Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[shen]

i was once called a coventry fan

That IS horrible. Unless of course you are just a Cov fan masquerading as a Foxes fan. That would beat the 9/11 cover up any day!

Oh and what do you make of this?

[jonno24]

I know you'll think I'm being sarcastic which is not my intention. However, I'd like to see a bunker buster come in horizontally, just a couple off feet off the floor, travelling at 500mph, and knocking into a generator whilst at the same time making a 'U' shape 'scoop' in the ground.

Oh, and it also knocked down three telephone poles, sounded like a plane, looked like a plane and it's remains became the charred remains of a plane.

It's probably safe to assume that a bunker buster or missile did not hit the Pentagon.

Well i would like to know is how a plane travelling at roughly the same speed could punch a hole 16ft wide after hitting the pentagon Horizontally.

There was a program in america where People tried to recreate the crash on a simulator and they found it impossible to recreate the angle that the plane allegedly hit the Pentagon. Basically what they said is that it was impossibe to punch that hole into the Pentagon with a 747.

Also why is there only ever the one CCTV camera footage shown to the 9/11 Inquiry.

Also Donald Rumsfeld said in a press conference the day before the attacks that the CIA,FBI,NSA etc couldn,t account for 5.7 billion dollars of funding they didnt know how this was spent etc etc.

Yet the exact place where the 'Plane' Hit was where all the accounts for the major security forces were kept........... MMMMMM

Sorry but doesnt add up

[l444ry]

Well i would like to know is how a plane travelling at roughly the same speed could punch a hole 16ft wide after hitting the pentagon Horizontally.

There was a program in america where People tried to recreate the crash on a simulator and they found it impossible to recreate the angle that the plane allegedly hit the Pentagon. Basically what they said is that it was impossibe to punch that hole into the Pentagon with a 747.

Also why is there only ever the one CCTV camera footage shown to the 9/11 Inquiry.

Also Donald Rumsfeld said in a press conference the day before the attacks that the CIA,FBI,NSA etc couldn,t account for 5.7 billion dollars of funding they didnt know how this was spent etc etc.

Yet the exact place where the 'Plane' Hit was where all the accounts for the major security forces were kept........... MMMMMM

Sorry but doesnt add up

Are you suggesting that a missile was fired at the Pentagon in an attempt to assassinate the accountants who were searching for this missing money?

Kind of odd, considering Rumsfeld was the one complaining about the problem in the first place.

[fleckneymike]

Well i would like to know is how a plane travelling at roughly the same speed could punch a hole 16ft wide after hitting the pentagon Horizontally.

There was a program in america where People tried to recreate the crash on a simulator and they found it impossible to recreate the angle that the plane allegedly hit the Pentagon. Basically what they said is that it was impossibe to punch that hole into the Pentagon with a 747.

Also why is there only ever the one CCTV camera footage shown to the 9/11 Inquiry.

Also Donald Rumsfeld said in a press conference the day before the attacks that the CIA,FBI,NSA etc couldn,t account for 5.7 billion dollars of funding they didnt know how this was spent etc etc.

Yet the exact place where the 'Plane' Hit was where all the accounts for the major security forces were kept........... MMMMMM

Sorry but doesnt add up

It does add up, it has always added up, and will continue to add up for everyone except those who chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence presented to them.

Lets flip the tables a second and imagine the US government had claimed a cruise missile had struck the Pentagon yet around the Pentagon were downed street lamps, engine turbines from a 757, aluminium body work from an American Airlines 757, a wheel off a 757 plus lots of other smaller pieces of fuselage. Would you believe a theory that says a comercial airliner was flown into the building?

[jonno24]

It does add up, it has always added up, and will continue to add up for everyone except those who chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence presented to them.

Lets flip the tables a second and imagine the US government had claimed a cruise missile had struck the Pentagon yet around the Pentagon were downed street lamps, engine turbines from a 757, aluminium body work from an American Airlines 757, a wheel off a 757 plus lots of other smaller pieces of fuselage. Would you believe a theory that says a comercial airliner was flown into the building?

Also all the evidence that was there for the Gulf of Tonkin incident that gave the reason for America to engage in war with Vietnam.

The US government has now admitted that this incident was faked. Im not saying that the 9/11 incidents didnt happen as a cause of terorist activities but the American govt has lied to its people before

We should'nt really be surprised if they have done it again.

[jonno24]

Are you suggesting that a missile was fired at the Pentagon in an attempt to assassinate the accountants who were searching for this missing money?

Kind of odd, considering Rumsfeld was the one complaining about the problem in the first place.

Also a bloke who is the CEO and Chairman of alot of companies that have got Regeneration contracts in Iraq , Afghanistan

Strange how it was the day before tho isnt it i mean surely it would look better for him if this info came out AFTER the attacks.

[l444ry]

Also a bloke who is the CEO and Chairman of alot of companies that have got Regeneration contracts in Iraq , Afghanistan

Strange how it was the day before tho isnt it i mean surely it would look better for him if this info came out AFTER the attacks.

I can't follow your logic, Jonno.

Rumsfeld was the one arguing that the Pentagon needed to track the money better, and spend the money more economically. Trace and read the original speech!

This money wasn't sitting around in some slush fund. This was money that the Pentagon had spent over the last 50 years, which it couldn't track because of their antique accounting and information systems.

Rumsfeld was the one criticising this and calling for reform, and somehow through some amazing conspiracy theory logic you have managed to somehow make him responsible for the problem.

[fleckneymike]

Also a bloke who is the CEO and Chairman of alot of companies that have got Regeneration contracts in Iraq , Afghanistan

Strange how it was the day before tho isnt it i mean surely it would look better for him if this info came out AFTER the attacks.

So some how Dick Cheney got a Cruise missile fired into the Pentagon, planted evidence linking the crime to Saudi Arabia and Afganistan so he could start a war in Iraq.

[Rincewind]

happens all the time.

[jonno24]

I can't follow your logic, Jonno.

Rumsfeld was the one arguing that the Pentagon needed to track the money better, and spend the money more economically. Trace and read the original speech!

This money wasn't sitting around in some slush fund. This was money that the Pentagon had spent over the last 50 years, which it couldn't track because of their antique accounting and information systems.

Rumsfeld was the one criticising this and calling for reform, and somehow through some amazing conspiracy theory logic you have managed to somehow make him responsible for the problem.

This is why i love having debate about this stuff i am willing to accept that the original speech was of Rumsfeld Critisising the system etc etc. for this one i have got wrong.

But lets not say that there arent some very dodgy things going on in the US govt and lets be honest if they wanted to stage an attack like this they Could.

[jonno24]

So some how Dick Cheney got a Cruise missile fired into the Pentagon, planted evidence linking the crime to Saudi Arabia and Afganistan so he could start a war in Iraq.

Then lied about WMD's to get us to go to war with a country that had tenuous links with AL Qaeda just to 'Liberate ' The country from Saddam Hussein

Nah im sure there all just nice old men.

[fleckneymike]

This is why i love having debate about this stuff i am willing to accept that the original speech was of Rumsfeld Critisising the system etc etc. for this one i have got wrong.

But lets not say that there arent some very dodgy things going on in the US govt and lets be honest if they wanted to stage an attack like this they Could.

No they couldn't. Do you seriously believe that the American government continually does things really badly and inefficiently on purpose so as to make themselves look massively incompetent in order to carry out really efficient crimes in secret?

[jonno24]

No they couldn't. Do you seriously believe that the American government continually does things really badly and inefficiently on purpose so as to make themselves look massively incompetent in order to carry out really efficient crimes in secret?

Gulf Of Tonkin

Look it up

Then tell me that The US Govt isnt capable of such Horrors

[fleckneymike]

Then lied about WMD's to get us to go to war with a country that had tenuous links with AL Qaeda just to 'Liberate ' The country from Saddam Hussein

Nah im sure there all just nice old men.

Aaaarghhh! WMD had virtually nothing to do with the American's going to war in Iraq. WE insisted on including WMD in our dossier, WE made Bush go to the UN, he was going to war regardless to bring about regime change in order to bring democracy to the middle east as part of a longer term strategy to create stability in the region. Read about the Bush Doctrine on pre emptive strikes (something Sarah Palin doesn't understand by the way).

[fleckneymike]

Gulf Of Tonkin

Look it up

Then tell me that The US Govt isnt capable of such Horrors

They are not even comparable incidents. Why not cite Britain and the Belgrano?

Edited to say, if they are capable of staging a terrorist attack on US soil with a 24 hour rolling news network I think they might have gone to the extra effort of planting WMD in Iraq. If you think they can fake a commercial jet hitting the Pentagon, I'm sure you'd believe they could plant one pathetic mobile chemical lab in the Iraq desert.

[Rincewind]

King Harold arrow in eye?

Boston tea party was really the Brooke Bond tea party.

[shen]

It does add up, it has always added up, and will continue to add up for everyone except those who chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence presented to them.

Lets flip the tables a second and imagine the US government had claimed a cruise missile had struck the Pentagon yet around the Pentagon were downed street lamps, engine turbines from a 757, aluminium body work from an American Airlines 757, a wheel off a 757 plus lots of other smaller pieces of fuselage. Would you believe a theory that says a comercial airliner was flown into the building?

The link in my previous post points to an interesting theory. The author (a skeptic) argues that it WAS a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. I'll leave the rest to you

[Zingari]

I know you'll think I'm being sarcastic which is not my intention. However, I'd like to see a bunker buster come in horizontally, just a couple off feet off the floor, travelling at 500mph, and knocking into a generator whilst at the same time making a 'U' shape 'scoop' in the ground.

Oh, and it also knocked down three telephone poles, sounded like a plane, looked like a plane and it's remains became the charred remains of a plane.

It's probably safe to assume that a bunker buster or missile did not hit the Pentagon.

As i've stated before , I think it could have been a "dressed up drone" ie a drone painted in AA livery , and how many eye witnesses would know the difference between a Boeing 767 and a drone if it suddenly loomed out of the sky especially if it had been painted to look like one , and constantly told it was one ( and the US do keep conveniently "losing" these things)

many pilots are questioning the viability of a 767 being able to perform that supposed manoeuvre ( even more so considering they were supposed to be being flown by pilots who were struggling to gain the skills required to fly a cessna 152 )

And show me a picture of the U shaped scoop in the lawn . it's barely touched ,

edit;

will someone please explain to me wtf nighty keeps going on about ?

edit 2

l444ry

Please go to youtube and type in "pilots for 911 truth" for a thorough explanation of what i'm trying to say about the implausibility of an airliner being able to perform such as this . Some of them are quite long and detailed , but well worth the effort

Here's a start

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXPbKkf5h8

[easilee]

Just playing Devil's advocate a bit here.

I do find it hard to believe a huge passenger plane made that hole unless the wings collapsed and folded against the plane's body as it went through.

Don't know if the wings were too strongly fixed for that to happen, but it would explain why the building wasn't damaged for a much wider area.

Just a thought.

[l444ry]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix. Look carefully at the right hand side of the explosion. Isn't that a plane tail lifting up on impact?

http://www.gamelogos.com/temp/pentanimxox2.gif

[Zingari]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix. Look carefully at the right hand side of the explosion. Isn't that a plane tail lifting up on impact?

http://www.gamelogos.com/temp/pentanimxox2.gif

drones have those

edit;

and where is the u shaped gouge on the lawn that could not be explained by a drone too ? i can only see very minor markings on the lawn

[l444ry]

drones have those

edit;

and where is the u shaped gouge on the lawn that could not be explained by a drone too ? i can only see very minor markings on the lawn

Apologies for confusion but I meant the u shaped gouge on the generator which was on the ground. And that a missile would have had a job to create this AND the hole in the Pentagon wall.

[Zingari]

Apologies for confusion but I meant the u shaped gouge on the generator which was on the ground. And that a missile would have had a job to create this AND the hole in the Pentagon wall.

couldn't part of the drone do one damage to the generator ( it too has a massive engine, it's not a glider ) and the missile part do the other more serious stuff to the building ?

[l444ry]

Attention 9/11 Truthers: You're a Turtle

Once upon a time there was a turtle that had a little problem. You see, he didn’t believe he was a turtle. He couldn’t quite put his finger on the reason why, but for some reason, he just knew he wasn’t a turtle. Looking for confirmation, he asked a wolf.

“Am I a turtle?”

“Yes,” the wolf replied, “I eat turtles, and you look like something I would eat.”

“But that’s not a very good reason!” Turtle exclaimed, “you eat many things!”

And Turtle was right. The wolf ate many things. So Turtle asked the hawk.

“What do I look like to you?”

“Well,” said the hawk, “from above, you look like a rock. However, you also move on land and swim in the water. You have green skin, a hard shell and flat feet, therefore I conclude that you are a turtle.”

“That’s not a very good reason either!” said Turtle impatiently. But every single animal Turtle asked agreed with the hawk and the wolf.

So the turtle decided that he should go get an opinion from the third smartest creature on earth: Man (the dolphins and the mice were unavailable for comment).

“I’m not a turtle,” turtle said to Man.

“That’s silly,” Man responded, “You clearly are a vertebrate reptile. Your shell would put you in the Testudines order, and your green skin would likely make you of the Terrapene genus. That’s about as turtle as turtle gets.”

“You use big words, so I’m going to ignore those. I believe I can prove that I’m not a turtle. First, you will observe me travelling at speeds in excess of 60 kilometers per hour.”

So turtle climbed into a car in the nearby parking lot and waited for the owner to drive away. He came back the next day in the same car.

“Oh, you’re still here?” Man said.

“Yes, I travelled far faster than any turtle possibly could. Turtles can’t travel on land more than about 3 kph, and I have travelled at 20 times that speed. That proves I am not a turtle.”

“Actually,” Man responded, “science doesn’t quite work that way. We must take note of all the observations and make testable hypotheses based on those observations. The fact that you can travel at speeds of 60 kph might be interesting proof that you’re a cheetah. But in truth, you’ve really just proved that you’re capable of travelling in a vehicle. That’s a skill that toads, sheep, lawn mowers and bricks all have. You’ve failed to make an adequate testable hypothesis, and that’s why you’re confused.”

“So I’m a cheetah! Or possibly a lawn mower!” Turtle shouted. “And if that isn’t proof enough, watch this!”

And Turtle went to the airport, boarded a plane, and flew to Los Angeles and back.

“You again?” Man sighed when Turtle returned.

“I have just flown across the country. What turtle can do that, I ask you!”

“Again, what you’ve shown is that you can board an airplane. And your ‘flight’ might be interesting proof that you’re a bird, but you certainly can’t also be a cheetah since cheetahs don’t fly.”

“So I’m a bird!” Turtle exclaimed. “It’s confirmed by the scientific method! By the way, why does your story keep changing? First you say I’m a cheetah, and then you say I’m a bird. So which is it? Am I a cheetah or am I a bird?”

“Let’s start over. Can we at least agree that you’re a reptile?”

“Says you, but you also said I was a cheetah, which is clearly not a reptile.”

“Fine, whatever, reptiles don’t have hair. Do you have hair?”

“Hang on.”

Turtle went to the wig shop and purchased a wig.

“Now I have hair!” Turtle said proudly to Man.

“How about this: The most knowledgeable people on earth wrote this book about turtles. In it they have hundreds of pictures with exquisitely detailed descriptions, many of them with little things that look exactly like you. Are you saying you know more than they do?”

“I certainly know more about what is and is not a turtle. Besides, I think my intuition on the matter is worth far more than their silly opinions.”

“No,” man started with a heavy sigh, “All you’ve shown so far is that through a series of asinine demonstrations, you are capable of travelling on an airplane and in a car. The fact remains that you are a shelled, hairless reptile with flat feet and green skin, and by your own experiments, you’ve shown that you have more in common with a lawnmower than most of the other animals on Earth.”

“Don’t be silly, I’m clearly a bird. Although it’s certainly possible that I am a lawn mower.”

Finally, it was decided that Woman should come in to mediate the argument, since Man and Turtle were not getting anywhere debating this question. After hearing their arguments, Woman turned to Man.

“Let me get this straight,” Woman began. “You’ve been having an argument with Turtle wherein he has declared, as a starting point to the debate, that he will be defending an absurd position using absurd reasoning. Your solution to this problem is to present a logically constructed argument based on scientific evidence in the hope that Turtle will have a breakthrough and then self rationalize the truth and declares his folly. You base this hope on the belief that Turtle is a rational, intelligent, self-searching, curious truth seeker, despite all evidence to the contrary. You’re arguing with a creature whose brain has the same relative computing power of a wet chicken McNugget, and you’re shocked he doesn’t respond to scientific reasoning.”

“Yep, that’s about it,” replied Man.

“You’re an idiot.” Woman said. “Ply your hands to some profitable enterprise so that you migh have sufficient funds to keep me on retainer for any future failures in logic and good sense.”

“What about me?” Turtle asked.

“You’re a Turtle.”

"But Man said I'm a lawnmower!"

"Fine, you're a lawnmower. Go drink petrol and eat grass."

[marko]

As i've stated before , I think it could have been a "dressed up drone" ie a drone painted in AA livery , and how many eye witnesses would know the difference between a Boeing 767 and a drone if it suddenly loomed out of the sky especially if it had been painted to look like one , and constantly told it was one ( and the US do keep conveniently "losing" these things)

many pilots are questioning the viability of a 767 being able to perform that supposed manoeuvre ( even more so considering they were supposed to be being flown by pilots who were struggling to gain the skills required to fly a cessna 152 )

And show me a picture of the U shaped scoop in the lawn . it's barely touched ,

edit;

will someone please explain to me wtf nighty keeps going on about ?

edit 2

l444ry

Please go to youtube and type in "pilots for 911 truth" for a thorough explanation of what i'm trying to say about the implausibility of an airliner being able to perform such as this . Some of them are quite long and detailed , but well worth the effort

Here's a start

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXPbKkf5h8

lol

A drone dressed up as an AA 757, you can't be serious? That's like comparing a matchbox car with a hummer. The difference in size and mass is huge.

I'm pretty sure even the most stupid of humans would be able to tell the difference between a 757 and a drone.