Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by dgwest7


Uh oh! Where did that come from. More problems for the OS!

Just like the train that carried the 4 London bombers was cancelled that day according to British Rail. Sumthin fishy is goin here. I smell conspiracy!

"I'll ask the same question I've asked several times (with no answer) in this thread:

You honestly think it would be easier for the government to hide 64 people and an entire plane and then launch a missile mocked-up to look like the exact same plane, rather than just use the plane itself?"

Exactly where would the Government go to recruit a professional suicide pilot who could pull off the impossible stunt of striking a low rise building like the Pentagon traveling at an alleged speed of 530 MPH?

Does Craigslist have listings for professional suicide pilots trained at performing impossible aerial stunts? Maybe the Government found their man, but didn't have enough Virgins to offer him for payment. This is America, after all.

PS: Due to your inferior observation skills, I know you have admitted to having no clue as to how fast 530 MPH is, but trust me, it is pretty fast.

Well explosives seemed to be the theme of the day, what with the trade center having explosives and all.
So doesn't it stand to reason they'd be using them in the pentagon too?

I have seen a very short clip from a helicopter posted on youtibe that shows something smaller hitting the pentagon. it has wings, yes but does not appear to be a 757. I am trying to find it and I will post a link to it.

I found it here:


[edit on 7-2-2010 by theyareoutthere]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by theyareoutthere]

"I'll ask the same question I've asked several times (with no answer) in this thread:

You honestly think it would be easier for the government to hide 64 people and an entire plane and then launch a missile mocked-up to look like the exact same plane, rather than just use the plane itself?"

Yeah, now where in the world would the Government hide 64 people and an entire airplane? I guess all their restricted off limits military bases scattered throughout the entire country were filled to capacity that day.

Originally posted by T0by
what with the trade center having explosives

care to provide proof explosives were used at the WTC? Any proof at all? no, of course you cannot , as they were not used!

[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by dereks

nano-thermite ae911truth.org

reply to post by dereks


Can you provide any possible explanantion why it [WTC7] collapsed at essentially free fall speed and fell into its own footprint. And why the BBC reported it fell 25 minutes before it did. How could that be?

NIST cant! hmmmm

I also await your response to the damage at pentagon explanantion.

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
Can you provide any possible explanantion why it [WTC7] collapsed at essentially free fall speed

Yet another truther lie, only part of the time it fell near free fall speed...

and fell into its own footprint.

into which footprint did you expect it to fall?

And why the BBC reported it fell 25 minutes before it did.

Due to the severe damage done to it , unchecked fires, the movement of it before it fell and the noise it was making it was obvious it was going to fall. Just look at all the other misreporting done that day!

I also await your response to the damage at pentagon explanantion.

already given, try reading the 9/11 threads!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
Can you provide any possible explanantion why it [WTC7] collapsed at essentially free fall speed

Yet another truther lie, only part of the time it fell near free fall speed...

So please explain that!!!

and fell into its own footprint.

into which footprint did you expect it to fall?

I expected it to topple over

And why the BBC reported it fell 25 minutes before it did.

Due to the severe damage done to it , unchecked fires, the movement of it before it fell and the noise it was making it was obvious it was going to fall. Just look at all the other misreporting done that day!

Sorry, there was a media release that it fell. Someobdy on the insdei screwed up, just like you're doing now.

I also await your response to the damage at pentagon explanantion.

already given, try reading the 9/11 threads!

Cant find em mate. sorry. Hole too small (photos provided) and damage where engines would have hit. please explain.

Where have you all been? It was proven long ago that no Boeing hit the PentaCON...

www.thepentacon.com...

Long time reader, first time poster. Mainly because I just cant sit back and watch anymore. I never considered myself a conspiracy theorist, but after looking into everything that happened on 9-11, I guess I have no choice but to be one now.

My biggest problem with the Pentagon attack, is the fact that there is NO CLEAR VIDEO! I mean, how can this be??One of the most secure buildings on Earth, surrounded with camera's, and not a sngle one catches a clear video of a supposed airliner crashing into it?? It just "evaporates on impact"?? If you drive a car into a convenience store to steal an atm machine, it makes every episode of "Dumbest Criminals"! Seriously!

And why did the FBI so quickly confiscate every local surveillance video? They didn't do that at Ground Zero! Did our government not learn anything from the Oklahoma City bombing? Another target that somehow managed to escape being caught on video at the time of the attack.

Are we to believe that the local 7-11 is more secure than the Pentagon?? Because, based on the EVIDENCE ALONE, one would HAVE to believe that!

Way too many "firsts" happened on 911. Buildings collapsing as they did, black boxes not being recovered, security camera's not working, planes that literally evaporate when crashing into both a building (pentagon) and into an open field!! How people??? Any one of these things alone could be dismissed as coincidence. But ALL of these things?? At the same time???

Please PROVE to me how all of these things are possible! Because I've been researching it for years, and I can't find the proof!

reply to post by upssales


congratulations. its hard work and tough to swallow, but its true. no let it happen - they made it happen. 100% inside job, 0% muslim terrorists. where is the plane wreckage?

Now that you're on the road, check out the circumstantial evidence! what crack team was recently housed in the pentagon wing that got destroyed? who were they investigating? how many times had the twin towers been put before NYC council for demolition? Full of asbestos, old and losing money. But not for Larry Silverstein! Check it out. makes you puke.

Check out the BBC video of the female corespondent announcing WTC7 collapse, and its in the window - standing - behind her for 25 minutes. Signal gets lost a minute or two before demolition. Uncanny eh/

No offense, but I'm well versed in all of the things you mentioned. And appreciate you pointing them out as well.

Sadly, I think I know too much. By that I mean, I'm quickly discredited as being a "conspiracy nut" as soon as I get into a discussion about 911 with others who aren't as educated on the subject. My head is full of things about 911 that keep me up at night. Hence this reply.

I just think I'm really bothered by the fact that so many choose to overlook the obvious in favor of the kool-aid being served. And my fear is that Jim Jones wasn't the last to serve it.

"And why the BBC reported it fell 25 minutes before it did."

"Due to the severe damage done to it , unchecked fires, the movement of it before it fell and the noise it was making it was obvious it was going to fall. Just look at all the other misreporting done that day!"

Wait a second - first you say that the BBC correctly predicted the collapse and then you mention all the "misreporting" done on that day. What'll it be? Did they get it right or did they get it wrong? You know, you can't have it both ways.

Why are you tailoring your comments to fit the events? It must be pretty difficult trying to remember all those lies, as evidenced by your obvious bonehead contradiction.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
It must be pretty difficult trying to remember all those lies

The "truthers" are the only ones lying here, no plane hit the Pentagon (because they refuse to visit the site showing pictures of a 757 parts), explosives used in the WTC buildings, beam weapons used, atomic bombs used, pod carrying aircraft etc etc. All lies!~

Originally posted by upssales
My biggest problem with the Pentagon attack, is the fact that there is NO CLEAR VIDEO! I mean, how can this be??

Is it possible that they didn't set up any video cameras to film plane attacks on the pentagon? That's my first guess. The cameras are setup for other reasons, like cars driving slowly compared to the speed of a jet for parking lot surveillance, etc. And maybe the frame rate (frames per second) of the cameras is adequate for the application they were intended for like filming cars, but inadequate for applications they were not intended for (like filming airplanes which travel at higher speeds), why would that be so shocking?

And whether a plane disintegrates completely or not depends on the speed, angle of impact, type of surface it impacts, and other factors. The crash of USAir flight 427 was very destructive and this site looks at why some of the 911 flights may have been even more destructive:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Check out the flight 427 crash scene photo and the kinetic energy comparison with that flight, about 80% of the way down that page.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Wait a second - first you say that the BBC correctly predicted the collapse and then you mention all the "misreporting" done on that day. What'll it be? Did they get it right or did they get it wrong? You know, you can't have it both ways.

Why are you tailoring your comments to fit the events? It must be pretty difficult trying to remember all those lies, as evidenced by your obvious bonehead contradiction.

Seems to me like you're the one trying to have it both ways. The BBC (part of the media), got it wrong at the time they reported it. That's a simple, non-refutable FACT. Yet you use the media as your evidence to believe the OS. Even though they failed to "tailor their comments to fit the events", specifically when reporting that building 7 had collapsed 25 minutes before it did. Ouch.

And trying to say that any of us so-called "truthers" believe everything the media says, is obviously ridiculous. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.