posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:53 PM
OK, this really resolves the two contradictory ideas on the blogs about what happened for me.
When I saw those frames the Pentagon released, and this vapor trail in the animated explosion. I cannot see any possible way that is a 747 or larger
craft. Yet from eyewitnesses, it is clear that a large craft at least flew towards the building.
Eyewitness testimony is squirrelly at best -- but kudos for placing the people at a location where they were witnesses. You CAN KNOW what a person is
capable of seeing from a particular vantage point, and rule out what they cannot know. That came in handy for debunking a lot of the government theory
The idea of a fly-over, and a second device makes a lot of sense and dovetails nicely with the photographic evidence -- which NEVER proves a large
plane in my mind, and the witnesses, who only see a large plane. No wonder they had to confiscate all the video and destroy radar tapes after the
event -- these would probably have shown the plane to pass over the pentagon at a low altitude, and fly away. When nobody is expecting this 5 second
event out of their day, and it ends with an explosion and a quick response to push the "official story" quickly afterward can fix the memory pretty
easily that people saw a plane go into a building.
Thanks for this. I've shied away from the Pentagon stuff because until now, there was too little proof of anything.
Looking at all those people, lifting that blue-tarp/tent with one hand. I can't imagine there is even an engine in there. Yeah, it does look like
it's empty underneath, but someone could claim that there was a structure over the engine. But why? Why was there a tarp at all and how did a large
aircraft get moved so that nobody could see actual parts? Why even bother covering it up?
The only reason to cover things up is to hide guilt at a crime scene.