the hole in the pentagon..is the big hole in the 911 story

page: 23
62
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


?

So the floors blowed the fuel fire away.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


No damage around the hole?




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


No damage around the hole?



I only see black smoke damage.

try again..



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 
Dude, where's the gd plane? You think this photo bolsters your case? You guy's cannot be for real, I swear.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


Then with all due respect, you are blind. The absence of the outer wall should be the first clue to you, and yet you do not see it. Then there is the outlining of INTERNAL supports that have been bent that you miss.....



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


Then with all due respect, you are blind. The absence of the outer wall should be the first clue to you, and yet you do not see it. Then there is the outlining of INTERNAL supports that have been bent that you miss.....


And yet you do not see it..



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


I was referring to the plane wings (which I probably should have indicated)

If a fighter plane can vaporise travelling at high enough speeds into a wall, then surely the wings would have no problem being vaporised?
edit on 27/6/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


I was referring to the plane wings (which I probably should have indicated)

If a fighter plane can vaporise travelling at high enough speeds into a wall, then surely the wings would have no problem being vaporised?
edit on 27/6/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)


So why didn't the wall around the hole get damaged? don't tell me its damaged because its black..



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


I was referring to the plane wings (which I probably should have indicated)

If a fighter plane can vaporise travelling at high enough speeds into a wall, then surely the wings would have no problem being vaporised?
edit on 27/6/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)


So why didn't the wall around the hole get damaged? don't tell me its damaged because its black..


What specifically are you suggesting is missing? Are you saying the wall around the hole should show more damage to your way of thinking? Where - above, below, to either side? Where do you think the damage under the hole came from?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
I never made the statement as you implied in an earlier comment - the Washington Post did, and it would be hard for me to claim it's "my" article with the Washington Post attribution embedded in it. I claimed it to be the external source posting I submitted to the thread as a counter to the external source post you presented - nothing more. Do you not understand the difference or do you think I am the Washington Post?


Now your talking semantics.
But I suppose that is all you can practice after you dare me in front of all these people here to show where you brought the term 'exclusion' into this discussion.
Again....for EVERYONE to see, it's right here.



I understood perfectly and have been saying EXACTLY that from the start. YOU'RE the one that kept hanging on to the myth that the FBI never provided DNA evidence from the flight #77 hijackers to Military Mortuary Affairs based on the external quote you provided - which we now (apparently) both agree was a bogus claim.


OMG. Why do I have conversations with imbeciles? Since comprehension is not your forte, I will not ask nor assume that you are capable of going back to first few I posts I made within this thread, and reread them. It wouldnt do any good....for that I feel bad for you.


Am I right in guessing that English is not your first language?


This coming from someone who makes a post and then denies he ever made it. Then when proven to him...well....I might as well speak Farcy. This discussion will go just as far.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Quote from you earlier:

Do you know the definition of 'exclusion'.
I recommend you look it up.

Call me thick, if you wish....but I doubt you even know what you are implying when you use such a term.



...when you use such a term.


...you brought the term 'exclusion' into this discussion.


These are two different statements. See, the nice thing about English is that when used properly it has a certain precision that allows for the interchange of more complex thought - something that appears lost on you.

It is really quite ironic that someone who claimed I wasn't interested in "finding the truth" would focus on this - especially after all your other "points" expressing doubt about the OS were addressed and you had no response in defense of them. Want to backpedal to the avatar bashing?

BTW, the word I believe you were stumbling over is "Farsi" - not "Farcy"

I'll stand by my posts and let the readers judge for themselves. I see no point in continuing to debate this issue anymore with you because frankly, at this point, - you have nothing...

edit on 27-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Your way of thinking is by the OS book you love since it doesn't come to a conclusion that Gov killed thousands of people.

If a plane came in at 500mph and only maked a hole as the size of the nose of that plane thats hilarious..

try again...



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


Where did all of the debris on the front lawn come from if it was a missile? Why were the lamp posts knocked over, which were quite a fair distance apart, if it was just a missile.

It's already been shown on the video that a plane travelling at high enough speeds can become vaporised, leaving little to no damage to the wall



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


Where did all of the debris on the front lawn come from if it was a missile? Why were the lamp posts knocked over, which were quite a fair distance apart, if it was just a missile.

It's already been shown on the video that a plane travelling at high enough speeds can become vaporised, leaving little to no damage to the wall


Yeah you showed a plane with one seat, don't be stupid..

try again...



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Can some one tell me the thickness of the Pentagon from the outside wall to the inner wall?

While you are at it can you tell me the measurements for the WTC towers?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by userid1
 


Your way of thinking is by the OS book you love since it doesn't come to a conclusion that Gov killed thousands of people.

If a plane came in at 500mph and only maked a hole as the size of the nose of that plane thats hilarious..

try again...


The hole was 96 FEET across - try again...



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


with no damage to the wall around it.

try again,..



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dilapidated
 

that hole made them 3.2 trillion dollars richer
t w a t s them tptb thinking of them selves
in times of dispair



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by userid1
 


with no damage to the wall around it.

try again,..


www.oilempire.us...

Try again.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Ill make it real easy for you.

You stated in one of YOUR posts MY ARTICLE said.
FOUND HERE

Within that article was the term 'exclusion' used.

The rest is semantics. Argue with yourself if you wish.





new topics
 
62
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join