Pentagon + Global Hawk = 911 attack, page 13

privacy

Pages: << 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 04:02 AM by zorgon

IF...

IF you look at a plane crash when the fuel goes up you would see an orange fireball...

IF you see a missile strike you would see a red fireball...

So what color is the fireball at the pentagon?

Does THAT look like jet fuel burning?

THIS is the color of Jet Fuel burning...

Case closed No plane

edit on 15-10-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 04:18 AM by spoor

Originally posted by zorgon
Does THAT look like jet fuel burning?

THIS is the color of Jet Fuel burning...

Funny how you show jet fuel burning in the open, with plenty of oxygen versus jet fuel inside a building....

Just another truther failure!

edit on 15-10-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 05:07 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by spoor
Funny how you show jet fuel burning in the open, with plenty of oxygen versus jet fuel inside a building....

Funny to me it looks like the red flames are outside the building, but then OS sheep have blinder on

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 06:02 AM by ocker

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by zorgon
Does THAT look like jet fuel burning?

THIS is the color of Jet Fuel burning...

Funny how you show jet fuel burning in the open, with plenty of oxygen versus jet fuel inside a building....

Just another truther failure!
edit on 15-10-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

Not quite

ORANGE: WTC

ok no ordinary building fire we all concur.

RED: Pentagon

Best for last borrowed off Daryl Donley whom took the photo before fire suppression was used.

WTF I'd say.. there is no doubt a different fuel compound was ignited in the two said buildings to cause such a variation in color .
Ocker

edit on 15/10/2011 by ocker because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 06:58 AM by Cassius666

Can a global hawk pierce through all the pentagon walls?

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 09:27 AM by GenRadek

reply to post by Cassius666

More than likely not. It's far too small and far too slow to have the ability to punch through and go to the end like the 757 did.

Global Hawk:
Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,851 kg)
Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,387 kg)
Maximum speed: 497.1 mph

757 - 200:
Empty: 127,520 lb (57,840 kg)
Max Take-Off Weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)
Cruise Speed: 530 mph

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 09:30 AM by GenRadek

Originally posted by zorgon
IF...

IF you look at a plane crash when the fuel goes up you would see an orange fireball...

IF you see a missile strike you would see a red fireball...

So what color is the fireball at the pentagon?

Does THAT look like jet fuel burning?

THIS is the color of Jet Fuel burning...

:

Case closed No plane
edit on 15-10-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

Or maybe its the fact that different cameras, capture the colors differently, or the computer has different color settings, or the age is showing, or bad resolution, or different shading schemes, or overexposure, underexposure, different lightning, different contrasts. I mean seriously, you are going to use fire colors to disprove a plane crash?

edit on 10/15/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 05:52 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by GenRadek
I mean seriously, you are going to use fire colors to disprove a plane crash?

No I don't have to prove that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon... not many people buying that version these days.

But I was pretty certain I put IF clearly enough that even a wanna be General could see... so how does IF translate into PROOF in your dictionary?

Just asking

Now IF you really are a General, then I might assume you are on a mission of obfuscation. As to your camera theory show me one camera that show red jet fuel burning and one camera that shows orange flames at the pentagon at the time of the strike... (not the wood and debris burning after the fact

)

And can you show me the huge 757 in this shot? I suppose different cameras show different sizes of airplanes too huh?

edit on 15-10-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 06:07 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by GenRadek
757 - 200:
Empty: 127,520 lb (57,840 kg)
Max Take-Off Weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)
Cruise Speed: 530 mph

Well the claim by the OS is it was full of people... so where is all the exploded luggage? Every other airplabe crash the luggage is strewn all over..

Where is the luggage at the Pentagon? Vaporized like the airplane? Hmmmm

Gotta love how the OS supporters re invent physics to back their claims... Funny that

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 06:15 PM by userid1

reply to post by zorgon

No exploded luggage - that's your argument? It might make a little sense IF the plane hadn't penetrated the building. How about the testimony of the first responders and recovery personnel who found passengers still strapped in their seats - again, inside the building - hmmm...?

edit on 15-10-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 07:27 PM by spoor

Originally posted by zorgon
Vaporized like the airplane? Hmmmm

Gotta love how the OS supporters re invent physics to back their claims...

Funny how the truthers have to lie to back their claims - what makes you state the whole plane was vaporised? Why do you refuse to look at the pictures of the 757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon?

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 07:52 PM by SphinxMontreal

How about the testimony of the first responders and recovery personnel who found passengers still strapped in their seats - again, inside the building - hmmm...?

Sounds like the testimony of a witness on the highway who saw people looking out of the airplane windows as it whizzed by at 450 MPH. No offense, but these absurd witness claims are obviously geared towards gullible imbeciles.

Hey, how about some video or photographic evidence of these strapped in passengers? Oh, I forgot, it's the Pentagon...not very forthcoming when it comes to producing evidence to verify their preposterous claims.

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 10:13 PM by userid1

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Why preposterous? Doesn't fit your preferred notion of events? Why would the firemen lie? Seems to me, when faced with actual evidence, the Truther way out is to deny the veracity of the witnesses - all without a shred of evidence of course...cheap and childish.

reply posted on 16-10-2011 @ 05:29 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by userid1

No exploded luggage - that's your argument? It might make a little sense IF the plane hadn't penetrated the building.

First shot of inside hole, still smoking no airplane, no luggage

Former 9 11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon

YouTube Link

Ah yes missile... then he caught himself...

So much for 'testimonies'

Originally posted by userid1
Seems to me, when faced with actual evidence, the Truther way out is to deny the veracity of the witnesses - all without a shred of evidence of course...cheap and childish.

Seems to me the same can be said of you OS Sheep

edit on 16-10-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-10-2011 @ 05:37 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by spoor
Why do you refuse to look at the pictures of the 757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon?

I posted those pictures the size of the single engine they found doesn't match a 10 foot high Boeing engine and the debris with the letter is too small, better fits the painted global hawk senario

And if we are being called 'truthers', what does that make your side, 'liars'? Hmmmm

You wanna believe the OS, don't bother me a bit... enjoy your bliss

reply posted on 16-10-2011 @ 05:50 AM by userid1

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by userid1

No exploded luggage - that's your argument? It might make a little sense IF the plane hadn't penetrated the building.

First shot of inside hole, still smoking no airplane, no luggage

Yup - it's natural that the luggage would be the heaviest objects and breaking through walls - as opposed to oh...say...landing gear...

Former 9 11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon

YouTube Link

Ah yes missile... then he caught himself... So much for 'testimonies'

Originally posted by userid1
Seems to me, when faced with actual evidence, the Truther way out is to deny the veracity of the witnesses - all without a shred of evidence of course...cheap and childish.