Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

And I'll ask for the tenth or so time...you think all of that would be easier than simply using the original plane, passengers and all, as an impromptu missile?

Let us ask the obvious, first you are asked to believe a plane hit the bottom of the Pentagon in level flight without making a mark on the lawn, next there is virtually no wreckage, two massive engines 80 feet apart did NOT penetrate the building but the aluminum body did, the tail of the plane did not hit the window immediately above the hole in the wall, etc. etc.

Let us not argue "what happened", simply accept the story as given is wrong.

Now take the concept one step further, if you can be forced to believe a plane hit the Pentagon and "virtually" disappear then why not take one more leap of faith in your government and have a plane crash in a rural field and disappear entirely.

killtown.911review.org...

I'm not sure how to embed these images, perhaps a mod may help.
Here is a picture of the flight 93 crash site from the NBC helicopter, notice the time and day are listed. Look at the area under where "Tuesday" is in the picture.

killtown.911review.org...

Now look at what the FBI shows on the following day, also from a helicopter.

killtown.911review.org...

Did you notice the forest in the first image is not burnt?

Now we have all seen terrible pictures of aircraft crashes, but your government wants you to accept an aircraft can vanish into the ground. Do you see the correlation with the Pentagon?

In the Pentagon scenario you have no plane, but you do have explosions, firefighters, and so on. In flight 93 you are asked to believe the physically impossible, an entire plane vanishes into the ground.

Again, do not argue "what happened" only look at the facts and conclude the information given to you by the government is a lie.

reply to post by prof-rabbit


Please do not dodge my question. Just answer it. I don't particularly care about the other flights. Also, images of wreckage at the Pentagon have been posted in this thread, so I don't think the plane "disappeared" completely.

Again, please just answer my question without dodging it.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
I looked at the comparison of photos contained at the Aerospaceweb.org website and found it very amazing that anyone would think that the aircraft part found in the Pentagon is the same as a Rolls Royce RB211.

obviously you also know nothing at all about jet engines. You are comparing a compressor with a exhaust turbine, 2 completely different components with a different purpose, so of course they look different!!

Actually, if you examine the picture you posted the bloke in it is fiddling with the exhaust turbine, which looks exactly like the part found....

Just more "truther" quality research!


[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

Dude give it up. Either you are just plain stupid and can't see that this damage wasn't caused by a huge plane or you are part of Obamas group to stop the truth from getting out. Either way your arguments are futile.

A plane didn't crash into the Pentagon. Not sure what exactly caused it but only a mentally handicap person would believe a huge jet flew parallel to the ground and smashed into the Pentagon and left hardly any evidence what so ever. How can a massive plane which didn't hit the ground leave a hole smaller then the plane that caused it? At least the holes in the towers looked like a plane flew into them. Just saying!

Answer this if you dare. Why not let out the tapes??? Show me some quality research that proves the OS.

Originally posted by djbj597922
How can a massive plane which didn't hit the ground leave a hole smaller then the plane that caused it?

Another truther lie, will they ever stop? The pentagon was damaged by a 757 sized aircraft, pictures of which have been posted her before.

just why do you think the hole was smaller than the plane? How about you tell us the size of the hole, and the size of the plane...

Why not let out the tapes???

They have!

How do you explain the 757 wheels, engine, undercarriage, bodies from flight 77 etc. found inside the Pentagon? These are all facts the "truthers" ignore as they know it destroys their silly conspiracy theory!

[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
I was hoping for a input of clarity on the pentagon system.

What pentagon system?
How about showing us this so called system?

Back to we were scammed or they were off lined.

Again, show us these Pentagon defence systems..Unless they are just something you made up!

Here are 2 sides of the story

www.examiner.com...

911debunker.livejournal.com...

So NO I did not make it up .

dereks Did you listen to Ronald Reagan's speech in the early 80 on what SDI was going to accomplish ?

Prior to 911 Norads job was to identify and track missiles and hostile aircraft (planes with out a transponder and hijacked planes ) are considered hostile . And northcoms job was to destroy it or them as the need warranted ! Jets or patriot missiles or what ever means needed or simple surveillance.

dereks Did these 2 governmental agencies do their prescribes duties ?

That is trade tower 1 NO trader tower 2 NO and and the pentagon NO . 3 strikes your out that is after flying around for 45 + min .

So either these were off lined or stand down or we have been scammed on how efficient these systems really are .

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by stanlee
Cams.. I hate to say this but any moron can be ordered to witness for the govt... who knows.. maybe all these so called witnesses are the people that were on the "plane" that hit the pentagon.. secondly.. any idiot can recreate screenshots of a radar and say they are legit.. I dont remember seeing any images of radar showing a plane decending into the pentagon... i dont think anyone can recall these images. You need to realise you are dealing with the greatest liars of all time.. the USgovt.

And I'll ask for the tenth or so time...you think all of that would be easier than simply using the original plane, passengers and all, as an impromptu missile?

Did you read the theory on how simple it is? An earlier post in this thread said they diverted the plane to an undisclosed airport, and somehow without anyone at that airport seeing that plane land, managed to get all the passengers off the plane into a sequestered room where all of them were executed. Then the remains of the executed passengers were somehow transported from that undisclosed location and again without anybody seeing or noticing how they did it in the middle of a crime scene locked down by official investigators, managed to plant the human remains inside the pentagon where they were supposed to be, along with a couple of aircraft parts like a wheel and an engine part. Oh and they also planted that aircraft part out on the front lawn as shown in the OP without anybody seeing even though the OP says there were people there on the lawn near where that part was found, taking pictures at the time of impact.

Now compare that to just running the plane into the pentagon with the passengers aboard.

Which is easier? And what kind of planning process would conclude to go with the first option rather than the simplest option?

Face it, the easiest way to make it look like a plane hit the pentagon is to actually make a plane hit the pentagon. All these other scenarios are overly arcane to the point of absurdity.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

Please do not dodge my question. Just answer it. I don't particularly care about the other flights. Also, images of wreckage at the Pentagon have been posted in this thread, so I don't think the plane "disappeared" completely.

Again, please just answer my question without dodging it.

I am not dodging your question, I am not suggesting alternatives, I am looking at the simple logic involved, the visible discrepancies show that the original story is a lie, flight 93 is a lie.

Using common sense can a plane vanish into the ground? answer no, ergo you have been lied to.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
Prior to 911 Norads job was to identify and track missiles and hostile aircraft (planes with out a transponder and hijacked planes ) are considered hostile . And northcoms job was to destroy it or them as the need warranted ! Jets or patriot missiles or what ever means needed or simple surveillance.

And just where do they have their radars? On the borders of North America, as they were designed to stops threats entering the country.... not threats originating inside the country!

So either these were off lined or stand down or we have been scammed on how efficient these systems really are .

Still waiting for you to show proof the pentagon had a defence system.... you seem to be avoiding doing that!

"U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established Oct. 1, 2002"
www.northcom.mil...

So how could a organisation that did not exist 9/11 do anything?

More "truther" quality research!!

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

Please do not dodge my question. Just answer it. I don't particularly care about the other flights. Also, images of wreckage at the Pentagon have been posted in this thread, so I don't think the plane "disappeared" completely.

Again, please just answer my question without dodging it.

I am not dodging your question, I am not suggesting alternatives, I am looking at the simple logic involved, the visible discrepancies show that the original story is a lie, flight 93 is a lie.

Using common sense can a plane vanish into the ground? answer no, ergo you have been lied to.

This thread is about flight 77, not 93.

I'm not sure about the validity of the persons in question in one of the videos posted earlier, which I watched a few months ago, but a few of them claim to see something.. a plane? Yes, but they claim to see the plane fly down towards the ground and back UP, and OVER the Pentagon. Yes, back UP and OVER the Pentagon. Their testimonies seem credible, various eye witnesses from varying locations around the event in question. All their stories seem to coincide with one another, the trajectory of the object (plane) and everything. All contradictory to the official report. It's a very informational documentary on the subject, if you haven't watched it, you should.

reply to post by dereks


I sent you 2 links on what I have read I told you I was confused about that . Read it again !

I get confused on this issue you read old papers and web sites bragging about how good it is and others say it never went live. I have read convincing articles on both sides !

That is why i posted a pro and a con to the same story.


Now you have not answered my questions did Norad full fill its duties ?

As for only for out side threats why is it standard operating procedure with the FFA to notify NORAD when a plane is hijacked or losses communication or goes off course with out radio contact for a period of time.

Since you seem very willing to sling innuendo at people. Fine

I wont stoop to throwing around names at you . Nor will I try to belittle you. So enjoy your one sided trashing : )

Now with all the layers of radar with norad FFA airforce bases navy ships whos prescribed duty is to protect our mainland did they do their job ?

We were duped on how good these systems are or a massive failure or a stand down .

I personally would like to believe we were BSed on how good our system really are than think a stand down was ordered or our military had screwed up so badly.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

If four airplanes were hijacked on 9/11, but one of the four wasn't
really a hijack/crash scenario - were the other three?

I give you a metaphor:

A man is carted into a hospital emergency ward on a stretcher. His intestines are splayed out across his torso and he's bleeding pools of blood all over the floor. The doctor looks at this for a moment, then says "But wait...I see blood, I see intestines...but I don't see anything that could have caused this to happen. What caused this?"

who benefitted by the events of 9/11?

The doctor next reaches into the mans inside jacket pocket, pulls out his wallet and says, "Wait. His wallet still has money it. Who benefitted from this?"



The fact that your questions do not have easy answers does not change any of the observable facts.




[edit on 7-2-2010 by LordBucket]

I feel really bad about this. I see photos and read arguments about a 757 crashing into the pentagon and they are - to me - preetty much as the topic states - undeniable proof.

Then I read that they found wheel and bodeis and other stuff but nobody explains, rationally, how the damage to the pentagon is in any way consistent with a 757 hitting. Not even talking about the flight paths, black boxes, lack of reckage - forget that. Just answer the topic - how can the dmaage to the pentagon (hole mcuh smaller than the plane and no engine damage) be explained.

Please dont bury your head in the sand or accept your disinfo agent payments this week unless this is explained. Using known science and physics, not impossible physics.

I wait your replies.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
navy ships whos prescribed duty is to protect our mainland did they do their job ?

As none of the planes flew over the sea, just what did you expect navy ships to do?

Do you even think about what you type?

And we are all waiting to see you back up the claim

"Is why didn't the missile defense grid go into action which when it was built around the Pentagon it bragged it could identify a incoming threat and shoot it down before reaching its target . Pentagon or the greater DC area . This was to protect the pentagon and DC area ."

Exactle what system that protects the Pentagon are you talking about - show some proof such a system actually existed!

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
how can the dmaage to the pentagon (hole mcuh smaller than the plane and no engine damage) be explained.

Please show proof the hole is actually smaller than the plane.... how large do you think the plane was , how large do you think the hole was?

reply to post by dereks


You're kidding right?

This site has a great collection: 911review.org...

Now please explain the lack of a plane in these photos as well as no damage where 6 tonne egines were travelling at 500kph.

No disinfo pay for you this week unless we are satisfied with your answer!

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"If there was no flight 77 that day, then why would there be claims that there actually was"

I don't know - maybe something about pinning the dirty deed on and framing some hi-tech terrorist cavemen from Afghanistan. You know, the USA, nine years later, is still involved in two major wars as a result of this scam. If they didn't falsely accuse Muslim terrorists of causing this event, what justification would they have had to start two unjust and illegal wars against the Muslim world?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Oh yea, one more thing that should have you thinking is an impossibility. Remember after the towers went down, they actually said that they found Mohamed Atta's passport in the rubble of the WTC. Now all of you should ask yourself the odds of that happening and it being the "terrorists" that was the ringleader of the attack surviving the firball that vaporized human remains and melted steel and and was found in all of that debris. The odds of that is so high that you would have better odds of winning the lottery every week for 10 years and thats being conservative. People always say how can a conspiracy that big even be possible. It's possible if you control the media, the military, the police and the leaders of those institutions. You see people that have alot to lose won't say anything different from the pushed story because in the back of their minds if a section or most of the govt. was able to attack itself and blame it on other people, what could they do to little ole me and my govt. pension or my name or my life. Who do you go to, it's like the king committing murder and the police covering it up, there's know one higher to take your suspicions.

"So, you think most seven-year olds would be able to tell you if a plane is coming in too quickly or not?"

Yes, since many seven year olds have been to or near airports and have watched airplanes takeoff and land.

"I fear you put too much stock in children and their ability to judge time, speed, and altitude."

Yes, I put quite a bit of stock in children, since many of them are a lot brighter and more OBSERVANT than many adults. Just because they are children, doesn't mean they're blind morons.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

Please do not dodge my question. Just answer it. I don't particularly care about the other flights. Also, images of wreckage at the Pentagon have been posted in this thread, so I don't think the plane "disappeared" completely.

Again, please just answer my question without dodging it.

I am not dodging your question, I am not suggesting alternatives, I am looking at the simple logic involved, the visible discrepancies show that the original story is a lie, flight 93 is a lie.

Using common sense can a plane vanish into the ground? answer no, ergo you have been lied to.

This thread is about flight 77, not 93.

You miss the correlations, however when you have 5 TONS of engine x 2 you should have two holes in the building either side of the fuselage, unless you wish to suspend simple grade school physics easily understood, that is 5 tons at 500 mph in one direction is not going anywhere but straight ahead.

Now if you can be led astray by your government on the Pentagon then you have suspended all logic on flight 93 as well.

The flights alleged to have hit the Nth WTC tower and the Pentagon did not exist. They were not scheduled to fly that day.

dgwa1.fortunecity.com...

Official BTS records showed that this flight did not exist on that fateeful day.

A full commentary is provided, with links to copies of the database before it was altered, after the situation was first revealed.

Once this is known, any discussion about an aircraft hitting the Pentagon becomes fellatious.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by dgwest7]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by dgwest7]