The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: Informer1958


Are you saying the damage at the pentagon is from an exploding missile?

a reply to: neutronflux

So what have you disproven? Nothing.

I am discussing the Pentagon floors, yet you just change the narrative to DNA, eyewitness accounts, laboratory analysis...

So you cannot debunk the fact that a plane weighing thousands of tons, allegedly came sliding in on the ground floors without so much as leaving a scratch on the concrete floors?

Stop moving the goal post.

The crash of a passenger jet verified by eyewitness accounts.

The fact about eyewitness accounts will not prove your allegation, because you told me, in multiple 911 threads that "eyewitness account are no longer credibal".

So now eyewitness accounts are now credibal, only when it serves you. How ironic.

a reply to: Informer1958

I am not moving anything. You are the one posting pictures of damage, uneven, and bare concrete with areas of loose and busted concrete as pre-9/11 office flooring.

Pictures of damage bare concrete that is not suitable for any office environment.

You are the one trying to pass unfinished, uneven, damage concrete striped of its flooring as proof no passenger jet crashed into the pentagon? With ignoring a real investigation starts how the victims ended up dead on the site.

a reply to: Informer1958

Again, you are practicing intellectual dishonesty.

I said eyewitness accounts not backed by physical evidence have no context. Prove I stated otherwise.

Or I have pointed out the truth movement has back one or two pentagon eyewitness with photos without providing a timeline of the photos, citing who the photographers were, or providing the photographs accounts to collaborate the movements "star" eyewitnesses. Prove I have done otherwise.

a reply to: Informer1958

Thanks for another useless debate full of items out of context.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks for another useless debate full of items out of context.

Your so welcome. Thank you, for taking my comment out of context as well.

I really found your rants quite entertaining to say the lease. That's why I can't take you seriously.

Thank you for answering all my question I asked of you with credibal sources. Especially about the Pentagon floors, those sources were so credibal.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks for another useless debate full of items out of context.

Your so welcome. Thank you, for taking my comment out of context as well.

I really found your rants quite entertaining to say the lease. That's why I can't take you seriously.

Thank you for answering all my question I asked of you with credibal sources. Especially about the Pentagon floors, those sources were so credibal.

You are the one posting photos of pentagon damage concrete floors, stripped bare of the office flooring that would have taken the abrasions of impact as what?

Photos with no timeline in relationship to 9/11. No description on the context of work that has obviously occurred. The photos show obvious shoring of the structure to allow work crews safe access.
Is it false to assume considerable work has transpired if workers had time to shore the structure, remove wreckage, the remains of office furniture, and office flooring?

One of your photos shows a considerable amounts of broken concrete with no clean edge for the start of the concrete sub floor?

Photos that show obvious damage to concrete subflooring missing its leveling agent and flooring vs you will not address eyewitness accounts collaborated by physical and DNA evidence?

Really?

a reply to: Informer1958

Back to the missile thing? How did a small missile get through the walls of the pentagon if a jet liner couldn't?

A tomahawk cruise missile with booster weights about 4,000 pounds.

The P-51 that crashed and totally fragment at the Reno air race weighed at least 6,000 pounds. (WWII production P51s weighed from 8000 pounds to 10,000 pounds.
www.mustangsmustangs.com...)

Video of P-51 totally fragmenting upon crash. youtu.be...

The crashed P-51 left a three foot deep crater with no sizable wreckage in the crater.
www.ibtimes.com...

How would a cruise missile not totally fragment on the outer wall of the pentagon and then have enough density to punch through the next wall without detonation of explosives?

How would a exploding missile punch through walls instead of creating a symmetrical blast radius?

If a missile exploded on impact on the pentagon, then why didn't the concrete floor crater into the basement?

Still claiming the pentagon concrete floors were not damaged?

a reply to: Informer1958

By the way, the P-700 Granit does weigh almost 16,000 pounds, but is only 33 inches in diameter.

So? How does a missile not even 3 feet wide knock hole after hole several feet wide in successive walls? With out exploding and creating a symmetrical blast radius? Or creating a crater into the basement?

Here is a video of a P-4 fragmenting upon a crash test. It's weight is 29,000 pounds unloaded.
youtu.be...

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I know you're absolutely correct no plane hit the pentagon and for one SUPER simple reason! If a plane hit the pentagon they would release some or all of the video they have of it. That footage hasn't been released because it doesn't show an airplane hitting the pentagon. By withholding the footage it's as good as proof, imo, that there was no airplane. Keep fighting the good fight.

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I know you're absolutely correct no plane hit the pentagon and for one SUPER simple reason! If a plane hit the pentagon they would release some or all of the video they have of it. That footage hasn't been released because it doesn't show an airplane hitting the pentagon. By withholding the footage it's as good as proof, imo, that there was no airplane. Keep fighting the good fight.

Right so you ignore the evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon because there's no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Well if that's good enough for you then keep clinging to it

a reply to: hombero

Very true, one of the most heavily observed buildings in the world the Pentagon is.

If they don't have video evidence of a plane sticking that building, or are unwilling to release such, it's probobly because it did not happen the way "they" claimed.

Which seems to imply some form of complicity and/or cover up.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Why would there be no video evidence of the plane sticking the building through?

Was there not CCTV cameras in operation?

If so where is the video evidence to corroborate there version of events?

Seems prudent if it happened the way they claim it transpired that they would release such images thus somewhat lending a modicum of credibility to there version of events.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Why would there be no video evidence of the plane sticking the building through?

Was there not CCTV cameras in operation?

If so where is the video evidence to corroborate there version of events?

Seems prudent if it happened the way they claim it transpired that they would release such images thus somewhat lending a modicum of credibility to there version of events.

What video evidence do you think there should be and why?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I think one of the most heavily observed places on earth would have active 24 hour electronic surveillance in place by 2001.

I imagine there should be multiple different video feeds from multiple different angles of that alleged Boeing 757-223 sticking the Pentagon.

Do you disagree? If so why where did they all go or are you suggesting the surveillance systems simply did not capture the event or did not exist to do so?

Edit:This is the only video evidence i can find to support the plane theory.

This film was edited to only show 1 frame per second, all the other frames seem to have been removed.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

I think one of the most heavily observed places on earth would have active 24 hour electronic surveillance in place by 2001.

I imagine there should be multiple different video feeds from multiple different angels of that alleged Boeing 757-223 sticking the Pentagon.

Do you disagree? If so why where did they all go or are you suggesting the surveillance systems simply did not capture the event or did not exist to do so?

This is the only video evidence i can find to support the plane theory

This film was edited to only show 1 frame per second, all the other frames seem to have been removed.

So you have no idea what video evidence there should be but you want it to be released

a reply to: mrthumpy

I attempted to answer your question, extend me the same courtesy please.

Why would there be no video evidence(aside from the spurious video i included) of the plane sticking the building through?

Was there not CCTV cameras in operation?

If so where is the multiple different sources of video evidence to corroborate there version of events?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy


Was there not CCTV cameras in operation?

You tell me. You seem to think that there should be some sort of video evidence so please explain what video evidence there should be and why you think that.

a reply to: mrthumpy

I dont just think it, common sense suggests there should be more evidence given the surveillance system in place.

And TPTB unwillingness to release such video evidence suggest complicity.

I have told you why and what i think. Which part are you having an issue with?