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

page: 21
4
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Not to mention how the NTSB animation(which I just recently found out about, thanks Ultima) shows the plane north of Citgo which backs up CIT's NOC witnesses and also makes it impossible to have hit the light poles. That would mean the light poles were staged, if a 757 hit the Pentagon why stage the light poles? Also the DOD video shows something level hitting the pentagon, but the FDR data shows the plane descending and not leveling off.
Either the FDR was fabricated/tampered with or the DOD video was faked. I'll let you decide.




posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
if your keen to find out more find the loose change dvd (distributed free) created by a couple of american guys who were unsatisfied by the official report of 9/11. it blows your mind



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jeanette
 


One of the runways to Reagan National Airport is almost directly in line with the Pentagon. Therefore planes on take off or approach to said runway regularly fly within a 1/2 mile of the Pentagon. I think that before you decide to spill your "opinion" you should first gather all the "facts".



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Shoktek
 


shoot down over the ocean. i believe the official report no fighter were scrambled till later. i know fighter aircraft were in the air. 3 us airliners get hijacked and all us fighter craft are wheels down. not very likely.
i have two questions for the subject. if a plane hit the debris i.e the tail section or more plane albeit damaged would still be there (jet fuel burns@ 1300 f the two titanium cases for the two jet engines would melt at about 2200)
last but not least the outward facing wall no burn marks from the thousands of gallons of jet fuel not to mention the green grass and the wooden wire spools mere feet from the impact site completely undamaged.
i am new and i hope there are not already answered inquiries thank for giving me a place to share my thoughts



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by kaoszero
 


but if you look at the twin tower hits the wings cause signifigant damage, i would expect these two flights are going much faster, plus no one seems to be adressing the fact that the gov must have a cctv vid with the plane in why not release this?? i quote"a goverment that hinds things is a goverment that afraid of gettin caught"



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Hi i was reading this page and i read about cruise missiles and look at this it dosent look like much but change the colour and add some wings



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Hi i was reading this page and i read about cruise missiles and look at this it dosent look like much but change the colour and add some wings




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
oh and visit this it will tell you all about iten.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:45 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.


Now THIS is one funny post!



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
In Rob Balsamo's new video, the good animation repeatedly shows the NoC flight path toward the Pentagon with AA77 starting to pull up over it. Included is a very good view from the cockpit of what it would look like to the pilot of AA77 as it approached and started to climb and fly over the Pentagon.

Of course, such a flight path begs the question: if AA77 took the NoC flight path and were to have flown over the Pentagon, would not the released Pentagon security video have shown it?

According to Rob Balsamo's video and CIT's NoC flight path, the security camera should have recorded AA77 starting to fly over the Pentagon.

The top photograph below is a frame from Balsamo's video showing the view of the Pentagon from the cockpit of AA77 just before it flew over the Pentagon. Accordingly, the two bottom video frames from the security camera give a reasonable approximation of what the security camera should have recorded.

Of course, I am sure we will now hear all kinds of justifications why the video couldn't have shown it, or that it was doctored, but it is perfectly consistent with the latest Balsamo video animation and CIT's claims. Certainly, people more adept at this can verify the validity for themselves and get back to us here.

Given CIT's refusal to provide any positive evidence of a "flyover" for over two years now, it should not surprise us that CIT will have to dodge even more inconvenient evidence.





posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nicodemus
 


They must find it difficult... those who use authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

posted by jthomas
Of course, such a flight path begs the question: if AA77 took the NoC flight path and were to have flown over the Pentagon, would not the released Pentagon security video have shown it?

Accordingly, the two bottom video frames from the security camera give a reasonable approximation of what the security camera should have recorded.

it was 'doctored'

Of course the parking lot videos were 'doctored' jthomas as were the leaked and 'doctored' still frames. Why else would you be floundering around desperately from thread to thread? Did they threaten to pull your paycheck? Can anybody even imagine a sloppier job of 'doctoring'? These Pentagon 'doctored' fakes even make the Osama bin Laden fake videos look like multi-million dollar Hollywood productions.

You and the 9-11 perps you defend were screwed when an insider leaked those 'doctored' 5 frames and they were published all over the internet. Then the FOIA 'doctored' videos could not be further altered, and you people were stuck with them. They are garbage; very sloppy 'doctored' garbage and you know it. But at least they successfully removed the decoy aircraft from the sky above, flying in on its flight path from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Shoot. We could have seen what kind of aircraft it really was.

Looks like they used the same fluorescent paint color of the cones to color in the side of the heliport away from the fake fireball. How come the 757 shrank to a baby plane?


Great job there jthomas. You even got the 32 hour difference on the leaked and 'doctored' still frames right. But your plane is still too small. It's supposed to be a 757. Were you trying to color in an A-6 to add more confusion? Perhaps you should apply to the FBI for that video 'doctoring' technician position they so desperately need to fill. Maybe just a transfer to another department?



Sloppy garbage



[edit on 11/5/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by jthomas
Of course, such a flight path begs the question: if AA77 took the NoC flight path and were to have flown over the Pentagon, would not the released Pentagon security video have shown it?

Accordingly, the two bottom video frames from the security camera give a reasonable approximation of what the security camera should have recorded.


Of course the parking lot videos were 'doctored' jthomas as were the leaked and 'doctored' still frames.


Too bad you are forced to admit that the video should have shown a flyover. You can whine abourt doctoring all you want (even though you can't possibly demonstrate it) because it is actually irrelevant.

What Craig Ranke's and Rob Balsamo's claims tell us once again is -- drum roll -- the number of eyewitnesses who should have easily seen the flyover.

Need some help removing your jackboot from your mouth, SP?




posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony



Mother and son would have been inside the green area of that circle I drew at the alleged place of impact



Original diagram from official Defense Dept Pentagon 9-11 book

If the Pentagon were actually impacted by a 535 mph 124 ft 10 in wingspan 757, then how is it possible that April Gallup and her infant son officially sitting 35-45 feet from the impact hole escaped being killed and incinerated?

Of course the answer is no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. The explosives creating the impact hole and external damage spared April and her son sitting 35-45 feet away from the inside of the wall. There was no jet fuel to incinerate them. The remaining wall between April and the external explosives apparently protected them from the blast. Perhaps the explosives were in the construction trailers. Then after April and Elishah escaped the building, more explosives were set off as reported by multiple witnesses.

April and her son would have been sitting within the radius of the wings and wing tanks allegedly partially filled with jet fuel and their inertial vector through the walls and internal 1st floor damage area. Not only should they have been incinerated, but April should have seen evidence of jet fuel and she did not.

Since neither engine remained outside the wall, then one of the engines or the fuselage or landing gear should have made a smear of April and her son. How do the Official Fairy Tale supporters explain this apparent mystery?

This is how Military Industrial Complex strong supporter Purdue University describes the aircraft path through the 1st floor. Did they forget about April and little Elishah sitting in the flight path?

Oooops. No engines? A super tail section? Alleged damage path of Flight 77 through 1st floor. Yes that is right folks. April and her little boy would have been right in the path of all that jet fuel and shredded aluminum. Thank GOD they escaped. But April testified that there was NO JET FUEL and NO aircraft parts and NO seats with passengers strapped in and NO baggage.



Larger view of animation




[edit on 11/20/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Chances are, not every single witness knew different models of planes. Knowing plane types is not a prerequisite for being close to the Pentagon nor is it a requirement for living close to an airport.

Suspicion is fine, but just because all stories do not line up does not give one permission to use that inconsistency as any sort of proof or increase the chances of a cover-up.

Yeah, there are those who witnessed an inconsistent flight path.
Yeah, there is a lady who allegedly was very close to the impact point and lived.

These sorts of phenomena in the story appear in complex events.

If some truther logic is right (because CIT witnesses saw a different flight path then the light poles could not have been knocked over etc.), then because many witnesses saw the official flight path, then what the CIT group interviews gathered was impossible.

It works both ways.

Just because witnesses do not agree does not mean that the one's not with the official story may be dismissed as impossible in favor of people with stories inconsistent.

With truther logic anything that does not fit can be considered planted or doctored.

Over 100 witnesses will not have the same exact story.

Eyes can be in some ways deceptive.

Yes, they saw a close up plane.

No, not everyone knew the make and model of the plane.

Yes, when it came in there were downed light poles and a damaged trailer and a blown apart building face.

The idea of planting everything sounds more outrageous than actually flying a plane in.

If it was bombs, why not just have bombs be the story then. They are more concealed and thus a more unexpected and scarier weapon of terror.

But sorry, the truther argument, I have reviewed, and it is not compelling enough for me to pay attention to any longer. The official story, called a 'fairy tale' childishly by some, is what I believe.

God Bless America



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

posted by newagent89
It works both ways.

Just because witnesses do not agree does not mean that the one's not with the official story may be dismissed as impossible in favor of people with stories inconsistent.

With truther logic anything that does not fit can be considered planted or doctored.

Over 100 witnesses will not have the same exact story.

Yes it does certainly work both ways. With government believer logic, everything the government primary suspect has to say is automatically correct, until naysayers with contradictory evidence have jumped through the proper number of hoops and received the correct blessings from the self-proclaimed experts. Is that a fairly accurate description of the 9-11 search for justice?

What 100 witnesses? I know only of 13 plus a few others who saw nothing and a few who smelled cordite inside the Pentagon and one lady who survived directly in the alleged aircraft path and saw no aircraft evidence and NO JET FUEL. Oh yeah, I forgot those media witnesses who keep changing their scripts. Did you track down the remainder of your hundred witnesses and reinterview and verify them? Hint: if they were ten miles away or recounting 2nd or 3rd hand testimony; they do not count as eyewitnesses. Would you mind posting your verification videos and transcripts here on this forum? Thank you in advance.



[edit on 11/20/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

What 100 witnesses? I know only of 13 plus a few others who saw nothing and a few who smelled cordite inside the Pentagon and one lady who survived directly in the alleged aircraft path and saw no aircraft evidence and NO JET FUEL. Oh yeah, I forgot those media witnesses who keep changing their scripts.


I understand why you have to rehash debunked nonsense, SPreston. Since the heat has been on you and CIT directly to provide positive, verifiable evidence of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, you have been screeching in fits of evasion and extreme discomfort.

I will suggest that you get to work and provide the necessary evidence you need to.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
How does the first tower that was hit by the suppouse boeing 747 ,blow up seconds before the airplane hits the tower.?????



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


It was a 767 and I haven't seen any videos or pictures of it exploding before impact. I've seen the explosion happening as the plane was still going into the building, but not before it hits.





top topics
 
4
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join