Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

Originally posted by NorEaster
Who cares about the concrete and steel.

You brought in about the plane disintegrating. So hearing about the TONS of concrete and steel is something that you should care about.

you kids would be pretty hilarious

Snotty .... but funny. I haven't been called a kid in decades.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Oh, and no one has to prove a damn thing.

When someone claims 'this is the real truth' ... they certainly DO have a 'damn thing' to prove.
And so far ... they haven't.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NorEaster
Who cares about the concrete and steel.

You brought in about the plane disintegrating. So hearing about the TONS of concrete and steel is something that you should care about.

No...I "brought in" about the fires. Read my post again.

you kids would be pretty hilarious

Snotty .... but funny. I haven't been called a kid in decades.

edit on 8/2/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

I'm old. You're all kids to me.

Just got to love the part about Operation Paperclip. It plainly shows the lack of even basic knowledge about the end of WWII in Europe. There was nothing secret or illegal about Paperclip--THE US WON THE WAR!

The Tehran conference put down the guidelines for the allies to procure the Reich's scientist, doctors, research teams and most of all the intelligence hierarchy.

To the victors go the spoils.

The Paperclip files are in the National Archives not the Pentagon.

A perfect example of Truther logic-just make up anything-anything at all since the only ones who believe this manure have no understanding of history whatsoever.

Lets look at one of the planes that hit the twin towers. Do people see the bulge at the bottom of the plane?

That bulge represents the remote control pod that directed the plane into the twin towers.

Also there is no united airlines logo on the plane.

And here is the proof of what local eyewitnesses in nyc saw....



They said cargo plane that had no windows and a strange blue logo. Of course that could also be a military plane with remote control pods. Most people were not aware that such things exist so naturally they called cargo plane.

Originally posted by NorEaster
No...I "brought in" about the fires. Read my post again.

You said that the Pentagon wasn't as completely devastated as it should have been.
That's why I mentioned the tons of steal and concrete. MUCH more than the towers.

I'm old. You're all kids to me.

I'm 51. I feel 100. But that's a subject for another thread ....

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NorEaster
Oh, and no one has to prove a damn thing.

When someone claims 'this is the real truth' ... they certainly DO have a 'damn thing' to prove.
And so far ... they haven't.

YOU are the one declaring what is "real truth" here. The 9/11 "truthers" are declaring that we need a new investigation to find out what actually did happen. Get it straight. YOU guys are the ones that are making the declarations concerning what DID happen. No one else is. By your own standard, it's YOU who have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those 19 hijackers - at least 7 who have proven that they're still alive - were responsible for the attacks and all those deaths.

This is the fact of what this argument is all about. The 9/11 conspiracy movement isn't saying what did happen. They're exposing what could not have happened - given physics and the physical survival of at least 7 of the "hijackers". It's the Official Conspiracy Theory defenders who are declaring that they know what DID happen.

You folks are required to prove your case, and if you can't, then we need to open a new investigation.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
This is what is insanely laughable about debunkers.

More hate from the 911 'truthers'. How about you stick to the topic instead of insults?

Just saying it is possible to actually R/C a plane of that size in 2001 was in fact the truth. It is very much closer to the truth than your laughable assertion some untrained people with boxcutters not only took control of the planes but flew them with such precision into 2 different buildings.

19 humans who took flight lessons and who were armed with knives were very much capable of steering airplanes into buildings. Remote controls lifting off airplanes and flying them into buildings ... possible ... but the fact is that it is much less likely especially considering the fact that the pilots names and pictures are available for everyone to see. The pilots were living people who died that day.

I notice you once again claim "everything has been debunked" yet after I post numerous links pointing out that flight 93 had debris 8 miles away you left that one alone.

I didn't have to answer. It was answered by someone else. The plane was traveling at too high a speed and was pitching violently. Eyewitness confirm this. Pieces fell off.

edit on 8/2/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote

Just an FYI this is MY thread and I decide what is on topic NOT you.

What IS insulting is YOU repeatedly posting everything has been debunked when it hasn't and the fact that you DEMAND proof yet provide NONE of your own.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

When someone claims 'this is the real truth' ... they certainly DO have a 'damn thing' to prove.
And so far ... they haven't.

Like I said when you are done crying about being insulted go find us proof that those so called 19 people who allegedly had SOME training were anywhere even remotely qualified to fly 3 sophisticated aircraft with such precision into buildings.

People saw a plane crash in Shanksville so what, that proves NOTHING of how it crashed.
Of course it was traveling fast and pitching down it was just shot out of the sky.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NorEaster
No...I "brought in" about the fires. Read my post again.

You said that the Pentagon wasn't as completely devastated as it should have been.
That's why I mentioned the tons of steal and concrete. MUCH more than the towers.

I wanted to know why the fires weren't so devastating at the Pentagon. Try again. This time focus on the fires that literally caused the WTC towers and WTC#7 to completely collapse. Why don't we see that kind of devastation at the Pentagon? Why don't we see those thousands of gallons of jet fuel igniting the entire area at the Pentagon? You see, this is what the 9/11 Conspiracy debate looks like in 2013. The stuff being presented by the "truthers" is pretty intractable stuff. I already know that you don't have an answer for the burning jet fuel problem at the Pentagon. I've already seen all thew arguments that are possible from your side, and they just don't answer the question.

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
Just an FYI this is MY thread and I decide what is on topic NOT you.

Just an FYI this thread topic has been set ... 'the real truth about 911 planes'.
So .. prove this remote control 'real truth'. Or don't claim that it is the truth.

What IS insulting is YOU repeatedly posting everything has been debunked

Debunked? Not even close ...

People said it was almost impossible to fly a plane into buildings that precisely, but want to think it might can be done via remote control? Not gonna happen

I will say that I do believe and always have that flight 93 was shot down, and I can see how they would not want to release this info to the public. But for the most part, it happened like the official story said, minus the parts that really would have shown how our government and these agencies dropped the ball big time. This they are not telling us everything.

Even the general of american intelligence suspects 9-11-2001 was a false flag.

Thousands of architects, pilots, police, firefighters, flight attendants, eyewitnesses claim the same thing.

At the very least there should be an unbiased investigation. But you know why there will never be one? Because the people who did 9-11 are also funding alciada in the middle east to topple middle eastern governments like syria, egypt and libya.

Some people would rather focus on benghazi, I would rather focus on this.

The american people deserve the truth, the world deserves the truth.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
Just an FYI this is MY thread and I decide what is on topic NOT you.

Just an FYI this thread topic has been set ... 'the real truth about 911 planes'.
So .. prove this remote control 'real truth'. Or don't claim that it is the truth.

What IS insulting is YOU repeatedly posting everything has been debunked

Debunked? Not even close ...

Here we go with the antagonistic debunker statements.
Try posting the truth not what you want to post to start an argument.
The topic title you posted is NOT correct you conveniently left out the first 2 words which say IS THIS.
The topic title is a question NOT a statement that this story is the absolute 100% truth.
You posted what you knew to be false and insinuate otherwise to accuse me of something.
YOU are in violation of the rules of this forum when you intentionally posted a false statement.
I do agree your debunking is not even close.

It is suggested members read the following before making new posts in this thread:

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


I was unaware the "no planes" topic was forbidden discussion topic. Thanks for the heads up. I suggest we leave that statement from the article alone and continue.

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
Here we go with the antagonistic debunker statements ....
The topic title is a question :

Either you are stating it's the truth, or asking a question. You will get responses that show it not to be true or asking you to prove your theory. That's not 'antagoninstic'. That's having a conversation.

So again .... you have shown that this COULD happen.
Please show us how this PROBABLY happened.
Show us how this probably is 'the real truth'.
Your 'probably' or 'possibly' is the same as anyone else's 'probably' or 'possibly'.

Thank you, in advance, for providing the information that I'm sure is forthcoming....

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Why would the terrorist masterminds hit a largely vacant part of the Pentagon? I don't believe you.

edit on 1-8-2013 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah

Simply because that side of the building was the side on the flight path with the most direct route for the aircraft. Simple.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
3) The Pentagon was NOT a plane crash.

How do you explain the 757 aircraft parts found inside and outside the Pentagon?

Ok, without going into the lack of aircraft parts found at the Pentagon, how do you explain an enormous passenger airliner disappearing into a truck-sized hole?



You can't, yet there is little doubt that you'll just regurgitate the standard diatribe that ´witnesses' saw the rabbit (757) disappear into the hole.

Show us some evidence. PHOTOS or FILM of this famous Pentagon plane, even the tail piece, seats, bodies, engines. NOT scraps of metal or verbal witness accounts, for it is clear that many people indeed were involved in this crime and some have made obscene fortunes (think of the Westfield centres). Placing a few people in convenient 'eyewitness' locations would not have been difficult and the trillions of dollars that have so far been consumed post 9/11, make dishonesty VERY lucrative and worthwhile (without even mentioning Military-secrets laws or misplaced pseudo-religious loyalties).

Just because you keep repeating the lies, you can never completely hide the truth. They got away with it at the end of WW2 but even those truths are now becoming common knowledge.

I can see why you are so scared.