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

page: 40
136
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


That this tired old thread just trundles on in this way is utterly pathetic.

Have any of you guys read Frank Legge and Warren Stutt's paper on the " Flight AA 77 on 9/11 : Real FDR Analysis : Frank Legge / Warren Stutt." thread ?

This is new information using the scientific method, as opposed to speculation, for a change. It blows the no-plane at the Pentagon theory out of the water.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Oh dear, it supports what you want to believe, please don't pretend it explains everything.

It doesn't explain how the damage to the pentagon is inconsistent with a passenger jet crashing into it. As usual many assumptions have to be facts for this paper to work.

Sorry bud but no soup for you.

Have you actually read that thread yourself, is anyone but the debunkers buying it?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It doesn't explain how the damage to the pentagon is inconsistent with a passenger jet crashing into it.


As the damage to the Pentagon is NOT inconsistent with a passenger plane hitting it, as has been posted here many times before, just what are you on about?


As usual many assumptions have to be facts for this paper to work.


You are the one making the wrong assumptions here once again!
edit on 9/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Have you actually read that thread yourself, is anyone but the debunkers buying it?


I read the whole report..

It starts with the set idea of fitting the new information with the official flight path..
It then makes many assunptions and ignores it's stated margin of error to make that information fit..

I would NOT consider it a reputable report in any way based on it's "preset" conclusion..



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



As the damage to the Pentagon is NOT inconsistent with a passenger hitting it, as has been posted here many times before, just what are you on about?


Gee Dereks, one passenger did all that damage.??
Must of been a BIG gut..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


So where did the plane go?

If it had the energy to go completely through the first outer reinforced wall it should not have completely disappeared, as there is nothing else beyond that first wall that was stronger. So what made the plane disappear?

Where did the wings and engines go as there is obviously no hole for them to have gone through. If you think they were completely destroyed by the wall then that contradicts what the rest of the plane did. Jet engines verses carbon fiber nose cone, which one is more likely to do the most damage?

Newtons 3rd law of motion, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

We have contradicting events going on if you believe the planes fuselage went into the building and was destroyed by the same walls it went through, yet the wings and engines somehow did not manage to go through the walls and ended up in the same state, completely obliterated.

The whole story is a contradiction.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
it should not have completely disappeared, as there is nothing else beyond that first wall that was stronger. So what made the plane disappear?


Another truther lie, who claims it disappeared? There are photo's and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage, engines, undercarriage, bodies still strapped into seats etc. to show it did not disappear!


Where did the wings and engines go as there is obviously no hole for them to have gone through


Yet another lie, there is obviously a hole, just look at the pictures that have been posted here many times before


the whole story is a contradiction.


No it is not, you just claim that as it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



No it is not, you just claim that as it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!


The 9/11 commission report and the NIST report are both only theories until they open them to peer review and an unbiased investigation..

BTW, saw you edited your other post..
We do need some humour though.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


on the contrary the damage to the pentagon and surronding area only confirms it was a plane



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by ANOK
 


on the contrary the damage to the pentagon and surronding area only confirms it was a plane


Well seeing as you offer nothing to support your comment, it's nothing but your opinion.

I don't go by opinions.

I know what debunkers claim as evidence, but it doesn't explain the physics anomaly.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Another truther lie, who claims it disappeared? There are photo's and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage, engines, undercarriage, bodies still strapped into seats etc. to show it did not disappear!


No it's not a lie it's a difference in opinion, you think there was enough wreckage I don't.

Stop calling people liars.

Are we going to continue with this childish, you're wrong I'm right BS, or can you address the physics problem I pointed out?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Another truther lie, who claims it disappeared? There are photo's and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage, engines, undercarriage, bodies still strapped into seats etc. to show it did not disappear!


The lack of wreckage most talk about is what was "outside" the Pentagon in plain view..
There was precious little.....
What was supposidly found inside, well if you are a truther then it's easy to see where that may have come from..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
alright i know this means nothing to any of you guys on here but i have worked many types of accident before, car, truck, train, boat and plane. no two accidents are the same they are all different as there are many variables.

FACT: lightpoles knocked down matching up the width of the plane.
FACT: side of the pentagon damage matches up to the approximate width of the plane
FACT: debris from plane with American Airline lettering found on the site outside the building
FACT: various engine parts, seats and other fuselage material found inside the building.
FACT: A reported who witnessed the plane hit the building stated he saw an American Airline plane hit the building.
He also stated that it was "LIKE A MISSLE". For some reason people keep saying this guy stated that a MISSLE hit the building. He did not say it was a missle he said the plane was like a missle because quite frankly it probably scared the # out of him.

everything i typed above can be found through simple investigations.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 



no two accidents are the same they are all different as there are many variables.

Really???
Two planes hit two towers..They both fell...Oh and a third for good measure..
Both planes dissapeared into the buildings.

One plane hit the Pentagon..Little wreckage outside.
It dissapeared into the building..

One plane crashed into a field..
It dissapeared into the ground..

Seems you are wrong..Some accidents seem incredibly similar to me.
edit on 10-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by dereks
 



Another truther lie, who claims it disappeared? There are photo's and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage, engines, undercarriage, bodies still strapped into seats etc. to show it did not disappear!


The lack of wreckage most talk about is what was "outside" the Pentagon in plain view..
There was precious little.....
What was supposidly found inside, well if you are a truther then it's easy to see where that may have come from..



yet the OS ANIMATION shows the PLANE ENTERING THE PENTAGON no? and some OS supporters contradict their own precious story and other fans of it claiming the wings either hit the wall and vaporized, or folded up, went inside and vaporized.

which is it?

it can only be ONE WAY... yet they move the goal posts, twist facts or claim holes exist where they clearly don't.

and thats not to mention NONE of the wreckage or debris has ever been forensically identified to belong to any of the planes whatsoever... as if that alone isn't evidence to support NRPT.

its an effin shell game with these morons.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Question:

If they wanted us to believe a plane really hit the Pentagon, why didn't they use a real plane?




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
FACT: lightpoles knocked down matching up the width of the plane.
FACT: side of the pentagon damage matches up to the approximate width of the plane
FACT: debris from plane with American Airline lettering found on the site outside the building
FACT: various engine parts, seats and other fuselage material found inside the building.
FACT: A reported who witnessed the plane hit the building stated he saw an American Airline plane hit the building.

FACT: lightpoles was staged
FACT: side of the pentagon damage doesnt matches up to the approximate width of the plane.
FACT: There was more debris on my car accident before 4 years .
FACT :various engine parts, seats and other fuselage material was not found inside the building.But they found DNA on some passengers.

FACT:There are some witnesses who see a missile .



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
A missile could not have not knocked over all the light poles.


except a drone could.

but then thats irrelevant when the OS noc flight path has been proven impossible and ample evidence exists that
puts reasonable doubt about the light pole THEORY.


Originally posted by Soloist
no missile was ever witnessed or recovered.


just because no one witnessed a missile, doesn't prove there wasn't one when you have evidence that supports damage a missile can do.

and whether one was recovered is irrelevant since any such recovery would have been COVERED UP. DUH.


Originally posted by Soloist
But a plane could do all those things, and was witnessed.


except unfortunately for those defending the OS lie, there are other credible witnesses that contradict them.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by surfnow2
flight 93 was coming in at an incredible speed and almost nose down. the dam thing was vaporized for the most part

I thought 95% of it was recovered?

.
edit on 8-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


waiting for surfnow to answer this ....



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

  • 136 saw a plane approach the Pentagon.

  • 103 saw the plane HIT the Pentagon.

  • 26 were certain it was an American Airlines jet.

  • 7 were savvy (knowledgeable) enough to recognize it as a Boeing 757.

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

  • ZERO saw a missile hit the Pentagon.

  • ZERO saw a Global Hawk or other type of military aircraft hit the Pentagon.


  • and when anyone examines all the evidence and witnesses you've listed, its clear the evidence for real planes or a plane hitting the pentagon is worthless.





    new topics
    top topics
     
    136
    << 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

    log in

    join