Off Topic DISCOVERIES !

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
BringBackFootie. said:
How could I know that, I could suspect, did you just watch the CNN interview, it#s only a minute, no plane at the pentagon according to their guest who inspected the site first hand.

So we have a guy who was there on the day on site and seen no trace of any plane at the pentagon.

People think they watched this live, they didn't.

ABC News, no plane at WTC reported. CNN no plane at pentagon, this was the first day. Witness accounts no planes, bombs, firemen "we heard explosions beneath our feet", these are not scared people they are trained professionals after all. Fire Chief on the day "we have bombs in the building".

Eye witness accouts in the media from that day you probably didn;t see ;)
You must log in or register to see media

Firemen, secondary explosion.
You must log in or register to see media

Now I know you wont watch those because you are not actually wanting to know the whole story, just what you want to believe, watch them.

Above is the pentagon no plane report I posted you probably didn't watch either.
Opinions seem to be better than evidence for you guys, not proof, but evidence the official story is bollocks
Click to expand...


Ok, so I've watched the first video... I'm not sure why you posted this. Is it meant to be any kind of proof there were no planes? I'm guessing because there are people saying "I saw an explosion" that's meant to be some kind of proof there were no planes? Or maybe they weren't looking up a that point and by time they heard the sound (sound travels faster then light) the plane had already been and gone...

Or perhaps it's all based on 1 guy saying "they blew that building up, nothing hit that building". One guy that looks lie he's quite close so can only see 1 side and could potentially have not have seen a plane come in from a different angle?
 
I will say that the Pentagon one is iffy... No proper CCTV footage of it, all confiscated yet they are happy for pictures of the plane crashing into the WTC to be published.

Perfect round hole... no real damage to the ground that would have been caused by planes engines, no wings, engines, tail left... all just somehow disintegrated.
 
InKlippertyKloppWeTrust said:
I will say that the Pentagon one is iffy... No proper CCTV footage of it, all confiscated yet they are happy for pictures of the plane crashing into the WTC to be published.

Perfect round hole... no real damage to the ground that would have been caused by planes engines, no wings, engines, tail left... all just somehow disintegrated.
Click to expand...

Quite understandable why they would limit showing the effectiveness of a strike on the Pentagon and not release as many pictures.

It's a reinforced military facility designed to reduce damage from attack. The wings for example might have broken on impact or been weakened during the fast descent.

Even for the Pentagon there are still scores of witnesses. So the fact a plane hit it isn't up for debate... Unless they're all wrong.
 
Womble Milk said:
Quite understandable why they would limit showing the effectiveness of a strike on the Pentagon and not release as many pictures.

It's a reinforced military facility designed to reduce damage from attack. The wings for example might have broken on impact or been weakened during the fast descent.
Click to expand...

Would you not expect to see some sort of remains of the wings / tails / engines?

The fact it goes pretty much along the floor, you'd expect there to be some sort of damage to the ground from the engines... unless the pilot was somehow skilled enough to keep the engines just above ground level as not to dig into the turf?
 
InKlippertyKloppWeTrust said:
Would you not expect to see some sort of remains of the wings / tails / engines?

The fact it goes pretty much along the floor, you'd expect there to be some sort of damage to the ground from the engines... unless the pilot was somehow skilled enough to keep the engines just above ground level as not to dig into the turf?
Click to expand...
It's idiotic to even contemplate a conspiracy there, as if you believe that one was a lie, then you have to believe the WTC strikes were also staged. It's therefore moronic by definition. As why would you fake that if the WTC attacks were real? Where's the benefit? What's the motivation? It's bollocks mate
 
  • Like
Reactions: In MILK we trust
Tobes said:
It's idiotic to even contemplate a conspiracy there, as if you believe that one was a lie, then you have to believe the WTC strikes were also staged. It's therefore moronic by definition. As why would you fake that if the WTC attacks were real? Where's the benefit? What's the motivation? It's bollocks mate
Click to expand...



Yeah it was so quick after 9/11 that it would be impossible to plan a plausible cover up of a Pentagon attack that quick.

Besides. Twin towers was enough of an excuse to bomb Brown skinned people in Asia... The Pentagon wasn't needed to achieve that.
 
Tobes said:
It's idiotic to even contemplate a conspiracy there, as if you believe that one was a lie, then you have to believe the WTC strikes were also staged. It's therefore moronic by definition. As why would you fake that if the WTC attacks were real? Where's the benefit? What's the motivation? It's bollocks mate
Click to expand...

I don't think any of us know 100% what happened... there was obviously some sort of attack on the WTC and I think it's generally accepted it was a plane.. however that doesn't mean it wasn't staged.

Something hit the Pentagon no doubt... but could have just as easily been a missile rather than a plane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: terrifictraore
Womble Milk said:
Yeah it was so quick after 9/11 that it would be impossible to plan a plausible cover up of a Pentagon attack that quick.

Besides. Twin towers was enough of an excuse to bomb Brown skinned people in Asia... The Pentagon wasn't needed to achieve that.
Click to expand...


Unless they were behind the twin towers attacks as well...
 
InKlippertyKloppWeTrust said:
I don't think any of us know 100% what happened... there was obviously some sort of attack on the WTC and I think it's generally accepted it was a plane.. however that doesn't mean it wasn't staged.

Something hit the Pentagon no doubt... but could have just as easily been a missile rather than a plane.
Click to expand...
Staged my arse. You've just moved up to borderline crank level mate
 
Tobes said:
Are you popcorning here or have you banged your head?
Click to expand...

No one really knows... for something that big to be staged so many people would have to be involved and kept quiet that you'd imagine something would come out... all I'm saying is, the damage to Pentagon doesn't look like a plane when you look at it.
 
InKlippertyKloppWeTrust said:
No one really knows... for something that big to be staged so many people would have to be involved and kept quiet that you'd imagine something would come out... all I'm saying is, the damage to Pentagon doesn't look like a plane when you look at it.
Click to expand...
So you'd belive the entire conspiracy theory nonsense (which you've just largely debunked yourself there with simple common sense) on the strength of seeing what appears to be (but isn't ) a round hole in the Pentagon? <laugh>
 
Tobes said:
So you'd belive the entire conspiracy theory nonsense (which you've just largely debunked yourself there with simple common sense) on the strength of seeing what appears to be (but isn't ) a round hole in the Pentagon? <laugh>
Click to expand...

I'm just not closed minded <whistle>

I don't think it was one big cover up... but I do find the Pentagon one dodgy. It could have been a missile by terrorists.. if they released the many CCTV videos that were confiscated could easily clear it up but why take them hide them away and never show them... seems like they have something to hide?
 
InKlippertyKloppWeTrust said:
No one really knows... for something that big to be staged so many people would have to be involved and kept quiet that you'd imagine something would come out... all I'm saying is, the damage to Pentagon doesn't look like a plane when you look at it.
Click to expand...




How many examples of planes hitting reinforced military buildings designed to take minimum damage from missile strikes have there been that one can say it doesn't look like a plane strike?

Is it supposed to leave an exact cutout like when Yosemite Sam runs through a wall?

The wings would break much easier than the fuselage and may have already broken during the descent.


In order for the whole thing to be staged how many thousands of people had to be "in on it"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE FOOL
InKlippertyKloppWeTrust said:
I'm just not closed minded <whistle>

I don't think it was one big cover up... but I do find the Pentagon one dodgy. It could have been a missile by terrorists.. if they released the many CCTV videos that were confiscated could easily clear it up but why take them hide them away and never show them... seems like they have something to hide?
Click to expand...



So what happened to the hundred plus passengers on the plane?

Executed just so it could look like a plane hit it instead of a missile?
 
There are more stars in space than there are grains of sand on every beach in the world.

You must log in or register to see images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back