Full Version: Debunking "9/11 In Plane Sight"
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
yes that is a very relavent link in the cover-up scandal-it includes the leaked version of the pentagon security camera-which shows a much smaller craft also the contrail appears to be coming from the rear of the jet-other sorces claim the "757" (ha) clipped a light pole and a fence yet at the known angle their is no evidence of a 125ft wingspan bearing a pair of tubines-it would be so easy to dispell critics by releasing a single frame from the gas station camera or the freeway one yet they wont do it!
Chris!!! ROTFLMAO.... 
Sounds like some of you have seen this before and so are saying it's GARBAGE????????.....dat's coo....dat's really what i wanted to know.
Complete crapola huh????
Sounds like some of you have seen this before and so are saying it's GARBAGE????????.....dat's coo....dat's really what i wanted to know.
Complete crapola huh????
QUOTE(tarabull @ Dec 17 2004, 05:09 PM)
Complete crapola huh????
[right][snapback]408768[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]408768[/snapback][/right]
Nein
I've seen it before, see post near bottom of page '9/11: The USA goverments self mutilation'.
I think the goverment found out that some of that info leaked and discarded that link cause nothing comes up. sad clown, I really wanted to see it. bummer
It doesn't matter what hit anything. It matters WHY ANYTHING HIT ANYTHING, and who did it.
Look, it's really quite simple. The Pentagon has a conventional, but classified air-defense system which obliterated the oncoming threat into tiny pieces before causing serious damage to our defense "nerve center"
Nothing is perfect, but it did it's job.
What more can be said? It will not be fully explained because it is secret, and MUST remain so.
Nothing is perfect, but it did it's job.
What more can be said? It will not be fully explained because it is secret, and MUST remain so.
oh man there is some good humor here as far as a conspiracy the people who would have been on the jets would obviously have to be killed in order to help make it believable secondly to have multiple builings collapse so perfectly is beyond coincidence and to have an object so visible on the aircraft for all of us to see but yet keep denying what is in plane sight. It really did happen and there is no changing that,
either way it is viewed we will never be told the truth, never ever in our
earths history will we know the facts. Dare to challenge everything for if you don't, who will?
either way it is viewed we will never be told the truth, never ever in our
earths history will we know the facts. Dare to challenge everything for if you don't, who will?
QUOTE(tarabull @ Dec 17 2004, 03:49 PM)
Check this out: (sorry if it's been posted before)
Pentagon Attack Cover-Up
Please comment.....
[right][snapback]408667[/snapback][/right]
Pentagon Attack Cover-Up
Please comment.....
[right][snapback]408667[/snapback][/right]
i was just about to post this
its very eye opening and holds some extremely valid points.
its very hard to argue with this type of evidence
I agree with pete. It does lack real evibdence though, but it makes sense.
QUOTE(joc @ Nov 15 2004, 02:12 AM)
Question:
Are any of you people following the news stories coming out of Iraq?
You have seen the beheadings of innocent people.
You have seen the torture houses in Fallujah.
You have seen the gruesome bombings of coalition soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
Question:
Why is it so inconceivable to you that these barbarians mass hijacked US airliners and flew them into buildings?
I have heard that diesel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.....jet fuel folks is not diesel...
Now, please carry on with your whacked out conspiracy theorizing>>>
Don't bother with reason...don't ask your mothers...don't listen to the wisdom of common sense....just go ahead and construe your whacko theories and I'll stay in my own comfortable little shell of blessed ignorance and naivete.
[right][snapback]356636[/snapback][/right]
Are any of you people following the news stories coming out of Iraq?
You have seen the beheadings of innocent people.
You have seen the torture houses in Fallujah.
You have seen the gruesome bombings of coalition soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
Question:
Why is it so inconceivable to you that these barbarians mass hijacked US airliners and flew them into buildings?
I have heard that diesel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.....jet fuel folks is not diesel...
Now, please carry on with your whacked out conspiracy theorizing>>>
Don't bother with reason...don't ask your mothers...don't listen to the wisdom of common sense....just go ahead and construe your whacko theories and I'll stay in my own comfortable little shell of blessed ignorance and naivete.
[right][snapback]356636[/snapback][/right]
Let me apologize for my American counterpart here folks...you see, Joc here was dropped on his head as a baby and has a hard time figuring stuff out...I mean he's still waiting for Bush to find WMD's that would have justified a war in the first place. One other thing about Joc is that he doesn't understand why an occupying force is met with resistence.
Actually, what you need to apologize for is for your insults against me. I don't know what your problem is but sending me nasty PMs and ridiculing me in idiotic posts is uncalled for. This is not what UM is about. If you have a problem with me..contact a mod. Otherwise keep your insolence to yourself. 
QUOTE(joc @ Mar 1 2005, 12:45 AM)
Actually, what you need to apologize for is for your insults against me. I don't know what your problem is but sending me nasty PMs and ridiculing me in idiotic posts is uncalled for. This is not what UM is about. If you have a problem with me..contact a mod. Otherwise keep your insolence to yourself.
[right][snapback]506295[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]506295[/snapback][/right]
Its not personal, and the insults are Rated -G, and mostly meant for you to think about the other side. You so quickly dismiss people as conspiracy whacks when all they are doing is trying to get to the bottom of things. Your post of the war in Iraq is just typical of the misinformed . The best way to see it is both American soldiers and Iraqi people are dying...for what joc? Oil. Bottom line. No WMD's...oil. Wake up.
QUOTE(twpdyp @ Nov 10 2004, 11:32 PM)
Does anyone remember the Valu-Jet airliner that went down in the Florida Everglades in 1996? As I recall there was not much left of it to recover either, and it hit mud not a solid building. On 9/11 the airliner that went down in that field because of a few passengers bravery, once again as I recall there was not a lot of that one left either. I would not expect a hole in the side of the Pentagon the shape of an airplane, like in the old Warner Brothers cartoons.
[right][snapback]351588[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]351588[/snapback][/right]
The Valu-Jet went down in a Florida swamp. There was at least three feet of mud and gunk which would make finding all the pieces almost impossible to recover.
If the jet hit the pentagon with the reinforced walls, the planes wings would be sheared off and would be behind the plane. Probably pieces on the lawn of the Pentagon.
QUOTE(Freeman @ Mar 1 2005, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE(twpdyp @ Nov 10 2004, 11:32 PM)
Does anyone remember the Valu-Jet airliner that went down in the Florida Everglades in 1996? As I recall there was not much left of it to recover either, and it hit mud not a solid building. On 9/11 the airliner that went down in that field because of a few passengers bravery, once again as I recall there was not a lot of that one left either. I would not expect a hole in the side of the Pentagon the shape of an airplane, like in the old Warner Brothers cartoons.
[right][snapback]351588[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]351588[/snapback][/right]
The Valu-Jet went down in a Florida swamp. There was at least three feet of mud and gunk which would make finding all the pieces almost impossible to recover.
If the jet hit the pentagon with the reinforced walls, the planes wings would be sheared off and would be behind the plane. Probably pieces on the lawn of the Pentagon.
[right][snapback]506714[/snapback][/right]
I concur.
Let me see if I understand:
Mud equals concrete and steel reinforced walls.
Mud equals concrete and steel reinforced walls.
QUOTE(joc @ Mar 3 2005, 12:31 AM)
Let me see if I understand:
Mud equals concrete and steel reinforced walls.
[right][snapback]509123[/snapback][/right]
Mud equals concrete and steel reinforced walls.
[right][snapback]509123[/snapback][/right]
I agree that the wings would have been left behind while the centrifuge would have penetrated the pentagon. Joc, did you ever see the first live footage of the pentagon? The wall wasn't even collapsed yet. There is just too many things that don't fit that I am still undecided. Besides, just because the pentagon is made of concrete doesn't make the plane "dissappear" upon hitting it...especially the engines. There would just be more pieces to clean up.
Of course I saw the footage. I watched TV like everyone else all day long. Many eyewitnesses said they saw the jet come in low and then the explosion.
I watched the 'video' twice. It is fast and slick and totally inaccurate.
Look at this picture: where is the plane? All that is left is the tail section. Where is flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon? And who says no pieces or bodies were never found? Who?
I watched the 'video' twice. It is fast and slick and totally inaccurate.
Look at this picture: where is the plane? All that is left is the tail section. Where is flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon? And who says no pieces or bodies were never found? Who?
The Media
~Thanato
~Thanato
QUOTE
The Media
the firemen on scene reported remains of passengers, as well as luggage etc...
with plane crashes we also have to consider most aren't going to be going full speed into the ground let alone into a reinforced concrete building.
Not only were there many many eye witnesses who saw a plane hit (many more than who said they didn't see one) there are eye witnesses among the firefighters and rescue people about finding aircraft parts and body parts.
Thousands of avionics experts, structural engineers, and crash experts have no problem with understanding and accepting the dynamics of what happened, and why the damage is as it was. To experts it is not inconsistent with a low-flying fast-moving large commercial jet hitting a large, solid, reinforced building like the Pentagon.
Some people suggest that those who believe it was a plane are blind sheep just following the party line. I submit that perhaps in actuality ideology plays a larger part in those who suggest it was something else.
[edited for spelling]
Thousands of avionics experts, structural engineers, and crash experts have no problem with understanding and accepting the dynamics of what happened, and why the damage is as it was. To experts it is not inconsistent with a low-flying fast-moving large commercial jet hitting a large, solid, reinforced building like the Pentagon.
Some people suggest that those who believe it was a plane are blind sheep just following the party line. I submit that perhaps in actuality ideology plays a larger part in those who suggest it was something else.
[edited for spelling]
QUOTE(twinstead @ Mar 3 2005, 10:25 AM)
Not only were there many many eye witnesses who saw a plane hit (many more than who said they didn't see one) there are eye witnesses among the firefighters and rescue people about finding aircraft parts and body parts.
Thousands of avionics experts, structural engineers, and crash experts have no problem with understanding and accepting the dynamics of what happened, and why the damage is as it was. To experts it is not inconsistent with a low-flying fast-moving large commercial jet hitting a large, solid, reinforced building like the Pentagon.
Some people suggest that those who believe it was a plane are blind sheep just following the party line. I submit that perhaps in actuality ideology plays a larger part in those who suggest it was something else.
[edited for spelling]
[right][snapback]509455[/snapback][/right]
Thousands of avionics experts, structural engineers, and crash experts have no problem with understanding and accepting the dynamics of what happened, and why the damage is as it was. To experts it is not inconsistent with a low-flying fast-moving large commercial jet hitting a large, solid, reinforced building like the Pentagon.
Some people suggest that those who believe it was a plane are blind sheep just following the party line. I submit that perhaps in actuality ideology plays a larger part in those who suggest it was something else.
[edited for spelling]
[right][snapback]509455[/snapback][/right]
So you believe all of it? That you are informed of the truth by the
"proper" authorities? There is not one important question of 9-11 that you have for our leaders? The "put" options on the stocks? Buzzy Krongaurd? The mock 9/11 "type" exercises just before 9-11 actually happened? FEMA in New York City setting up camp on 9-10-01, the day before...The tape is online. None of this seems to point to inside knowledge at the least? Or worse...complicity?
A thousand cups of weak coffee do not make a strong one. Every time a piece of evidence is presented, doubt is cast on it, and instead of further supporting that piece, another piece is presented, and the process repeats itself. Eventually, the conspiracist claims that they have shown a ton of evidence for their claim, which they have, but they fail to understand that a ton of shaky evidence is still shaky evidence, and shaky evidence simply isn't as strong as firm evidence, as presented by multiple sources, including, yes, the media. For every piece of uncertain evidence that conspiracy theorists present, there is a corresponding piece of well-supported evidence leaning towards a less dramatic conclusion. Ultimately, people look at both, and decide to go with the best supported one, only to be accused of being led like sheep for not agreeing with the conspiracy theory.
I've got it all figured out now....Paul was killed in a car crash and died...The Beatles had a look a like contest and replaced Paul.....Yoko Ono had a hit man kill John Lennon and they all blamed it on a twisted psycho....George HW Bush put Sadaam up to invading Kuwait and George W. Bush employed Osama Bin Ladin as a CIA operative and had him set up the 9/11 scenario....then he invaded Iraq so he could steal their oil and make all his Texas oil buddies rich..... 
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Mar 5 2005, 11:47 PM)
A thousand cups of weak coffee do not make a strong one. Every time a piece of evidence is presented, doubt is cast on it, and instead of further supporting that piece, another piece is presented, and the process repeats itself. Eventually, the conspiracist claims that they have shown a ton of evidence for their claim, which they have, but they fail to understand that a ton of shaky evidence is still shaky evidence, and shaky evidence simply isn't as strong as firm evidence, as presented by multiple sources, including, yes, the media. For every piece of uncertain evidence that conspiracy theorists present, there is a corresponding piece of well-supported evidence leaning towards a less dramatic conclusion. Ultimately, people look at both, and decide to go with the best supported one, only to be accused of being led like sheep for not agreeing with the conspiracy theory.
[right][snapback]512779[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]512779[/snapback][/right]
I see what you are saying Aquatus and I agree but I was trying to point out that since serious questions still linger that we shouldn't be too quick to accept the "White House" response as the Gospel. Of course we would all like too but I think by now they have proven to be untrustworthy. Lets say for arguments sake that the planes and terrorists were all legit in every way...where the hell is Osama? What the hell are we doing in Iraq? They had nothing to do with 9-11. And what is senior Bush doing in business with the Bin Ladens in the Carlyle Group, an arms dealer. This isn't weak stuff ...this is just being investigative on our part.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.