please spread this link...

you just have to watch it to understand...

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon244.swf

 

*thumbs up*

 

gives you something to think about

 

No offence, but this is about the 20th time this video has been linked in here.

 

and it's been debunked as many times....

 

Its certainly been dismissed repeatedly, debunked with any legitimate proof, not once. Par for the course from the "dare not question the glaring physical impossibilities" crowd.

*yawn*

 

that would be you. Drew's tech teacher was there, thing went right over his head...drew also came with stats and science and such....drew DEBUNKED it, whether you want to admit it or not.

that said, I refuse to argue with you anymore about it as you constantly refuse to listen to reason about it...talk about *yawn*

 

i like to keep an open mind on both sides. i was not there, neither were you, i'd imagine.

 

Ah so now we have the "i know someone who knew someone who was there" argument!. For that, one need only refer back to the extensive documentation I and others provided on this matter in previous threads. Each with more "scientific" and structural analyses of the physical impossibilities of the jumbo jet whitewash than anything yet posted by your beloved drew to the contrary. Oh he's posted plenty of personal opinion, but little else.

Would that we all had such dutiful personal pep squads to wave their pompoms in the air. Reason is precisely what i have relied on from first round of flames received from easily gulled drones liek yourself.

Once again let us return to the salient fact that no jumbo jet could have made that hole nor would one have "disintegrated" to little more than a few random and easily placed twisted metal shards upon impact as any airline crash has repeatedly demonstrated.

Nor could the alleged (and note: never once proven with any leigitimate evidence by this repeatedly exposed cabal of liars) pilots even handle a piper cub by the sworn affidavits of their flight instructors, let alone a commercial passenger jet (and one acknowledged as having made aerial maneuvres requiring extensive military training and air time).

If eye witness testimony is so indisputable, which it isnt especially in the midst of traumatic scenarios (and from a vantage again demonstrated by previous links as being actually out of direct view of the impact site), then again, the testimonies of others whose accounts suggest a much smaller craft suggest a well planned bait and switch was in operation.

But we;ll go round in circles indefinitely until the public demands a real investigation into the totality of events and data from that day rather than continuing to accept the pat explanations offered by this admin with no sufficient evidence to back them up.

Until then, it will remain firmly entrenched in the realms of unquestioned manufactured consent.

 

yeah, the punch hole, to me, was the most obvious thing... and as the "plane" flew over the highway when nothing happened... i mean, it just doesn't sit well in my logic.

 

I have read from multiple sources that there is no strong eye-witnesses in this case. You'd think they'd at least be able to find 20 or 30 of them, if not more.

 

Whatever hit that building (the most well protected building in the US mind you) had to have flown straight in to hit and penetrate straight through to the third ring. Its altitude had to be near ground scraping levels, once again, to strike the ground floor.

Photographic evidence alone debunks the jumbo jet belief given that a 747 stands at over 14 ft with landing gear retracted. The hole would thus have covered an area encompassing nearly the entire second floor as well, which it did not (until the surround structure collapsed downward enlarging the gap).

This ignores the additional fact that the engines of any jumbo jet flying that low would have tumbled the concrete barricades lining the road if not having been dislodged and left on the lower highway running in front of the building.

These and many more aspects add up to more than an implausibility for the "official" coverstory.

 

yeah, the reason why i still don't FULLY believe any side because you have witnesses claiming they saw different things, and the gov't only tells us one side of the story, which naturally causes me to question things.

 

Where is this dubunking photographic evidence?

Anyways, heres the old posts arguing this

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49020

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28269

Heres an interesting video BGXIII posted that shows a plane crashing into a wall. http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall

Also Try this. This has reasonable explanations behind the crash.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
"Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

[size=-1] On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole."
[/size]​

And yes Lick, Cookiezgurl knows me, (shes my fiance') and I know people, not just a person anymore, but people, who witnessed the pentagon attack.
I know people who work there. I work somewhere that works in direct conjunction to the pentagon.

What is this by the way? Doesn't look like the peice of a colorful missile



Heres a little more damage than the infamous "hole in the side" picture








You still have yet to explain what happend to the passengers, on "this plane that didn't hit the pentagon."

 

And as previously stated, and duly reconfirmed with the post above, do you submit substantive evidence to answer the physical impossibilities as to scale of the structural damage, lack of scarring to the lawn and surrounding structures demanded of such a necessary head on trajectory at ground-scraping levels of a Boeing 747, known fact concerning the inability to control even a small single engine fixed wing aircrat of the supposed hijackers (a matter unto itself which was little more than alleged, carried far and wide by the mainstream media with nary a question as to proof of identities, etc. only to to have a fair number of said alleged hijackers turn up quite alive in foreign countries with nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any other militant group, etc.)?

A video of an F-16 or any fighter aircraft for that matter is a far cry from conditions applying to a much larger passenger aircraft. Nice try.

No, instead we are presented with the stock in trade dismissal of all questioning expected of head in the sanders, namely links to previous examples of the same roundrobins of denial, which this thread has again proved to be. Oh yes, of course with the additional oh so believable (and hardly surprising) stock in trade "explanation" (PR write off to be exact) that one can expect from the historically honest and trustworthy Pentagon and US Army spokesmen.

Bravo Andrew. At least we are again reassured of your utter lack of interest in dealing with the most laughably obvious bait and switch in US history. Clearly, to believe that those you serve could perpetrate such monstrous treason to further their concentration of power and further their global aims (duly set forth in their own hand) would shatter all the training you have received and your faith in America along with it.

Have fun in Iraq knowing you are helping to further the very agenda for which 911 served as the necessary catalyst.

 

I take it that you have never seen a missile, or a military aircraft before. They are usually a subdued grey or green in color. Look at the first picture I posted. Ive never seen sheetmetal from a military plane or missile that looks anything like this. It is obviosly a peice from a commercial aircraft. If you would open your mind a bit, maybe you would be able to see that. A Missile doesn't leave wreckage by the way. If you would READ the article I posted then maybe you can see the truth for yourself. Hiding behind a conspiracy theory and not showing any proof of anything is not going to get you anywhere in this matter. And answering a question with a question certainly is not helping. I understand that you don't believe this happend, and I know you more than likely think im "brainwashed" by the military. But that is far from the truth. I simply state the facts, and provide as much evidence I can to support my claim. Which you have yet to do. And again, I ask, what happend to all the passengers? Im sure the families of the deceased believe that their plane hit the pentagon.

I say this as politely as I can, please stop harassing me for my military service, im not doing it to support a war, to stop "terror." I do it as I job to support myself and my wife to be. I offer protection of my people, and government officials. My job is to make sure no one gets murdered, and I do not intend to kill anyone while doing my job. If I do cross that path, its for the protection of my people, and the well-being of other people trying to do their job and support their family.

By the way, It was a 757

 

Actually I have seen quite a few military aircraft in my time. You seem to forget that I too deal with the military, albeit on a political level, and have had many occasions to visit military bases around Europe. Nevertheless, if you stopped for one moment to consider what a plausible bait and switch would consist of, you'd perhaps come to realisation that any legitimate attack using another smaller (and far more maneuverable) craft would necessitate a repaint. Not such a stretch, nor a major task, for those with an agenda to see instituted as this cabal has both clearly stated as necessary and has since shown its full intent to utilise in pursuit of the "war that will not end in our lifetimes" (Cheney's own words, not mine).

The most fundamental starting point for assessing likely suspects in criminal science seems to be completely beyond your capacity to consider. Motive, Opportunity, Gain. Much easier to scoff and deny and flame those who do demonstrate such capacity, obviously.

Goodnight.

 

you guys keep mentioning 747 but it was a 757 which is even larger and makes the whole scenario even less likely.
drew, where are the wings? the hole in the pentagon was not nearly large enough to encompas the wings, they would have sheared off, but there no where to be seen...so...where are the wings?

 

the wings would have been literally atomized on impact. Also punching a hole in a building would create almost a vaccum effect. Pulling in the back of the plane as it pushes through the empty space.

 

actually a 757 is over 70 feet shorter than a 747.

here is a short video of a jet impacting a concrete wall.

http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall