Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by R3N3G4D3

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
A missile would not have hit so many objects going towards the pentagon if it was a missile.

Now this statement I figured was reasonable as I thought, yeah that's true enough. You almost had me. Until BIRDS! Birds fly into airplane engines

A bird flying INTO an engine and wings hitting poles are not the same thing bud.


Imagine if the poles flew INTO the engine (doing the same thing as the birds flying into them), then imagine the wings were hitting birds (doing nothing obviously)....Still think it was a missile?

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
If i Created a 'Computer Animated' Picture of a Missile Hitting the Pentagon wold that be 'conclusive Evidence' and Sway your mind?

Loll, Hell no! Because they could not show me conclusive evidence that a missile knocked down those light post, point blank.
If I saw a video like that, it would not make since to a realist like me, its no way a missle could hit one thing and not blow up…that’s real!

Truthers think that ALL the evidence of plane crashing was planted... Like they they would have time to do that with countless eye witnesses watching LOL I'm going to start a petition to get truthers manditory mental help.

I had a poster tell me they might of remote controlled detonated the lamp post so it could look like a plane hit the pentagon, that was funny…but sad to think that it could actually be believed.

Originally posted by michael1983l
That video is BS, all those lamp posts and generators the plane supposedly hit would have clipped its wings and left debris from the AEROplane on the ground near there location. I did not see anything around those lamp posts.

So if a plane hits a light pole at 500 mph, you expect the debris to land at the exact same spot as the light poles? You assume the plane isn't moving LOL

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
If i Created a 'Computer Animated' Picture of a Missile Hitting the Pentagon wold that be 'conclusive Evidence' and Sway your mind?

Loll, Hell no! Because they could not show me conclusive evidence that a missile knocked down those light post, point blank.
If I saw a video like that, it would not make since to a realist like me, its no way a missle could hit one thing and not blow up…that’s real!

Truthers think that ALL the evidence of plane crashing was planted... Like they they would have time to do that with countless eye witnesses watching LOL I'm going to start a petition to get truthers manditory mental help.

I had a poster tell me they might of remote controlled detonated the lamp post so it could look like a plane hit the pentagon, that was funny…but sad to think that it could actually be believed.

Every time you prove them wrong they will say "it must have been something else then!", proving they ignore evidence and spread disinformation.

Um, lets see here now. 85 cameras at the Pentagon yet we were indulged with only a few frames of video that hardly show anything at all. Yet supposed "intelligent people" want to argue on the points of the 911 Report in which the Senior Counsel for the Commission, John Farmer called the final report "a lie". The Commission who was hastily thrown together refused to listen to or include dissenting viewpoints of what happened and also failed to collect evidence that was prepared for them by a variety of agencys.

Yet some "intelligent people" want to argue this as "conclusive proof" of what happened at the Pentagon.

Aside from the childish names such as "truther" or "skeptic" or whatever the name of the week is for people who do not have opinions that jive with anyone else's, one thing is very clear and that is that the evidence presented up to this point fails to convince many Americans and others around the world. The cherry picked storys from people hwo said they saw an airplane has been used in the government's defense yet those who stated they saw "something else" or described variances of aircraft were ignored.

Is this the caliber of "quality investigating" many of you really wish to defend?

People will believe what they want to despite mountains of evidence to the contrary or something as pitiful as shoddy video stills purporting to show an airliner. One question remains though:

Why are these guys picking up evidence from the biggest crime scene in history? Or are they placing it?

911 research

Everyone knows that you do not touch evidence. Yet these two have a different agenda obviously.

Below is the purported impact point before it collasped. Columns blown outward. No "wing damage" indications. Yet we are supposed to believe that an airliner crashed into the building at this point? Not hardly!



Wider view below. No aircraft went through here.



Looks more like Slobodan Milosevic's house after Clinton launched a cruise missile at it during the Bosnia conflict.


And for the hoopla about the light poles, if an airliner hit as many as this one was to have supposed to have hit, the damn thing would have crashed well before the building. Damage to the wings would have rendered it unairworthy.

Only a small percentage said they say something else it doesn't mean anything. Over 100 witnesses saw the flight 77 hit then pentagon, plenty of debris found, bodies Identified by DNA........but lack of video proof makes you STILL have doubts? LOL what a joke.

If I don't release videos of me having sex with a girl does that mean I must be gay!? Great logic! FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON! Get over it!