Nope Marconius you didn't answer my question.......If the military shot the thing down there would still be debris wouldn't there? "Shot down by the military" would still leave the question of, where the hell is the plane and the people?Marconius wrote:
You could also go back to where I answered it and read it for yourself:lowing wrote:
Calling me names is hardly an answer to my question. lol......or are you referring to the theory that the govt. gassed all the passengers and whisked them away??Marconius wrote:
I answered your question, lowing. You must have missed it.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=355678#p355678
I don't think the small quote on page 51 regarding pearl harbor really has all that much weight, now get this, "IN CONTEXT"Marconius wrote:
Once again, for the umpteenth time:
THE PNAC REPORT
It's a long read, but don't even think of discrediting it because of its length. Their entire agenda is all there in black and white. Pay attention to the top of page 51.
Inaddition this quote was use to represent a global war or envasion where one millitary attacks one of our offensive targets in sleep mode not a terrorist attack. Had they stated another large scale Oklahoma type bombing referencing the killing of innocent civilians that would have been different.
Personally I like page 81 and page 82. Where they talk about decreased funding upto and through 1997 that could allow a forgein body to attack the US domestically.
+========================+
ALL I"D LIKE TO SAY is thank-you.
NOW I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR BULLSHIT
www.raytal.com
It's the site hosting your link, sorry I though you did have a mind of your own for a second not just spouting Radio jockeys. Oh jesus.
CAUTION HIS SITE HAS POPUPS!!!
Last edited by vjs (2006-05-17 17:23:57)
Well I didn't know it was a 747 but I knew they were all boeing. Part of the reasons terrorists used boeing is b/c airbus is totally fly by wire inother words the computer has to agree with you.HisInfernalDeath wrote:
do you KNOW FOR A FACT that a 747 can NOT, under any circumstances, fly low enough to hit a building such as the Pentagon? if you do, prove it.
Boeing is easier to over ride.
Regardless back to the proof, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Also I can PROVE TO YOU that a 747 can fly that close to the ground.
First its called ground effect, it's actually quite easy to keep a plane just a few feet off the ground,
do a search on the web for ground effect but here is a personal account of a guy who somehow managed to some how get in on a 747 filght simulator
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/747sim/
If you read it and know what ground effect is you can see how relative noobs can fly close to the ground in ground effect.
Also here is something called a belly landing...
http://www.pakistaniaviation.com/photopakdisaster.htm
I hope that you agree that there was a period where that plane was flying a few feet off the ground before it touched.
Edit:
Sorry dude should have been more careful when cutting the quote.
Last edited by vjs (2006-05-17 18:22:40)
vjs. im on your side. i was quoting HisInfernalDeath there man. sorry if there was a misunderstanding
Ray Taliafierro didn't write the PNAC. He just has it conveniently posted on his site, so I link to the document there. The Page 51 quote within context refers to enacting their policies.
Here you go: http://www.newamericancentury.org/, or http://www.pnac.info/, and http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm, and http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e1665.htm.
Here you go: http://www.newamericancentury.org/, or http://www.pnac.info/, and http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm, and http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e1665.htm.
Yeah believe it or not I'm actually not against the idea of the global conspiracy...
and add to the loss of privacy. Walmart will eventually track everything you do... it is China after all, remember "BUSNIESS IS WAR"???
But what I can't stand is the twisting of fact to make something a non-reality so that it supports your view. Then making people prove something to you that you twisted in the first place.
There are countless places where you can have valid conspiracies, the falling of building ?7? was it, that didn't seem right and I have no evidence for it.
The plane crashing into the pentagon i don't need anymore proof what what i have.
Harping on this makes me think the rest of the conspiracies are junk as well. Yeah your conspiracy can have some holes in it that's fine. You say Bush crashed junk into each of the WTC for some sort of profit then covers it up by a missle into the white house later taking down the evidence in building 7. Perhaps to increase military spending or start an Iraq invasion. Fine I can go with some of it, and it actually doesn't sound that bad thus far. tu quoqe but fine
Now problem comes when someone proves something or knows someone with personal experience etc. Since there is that hole now, your defensive since all your agruement has about the same level of credibility.
If you were to accept the fact it was a plane it doesn't make the rest less plausable.
perhaps bush planned it with the terrorist, they went the extra step and took another plane into the pentagon against his wishes... JUST DON"T TELL ME IT WASN"T A PLANE THAT'S ALL I ASK
and add to the loss of privacy. Walmart will eventually track everything you do... it is China after all, remember "BUSNIESS IS WAR"???
But what I can't stand is the twisting of fact to make something a non-reality so that it supports your view. Then making people prove something to you that you twisted in the first place.
There are countless places where you can have valid conspiracies, the falling of building ?7? was it, that didn't seem right and I have no evidence for it.
The plane crashing into the pentagon i don't need anymore proof what what i have.
Harping on this makes me think the rest of the conspiracies are junk as well. Yeah your conspiracy can have some holes in it that's fine. You say Bush crashed junk into each of the WTC for some sort of profit then covers it up by a missle into the white house later taking down the evidence in building 7. Perhaps to increase military spending or start an Iraq invasion. Fine I can go with some of it, and it actually doesn't sound that bad thus far. tu quoqe but fine
Now problem comes when someone proves something or knows someone with personal experience etc. Since there is that hole now, your defensive since all your agruement has about the same level of credibility.
If you were to accept the fact it was a plane it doesn't make the rest less plausable.
perhaps bush planned it with the terrorist, they went the extra step and took another plane into the pentagon against his wishes... JUST DON"T TELL ME IT WASN"T A PLANE THAT'S ALL I ASK
Last edited by vjs (2006-05-17 18:24:57)
Lowing,
Sorry, but I am with Marcanalius and the OneNuttaMissin on this. I too only believe what Al Jeezera reports and they have reported numerous times that Al Queda attacked the US. In fact they have videos and interviews with Al Queda members admitting to doing it.
Besides it is so obvious, Bush got elected and decided to start a war against Iraq. To do so he had planes fly into the WTC/Pentagon/Empty Field. Then he declared war first on Afganistan to fight terror just to throw people off. Then he totally made up lies about weapons of mass destruction a couple years latter and invaded Iraq. He could not have made up lies about WMDs before blowing up planes and buildings in a totally unrealated event here in the US.
Just look at all the cheap oil we got from Afganastan and Iraq by doing this, not to mention Bushes soaring popularity for keeping our troops over there rebuilding that skank hole of a country.
It is so clear, just drop some acid and you too will see. Either that or become a liberal because the effect is the same.
Now excuse me while I hunt down some underwear gnomes that live in my walls. They only come out at night and they steal and fight with gremlins in my honda.
Sorry, but I am with Marcanalius and the OneNuttaMissin on this. I too only believe what Al Jeezera reports and they have reported numerous times that Al Queda attacked the US. In fact they have videos and interviews with Al Queda members admitting to doing it.
Besides it is so obvious, Bush got elected and decided to start a war against Iraq. To do so he had planes fly into the WTC/Pentagon/Empty Field. Then he declared war first on Afganistan to fight terror just to throw people off. Then he totally made up lies about weapons of mass destruction a couple years latter and invaded Iraq. He could not have made up lies about WMDs before blowing up planes and buildings in a totally unrealated event here in the US.
Just look at all the cheap oil we got from Afganastan and Iraq by doing this, not to mention Bushes soaring popularity for keeping our troops over there rebuilding that skank hole of a country.
It is so clear, just drop some acid and you too will see. Either that or become a liberal because the effect is the same.
Now excuse me while I hunt down some underwear gnomes that live in my walls. They only come out at night and they steal and fight with gremlins in my honda.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-05-17 21:44:46)
LOL yup, ok, nowwwwwww it all makes sense!! Thanks for being my guiding ligt through this maze of deceit.Major_Spittle wrote:
Lowing,
Sorry, but I am with Marcanalius and the OneNuttaMissin on this. I too only believe what Al Jeezera reports and they have reported numerous times that Al Queda attacked the US. In fact they have videos and interviews with Al Queda members admitting to doing it.
Besides it is so obvious, Bush got elected and decided to start a war against Iraq. To do so he had planes fly into the WTC/Pentagon/Empty Field. Then he declared war first on Afganistan to fight terror just to throw people off. Then he totally made up lies about weapons of mass destruction a couple years latter and invaded Iraq. He could not have made up lies about WMDs before blowing up planes and buildings in a totally unrealated event here in the US.
Just look at all the cheap oil we got from Afganastan and Iraq by doing this, not to mention Bushes soaring popularity for keeping our troops over there rebuilding that skank hole of a country.
It is so clear, just drop some acid and you too will see. Either that or become a liberal because the effect is the same.
Now excuse me while I hunt down some underwear gnomes that live in my walls. They only come out at night and they steal and fight with gremlins in my honda.
I have drunken the kool-aid and am now assimilated.........LOOOOOOOOOONG LIIIIIIIVE HIIIIIIIIIIILLARY CLINTON< LOOOOOOOOOOOONG LIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE HIIIIIIIIILLARY CLINTON!!
Try this one thenMarconius wrote:
The Popular Science page information is refutable due to the author. His cousin just happens to be the Secretary to the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 … dence.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Vjs Wrote: "do a search on the web for ground effect but here is a personal account of a guy who somehow managed to some how get in on a 747 filght simulator"
(sorry dont know how to quote parts of posts :-p)
A guy who somehow...blabla.. Ok maybe he managed to do it in a flight sim. With luck !! I dont think noob ass moslim nerds can achieve this. They were not in a relaxed environment, they were going to commit suicide and were in full action, and tension, nothing could go wrong. If something did go rong they would fail their mission. And its not only about flying low over the ground. Keep in mind all the other aspects of the flight route. If a terrorist could do all this, well.. i guess the military should recruit terrorist pilots to fight in their fighter jets, and close top gun training.
(sorry dont know how to quote parts of posts :-p)
A guy who somehow...blabla.. Ok maybe he managed to do it in a flight sim. With luck !! I dont think noob ass moslim nerds can achieve this. They were not in a relaxed environment, they were going to commit suicide and were in full action, and tension, nothing could go wrong. If something did go rong they would fail their mission. And its not only about flying low over the ground. Keep in mind all the other aspects of the flight route. If a terrorist could do all this, well.. i guess the military should recruit terrorist pilots to fight in their fighter jets, and close top gun training.
Someone negative karma'd me and put this with it:
"moron! People like you think that the US didn't land on the moon."
Well, thats another debate dude. If you want to discuss it, just open a topic, and i'll be happy to contribute to it.
Oh and before you post, please put that mirror away, instead of right in front of you. You may be confused while typing the word "moron"
"moron! People like you think that the US didn't land on the moon."
Well, thats another debate dude. If you want to discuss it, just open a topic, and i'll be happy to contribute to it.
Oh and before you post, please put that mirror away, instead of right in front of you. You may be confused while typing the word "moron"
To that one person who loves me that much by insulting me, and giving bad karma and all that LOL stuff.
At least i'm man enough to post my ideas about things on here, instead of sneaky sneaky behind the back of everyone posting insults. Haha, you're really pathetic extually.
So whoever you are, please be a man and post on the forum.
At least i'm man enough to post my ideas about things on here, instead of sneaky sneaky behind the back of everyone posting insults. Haha, you're really pathetic extually.
So whoever you are, please be a man and post on the forum.
You may want to know that Al Queda was made up by the FBI. It was not the huge all powerful organisation it's made out to be. It was a small group of people, that the FBI needed to classify as a group so that they could prosecute them as I think organised crime. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a documented fact. The head of the police in London infact stated recently that Al Queada does not exist.lowing wrote:
Although, I am quite certain Al Queda admitted planning and carrying out the attacks...Jusy what support would you be prepared to offer??......Ya know.....to prevent "disservice to those that lost their lives and the families they left behind"??UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
To me, knowing whether or not it was a jet is a side issue, and one which may never be resolved. I think alot of time has been devoted to it because if it wasn't it would be fairly conclusive proof of an inside job, but even if it was it wouldn't disprove some kind of government involvement/complicity/prior knowledge. It is one unknown factor in a series of inconsistancies, omissions, smoke and mirrors. Bring me facts, truths, honest evidence to prove that either the twin towers or Pentagon was the work of Osama Bin Laden and I'll support it. For me demanding anything less would be a disservice to those that lost their lives and the families they left behind.
right. its a way of referencing a group of people to prosecute them in court. you're absolutely right. still doesn't change the fact that a 747 flew into the Pentagon. But thanks for the info!
WTF? Do I look like your 3 year old nephew? Did it occur to you there may actually be real pilots reading your crap? Do more research (stop posting other people's opinions as your own) and come back with a credible theory.HisInfernalDeath wrote:
A guy who somehow...blabla.. Ok maybe he managed to do it in a flight sim. With luck !! I dont think noob ass moslim nerds can achieve this. They were not in a relaxed environment, they were going to commit suicide and were in full action, and tension, nothing could go wrong. If something did go rong they would fail their mission. And its not only about flying low over the ground. Keep in mind all the other aspects of the flight route. If a terrorist could do all this, well.. i guess the military should recruit terrorist pilots to fight in their fighter jets, and close top gun training.
Can't you simply accept that he turned off the transponder, flew straight and level towards the "general area of the Pentagon" at a reasonable altitude, then pulled the throttle and dropped the nose? How else do you explain the fact that he came up short of his target? If he was flying low and level , he would not have gone underground like he did.
I sincerely hope you are joking with this nonsense... Is this an act? Are you looking for attention? WAIT, I KNOW, you're one of those people who's seen 'Iron Eagle', and 'Firebirds' then stayed in a Holiday Inn Express so now you know how to fly...
** Edited typo **
Last edited by wanderlost (2006-05-18 13:45:45)
Well if it is a documented fact.........Show it to us.ghettoperson wrote:
You may want to know that Al Queda was made up by the FBI. It was not the huge all powerful organisation it's made out to be. It was a small group of people, that the FBI needed to classify as a group so that they could prosecute them as I think organised crime. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a documented fact. The head of the police in London infact stated recently that Al Queada does not exist.lowing wrote:
Although, I am quite certain Al Queda admitted planning and carrying out the attacks...Jusy what support would you be prepared to offer??......Ya know.....to prevent "disservice to those that lost their lives and the families they left behind"??UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
To me, knowing whether or not it was a jet is a side issue, and one which may never be resolved. I think alot of time has been devoted to it because if it wasn't it would be fairly conclusive proof of an inside job, but even if it was it wouldn't disprove some kind of government involvement/complicity/prior knowledge. It is one unknown factor in a series of inconsistancies, omissions, smoke and mirrors. Bring me facts, truths, honest evidence to prove that either the twin towers or Pentagon was the work of Osama Bin Laden and I'll support it. For me demanding anything less would be a disservice to those that lost their lives and the families they left behind.
LMFAO!wanderlost wrote:
stayed in a Holiday Inn Express so now you know how to fly...
Who are you, Alfred Einstein? Flight 77 was a 757. Duh, and of these solid set in stone facts you speak of, show me a clear picture of a plane crashing into the pentagon. And please don't mention the tape they released of the same crappy frames from a garbage security cam showing "something gray" and tell me that's a 757. You'll only show your ignorance...batman_psu wrote:
right. its a way of referencing a group of people to prosecute them in court. you're absolutely right. still doesn't change the fact that a 747 flew into the Pentagon. But thanks for the info!
OH MY FUCKING GOD. i meant 757. go here blowjob: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 … dence.html
theres the facts. no there's no picture. have you ever seen a picture of a million dollars? if you haven't it does it mean that a million dollars can't exist?
theres the facts. no there's no picture. have you ever seen a picture of a million dollars? if you haven't it does it mean that a million dollars can't exist?
Doesn't matter. I'm saying your "fact that a 747 flew into the Pentagon" is a grainy photo that could be a whale's dick. Show me the hundred other pictures they must have then I'll agree it's a fact.
Ummmmmmmm you're an idiot... It's ALBERT EINSTEIN (first), and second - does it matter if it was a 747, 757, 777, 707, Beech 18, F-14, Piper Cub, or your grandma's rocker? People died that day. On the plane, and on the ground... Did the government make that up? Are they in cocoons powering your computer like the Matrix? How do you account for the people who got on a F'in airplane and are now dead?HaywoodJablowme wrote:
Who are you, Alfred Einstein? Flight 77 was a 757. Duh, and of these solid set in stone facts you speak of, show me a clear picture of a plane crashing into the pentagon. And please don't mention the tape they released of the same crappy frames from a garbage security cam showing "something gray" and tell me that's a 757. You'll only show your ignorance...
so you clearly didn't read the article that I posted the link to. with all the facts in it.HaywoodJablowme wrote:
Doesn't matter. I'm saying your "fact that a 747 flew into the Pentagon" is a grainy photo that could be a whale's dick. Show me the hundred other pictures they must have then I'll agree it's a fact.
Not a Kingpin fan i take itwanderlost wrote:
Ummmmmmmm you're an idiot... It's ALBERT EINSTEIN (first), and second - does it matter if it was a 747, 757, 777, 707, Beech 18, F-14, Piper Cub, or your grandma's rocker? People died that day. On the plane, and on the ground... Did the government make that up? Are they in cocoons powering your computer like the Matrix? How do you account for the people who got on a F'in airplane and are now dead?HaywoodJablowme wrote:
Who are you, Alfred Einstein? Flight 77 was a 757. Duh, and of these solid set in stone facts you speak of, show me a clear picture of a plane crashing into the pentagon. And please don't mention the tape they released of the same crappy frames from a garbage security cam showing "something gray" and tell me that's a 757. You'll only show your ignorance...
Now you mention it, you do look like my 3 year old nephew. Maybe your brains are the same age.wanderlost wrote:
WTF? Do I look like your 3 year old nephew? Did it occur to you there may actually be real pilots reading your crap? Do more research (stop posting other people's opinions as your own) and come back with a credible theory.HisInfernalDeath wrote:
A guy who somehow...blabla.. Ok maybe he managed to do it in a flight sim. With luck !! I dont think noob ass moslim nerds can achieve this. They were not in a relaxed environment, they were going to commit suicide and were in full action, and tension, nothing could go wrong. If something did go rong they would fail their mission. And its not only about flying low over the ground. Keep in mind all the other aspects of the flight route. If a terrorist could do all this, well.. i guess the military should recruit terrorist pilots to fight in their fighter jets, and close top gun training.
Can't you simply accept that he turned off the transponder, flew straight and level towards the "general area of the Pentagon" at a reasonable altitude, then pulled the throttle and dropped the nose? How else do you explain the fact that he came up short of his target? If he was flying low and level , he would not have gone underground like he did.
I sincerely hope you are joking with this nonsense... Is this an act? Are you looking for attention? WAIT, I KNOW, you're one of those people who's seen 'Iron Eagle', and 'Firebirds' then stayed in a Holiday Inn Express so now you know how to fly...
** Edited typo **
I've never ever seen one of those movies you mention there, so dont put your effort in that. Extually my father, and brother are both fighter pilots in the Belgian army, so please dont give me that bullshit about the real pilots crap.
I believe you are the one here looking for attention, looking at your other posts. Haha, cocoons powering your computer like the matrix. Etc... How do you come up with that ? Those lines dont make any sense at all m8. They just make u look ridiculous. You should become a stand up comedian, and after that you can talk about some act. But this forum is really not the good starting point. So please take that shit somewhere else.
Dude, I was simply asking you that if you don't think that a plane crashed into the building - what happened to all of the people who got on an airplane in one city, and then were either never seen again, or found in small bits under rubble in the Pentagon?HisInfernalDeath wrote:
I believe you are the one here looking for attention, looking at your other posts. Haha, cocoons powering your computer like the matrix. Etc... How do you come up with that ? Those lines dont make any sense at all m8. They just make u look ridiculous. You should become a stand up comedian, and after that you can talk about some act. But this forum is really not the good starting point. So please take that shit somewhere else.
This stuff is supposed to be fun - why don't you defend your points instead of telling other peopel to stop making jokes at your expense?