I know where the pentagon engineering report is. You made a claim about damage to the foundation, however. How do you know the foundation was not damaged?
You really need to learn how to quote a post properly. The damage is the basis for the claim that it was flying level?? Why would it have to be level to hit above the foundation? Truthers say that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. If this is the case . . . where did it land? what happened to the plane? what happened to the passengers and crew?
Just trying to visualize the geometry... Wouldn't a plane have to be flying not only perfectly level to the ground, but also really close to the ground (i.e. like a landing approach), in order to leave a trail of knocked over lightpoles before hitting the side of the building?
Depends on how tall the light poles were, how far away from the building they were, and how high up the impact was. So are you saying that AA77 did impact the Pentagon or that it couldn't have been AA77 based on the "impossibility" of the "flying perfectly level" claim? If AA77 didn't impact the Pentagon then . . . where did it land? what happened to the plane? what happened to the passengers and crew?
It also depends on the slope on where the poles were stationed: Like if the ground was higher were the pole was anchored than the street it illuminated, that elevation would have to be added in. What kills any conspiracy whackjob theory is two things: Why they would be included in any plan at all in the first place. Damaged lightpoles are not something you find in every plane crash of course. Secondly, the linear distance of the poles themselves....no way a missile could have hit those five poles. Additionally, another insurmountable hurdle that no twoofer can clear is the generator that was hit by AA77's engine. Not only do these guys have a missile ricocheting from pole to pole, they have it hitting this generator, damaging it, knocking it aside and THEN blowing up in the Pentagon. I guess there was another crew that was assigned to take a cutting torch to the generator.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/category/alex-jones-is-a-fraud/ best 9/11 websites http://www.9/11review.com http://www.oilempire.us/worldwar4.html more gatekeepers hoaxes http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html http://911review.com/disinfo/divide.html
No I'm not saying any of that stuff. I'm just saying this damage path shows a plane more or less flying level, much like a landing approach.
These questions have been addressed several times. You people seem to be trying to bury the explanations to reduce the number of people who see them. Start watching this video at the 33:00 time mark. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_q6j6BZkHQ"]Painful Deceptions (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame] Those questions are addressed there. The evidence shows that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. That's all explained here. http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975 I know somebody is going to bring up the "Light pole" issue so here the link to that info again. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632 At around the 5:45 time mark of part six of this eight-part video there's an analysis of the situation with the cab driver. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSX4p6i1qR4"]National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 6/8 - YouTube[/ame] There's a summary of it here. http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
That video is only 33:06 long. The last six seconds did not answer any of the questions raised. Neither did the first 33, but still.
From the video: This is evidence? No, it's unsubstantiated, ludicrous fantasy. It's the "Science Fictionalization" of reality. If it can be imagined = it happened.
The evidence shows that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon (see post 312). There are several plausible scenarios that would explain what happened to the passengers. We just don't know which one is the correct one and our not knowing doesn't make the evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon go away. The theory in the video is only a plausible explanation. That's different from evidence.
What you call evidence is poor math and worse speculation taken from a low res photo, as has already been pointed out to you. Hand waving won't make that fact go away. In the real world, every bit of evidence points to 77 crashing into the Pentagon.
That was just a lame attempt at obfuscation. He pretty much destroyed his credibility when he said he could hardly see where the nose was in the picture. Here's the quote. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-28.html#post4751196 The location of the nose in the picture is very clear. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg Now tell us why you think the theory that the planes were switched is not plausible.
I explained exactly what you were looking at in that picture in a very concrete and technical way. This statement: Has been well demonstrated as being quite false. What you are looking at in that picture cannot be proven to be the nose of an aircraft moving at 400+ miles an hour. In the time it takes to scan that image the aircraft moved a conceivable 100+ feet. The camera type used is simply not fast enough. We're still waiting for your rebuttal. I don't expect one.
Are you freaking kidding me????? There is no evidence supporting that. Just "theories" and "plausible explanations". Very different. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!! And fangbeer already explained that to you. Who is "playing dumb" now? Because it involves EVEN MORE people in the conspiracy and is totally unnecessary if one wanted to shoot a missile into the Pentagon. And by the way, Painful Deceptions is just that. A Painful Deception that some folks swallow hook, line, and sinker. They are so full of crap it is unbelievable. Watch that video and then watch this one. [ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&ei=zjNySe-6Bouk-wGi06TkCw&q=Screw+Loose+Change+Movie&hl=en"]Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition[/ame] See which ones make more sense. And check out this site while you're at it. http://www.debunking911.com/index.html It contains actual links to actual verifiable sources not just a bunch of made up "plausible scenarios".
Who's real world...yours? The only thing you except is anything that will allow you to continue your own personal fantasy.
"No planes" is only put out by deliberate disinfo agents... The greater danger, according to Ruppert, is that the 9/11 movement has been "heavily, heavily infiltrated by government disinformation operatives" who have put proverbial "poison pills" into its debates. http://www.oilempire.us/griffin.html http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html
Government disinfo operatives. I don't know. I don't think 7forever is paid. I think he really believes it. Which is the scary part. But it's funny to watch the truthers build an even bigger conspiracy by incorporating everyone that disagrees with them as part of the conspiracy. I guess the only ones who weren't in on it is the Truthers. Maybe that's why they're so upset.
