to the Pentagon. Those cameras were there to do what they do at gas stations, catching people who didn't pay, shoplifters etc... NOT filming the area around it. Same with the hotel.... it shouldn't need explaining.

Even if there could have been 100 High Definition cameras around the Pentagon capturing the plane's approach and impact, you would (for reasons unknown to me) put the damage down to explosives or a missile, and not the plane.


In summary...

Logon or register to see this image









 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Bush says he saw the 1st plane hit live. He was in a classroom reading a book for the 2nd so the only live one he could've recalled had to be the 1st one hitting, the footage not being released until days afterwards.

Bush recollects watching a plane hit the towers on a tv before he joins the kids on that day and thinks pilot error (his words). He can't be talking about the 2nd one, because anyone who see's the 2nd plane hit, knows its not pilot error. Ergo he was watching some live secret feed that wasn't available to anybody else. How can that be explained away?

So in his own words....

-He watches the 1st plane hit on tv, thinks pilot error.
-Walks into the classroom, starts reading an upside down book.
-Gets whispered into the ear by the chief of staff informing of the 2nd one hitting.
-Stays there, finishes the talk with the kids and then pays attention to the attack afterwards.

To any sane observer the Guardian article would simply reinforce their already held opinion that George W Bush had difficulty distinguishing his arse from his elbow and not that he was watching 'some live secret feed'.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Bush says he saw the 1st plane hit live. He was in a classroom reading a book for the 2nd so the only live one he could've recalled had to be the 1st one hitting, the footage not being released until days afterwards.

Bush recollects watching a plane hit the towers on a tv before he joins the kids on that day and thinks pilot error (his words). He can't be talking about the 2nd one, because anyone who see's the 2nd plane hit, knows its not pilot error. Ergo he was watching some live secret feed that wasn't available to anybody else. How can that be explained away?

So in his own words....

-He watches the 1st plane hit on tv, thinks pilot error.
-Walks into the classroom, starts reading an upside down book.
-Gets whispered into the ear by the chief of staff informing of the 2nd one hitting.
-Stays there, finishes the talk with the kids and then pays attention to the attack afterwards.

Aye mate, best up your game like. You are in danger of being out-mentalled by this aukq character. :lol:
 
To any sane observer the Guardian article would simply reinforce their already held opinion that George W Bush had difficulty distinguishing his arse from his elbow and not that he was watching 'some live secret feed'.


This, this, this.

Secret live feed ffs :lol: the jumping to crazy assumptions, it's incredible.

The thing that is obvious throughout this thread is that the Conspiracy Theorists believe what they're told just as much as the people they think do just that, it's just the source that different.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Bush says he saw the 1st plane hit live. He was in a classroom reading a book for the 2nd so the only live one he could've recalled had to be the 1st one hitting, the footage not being released until days afterwards.

Bush recollects watching a plane hit the towers on a tv before he joins the kids on that day and thinks pilot error (his words). He can't be talking about the 2nd one, because anyone who see's the 2nd plane hit, knows its not pilot error. Ergo he was watching some live secret feed that wasn't available to anybody else. How can that be explained away?

So in his own words....

-He watches the 1st plane hit on tv, thinks pilot error.
-Walks into the classroom, starts reading an upside down book.
-Gets whispered into the ear by the chief of staff informing of the 2nd one hitting.
-Stays there, finishes the talk with the kids and then pays attention to the attack afterwards.

So you're now using a man famous for getting things wrong to support your argument?
 
Dr Judy Wood has long proclaimed energy weapons brought down the twin towers not that I bought into her theory but it's a video that again means I don't sit in either side if this fence just truly in it !

If you've got 10 minutes give it a watch

This is embarrassing for her ...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top