294 replies to this topic

[AN.UNNA.KI]

RaptorBites, on 24 September 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Read my post again.

I will help you by highlighting things.



You are the one saying it was a C-130

Those civilian workers that witnessed an airplane saw a civilian airliner.

Once again, your own evidence trashed your theory.

Yet again, you have failed to show any rudimentary reading comprehension skills.

Hey man watch the film. You are taking what I said in one post, when I was talking about something different. So don't BS. Keep the story straight. Do the research , watch the film fist before you go blowing off your mouth.

[RaptorBites]

AN.UNNA.KI, on 24 September 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Hey man watch the film. You are taking what I said in one post, when I was talking about something different. So don't BS. Keep the story straight. Do the research , watch the film fist before you go blowing off your mouth.

It seems to me, your the one who needs to do research.  I have seen the video posted, it is not a new video and has been circulated more times than Public Transportation.

[Hasina]

*Snip*

You started the thread, you made the claim it was a missile, it's up to you to provide evidence. I'd like a comparison photo of the wreckage at the Pentagon and a cruise missile and you or someone else point out where these parts go on that missile. I'd also like for you to tell me, what happened to the passengers that were on that flight. Further more, explain the damage to the exterior of the building that was caused by the wings of the aircraft, how did a cruise missile cause that?

Edited by Still Waters, 24 September 2012 - 10:22 PM.
Quoted post removed

[skyeagle409]

AN.UNNA.KI, on 24 September 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Hey man watch the film.

Post the link. I want to see that video. It better not be on the level of that known hoaxed cruise missile photo you posted.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 September 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[RaptorBites]

skyeagle409, on 24 September 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Post the link. I want to see that video.

http://freedomfiles....ar/pentagon.htm

Enjoy Sky

[skyeagle409]

RaptorBites, on 24 September 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

http://freedomfiles....ar/pentagon.htm

Enjoy Sky

Thanks!

I reviewed up to 12 minutes of the video and plan to watch the rest later, but it didn't take long to uncover major flaws in that video.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 September 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[RaptorBites]

skyeagle409, on 24 September 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Thanks!

I reviewed up to 12 minutes of the video and plan to watch the rest later, but it didn't take long to uncover major flaws in that video.

You as well huh?

[Babe Ruth]

tyrant lizard, on 24 September 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Maybe it was blown out in the explosion? As to there being no other parts, I don't know, because I wasn't there. There might have been another bit like that just out of camera shot.

Neither was I there, so all we can go by is the pictures.

There were explosions, to be sure, but the official narrative has the plane going very fast and penetrating the Pentagon, leaving an "exit hole" that I'm sure you are familiar with.

The trouble is that if an explosion could blow that piece backwards while the rest of it was decelerating from high speed, why only that part?  Why not other parts? How could some fragile structure like a fuselage be coming apart on the lawn, yet still bore through several walls?

Doesn't make sense.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 24 September 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is, a plane slammed into the Pentagon.

There are no other explanations for the path of destruction, confirmed human remains, and airplane wreckage at the Pentagon.

You may imagine it was a cruise missile, UFO, one of god's angel all you want, but the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon is supported by evidence.

The problem here is, the CT's have an epicurian standard to accept evidence.

Let me show you a few of those standards so far:

1. 100% complete wreckage of a Boeing 757
2. Photos of that wreckage that was not approved by the government
3. Photos of human remains
4. Burnt peices of wreckage
5. Eye witness reports from people who were not paid off or put into a state of fear by the government

Listen fellas (and ladies), the ball is in YOUR court to prove to us that beyond any reasponable doubt, it was not a PLANE that hit the Pentagon.  So far, you have been missing the mark by a long shot.

We each sound like the proverbial broken record Raptor, but it is NOT a fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon.  Indeed, it is a controversial statement that cannot be proven.

1.  There was no complete wreckage there, and you know it.  No engines, and only 1 wheel out of 8 for the LG.

2.  Photos questionable, just as at Shanksville.  Photos tend to contradict official story.

3.  Sources for human remains statement are the same sources that told us there were WMD in Iraq or that Pat Tillman was killed by hostile fire.  While you may not like to, I DO LIKE to consider the source.

4. Really?

5. That is certainly debateable.  April Gallop's story was that there were no human remains, no airline seats, no NOTHING that looked like a Boeing was there, no jetfuel, and she walked right through it all.

[Babe Ruth]

Yeah, the "black boxes" were recovered, but the government would not release them to the public except through FOIA, and then when the data comes, it turns out to have been manipulated.  

"Purposeful witholding and distortion of facts" is how they described the essence of the Pentagon Papers, and man alive does that description apply to the Pentagon's responses to information regarding these events.

[AN.UNNA.KI]

Hasina, on 24 September 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

You started the thread, you made the claim it was a missile, it's up to you to provide evidence. I'd like a comparison photo of the wreckage at the Pentagon and a cruise missile and you or someone else point out where these parts go on that missile. I'd also like for you to tell me, what happened to the passengers that were on that flight. Further more, explain the damage to the exterior of the building that was caused by the wings of the aircraft, how did a cruise missile cause that?

Do you read anything I reply to you? It does not seem like it. The parts goes the same place it goes on a jet engine. It the fan turbine dick. Can't find any photo's to compare.
You want me to tell you whaer the passengers are?  There were no passengers. Hey that could have been painted on the wall. They are just marks with no wing to go with it. There are also verticle marks that have nothing to do with a wing. You have marks but no wing to go with it. You have a hole in the wall but on plane to go with it. You have a hole in the Pentagon that goes from one side to the other that no plane could have made. But if it did where is the plane. ALL the parts inside the building are parts of the missle except for some that were planted there. Again there are not enough parts inside that building to make a 757. Again we go back to your vaporized plane. Who ever heard of a vaporized plane? You keep saying that the pieces of whatever in side the building are from the plane.Why are there no large parts of the fuselage, where are the seats, where are the bodies? So if you have none of these things the only assumption that a resaonable minded person can make is that there was no plane!!!!!

[Hasina]

AN.UNNA.KI, on 24 September 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Do you read anything I reply to you? It does not seem like it. The parts goes the same place it goes on a jet engine. It the fan turbine dick. Can't find any photo's to compare.
You want me to tell you whaer the passengers are?  There were no passengers. Hey that could have been painted on the wall. They are just marks with no wing to go with it. There are also verticle marks that have nothing to do with a wing. You have marks but no wing to go with it. You have a hole in the wall but on plane to go with it. You have a hole in the Pentagon that goes from one side to the other that no plane could have made. But if it did where is the plane. ALL the parts inside the building are parts of the missle except for some that were planted there. Again there are not enough parts inside that building to make a 757. Again we go back to your vaporized plane. Who ever heard of a vaporized plane? You keep saying that the pieces of whatever in side the building are from the plane.Why are there no large parts of the fuselage, where are the seats, where are the bodies? So if you have none of these things the only assumption that a resaonable minded person can make is that there was no plane!!!!!

To use an old Internet meme 'pics or it didn't happen'. You require everyone else to toss up pictures to support every detail of their argument, I hold you to the same standard, I'll disregard this point until you prove it.

There were no passengers? There. Were. No. Passengers. Do you realize how silly that sounds? Let's have someone trot out the list of passengers who died on the flight (I can't because I'm replying from my phone at the moment).

Again you go with the 'they were planted there' argument. What's your proof of that? That there isn't enough pieces to make a full 757? Wouldn't it be better if the government just slammed an actual 757 into the Pentagon then go through this half baked thing that you believe they did, especially since people such as yourself can soooooo easily prove them wrong?

Edited by Hasina, 24 September 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Denying mass murder?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 24 September 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Neither was I there, so all we can go by is the pictures.

There were explosions, to be sure, but the official narrative has the plane going very fast and penetrating the Pentagon, leaving an "exit hole" that I'm sure you are familiar with.

Looking at the wreckage outside the exit hole, that is clearly aircraft wreckage, which has nothing to do with a cruise missile.

[Hasina]

Go Hasina Go.

Here's a link to the passenger list and all that shizz: http://911research.w...cs/Flight77.png