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

page: 7
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
And here is clear proof of a plane did indeed crash someone "near the Pentagon"...No reporter's quote taken out of context right after the incident can change that.

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




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
I refuse to believe that some reporter describing what he saw directly after the fact has ANY credibility.


So please tell me who would have more accurate information? Or is your reply a joke?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 


All we needed was one damn video of a plane flying a few hundred feet above ground.

I swear, if the Pentagon couldn't even record a clear video of a plane, WTH did they do with my tax dollars.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
A Boeing 757 is 78% aluminum, which has a melting point of only 1220 degrees F. The fires at The Pentagon burned at almost 1800 degrees F. What didn't get burned up in the initial impact flung hundreds of feet..This would explain the lack of abundance of large visible wreckage, explaining the reporters misleading conclusion.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 


MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon
www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by litterbaux

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
I refuse to believe that some reporter describing what he saw directly after the fact has ANY credibility.


So please tell me who would have more accurate information? Or is your reply a joke?



Read my last post, and look at my last video.....is your reply a joke?

You're saying that one reporter who says there's "no signs of a plane crash" trumps ALL the pictures of a plane crash and hundreds of eye witness accounts of a plane crash, and bodies attached to the seat belts of the plane that crashed? This man's uneducated report just brushes off ALL of that is what you're saying? Please I hope you have more logic than this.
edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I'm gonna believe that the reporter didn't see any debris. Sorry if the short video upset you, it wasn't my intention. I'll repeat what I said in my first reply, I'm going to believe the reporter on the scene right after it happened. Sure it might have been taken out of context, I'm no expert but if I had to make a decision if it was a plane or not I would believe the first accounts of the event, not Joe Blow on (insert conspiracy website here).

I hope it wasn't a plane, a missile would have had no occupants.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
and all the people who died on the airliner are the big hole in the missile thoery. and all the jet wreckage on site. and all the eyewitnesses who saw a jet.

why don't the truthers just go with a spin on the old pearl harbor theory ? Is it because that is plausible and realistic ?

does anyone really believe the combo controlled demolition/missile/shot down theory ?

really ?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
People, I will post this again hopefully to enlighten those who have not read the other thread SkepticAndBeliever has used to waste a lot of others time just to argue and insult others with an opposing view;



Look people, this guy is obviously going to stick to his beliefs. He has hit the limit of his own personal enlightenment and intelligence. He is a believer (of his own theories) but he is NOT a skeptic (although he uses the word in his username!) This horse has been beat to death already. Scientific evidence is not going to change his mind. I am very surprised that so many people continue to feed his pleasure of denial. Many have not read through all of the pages in this thread. Let him continue to believe in his twisted laughable arguments while he drinks more NIST cool-aid. He is like some people who will not change in their beliefs in the Qu'ran or the Bible. The NIST document is rooted in him. He is entitled to his opinionated beliefs for entertainment. He has demonstrated the inability to respect other peoples' opinions supported with EMPIRICAL scientific evidence, aka PROOF. Go ahead SkepticAndBeliever, argue your beliefs some more, I know you cannot resist having the last word. You are like a radio entertainer (Phil Hendrie - AM KFI-640) I like to listen to who calls people on the telephone just to get a rise. You have been entertaining but I am now bored with your continued insults and sarcasm towards people who try to debate you on an intellectual level. The evidence speaks for itself. I don't know that a judge and/or a jury, let alone a congressional committee, could make an informed intelligent decision based on a new investigation with all of the evidence used in so many ways to confuse them and obfuscate the truth as you have demonstrated.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


The silly conspiracy site i got it from was NBC5

Whatta silly site haha

They call us conspiracy theorist's crazy, When their trying to say a 747 flew into the pentagon, and managed to only make a hole about 20 feet in diameter...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff
People, I will post this again hopefully to enlighten those who have not read the other thread SkepticAndBeliever has used to waste a lot of others time just to argue and insult others with an opposing view;



Look people, this guy is obviously going to stick to his beliefs. He has hit the limit of his own personal enlightenment and intelligence. He is a believer (of his own theories) but he is NOT a skeptic (although he uses the word in his username!) This horse has been beat to death already. Scientific evidence is not going to change his mind. I am very surprised that so many people continue to feed his pleasure of denial. Many have not read through all of the pages in this thread. Let him continue to believe in his twisted laughable arguments while he drinks more NIST cool-aid. He is like some people who will not change in their beliefs in the Qu'ran or the Bible. The NIST document is rooted in him. He is entitled to his opinionated beliefs for entertainment. He has demonstrated the inability to respect other peoples' opinions supported with EMPIRICAL scientific evidence, aka PROOF. Go ahead SkepticAndBeliever, argue your beliefs some more, I know you cannot resist having the last word. You are like a radio entertainer (Phil Hendrie - AM KFI-640) I like to listen to who calls people on the telephone just to get a rise. You have been entertaining but I am now bored with your continued insults and sarcasm towards people who try to debate you on an intellectual level. The evidence speaks for itself. I don't know that a judge and/or a jury, let alone a congressional committee, could make an informed intelligent decision based on a new investigation with all of the evidence used in so many ways to confuse them and obfuscate the truth as you have demonstrated.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Attacking the person and not the issue and generalizing instead of refuting actual points, so pathetic lol I have proven time and time again there is no conspiracy, not my fault your too blind to see it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

They call us conspiracy theorist's crazy, When their trying to say a 747 flew into the pentagon, and managed to only make a hole about 20 feet in diameter...



Yup that view point is pretty flawed.. The damage to the Pentagon was completely consistent with a 757.





posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
This argument is pointless. Whether it was a plane or a missile, it was headed towards the Pentagon and Cheney knew about it before hand. Why didn't Cheney do something about it to prevent that object from even making that hole?

Transportation Secretary Mineta Testimony about the Pentagon Attack...
edit on 19-6-2011 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
This argument is pointless. Whether it was a plane or a missile. It was headed towards the Pentagon. Why didn't Cheney do something about it to prevent that object from even making that hole?

Transportation Secretary Mineta Testimony about the Pentagon Attack...
edit on 19-6-2011 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)




Incompetence? Confusion of war time? Maybe he didn't want to take the heat for shooting down a plane and killing his fellow American passengers? People need to think of ALL the factors that go into choice making before jumping the gun that somebody had something to do with it,



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
(This post is very sloppy of me. I apologize)

Lots of issues with this, most notably about the 911review.org link. Because of that, I say "you" a lot, and don't always mean the OP.

OP said "the US refused to release anything about the pentagon and it was very hidden from the media." So, your problem is that they don't go into large detail about the actual structure of one of the most politically important buildings in the U.S.? The alternative would be to say "Anyone who wants to try to attack again, here are some significant details about how the Pentagon is built/secured"? Granted, a lot of info already exists, but doesn't mean they would willingly want even more to come out.

While it can be spun to say that it gave them time to change their story, I have a hard time holding it against them when they make claims about it 4 days after the event, even though they were obviously still in the investigation stage. During an investigation, many theories and ideas are both presented and disproved later.

With the 911review.org items, it takes a massive amount of creative viewing to find what they are claiming.

While you could be correct about the photo chronology, there is no proof the timeline presented is accurate, nor in what timeframe they take place.

Most importantly, there is the claim of the plane not fitting in the hole pictured. The problem with that? They don't say which ring these photos are from. It isn't the outermost ring. In what is labeled "second known picture," you can see another building on the right side of the picture. I do realize there are some hints towards the end of the piece that say it was B ring, but this isn't made clear. And if it is B ring, it alone changes everything about this hole and how it should be analyzed.

"Punch Out": It was a punch out, in relation to where the plane hit. Anything that extends out away from the target would be a punch out. If it punched in, it would have blown out into the direction the plane came from. Like an implosion.

"The people I have spoke with that were on the scene and seem to get agitated when the subject of the exit hole comes up. One refused to discuss it any further saying, 'A plane hit the building....ok?'" After you are asked conspiracy questions non-stop for days on end, you too are going to start getting frustrated and will be answering in terse manners.

I don't see it:

Fire extinguisher in picture 1? Where? Not saying it isn't there, but I just don't see it.

"Perfect crisp edge": Be careful when saying "perfect". Even if you don't buy the plane story, that hole is not "perfect with crisp edges"

White board to the left will later have plane parts on it? How can you claim this when the whole white board isn't shown in the picture. That, along with camera angles and shadows can be completely deceptive.
Content not on fire? You're shocked that the bricks aren't burning? There is a lot of other debris that might be able to ignite, but burn out quick. Additionally, the smoke is from inside. So, it won't matter if you see fire.

Hose in picture 2? While I definitely am not an expert in fire hoses, sure looks like the fireman is actively using the hose.

Far right pole removed? No, it's standing right there. It is just photographed at a different angle than picture 1, giving a false impression of it's relation to the scene.

"another bent pipe on the nearest side of the hole"? You can see that in picture 1 as well.

More smoke later in the day (The ones with one labeled "laying on white board)? steam from continued firefighting activities internally.

The smoke shown in "Second known picture"? smoke lingering in the air. Think of the 4th of July.

APU door not getting narrower? It's torn apart enough, you can't make an accurate claim of this, especially taking into account the angle of the photgraph.

"Windows blown above" picture? There is no evidence in which direction the windows broke, either in, out, up or down.

Claim of no smoke coming out of windows, but smoke coming out of hole? Are you sure you aren't talking about the scorch mark and not actual smoke?

The "Houston we got a problem" picture? Again, based on perspective and camera angle, this is just misleading. You are misrepresenting the shape of the debris. In the "laying on white board" picture, you can see the true shape of the object and how it blocks out what the later picture shows.

"Planted" picture: As you say, its in the middle of the clean-up process. Any similarity to what you saw in earlier pictures are immediately irrelevant, due to moving debris.

No paint on the wall? Of course. The paint didn't show up until much later in the clean-up process. this is correctly noted in the captions, but then conveniently forgotten when coming up with the cover-up theory.

The "now-solid" piece that was claimed to be broken in two earlier (When it was covered by the debris in the misleading picture showing the odd perspective), looks the exact same as earlier. Again, was just a bad angle for the initial picture.

While I can't say that the person who said he took the pictures of the paint in the walls is lying or wrong, once again, the "punch out" comment is misleading. It just wasn't an implosion.

Another possibility (though I don't believe it) is that in this case, "punch out" was used as a phrase for what needed to be done to the wall in order to start repairs. "OK, we need to punch out this wall before we can start repairs." And that it is a coincidence that the same term was used that would later cause problems.

Once again, the size of the hole is not easy to compare, since it's not the outermost ring.

Airplane tire? Don't see it.

There is the claim that the debris in the photos show that it was blown outward, not inward. What if all/some of that debris is NOT from the hole shown, but is from the exit of the next ring out? Just blew across the space between rings.

Anyway, I really don't see any real evidence that can't be explained, even if just with "what if's" or "maybes."


Now, some comments on what others have said in this thread:

"Anyone heard of any relatives of people on that plane? No?" Take it the other way. They didn't make up a flight just for this operation. It was pre-existing. In that case, why has no one come forward and said "I wasn't able to buy a ticket to that flight"?

"I thought there were only 19 ALLEGED hijackers??? Which official source states that there were 20 hijackers?" I think you are taking the words too literally. What is talked about in this case is not who actually died, but that there was one other person who was supposed to be on the flight, but wasn't. He was #20.

"Not a reliable website (911reality.com) to source your information from, it only supports the OS and nothing else." Without saying who is right or wrong, don't the conspiracy websites do the exact same thing, but with the opposite target? *fill in your favorite site here* hardly ever (if at all) admit when they are proven wrong. Both sides are guilty of this.

Oh well, I'm tired now.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You refuse to understand simple English so I will quote this directly from the video...


"There was a young man coming in to tell the Vice President... The plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out, and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out... The young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the order still stand?" The Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything to the contrary?"


Stop making excuses and actually pay attention to the person that was there with the Vice President. This was premeditated whether you like it or not.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
and all the people who died on the airliner are the big hole in the missile thoery. and all the jet wreckage on site. and all the eyewitnesses who saw a jet.

why don't the truthers just go with a spin on the old pearl harbor theory ? Is it because that is plausible and realistic ?

does anyone really believe the combo controlled demolition/missile/shot down theory ?

really ?




Yes, which is why I fear for the logic of man.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You refuse to understand simple English so I will quote this directly from the video...


"There was a young man coming in to tell the Vice President... The plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out, and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out... The young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the order still stand?" The Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything to the contrary?"


Stop making excuses and actually pay attention to the person that was there with the Vice President. This was premeditated whether you like it or not.



So the order still stand not to shoot down a plane with his fellow American citizens to stop something inevitable from happening anyway? Makes sense to me.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You refuse to understand simple English so I will quote this directly from the video...


"There was a young man coming in to tell the Vice President... The plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out, and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out... The young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the order still stand?" The Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything to the contrary?"


Stop making excuses and actually pay attention to the person that was there with the Vice President. This was premeditated whether you like it or not.



So the order still stand not to shoot down a plane with his fellow American citizens to stop something inevitable from happening anyway? Makes sense to me.


Our government will not hesitate to take down planes that are headed towards the Pentagon. What do yout think NORAD is for?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You refuse to understand simple English so I will quote this directly from the video...


"There was a young man coming in to tell the Vice President... The plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out, and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out... The young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the order still stand?" The Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything to the contrary?"


Stop making excuses and actually pay attention to the person that was there with the Vice President. This was premeditated whether you like it or not.



So the order still stand not to shoot down a plane with his fellow American citizens to stop something inevitable from happening anyway? Makes sense to me.


Our government will not hesitate to take down planes that are headed towards the Pentagon. What do yout think NORAD is for?



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





top topics
 
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join