Author Topic: "9:32AM"__The Clock that doesn't lie... (Read 6778 times)

TM7 · « **on:** April 17, 2011, 08:47:57 AM »

There were 2 attacks and a fly over!!....how the big hoax was pulled off with witness accounts, by Jim Marrs and Barbara Honegger..........fyi...TM7;

http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf

..TM7
.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2011, 12:00:58 PM »

More BS. My cousin saw the plane fly over him and within seconds of it flying over him heard the impact and saw the smoke. He said from where he was "THE AIRPLANE COULD NOT HAVE PULLED UP WITHOUT HIM SEEING IT". Along with thousands of eyewitnesses there is no credibility in this fairy tale.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2011, 04:44:55 AM »

So your "investigators" found that the plane did crash into the pentagon like the thousands of eye witnesses, my cousin included say?

no guns here · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2011, 05:18:00 AM »

What is an "A3"?

NGH

no guns here · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2011, 06:22:55 AM »

sorry can't, blocked at work...

NGH

billy_56081 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2011, 06:53:59 AM »

TM nope then they are wrong you need to focus on the thousands of eye witnesses and not on some bogus investigators who had a conclusion before the investigation. You can say that. "My cousins account supports them" but it has no basis in reality or fact. The truth is that all eyewitness and physical eveidence does not support these fellows, (and I use the term very loosely) "investigation".

billy_56081 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2011, 08:34:01 AM »

No TM you are wrong again as usual. My cousin saw an airliner and this airliner hit the pentagon. So tell us what an A3 is.

no guns here · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2011, 09:20:09 AM »

Okay... so my guess is that if a 757 couldn't have done the damage to the Pentagon then it would be MUCH easier for an obsolete carrier-based aircraft that only weighed about 70.000 lbs to do that much damage. Why not just blame it on the Wright Flyer? Is it any wonder no one really believes this crap? Blame the damage on a plane that isn't really even flown any more and is MUCH smaller than the 757.

Done... Out. Nothing real to learn here.

NGH

billy_56081 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2011, 09:39:59 AM »

I highly doubt any but the most moronic would mistake an A3 for a commercial airliner. Once again TM you are taking the information in this "investigation" as fact because it supports your forgone conclusion.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 28, 2011, 10:40:34 AM »

Point is TM thousands saw an airliner, not an A3 "painted" to look like an airliner hit the pentagon. As I said from where my cousin was there was no way the airliner could have pulled up without him seeing it. Once again we have one consistent story by thousands of eye witnesses and dozens of different stories buy the conspiracy whackos.

no guns here · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2011, 10:45:17 AM »

Lots of planes have been converted to drones. 86's, 100's, 4', 5's, 14's... that's how we test missiles, tracking systems, guns, etc.

Not surprising that a lot of contractors died. Many units are contractor heavy. Generally, one company has a contract to support one effort. In this case obviously it was Raytheon. My office right now is over 50% contractor manned. Nothing surprising or incriminating there.

Just because a certain model was converted doesn't make it a smoking gun. Hole in building and then the facade fell... so what? Sounds logical as the resultant fire could cause the facade to fall later.

Let me pose a question. If that area of the Pentagon was HARDENED and therefore a 757 COULDN'T have caused that damage... then how on earth could a MUCH SMALLER aircraft have caused that damage? Doesn't add up.

NGH

no guns here · « **Reply #11 on:** April 29, 2011, 04:08:04 AM »

Bomb or missile strike? Dang and here all along I was buying into your A3 story... make up your mind and stick to it. What was it? Then there is the whole issue of a missing 757...

NGH

billy_56081 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 29, 2011, 06:27:03 AM »

No holes in the official story. Eye witnesses have said the same thing over and over. Now holes in the conspiracy stories, well which story? TM ever time you post on the pentagon attack you have a different story.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 29, 2011, 05:26:14 PM »

So TM whichone of your stories doesn't have a hole in it? You post different story every week.

Here is an A3, ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-3_Skywarrior

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** April 29, 2011, 05:47:50 PM »

Everybody here is wrong !
The voices inside my tinfoil hat tell me that it was a new "interplanetary super weapon" that hit the pentagon. They are hiding the fact that they also hit the moon on 9/11..
Below; see a highly classified picture of that weapon but please don't tell the CIA or they will surely have to kill me !

billy_56081 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 29, 2011, 05:56:51 PM »

Guided by "heat" you mean it was guided by a High Explosive Anti Tank round? . Someone needs to bone up on weaponry and military acronyms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT_round

ironglow · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2011, 02:30:10 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on April 29, 2011, 05:56:51 PM

Guided by "heat" you mean itwas guided by a High Explosive Anti Tank round? TM your absolute total lack of knowledge has shown itself again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT_round

Billy;
I always preferred the HVAP (high velocity armort piercing) round... the one with the carbide-tungsten core. I guess they use depleted uranium in place of carbide-tungsten these days..

sdb777 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 01, 2011, 12:58:55 AM »

My only question....and it may have already been answered elsewhere(I just couldn't find it).

When any type of fixed-wing aircraft impacts into a solid structure....do the wings not create damage to said structure?

When I look at the damage in the photo's of the Pentagon, I see no damage(other then the hole) made by the wings(or the engines under the wings) to the building. And since the wings didn't damage the building....shouldn't they have been laying outside the building(ie...broken off the aircraft)?

Guess that was another question.....oops.

Scott B

ironglow · « **Reply #18 on:** May 01, 2011, 01:37:27 AM »

sdb;
One would have to consider the construction of both the plane and the structure. The plane of course is made from aluminum & other light materials, while the pentagon is built much like a fortress...very heavy, thick concrete walls. When the plane hit the building at what..around 500 mph.. the fuselage of the plane acted much like a piledriver with a couple hundered feet of material striking, and continuing to strike the wall..as a battering ram might do. The wings, even though of the same bacic material, did not have near so much continued battering behind them.
I believe if you view some of those photos, taken of the World Trade Center immediately after the strike, you will see wing imprints. At any level, but especially at that high level, the WTC was not constructed anywhere near as heavily as the Pentagon.

Lost Farmboy · « **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2011, 02:15:18 AM »

Quote from: sdb777 on May 01, 2011, 12:58:55 AM

My only question....and it may have already been answered elsewhere(I just couldn't find it).

When any type of fixed-wing aircraft impacts into a solid structure....do the wings not create damage to said structure?

When I look at the damage in the photo's of the Pentagon, I see no damage(other then the hole) made by the wings(or the engines under the wings) to the building. And since the wings didn't damage the building....shouldn't they have been laying outside the building(ie...broken off the aircraft)?

Guess that was another question.....oops.

Scott B

No. Not at all. The 757 went right through the Pentagon wall and didn't even brake the windows. We know this because the first reporter on the seen said there was no sign of an aircraft hitting the building. He said the only pieces he could find were so small they fit in your hand. So the rest of the plane went through the wall without causing any damage. Oh ya. There was one hole about the size of one of the engines. So one engine went through the wall causing damage and the other one went through the wall and didn't cause any damage. But the windows where the wings went through didn't brake until 20 minutes after the plane hit. The windows broke when the wall fell from the fire. That's how we know the wall was much stronger then the 757.

BBF · « **Reply #20 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:17:14 AM »

What I saw from the pix and not all of them I'm sure, that hole in the wall did not look like something made from an airliner IMO

It does look more like wingless cruise missile(Tomahawk) or a smart bomb.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:41:40 AM »

Quote from: scatterbrain on May 01, 2011, 06:17:14 AM

What I saw from the pix and not all of them I'm sure, that hole in the wall did not look like something made from an airliner IMO

It does look more like wingless cruise missile(Tomahawk) or a smart bomb.

Why did none of the thousands of eye witnesses, my cousin included see a cruise missile or smart bomb? If one reads TMs stories he posts here and look at the information in them, you will see that this information is very inaccurate. "guided by heat" that's a funny one. " a remote controlled A3 painted to look like an airliner" that is another good one. "overcoming ground effect by a novous pipsqueek pilot" but a remote controlled aircraft could. That is a whopper.

sdb777 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 01, 2011, 12:22:00 PM »

Hmmmm, the 'my cousin defense again'.....

That doesn't describe why there are no wing/engine holes in the side of the structure....

Everyone else,

Thanks for the informative responses of structure and construction of the Pentagon. Maybe I should have started this in a topic of it's own as to not take away from the OP posting.....

I do believe there was a low-level 'fly-over' of the highjacked aircraft(highjacked by the CIA), with a weapon shadowing said aircraft. Aircraft flew at a level that would make individuals 'believe the aircraft was inbound to the Pentagon'....but over flew, not necessarily climbing hard enough for anyone to take notice....after all, an explosion is a pretty good way of detracting people that 'think they are seeing everything'.

What is also puzzling....why the accounting section of the Pentagon, and not nose-dive right into the middle of it?

Scott B

billy_56081 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 01, 2011, 04:11:50 PM »

Why did none of the thousands of eye witnesses not see this "with a weapon shadowing said aircraft." weapon?

sdb777 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2011, 04:01:26 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on May 01, 2011, 04:11:50 PM

Why did none of the thousands of eye witnesses not see this "with a weapon shadowing said aircraft." weapon?

Good question....

Perhaps knowledge of the airframe was not high enough to notice a weapon shadowing, or even attached to the underside of the airframe. Being a person on the ground, doesn't automatically give anyone 'all inspiring knowledge' as to what should be, or what shouldn't be near/on an aircraft. For instance, you see thousands of Camaros driving down the street during the month....what kind of headlights are on them? Or can you re-call the last four of them you saw....what color were they(in the order as last seen)....... We tend to see what is in front of us without seeing the whole picture because we're just use to seeing that stuff.

Where has it been listed that there were 'thousands of eyewitnesses'? I have not seen this number in any article that I have read, or even 'glanced' at.....both in the public/government given articles. Please share, I'm always looking for both sides of the story....in print.

BTW, noticed the cousin is 'Retired Army'(saw it somewhere in here-the forum)....thank him for serving for me.

Scott B

BBF · « **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2011, 04:21:03 AM »

One thing for sure for me.
If I saw a 757 coming in very low towards a non-airport flying at cruise speed

I would not be aware of anything much smaller right behind it.

ironglow · « **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2011, 02:55:08 AM »

Quote from: scatterbrain on May 01, 2011, 06:17:14 AM

What I saw from the pix and not all of them I'm sure, that hole in the wall did not look like something made from an airliner IMO

It does look more like wingless cruise missile(Tomahawk) or a smart bomb.

Scatter;
I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but thae hole in the exterior wall was much larger than a 20' hole. In fact, it took out a whole section of the building, up to and including the roof.

ironglow · « **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2011, 02:59:05 AM »

There was a hole of about 20' diameter in the third ring wall where it borders the interior courtyard. This is where some of the heaviest parts penetrated through to the inner courtyard. Of course, some conspiracy addicts try to pass the 20' hole off as the entry hole. when it is truthfully, the exit hole of the heaviest parts.
Here is a discussion of the situation by a very experienced piloty as published by Salon.com, a site not favorable to GW Bush.
http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2006/05/19/askthepilot186

Below, see a photo of the hole opening into the central courtyard..not the entrance hole but rather the exit hole..

BBF · « **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2011, 03:05:39 AM »

I hadn't seen that photo, the one I saw looked much more circular. Frankly, I am not convinced for either scenerio. Did they ever find any engines or landing gear in the wreckage?

Your second picture is the one I saw.

ironglow · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2011, 03:09:06 AM »

Quote from: scatterbrain on May 03, 2011, 03:05:39 AM

I hadn't seen that photo, the one I saw looked much more circular. Frankly, I am not convinced for either scenerio. Did they ever find any engines or landing gear in the wreckage?

Your second picture is the one I saw.

Here is the hole after the debris was removed..