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. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Koko seems to revel in being obtuse...
     
  2. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well ...
    I have no clue where is any proof that this 4 frames tell it wasn't a 757 ... because at least the points who claim out of this are with all respect rubbish and full of mistakes. He is counting out of these frames that this is 13mm on his screen, that is whatever in mm there etc., but this is nonsense. He bases his calculation out of these bad and un-sharp images everything suddenly to show, that the "something" what is coming in and hits the building with the huge fuel explosion can't be a 757. Sorry, who ever tells on base of these cam frames anything is directly wrong ... no matter if it is used as base for "no 757" or "it was a 757". It is simply impossible to do, because it what is visible could be everything. Finally is he directly wrong too, when he takes his ruler on the screen here, because he is missing and not using any necessary basic data like distance of cam to impact area or used zoom factor of the cam itself.

    So in conclusion there is much written with having done much work to underscore the points ... but at least and when looking deeper in what is told here, only and again nothing worth to proof anything. But unfortunately too much people are tricked with it and now claim out of it that no 757, as before with all these other points "Truther" told before. I have no idea why, maybe being too much skeptic. No miss-understanding, I have nothing against being skeptic against any government, good to be so, but often we have the case of being at least biased!

    However, what still stands a fact and evidence are the wreckage parts found, the hole fitting like a finger print for a 757 + eye witnesses of the crash +the missing 757 + missing passengers and crew members + no valid alternative to a 757 to make this impact area destruction with huge fuel explosion.

    I know that there are still people telling that these are irrelevant things and not true, but honestly, these are only silly claims. Example of this nonsense is the claim that these wreckage parts (which were before told that missing) are then suddenly placed after the crash. Sure ... and why have no people ever seen the truck delivering these things (often heavy as the landing gear for example) and the bunch of men pulling the things on the meadow?
    The common answer when you ask this is then the stupid "no idea, irrelevant, it was no 757 because this and that other point then". This is only boring ...
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know who the "he" is you refer to, but the 4 frames from the parking lot camera show an object much too small to be a 757.

    Nothing about the damage done, the debris left, is consistent with a 757. Until the wall fell down 20 or 30 minutes after the explosion, there was nothing that looked like an airliner had struck the building, and that was the gist of the testimony of several people arriving on scene, including I believe, 2 Park Service helicopter pilots who landed there.

    Add to that the findings of Cimino regarding the fraudulent FDR and you have a fantastic story that is impossible.
     
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? What is that wealth of physical evidence?

    Where is the record showing the serial number on the parts recovered there? Who certified those records? Do they even exist?

    No airliner crashed there.
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    3,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That statement is not true.

    The object in those frames was not too small and your assertion is not supported by evidence.

    Everything in the damage and debris is in fact consistent with an airline crash.

    Once again your assertion to the contrary is unsupported by evidence.

    In the end you do not have any evidence whatsoever.

    The evidence that an airliner hit the Pentagon has been shown to you and is irrefutable
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stubbornly saying that over and over,won make it true.....
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    You are of course free to live in whatever universe you choose. But the simple fact of the matter is you cannot disprove the existence of AA77 in light of the wealth of evidence in favour of it, and after all, you have the burden of proof.

    If you don't believe it who cares? The evidence does not support your claim.
     
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL Blues, the evidence contradicts the government's story.
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What 'evidence' does that?

    You truthers seem to have it stuck in your heads,that the only 'story' came from just the government....

    'tain't so,mcgee
     
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    3,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it does not it contradicts yours.

    That has been proven over and over with the evidence in your face.

    You on the other hand have made repeated claims without ever producing a shred of evidence to support them


    Those are facts and all evidence contradicts your story no evidence supports it
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, but t'is so. ALL the evidence contradicts the story told by the government. From the beginning, as an example, the first passenger manifests did not include the names of those dastardly hijackers. Then the FDR data finally provided by the NTSB is cooked.

    The closer one examines the evidence, the more obvious it becomes--the official story is a hoax.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a complete lie....the hijackers were on initial manifest but were removed later because they weren't victims

    And you've shown NO proof that the FDR was 'cooked ,just clams from a so called 'expert' :roflol:
     
  13. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

    So the meme goes, but no-one has been able to produce evidence that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, therefore the original hypothesis stands.
     
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    As Lonestar pointed out, these are all lies. The manifests produced at the Moussaoui trial all contained the names of the hijackers. 9/11 truth confuses the list of the dead published in the papers in the days following 9/11 with the passenger manifests.

    The flight data recorder was 'not cooked' and there is no evidence to support that story.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  16. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    3,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're ignoring the crushing proof that elements in the government planned and carried out the attacks.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867
     
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    3,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

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

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

    An hypothesis with a vast amount of supporting evidence, whereas that of 9/11 truth has nothing but ignorance, and incredulity borne of ignorance.

    Obviously you haven't done the research required.
     
  21. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, that's the unbelievable part. The Pentagon spends $6,000,000,000/year and it can't afford $100,000 for a few CostCo cameras pointed outward every couple hundred feet?
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would they? Inside is where all the action is.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have the specs somewhere. they were extremely high quality litton cams, to the tune of 100,000:1 light ratio, meaning any pics would be tack sharp and fast enough to freeze a subsonic bullet.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They probably do have the pictures and video, but by this time are probably destroyed.

    They could not make those public because it would show no airliner flying across the yard, but something other than an airliner. Releasing those photos would further destroy the official narrative.
     
  25. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,560
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was actually U.F.O's that hit the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, that is the reason for all the cover up.
     

Share This Page