Can I convince PF's resident 'Truthers' that AA77 hit the Pentagon? - Take Two

Explain what the eyewitnesses saw that day?

- - - Updated - - -

Prove they didnt. Reports please.

 

That's it. Bye bye.

Call me more names. Try to imagine how hurt I will be.

 

I posted it, what more could you want?

well it does not show a plane, easy to pull out frames

 

You're just like a Birfer...not brains, no common sense and no integrity.

 

good I hate repeating myself because people cant build from what has already been stated

- - - Updated - - -

doesnt change the fact there was no plane in those frames.

 

Please post the information/evidence of eyewitnesses lying about seeing a plane hit the light poles and crash into the Pentagon.

 

I posted material evidence that does not match testimony, what kind of voodoo court rules are you operating with?

 

What was the distance, in feet, from the edge of the pentagon, to the point where the plane entered the video frame?

What was the make and model of the security camera?

- - - Updated - - -

Nice side step,....please post the proof and evidence of eyewitnesses lying about seeing a plane hit the light poles and crash into the Pentagon.

 

whats the difference when all one need do is subtract frames?

 

Your "material evidence" would not hold up to scrutiny to be allowed in a court of law. You claim is failed.

 

really?

do tell why not LOL

 

Are you daft? 792fps...thats how fast the plane was flying. Unless you can provide the name, make and model (techical specs) of the security camera used you can't claim "what should be in view".

Now, post the evidence/proof all thoses eyewitnesses were lying about seeing a plane clip light poles or crash into the pentagon.

- - - Updated - - -

All your claims are based on assertion, not fact. They would be summarily tossed.

 

oh then you cant claim what should not.

immaterial, no plane was seen in the pentagon clip.

 

ok lets go into equity then LMAO

we'll find out in discovery.

nope, material evidence contradicts and voids bogus testimony.

having a bad day at work are ya?

[video=youtube;EzGoDtmTllg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzGoDtmTllg[/video]

 

It was also not hit by an object travelling a couple hundred miles an hour. It did not even hit the ground. So you have a double handful of SQUAT.

No, show us the rebar that you claim was blown out of the Pentagon.

 

Well, you got it part way right. The plane was trailing smoke or fuel escaping from a damaged wing. but no on fire. They do not always catch fire in the air when they spring a leak.

We do, however, see the vertical stabilizer sticking up behind the camera box in the first frame of this clip.

Well, those of us with IQs over 70 do.

 

Ever one of them you have made over the past two years, far as I can tell. Including any insinuation that you might be an attorney.

Now, got pictures of rebar?

 

I will get to it when we are done with the poles.

then post ALL the poles that break, since there are only pics of poles that do not break on the internet.

sounds like your pole claim is a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

waiting for pictures of all those poles that break when they hit the ground

 

BWWHAHAHAHA

what tail? there is NO tail in that clip!

fuel spray ignites that is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). there is not fire trail.

ALL you got is more of the same



DA NILE!

 

If you do not know what it was, only a drooling moron would say that you have any evidence that it was anything other than a 757, so you do not know that it was not a 757, regardless what your ear crickets tell you.

 

There is a dark shape perpendicular to the camera box which is the right size and shape to be the vertical stabilizer of a 757. It is nor there in the next frame. Only the legally blind or terminally stupid fail to see it. Lying sacks of crap will, of course, deny that it is there if they do see it.

No, it does not always ignite. You're arguing my AFSC here. You are wrong. You pulled that out of your butt. You have no facts to back you up.

Do you get where I'm going with this?

Now show me that rebar that your ear crickets said was there.

 

show us a picture of a 757 hitting the pentagon, not fertile imagination and doo doo

they look like this



and this

 

like a said this is not an ink blot test, there is no plane just an overdose of imagination.

yeh it does always ignite when exposed to fire and it was exposed to fire. DUH

How loony is that, misted fuel exposed to fire that does not burst into flames, that beyond fertile thats loony.