Pentagon punchout hole?

Let's just cut to the chase:

Very interesting theory Scott. All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

Should be very easy for you to prove! Thanks!
(It would be best to show us in your own words, rather than linking to another video that does not address the above. Thanks!)

 

They all seemed to be. Anyone who actually watches the video will see that you're just playing for time.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

You're using a classic disinfo tactic.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
-------------------------------------------------

Why would all the info you're demanding be needed and how would anybody get it? The fact that several witnesses saw the 757 on a path that's different from what the official version says would at least arouse suspicion in an objective person. I don't see how not knowing all that info debunks anything.

This video is about the trajectory of the craft that came in at the official version angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlzCyKbw5Q

I'm not in a position to verify any of the data.

I'm still waiting for Patriot911 and DDave to answer my question about post 47.

 

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

 

and you are? cough! LOL

 

How about addressing the fact not ONE PERSON saw the 757 leaving the scene. Its not like you can sneak an airliner traveling at full trottle (very loud) right over a highly populated area through a major flight corridor and pretend it didn't happen.

Come on, Scott. This is a critical flaw in your theory that you HAVE to be able to address before ANYONE can buy into your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Address it or admit it didn't happen.

 

What is it with you and suede always trying to make these threads about Hannibal?

No surprise there.

Sorry but I'm not going to sit through 80 minutes of truther horse crap speculation and "plausible scenarios" in order to answer your question. I've already wasted too much time on that sort of stuff. If the truthers came up with something believable, I might be inclined to doubt the "official", as you folks like to call it, version. But as it stands, given the EVIDENCE, it is pretty difficult to believe the truther fantasies.

And don't post your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) link about cognitive dissonance again. It's incredibly arrogant. The reason I don't believe the truther horse crap isn't because of cognitive dissonance it is because of their LACK OF EVIDENCE.

 

they saw a 737 leaving the scene!
good one!

 

thats right you are a discriminating person! You have only listen to thousands of minutes of omissions commission fema and nist crap instead! hilarious

 

You ain't got (*)(*)(*)(*) boy.

 

And read a couple hundred ridiculous posts by you. As soon as some truther presents something that is even REMOTELY believable and BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE, I might be inclined to change my mind.

But all I see is speculation, quote-mining, made up "plausible scenarios", and utter nonsense with an all-too-frequent posting from you that is as relevant as "You don't need bubble wrap to know it's chowder time".

Entertaining, yes, convincing, hardly . . .

 

Wrong yet again, Koko. Or would you like to show us the witnesses that saw a 737 leaving the scene? We all realize it would be totally out of character for you to actually produce evidence or back up your position, but it is a new year, so maybe just this once you can actually back your (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

someone posted that clip not to long ago. feel free to look it up.

they seen it entering, over head, and everyone seen it leaving on tv LMAO

 

What you say here is a total fabrication.

 

no actually its not.

you just have a short memory when it serves your purpose

 

Uh huh. RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Try again. Of course, your claims come from the same source that tried to convince everyone that the government somehow managed to edit every video of the incomming flight 175 that never was. Keep up the good work, Koko! You do more to destroy the TBM than any ten truthers I've ever seen!

 

Then link to it.

 

we have been down this road with you countless times before. so no.

everyone knows about the e4b

 

So you are unable to provide any evidence for your claim. I knew it.

 

sure but I am not going to! LMAO


should have cataloged it the first time it was posted.

 

Sure you do. You haven't managed to provide any evidence for anything so far, why should this be different?

Impotence: the mark of a 'truther'.

 

Ah. I should have know you would have the facts (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up beyond all recognition. Yes, there was an e-4b that flew over Washington on 9/11. Just a few problems with your claim.

An E-4B is a 747, not a 737, nor would the two ever be confused at close range. Four engines instead of two. Nearly twice the size.



NO E-4B was seen at low level over Washington on 9-11. It was seen at a high altitude over Washington. In fact, it was SO high, it took a while for anyone to identify it.

A 747 flying low level over Washington, especially at full throttle and at only a couple hundred feet, would have garnered even MORE attention than a 757, yet once again we have ZERO WITNESSES who saw any airliner flying past the Pentagon at full throttle.

In other words, your and Scott's theories are both full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Patriot911 and DDave are going to keep ducking this question I asked them in post #47 because they know that Hannibal told a blatant lie.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-5.html#post4913373

Truth-seekers don't tell lies when the evidence shows something that differs with their foregone conclusion. Truth-seekers don't have foregone conclusions. They follow the evidence and see where it leads.

It's pretty clear that you three know 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

 

Don't forget,truthers also claimed the jet that hit the pentagon was an obsolete,carrier based bomber, the A3 Skywarrior...

 

Any word yet on why they included the light poles on the attack on the Pentagon?

Why not just change the angle so you don't have to worry about the light pole and the various moving parts you believe were in play (the planting of the poles, the damage to the cab, the cabbie himself etc...).

Answer the question....No links, no hyperbole, no more lies on your part dear...man up and answer a question for a change.

 

Frankly it doesn't matter. Witness testimony is considered secondary to the evidence when it differs materially from the evidence. In this instance, the scant handful of witnesses who got it wrong are proven wrong by all the other witnesses AND the evidence of the crash.

Which leads to the fact that you blatantly ignore the hundreds of other witnesses who said it followed the track the government said it did. Oh sure, you dismiss them as government plants, but you have yet been able to explain how they could possibly get all those people in the right spot at the right time.

Unfortunately for you, you truthers are anything BUT truth seekers. You blatantly (*)(*)(*)(*) all over the truth in order to push your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agenda. You ignore the vast majority of the evidence to point out a few witnesses who claimed it was different YEARS after the event happened. Why is that?

Yet you have clearly demonstrated you have foregone conclusions. You believe the government is wrong. You don't know how. You can't prove it. But you just KNOW it can't be true. Your sanctimonious bull(*)(*)(*)(*) isn't working.

No, you run AWAY from the evidence and ignore it. You claim a plane flew OVER the Pentagon, yet cannot address the fact nobody saw this very large plane past the Pentagon. This isn't following evidence. This is IGNORING evidence to feed a foregone conclusion.

You ignore the evidence the light poles and the damage in the Pentagon clearly shows the flight path of the plane into the building in favor of the few witnesses who claim years after the fact it followed a different path. How is that following the evidence? That is IGNORING the evidence in favor of promoting evidence that is discredited because it supports your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories.

It is pretty clear that the above statement is a paranoid delusion of the first order. Here is a good clue it wasn't an inside job. It is ten years later and not only have none of you truthers ever been able to come up with a cohesive theory as to what happened, you still can't agree on any fact other than someone OTHER THAN Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.

If 9/11 were an inside job, you nuts would have cracked it long ago. Instead you're still wandering around trying to find ANY evidence your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories are true.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222[/QUOTE]