Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Gnosis
9/11 Victims Family Members, Architects & Engineers Speak Out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlbY8Cy55x4#t=24



Abba music video "Take a Chance"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Abba music video "Take a Chance"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

You're a fucking idiot.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Had it been anyone else, I would be tempted to say "Good God, you can't be that dumb".


But it wasn't anyone else, so...

lol'ed ok mr. I'm so intellectually Superior that the only intelligable counter argument I ever make are insults. Makey ou look very above the rest.... not.

Originally posted by Gnosis
You're a fucking idiot.


He's probably the real life verison of Sam Dawson.

Originally posted by issacar
He's probably the real life verison of Sam Dawson.

Originally posted by issacar
lol'ed ok mr. I'm so intellectually Superior that the only intelligable counter argument I ever make are insults. Makey ou look very above the rest.... not.

Yeah... I just defeated myself.

Originally posted by issacar
Yeah... I just defeated myself.


Clicking the "Post" button does that pretty much everytime you do so.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Clicking the "Post" button does that pretty much everytime you do so.

Are you saying we're in the same clique?

Originally posted by Gnosis
9/11 Victims Family Members, Architects & Engineers Speak Out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlbY8Cy55x4#t=24


The mechanical engineer they show isn't even a P.E.

lol?

Some pilot friends of mine directed me to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlzCyKbw5Q#t=717

It shows that the flight that hit the pentagon could not have made the maneuver alleged on 9/11. The plane would have had to withstand g-forces in excess of 5 times the rating for the plane.

BTW, there are plenty of pilots at the site who are more than happy to debate the topic with you.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

Good luck with that!!!

Originally posted by baumusc
You are talking about keeping hundreds of knowing participants quiet for 12+ years. Not going to happen. There were only a few participants in the US war in Cambodia during the Vietnam war and that info was released fairly soon after. You are talking about a CT on a massive scale never seen before. Our government can't even pull off a working healthcare site, you really think they could do all this without one person coming forward?

The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves.

The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The project’s roots lay in scientists’ fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value).

It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret. With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history. Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that. The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years. Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

Originally posted by baumusc
Point 1:
The video released is from a video camera that takes like a frame every second so you can't really see anything on it. Studies of the crash site showed how the plane clipped and knocked down street lights before hitting the Pentagon, plus there are multiple eye witnesses that saw the plane fly over and hit the Pentagon. The plane hit the Pentagon at an angle, not straight on like CT theorists try to claim.

Point 2:
I'm not sure what pictures of the Pentagon you are looking at but I certainly see tons of damage and it coincides with the angle of the crash that the airplane took. Concrete more than cracked and steel beams inside the building were decimated. Also massive amounts of debris that could be traced back to the AA flight were found on site by multiple people including the black box voice recorder. To 'fake' that hundreds of people would have to be involved.

Point 3:
DNA evidence matched by their families. Once again you are claiming a massive coverup that would entail a bunch of other people. The bigger and bigger your CT becomes the less plausible and realistic it is.



1) Of all of the private and pentagon videos, all of which were confiscated, that is the only video released. The gas station security cam was obviously a natioinal security issue... on that day

2) There is no damage to the foundation. The damage was localized, and that is apparent in all of the footage. Not massive amounts of debris, and you have no evidence to that fact.

3) their families had what? a home DNA kit?

Originally posted by wormser1971
1) Of all of the private and pentagon videos, all of which were confiscated, that is the only video released. The gas station security cam was obviously a natioinal security issue... on that day

2) There is no damage to the foundation. The damage was localized, and that is apparent in all of the footage. Not massive amounts of debris, and you have no evidence to that fact.

3) their families had what? a home DNA kit?



And the multiple witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon and came forward with all their testimony? All fake actors right? C'mon man! I mean the plane flew right over a taxi cab and the driver saw it. Also the multiple lamp posts that were clipped by the plane, a missile doesn't do that. Use some common sense.

Here is a 3D model explanation of the collision. Pretty damn compelling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Originally posted by baumusc
And the multiple witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon and came forward with all their testimony? All fake actors right? C'mon man! I mean the plane flew right over a taxi cab and the driver saw it. Also the multiple lamp posts that were clipped by the plane, a missile doesn't do that. Use some common sense.

Here is a 3D model explanation of the collision. Pretty damn compelling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

It is compelling. Here are the problems, as well as contradictions to your own statements.

1) the wings remain intact. Without the wings the plane would have hit the ground and bounced around in its approach to the building, tearing up the ground. Your video shows that part of the lawn and points out the fact it is undamaged. Earlier, however, you made remarks, citing your source, that a wing sheered off and the plane clipped the ground. There is no evidence of that, which means you believe 2 different things.

2) the video shows a completely intact plane striking the building. There is no damage to the wall or windows in those areas. Not even a crack. At that speed the force would have shown that damage.

3) if you believe the planes wings knocked over light poles without being damaged themselves, you have no comprehension of what damage would have been inflicted on aluminum sheet metal. .again, without both wings the plane would have been a tumbling mass. Aerodynamics play against the video.

4) the pentagon video shows so little that claims that a plane is visible are only speculative in nature. There were nearly 80 other cameras on that area, including parking lot cameras fixed only on the exterior of the building. Why release only the worst footage available? Why not any of the others?

5) the engine they show in the debris (i should say one part of the engine) was declared not to be "(from our engines" by the manufacturer of the engines for that plane.

6) witnesses saw a plane flying low. No witness saw an impact by the plane. Thus the reason for so much speculation as to where the wings went.

7) what happened to "the plane liquified" bit you posted earlier? Now it was completely intact??

8) at least the truthers want a new, more thorough investigation. With the inconsistent evidence and contradictory statements at least you duh-bunkers should raise an eyebrow. Thefact that you can post 2 competely different accounts of this crash, and believe both is problematic.

Originally posted by wormser1971
6) witnesses saw a plane flying low. No witness saw an impact by the plane. Thus the reason for so much speculation as to where the wings went.

What the hell are you talking about? This is why your claims don't have merit because you just make crap up. Multiple witnesses saw the plane fly over and hit the Pentagon. A cab driver saw the plane fly right over his cab and clip a bunch of light posts. Do you think that plane just disappeared or do you think that maybe, just maybe it actually hit the Pentagon?

Some of the eye witness accounts...

Steve Anderson:
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.

Deb Anlauf:
"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

David Battle:
Earlier Tuesday, Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Gary Bauer:
I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

Mickey Bell:
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.

I could go on for quite a while but those are only a few eyewitness accounts. Face it you are just going on nonsense. You are a tinfoil hat wearing CT'er.