Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757

page: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Again as in Flight 93, please explain to me how the FDR was found but no tail wreakage where the FDR is located?


You've spent a great deal of time saying that FOIA requests are still being refused.

Do you now have proof that those tail components were not recovered (or pieces of them at least)?
The same goes for the rest of the plane - all those pieces that took days to collect and remove from the site.




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Still waiting for any actual evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


It's been shown that there is good evidence that a particular 757, AA77, crashed at the Pentagon already. What there is none of is evidence that it wasn't that flight. Show me any piece of wreckage in the available pics, even ones I haven't seen as yet, that absolutely could not be from AA77. The '737 wheels' proved to be a false claim for example.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Still waiting for any actual evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.


Just curious, what about the hundred + witnesses, including cab drivers, folks heading home, stuck on the highway, that saw it crash into the building? I know for certain, I'd know the different between a cruise missile and a jumbo jet.

How do people discount those witnesses? I remember listening to them on that day. Including folks that said they saw it coming in low, tilting to one side at first, and watched it crash into the building. I find it difficult to believe they could stage all the witnesses around the site at the time.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's been shown that there is good evidence that a particular 757, AA77, crashed at the Pentagon already.


Please show me actual reports and physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Please show me any phots or videos (with sources) that show AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Pleas show any actual evidence or admit you are wrong about there being good evidence.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Just curious, what about the hundred + witnesses, including cab drivers, folks heading home, stuck on the highway, that saw it crash into the building?


Between all the witnesses they could not confirm what type of plane it was.

A witness admitted they did not see what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.

There are no actual reports, or physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

There are no photos or videos that actaully show AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fleabit
Just curious, what about the hundred + witnesses, including cab drivers, folks heading home, stuck on the highway, that saw it crash into the building?


Between all the witnesses they could not confirm what type of plane it was.

A witness admitted they did not see what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.

There are no actual reports, or physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

There are no photos or videos that actaully show AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Well of course not. If I saw a jet flying over my car, enroute to the Pentagon, I would just boggle at it. I'd certainly not have time to make a positive identification of what type, and 999 out of 1000 people most like cannot tell the difference between any one sort of plane to another.

But they saw a large passenger jet, that was clear. They did not see a tiny plane, a small business plane, a cruise missle, or anything else. They saw a passenger plane, of the jumbo-jet variety.

I find it unfathomable that they diverted the true plane, swapped it with another, and shipped off the passangers to never-never land. I also find it hard to believe that anyone NOT a suicide-ready religious manic would willingly commit suicide to fly a plane into the Pentagon, not to mention an American, knowingly enroute to kill other Americans.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by fleabit]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
But they saw a large passenger jet, that was clear. They did not see a tiny plane, a small business plane, a cruise missle, or anything else. They saw a passenger plane, of the jumbo-jet variety.


So, did they see AA77, that is the question? Where are the reports and physical evidence that it was AA77?


I find it unfathomable that they diverted the true plane, swapped it with another, and shipped off the passangers to never-never land. I also find it hard to believe that anyone NOT a suicide-ready religious manic would willingly commit suicide to fly a plane into the Pentagon, not to mention an American, knowingly enroute to kill other Americans.


Well we really do not know much about any of this since the main investigating agencies have not released most of the evidnece of what really happened that day.

People that state they know what happened that day are lying.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ok, let me put it another way. Regular folks saw a passanger jet crash into the Pentagon. The government said that it was that particular flight. That flight is gone. All the folks that were on it are missing. DNA testing confirmed identities of passangers. There were many who identified it a AA flight, and others who DID say it was a 757.

Ok.. check this page out, and tell me why you consider all of this lies:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


I'm just curious where people come up with this stuff. People saw the jet. Watched it crash into the Pentagon. The remains identified, including the remains of the the hijackers, AA wreckage was found, and photographed.. how can you come up with anything other than it was what they say it was?

How many people said they saw a cruise missle, a military jet, or nothing hit the Pentagon (barely missed and flew off). None.

If someone says event A happened, and there is a large amount of proof of this, and conspiracy folks say event B happened, but there is NO proof of this, which is more likely to have happened?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. How many witnesses actaually claimed to have seen the impact? Of those, how many were proven to actually be in a possition to see the impact, let's not forget the witnesses that have said they were told later what it was that hit the Pentagon. Then you have the witnesses, including police officers, at the Citgo that saw the aircraft on a different flightpath than the official story, making it impossible to have hit the light poles. Then you have the FDR missing the data before impact.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Ok, let me put it another way. Regular folks saw a passanger jet crash into the Pentagon. The government said that it was that particular flight. That flight is gone. All the folks that were on it are missing. DNA testing confirmed identities of passangers. There were many who identified it a AA flight, and others who DID say it was a 757.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


1. People did see a passenger jet but we have no actual reports or physical evidence that it was AA77.

2. The flight is recorded as being destroyed, but no reports as to how, where and when.

3. The DNA was recovered from the passengers, but there is no evidence that the passengers were ever in the building.


AA wreckage was found, and photographed.. how can you come up with anything other than it was what they say it was?


Ther are no reports or phtotos (with sources) that match the parts found to AA77.


If someone says event A happened, and there is a large amount of proof of this, and conspiracy folks say event B happened, but there is NO proof of this, which is more likely to have happened?


Problem with your statement is that there is no large amount of proof of event A. There is more evidence that questions the officil story then supports it.

Since when is finding the truth a conspiracy, the only real conspiracyt is the official story because it is based ona conspiracy?


[edit on 16-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
There wera photos of AA wreckage. There were many witnesses that saw that it was an AA airplane. They found the black box. The found and sent the personal effects at the site to the victims families.

If you are suggesting that we flew a plane with AA stickers on it into the building, landing the other plane somewhere else, killed the passangers, burned and tore up their luggage and send those to their families, and whatever else you are assuming, sorry, I don't buy it.


There is a lot more "proof" that what was stated did happen, versus the 100% lack of proof suggesting otherwise.

Let me ask this then: What proof has been provided to suggest it was anything other than it was? I guess that's what I really want to know. What convinced you or anyone else, that what was stated and witnessed did not actually occur?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
There wera photos of AA wreckage. There were many witnesses that saw that it was an AA airplane.


1. There are no reports or photos with sources that state the wreckage is from AA77.

2. The witnesses could not decide what type of plane they saw and at least 1 admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were TOLD later it was 757.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fleabit
There wera photos of AA wreckage. There were many witnesses that saw that it was an AA airplane.


1. There are no reports or photos with sources that state the wreckage is from AA77.

2. The witnesses could not decide what type of plane they saw and at least 1 admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were TOLD later it was 757.


Ok, there is no proof that it was NOT King Kong, so should we assume a giant gorilla attacked the Pentagon, regardless of the other evidence presented contrary to that fact?

There is no photos of passangers, burned and black, still strapped to their seats, no. And I hope these are never released. There are photos of AA bits and pieces, yes. There is a transponder or some-such that says AA, and has other serial info, which was photographed on-site. There were MANY witnesses that saw a jumbo jet. There were many that reported that they saw it was an AA flight. In a moment like that, you can't expect the witnesses to look for the flight # as it flies past in 3 seconds.

While you keep stating that there is not direct proof (i.e. someone taking a photo as it flew by just before hitting the Pentagon, with a flight # shown) that this flight hit the building, there is NO proof that anything else hit it.

I have heard that many witnesses saw it was an AA jumbo jet. I have not heard from any witness that it was anything else. 0 witnesses said they saw a cruise missle. 0 said it was a military jet. There WAS AA parts, the remains of a wheel (photographed on site), etc.. there is NO photos of anything resembling a missle.

Like I said.. if you take the approach that "no one can prove it was that specific flight," then you can take the approach that King Kong attacked the building, and I don't buy that, either.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
In a moment like that, you can't expect the witnesses to look for the flight # as it flies past in 3 seconds.


You mean like a person is also not going to see if its an AA flight in the less the 3 seconds they saw it and at any distance?


There WAS AA parts, the remains of a wheel (photographed on site),


Ther is no source for any of the photos from the Pentagon.

Also i have already shown that the type of wheel at the Pentagon could come from other aircraft, not just a 757.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
As ive said many times before on here, just have a look at my avatar... THAT is the best proof ive seen for an air burst missile. That single frame from the pentagon security cam shows all the perfect tell tale signs of an air burst, NOT and uncontrolled fuel fireball.

Round
symmetrical
EXTREMELY bright white (not like uncontrolled jet fuel)
Flattened side
and a dark detonation point SQUARELY in the middle

ITS STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE

All that on top of the deep-ROUND penetration hole that burrows into the building.

All these things are what air burst missiles OR advanced artillery do.

Ive spent a long enough time around such munitions and studied them at nauseum.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
As ive said many times before on here, just have a look at my avatar... THAT is the best proof ive seen for an air burst missile. That single frame from the pentagon security cam shows all the perfect tell tale signs of an air burst, NOT and uncontrolled fuel fireball.

Round
symmetrical
EXTREMELY bright white (not like uncontrolled jet fuel)
Flattened side
and a dark detonation point SQUARELY in the middle

ITS STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE

All that on top of the deep-ROUND penetration hole that burrows into the building.

All these things are what air burst missiles OR advanced artillery do.

Ive spent a long enough time around such munitions and studied them at nauseum.


Again, many people watched a JET fly into the building. Are you saying all those people are mistaken, and can't tell the difference between a missle and a jumbo jet, or they are lying?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Are you saying all those people are mistaken, and can't tell the difference between a missle and a jumbo jet, or they are lying?


Its already been shown that some missiles can look like a jet plane at a distance.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fleabit
Are you saying all those people are mistaken, and can't tell the difference between a missle and a jumbo jet, or they are lying?


Its already been shown that some missiles can look like a jet plane at a distance.



An engine almost took a guys head off. The thing was clearly seen by many witnesses. If I see a jumbo jet at 13,000 feet, I know it's a jet. If I saw it at 200 feet, there would be no doubt what it was. When you are at the airport, looking at the runway from the terminal, at about 200 feet, would you ever mistake a plane for a missle of any type?

It's pretty obvious it was a jumbo jet, and several identified the AA on the thing. It wasn't a jumbo-jet sized missle. These claims have no basis at all, and are ludicrous in the extreme. It was a jet. It wasn't a missle.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
It's pretty obvious it was a jumbo jet, and several identified the AA on the thing.


Its just too bad the witness could not agree what type of plane they saw.

At least 1 witness admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757. Which puts all witness statements under suspicion.

Also there are no official reports matching parts to AA77.

Np physical evidence to show AA77 hit the Pentagon.





new topics
 
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join