Super_Steve_Howey

He's on a tea break. Union rules.

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then? This is a good site. Note the gouged earth. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here. SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us. No he didnt he just asked why gouged earth would be important. And that would be because a plane that flies into a relatively short building would either gouge the earth going into it or clip it and go over the top. The impact hole is a few feet off the ground. Why would that mean the plane had to gouge the Earth? And the Pentagon is five floors high. I also questioned where on that site I could find a similar impact.

Well, we're in the same boat then because nether of us are able to retrieve footage from a camera that you say would have caught the impact, but has been confiscated. But at least you admit other cameras facing the site would be unable to capture any meaningful images due to frame rate. On the released video you include above, the camera only manages to capture 3 frames of a police cruiser doing 5 mph. So it begs the question who confiscated it? If the CIA aren't in on the plot, who was? Were they just hanging around until the plane hit? Who was in charge of the camera? Is it a Pentagon camera or a civilian camera? If a Pentagon camera, how did they get the tape? If civilian, why has nobody asked the owner the identity of who took the camera? Did they know the exact trajectory the plane would be taking into the building and hence which camera to take, and hence knew pretty much the entire plot? What about the other cameras that you insist should have captured the images. Are the confiscators that clever to be able to get all these tapes without missing a single one or alerting anybody?

Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile?

And the 54 passangers who all have relatives claiming they are dead?

Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from.

Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Please, just tell me the closing speed of the plane, the length of trajectory that would be visible from that camera angle, and the number of frames per second of that camera, and estimate how many missing frames of a plane there should be from that camera. I want you to do it, because I am happy to accept facts and evidence as an explanation of events, rather than take an absence of something as proof of something else.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Are you saying you honestly think that none of the camera's monitoring the Pentagon would have picked up any evidence of an aircraft ?? There are frames, but as I have pointed out, these would be few and far between. The assertion there should be over 10 seconds of seamless footage from multiple angles is doubtfull. I've not seen any pictures that catagorically prove that 757 hit that building. Again, what are you expecting to see?, and based on what assertions? Show me a realisitc similar event. None exists that are even close. OK, camera phone's maybe I'll conceed that one, but the chances of not one person filming an aircraft heading towards the Pentagon are just daft. Totally impossible? I have no idea what the area is made up of around the Pentagon. Is it totally implausible theat no footage was taken? (again, ignoring my claim based on purlely my memory to have seen some years ago) It is these sorts of claims of refuting an event happened because you have never seen any evidence for it (not you in particular, but in this post generally), as if at the stroke of a key you searched the entire world for clues and found nothing, that I find perplexing.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? How about the camera angle from the photo I posted? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Have you seen the footage from the twin towers, recorded on camera phones? How about the camera angle from the photo I posted? From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again?

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact? Nothing from a 757 was found, particularly the engine or the black box flight recorder. You want me to prove what "wasn't" found rather than you having to prove what was? That's a good one mate, nicely done. Your whole argument of "it must have happened because you can't prove otherwise" is frankly like burying your head in the sand. As I said, how come the rest of the world hasn't seen the footage of the plane hitting the building, as you claim? Surely it should be on the internet, as it proves the US government are right? Do you want me to explain what pretty sure means? I'm damned if I'm going to explain the absence of third party evidence for a memory I formed years ago. Once agin, you are simpliying my point. I am neither saying it was a missile or a plane or a flying elephant (if you don't believe me about footage, and insist all evidence vanished). I am saying you have no basis to tell anyone what damage the impact of a jet liner into the Pentagon would do, or what evidence it may or may not leave, as it is a completely unique event. You show me an even remotely similar event and I will retract. I'm not asking you to explain anything. I'm putting my point of view across that there is little evidence that any of the damage to the pentagon was caused by a 757. I don't have to prove what actually hit it, much as you don't have to prove it was indeed the 757. I'm surely allowed to question the very limited evidence put forward, right? I'm pretty sure I saw footage of it being a missile. It was a few years back like.... Exactly. Endless questions with no demonstrable alternative theories. Story of this thread.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there?

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact? Nothing from a 757 was found, particularly the engine or the black box flight recorder. You want me to prove what "wasn't" found rather than you having to prove what was? That's a good one mate, nicely done. Your whole argument of "it must have happened because you can't prove otherwise" is frankly like burying your head in the sand. As I said, how come the rest of the world hasn't seen the footage of the plane hitting the building, as you claim? Surely it should be on the internet, as it proves the US government are right? Do you want me to explain what pretty sure means? I'm damned if I'm going to explain the absence of third party evidence for a memory I formed years ago. Once agin, you are simpliying my point. I am neither saying it was a missile or a plane or a flying elephant (if you don't believe me about footage, and insist all evidence vanished). I am saying you have no basis to tell anyone what damage the impact of a jet liner into the Pentagon would do, or what evidence it may or may not leave, as it is a completely unique event. You show me an even remotely similar event and I will retract.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused?

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... There are dozens of security cameras around the pentagon. You're claiming none of them actually face the building itself? (apart from the one which only took 5 frames, none of which showing a plane?) Just to point out (for Renton mainly) that I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't see how it's accurate? Do you have plans of the field and angle of view of all cameras at the impact site? Do you have an accurate estimate of the speed and angle of descent of the plane? Do you have any knowledge of the frames per second of said cameras? Based on this information, do you have an estimate of how much footage should theoretically be available, but is being withheld? I am pretty sure I have seen some amateur footage as well as frames from the Pentagon I'd love for you to post the amateur footage showing the plane, as the rest of the world hasn't seen it. I'll await your post with anticipation. As I said, I am pretty sure. I saw it on TV years ago. How do you expect me to find it?

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact?

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? I asked you, you are the one claiming the existance of reams of missing footage.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... There are dozens of security cameras around the pentagon. You're claiming none of them actually face the building itself? (apart from the one which only took 5 frames, none of which showing a plane?) Just to point out (for Renton mainly) that I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't see how it's accurate? Do you have plans of the field and angle of view of all cameras at the impact site? Do you have an accurate estimate of the speed and angle of descent of the plane? Do you have any knowledge of the frames per second of said cameras? Based on this information, do you have an estimate of how much footage should theoretically be available, but is being withheld? I am pretty sure I have seen some amateur footage as well as frames from the Pentagon

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site?

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. I believe you . Is there actually a tower in existence with the same internal support design? I believe it was unique at the time to hold the unprecedented amount of floors, and ideas had moved on by the time anything similar in height was built? It's rather simplistic to generalise this to just a fire in a tall building. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. Apologies, but I'm not aware of this fire. I know it wasn't the result of a jetliner impact though. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? Perhaps due to differences in impact? Both planes hit at different floors and different heights. No doubt the resulting internal events would have been different. Again, this is a simplification of a complex system. What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building? Furniture? Paper? Plastic? Carpets? Wood? People? Pretty much anything will burn in extreme circumstances. What else was happening to cause the smoke seen other than things burning? 2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? I am saying that have you any reason to doubt that it wouldn't, seeing as how the exact circumstances have never occured before? Are you saying there was no plane? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do? Again, what evidence are you using to say they should be the same? Do you have information to suggest the 2 scenarios should produce the same results? Or is this based on a simplification also? 4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect? Perhaps, being a small light object it was not affected by the crash in the same way as bodies or black box recorders? If this is totally beyond the realms of possibility, what does it prove? 5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. Apart from the thermite and the melting steel? As I have already said, it is hard to disprove non-existant theories. Parky failed to offer a single one (except the insurance scam he won't explain), only questions, much like the ones above. Do you have any alternative theories? Or just more questions? Questions I have raised have gone unanswered. It is also hard to counter theories such as the CIA plot when as seen even the basic facts are found to conflict. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh. Why? Because it is totally impossible? There are absolutely no examples of this kind of metaphor anywhere in the universe? Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened? I haven't pored over the official explanation for holes. I am happy with I think happened, until proved otherwise. So simply, you don't really care? Another simplification? Do you spend your entire life questioning every fact you think is a fact that is in your head? I'm sorry, but that is one hell of a daft statemnt in response to what I said.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky...

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. I believe you . Is there actually a tower in existence with the same internal support design? I believe it was unique at the time to hold the unprecedented amount of floors, and ideas had moved on by the time anything similar in height was built? It's rather simplistic to generalise this to just a fire in a tall building. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. Apologies, but I'm not aware of this fire. I know it wasn't the result of a jetliner impact though. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? Perhaps due to differences in impact? Both planes hit at different floors and different heights. No doubt the resulting internal events would have been different. Again, this is a simplification of a complex system. What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building? Furniture? Paper? Plastic? Carpets? Wood? People? Pretty much anything will burn in extreme circumstances. What else was happening to cause the smoke seen other than things burning? 2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? I am saying that have you any reason to doubt that it wouldn't, seeing as how the exact circumstances have never occured before? Are you saying there was no plane? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do? Again, what evidence are you using to say they should be the same? Do you have information to suggest the 2 scenarios should produce the same results? Or is this based on a simplification also? 4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect? Perhaps, being a small light object it was not affected by the crash in the same way as bodies or black box recorders? If this is totally beyond the realms of possibility, what does it prove? 5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. Apart from the thermite and the melting steel? As I have already said, it is hard to disprove non-existant theories. Parky failed to offer a single one (except the insurance scam he won't explain), only questions, much like the ones above. Do you have any alternative theories? Or just more questions? Questions I have raised have gone unanswered. It is also hard to counter theories such as the CIA plot when as seen even the basic facts are found to conflict. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh. Why? Because it is totally impossible? There are absolutely no examples of this kind of metaphor anywhere in the universe? Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened? I haven't pored over the official explanation for holes. I am happy with I think happened, until proved otherwise.

I made pancakes. I put brown sauce on them.

Debt recovery at the moment An extra five grand would take up to 23k. The other job is a postman Always wanted to be one, and its around 18k a year Give it a go. Nothing eats at you like regrets in later life . (assuming you are currently surviving on 18k you rich bastard )

....even Donnie can't remember what version of the story he is telling... Is it inconceivable that the word missile could be used to refer to an airliner being flown on a one way kamikaze course into a target? Or am I just way off here?