Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Have you disregarded all witness testimony that a plane hit the Pentagon?

I hope you are not planning on turning this into an argument of reputation. You’ve already asked the question and I’ve already given you THE answer.

Who are you claiming witnessed the plane hit into the pentagon?? The only person I recall that claimed to see it actually impact the building was Mike Walter.

www.youtube.com...

He is either A. Lying or B. Mistaken

Engines on the wings are the heaviest part of the plane. They bear the most weight and carry the most potential for penetrating whatever the plane crashes into. They would not have folded back.

Do you have any other reliable witnesses besides Mike Walter? I hardly consider him a reliable witness in light of the FACT that what he described is physically impossible.

Given the number of witnesses that saw the impact

Mike Walters is apparently the only official witness that claims to have seen a plane impact the building. So I would love to know where you are pulling these "mock" witnesses from.

and that the damage is consistent with a plane strike, what is the basis for your claims?

the damage is in no way shape or form consistent with that of an airplane hitting the building.

An aluminum alloy plane is 100% incapable of penetrating 1, let alone 3 steel-concrete reinforced walls.

The only objects on the plane that would have had any penetrating power at all are the engines because of their sheer weight, density, and form.

There is no current evidence readily available, observable and testable to suggest otherwise.

I'd love to see you crash an aluminum alloy plane into a steel concrete reinforced wall as thick as those at the pentagon and have the plane penetrate it. It won't happen. Newton says it won't.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

mmichael, any suggestion that you care about justice is a sick joke. If you did, you wouldn't spend your life tirelessly defending the U.S. government's ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory.

You don't sound so well Fleecy. Why don't you just forget about your cares and woes and go watch some nice Youtube videos showing how everything is a US govt false-flag operation to deceive and alarm the masses. Something only deep thinking investigators of Truth know.

Dark Lord Dick Cheney said to say, Hi.


M

reply to post by mmiichael

What's the matter, mmichael? Can't handle a 30 second CNN clip that confirms AA77 never hit the Pentagon? How do you explain this?


Next time I read a poll that says people have less respect for journalists than used car salesmen, I'll think of you.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael

 

What's the matter, mmichael? Can't handle a 30 second CNN clip that confirms AA77 never hit the Pentagon? How do you explain this?

A clip from Sept 11, 2001, minutes after the crash before anyone was even sure what had happened.

Got any clips less than 8 years and 2 months old?

reply to post by mmiichael

What's the problem, mmichael? Why don't you believe one of the first reporters at the Pentagon when he said, "based on my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon?" Why would you need a "more recent clip?" Why don't you ask the government if they can show you a video, photo, ANYTHING of whatever hit the Pentagon. What, there's nothing? Why not?

Here's some more 9/11 news clips for you that include police, firefighters, reporters, first responders, WTC employees and eyewitnesses:

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
What's the problem, mmichael? Why don't you believe one of the first reporters at the Pentagon when he said, "based on my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon?" Why would you need a "more recent clip?" Why don't you ask the government if they can show you a video, photo, ANYTHING of whatever hit the Pentagon. What, there's nothing? Why not?

Figure it out. The wreckage was almost completely within the Pentagon walls and buried withing the building as they found out later.

I recommend actually reading something on the subject that has some indepth analysis, citations, documentation, etc. A teenager can assemble a blooper reel. A chimpanzee can watch it on Youtube. In fact we have proof they do.

Anyway you've guys have convinced me. No plane crash at the Pentagon. All the witnesses who identified a Boeing 757 flying over their heads were in on it. Ditto supposed passersby, people looking out their windows, clean-up crew, medical staff, DNA lab workers, firemen, air traffic controllers, lying relative of the supposedly dead passengers, etc.

It was a false flag cooked up by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mossad, and Lloyde England.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Figure it out. The wreckage was almost completely within the Pentagon walls and buried withing the building as they found out later.

So you think 60 tons of fuselage, engines and wings folded up and flew through a 15 foot hole in the Pentagon?

Originally posted by mmiichael
I recommend actually reading something on the subject that has some indepth analysis, citations, documentation, etc.

You mean like the 9/11 Commission Report or 911Myths.com?

reply to post by JPhish


Witnesses? See for example, the statement of Penny Elgas americanhistory.si.edu...
"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke."
There are more, should you bother to look. As to Newton, neither he nor you know much about modern aircraft. Your misinformation is absolutely encyclopedic in scope.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


CNN is certainly definitive during disasters. Certainly, you can confirm that CNN reporters never get anything wrong because they always check their sources when they are on two minute deadlines.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by mmiichael
Figure it out. The wreckage was almost completely within the Pentagon walls and buried withing the building as they found out later.

So you think 60 tons of fuselage, engines and wings folded up and flew through a 15 foot hole in the Pentagon?

Originally posted by mmiichael
I recommend actually reading something on the subject that has some indepth analysis, citations, documentation, etc.

You mean like the 9/11 Commission Report or 911Myths.com?

Fleecy. You know absolutely nothing about what happened on 9/11 beyond Kiddie Konspiracy site and Youtube distortions, disinformation and outright lies. And I expect you're too lazy to read up on it.

Turn off your computer and educate yourself.

End of discussion.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

Let's ask Rummy what really happened at the Pentagon:

Q: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?

Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.

They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

www.defenselink.mil...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

The aircraft was used as a missile.

Originally posted by pteridine

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

The aircraft was used as a missile.

The (inaudible) is 'laser satellite beams'

Larry Silverstein saying "pull it" in reference to the firefighting expedition at WTC7 - interpreted by Truthers as "pull the building down" should be coming up soon.

reply to post by mmiichael


Ladies and gentlemen, congratulations, we have reached the 92nd page WITHOUT HAVING SEEN or discussed the "alarming information"... discovered by the independent investigation.
As it should have been expected, the thread has turned into a vicious circle exploring many of the conspiracy theories that have come up about 9/11 not only at the Pentagon, but everywhere else.
This thread could be about ANY 9/11 subject by now, but the only thing that has not been discussed is that "alarming evidence".
So, I bid GOOD BYE to this thread.
To me, (IMHO) this has been a HOAX thread.
Thank you.......enjoy.



[edited for spelling on 24-11-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by rush969]

reply to post by rush969


There goes one person who failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. Seeya in other threads, rush969.

There's still a few left typing in here who have made the same claim and failed to prove it...

Originally posted by pteridine
The aircraft was used as a missile.

Oh, I see. Rumsfeld accidentally said "missile" when he meant "aircraft." Do you really think people are that gullible?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Larry Silverstein saying "pull it" in reference to the firefighting expedition at WTC7 - interpreted by Truthers as "pull the building down" should be coming up soon.

So what do you think Silverstein meant? "Pull" the firefighters? There were no firefighters to "pull." Hadn't been any all day. No water pressure, no firefighters. Since when are firefighters referred to as "it?" And since when was Larry Friggin' Silverstein in charge of the FDNY?

The only thing Silverstein "pulled" was the leg of gullible people like you.




[edit on 24-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by pteridine

The aircraft was used as a missile.

Oh, I see. Rumsfeld accidentally said "missile" when he meant "aircraft."

Do you really think people are that gullible?

This has got to be the best line of this entire thread.

If anyone is friends with Craig Ranke get him to rejoin this thread to provide an answer to this pressing question.

And he can explain the true meaning of: "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"


M

reply to post by mmiichael

mmichael, you're big on sarcastic comments and BS, short on answers and explanations.

How many questions have you failed to answer now?





[edit on 24-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Fleecy said,

mmichael, you're big on sarcastic comments and BS, short on answers and explanations.

How many questions have you failed to answer now?

Didn't know this was an exam.

Don't want to get an 'F' in "Alarming Information Investigation"

Gotta go to Youtube and do some studying.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


The aircraft was a missile. It was guided by suicidal humans and the size and fuel load made it more dangerous than any non-nuclear cruise missile in the inventory.
In fact, there is precedent for such. As I remember, the original Soviet anti-shipping missile [Kennel] was purportedly a Mig airframe with beam rider guidance systems installed.