Looking for 911 pentegon photo...

No one is implying the events of 9|11 do not have conspiratorial complicity. It is very possible to say a passenger plane hit the Pentagon and there may be scandalous government involvement in the same breath. However... It's counter productive and discredits real efforts to ignore irrefutable evidence and sane logic. As far as your comment about "the entire structure burned up on the lawn" I assume you mean the remains of the jet... and the fact that it is not on the lawn is evidence there was no jet. Are you aware that an engine from the second plane that hit the World Trade Center traveled through the building came out the other side and landed on a street 9 blocks north? Certainly you can be asking us to assume all laws of physics should have suddenly suspended the moment the plane hit the outer wall of the Pentagon, and lost all momentum and simply fell to the grass?

Thank you for the welcome and the info. I'll start reading them now.

How petty.
Did you mess with my avatar to exploit your position on ATS - or because my argument touched a nerve?
I am disappointed.

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by RogueOne]

Originally posted by RogueOne
How petty.
Did you F**k with my avatar to exploit your position on ATS - or because my argument touched a nerve, little one?
Time for a new life!

errr...what the hell are you talking about?

"SkepticUnderlord", disagreed with my points. Like a true gentleman, he then abandoned the cerebral opportunities available to him.

U2U? Nah.
Refutation? No.
Debate? Nom
Exchange arguments, make valid points? Nyet

Decision? Destroy a budding member's Avatar!

Congratulations! I'll borrow yours for now. It will be the ATS Embrace Ignorance symbol.
-RogueOne

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by RogueOne
How petty.
Did you mess with my avatar to exploit your position on ATS - or because my argument touched a nerve?
I am disappointed.

errr...what the hell are you talking about?

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by RogueOne]

Hey Rogue,
Want some cheese with your whine?

R1 didn't read this: www.abovetopsecret.com... Even though it is in the new-member welcome U2U. He also seemed to disagree with the nature of the U2U he received when his avatar was removed which was apologetic that such strong measures were taken, but the actions of a few members testing the limits of avatar imagery requires a "line in the sand". Anyway, it had nothing to do with his incorrect assumptions on the given topic, which he now seems to feel is much less important than his avatar.

Anyway, it had nothing to do with his incorrect assumptions on the given topic, which he now seems to feel is much less important than his avatar.

Nah, I think it had to do with a distraction while he made up some facts to support his claim.

Keep this on topic guys

Just so you know, there was video of that plane hitting the pentagon..

I'd try and find it, but I saw it a while back, never saw it since.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by SwampFox]

www.freedomfiles.org...

From The Freedom Files...
60% of the way down is the video analysis. That trailing plume of white smoke ...forget you saw that. Photoshop time.

Possibly, the hijackers got away!

Our miltary can fairly be credited with saving many many lives on 9-11. Days earlier they had placed prominent marks on the Pentagon lawn, ensuring the missile programming was a 'precision-guided' success. Right into the conveniently 'now-under-construction' zone! Congrats. Too bad they forgot about the Space Imaging archives (oops)!

Don't even get me started on the WTC, (sigh).
Some people making the French look real good!
But its actually rather sad,
RogueOne

here we go again.

there was an aeroplane that crashed into the pentagon on september 11th 2001, there was tens even hundreds of whitnesses that saw it happen, i have amatuer footage from after the attack on the streets and everyone says it was a plane, what about the damage it did to light poles etc on the highway.

While a plane may indeed have been seen, how many people know what type of plane it was that they saw?

**The apparent plane mostly obscured by the foreground structure in the first frame is much too small to be a Boeing 757.

**The apparent vapor trail behind the apparent plane could not have been produced by the turbofan engines of a jetliner. It is consistent with the exhaust plume of a missile.

**The white color of the explosion in the second frame cannot be explained as the combustion of jet fuel. It indicates the use of explosives.

Skeptics seized on the video as evidence that the Pentagon was struck, not by a jetliner, but by a small plane, such as a remotely controlled drone, and that a missile was also involved in the attack. The failure of officials to release additional frames, ones that might show the plane clearly and reveal the first moments of the explosion, seemed to validate the five frames. Although peculiarities in the timecodes on the bottom of the cropped versions of the frames were widely noted, few bothered to ask whether the imagery in the frames had been edited.

Notice the date and times (as well as the lack of a large plane) of these officially released photos below:


911research.wtc7.net...
And here are the uncropped versions that were posted by CNN:
911research.wtc7.net...

Here is another great site:
www.nadir.org...

Our miltary can fairly be credited with saving many many lives on 9-11. Days earlier they had placed prominent marks on the Pentagon lawn, ensuring the missile programming was a 'precision-guided' success. Right into the conveniently 'now-under-construction' zone! Congrats. Too bad they forgot about the Space Imaging archives (oops)!

Why would they need to put marks in the ground if it was a "precision-guided" attack?

Anyone help him out with that?

I would seriously encourage that you guys look and read through the links that I provided on the first page....some of them have debunked the links and what many of you keep saying now......



regards
seekerof

are there any VIDEOS of the plane hitting the pentagon? with all those security cameras outside on top of those buildings, u'd think that there would be at least 1

Originally posted by jezebel

These images were seen on ATS before. The camera is a time-lapse 5-second camera typically used in these installations. The "time stamps" have obviously been added after-the-fact. You see... this is what I mean. Foolish, childish attempts to draw attention, only result in harming the credibility of all conspiracy research.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I would seriously encourage that you guys look and read through the links that I provided on the first page....some of them have debunked the links and what many of you keep saying now......

You know what they say, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

An airplane traveling at high speed and ramming a fortified building, will turn to aluminum and plastic confettii on impact.

The inertia of the impacted mass as well as fuel, could punch thru a few walls on the inside, as well as burn on it's way thru.

Yeah COOLHAND..you may have a point there, but if you wish to stay "thirsty", then thats inevitably yours and others choices, right?

Maybe this will encourage a response to at least go through the latest debate and discussion on this very topic?
"PROOF that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


(What does that LOOK like?)

BTW, this photo is from the CONSPIRACY site of Rense.com!
rense.com...


Still thirsty? Seek and you shall find, in the ATS link provided above!



regards
seekerof