Video of Missile Hitting the Pentagon?
Search
Go

Discussion Topic
Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1281 - 1300 of total 1354 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
Sep 19, 2011 - 11:52pm PT
Dang K-Man, it was right next door to one of the towers that was hit.

Yeah, lets send a lot of civilian and command personnel who have nothing to do with direct rescue to the building next door.

It was opened after the first plane hit, then closed soon after.

Don't you recall your very own Hess and Jennings posts?

Having a senior moment K-Man?


Again K-man, the east penthouse of WTC 7 collapsed first. Hardly freefall.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Sep 19, 2011 - 11:57pm PT
monolith, it was the command center, where those folks were supposed to go in case of an emergency. The could command all the different departments from there, fire, police. Cameras, phones, everything. It was build for that very reason, and you would expect that they knew the Towers could be a target when they built it, so I would imagine they had that scenario in the bag.

But like I said, I admit it's purely circumstantial. Watch the movie, those folks got hard FACTS. You don't. You know why you don't? Because the Gov't is keeping them from you, idiot. You can't recreate how the buildings fell. Does that mean *anything* to you?
monolith

climber
Sep 19, 2011 - 11:59pm PT
Giuliani was highly criticized for the command center placement. Rightly so. Should not have been near targets and not high up in a tower.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:00am PT
Yeah, Hess and Jennings. Went in at 9, the command center was empty.

And funny, your very own NIST report says the WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall speeds. Now are you saying they are lying? Wow, progress.
monolith

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:03am PT
It only says part of the collapse was at free-fall speed. Only about 2 or 3 seconds. And well after the east penthouse had crashed thru the building.

Is that really shocking to you?
monolith

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:15am PT
From the NIST summary.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

K-Man, you don't even know what the NIST report actually says.

The 5.4 seconds is the time that the roofline is visible in the video analyzed.

Starting with the first movement of the east penthouse, the total collapse time was 14+ seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:34am PT
Once again . . .


Sep 5, 2011 - 12:56pm PT

Gentlemen, stay focused.

Stop the personal insults, it's childish.

Once again . . .


What do we know:


Absolute fore knowledge that an attack was going to be done and on the WTC towers. We knew they were going to use aircraft to do so.


From before . . .



They "TPTB" knew what was going to happen and they used it to their advantage to accomplish what they wanted: LIHOP

Also they "TPTB" knew what they had to do to make it happen: MIHOP


**Eric Rockefeller revealed to Aaron Russo what the NWO wants and that something big was going to happen to be the pretext to go war and invade Afghanistan and Iraq before 9-11-2001.


**Lt. Mike Vreeland from the Pentagon revealed while jailed in Canada that 9-11-2001 would occur and what the events would be. He wrote this down and sealed it in an envelope and gave it to the Canadian authorities. They opened it after 9-11-2001 occurred. This has been verified in Canadian court.


**Ex CIA Asset Susan Lindauer reveals that US intelligence knew very specifically that the WTC towers would be attacked by aircraft before 9-11-2001 and she shares all the specific details and more. She was held in prison for 5 years by our US government on a Texas military base in attempts to silence her.



All of this verifies LIHOP and MIHOP.




Eric Rockefeller Reveals 9/11 FRAUD to Aaron Russo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA&feature=related



A White Knight Talking Backwards
SPY CASE IN CANADIAN COURTS SUGGESTS US NAVAL OFFICER HAD FOREKNOWLEDGE OF 9-11
by Michael C. Ruppert, Author of Crossing The Rubicon
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/01_25_02_revised_012802_vreeland.html
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/01_28_02_vreeland.jpg



Ex CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 911 myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d1OW7b-oug

Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq [Paperback]
Susan Lindauer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudice-Terrifying-Story-Patriot/dp/1453642757



Extreme Prejudice / Clear Evidence Of 9/11 Cover Up
By Allen L Roland (about the author)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Extreme-Prejudice--Clear-by-Allen-L-Roland-110105-991.html


http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/


"Spies Knew"




Cont. on what we know:


Richard Clarke admits that the CIA purposefully withheld information from other intelligence agencies concerning all involved in the 9-11-2001 plot involving "terrorists." They had a great amount of information/intelligence that they purposefully did not share with other agencies.


Considerable means, motive, and opportunity evidence exists that 9-11-2001 was planned and used as a pretext for endless war on "Terror," war-profiteering, and to radically weaken or eradicate our Constitution and our Civil Rights. Remember, PNAC needed "A New Pearl Harbor" to do and to achieve what they have been able to do since 9-11-2001.


If you can't believe that our government can do this, look at the history of false-flags that the US government has carried out. Read and know the details of "Operation Northwoods" to know this truth. In that plan they discussed in detail using false-flag hijackings, using remote aircraft, and killing of our own citizens/soldiers/people, and much more immoral and heinous crimes to take the US into war against Cuba.


Many federal agencies practiced emergency procedures and scenarios for just such a large scale terrorist attack such as 9-11.


Even the Pentagon practiced wargames with aircraft attacking the Pentagon prior to 9-11-2001.


We have Condi et al. saying "we couldn't imagine they would use aircraft as missiles." That is 100% USDA Bull Dung.


We also know that there where many wargames on 9-11-2001, 15+ or more.


Evidence that NORAD was given a stand down order after the attacks on 9-11-2001 began.


Many physical evidences show that the laws of Physics were suspended on 9-11-2001 if the OCT is held-up as true as told in the 9-11 Commission Report, for all 3 WTC towers to fall as they did due only to the 2 aircrafts slamming into them.


An incredible amount of physical evidence and eye-witness reports are ignored concerning demolition of all 3 WTC towers.


The absolute physical evidence of nano-superthermite found in the dust of all 3 WTC towers.


The physical evidence fits the fact that something other than a 757 slams into the Pentagon. The evidence that explosives were used is considerable.




The means, motive, and opportunity, and the physical evidence for LIHOP and MIHOP is fairly overwhelming. The OCT has been invalidated time and time again.

A new thorough and complete investigation of 9-11-2001 by an open and honest international community or commission must be done.

Re-investigate 9-11 now.
survival

Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:50am PT
I suggest voting for a real President next time.

Like W? BWA HA Hhahaaaa

As soon as one shows up, we will.
raymond phule

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 02:08am PT
k-man wrote

4 - flew the jet over the pentagon

Well, there were eye witnesses who claimed they saw this. Why not look into it? I know why, because you want to believe only the folks you want to believe.

Can you show me those eye witness accounts? I really hope that your only source for that claim is not klimmer...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Sep 20, 2011 - 02:27am PT
and raymond, why is klimmer not a good source? He's come up with way better data and sources than you have. For example, have you gotten around to watching the A&E for Truth video yet?

You should take a look, there's lots of smart folks with lots of amazing things to say. Maybe you're old enough to understand some of it.

Here, I'll repost the link so you don't have to work to find it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=player_embedded

But oh, that's right. If it's something that doesn't go along with your predetermined beliefs, you discount it. Like Barry Jennings. You came pretty close to calling him a liar. Now why would that be? Hey, I've got an idea: Because what he said didn't fit into your world of the Official Story.

Am I right?
raymond phule

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 02:41am PT

and raymond, why is klimmer not a good source? He's come up with way better data and sources than you have. For example, have you gotten around to watching the A&E for Truth video yet?

You just proved that you are an idiot. Believing what Klimmers says without checking any sources...

Why do you link a youtube video that is not even about an airplane flying over pentagon? Is it really that hard to understand that people wants to discuss some specific claims of yours and not just your favorite claims?

What you wrote about eyewitness reports about a plane overflying pentagon seems to be incorrect and neither you or your mentor Klimmer have been able to backup that claim. Why don't you just admit that you where wrong about that claim?
raymond phule

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 02:45am PT

But oh, that's right. If it's something that doesn't go along with your predetermined beliefs, you discount it. Like Barry Jennings. You came pretty close to calling him a liar. Now why would that be? Hey, I've got an idea: Because what he said didn't fit into your world of the Official Story.

Am I right?

Barry Jennings couldn't even came up with a time line. He also said in an interview that the towers where standing even though he couldn't see them. How could he know?

I am skeptical to eyewitness accounts that cant be backed up in any way. I have also said before that I believe that the time lines have been mixed up in the Barry Jennings case.
raymond phule

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 02:57am PT

Ray-
Kman ain't an idiot.
Anymore than Werner is.

Both of them are smart and you couldn't meet nicer people.

So smart people believe what Klimmer claims without needing to see any sources?
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Sep 20, 2011 - 03:05am PT
Werner, why did you target the crowd at the Reno Air Race with a missile disguised as a Mustang P-51 airplane?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Sep 20, 2011 - 04:06am PT
Riley, was in Yosemite this last weekend. Boy it was HOT!
Yes, will be there for facelift! Hope to meet up with ya, it's be nice to see you again.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Sep 20, 2011 - 04:39am PT
raymond, let me put this in the nicest way that I can.

You are a jerk.

My claim was that there were folks who said they saw something. That's all. I also said that there's a lot of BS out there and that there's a lot of folks who want to discredit the Truther movement. These are called "false flags."

Ask yourself this: Why are you so stuck on debunking this stupid thing or that stupid thing when you ignore the real hard questions. There are lots of very valid claims, just open your eyes. You can't cherry pick the ones that you think you can disprove, you have to disprove them ALL. So might as well start with the real hard facts.

Take a look at the A&E flick. It's long, but each person who speaks lists their credentials up front. We are talking people with scores of years in the trade of building steel structures, fireproofing, chemists in metallurgy, on and on. All the stuff is laid out in the open--the pulverized concrete, the melted steel, explosions, the cover-up of facts by NIST, the impossibility of the collapses by fire. On and on. Also very interesting, if you get to the end of the 2+ hour movie, is a group of psychologists explaining why people have such a hard time looking at the facts. Their shaken world view and cognitive dissonance.

So grow up a little bit here and act like an adolescent. Take a look at the real hard facts and stop picking on this nonsense that's easy to talk around or debunk. You cannot debunk the fact that the NIST report was non-scientific, the fact that they disregarded hundreds of reports of explosions, the disregard of Appendix C from the FEMA report which addresses the melted steel found at Ground Zero, their inability to explain the total destruction of the towers, their hiding of the methods they used to reach their conclusions. This is the real stuff, the stuff that even cloe can't touch with her passive aggressive digs.

It ain't religious. It's fact. You can deny it, but try to be aware that that is what you're doing--denying it because the truth is too much for you look at honestly.

I'll end with this: It is inserting/curious that NIST will not provide the details of how they came to their conclusion, even though certified architects and engineers have filed FOIA requests to get the information. I say this is interesting because it is these architects who are building the new sky scrapers that must be resistant to the thing(s) that brought down the WTC buildings (which by the NIST account are office fires).

NIST claims that it would be a security threat to release the details of how they reached their conclusion. OK fine, a threat. So, it's better to let the engineers of new building not know how to make their buildings safer because to do so would be a security threat. Right, office fires bring down steel-structured buildings, and to explain how that happened would be a security threat.

Do you see a problem here?
raymond phule

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 04:56am PT

My claim was that there were folks who said they saw something. That's all.

Why is it so damn hard for same people to just admit that they where wrong?

You didn't say that. You said

4 - flew the jet over the pentagon

Well, there were eye witnesses who claimed they saw this. Why not look into it? I know why, because you want to believe only the folks you want to believe.

and this is not true because there where no eyewitnesses that saw that.
raymond phule

climber
Sep 20, 2011 - 05:12am PT

Ask yourself this: Why are you so stuck on debunking this stupid thing or that stupid thing when you ignore the real hard questions. There are lots of very valid claims, just open your eyes. You can't cherry pick the ones that you think you can disprove, you have to disprove them ALL. So might as well start with the real hard facts.

So I need to disprove all your guys claims at once to be allowed to say something? There are probably thousands of claims about this and I think that I have the right to point out the once I found ridiculous wrong without someone like starting to insult me. Why don't you just admit that some of the truthers theories don't add up instead of acting like a child?

I am not an expert in all these and I have not used thousand of hours to try to understand every single one of all claims but I still think that I can pick holes in quite a lot of yours and your friends theories.

You acting like a child whenever someone disprove something in one of your sources is quite telling to me. What about having an actual discussion where both parts admit errors?

Here is some of your claims that has been disproved but that you cant admit.

The planes didn't fly wildly of course for over an hour like one of your sources claimed.
Pulverized concrete is not evidence for explosions in this case.
There are no eyewitness reports of an airplane flying low over pentagon just after something hit pentagon.

Why should someone take you seriously when you over and over show that you can't admit that your sources and knowledge is not always correct?

I am also curious about if you see a connection to videos like the "great global warming swindle" that a lot of people seems to believe is showing the truth about global warming and a lot of your videos with many experts.

My view on this is that supposed experts are not always correct and that it is really difficult for laymen to determine for themselves what is true or not. Especially when the maker of the video wants that you should believe something.
mojede

Trad climber
Butte, America
Sep 20, 2011 - 10:15am PT
Monolith-do you, or do you NOT believe 100% of what the 9/11 Commission wrote and reported?



Simple question...one word answer


Betcha won't answer, coward






































EDIT: NO BELIEVER WILL EVER ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH A "YES" or a "NO"



Won't happen, ever--AND, that should tell you something about character and will....
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Sep 20, 2011 - 10:22am PT
A late response to the following cry baby rant . . .

Sep 19, 2011 - 11:47am PT
Klimmer you are a teacher. Is is ok for your students to answer questions in the following ways.

The answer can be found in the book xxx.
The answer can be found on the internet.
The answer can be found in the following 2 hours of youtube videos.

I am just curious because it seems that you are using that tactic most of the time. You rarely answer questions or make an argument your self. Instead you just link to many long youtube videos and sometimes general large internet sites without even showing where the information is located.



Raymond et al.,

Now I could hold your hand and give you the precise link, quote, video clip etc. but who has that kind of time?

I do give you the sources where to find it. Where I found it. All you have to do is think just a little and have just enough motivation and look into it and read or watch.


Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Chinese Proverb.
Messages 1281 - 1300 of total 1354 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks
guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!
 
SuperTopo on the Web
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta