CBC news

Forum Sponsor
caboose56 said:
Terrorists may have been given direction or encouragement from many sources. No argument there.

The BS about the towers being brought down by explosives or The Pentagon being hit by a missile is just BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How do you then explain the lack of a fuselage, or wings or ANY plane wreckage at the Pentagon?

I'm no tin-foil hat wearer, but something never quite added up with all the 9/11 reports, and the "conspiracy theorists" have some pretty compelling arguments. Tower 7 wasn't the only building within that close proximity to the twin towers, as well.. and it went down with no attacks?! wtf.... its crazy. SOMEONE is lying for sure.

cbcanada said:
3405709719bb6d27accad23cc3145171.jpg
Click to expand...

Explanation: Intentional vs. accidental. Still riding motorcycles and supporting big oil tho, huh?
 
I blame Buzzfeed, people read a snip-it of information and in most cases sensationalized information to get your attention and regurgitate that information back to others without a hint of research or thought or intelligence or science, this is what is happening in this thread....

There are explanations for each one of the questions of theory conspiracy "locos" posted on this thread about 911, the problem is that most people only look for "facts" that will support their already made up mind and not look for subjective information that might prove them wrong.

Humans, we suck

OP, I agree with the notion of the more you make the more you spend unnecessarily, when i was piss poor and had just moved to Canada, I remember going for dinner and spending 40 bucks in a meal for 2 was a once a year occurrence and It felt so damn expensive, now we blow over 100 on a restaurant any day of the week without a second thought
 
Last edited:
ZX600 said:
I blame Buzzfeed, people read a snip-it of information and in most cases sensationalized information to get your attention and regurgitate that information back to others without a hint of research or thought or intelligence or science, this is what is happening in this thread....

There are explanations for each one of the questions of theory conspiracy "locos" posted on this thread about 911, the problem is that most people only look for "facts" that will support their already made up mind and not look for subjective information that might prove them wrong.

Humans, we suck
Click to expand...

Have you seen this: http://www.ae911truth.org/ ?

Your comments would make more sense if you were talking about people who actually believe all the news coverage. There are experts in the field of construction and civil engineering volunteering their expertise to the cause of dispelling the myths about the media reports. They're not claiming to have all the answers, or even that they care about the resulting war, or even defying the US Government: they simply want to use the knowledge gained from videos and wreckage analysis to educate people on what really happened that day. After all, it was kind of a big deal.
 
Kri$han said:
How do you then explain the lack of a fuselage, or wings or ANY plane wreckage at the Pentagon?

I'm no tin-foil hat wearer, but something never quite added up with all the 9/11 reports, and the "conspiracy theorists" have some pretty compelling arguments. Tower 7 wasn't the only building within that close proximity to the twin towers, as well.. and it went down with no attacks?! wtf.... its crazy. SOMEONE is lying for sure.



Explanation: Intentional vs. accidental. Still riding motorcycles and supporting big oil tho, huh?
Click to expand...

No plane wreckage? Read this:

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/?m=1

Then go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
caboose56 said:
No plane wreckage? Read this:

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/?m=1

Then go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL a random blogger's website with countless doctored photos and a CNN interview of a media reporter.

:\

Still no pictures of any plane wreckage. U think a plane that barrels through a building (the outer "ring" of the pentagon) would leave a nice round hole, like this at far side of the impact?

fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg


And no nose or metal to be found at the crash site? At all?! No landing gear, bodies, jet engine parts, body panels, wing sheet metal, or ANY discernable pieces of an aircraft? nothing?! I'm not discounting the possibility of a plane hitting it, but I can't say for sure that one did... A wiki page for AAL77 has this picture though, which looks like some bits an pieces... that all I could find in a short time:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...media/File:Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg
 
Holy christ batman.

How do some people continue to function in a society that is so big and unknown for them?

Can you review this theory and get back to us on it?

https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=49204


Kri$han said:
LOL a random blogger's website with countless doctored photos and a CNN interview of a media reporter.

:\

Still no pictures of any plane wreckage. U think a plane that barrels through a building (the outer "ring" of the pentagon) would leave a nice round hole, like this at far side of the impact?

fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg


And no nose or metal to be found at the crash site? At all?! No landing gear, bodies, jet engine parts, body panels, wing sheet metal, or ANY discernable pieces of an aircraft? nothing?! I'm not discounting the possibility of a plane hitting it, but I can't say for sure that one did... A wiki page for AAL77 has this picture though, which looks like some bits an pieces... that all I could find in a short time:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...media/File:Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Kri$han said:
LOL a random blogger's website with countless doctored photos and a CNN interview of a media reporter.

:\

Still no pictures of any plane wreckage. U think a plane that barrels through a building (the outer "ring" of the pentagon) would leave a nice round hole, like this at far side of the impact?

fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg


And no nose or metal to be found at the crash site? At all?! No landing gear, bodies, jet engine parts, body panels, wing sheet metal, or ANY discernable pieces of an aircraft? nothing?! I'm not discounting the possibility of a plane hitting it, but I can't say for sure that one did... A wiki page for AAL77 has this picture though, which looks like some bits an pieces... that all I could find in a short time:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...media/File:Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg
Click to expand...

I told you to read it. You clearly didn't.

Read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
hay guys how come there's no wreckage of an aluminum tin can that hit a concrete building at 500mph?????

derp derp

And then you SHOW them photos of obvious plane wreckage parts and they say its doctored. derp derp
 
Something was/is a miss with 9/11.

The US government paid Canadian families for a multitude of different reasons one being the ability to no longer sue. Look up the last name Collison on the deceased list it's also my last name if you can put two and two together with how I know this.

As for the news reports "Joe" was listed as working on 6 different floors that day by media that I have found. He was only on the 102nd floor as that is where the company he worked for actually resided.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, there is extensive documentation and studies done that will explain any crazy idea, the problem with having these arguments with you guys is that it requires an enormous amount of time and patience I frankly don't have so that at the end you guys don't end up reading the facts we post or simply dismiss it and go round and round so I don't bother.

Edit: as proven by you not reading Caboose's link which you clearly didn't read since you asked question that were answered on the link. Rest my case

Let me give you an example:

You asked
Still no pictures of any plane wreckage. U think a plane that barrels through a building (the outer "ring" of the pentagon) would leave a nice round hole, like this at far side of the impact?



fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg



The study said this:

Damage to the Pentagon

Section Summary: It is a common misunderstanding that AAL77 left only a "small hole" in the Pentagon facade, that it punched through 6 reinforced walls, and left a slightly smaller hole in the C-Ring wall. This is a totally false assertion. For a complete composite of the facade damage, click and enlarge the first two images below. There and in the following section you will find extensive wide spread damage from the fuselage, engines, wings, even the vertical stabilizer.

Further down take note of the construction of the Pentagon. Only the outer wall was constructed with reinforcing. The C-Ring "punch out" wall was plain brick and nothing more. Also note that the area AAL77 impacted; the bottom and second floors, is open space the entire distance between the outer E-Ring and the inner C-Ring with no dividing walls lower than the third floor. It can therefore clearly be seen that AAL77 did not penetrate 6 reinforced walls, but only 1; the outer most wall.

Damage to the Pentagon Façade:



​
That hole from your pic is the "C ring" exit hole

Sidecut.jpg


​
But now you are going to come back with some random response and I am going to lose interest in arguing with you so I guess you are going to assume you "won" the argument.

Kri$han said:
Have you seen this: http://www.ae911truth.org/ ?

Your comments would make more sense if you were talking about people who actually believe all the news coverage. There are experts in the field of construction and civil engineering volunteering their expertise to the cause of dispelling the myths about the media reports. They're not claiming to have all the answers, or even that they care about the resulting war, or even defying the US Government: they simply want to use the knowledge gained from videos and wreckage analysis to educate people on what really happened that day. After all, it was kind of a big deal.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cbcanada said:
44de14caf2de493648e56e50e18cc00a.jpg


-The missing trillions were never investigated or talked about after...



"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
Click to expand...

It was a simple reconciling error between hundreds of computer systems that didn't 'talk' to each other - you make it sound like truck loads of cash. Your cause isn't helped when you just make **** up - they accounted for 2/3rds of the $2.3t by February of '02.

I'm outta here - it's pointless.
 
[video=youtube;FzF1KySHmUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA[/video]
 
ZX600 said:
The study said this:

Damage to the Pentagon

Section Summary: It is a common misunderstanding that AAL77 left only a "small hole" in the Pentagon facade, that it punched through 6 reinforced walls, and left a slightly smaller hole in the C-Ring wall. This is a totally false assertion. For a complete composite of the facade damage, click and enlarge the first two images below. There and in the following section you will find extensive wide spread damage from the fuselage, engines, wings, even the vertical stabilizer.

Further down take note of the construction of the Pentagon. Only the outer wall was constructed with reinforcing. The C-Ring "punch out" wall was plain brick and nothing more. Also note that the area AAL77 impacted; the bottom and second floors, is open space the entire distance between the outer E-Ring and the inner C-Ring with no dividing walls lower than the third floor. It can therefore clearly be seen that AAL77 did not penetrate 6 reinforced walls, but only 1; the outer most wall.

Damage to the Pentagon Façade:



​
That hole from your pic is the "C ring" exit hole

​
But now you are going to come back with some random response and I am going to lose interest in arguing with you so I guess you are going to assume you "won" the argument.
Click to expand...

Totally right, I didn't read, I skimmed. I've never seen the debunking website caboose posted before, but thanks for posting the info directly here . So okay, the plane didn't make it all the way through the 6 walls ( and yeah, I understand that was the "C" ring exit hole, lol), that's okay, but how was the hole "punched" so neatly? by the resulting blast?

Re: The Pentagon; I can't be sure what exactly happened, because both sides of the "argument" have unanswered questions.

I originally intended to bring up the inconsistencies of the WTC attack reports. Can you now show me a debunking site about WTC towers 1,2 & 7, that counter's all the stuff from AE911truth? Have you read any of that link?

Also, I'm not here trying to "win" any argument - in fact it's not even a real argument, I don't care, brah :) My bike is sleeping and I'm bored.
 
Last edited:
The challenge with an aeroplane is that they are so lightweight. I found some research conducted at MIT just amazing.

They estimate that that cost of each passenger carrying a cellphone costs Southwest Airlines 1.2 million annually in weight-related fuel expenses. That number jumps to $21.6 million if the cellphone is replaced by a laptop. Virgin Atlantic estimates that shaving even a single pound off all the planes in their fleet would save them 14,000 gallons of fuel per year.

As a result the underlying structure is engineered to be extremely light and to support only very specific stresses, those related to keeping the plane in the air. They are not designed to withstand stand a collision and do not have a crumple zone. There are a number of accidents every year where planes will clip objects or other planes while taxiing to the gate that results in the wing or part of the wing being bent parallel to the fuselage, and this is at 10mph.

Base on the design, I wouldn't expect to see a plane shaped hole in the side of the pentagon that would mirror the 34M wingspan of that model. That's cartoonish. I would think the hole would be more round like the bulk of the fuselage that is braced in the direction of travel, as in the above picture.
 
Last edited:
We all are just bored at work (in my case sick at home) so it's all good.
Kri$han said:
Totally right, I didn't read, I skimmed. I've never seen the debunking website caboose posted before, but thanks for posting the info directly here . So okay, the plane didn't make it all the way through the 6 walls ( and yeah, I understand that was the "C" ring exit hole, lol), that's okay, but how was the hole "punched" so neatly? by the resulting blast?

Re: The Pentagon; I can't be sure what exactly happened, because both sides of the "argument" have unanswered questions.

I originally intended to bring up the inconsistencies of the WTC attack reports. Can you now show me a debunking site about WTC towers 1,2 & 7, that counter's all the stuff from AE911truth? Have you read any of that link?

Also, I'm not here trying to "win" any argument - in fact it's not even a real argument, I don't care, brah :) My bike is sleeping and I'm bored.
Click to expand...
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom