Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, the witness stated the landing was put down after hitting the poles, so that would have been just a few hundred yards from the buiding.

Come on ULTIMA1, landing gear coming down between hitting light poles and Pentagon? You've said you've worked for the Airforce and beleive this witnesses account? I'm having a hard time with this "information" and its relavance to this thread.

Originally posted by Boone 870
How long would it have taken the 757 to travel the distance between the first light pole and the Pentagon? About two seconds, roughly?

Yes, thats why i stated that people farther away from the building might not have seen the landing gear.

Only he did because he was close by.

Originally posted by Boone 870
In that case, I have to disagree. There were witnesses that stated that the aircraft was clean.

And how far away from the poles were they ?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Every morning for years Bob Dubill drove past the Pentagon on his way to work at USA Today. He was passing the building the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when he saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision

But how close was he to the poles?

Was he close enough to see if the gear were down after the poles?

so ... Ultima ... you are telling me that the landing gear of that plane pop out like a toy with springs? 1.5 second for gear to deploy is quit fast ... in fact, you cant even say one point five seconds in 1.5 seconds. Oh, and flying a plane into a building or being out of control of a plane, the first thing I think is, oh snap! I better put the landing gear down quick!

AND ... a wheel hitting a pole would flip the plane 45 degrees ... not rip the wheel off and the pole out first ... I have heard everything now. Next you will tell me that if my shoe hits a flower stalk, I will trip violently. Relative weight comparison


even if you agree with the plane melting ... where is 15+ tons of metal? Did it all turn to vapor? If it wasn't there intact, it would have had to been there as a solidified pool of metal ... since it was FIRE not PLASMA or a nuclear blast (no radiation right?)



So ... it is true, PROVE the THEORY of the official story ... quit debunking and PROVE the story you believe with all your heart. It leads to more respect from others when you put passion into what you believe in, rather than putting effort to follow someone around and rain on their hard works and efforts, even if you don't agree.

If you think you have a better idea, you work on it and show the world you are right. If I invented a better mouse trap, I would work on it and refine it ... then show it to the world ... not run around telling people how silly the current traps are. That is what an honest, intelligent, respectful individual would do ... if you consider yourself that ... then get to work ... if not, then carry on and keep pushing people away from your side ... because attitude and efforts speak louder than anything.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
so ... Ultima ... you are telling me that the landing gear of that plane pop out like a toy with springs? 1.5 second for gear to deploy is quit fast ... in fact, you cant even say one point five seconds in 1.5 seconds.

AND ... a wheel hitting a pole would flip the plane 45 degrees ... not rip the wheel off and the pole out first ... I have heard everything now. Next you will tell me that if my shoe hits a flower stalk, I will trip violently. Relative weight comparison


even if you agree with the plane melting ... where is 15+ tons of metal? Did it all turn to vapor? If it wasn't there intact, it would have had to been there as a solidified pool of metal ... since it was FIRE not PLASMA or a nuclear blast (no radiation right?)

I think you might want to read my post a little more. I never stated the landing gear would come down in 1.5 seconds.

You should read up about the lightpoles, they were designed to break away.

I never stated the plane melted. The witness stated their was a fireball that came out of the building and destroyed the airframe.

I also have been trying to find out why the FBI will not release all the videos, photos and reports for the Pentagon.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
so ... Ultima ... you are telling me that the landing gear of that plane pop out like a toy with springs? 1.5 second for gear to deploy is quit fast ... in fact, you cant even say one point five seconds in 1.5 seconds. Oh, and flying a plane into a building or being out of control of a plane, the first thing I think is, oh snap! I better put the landing gear down quick!

AND ... a wheel hitting a pole would flip the plane 45 degrees ... not rip the wheel off and the pole out first ... I have heard everything now. Next you will tell me that if my shoe hits a flower stalk, I will trip violently. Relative weight comparison

That's what I was getting at. And I meant to say he didn't see the fly-under, not over, since that 45 pitch he saw puts it in an then under the ground, but he was tricked into thinking it impacted. However, FTE, you have badly misread ultima's position relative to mine. I'm the OCT debunker type (on this issue) and Ultima just raises a few silly questions about missing reports and cites screwy witness accounts and stuff to cast faint doubt on what happened.

even if you agree with the plane melting ... where is 15+ tons of metal? Did it all turn to vapor? If it wasn't there intact, it would have had to been there as a solidified pool of metal ... since it was FIRE not PLASMA or a nuclear blast (no radiation right?)

Correct, if it had melted it would be liquid. Hovever only very little if any of it probably melted after impact. No 'official story' has ever said this. what it says and what happened IMO is it broke into pieces and scattered mostly deep inside the building. We have not seen photos 100 tons (or so) of debris yet, but then again this is inside perhaps themost secure building in the US and they've been secretive about this whole thing. so I figure we're lucky to see anything - I'd say between big and small scraps I've seen about 10% of the plane's parts, including some doozies to plant.

So ... it is true, PROVE the THEORY of the official story ... quit debunking and PROVE the story you believe with all your heart. It leads to more respect from others when you put passion into what you believe in, rather than putting effort to follow someone around and rain on their hard works and efforts, even if you don't agree.

So that would better fit me, but I've already put plenty of passion into it elsewhere. Dig aroud. And dangit! I'm not letting this stumble! Wasting too much time on the forums again!

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Odessy
this might seem silly... but why does the video say sept 12?

not silly at all. it's proof that everything is not as it seems, in fact.

With all the high tech gizmos by the U.S. govt. you think they could change the date to the 11 to maintain the so called deception? Or maybe it must be the camera that thinks its a day ahead of the rest of the world. Wouldn't be the first camera to do that. And cameras ain't the only ones.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
and Ultima just raises a few silly questions about missing reports and cites screwy witness accounts and stuff to cast faint doubt on what happened.

No 'official story' has ever said this. what it says and what happened IMO is it broke into pieces and scattered mostly deep inside the building.

1. So your stating the FBI reports are not important, when they are the lead investigating agency?

Also my witness is not as screwy as any of the other witness that admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757.

2. So how do you know whats in the building if there are not photos since its the most secure building?

What about all the camera on the outside of the Pentagon and on the nearby buildings?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well I'm certain it doesnt show a plane going in No I'm pretty sure that's a missile check out the little shadow. they stuffed up releasing this one.

while watching that animation again, something occurred to me which i don't recall being mentioned before... if the explosive force was great enough to shake the fixed box containing the camera, (as is evident in the corners of the pictures), why did the light traffic cones remain where they were? can someone work out the weight of the average us traffic cone is and whether they should have been blown over or at very least moved slightly (and what force was needed to shake a fixed box behind them)

if the explotion was real, i wonder all this could have realy happened.