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

reply to post by userid1


....And a 757 Jet airliner Traveling between 400 to 500 MPH 50 FEET Above the Ground Hits the Pentagon , the most Guarded and Secure Building within the United States , and on Impact, Creates such a small Hole in it's walls . Yeah , Right...............

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
Hits the Pentagon , the most Guarded and Secure Building within the United States

What makes you say it is the most guarded and secure building in the USA? Care to back that claim up with some facts?

Just how big a hole did you expect to find, as it was large enough.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
Hits the Pentagon , the most Guarded and Secure Building within the United States

" What makes you say it is the most guarded and secure building in the USA? Care to back that claim up with some facts? "

The Brain Center of U.S. Military Strengh would be Protected at All Costs in case of a Possible Attack . What More Proof do you need ? That should be selfevident to anyone when you Think about it...........

As for the Photographic Evidence released to the Public of the Hole created in the wall of the Pentagon by the Impact of the Alledged Plane , a comparison of the Planes Mass and Dimentions does not Conclusively Match up to the Visable Damage inflicted on the Pentagon . The Exact cause to this day is Still in Question .

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
The Brain Center of U.S. Military Strengh would be Protected at All Costs in case of a Possible Attack . What More Proof do you need ?

So in fact you have nothing to back your silly claim up....

a comparison of the Planes Mass and Dimentions does not Conclusively Match up to the Visable Damage inflicted on the Pentagon .

YeS iT dOeS aCtUaLy, iT mAtChEs RiGhT uP, aS hAs BeEn PoStEd HeRe BeFoRe...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
The Brain Center of U.S. Military Strengh would be Protected at All Costs in case of a Possible Attack . What More Proof do you need ?

So in fact you have nothing to back your silly claim up....

a comparison of the Planes Mass and Dimentions does not Conclusively Match up to the Visable Damage inflicted on the Pentagon .

YeS iT dOeS aCtUaLy, iT mAtChEs RiGhT uP, aS hAs BeEn PoStEd HeRe BeFoRe...

LOL U mad? so a 3 foot hole matches a 5 foot fuselage, interesting...

Originally posted by Saltarello
so a 3 foot hole matches a 5 foot fuselage, interesting...

The hole was not 3 foot, nor was the fuselage 5 foot, so just what are you babbling about?

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
As far as "where did the wings go?"...

The wings were laden with fuel and hit the building at 530 mph. The outer third of the wings didn't penetrate the masonry (some may have penetrated the windows) and were probably reduced to confetti.


It's really simple but conspiracy theorists think there always has to be something more, so sad.

Yet the wings of the planes that hit the towers CLEARLY left a sign of impact on them. And they too were "laden with fuel" and hit the buildings at about the same speed. So why did only the towers only get an impact from the wings?

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
So why did only the towers only get an impact from the wings?

What makes you think that? Try studying the pictures of the Pentagon, and do some research on how it was constructed

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
So why did only the towers only get an impact from the wings?

What makes you think that? Try studying the pictures of the Pentagon, and do some research on how it was constructed

edit on 10-9-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

So are you saying its the difference in construction? The person I was asking this question to said the wings didnt leave impact holes due to the fuel and the speed of the plane hitting the pentagon, and my question to this was why it didnt happen as such on the towers. I was just curious about the answer to it and am NOT looking to get involved in the battle here.

Just curious.

reply to post by spoor


Seriously, you dont realized how giving empty argument (reply) page after page that your indeed reinforcing the whole conspiracy theory? Theres alot of substance from very credible members here on this thread and honestly, unless you are very young, a human being cannot be that stuborn.

I kNow YoU Won'T ConSideR MY RePLY bUt TrusT Me. Your not doing any favor to the official story theory by giving any substance into you argumentation compared to the tremendous amount of info from VERY experience ATS'er. I hope you'll understand because we are not being constructive here.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Here's an informative video you should look at regarding just what you mentioned.

edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

@SkepticAndBeliever

Where are the REST of the videos? This one was the only one made public regarding pentagon plane, so where are the rest? The ones confiscated by the FBI and never made public? Why not release them and remove all doubt?

Why release this ambiguous video that shows nothing but conveniently counter intutitive viewpoints to the common person if its not a deliberate attempt to confuse and tire people, to embroil them into a conspiracy spiral and so stop them from gaining the proof they need for closure? Could it be a little plot to publically humiliate and undermine certain types or groups of people who are seeking the truth and in doing so, so remove them from public credibility on the bigger issues in the wider game? Could it be a tool for a continued triggering of post trauma affect -perhaps evidence of an ongoing psychological operation?

Why did Bush lie and say he SAW the first plane hit the first tower on 'tv outside the classroom' - when no one did apart from the guys doing the doco on firemen - footage that wasnt released until the day after! Why lie if there is no NEED to lie?

Why go kill over a million civillians in Iraq when SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11and there was PROOF Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at that time before moving to Pakistan!

Why murder or disable your own soldiers sending them there ?
Why tie up miliatry and civillian money effort and focus on this issue?

Why did the FBI in an FBI funded jet fly Bin Ladens immediate family out of the US back to Saudi Arabia less than an hour after the flights hit the tower and the rest of his family 48hrs after the attacks??
Why let them fly when every civil aircraft was grounded let alone given the evidence all the money for Al Qaeda ( which btw is Arabic for ' the toilet' ) came from the UAE in the first place!
Who lets criminal families go? Oh...forgot...you let yours LEAD you!


Who's gotten away with what ever since US public focus has been mesmerised on this issue?
A "Patriot act" with no sunset clause? A SOE declared with no sunset too... never recinded either...hmm...no problem with that?

Who is turning people against each other - truthers vs 'non truthers' etc.. Divide and conqure anyone?

Why did Rumsfield say flight 93 was shot down? Just a slip up? Didnt he also 'declare war' on the pentagon the day before the attacks?
Where are the missing Pentagontrillions he mentioned? Didnt Bush, AFTER the attacks basically give a blank cheque book ( 40 BILLION) to the Pentagon once again?

What happened to the NINE trillion 'lost' by the fed reserve - any links there yet? No one concerned yet that no one is keeping track of 9 trillion in 'losses' ???
What about the fact that over half of the seated members of the 9/11 commision were from the Council on Foreign Relations? No issue there either?

Even if we were to say ok..a plane did hit the pentagon..what about foreknowledge? Why blame a bunch of nobodys halfof who are still alive ( yet suposedly are terrorists that died on the planes) when there are obvious clues to foreknowledge? Heard of the Phoenix memo? Zacarious Moussauoi ring any bells? How many whistleblowers do you need? How many people exactly DO have to die before the doubting public stand up and fulfill THEIR obligations to the US consitution?
Why do people have to keep dying for telling the truth as THEY know it?

The one that really bugs me though is that one day after 9/11 the perfectly unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 hijackers, was found several blocks from Ground Zero - can you 'explain' that for me please?

There is a lot of very necessary questioning that has to occur OPENLY and PUBLICALLY before this issue could even think of being put to bed imo..but go ahead..try to answer and debunk these few for a start.

Regardless of what and where..there are just to manyy convenient coincidences when it comes to who and why.



Rosha

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by userid1

 

....And a 757 Jet airliner Traveling between 400 to 500 MPH 50 FEET Above the Ground Hits the Pentagon , the most Guarded and Secure Building within the United States , and on Impact, Creates such a small Hole in it's walls . Yeah , Right...............

And again, 96' across - how large would you like it to be?

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
As far as "where did the wings go?"...

The wings were laden with fuel and hit the building at 530 mph. The outer third of the wings didn't penetrate the masonry (some may have penetrated the windows) and were probably reduced to confetti.


It's really simple but conspiracy theorists think there always has to be something more, so sad.

Yet the wings of the planes that hit the towers CLEARLY left a sign of impact on them. And they too were "laden with fuel" and hit the buildings at about the same speed. So why did only the towers only get an impact from the wings?

The difference between solid limestone with concrete and steel reinforcement as opposed to just glass and steel is significant - yes?

reply to post by eagleeye2


What facts about the Pentagon strike did you have to offer....?

Definitely too small for a plane, the engines would have made markings too, especially the weight and size of them.

Plus the speed the 'plane' was supposed to be travelling at, it surely would have left so engine and wing marks on the wall too!

The height is incorrect also.

Originally posted by kidtwist
Definitely too small for a plane, the engines would have made markings too, especially the weight and size of them.

Plus the speed the 'plane' was supposed to be travelling at, it surely would have left so engine and wing marks on the wall too!

The height is incorrect also.

You do know the walls were meant to be blast proof that why the result is not the same as the towers

Originally posted by kidtwist

it surely would have left so engine and wing marks on the wall too!

Silly Truther, they did leave marks. The starboard engine left a mark on a generator. The port engine left a mark on a concrete curb along with a large hole in the building. And the wings left an impression on the walls.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

it surely would have left so engine and wing marks on the wall too!

Silly Truther, they did leave marks. The starboard engine left a mark on a generator. The port engine left a mark on a concrete curb along with a large hole in the building. And the wings left an impression on the walls.

I'm talking about engine marks on the walls! The hole was way too small and you know it.. BTW, have you read this?

www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by kidtwist


The length of the hole was around 95 feet. How long did you want it to be?