no plane crashed into Pentagon
Michael Petukhov
> >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
>
> Why are so curious?.
why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
crash to you?
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg
Note no plane debries and perfect shape of lawn in this high
resolution image.
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
disappeared.
Michael
Keith Willshaw
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
So an aircraft made out of Aluminium hits an office building
constructed of concrete and steel at several hundred km.hour
and you are surprised there's nothing left of the aircraft !
Of course you'll conveniently ignore all the eyewitness accounts,
film evidence and radar logs that show what happened because
they don't fit your latest pet conspiracy theory.
You have become a parody of the paranoid Russian.
Its rather sad really.
Keith
Mohammed Aldouri
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
Vince Brannigan
Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
> engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> disappeared.
>
> Michael
My colleague and friend Dr. Leslie Whittington and her entire family
were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
Please craw back wherever you came from
Vince Brannigan
Ragnar
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
> >
> > Why are so curious?.
>
> why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
Right. The hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane literally mow down
light poles as it crossed the highway were plants.
Get a clue.
Frank Andreas de Groot
then, the debris hit the Pentagon.
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
Vince Brannigan
Frank Andreas de Groot wrote:
> A few minutes after it crashed, CNN said that it caused relatively little damage, as it crashed into the ground, broke up, and only
> then, the debris hit the Pentagon.
where do you get this nonsense from?
I perosnally interviewed fire fighters who were on the scene minutes after the attack.
Sheesh
Vince Brannigan
Peter Skelton
Most of the Pentagon was still standing, all CNN meant was that
it was minor compared to the WTC damage and that the damage was
minor compared to what would have happened if the aircraft had
hit the pentagon more centrally. They were correct. (Didn't the
plane hit the ground and break up some before?)
That's very poor comfort to the passengers and the dead on the
ground.
____
Peter Skelton
Vince Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>
> Most of the Pentagon was still standing, all CNN meant was that
> it was minor compared to the WTC damage and that the damage was
> minor compared to what would have happened if the aircraft had
> hit the pentagon more centrally. They were correct. (Didn't the
> plane hit the ground and break up some before?)
no
see photo at
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/03/07/image503258l.jpg
As in the WTC the fireball is formed of fuel hitting the building and "bouncing" back
the plane has already disappeared into the building
>
>
> That's very poor comfort to the passengers and the dead on the
> ground.
> ____
>
> Peter Skelton
good pictures of the impact area at
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_hit_by_hijacked_plane.html
Vince
Joseph Walters
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
> >
> > Why are so curious?.
>
> why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
> crash to you?
Apparently the country of Russia doesn't exist either. It is a hologram
created by four spy satellites.
That territory is nothing but open Ocean.
Michael Petukhov
> Michael, Why do you keep insisting on making yourself look like an idiot?
Hm.. So are you suggesting by above that I only look like an idiot but in
reality I might be very very smart guy?
However frankly no need to be smart guy at all to understand
there was no plane crash in the site shown in these two pictures,
certainly providing you are not an idiot indeed.
Michael
Bill Silvey
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com
You're fucking stupid.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
I hate furries.
Jack Linthicum
If you would like confirmation from participants in the rescue effort
try the Arlington (Va) Fire Department 703-228-3362. The plane hit one
of the strongest above-ground buildings in the world. There are
numerous articles on the rebuild (the wedge where the plane hit was
just finishing a rehab).
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m3024/11_42/80500939/print.jhtml
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m3024/10_42/79439505/print.jhtml
http://enr.construction.com/features/buildings/archives/020902.asp
Jack
Dav1936531
><a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com>
>
>why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
<sarcasm on> Yeah....uh, no planes crashed into the World Trade Center either.
All those news videos that actually show the planes crashing into the
WTC?.....well, those are just creations of the Zionist Illuminati controlled
Hollywood special effects studios as part of their strategy for world
conquest.....or something.<sarcasm off>
Welcome to the "Twilight Zone".
Dave
C.D.Damron
Or, you could talk to my father, as he lost a friend on that flight.
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
C.D.Damron
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
It you were really interested in discovering the truth, you could look at
the list of the dead and visit their graves.
Michael Petukhov
> "Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
> news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > > >There is one thing which is a mistery for me is there anyone who
> > > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> > > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
> > >
> > > Why are so curious?.
> >
> > why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> > Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
> > crash to you?
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg
> >
> > Note no plane debries and perfect shape of lawn in this high
> > resolution image.
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
> >
> > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
> > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> > disappeared.
> >
>
> So an aircraft made out of Aluminium
yeah engines for instance and gears.
> hits an office building
> constructed of concrete and steel at several hundred km.hour
> and you are surprised there's nothing left of the aircraft !
keith have you ever seen any crash site of plane of that size
with tons of petrolium and with such perfect lawn right
there where those tons of petrolum should burn?
>
> Of course you'll conveniently ignore all the eyewitness accounts,
> film evidence and radar logs that show what happened because
> they don't fit your latest pet conspiracy theory.
Is that a my "latest pet conspiracy theory" as well?:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Given that sorry keith I would not seriousely consider any materials
originated from US goverment including but not limited by
"eyewitness accounts, film evidence, and radar logs".
Although if you can please post some of that materials. I would be
glade to inspect it on the very probable possibility of yet another
fake.
>
> You have become a parody of the paranoid Russian.
If so why do you respond on that parody? Just ignore if you can
ignore it.
>
> Its rather sad really.
Indeed the reality is sad for you. For me it is a big fun.
Michael
>
> Keith
Keith Willshaw
So on the basis of a 40 year old study of options that was never
acted on you choose to ignore any and all evidence including that
of the civilian firefighters, passing motorists, airline employees,
etc etc who were there.
Sheesh
> Although if you can please post some of that materials. I would be
> glade to inspect it on the very probable possibility of yet another
> fake.
>
Translation , I propose to discount any and all material that
disagrees with my theory.
> >
> > You have become a parody of the paranoid Russian.
>
> If so why do you respond on that parody? Just ignore if you can
> ignore it.
>
> >
> > Its rather sad really.
>
> Indeed the reality is sad for you. For me it is a big fun.
>
Well you are a laughing stock thats true
Keith
plonk
IBM
$MB4.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> Michael, Why do you keep insisting on making yourself look like an idiot?
Maybe because it matches his physical appearance?
IBM
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
D. Scott Ferrin
Petukhov) wrote:
>"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<b7gjbm$ehg$1...@selma.aspentech.com>...
>> "Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
>> news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
>> > > >There is one thing which is a mistery for me is there anyone who
>> > > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
>> > > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
>> > >
>> > > Why are so curious?.
>> >
>> > why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
>> > Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
>> > crash to you?
>> >
>> > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg
>> >
>> > Note no plane debries and perfect shape of lawn in this high
>> > resolution image.
>> >
>> > http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
>> >
>> > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
>> > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
>> > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
>> > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
>> > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
>> > disappeared.
>> >
>>
>> So an aircraft made out of Aluminium
>
>yeah engines for instance and gears.
That would explain the engine they found sitting in the parking lot,
that had obviously been ripped from an airliner. Why don't you hurry
and put on your tinfoil hat, lock all the doors, and go hide under
your bed.
IBM
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
> Michael
Am thinkink Mikhail is maybe drinkink too much wodka
then postink to nyet.
I(van) Barrie(sovitch) MacLure(sovsky)
IBM
[snip]
> Hm.. So are you suggesting by above that I only look like an idiot but
> in reality I might be very very smart guy?
Probability of this is as close to 0 as makes no difference.
You are idiot.
> However frankly no need to be smart guy at all to understand
> there was no plane crash in the site shown in these two pictures,
> certainly providing you are not an idiot indeed.
Am thinkink you should lay off wodka, tovarisch.
ThunderPig
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
Oh.......Poor Mikey
Then there's that whole walking on the moon thing, huh.
When cleaning your ears with a Q-tip, STOP when you feel resistance!
Maximus Bushwhacker
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
You're barking up the wrong conspiracy tree Michael. The real question is
why didn't the Pentagon have any air defenses up and ready? Surely they had
a plan to protect the building in such a scenario... some SAMs or something.
Are those in charge of national defense really such incompetent nincompoops?
Jack Linthicum
> > >There is one thing which is a mistery for me is there anyone who
> > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
Arlington National Cemetery and an above ground portion of Metro
system. It happened.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
Eyewitness Accounts
Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001
"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the
window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought,
"There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he
said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom
cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001
"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at
about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't
going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to
the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look
out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it
hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment
and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001
"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view,
listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade
Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle
and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed
overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black
cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and
there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened
on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon
Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south
parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he
suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex.
American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that
Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right
engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002
"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines
jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted
to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20
feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two
seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or
any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west
wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not
going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But
whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,'
Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at
a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its
target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001
"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and
slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane
that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire,
smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway
as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either
forward or backwards,' he said."
- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001
"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious
target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national
editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150
feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any
hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001
"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of
Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of
the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's
military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I
turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?"
Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001
"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the
Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the
crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of
the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane.
I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the
grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The
whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never
imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but
stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over.
'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the
plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions.
It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It
hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an
American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The
nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday
morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and
witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area
of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted
airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low.
'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he
watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall
plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an
announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001
"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds
and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the
District of Columbia. I don't know what made me look up, but I did and
I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be
accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it
was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National
Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001
"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington
National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the
Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to
witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in
the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at
all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates
that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the
left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The
plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us,
injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my
car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories
really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I
mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That
was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise
and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two
windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing
through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28
Sep 2001
"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the
building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office
building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in
the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red,'
she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep
2001
"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office
on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have
a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National
Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second
tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close
to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I
figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as
I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't
register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the
pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to
happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked
slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into
the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.
Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today
"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church
of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning
when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and
struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge
billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002
"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who
witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up
Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left
side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver
plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said
the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American
Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the
highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was
heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport
was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National
Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to
hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that
I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just
black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001
Bob McKellar
ThunderPig wrote:
They don't make Q-Tips long enough, in his case.
Bob McKellar
Jeb Hoge
> >Frank Andreas de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> A few minutes after it crashed, CNN said that it caused relatively little damage, as it crashed into the ground, broke up, and only
> >> then, the debris hit the Pentagon.
> >
> >where do you get this nonsense from?
> >
> >I perosnally interviewed fire fighters who were on the scene minutes after the attack.
>
> Most of the Pentagon was still standing, all CNN meant was that
> it was minor compared to the WTC damage and that the damage was
> minor compared to what would have happened if the aircraft had
> hit the pentagon more centrally. They were correct. (Didn't the
> plane hit the ground and break up some before?)
Snopes says "It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated
350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad." It certainly was
right at the building when it hit, because Rt. 110 isn't but probably
100 feet from the building at that point, and the road and even the
sidewalk was unscathed. I speak from being there...I ride my bike
along that sidewalk when I'm cycling into DC. Had a neighbor see that
big plane pass by behind them when they were driving on 110 that day,
even.
Stephen Harding
> why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
> crash to you?
Michael, you've even outdone Michael Petukhov on this one!
(That's really not good!)
SMH
Michael Petukhov
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> >
> > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
> > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> > disappeared.
> >
> > Michael
>
> were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
By US goverment? Is not a credible enough source at least for me.
Michael
> Please craw back wherever you came from
>
> Vince Brannigan
Michael Petukhov
not single one with plane debris.
Michael
Gordon
>
No shit, Keith.
G
Robert Walker
station immediately after the plane hit, who found plane debris, but I have
also talked to some 20 odd people working at the Costco less than 3/4ths of
a mile from the Pentagon - they not only heard a plane, but heard an impact,
not to speak of my one of my mother's best friend that lives near Pentagon
City and saw the event. You are a Grade-A MORON and deserve to be shipped
back to the gulag, or whatever you call it now, in Siberia from whence you
came.
Michael Petukhov
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
>
> It you were really interested in discovering the truth,
I would be interested in discovering the truth...
> you could look at
> the list of the dead and visit their graves.
but do not see how looking at any lists
and/or visiting victims graves can help
to do that unless you mean exhumations.
I guess you do not, do you?
I would recommend you to look at
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
and to think a little bit on what are the real grounds
of your strong believe in official version. when you may
want ask yourself some other extra questions like:
Where is the plane?
What really happend to its passengers?
Who organized this fake impact into Pentagon?
and what's for?
regards
Michael
Michael Petukhov
> "Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
> news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com
> >>> There is one thing which is a mistery for me is there anyone who
> >>> claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> >>> to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
> >>
> >> Why are so curious?.
> >
> > why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> > Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
> > crash to you?
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg
> >
> > Note no plane debries and perfect shape of lawn in this high
> > resolution image.
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
> >
> > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
> > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> > disappeared.
> >
> > Michael
>
> You're fucking stupid.
Do you have anything else to add into this discussion?
Just curiosity.
Michael
Peter Kemp
theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
>In article <jxVma.134122$vs.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,
>Maximus Bushwhacker <qwe...@qwqwewq.com> wrote:
>>
>>You're barking up the wrong conspiracy tree Michael. The real question is
>>why didn't the Pentagon have any air defenses up and ready? Surely they had
>>a plan to protect the building in such a scenario... some SAMs or something.
>>Are those in charge of national defense really such incompetent nincompoops?
>>
>
>Ooooohh! So there IS a record of foreign planes attacking U.S. buildings
>after all! Do tell!
December 7th 1941?
:-)
--
Peter Kemp
Life is short - drink faster
Gordon
>I would be interested in discovering the truth...
"...as long as it perfectly matches my own preconcieved ideas."
>> you could look at
>> the list of the dead and visit their graves.
>
>but do not see how looking at any lists
>and/or visiting victims graves can help
>to do that unless you mean exhumations.
>I guess you do not, do you?
Looking at their dead faces wouldn't convince you, now, would it? "These are
not the victims, these are dead American political prisoners!" or some such
typical Michael BS.
>
>I would recommend you to look at
>
>http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
Charming. A website DEVOTED to the truth, as long as they get to decide what
that may be.
>and to think a little bit on what are the real grounds
>of your strong believe in official version. when you may
>want ask yourself some other extra questions like:
>
>Where is the plane?
>What really happend to its passengers?
>Who organized this fake impact into Pentagon?
Bingo, there it is. Typical red-faced lie presented in the supposed search for
truth. How do we disprove this negative? Well, easiest way is to see source
of post - i.e., well known Hate Organ of anything US. Chances of the info being
unbiased? -Zero-
Peter H. Granzeau
<bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
>
>You're fucking stupid.
No, that's what his wife is doing.
Maximus Bushwhacker
news:b7hdkq$kp2$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <jxVma.134122$vs.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> Maximus Bushwhacker <qwe...@qwqwewq.com> wrote:
> >
is
> >why didn't the Pentagon have any air defenses up and ready? Surely they
had
> >a plan to protect the building in such a scenario... some SAMs or
something.
> >Are those in charge of national defense really such incompetent
nincompoops?
> >
>
> after all! Do tell!
>
>
> There's a reason coastal SAM batteries were removed.
Hard to conceive of it eh?
The most restricted air space in the US, the P-56 area around DC and
Pentagon, defenseless.
The Pentagon had at least 30 minutes advance notice of the hijacking.
NORAD has radar. FAA has radar. The Pentagon has it's own radar. The
aircraft disappeared from radar?
The Pentagon and the White House are protected by SAMs.
Combat ready aircraft sitting nearby that can scramble on a moments notice.
Neither the SAMs or combat aircraft were deployed.
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon alright, after it made an amazing 270 degree turn
to align itself with the unoccupied side of the building. Experienced
pilots say the manouver would have been impossible for a rookie pilot.
15 people died inside the building and 6 crew outside, the rest were aboard
the aircraft... amazing good fortune that the aircraft made such an effort
to hit the unoccupied side of the building. You would almost think the
terrorists were trying to save lives.
John S. Shinal
>> My colleague and friend Dr. Leslie Whittington and her entire family
>> were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
>
>By US goverment? Is not a credible enough source at least for me.
Incorrect. The US Government does not identify corpses. Death
certificates are generally issued by the local governing city, after a
certified doctor (who does not work for the US government) has matched
existing medical records with the remains. This process is how, for
example, dental fillings are used to positively ID someone who is no
longer recognizable. These medical records come from doctors and
hospitals throughout the many cities regions where the victims lived -
all these records are *independent*, not in some Federal warehouse.
To fake identification of numerous victims, satisfy their
various family members, the many doctors and medical examiners is
simply too large a consipiracy to be credible.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
George Black
: > >There is one thing which is a mistery for me is there anyone who
: > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
: > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
: >
: > Why are so curious?.
: why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
: Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
: crash to you?
:
warning Troll alert....
tim gueguen
"plonk" <pl...@no.spam> wrote in message news:3E9C134C...@no.spam...Actually its your brain thats apparently been ruined by a laser. The WTC
was destroyed by several hundred thousands of pounds of aircraft crashing
into it at high speed, causing severe structural damage that was further
compounded by thousands of gallons of jet fuel pouring out of the tanks of
the airliners, catching fire, and burning at high temperatures for an
extended period. The article you quote is especially amusing with its
claims that KAL Flight 007 was shot down by this supposed laser when the
SU15 pilot who shot it down has been interviewed about what happened.
tim gueguen 101867
James Wilkins
am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't
know why they were fired into Kuwait."
George Black
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
: "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<b7gjbm$ehg$1...@selma.aspentech.com>...
snip
: > So an aircraft made out of Aluminium
:
: yeah engines for instance and gears.
Have you ever seen those large turbofans -after- impact ??
: > hits an office building
: > constructed of concrete and steel at several hundred km.hour
: > and you are surprised there's nothing left of the aircraft !
:
: keith have you ever seen any crash site of plane of that size
: with tons of petrolium and with such perfect lawn right
: there where those tons of petrolum should burn?
He may not have but there are those of us who have some familiarity
with such sad scenes...
Now back to your bridge
George Black
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
: "Mohammed Aldouri" <som...@devnull.com> wrote in message
news:<LARma.4256$MB4.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
: > Michael, Why do you keep insisting on making yourself look like an
idiot?
:
: Hm.. So are you suggesting by above that I only look like an idiot
but in
: reality I might be very very smart guy?
That you are managing to appear an idiot is all your own work!
: However frankly no need to be smart guy at all to understand
: there was no plane crash in the site shown in these two pictures,
: certainly providing you are not an idiot indeed.
:
Let's see. Aircraft missing. Passengers and crew dead.
Large smoking hole in building
Aircraft structure recovered from large smoking hole
Passengers, Pentagon staff and crew bodies recovered from large
smoking hole..
Yup. You're an idiot
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gblack/index.htm
George Black
"Vince Brannigan" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E9BE872...@verizon.net...
:
:
: Michael Petukhov wrote:
:
: >
: > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
: > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
: > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
: > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
: > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
: > disappeared.
: >
: > Michael
:
: My colleague and friend Dr. Leslie Whittington and her entire family
: were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
: Please craw back wherever you came from
:
: Vince Brannigan
It's only a troll Vince... and a sick one at that.
Makes one wonder as to why they should try to get their jollies from
such a tragedy
George Black
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GMZma.221797$0g4.6...@news2.east.cox.net...
: On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:14:58 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
you get the prize :-))))))
.
Michael Petukhov <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
news:<b7gjbm$ehg$1...@selma.aspentech.com>...
> > news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> > > > >to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
> > > >
> > > > Why are so curious?.
> > >
> > > crash to you?
> > >
> > >
> > > Note no plane debries and perfect shape of lawn in this high
> > > resolution image.
> > >
> > > http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
> > >
> > > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> > > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> > > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> > > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> > > disappeared.
> > >
> >
>
> yeah engines for instance and gears.
>
> > constructed of concrete and steel at several hundred km.hour
> > and you are surprised there's nothing left of the aircraft !
>
> keith have you ever seen any crash site of plane of that size
> with tons of petrolium and with such perfect lawn right
> there where those tons of petrolum should burn?
>
> >
> > film evidence and radar logs that show what happened because
> > they don't fit your latest pet conspiracy theory.
>
> Is that a my "latest pet conspiracy theory" as well?:
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
>
> Given that sorry keith I would not seriousely consider any materials
> originated from US goverment including but not limited by
> "eyewitness accounts, film evidence, and radar logs".
>
> Although if you can please post some of that materials. I would be
> glade to inspect it on the very probable possibility of yet another
> fake.
>
> >
> > You have become a parody of the paranoid Russian.
>
> ignore it.
>
> >
> > Its rather sad really.
>
> Indeed the reality is sad for you. For me it is a big fun.
>
> Michael
> >
> > Keith
Here's a mental exercise for you:
Find out the mass of the aircraft involved.
Now find out the volume of said aircraft.
Notice the gigantic ratio suggesting that the airliner is a very flimsy
piece of engineering?
Now try to find some spces for the bombproofing of the Pentagon...
captain !
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GMZma.221797$0g4.6...@news2.east.cox.net...
lol
Jack Linthicum
Take a firm look at the photo by going to the original website:
http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8
it is the one marked by caps below. Can you recognize the piece of
airplane in the foreground?
Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this
photograph?"
Answer: No, but we can in THIS ONE taken by an Associated Press
photographer. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually
disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building.
Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on
impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be
visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.
According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael
Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire
Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed
been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team
that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently
survived," the article said.
One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later,
Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw
remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said,
"there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal,
I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane."
(Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)
Attack on the Pentagon « BACK VOTE »
8/8 Mark Faram © AP
« BACK VOTE »
A piece of aircraft wreckage lies on the heliport on the west side of
the Pentagon.
© RockyMountainNews.com | Privacy policy »
tscottme
Michael Petukhov <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
Stop drinking the mouth wash!
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.03041...@posting.google.com...
> Take a firm look at the photo by going to the original website:
>
http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=
8
> it is the one marked by caps below. Can you recognize the piece of
> airplane in the foreground?
>
Jack you are wasting your time
Michael will believe literally anything that makes the US
look bad.
He's a firm believer that the moon landings were faked even
though every sane person including the Russian cosmonauts
have said otherwise.
He believes the USN sank the Kursk by ramming it with a
super sekrit unobtanium hulled submarine that was able
to leave the larger double hulled Russian boat wrecked
on the bottom of the ocean and sail home unhurt. The
fact that the Russian navy stated that a torpedo exploded
prematurely is of course part of the cover up.
Every piece of evidence you bring forward will be
dismissed as fabricated or coincedental and in the
case of his theory no evidence is required, indeed the
absence of evidence just proves how far the cover up went.
Keith
Gordon
>
>Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this
>photograph?"
Let me answer for Michael - "All I see is a piece of debris - no idea which
evil US Gov'mint organisation planted it there. Doesn't change my delusion
though - there was NO debris! I insist! LA LA LA LA LA" <hands over eyes>
Or something similar. I used to think of him as intelligent - now he just
seems needy for attention.
AV
Geoff Cashman wrote:
> Do you honestly believe that a comparitively frail
> scruture like that of a 757 is going to have much
> left but little bits and pieces after slamming into
> one of the strongest office buildings in the world?
>
> The idea that there would be any significant chunks
> of debris left after an impact like that is sheer
> fantasy.
>
> The plane crashed into the Pentagon. All but one of
> the bodies were recovered.
So, according to you, not a single significant bit
of a huge plane was left. Still all but one of the
bodies were recovered ... Sounds fishy ..
>
> -Geoff
>
>
Keith Willshaw
"AV" <A...@nospam.ru> wrote in message news:b7i20c$pg8$1...@zware.space.ru...
Oh lots of pieces of plane were recovered but the biggest
were the engines, flying an aircraft made of 3mm Aluminium
into a concrete building with a steel frame shreds it nicely
Drive an airstream trailer packed with gasoline into a
brick built house at 300 mph and see how many pieces
bigger than a few inches across are left.
I've seen excavations of sites where B-17's and Lancasters
went into the East Anglian Fens, apart from the engines,
guns and undercariage legs there wasnt much left bigger
than a handkercheif, and thats crashing into wetland soil
not steel and concrete.
They managed to find crew remains though.
Keith
AV
Looks like the hit was stronger that that of Columbia ..
Vince Brannigan
Michael Petukhov wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3E9BE872...@verizon.net>...
> > Michael Petukhov wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
> > > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> > > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> > > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> > > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> > > disappeared.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > My colleague and friend Dr. Leslie Whittington and her entire family
> > were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
>
> By US goverment? Is not a credible enough source at least for me.
no, by private and state pathologists
I am a Professor in the Depaertmetn of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland.
I believe you might profit from professional counseling
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> Do you have anything else to add into this discussion?
> Just curiosity.
>
> Michael
what proof do we have that you exist?
Vince Brannigan
C.D.Damron
> but do not see how looking at any lists
> and/or visiting victims graves can help
> to do that unless you mean exhumations.
> I guess you do not, do you?
Well, I guess you got me there. Are the "victims' " families part of the
conspiracy, as well?
If my father had chosen to travel a day later, he would have been on that
flight. My father's friend, a retired Naval Officer lost his life in that
crash. I don't have any more time for your conspiracy theories.
If you knew anything about our culture, you would know that we are very bad
at keeping secrets when our actions cross ethical boundaries.
We encourage whistle-blowers and respect civil disobedience, when morally
justifiable.
ZZBunker
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:34:52 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Frank Andreas de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> A few minutes after it crashed, CNN said that it caused relatively little damage, as it crashed into the ground, broke up, and only
> >> then, the debris hit the Pentagon.
> >
> >where do you get this nonsense from?
> >
> >I perosnally interviewed fire fighters who were on the scene minutes after the attack.
> >
> >
> >Sheesh
> >
>
> Most of the Pentagon was still standing, all CNN meant was that
> it was minor compared to the WTC damage and that the damage was
> minor compared to what would have happened if the aircraft had
> hit the pentagon more centrally. They were correct. (Didn't the
> plane hit the ground and break up some before?)
But nobody expected the Pentagon would fall from a plane hit.
It's *five* stories tall, as wide as a small runway,
built like a fortress, has numerous other taller buildings
surrounding it, and just by coincidence it has fairly heavy duty AAA,
Air Force intercepters, NSA radio traffic monitors, the FBI, the CIA,
and National Guard detactments on 24-7 duty.
The WTC was 110 stories tall, with a televison tower on top,
and made of REALLY expensive glass, rather than just Air Force
thumb prints.
Dennis
"John S. Shinal" <jshinal_REMO...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3e9c69c4...@text-west.newsfeeds.com...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>
> >> My colleague and friend Dr. Leslie Whittington and her entire family
> >> were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
> >
> >By US goverment? Is not a credible enough source at least for me.
>
> Incorrect. The US Government does not identify corpses. Death
> certificates are generally issued by the local governing city, after a
> certified doctor (who does not work for the US government) has matched
> existing medical records with the remains. This process is how, for
> example, dental fillings are used to positively ID someone who is no
> longer recognizable. These medical records come from doctors and
> hospitals throughout the many cities regions where the victims lived -
> all these records are *independent*, not in some Federal warehouse.
>
> To fake identification of numerous victims, satisfy their
> various family members, the many doctors and medical examiners is
> simply too large a consipiracy to be credible.
>
Why would that stop him believing in a conspiracy? It never stopped him
before!
--
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp
NOW ONLINE
B2431
I will await with great interest your theory on what actually happened.
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
kirill
Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:<mBTma.40794$D15.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
> > news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com
> > >>> There is one thing which is a mistery for me is there anyone who
> > >>> claimed to personaly see a wreckage of the huge Boing crashed in
> > >>> to Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001?
> > >>
> > >> Why are so curious?.
> > >
> > > why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> > > Look here for instance. Does it look like a site of airliner
> > > crash to you?
> > >
> > > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg
> > >
> > > Note no plane debries and perfect shape of lawn in this high
> > > resolution image.
> > >
> > > http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
> > >
> > > Note that "plane" destroyed only one block. So parts of wings,
> > > engines, landing gears and of course the huge tail must all be
> > > outside of narrow hole. Note also no damage whatsoever left
> > > from wing impact on walls in the vicinity of the hole
> > > particularly on the left side. The "plane" has simply
> > > disappeared.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > You're fucking stupid.
>
> Do you have anything else to add into this discussion?
> Just curiosity.
Of course, not. It's just another retarded Yank lemming who laps up whatever
its government and media feeds it.
Bolshoy Murza
> > There's a reason coastal SAM batteries were removed.
>
> Hard to conceive of it eh?
>
> The most restricted air space in the US, the P-56 area around DC and
> Pentagon, defenseless.
>
> The Pentagon had at least 30 minutes advance notice of the hijacking.
>
> NORAD has radar. FAA has radar. The Pentagon has it's own radar. The
> aircraft disappeared from radar?
>
> The Pentagon and the White House are protected by SAMs.
>
> Combat ready aircraft sitting nearby that can scramble on a moments notice.
>
> Neither the SAMs or combat aircraft were deployed.
>
> Flight 77 hit the Pentagon alright, after it made an amazing 270 degree turn
> to align itself with the unoccupied side of the building. Experienced
> pilots say the manouver would have been impossible for a rookie pilot.
>
> 15 people died inside the building and 6 crew outside, the rest were aboard
> the aircraft... amazing good fortune that the aircraft made such an effort
> to hit the unoccupied side of the building. You would almost think the
> terrorists were trying to save lives.
Hm. A comment on the same from the eXile:
You remember how, on 9/ll, the Air Force couldn't manage to get a
single fighter up in time to intercept the hijacked planes, right?
Turns out there was a total of 12 - TWELVE - fighters assigned to
defend the whole of the US. And those were - you guessed it - National
Guard. So America was guarded by 12 planes piloted by dentists, claims
adjusters or copier repairmen.
Then yesterday the USAF admitted something even more sickening: if
they had managed to get any fighters into the air in time (which they
didn't), they were planning to order the pilots to crash their planes
into the hijacked airliners, because there were no air-to-air weapons
to arm them with.
American kamikazes! Sure, it's a good movie title - but Christ, didn't
all of us wage-slave suckers pay billions of tax dollars for whole
arsenals full of every air-to-air weapon Raytheon or Lockheed or
Hughes ever came up with? Didn't the USAF brag up the AMRAAM (Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), the "Slammer," as the biggest thing
since look-down shoot-down?
The AMRAAM ($400,000 per unit) has been in service since 1991. It's
had 12 separate production runs. More than 800 have been test-fired.
There are tens of thousands of them sitting in bunkers all over the
world.
Fighter pilots love the AMRAAM, brag about how it can accelerate to
Mach 4 in a second and hit chaff-dropping targets 30k away. It's so
aggressive and deadly that pilots call it the "Go Get'em Fido"
missile.
But where was Fido when those Akbars were crashing a Boeing into the
Pentagon? They were all over the world - with one exception: there
were none available to defend America. Apparently nobody thought of
saving a few missiles for "homeland defense."
It's like a sick joke: the same USAF penpushers who lobbied the AMRAAM
through Congress were sitting in the Pentagon when a hijacked jet
smashed into it. And even after that - after a whole wing of their own
HQ was hit and burning - the Pentagon still couldn't find a single
AMRAAM-armed fighter jet to send up.
Hell, the USAF didn't really even need AMRAAMs. Sidewinders would've
done fine - even the Sparrow, the dog of American AA missiles,
would've worked against a slow blimp target like a passenger jet. A
burst from a 20mm nose cannon would've done the job. But they couldn't
even manage that.
You can look through a thousand years of military history and you'll
never find a strategic failure as complete as that.
But nobody seems upset about it. I started wondering, am I the only
American who thinks some overpaid USAF heads should roll for this?
I tried talking about it to some people in my office. But they acted
like I was a traitor - like it was unpatriotic to mention how badly
the USAF fucked up.
I don't get that attitude. The traitors are the brass who left our
country defenseless, for Christ's sake. How is it unpatriotic to want
some of the sorry USAF brass stood up against a wall for that?
Just compare the sorry performance of the USAF with the Soviet Air
Force that was supposed to be so inefficient. The inefficient Russians
didn't have much problem taking out that Korean Air jet over Kamchatka
in 1983. Two AA missiles from a pair of Su-15s and - no more 747.
Maybe it wasn't the brightest thing to do, but that was a political
decision. The Soviet Air Force did the job pronto.
But the USAF - the biggest, most expensive air force in history -
couldn't find one armed fighter jet for "several hours" after the WTC
towers got blasted.
Disgusted yet? Well just wait, cause it gets worse!
You'd think that after the towers went down, the USAF would
permanently reassign a few squadrons to defend American airspace. And
they did. For a few weeks. Then they quit as soon as the heat was off.
They just didn't want the bother. Much more fun to keep their toys
safe in Germany or Japan - anywhere but the skies over American
cities.
So when a private plane bumbled into the airspace over the White House
a few weeks ago, there was nothing in the sky to intercept it. Bush
and his people were saying their prayers, hunkered down over their
desks, until the plane blundered off again - no thanks to the USAF.
-----------------
Bolshoy Murza
Bill Silvey
news:3E9CD021...@university.ca
Buahahahaha. That's rich, coming from a Stalinodrone like you. What's left
of that heap of borscht you call a brain up between your ears is conditioned
to follow the party line and the party line only. Go lap your buddy
Michael's feet.
We're all laughing at your stupidity, Komrade.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
I hate furries.
Michael Petukhov
> > >
> > > Of course you'll conveniently ignore all the eyewitness accounts,
> > > film evidence and radar logs that show what happened because
> > > they don't fit your latest pet conspiracy theory.
> >
> > Is that a my "latest pet conspiracy theory" as well?:
> >
> > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
> >
> > Given that sorry keith I would not seriousely consider any materials
> > originated from US goverment including but not limited by
> > "eyewitness accounts, film evidence, and radar logs".
> >
>
> acted
After that there was moon landing hoax. after that thare was KAL007
which was so similar to proposed operation "Northwoods". after what
there was sept 11...
> on you choose to ignore any and all evidence including that
> of the civilian firefighters,
Firefighters say they "do not know where plane debris are".
>passing motorists, airline employees,
> etc etc who were there.
Anyone can claim anything. However crediable data should not
contradict to each others and particularly to material evidences
like pictures taken on the site of that "crash".
>
> Sheesh
>
>
> > Although if you can please post some of that materials. I would be
> > glade to inspect it on the very probable possibility of yet another
> > fake.
> >
>
>
> Translation , I propose to discount any and all material that
> disagrees with my theory.
which materials? you did not submit any to speak about so far.
>
> > >
> > > You have become a parody of the paranoid Russian.
> >
> > If so why do you respond on that parody? Just ignore if you can
> > ignore it.
> >
> > >
> > > Its rather sad really.
> >
> > Indeed the reality is sad for you. For me it is a big fun.
> >
>
> Well you are a laughing stock thats true.
You missed again. as you know I have enough selfrespect to spit
from a very high tree upon anyones opinions (particualrly yours)
on matters of my poor person. So what is point to ridicule
yourself by this weak attempt of a personal attack?
Michael
>
> Keith
Michael Petukhov
Gordon this humor is too plane to my taste. You have
better to find any picture of plane debris.
Michael
Michael Petukhov
> >
> >I would recommend you to look at
> >
> >http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
>
> Charming. A website DEVOTED to the truth, as long as they get to decide what
> that may be.
>
How charming is this?:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Michael
Michael Petukhov
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>
> >> My colleague and friend Dr. Leslie Whittington and her entire family
> >> were on that plane. Their remains were identified.
> >
> >By US goverment? Is not a credible enough source at least for me.
>
> Incorrect. The US Government does not identify corpses. Death
> certificates are generally issued by the local governing city, after a
> certified doctor (who does not work for the US government) has matched
> existing medical records with the remains. This process is how, for
> example, dental fillings are used to positively ID someone who is no
> longer recognizable. These medical records come from doctors and
> hospitals throughout the many cities regions where the victims lived -
> all these records are *independent*, not in some Federal warehouse.
>
> To fake identification of numerous victims, satisfy their
> various family members, the many doctors and medical examiners is
> simply too large a consipiracy to be credible.
>
I do not care about how large and crediable is the conspiracy theory.
Where is the plane debris? There cannot be any corpses identified
without plane crashed into Pentagon. Logically isn't it?
Michael
Dennis
"Bolshoy Murza" <bolsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3757594a.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "Maximus Bushwhacker" <qwe...@qwqwewq.com> wrote in message
news:<KPZma.732804$Yo4.67...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> Just compare the sorry performance of the USAF with the Soviet Air
> Force that was supposed to be so inefficient. The inefficient Russians
> didn't have much problem taking out that Korean Air jet over Kamchatka
> in 1983. Two AA missiles from a pair of Su-15s and - no more 747.
> Maybe it wasn't the brightest thing to do, but that was a political
> decision. The Soviet Air Force did the job pronto.
>
That was in the Cold War, and there had been an RC-135 spying there. For a
comparative situation, does Matthias Rust ring any bells?
George Black
"Dennis" <jen...@ozzienet.net> wrote in message
news:b7ioua$nhr$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au...
:
: "Bolshoy Murza" <bolsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:3757594a.03041...@posting.google.com...
: > "Maximus Bushwhacker" <qwe...@qwqwewq.com> wrote in message
: news:<KPZma.732804$Yo4.67...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
:
: > Just compare the sorry performance of the USAF with the Soviet Air
: > Force that was supposed to be so inefficient. The inefficient
Russians
: > didn't have much problem taking out that Korean Air jet over
Kamchatka
: > in 1983. Two AA missiles from a pair of Su-15s and - no more 747.
: > Maybe it wasn't the brightest thing to do, but that was a
political
: > decision. The Soviet Air Force did the job pronto.
: >
:
: That was in the Cold War, and there had been an RC-135 spying there.
For a
: comparative situation, does Matthias Rust ring any bells?
:
Yeah. West German private pilot flew a Cessna 172 (110 knots) through
the vaunted Russian anti aircraft defences and landed in Red Square...
Keith Willshaw
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<b7h3rj$hgh$1...@selma.aspentech.com>...
> > > >
> > > > Of course you'll conveniently ignore all the eyewitness accounts,
> > > > film evidence and radar logs that show what happened because
> > > > they don't fit your latest pet conspiracy theory.
> > >
> > > Is that a my "latest pet conspiracy theory" as well?:
> > >
> > > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
> > >
> > > Given that sorry keith I would not seriousely consider any materials
> > > originated from US goverment including but not limited by
> > > "eyewitness accounts, film evidence, and radar logs".
> > >
> >
> > So on the basis of a 40 year old study of options that was never
> > acted
>
> After that there was moon landing hoax. after that thare was KAL007
> which was so similar to proposed operation "Northwoods". after what
> there was sept 11...
>
The Soviet government recovered the black boxes from KAL007
and hid them for 20 years because along with the pilots testimony
they showed nothing more than a navigational error on the part of
the Korean aircraft and distressing ineptitude in the red air force
Your obsession with conspiracy theories is evidence only of
mental confusion.
> > on you choose to ignore any and all evidence including that
> > of the civilian firefighters,
>
> Firefighters say they "do not know where plane debris are".
>
No firefighters who say there's nothing much left
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
> >passing motorists, airline employees,
> > etc etc who were there.
>
> Anyone can claim anything. However crediable data should not
> contradict to each others and particularly to material evidences
> like pictures taken on the site of that "crash".
>
Like the pictures on the snopes site that clearly shows a piece
of wreckage
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
> >
> > Sheesh
> >
> >
> > > Although if you can please post some of that materials. I would be
> > > glade to inspect it on the very probable possibility of yet another
> > > fake.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Translation , I propose to discount any and all material that
> > disagrees with my theory.
>
> which materials? you did not submit any to speak about so far.
>
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
> >
> > > >
> > > > You have become a parody of the paranoid Russian.
> > >
> > > If so why do you respond on that parody? Just ignore if you can
> > > ignore it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Its rather sad really.
> > >
> > > Indeed the reality is sad for you. For me it is a big fun.
> > >
> >
> > Well you are a laughing stock thats true.
>
> You missed again. as you know I have enough selfrespect to spit
> from a very high tree upon anyones opinions (particualrly yours)
> on matters of my poor person. So what is point to ridicule
> yourself by this weak attempt of a personal attack?
>
Others have pointed to evidence and eyewitness accounts and
as predicted you have simply ignored them.
Keith
Michael Petukhov
> >because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
>
> I will await with great interest your theory on what actually happened.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Unfortunately I do no have one due to lack of reliable data.
The only verifiable fact I would like to point at is that
Osama Ben Laden indeed in a video footage allegedly captured in
Afganistan said that there was plane captured by his
guys which crashed into Pentagon. You can draw your conclusions
based on that well known fact.
Michael
Sunny
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com...
Does the Flat Earth Society have an idea where the missing plane is (if it
did not crash into the Pentagon) ?
Michael Petukhov
> "Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
> news:a39cf3c3.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > but do not see how looking at any lists
> > and/or visiting victims graves can help
> > to do that unless you mean exhumations.
> > I guess you do not, do you?
>
>
> Well, I guess you got me there. Are the "victims' " families part of the
> conspiracy, as well?
No idea. Although I can imagine that it is not that difficult to
find a few tens of persons in US wanting to get new IDs and start
a new life elsewhere.
>
> If my father had chosen to travel a day later, he would have been on that
> flight. My father's friend, a retired Naval Officer lost his life in that
> crash. I don't have any more time for your conspiracy theories.
Or might it be just a bit inconvinient for your to start thinking
and face unpleasant truth?
>
> If you knew anything about our culture, you would know that we are very bad
> at keeping secrets when our actions cross ethical boundaries.
> We encourage whistle-blowers and respect civil disobedience, when morally
> justifiable.
in the past, maybe. Since famous Eisenhauer speech with warning of
too much power of military-industrial lobby US went too far and
in my view, is well developed police state which is very dangerous to
the world and to its own people.
Michael
Denyav
>too much power of military-industrial lobby US went too far and
>in my view, is well developed police state which is very dangerous to
>the world and to its own people.
>
>Michael
This sounds more realistic,but if there is a domestic conspiracy in 9/11,I
would still think other way around.
I think its much easier in the world we live to recruit and organize a couple
of dozens fanatics than planning a fake airplane crash.
Did you see movie "Swordfish"?
If you see it you can find some answers.
(Interestingly this movie released before 9/11,not after)
Randall Turner
| > Well, I guess you got me there. Are the "victims' " families part of
the
| > conspiracy, as well?
|
| No idea. Although I can imagine that it is not that difficult to
| find a few tens of persons in US wanting to get new IDs and start
| a new life elsewhere.
oh, SHIT! And it was working too, Petukhov, you *bastard*!
<shredding papers, formatting harddrive, burning files, making list of
acquaintances to "neutralize"...>
Michael Petukhov
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
>
> It you were really interested in discovering the truth, you could look at
> the list of the dead and visit their graves.
Thanks! at least some data and a picture of a debris. Some questions
were not aswered particualrly no damage from wings on walls which
did not collaps. Others have only one answer "all that remained
were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon."
So we have to trust Pentagon whose intentions are under question
here. Also low resolution image of powerful exposion on impact shown
by security camera in my view does not fit to extent of building
damage shown in other pictures particualrly taken before building
collaps and perfect shape of lawn at distance of a few meters from
this huge explosion center. This image is clearly fake one. Given
all this I find these answers to be unsatisfactory.
Michael
Chad Irby
> b2...@aol.com (B2431) wrote:
> > >because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> >
> > I will await with great interest your theory on what actually happened.
>
> Unfortunately I do no have one due to lack of reliable data.
But you *do* have a theory - that it *didn't* happen.
The sad part is that you quote very limited "evidence," yet ignore the
large amoutns of countervailing evidence that people provide for you.
> The only verifiable fact I would like to point at is that
> Osama Ben Laden indeed in a video footage allegedly captured in
> Afganistan said that there was plane captured by his
> guys which crashed into Pentagon. You can draw your conclusions
> based on that well known fact.
Denial and running scared, for one.
Or propaganda for the folks who will fall for anything as long as it
supposedly makes the U.S. look bad.
Must play well in Russia...
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Michael Petukhov
>
> http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
As for that "answers" given above. It is good to have it on the
first place. However I want to point out that:
1) not all questions were received answer. particualrly absence of
any damage from wings on walls which did not collaps. the theory
that "wings likely snapped during the initial impact" is ridiculus.
And the claim that "damage to the building caused by the plane's
wings is plainly visible in photographs" is simply bold false.
2) all other questions received answer that basically "all that remained
were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon".
So we must trust pentagon. Since I published documents showing
that Pentagon does not deserve any trust and given that it is
Pentagon intentions are under question in this discussion
I do not think that such convinient answer can be accepted here.
3) The exposion on impact taken by security camera seems too big and
in any case does not fit to extent of damage shown in other
pictures particualrly before the building collapsed. Therefore
should be rejected as clearly faked one.
4) good to have picture of a debris. however unfortunately unlike
other pictures cited here this one is given without any reference
to its author, place and time. Not clear also is it really part of a
plane. it could be part of a car for instance. I have seen some pictures
of cars destroyed near Pentagon as well. But most importantly if we
to trust the explosion picture we have to have lots of such debris not
only one and particualrly from the huge tail section. There is nothing.
5) The pentagon theory stress that huge airliner similar to US
antibunker bomb penetrated the Pentagon building and therefore
no debris are found outside. This contradicts to pentagon
picture of huge outside explosion. The picture of explosion itself
contradicts to perfect shape of lawn at a few meters distance
from the explosion center shown in other pictures and so on...
So my personal conclusion the site below does not provide
good enough answers 1) and rises new questions 3)-5) and
as such is not satisfactory.
Michael
PS Personal attacks are skiped as usless.
Robert Ainswerth
"Dav1936531" <dav19...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030415092518...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> >From: petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov)
> ><a39cf3c3.03041...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >why? because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> >Michael
>
> <sarcasm on> Yeah....uh, no planes crashed into the World Trade Center
either.
> All those news videos that actually show the planes crashing into the
> WTC?.....well, those are just creations of the Zionist Illuminati
controlled
> Hollywood special effects studios as part of their strategy for world
> conquest.....or something.<sarcasm off>
Not to support the conspiracy theories, but I think that if they had
released
surveillance footage of the actual crash it would have been better.
My local low-crime 7-11 has 4 or 5 cameras, surely the Pentagon has
hundreds?
Keith Willshaw
"Robert Ainswerth" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b7j9g8$a4m$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
The conspiracists would simply claim its faked
Keith
Drewe Manton
news:b7jc0i$t3q$1...@selma.aspentech.com:
> The conspiracists would simply claim its faked
>
> Keith
>
For all that it does surprise me that apparantly no footage exists of a
plane hitting the Pentagon . . .
--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7164002b.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > Take a firm look at the photo by going to the original website:
> >
> http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=
> 8
> > it is the one marked by caps below. Can you recognize the piece of
> > airplane in the foreground?
> >
>
> Jack you are wasting your time
>
> Michael will believe literally anything that makes the US
> look bad.
>
> He's a firm believer that the moon landings were faked even
> though every sane person including the Russian cosmonauts
> have said otherwise.
>
> He believes the USN sank the Kursk by ramming it with a
> super sekrit unobtanium hulled submarine that was able
> to leave the larger double hulled Russian boat wrecked
> on the bottom of the ocean and sail home unhurt. The
> fact that the Russian navy stated that a torpedo exploded
> prematurely is of course part of the cover up.
>
> Every piece of evidence you bring forward will be
> dismissed as fabricated or coincedental and in the
> case of his theory no evidence is required, indeed the
> absence of evidence just proves how far the cover up went.
>
> Keith
Okay given all that, do you think he's right? <<<joke, joke, joke>>>
I did send him the photo cited above directly. It would be a form of
cruel justice to directly e-mail everything that has been posted on
this topic. If Russia is as "advanced" as I think it is he would
probably have to pay dearly to get yelled at.
JohanE
> 4) good to have picture of a debris. however unfortunately unlike
> other pictures cited here this one is given without any reference
> to its author, place and time. Not clear also is it really part of a
> plane. it could be part of a car for instance. I have seen some pictures
> of cars destroyed near Pentagon as well. But most importantly if we
> to trust the explosion picture we have to have lots of such debris not
> only one and particualrly from the huge tail section. There is nothing.
>
In 1992, a 747 crashed into an apartment block in Amsterdam (Yes, really, no
discussion about that). There was hardly anything left of that aircraft,
too.
There's a couple of aerial photo's of the crashsite on
http://members.chello.nl/j.wiersema2/bijlmer/ look for Foto01 - Foto02 -
etc. Those were taken 3 days after. Try "hunt the Boeing" in these pictures.
JohanE
Kyle Boatright
"Drewe Manton" <dr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns935F77566395Dd...@130.133.1.4...
There was footage. A security camera at a vehicle entrance caught 4 or 5
frames just before and including impact. They were published about a year
ago.
KB
John S. Shinal
>I do not care about how large and crediable is the conspiracy theory.
>Where is the plane debris? There cannot be any corpses identified
>without plane crashed into Pentagon. Logically isn't it?
But they *did* identify all those corpses, this is not open
for debate. Forget this "cannot be" nonsense, and no it is NOT logical
to say without a plane the corpses can't exist/weren't identified.
Those people *were* identified, and they were all dead.
People who were witnessed boarding the plane in another city,
were pulled from the burnt wreckage of the Pentagon. Your theory needs
to explain how they got there - apparently you don't believe it was on
an airliner. How did people who were witnessed to board an airliner in
another city, end up inside the Pentagon, dead ?
(in the distance, sounds of a garbage truck approaching)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Keith Willshaw
"JohanE" <Jo...@E.net> wrote in message news:b7je8m$573l$1...@simian.nlr.nl...
<Conspirowhacko mode on>
See ANOTHER so called crash to hide the attacks
on planet earth by the flying saucers of the Zarquand Federation
WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED
<Conspirowhacko mode off>
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Kyle Boatright" <kyle.bo...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:64bna.22$hT2....@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Found it at
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp
Keith
Shaun
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><Conspirowhacko mode on>
>
>See ANOTHER so called crash to hide the attacks
>on planet earth by the flying saucers of the Zarquand Federation
>
>WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED
>
><Conspirowhacko mode off>
>
>Keith
What a wacko, the people on the net never fail to amaze me
Shaun
Petukhov) wrote:
>Or might it be just a bit inconvinient for your to start thinking
>and face unpleasant truth?
The truth is youre a fuking moron not worth a reply
Ploink !
Drewe Manton
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp
Thanks Keith. First shots I'd seen of it.
Chad Irby
> Not to support the conspiracy theories, but I think that if they had
> released surveillance footage of the actual crash it would have been
> better.
>
> My local low-crime 7-11 has 4 or 5 cameras, surely the Pentagon has
> hundreds?
The only one that faced the spot where the plane hit was a time-lapse
type, and the actual impact happened between the two frames (a couple of
seconds apart).
Most of the surveillance on the Pentagon was on the entrances and access
points.
Bill Silvey
Yknow, I wasn't going to reply to you any more, but I *personally* know four
people who *watched the plane hit the Pentagon Building in DC*. Watched it
clip the streetlights on it's way in. Watched it virtually disintigrate on
impact.
Please, please try not to be so goddamned stupid and hateful.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
I hate furries.
Michael Petukhov
> : That was in the Cold War, and there had been an RC-135 spying there.
> For a
> : comparative situation, does Matthias Rust ring any bells?
> :
> Yeah. West German private pilot flew a Cessna 172 (110 knots) through
> the vaunted Russian anti aircraft defences and landed in Red Square...
Unlike US in 2001, the Cessna was detected before crossing border,
it was intercepted at least two times, identified as small sport
plane but no order was given to shoot it down. Due to the KAL007 sindrome
I guess. I would not recommend to try it again. They very angry now.
And they certanly would simply shot anyone down out of hands, even
if it is USAF#1 flying without permission and not responding to
their signals.
Michael
Michael Petukhov
> >in the past, maybe. Since famous Eisenhauer speech with warning of
> >too much power of military-industrial lobby US went too far and
> >in my view, is well developed police state which is very dangerous to
> >the world and to its own people.
> >
> >Michael
>
> This sounds more realistic,but if there is a domestic conspiracy in 9/11,I
> would still think other way around.
> I think its much easier in the world we live to recruit and organize a couple
> of dozens fanatics than planning a fake airplane crash.
> Did you see movie "Swordfish"?
NO I have not. will try.
Michael
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>
> > b2...@aol.com (B2431) wrote:
> > > >because no plane crashed into Pentagon.
> > >
> > > I will await with great interest your theory on what actually happened.
> >
> > Unfortunately I do no have one due to lack of reliable data.
>
> But you *do* have a theory - that it *didn't* happen.
>
> The sad part is that you quote very limited "evidence," yet ignore the
> large amoutns of countervailing evidence that people provide for you.
Is not true. I have commented on all factual data cited here.
But it is true I do not trust any data passed via hands of
US government and pentagon. And I have very good reasons for
that.
>
> > The only verifiable fact I would like to point at is that
> > Osama Ben Laden indeed in a video footage allegedly captured in
> > Afganistan said that there was plane captured by his
> > guys which crashed into Pentagon. You can draw your conclusions
> > based on that well known fact.
>
> Denial and running scared, for one.
>
> Or propaganda for the folks who will fall for anything as long as it
> supposedly makes the U.S. look bad.
I do not like US. that's true But I am not going to distort
the truth in order to make US looking even worser when it really is.
So US looking as bad as it really is enough for me.
Michael
Bill Silvey
Dear god, they're basing their theories on movies now.
*shakes head*
What a sad, sad pair you are.
Alistair Gunn
> Your obsession with conspiracy theories is evidence only of
> mental confusion.
Surely faking an aircraft crash into the Pentagon fails on Occams Razer
as it's harder to do than actually crashing the airliner in the first
place? <grins> It would appear that reason is wasted on some people,
but given that you'd have to have the following groups in on any
conspiracy is it worth the trouble?
[a] The airline, who now have to have "purchased" an extra airliner at
some point in the past otherwise the number of planes they have won't
match up to how many they're *supposed* to have.
[b] Likewise the aircraft manufacturer (and it's subcontractors) have to
have "manufactured" an extra plane beyond what they really have.
Since they'll doubtless want paying for this (and their accounts
won't match up if they're not!), then their banks and the bank of the
airline have to be in on it too.
[c] You need a flightcrew who don't mind disappearing never to be seen
again - they'll never get to see/talk to their friends and family
again and can you think how much you could sell the story to the
media for?
[d] Likewise, you also need a set of passengers who need convincing
reasons for having been on the flight and who also need to be willing
to disappear.
[e] Some "witnesses" to the event would prove useful, people might get
curious as to why nothing was seen before hand otherwise ...
[f] Finally, you need someone to set off the explosion ...
Wouldn't it be simpler if you want people to believe that an airliner
crashed into the Pentagon to simply go out, hi-jack one and crash it
yourself?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Gordon
>Gordon this humor is too plane to my taste. You have
>better to find any picture of plane debris.
>
Go back through the thread to the link that shows exactly that, twisted
aircraft skin, laying on the ground outside of the building.
That doesn't matter though, does it. Its "America bad", so you are going to
wring it with both hands and refuse any evidence to the contrary. You asked
for pictures of aircraft debris from that moment in time and one was provided:
you ignored it. The 757 went against the outer wall and crashed through it,
penetrating far into the structure as it exploded forward, further into the
massive building. The found bodies, but very few - what they did find was
tissue bits, and that was what was used in a lot of cases to ID the lost.
Logical to everyone but you. The small amounts of debris doesn't jibe with
your "no plane debris" lie.