WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
We have our own eyes to see that there wasn't nearly enough debris to make half a Piper Cub. We can also see just from the released 5 frames that there was nothing nearly as large as Flight 77 that ever came anywhere near the building. I am sick of clowns like you and your lies and obfuscations. Here is a first hand CNN reporter telling us what he saw ON THE SCENE:
...
NOW PLEASE GO AWAY UNTIL YOU CAN DO SOMETHING MORE THAN LIE.

Why do you only trust people who saw nothing, when you ignore people who did see something? People were literally within metres of where the plane hit and saw it clearly. There were personal effects of passengers found at the crash site.

What evidence would you accept exactly?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

We have our own eyes to see that there wasn't nearly enough debris to make half a Piper Cub. We can also see just from the released 5 frames that there was nothing nearly as large as Flight 77 that ever came anywhere near the building. I am sick of clowns like you and your lies and obfuscations. Here is a first hand CNN reporter telling us what he saw ON THE SCENE:

"From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon....the only sight is the sight of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that we can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand....there are no large sections, tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though you look at the pictures of the Pentagon and you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately...it wasn't until about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."

www.youtube.com...

NOW PLEASE GO AWAY UNTIL YOU CAN DO SOMETHING MORE THAN LIE.

edit on 5-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

Wow, if only truthers had some reading comprehension skills, 99% of the movement would disappear.

Your little quote is true. What the guy is saying is that it didnt seem like a plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. Which is true. It crashed INTO the Pentagon and the aircraft was mostly INSIDE the Pentagon. Dammit, use some of those brain neurons and think critically for a second. A plane crashed INTO a building. Do you know what "into a building" means? It means you are not going to see a plane OUTSIDE the building, but INSIDE the building. I mean, they teach that on Sesame Street, the difference between inside and outside. Yes, if a car crashes into a building at high speed, and I approach the building from a different side, I'm not going to see a car crash until I go and look inside the building. The car is not going to be sitting outside, if it crashed and went INTO a building. Common sense people. Another thing lacking in Trutherland.

It is no lie. A 757 crashed into the Pentagon. Period. Relying on accounts of people that did not see the plane crash, or were anywhere near the crash site when it happened, and then using their initial thought of what they are seeing as PROOF that no planes crashed there, is basically LYING. So, stop lying about no plane crashing there. You twisted an eyewitness account into something else that is not what he was saying. You are being dishonest and LYING. Exponent is not lying. I'm not lying. You are. You see how that works?

Then again, this is offtopic, so stay on topic now, please?

edit to add

Oh yeah, here is the rest of what he said about the crash site. Why did you leave out the rest?
Jamie McInture and the Pentagon

Yes and here is the transcript part YOU left out that leads into the quote, it is an mp3 file that plays on opening, and here is the transcript:

Audio taken from Jamie McIntyre in FULL context

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Why do you truthers require to take things out of context and twist them in order to perpetuate truther lies? I have yet to see a debunker do this in my years on ATS. But it seems truther's evidence is based on out of context quotes and twists and lies. Why is that?

reply to post by kidtwist


Where is your proof? There is more than enough evidence it did. So where is your concrete proof?

reply to post by GenRadek



The was no 757, you know this but you and your buddies are pathocrats sent here to tell lies and uphold the OS, hence why you have all been here so long gatekeeping the OS! You are the liar, people are not stupid, you're not even subtle, and this whole threads has been steered off topic by you and your buddies, so don't throw that card in.

The Pentagon is your smoking gun, you are here to make sure that people do not question what happened, you're here to sell the 757 story, yet there is no evidence to show one did, just falsified evidence to make it appear so, then a few pathocrats on the internet, especially on ATS, to continue selling that lie! Do you really think all the general public are stupid?!

At least it keeps you in a job eh!

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by kidtwist

 

Where is your proof? There is more than enough evidence it did. So where is your concrete proof?

There is proof! The absence of a plane says it all. I'm not about to believe, nor should any sane rational person, that a 757 caved in on itself and ALL of it went into a 16 foot hole. What kind of asinine insanity is that? The onus is on the government to prove that one did! Otherwise its a Reichstag. Get it? They could shut everyone up very easily by showing us one of the missing frames or from some other video that a 757 was anywhere near the Pentagon. Why is it that every single aspect of what went on, from Cheney's stand down to all the problems with our defense system is muddy and questionable? WHere is YOUR smoking gun that can shut everyone up?? You have none? Now with our Nazi-infiltrated government's history of lies, atrocities, black ops and false flags, why should we not question this event that has systematically destroyed American freedoms, especially when we had an oil-baron President, whose father ran the CIA, had everything to do with assassinating JFK, whose grandfather funded Hitler and tried a military coup in 1932 to install a Fascist Dictatorship in the US according to Smedley Butler, who was presiding over all of this and who calls the US Constitution "just a god damned piece of paper"?? Should we be THAT stupid?

How can you possibly defend these criminals in the face of all this? Are you wacked? Or just a lying cohort?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
There is proof! The absence of a plane says it all. I'm not about to believe, nor should any sane rational person, that a 757 caved in on itself and ALL of it went into a 16 foot hole.

Nobody is saying it did, how can it be a decade later and you still don't know the very first thing about the attacks?

How can you possibly defend these criminals in the face of all this? Are you wacked? Or just a lying cohort?

edit on 5-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

How embarassing for you to get everything wrong at once, how could you possibly think there was a 16 foot wide hole that everything went into? Oh that's right, it's repeated on conspiracy sites and you just believed it without ever checking it out.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
ALL of it went into a 16 foot hole.

Here is a composite photo for all the hole too small Truthers.

Pentagon Hole Revealed by Composite Photo
by Paolo Attivissimo

An Italian 9/11 researcher, Pier Paolo Murru, well-known for the quality of his previous graphic work on the Pentagon attack, has published a remarkable photomontage of the Pentagon entry hole on the Italian-language pro-conspiracy site Luogocomune.net. It's so highly detailed that it's worth clicking on it to appreciate it full-size.


This montage shows with unprecedented clarity the actual size and shape of the Pentagon entry damage. The picture, says Mr Murru, was "obtained by blending 17 high-resolution photographs [...] compensating for perspective distortion where needed."

The montage is an extremely effective debunking of the "hole-too-small" theory. Indeed, Mr Murru adds that "certainly there is no way you can say there's a 12- or 15-foot hole".

That's quite a remarkable acknowledgment, considering it's published by a pro-conspiracy site.

1.bp.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by GenRadek

 

The was no 757, you know this but you and your buddies are pathocrats sent here to tell lies and uphold the OS, hence why you have all been here so long gatekeeping the OS! You are the liar, people are not stupid, you're not even subtle, and this whole threads has been steered off topic by you and your buddies, so don't throw that card in.

Really? short term memory loss must be a pain:

SimontheMagnus

This thread is a done deal, and as usual the LIARS lose. Why not come over to this thread (wrongly put it into the hoax bin) and try your hand at debunking ipsedixit's slam dunk evidence that all three "planes" at the Pentagon and the two towers were lacking a wake vortex? C'mon big guy, explain to us how yet another law of physics was broken on 911, not once, not twice, but three times.....

Who talked about wake vortexes first? Simon. waypastvne just answered his question. He went off topic first. Sorry, you lied again.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
ALL of it went into a 16 foot hole.

Here is a composite photo for all the hole too small Truthers.

Pentagon Hole Revealed by Composite Photo
by Paolo Attivissimo

An Italian 9/11 researcher, Pier Paolo Murru, well-known for the quality of his previous graphic work on the Pentagon attack, has published a remarkable photomontage of the Pentagon entry hole on the Italian-language pro-conspiracy site Luogocomune.net. It's so highly detailed that it's worth clicking on it to appreciate it full-size.


This montage shows with unprecedented clarity the actual size and shape of the Pentagon entry damage. The picture, says Mr Murru, was "obtained by blending 17 high-resolution photographs [...] compensating for perspective distortion where needed."

The montage is an extremely effective debunking of the "hole-too-small" theory. Indeed, Mr Murru adds that "certainly there is no way you can say there's a 12- or 15-foot hole".

That's quite a remarkable acknowledgment, considering it's published by a pro-conspiracy site.

1.bp.blogspot.com...

edit on 5-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Nice pic. It doesn't help you in the least. It only proves my point.

I've done my research. The truth doesn't change no matter how much time passes, although you would like it to. Sorry but you're still a world-class liar. There is no damage consistent with a 757, but there is certainly damage consistent with a missile. Here's the end of your fantasy ... debunk this:

The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report - Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?

www.kolumbus.fi...

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


www.kolumbus.fi...

Could you point out.... what you think.... is the most damaging piece of evidence..... in that wall of Truther Doodoo.... is.


All the evidence I see points to a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

www.kolumbus.fi...

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


www.kolumbus.fi...

Could you point out.... what you think.... is the most damaging piece of evidence..... in that wall of Truther Doodoo.... is.


All the evidence I see points to a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

www.kolumbus.fi...

Well, that's because your mind is made up that you see a plane, when there is no plane. That would be classified as a hallucination.

There is no particular point in this analysis that I deem "most damaging". There are 9 critical points discussed, from the point of impact to the damage on the wall to all the cable spools being intact to the complete lack of tail damage ...and you have addressed none of them. Magic disintegrating planes, magically disintegrating buildings, and not-so-magically disintegrating OS, which reeks of a putrifying stench.

Here's the final conclusion, which I find completely unassailable:

The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. More generally, no proof of the return of Flight 77 to the Washington area has been presented. On the contrary, e.g. any security camera recordings that would really show what hit the Pentagon have not been made public. (In May 2006, two series of still photos from security cameras were released, but they contain no evidence of a Boeing 757. See www.flight77.info and www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.) The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

to all the cable spools being intact

OK then I'll pick one. What's wrong with the cable spools ?

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
because wtc 1 and 2 had magic fire you know from all that jet fuel,and some of that jet fuel jump over to wtc 7 and proceeded to take that building down.WTC5 didn't get a dose of magic jet fuel,that was regular office fires.
Theres no need for nuclear devices when we have jet fuel that can do the damage it did on 911.I think we should disarm our nuclear devices and aim jet fuel at our enemies.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

to all the cable spools being intact

OK then I'll pick one. What's wrong with the cable spools ?

And you're claiming you looked at the article?

No one is fooled by your little games. You're not here to find out the truth, you're only here to defend the OS no matter what, to chastise anyone trying to get to the truth, and to do your little Psy-Ops 101 for Dummies. It's part of Conclusion 6....

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

And you're claiming you looked at the article?

Yes, I read the article.

Now I want you to state what you think is wrong with the cable spools.

If you also read the article you should be able to tell me.


ETA You can copy paste if you want.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

And you're claiming you looked at the article?

Yes, I read the article.

Now I want you to state what you think is wrong with the cable spools.

If you also read the article you should be able to tell me.


ETA You can copy paste if you want.

edit on 5-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

What, now you can't even interpret simple illustrations?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

What, now you can't even interpret simple illustrations?

You are the one presenting evidence for your Witch Hunt.

Drag your evidence out here for all of us to see, and tell us with confidence, this is my evidence.

So what exactly is wrong with the cable spools ?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

What, now you can't even interpret simple illustrations?

You are the one presenting evidence for your Witch Hunt.

Drag your evidence out here for all of us to see, and tell us with confidence, this is my evidence.

So what exactly is wrong with the cable spools ?

edit on 5-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

I'm not going to argue with a child using playground tactics. Grow up or get lost.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

What, now you can't even interpret simple illustrations?

You are the one presenting evidence for your Witch Hunt.

Drag your evidence out here for all of us to see, and tell us with confidence, this is my evidence.

So what exactly is wrong with the cable spools ?

edit on 5-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

I'm not going to argue with a child using playground tactics. Grow up or get lost.

edit on 5-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You brought up the cable spools. Mind telling us what's wrong with them?