3292 replies to this topic

[lliqerty]

skyeagle409, on 06 July 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Actually, I can identify the vertical stabilizer of a B-757.

This is a link to the Star Tribune front page. Does that have anything to do with 9/11?

The picture appears to be altered because it does not have the bright light in front of the building.

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

This is a link to the Star Tribune front page. Does that have anything to do with 9/11?

The picture appears to be altered because it does not have the bright light in front of the building.

It wasn't altered at all. It is part of the video.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 July 2012 - 04:27 AM.

[lliqerty]

skyeagle409, on 07 July 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

It wasn't altered at all. It is part of the video.

DOES THE LINK YOU PROVIDED RELATE TO 911 ?

[Czero 101]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

DOES THE LINK YOU PROVIDED RELATE TO 911 ?

The video is called "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77", and the preview image is a frame from the video showing an airliner, presumably representative of a Boeing 757-200, flying across a lawn infront of what is presumably a representation of the western side of the Pentagon.


So you tell us... do you think that link is related to 911...?










Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 07 July 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[lliqerty]

Czero 101, on 07 July 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

The video is called "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77",

It links me to the Star Tribune

[Czero 101]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

It links me to the Star Tribune

Sky's link in his post is clearly to a youtube video.

The post of his that you quoted in your post clearly shows a youtube video.

If you're getting a link to the Star Tribune, then there's a problem with your computer and you should probably get it fixed.

Here's the link to the video Sky posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 07 July 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

A few further questions for anyone who might wish to offer any answers. Is the reasoning that an attack on the Pentagon had to be staged in order to justify a Military response, and, since it was impossible to stage an actual hit on it with an aircraft, due to the difficulties with the height of the building and the angle of approach and so on, then either eplosives were planted, or perhaps a Missile was fired at it? And subsequent to that, the aeroplane debris was carefully planted, befopre the cameras were allowed in? So this debris, where was it obtained? Was it painted in American Airlines colours specially, since I don't know where they might have found some appropriate btis ready to hand? So how were these bits brought in and planted?

[lliqerty]

747400, on 07 July 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

A few further questions for anyone who might wish to offer any answers. Is the reasoning that an attack on the Pentagon had to be staged in order to justify a Military response, and, since it was impossible to stage an actual hit on it with an aircraft, due to the difficulties with the height of the building and the angle of approach and so on, then either eplosives were planted, or perhaps a Missile was fired at it? And subsequent to that, the aeroplane debris was carefully planted, befopre the cameras were allowed in? So this debris, where was it obtained? Was it painted in American Airlines colours specially, since I don't know where they might have found some appropriate btis ready to hand? So how were these bits brought in and planted?

I am not saying that a missle hit the Pentagon. I don't know what hit it. But certainly the US Government has the ability to arrange the things you listed. In particular, let me draw your attention to a memo entitled "President Bush on Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction", Release Date: May 8, 2001 (interestingly this is not a law that was passed by Congress):

"Therefore, I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee ... all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies." This enabled Cheney to have complete command over anything that was done or not done at the scene in Washington (and New York).

The motivation is to increase control (power!), both to start a war and thereby control foreign nations, as well as to control the American people by instilling fear and claiming that your email being read - by nice CIA agents - is in the best interest of the American people.

Edited by lliqerty, 07 July 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[lliqerty]

Czero 101, on 07 July 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Sky's link in his post is clearly to a youtube video.

The post of his that you quoted in your post clearly shows a youtube video.

If you're getting a link to the Star Tribune, then there's a problem with your computer and you should probably get it fixed.

Here's the link to the video Sky posted:

Cz

Thanks for the link.  All the other links to YouTubes work just fine.

Sky, I think this must be a joke. It shows a bunch of broken street lights - nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

[The New Richard Nixon]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Thanks for the link.  All the other links to YouTubes work just fine.

Sky, I think this must be a joke. It shows a bunch of broken street lights - nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

What? so you want everyone to think street lights somehow run and just fall over the place? In order to do that, the posts need to be cut.
For the aerial footage thats because all AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!!

[lliqerty]

The New Richard Nixon, on 07 July 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

What? so you want everyone to think street lights somehow run and just fall over the place? In order to do that, the posts need to be cut.
For the aerial footage thats because all AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!!

Did you read my post? In particular where it says:

nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

[The New Richard Nixon]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Did you read my post? In particular where it says:

nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

I know that but i want to talk about that so you think these street lights somehow moved not because of a plane but something else?
There are no aerial shots as ALL AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!

[FLOMBIE]

Not high enough?

[bee]

747400, on 07 July 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

A few further questions for anyone who might wish to offer any answers. Is the reasoning that an attack on the Pentagon had to be staged in order to justify a Military response, and, since it was impossible to stage an actual hit on it with an aircraft, due to the difficulties with the height of the building and the angle of approach and so on, then either eplosives were planted, or perhaps a Missile was fired at it? And subsequent to that, the aeroplane debris was carefully planted, befopre the cameras were allowed in? So this debris, where was it obtained? Was it painted in American Airlines colours specially, since I don't know where they might have found some appropriate btis ready to hand? So how were these bits brought in and planted?

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...

[lliqerty]

The New Richard Nixon, on 07 July 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

I know that but i want to talk about that so you think these street lights somehow moved not because of a plane but something else?
There are no aerial shots as ALL AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!

I did not see any pictures either but we were both wrong (see below). I have not paid much attention to the street lights. I take it you feel that they 'debunk' something? So tell me what your thoughts are.