9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

originally posted by: Dragoon01

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: hellobruce

Nah he meant that anyone can clearly see plain as day that the same plane did NOT hit the Pentagon, since we have never seen any clear evidence at ALL of a plane AT the pentagon.

Care to show us any evidence of a plane at the pentagon save for pictures of parts that do not fit the narrative that were taken 2 weeks or more later ?

Except that there were dozens of witnesses that were driving on the highways beside the Pentagon that SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!

Ya sure their were.

Let me fly a plane at you at 500 mph that you don't see coming and then identify it.

Just how do you drive on a freeway and also watch a plane speeding like a bullet that only comes into view for a second ?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Care to show us any evidence of a plane at the pentagon save for pictures of parts

So you want evidence, but refuse to accept pictures that show 757 parts at and in the Pentagon.... as you know they will estroy your silly conspiracy theory!

Not one picture has ever been shown with 757 parts at or around , or in the Pentagon.

You cannot prove that ANY of the parts shown, are from a 757..and so few parts are even claimed as "evidence"...that it should be easy for you.

But then you are trying so hard to believe something, it is no wonder you will believe all the lies !

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: scottyirnbru

You can't figure it out ?

We do not see any plane parts that match what is said to have crashed there.

Let us know when you have ANY evidence that the same plane crashed there, the same model or anything at all the SAME.

You guys love to use this technique but do not like it in reverse ??

911research.wtc7.net...

I don't understand what you expect to see. Take any aircraft and mash it at 500mph into a solid object. It's more remarkable that debris actually remains outside after this event.

You want photographic proof but at the same time don't think that photographic proof which exists is suitable. You've provided zero quantifiable evidence for the statements you've made. The photographs available. The eyewitness testimony. This is quantifiable evidence. Just because you disagree with the evidence doesn't mean you can ignore it.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Care to show us any evidence of a plane at the pentagon save for pictures of parts

So you want evidence, but refuse to accept pictures that show 757 parts at and in the Pentagon.... as you know they will estroy your silly conspiracy theory!

Not one picture has ever been shown with 757 parts at or around , or in the Pentagon.

You cannot prove that ANY of the parts shown, are from a 757..and so few parts are even claimed as "evidence"...that it should be easy for you.

But then you are trying so hard to believe something, it is no wonder you will believe all the lies !

Well not one. Many yes. Not one.

www.rense.com...

Eyewitness testimony. Photographs. Etc.

Correct. I can't reasonably identify that debris as a plane. In the same way that if you crashed a car at 500mph into a building I'd probably struggle to identify that as a car. You dont want to accept the best evidence there is because it contradicts what you want to believe. Fine. That's up to you.

Should also state that rense site is full of garbage but that at least aggregates witness statements and photographic evidence on one page.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Dragoon01

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: hellobruce

Nah he meant that anyone can clearly see plain as day that the same plane did NOT hit the Pentagon, since we have never seen any clear evidence at ALL of a plane AT the pentagon.

Care to show us any evidence of a plane at the pentagon save for pictures of parts that do not fit the narrative that were taken 2 weeks or more later ?

Except that there were dozens of witnesses that were driving on the highways beside the Pentagon that SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!

Ya sure their were.

Let me fly a plane at you at 500 mph that you don't see coming and then identify it.

Just how do you drive on a freeway and also watch a plane speeding like a bullet that only comes into view for a second ?

I believe that at 500mph I could identify an object travelling at 500mph as a plane. Could I tell the difference between a 757 and a 767 or even an A320? Probably not. But I'd recognise a plane.

Also. If you are driving then all of a sudden an aircraft heaves into view there is a good chance that you'll find your eyes drawn to it. Especially as it's so low and in such an unlikely area. If you however would be able to maintain laser focus on the road ahead I'll bet you are better than almost all of the rest of the population.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
911research.wtc7.net...

Plenty of evidence of 757 parts at that link, but no pictures of 757 parts at the Pentagon will satisfy him, as they destroy his conspiracy theory!

Controlled demolition is all I have to say, what I thought to be real suspicious was the tower that wasn't struck by anything went down like the other two.....

a reply to: ParasuvO

That would depend on the aircraft position relative to your direction of travel but it takes common sense to think like that something that reduces to believe in the conspiracy.

But it didn't. Watch the videos. Also damage and fire. Try reading. Stick to facts instead of tinfoil hat websites.

a reply to: rahspeed

WTC 7 WAS struck by debris from the North Tower collapse it had a huge rip several storeys high and that was reported by the fire department.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: rahspeed

WTC 7 WAS struck by debris from the North Tower collapse it had a huge rip several storeys high and that was reported by the fire department.

You think debris brought down WTC7?

a reply to: wmd_2008



So how You explain that there was no debris of plane in Pentagon but the investigators found a passport (at WTC, ground Zero) which they claim was one of the attackers. So plane disappeared (Ptgn) and the piece of paper doesnt (NY, WTC)?

The damage of Ptgn looks like prepared job. Nothing there was random.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: residentofearth

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: residentofearth

What strong and masive shockwave are you talking about, there are no reports of a massive shockwave that would have ripped people apart when touched by it.

You're being very selective about your datapoints, try to look at it holistically and not make assumptions.

You should quote my post because I clearly wrote that IT COULD BE a massive shockwave.

For me, whole gov. theory was failed after I the pictures from the Pentagon.
One plain cause 1000ft high building to collapse and does only a small whole in the Pnt. Pleaaase..

The walls are un-touched.

That's not 1000ft high.

You are not quite inteligent, right? If You think I thought Pentagon is 1000ft

Double post.

originally posted by: residentofearth
So how You explain that there was no debris of plane in Pentagon

That is just a silly truther claim, pictures have been shown of 757 debris inside the Pentagon in this thread!

So plane disappeared (Ptgn)

No, it did not "disappear", debris of a AA 757 can be clearly seen inside and outside the Pentagon, why are you refusing to look at them?

a reply to: angryhulk

You think debris brought down WTC7?

No one has ever said that debris brought down WTC 7.
The un fought fire that resulted from the debris strike brought down WTC 7.

When it comes down to it fire is what brought down 1 & 2 as well.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

You think debris brought down WTC7?

No one has ever said that debris brought down WTC 7.
The un fought fire that resulted from the debris strike brought down WTC 7.

When it comes down to it fire is what brought down 1 & 2 as well.

I was just asking the question.
Office/Diesel fuel fire could not have brought down WTC7, just saying...

a reply to: samkent

This will never end. My truth, your truth.

It's like: Found a terrorist at the photo



Yeah Your are right, the kid in the middle..

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

Nobody was allowed to inspect or examine any of those parts we were shown. How do we know they are authentic when we cannot view them? We are forced to take the word of a bunch of known liars, and that is not scientific in the least.

The parts were inspected and the serials matched up.
You don't want to accept it because you were not the one doing the inspection.

Nonsense. If you could prove that you would, but you haven't, so you can't. All you have is the word of Pentagon propagandists.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

You can bet your bottom dollar that with all the video cameras facing outward on the Pentagon, probably dozens, if UA77 had flown across that lawn as they said it did, there would be footage of it. Ample footage, considering all the cameras.

Yet all they choose to show is 4 or 5 frames from a parking lot camera. Don't you know when your being fooled?

The parking lot camera shows an aircraft of some sort, but it is clearly far too small to be a 757.

If they had solid proof to corroborate their story, they would have presented it long ago. The story is bogus.

a reply to: angryhulk

I said struck by debris I never said brought dowm by them.