Iraq Government Signs a Deal With Boeing

[Zippyjuan]

What evidence? I do not know what has hit the Pentagon but you claim it is an airplane while you have no proof.

You do not like the evidence out there. Fine. Privide conclusive evidence to support your theory that it was not an airplane. Evidence- "not doesn't look like".

You seem to agree that the black boxes were found. That supports the airplane theory. Missiles do not have black boxes.
The statements you quote from the FBI are not uncommon concerning black boxes recovered following plane crashes.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

You do not like the evidence out there.

What evidence?

You are bringing me a piece of junk picture and want me to believe it is an evidence. wakeup!

You failed to bring me any clear videos which shows an airplane hitting the Pentagon (one of the most secured buildings in the world) and you are telling me that your failure is an evidence.

Fine. Privide conclusive evidence to support your theory that it was not an airplane. Evidence- "not doesn't look like".

Your failure to bring any clear evidence that it was an air plane is an evidence that your FBI is hiding something from the public.

The failure of the FBI to provide the public with clear videos of the incident is another evidence of something suspicious has happened and that the FBI is covering it up and that is why we the rational people are asking for a new investigation!

The statements you quote from the FBI are not uncommon concerning black boxes recovered following plane crashes.

Do you have the common statements which are concerning the black boxes recovered? Please bring me the official statements concerning the black boxes!

No wonder you ignored my question when I asked you What did they find in the black box?

You seem to agree that the black boxes were found. That supports the airplane theory.

If the FBI refuses to hand the recordings to the public and they still insist that the boxes do not carry anything useful then this adds another evidence that the FBI is covering up a crime!

 

[Zippyjuan]

Prove them (and me ) wrong. You accused me of avoiding answering a question.
Images of plane parts inside and outside the Pentagon on 9/11. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Since you are not questioning the existence of the black boxes (and are concerned that there was not a clear audio recording of conversations on it) then you must be accepting that it was indeed an airplane that hit the Pentagon.

The boxes were damaged during the crashes. Although they are solidly constructed, they are not indestructable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1543564.stm

Both black boxes from the hijacked aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon have also been recovered and turned over to the Federal Aviation Administration.

However, according to a report in the Washington Times, investigators have so far failed to extract information from the Pentagon attack voice recorder because it was so badly damaged.

Despite this, it is hoped that the data recorder could provide details of the final moments of the American Airlines plane, which was hijacked shortly after it left Dulles International Airport on a flight to Los Angeles.

Do you have the common statements which are concerning the black boxes recovered? Please bring me the official statements concerning the black boxes!

Since you asked,

The NTSB had been getting too many damaged black boxes and urged making them stronger beginning in 2005 (four years after 9/11)

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/blackbox.html

The first thing you notice about a "black box" is that it is neither black nor a box. Modern flight data and cockpit voice recorders tend to be flat plates, roughly the size of a shoebox, with cylindrical and squarish protuberances that contain the units' digital memory modules. To make them easy to spot at a crash scene (or, sometimes, well removed from the wreckage), they're painted bright orange. They're also equipped with radio beacons to make them easier to locate under water.

Typically attached to an airplane's rearmost bulkhead, where they are most likely to survive a crash, the recorders are designed to withstand intense heat and extreme G forces. Still, some arrive at the NTSB looking like defeated Robot Wars combatants. "When we started getting the older recorders back with [extensive] damage, we issued a recommendation to the FAA to change the law and increase the structural and heat requirements," Anna Cushman says. Most airlines will switch to newer, tougher digital units by 2005.

The data recorder tracks an airplane's altitude, airspeed and other vital flight parameters. The voice recorder stores four separate channels of audio. Three capture the feed from the pilot's and copilot's headsets and a cockpit area microphone usually mounted above the instrument panel. The fourth channel, originally designated for a flight engineer, now often records the announcements made over the plane's public address system. The microphones pick up engine noises, the sounds of mechanical devices (like landing gear deploying), warning signals, conversations with air traffic control or other pilots, automated weather briefings, and other noises that can provide clues about the causes of a crash or other incident.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Prove them (and me ) wrong. You accused me of avoiding answering a question.

If you cannot prove yourself right then I have no need to prove that you are wrong!

Why the FBI does not provide the public with clear videos of something hitting the Pentagon (one of the biggest and most secure office buildings in the world)?

You have NO answer.

What has been found in the black boxes? Were there any proof of hijackers? Were those recordings handed to the public?

You have no clue.


Do you trust the FBI and the CIA?

 

[Zippyjuan]

As I have said, the black box containing voice data from the plane which hit the Pentagon was damaged. There was no useful information they could recover because of the damage. Those things are not indestructable. They were able to get flight data information on the plane such as altitude, speed, and course.

Why do you offer no proof? Because you have none. It is much easier for you to say that someone else is wrong than prove yourself right. I have shown photographs (links to them anyways) showing aircraft debris in and around the Pentagon. You yourself do not dispute the existance of black boxes found at the site. That means a plane- not missile. I have provided evidence that black boxes are often damaged- and that the NTSA required tougher boxes be made because of that. They are not hiding the information- it isn't there for them to release.

Unfortunately all you have provided is denial. Bring on the facts you have.

Or continue to live the fantasy if that makes you feel better about your world.

Remember it was you who started this by saying you did not believe that any Boeing planes hit the Pentagon. You have not supported your position yet. Make a claim and offer support as I have.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

As I have said, the black box containing voice data from the plane which hit the Pentagon was damaged.
There was no useful information they could recover because of the damage.

Does this mean that there was no voice data recovered?

You yourself do not dispute the existance of black boxes found at the site. That means a plane- not missile.

I dispute anything coming out of a bureaucratic institution like the FBI or CIA!
While you are giving your ears to both.
Why you support Ron Paul if you support both FBI and CIA? You sound to me like a Bush, McCain warmonger supporter!

I have provided evidence.......

Okay, why the Pentagon one of the biggest and most secured buildings in the world fail to provide the public with a clear video of an air plane hitting it?

 

[Midnight77]

Okay, why the Pentagon one of the biggest and most secured buildings in the world fail to provide the public with a clear video of an air plane hitting it?

Would you care to elaborate on what happened to all the passengers, then? There are witnesses in the street that testified to seeing a plane heading in the direction of the Pentagon.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Would you care to elaborate on what happened to all the passengers, then? There are witnesses in the street that testified to seeing a plane heading in the direction of the Pentagon.

Still you failed in answering the most important question. Why the Pentagon one of the biggest and most secured buildings in the world fail to provide the public with a video of an air plane hitting it?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Why you support Ron Paul if you support both FBI and CIA? You sound to me like a Bush, McCain warmonger supporter!

You would be amazed at how many Ron Paul supporters are not 9/11 truthers. If not being one means not supporting Ron Paul then I must not support him. That is your definition- not mine. Ron Paul has tried to distance himself from truthers and does not subscribe to the theory of 9/11 being deliberatly done by the government. His own words on the subject:
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/07/27/ron-paul-not-truther-interview/

Interviewer: So your position (then we’ll get off this and onto something else) your position then would be that as far as you’re concerned the official story from 9/11 . .. and this is not about the government covering up their mistakes. . . this is about the suggestions from these people who you were talking to in this video that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government: You do not support that theory?

Ron Paul: Absolutely Not!

Interviewer: ok thank you I think that will clear up quite a bit. Let’s get on to something else here.

Another quote from him:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_ambushes_Paul_with_911_truthers_0111.html

"Many of your supporters call themselves '9/11 Truthers,'" Cameron began. "They believe that the US government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it or divorce themselves from your candidacy?"

"Well, I can't tell people what to do, but I've abandoned those viewpoints," Paul replied. "I don't believe that, and that's the only thing that is important. ...

So Ron Paul is not a Truther. He disagrees with that theory. So can you call someone who agrees with Ron Paul on this issue a non- suppporter and "a Bush, McCain warmonger supporter"? That shows that you are poorly informed on the subject. That would make Mr. Paul a Bush, McCain warmonger supporter too. Is he?

"Would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?"

"Well, it doesn't do me any good," answered Paul, "so if they care about me they should, but the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say. I can't tell them what to do. ...

Does this mean that there was no voice data recovered?

No usable information. That could mean that garbled or uninteligible sounds were captured but not enough to say for certain what was being said. They do not say that no information was on it.

I am still waiting for your proof. It may take time to find some facts. I am willing to wait. Because it is not on a YouTube video does not mean it did not happen or is not a fact. Anybody can make a video. It seems you are trying to avoid answering.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

You would be amazed at how many Ron Paul supporters are not 9/11 truthers.

Over 80% of Ron Paul supporters are truthers. Check this link, I saw you posting there. What a hypocrite you are. 10% are not.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=133031
Now I am really amazed by your lies!
What a waste of time with people like!

If not being one means not supporting Ron Paul then I must not support him. That is your definition- not mine. Ron Paul has tried to distance himself from truthers and does not subscribe to the theory of 9/11 being deliberatly done by the government. His own words on the subject:
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/07/27/ron-paul-not-truther-interview/
Man you are either retarded or a hypocrite.

Ron Paul does not trust the FBI nor the CIA and he is supporting a new investigation. Do you support a new investigation too?

Educate yourself buddy, here is what Ron Paul said in detail,

Audio interview The Alex Jones Show 1/18/07: "Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday and had the following to say about 9/11:

Caller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

Congressman Paul: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on." http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3

Radio interview on Wake Up America with Pat Gorman 6/21/07: In response to a caller's question about the 9/11 investigation.

Congressman Paul: Well, I think he was asking about, you know, who ultimately is to blame and whether or not it deserves more investigation. There was one investigation. They spent a lot of money and very extensive and I think he indicated that they didn't even mention the third building that went down (WTC Building 7).

Government investigations, as a general rule, aren't very good because when the government does it, they generally protect the government. And whether it's investigating 9/11, or, you know, Ruby Ridge, or Waco, they tend more to be coverups than anything else.

The truth is I don't know exactly all that transpired. I don't know if anybody knows the absolute truth, but there's reason to be very suspect of what's happened. And I am convinced that the 9/11 Commission Report did ignore some very, very important things like the third building, as well as why did those numerous Arabs from Saudi Arabia with the name of bin Laden get to go home when none of us were allowed on airplanes. That always amazed me, as well, especially since the 15 out of 19 came from Saudi Arabia. And then they turn around and they use this as an excuse to go into Iraq. So, you know the whole thing, whether it's strictly 9/11 but it's the repercussions from 9/11 that led to the useless and needless war, that all needs looked into just for the sake of the future of our country. ...

Pat Gorman: It seems that we've got this propaganda machine that has just started to really blow up and being out of control. Like, you know, tell them whatever we want them to hear. Don't tell them the truth. ...

Congressman Paul: Yeah and I think that's true. The only way that can work is you have to terrorize the people, our people, in a different way than, you know, what terrorism is really is all about, but we terrorize them by building up tremendous fear. You know, "If you don't do something, if you don't give up your liberties and if you don't invade this country, we're all going to be blown up." You know, so they have to terrorize us and build great fear that something terrible is going to happen to our country unless we sacrifice our liberties and go to war." http://media.putfile.com

So Ron Paul is not a Truther. He disagrees with that theory. So can you call someone who agrees with Ron Paul on this issue a non- suppporter and "a Bush, McCain warmonger supporter"? That shows that you are poorly informed on the subject. That would make Mr. Paul a Bush, McCain warmonger supporter too. Is he?

There are a lot of signs which proves that you are another war monger:

First: You lie to prove your points and your last lie was about the amazing numbers of Ron Paul supporters who are not truthers.

Second: You trust people who are not trustworthy, people who have been assigned to their jobs by war mongers like G.W.B as example: Robert S. Mueller the director of the FBI

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. General, thank you for being here. It is my honor to nominate Robert S. Mueller, of California, to become the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I want to welcome his wife, Anne, here, and I want to welcome you all to the Rose Garden.

He then served as Acting Deputy Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice for several months, before officially becoming the FBI Director on September 4, 2001, just one week before the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Third; Your greed shows up on the surface(I know its hard to hide, God be with you) as example when you commented on the Boeing deal, all I got from you was the voice of greed and warmongering

This is good for American manufacturing jobs.

What a war monger you are

I am still waiting ............

Do not wait anymore!

Enough wasting time with warmongers and representitives of greed!

 

[Zippyjuan]

I have been very civil in the discussion. You have chosen not to respond to my request for you to provide proof of your contention that no Boeing airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. You provide none but resort to name callling instead. Very sad.

I did not make up those words- Ron Paul spoke them. On national TV during a Republican debate. I don't understand what I said to make you so upset. I have not been lying. You may not agree with what was said, but that does not make it a lie. Here is a video clip of the segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-lxZmrqLxU

If I am lying, then so was Ron Paul.

Let me paraphrase you (OK- I only changed one word- the word plane to missile)

Please answer!

Can you prove your claim?
Do you have any video shows that a missile has hit the Pentagon at that day?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
This is good for American manufacturing jobs.

What a war monger you are

Commercial plane are not used for war. Only on 9/11 have they been used as weapons. This is not warmongering. Would it be warmongering if it was food being sold to Iraq? Please.