9/11

[Imploding Turtle]

bob, a jet airliner striking a reinforced concrete building at 400+ mph won't punch a cartoon style outline of a plane in the wall.
Does the hole in the photograph you provided not look remotely like a plane fuselage shape?

Oh please don't tell me actually think a plane is supposed to have fit through that hole. That's the hole that the plane's landing gear punched in the C-ring of the Pentagon. The body of the plane disintegrated on impact, which makes sense because it's mosly aluminium. But there are some parts of an aeroplane that aren't made of soft metals, and these parts don't just stop when the aluminim fuselage breaks up or when they hit a wall.

[morpheus2]

Oh please don't tell me actually think a plane is supposed to have fit through that hole. That's the hole that the plane's landing gear punched in the C-ring of the Pentagon. The body of the plane disintegrated on impact, which makes sense because it's mosly aluminium. But there are some parts of an aeroplane that aren't made of soft metals, and these parts don't just stop when the aluminim fuselage breaks up or when they hit a wall.

Yes, apparently that is an exit hole where the landing gear punched it's way through.
The use of this picture is almost as hilarious as when idiots use the picture of the angled cuts on steel that the fire department made as safety procedures during the clean-up operation of the towers as evidence of thermite.

[bluelabrador16]

Gosh!

"NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" only once aired report ...CNN

Clip from news channel on september 11th 2001, clearly stating that no plane hit the pentagon. Strange? Not really..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

only 57 sec ....no excuse not to watch!

"Besides the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, there is no greater Achilles heel in the official 9/11 fiction than the government’s contrived tale of a passenger airliner hitting the Pentagon.
The following news clip was aired once, and only once, before it was memory-holed by the mainstream media. Here we see a CNN reporters confirming LIVE at the scene of the Pentagon on 9/11, reporting that he sees “no evidence of a plane at all.” This was scrubbed from the airwaves forever. Watch it here:"

[Imploding Turtle]

And you believe that?.............what utter tripe!

And you believe that firefighters and chiefs would keep quiet about a conspiracy that saw hundreds of their collegues and friends killed. Not just keep quiet about it but actually lie to maintain the cover up.


This page contains not jsut what Silverstein said ut also quotes from firefighters on the ground that day describing what actualkly happened that day. They describe how they were ordered to pull out of the building, how much damage there was, how badly the building was burning and how it looked and sounded like the buildings were going to collapse.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Gosh!



only 57 sec ....no excuse not to watch!

I watched it, and this is why i don't waste my time watching more of your videos because at no point in that clip does the reporter say that "no plane hit the pentagon".

What he does say, in response to the anchor asking about whether the plane landed short of the pentagon is this:

Anchorwoman: "... actually is was Bob Franken with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet - American Airlines jet - landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?"

Reporter: "You know if is might have appeared that way but from my close-up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (emphasis his). The only site is the actual side of the building that's crashed in ..."

He's so obviously referring to the claim that a plane crashed NEAR the building and not into it that it's hard to believe you've even watched it yourself.

[bluelabrador16]

Imploding Turtle

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From your recommended site, the following:

F.A.Q

Q: Why do you hide your identity?

A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was.
Apparently this is evidence to conspiracy theorists that I'm a "government shill"

Are you for real IT? I hope you are getting paid for posting this ****!

When you could visit the following:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696-faq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...

IT

"... from my close-up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon..."
"... from my close-up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.."

[Imploding Turtle]

From your recommended site, the following:



Are you for real IT? I hope you are getting paid for posting this ****!

When you could visit the following:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696-faq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...

Why do you need to know the identity of the owner of the website? What has his identity got to do with anything?

What's your identity?

[bluelabrador16]

I.T..

"Why do you need to know the identity of the owner of the website? What has his identity got to do with anything?..."

I won't lose any sleep not knowing, but it can speed up the process of working out why they have set up the site.

One view

"debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments."

Another view

"A website calling itself ‘Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ seems to have certain characteristics that look suspiciously like neoconservative propaganda websites. Even the opening background colour is almost identical to the old Project for the New American Century website indicating, perhaps, that the same webmaster is behind this website...."

Obviously, any one who is interested in the "truth" of 9/11 wouldn't use the site. (IMHO)

[Imploding Turtle]

I won't lose any sleep not knowing, but it can speed up the process of working out why they have set up the site.

Why do you need to know why they have set up the site?

[bluelabrador16]

IT

Why do you need to know why they have set up the site?

Answered already. Why do you use the site?

[Imploding Turtle]

Answered already. Why do you use the site?

No, you haven't answered it. Explain to me why it matters to you what the motives of the website's owner are.

[Vintage Claret]

Oh please don't tell me actually think a plane is supposed to have fit through that hole. That's the hole that the plane's landing gear punched in the C-ring of the Pentagon. The body of the plane disintegrated on impact, which makes sense because it's mosly aluminium. But there are some parts of an aeroplane that aren't made of soft metals, and these parts don't just stop when the aluminim fuselage breaks up or when they hit a wall.

I'm confused now Mr Turtle , you've quoted part of my post then seem to be ridiculing it, you do realise I'm on your side of the argument don't you?
Anyway, whatever, I'm done with this thread now, I'll leave you to battle it out with the topaz canine and the other 'truthers'.
Good luck with that.

[Vegas Claret]

Oh please don't tell me actually think a plane is supposed to have fit through that hole. That's the hole that the plane's landing gear punched in the C-ring of the Pentagon. The body of the plane disintegrated on impact, which makes sense because it's mosly aluminium. But there are some parts of an aeroplane that aren't made of soft metals, and these parts don't just stop when the aluminim fuselage breaks up or when they hit a wall.

bullshit factor of 10 there IT mate. Find me one other plane crash in the history of plane crashes that an aircraft produces either no or very little debris. You won't be able to because even when one nose dives into a mountain there is wreckage every single ******* time. I'll even provide a link for you, do your best

https://aviation-safety.net/

[Imploding Turtle]

bullshit factor of 10 there IT mate. Find me one other plane crash in the history of plane crashes that an aircraft produces either no or very little debris. You won't be able to because even when one nose dives into a mountain there is wreckage every single ******* time. I'll even provide a link for you, do your best

https://aviation-safety.net/

Well, there are videos of two planes flying into large steel buildings i could link. Pretty sure they left minimal plane debris outside the buildings. But something tells me that wouldn't be enough, even though it's twice as many as you asked for.

[Rileybobs]

Bump, just cos this thread is a good laugh.

[bluelabrador16]

A bit of musical relief:

Bush Knocked down the Towers - Immortal Technique MosDEF KRS ONE Eminem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdr_2IAJWU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMHO...I have to say that Bush definitely didn't orchestrate the terror attacks!

Cui Bono.

Their “objective was to transform American foreign policy from one in which, at least officially, we never attacked any nation that had not attacked us first, to one in which we became an aggressor nation, launching attacks to destabilize seven governments in next five years,”