Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Stop trying get people to tell you what it WAS and just realize what it WASN'T.


Good one! Now at least try and answer the questions, I think you'll find it's all relevant.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So your saying a missile could be made to look like a 757?
Just stick some livery on a tomahawk or something?
When you say loaded with explosives to make the plane vapourise, do you mean like gallons of fuel?


It could have fired an air to ground missle just before impact just as I believed happened at the towers.

So the drone aircraft was painted to look like a commercial airliner, could have fired a missle, and perhaps been filled with explosives.

Sure maybe the jet fuel helped but it probably wouldn't have been enough to get the job done as efficiently as they wanted.

There is evidence of bombs in the builiding also.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
You realise a missile is a vehicle that carries a warhead? Why add a missile
when the aircraft is the missile? The warhead could be placed in the nose.

What caused the damage that is alleged to be from the aircrafts wings in your scenario?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
The thing you need to understand Agent smith, is that there is a differnce between ideas about how they could have pulled it off and the facts not adding up in regards to a 757.

I can theorize and be wrong about the drone, air to ground missle, explosives, whatever................but we know that whatever it was............the evidence for it being a 757 does not add up.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Good one!



No, what's a good one is your lack of participation in my 'if it does not fit' thread.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You realise a missile is a vehicle that carries a warhead? Why add a missile
when the aircraft is the missile? The warhead could be placed in the nose.

What caused the damage that is alleged to be from the aircrafts wings in your scenario?


The missle could have been fired in advance to open up the hole and ensure the entire drone enters in the building.

I believe there were additional bombs at the pentagon which is why the colums are not only kind of intact where the engine would have hit but are actually blown OUTWARDS!




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I wonder where the drone's wings are and what caused the damage claimed to be by the 757's wings.
Something must have caused it, maybe it was the drone's wings - but where are they? Where is it's tail? As we can see from various photo's it allways survives. They must have gone somewhere and they can't have been sucked into the building because that couldn't happen to the 757 so it can't happen to anything else. It must have had a significant wingspan whatever it was due to the marks on the building.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Read.

My.


Post.


Bombs.

Bombs planted in the pentagon and in the plane.

Plus they rushed away the evidence inside the pentagon and made sure pics were only taken of the planted evidence.

Quite simple really.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Did they set the bombs up to make it look like wings hit the building?
If so - how?
If not - where are the wings? Are you suggesting they are in the building? How did they get there, were they 'sucked in' - isn't that impossible?
Otherwise where else could they be? Are they vapourised into tiny fragments on the lawn? How do you know they are not 757 wings?

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did they set the bombs up to make it look like wings hit the building?


That is what I am hypothesizing....yes.

Both to make it more believable that a 757 hit and bombs on the drone craft in order to ensure it entered the building and was completely destroyed.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Except the thing is that it doesn't look like wings could have entered the building there.

It just looks like bombs went off.

See pic above.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
What did they do? Put small explosives in a line and blow them all?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
What did they do? Put small explosives in a line and blow them all?


Why are are you being so obtuse?

Perhaps so.

How am I supposed to know how they set them up?

All I know is that the columns are still somewhat intact so it doesn't look like wings actually entered there but they are kind of blown OUTWARDS so as to indicate pre-planted explosives inside the building.

Are you not looking at the picture?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Which pictures? The one's in Catherder's posts seem to show it quite well, how did they make it look like a long object hit them at such an angle?





The damage seems consistant with a long, relatively thin object hitting them. But they achieved this using explosives?

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
That is not definitive in the least.

If those marks were from the wings then they clearly did NOT enter the building.

So since there were ZERO wing chunks in front of the building we must assume the wings vaporized.

So what happened to the verticle stabilizer?

Where is the dent/mark/gouge from that?

It would have impacted 60 feet up yet there is no trace nor sign of it at all.

Why did your idol catherder ignore the massive verticle stabilizer?




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
By the way.....the ONLY thing that is consistent in those pics are the drawn in lines.

Certainly not the alleged "wing damage".

In fact it seems ridiculous to assume that this was damage from wings that completely disintigrated.

There is no basis to make this claim on catherders part.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I think you forgot how big those wings really are.

Look at those tiny dents again and then look at this.....





Not very believable man!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Smith, those really are some silly pics. The evidence of an aluminum and titanium wing impacting there at however-many hundred miles per hour is lacking.

In fact, I remember someone mocking those pictures with a picture suggesting a "Ronald McDonald impact region" or something along those lines, with a picture of Ronald McDonald juxtaposed over a part of picture just vaguely resembling the juxtaposition.

I think the reason CatHerder was banned relates to a problem stemming from this, which was the problem for which you just suggested the plane may have bounced. I kept bringing this up for CatHerder, and rather than responding reasonably, she tended more to just go ballistic and assert there was no problem with what I was seeing at all. At least you suggested an explanation for it.

While I have no idea what hit the Pentagon, it's becoming pretty clear to me now (finally) that it wasn't a 757. Those black lines do not add up at all with the hole in the building at all, and I had already realized that much before Jack put those images together. Bouncing is about the best the official story would be able to suggest on that one, and I don't even think that would very likely result in the final product there. That would cause an upwards-directed force to go into the building, whereas even the hole in the C-ring still clung tight to the ground, punched out so neatly as by explosives.

Merc, or Jack, or someone, was not the crash site evacuated for about a half hour before anyone was allowed up close? I may be wrong but I think I remember something along those lines, and that would be pretty damned suspicious from the start.

Also, you say that the plane could not have hit from ground-level because of obstacles, right? Well, for whatever did hit the Pentagon, how could it have dodged the same things to knock out the facade in such a manner? Maybe if there was a smaller wingspan, or something, I could see the obstacles being dodged by an object clinging to the ground; I don't know. I don't even know if I want to get involved with this aspect of 9/11. Whatever they did, they sure made it confusing as hell.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Pre-planted bombs in the building explains everything and matches the pictures perfectly as well.

LOOK at the columns blown OUTWARDS.

Bombs.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
But how do you explain the impact damage which is clearly present?



It is there, something caused it - how would you cause it with explosives?

It seems pretty consistant with the dimensions of the wing itself.



Maybe some of it is blown out where fuel ignited within the building?

The tail fin is angled and relatively fragile, it may have disintegrated, following the rest of the plane into the building.

And once again, even if it was some other aircraft - where is it's tailfin and the corresponding mark on the wall? You still have the same problem to prove your version.

ATC did have a contact which they tracked down to the Pentagon, as well as the countless witnesses so there had to be an aircraft of some sort at least -

Where are the holes from the alternative craft's engines?

Where are the holes from the wings and if they disintegrated with only those marks I showed visible why can they not be 757 wings?

Where is the tailfin of the 'real' aircraft and why is it possible it is not visible for some reason but the same can't apply to the 757?

How could so many people confuse a missile, disguised or not, for a 757?

What caused the circular cutout in the fence around the generator that looks the same shape and size as an engine?

In the image at the top of this post, why is the impact damage obviously caused from the outside if it was caused by bombs inside?
If it wasn't caused from the outside, how come outer layers are damaged and inner layers are intact? How do these bombs work?

What was the edged piece of something that caused those marks?

Why are you saying the columns are blown out? They look like they have tipped to the right in my opinon.





[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join