|
mym
|
 |
« Reply #720 on: July 14, 2009, 02:11:39 AM » |
|
but Voskhod3, it is a big deal cause it is most definitely planted...no way can things survive in such conditions and yet we are made to believe that they were? Just like that passport that was found at the scene of the towers...brand new...oh man, all bull if ya ask me
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #721 on: July 14, 2009, 02:12:06 AM » |
|
I was joking about the black box.
Did anyone consider the possibility that someone was collecting salvageable items from the wreckage?
I don't think the filing cabinets and computers is a big deal.
Bingo!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #722 on: July 14, 2009, 02:14:20 AM » |
|
No it's not "definitely planted".
But it's definitely been moved there, but there could be non-sinister reasons for that.
Someone may have been piling up salvageable stuff that they want to get out the way prior to the workmen moving in (or lots of other reasons).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #723 on: July 14, 2009, 02:14:58 AM » |
|
Well no, I dont think they are a big thing in the grand scale of things.
Just an oddity.
Having considered it I can only figure either it was being moved or salvaged as you say or it was put there to demonstrate it was an office that was hit - for some messed up NWO reason!
LOL - not had enough coffee yet !
And yeah the passport, hmmm. I wish mythbusters would do a show and see if a passport could survive this kind of thing, sadly they wont touch it (rather they are not allowed)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
mym
|
|
« Reply #724 on: July 14, 2009, 02:16:59 AM » |
|
ok, then someone needs to find out WHEN IT WAS MOVED THERE if it isn't a big deal lol
if I jumped the gun, my bad, just looked so phony.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #725 on: July 14, 2009, 02:30:43 AM » |
|
Ok we'll have it your way for a while. So tell me what's the benefit to the perps by planting a computer and a filing cabinets at the scene? Please explain.
i never made such a claim and neither does cit. my point is these computers and even this cabinet seem to be right in the impact zone as the debris seems to indicate. april gallop said she lost her shoes and was helped out of the impact hole after finding her baby and making her way to it barefoot. we still have numerous landing gears, wheels, and engines that allegedly didn't survive the impact and the intenisty of the jet fuel fires. and how about that exact hole in the c-ring? was it the nose of the plane? the landing gear? a tire? depends on who's telling the story. one version says the plane disintegrated into a perfectly circular ball of fire. how about that one?  the pentagon attack is the work of high grade military explosives. from the entrance hole to the exit hole and all that is inbetween. the risks involved with flying such a large plane at such a high speed at such low altitude with countless obstacles in the way allowing no room for error are way higher than the flyover scenario. do you really believe 757's can do 500+mph at such low altitudes and on top of that remain controllable by the pilot[even artificial]? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #726 on: July 14, 2009, 02:33:05 AM » |
|
do you really believe 757's can do 500+mph at such low altitudes and on top of that remain controllable by the pilot[even artificial]?
Yeah I do because it did. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #727 on: July 14, 2009, 02:35:24 AM » |
|
Yeah I do because it did.
Is that like saying "the Americans went to the moon because they did"? I know you would object to that one! You are puzzling me David. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #729 on: July 14, 2009, 02:41:04 AM » |
|
Is that like saying "the Americans went to the moon because they did"?
No it's not. I say a plane hit the Pentagon because of all the evidence I've seen which proves that. I haven't seen any evidence that shows that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #730 on: July 14, 2009, 02:43:50 AM » |
|
No it's not. I say a plane hit the Pentagon because of all the evidence I've seen which proves that. Sorry but "Yeah I do because it did" is circular logic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #731 on: July 14, 2009, 02:45:35 AM » |
|
Quote from: jimd3100 on July 13, 2009, 04:18:01 PM The plane according to Ranke is remote controlled that's what he told me anyway. my blood is actually boiling right now.
LOL! why are you lying?
I'm not you are as usual. Nice combo--a loon and a lier. please tell me your not an operative and follow it up with proof that craig ever said anything remotely close to this that you can spin and turn into "the plane is remote controlled".
Of course I'm an operative, you already knew that. I was sent to replace Pickering when you guys outed him. We have been watching you for quite some time now and you have us very worried. We don't like you exposing our top assets like Lloyd and Mike Walter. Now to show that as usual you making false assertions and accusations because you are a disruptive nut... As I prove here you are shown again to be a lying and disruptive deceptive and frankly IMO suffering from mental illness, as are your cohorts. ME: "And you forgot to explain who flew that plane over the pentagon as well. It wasn't remote control after all. I guess ATTA and the other pilots who flew SEVERAL STATES to reach their targets weren't remote control either. If they were they would use it at the pentagon no?" Ranke: "Of course I believe the decoy jet was remote controlled." http://911blogger.com/node/13279?page=1you are straight up lying dude.
It's you who just got caught lying and you're busted again.
No, that would be you i've busted you lying so many times in this thread it is unbelievable.
LOL , while I agree it is unbelievable it's here for all to see how demented you actually are....Ranke: "Of course I believe the decoy jet was remote controlled." http://911blogger.com/node/13279?page=1cit deals in evidence not conspiracy theories.
LOL! Good for a laugh, but not worth the hassle of dealing with your mental illness... The plane according to Ranke is remote controlled that's what he told me anyway. OK. Are the planes flying into the towers remote controlled or do you actually believe jihadi nuts are in control of them? So we slam a plane into the north tower we slam a plane into the south tower and we almost slam a plane into the pentagon but we don't. Instead we just want everyone to think we did and fly the plane off to somewhere else, meanwhile on an operation as big as 9/11 naturally we have our top operative cagey old Lloyd the mass murdering cab driver staging his scene and have lower ranking CIA guys planting lightpoles. Why you ask? so we can make a fake flight path just for fun. We'll try and put some more operatives like M Walter and Father McGraw along with Wheelhouse (these guys work for almost nothing....they just like killing people) in order to try and make this fake flight path we created for fun more convincing. We also planted plane parts in the building some from the wrong plane(good cointel help is so hard to find) we almost got away with it to if it weren't for those meddling CIT kids. But our operatives were instructed to give them full access and don't panic, just act like you got nothing to hide, but gosh it sure backfired. They could tell they were all operatives and lying through their teeth. Or maybe a plane flew into the building just like everyone said. I will give you CIT guys credit for proving it was a passenger jet that crashed into the pentagon, I've been saying that for awhile now(as you know I support the government version of events-That's what you would say- ....you know... 9/11 happened on 9/11- it was a Tuesday-Planes flew into buildings) that kind of stuff..... But CIT did prove indeed it was a large plane that hit-thanks guys! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #732 on: July 14, 2009, 02:46:26 AM » |
|
Sorry but "Yeah I do because it did" is circular logic.
Yeah when taken out of context but if you read the whole thread then my comment makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #733 on: July 14, 2009, 02:52:02 AM » |
|
Context:
"do you really believe 757's can do 500+mph at such low altitudes and on top of that remain controllable by the pilot[even artificial]?"
"Yeah I do because it did."
Circular logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #734 on: July 14, 2009, 02:52:44 AM » |
|
Context:
"do you really believe 757's can do 500+mph at such low altitudes and on top of that remain controllable by the pilot[even artificial]?"
"Yeah I do because it did."
Circular logic.
Ok cool whatever a plane still hit the Pentagon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #735 on: July 14, 2009, 02:54:18 AM » |
|
No it's not. I say a plane hit the Pentagon because of all the evidence I've seen which proves that. I haven't seen any evidence that shows that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Exactly! The plan on 9/11 was flying planes into buildings. The evidence shows it and the witnesses witnessed it. There is no mystery. The only mystery is why people will go to unbelievable Lengths to try and not believe it. Edited clips of witnesses and incredible BS like CIT and it's military magic show. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #736 on: July 14, 2009, 02:57:41 AM » |
|
Yeah I do because it did.
good thing you're not a pilot. below 10,000 feet the max is 250 knots. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #737 on: July 14, 2009, 02:58:30 AM » |
|
Forget the impact that is secondary, that's one step ahead.
Do you agree that if a north citgo path is established then you have to wonder why the lamp poles were faked?
At the moment we have 13 good witnesses to a north citgo path.
I think the next step is to eliminate all witnesses from the list who are north/south neutral and see what we are left with.
How can we do that?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #739 on: July 14, 2009, 03:02:47 AM » |
|
I think the next step is to eliminate all witnesses from the list who are north/south neutral and see what we are left with. If someone has a definitive list of witnesses and all their statements I'm willing to have a go. It may take some time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #740 on: July 14, 2009, 03:05:10 AM » |
|
Quote from: jimd3100 on July 13, 2009, 04:18:01 PM
The plane according to Ranke is remote controlled that's what he told me anyway.
LOL!
I'm not you are as usual. Nice combo--a loon and a lier. why do you intentionally spell words wrong? You can never prove remote control.
We most certainly can prove where the plane really flew because witness testimony is valid evidence and when enough witnesses corroborate each other about where the plane flew without being directly refuted it becomes proof.
That is what we have in regards to the north side claim and now we can prove the flight path going all the way back to the east side of the river in DC. We can't say it loud enough but it's all about the FLIGHT PATH. This is the line of inquiry that they have wanted us to ignore and have tried to distract us from with slowly leaked grainy ambiguous videos depicting a perfectly level missile like object and clearly fake smoke plume. CIT has relentlessly pursued and documented evidence for the true flight path and it proves a deception. The notion that anyone in the movement would dismiss this hard evidence simply because it goes against their pet remote control impact conspiracy theory is sheer lunacy.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #741 on: July 14, 2009, 03:07:01 AM » |
|
you tell me how fast it is going you're posting the counter claim. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #742 on: July 14, 2009, 03:08:34 AM » |
|
good thing you're not a pilot.
below 10,000 feet the max is 250 knots.
So how did YOUR plane fly over the Pentagon? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #743 on: July 14, 2009, 03:09:24 AM » |
|
why do you intentionally spell words wrong? Yea, so you lied then huh? Ranke admits the plane was remote controlled. Which would mean I didn't lie did I? That would be you-how unusual and surprising. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #744 on: July 14, 2009, 03:10:22 AM » |
|
So how did YOUR plane fly over the Pentagon?
how is it my plane? and what are you proposing that planes fall out of the sky when they get above the pentagon? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #745 on: July 14, 2009, 03:11:03 AM » |
|
So how did YOUR plane fly over the Pentagon?
Obviously it was flying above 10000 feet. That's quite a flyover  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #746 on: July 14, 2009, 03:12:01 AM » |
|
Yea, so you lied then huh? Ranke admits the plane was remote controlled. Which would mean I didn't lie did I? That would be you-how unusual and surprising.
wait lets try this again : Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 1:02am[/b].]
You can never prove remote control.
We most certainly can prove where the plane really flew because witness testimony is valid evidence and when enough witnesses corroborate each other about where the plane flew without being directly refuted it becomes proof.
That is what we have in regards to the north side claim and now we can prove the flight path going all the way back to the east side of the river in DC. We can't say it loud enough but it's all about the FLIGHT PATH. This is the line of inquiry that they have wanted us to ignore and have tried to distract us from with slowly leaked grainy ambiguous videos depicting a perfectly level missile like object and clearly fake smoke plume. CIT has relentlessly pursued and documented evidence for the true flight path and it proves a deception. The notion that anyone in the movement would dismiss this hard evidence simply because it goes against their pet remote control impact conspiracy theory is sheer lunacy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #747 on: July 14, 2009, 03:12:44 AM » |
|
Who is this guy? Is he whom he claims to be? If so how isnt he dead yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0iry3fiHU4&feature=channel_page(before you guys freak out i never said i agree with him, someone else posted this elsewhere) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #748 on: July 14, 2009, 03:14:23 AM » |
|
Obviously it was flying above 10000 feet. That's quite a flyover or it was flying around 250knots which seems to fit more with the eyewitness accounts of what they saw the plane do and the periods of time they estimate witnessing it. terry morin says "no frippin way" that thing was doing anything near 500mph. he witnessed it. you do know what his qualifications are, right? either you can't think critically or....well i already made my mind up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDENGLAND
|
|
« Reply #749 on: July 14, 2009, 03:44:09 AM » |
|
Obviously it was flying above 10000 feet. That's quite a flyover Yeah they want it both ways. They say a plane can't fly at low altitude so it couldn't have flown into the Pentagon, then they say we have 13 witnesses who saw the plane flying low towards the Pentagon. Haha *shrugs* |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #750 on: July 14, 2009, 04:21:07 AM » |
|
Yeah they want it both ways. They say a plane can't fly at low altitude so it couldn't have flown into the Pentagon, then they say we have 13 witnesses who saw the plane flying low towards the Pentagon. Haha *shrugs*
nearly 30 minutes before your post and directly above it.... or it was flying around 250knots which seems to fit more with the eyewitness accounts of what they saw the plane do and the periods of time they estimate witnessing it.
terry morin says "no frippin way" that thing was doing anything near 500mph. he witnessed it. you do know what his qualifications are, right? *shrugs* |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DVD
|
|
« Reply #751 on: July 14, 2009, 04:21:45 AM » |
|
he is 100% accurate in who he claims to be. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mym
|
|
« Reply #752 on: July 14, 2009, 04:22:48 AM » |
|
ok, now Phasma he said exactly what I said when I first saw the hole lol and that makes me wonder about your question as well....how come they haven't killed him yet? Strange
Is all so weird. People tell one thing, he says another, and yet both sides of people support their own claims with evidences. WHAT THE???
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #753 on: July 14, 2009, 04:24:46 AM » |
|
I think everyone who has looked at the hole has had a "hmmm, where did the wings and tail hit moment" I know i did.
Maybe they cant remove him because its too obvious. Best way to stay safe is to make your views known LOUDLY !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
mym
|
|
« Reply #754 on: July 14, 2009, 04:29:27 AM » |
|
true, this guy did and he wasn't or didn't seem that afraid to be speaking like that in public....that also raises suspicions as to why? Unless he knows too much but then he's set for an easy target.
But what he says seems so legitimate! I am not a physicist or pilot but words make ya think and not just pictures and witnesses which could be tampered with.
agh! lol
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #756 on: July 14, 2009, 04:41:54 AM » |
|
Ok Looking through this thread at all the evidence, all the pictures and all the witness testimony I've come to the conclusion that the entire Pentagon attack on 9/11 was ONE GIANT PSY-OP ... More so than Black Jack... The whole attack on the Pentagon was carried out to muddy the waters and trap researchers... There are so many pointless debates on internet forums just like this thread that never go anywhere.
In my mind there probably was some degree of staging going on ... And some evidence removal/tampering ... and some planting ... maybe there was even two planes - one coming in from the north and one coming in from the south ... Some people did say they saw two planes... Maybe some of the lightpoles were staged ... Maybe Lloyd was duped ... And the black box in my mind was almost certanly replaced with a destroyed one... Black boxes are designed to survive almost anything.... maybe there was explosives inside the building ... the reason? ... coverup? ... no plane? ... no, PSY-OP!
Whenever new evidence comes out... and new photos... and new video frames ... all it does is further pointless speculation... The entire pentagon attack in its intricate vagueness is just a trap for researchers and thats the way it was designed... that's probably the reason they even bothered attacking the Pentagon in my mind ...
Think about it... if they only attacked the world trade center.... which on its own would have been traumatic enough for war and everything else they've done ... then that would have been the only thing we researchers would have to focus on ... and therefore we would have nothing to distract us from the evidence for demolition and we probably would have exposed it by now...
So what they did is the crash two more planes ... and stage the crashes so that its virtually impossible to prove what happened either way to get us fighting over these two vague events as a distraction.
The whole thing is a psy-op ... an we fell for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #757 on: July 14, 2009, 04:47:22 AM » |
|
DavidEngland wrote No it's not. I say a plane hit the Pentagon because of all the evidence I've seen which proves that. I haven't seen any evidence that shows that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
There is evidence that strongly suggests the plane did not hit also. Namely the people who saw the f**king thing fly over or away from the building. They were there how is that not evidence? jimd3100 So we slam a plane into the north tower we slam a plane into the south tower and we almost slam a plane into the pentagon but we don't. Instead we just want everyone to think we did and fly the plane off to somewhere else, meanwhile on an operation as big as 9/11 naturally we have our top operative cagey old Lloyd the mass murdering cab driver staging his scene and have lower ranking CIA guys planting lightpoles . WTC was slated for complete destruction. The pentagon was not slated for destruction, but certain targets inside were. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
mym
|
|
« Reply #758 on: July 14, 2009, 04:51:14 AM » |
|
this Major General Albert Stubblebine seems legit
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #759 on: July 14, 2009, 04:52:26 AM » |
|
Yeah he does.  what to make of this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
