stipete75

A runway is completely different to a highway filled with obstacles.
Runway = safe wide long concrete hard standing light up.
Highway = bendy thin roads surrounded by buildings,lamp posts, pedestrians,houses, lampposts etc etc

hodgy0_2

and the people that saw a plane - lying?

photos of the engines and landing gear in the pentagon - faked?

photos of parts of the plane on the lawn - faked?

DNA evidence from the dead crew and passengers - faked?

Flight recorder data - faked?

eyewitnesses of the aftermath - lying?

we know governments lie - this is NOT news - again please tell us something we don't know

Brun

So all that makes it impossible does it? No, thought not

neil-h

Nice bit of understanding there

Brun

Feel free to spell it out for me then

hodgy0_2

Had the evidence not been so overwhelming regarding planes hitting the twin towers, (although a growing number of dillusional fruit cases still refuse to believe the evidence)

You would have got "experts" saying it was impossible to fly planes into them, impossible - one maybe, but both planes hitting each tower impossible - without any visible sign - impossible

Yet they did it

(Or did they !!!!!)

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Impressive flying skills for rookie pilots with zero hours on these planes. Straight from a Cessna to a Boeing airliner, flying with pinpoint accuracy. The guy that is said to have flown the plane into the Pentagon, according to his instructor, was so incompetent that the flying school refused to rent him a light plane. Yet he managed to do a very tricky spiral 330 degree controlled descent, inch perfect, velocity and altitude just right etc, and hit a target bang on, with only 30ft of leeway available, without scraping the lawn or leaving any debris, in a type and size of plane he had never even taken off in. Mightily impressive. And I'm expected to believe all this without questioning it?

hodgy0_2

A lot of fact there - Source for them please

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

It's all in the official 9/11 Commission report. Which seems to be your only reference. You have read it, haven't you?

hodgy0_2

Sure, link to it then

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

It's one thing to question the credibility of an event because some detail or other about it seems to jar with conventional logic and understanding of how it might be expected to unfold. It's quite another though to go from there to asserting that some even more far-fetched explanation of how that event unfolded must therefore be true. You were asking just earlier why 9/11 conspiracy theorists are so often the subject of ridicule, I'd say this must rank quite highly among the various reasons.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Right here - http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf‎

I can't say I've read it all the way through myself, yet

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

I have offered no alternative explanations at all, anywhere on this thread. Also, I didn't mention conspiracy theorists at all. I said sceptics. So in your eyes, any one who doesn't accept the official line without question is an object of ridicule. I am merely questioning the veracity of a report that took 44 days to initiate after the event, with half the budget of the report into Clintons blow job, and which 6 out of 10 commissioners said was set up to fail Keen and Hamilton. If you want to ridicule me for that, go right ahead, I don't give a monkey's.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

A cynic might argue that you've deliberately avoided providing an alternative theory of events, precisely because that way you don't have to defend it against any questioning or other scrutiny. Giving you the benefit of the doubt though (for now), the problem with just claiming to be a sceptic and not going any further is that flight 77 and the dozens of people on board really did disappear, and with 14 years now elapsed since the event, the mere fact that no trace of that plane or those people has ever materialized anywhere, nor the faintest whisper of evidence come out that it was an inside job (despite the massively establishment-embarrassing leaks by Snowden and Manning) makes it ever more likely that however improbable you or others think "the official story" might be, it really is what happened. In short, scepticism alone only takes you so far, and when you consider some of the howling fruitcake nonsense that other 'doubters' come up with on this subject, it's certainly not a free pass to constantly pitching in on the side of those doubters side against the people who point out their nonsense for what it is.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

You really don't get it, do you. Hey look, you believe that the 9/11 commission report is the whole truth, and I don't. The poll results say 60 believe it, 37 don't, and 9 are undecided, so don't kid yourself that you're in a big majority.
I'm out.

hodgy0_2

Is that a poll of Americans?, the 37% who don't believe "it" is eerily similar to the % of Americans that believe the world is 4000 years old and created in 7 days

I wonder if they are related in anyway

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

No, it's the scoobynet poll results at the top of the page
Do you want a link to it?

This is what I said: "The poll results say 60 believe it, 37 don't, and 9 are undecided". So how come you see percentages there? I hope you pay more attention when you're reading the Commission report

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Oh, but I do get it. I get that discussions like this will always attract interest from those who have strong, polarized views on the subject, and that as a result a poll is always likely to be skewed towards the view that diverges most sharply from the norm (your average Joe simply doesn't care enough to bother voting). I also get that it's easier to sit on the sidelines and pick faults in something, than to offer a well thought-out constructive alternative. I get that sudden dramatic events such as 9/11 will inevitably provide sustenance to the kind of people inclined to make up or believe far-fetched conspiracy theories. Last but not least, I get that people don't like to be judged by the kind of company they keep, but hey, it's human nature that a lot of the time they will be.

If there's anything you think I've missed, do please point it out.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

No, it's much easier to blindly trust the findings of a report instigated by those paragons of truth and decency Bush and Cheney which you haven't even read fully, if at all:
As far as offering a "well thought out constructive alternative", sure, no problem, give me a budget of $40m and unfettered access to all documents, records, and information, and I'll give it a shot.

hodgy0_2

lol, that poll - yes I had forgotten about that

jonc

How do you know it was pin point accuracy? For all we know, the pilot could have been aiming for the the middle of the Pentagon for maximum damage and not the side of the it.

hodgy0_2

the thing is they seem to rest on the one simple fact that it is "hard to believe"

hard to believe a pilot (with a commercial airliner licence btw) could crash a plane into a building - I am sure he was not flying like a BA pilot - I bet he wasn't the least bit bothered that the passengers were being tossed about like a salad either

hard to believe - although two planes had been crash into buildings an hour previously by rookie pilots - hard to believe I know, but fvck me they did it

hard to believe that a plane could disappear - (not so hard when you view the video of the F4 Phantom disappearing into a concrete block)

lots of things in life are hard to believe, jedward earning a million pounds, a man with NO flying experience landing a plane when the pilot had a heart attack, a world war two tail gunner falling 20,000 feet and surviving,

hard to believe that a man could survive, over night, on top of Mount Everest - in the death zone

hard to believe - lots of amazing things in life are hard to believe - so lets take all the evidence, all the eyewitnesses, lets take the testimony for a C130 pilot who was flying above the pentagon and actually saw the impact

and ignore all of it - everything, come up with 0 answers and simple say - "I find it hard to believe"

I bet there are errors in the 911 report - I would find it hard to believe if that was not the case, I bet we have not been told 100% the "truth"

amazingly Governments keep secrets - that why they have a secret service and an official secrets act, that's why the US government are so pissed with Snowden/Manning - they don't tell US everthing

but 4 planes were hijacked and 3 flown in buildings - amazingly the forth crashed - hard to believe I know, but they were rookie pilots after all

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Indeed, at not far off 300 meters in length on each side and a surface area the size of almost 25 football pitches, it's not as if you'd need to be particularly accurate to just hit some part of it.

stipete75

What maximum damage to the courtyard in the centre!

Allegedly Flight 77 hit the building’s east side, which was unoccupied at the time due to construction.
The recently installed construction was for security improvements including reinforcing the building’s concrete and installing blast-proof windows and walls,this claimed to have saved hundred of lives.

hodgy0_2

Here is a reasoned and well argued demolition of all the FUD around the flight to the pentagon of flight 77 - by a flight in structure

And the so called "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training"

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

stipete75

Just had a scout through the 911 official report and noticed an inconsistency almost straight away.....
Dick Cheney had just sat down for a meeting when his assistant told him to turn on his tv because a plane has just struck the north tower of the wtc, the Vice President was wondering how the hell a plane could hit the north tower when he saw the second plane hit the south tower!
I'm pretty sure bush also made the same mistake in an interview saying after he was told america was under attack in the classroom he saw the second plane hit on tv after leaving the classroom.

The only problem with these statements, Cheney on the official report and Bush during a televised interview is that the footage of the second plane hitting the south tower was not broadcast till the day after??

jonc

Well obviously not the actual court yard itself, but the inner walls of the Pentagon.

What are you trying to imply with regards to the east side of the building?

jonc

So just for clarity, are you're now saying there was no televised footage of the plane hitting the south tower on September 11 and any footage of south tower collision was only shown on TV on September 12?

subevo

A few good videos and eyewitness testimony that building 7 was blown with explosives .suspect to say the least.

stipete75

Could be wrong, that's why I stated "pretty sure"
I'll have a little dig now, I know there was something that bush said that contradicted an earlier statement about seeing a plane hit the tower.