9/11 Conspiracy Thread

A friend of mine actually saw the airplane hit the Pentagon. She told me of her eye witness account first hand (before the Saudis and the CIA got to her). :)

She didn't see a missile. She first heard the engines and then located the airplane as it flew low over traffic. She then saw an airplane go right over 395 and fly into the side of the pentagon. Note that she travelled frequently and knew what an airplane looked like. Note that she didn't see a missile.

Hundreds of people saw this same thing, as traffic was unusually heavy that day and persisted well into the late morning.

Funny you mention traffic because my dad was almost right in front of the pentagon when the "plane" hit it. I remember calling him after I saw it on the news. He saw no plane. Nor did any of the 5 other guys he was with. Kinda strange how some saw something as big as a plane, yet some didnt huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Funny you mention traffic because my dad was almost right in front of the pentagon when the "plane" hit it. I remember calling him after I saw it on the news. He saw no plane. Nor did any of the 5 other guys he was with. Kinda strange how some saw something as big as a plane, yet some didnt huh?

Have you ever been to the Pentagon? It's a fairly large compound with roads on more than one side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Funny you mention traffic because my dad was almost right in front of the pentagon when the "plane" hit it. I remember calling him after I saw it on the news. He saw no plane. Nor did any of the 5 other guys he was with. Kinda strange how some saw something as big as a plane, yet some didnt huh?

Doesn't really seem strange at all. It was low flying and coming in at 500 MPH. It wouldn't have been something that you could see and track unless your eyes just happened to be in the right place.
 
From the link I posted...

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).
Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net


Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." Investigative Journal


Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." Index of /911underground
 
always been curious about the cruise missile angle. Where did it come from? No reports of it anywhere (they travel at supersonic speeds where are the reports of the sonic boom?). no sailor reporting a mysterious launch? No missing missile on a inventory? No commander/pilot/witness with a guilty conscious or an open mouth? No evidence of explosives, drive engine/motor/whatever.

and of course if there was a missile what happened to the plane and the people?

the missile would have had to have preformed the same maneuvers at a faster speed than the plane did. I know there is some control but there is not a lot of distance between the overpass and the side of the pentagon. (if its unreasonable a plane could make that move, why is it reasonable that something going much much faster could have?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
always been curious about the cruise missile angle. Where did it come from? No reports of it anywhere (they travel at supersonic speeds where are the reports of the sonic boom?). no sailor reporting a mysterious launch? No missing missile on a inventory? No commander/pilot/witness with a guilty conscious or an open mouth? No evidence of explosives, drive engine/motor/whatever.

and of course if there was a missile what happened to the plane and the people?

the missile would have had to have preformed the same maneuvers at a faster speed than the plane did. I know there is some control but there is not a lot of distance between the overpass and the side of the pentagon. (if its unreasonable a plane could make that move, why is it reasonable that something going much much faster could have?)

I'm more interested in how this guy thinks two planes didn't hit the WTC.

I'd love to hear the explanation on how they managed to get the worldwide media colluding on this large of a scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I'm more interested in how this guy thinks two planes didn't hit the WTC.

I'd love to hear the explanation on how they managed to get the worldwide media colluding on this large of a scale.

the cover up would require such a mind numbing amount of resources that it begs the question why would any group that wields such power worry about us plebs? if they wanted to invade Iraq, they could have found any number of reasons. if they wanted us to go over there and stir the terrorist hornet nest, there was already other reasons, we had been before and there was the "WMDs" If they needed to get rid of evidence in the pentagon and the WTC why couldn't they do it conventionally? I have a hard time believing its easier to plan and pull off these attacks (with no leaks) than it would be to go in and get it themselves.
 
A friend of mine actually saw the airplane hit the Pentagon. She told me of her eye witness account first hand (before the Saudis and the CIA got to her). :)

She didn't see a missile. She first heard the engines and then located the airplane as it flew low over traffic. She then saw an airplane go right over 395 and fly into the side of the pentagon. Note that she travelled frequently and knew what an airplane looked like. Note that she didn't see a missile.

Hundreds of people saw this same thing, as traffic was unusually heavy that day and persisted well into the late morning.

But only made a 16 foot hole in the side of the building.
 
I'm more interested in how this guy thinks two planes didn't hit the WTC.

I'd love to hear the explanation on how they managed to get the worldwide media colluding on this large of a scale.

I've never argued planes didn't hit the buildings.....I argued if they were commercial airliners made of aluminum..

To cut through steel and concrete without popping off the tail, a wing, engine or anything seems improbable...
 
But only made a 16 foot hole in the side of the building.

16 feet?

Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG


firetrucks must be tiny up there in DC.

and you know the pentagon is a multilayered bunker built to withstand direct attacks? and its sectioned off to limit damage? I know its crazy but us builders know what the crap we are doing, especially when there is money available to do it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I've never argued planes didn't hit the buildings.....I argued if they were commercial airliners made of aluminum..

To cut through steel and concrete without popping off the tail, a wing, engine or anything seems improbable...

and those pieces would just stop and magically fall straight to the ground? they have momentum too.
 
the cover up would require such a mind numbing amount of resources that it begs the question why would any group that wields such power worry about us plebs? if they wanted to invade Iraq, they could have found any number of reasons. if they wanted us to go over there and stir the terrorist hornet nest, there was already other reasons, we had been before and there was the "WMDs" If they needed to get rid of evidence in the pentagon and the WTC why couldn't they do it conventionally? I have a hard time believing its easier to plan and pull off these attacks (with no leaks) than it would be to go in and get it themselves.

Would it? Then why not have an open hearing and investigation where guys like the ones posted in the link can be called into testify?

The investigation they "gave" us was pathetic...
 
Did I say that? Aluminum doesn't slice through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter..

which weighs more one ton of feathers or one ton of concrete?

I don't know how much those planes weighed. seeing numbers around 75 tons, so i am going to use that. that equals 150,000 lbs. and its flying at several hundred miles per hour, lets use 400. 150,000lbs x 400mph = 60,000,000 pounds of force. (really really rough math, i will let the engineers do the math). concrete at 150lbs per cubic foot and steel somewhere around 75lbs per cubic foot (not that there is a true cubit foot of steel anywhere in a building). so you take that 60,000,000 number divide it by area (no idea) and thats what hit the buildings. not some aluminum foil.

you see cars drive through buildings, how does that happen?

*lol at me "cubit" fixed.
 
Would it? Then why not have an open hearing and investigation where guys like the ones posted in the link can be called into testify?

The investigation they "gave" us was pathetic...

agreed, I still want to know what is in those 28 pages too.

I have my own questions, towards the official story, towards the conspiracies, towards mankind in general. and the only ones providing any real answers (not vague questions implying answers) is the official side. apparently questioning the conspiracy theories is not allowed, but questioning the official line is a must.
 
Last edited:
agreed, I still want to know what is in those 28 pages too.

I have my own questions, towards the official story, towards the conspiracies, towards mankind in general. and the only ones providing any real answers (not vague questions implying answers) is the official side. apparently questioning the conspiracy theories is not allowed, but questioning the official line is a must.

The "official" side's answers are not to be questioned....it's labelled a conspiracy theory if it does. This is purposeful weapon was contrived many decades ago to shame, belittle anyone questioning our governments actions...they do it all the time. It's their go to...
 
Funny you mention traffic because my dad was almost right in front of the pentagon when the "plane" hit it. I remember calling him after I saw it on the news. He saw no plane. Nor did any of the 5 other guys he was with. Kinda strange how some saw something as big as a plane, yet some didnt huh?

Which front and which road? There are five sides to the Pentagon and depending on which road he was on would make a difference into what could be seen.
 
The "official" side's answers are not to be questioned....it's labelled a conspiracy theory if it does. This is purposeful weapon was contrived many decades ago to shame, belittle anyone questioning our governments actions...they do it all the time. It's their go to...

and anything that smells even a little fishy must be a government plot, it's their (lets call them amateur doubters) go to.
 
I've never argued planes didn't hit the buildings.....I argued if they were commercial airliners made of aluminum..

To cut through steel and concrete without popping off the tail, a wing, engine or anything seems improbable...

So, you think planes hit the WTC, but did not cause the collapse. You also think no plane struck the Pentagon, and if I remember correctly, you think no plane was crashed in PA.

I know I asked this question before, but I don't think it was ever answered:

If the government was going to blow up 3 buildings and cover it up by faking planes crashing into all three AND to further fake the incident by crashing a plane into a field, why would they only bother to crash planes into two of the buildings?
 
Last edited:
Did I say that? Aluminum doesn't slice through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter..
It went thru the glass part pretty easily though. And pretty sure the kinetic energy of a heavy airplane would overwhelm the steel and concrete that was there with little problem. Just because it is concrete doesn't mean it is immovable.
 
It went thru the glass part pretty easily though. And pretty sure the kinetic energy of a heavy airplane would overwhelm the steel and concrete that was there with little problem. Just because it is concrete doesn't mean it is immovable.

Right. And it's not like the planes slammed into a concrete wall. The primary material on the exposed face of the building was glass, and behind that the primary material was air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
always been curious about the cruise missile angle. Where did it come from? No reports of it anywhere (they travel at supersonic speeds where are the reports of the sonic boom?). no sailor reporting a mysterious launch? No missing missile on a inventory? No commander/pilot/witness with a guilty conscious or an open mouth? No evidence of explosives, drive engine/motor/whatever.

and of course if there was a missile what happened to the plane and the people?

the missile would have had to have preformed the same maneuvers at a faster speed than the plane did. I know there is some control but there is not a lot of distance between the overpass and the side of the pentagon. (if its unreasonable a plane could make that move, why is it reasonable that something going much much faster could have?)

Because it's a missile dude!!! And unlike a huge airplane, the much smaller projectile made of thinner skin than an airplane can slice through concrete like hot butter. It's the magic of the missile!!!!
 

VN Store



Back
Top