How they got away with it...

Human nature. It is human nature to fight with each other. That picture I just posted, that's actually in debate to this day. I simply cannot believe that the claim that a jet airliner created that hole is in debate.

You would have to have motive against your fellow man to argue this point IMHO.

Oh I have heard all the debates about the 'Pentacon' both for and against, and yet the only explanation for this particular picture is that the rest of the plane vaporized on impact, minus what went through that extremely small hole.

I wish i had a time machine and a voice recorder. I would go back into time and show you this picture and ask you if a 7x7 jetliner made that hole.

You have a preconceived notion post 911. You were told it was a plane and you bought it. The reason you bought it was because on the news that day you were shown videos of a single jet aircraft smashing into the world trade center.

On the history channel special that was aired in august (and then again) one of the main points made by supporters of the official story is that 'people just want to be right, they just want to know something you do not.' I sincerely believe this, however i also sincerely believe that this is present on both sides of the fence.

Ladies and gentleman, an elaborate story must be concocted just to get the jet into that hole. Why? ask yourself what powerful force pursuaded you to forget what your eyes are telling you and listen to what someone is telling you.

Debate it if you will, I think this is ludacris.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by Mirthful Me]

I think most people who look into this realize it was a hoax story. I know I have no doubt whatsoever that the official story was a big lie and cover up.

The implications of it are pretty massive, but it will take time for people to digest it. I heard that now, 10 YEARS after Dianas murder, they have started a investigation...

Bush will probably be dead of old age before the truth comes out on this one (officially).

Oh, and shameless link to the best documentary about 9/11: Link.


[edit on 7-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Ladies and gentleman, an elaborate story must be concocted just to get the jet into that hole. Why? ask yourself what powerful force pursuaded you to forget what your eyes are telling you and listen to what someone is telling you.

Debate it if you will, I think this is ludacris.

You are confirming that you really have no grasp of the subject matter. AA77 did not fly into a "hole" in the Pentagon.

It flew into the Pentagon and created massive damage. Hundreds of people more qualified than you know this. Dozens of unconnected individuals witnessed it. ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion. This isn't rocket science.

JP. make the commitment to understanding what is real and what is not. The search for the truth ALWAYS requires an honest commitment to it.

Originally posted by seanm
You are confirming that you really have no grasp of the subject matter. AA77 did not fly into a "hole" in the Pentagon.

It flew into the Pentagon and created massive damage. Hundreds of people more qualified than you know this. Dozens of unconnected individuals witnessed it. ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion. This isn't rocket science.

JP. make the commitment to understanding what is real and what is not. The search for the truth ALWAYS requires an honest commitment to it.

So ehm,... seanm, where is that massive damage you speak of?

Can't find it.... anywhere!

And as jprophet420 said... I think he ment the plane (read explosives) created that insignificant little hole we look at.

Come on man, you don't need to bee a rocked scientist to know this was not cause by a airjet. Open your eyes please.

Did you really think a plane of that size would just create a minimal damage? Obviously there is a lot of fire damage, you can see it by the black stuff you see.

BUTTT!! , if you check the building block that comes after the impact area (wich is no further away then 6-12 mtrs) it is completely intact (except fire damage ofcourse).

How in the hell is this possible when a big airliner crashes into it with 300 miles p/h?

I mean come on, even the windows are still there haha!

It's not possible, simply, and indeed, i do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.







I really laugh at people who still believe the official story, i didn't even believe the minute i saw it on TV!


(btw a nice anecdote wich i saw in a video tape of 911, clearly states the level of intelligence over there,

*SCENE*: at the pentagon

a guy runs over to a cop to say it was no plane that hit the pentagon! (and he's convinced... really!)

Cop says;

Whatever you say kiddo!

guy;
No really! There WAS NO PLANE!

cop;
Hey man, we almost saw it happen on television, it was a airplane!

)

That's right!, they saw it on tv haha

[sorry about that mods, won't happen again!]

[edit on 7-10-2007 by PureET]

Originally posted by seanm

It flew into the Pentagon and created massive damage. Hundreds of people more qualified than you know this.

Thanks for the post seanm. I would consider myself qualified to comment both on whether or not a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon and whether or not it created 'massive' damage and on both counts I would give an unqualified "No. It did not". There is not the slightest evidence that either occurred.

Dozens of unconnected individuals witnessed it.

I would first have to ask you which parts of these witnesses were unconnected. I have my suspicions, but you go first.

ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion.

In fact, none of the evidence supports the conclusion that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. No major airplane parts. Only little pieces of aluminum, maybe a landing gear wheel or turbine wheel. No pictures of a gigantic hulking, burning, fuselage inside the Pentagon.

This isn't rocket science.

I agree with you there but considering that many still think a Boeing 757 did crash into the Pentagon you'd think it was.

The search for the truth ALWAYS requires an honest commitment to it.

It would depend on what you consider the 'truth'. Not everybody agrees on what the 'truth' means. One truth may be what actually happened. Another truth might be what would be in the best interests of the particular truthsayer. Another might be a 'layer' of 'truth' to protect another layer of truth. So searching for the truth should have a definiton, a goal, as to what it is you actually want to find.

For instance, if you wanted the truth on whether or not a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon I can safely say you will not find that 'truth' inside the Pentagon. You might find it inside an Air Force Hangar. But not inside the Pentagon.

Thanks for the post and your input is always greatly appreciated.

The "truth" is;


You guys want to know the truth.. Well the truth is presented to you by your government. Believe it if you will, and you will be living in truth if you will.


But there has been and always will be a difference between TRUTH, and REALITY.


The Reality is, is that you are effectively being misled by that very same government.

So stop believing the truth, and make up your OWN reality, and all the answers will come.

Don't vote, just think for yourself.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by PureET]

You are confirming that you really have no grasp of the subject matter. AA77 did not fly into a "hole" in the Pentagon.

debating somantics is not worth the time, especially since I worded it 'properly' the first time.

your attitude however reflects my theory quite well. I'm not talking about any evidence in this thread other than the one picture I posted. Nothing in that picture implies 7x7 aircraft hit there. Nothing.

Mods, that's my forum so if you could change the link back to the picture that would be cool, thank you.

I notice this is yet another one of my threads that has very little opposition.

I really cant imagine someone saying that, if shown just that picture I posted pre 911, that they would agree or conclude that a jumbo jet created the damage.

yet somehow post 911 the same people have no problem 'accepting' that.

What I'm getting at in a nutshell is you would have to want to argue to argue a point that holds such little water.

something I have figured out since making the OP is that the war on terror had to be put into place first for it to work. there had to be another contributing factor besides JUST the will argue.


theres a start. i would love to get those tapes or transcripts.

"prosecutors have declined to comment publicly"

and since I don't have the transcripts people will argue the FBI's involvement, even tho prosecutors declining comment says more than one of those fancy thousand word pictures.

If your gov't actually did this and wanted to pretend it was a plane, why didn't they actually crash a plane into it to make it more realistic? Why do a half-arsed job with explosives and risk being exposed?

Cause THEY can get away with it. Effectively.

they can tell the newspapers whatever they want and they'll bite. 100%.

That's how it works people,

If you need a Reaction, you create a Cause.

So this thread has plenty of views now and it's highly likely that no one is going to claim that if they were shown this picture pre 911 that they would conclude or even believe a jumbo jet created that hole.

Yet no one explains what changed their mind.

Its kind of like the John Titor story, if one part is hokey the whole story is hokey.

Theres lots of things about 911 that are impossible or implausible but the most prevelant logic i see is 'so much evidence supports it i believe it' and coupled with 'there is not enough evidence to support said CT' sot 'the official story is "best"'.

Thats not how it works. if any part of any story is incorrect the whole thing must be re-evaluated. Thats fine if every CT has to be re-evaluated, so does the official story.

Ladies and Gentleman a jumbo jet did not make that hole, it is painfully obvious. its photgraphic evidence and would hold up in court of law.

If I called up my homeowners insurance and said an suv drove through my garage door and the hole was smaller than an suv I would be put up on fraud charges.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by seanm

It flew into the Pentagon and created massive damage. Hundreds of people more qualified than you know this.

Thanks for the post seanm. I would consider myself qualified to comment both on whether or not a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon and whether or not it created 'massive' damage and on both counts I would give an unqualified "No. It did not". There is not the slightest evidence that either occurred.

Dozens of unconnected individuals witnessed it.

I would first have to ask you which parts of these witnesses were unconnected. I have my suspicions, but you go first.

ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion.

In fact, none of the evidence supports the conclusion that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. No major airplane parts. Only little pieces of aluminum, maybe a landing gear wheel or turbine wheel. No pictures of a gigantic hulking, burning, fuselage inside the Pentagon.

This isn't rocket science.

I agree with you there but considering that many still think a Boeing 757 did crash into the Pentagon you'd think it was.

The search for the truth ALWAYS requires an honest commitment to it.

It would depend on what you consider the 'truth'. Not everybody agrees on what the 'truth' means. One truth may be what actually happened. Another truth might be what would be in the best interests of the particular truthsayer. Another might be a 'layer' of 'truth' to protect another layer of truth. So searching for the truth should have a definiton, a goal, as to what it is you actually want to find.

For instance, if you wanted the truth on whether or not a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon I can safely say you will not find that 'truth' inside the Pentagon. You might find it inside an Air Force Hangar. But not inside the Pentagon.

Thanks for the post and your input is always greatly appreciated.

What I can say with confidence, John Lear, is that you know better. You know as well as I do that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

If we weren't told that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, what conclusion would we have come to?

Personally, a big hulking 747 wouldn't be near the top of my list.

Originally posted by PureET

Originally posted by seanm
You are confirming that you really have no grasp of the subject matter. AA77 did not fly into a "hole" in the Pentagon.

It flew into the Pentagon and created massive damage. Hundreds of people more qualified than you know this. Dozens of unconnected individuals witnessed it. ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion. This isn't rocket science.

JP. make the commitment to understanding what is real and what is not. The search for the truth ALWAYS requires an honest commitment to it.

So ehm,... seanm, where is that massive damage you speak of?

At the Pentagon. Where did you think I was talking about?

Can't find it.... anywhere!

That's a problem only you can solve.

And as jprophet420 said... I think he ment the plane (read explosives) created that insignificant little hole we look at.

What he "thinks" does not constitute evidence, does it?

Come on man, you don't need to bee a rocked scientist to know this was not cause by a airjet. Open your eyes please.

My eye are wide open, my brain functioning rationally. Whatever you want to believe without evidence is your problem. But AA77 hit the Pentagon and no one has yet refuted that fact.

Did you really think a plane of that size would just create a minimal damage? Obviously there is a lot of fire damage, you can see it by the black stuff you see.

No, I said it created massive damage. There's no question that it gutted a large part of the interior. But, it's a free country. You can deny the evidence if you wish. Why you would want to deny it is beyond me.

In any case, if you really think the damage depicted here is minimal, get back to me:

fire.nist.gov...

BUTTT!!

, if you check the building block that comes after the impact area (wich is no further away then 6-12 mtrs) it is completely intact (except fire damage ofcourse).

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20)"
Ibid.

How in the hell is this possible when a big airliner crashes into it with 300 miles p/h?

"An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."
Ibid.

I mean come on, even the windows are still there haha!

Yes, the exterior took a beating but proved the reinforcement of the building and installation of blast resistant windows helped mitigate the exterior damage. But it really did great damage inside the building, didn't it?

It's not possible, simply, and indeed, i do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

It's always fun to have a brand new expert investigator on board claiming what is not possible.

Where did you get your degree, Puret!

Originally posted by PureET
The "truth" is;

You guys want to know the truth.. Well the truth is presented to you by your government. Believe it if you will, and you will be living in truth if you will.

As long as you are under the illusion that the evidence comes from "the government" you'll not get very far.

It always amazes me how you all fall for 9/11 Truth dogma so easily.

I believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, and I believe that a plane hit each of the WTCs. I also believe that the government had knowledge of an attack like this, and they had all the power in the world to stop it (But didn't). I believe the government is not telling the full truth about 9/11.

I do not believe the government brought down the towers with controlled explosions, nor do I believe they somehow projected holograms onto the NY sky. I do not believe there are thousands of people involved in a massive cover up (nor that not one of them has come forward and said so).

Where do you classify me?

im concentrating on the hole in the pentagon. with no scientific or physical evidence. how did you come to the conclusion that a jumbo jet made that hole?

i'm not really worried about/interested in...
a. classifications (another word would be stereotype)
b. specific conspiracy theories
c. the rest of the official story (lets call it any information released by the government regarding the whole day)

what i want to know is what made you believe someting that your eyes and all common sense tell you not to believe.