757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
kix

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
If that's all you got kix then you can label me as a zombie. The lighting conditions aren't similar in the comparison photos, they're also not of the same quality. As for the AA paint scheme look at this

OMG! Gray paint! Who'd have thunk it? and on an AA Jet at that.
Swallow that hook, line, and sinker.


That my friend is an Airbus A300 (remember the one that fell on Queens? NY)

For your info Airbus makes the fuselage of composite bonding and the result is a green fuselage, and in the case of the A300 it has to be painted GREY, in case of BOEING planes the 767 and the 757 both have shinny metalic surfaces, and there has not been one 767 or 757 in AA history to be painted in grey so google all you want DAY AND NIGHT and show me a 757-200 of American Airlines in grey but to be expedite Ill give you the registration number of the "SUPPOSEDLY" 757-200 that crashed into the pentagon.

Number N644AA

you can search airliners net and see pictures of the Aircraft and guess what?

ITS SILVER BARE METAL !!!!

HOOK LINE AND SINKER, for those who like to be played like a cheap piano by Zombies..

Keep trying..... you are truly pathetic, as some armchair flying experts here.... not even the same plane... what will be next?

Ill say it again THAT PART DOES NOT COME FROM A AA 757 PERIOD. CLEAR?




posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I've just started to watch this video and will respond to it after I watch it, it looks like it's going to be a good one!



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Ahem... the last several words I have for this thread:
Apologies foor the dealy! I see all is going as expected in my absence.

Originally posted by hoppy
Are any of these eyewitness accounts the ones in which you are referring to?
www.geocities.com...

I can't speak for Swampfox, but that’s a good list. Feel free to look into these wild, uneducated, government-paid LIES in that list. It's accounts of people that saw a silver AA 757 HIT the building, and not just the people ON the flight path, behind the plane, where CIT’s “flyover maneuver” MIGHT work – also people perpendicular to the path who would’ve seen it pull up first and guessed a flyover even through the explosion – or even seen it pass by themselves! How many reports of either have I yet seen? Zero. Everyone agrees from visual cues and audio (jet noise-explosion-silence) that the plane ended right there.

Look, this is ridiculous and several of you at least know that damn well. We start with a a video offering to “Realtruth” just “what I have been waiting for.” Well wait no longer! The Director’s Cut is finally out! Release date, Nov. 2004. in the two and a half years since then 911 In plane Site has become seen by most as a joke, a parody of “truthers,” and its makers are laughing their asses of at you all. Loose Change people were already embarrassed by IPS before they even really got going in mid-’05. It’s been flayed again and again for its RIDICULOUS errors in evidence, presentation, everything. Google search for six minutes and you’ll see what I mean – most reports span from “interesting but flawed” to “nothing in it is right.” No middle ground, then on the other side, inexplicable fawning praise with not one bad word. Lemme guess which reviews, if any, “Realtruth” has read.

“Watching the "In Plane Site" video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially.” - Steven Jones, Ph.D.

This video, we hear, will offer “hard visible proof.” Hard – ly proof. I’ve been over it many times, obsessively. I know every error and can snap them up in a jiffy. Did so twice. Did you even look at the visualizations I offered twice now and I’ve seen no responses to? Is there some disconnect between the planes of reality we all are moving on here? The only true stroke of genius spurred by this turd, and it's danced around.


Originally posted by Realtruth
(paraphrase) Johnlear blah blah Johnlear, thanks Johnlear, Johnlear the genius and all-knowing, blah blah thanx Johnlear.


We stick with what we know, and “Realtruth” refuses to look beneath the roof, until he’s sure he won’t have to see a big bad plane there - don’t worry Johnlear took it away for you, based on FDR data that, best as I can see (and I admit the numbers confuse me), doesn’t match across the board from source-to-source, is full of errors and unclear sourcing, and appears at least partly faked by P49T or a friend. I don’t wanna harp on that possibility until I sort it out better, but it’s already been put forth, so… but it’s proof of what you want to hear so it’s good as gold…

Speaking of gold, lets move on to silver:

Kix: “Ill say it again THAT PART DOES NOT COME FROM A AA 757 PERIOD. CLEAR?”

Loud and clear. This is still based on the gray paint you invented, right? It’s a silver scrap, reflecting the sky I guess, which is blue-gray from the smoke of burning jet fuel… All parts found were SILVER like an AA 757. Am I coming thru clear?

To sum up:

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
I don't think it's quite dead yet. I'd give it 24 hours before issuing the death certificate

We didn't synch watches or anything, but as I see it, this thread was DOA. Stillborn. All doubts of that now cleared up. And yet it moves! Who's the zombies now?


Originally posted by Realtruth
“The story of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon is supported only by uneducated people who buy into the total erroneous proposition that the Boeing 757 distintegrated into a billion pieces. Hah.


I’ve only counted like a hundred or so, but the wings appear to be in many thousands of pieces… well short of a billion, but I am one of the uneducated zombies and cannot count so high duuuuhhhh…. (wiping drool) No video proof minus all good evidence, minus common sense, plus IPS and your genius John Lear = no 757. Of course. I stand friggin’ corrected. Proof is, after all, in the eye of the beholder, as is the value of evidence. This ‘discussion” is dead for cred, I’m outta here, enjoy your evidence-proof, proof evident li’l world friends. Reality is just what you make it… so make it as kooky as you like and while you're at it, please make it so the lies are stopped, the criminals hanged, and the world more sane, please. If at all possible. I leave it in your hands to find who didn't fly that plane into the Pentagon and what we shouldn't do about it.

(last post for real, but I can still edit: I'm rather enjoying the Pharoah sandwich effect here :lol

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I remember them talking about something being attached to the planes that hit the twin towers but it was supressed, IMO it does look like something was attached.

Here is a video with proof that's saying there were two planes at the same time that flew from different direction on the pentagon and one swooped off before hitting it. It's a very good addendum to this video IMO.

Here's the Link

Video Link : video.google.com...

[edit on 18-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
[removed quote of entire previous post]




Nope. The witnesses don't claim there were two planes. The film makers did for some reason......



Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   


Does anyone think your credible on this site?.........probably not, except for the guy that looks at you in the mirror. Your a legend in your own mind.


Nope, Im not a legend, and I would never claim to be. As to if anyone considers me credible, I honestly could care less. At the end of the day, I laugh at the goofy theories I read on here. They all rely deeply on flawed premises, even John Lear's.. You can trot out his comments and "credentials" all you want to, doesnt make them the truth. But, by all means, keep posting the goofy theories, especially about what jet aircraft can and cannot do, THOSE really are the best.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Alright, Here is a picture of the hole the alleged 757 hit the Pentagon.

Now where are the wing marks on either side and from what I know about planes they do have wings, so why is the sign still hanging on the left side of the building?


files.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 18-3-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I belive that hole was the interior ring.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Here is another statement from John Lear that make a lot of sense.

Why would I take his word for it, he has dedicated his life to airplanes/pilot and anything that is remotely related to aerospace.


John Lear Quote




Quoted by John Lear

OK. Please know this. I have been a pilot for almost 50 years. No airman has more FAA certificates than I do. I had over 19,000 hours when I retired in 2001, 16,000 in large jets. I have participated in many crash investigations.
I have built airplanes, I have flown them, I have instructed in them, I have raced them and I have crashed them. The hypothesis that the wings and tail and fuel from a Boeing 757 disintegrated from the high kinectic energy of impact is pure, unadulterated, unmitigated B.S.




[edit on 18-3-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
One tidbit in regards to colors on aircraft. There has been mention of Green colors etc.

An aircraft is often delivered "green" This is in reference to a coating applied at the assembly point to protect the aluminum skin untill the paint is applied.



"Commercial airplane skin panels arrive at Boeing covered with a temporary protective coating to protect the metal from damage or corrosion during the manufacturing and assembly processes," said Bill Dill, decorative paint manager in Commercial Airplanes' Everett, Wash., factory. "This is where the term 'green airplane' comes from; it references the green protective coating and implies that the product is unfinished, awaiting our handiwork."

www.boeing.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
One tidbit in regards to colors on aircraft. There has been mention of Green colors etc.

An aircraft is often delivered "green" This is in reference to a coating applied at the assembly point to protect the aluminum skin untill the paint is applied.



A lot of cruise missiles are green too and most military ordinance anywhere in the world is most likely green. I am not saying the US attacked itself, but I am saying there is a possibility that it was an outside cruise missile.

www.usswisconsin.org...

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Realtruth]


kix

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Speaking of gold, lets move on to silver:

Kix: “Ill say it again THAT PART DOES NOT COME FROM A AA 757 PERIOD. CLEAR?”

Loud and clear. This is still based on the gray paint you invented, right? It’s a silver scrap, reflecting the sky I guess, which is blue-gray from the smoke of burning jet fuel… All parts found were SILVER like an AA 757. Am I coming thru clear?




Not really clear and not even loud.....so let me re ask 4 questions:

1) Grey paint I invented? dont make me laugh, the photo clearly shows a grey piece that clearly does not belong to a 757, and to top it off the rivets and the breaking and tearing do not coincide, on a crash like that, the piece would have been burned, be broken at the rivets (E.G. similar to the little holes the checks from the government you must recieve for your disinfo) so they break at those points.
2)The sky that day was clear and there was no smoke in the whole sky, if the piece was bare metal (silver) youd se differeces, and to my eyes its dull grey (matte if you like)
3) All parts like .....? I havet seen 200 photos of parts, not a single seat, titanium blade or such....ah now I get it! , the plane disintegrated..he he he he and the only good photo we have of the fuselage doesnt match not even in the letters....
4) If I were to believe that that part belongs to a 757 and survived unburned and its "alegedly" from the front part (due to the fake lettering), How come we dont have any pieces of the rudder or the tail heck even the APU or a part that structuraly was better insolated from the hit....
WE DONT HAVE THEM, We dont have photos, and we wont will, because there were none...

Your rants are pathetic, the part is grey (even the swamp guy put a photo of a grey A300 (hook line and sinker) because even he could see the part grey and fell for it, now you may need some visit to the ophtalmologist, to check your eyes or get some lenses because CLEARLY you need them..

try harder..



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Oops my bad. I'm awful at actually readin threads carefully - I just skim and do the gestalt thing. It's usually efficient enough...
the Carl Sagan quote is apropos. Yet we're confronted with "billions and bilions of fraudsters."


I just skim and do the gestalt thing. It's usually efficient enough...

except when looking for evidence . you just killed your own bs. sorry .



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I couldn't care less about whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, as I think this arguement will rage on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Anyway, you guys claim Ground effect is evidence a 757 didn't hit? Hardly.
The ground effect won't make the plane hard to control unless it's a T-tail aircraft.

www.airliners.net...



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Anyway, you guys claim Ground effect is evidence a 757 didn't hit? Hardly.
The ground effect won't make the plane hard to control unless it's a T-tail aircraft.

www.airliners.net...


Well think about the turbulance thats comming off a 757 doing 500 mph feet off the ground, and jet blast.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Anyway, you guys claim Ground effect is evidence a 757 didn't hit? Hardly.
The ground effect won't make the plane hard to control unless it's a T-tail aircraft.

www.airliners.net...


Well think about the turbulance thats comming off a 757 doing 500 mph feet off the ground, and jet blast.

Flight control surfaces have more authority at high speeds, and in my opinion, the faster you go the easier the plane will fly.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I wish I could say that I was suprised by that, but I am not. Very few people want to do research into the witnesses at the Pentagon that day.


Hey Swamp you must have this info in your files somewhere, like bookmarked or something?

Lets see these witnesses that saw a 757, or again you're just making empty claims. See how that works?


Here you go.....
They Saw the Aircraft



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Alright, Here is a picture of the hole the alleged 757 hit the Pentagon.

Now where are the wing marks on either side and from what I know about planes they do have wings, so why is the sign still hanging on the left side of the building?


files.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 18-3-2007 by Realtruth]


That's the punch out point on the inner ring. This is the entry point. Rough outline of a 757 in yellow.



For a clearer understanding of the dynamics invloved in the crash you might want to visit this website:

What happened to the tail of the plane?



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
4) If I were to believe that that part belongs to a 757 and survived unburned and its "alegedly" from the front part (due to the fake lettering), How come we dont have any pieces of the rudder or the tail heck even the APU or a part that structuraly was better insolated from the hit....
WE DONT HAVE THEM, We dont have photos, and we wont will, because there were none...


Kix - I'm sure you've seen tho photos is Catherders thread, that show landing gear struts, wheel rims, and Rolls Royce engine parts. If you haven't, check out the thread again.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Excellent post and info! Thanks.

One more thing that people are missing that is really obvious. Does everyone see the big electrical wire spools that are about 6 feet high that are there pre-pentagon attack and after?

Well those are made of a hard composite plastic or light gauge aluminum, if fuel would have atomized from the impact of the wings from a 757 those spools would have melted quickly.




Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Realtruth
Alright, Here is a picture of the hole the alleged 757 hit the Pentagon.

Now where are the wing marks on either side and from what I know about planes they do have wings, so why is the sign still hanging on the left side of the building?


files.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 18-3-2007 by Realtruth]


That's the punch out point on the inner ring. This is the entry point. Rough outline of a 757 in yellow.



For a clearer understanding of the dynamics invloved in the crash you might want to visit this website:

What happened to the tail of the plane?





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join