37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

I put it on full screen and watched it several times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQeTdrQhqyc

I see no aircraft at all let alone a 757.

 

Please respond if you understand that just because it wasn't seen on film that doesn't mean it didn't fly into the pentagon

 

Source.

 

You can see the damn plane flying into the Pentagon from various Google Earth like sat photo's.

AboveAlpha

 

Link?..

 

Regarding post #328:

I addressed this back in post #269.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321927&page=27&p=1063241141#post1063241141

I found something new about the issue which I mentioned in post #316.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321927&page=32&p=1063258212#post1063258212

Let's hear your response to the above.

Go back to post #320.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321927&page=32&p=1063258384#post1063258384

You said this...

We were talking about this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQeTdrQhqyc

You seemed to be saying that the above video shows a 757 hitting he Pentagon. I looked at it and I can't see any craft at all. You seem to be tap dancing around the issue. The issue is whether that particular video shows a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Tell us whether you say it does, or it doesn't.

Of course I know that the absence of footage that something happened isn't proof that it didn't happen but we have other proof that it didn't happen which I have to keep posting because you people keep trying to bury it to reduce the number of viewers who see it.

This mathematical proof shows that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(5th picture from top)

 

This is really sad.....now truthers are trying to use bogus math to justify their idiocy....

 

This proves AA77 hit the Pentagon.

But truthers ignore it. How do you guys call yourselves truthers with a straight face when you refuse to even click on evidence?

 

LINK...http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/loose-marbles-i-debunking-911-conspiracy-theories

LINK...http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2005/100205popularmechanics.htm

LINK...http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Deets_The_Pentagon_757.pdf

LINK...http://www.webcrawler.com/info.wbcr...417&fcop=topnav&fpid=2&cid=116526513&ad.segme

The last link has many pictures you have to choose what you want.

AboveAlpha

 

I gave a rebuttal to that back in post #269.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321927&page=27&p=1063241141#post1063241141

I'm still waiting for your counter-rebuttal but you just keep reiterating.

 

How funny is that...you're making claims based on the same blurry photo? How is it you claim holds any more logic?

Why is it, almost everyone saw a commercial airliner? Were they all "plants"? Where is your proof ANYONE was a plant?

 

Truthers. Focus on blurry video, ignore the other 99% of evidence. That's some good truth hunting their!!

 

You made a claim of what was there...
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

...and I gave a rebuttal. I'm still waiting for your counter-rebuttal. Be specific. Why is there no shadow under the spot where you say there's a plane.

As I said before, there were other people who saw other things...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

...which is consistent with a conspiracy. The plants say one thing and the real witnesses say another.

The fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757 has already closed the whole case anyway...
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(5th picture from top)

...so the witness issue isn't about whether the government did it. It's about how the government did it.

 

It's about YOU fooling yourself

A 757 hit the pentagon.

 

Again, he ignores 99% of the evidence. Truthers are incapable of scrolling down an entire page. Instead they stop of the first picture. Short attention span.

"No shadow", from 700 feet away, on a blurry still frame...

Pathetic, even by truther standards.

 

In that blurry photo...you're looking for a shadow and attempting to use that as your knock-out punch? How sad.

Stop posting links. Post the comments so we don't to waste time.
How do you explain the overwhelming majority of people who say a commercial airliner?

Yes because we have seen this repeatedly with......???.....mmmmmmmmmmm......What event?...got one???

The fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757 has already closed the whole case anyway...

You don't seem to know what a fact is.

Your position boils down to one thing, you start from the presupposition the official explanation is a lie.

 

Worth repeating. I always think the same thing.

 

Your "math" that closed the case is a joke, it is making the false assumption that flight 77 was flying in a perpendicular line to the face of the pentagon, it was not flying in this manner as it impacted at an angle with the building. Your "math" does not account for the variation in depth perception. Your "math" is void.

 

Out of all the crap you've ever posted, this is the only issue upon which I agree with you. But, the left has certainly gone along with the 9/11 myth and exploited it, just like the right did/does. So, now, will you admit that the left wing is a fraud, or will you be hypocritical?

 

This "fact" is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Jones/Harrit has been repeadtly debunked as bad science....soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....why is this still on your list of lies, unless you plan on changing the title to "37 Things Twoofers Just Cant Get Right"?

 

Twoofers ignorance leads to 37 points of woo they call "facts" - From the 9/11 consensus of stupidity.

37 of the same old rehashed, debunked dribble designed for the ignorant and the gullible; followers of the faith of woo.

How come no planes are not on there? According to the scripture's for your faith, they don't list that. Does that make them wrong, or you wrong? Or, do you do what every religious fundamentalist does, and just pick and choose the "right" ones?

 

Different thread...different topic.

 

Same old dodge....

 

OK, so you're going with hypocrisy then? That's what I thought.

 

Start the thread, and I'll be happy to respond. This thread pertains to 9/11. The 'left wing' and your conclusions, are completely different, and separate issues. Thanks for playin'.

- - - Updated - - -

Same old, same old.