Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're either blind, lying or both to deny seeing letters quickly disappearing behind the lyrics at normal speed. At slow speed, you can read them. But they're still noticeable at regular speed. Especially when you know they're there are you're looking for them.BTW, that proves nothing because you could only see it faintly when it was played very slow.......kinda like you are?? You visit abovetopsecret.com much??? LMAO!!!
That you lie like that proves this video is a hoax...
You got duped because you're delusional paranoid fool.
No, you are simply asleep and lack critical thinking skills. Subliminal messages are everywhere on TV. It's no coincidence that my short term memory returned with an incredible ability to retain information and my ability to think a LOT more clearly happened when I stopped watching TV. You believe in "gubermint" and you believe that they have your best interest at heart and that makes you a fucking fool. Believe it or not but you will find out and it will be the hard way.
What's irrational at best and dubious at worst is ignoring the portions of the evidence that contradict your preferred conspiracy theory.candycorn said:Irrational.
So the powers that be now not only had one plane hijacked but crashed a second plane into the building itself.
We have conflicting eyewitness accounts as to the types of planes (yes, plural) seen near the Pentagon on the morning of the attack, with several close-up witnesses corroborating each others' descriptions of the plane that struck the Pentagon (yes, they actually SAW it fly into the side of the building) as a small commuter-type jet. The fact that other not-so-close-up witnesses described one or more of the other planes seen by many in the area...actually SUPPORTS the flyover hypothesis.
What's more, AFTER the initial strike, there were a number of local news reports of mass evacuations in the area due to rumors of up to 3 additional airborne threats. Again, this is something that simultaneously supports my beliefs while contradicting yours.
I could list several other factoids that are inexplicable in terms of the official narrative but expected or even predicted by alternative theories. In other words: while your preferred theory holds no explanatory power whatsoever for a variety of widely reported facts, my preferred theory holds that power in abundance (including WRT the three little aspects you've apparently hung your hat on).
As to why the flyover scenario may have been deemed necessary by the planners/perps of the 9/11 black operation, I can only speculate. My best guess would be that it was likely seen as the best way to ensure the deaths of the people on-board the remotely guided "commuter plane" that struck the Pentagon. It seems to me that someone may have wanted to remove ANY chance of their survival in particular. Again, that's merely speculation on my part, but there's certainly nothing "irrational" about it. In fact, unlike The Official Conspiracy Theory® in NUMEROUS respects, it fits the known facts of the day like a glove.
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, as if that were possible with some of the characters posting in this thread (lol), least of all yours. Truth be told, if you sincerely believe the official line without any intellectual honesty-driven pangs of conscience, I envy you.
I'm done in here. This thread has reeked to high heaven from the giddyup, and I'm fresh out of both patience and Lysol.
same with USMB'S other paid troll rightwinger.
ATC saw no aircraft vectoring out of the Pentagon airspace after AA77 hit the building.What's irrational at best and dubious at worst is ignoring the portions of the evidence that contradict your preferred conspiracy theory.candycorn said:Irrational.
So the powers that be now not only had one plane hijacked but crashed a second plane into the building itself.
We have conflicting eyewitness accounts as to the types of planes (yes, plural) seen near the Pentagon on the morning of the attack, with several close-up witnesses corroborating each others' descriptions of the plane that struck the Pentagon (yes, they actually SAW it fly into the side of the building) as a small commuter-type jet. The fact that other not-so-close-up witnesses described one or more of the other planes seen by many in the area...actually SUPPORTS the flyover hypothesis.
What's more, AFTER the initial strike, there were a number of local news reports of mass evacuations in the area due to rumors of up to 3 additional airborne threats. Again, this is something that simultaneously supports my beliefs while contradicting yours.
All I asked was to explain how the wreckage got there, the knocking down of the light poles and the ATC tracking AA77. No twoofer has come close. You’re no different.I could list several other factoids that are inexplicable in terms of the official narrative but expected or even predicted by alternative theories. In other words: while your preferred theory holds no explanatory power whatsoever for a variety of widely reported facts, my preferred theory holds that power in abundance (including WRT the three little aspects you've apparently hung your hat on).
As to why the flyover scenario may have been deemed necessary by the planners/perps of the 9/11 black operation, I can only speculate.
My best guess would be that it was likely seen as the best way to ensure the deaths of the people on-board the remotely guided "commuter plane" that struck the Pentagon. It seems to me that someone may have wanted to remove ANY chance of their survival in particular. Again, that's merely speculation on my part, but there's certainly nothing "irrational" about it. In fact, unlike The Official Conspiracy Theory® in NUMEROUS respects, it fits the known facts of the day like a glove.
Good, because you suck at it.I’m not out to change anyone's mind,
You should.as if that were possible with some of the characters posting in this thread (lol), least of all yours. Truth be told, if you sincerely believe the official line without any intellectual honesty-driven pangs of conscience, I envy you.
I'm done in here. This thread has reeked to high heaven from the giddyup, and I'm fresh out of both patience and Lysol.
CandyZionistBitch is a 100% pure Zionist Traitor.
There were no Islamic Terrorists on 911.
There were just Mossad and Zionist Traitors.
CandyZionistBitch is a 100% pure Zionist Traitor.
There were no Islamic Terrorists on 911.
There were just Mossad and Zionist Traitors.
Yeah, shut out by virtue of our failure to dance at the other end of your strings.Well, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, the high and mighty twoofers were shut out 3-0 by 3 questions concerning the 9/11 Attacks on the Pentagon.
I'm sure none of those questions have been handled ad nauseam on this board over the years; but let me go ahead and concede that no prospective answer that didn't first and foremost affirm the patently ridiculous Official Conspiracy Theory™ would be very likely to meet your standard (such as it is) of "plausibility".
But by all means, keep on prodding, CC. You might eventually get the opened can of whoopass you seem so desperate for.
Your surrender is accepted.
I could write a long dissertation on the Penta-con attack but for the sake of time, watch this 5 minute video and if you can only say that none of this raises any questions? Well, I just saved some serious time.
3 questions.
Explain how the wreckage got there.
Explain how a missile knocked down the light poles
Explain how the air traffic controllers saw something enter Pentagon Airspace but not leave it.
Your move.
The problem with CT's is that they quickly mushroom into vast, complex things requiring the perfect coordination of thousands of individuals and moving parts. In the end, it's much simpler to just hijack the plane and fly it into the Pentagon than to pull off the incredibly delicate dance required to fulfill the theory.Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?Your ignorance is really starting to bore me.
Since you believe so much that a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, please point out the "plane" in the following image. Take as much time as you need.
People claim that the "plane" was sticking out the side of Pentagon after impact, and yet there is not one picture or even video for that matter to validate the claim.
There was wreckage found at the Pentagon, that much you're right, but not from an American Airlines Flight 77. There was no fuselage, no tail section, no vertical stabilizer, no wings , no major identifiable parts from a Boeing 757 of any kind EVER recovered from the site. If a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, there would be a hell of a lot more wreckage then just a few scraps of metal, but we're all supposed to drink the Kool-Aid like you have and pretend that it did happen.
Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else. Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.It certainly possible that Flight 77 was switched when contact was initially lost and, whatever replaced it and struck the Pentagon, was not the plane that left Washington Dulles that morning.
In other words, sounds really implausible.
As the official story has it, the "plane" flight 77 hit several light poles as it was bearing down on its target. The thin aluminum wings hit these light poles, knocked them down, and the "plane" continued on its attack with no interruption. The problem is, it isn't that easy.
A plane going 500mph a few feet off the ground would make it almost impossible to fly, even for an experienced pilot, the ground effect alone, would create a huge problem. The topography of the area creates another problem, there are raises and dips in the ground level. For the plane to "hug" the ground would create another huge problem.
That said, this "plane", (piloted by someone who had trouble flying a one-engine Cessna),kept control of the "plane" after hitting 5 light posts.
Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.
As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot? You’re right. What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers? They crash. Exactly what Hani did.
Back to the drawing board you go.
Please refer to post # 14.Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?
Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else. Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.
In other words, sounds really implausible.
I'll explain it like this. According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77. The attack aircraft, flew in at treetop level, clipping light poles on the highway overpass, and smashing into the Pentagon's west wall. Meanwhile AA77, approached on a slightly more northerly trajectory, flying over the Pentagon and disappearing behind a blinding flash and fireball.
Take it or leave it makes no difference to me. But it is more plausible then the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" which is nothing more then an "Official Lie".
Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.
As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot? You’re right. What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers? They crash. Exactly what Hani did.
So I guess you're content on believing the spoon-fed garbage that Hani Hanjour as inferior of a pilot as he was supposedly pulled off "high-risk" maneuvers in a Boeing 757 no less, that experienced pilots can't even do and crashing the plane into the Pentagon leaving no evidence to support the claim.
And there you have it.
3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.
Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77”
s
Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?
Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.
After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.
Actually it does make sense. There are flight manifests with the suspected terrorists names on them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png
Hani Hanjour’s flight school attendance was documented:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf
Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not leaving the airspace:
Photo by Craig Ranke
We know the light poles were knocked down moments before the explosion because one hit a taxi cab
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3...Bjo/zreD66gO7_o/s1600/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.JPG
There were no reports of poles blocking traffic during the busy rush-hour times before the attacks.
Quite clearly you and your horde of twoofers cannot explain away. Its very simple. Come up with a violable explanation for the wreckage. How did it get there? Plane tires are not “small” amounts of wreckage as you stated earlier.
How did they get there?
Explain the tracking of the flight into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.
Explain how a missile hit 4 light poles and a large transformer before exploding in the Pentagon.
Very simple, all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.
Instead of just calling people names…why not explain how these things happened? And just so you know, the real knock-out punch is yet to come.
Do you have any idea how surveillance cameras work? The reason you don't see video of the plane hitting is because the cameras are recording at slow speeds. The plane would literally move fast enough to cover the entire field of the camera's vision between frames or would just leave a streak on a frame if we were lucky enough to catch it. All of this is old news, BTW."Who needs videos if you have the remains of passengers who were on that 757"
LMAO!!!
I do not accept your word that such bodies were recovered. That you and the "US media" cannot show us a video of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon should be a wake-up call for every patriotic American. There were hundreds of cameras on that building. None show a 757. Why? Tell us, without bragging about the Chosen "smittening" of the passengers in Cleveland or wherever the plane actually landed.
SHOW US THE VIDEO OF THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON...
Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
Why are you wasting everybody's time with pesky facts?Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
It's a hard habit to break...Why are you wasting everybody's time with pesky facts?Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
That is simply not true.
Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.
EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.
What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.
That is simply not true.
if you are replying to agent candyass as I am guessing you are,congrats for being ignorant.Thats what this agent wants is attention and just here to troll and waste your time and like the dupe you are,you take his bait and make his handlers happy for taking his bait by replying to him.well done.
All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.
The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.
I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.
I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.
I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.
All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.
The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.
I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.
I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.
I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.
Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:
Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:
1. Explain the 757 wreckage at the Pentagon
2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out
3. Explain the light poles being knocked down
