Discussion in '9/11' started by 10aces, Dec 28, 2011.
What caused the Pentagon punchout hole?
What Pentagon punchout hole?
You mean the little hole in the front with the black all over the walls before they fell (but AFTER a supposed plane just hit it). The one with ZERO evidence of any plane? The one where the hole looks just big enough to allow a missile to have struck it? You mean, BEFORE the rest of it was taken down?
Zero evidence of a plane ... except for all the plane wreckage, the eyewitnesses and the DNA from the passengers of AA77. If you ignore all of that evidence, and misrepresent the size of the entry hole, then I guess you could delude yourself into imagining a missile.
Somehow I don't think that's what he meant by 'punchout hole' though.
The little wreckage that was found could easily have been planted before or after the crash.
Witnesses may be plants that are lying.
I've posted this video several times but you people keep playing dumb and trying to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it because you don't have a good answer for it.
(32:00 time mark)
Bodies and info on DNA can be manipulated.
There's some info on the Pentagon in this post from another thread.
Have you ever tried to plant airplane wreckage? Please do so...at the Pentagon and see what happens to you.
The difference is, we know you're lying. Any word on what took down the lightpoles? You never explained why the poles had to be brought down.
Nobody cared then. Nobody cares now.
Very hard to do. Also very risky since the DNA and bodies are returned to the families who can have idependent tests done. Let me guess, they are all plants too.
The cartoonish nature of your involvement has been missed.
THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT
Figure 5.16 Hole to AE Drive
You're saying some pretty lame things. Of course I couldn't plant plane parts at the Pentagon but the government could as it's a government building.
I must have posted this link which puts forth a plausible explanation for the lightpoles more than twenty times.
You seem to be trying to sway newcomers who haven't seen it yet. The only reason your posts are worth responding to is to keep you from burying the info you don't want newcomers to see.
What magical part of 'the government' would allow them to plant wreckage,without being seen, so workers at the pentagon would remember it later?
Your answer is in the same document. Page 28.
The explanation given in your link is implausible, and it has been explained to you.
And none of the tens of thousands who work there saw a thing....riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I guess they're all in on it too? You're the professor of lame.
The explanation isn't plausible at all. It relies on "maybes" and "could haves' and is bascially (*)(*)(*)(*).
But lets move on...
Why just change the angle of attack to not hit the light poles? Why involve the light poles at all when it isn't necessary? Why make the conspiracy bigger than it needs to be?
That is where we left off before you ran away last time.
Again, the rules are you write down what you want to say. No links. Get to work sonny.
before april learned how to get greedy she admitted that there were no plane parts.
so yeh people did notice.
just some people dont listen
April Gallop sued the airline then got greedy and tried sue the government claiming 'no plane'.
That's typical 'Truther' procedure.
yeh there is a reason that sort of thing happens.
I bet you have no idea do you?
Psychosis and greed.
She fell under the influence of a lawyer who was a 'truther' cultist. He cost her plenty.
I only have a minute today so I can just do a quickie post.
Here's the video I've posted several times about the theory that a 757 flew over the Pentagon and the craft that hit the Pentagon came in at a different angle.
The picture the government released proves that the craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757.
A 757 would look like this.
The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is pretty clear. It just takes a while to look at it all (see post #5 and read below article).
Anyone who's looked at it and still maintains that 9/11 wasn't an inside job is experiencing cognitive dissonance and is in denial. He or she should watch this video.
This is something else that newcomers should read.
This article is a quick summary of the 8 part video in my last post.
Scott's claims are all bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Him pretending the 757 overflew the Pentagon is a PERFECT example. Not ONE WITNESS says the plane pulled up at the last minute to miss the Pentagon, and a 757 flying OVER the Pentagon and then over the Potomac in clear view of the rest of Washington and more importantly right through the flight path of Reagan International Airport in view of the tower should be more than enough evidence to even the most casual truther that nothing overflew the Pentagon.
But wait! There's MORE!
Scott goes on to present another completely contradictory theory! They both can't be true, but does that stop him from making a fool of himself? Nope! Scott goes on to claim it couldn't have been a 757 flying into the Pentagon because of the video from the security camera.
Which is it, Scott? Was it something else that flew into the Pentagon or did a 757 fly over the Pentagon? Nobody saw two objects fly into the Pentagon and the video only shows one plane hitting the Pentagon.
This is a perfect example of the retarded claims of the truthers. Not only are most truther theories contradictory to other truther theories, but many, if not all truthers believe in multiple theories that conflict with other theories they believe! Never mind the fact they can't all be true. The truth is the least important thing to truthers. Their overwhelming agenda is trying to pretend the official story is false regardless of which story they have to dream up to make it so.
a 737 e4b did lol
Present your evidence. Oh wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Run away now.
So much to ignore, so little time.
You know the rules. Get busy boy.
An excellent summation.
They all claim that it couldn't have happened the way the "government" said it did but they have no evidence to prove that it happened any other way.
And Scott, "plausible scenarios" are not evidence. They are made up explanations with no evidence to back them up.
Separate names with a comma.