Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by vault13er

 

I appreciate your opinion and point of view of what we should focus on.

I feel pictures are one of those ways of gaining information about the events of that day. I also believe the preponderance of nano-thermite and molten iron at the WTCs are a major scientific aspect leading toward proof that it wasn't a hijack-crash situation.

In another thread you just blasted someone for not sticking to your photo top. Now, you have the gall to bring up WTC issues. Your freaking nano-thermite was paint and there was no molten iron.]

edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Right, I appreciate your concern about sticking to the subject. Since vault13er's post casually discussed a few overall aspects of the day, I responded in kind. My intention was not to switch subjects, simply to make a small "introductory statement" about our beliefs. It's called raport.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by vault13er

 

I appreciate your opinion and point of view of what we should focus on.

I feel pictures are one of those ways of gaining information about the events of that day. I also believe the preponderance of nano-thermite and molten iron at the WTCs are a major scientific aspect leading toward proof that it wasn't a hijack-crash situation.

In another thread you just blasted someone for not sticking to your photo top. Now, you have the gall to bring up WTC issues. Your freaking nano-thermite was paint and there was no molten iron.]

edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Right, I appreciate your concern about sticking to the subject. Since vault13er's post casually discussed a few overall aspects of the day, I responded in kind. My intention was not to switch subjects, simply to make a small "introductory statement" about our beliefs. It's called raport.

It is refreshing that you speak of beliefs for a change instead of facts and proof. Who is "our"? I didn't know you were appointed spokesperson for everyone here.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by vault13er

 

I appreciate your opinion and point of view of what we should focus on.

I feel pictures are one of those ways of gaining information about the events of that day. I also believe the preponderance of nano-thermite and molten iron at the WTCs are a major scientific aspect leading toward proof that it wasn't a hijack-crash situation.

In another thread you just blasted someone for not sticking to your photo top. Now, you have the gall to bring up WTC issues. Your freaking nano-thermite was paint and there was no molten iron.]

edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Right, I appreciate your concern about sticking to the subject. Since vault13er's post casually discussed a few overall aspects of the day, I responded in kind. My intention was not to switch subjects, simply to make a small "introductory statement" about our beliefs. It's called raport.

It is refreshing that you speak of beliefs for a change instead of facts and proof. Who is "our"? I didn't know you were appointed spokesperson for everyone here.

reheat, are you really that ignorant to the use of the English language??
When talking about two people and you use the possessive pronoun "our" it is concerning the two people mentioned. stop trying SO HARD to dispute everything I say... wtf is wrong with you? just focus on 9/11 for a change.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by vault13er

 

I appreciate your opinion and point of view of what we should focus on.

I feel pictures are one of those ways of gaining information about the events of that day. I also believe the preponderance of nano-thermite and molten iron at the WTCs are a major scientific aspect leading toward proof that it wasn't a hijack-crash situation.

In another thread you just blasted someone for not sticking to your photo top. Now, you have the gall to bring up WTC issues. Your freaking nano-thermite was paint and there was no molten iron.]

edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Right, I appreciate your concern about sticking to the subject. Since vault13er's post casually discussed a few overall aspects of the day, I responded in kind. My intention was not to switch subjects, simply to make a small "introductory statement" about our beliefs. It's called raport.

It is refreshing that you speak of beliefs for a change instead of facts and proof. Who is "our"? I didn't know you were appointed spokesperson for everyone here.

reheat, are you really that ignorant to the use of the English language??
When talking about two people and you use the possessive pronoun "our" it is concerning the two people mentioned. stop trying SO HARD to dispute everything I say... wtf is wrong with you? just focus on 9/11 for a change.

I will gladly stop ancillary comments if you stop inserting your truther canards that permeate most posts you make. Be advised that I will continue to correct any misstatement that you make whether you approve or not.

The better question is WTF is wrong with you that you continue to avoid difficult to answer issues and call others fake with no evidence to support that bare assertion.

What about that landing gear strut? Was it or was it not in or very near his office? I'll answer for you. According to the best information available using deductive reasoning it was. I gave you a truther source. Is that wrong or faked evidence by someone who does not support the "OS"?

reply to post by Reheat


ROFL! your comments are anything but "ancillary" you may wanna look up what that word means.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat

 

ROFL! your comments are anything but "ancillary"

you may wanna look up what that word means.

From Dictionary.com

–adjective
1. subordinate; subsidiary.
2. auxiliary; assisting



What you think is a funny comment in no way addresses where that landing gear strut was found. Why do you avoid what should be relatively simple issues?

While it's on my mind, why have you ignored the photo with measurements that was posted by 911Files. Is it because it shows a hole big enough for a B-757 to pass thru?

reply to post by Reheat


my statement is that the landing gear strut was placed in a construction zone along with explosives... why does it matter what room it was found in??

What kind of answer are you looking for here, so we can avoid 6 or 8 posts about you calling me a liar?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat

 

my statement is that the landing gear strut was placed in a construction zone along with explosives... why does it matter what room it was found in??

What kind of answer are you looking for here, so we can avoid 6 or 8 posts about you calling me a liar?

I'm simply looking for "truth and justice" for ALL to include everyone you falsely accuse of complicity in your vast imaginary conspiracy. Why don't you find out how the Pentagon was constructed in that area and then prove you understand the construction by posting a description in your own words. I won't stop requesting this until you respond appropriately and correctly.

ETA: It should take only 1 post from you if you get it right the first time.

reply to post by Reheat

While it's on my mind, why have you ignored the photo with measurements that was posted by 911Files. Is it because it shows a hole big enough for a B-757 to pass thru?

Maybe because it wasn't "A" photo..
It was a photo-shopped composite..
Who knows what was altered????

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat

 

my statement is that the landing gear strut was placed in a construction zone along with explosives... why does it matter what room it was found in??

What kind of answer are you looking for here, so we can avoid 6 or 8 posts about you calling me a liar?

Why do you people always do that? You say that the plane parts were placed afterward as a ruse. How can you support that in any way shape or form? I mean, by that logic you are outright admitting that plane parts were in-fact present inside the building, yet you go on to say that they had to have been planted because you think the hole looks a little funny. You have no documents hinting at transport of airplane parts which would match a 757. You have no whistle-blowers saying that they oversaw or witnessed government agents plant plane parts before or after the fact. You have nothing!

I can't see how your theory can hold itself up at all with the kind of logic you're using.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

While it's on my mind, why have you ignored the photo with measurements that was posted by 911Files. Is it because it shows a hole big enough for a B-757 to pass thru?

Maybe because it wasn't "A" photo..
It was a photo-shopped composite..
Who knows what was altered????

Well, the photo is on a "truther" site and I believe the dimensions were also annotated by a truther, so go ahead and PROVE that the photo is misleading in any way or that the measurements are wrong. Have at it.

You have all night as I will be going beddie bye soon.

@Varemia

If I was going to construct a fake airplane crash I would plant some airplane parts... wouldn't you?

Investigation takes looking at the possibilities of both sides... this is not some Oxford style debate: how did the airplane crash? it's an open debate including maaaybe an airplane didn't crash there.

@reheat
go ahead and keep on asking about some irrelevant aspect of something I mentioned*, I can ignore you indefinitely..
* your question about the complete diagram, plans whatever for the Pentagon, as a response to my landing gear might be planted line.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
@Varemia

If I was going to construct a fake airplane crash I would plant some airplane parts... wouldn't you?

Investigation takes looking at the possibilities of both sides... this is not some Oxford style debate: how did the airplane crash? it's an open debate including maaaybe an airplane didn't crash there.

@reheat
go ahead and keep on asking about some irrelevant aspect of something I mentioned*, I can ignore you indefinitely..
* your question about the complete diagram, plans whatever for the Pentagon, as a response to my landing gear might be planted line.

PS: You have all night to find the answer. I'm off to bed. Sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite!

There was no fake airplane crash, so why would anyone plant parts. There was no need for that at all. They were delivered via airmail and wiped out a bunch of good folks in the process.

It was not just something you mentioned. You used it in an extremely arrogant manner while ROLF.

I did not ask for a complete diagram or plans of the Pentagon. I merely asked how many holes were in those walls that you very clearly stated while you were ROFL. Now, how many were there? It is not irrelevant at all, not in the least. It is relevant to the premise of the thread and it is very relevant and SIGNIFICANT regarding issues that have been raised in the thread.

If you don't answer the question fully and correctly READERS might get the impression that you have something to hide. Do you?

PS: You have all night to find the answer. I'm off to bed. Sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite! :

reply to post by Thermo Klein


If I was to construct a fake plane crash, I would crash a real plane into a building so that no one would question that it was a plane.

Honestly, if I was constructing a false flag such as this, I would use hypnotized agents (or an autopilot system) to replace the already planned hijackers so that they would fly everything where I wanted when I wanted. But that's just plain imagination now.

Really though, wouldn't it be easier and raise less eyebrows and questions to just fly a plane into the building? Maybe for added effect, put a small incendiary inside the plane and blame it on the fuel, but it would just be stupid and wasteful to fake the explosion, plane parts, witnesses, and damage of the plane on the way to the pentagon. Would be WAY easier to use a real plane.

reply to post by Reheat

Well, the photo is on a "truther" site and I believe the dimensions were also annotated by a truther, so go ahead and PROVE that the photo is misleading in any way or that the measurements are wrong. Have at it.

i don't really care where the photo is posted..
It's been shopped and that's that...

Originally posted by Varemia

Why do you people always do that? You say that the plane parts were placed afterward as a ruse.

Waddya mean "you people", Paleface? What plane parts? We've all seen the evidence of the guys moving evidence at the crime scene. Can you tell if they're planting parts or moving them. WTF are they even touching them@!!!!@#!@? You wouldn't accept that crap story line on CSI would you?

How can you support that in any way shape or form? I mean, by that logic you are outright admitting that plane parts were in-fact present inside the building, yet you go on to say that they had to have been planted because you think the hole looks a little funny. You have no documents hinting at transport of airplane parts which would match a 757.

Finally, you're referring to evidence at least...can you show me what you're hanging your hat on here? What plane parts were offered as proof that what blew up the ONI was the plane they are claiming, much less a large commercial jet. I see lots of evidence of fire and explosives, but no jet. Seriously, stop the tango and put out or admit you believe the OS simply because you saw it on the TeeVee.

You have no whistle-blowers saying that they oversaw or witnessed government agents plant plane parts before or after the fact. You have nothing!

How can you make a claim like that? If someone did blow the whistle, would be media report it? They're completely vested in cheer leading us into the next war, aren't they?

How do you know no one's blown the whistle? What about Sibel Edmonds? Has anyone read about Operation Code Angel yet? Tap, Tap, Tap! Is this thing on?

There are eye witnesses who are on the public domain saying they never saw a jet or damage that looked like a jet. Military folks saying this stuff. What more do you need? If the pentagon isn't a hot bed for spooks (read: psychotic paid liars), where is?

There have been fake identities used for the hijackers.

Fake identities used for victims.

If I was an honest person and I'd already gone on record saying I didn't see any jet debris at the Pentagon, and when I got home all I saw on the TeeVee was mlitary brass, media squawking heads, and government shirts crying about the jet that hit the Pentagon and the WTC...I might realize that whistle blowing may be hazardous to my health.

If I was a paid liar on the other hand, I've got no problem keeping my mouth shut.

Take the FDNY, NYPD, the OEM and Guilianni's mob for example...why would any wise guys who just pulled the scam of the century talk? They've already been paid off handsomly, and the lucky ones got to "die" and go into the witness protection program for rich a@@holes. Why talk? Would you, knowing it would mean no more free ride and almost certain death? Again, with the media, government, mob and military in bed over this thing, who do you turn to? International Finance?

Be real FFS!

my theory about 911 is insane so bear with me. instinct tells me it was mossad with CIA intel based on specifc targets that would cause the most terror on a most unsuspecting day. indeed the planes were hijacked but by brainwashed covers (covering real live people) who were led to believe that is was an act of god so great it was worth their lives. there are so many different factors, gaining important control over certain power and access to infinite taxpayer money for a war that could in turn create more profit (ammo, high tech weapon systems).

-controlled demolition, planes rigged with explosives for WTC buildings 7 included in DEMOLITIONS.
you've heard it all before, it's a half truth. the moment the plane hit the building they set the charge giving the impression the plane had exploded with such ferocity when it reality explosives were planted, designed to bring the buildings down. it's okay though. we're all going to die eventually.

reply to post by Varemia

If I was to construct a fake plane crash, I would crash a real plane into a building so that no one would question that it was a plane.

Depends on the motive of the plane crash, doesn't it? What are you trying to accomplish with your crash?

Really though, wouldn't it be easier and raise less eyebrows and questions to just fly a plane into the building? Maybe for added effect, put a small incendiary inside the plane and blame it on the fuel, but it would just be stupid and wasteful to fake the explosion, plane parts, witnesses, and damage of the plane on the way to the pentagon. Would be WAY easier to use a real plane.

See above. What were they trying to accomplish? Why wouldn't they use a plane if all they wanted to do was fake a terror attack? Might there be bigger motives?

reply to post by Varemia

If I was to construct a fake plane crash, I would crash a real plane into a building so that no one would question that it was a plane.

Honestly, if I was constructing a false flag such as this, I would use hypnotized agents (or an autopilot system) to replace the already planned hijackers so that they would fly everything where I wanted when I wanted. But that's just plain imagination now.

Really though, wouldn't it be easier and raise less eyebrows and questions to just fly a plane into the building? Maybe for added effect, put a small incendiary inside the plane and blame it on the fuel, but it would just be stupid and wasteful to fake the explosion, plane parts, witnesses, and damage of the plane on the way to the pentagon. Would be WAY easier to use a real plane.

If this were a planned operation they would need to be absolutely sure their objectives were accomplished. Inside the Pentagon was a group researching a missing $2.3 trillion. Donald Rumsfeld made the statement about the missing money the day before 9/11. The guy in charge of accounting for the money was Dov Zakheim, who happened to previously work for a defense contractor that specialized in remote control aircraft systems... the accounting group looking for this missing trillions happened to get blown up in the explosion after moving to that location just a few weeks before 9/11... Zakheim survived though - convenient day off maybe?

If that accounting group was a target it would be a prime objective of 9/11. USG insiders have TONS of experience with explosives and missiles and know exactly what they can do... they don't have precise details or expectation for what a crashing Boeing 757 will do so using one might not get the job done as needed.

I don't question this whole thing simply because the size of the hole... the Flight Data Recorder shows the flight never stopped at the Departure Gate (D 26 at IAD). The NIST report shows the area where the plane hit, but if you look at that location in real life the windows aren't even broken... there are just A LOT of things wrong with the big picture, and a lot of people stood to make trillions of dollars, start the Dep't of Homeland Security, bring us to war, etc.

I can only laugh, the truth will only be known when the public run Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and take George Bush and his cohorts there for a holiday, just my two cents.