Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
I think that 80% of what happened on Sept 11th was exactly how we saw it, but, Bush knows a lot more.....
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiger
Lets see what you got Cybermonkey
You really dont want me to start this again, i can throw facts and figures at you about the entire thing until you die of boredom 
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
quote:
Originally posted by Drew
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
OH NO FOR FUCKS SAKE NOT THIS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its all bullshit!!!!!
how did i know u would be in here 
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
|
dave17
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 02
Location: Greater London
User status: Offline
|
so was it a plane or not?
if it was. proof
if it wasnt. proof
jus a few quick points to put my mind at yest
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
that stupid dumb ass video claimed it was not a jet aircraft of any sort, because of the lack of parts missing from the aircraft, when in fact, hitting the most solid building in the world, at 350+mph, its not going to leave much, most objects and materials evaporate at those G's, and of course you have the extremely hot fireball that ensues when you burn 10,000 gallons of Kerosene. The most solid parts of the aircraft, such as bulkheads, and engine parts, actually punched through about 3 layers of the pentagon, which is a shit load of concrete, which goes to show the sheer forces involved. There is your proof, it really doesnt take much to work it out. Was a 757 for sure. Where else would it go? a 757 just doesnt dissapear if it was meant to be a missile
|
dave17
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 02
Location: Greater London
User status: Offline
|
wel there u go, the man has spoken 
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
cyber stop sniffing glue
i agree that alot of it would have disappeared due to impact forces and the fuel, but a 58,000Kg jet with a wing span of 38m and almost 14m high should have left something! In all the pictures i have seen there has been no evidence what so ever of a 757 - just that blurred pixialated image of something plowing into the building, which could be anything....and i mean anything considering there are videos out and about of ufo's flying around the twin towers when the planes hit
personally i think its either a small jet, like a learjet or missile or something like bush setting off a bomb to add to the effect of the whole twin tower event.
at the end of the day, know one outside of the CIA/FBI/Bush etc is going to know what really happened - apart from the fact that they knew about it days beforehand
|
sfxer
Member
Registered: 23rd Aug 00
Location: devon, england
User status: Offline
|
watch
"911 in plane site"
and
"the greatest lie ever told"
both dvd's you cant buy them anywhere, try and download them, if not i have copies.
they are real eyeopeners.
no way did a plane hit the pentagon.
also both planes that hit the trade center had an attachment on the underside which when impact occured created a small explosion so the plane could do maximum damage.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
cyber stop sniffing glue
i agree that alot of it would have disappeared due to impact forces and the fuel, but a 58,000Kg jet with a wing span of 38m and almost 14m high should have left something! In all the pictures i have seen there has been no evidence what so ever of a 757 - just that blurred pixialated image of something plowing into the building, which could be anything....and i mean anything considering there are videos out and about of ufo's flying around the twin towers when the planes hit
personally i think its either a small jet, like a learjet or missile or something like bush setting off a bomb to add to the effect of the whole twin tower event.
at the end of the day, know one outside of the CIA/FBI/Bush etc is going to know what really happened - apart from the fact that they knew about it days beforehand
There are a few pics of the shell of an RB211 sitting in the first shell of the pentagon. No miltary aircraft or missiles use turbofan engines of this size.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfxer
watch
"911 in plane site"
and
"the greatest lie ever told"
both dvd's you cant buy them anywhere, try and download them, if not i have copies.
they are real eyeopeners.
no way did a plane hit the pentagon.
also both planes that hit the trade center had an attachment on the underside which when impact occured created a small explosion so the plane could do maximum damage.
an attachment? what kind of attachment would that be then? And how was it attached to a 767? Why would a small explosion be needed with an aircraft laden with highly combustable fuel 
|
City
Member
Registered: 30th Dec 03
Location: Wakefield Drives: Red GSi
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
that stupid dumb ass video claimed it was not a jet aircraft of any sort, because of the lack of parts missing from the aircraft, when in fact, hitting the most solid building in the world, at 350+mph, its not going to leave much, most objects and materials evaporate at those G's, and of course you have the extremely hot fireball that ensues when you burn 10,000 gallons of Kerosene. The most solid parts of the aircraft, such as bulkheads, and engine parts, actually punched through about 3 layers of the pentagon, which is a shit load of concrete, which goes to show the sheer forces involved. There is your proof, it really doesnt take much to work it out. Was a 757 for sure. Where else would it go? a 757 just doesnt dissapear if it was meant to be a missile
why was there no marks at all on the grass
why are windows still in tact in places??
why no marks were wings hit??
theres more questions cant be arsed to list em all
[Edited on 23-02-2005 by City]
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by City
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
that stupid dumb ass video claimed it was not a jet aircraft of any sort, because of the lack of parts missing from the aircraft, when in fact, hitting the most solid building in the world, at 350+mph, its not going to leave much, most objects and materials evaporate at those G's, and of course you have the extremely hot fireball that ensues when you burn 10,000 gallons of Kerosene. The most solid parts of the aircraft, such as bulkheads, and engine parts, actually punched through about 3 layers of the pentagon, which is a shit load of concrete, which goes to show the sheer forces involved. There is your proof, it really doesnt take much to work it out. Was a 757 for sure. Where else would it go? a 757 just doesnt dissapear if it was meant to be a missile
why was there no marks at all on the grass
why are windows still in tact in places??
why no marks were wings hit??
theres more questions cant be arsed to list em all
[Edited on 23-02-2005 by City]
Gone over them all and discredited it in a much bigger thread from a while ago, go and search it if it bothers you so much, its on offday somewhere,
No marks on grass because aircraft slammed into the side of the building rather than skid into it,
windows still intact probably because they are bomb proof silicon-acryllic glass, since it is the Pentagon after all.
No marks where wings hit, thats bull, the wings would fold back on themselves and would be left in the same trace as the fuselage.
|
TNM
Member
Registered: 5th Apr 04
Location: Nottingham Drives: VW Tiguan
User status: Offline
|
seen it before and agree with it. no wings and no tail so it must be smaller the a 757.
|
Jamie
Member
Registered: 1st Apr 02
Location: Aberdeen
User status: Offline
|
Cybermonkey - WE need more
|
City
Member
Registered: 30th Dec 03
Location: Wakefield Drives: Red GSi
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
quote:
Originally posted by City
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
that stupid dumb ass video claimed it was not a jet aircraft of any sort, because of the lack of parts missing from the aircraft, when in fact, hitting the most solid building in the world, at 350+mph, its not going to leave much, most objects and materials evaporate at those G's, and of course you have the extremely hot fireball that ensues when you burn 10,000 gallons of Kerosene. The most solid parts of the aircraft, such as bulkheads, and engine parts, actually punched through about 3 layers of the pentagon, which is a shit load of concrete, which goes to show the sheer forces involved. There is your proof, it really doesnt take much to work it out. Was a 757 for sure. Where else would it go? a 757 just doesnt dissapear if it was meant to be a missile
why was there no marks at all on the grass
why are windows still in tact in places??
why no marks were wings hit??
theres more questions cant be arsed to list em all
[Edited on 23-02-2005 by City]
Gone over them all and discredited it in a much bigger thread from a while ago, go and search it if it bothers you so much, its on offday somewhere,
No marks on grass because aircraft slammed into the side of the building rather than skid into it,
windows still intact probably because they are bomb proof silicon-acryllic glass, since it is the Pentagon after all.
No marks where wings hit, thats bull, the wings would fold back on themselves and would be left in the same trace as the fuselage.
shut up cause there would we marks on the grass! dont be stupid after a so called plane hitting a building they grass would have marks on it but there was nothing!
ok im with you on the glass - but what about the moniters and fileing cabinets inside all in tact and lookin brand new in the hole of inpact??
if the wings folded up thats a good answer - but they is there no marks were they at least hit the side of the building??? theres nothing
they alot of arguments for and against a plane hitting the building
[Edited on 23-02-2005 by City]
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
Its all bull
|
stu_jackson
Member
Registered: 8th Feb 05
User status: Offline
|
quote:
if the wings folded up thats a good answer - but they is there no marks were they at least hit the side of the building??? theres nothing
[Edited on 23-02-2005 by City]
This is a good point
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
People that believe it's a missle are thick.
I bet some fucking geek on the other side of the pond had a right laugh making up bull shit missle stories.
If it was a missle, where did it come from? Who fired it? Why did they fire it? If you can make wild guesses please provide reasons why to go with them. Otherwise its just nonsense.
Anyone can make shit up about what may have happened.
Why is it so hard to believe that a plane hit? Clearly Michael Moore has affected you people.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
thankyou Nath, and if i have a spare moment today, i will dig up the old thread.
|
