It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What must have happened at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by budaruskie
The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants





Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it


So the government can do anything it wants except that it can't?

I'm not sure that this is particularly logical.
edit on 3-2-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)


Well, taken completely out of context as it appears above, it does seem pretty illogical...even comical. Not as comical as a person posting such ridicule after carefully combing the thread, avoiding the actual discussion, and cherry-picking two unrelated comments. You're so awesome and smart and witty. I just can't thank you enough for enlightening us all with your unparalleled wisdom. Now run along and play with the other little kiddies.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Why are all of you refusing to see the obvious logic of providing evidence to prove your case. You certainly never miss the opportunity to demand it from a "truther", but when the tables are turned you choose only to insult or deflect. I've been careful not to implicate the gov't as culpable in the attack, but how can you possibly say they don't have the footage? Doesn't it make sense that if they didn't have the footage, they would show it just to prove that the footage isn't sufficient? You all know this is a perfectly sensible request that as of right now has no perfectly sensible answer...other than the tapes show something different than we are being told. That is exactly why I'm giving you all the opportunity to provide an alternative explanation, but you refuse to do so.


I gave you a few reasons why it's not being released. It is a moot point anyway, since "Truthers" in general will say it's doctored anyway.


Originally posted by budaruskie

I am not discounting the eyewitness testimony, but you are not acknowledging the fact that different people claim to have seen different planes in different places, etc. The fact that all of the "evidence" collected at the "crash site" that "proves" it was the plane they claim it to be is small enough to be moved by 1-2 people.


So, you've seen all of the debris? Cool!




Originally posted by budaruskie
That doesn't mean that it doesn't count or exist, but it certainly raises some reasonable doubt. Doubt, that could easily be squashed with one video of the plane. I'm not trying to play games with all of you, I'm trying to pose a perfectly reasonable question in hopes that you will reasonably try to answer it.


What about radar tracks, DNA evidence, FDR and CVR evidence? Do you handwave all of that away?

BTW, I've already posted a few reasons why.


Originally posted by budaruskie
Unfortunately, you all just want to insult or argue with me about something else as to avoid the question at hand. The evidence not existing IS possible, but extremely unlikely...as unlikely that someone with no experience flying that class of airplane could fly it in excess of all known capabilities and execute maneuvers that known experienced pilots say are impossible or nearly impossible. It could happen, but its clearly not the most likely explanation and once again, a video could easily answer this question or at least part of it.


Again, you must look at ALL the evidence, not just what suits your beliefs.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
People are still harping on about those tapes that were confiscated? Don't make me repost (for FSM knows what time) the full list of what was on them AGAIN.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


If you are not aware, a few years ago a Scott Bingham actually went to litigation because he believed the FBI were concealing relevant video footage of the Pentagon attack. In response the FBI furnished the US District Court, District of Columbia with this declaration by Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire :-

www.judicialwatch.org...

It is clear from that declaration that the FBI doesn't have any footage that we don't already know about. If you wish to allege that the declaration to the Court is false then you would be implying the FBI is " in on it " and that the Special Agent is a perjurer , but without any evidence.

Btw, have you read the Frank Legge / Warren Stutt paper about the decode of the last few seconds from AA 77's flight data recorder yet ? You said you would.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So, this special agent claims the FBI has 85 tapes. She then claims that by examining chain of custody records, not by examination of evidence itself, that 56 tapes are useless. So, she personally views the remaining 29 tapes only one in her opinion "shows the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon", but the FBI lab she contacted to make photographs and confirm, said the impact was not on the footage. My boy Dave will be happy to see that the big bad gum't actually does have evidence from the Citgo and others from their optical laser star wars drives. Anyway, to boil this down, she claims that out of 85 tapes, 29 of which she actually viewed, 1 tape DID SHOW THE CRASH. However, I have not seen this tape and apparently she was told by her own agency that she was mistaken. So, it sounds more to me like the big bad gum't is calling her a liar, perjeror, whatever you want to call it. It's also hard not to wonder why she wouldn't go ahead and watch the other tapes anyway, instead of doing what you OS guys love to claim "truthers" always do TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORD FOR IT. After all, that was her task at the time and she is considered an expert. Now you tell me what you read.

As for the paper about the last few seconds of flight 77's flight path, no I haven't but the weekend is here. Do you care to give me some idea of what the highlights are, or if the authors are credible? It sounds long, and I always have limited time, although I don't mind reading if its actually worth it.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Well, taken completely out of context as it appears above, it does seem pretty illogical...even comical.


It does seem comical, but it's not out of context. The quotes are mutually exclusive. Redolent of someone who hasn't really thought this through that carefully.

Face it, these are just conspiracist cliches you're trotting out. The government are all powerful, no hang on there's this cabal of... well, you know, like, um...

Try to think for yourself.


Not as comical as a person posting such ridicule after carefully combing the thread, avoiding the actual discussion, and cherry-picking two unrelated comments. You're so awesome and smart and witty. I just can't thank you enough for enlightening us all with your unparalleled wisdom. Now run along and play with the other little kiddies.


Yeah, because consistency of thought is so childish.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So, this special agent claims the FBI has 85 tapes. She then claims that by examining chain of custody records, not by examination of evidence itself, that 56 tapes are useless. So, she personally views the remaining 29 tapes only one in her opinion "shows the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon", but the FBI lab she contacted to make photographs and confirm, said the impact was not on the footage. My boy Dave will be happy to see that the big bad gum't actually does have evidence from the Citgo and others from their optical laser star wars drives. Anyway, to boil this down, she claims that out of 85 tapes, 29 of which she actually viewed, 1 tape DID SHOW THE CRASH. However, I have not seen this tape and apparently she was told by her own agency that she was mistaken. So, it sounds more to me like the big bad gum't is calling her a liar, perjeror, whatever you want to call it. It's also hard not to wonder why she wouldn't go ahead and watch the other tapes anyway, instead of doing what you OS guys love to claim "truthers" always do TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORD FOR IT. After all, that was her task at the time and she is considered an expert. Now you tell me what you read.

As for the paper about the last few seconds of flight 77's flight path, no I haven't but the weekend is here. Do you care to give me some idea of what the highlights are, or if the authors are credible? It sounds long, and I always have limited time, although I don't mind reading if its actually worth it.


How on earth you conclude the above from the very clear declaration beats me. Well I suppose it doesn't really beat me because your denial is apparent from the start. You say " this special agent claims " when this is a legal declaration to a Court by a Special Agent on behalf of the FBI. Not a casual assertion.

What is confusing about the content ? She says her enquiries revealed 85 tapes which could potentially be relevant. However, on consideration ,she rejected 56 of those because the chain of custody AND " other written suppporting documentation associated with each tape " showed they in fact contained nothing relevant.

The remaining 29 she examined herself but only the security gate footage showed the impact. You said you haven't seen it but surely that isn't possible ?

So what are you saying ? Is the FBI " in on it " ? If so, seems to be at odds with the recent wikileaks exposure of confidential documents indicating that the FBI is still pursuing suspected associates of the 9/11 hi-jackers.

You mention the Citgo gas station tape , which the Agent described as of poor quality. Have you actually seen it ? It has been available on the internet for years. It shows, as you would expect for a gas station, people filling cars and paying for their fuel. Have a look yourself :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I've grown so accustomed to OS supporters like Dave and others who actively try to squelch any discussion by constantly making ridiculous statements or accusations that intentionally derail good threads. I will only do this once. Alright, let's see if I can explain this in terms you might understand.

My first statement

The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants, especially when it comes to an act of war or terrorism

When the Federal gov't claims war powers or a state of emergency, it does in fact increase the scope and power of the Federal gov't. Don't believe me, then prove me wrong. Anyway, this particular statement was dealing exclusively with the Federal gov't power, jurisdiction, authority, however you want to describe it to take possession of video tapes of the Pentagon "plane crash" on 9/11. If you didn't understand that, then you are either a) not paying any attention or b) being childish.

My second statement

Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it.

This was just a suggestion as a possible reason why the gov't wouldn't release evidence that supports in own case, a version of events to which opposition and ridicule have grown since its inception. I was not saying anything about a cabal or whatever crap you are suggesting I said. There could be other reasons other than this, that is what I was hoping to get from you and others, but didn't.

Are you done yet? You got a response so like I said before, go play with the other kiddies to whom I will not respond until they bring something of substance to the discussion.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I did not know that "the CD-ROM described in paragraph 23 of the Hardy Declaration" was the security gate footage, but I will take YOUR word for it. I must have mistakenly ascertained it was the Citgo gas station video. Other than that, I see no mistakes in my interpretation of the document provided. So, as it stands, the 56 tapes she did not review, could possibly have that plane on them, but neither you, me, or her actually know because none of us have seen them. Regardless, the gov't could still release that footage to prove its case, but hasn't. We all know there is no 757 or any recognizable plane on the security gate footage or hotel footage. That lends credence to conspiracy theories, does it not? Or, as I have tried to explain, could the fact that there is no plane on those recordings could be indicative of some exotic technology. That's just a mere suggestion, not an assertion.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   


If so, seems to be at odds with the recent wikileaks exposure of confidential documents indicating that the FBI is still pursuing suspected associates of the 9/11 hi-jackers.


Are you talking about the same Wikileaks and Julian Assange stooge who dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theorists because he has so much faith in the 9/11 fairy tale? The same Assange who does not believe 9/11 was a conspiracy to start unlawful, unprovoked, unjust and unending wars based on layers of lies?

Thanks for the credible source.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The logical extension of your argument is that any video in the world might have AA 77 on it unless you watch it to exclude the possibility.

The FBI agent requested a raft of videos received by the Washington Field Office ( total 85 ). She soon found by looking at the documentation that 56 certainly did not contain anything about the Pentagon, the crash or the plane. For example, one was of the "Twin Towers", one was of a " suburban setting, unknown individuals ", several were of " Kinco's in Florida " so why would she waste her time on that ?

Obviously you wont accept it but, as it stands, you have zero evidence that there are further videos out there showing impact to the Pentagon. And, to continue to allege it means you are implicating the FBI in the conspiracy and specifically accusing the Agent of perjury.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


If so, seems to be at odds with the recent wikileaks exposure of confidential documents indicating that the FBI is still pursuing suspected associates of the 9/11 hi-jackers.


Are you talking about the same Wikileaks and Julian Assange stooge who dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theorists because he has so much faith in the 9/11 fairy tale? The same Assange who does not believe 9/11 was a conspiracy to start unlawful, unprovoked, unjust and unending wars based on layers of lies?

Thanks for the credible source.


I love this. Only months ago Julian Assange was a knight in shining armour for truthers. He was expected to ride in and reveal confidential documents that would blow the 9/11 "inside job " wide open.

Unfortunately for truthers, it turns out he has no time for your conspiracy theories as regards 9/11 and the documents he has disclosed support the OS.

No wonder you are p****d off !



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


No, the logical extension of my argument is not that ANY video in the world may have flight 77 on it...that's obviously illogical. The correct extension is that ANY OF THE VIDEOS TAKEN ON OR AROUND THE PENTAGON ON 9/11 may have flight 77 on it. As it stands, there has never been any video evidence of such a plane striking the Pentagon. You, as well as the gov't, expect me to believe that the cameras that WERE present all missed the plane; but I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that the plane hit where those same cameras WERE filming. I'm supposed to believe this, without ever getting to see the tapes myself. If the security gate or hotel videos, which the gov't didn't willingly release but were basically forced to by FOIA requests or other court order, actually showed flight 77 it wouldn't be such a pivotal, vital, essential, undeniably logical and pertinent issue.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


As it stands you have an unequivocal declaration to a US Court by the FBI that they don't have any footage showing impact to the Pentagon other than that from the security gate cameras. If that is a lie then the FBI must be complicit in the conspiracy and Special Agent Maguire is a perjurer.

On the other hand, you don't have a shred of evidence that there is any more footage. You just think there should be although security cameras typically operate at 1 frame per second and AA 77 was travelling at 792 fps at the end according to it's flight data recorder.

But what do you expect your supposed concealed footage to show ? A cruise missile, a drone ? There is overwhelming evidence that AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon. There were phone calls from AA 77 saying it was hi-jacked. Many witnesses saw a commercial airliner, some noted AA livery and some even identified Boeing 757. One, Penny Elgas, picked up a piece of debris and donated it to the Smithsonian. Air Traffic Control and Radar records place AA 77 at the Pentagon. All the aircraft wreckage is compatible with a Boeing 757. DNA identified body parts of passengers and crew were recovered from the Pentagon and personal effects. And then there is the flight data recorder which you don't seem too keen to read about.

Anyway, here is a link to the paper regarding the last few seconds of AA 77 :-

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

I've grown so accustomed to OS supporters like Dave and others who actively try to squelch any discussion by constantly making ridiculous statements or accusations that intentionally derail good threads. I will only do this once. Alright, let's see if I can explain this in terms you might understand.


A Pentagon thread, oh goody...

You know one of the things that bothers me about the Pentagon is that large inner exit hole thingy, that, and those (what seem like) pics of parts from an A3 Skywarrior plane situated just adjacent to the outer wall.

Think about it.

A plane crashes into the Pentagon on the side they are fixing and building up, or 'renovating' or whatever... A building already reinforced though it's just an office etc. And inside, like I don't know how many inner and outer walls later, you come to the outer wall (on the deep inside) that has a nifty, rather large and impressive, circularish hole in it.

You know the one etc.

Now it's true, I'm not a pilot, builder, eye witness or accident investigator but like tell me how, if the facade of the building fell down only later AFTER the 'impact', how is this hole even possible and caused by ANY kind of plane?

A plane that they say was BIG sure, Ok, but we all know what they are built of and except for the two engines, I mean, the plane body is not as strong as the engines, but there was only one hole, one hole like 3 rings in... as in like 3 Ring Circus maybe.

Where is all the plane? 'Well it vapourized!' Well that vapourizing packs a really solid punch!

A Hole Punch.

There's that video on the net of the plane hitting that concrete wall and the plane disintegrates, and that's just one wall and it doesn't even make a hole!!

But like, what do I know? You know?

That hole is I dunno, circular like the fuselage?! Is that it? A fuselage shaped hole 3 rings in?! You think I was born yesterday? Wasn't. You tell me how you get a fuselage shaped hole in the inner wall when the facade remained standing for minutes after the impact... and even if you say the fuselage went in that tiny hole in the outer wall prior to the outer wall collapsing then the "vapourizing" inside the building would've very effectively diffused the situation and made mincemeat of that plane long before it got that far in.

A 'plane' going that far in would not make such a neat hole at the back. Right? Am I missing something? There would be nothing left of that plane to make such a neat CIRCULAR hole, especially since there's no corresponding LARGER circular fuselage hole on the outside of the building. None.

You mean to tell me a mangled plane fuselage made that neat hole that far in?

I don't think so.

Also keep in mind if it truly was a regular passenger jet then the fuel was in the wings and the fuselage and nose wasn't made of titanium or some other extremely hard and durable substance.

As for the frame rates of the cameras, that's all well and good but if the object is coming at them and they were operational they would pick up something.

I know, let's use the Pentagon cameras to photograph someone's birth certificate just to see if they actually do work, because, guess what, it's the same kind of story! ("Fool me once... yada yada yada.")

Look, if you got footage show it, even if there's no 77 on there. On most of the feeds etc. That's just like whatever it is, like 86 Youtube videos. Youtube will let the FBI and the Pentagon post 86 security videos surely.

'Surely you can't be serious?'

I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.


And trust 'the FBI, sworn statements, you not saying they were in on it, yada yada yada', look, weren't the FBI on CNN last week all sleeping with their sources and downloading porn on duty? I know it's not high treason or nothin, but jus saying... you don't know (just assume) what anyone is or isn't capable of. Isn't that right? You don't know.

----

budaruskie I 'got' what you were saying before even if it was not clear to some others, I used your Dave snippet because it's due to Dave and some of his posts that I read and could not actually believe that I even started to post on here. (Hi Dave, thanks, you got me thinking.)

Peace



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   


I love this. Only months ago Julian Assange was a knight in shining armour for truthers. He was expected to ride in and reveal confidential documents that would blow the 9/11 "inside job " wide open. Unfortunately for truthers, it turns out he has no time for your conspiracy theories as regards 9/11 and the documents he has disclosed support the OS. No wonder you are p****d off !


Hey Buddy, can you please verify when I evaluated Zionist Lowlife Scumbag Supporter/Patsy Julian Assange as a Knight in Shining Armor? What's it all aout Alfie?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


I love this. Only months ago Julian Assange was a knight in shining armour for truthers. He was expected to ride in and reveal confidential documents that would blow the 9/11 "inside job " wide open. Unfortunately for truthers, it turns out he has no time for your conspiracy theories as regards 9/11 and the documents he has disclosed support the OS. No wonder you are p****d off !


Hey Buddy, can you please verify when I evaluated Zionist Lowlife Scumbag Supporter/Patsy Julian Assange as a Knight in Shining Armor? What's it all aout Alfie?


How many on here think that Julian Assange and Ellen Degeneres were Separated at Birth?


As much as I'd like to I can't take credit for that line. When Julian got released and held that press conference thing outside jail, dressed in his dark suit with short-cropped blonde hair, a female friend, glancing casually at the tv exclaimed, "Was Ellen in prison?!"


Guess you had to be there.

Peace



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Aircraft parts at the Pentagon may seem to you to be from an A 3 Skywarrior but not to aeronautical engineers apparently :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Aircraft parts at the Pentagon may seem to you to be from an A 3 Skywarrior but not to aeronautical engineers apparently :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...



That site, though interesting, only seems to talk about the engines and inner fan assemblies, really I was more intrigued by the apparent wing found on the left near the damaged fire truck and the photo showing its prompt removal.

Now I'm no 'aeronautical engineer' but that particular wing looks a lot smaller than either of the ones on a plane the size of flight 77. Not to mention the fact that it seems to also be largely still intact.

And as you can maybe tell from my longer post above I find that there hole in the C Ring disturbing to say the least.

So let me go at it this way.

To my curiosity and satisfaction it has not been shown that flight 77 or any plane of that size hit the Pentagon.

'Incredible!' you may say. But seriously, "Show me the money..." i.e. Show me the video of said plane striking said Pentagon. There appears to be NO SUCH THING. And like how come there are conflicting eye witness reports too? Where are the dozen (or so, should be even more) people who were on the roadway that day and time and saw the whole thing all saying (independent of each other): "It was flight 77, American Airlines for sure, I was on the highway, I SEEN IT GO RIGHT IN oh how horrible!..."

There should be no conflicting nonsense like: 'Oh it was a missile or a smaller plane'. Or people who saw a large plane then heard an explosion and saw smoke thinking one thing lead to the other though they could not truly tell from their vantage point. No. It was 200 feet up I don't care, you ever been to an airport, no one would fail to see it for real if it was really there. And we'd have dozens of exacting reports from individuals on the roadway. Dozens. And better film and video than the 5 frame gate cam which shows what exactly, well it's not at all clear now is it? No.

So, hey, I'm going with that for now right? So where does that take me? I'll tell you. But first...

I want to tell you one other thing. Last year my ex-girlfriend lied to me when I asked her a simple question, ONLY, at the time I never saw or realized that what she said was a lie, that she was lying to me, and that she knew it was a lie before and while she was doing it. I only found out 8 months later. Now that was someone very close to me who LIED. She lied to me but had you known at the time and came to me and said like: "I think your girlfriend isn't being exactly honest with you, in fact I'm pretty sure she lied to you." I would not have even believed you then. Hell, she was closer than the government to me, still she lied. Now I ain't even dating the government but I know it lies. It lies all the time. The government lies like a cheap rug.

To me it's very very close to a dirty lying no good girlfriend. I don't trust it.

I don't know if anyone on here needs a primer but take my example to heart, my ex-girlfriend lied right to me by first just simply telling me something she wanted me to hear because she had an agenda and wanted me to swallow what she was saying in support of that agenda. That is how lying works. You're first told something and then maybe it even gets repeated for extra emphasis. So, being told something and repeatedly even, in a perfect world would be fine, but in a world full of potential ambush liars, being told anything, even once, should just throw up a red flag to ANYONE.

I see it as stages:

Stage 1 - Largely Unnoticed
Stage 2 - Begin to Suspect.
Stage 3 - Come to Confirm
Stage 4 - Realize it Always Was That Way

Basically, for good or for ill, I see the 'government' (and certain people in it) like a dirty lying no good girlfriend.

And just like a real girlfriend she's probably lying to you right now based on some kind of agenda. I know, I know, here I am telling you that and you're all like: "Oh, no way. I find that exceedingly hard to believe." Ok, whatever floats your boat. You'll find out.

That's how I'm going to go at it. Ok. And if you ever been lied to I think you can maybe appreciate my point of view and current working method.

Now back to the hole in the wall gang. That hole bothers me because it's so round and so far in. I defy anyone to explain to me how ANY kind of 'plane' made that HOLE. Go on, anyone, give it your best shot. I want to hear the lie, er, I mean, explanation for that. Review my above post for further particulars.

To me the "official story" is maybe a little sweet smiling liar, well, then, if that's the case, and if every time we ask questions we get the same oft repeated answers, then exactly what's it trying to sell me on?

Well when it comes to the Pentagon it's really big on me believing that flight 77 flew right into it. But I don't think that's what really happened. Look. I know my government girlfriend lies. So let's peel back the lying onion shall we.

No big plane hit the Pentagon: No Video, No dozen people saying "I saw it go right in..."

But there were plane 'parts' on the Pentagon lawn... hmm that might lead us to believe a plane (or some such airborne thing) did hit it. And of course all those helpful Pentagon employees all picking up plane parts to keep the lawn so pristine, I dunno. "Yep here I am on my lunch break and I'm just cleaning debris (evidence) off the Pentagon lawn - (enough to show plane 'parts' but not enough to really examine them) ho hum, oh hey Rummy, grab an end."

I tell you, that shot of the fan less its blades on the lawn next to the three workers in blue outfits looks staged to me. I'm just saying. That's how it 'looks'. Liar liar, blue pants on fire. I call it.

But like I noted, that apparent wing was no where near the size it should've been for flight 77 and it was largely still intact. So plane parts were seen on the lawn, but parts not exactly from a Boeing? Interesting. Like how far does this go? Either something did hit the Pentagon or it didn't. If it wasn't flight 77 but something smaller... I'm torn with this see. Because if there is some elaborate lie just how elaborate is it? Like you can't not crash 77 into the Pentagon and use a cruise missile or A3 Skywarrior instead because someone would truly obviously know the difference in size and markings between the two.

So logically you really can't have both, indeed it's not even necessary. So I don't think a smaller plane hit the Pentagon either, there is no video and also no dozen witnesses saying "It was small and I seen it go right in..."

Yes it's true there are plane parts on the lawn but that don't mean they came 'from the air' etc.

Now the hole at the back I can see being caused by some kind of missile, BUT, to get to that location it would have to travel through the exterior wall and I'm not exactly sure how big the hole in the exterior wall was or even if there really was much of a hole.

So I don't see a big plane, I don't see a little one or any plane causing that hole in the C Ring. I see a cruise missile causing the C Ring hole but not how it successfully got by the exterior wall(s).

Suffice to say the whole thing is suspicious to me. (Stage 2)

I cannot bring myself to see how any kind of plane made the Pentagon's C Ring hole. If YOU can, please, enlighten me.

That's not just any hole that's an impossible orifice! And yet there it is. It exists. No plane crashing into anything would make a hole like that. Especially since it's like the equivalent of going through 3 separate buildings to even be made! I tried to explain it to a friend by saying and using 3 local buildings as an example, I said, "It's like it goes through one tower, out, through the next one, then out, then through the hotel, and finishes by making a round hole in the backside of the hotel, the 3rd building!! Amazing."

Like tell me I'm crazy, tell me the firemen made that round hole with sledgehammers to fight the horrendous fire. Somebody step in here and educate me because all my logical self-study isn't adding up. Was that C Ring hole made by the 'plane' or was it made later, during clean up? I swear to God that hole looks staged. Even if it were made by a crew of firemen fighting the blaze, let's say I'm a fireman, I'm not going to get all symmetrical on that hole in the wall, I'm just going to knock out an opening to get in, it ain't going to be round and it ain't going to be pretty. If the plane made the hole then some of its pieces must've gotten that far, so like demolish an exterior brick wall in symmetrical fashion and leave not a trace of the means of doing it?!

Good trick. Now watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

If the 'plane' made the C Ring hole, please give it your best shot at explaining how.

Peace



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



If the 'plane' made the C Ring hole, please give it your best shot at explaining how.


Hole in C Ring wall was punched out by aircraft debris including landing gear truck - which is some of heaviest
and strongest pieces on an aircraft.

As a FF can tell you breaching a masonry wall is a brutal time consuming business - punching a hole that big
would have taken too long. Fire and rescue personal used the hole as access point into the building

Here is picture of the debris at the wall



Notice smoke staining on wall from fire

Get a copy of "FIREFIGHT" - goes into detail concerning fire and rescue operations at Pentagon. Authors
interviewed 150 of the fire/rescue people.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join