9/11 documentary now

[west didsblue]

I am not in the conspiracy camp myself but I have watched a few programmes that do question the Boeing 767 that hit the Twin

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

 

[Manchester_lalala]

I am not in the conspiracy camp myself but I have watched a few programmes that do question the Boeing 767 that hit the Twin

Not sure what I'm meant to be seeing.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not sure what I'm meant to be seeing.

It's classified, mate.

 

[BigBluey]

Not sure what I'm meant to be seeing.

The suggestion made by the documentary is that the plane appears to have a tubular shape on the under carriage.

Very similar to the Boeings used by the military.

 

[Banned Tosspot]

Honestly think 9/11 'truthers' are mentally unhinged. Every single one of their theories can be debunked yet they simply will not listen.

Spot on.

 

[purplenose]

You think there was only 1 CCTV camera there? At the Pentagon?
Im not a conspiracy theorist, i dont think a missle hit the pentagon or anything like that. I believe a plane hit it and that plane was flown by hijackers, but theres no way there is only 1 grainy bit of 1 frame a second footage

So why wasnt it shown...why has it still not been shown...after all it was a civilian airliner that hit the Pentagon wasnt it? No different than the ones that hit the WTC....you can see those impacts, why is this different as you say its inconceivable that no other cctv caught this aircraft. Unless the aircraft/missile looked nothing like a boeing 767 of course there is no earthly reason not to show images of it on its final decent to its target.

Again the key thing here is why did the pilot not dive into the Pentagon rather than choosing to hit the building where least damage would occur to the building that also happened to involve flying a course that some bloke with a few hours on a single engines Cessna and none on a boeing 767 most certainly could not. It is these facts that absolutely prove that there is something to hide with this particular attack.

So I dont know what hit the Pentagon but whatever it was was not flown by whom it is claimed. Neither was it flown to inflict maximum damage...nobody can dispute that it would have been far easier and caused more damage by flying it into the inner layers of the Pentagon...these are facts that can simply not be debunked.

 

[west didsblue]

So why wasnt it shown...why has it still not been shown...after all it was a civilian airliner that hit the Pentagon wasnt it? No different than the ones that hit the WTC....you can see those impacts, why is this different as you say its inconceivable that no other cctv caught this aircraft. Unless the aircraft/missile looked nothing like a boeing 767 of course there is no earthly reason not to show images of it on its final decent to its target.

Again the key thing here is why did the pilot not dive into the Pentagon rather than choosing to hit the building where least damage would occur to the building that also happened to involve flying a course that some bloke with a few hours on a single engines Cessna and none on a boeing 767 most certainly could not. It is these facts that absolutely prove that there is something to hide with this particular attack.

So I dont know what hit the Pentagon but whatever it was was not flown by whom it is claimed. Neither was it flown to inflict maximum damage...nobody can dispute that it would have been far easier and caused more damage by flying it into the inner layers of the Pentagon...these are facts that can simply not be debunked.

These are not facts. They are opinions and questions.

 

[purplenose]

These are not facts. They are opinions and questions.

The first paragraph yes asks questions the latter two are facts, The pilot of whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon chose to do so in the most ineffective and most difficult possible manner...a bloke with a few hours on a single engined Cessna simply could not have done it.

 

[manctheknife]

The first paragraph yes asks questions the latter two are facts, The pilot of whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon chose to do so in the most ineffective and most difficult possible manner...a bloke with a few hours on a single engined Cessna simply could not have done it.

Actually mate, you are saying he made a balls of it....and then saying he wasn't good enough....the two may be connected?

 

[andyhinch]

Actually mate, you are saying he made a balls of it....and then saying he wasn't good enough....the two may be connected?

He does seem to miss the point that the pilot wasn't good enough to hit what he was aiming at