The Pentagon was not hit by an airlainer

reply to post by Astraios


As JIMC pointed out, just above BOTH airplane types were used on 9/11.

The POINT is, any comments (mentioned by YOU, if I recall) about "fuel in the horizontal stabilizer" are irrelevant. Because it was NEVER a feature of any 757/767s.

Another thing.....the concept in the design of the 757/767 was to make them SO SIMILAR as to be a COMMON TYPE....per FAA standards of "type rating" applicability, for Airman Certification purposes. AND, they are!

I am type rated on them, and that is how it's reflected on my Airman's Certificate. B-757/767

Just as I have, also, type ratings for the B-737, and DC-9 (DC-9 includes ALL variants, as in the "MD-80"...because, by FAA certification standards, the "MD-80" is just another name for the DC-9-"80" variant...as well as the DC-9-10, DC-9-30, DC-9-40....AND the DC-9-81, and DC-9-83, etc......)

The "DC" and the "MD" are merely company labels....BOTH refer to the manufacturer, at the time...McDonnel Douglas. Since Douglas had undergone many mergers, in the past...."McDonnell" came later....hence, the "DC-3" of fame.

Anyway, McDonnel Douglas has since CEASED TO BE, having been bought up by...you guessed
it, BOEING!!!

Boeing Aircraft Company has since re-designated certain McDonnel Douglas airplanes....you will sometimes see the "old" MD-80 called a "Boeing 717". (It comes from a little-understood GAP in older Boeing designations, between the original passenger airliner they developed, the "707", and their next model, the "727". Some say the "717" was reserved for a Military variant of the "707"...but, the Military had other ideas, and called THOSE the "KC-135"....USAF designaitons are differnt from what the manufacturer intends, usually....

Really.....this is not arcane information, nor is it secret.....it's readily availble by researching....if anyone bothers to actually RESEARCH!!!

Mike Wilson's recreation of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon pretty much says it all as far as I am concerned.

Mike Wilson's website

Watch his video and if you have the right software, he has made the models used in his recreation availible for download. Should answer most questions.

Please keep this mind, thank you.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ


This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:

Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.

Any Member who, after receiving a red tag warn in this forum, commits another breach of the TAC will be post banned on the spot, no questions asked.

One warning is all you get before being post banned.

Any posts, replies or new threads, that are about Member personalities instead of the issues will be red tag warned and deleted.

Sauron
Moderator

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Great post, though the video is a bit long Lol.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Personally I don't find subjective eye witness interpretations of an highly unusual situation proof beyond doubt. On the other hand, I do find a path of knocked down light poles to be proof beyond doubt. I can't think of any way this could have happened other than a plane hitting them.

Or are the eye witnesses not the proof you are talking about? If not, can you specify what you mean? Maybe point to a specific time in the video you posted?

reply to post by -PLB-


An example of what I'm talking about is at about 28:00. The police officer stands where he was when he saw the plane. He said he'd bet his life on it, that the plane was clearly over the cemetary and headed in the direction that follows every other witness account. If the plane had followed the OS account, it would've been on the other side of the gas station. (look at the citgo gas station in this picture i14.photobucket.com... ) Every witness says the same thing, 12 of them I think?. And if you look at the maps, it shows how the plane couldn't have hit those poles.

The proof I am pointing out, is that the OS is wrong, and as someone else stated in this thread, to use against me "Two light poles are designed with break away bases to lessen impact forces". They could've been knocked over by anyone that morning.

The Lloyd England interview, at the end, is very telling. He basically admits when he's 'off camera' that it was setup and that it was something bigger that he didn't want to be apart of (1:11:40). Interview starts at the 1 hour mark.

Link to my OG post - Answer my hypothetical question
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Okay Jessie, explain ALL the debris there, AND bodies
please do so and enlighten all of us

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Besides the eyewitnesses being wrong, the only other explanation I can come up with is that those eyewitnesses saw another plane. But the lamp poles being knocked down proves to me beyond any doubt there was a plane there. The way the poles were damaged is fully consistent with a plane hitting them, they were bent and split at the top.

reply to post by jessejamesxx

If you can tell me how this whole 'citizen investigation' is wrong, and all of the witnesses are wrong,....

There's your answer right there. ALL of the witnesses are not wrong. Just the ones allegedly "interviewed" by the 's over at the "citizens investigation" tent. Please ask them why they never would release unedited versions of thier interviews for instance.

I know that they insist that any witness that does not corroborate their fantasy is branded as either a liar or an idiot.

reply to post by HomerinNC

Where does it say there were no bodies? I am only claiming that the OS is wrong, the plane came in from a different direction.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by jessejamesxx

 

Besides the eyewitnesses being wrong, the only other explanation I can come up with is that those eyewitnesses saw another plane. But the lamp poles being knocked down proves to me beyond any doubt there was a plane there. The way the poles were damaged is fully consistent with a plane hitting them, they were bent and split at the top.

I would like to see pictures of the poles with bent and split tops. The only one I know of that was bent was the one that was next to the taxi, that supposedly smashed the windshield in, but didnt damage the hood. (which if it is a setup, that's the one that they would have spent extra time making look real.)

Originally posted by hooper
There's your answer right there. ALL of the witnesses are not wrong. Just the ones allegedly "interviewed" by the

's over at the "citizens investigation" tent. Please ask them why they never would release unedited versions of thier interviews for instance.

I know that they insist that any witness that does not corroborate their fantasy is branded as either a liar or an idiot.

I did not know that they refuse to release unedited footage, did you request it? How do you know this? I think it's because the movie they made is already an hour and 20 minutes long.. and who would watch the unedited interviews?

Did you even watch any of what I posted? The cop's disbelief at "what really happened" is what gets me, and how they swear on their lives, 110% sure of where they saw the plane. I'm convinced atleast.

Personally I can't believe that the dozen people they interviewed are wrong. Every single personal account is made up? or what? Cops just lie for no reason?.. or were they all mistaken about the craziest thing they've ever seen in their lives? I know for sure I would remember frame by frame, and it would replay in my head for a long time.

reply to post by jessejamesxx

Personally I can't believe that the dozen people they interviewed are wrong.

Really? Why not? Then what about the witnesses that saw the plane crash into the building (which, by the way, includes all their witnesses). Are they all wrong? Lying? In on it?

Every single personal account is made up? or what? Cops just lie for no reason?..

Who said he lied? Or any of them? People use "lying" pretty casually. Just because someone says something that is later proven to be wrong does not mean they are lying. Just incorrect.

or were they all mistaken about the craziest thing they've ever seen in their lives? I know for sure I would remember frame by frame, and it would replay in my head for a long time

Yes, you would play it over and over again in your head. But, unfortunately you are not a TiVo. Each time you remember it you may remember it a little bit differently. The memory will not seem significantly different, but it will be. Before long and depending on the individual, the memory may be completely different. The blue car turns into a brown car, there were no leaves on the trees but you can't remember if it was early spring or late fall, she wore a hat, she didn't wear a hat. Regardless, the memory will seem no less vivid, but is it accurate and precise?

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Just any image you will find using your favorite search engine. I don't see why your conspirators would want to save time on something like faking broken light poles. I also don't see why the pole that hit the car should look "better". And I don't really see much difference between the light poles. Maybe the one that hit the car was bent a bit more but thats it. It is not like bending a bit more will be very time consuming anyhow.

Anyway, I find this whole bent light pole staging idea a bit bizarre. It is not how I would plan an event like that. In my version the plane would have been flying a couple meters higher, so that the poles would not be hit. You also would solve the whole different eye-witness report issue.

Find someone that was in the military and deployed to Saudi Arabia during this time period.

Ask them what happened weeks before 9-11 in that country to them. Ask them if they still have the Saudi issued "thing".

It's a story so big you'll forget all about this "a plane didnt hit the pentagon" nonsense.

Saudi Arabia booted us out of their country. They financed 9-11. just months ago they were saying they are going to cease accepting US dollars for oil and were going to start the Gulf Monetary Union.

Then magically all of Saudi Arabia's debts are paid OFF, they are getting a Victory Mosque, and our President was forced to bow to their King. They financed the Pakistani nuclear bomb program in exchange for a few bombs of their own. Barrack just announced he's giving them $60 Billion in US military hardware to boot.

Barrack pooped on the graves of all those Americans that died on 9-11. He had to. You need crude oil too bad.

reply to post by freedom12


You are making a false assumption...again. None of the videos confiscated by the FBI gave a clear image of the flightpath of Flight 77. At most, you caught a glimpse of the vertical stab as pointed out by another poster.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Ah yes, a faithful believer of the CIT. Has Craig stopped badgering people that worked at the Pentagon yet?

reply to post by Astraios


Oh look, its THIS thread again...

Awesome contribution to the convoluted discussion over 9/11, yet another one liner linking a youtube video. And its not even embedded.

reply to post by -PLB-


This guy knows how to debate & make a good point. "Oh, all 12 people just happen to forget which direction they were looking in" isn't going to change anyone's mind.

You can all learn something from him if you want to convert people back to the Dark side

reply to post by vipertech0596
No false assumptions Viper. The Roundtree video shows an explosion and nothing else and therein lies the problem. The OS flightpath of the "plane" should put it in the video, but it's not there. The "plane" would of had to be above the said overpass to hit the Pentagon and should been seen clearly (at least for a second) in the video. Unless you wish to say the"plane" went under the overpass which is what kept it out of view. Obviously, the "plane", was not on the flightpath as the OS tells. The CIT video investigation shows us through very legitmate witness testimonies, that the "plane" was not on the flightpath the OS says it was. The lightpole that went into the cab and that was miraculessly pulled out without a scratch on the hood of the car, simply provides more evidence of the OS story inaccuracies. People have hemmed and hawed back and forth about the witnesses that "saw" the plane. Well, with a little homework on where(locations) the witnesses where when the saw what they thought they saw, you will find some witnesses weren't even in position to see the "impact". Some witnesses, may have seen a airliner fly by headed for the Pentagon. Only a few of the witnesses actually nay have seen what they thought was the "plane" impacting the Pentagon. There are other witnesses who saw something else hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by freedom12


Thanks for illustrating my point. The CIT is about as accurate as the Loose Change crew.

it was a plane, how you explain debris and bodies?
if there were no bodies, i'd be suspicious...