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

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Here is a list of what the witnesses saw that day regarding The Pentagon: 136 saw a plane approach The Pentagon 103 saw a plane hit The Pentagon 26 said it was an American Airlines Jet 7 said it was a Boeing 757 39 mentioned a large commercial jet, some say it was a corporate jet (these are obviously the minority, and where conspiracy theorists get most of their false ammo from) 8 witnesses were pilots 1 was an Air Traffic Controller and the Heliport 41 saw air craft debris 2 saw bodies still strapped into their seats 0 saw a missile hit the pentagon 0 saw a Global Hawk or a military aircraft hit The Pentagon 0 saw a helicopter hit The Pentagon

Here is a list of witnesses who saw me jump off of a 50 story building, land on my feet and walk away without injury.

14 people saw me jump
25 people saw me gliding through the air
17 people saw me land on my feet

What's that? You want photographic or video evidence to verify my claims. Sorry, it doesn't exist, but it did happen because you have to take the witnesses' and my word that it happened.

So basically, if there's no HD vid (preferably shot in IMAX) it never happened is what you're suggesting. And let's suppose there were...do you *really* think that those who refuse the OS (you maybe?) would accept the vid at face value? Or is it more likely that they'd all become video "experts" and tell us how it was faked.

Some people will never believe regardless of the overwhelming evidence.

reply to post by dilapidated


the government must have realised this inconsistency too because they rarely mention the pentagon being it and also wheres the "plane"

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Here is a list of what the witnesses saw that day regarding The Pentagon: 136 saw a plane approach The Pentagon 103 saw a plane hit The Pentagon 26 said it was an American Airlines Jet 7 said it was a Boeing 757 39 mentioned a large commercial jet, some say it was a corporate jet (these are obviously the minority, and where conspiracy theorists get most of their false ammo from) 8 witnesses were pilots 1 was an Air Traffic Controller and the Heliport 41 saw air craft debris 2 saw bodies still strapped into their seats 0 saw a missile hit the pentagon 0 saw a Global Hawk or a military aircraft hit The Pentagon 0 saw a helicopter hit The Pentagon

Here is a list of witnesses who saw me jump off of a 50 story building, land on my feet and walk away without injury.

14 people saw me jump
25 people saw me gliding through the air
17 people saw me land on my feet

What's that? You want photographic or video evidence to verify my claims. Sorry, it doesn't exist, but it did happen because you have to take the witnesses' and my word that it happened.

So basically, if there's no HD vid (preferably shot in IMAX) it never happened is what you're suggesting. And let's suppose there were...do you *really* think that those who refuse the OS (you maybe?) would accept the vid at face value? Or is it more likely that they'd all become video "experts" and tell us how it was faked.

Some people will never believe regardless of the overwhelming evidence.

All of my claims of witnesses can EASILY be verified if these truthers just took the time to do the research they claim to do ( which non of them do of course) instead of brushing off cold hard FACTS that don't support their outrages theory.

I guess under that guys logic if there is no clear quality video of me having sex with a girl then I must be a virgin. This logic defies logic lol

we failed as a human race
NO GOD NO KING JUST MAN

reply to post by dilapidated


Also there is something called ground effect. Im not sure what the details would be for a boeing flying at 500mph, but basically it creates a cushion of air that doesnt allow the craft to fall any lower. Seems kinda hard to fly a commercial jet into the first/second floor at 500mph without touching the lawn, and taking into account any ground effect, uh, effects . Those wings are huge!

Factors affecting Ground Effect. Go to the top of the Wiki for the basics and intro.

Originally posted by willydude89
reply to post by dilapidated

 

the government must have realised this inconsistency too because they rarely mention the pentagon being it and also wheres the "plane"

There's a lot of things I barely mention that doesn't mean I'm covering anything up lol Plus if you type in "flight 77 wreckage" in google images you will see countless evidence of the "plane" you think doesn't exist. Plus over a hundred witnesses say a plan hit the Pentagon...This is so funny.

reply to post by IntegratedInstigator


It looks like the article says that it's most pronounced in small aircraft under 13K pounds.

reply to post by dilapidated


I was driving toward the Pntagon when the incident happened (heading toward Crystal City). I was an 'explosion', some fire shooting straight up, then lots of smoke, and then lots of people running out (a few minutes later). Never saw a plane. Doesn't mean it didn't exist, but from my viewpoint, it was more like a bomb than a plane crash. I have spoken with people that say they saw a plane heading toward the Pentagon low that day, but that's heresay.

Very strange and unsettling experience. At the same time, I had a relative who was outside the twin towers and saw the planes hit. To observers on the ground, it looked like normal planes, yet I've seen some mention (in other posts) about them being military aircraft disguised as commercial airliners. Who'se to know? Lots of different theories on all this stuff...

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


People are so blinded by this being a government conspiracy that not only do the overlook the obvious as I posted above but they don't look at the evidence of how this could have been a terrorist plot and compare it to the evidence on the other side before coming to conclusions.

All they care about are things like 1 hole in the Pentagon as proof positive that this happened. They disregard everything else such as eyewitnesses, the training center where the guys flying the plane were, the evidence out of Saudi Arabi and on and on.

At the very least when you take both sides of evidence, The Very Least, you will come to the realization that it's inconclusive.

Originally posted by gconran
reply to post by dilapidated

 

I was driving toward the Pntagon when the incident happened (heading toward Crystal City). I was an 'explosion', some fire shooting straight up, then lots of smoke, and then lots of people running out (a few minutes later). Never saw a plane. Doesn't mean it didn't exist, but from my viewpoint, it was more like a bomb than a plane crash. I have spoken with people that say they saw a plane heading toward the Pentagon low that day, but that's heresay.

Very strange and unsettling experience. At the same time, I had a relative who was outside the twin towers and saw the planes hit. To observers on the ground, it looked like normal planes, yet I've seen some mention (in other posts) about them being military aircraft disguised as commercial airliners. Who'se to know? Lots of different theories on all this stuff...

So what did they do with all the passengers? Magically switch them off their commercial transports mid-flight?

A little common sense is a very good thing

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


They've only shown a few frames of what say they is a plane and the hole is too small so yes,a plane could of hit it but its not idiotic to suggest otherwise and i can't blame people for saying the opposite to what we are told.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
reply to post by dilapidated

 

Also there is something called ground effect. Im not sure what the details would be for a boeing flying at 500mph, but basically it creates a cushion of air that doesnt allow the craft to fall any lower. Seems kinda hard to fly a commercial jet into the first/second floor at 500mph without touching the lawn, and taking into account any ground effect, uh, effects

. Those wings are huge!

Factors affecting Ground Effect. Go to the top of the Wiki for the basics and intro.

"Eye-witnesses, fallen lamp posts and other evidence testify to the flattened final trajectory of Flight
77 in the seconds before it hit the Pentagon on September 11. Some novice commentators claim that
this wasn't aerodynamically possible. The claim made is that the high speed, low-level approach
would have been affected by "the ground effect", and we're told this effect creates a cushion of air
that would make it "aerodynamically impossible" for the plane to impact as it did. Nila Sagadevan,
who apparently has never bothered to study simple aerodynamics as they apply to fixed wing
aircraft, attempts to use this blatant falsehood to fool people into believing that a non-existent
aerodynamic phenomenon, High-Speed-Low-Angle-of-Attack-ground-effect, would have precluded
an aircraft in a descent from hitting the ground at that speed, and so, he would try to convince you
that no aircraft could have hit the Pentagon. His intellect is either dizzying, or has made him dizzy"



So even though it was proven that Flight 77 hit The Pentagon (most truther sites even acknowledge this now), over 100 eye witness see it happen, with bodies identified, DNA matched, long with the "hole too small" crap explained and the "ground affect" explained ....You still have doubts?

They've only shown a few frames

There are actually like 2 or 3 different videos of the Pentagon being hit let a lone just "a few frames". Even though there is no HD shot of the plane this video clearly shows it is Flight 77 based off simple observations.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever




look wreckage lol

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by eagleeye2
reply to post by spoor

 

i've never seen any photos of bodies, did you?
plz show me, i'd like to be proven wrong.. honestly.

It's pretty gross but the bodies were indeed recovered and Identified as the passengers on Flight 77 ( warning: graphic pictures in the video)

Show it. And then show that it is from the Pentagon.

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

reply to post by dilapidated


The little youtube video that supposedly debunks this theory is a hoot.

I always considered like you say the towers to be best evidence especially building 7 and how it collapsed in its own footprint and the scandalous files, damning evidence incriminating govt agencies and secrets that "had to be eaten" housed in that very building. This is pretty damning evidence here and I'd like to investigate it little more.

This is like 9-11-gate and in 20 years when the principals are dead the truth will come out in a movie plot.

Sorry if this video has already been mentioned. I'm going to believe first hand accounts, right after it happened. Its been almost 10 years, there are thousands of "experts" that seem to know everything. I think this reporter hit the nail on the head considering he was right there on the scene right after it happened.

reply to post by litterbaux


this really does prove alot of what is being argued here.
but i highly doubt it will end the argument as some people are just...(add expletive here)

Originally posted by litterbaux
Sorry if this video has already been mentioned. I'm going to believe first hand accounts, right after it happened. Its been almost 10 years, there are thousands of "experts" that seem to know everything. I think this reporter hit the nail on the head considering he was right there on the scene right after it happened.

First off what indicates those witnesses I mentioned WEREN'T first hand accounts? oh ya you're just making things up like most conspiracy theorists.

And the man in the video said "there is no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the pentagon".....well of course not, the small pieces of the plane weren't clearly visible on the lawn unless you searched the for ALL the debris 100's of feet away (a lot of the plane was disintegrated as well). Plus more information is always gathered with time, I refuse to believe that some reporter describing what he saw directly after the fact has ANY credibility.

Posting here to bookmark, lots of good videos on this thread. No matter what hit the Pentagon it's an example of "mysteries abounding everywhere", and has left room for argument on whatever of the five sides someone picks. I don't think anyone could have planned it better if they wanted to to keep open questions and discussions about the incident (anyone could have planned it better........hmmmmmm....nah!?)