3292 replies to this topic

[lliqerty]

FLOMBIE, on 07 July 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Not high enough?

Thanks,  Bud.

Several interesting things I see there. The demo showed it entering at an angle, but here it looks straight. Given the force of the impact you saw at the WTC, it surprises me it did not penetrate further. And what happened to the wings? It seems like they did not hit the building.

Edited by lliqerty, 07 July 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[FLOMBIE]

I found lots more here: http://publicintelli...-aerial-photos/

[lliqerty]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

the debris could have come from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.....just over the river and not too far away,

that's my speculation anyway....perhaps that's why there were initial reports of a fire at the Washington Mall, so that

the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon...


As you might remember, I don't subscribe to the Inside Job Conspiracy...and I think that a suicide bomber (maybe in a truck)

managed to get an explosion detonated at the Pentagon (they would have known that there was no way to 'get' the Pentagon by

air because the US Defence Headquarters would be fully protected from the air, especially when America was under attack and on red alert)

And in the heat of the terrorist attack it was decided to explain away the disappearance of Flight 77 (which might have been shot down over

the Atlantic)...by doing a mock up of a 757 crash at the Pentagon.


It all gets a bit complicated, but not half as complicated as the IJ conspiracy...

The fire at the Washington Mall, so that the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon. That is an interesting idea. Can you point me to some more about the fire please?

In my view, Dick Cheney had the whole operation under control. He was in charge of any and all responders working on the clean-up.

He was also in charge of the Defense and had air force stand down.

http://www.infowars...._stand_down.htm

Edited by lliqerty, 07 July 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[bee]

.


IMO...the Pentagon on 9/11 is the Achilles heel for both the Official Account AND the Inside Job Conspiracy...and that's why my Cover Up Theory (CUT...lol)

isn't very popular.

So what was covered up...I don't hear you ask....

My speculation is...

That, in the heat of the attack, it was deemed necessary flights 77 and 93 had to be (sadly and tragically) shot down.

And that some kind of Directed Energy Weapon was used to bring down WTC 1,2 + 7...to protect the wider area when the

top of the South tower looked like it was going to topple over. (and then the other 2 buildings could have been severely weakened by

the field affects of the DEW and also had to be brought down as safely as possible)

[bee]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

The fire at the Washington Mall, so that the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon. That is an interesting idea. Can you point me to some more about the fire please?

It was on a live news report on the morning of 9/11......I'll go and have a look for it..



here it is.....the report of a fire at the Washington Mall starts at 2:53....





.

Edited by bee, 07 July 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[frenat]

747400, on 06 July 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

If it was a missile or whatever is the preferred rational explanation*, why? Why should They fly a missile or a drone or whatever into the Pent, when they'd already,. unequivocally, flown two planes into the WTC. Why go to all th trouble of constructing another plot again running parallel to the one (or two, if UA93 was also part of it) they'd already carried out? And yet again, what happened to the flight that there was purprorted to be? I've heard tales that there were an unusual proportion of Government employees; so does that mean that they were all double agents who were in on the plot, or were they spirited away into new lives under this apparently inecredibly effective and efficient plan that the Government has?


*since, obviously, the Official explanation is so much more irrational .....

... Oughtn't this be in matephysics and Psychic Phenomena? I'm getting a distinct sense of deja vu here ....

Why indeed?  Especially when the Pentagon is also a tourist location.  One person with a camera and the whole thing falls apart.  Your plan calls for 4 planes to go missing, 4 planes do infact go missing but you use a missile here instead?

[frenat]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

Try buying a camera that take 1 frame per sec. but that is exactly what it would require. Government parking lot. No concern for security. Right.

security camera that can be adjusted how many frames per second, recording on video tape and lower frame rate to save money.  1 frame per second is plenty for the minimal security needed in a parking lot.  People forget the Pentagon is primarily an office building.  There are secure areas but they are deeper inside and the security for those areas involve armed guards, picture IDs, key cards and codes and cameras AT THOSE LOCATIONS.  Cameras in the parking lot don't really help as much as you think they might.

[lliqerty]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

.


IMO...the Pentagon on 9/11 is the Achilles heel for both the Official Account AND the Inside Job Conspiracy...and that's why my Cover Up Theory (CUT...lol)

isn't very popular.

So what was covered up...I don't hear you ask....

My speculation is...

That, in the heat of the attack, it was deemed necessary flights 77 and 93 had to be (sadly and tragically) shot down.

And that some kind of Directed Energy Weapon was used to bring down WTC 1,2 + 7...to protect the wider area when the

top of the South tower looked like it was going to topple over. (and then the other 2 buildings could have been severely weakened by

the field affects of the DEW and also had to be brought down as safely as possible)

So, 77 was shot down and then they used a truck bomb to destroy the Pentagon. Why? Would they not be happy with the story that 77 passengers also defended us from a catastrophy? O r even if they admit they shot it down to protect so many people on the ground (when the passengers would die anyhow)?

[lliqerty]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

security camera that can be adjusted how many frames per second, recording on video tape and lower frame rate to save money.  1 frame per second is plenty for the minimal security needed in a parking lot.  People forget the Pentagon is primarily an office building.  There are secure areas but they are deeper inside and the security for those areas involve armed guards, picture IDs, key cards and codes and cameras AT THOSE LOCATIONS.  Cameras in the parking lot don't really help as much as you think they might.

Buddy, we are not in the age of VHS tapes. Even in 2001 they were recorded digitally and memory is erased and re-recorded (and even VHS can be re-recorded). No need to reduce recording speed. 1 FPS does not adequately show events or moving objects (the point is to capture faces and license plates). There is no point in having 1 FPS. And after 1995 Oklahoma, where a truck was parked in front of the "office building", nah, I don't go with your explanation.

Edited by lliqerty, 07 July 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[bee]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

So, 77 was shot down and then they used a truck bomb to destroy the Pentagon.

My speculation is that terrorists managed to get an explosion detonated at the Pentagon...and they may have been fired upon by Ground Defence,

hence the deep holes in the Pentagon (it's possible there were 3 exit holes)

Quote

Why? Would they not be happy with the story that 77 passengers also defended us from a catastrophy? O r even if they admit they shot it down to protect so many people on the ground (when the passengers would die anyhow)?

I don't think they would have got away withy the same story for flights 93 AND 77........the reason I think it was covered up was for political reasons...

imagine how different the world headlines would have been if it was admitted that the US was forced to bring down 2 of it's own airliners...killing

it's own citizens. And they wouldn't want the DEW thing to get out into the public arena...?

[frenat]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Buddy, we are not in the age of VHS tapes. Even in 2001 they were recorded digitally and memory is erased and re-recorded (and even VHS can be re-recorded). No need to reduce recording speed. 1 FPS does not adequately show events or moving objects (the point is to capture faces and license plates). There is no point in having 1 FPS. And after 1995 Oklahoma, where a truck was parked in front of the "office building", nah, I don't go with your explanation.

This wasn't focused on the building and I highly doubt the camera was even monitored so your last sentence is meaningless.  They may have recorded digitally in 2001 but not for a traffic camera that really wasn't used for security.  Even when it can be rerecorded then you can't keep it and 1 FPS DOES adequately show what it needed to show (I doubt they were even using it to record license plates as you can't really see them because of the angle, morelikely used for traffic analysis).  Your whole argument is nothing more than "If I ran the zoo."

Edited by frenat, 07 July 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[bee]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

security camera that can be adjusted how many frames per second, recording on video tape and lower frame rate to save money.  1 frame per second is plenty for the minimal security needed in a parking lot.  People forget the Pentagon is primarily an office building.  There are secure areas but they are deeper inside and the security for those areas involve armed guards, picture IDs, key cards and codes and cameras AT THOSE LOCATIONS.  Cameras in the parking lot don't really help as much as you think they might.

such innocence.....lol......

.

[Coffey]

booNyzarC, on 06 July 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this.  Take enough of the right kind of drugs, especially over a period spanning years (if not decades), and you're going to mess up your brain.  Taken in moderation, some drugs are only moderately harmful, similar to alcohol.

This is where the tables turn you see and I know the facts... Drugs don't destroy a person, mentla illness or guilt does. The drugs or alcohal just don't help in those cases. I know people who have been taking coke for 10+ years, probably longer than Charlie Sheen and you wouldn't even think it to look at them.

booNyzarC, on 06 July 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why Martin Sheen isn't batshit crazy?

I don't have a problem with people questioning 9/11, whether they are famous or otherwise.  I expect and encourage people to question things if they aren't familiar with them or if they are under the impression that they've been given bunk answers.  But when those questions are adequately addressed, the matter should be settled to some degree.

Because Martin Sheen didn't make a public video asking the about it. Also Obama never replied to Charlie Sheen... So how was he given any answers?

[Coffey]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

There is also Children in  Afghanistan, who die and suffer every day. Does that not trouble them?

Love the fact this was ignored. Even US and UK military personel are sufferring from severe depression and in some cases there is suicede. It's really horrible what is happeneing to innocent people.

Just please remember this image and what it says before the inevitable war on iran happens.

DONTEATUS, on 06 July 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Just stop it please ! And drink lots less Coffee Coffey ! What part of It was Jets that Hit the Towers Did you miss ?

What part of the Twin towers being able to withstand a plane hitting without falling did you miss?

Also I never mentioned there was no planes. I knew there was palnes. The question is who was flying them...

[frenat]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

such innocence.....lol......

.

What in my post is not true?