Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 39
136
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



8 witnesses were pilots. One was an Air Traffic Controller at the Pentagon heliport.


Didn't Sean Boger's testimony contradict the official story in relation to the flight path of flight 77..?
That throws a HUGE spanner into the OS theory..
Mind you, he's not the only one that disputes the flight path..

But then I guess you will say he was mistaken on that bit but the rest of his statement is correct..
Must of been one of the "optical illusions" you are so fond of..


You mean the path that went into the Pentagon?

What's hilarious is people that try to use his testimony to go along with the "magic-trick" flyover, that fooled people because of the smoke and explosion, when in fact Boger was on the opposite side of it all, and the trick would have failed.




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



You mean the path that went into the Pentagon?

What's hilarious is people that try to use his testimony to go along with the "magic-trick" flyover, that fooled people because of the smoke and explosion, when in fact Boger was on the opposite side of it all, and the trick would have failed.


Not sure what you are saying..
But his testimony refutes the OS story..
It wouldn't match in with the damaged light poles etc...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Not sure what you are saying..


That's obvious.



It wouldn't match in with the damaged light poles etc...


So... they planted the light poles but crashed the plane into the building?

Sounds like a new theory is a brewin'!



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You're referring to the way that Craig Ranke and his buddy "Aldo", over at the "Citizen's Investigation Team" (C.I.T.) skewed their interviews with some eyewitnesses?? To include Sean Boger? You may wish to Google "Sean Boger" to look for some interesting factoids....

...meanwhile, regarding the C.I.T. and their junk videos, and the "interviews" with eyewitnesses....the resulting "conclusions" by the C.I.T. are examined in this very informative video about perspective, and how the C.I.T. misused terms of perspective (and orientation), and misrepresented the testimony of those few selected eyewitnesses...(to include Boger, although he is only referenced slightly, in this upcoming video):




It is VERY telling, also, that the C.I.T. rejected any testimony from any eyewitnesses that directly refuted their much-ballyhooed "North of Citgo" baloney claims......(they HAD to do that, in order for the rest of the nonsense they proposed, and clung to tenaciously...the ridiculous "flyover theory"....).



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



It is VERY telling, also, that the C.I.T. rejected any testimony from any eyewitnesses that directly refuted their much-ballyhooed "North of Citgo" baloney claims......(they HAD to do that, in order for the rest of the nonsense they proposed, and clung to tenaciously...the ridiculous "flyover theory"....).


Sounds exactly like what the 9/11 commission did Weed..
Many testimonies were left out or not even called on..

Why don't you question that..??????



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



What's hilarious is people that try to use his testimony to go along with the "magic-trick" flyover, that fooled people because of the smoke and explosion, when in fact Boger was on the opposite side of it all, and the trick would have failed.


If he was on the opposite side then how did he see the plane hit the Pentagon as many here have stated?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
If he was on the opposite side then how did he see the plane hit the Pentagon as many here have stated?



Wait, are you telling us that you don't even understand where Sean Boger was when he witnessed the plane crash into the building???

LOL!!



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by backinblack
If he was on the opposite side then how did he see the plane hit the Pentagon as many here have stated?



Wait, are you telling us that you don't even understand where Sean Boger was when he witnessed the plane crash into the building???

LOL!!


No mate, I was just replying to your statement.

What's hilarious is people that try to use his testimony to go along with the "magic-trick" flyover, that fooled people because of the smoke and explosion, when in fact Boger was on the opposite side of it all, and the trick would have failed.


Do you want to debate or just twist words and insult??



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by backinblack
If he was on the opposite side then how did he see the plane hit the Pentagon as many here have stated?



Wait, are you telling us that you don't even understand where Sean Boger was when he witnessed the plane crash into the building???

LOL!!


No mate, I was just replying to your statement.


So, if you do in fact know where he was when he witnessed the plane, what seems to be the problem?

Maybe post with a little more clarity next time.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 


What are you talkin about?A missile couldn't have done this?Not only could it have,but its the only thing that could.A plane couldn't have.A plane couldn't penetrate all those rings.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I'm not at all interested in your type of debate..
Twist away all you wish..It may get you stars but never change facts..
So over BS....



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Soloist
 


I'm not at all interested in your type of debate..


A truthful one? I thought that's what you guys were looking for, are you sure you're not just looking for a conspiracy instead?


Twist away all you wish..It may get you stars but never change facts..
So over BS....


That's right, nothing will change the fact that the plane was witnessed crashing into the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by surfnow2
 


What are you talkin about?A missile couldn't have done this?Not only could it have,but its the only thing that could.A plane couldn't have.A plane couldn't penetrate all those rings.


A missile could not have not knocked over all the light poles.

A missile could not have left a horizontal line of damage in the masonry along the west side of the impact hole.

Oh, no missile was ever witnessed or recovered.

But a plane could do all those things, and was witnessed.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


bush saw it whilst reading an upside down book about goats , to some kids.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


a missile does not have enought explosives to punch through all those walls. the only thing that could would have been the plane with it moving at 500 moh and the inertia behind easily make it that far. its like comparing a firecracker to C-4



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The only missles that flys parrallel are from fighter jets. do you have any idea what it takes to fire a LIVE missle over CONUS. Alot...... What purpose would an F-16 fire on its own DoD? Besides if any of our jets did fire a missle it would have hit the wall and broke in half. The missles you see on fighter jets are inert, there are no explosives in them. I think this post has been deflated



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 



The only missles that flys parrallel are from fighter jets.


Really..???????
I'm pretty sure that's wrong..
I don't think this bad boy was launched from a plane..





posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
The only missles that flys parrallel are from fighter jets. do you have any idea what it takes to fire a LIVE missle over CONUS. Alot...... What purpose would an F-16 fire on its own DoD? Besides if any of our jets did fire a missle it would have hit the wall and broke in half. The missles you see on fighter jets are inert, there are no explosives in them. I think this post has been deflated


Oh, so passenger airliners are not inert and act like missiles?

Have you never heard of false flag operations in order to start wars?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


tomahawks yes fly parallel but when they get close to there target they come down on to the target from above at an angle. your right you cant fire one from a F-16. IT WOULD have come from the naval fleet. again the problem here is thee tomahawk would have had to knock down telephone poles on one side, do another pass knock down the next set of poles this is including next to the intrestate and then drag on the ground and then impact the building. deflated

www.metacafe.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by backinblack
 


tomahawks yes fly parallel but when they get close to there target they come down on to the target from above at an angle. your right you cant fire one from a F-16. IT WOULD have come from the naval fleet. again the problem here is thee tomahawk would have had to knock down telephone poles on one side, do another pass knock down the next set of poles this is including next to the intrestate and then drag on the ground and then impact the building. deflated

www.metacafe.com...


Wrong, you are obviously new to this argument. Whatever hit the pentagon did not knock down light poles.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry try again.

You're also wrong about aircraft missiles all being inert, the HARM for one has an explosive warhead.





new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join