|
Pentagon hit by a missile? (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
The only difference is your opinion which is your mouth spouting nothing but bull all over the place. You try to source information from a conspiratorial website that conflicts with the official data collected from the NSA. Even if you disagree with the NSA information, there is no other source that is going to give you more accurate information as anyting else would simply be hearsay. And I am NOT mocking your pic. I personally went through Google Earth and looked at the Pentagon and found that the picture you provided looked like a picture of Washington D.C. from 80,000 feet. You simply cannot admit you are wrong, can you? I'm seriously trying to help you out here, but you just want to embarass yourself. Here you go--using Google Earth, which DOES provide altitude information. I highly suggest you download the program and check it out. And feel free to compare it to any other global mapping application that provides accurate information, I'm certain that you'll find out that you are full of complete nonsense. Seriously--I can't imagine how many people must be laughing at you right now when they read through this thread and realize that you're grasping at straws. Not even straws--you're grasping at thin air because you have NOTHING to support your wacko theory that you think is some iron clad knock against the government. You cannot even answer the most basic of questions which would be required to substantiate anything about your theory: WHERE IS THE PLANE AND THE PASSENGERS WHO BOUGHT TICKETS FOR THE PLANE AND WERE NEVER SEEN AGAIN???
And as for a 747 vs a 757...there is a HUGE size differential. A 747 is the biggest plane that Boeing makes next to the 787, which isn't slated for official release until 7/8/2007.
So you see, a 747 is almost twice the size of a 757 based on capacity. There really is no comparison. And frankly none of that really matters to this discussion except that a 757 is certainly more nimble than a 747 but you are simply clueless as to the difference.
Your ignorance is simply astounding. I can only assume that you see 757 vs. 747 and think that 757 > 747 so it therefore must be comparable or greater than the 747 in size.
And with respect to aerial views and altitudes, I'm sure you'll find Google Earth to be quite informative. Let me help you out. I've tried to make this as clear as possible. Feel free to do some homework on your own, or just trust what some conspiracy group says and continue to work at McDonalds for the foreseeable future.
Now here it is from 35,000 feet...roughly maximum cruising altitude for a jumbo jet.
Now please don't tell me you want to continue on with this tomfoolery.
Seriously--for s and giggles. Let's have a show of hands. A simple yes or no will do. Who here thinks Magnetoneum is smoking something? Continue with your b/s and I will mock you. |
In 2001, they didnt have Google Earth, did they, or programs like it accessible to the public? :haha:
Oh well, so what, I was a little off, but still, even at 35,000 feet Pentagon is hard to see if you've never seen it before from the air - the terrorists never been to the Pentagon - how could they know how it looks like from the air? Whatever, thats not evidence the terrorists hit it anyway. Video footage is incolnclusive, and Pilots for Truth report on the contrary opens the story wider.
BTW, you know those pictures you showed about some SMALL engine parts, plane parts - well, did you know all of that evidence was illegally destroyed - so that we cant assess those parts to see if they actually came from teh Boeing??? LOL ... you got no evidence now. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| You can find hundreds of aerial maps and photographs in public libraries. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
what bulk? if you have a "bulk" then i've got a 100,000 sq/ft warehouse full, literally.
if you believe there really is a "bulk" and are convinced of that, you'd think you'd be certain as opposed to doubtfull.
how the hell can you convince anybody to be as conclusive as you when you are only "doubtfull"?
it's absurd how you carry on. not just on the facts of the matter but the manner in which you expect others to believe.
i don't think you really believe what you say. |
Everyone has a right to their own opinions. It's just too bad that yours seems to be more dependent on your unquestioning submission to authority rather than the actual facts which surround the events themselves.
The bulk of the evidence is laid right across the board. It would probably begin with their incredible reluctance to even have an investigation at all (for the crime of the century, no less), with their FINALLY submitting to a group of family members who had to become highly vocal to even get that far - who they try to appease by getting coverup artist Hennry Kissinger to lead but he resigns after he's asked about his ties to the Bin Laden family. ([[ LINK REMOVED ]]
) Then they get the Keane-Zelikow commission going with Mr. Zelikow firmly in place as their Bush administration insider. That commission cherry-picked and even refused to include testimony (such as that of the first responders who reported hearing and seeing bright flashes and secondary explosions, etc.) that would have altered the official conspiracy theory/story. They refused to address WTC7 and such a large variety of other related topics that I don't know how more people don't take an interest in it.
Are people that apathetic? I really hope not. I really hope that it's just because of the controlled media that people don't know what in the hell is going on.
And then there's people like yourself. People who are so thick skulled that after showing them mounds of evidence which refutes the official story, are unable to see the forest for the trees and simply want to go back to bed. I know you want to self-police everyone who doesn't agree with the governments lies by using more of your baseless accusations, assumptions and presumptions, but I think that you should just go back to sleep, echo. Your snoring isn't nearly as annoying as your big mouth. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
after showing them mounds of evidence which refutes the official story, are unable to see the forest for the trees and simply want to go back to bed. I know you want to self-police everyone who doesn't agree with the governments lies by using more of your baseless accusations, assumptions and presumptions, but I think that you should just go back to sleep, echo. Your snoring isn't nearly as annoying as your big mouth. |
your definition of "mounds" and "evidence" might need a little work ;) the 911 movement hasn't produced a single piece of evidence yet. all they do is try and cast doubt. which is why we think of them like creationists, the same types of argument is used.
still waiting for ideas of what happened to that plane, and where the plane debris came from. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
There's no plane evidence at the Pentagon. They were all intentionally destroyed by personnel, all the pieces that were left from the impact, including the tarped huge piece. Just like with WTC, it was only a miracle a few scraps were saved from destruction. And the photos prove otherwise, that the parts are too small to be part of Boeing, including the engine. Otherwise Pentagon and the military would have paraded to the media the alleged Boeing plane parts and the case would have been closed. Not the case here. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
There's no plane evidence at the Pentagon. They were all intentionally destroyed by personnel, all the pieces that were left from the impact, including the tarped huge piece. Just like with WTC, it was only a miracle a few scraps were saved from destruction. And the photos prove otherwise, that the parts are too small to be part of Boeing, including the engine. Otherwise Pentagon and the military would have paraded to the media the alleged Boeing plane parts and the case would have been closed. Not the case here. |
Why would plane parts even be at the scene? Do you think supposedly mismatched plane parts were planted there? :wtf: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | "Many people have claimed that there is no evidence to doubt the official version of events on 9/11. I guess that really depends on your definition of evidence. With the C-Ring exit hole, we have a hole that is clearly out of place with a 757 impact, we have investigators that are not permitted to see the hole, and we have damage near the hole not accurately presented in an official report. What is your threshold for simply accepting a story from the government?"
- Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery
|
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
your definition of "mounds" and "evidence" might need a little work ;) the 911 movement hasn't produced a single piece of evidence yet. all they do is try and cast doubt. which is why we think of them like creationists, the same types of argument is used.
still waiting for ideas of what happened to that plane, and where the plane debris came from. |
and what evidence has my government produced? fill me in :) |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Why would plane parts even be at the scene? Do you think supposedly mismatched plane parts were planted there? :wtf: |
When planes crash, they dont just vapourate and nothing's left of them, its impossible. Its possible if it hits the Sun, but not when it hits the Pentagon. I am not saying they were planted, I am saying that Boeing didnt hit the Pentagon judging by the photographic evidence, something else did, something much smaller than a Boeing to have such a small engine and small parts scattered in couple places. Nothing conclusive to prove that Boeing crashed into it. All evidence was destroyed by US government/military anyways, so there you go. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
In 2001, they didnt have Google Earth, did they, or programs like it accessible to the public? :haha: |
No, but I'm pretty sure people still had eyeballs and the amazing sense of sight back then. What's your point? A building from 2,000, 10,000, 35,000, or 80,000 feet still looks the same to the human eye. You don't need Google Earth to tell you that. I just used Google Earth to prove the lunacy and fallacy of your argument.
| quote: | | Oh well, so what, I was a little off, but still, even at 35,000 feet Pentagon is hard to see if you've never seen it before from the air - the terrorists never been to the Pentagon - how could they know how it looks like from the air? |
Well, since it's shaped exactly like a perfectly proportioned PENTAGON, I have no clue how they could've possibly known what they were looking for. It's just beyond me. Do you think they knew what a circle looked like too? |
|
|
| Omega_M |
did anyone watch this video ? The guy who presented it Calum Douglas, is an undergrad from some British University. Hmm...I was expecting him to be an industry professional. Regardless, the video is interesting. It does appear to raise a few questions. I wonder why FBI and NTSB refused to make any comments. I don't think anybody (other than the govt ofcourse) has analyzed the raw black box data from Flight 77 and created a flight path like these guys have. Not that I'm buying their story atm, but I would like to see how the Government or anyone else counters their claims as bull. Cause now we have 2 very different simulations of the same incident generated from the same source data. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I will ask one final time: If AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, WHERE DID THE PLANE GO AND WHERE ARE ALL OF THE PASSENGERS??? |
Well clearly the plane was diverted to Area 51 never to be seen again and all the passengers and crew were either killed or are now in a George Bush run concentration camp.
I mean come on, it makes perfect sense to me that on a day where hijackers were taking over planes and flying them into buildings (the video evidence of planes hitting the WTC is pretty clear right? Or were those really big missiles disguised as airplanes?) George Bush would sit there and say "Well, they got the WTC but that's not quite good enough. I really really really want to start a war so lets fire a missile at the Pentagon and then we will make a commercial airline flight with all passengers and crew disappear so we can blame the explosion on a terrorist airplane crash."
ing idiots.
Go look at the evidence:
Click Here - It was an airliner stupid
Now, if it was a missile explain to me:
1. Where is the plane?
2. Where are the passengers and crew?
3. How did a small missile do the damage to light poles, cars, that generator, etc?
4. Explain all the airplane parts in the pictures. Especailly the large one with the same paint scheme as an AA jet. |
|
|
|
|
