Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Latindancer

The 4 tonne lumps of metal compressed into a smaller mass in the same way an IED does when it penetrates an armoured personnel carrier.

The plane weighs about 100 tons, if we assume a density of 2 tons per cubic metre, it's probably less, it's 50 cubic metres.when you crush the air out. The wingspan is almost 50 metres, and the engines 15 or so metres apart, how can they fold so neatly to fit trough a manhole? Especially the behaviour of the engines is magical. The weight is about the same as of the shells of the largest gun ever made (Schwerer Gustav, Germany, 800 mm). It was used to destroy the ammunition depot of the fortress Sewastopol, protected by 10+ metre reinforced concrete walls and ceiling. And the whole thing was 100 feet under the Black Sea. No doubt the Pentagon is sturdy and well protected, but not like this. That the engines didn't make holes of their own in the Pentagon wall doesn't look reconcilable with physics.

Originally Posted by terry57

^^^

Na I was just talking it up.

Its like when I said I was going to off ENT and fuck him up with a baseball bat.

I would not do that sort of shit, I'd just pay Somchai to do it.

Somchai'll like your pics, ....fat man.

^^ Interesting description of a real fortress.

I hadn't realized that it was so deep underground, under the Black Sea!

Doubtless what we see of the Pentagon above ground level is again one of those places, we see only what we're allowed to.

The real Pentagon is underground, the only sensible place for a command bunker.

No government or army ignored the fact that going underground was the best defence strategy, especially with nuclear armaments and the rest of the WOMD in many world arsenals.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Nope, you definately win the most stupid fuck on the board award ...

Are you some sort of spastic - serious question?

I love it when ENT or Albert say something mannerless like this and end up putting their foot in their mouth due to misspelling.

Definitely priceless.

Originally Posted by hazz

A quick sanity check

Unfortunately Rainfall, Albert and ENT are not capable of this. ENT in particular....I said long ago that one of the qualities he is lacking in the most is a sense of proportion. One needs to have this to do a sanity check.

Right, so where were we.

Ok, so 8 tonnes of engine appeared to have vanished according to the pentagon damage.

Hazz and LD reckon they vaporized due to apple trees on the front lawn of the pentagon

Here's the original footage on CNN - shown once only.

News reporter says,

"From my CLOSE UP inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the pentagon"

And you accuse ME of being dense !

So when is a news reporter an expert ? Of COURSE he is saying that ! None of us knew at the time that the Pentagon was so heavily
armoured. Or at least it wasn't in the forefront of our minds.

Have you ever heard a phrase using the words "irresistible force" and "immovable object" ?
What else COULD happen ?

Well you see shagnastier to have an understanding of what happened you actually have to have an interest in what actually happened rather than the innate gut understanding that you have confessed to following. for you no evidence will ever be good enough for you.... as in your heart you know what happened and thats all you need and will believe.

And thats the amusing thing.... to the truthers, they argue that the damaged caused the the planes flighing into a unarmored building like WTC is too extensive to be believable whilst at the same time the complain that the damage caused to a building designed to survive truck bombs is not enough to be believable. Classic Orwellian double think.

As to what happens to aluminum when it comes in contact with a hard, but not entirely unmovable object.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boeing 767

The Boeing 767 is a mid- to large-size, long-range, wide-body twin-engine jet airliner built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It was the manufacturer's first wide-body twinjet and its first airliner with a two-crew glass cockpit. The aircraft has two turbofan engines, a conventional tail, and, for reduced aerodynamic drag, a supercritical wing design.

Designed as a smaller wide-body airliner than earlier aircraft such as the 747, the 767 has seating capacity for 181 to 375 persons and a design range of 3,850 to 6,385 nautical miles (7,130 to 11,825 km), depending on variant.

Development of the 767 occurred in tandem with a narrow-body twinjet, the 757, resulting in shared design features which allow pilots to obtain a common type rating to operate both aircraft.

The 767 is produced in three fuselage lengths.

The original 767-200 entered service in 1982,

The extended-range 767-200ER models entered service in 1984.

Conversion programs have modified passenger 767-200 series aircraft for cargo use,
Engines featured on the 767 include the General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney JT9D and PW4000, and Rolls-Royce RB211 turbofans.




767-200ER
Sideview of 767 on climbout against a pale blue sky. A blue, white and red cheat-line runs the full length of the fuselage, above which says "American". The vertical tail sports two "A"s, between which is a simplified eagle.


The type's increased range is due to [B]an additional center fuel tank[/B] and a higher maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of up to 395,000 pounds (179,000 kg).

The type was originally offered with the same engines as the 767-200, while more powerful Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and General Electric CF6 engines later became available.

The 767-200ER was the first 767 to complete a non-stop transatlantic journey, and broke the flying distance record for a twinjet airliner on April 17, 1988 with an Air Mauritius flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Port Louis, Mauritius, covering a distance of 8,727 nautical miles (16,162 km).


Versions of the 767 serve in a number of military and government applications, with responsibilities ranging from airborne surveillance and refueling to cargo and VIP transport. Several military 767s have been derived from the 767-200ER, the longest-range version of the aircraft.

Airborne Surveillance Testbed – the Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) was modified from the prototype 767-200 for a United States Army program, under a contract signed with the Strategic Air Command in July 1984.[141] Intended to evaluate the feasibility of using airborne optical sensors to detect and track hostile intercontinental ballistic missiles, the modified aircraft first flew on August 21, 1987.

Alterations included a large "cupola" or hump which ran along the top of the aircraft from above the cockpit to just behind the trailing edge of the wings,[141] and a pair of ventral fins below the rear fuselage.[142] Inside the cupola was a suite of infrared seekers used for tracking theater ballistic missile launches.[143] The aircraft was later renamed as the Airborne Surveillance Testbed (AST).[144] Following the end of the AST program in 2002, the aircraft was retired for scrapping.[145]
Boeing 767 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The airliner in question was a long fuselage version,


Just some data on the plane, so's we don't get confused.


Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class .....181
Typical 2-class .......224
Typical 1-class.......up to 225

Cargo 3,180 cu ft (90.1 cu m)
Engines ......maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000 60,200 lb

GE CF6-80C2....62,100 lb

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L)

Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)

Maximum Range 6,385 nmi (12,195 km)

Typical city pairs: New York to Beijing

Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph)

Basic Dimensions
Wing Span...... ........156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length .........159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Tail Height....... .........52 ft (15.8 m)
Interior Cabin Width....15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)

Originally Posted by hazz

Well you see shagnastier to have an understanding of what happened you actually have to have an interest in what actually happened rather than the innate gut understanding that you have confessed to following. for you no evidence will ever be good enough for you.... as in your heart you know what happened and thats all you need and will believe.

And thats the amusing thing.... to the truthers, they argue that the damaged caused the the planes flighing into a unarmored building like WTC is too extensive to be believable whilst at the same time the complain that the damage caused to a building designed to survive truck bombs is not enough to be believable. Classic Orwellian double think.

As to what happens to aluminum when it comes in contact with a hard, but not entirely unmovable object.

You can't have it both ways, hazz. The plane at the Pentagon atomized, while those touching down in the WTC left pools of sloshing fuel that burned for an hour or so. I read up that the Pentagon plane hit the only steel-reinforced area of the building, not specified is its size. One of the five faces? Odds 1 : 5. 20 metres wide? Odds 1 : 65.

Originally Posted by hazz

Well you see shagnastier to have an understanding of what happened you actually have to have an interest in what actually happened rather than the innate gut understanding that you have confessed to following. for you no evidence will ever be good enough for you.... as in your heart you know what happened and thats all you need and will believe.

And thats the amusing thing.... to the truthers, they argue that the damaged caused the the planes flighing into a unarmored building like WTC is too extensive to be believable whilst at the same time the complain that the damage caused to a building designed to survive truck bombs is not enough to be believable. Classic Orwellian double think.

As to what happens to aluminum when it comes in contact with a hard, but not entirely unmovable object.

Hazz - you are totally full of piss and wind.

The video you're showing proves MY point.

If the whole thing disintegrated on impact as your video shows due to the "INCREDIBLE ARMOUR" (sic) of the pentagon - what the fuck made this hole - five "Incredibly Armoured" Walls and 65 columns later?




Go and sit in the corner with LD you utter fool.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

You can't have it both ways, hazz

It's a fucking joke isn't it?

Excellent post, Hazz. Unfortunately it is lost on these 2 ignoramuses, who are so lacking in understanding that they just have to be trolling. No wonder Harry left in disgust.

No airplane hit that Pentagon.

Major General Albert Stubblebine who “was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984 (Per Wikipedia), the hole left by the missile is entirely too small to be the signature of a Boeing 757. As he heroically declared, “It just doesn’t fit!” “ …a 757 doesn’t fit the hole in the Pentagon.” In other words a huge airliner did not, and could not, have hit the Pentagon. It was a missile strike which could have only been carried out by one of the US Military Services, either the Air Force or Navy.

9/11 Commission Report: The Most Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory Of All Time - Secrets of the FedSecrets of the Fed

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

No airplane hit that Pentagon.

Exactly. It's a physical impossibility when we look at the evidence.

Stubblebine ahs been dragged up 3 times in the 9/11 threads....and thoroughly discredited each time. The man's a joke, and probably has Alzheimers, or at least dementia.
Anyone like "Pragmatic" who mentions him again is also a joke.

How can a plane clip lamp posts without damaging any part of it? Especially the wings containing fuel and not only clipping the lamp posts but hitting it with such force that it uproots it off it's mounting base?

Here's a clip of a taxi driver who claimed one of the posts went through his windscreen.



Reports of 4 eye-witnesses that doesn't tally with the official story.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Stubblebine ahs been dragged up 3 times in the 9/11 threads....and thoroughly discredited each time.

I must have missed that. Could you bring me up to date with Stubblebine please.

A good read about Albert Stubblebine.

“All of the air defense systems in that part of the country had been turned off that day.. all of the air defense system had been turned off. Why? Apparently the Vice President was out in Colorado, and he ordered them turned off. Why would you turn off all of the air defense systems on that particular day, unless you knew that something was going to happen?”
if he, in fact, was not absolutely certain in his professional capacity of what he was stating?
Major General Stubblebine’s professional opinion, for many of the 32 years he was in his position, could have led this nation into war, and yet he never betrayed his position, nor was called into question.

Is Major General Albert “Bert” N. Stubblebine III an American Traitor? | B'Man's Revolt

Originally Posted by Gazza

Reports of 4 eye-witnesses that doesn't tally with the official story.

I have actually watched that complete clip.

The Cops said they viewed the plane approaching and one said he seen it actually hit the Pentagon. Also said he noted the AA logo's.

The light poles where downed from the other direction but who knows what caused that ?

Lets go with what the two cops had seen which was a plane approaching over the gas station.

ENT say's there was no Plane at all but it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.

The mouth piece says that an internal explosion was timed to coincide with the exact moment the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Fuk me, You conspirators cannot even get you're story sorted, was it a fuking plane or a missile that hit the Pentagon or an internal explosion. ???

Oh yes, the plane was a decoy and it fucked off over the top of the Pentagon whilst the missile downed the light poles from the other direction and hit the Pentagon at the exact moment.

Stupid mother fukers and exactly why I view you throttlers with contempt.

Wankers.