please spread this link...

Jaw on thusly with your intellectual dishonesty Lickboy! As you and your ilk are wont to do given their naivete in world affairs. Driveling dismissively! Even as my exposes have unmasked your famed penchant for spurious belief? Indeed so! Whither your analagies, merely non sequitors pertaining to whatnot, such a conflated paradigm we are loath to behold.

Merest surface conceptualisations whilst events unfold precisely as have heretofore been duly pronounced, indeed. This is a matter not fit to discuss further with a plebe such as yourself insofar and inasmuch your logical capacities underwhelm, whereupon your intellectual and moral superiors are obliged to elucidate the larger context.

Salient facts wither while the oracular onanist preens his pompous verbiage! Woe is upon us.

 

Hilarious PB (-=
I tried to put the images up earlier, but they didnt show.
They should now so here they are.

Heres the tiny hole in the side







And heres a peice of the missile that is disguised as the American Airlines 757.

 

Woo! . I love you baby

mwahahaha!

That was just perfect.

 

It has? By who??

 

read

 

What interested me with the video is that many to most of the eyewitnesses quoted said that the plane/object/whatever hitting the pentagon "sounded like a missile". How many citizens have seen or heard a missile?! I didn't get that...

 

Right. That picture was taken AFTER the outer ring had collapsed.

How about BEFORE the outer ring collapsed?



I don't know about you, but I don't see a hole that would accomodate an entire 757. Nor do I see any wreckage. (What you do see in front of the Pentagon are wire spools, as that wing of the Pentagon was undergoing remodeling at the time). The wreckage seen in the last picture you provided is the only picture ever released showing actual wreckage (which may or may not be part of a 757), along with this picture:



This is a picture of an engine rotor -- one not from a Boeing 757. More like a Global Hawk missile. A spokesperson from Rolls Royce, who makes the engines for Boeing 757's, stated on record that this is NOT from a 757. If it's not from a 757, what is it from?

So, if a Boeing did crash into the Pentagon, where is the rest of the wreckage? If you can't find any more pictures showing wreckage (ie: engines, tail, fuselage), show me a hole big enough to swallow a 757 whole (before the outer ring had collapsed).

Hell, show me any pictures that you can find suggesting that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Somebody STILL has yet to explain to me how a Boeing 757 can pass through MULTIPLE steel-reinforced concrete walls to do this, without breaking apart (keep in mind this is not the exterior of the building, but the area in between the several rings making up the Pentagon):





More?







Now ask yourself:

CAN AIRPLANES DO THIS?

 

exactly, with the exception of movies, most people will have never seen or heard a moving missile. and as for the eyewitnesses.. when they support your case, there words are put in videos, when the suport the other side, its just another a person you know saw it hit story. yet you call everyone else onesided and brainwashed

 

I am sorry, but you don't need to be a brain surgeon to differentiate a jetliner from a missle. The difference between the two is primarily speed. And you don't need to be an Einstein to tell the difference between the "shhhhhrrrrrrr" of an airplane and the "shhrrpp" of a missile. Really, it's basic scientific knowledge and common sense, and isn't really dependent on if the person has ever heard a missile firsthand or not.

 

pressed rat to the rescue!

drew as pressed has pointed out, that pic you showed was AFTER the collapse.
remember how big the twin towers were compared to how big they were after they collapsed? i don't know if you noticed or not (because that would require paying attention), but the planes that hit them were much smaller than the hole they left after the collapse.
also you claim there's no wrecakge because planes disintergrate when they hit concrete....if thats the case, then why is there a huge fucking hole in the pentagon going all the way into the outter ring....i don't know about you, but most things that have disintergrated, don't make very big holes or do much damage...because...they've...disintergrated.

coOkiez, your man hasnt debunked shit, jsut coughed up some of the same old easily dismissed rhetoric.

 

And you have debunked what? All you have done is blindly agree with the local forum propagandists. He showed a rotor. He doesn't even know what a global hawk is. A missile would not even leave a rotor. When a MISSILE blows its in the ground zero blast radius. There would be nothing left.

Please explain the picture I showed that clearly has a piece of an AA 757.

 

How do you know if a missile would leave a rotor or not? You're basically just your average, early 20-something mindslave in the military. Yet, you act like you're an expert with years of in-depth experience? What is your rank? What are your credentials? Being a private in the military, or even a sergent, proves nothing regarding what you might know about weapons and ammunitions. As far as I know, you don't know shit. You certainly do not have anything to refute! You are a know-it-all and a blowhard.

My feeling is that you simply cannot admit that you are part of the machine that is destroying humanity and killing innocent people, so you're resorting to the defense mechanism commonly referred to as denial. You are a minion of the elites' war machine.

I am not a expert on missiles, and unlike you, I am not going to pretend to be. I know that the body of a missile would most definitely turn to shrapnel upon impact. However, the solid steel engines of a Global Hawk would remain intact, as solid steel does not easy break apart or melt.

If the engine rotor shown in the picture I provided is not from a missile or a 757, then what is it from? That is the question that remains! That is the question you are avoiding!

The picture you provided proves absolutely NOTHING! For one, this is the only picture ever released showing the supposed "wreckage" of the "757," aside from the rotor picture I provided. What about all the other pictures that show absolutely no wreckage, whatsoever?

If it was indeed from a Boeing 757 that crashed in the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, where is the rest of the wreckage? Where are the engines? Where is the tail? Where is the landing gear? Where is the hole in the Pentagon?

Am I supposed to believe that the picture you provided shows the only piece of debris remaining from the impact, that was photographed?

 

For one, my rank isn't your business. For two, I was in the explosive ordinance disposal career field. (we learned all types of weapons /missiles&bombs&landmines etc etc ) I know how they work, I know how to disarm them. I have a higher clearance and 95% of people in my squadron, and that is what holds importance. For 3 im in the AIR FORCE. we don't have the PV1 and PV2, and the PFC ranking system.

Its also common knowledge that when a missile goes off it destroys itself, and most of the time its target. Also usually the rotor of a rocket or jet powered missile is roughly 1/3 the size the thrust vector and 1/2 the size of the turbine. Missiles don't usually have large apertures at the rear. They usually use small engines. Unless its an ICBM or sorts.

 

Well sorry, but I have no idea what the difference in sound is between a missile and an airplane, I have heard and airplane but I couldn't compare it to a missile, especially seeing if it was an airplane it may sound differently or act differently depending on the reaosn why it was speeding toward the ground. I also doubt that many people, considering the situation, would stop and think "Hmm, was that more of a shhrr or a shhrrp?".

Of course it would look differently, but if it was supposed to look like an airplane, or the government intended on making the event look like an airplane was crashing into the pentagon, who knows what they may have attempted to make it look like? More importantly, if it was so obviously a missile, the government must have looked at it from a psychological perspective (which we all should when considering eyewitness reports). If the government did its job well in covering it up, which apparently it did, all they really had to worry about was shushing up the eyewitnesses. The power of suggestion in a stressful event is HUGE. Plant a seed of doubt, or encourage a certain thought, as soon as possible and they won't know what they saw, or they will be sure of what they 'saw', this is shown by the diversity of statements from people who all saw the same thing..

Either way you should take eyewitness testimony with a grain of salt unless you truly investigate who said what to them after, why they believed they saw what they saw...etc.

I also have little faith in statements like "not physically possible". Many a time I have been in situations where people have done as much calculating and estimating and whatever they feel is necessary and declared something cannot and will not be able to be done a certain way, yet it was.. Just my experience. A small bias can go a long way when calculating as well, also just my experience!! (The reason I passed psychology and failed physics! Didn't care about the outcome of psych investigations but was bent on proving things in physics investigations, in scientific investigations bias shouldn't matter, should you do it right...but it does..)

So lastly there's the picture evidence. I have never seen pictures of the effect of a certified missile going through the same materials as in the pentagon (least of all in the same conditions), nor have I seen pictures of the effect of a 747 going through the same materials. So I don't like to come to conclusions, a bit revisionist of me but there's just a lack of evidence there for me..enough to make people question, yes, but not enough to convince..

 

one other thing that ive had on my mind...

if the us government planned the attacks, why fire a missile at the pentagon? or set off a bomb, whichever story you want to believe. they flew 2 planes into the world trade centre.. what did they have to lose by flying a plane into the pentagon? hell they could have landed it 100metres from the pentagon, if the if some of the planners were officed in the pentagon, and just say that the hijackers were bad pilots (which they aparently were) and decended too quickly and hit the ground. all im saying is, if they planned it, why wouldnt they use another plane

 

ever heard of a bunker buster?

so if theres a lack of evidence there for you, wouldnt it be insufficient to convince you either way?
and there is a video of a plane crashing into a concrete wall that airforcedrew posted, and the plane disintergrated with little to no damage done to the concrete, which would explain the lack of evidence of a plane, but not the destruction of the pentagon. its either a disintergration of the plane....or massive destruction to the pentagon, ya can't feasibly have both.

also if the flames in the twin towers from the airline fuel were enough to topple a building built to withstand the colision of an airplane....why were there no massive flames comming from the pentagon? there was a fire, but it certianly wasnt that substantial.

the lack of evidence may not convince you of anything, but its that exact lack of evidence which poses the problem. there should be litterally tons of evidence to dismiss the missle theory...but there isnt.

 

got anything on that..

 

also, while a plane plowing through walls like this is somewhat believable, what type of missile could plow a hole, the size of the one that was create, and shoot through all of those concrete walls, without itself exploding or being stopped by the wall?

 

It's all about symbolism. The elites love symbolism. The trade towers represented America's economic strength, while the Pentagon represents America's military strength. It was a psychological operation in the fullest, creating a subliminal notion that we were being attacked on all ends, hence ratcheting up the fear needed to justify the neocon/globalist agenda of endless war. Perpetual war for perpetual peace.

 

Are you dense? Don't you realize that ONLY a missile could be responsible for the photographic evidence I provided. A plane does not have the velocity, nor body, to pierce though six steel-reinforced concrete walls.

Before the outer ring of the Pentagon collapsed, the hole left by whatever crashed into the Pentagon was only 16 feet in diameter. A 16 foot diameter hole is obviously far more suggestive of a missile strike than one from a 757.

Do you actually think an airplane could hold together in order to pass through SIX, steel-reinforced concrete walls to create this hole:



That hole is clearly from a missile, not an airplane. An airplane would not be able to pierce through SIX steel-reinforced concrete walls to create that hole you see above. As a matter of fact, according to the National Geographic special entitled Seconds From Disaster, the alleged "plane" disintegrated upon crashing into the first ring of the Pentagon, leaving the wings and tail on the Pentagon lawn. (Of course in reality there was no wings or tail to be found on the Pentagon lawn.)

Obviously a 757 did not create this damage. And if it wasn't a missile, then what was it?