Explain these photos

Why doesn't Craig just IGNORE the ever silly Capt. O and quit responding to his nonsense? It is just SILLY to assume that two six ton engines could leave NO marks on the Pentagon yet the nose and wheel stuff could slam a hole into the side...just stupid. WHY does the official story crap NEVER discuss the engines that would HAVE to impact the wall on either side of the nose ' hole '?? Why? Because they cannot resort to insulting us to that degree; anyone knows that it is impossible to slam a jet into a wall and have ALL the bodies and 99% of the debris simply enter a small hole and disappear!!

HOW can they look in the mirror in the am? Knowing that it is impossible, totally so, to have two massive engines make NO marks on the wall, but the nose section blasts thru 3 levels and four walls? C'mon now....who would buy that? ONLY those in a state of denial, or those who are for some reason in league with the perps and who support them.

Every time I see that obnoxious yammering mouth on a post I know to ignore it and move on....wasting time debating obvious silliness does no good, and plays into the hands of the perps and their supporters...ignore the silly responses and only answer those that have some rational basis to them.

There is no way that a jet hit the Pentagon, no evidence exists to support that theory at all. No photo's of the bodies...the FBI will not confirm the serial numbers of the planes...no photo's of both engines being hauled out...no photo's of any bodies of passengers...no parts on the outside of the wall, except for scrap that was picked up by suit and tie types frantically the day of the event rather than leaving it there for an investigatiopn....when does the smell make you retch, or has your stomach been turned so many times that nausea is now part and parcel of all of this? 9-11 was an inside job, and anyone who cannot see that has issues that facts and logic cannot fix.

Amazing how someone can look at a photo like this and defend the official account like a fanatic evangelical.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Retikx]

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Retikx]

reply to post by pai mei

---

pai mei , good post, strrd and flggd.
When I see those pictures again I thought immediately to the points Craig Ranke pointed out in his always excellent and solid 911 replies.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

---

And on.

Thanks for all your 911 input so far Craig Ranke. and strrd.

reply to post by eyewitness86

---

Man I wish they allowed me to give you more than 1 star.

You typed basically my thoughts on the matter.

I've been saying it for weeks now, Swampfox and C.O, are either ignorant or have ulterior motives with their postings pertaining to 9-11.

The Pentagon especially.

With all those cameras, cmon show us the plane. They can't, because it wasn't a plane, the damage doesn't fit that of what a plane would do, anyone just needs to look at the photos.

The damage however fits EXACTLY with what a cruise missile would do.

People who believe in the supposed eyewitness testimony of those who Thought they saw a plane crash into the pentagon should do some hard research on how BAD eyewitness testimony can be. I have, and it's scary as heck when you think of the hundreds of thousands of people in jail for life, on eye witness testimony alone.

Especially since they SAW and/or heard that Planes had just crashed into buildings in NY. There's even more reason to doubt what they think they saw, because they now had been pre programmed to expect to see a plane hit a building.

This for me seals the deal for a low fly over and a cruise missile strike , time within seconds of eachother. To fool any and all eye witnesses. Which I bet most didn't see an actual strike EVEN if there was one, with a 757 roaring over your head you duck down, BOOM it's over that fast 2-3 seconds.

Cab driver says plane flew over his cab knocked a light pole into his winshield, he get's out of his car, is messing with the pole THEN hears a boom. C,mon, this is what I mean by eyewitness testimony is not worth as much as people put stock into it. Because there's no way he had time to do all that.

Real eyewitness testimony comes in the form of Camera footage, which althought the pentagon roof was line with cameras every 20 feet on all sides, we don't have 1 single solitary pictury of ANYTHING that remotely resembles a plane. What we do have is a blast,that if you look two posts above at Retixx's avatar again looks Exactly like a Cruise missile strike. Or some other type of similiar missile.




[edit on 13-4-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Nola213]

Wrong post sorry.

[edit on 13/4/08 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by eyewitness86

---

eyewitness...

please quote posts I have made that are not accurate.

Thank you.

EYEWITNESs, be aware that CaptainObvious changes his posts after people rebuttles make him look extremely ignorant and unknowledgeble.


He has done this in the past and tried to have me banned for a'misquote'



[edit on 13-4-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana

---

Ivan,

As I schooled you on your flight 93 thread, you ignored all evidence. You reposted your OP at least 20 times during that thread.

I have never edited a post after being called on it. If I make a mistake, i will say so.

Why don't you get back to your CUT & PASTE spam threads that you are so good at. Your spamming excites a few truthers here.

Thanks,

C.O.

reply to post by dirtonwater

---

Nice attempt at emotional appeal. I guess we'll all give up the quest for truth "for the sake of the families."

I think your statements quoted above can be summarized as follows, under the Rules of Disinformation...

reply to post by eyewitness86

---

I have seen photos of bodies. Tough to look at actually. But I have no way of knowing if they were "passengers" or Pentagon people.

Take a look at the downward view at www.asile.org (or ?).

Notice anything strange? For example, the U-shaped burn pattern which follows the structural support for that segment of the Pentagon?

Given that the fire department was on the scene almost immediately, the intent of fire doors and building construction codes, and fire sprinklers; as well as, the fact that the primary fire/smoke source was the trailer sitting in the fenced off construction area; doesn't this burn pattern seem strange to anybody?????

Does anyone consider the possibility that explosives were planted along the structural lines which fizzled and burned instead of going BOOM (due to wet or improper wiring? And, had they actually gone off the scene (and damage) would have looked like what would be expected if 100 tons of jetliner had done it???

This is for CaptObnoxious
Please explain the actual video footage here of obvious explosions just prior to the "planes" hitting the buildings.
www.youtube.com...
And have you seen and hear Bush mention that he saw the first plane hit the WTC? Well that video was not shown to anyone until 9-12. Please explain that with your infinate wisdom.


[edit on 13-4-2008 by Muundoggie]

reply to post by Muundoggie

---

Ther is one point in the video I cannot agree with. I don't think a missile would have been fired just a split-second before impact. Why would they need to when the whole plane was a missile, and could have been packed with explosives?

You replied to the title of the video not the content. Did you see the flash just before the plane hit the building? That's what I want CaptO to respond to.

reply to post by Muundoggie

---

O I agree that something seems to have gone off just prior to impact, just not with the interpratetion made by the commentator. Star for you BTW.

reply to post by jackinthebox

---

Ok Jack thats fair to say that the commentary may not be correct in its assumption(sp?). What do you think might be an explanation for the flashes?

The one post that sticks out in this thread is Darages edit of the original photo that Pai posted.


So the Plane impacted at the E ring, something big went over E, D and C ring, Bounced off B ring, and smashed back into the C ring? No, doesnt sound like a plausible story now does it. Even the Stargate theory sounds better than that.

Can someone Please explain this. 1000000000 internets i shall give thee.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Azriphale]

reply to post by pai mei

---

Plane goes into the Pentagon, crashes through building and the KE pokes a hole in the wall. How much energy is required to punch a hole in the wall? (joules or equivalent TNT)

Please present why the KE at impact cannot create a hole in a brick wall?
How much energy in joules did 77 lack to make the hole?

Why were remains from 77 passenger found there? What is the worse a human body looks like at a 500 mph aircraft building impact? Looks like 77's KE did cause it, that was a lot of energy.

In the Air Force jets and the pilots who have entered the ground are smashed up into a few feet, all 60 feet of jet and the pilot. So what is funny about 77's impact at the Pentagon from the perspective of an aircraft accident investigator? Nothing. 77 caused the hole with it's KE.

Got any experts to back up the 77 can't do it?

Betwen the D and C ring you can see a roof. The roof is also between E and D, but less apparent from the photo. The object would have travelled under that roof, not over the building.

reply to post by Muundoggie

---

Anything from light abberation to bombs already in the building. But those are obviously just guesses. I just don't see why they would launch seperate missiles just before impact. Furthermore, we would have seen vapor trails from them probably. As far as light aberration goes, how about laser guidance?