100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


He'd need some luck considering his engines would have stalled about 2 miles back.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Humint1
 


Did one winess ever say it was a missile by the way.You dont think flying over the dc area a missile coudnt be detected...atleast by one person.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


People should accept the truth.The airplane was simply LANDED into the building..with its gear up..There was no missile ..just an airplane



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


He'd need some luck considering his engines would have stalled about 2 miles back.


so could it be done,thats all im asking?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


In my opinion an aircraft of that size and wingspan could not fly in at the angle the video reports as its engines will have stalled



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Here is a link why ppl think a missile was used

freedomisforeverybody.blogspot.com...
war veterans smelling cordite.

edit/
I forgot to mention,

The missile theory doesn't discredit the use of a smaller 1 engine plane
Like a missile mounted UAV?
edit on 20-6-2011 by eagleeye2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by granpabobby
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


People should accept the truth.The airplane was simply LANDED into the building..with its gear up..There was no missile ..just an airplane

THEY CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH !



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Airplane?

Considering the time of morning, people were on their way to work or wherever. I dare say that NO ONE was thinking about anything flying across their field of view into the Pentagon. In short, they stated it was an airplane because it flew past them. So it must have been an airplane in their mind. The time of the morning, the flying object there in front of them...Thats where the airplane theory came from.

And its the one they wanted to stick.

Yes, its a fake. But used to illustrate my point.

Until the government releases video showing an airliner crashing into the building, all of the debris in the world does not add up to anything other than speculation.

If anyone wants to take the government at it's word then thats fine. I choose not to without concrete evidence and the 85 videos showing an American Airlines plane crashing into the Pentagon..

edit on 6/20/2011 by Humint1 because: add line



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Humint1
 

This is not about the government Humint1; it is about realism and not allowing your brain to be tricked by lies and outlandish conspiracies...that all and thats it.
so do you hink a missile hit it to?
what is your entire theory on this matter at hand sir?

edit on 20-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Outlandish is believeing a 7x7 could fly into a building at that angle, it is simply impossible, I have stated many times that the engines will have stalled far back from the location of impact and the aircraft would have simply fallen short. I am not saying I know the answer to what actually happened but what I am saying is the video evidence provided with the computer graphics just cannot be true. Any airline pilot would tell you that.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Outlandish is believeing a 7x7 could fly into a building at that angle, it is simply impossible, I have stated many times that the engines will have stalled far back from the location of impact and the aircraft would have simply fallen short. I am not saying I know the answer to what actually happened but what I am saying is the video evidence provided with the computer graphics just cannot be true. Any airline pilot would tell you that.


so the lamp post fell by accident and they staged the airline debrise and it was a missile,is that correct,is that what you are saying?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


No that is not what I am saying, I clearly just stated that I do not know what actually happened. All I am stating is the original video quoted in this Thread is simply BS as what they are quoting as believing as happened could not have happened the way they have said.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


In my opinion an aircraft of that size and wingspan could not fly in at the angle the video reports as its engines will have stalled


What about a modified ( Drone ? ) , remote controlled plane.
Like the ones ( IMO ) that were flew into the Twin towers.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


A drone would be able to come in at that angle because its mass in proportion to its wingspan is a much smaller ratio meaning it could get greater lift at lower elevation in decent. Alternativly it could be as the government released just not as stated in the video in this thread.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


No that is not what I am saying, I clearly just stated that I do not know what actually happened. All I am stating is the original video quoted in this Thread is simply BS as what they are quoting as believing as happened could not have happened the way they have said.


No that is not what I am saying, I clearly just stated that I do not know what actually happened.

Well if you have no idea about what happened ,why are you saying the things you are saying then?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Usualy people dont realise that a global hawk(RQ4A) has almost the same wingspan as a 737.
117 feet

edit/ for link
air-attack.com...
www.globalaircraft.org...
edit on 20-6-2011 by eagleeye2 because: (no reason given)


also the RQ4B compared to RQ4A has 15 feet more than a boeing 737 wingspan.
edit on 20-6-2011 by eagleeye2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I stopped watching the video at exhibit A, the pole hitting the Taxi cab, why?
Because there are photos of the same taxi cab and the same driver on another location at the time of the incident, there are interviews with this man and hidden camera footage where he Say's many things that he doesn't say when he knows that the camera is rolling. Also, how does this pole fall in to this car and was later removed by himself and "a mysterious man" and there is no glass nor scratches on the hood?
The taxi driver interviews and the photos of the taxi, where the things that opened my eyes regarding the cover up.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Also, some of you ignore the height of the plane and that if it would have hit the first floor, the engines and part of the belly would have dug in to the ground. Also, there are no plane debris on the photos after the impact and the videos, airplane parts appear in the after photos provided by the government.

Edit: Look up the height of the plane with the gears in, look up the height of the building, do the math.
edit on 20-6-2011 by Elieser because: More info



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 



I do not know the actual events but what I do know is what could not have happened. And that is important in this thread because the OP uses a video that in my opinion is impossible to use as the reason why to state 100% proof that events occured as the MSM picked up.






top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join