breezer_79 wrote:What you have just typed shows that you didn't read through the entirity of the first site I posted. What you have posted as reasons against it being a 757 having crashed into the Pentagon are all explained with FACTS. The size of the hole in the wall was commensurate to that of the aicraft that hit the building. There is photographic evidence of the Aircrafts remains for all to see listed on that site with detailed descriptions.

FACTS? - like the little amount of wreckage was that of a big passenger plane!
like the hole being consistent with the size of the plane, not taking into account the wings which stretch out for many feet, the two over 5 tonne each, steel and titanium (very hard) jet engines
like the fact that a passenger plane (757s) are made of aluminium and crumble when they hit trees and COULD NOT GO THROUGH METAL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS, even at the speed that the supposed plane was travelling! Let alone some 8 of these walls!




Let me list some facts from the documentary I have downloaded and anyone interested can either use common sense for some facts and do some research for others:

*Flight 77 (which crashed into the pentagon allegedly) could not have flown at the speeds that it was said it did without going into a high speed stall.
Quote by Russ Wittenburg, commercial and airforce pilot who flew two of the planes in used on 9/11 (WingTV)
*The plane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky
Quote by Russ Wittenburg, commercial and airforce pilot who flew two of the planes in used on 9/11 (WingTV)
*The speed, the maneuverability, the way he turned, we all thought.... all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane
Quote by Danielle O'brien, ATC and Dulles International Airport (ABCNews 9/14/2001)

*The light poles that were allegedly hit by the plane looked like they were ripped completely out of the ground and there was no damage to the light bulbs themselves. The wings apparently were not damaged either.
Compare this to the plane crash that happened on November 22nd 2004 in Houston, Texas where the plane that was going to take George Bush Senior to Equador clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at houston's hobby airport. The wing ripped off upon impact and scattered debris for over 100 yards.

*The plane that allegedly hit the pentagon was said to have bounced off the lawn and yet there is not a scratch on the lane, no markings, nothing.

*Has been said that the jet fuel ignited and the heat was so hot that it disintegrated most of the entire plane yet 184 of the 189 people that died in the pentagon because of the disaster, were found. ie. The bodies (disintegrate with much less than heat that metal) were not incinerated

*Titanium (which the two jet engines that were 6 tonnes each were made of) has a melting point of 1688 degrees Celsius.
Jet fuel, otherwise knows as Kerosene, which is a hydro carbon (made of carbon and hydrogen) can retain a temperature of 1120 dgrees Celsius for 40 minutes BUT only if the fuel is maintained.
The fuel of the plane that allegedly hit the pentagon, would have completely burned off on impact!!!! Therefore it is scientifically impossible
that 12 tonne of steel and titanium (the jet engines) was vapourised by Kerosene! What was found was remains of "a" jet engine.

*A piece of debris that was found on the lawn in front of the pentagon was allegedly a piece of the fusealage (sp?), was not singed (from the heat) or even scratched!

*If flight 77 was vapourised on impact, it would have been the first time in aviation history!

*Example - August 15th 2005, Hillios Airways flight 22, a boeing 737, on route to Athens, Greece crashed into a hillside at full speed. 121 passengers all dies and their bodies were found. There was alot of fire, tail section and wing sections of the plane were found as well as the engines that were in one bit and not disintegrated. Cockpit was also found.

*The damage to the pentagon wall is not consistent with to what would occur if a plane hit it. There is next to no damage on either side of the hole in the pentagon. Offices on both sides of the hole have all their windows still intact! There is no damage that would have been caused by the wings, tail section and especially the two 6 tonne, steel and titanium jet engines! Those jet engines are the only parts of the plane that could have caused any severe damage to those walls!

*A pentagon employee named April Gallop said, and it is in a book written by Jim Mars (sp?), that while in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once. They never identified themselves but made suggestions and told her repeatedly that a plane crashed into the pentagon. They also told her to take the compensation money and shut up.

*A number of military personnel in the pentagon said that they smelled cordite, which has a distinct smell, much different to jet fuel. Cordite is a compound used in ammunition.



That's just some evidence for the pentagon disaster. There is evidence for the two towers disasters

On Behalf of all Australians I apologize for Migya's views and opinons, whilst we can respectfully recognize he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants. He would only be speaking for .1% of the Australian population ( God... i hope there not all like this in Western Australia )

I think it's safe to say people like Migya will all one day end up in white straight jackets and padded cells. ( Say High to Garry St Jean for me at the Mental Hospital Migya )

OOOOH maaaaaan, and just when I thought this sh*t was finished with. Well I think you all know I'm not gonna let this go.....like a dog with a bone baby.

I'm just feeding Migya Ammunition!

I'm taking lowblows at him... but honestly i feel like i should really be apologizing for Australia cause he is saying some very unpatriotic stuff!!!

Ah well least me and him have the Warriors to smoothen our Quams

O.G pawnograffiti wrote:On Behalf of all Australians I apologize for Migya's views and opinons, whilst we can respectfully recognize he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants. He would only be speaking for .1% of the Australian population ( God... i hope there not all like this in Western Australia )

I think it's safe to say people like Migya will all one day end up in white straight jackets and padded cells. ( Say High to Garry St Jean for me at the Mental Hospital Migya )

Good one...

You have sounded like the lost cunnt from day one Pawndog


That's the thing - Things are the way they are because people actually believe the official stories and even support the priks that are behind all the bad stuff! Humanity deserves to be in the mess it's in but it is not fair on the few that know what is really going on or at least have some idea and have the guts to look behind the vails

Peace

migya wrote:That's the thing - Things are the way they are because people actually believe the official stories and even support the priks that are behind all the bad stuff! Humanity deserves to be in the mess it's in but it is not fair on the few that know what is really going on or at least have some idea and have the guts to look behind the vails

It's not about supporting the official story, those are going to be biased as hell. Even when telling the truth, they probably won't tell ALL the truth... but not everything is a conspiracy.

OK, Initially I was going to type out a huge drawn out post refuting each and everyone of Migya's points. However, in the course of trying to do this I realised that this would take me alot more time than I'm willing to give to this in order to find the correct source material. Instead, I will do what Migya has done and cut and paste some "facts" that stress my point. The only reason I have for doing this, is to show the futility of this argument. All source material I am goin to cut and paste will be from the below sites:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 fuselage is 13 feet wide/high)




Rims found in building match those of a 757




Small turbine engine outside is an APU



What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.

Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence.

Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos



Note the area circled in red.

Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo



Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211



Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes



Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object




Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion



Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

Ok, Migya you have your facts and I have mine....now where to?? Is there any point arguing this anywmore?? I don't think there is. Where just going to keep going around and around in circles. That said I'm not going to post in this topic anymore.....and besides, the other half wants the PC now and shes getting seriously pissed

Sorry for such a long post.

Cheers guys.

I only have one thing to say after that post, breezer:

HOLY-F*CKING-:batmaan:


Now what?

Breezer79... that looked like the storyboard for a BIG BLOCKBUSTER Oliver Stone movie... oh hang on THAT WAS A OLIVER STONE MOVIE

Anyhow i'm just waiting until Migya tells me the NYFD and NYPD were secretly forming an alliance to get the band YMCA to tour again to support the September 11 families of fallen fire soldiers and police officers ( But then again.... they need better leadership. Mike Dunleavy could be the Indian guy eh? )

Please Migya,... come to my YMCA concert. Mike Dunleavy will be the Indian and yours truely Nicolas Cage will be the fireman... i might even teach your boy Dunleavy to be a

MACHO

MACHO

MAN!!!!!

That definately is alot of information Breezer.

The most obvious thing is why did the two 6 tonne titanium engines not make two holes in the pentagon walls themselves? At that speed, two holes would have definately been made.

We could go on but really, we would get nowhere.

I have seen, heard and read too much of the atrocities of governments, in particular the U.S. government, in the past and coverups are frequent. Just is strange that surveillence cameras were taken by government agents that would have served to prove what really happened

Nice article I found
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... orad_x.htm



[size=18]NORAD had drills of jets as weapons[/size]
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.

Another nice article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s ... 44,00.html


CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital

Anthony Sampson
Thursday November 1, 2001
The Guardian


Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.
Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden. Soon afterwards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah".

The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.

Washington last night also denied the story.

Private planes owned by rich princes in the Gulf fly frequently between Quetta and the Emirates, often on luxurious "hunting trips" in territories sympathetic to Bin Laden. Other sources confirm that these hunting trips have provided opportunities for Saudi contacts with the Taliban and terrorists, since they first began in 1994.

Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years.

According to Le Figaro, last year he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Whether the allegations about the Dubai meeting are confirmed or not, the wider leaks from the French secret service throw a worrying light on the rivalries and lack of coordination between intelligence agencies, both within the US and between western allies.

A familiar complaint of French intelligence is that collaboration with the Americans has been essentially one-way, with them happy to receive information while giving little in return.

Another little article
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/wtc-silverstein.htm
and
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/wt/cp/if/si/



Lucky Larry
WTC destroyed, a multi-billion insurance compensation
consoles Larry Silverstein

Three months prior to the destruction of both towers the owners of the WTC leased the buildings, for incomprehensible reasons, to the Jewish real estate tycoon Larry Silverstein. Since then "Silverstein Properties Inc." took in the rent from the 430 tenants and other source income (i.e. tourist admission fees). Silverstein in return paid a leasing fee to the owners: "Only three months before the attack Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC. Silverstein agreed to pay over 99 years a total of 3,2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities: 616 million as an initial payment and then annually 115 million Dollars. The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC."

Then the catastrophe came upon New York. On September 11, only three months after signing the lease between Silverstein and the Port Authorities, two large passenger jets crashed into the towers. Larry was lucky, that he was not responsible for liabilities towards the Port Authorities, since the disaster was an act of God. Quite the contrary happened. Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars. Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: "Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7,2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.

The Port Authorities believe that Silverstein should get the 7,2 billion Dollar compensation instead of them, despite the fact that, as the lawful owners, should be indemified. Larry, born under a lucky star.

The following insurance companies are liable to Silverstein's compensation demand: "Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Lloyd's of London, German Alliance Corp., ACE Ltd and XL Capital Ltd."

Wonderful people like Larry Silverstein have many wonderful friends. With the help of New York's Jewish mayor, Michael Bloomberg, Silverstein found new investors, who are prepared to provide the money to build a new WTC. Larry can therefore keep the 7 billion Dollars from the underwriters and put it into a saving account: "Within the next five years a new WTC could be erected on 'Ground Zero', Silverstein said after a meeting with the designated New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg."


Larry Silverstein purchased a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease of the World Trade Center in July 2001, along with the above mentioned partner Westfield America for the shopping parts. Silverstein took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by terrorist attacks.