Where is the hole in the Pentagon, and the details about the allegedly ejected engine from flight 93 crash site? Why have you quit answering questions?
Is your contention that there was no hole? The damage was in the western side of the pentagon. Millions of people have seen thedamage. Lots of people saw what caused the damage. I didn't realize that the hole itself was in dispute. Rest assured. The Pentagon was severely damaged. Some people think it was something other then a 757 that caused the damage, but the trouble is all the evidence points to a 757 and no evidence points to something other then a 757. When are you going to start answering questions? 1. What narrative does the hole to small for a 757 theory serve? - I've heard claims that it was a fighter jet that struck the Pentagon. - I've heard claims that it was a missile that struck the Pentagon. - I've heard claims that a 757 flew by close and landed somewhere else. - I've heard claims that evidence was planted in the Pentagon. - I've heard claims that the attack was aimed at accountants. - I've heard claims that the building was reinforced on that side prior to attack. Wouldn't someone in the military be missing a fighter jet? Wouldn't someone have found missile parts in the rubble? Wouldn't someone have seen the 757 miss the Pentagon? Wouldn't someone have come forward and claimed to have planted evidence or seen someone planting evidence? Wouldn't it just be easier to keep the accountants quiet using whatever method you think the conspirators keep each other quiet? Wouldn't it be stupid to reinforce an area you want to attack? I read on a forum today that someone has problems with the Pentagon crash because the surveillance video shows that the nose cone of the aircraft was the wrong shape. What kind of nonsense is that? Why would the government release a photo that showed the wrong plane in the frame if the government was trying to cover up the fact that they planned the attacks themselves? Does that make sense at all? Why would the government plan such a complex conspiracy and then photoshop the wrong plane into the surveillance video? How do all these claims fit together with the rest of the day? Why would the conspiracy need to be so complex to keep some accountants quiet? Doesn't this convoluted no plane thing require more people to keep quiet then a few accountants? 1. What narrative does the no plane in Shanksville theory serve? - I've heard claims that there was a plane and it was shot down. - I've heard claims that there was no plane and the hole was made by a missile. - I've heard claims that that evidence was planted on scene. - I've heard claims that that evidence was strewn over miles and miles. - I've heard photos of smoke were faked. Why would they shoot down one plane and not any of the others? Why would they make a pretend plane crash when 3 other very real ones took place on the same day? Why would no one claim to have planted evidence, or claim to have seen someone planting evidence? Why would evidence be planted over miles and miles? Why would it be small pieces of shredded parts instead of large pieces that people could easily identify? Why would photos need to be faked if the crash itself was faked? Wouldn't they just have burned jet fuel on scene to make it look like a crash? So much about your problems with the truth just don't make sense at all.
it really does not get too much funnier than that! Hell a bunker buster couldnt even go through 3 sections, but as usual those invincible 767's work their miracle magic! at least for the guv, since they dont work majic for anyone else.
I didn't ask you I have no problems with the truth. It is the BS in the 9/11 government reports that I have a problem with. There are parts of every gov report on 9/11 that have been kept from the general public. If the photo posted shows a hole in the Pentagon, put an X on the centerline of the hole. If you believe an engine from the alleged crash site of flight 93, was ejected to another location, 300 feet to 2000 yards, show me proof (photos) and valid testimony. You don''t need to get upset, just show the proof.
See the big circle where there is no wall? That's the hole. Want the facts and (perhaps) photos from PA? Contact the people who were there. The links have been posted numerous times. Go to the source.
I don't need your permission to respond. I do find it ironic that when someone takes the time to respond to you you completely deflect. Why don't YOU answer some questions? Was there no hole in the Pentagon? Is that what you believe? Then why are you complaining about a hole in the Pentagon? Why do you think this, and why do you think this is?
Odd how for years the truthers were claiming a 757 couldn't 'fit through the small hole' left in the pentagon,and now it's 'what hole?'
Just put an X in the center of the alleged "big circle". While you're at it, draw a couple lines showing the impact area of the wings. If you can't do it, just say so.
If you can't see the hole, a few drawn in lines and figures won't help you. Are you seriously alleging that there is no hole? This should be good for a laugh, please elaborate.
I believe he's referring to the hole poked into the side of the Pentagon before the rest of it "fell" in around it. Powerfully strong aluminum in them there planes. Fire a 12 oz soda can at some reinforced concrete some time and observe. I'll bet the walls don't fall in around it, and I'll bet pieces of the aluminum can can be found easily after it gets obliterated by the concrete.
What information do you base this idea on again? Also please define exactly what you mean by "movement".
I mean the impotent cult that refers to itself as the 'truth movement'. I base my idea of their impotence on their proven impotence.
Just admit that you can't point out wing strike damage on the Pentagon. You claimed to know and post a photo, but are unable to fill the simple request of drawing a little line through alleged wing strike damage. Maybe you can't do it, because it aint there.
Phony opposition? In George Orwell's "1984," Winston Smith (the protagonist who spends his days rewriting the news at the Ministry of Truth) becomes disillusioned and wants to join the underground resistance to the Party. He eventually learns that the opposition is really an illusion maintained by the Party itself to snare discontented people such as himself. It is not really a surprise that many of the "alternative dissident" publications that have chosen to ignore 9/11 and the war on terror, except for bland pronouncements in favor of world peace instead of world war, are funded by right-wing, oil money connected foundations. http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
