What hit the Pentagon?

Discussion in '9/11' started by KarlMarx, Apr 18, 2015.

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. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The airspeed values are the government's, not mine. I hope you understand that. I know it's impossible, but then again, the whole story is impossible and not supported by any evidence at all.

    As for cameras at the pentagon, it is foolish to believe that the only camera at that building was some parking lot camera. That the pentagon refused to show any other footage, from what must be a dozen cameras or more, strongly suggests that any other footage would disprove their story, and that is why they won't provide any other footage.
     
  2. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FULL STOP PLEASE!!!

    You and the other “Truthers” make an indictment of the US government and accuse them that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, but an inside job, false flag, fake etc.!
    The fundamental principle of any legal system is that of who is accusing, has to prove this with evidence … AND NOT that the accused must prove his innocence, or must refute the pure allegations against him!

    So, where are the evidences that in matter of Pentagon it was NOT a terrorist attack as it is told, but an inside job, false flag etc. with accusing the US government?
    Until now was not a single real serious evidence given, only pure claims, conjectures and clever summary of partial facts, omitting the parts which are against their own assertion … what is at least faking of facts!

    Some examples of Pentagon conspiracy bull****? Here we are…

    Point 01:
    The terrorists were not able to fly the Boing with the pilot education they earned it is told … backed by this and that expert, as well pilot who tells so.
    OK … and what is about those other experts and pilots telling they could? Totally ignored on one hand and if not ignored, then they are on the other hand blamed to be irrelevant and trolls! Conclusion:
    Very serious research and investigation if they really want to find out the truth as “Truthers”, isn’t it!

    Point 02:
    There were no debris of plane visible outside at impact hole = it couldn’t be a plane = all is only a fake after bomb explosion!
    Really? Aside point of “please compare with Amsterdam crash = they are inside building mostly”, do you believers of conspiracy really ignore all those images showing parts of the plane outside? O wait … I forgot: These things were all laid around after the crash as fakes it was explained by you. OK, and why did not a single Photo and TV video of the news (which are for you always taken as source too) show the truck delivering for example the turbine and the landing gear as fake debris part and lying these heavy things on the meadow in front?

    Point 03:
    The impact hole is much too small for the Boeing = it couldn’t be a Boing. Really? Aside the real stupid try to show the exit hole and claim it was the impact hole, there are really smart trials done. But even smart done means not the truth, because many show and compare with images / photos after the collapse of upper floors … or lesser smart show if before collapse those imagines when extinguishing foam of the yellow fire truck hides much.
    But at any real image and photo showing impact are before the collapse later, you clearly see that the hole is like this:

    ---O---

    and with dimensions that fit exactly to a Boeing 757 … +/- some 2 or 3 feet, but even this is explainable, because that the dart like wings will start to fold inside in direction to the hull at impact is normal.

    Aside these 3 points is still the unanswered question existing: “If no Boing 757, what else please?”!
    Everything … really everything what was ever seriously named (pure junk like a UFO or secret unknown special missile aside) was utterly refuted to be possible for both undeniable things: Huge fuel explosion + huge explosion and destruction to thick concrete walls!
    So often the reaction was only a lame stupid “OK, but a Boing 757 it was even not too” … when failing!

    Finally … for 9/11 in general:
    You, my dear Truthers will tell me seriously that the same US government and institutions, as well persons who did 9/11 as false flag so smart and well hidden to enter war against Al Qaida and in Afghanistan … those same people did 2 years later so unbelievable lousy incompetent for hiding and reasoning the criminal war against in 2003 with such a stupid crap of lies and fakes? Sorry, but are you serious if you really think this?
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,443
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Give me a break.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=405804&p=1064937346#post1064937346
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, FFS! See 4:50 and following, as you clearly only watched the introduction. Just do it and cut the brain dead nonsense, ok?

    Don't bother replying until you've done that.
     
  6. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,443
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,123
    Likes Received:
    3,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
  10. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Question is more, if you are kidding! You think really this is more as Coffee grounds reading to find out the truth here?

    You may think for example that such comparison as here are OK and valid? Well, maybe you find the errors and fakes done on it, which make it junk...

    [​IMG]


    Question: What is this? It was really and seriously told by Truthers, that it was the entry hole in Pentagon ... no joke! Such people should someone trust?

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your statements prove nothing and are not persuasive in the least. They are stale government talking points that are really nothing but sophistry.

    No lousy pilot like Hanjour is going to strap on a 757 for the first time in his life and fly such a maneuver, an impossible maneuver. I fly jets myself, but not airliners. The government story is ridiculous.

    Airplanes are meant to fly through air, and they cannot fly through buildings like you and the government would have me believe. Yes, the 747 in Amsterdam destroyed a building, but at least you could see the airplane debris after the accident.

    Only the most gullible believe that fantastic story. And speaking of proving things as you did, the official story cannot be proved. The government cannot, and you cannot. You are certainly entitled to embrace whatever fantasy and illusion you wish, but you cannot prove the story.
     
  12. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for proving with your post that you can't proof or seriously explain anything aside any jabbering and claiming and attacking me as person to say nonsense! That was in core what I expected as answer, because this is the usual behavior of these who claim it was a not a terrorist attack.

    What hit the Pentagon if no Boing 757 please? Answer this simple question with full proof to be possible what you name! You can't? then go out of my sight and claim your BS further ...
     
  13. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,123
    Likes Received:
    3,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one claims they flew through buildings.

    The debris has been identified and available for view by the public for years.

    You have only denied fact to cling to a fairy tale
     
  14. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What hit the Pentagon?

    American Airlines Flight 77 hit it, or do you think the flight was abducted by Aliens?
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It cannot be proved, what hit the pentagon. You cannot prove it was a 757, I cannot prove what it was.

    However, the 4 frames provided by the government, the ones from the parking lot camera, prove that it was not an airliner, it was not a 757.

    What was it? I don't know for sure, but we could have a speculation party if you like. :cool:
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, by its pictures, the government claims it penetrated several rings at the pentagon, and that the nose still managed to break through the last wall leaving a hole big enough to crawl through. That is an absurd claim. Airplanes are designed to fly through air, not penetrate a number of walls of masonry and steel..
     
  17. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a missile?
     
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,123
    Likes Received:
    3,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It crashed into the building and anything traveling at such speeds would cause such damage. The absurdity is claiming it would not

    - - - Updated - - -

    It was a 757 and that has been proven.

    None of the images or frames you refer to disprove any such thing
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No sir, it has not been proved. It has been alleged, it has been claimed, but it is not proved. Considering all the evidence, it has been disproved.
     
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,123
    Likes Received:
    3,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has been proven.

    The evidence proves it and there is no evidence challenging such a conclusion.

    You have been making such claims for a long time but refuse to even cite such evidence. This is because you have none and are simply making up fiction
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually they said the nose landing gear went through two rings,NOT 'several' the pentagon was built during WW2,very little steel in the building,let alone the walls
     
  22. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male

    There is a wealth of physical evidence in support of the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon, while there is nothing but conjecture to support the claims of 9/11 truth.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    awesome!

    why havent we seen it after 15 years? holding out on us?
     
  24. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,123
    Likes Received:
    3,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have.

    You are simply being willfully ignorant
     
  25. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    You've seen it but you choose to discount it out of extreme bias. :cool:
     

Share This Page