757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
My powers of observation are OK. Your video begins with a collapsed building. I see a few seconds of burning structure later but with no fire fighting activity included in the frame. Please give me the time reference in the video you want me to look at.
[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

Ok, i will try to make it as easy as i can for you.

From 00:00 to 00:20 Water being sptayed on fire (before collapse)

Dude...the building is collapsed in the begining of the clip. The clip is obvioulsy not chronologically sequential. Look closer.

[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

This is how the building looked pre-collapse....compare it to how the bldg looks at the begining of your video clip.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Dude...the building is collapsed in the begining of the clip. The clip is obvioulsy not chronologically sequential. Look closer.

[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

Please look at the counter as you watching the video. The collapse does not occur untill the counter reaches 00:40. Thats 40 seconds into the video.

The first seconds of the vidoe show water being spayed on the fires. I guess i will just have to break down into photos or show you more videos and photos.

Give me a minute to bring up another video.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You're begining to piss me off, not because of your stance or beliefs but because you're accusing me of not being able to comprehend visual images when obviously you are having trouble interpretting what you're seeing.

Look....here are two pictures showing pre- collapse and post collpase. The begining of your video shows a collapsed building. Your clip has been spliced and edited...it is not temporally sequential.

pre collapse


post

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You're begining to piss me off, not because of your stance or beliefs but because you're accusing me of not being able to comprehend visual images when obviously you are having trouble interpretting what you're seeing.

Oh, i see you do have a photo of watger being sprayed on the fire before the collapse.

Ok, while you wait here are some photos of water (NOT FOAM) being sprayed on the fire (PRE-COLLAPSE).

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You're begining to piss me off, not because of your stance or beliefs but because you're accusing me of not being able to comprehend visual images when obviously you are having trouble interpretting what you're seeing.

Ok, while you wait here are some photos of water (NOT FOAM) being sprayed on the fire (PRE-COLLAPSE).

i114.photobucket.com...

1) how do you know what is being sprayed?
2) What do you think all that white stuff on the side of the building is?

[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Ok, while you wait here are some photos of water (NOT FOAM) being sprayed on the fire (PRE-COLLAPSE).

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...
[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

By the by...thats a foam truck in your pictures.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
1) how do you know what is being sprayed?
2) What do you think all that white stuff on the side of the building is?

[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

Well for 1, foam does not mist up like water.

I can't afford to waste one more second of my life conversing with you.
Best of luck.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I can't afford to waste one more second of my life conversing with you.
Best of luck.

Oh its not a foam truck. Airport trucks mostly carry water, some have another smaller tank of foam on them.

Oh i see you can not debate me on the fact that you not see any debris or parts in the video, before or after collapse.



[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I can't afford to waste one more second of my life conversing with you.
Best of luck.

Oh i see you can not debate me on the fact that you not see any debris or parts in the video.

Thats right...I saw no debris in your video clip. Did you see the debris in the photo I posted?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Thats right...I saw no debris in your video clip. Did you see the debris in the photo I posted?

I can not tell at the distance if its buidling or plane debris. Where are the parts?

[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Thats right...I saw no debris in your video clip. Did you see the debris in the photo I posted?

I can not tell at the distance if its buidling or plane debris. Where are the parts?

[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You can't tell if the big piece of aluminum thats paintedin AA colors on one side, and airframe primer on the other, in the upper right quadrant of this picture is a piece of an airplane?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You can't tell if the big piece of aluminum thats paintedin AA colors on one side, and airframe primer on the other, in the upper right quadrant of this picture is a piece of an airplane?

Well i was talking about the photo you posted with the red block.

So where is all the other debris that should be there?

1. Like wing debris (since thier is no holes for the wings to go through the wall)

2. Enigne debris (no hole for engines to go through wall)

3. Where is the debris from the tail, should at least have the Tungsten counterweights.

4. Where are the debris and parts you would expect to find from a 60 ton plane?

Where do you think that piece of fuselage came from?

Planted?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Where do you think that piece of fuselage came from?

Planted?

Well thats a good point. But since we do not have the detailed reports we do not know what part or type of plane it is from.

What about the other parts and pieces i asked about ?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Where do you think that piece of fuselage came from?
Planted?

Where do you think the engines went?

You know, rotor hubs, rotor shafts, engine casings?

None of which would burn up in a fire.

Your argument about the piece of aluminum is not going to get you anywhere. Just saying the word 'planted?', as if it's such a far-fetched idea that the part could have been planted, is not adding anything to the discussion.

We get it, you buy the official story, hook, line and sinker. The rest of us can see the possibility that the part was indeed planted, and added to all the other anomalies, see that something is VERY wrong with what we are being told.

Call it intuition, gut feeling, whatever. When you take a collection of evidence, and put them together, then it's easy to make good educated guesses as to what happened. So until someone can show me the 757, that supposedly hit the pentagoon, then I will have to deduct that the piece of fuselage was planted. Along with all the other conveniently small, manageable, and easily plantable parts we have seen.

Planted?

[edit on 29/4/2007 by ANOK]

By chance, does anyone know if there is a picture or film of the Plane that hit the Pentagon prior to 9/11?

Some stock footage perhaps? Or a picture?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Please post a picture showing the outward blown columns.

This picture is from a de-bunking site (yes I do read those too). I do not buy there comments. You can clearly see columns knocked to the left and out wards. They also mention in that article that the damage shows whatever hit the pentacon was at ground level. So then we have the problem of the 757 engines, which would have to be bellow ground level for the planes nose to hit the pentagoon at ground level.

So where is the damage to the lawn from this, and WHERE ARE THE ENGINES!?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Please post a picture showing the outward blown columns.

This picture is from a de-bunking site (yes I do read those too). I do not buy there comments. You can clearly see columns knocked to the left and out wards.

Becuse a question has allegedly finally been answered I have to weigh in. I had alway thought when you mention outward blown columns, you meant by the "plane," and illustrating outward bomb damage as opposed to inward plane damage.

This photo is of pylons on the second floor, a floor above where the left wing/engine would have entered were there a 757 banking as reported. Furthermore, this is a post-collapse picture, meaning the pylons were as likely tipped by the collapse and NOT the plane. This proves roughly nothing.

And as usual your other questions have been answered if you really care to dig back.