the tail was inconsequential to the animation....it was more concerned with the body of the plane entering the pentagon Besides,there were marks from the vertical stabilizer on the wall outside
Are you kidding? That's a major flaw in the analysis. Only a sophist trying to obfuscate the proof would do something like that.
I watched the video and did not see the marks from the vertical stabilizer on the outside wall. Where are you getting your information? I would like to see it.
I'm NOT kidding....the vertical statilizer was inconsequential to the main body of the plane Besides,since WHEN does a truther use evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon,when they don't think one did?
I think the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757. http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm (5th picture from top) I asked you for your view on why the Perdue animation showed an intact tail inside the Penagon when there was no hole in the wall to let it in intact. I'm not using evidence of a 757 having hit the Pentagon. You're trying to muddy the waters because you're cornered.
I'm not trying to muddy anything,just showing dishonest truthers picking and choosing what evidence they believe..besides the vertical stabilizer is a composite material that's not all that strong.. And you're seeing things of you think it was too short
I would say it's pretty relevant. If it had gotten sheared off, it would have been on the ground outside and there would have been a mark on the wall. If it had gone inside, there would have been a hole big enough to let it in. They didn't know how to obfuscate that part so they ignored it and hoped nobody would notice the flaw in their analysis.
I have not seen any evidence of your claim. Do you have a picture or video to backup your claim that there were vertical stabilizer marks on the wall of the Pentagon? - - - Updated - - - Where? Where is this evidence of a mark on the wall?
You are the one making the claim. I can not find any evidence for your claim. You will not post evidence to backup your claim. I'm thinking maybe your claim is a false claim. If you have the evidence, then show it to us.
Where? I still don't see the marks on the Pentagon walls from the wings, vertical stabilizer, or the tail. Do you have any bigger pictures?
I watched all the way through. There are no visible wing, tail, or vertical stabilizer marks on the Pentagon wall. Not in Image 6 or any other.
What I, and thousands of others on the ground in NYC that day, saw was a plane...a large jetliner. No debate because you were not there. Go to NYC and ask the shops, hotels, vendors and business people what they saw....they saw a jetliner...which is amazingly what others around the city recorded on the camcorders, cell phone and cameras that day. How did the "gubmint" gather up all those camera, photos, videso and add a plane to each...in the correct context of those devices...without the knowledge or protest of the owners and have them on the Net within a couple of days? How is that possible...where is the proof? "No-planes" is absurd....laughable as are those making the claims.
The truther's theory is that a real 757 flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport behind it. http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170 There are witnesses who say they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon and there are others who say they saw a smaller craft. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632 This is consistent with the scenario of there having been planted fake witnesses and a few real witnesses. The craft that hit the Pentagon was obviously too short to be a 757. http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm (5th picture from top) 9/11 was an inside job.
Well, we know it wasn't failed, cave dwelling, bearded Cessna pilots that hijacked our entire military intelligence establishment for two hours, anyway. Inside job? I'd certainly say so.
Strawman. None of the hijackers ever lived in caves, and none of the pilots were failures. The military wasn't hijacked: commercial airplanes were.
