Proof positive no plane flew over the Pentagon

Discussion in '9/11' started by Patriot911, Feb 5, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Me and you don't see eye to eye on things, which is most of the time.

    But AT LEAST you have the decency to argue with me in your own words. Although rude words many times, still at least your own words! Honestly I don't understand the satisfaction or even purpose in what the Scott Bot is doing. If human, then he won't be learning, or changing any minds. Which is some of the reason why I figure he's just a program. They are more suited to such mundane tasks.
     
  2. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The same reason you can't get the Terminator to knit you a sweater.

    He's just not programmed for it!
     
  3. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    American 77 flew OVER the Pentagon. Confiscated film could resolve this issue.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Forensics, DNA matches, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony all say different. What evidence do you have for your claim?
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How is it that these theories come together? That's where you'll find your evidence.

    His evidence is that somewhere some government guy did something corrupt once.

    His evidence is that he was lied to at one point in his past.

    His evidence is that he knows someone that he thinks is less intelligent than he is.

    What more do you need?
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There you go again trying to mislead people who haven't taken the time to do research. All of the stuff you posted fits the inside job scenario and there's a mountain of proof that it wasn't an inside job.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg

    Start watching this video at the 44:00 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk

    I know you people will wait until this is buried and they talk as if it didn't exist again so I suppose I'll have to keep posting it to thwart you. This is really a war between the truthers who are trying to post the proof of an inside job and the other side who are trying to bury it to keep them from seeing it.
    http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746
     
  7. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is it you keep claiming your evidence is overwhelming yet to date you haven't convinced a single person you're right? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Don't you think that kind of statistic should make you re-examine your beliefs? I would say re-examine your evidence, but we both know you don't have any. Repeated requests for just one piece of evidence results in a spam session and you pretending your opinion is somehow evidence. :lol:
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with Scott 100% here. Glad you finally came around.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sometimes I drink too much coffee.

    I think everyone knows that I meant to say, "There's a mountain of proof that it was an inside job".
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this how a truther cherry picks words?
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why don't you stop playing games and address the actual issue? It was said that the DNA matched. I said this video explained why that didn't prove it wasn't an inside job.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk
    (44:00 time mark)

    Now you're supposed to give a rebuttal.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing you've posted yet has proven it was an 'inside job',Scott/Cosmored/Fatty88
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,427
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is it you keep claiming your evidence is overwhelming yet to date you haven't convinced a single person you're right? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Don't you think that kind of statistic should make you re-examine your beliefs? I would say re-examine your evidence, but we both know you don't have any. Repeated requests for just one piece of evidence results in a spam session and you pretending your opinion is somehow evidence.

    Seriously. Answer these questions.
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No scott,cosmored/fatty88,it's what I KNOW,despite your fibs about there being 'a ton of proof'
     
  16. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You would think with all that "proof" he wouldn't have a hard time posting a single piece of proof. The closest he has come is claiming he doesn't THINK the nose of the object in the security video could be from a 757. :lol:
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All they seem to have is youtube videos.....if there WERE a ton of proof,most of the video would be proof,NOT just at the '44:00 mark'
     
  18. Jethro

    Jethro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patriot you are out to lunch....a sixteen foot hole in the pentagon..begs the question how an aircraft with a wingspan of two hundred feet left no marks from the wings and engines, if indeed it was an aircraft....also flying that close to the ground at that speed is an impossibility with a large aircraft because of the ground effect..which would not let it get that close to the ground at that speed...the missile that hit the pentagon pentrated through the five concrete walls to the centre court...it would have to be a missile, as an aircraft would not do that...I notice you refuse to look at the evidence or do any independent research of any of this 9/11 stuff..maybe if you did you wou learn something instead of spouting the government line which is preposterous to say the least!
     
  19. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it didn't fly over the Pentagon...

    ... it flew into it...

    ... dummy.
    :roll:
     
  20. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong. The wings did leave impact marks.

    Excellent site describing the damage with pictures

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eebBjs507Yc

    Here is an excellent, authoritative site that discusses this claim. Their conclusions? "These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11.[/quote]

    Wrong yet again. The ONLY thing that can explode AND penetrate that far into a building is a large plane. A missile can do one or the other, but not both. Missiles can explode on impact, but not penetrate as the missile has already destructed. Missiles can penetrate five conrete walls and then explode, but then you would have a very VERY small hole in the face, and little damage until the missile explodes. You would have a lot of damage in the middle of the Pentagon and almost none on the exterior. That is obviously not what we saw.

    You have the following unresolved issues if you want to believe the missile theory:

    Numerous witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Many identified it as an AA passenger jet. Some even identified it as a 757. NONE said it was a missile.

    The DNA evidence in the Pentagon identifies the wreckage as Flight 77. Last time I looked, a missile doesn't have DNA evidence.

    The physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon is consistant with a large plane. None of the evidence is consistant with a missile.

    The flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon proves it was a plane and not a missile. Missiles don't have flight data recorders.

    The list goes on and on. How about chewing on those first? Surely you can address these issues and produce evidence to back up your claims, right?

    You have yet to even post any evidence, and the evidence is very clear I have done my research and you haven't.

    You've proven you don't even understand what happened on 9/11 and people are suppose to believe you over all the evidence? WOW! Especially considering you have yet to post a single piece of real evidence your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is in any way true. :lol: Better luck next time, junior. Right now you get an F.
     
  21. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder why the Scott Bot is conveying this line of output when the algorithm itself seems programmed to circumvent such a task.
     
  22. Jethro

    Jethro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the topic says no plane flew over the pentagon...and the evidence says No plane flew into or hit the pentagon...so where did it go? the hole in the pentagon was originally 16 ft in diameter..the 757 wingspan is close to two hundred feet..and no marks from the wings or engines hitting the building so obviously this aircraft did not hit the pentagon..what ever hit this building left a 16 ft diameter hole, and went through all five reinforced concrete walls to the centre court...sounds like a tomahawk with a bunker buster on the nose...hmmm now who would have those? Sounds very much like an inside job....
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    False. You've been linked the evidence of the damage the wings did.
     
  24. Jethro

    Jethro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong Hannibal the pictures do not support your wild theory....it was a missile..plan and simple..that is the only thing that would penetratethat much reinforced concrete too...time to admit your wrong there buddy!
     
  25. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So show us a 16' diameter missile that would make the initial hole. Here is a hint. The diameter of a 757 fuselage is only 14'.

    Also, how is it over a hundred eyewitnesses ALL claim they saw a plane and not one of them claim to have seen anything OTHER than a plane which would include a missile.

    You also have run away from the fact a missile cannot explode on impact and then penetrate a building to do more damage. It can either explode on impact or penetrate and explode. Not both.
     

Share This Page