Anti-Neocons

How old are you before I continue.

Why would they use a smaller plane? The flight was tracked right to the the spot and the people on the flight are dead AND there were parts of a Boeing 757 in the god damn building.
The hole is 100 feet long, it was a Boeing 757 it was flight 77 as it was tracked right there and people saw it hit the building as well as fly over Virginia.

The wreckage wasn't invisible.


GO READ

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

If that is the case then why gloss over the few questions I have presented.
Like show me a physics model of what would happen to a light-pole that is struck by something as solid as a wing moving at 500mph. The 'animation that was posted is just that, an animation that does not take the actual physics into account. That animation has them pretty much landing within one pole length of their original base. That defies logic IMHO. If that is nitpicking so be it, without a true simulation I'm not convinced. That also goes for safety features that Boeing (and all manufacturers) puts into their software. Does it allow a plane to be flown the way it did in the last few minutes (high-speed turn and hugging the ground) (I've already posted a bit that says the closer the plane gets the more difficult it is to get it lower) so I haven't ruled out examining your favorite theory (in light of having substantially more proof). BTW a dense person would not even have doubts of the 'official version'. As it is we do agree on a few point even if the specifics are not exactly the same, it still adds up to the official version that is flawed and as such it should be in the courts who (in theory) have the ways and means to do a very through investigation. I don't hold my breath on that ever happening no matter if the 'community' comes to a common agreement on how things went down that day.


In that same post there was a reference to a larger study that points to there being another path that has people saying that is the route they say the plane take. I'll repost that same link. This is not a random line drawn, each witness tells their own version and then a line is drawn for each witness, all those line put the passenger jet north of the Citco Station, the light-poles are to the south. Easy question, are all those witnesses wrong? That isn't my whole reason for 'doubts' but it is one of the bigger ones.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0625095031


How about the right number of wheels being found? How about those pieces of airplane skin being matched to a specific part of the passenger jet, including the width of the white 'pin-stripe' matching what is on an actual AA 757. Little things like that
You need 10 wheels and two complete engines (or two parts that would show two engines)

No DNA tests were done at the scene, there is no record of a chain of custody that eliminates any possibility of tampering. The parts that were found could also have been in boxes on the ground floor since that area was 'under construction'


That also to be balanced with witnesses who say the jet they saw was well north of the light-pole path. Two planes make both groups correct.


As I already stated killing the passengers as soon as possible would be the smart thing to do if eliminating 'potential complications' was thought of, which it would have been.


Minus the time it was 'missing' (14 minutes if I have the right flight)


I agree with part, all I need is to be convinced that particular jet could be flown that low, as it is I have no problem with it just going over the top and heading far out to sea to be crashed into the Sargasso Sea, same with flight 93. With no air-traffic for a few days who would ever see it?


That would seem to be the first guy that should be 'questioned', do you really have any hopes of that ever happening?


That's fine, at least they saw something fishy right off the bat. I doubt remote control was thought of right off the bat.


Without you providing the specifics (on things other than the hole) on the various points (time-line in their vid).


Most time it takes blending the testimony of all the witnesses to get the best picture.


That could also be the case if two planes were used at the Pentagon, that would leave you also holding one of those brushes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EoBLuga ... re=related

In the first minute of this vid you get several clear shots of the front of the building, there is not a hole wider than the 16ft hole.


Those wings were capable of cutting the outer columns in the two towers, granted the Pentagon wall could be considered to be even stronger.


Do you mean about the light-poles landing right where they were hit after being clipped by something contacting them while doing 500mph? Falling in their locations could be done by air turbulence.


I do that when I'm convinced of something, as it is there are questions above that you do not address.


Then don't try, I have skin thick enough that a few words are going to leave me with any bruises, let alone distract me from the specifics of the thread, and if it helps you 'vent' go for it.


That means the people in the first link above are the deluded ones as they say the path was not near the light-poles and once the smoke started to rise nobody would be looking anyplace else.


That's also fine, until you supply an answer for the things that leave me with doubts sugar isn't going to change my mine even if you were to use it.


Not saying that was the 'plan' but it certainly helps 'their cause'. having the hardware is the least of their problems. If the remote was 'fail-safe' why was the 2nd plane that hit the towers doing a 25deg bank (turning)when it collided rather than lining up for a dead-ahead crash from a few miles back?


The towers in general add to the doubt of the official story, even then there is an element of uncertainty of just how it was done. For example, thermate can be 'painted on' (or in a bag) and when ignited it does not explode, it burns at a very high temperature with hardly any sound. Take out the cross-bracing for 40 or more floors in the inner core and it will fail. The loud noises would be the steel buckling as a prelude to total failure.


Even if they had been on the various planes they would have still been in their seats when the planes were taken over by the software. I doubt anybody was conscious very long after that.

In general are you promoting that there will never be any 'true' investigation based solely on this particular point having unresolved doubts?

Here is another view of something hitting the Pentagon, any idea what plane was there to take the vid? This doesn't seem to be the right direction for the light-poles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiU ... re=related

[quote="Ry"]How old are you before I continue.

a decade plus older than you...

"Why would they use a smaller plane?"

because the plane they tracked into the pentagon moved like a military jet according to the flight controllers and the flight path, then flew low and fast into the bottom floor and missed the lawn and higher floors. some witnesses described a smaller plane and your photographic evidence supports a smaller plane...example of the single engine a wheel..lack of a hundred seats and the huge wings, tail and body of the huge commercial airliner claimed to be the culprit...the would use a smaller plane because it was capable of doing the task at hand..


"The flight was tracked right to the the spot and the people on the flight are dead AND there were parts of a Boeing 757 in the god damn building."

no, flight 77 lost contact when it`s transponder was turned off 40 minutes before impact near ohio and heading away from the pentagon, the plane they picked up later near washington was only later claimed to be flight 77...it wasn`t tracked the whole way..why is there no radar record of the flight path from ohio when it`s transponer was turned off and it being claimed to be the acrobatic high speed precision plane they picked up later hitting the pentagon?

"The hole is 100 feet long, it was a Boeing 757 it was flight 77 as it was tracked right there and people saw it hit the building as well as fly over Virginia."

flight 77 wasn`t tracked right to the spot, it was officially lost contact with 40 minutes earlier according to all accounts, then asnnounced as being the plane that hit the pentagon with the emotive call story from barbara olsen as the sole proof.... and there is no hundred foot hole in the pentagon...

"The wreckage wasn't invisible."

positive wreckage from flight 77 was and still is invisible.

I would suggest reading all the comments.
http://rense.com/general31/CONFIRM.htm

Ry-I think you are more reminiscent of the guy with the Bullhorn than MHz or Blkdog. It seems like they have presented in a very unemotional and thoughtful way the case for doubt that 77 hit the Pentagon. You are the one calling them names like "retards" and endlessly repeating "What motive is there for using a missile instead of the actual plane?" You seem stuck there. After reviewing what everyone has put up I am still left with doubt about what hit the Pentagon. I think the DNA evidence and the big dorky piece of wreckage with the logo letters is most likely planted. I don't think it is definitely either 77 OR a missile. There is doubt, and you have come off as the one very ego invested in your "It was 77 that hit the Pentagon you F____ retards" presentation. At first you had maybe one poster who sounded like you from the other camp. Most the rational voices are coming from the "Missile and/or doubt" camp.

Thats nice sancho, I think it's you guys who are stuck on the no motive and no evidence for a missile. You guys don't even bother attempting to answer it. That would be because there is no motive or evidence for a missile. That lack of evidence for aplane is not evidence for a missile doesn't seem to register, and furthermore there isn't lack of evidence for a plane there is plenty. There is Zero for a missile. You also have not explained or even tried to explain what happened to the people on the plane or how it got up to the pentagon and then flew away without one witness seeing the plane leave. Every point i bring up you just ignore and go on to the loose change talking points even LC changed its tune by finally cut and abandoned the missile propaganda.

Just wait in the coming days you will see more no plane propaganda via another film. And I am telling you now it is disinformation.

They are not pretending to be dead. listen to what you are saying. You have plane parts and DNA in the building you say is fake, the light poles you say are fake, the witnesses you say are lying or are confused, the families of the victims you ignore, the reason to use a missile you ignore, the fact that the hole fits a plane and not a missile you ignore or even ignorantly parade the wrong dimensions of the hole, the engines were not made of titanium as some claimed that misfact came directly out of loose change which they corrected in the final version. I could have written out everything you were gong to say before you said it. Oh wait I DID. If you think you are informing me with something I have not heard 100 times think again. You guys dont even have an original thought, you're more like a type, a brand that has been neatly molded by clearly see through propaganda and that is why I call you retarded, 9 years of being nice has failed so I am trying ridicule.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

I don't recall if this part was covered. Your position is that the damage to the bottom floor was the width of the jet. From a link already posted a photo of that floor shows that some columns survived. With that jet the windows would have gone into the building, the other alternative is the hole was made and then the explosion blew the windows to the outside creating the photo you supplied that showed 'rubble' and dust on the area just in front. Lots of water/foam would have washed away the dust, was that ever tested for fuel droplets?

Would the area the windows ended up show which theory has the best chance of being right. Those blast-proof windows would be designed to be attacked from the outside rather than the inside and they may have survived in 'chunks'. I'm not sure if I have seen photos of the the glass. If the visible width of the fireball was that width that could be why the damage is there.

In keeping with the 'why question' perhaps in that 'lost time' the black boxes was being written in the missile that would be flying under the belly of the real jet. Having them pre-planted would not allow enough real time to transfer the data.

A single engine would produce a torpedo out of an engine shaft, is there any damage to the lawn in the inner court. Bouncing off the sidewalk and taking out a window (and caught on some photo) on the far side would be asking too much.

Yes I did see your last vid.