Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

page: 8
249
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
great post thanks....

S & F for you...




posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
[edit on 7/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I’d like to share a little story that may explain all of the differing opinions regarding eyewitness accounts about whether or not a plane hit the pentagon. First off you must understand that eyewitness testimony is not very reliable. IF you cannot accept this fact (and it is a fact, just ask any criminal law attorney or police officer), then you are stuck in your frame of mind and more closed minded then most skeptics.

The story begins like this: At one point in my life I was in law school and one of my very first classes was Contractual Law. This was a very basic course (well for law school that is) and our class got into a debate about verbal contracts and eyewitnesses. Our professor explained that often eyewitness testimony cannot be relied on alone and that you need substantial facts to back up their version of events. The discussion became very heated by the time class was over. During the next class about midway through a man burst into the room running around and screaming that he was being killed. He was then tackled by to security guards and promptly escorted from class. I don’t think a single person in that room was not surprised by the events. At the end of the class the Professor asked each student to write an eyewitness testimony giving as much detail as could be remembered about the man who burst into the class. No one thought anything of it until the end of the semester when the Professor invited a guest speaker for our last lecture before we had to take our final exam. To our surprise the guest speaker was a very tall and husky female who ID herself as the associate director of the university. She was the “man” who burst into the class earlier in the semester. The Professor then read to us all 36 eyewitness testimonies, of which only approximately 6 or 7 were remotely close. However, even those descriptions have the person in question listed as a man.

I don’t claim to know about airplanes, crashes, missiles, or debris. What I can tell you no matter what happen at the pentagon that day it will never be resolved with eyewitness testimony. As an autonomous being, humans are only capable of seeing what they want to believe and using their experience and knowledge to fill in the gaps. So, I can’t begin to tell you what happened. I know what I believe, but it is not up to me to convenience you. I can only tell you what I think…and what I think usually isn’t a “fact” but my interpretation of what I believed happened. We get too caught up in our opinions without realizing that is exactly what they are. Unless a video comes out that is crystal clear in quality from a source no one can question then all of us are just filling in the gaps with our perception of events.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Thread notice:

Back on topic now please: 'Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish.'

The topic of discussion is not religion, it is not each other, it is not insulting other members.

Let's get this thread back on track.

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The footage has been explained....this has to do with the frame rate of the camera. Nothing is missing [except a high speed camera.]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
The aircraft that hit the pentagon has been identified as an obsolete design of Navy jet fighter.


another truther lie, it has been identified as a 757, with 757 engines, 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage, and the passengers from Flight 77 were identified inside the Pentagon


Notice that no one ever writes about the absolutely fabulous amount of gold that was in the basements [bath tub] of the World Trade Centre [WTC] complex. The authorities managed to remove from the rubble just two pallet of gold bars.


Why do "truthers" tell lies like this? All the gold and silver was removed "about 12 tonnes of gold and 30 million ounces of silver. The hoard was estimated to be worth at least $230 million.

There were about 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars in the underground COMEX warehouse. While gold is very dense, the task of loading the indestructible yellow metal onto armoured Brinks trucks was not nearly as cumbersome as moving the silver.

Experts said it would take some 50 tractor trailers to transport 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars. "

www.rediff.com...


Simultaniously as the aircraft hit the towers the nuclear devices were detonated underground so as to completely irradicate [notice similarity with the word irradiate] the evidences of underground tunnels.


Now do you see how silly "truthers" conspiracy theories are, claiming nuclear bombs were detonated under WTC4



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The footage has been explained....this has to do with the frame rate of the camera. Nothing is missing [except a high speed camera.]


I'm suggesting that the Pentagon would NEVER have such a poor frame rate at a Federal building entrance. If somebody ran that checkpoint what are they gonna rely on - a whoosh of the side of a guy's head?



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider2009
 


Hi Spider, I really appreciate your taking the time to share that story. My field is Psychology and I've seen similar eyewitness accounts (namely a female purse snatcher grabbing the teachers purse).

With your background, I'm surprised that trying to fit such a huge airplane into a small hole isn't considered as proof.

If a getaway car allegedly went through a 2 foot diameter pipe, it would be deemed as impossible and acceptable evidence (the car didn't go that way) in a court, right?



[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Wasn't that area of the Pentagon recently upgraded. It seems that they were testing how well these new reinforcements were going to hold up. So just crashing a aluminum plane would never be enough to test it.

Whatever was sent into the Pentagon needed to be missile like with explosive characteristics. Duplicating a type of cruise missile.

Professional pilots that know the plane have said that what it did before the strike is next to impossible to do with that aircraft, this makes me think it could never have been just a standard passenger plane no matter what.

A special enlarged global hawk type plane painted up like American Airlines behaving like cruise missile seems to be one plausible answer. Either that or an actual plane that was all tricked out for this particular special op.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I thought that you were giving credence to the thought that the video was doctored. It seems that parking lot gate cameras are not new technology.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Actually, I see it the other way. If the walls had been reinforced with additional layers etc, then it makes it tougher for anyone to know exactly what would happen if an airliner were to strike the building. So, how do we know if the damage is from an airliner or missle. Again, I don't pretend to know what happened, but there is just enough so-called facts on both sides to make me wonder. I'm not sure if I will ever feel confident one way or the other as to completely believe either account.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Spider2009]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Thanks for posting those, it was some compelling footage. We had around 10 people leave the Kitty Hawk for the Pentagon, I knew a few of the girls that were being stationed there. After we returned from OIF Noble Eagle etc.. I ran into one of them off base at night, they had let them return to Yokosuka to rest and heal with friends. She had gotten burned pretty badly in a few places she really didn't talk about it much , it really messed her up. But she said it was real sudden she was walking down the hall with files and BOOM FIREBALL.

If an aircraft did pull up and away maybe it released an AGM-62 Walleye, they were pretty much phased out of service by then but they were 2000Lb laser guided bombs. Since they were getting scrapped it might have made for a nice weapon of choice. Sources on the weapon said it was phased out in the mid 90's but I remember eating and mustering next to the occasional Walleye in 1999, 2000, 2001.



www.designation-systems.net...



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


those photos were taken from another accident site ,sorry,pentagon must be lying to us,,,did i say that? need to do better than that !



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Spider2009
 


Hi Spider, I really appreciate your taking the time to share that story. My field is Psychology and I've seen similar eyewitness accounts (namely a female purse snatcher grabbing the teachers purse).

With your background, I'm surprised that trying to fit such a huge airplane into a small hole isn't considered as proof.

If a getaway car allegedly went through a 2 foot diameter pipe, it would be deemed as impossible and acceptable evidence (the car didn't go that way) in a court, right?



[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]


I see your point, but at the same time there is plenty of previous evidence one can look to. I'm sure there have been many more car accidents that would give us a much larger base to draw our own conclusions from. However, this kind of goes back to my previous post, but if that pipe was doctored with additional modifications and such it would be hard to determine what kind of damage it would do or not. There is just so much we don't know that no matter what side you take there will be rather large gaps that will cause the other side to never accept it. Hence, my position...I would like to keep my kiddie view of the world, but as I get older and gain wisdom I am finding out more and more that it is never as bad or as good as it seems, but rather a shade of everything.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SassyCat

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
that we saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon.


Why didnt you post the pictures of a 757 undercarriage found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 wheels found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 engines found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 damage caused to the outside of the Pentagon before it collapsed?

Why didnt you post the evidence of where the body parts from Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 wreckage on the lawn outside the Pentagon?

All these pictures have been posted here many times before, but of course you ignore them as they destroy your silly theory that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon!

Well, I can shoot someone in the head with a pistol and put some hairs from a bear fur near the corpse. That obviously means that bear has killed the man. I don't care about your silly little bullet hole pictures because media has shown so many bear fur pictures that no one thinks of anything else but bears.


More like you're saying you shot someone in the head and then said No you didn't, his head just exploded by itself!

And we are supposed to believe you, because someone obviously planted that gun in your hand...




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
i find it amazing that someone can take two unrelated pictures, throw in a fictitious story - and claim it's a government conspiracy against its self.

There is no point in arguing with a brick wall. All the evidence in the world would cause you to move the goal post.

You're not interested in a conspiracy. You're interested in government bashing.

Have fun. I'll go find a legitimate conspiracy


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I spent 6 years with the Boeing company building various models including the 757, and they are very durable aircraft not just because of the quality of the materials used but also the box and truss construction type design.
The wing is by far the most insanely tough piece of the aircraft, the wing being as strong as it is could easily survive smashing through a concrete wall and leave huge amounts of debris, but there wasn't much or any debris there. While at Boeing most or all employees have to sit through hours of video footage of their planes, that have crashed before. Showing the crash site and sometimes with footage of them crashing.
They want employees, (and rightly so), to think about how important doing a good, error free job is so these crashes don't happen due to bad workmanship. In watching those videos you would always see about 80% of whatever was left of the plane after the wreck, but the pentagon situation shows no big chunks of box and truss contructed wreckage which is always there in every single case, except the pentagon deal....
It is blatently obvious that the OP is 100% correct, no heavy aircraft hit the pentagon, period.....

[edit on 7-2-2010 by antideceit]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Controlled demolition is responsible for this. Not a Missile or Commercial Airliner. Inside job, let's not be ignorant.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
as i recall much of the body parts found (from all crash sites) belong to one person in majority so we re still missing more then 95% of the people on thouse planes used on 9/11,

biggest question in my mind is regarding pentagon is , where is the plane wreckage



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Thread notice:

Back on topic now please: 'Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish.'

The topic of discussion is not religion, it is not each other, it is not insulting other members.

Let's get this thread back on track.

Thank you.


Those who perpetrated the 911 attack on the Pentagon and WTC were religiously motivated. That is why when ever we debate 911 therefore religious matters creap in to the dialogue. But as a matter of policy we should stay on thread. Pentagon 911. I hope some one will open up a tread where we can deal with the religious aspects of the 911 attack.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]





new topics

top topics



 
249
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join