9/11 Truth Manifesto
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Yeah ... I've been to plenty of air shows. Did more than a couple of fly-pasts too - although a lumbering Argus wasn't nearly so agile as a CF-5.
Note: Boeing 757 does not come with an afterburner....
So ... are you still stuck on the miraculous flight by washout pilots or just what IS your argument?
Last edited:
Actually, the pilot's flight school profile matches exactly the character of flight of the plane that hit the pentagon. He was a yahoo.
There's no argument. Jihadi's hijacked a plane and flew it into the pentagon. The evidence is overwhelming. I don't need to repeat it.
There's no argument. Jihadi's hijacked a plane and flew it into the pentagon. The evidence is overwhelming. I don't need to repeat it.
Yeah ... you do. I haven't pooh-poohed the event, just question that final mile, the "inexperience" of the pilots, and how they managed to carry it off undetected. I've even found and described a viable means to accomplish the feat. Now, I'd love to hear your versions of the sciences of aeronautics and air control systems. How does a flight school profile that says the guy couldn't maintain a Cessna in straight and level flight match a flight that expertly bled off a compressive wave to fly a high-lift wing at much less than half the aircraft's wingspan?
Please ignore pieces of the plane...it was a missle
How come we only see those débris on 911myth.com images? no one else has.
Why don't we see anything of that, on that picture? why tell me?
Telling me there is commercial airplane that hit that building, it is like telling me, " hey i am completly retarded and i am proud of it"
There is not a single shread of evidence.
How come we only see those débris on 911myth.com images? no one else has.
Why don't we see anything of that, on that picture? why tell me?
Telling me there is commercial airplane that hit that building, it is like telling me, " hey i am completly retarded and i am proud of it"
There is not a single shread of evidence.
hahahahahahahtotally completely retarded
Questioning the 'first established story' is not a disease. By finding truthful answers to what are usually considered to be 'nagging' questions is just what you have to do, if the subject is closed before all the questions are examined in minute detail then there will always be doubts. Now if there is some intentional deception going on the ones doing it would certainly be for ending any asking of questions ASAP. Wanting quick closure can be a sign all by itself that something is not right.
Some things are not right with the official story. The wheel hub could be correct, it is off a 757. The fan hub is another matter, it is way too small to come off a 757 engine.
The windows are another thing, look how few were broken. There should be no windows within what the liner's outline would be. There are some windows intact only a few feet away from the 16ft hole. Yes I know they were not ordinary windows.
Are you saying those are questions that shouldn't be asked?
Here's a test case for you. A slightly different topic but would you say this article is correct or not? If correct then something has not been 'right' for quite awhile. If incorrect then that system is working just like it is supposed to and it is just a fluke that the rich are getting richer and the poorer will always be the majority.
The Corrupt Origins of Central Banking - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute
Oh the questions should be asked.
But still...
Where did the plane go?
Where are the people?
Are all the witnesses liars or part of the government cover up?
It is clearly obvious that planes were being flown into building that day. Why is the Pentagon different?
But still...
Where did the plane go?
Where are the people?
Are all the witnesses liars or part of the government cover up?
It is clearly obvious that planes were being flown into building that day. Why is the Pentagon different?
How come we only see those débris on 911myth.com images? no one else has.
Why don't we see anything of that, on that picture? why tell me?
Telling me there is commercial airplane that hit that building, it is like telling me, " hey i am completly retarded and i am proud of it"
There is not a single shread of evidence.
Sure there is...there is a lot of evidence. You just ignore it because you want there to be a conspiracy. You NEED it to be a Bush job.
Just like your silly "The planes that hit the WTC Towers were actually holograms." theory.
Nice but that wasn't at full throttle or 550MPH. Ever see those jet-cars at an air show, they usually stack some old cars and blow them over with their exhaust.
Yeah? Big deal. Prior to 9/11 you could do that at any airport. Do you know what the difference is between an airplane gliding to earth at just over stall speed with engines idling and one zooming along at full thrust? C'mon ... You can't be that easily fooled....
YouTube - Beach + Airport = Chaos!
Danger sign about says it all....
Last edited:
It could be that surveillance tapes are still not released, the skill it took to make that turn and fly that low without crashing. And really, hitting an unoccupied part (mostly) that had just been reinforced, what kind of scouting did they do? None apparently. Which is the more sturdy in an aircraft of that design, the fuselage or the engines? They weigh about 7,000 lbs, impacting cement at 500+ MPH should leave some sort of dent, probably even a hole.
Very good... I knew you would post a clip on this.
Now... what is the difference? The plane was taking off as opposed to landing. People were at ground level as opposed to being up in the air. If the plane happened to be taking off from the Pentagon lawn you may have a point...however it was crashing. And believe me the guy wasn't going in at full thrust. Just about every witness said he seemed to be struggling with the plane.
Now was the plane taking off from the Pentagon...or landing (crashing) into the Pentagon? Whose clip is more closer to the attitude of the jet that crashed into the Pentagon?
Not as fully as any other part of the entire building. 123 out of a possible 800 is quite lucky.
"Because of the renovation, the stricken portion of the building was sparsely occupied. According to the Los Angeles Times: It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars [and blast-resistant windows] to withstand bomb blasts.... While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there. [SIZE=-1] 2 "
9-11 Research: Where The Pentagon Was Hit
Are there any photos that show the remains of 2 engines?
[/SIZE]
"Because of the renovation, the stricken portion of the building was sparsely occupied. According to the Los Angeles Times: It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars [and blast-resistant windows] to withstand bomb blasts.... While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there. [SIZE=-1] 2 "
9-11 Research: Where The Pentagon Was Hit
Are there any photos that show the remains of 2 engines?
[/SIZE]