The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Not only was there the problems involved of bringing in the stage prop poles, but also taking down and hauling away the original intact poles. In the chaos; with potentially thousands of witnesses.

Wow, i had no idea that conspiracies could run so deep. There's no way they would have made a plan to rush in and remove poles and replace them with fakes in the middle of the day, thats ridiculous. People would have seen, of that I have no doubt.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

You don't even have a winning position.

You cannot prove you have viewed all the possible pentagon lawn photos for divots. Nor even prove you are not biased in the photos you selected.

Can you provide a 360 degree photo map centered around each snapped light pole to conclusively prove no divots.

Or produce an overhead photo that shows the snapped light poles in relation to each other to conclusively prove no divots.

Prove all the light poles would fly apart. Not bend over and snap where the poles became brittle from the kinck at the bend.

Prove all the light poles would strike the ground before hitting pavement, guard rails, concrete curbs, and other objects.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Prove thousand of individuals in the mentioned professions believe flight 77 DNA and remains were fabricated?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Your right, flying close to the ground caused flight 77 to nose into the pentagon.

Are you saying flying a 757 close to the ground makes it impossible to crash?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

It's also suspected you don't have a separate photo for each downed light pole. A photo that would show the downed pole and how it can to rest in relation to its damaged base.

For your narrative, I guess you really need to show each staged light pole in relationship to each empty and undamaged bade?

a reply to: neutronflux

Why would I want to see mangled bodies related to families that might want to keep the grisly pictures of their love ones off the internet? Use this link if you want to verify it. I guess it's photos of flight 77 victims submitted as evidence.....

Fact is, those photos were debunk many years ago on ATS, these photos are not of passengers from flight 77.

These men in the photos are wearing "orange jumpsuits". Not passengers, and you know that.

Pentagon bodies from Flight 77

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

You did it again. Everyone that reads these posts know what you're doing. You haven't addressed pointed questions that I have posed.

I'll make it easy for you. I will disavow every other point I made on this thread if you just answer the following questions.

1. Why did the government not release any of the videos that could put this to rest?
2. Where is the mark on the lawn from the airplane.
3. Why was Lloyd England's car set up for a photo op in twi different spots with his cab and pole.
4. Where are the 150 plus passengers luggage?
5. Where are the airliners seats?

Answer the questions.

I'll wait.

AAC

Your right, flying close to the ground caused flight 77 to nose into the pentagon.

You're*

Are you saying flying a 757 close to the ground makes it impossible to crash?

No one in the history of this subject has ever asserted that. Maybe you just don't understand this subject. That would make so much more sense.

AAC

The biggest problems with this thread.

Why would the US steal a missile that had no guarantee of working do to damage from an exploding submarine, salt water damage, no scheduled preventative maintenance, and tending systems unavailable? On top of no certainty of getting the thing to work or repair parts. Or the missile might be contaminated from a sunken nuclear sub?

The flight 77 remains/DNA, eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence that coincided with each other to prove flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Not able to prove all pentagon lawn photos examined for the possibility of lawn divots, nor any proof the author of this post would share anything but photos that support the biased view.

No proof the light poles would hit the lawn before hitting pavement, guard rails, concrete curbs, or other objects. (Why would the light poles only hit lawn? Why would it be guarantied each light pole would leave a divot.)

Not even a picture of each light pole in question in relation to the lawn.

No photos to show how each downed light pole came to rest in relationship to its damaged base. (For the staged light poles narrative, pictures of each staged light pole in relationship to empty and undamaged bases.)

Lloyd's taxi could have been moved or towed for any reason. Without testimony from the photographer of the invoked photos, context of events around each photo, and time stamps, there is no why to determined when and why the taxi was moved.

Pentagon witness wrote to group over concerns of them using Lloyd's account, and stated Lloyd is wrong. And the author of the lettet concerning Lloyd stated a passenger jet hit the pentagon. (If the accusations of a murderous 9/11 government are true, why leave Lloyd as a loose end?)

a reply to: Informer1958

You and I both already know what neutronflux is really doing here. I'm just having fun watching him scramble to make any semblance of sense.

Yes, you're right. He also did the same thing earlier when he posted evidence from a site that he didn't source because the source actually debunked what he was implying. He is not being honest.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

You said flight 77 could not fly close to the ground and I stated you are right because it nosed into the pentagon? If it couldn't fly that close to the ground, it wouldn't crash into the pentagon?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

You said flight 77 could not fly close to the ground and I stated you are right because it nosed into the pentagon? If it couldn't fly that close to the ground, it wouldn't crash into the pentagon?

Except you left out that huge variable called G force. The plane descended from round 500 feet (per report) and then had to pull up (G force) in time to elevate perfectly over the ground, without making a mark in the lawn, for over 200 meters until it crashed into the Pentagon.

Physicists have already deemed that impossible. And I'm supposed to listen to your point of view?

Nope.

AAC

a reply to: neutronflux

Why would the US steal a missile that had no guarantee of working do to damage from an exploding submarine, salt water damage, no scheduled preventative maintenance, and tending systems unavailable? On top of no certainty of getting the thing to work or repair parts.

They wouldn't.
It's just silly to think it's even a possibility.
The military has it's own missiles if they wanted to use them.
It's hard to take a thread seriously when half the participants don't understand how wrenches and nuts and bolts work.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

he either doesn't understand the subject or is attempting to filibuster this entire discussion.

in b4 "this comment was removed to prevent thread-drift."

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Me?

Can you produce any photos to support your claims on light poles by showing pictures that give context of downward poles in relationship to the lawn and originating bases.

You are the one making allegations of murder? Burden of proof is on you.

And you cannot even prove why the light poles would only hit lawn?

And you cannot prove you looked at every pentagon lawn photo for divots, nor do it unbiasedly?

a reply to: D8Tee

Except for the whole part that all missiles, many that use depleted uranium and other proprietary technology, would be identifiable and recoverable from a crash site.

How hard is that to understand?

AAC

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

he either doesn't understand the subject or is attempting to filibuster this entire discussion.

in b4 "this comment was removed to prevent thread-drift."

I know who and what he is. He keeps ignoring my point questions that he cannot answer.

It's funny.

I told him I would disavow every other point if he would just answer my 5 questions. He refuses.

Because, well, you know why.

AAC

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: D8Tee

Except for the whole part that all missiles, many that use depleted uranium and other proprietary technology, would be identifiable and recoverable from a crash site.

How hard is that to understand?

AAC

Oh, so missiles are identifiable unless it's a Russian missile?
What makes the Russian missile special?
How silly....