The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

reply to post by ANOK

Penny Elgas.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK

 

Penny Elgas.

read this, please:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

and i know, there are more witnesses, and i do question them all, cause i have just seen a few vids of reporters on the scene, after the impact, and hell, no plane wings in sight....and as far as i know the Pentagon is kinda a bunker?

reply to post by waypastvne

Here's an interview with her that you were too lazy to post yourself:


reply to post by bing0

Wow a guy from that forum that you linked just happened to be the author of that YouTube video I posted. Small world.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK

 

Penny Elgas.

No she didn't see the plane impact anything.

She is the 'witness' who supposedly found the piece of plane...

HILL: ¨And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?¨

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail -- that was actually the tail that a turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.¨

There is only one place the impact point was visible, and that was from the flyover where Lloyd England, and the staged cab and light pole incident was supposed to have happened. Coincidence? There were dirt mounds erected in places around the pentagon blocking the view...





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

Coincidence or pre-staged?

Thank you very much OP, this absolutely brought some new hard evidence to light and, definetly opened my eyes a little wider as to what happened. As for the people saying "Why even post anything about 9/11 anymore when the same old arguements and debates are going to be brought up?" Its not all about that like you said before, I learned some new to me information about this subject and I will be sure to pass it on to others. Therefore statements like that have little merit because reguardless of the arguements among us, people will see this incedent in a new light and be able to make their own opinions and thats very important.Thanks again.

reply to post by llmacgregor


Thanks dude, check out my new 9/11 thread. There's 13 reasons to question the official story, and it explains how the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 couldn't have been caused by fire damage, and how it must have been a controlled demolition. There's not a lot of discussion going on there but there's tons of evidence in the OP.

I want another eqnuiry in to 9/11....a proper one given the the majority of people have later confirmed that there was subversion and denial of evidence in the first commission. Either through interviews or autobiographies....what i DON'T believe is that the towers were brought down with thermite, could it be a super weapon orbiting the earth? who knows, that is pure speculation. What i am convinced of though is that these attacks were allowed to be planned and executed...the CIA are are all over the ISI, and the saudi royals have been involved with the ISI and Pakistani nuclear weapons program for a long time as well. I find it extremely hard to believe this wasn't know about,months if not years in advance...very very hard.

reply to post by Solomons

I want another eqnuiry in to 9/11

Don't we all.

what i DON'T believe is that the towers were brought down with thermite

Thermite may have been used to weaken the core columns to prepare the tower for the controlled demolition using more powerful explosives, but that's just speculation on my part.

could it be a super weapon orbiting the earth?

I don't think so, I think a controlled demolition is 5000X more likely than some gamma ray pulse weapon or whatever orbiting the earth.

reply to post by Solomons

there are indications how it probably has happened, and several parts can be/are proven, other parts are more difficult. Problem is, that a part of the necessary evidence is gone, meanwhile. But yes, lots of things don't fit at all...more holes than any existing cheese. And, also TPS has interesting threads atm

reply to post by ANOK


Steve Anderson
Gary Bauer
Deb Anlauf
Sean Boger
Donald Bouchoux
James R. Cissell
Michael DePaula
Mike Dobbs
Bruce Elliott
Walker Lee Evey
Kim Flyler
Asework Hagos
Joe Harrington
Albert Hemphill
Terrance Keen

Just a few....

reply to post by vipertech0596



i m also lazy, but it is interesting anyway:

911review.org...

and

killtown.911review.org...

BiingO
read this, please:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I've seen it.

TupacSakur
Here's an interview with her that you were too lazy to post yourself:

I've heard It.

The most interesting thing about Penny is she has a piece of physical evidence to back up her testimony. Which she donated to the Smithsonian:



As AA77 approached the pentagon its starboard wing tip clipped a DOT pole leaving a visible mark as shown by arrow on the right. Its starboard engine also clipped off the top of a tree as shown by the second arrow.



Close up of the dot pole.



Boeing 757 wing tip



Comparison of 757 wing tip and Penny's debris



Obviously the debris is from the wing tip of a boeing 757 .

Why do we need a new independent investigation again ?

Originally posted by ANOK


No she didn't see the plane impact anything.

She is the 'witness' who supposedly found the piece of plane...

HILL: ¨And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?¨

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail -- that was actually the tail that a turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.¨

She saw the plane impact the pentagon, she did not see it hit the poles.

There is only one place the impact point was visible, and that was from the flyover where Lloyd England, and the staged cab and light pole incident was supposed to have happened. Coincidence? There were dirt mounds erected in places around the pentagon blocking the view...


She was on the same road Lloyd England was on, traveling the opposite direction. Had a better view than Lloyd her description of the impact is very detailed.

Do you Thruthers ever get tired of being wrong ?

reply to post by bing0


Lazy? How so? The man asked for ONE person who witnessed Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Your post....smacks of attempted character assaisination.

So and so....works for the government..
So and so.... works for the media....

reply to post by waypastvne

Why do we need a new independent investigation again ?

Gee, I don't know, maybe because the official story is flawed in so many places? Maybe because of reasons 1 through 13 in this thread:

More specifically, here are two huge problems with the official investigation:
12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models
13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations

Many more reasons that the official investigation is a flawed, biased, unfair, corrupt investigation are included in that thread as well, such as:

NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission ignored the molten metal seen in the basements of the buildings.

All of the evidence in that thread, much of it gathered from NIST and FEMAs investigation, points to a controlled demolition causing the Twin Towers and WTC7 to collapse. None, I repeat, none of the evidence in there backs up a fire-caused collapse. Not even NISTs own experimentation backs it up.

Read through that, and tell me how you can possibly still trust the official investigation.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK

 

Steve Anderson
Gary Bauer
Deb Anlauf
Sean Boger
Donald Bouchoux
James R. Cissell
Michael DePaula
Mike Dobbs
Bruce Elliott
Walker Lee Evey
Kim Flyler
Asework Hagos
Joe Harrington
Albert Hemphill
Terrance Keen

Just a few....

You need to check your facts, none of those people saws a plane IMPACT the pentagon.

Again the impact point was not visible due to temporary dirt mounds. Pay attention to the details.

Originally posted by waypastvne
Do you Thruthers ever get tired of being wrong ?

Hmmmm sometime we're wrong, but at least we don't have to make things up and continue with assumptions that have been debunked numerous times already.

Elgas is a questionable witness to begin with, and her one testimony contradicts other witnesses that you ignore.

Her lies have been exposed....



Now these witnesses are genuine and yet you ignore them...

www.thepentacon.com...

You can bad mouth CIT but you can't dismiss what the witnesses said. If the plane was not where the OS claims then Elgas is either mistaken, or is a bogus witness.

Sorry but there is no proof here, either way. You need to do better than one questionable witness.

reply to post by vipertech0596


i have one important question for you: do you believe the official story? A simply yes or no is good enough, and you can add details if you like. I want to know your opinion

Originally posted by TupacShakur
[ Gee, I don't know, maybe because the official story is flawed in so many places? Maybe because of reasons 1 through 13 in this thread:

Read through that, and tell me how you can possibly still trust the official investigation.

I looked through it, I'm not impressed, same old thruther crap.

You sure like to Flog your own threads don't you.

Why don't you really impress us and tell us how the buildings were brought down.

Where exactly the explosives were placed ?
How much explosives were used ?
What kind of explosives were used ?
How they got them into the building ?
Why didn't any one here explosions in the moments just prior to the collapse ?
Why didn't any one see explosions in the moments just prior to the collapse ?


These are the questions we have been asking Truthers for years.

Without at some plausible answers to these question there is no need for a New Independent Investigation.

reply to post by waypastvne

I looked through it, I'm not impressed, same old thruther crap.

Yeah if that's your conclusion, you either didn't read the whole thing or you're in denial.

You sure like to Flog your own threads don't you.

Yes, I put lots of work into them and I'm more than happy to include links to them in my posts. And you did ask why people want a new investigation, and that thread shows how the conclusions that NIST and FEMA arrived at are false based on the evidence. So basically, that thread answered your question. But hey, to you it's all the same old truther crap. The same old truther crap that is quoted directly from NIST and FEMAs own reports

Here are some examples of the typical truther crap quoted from the NIST and FEMA reports:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing......Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.

The NIST report:

does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

FEMA:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building.

Why don't you really impress us and tell us how the buildings were brought down.

Where exactly the explosives were placed ?
How much explosives were used ?
What kind of explosives were used ?
How they got them into the building ?
Why didn't any one here explosions in the moments just prior to the collapse ?
Why didn't any one see explosions in the moments just prior to the collapse ?

You want to shift the discussion from the facts and evidence to speculation? Why?