757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 39
20
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I have seen videos explaining this before. This one deinately is more understandable to newcomers then the others. I couldn't get the first one to work. Would like to tho.

I beleive that the pentegon was in fact a missile or something. The photo that shows a peice of the hull doesn't even look like it was burned by the fire at all. If it did come from the plane, a blast like that (if it was a plane) should have left some black marks.

I don't argue with beople who beleive the official story,but I do show my beliefs. Thanks for the vid. Now I think I willo bye the book

Oh and he poses the question of why the media didn't say much about building 7. I honestly did not know it collapsed till I found this site. Thanks be to ATS.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

One could assume, not unreasonably, that the initially damaged masonry and steel reinforcing was intentionally separated and pulled away from the column during stabilization efforts, to accomodate the support cribbing.


Uh huh.

But the column was clearly NOT breeched by a wing attached to a 90 ton jet airliner.



Again, I ask you, what do you think caused the pre-collapse damage if not AA77?


Pre-planted explosives exactly like at the WTC.

You didn't know that was our hypothesis?

You know my research partner's first name so I figured you would at least be aware of what we assert caused the damage to the building.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Timmyboi23

I beleive that the pentegon was in fact a missile or something.


They wanted you to think that.

Rumsfeld was the first one to call it a missile.

The manipulated security video was made to look like there was a missile.

There was no missile.

Check out my signature.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Plus, the wrong color primer was on part of the "debris" metal stated to be their alleged 757. The year of the plane, alleged to have done the damge, did not have that color primer used in the year it was manufacturered



Not according to Boeing....


According to what follows below, my statement is true as originally reported from Peter Tiradera's book. Lime green primer was not certified to be used until the year 2000. The alleged 757 was manufactured in 1991 when dark green primer was still being used:


N644AA (the Pentagon plane) was built in 1991
which is NINE WHOLE YEARS
BEFORE
that lime-green exterior paint entered general usage as a primer at Boeing.


As far as RR engines, please cite your substantiation in claiming plane number N644AA had RR engines.

www.democraticunderground.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Sigh....okay, here is a link to the FAA's site with the tail number history showing that airframe 757-223, serial number 24602, built in 1991 and delivered to American Airlines, had Rolls Royce RB.211 series engines.

Of course Im sure that super author Peter Tiradera has an answer to that too. Did you know that he was also a CIA assasin with Gene Barrie?

You can quote him talking about primer paint all you want, does not mean its true. He says it is, Boeing says it isnt....SO, I think I will stick with BOEING.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
oops...got carried away with my sarcasm...

registry.faa.gov...



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



OK , Craig, so what caused the smoke trail seen on the five frames? If nothing was launched at the Pentagon what was that thing that made the smoke that looked like a missle? Just curious.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



OK , Craig, so what caused the smoke trail seen on the five frames? If nothing was launched at the Pentagon what was that thing that made the smoke that looked like a missle? Just curious.


You mean the strange thick squiggly smoke trail that is not reported by a single witness?

The one seen in ONE frame only that doesn't even cast a shadow while everything else in the video does?



No evidence that was controlled and provided for by the suspect should be considered valid.

They leaked that video for reason and it has been incredibly successful.

People have been so hung up on using this grainy government controlled data that is dubious to the naked eye as a means to figure out what happened and it deliberately puts you on the wrong track.

You are playing right into their hands.

Everyone in Arlington saw a large plane.

Naturally they all think the missile conspiracies are crazy.

That is why Lagasse was willing to talk to me. He KNEW he saw a plane on the north side and he KNEW that the missile theories are bunk.

He was there and so was everyone else we spoke with.

You were kept spinning your wheels about a missile making us seem nuts when the real smoking gun is in the flight path.

Trust me if I had found ANY evidence for a missile I would have reported it.

There is simply no valid evidence for it.

The physical damage does NOT match a 757 but it does not match a missile either.

click here for large composite image showing damage



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The physical damage does NOT match a 757 but it does not match a missile either.

click here for large composite image showing damage




Craig Ranke CIT

I am going to be keeping an eye on you, thus far you have presented the most interesting facts and proof to back up all of your claims.

You are making a great case on a 757 did not Hit the Pentagon.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

RT


[edit on 2-2-2008 by Realtruth]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Of course Im sure that super author Peter Tiradera has an answer to that too. Did you know that he was also a CIA assasin with Gene Barrie?


I have no idea what that has to do with primer paint color, or the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, or how it relates to any book authored by Peter Tiradera. Plus, you failed to substantiate any such claim. It is not as if many people are not aware of the covert activities of CIA agents. If all you are attempting to do is unreasonably discredit the author, it failed to work that way on me. I highly suspect it will not work on other reasonable persons either.



You can quote him talking about primer paint all you want, does not mean its true. He says it is, Boeing says it isnt....SO, I think I will stick with BOEING.


You will have to take up your complaint with Boeing. Because if you had bothered to access the website, you would have noted the information, concerning primer paint colors and year places in use of lime green, came directly from Boeing.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, my questions are to those still believing any 757 hit the Pentagon. Thank you for providing the marked photos.

In reference to the photos, what is circled in yellow appears to be still sitting there in the next frame. There is something phony about those photos. I cannot pinpoint exactly what it is. It is all wrong for actual footage. It seeams too 1-D to me, including, as you, Craig, so aptly pointed out, the lack of shadows, particularly, when shadows fall in the wrong direction.

They are lacking construction trailers, equipment, and materials. If the footage is real, why is there an explosion before the thing circled in yellow allegedly travels that far? Or am I not viewing it correctly?

I see what is alleged to be a white smoke trail. But what would be putting out a white smoke trail? I have never witnessed a commercial jetliner putting out a white smoke trail. I have had many of them flying directly overhead landing at Cleveland Hopkins, and seen many of them taking off.

That type of smoke trail would have been low enough to the ground to block our vision on Route 480 or 17 (Brook Park Road). Except on cold days, why would any engine be putting out a heavy white smoke trail at all?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


That type of smoke trail would have been low enough to the ground to block our vision on Route 480 or 17 (Brook Park Road). Except on cold days, why would any engine be putting out a heavy white smoke trail at all?


Well exactly.

But that is why so many people try to suggest it was a missile which is exactly what they wanted you to think and why Rumsfeld was the first one to state that a missile hit the Pentagon.

But as you can tell the data is dubious to the naked eye.

Even if that weren't the case it is invalid evidence anyway because it was controlled and supplied solely by the suspect.

The only way to solve this case is with independently obtained evidence like what CIT provides.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

You are making a great case on a 757 did not Hit the Pentagon.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

RT




Thanks man.

The reason is because we have conducted an investigation and obtained hard evidence proving how this deception was carried out.

We gave up staring at pictures and theorizing and we went there to find out for real what happened.

After speaking with dozens of witnesses, victims, first responders, and clear deliberate liars we are certain that we have a pretty good handle on what went down in general.

Our next presentation is going to really help make this more clear for everyone.

In fact I better get to work I have a lot of editing to do!



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


I'll have to check it out later.

All the security camera footage has never be released.

Plane parts on the ground did not go in supposed airlines.

All crash site plane parts were called inconsistent with the
supposed airliner. Thus the no plane people.
What about a different plane, that seems most evident.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Plane parts on the ground did not go in supposed airlines.

All crash site plane parts were called inconsistent with the
supposed airliner.


This is simply not true.

They planted the correct parts that fit a 757.

There were barely any and most are untraceable to ANY type of aircraft but the wheel rim, landing gear, and combustion case most certainly DO fit a 757.

It's important to not repeat the bad information that is floating around out there.

Stick to facts folks.

Here is the totality of the somewhat significant sized pieces reported:



They were planted.

The most famous piece has rivet holes with no rivets!




Notice how when rivets are removed indentations are left:



None of the holes in that piece have rivets or indentations.

It was never on a plane.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
It should also be noted that this dubious image showed up out of nowhere just last year with no valid source.



There is no proof this is REALLY from the Pentagon, or an authentic image at all since there is no known photographer or source but even if it is a legitimate photo any of these parts could have been easily put in a secure never before used room even months in advance during the "renovation".



[edit on 2-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Could you please give us a plausible explanation of your hypothesis as to how an alleged 757 did not do the following at the Pentagon?:


It's not for me, but I'll take it anyway.




1. Did not touch any of those huge spools of construction material or construction trailers.

These two were not untouched.

Close-up of the left one - top seems flattened down, cable/tubing seems unravelled as well, which indicates to me this one rolled or spun a bit.

As for the others, this isn't perfect for scale/angle etc..

but you get the picture, right? This thing wasn't a cube.
And the trailers, besides the famous flaming generator:

Does this look untouched? How about this chunk of metal found right by there but INSIDE the Pentagon?

more details here.




2. Did not appear to break many, if any, vertical supports in the Pentagon wall.

Graphic done by Murru, I hope using it is okay. Compiled from combined photos, an excellent job except where noted by me in red.

If any? It would seem you've been had. See interior photo below of column 9B - stripped to spiral reinforcements, rattled loose of much concrete, and horribly bowed inwards (bowed on plane's roufg traj), looking like a snake skeleton hanging there...




3. Did not do any trenching across the Pentagon campus lawn to allegedly impact at belly ground level.

True, this point. As most airplanes do, this one was flying in the air, not the dirt. It was flying until it hit the wall. Therefore... no gouges. Except where the engines hung down and hit thing right above ground level. The lowest anything got was the left engine. It did this:

And this:

Yes! Foundation Damage!



4. Left so many unbroken windows at the site of the highest carbon residue concencentration, which is the point of alleged entry of a 757.

Carbon what? I'd think a 757 impact would be the main problem for windows. The ones in the renovated section stood up remarkably. They're kick-ass windows, I'm guessing, since everything else indicates a Boeing impact, then they survived that intact.
Another FX oversight? They can blow up the generator, rip the fence down, make everything cartoony and forget to break enough windows?



5. Did not leave any evidence, on the campus lawn, of any 757 at the time of explosion as shown in the US bureaucracy's own photo frames from video.

I think this has been covered enough now. Long story short - most of the plane flew INTO the building.




[edit on 3-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Simply stated. Look at the building. Where is the catastrophic fire that should have occured? As for the debris, Do you know how much debris a 757 leaves upon a high-speed descent / crash? And yes you would see pieces of the wing, fuselage, etc.
I give up. What the hell...... conspiracy or not, it led to a war and the war is skewed. WTF'eva.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by sir_stinky_pinky]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Your image is not only post collapse but it's many days later after clean-up had started.

In fact if you look closely in your image you can see how they even already added these supports:




The damage was NOT consistent.





You can't use a post collapse photo if you are trying to assert it was from the alleged impact.

catherder used the same image for the same reason and it's deceived many 10's of thousands of people.

Please don't help.

There is nothing possible about the damage to the Pentagon in relation to a 757 impact.


Wow! Talk about going from a possibly true and relevant point to making sweeping opinionated generalizations. And that is fine we each have our way. I've seen you try to make this point before and I'm still not convinced. The main thing to me about the original photo is the apparent 'push' of the 2nd floor portion IN relative to the lower column, which you feel must have been done somehow during the cleanup.

First, if your theory here is true, it can't hardly be a coincidence that the damage happens to match the alleged wing edge impact. This would have o have been fakery, not a backhoe mishap.

Second, on your insistence this push was not there; it appears in the top photo due to the angle of view - we need some side view to see if that push is there. All your counter-shots are taken face-on, so it's inconclusive. Unless you can show a pre-collapse photo from a side angle that shows all is flush, and given that the other damage features there (removed facade, brick, concrete, exposed reinforcements, etc) are all there in all shots (worsening of course after collapse) then I'm gonna have to keep going with this damage being incurred in the initial event, be it 757 attack or psy-op catapult work, or whatever.

ETA: The major offset was not done in impact - I figured that out once and forgot. Rather in the collapse it split along that point, upper part in, lower part out, perhaps along an existing fraucture area that would be, again part of the wing damage that held as long at the building did, like a broken leg that only really gives when you run on it.

We'll never agree of course so I'm not even arguing here, just going on the record again.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


I have a question on that. How is it an entire alleged 757 "swallowed" by the Pentagon, and yet the vertical supports are still standing? Exactly what size hole accomodated an enitre 757 without taking out the vertical steel supports?

I do not see one on any part of the the front Pentagon wall. The vertical steel supports are blocking any hole for necessary size. Surely an alledged 757 had to take out vertical supports to be "swallowed whole. How else could it reaspmably gain entire entry?





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join