757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by johnlear
I have circled the object that may be the infamous "mystery plane" possibly a command and control E-4.

Here's video of that plane...

Aircraft seen over the pentagoon 9-11

Edit; more on this...

911tvfakery.blogspot.com...

thewebfairy.com...

[edit on 21/4/2007 by ANOK]

I would hardly call it a stealth jet like in that video. It's an E-4B NAOC that was flying out of Andrews all that week for the exercises going on. There was also a C-130 that identified the 757 before impact.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I would hardly call it a stealth jet like in that video. It's an E-4B NAOC that was flying out of Andrews all that week for the exercises going on. There was also a C-130 that identified the 757 before impact.

UMMM, must have been really great timming to have an E-4 and a C-130 in the area and to have the excercises going on at the same time.

Since when do they need an E-4 for just a simple excercise ? They are for in case of a national emergency. We have other aircraft that can keep track of and control an excercise.

Also good timming and fast C-130 to be at the Pentagon and the Flight 93 crash sites.

[edit on 22-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
that was flying out of Andrews all that week for the exercises going on.

Well of course that's the official story, but seeing as most of us believe this was an inside job, and they lied to us, then why should we believe that story...

There was another white plane spotted at the WTC also, was it the same kind of plane?

The White Elephant

The exercises that day were to provide a distraction and confuse those that should have protected the country. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together nicely...

[edit on 22/4/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
^Well of course that's the official story, but seeing as most of us believe this was an inside job, and they lied to us, then why should we believe that story...

The exercises that day were to provide a distraction and confuse those that should have protected the country. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together nicely...

Well i have not found enough evidence to proof it was an inside job but their is enough evidence to suggest the governmnet knows more then what they are saying and may have left it happen.

Originally posted by ANOK
There was another white plane spotted at the WTC also, was it the same kind of plane?

The White Elephant

[edit on 22/4/2007 by ANOK]

That looks like a Delta 767. Probably a -400.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

UMMM, must have been really great timming to have an E-4 and a C-130 in the area and to have the excercises going on at the same time.

Since when do they need an E-4 for just a simple excercise ? They are for in case of a national emergency. We have other aircraft that can keep track of and control an excercise.

Also good timming and fast C-130 to be at the Pentagon and the Flight 93 crash sites.

[edit on 22-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

The flight path of the C-130 carried it near Flight 93s impact area. And NAOC DOES occasionally participate in exercises. It's not like they just sit and wait to launch, they DO have to train sometimes too.

My own personal stand on this is exactly what Ultima said. I tend to lean toward this being allowed to happen.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The flight path of the C-130 carried it near Flight 93s impact area. And NAOC DOES occasionally participate in exercises. It's not like they just sit and wait to launch, they DO have to train sometimes too.

Still a pretty fast C-130. Also yes they do have to train but most of their training is not in the type of excerices going on that day.

[edit on 22-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

So you guys are still hanging on to the illusion that fire bought the towers down? You got to be smarter than that, especialy being ATS members?

Zaphod Bebblebrox I can understand...

And that would be the biggest reason I'm backing out of 9/11. I have my own thoughts on it, and I'm sticking to them, and I'm done debating or discussing anything about it.

Originally posted by ANOK
So you guys are still hanging on to the illusion that fire bought the towers down? You got to be smarter than that, especialy being ATS members?

No, i beleive as i have stated before on many occasions what i have learned from my research.

Quote:
"Thier were unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, extreme temperatures from thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the towers."

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I have my own thoughts on it, and I'm sticking to them, and I'm done debating or discussing anything about it.

Yeah OK, ignore all the evidence and stick to the official story.
I got ya...

Not discussing anymore? Cause there's nothing to discus, it's over. You know as well as I do, don't ya? (that's a rhetorical question BTW, I know what your answer will be)...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
"Thier were unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, extreme temperatures from thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the towers."

But I thought you just said 'there isn't enough evidence of inside job but maybe they let it happen'? So who do you think planted the thermite?
And if you believe it was thermite, then how could it not be an inside job?

Or are you still clinging to the illusion of 'natural thermite reactions'?

You're really hard to read sometimes Ultima1, you're confusing me with contradictions...

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah OK, ignore all the evidence and stick to the official story.
I got ya...

Not discussing anymore? Cause there's nothing to discus, it's over. You know as well as I do, don't ya? (that's a rhetorical question BTW, I know what your answer will be)...

You're right. There is nothing to discuss. Not when you have people telling you that you have no clue what you're talking about, despite having first hand experience of it. Or when people are more concerned about calling you a liar, or an idiot, or just shouting you down. The so called truth movement is just as bad as the government they're claiming did 9/11. You're either with them, or you're a brainwashed sheeple idiot who knows nothing. And THAT is why I'm done discussing the whole thing.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're right. There is nothing to discuss. Not when you have people telling you that you have no clue what you're talking about, despite having first hand experience of it

If you can't stand the heat...

I'm called an idiot all the time, I know I'm not so I don't worry about it.
Maybe you don't have enough confidence in your claims, so you fold every time someone contradicts those claims with real facts that you can't dispute?

Remember I, and a lot of other people here, have first hand experience also and probably more than you do. John Lear for one, you can't honestly tell me you know more about aircraft than he does?
As I've told you numerous times I worked on jets (EA-6B's, P-3's, C-130's, H-56 helos, 1st degree/IMA mechanic ) for 6 years, and not just as a ramp rat either. So pulling the 'I have experience' card won't work with me bud...

Originally posted by ANOK
Or are you still clinging to the illusion of 'natural thermite reactions'?

You're really hard to read sometimes Ultima1, you're confusing me with contradictions...

Well yes thermite reactions caused by the planes as my post states if you read it.

There could have been thermite reactions between molten aluminum and the conrete dust and gypsum dust. Molten aluminum is certainly a possibility since the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum. Molten aluminum appeared to be pouring out one of the towers. There was plenty of aluminum in the aircraft and also the facade of the buildings.

There are thermite reactions that can take place between the molten aluminum and the concrete and gypsum dust. Aluminum gives off a lot of heat when it oxidizes or forms hydroxides. There was plenty of oxygen and water in the gypsum and concrete dust particles. Molten aluminum is known to sometimes react violently with concrete when spilled on it. There would have been a very high interfacial area between fine dust particles and any molten aluminum puddles in the pit after the collapse to help the chemical reaction go. That could explain why there were local hot spots that remained for many weeks.

And maybe I'm just tired of having to stand the heat, and being told that I'm a blind brainwashed sheeple. Especially when it's by people that DON'T have more experience than I do about something, but they STILL tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. But anyway this is my last post in 9/11, so you can think of me what you want. I seriously couldn't care less if you think I can't stand the heat or I'm a sheeple, or whatever you want. I'm fed up with the lack of respect, and with having to be with one side or the other, and BOTH sides attacking each other.

^ You really need to take a serious re-think of that theory.

Sry but no way in hell could a natural thermite reaction be started by a plane crash. Do you realise it takes extreme heat to start a thermite reaction? No way did those fires get hot enough to do that.
Not too mention that the components could not have mixed in the right proportions to do that. Where did the iron oxide come from? How did this natural themite manage to find it way to the 47 massive central columns, and the outer columns, to cause a global collapse with all four corners falling at the same time?
How did this natural thermite send pieces of facade, weighing in the tons, laterally up to 600 ft? There's just a billion things wrong with that theory, sry.

No wonder your posts confuse me...

Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly, but this should never be attempted for safety reasons. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

Yeah I know it's Wikipedia but...

Are you just going to 'stick to your story' like Zaphod..

Edit; speeling.

[edit on 22/4/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And maybe I'm just tired of having to stand the heat, and being told that I'm a blind brainwashed sheeple.

Then maybe you should not attack people that are trying to find the truth and also have experience.