Home          Evidence       Strategy       FAQ       Report       News       Contact

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you


Pages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4]  ( Go to first unread post )

 G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon, mathematical proof of deception
Stefan
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 11:16 AM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 208
Member No.: 1,070
Joined: 19-August 09



Harry,
I personally do speculate - I did speculate above - I said the reason I guess they could not have the plane hit the building, but it is not necessary. It is just for conversations sake.

If the plane is proved to be on the north path, which it is, it did not cause the directional damage to the Pentgaon, or knock the light poles down.

That is proof positive of an inside job... which is exactly why this research is being attacked so incessantly.
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 12:41 PM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



QUOTE
Real planes don't disintegrate on impact,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqE11axi0eg


Harry, do you actually know what that crash test was designed to explore?

QUOTE
Testing new material that will protect against nuclear blast an old military jet is flown into a wall to see how it stands up.


Totally irrelevant, sorry.
Top
Stefan
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 01:25 PM


Citizen Researcher


Group: Friends
Posts: 208
Member No.: 1,070
Joined: 19-August 09



As I was pointing out in a post that might have been missed as it was on the bottom of the last page - the main feature of that wall was that it was in a foundation that allowed it to give with pressure - you can see it if you watch the video carefully - as the plane impacts against it it moves backwards, absorbing the impact and not breaking.

It is utterly incredible how so many moronic believers in a plane crash at the Pentagon bank it all on a video clip they never bothered to listen to the commentary of or even watch properly.

It's actually quite sad.
Top
Bitterman
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 02:36 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 38
Member No.: 9
Joined: 11-December 07



We're the most ignorant and manipulated species on the planet.

That is very sad. Look how long it has been. Like it isn't obvious enough.
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 02:50 PM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



QUOTE (Stefan @ Sep 10 2010, 01:25 PM)
As I was pointing out in a post that might have been missed as it was on the bottom of the last page - the main feature of that wall was that it was in a foundation that allowed it to give with pressure - you can see it if you watch the video carefully - as the plane impacts against it it moves backwards, absorbing the impact and not breaking.

It is utterly incredible how so many moronic believers in a plane crash at the Pentagon bank it all on a video clip they never bothered to listen to the commentary of or even watch properly.

It's actually quite sad.

thumbsup.gif

So Harry, have you looked through the research forums, witness videos and Pilotsfor911Truth site?

There are no short cuts I'm afraid.
Top
A. Marquis
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 03:15 PM


A Regular Jim Garrison


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,523
Member No.: 2
Joined: 31-August 07



QUOTE (Stefan @ Sep 10 2010, 09:25 PM)
As I was pointing out in a post that might have been missed as it was on the bottom of the last page - the main feature of that wall was that it was in a foundation that allowed it to give with pressure - you can see it if you watch the video carefully - as the plane impacts against it it moves backwards, absorbing the impact and not breaking.

It is utterly incredible how so many moronic believers in a plane crash at the Pentagon bank it all on a video clip they never bothered to listen to the commentary of or even watch properly.

It's actually quite sad.

Not only that, but they want it both ways. They want the plane to explode on the outside into confetti while simultaneously believing or wanting you to believe that it entered the building leaving the "nose section" related pieces like the landing gear and wheel rim up at the C-Ring hole.
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Sep 10 2010, 06:22 PM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



QUOTE (A. Marquis @ Sep 10 2010, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE (Stefan @ Sep 10 2010, 09:25 PM)
As I was pointing out in a post that might have been missed as it was on the bottom of the last page - the main feature of that wall was that it was in a foundation that allowed it to give with pressure - you can see it if you watch the video carefully - as the plane impacts against it it moves backwards, absorbing the impact and not breaking.

It is utterly incredible how so many moronic believers in a plane crash at the Pentagon bank it all on a video clip they never bothered to listen to the commentary of or even watch properly.

It's actually quite sad.

Not only that, but they want it both ways. They want the plane to explode on the outside into confetti while simultaneously believing or wanting you to believe that it entered the building leaving the "nose section" related pieces like the landing gear and wheel rim up at the C-Ring hole.

Yeah, then deny that the DNA placement at C Ring had to have been planted if ths were the case.

They can bs about "planebombs", directional explosives and "impact", but they can't explain how the plane was deflected through to C Ring , along with the majority of "DNA".

It's f*king ridiculous man.
Worse thing for me is that these people are allegedly adults trying to push this shit.
The same people who are allegedly in the "driving seat" within 9/11 information sites.

Sick.
Top
Harry_B
Posted: Sep 11 2010, 03:03 AM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 60
Member No.: 1,177
Joined: 19-August 10



QUOTE
Harry, did you listen to the audio of that video?

The plane disintegrates because the wall is designed to give way on impact,

Stefan, now I listened closely to it: "But the wall, designed to move and absorb energy, did its job well."

Wasn't that part of the Pentagon reinforced, too?

QUOTE
So Harry, have you looked through the research forums, witness videos and Pilotsfor911Truth site?

onesliceshort, as I mentioned, I am trying hard to meet a deadline at 18 September, and then I will have one or two weeks time to read through this chaos.

To all: I don't say I have an idea how to make the official story consistent, I only had an idea how to let a NoC plane disappear in the Pentagon, but it has been disproved by the lack of damage at the NoC poles.
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Sep 11 2010, 05:54 AM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



QUOTE (Harry_B @ Sep 11 2010, 03:03 AM)




onesliceshort, as I mentioned, I am trying hard to meet a deadline at 18 September, and then I will have one or two weeks time to read through this chaos.

To all: I don't say I have an idea how to make the official story consistent, I only had an idea how to let a NoC plane disappear in the Pentagon, but it has been disproved by the lack of damage at the NoC poles.


Fair enough, but as I said, ask any of the guys here for specifics on what you're looking for.
You can look through the "chaos" using the "search" function too.

The wall in that video is no way comparative to the Pentagon facade.
The wall in the video was designed to buffer and absorb the impact. It was also made of a substance designed to protect nuclear structures.

The Pentagon facade was made up of a lattice of steel beams and kevlar.
The plane allegedly "struck" the floor between level 1 and 2, at an angle, in a tilt, having allegedly knocked over 5 lightpoles and "denting" a generator weighing 18000 lbs, yet continued on the damage trajectory without leaving any main parts on the outside of the building, specifically the tail section and wings.

The official path itself doesn't add up never mind that the plane flew NOC!
Top
Harry_B
Posted: Oct 1 2010, 03:40 PM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 60
Member No.: 1,177
Joined: 19-August 10



QUOTE (facilitatetruth @ Sep 16 2008, 08:09 AM)
I agree - I spend a lot of time trying to understand and figure out what the debunkers' position actually is on this, and you are right - they just won't accept the data,
...
"Bizarre Non-Sequitur" is the best term for those pseudo-scientific "papers" posted on the JREF forum.

This raises the question: Why do people do that?
I want to understand my opponents ("loving them" would be asked too much wink.gif).
I think many people are considered as debunker/detractor/disinfo etc. just because of a general paranoia, but it is also clear that there are some real ones between them.

I discussed 9/11 four years on a translator's portal (translatorscafe.com) and there were essentially only two opponents: one of them is clearly a professional "propaganda retiree", probably from the Bush employment scheme, but the other one is a generally appreciated freelance colleague whom I knew personally from conferences and forum discussions since ten years.

He is also retired, and spent his life as a secretary "Private First Class", and one day I cornered him even into making clear that he would defend the OCT even if he knew that 9/11 was a False Flag Attack!

Another colleague suggested that he did that probably because he is very nationalistic, but can this really be a sufficient motive?
Top
onesliceshort
Posted: Oct 2 2010, 04:08 AM


Citizen Investigator


Group: Friends
Posts: 954
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09



QUOTE (Harry_B @ Oct 1 2010, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (facilitatetruth @ Sep 16 2008, 08:09 AM)
I agree - I spend a lot of time trying to understand and figure out what the debunkers' position actually is on this, and you are right - they just won't accept the data,
...
"Bizarre Non-Sequitur" is the best term for those pseudo-scientific "papers" posted on the JREF forum.

This raises the question: Why do people do that?
I want to understand my opponents ("loving them" would be asked too much wink.gif).
I think many people are considered as debunker/detractor/disinfo etc. just because of a general paranoia, but it is also clear that there are some real ones between them.

I discussed 9/11 four years on a translator's portal (translatorscafe.com) and there were essentially only two opponents: one of them is clearly a professional "propaganda retiree", probably from the Bush employment scheme, but the other one is a generally appreciated freelance colleague whom I knew personally from conferences and forum discussions since ten years.

He is also retired, and spent his life as a secretary "Private First Class", and one day I cornered him even into making clear that he would defend the OCT even if he knew that 9/11 was a False Flag Attack!

Another colleague suggested that he did that probably because he is very nationalistic, but can this really be a sufficient motive?

I've personally had the displeasure of trying to have an honest debate with some of the people you mention Harry.
No matter how much sourced material is presented, even on the basics, that is not even open to debate, many will repeat their "inaccuracies" ad nauseum.

Some, I believe are disinfo artists, whether government paid or not, some as you say are illogically and blindly "nationalistic" and see any questioning of the official narrative as an "attack" on their country, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Some are "loyal" to the forum they post at and refuse to budge an inch. They see any concession as a sign of weakness, even on the most obviously incorrect assertions.

Now we have the curious breed of "detractor" that skirts around the debate on the basis that he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" to some extent, but will pick and choose some aspects of the official story to "support" their argument and tweak officially sanctioned statistics to suit their "theories". Especially regarding the Pentagon issue.

It's very tiring but all that can be done is to hit them with the facts and concentrate on specifics. They hate specifics.
Top
Harry_B
Posted: Feb 19 2011, 07:17 AM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 60
Member No.: 1,177
Joined: 19-August 10



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Sep 15 2008, 07:53 PM)
An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography & Obstacles article.

Watch 13 minute short here

When I try to open the 13 minute clip, it shows the message "This video is currently not available. Please try again later."
Are you updating it to include the (allegedly?) additional data found in the FDR, about the last seconds?
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Feb 19 2011, 09:50 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



Yes as stated in the other thread that video seems to no longer work but it is just an excerpt from this video so you can watch it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=71...29125037&hl=en#
Top
Winkhorst
Posted: Nov 27 2011, 06:39 PM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 71
Member No.: 1,154
Joined: 23-March 10



QUOTE (A. Marquis @ Sep 10 2010, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE (Stefan @ Sep 10 2010, 09:25 PM)
As I was pointing out in a post that might have been missed as it was on the bottom of the last page - the main feature of that wall was that it was in a foundation that allowed it to give with pressure - you can see it if you watch the video carefully - as the plane impacts against it it moves backwards, absorbing the impact and not breaking.

It is utterly incredible how so many moronic believers in a plane crash at the Pentagon bank it all on a video clip they never bothered to listen to the commentary of or even watch properly.

It's actually quite sad.

Not only that, but they want it both ways. They want the plane to explode on the outside into confetti while simultaneously believing or wanting you to believe that it entered the building leaving the "nose section" related pieces like the landing gear and wheel rim up at the C-Ring hole.

That has always impressed me as the most absurd part of the official conspiracy theory: That the walls were so strong that the wings just folded up without doing any damage to them, but then the rest of the plane just glided through the wall leaving a ~16 foot hole. Talk about wanting to have it both ways, indeed.
Top
A. Marquis
Posted: Nov 29 2011, 09:31 AM


A Regular Jim Garrison


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,523
Member No.: 2
Joined: 31-August 07



Just so you know, it's not a 16 ft hole. That is misinformation that has been spread everywhere.

Top
« Next Oldest | Pentagon | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4] 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1152 seconds | Archive