the hole in the pentagon..is the big hole in the 911 story

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by userid1

 

Ill make it real easy for you.

You stated in one of YOUR posts MY ARTICLE said.
FOUND HERE

Within that article was the term 'exclusion' used.

The rest is semantics. Argue with yourself if you wish.

No. You stated I SAID it. I didn't say it and challenged you to find where I did. You couldn't so you come back with the semantics argument and try to change the parameters of your original statement to include where I PRESENTED it into the argument. Not the same thing - childish retooling of your own words. You've got no defense, and you've still got no holes in the OS

Fail.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by dilapidated
of the actual hole in the pentagon proves that it was not hit by a plane
its simply not big enough,

Which very silly conspiracy theory site did you get the claim that the plane entered through the hole in your link?

have a look at the Pentagon, then have a look at the wall in your picture - notice a difference?

the "truthers" get sillier every day!

They even get the measurements of the plane wrong in the video!

edit on 19-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

At no point did the poster say the plane entered through the hole, he merely said that the damage to the pentagon is not nearly as damaged as one would suspect if an airliner were to have crashed into it. You illiterate types get sillier every day.

reply to post by notonsamepage


No thats what the fire trucks were for....

Around the entry hole FF had access to the fires and were able if not to totally suppress them at least control
them

.

Deeper inside the building the fires were difficult to reach and took much longer to extinguish

Try reading "FIREFIGHT" which goes into detail of the fire fighting and search/recovery operations at the
pentagon

Originally posted by userid1
you've still got no holes in the OS.

And this why no one takes people like you serious.
There are hundreds of holes in the OS.
There are hundreds of lies that have been spewed that day.
There are hundreds of coincidences.
There are hundreds of conveniences.

And you state that story being fed is 100% true. At least that is what I take from a comment of 'no holes in the OS'.
But you probably mean something else by it.
Tell me, do you believe in the magic bullet too?

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by userid1

 

with no damage to the wall around it.

try again,..

www.oilempire.us...

Try again.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c30e5fda9d0.jpg[/atsimg]

A straight line are you ducking serious?

oh please try again...

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by userid1
you've still got no holes in the OS.

And this why no one takes people like you serious.
There are hundreds of holes in the OS.
There are hundreds of lies that have been spewed that day.
There are hundreds of coincidences.
There are hundreds of conveniences.

And you state that story being fed is 100% true. At least that is what I take from a comment of 'no holes in the OS'.
But you probably mean something else by it.
Tell me, do you believe in the magic bullet too?

And you state that story being fed is 100% true.

Show me where I ever said that - or are you going to try and justify your lack of reading comprehension AGAIN and call it "semantics"?

As a matter of fact, I told YOU there was a hole in the OS - but you hadn't mentioned it yet, and I wondered why that was. But I doubt you remember my saying that as it means you'd actually have to READ my comments - and then understand them.

All I suggested is that I personally don't think you can find them based on the arguments you've posted so far.

Originally posted by notonsamepage
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by userid1


www.oilempire.us...

Try again.

A straight line are you ducking serious?

You know, this image almost looks like...well, the outline of a plane. If the plane was moving at a high rate of speed, at a shallow downward angle, and the nose impacted between the 1st and 2nd floors - what would be inconsistent in this picture with those observations?

Is it possible the hole that shows on the first and second floor that is somewhat round in shape might be the impact point of the plane's fuselage? Is it possible that the long hole showing on the first floor might be damage caused by the impact from the wings and engines?

Really, I don't know what kinds of damage you are expecting - you haven't been very specific. Were you looking for cracks radiating outwards from the presumed fuselage impact hole? Are you thinking that the impact hole around the presumed fuselage impact point should be much bigger? - What?

What can you tell us about the properties of limestone and aluminum on impact at speed?

reply to post by userid1


Yeah I am looking for the plane..

reply to post by notonsamepage


So you can't answer simple, direct questions huh? You just "know" that's not what an impact hole should look like right?

Well, I'm sure your *opinion* will be given all the consideration it's due.

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by notonsamepage

 

So you can't answer simple, direct questions huh? You just "know" that's not what an impact hole should look like right?

Well, I'm sure your *opinion* will be given all the consideration it's due.

And you just "know" the Gov are telling you the truth?

this isn't like the cartoons when stuff just vanish..

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by notonsamepage

 

So you can't answer simple, direct questions huh? You just "know" that's not what an impact hole should look like right?

Well, I'm sure your *opinion* will be given all the consideration it's due.

And you just "know" the Gov are telling you the truth?

this isn't like the cartoons when stuff just vanish..

That doesn't answer the question posed directly to you does it? Why is that?

WHY WON'T THEY RELEASE THE VIDEO OF THIS "plane" HITTING THE PENTAGON? They let us watch the planes hit the towers from diff angles, y not let us see the pentagon video? ps, theres no way a plane made that hole.in the pentagon

reply to post by joeyg402


Nice to have another *expert* opinion...

reply to post by joeyg402

WHY WON'T THEY RELEASE THE VIDEO OF THIS "plane" HITTING THE PENTAGON?

Because it doesn't exsist. This was brought up in the hearings.

And if you are a crash expert please show us how it is impossible for a plane to create that hole.

reply to post by samkent
Correction : Because it doesn't exist, anymore.

reply to post by dillweed

And you of course have proof?

Of course we would all say that therewas a huge gaping space in the Pentagon, but the question is what caused that huge space. It's all very simple when you look at the facts.
FACT 1. A huge jet engine airplane could not have made that small amount of damage to the pentagon.
FACT 2. When you look at the resemblence to the WTC's you can see that when the planes hit the towers that there was an explosion and that the fires burned uncontrolably. But when you look at the pentagon there was a very small and short explosion and the fires never came anywhere near the of the fires that were happening at the two WTC's.
And when you add both those facts together it would make perfect sense that a missile could of hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by beatlesman
Of course we would all say that therewas a huge gaping space in the Pentagon, but the question is what caused that huge space. It's all very simple when you look at the facts.
FACT 1. A huge jet engine airplane could not have made that small amount of damage to the pentagon.
FACT 2. When you look at the resemblence to the WTC's you can see that when the planes hit the towers that there was an explosion and that the fires burned uncontrolably. But when you look at the pentagon there was a very small and short explosion and the fires never came anywhere near the of the fires that were happening at the two WTC's.
And when you add both those facts together it would make perfect sense that a missile could of hit the pentagon.

Fact 1 - Says who? What are your quals? Exactly how big do you think the hole was anyway?

Fact 2. - WHAT resemblance? Do you see the construction of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers as being equal? Do you think the firefighting efforts between the two locations were comparable?

I believe that the hole shown in the 911review link is not the exterior wall/collision point but rather the exit hole of one of the Pentagon's interior rings. But I do agree that the early pictures of the "collision" hole (pre-collapse) are too small for a big airliner and there are no wing/engine marks (or related debris) on the outside where the wings would have impacted.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I believe the entry hole was estimated at 96' across - not bad for an aluminum bodied plane hitting approx 2' of solid limestone, reinforced periodically with concrete and steel...

www.oilempire.us...