Pentagon punchout hole?

I've addressed this. You just want to make the people who don't read the whole thread think that I haven't.

We know a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon because the crash site isn't consistent with a 757 having hit it.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

We also know from this picture that whatever hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
(top picture)

A 757 would look like this.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/pentagon/pentacamscam.jpg

The math shows that a 757 wouldn't fit behind the box in that picture...
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm
(4rth picture from top)

...so obviously anyone who says he saw a 757 hit the Pentagon is a plant. This witness list shows shows a few whose testimonies don't support the official story.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

Here are some more witnesses whose testimony goes against the official story.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

It was quite a while after the tower crashes that the craft hit the Pentagon. We don't know what happened at the airport behind the Pentagon but there are plausible scenarios. Our not knowing exactly which one is the correct one doesn't make the above evidence go away.

They may have cleared the areas from where the 757 that overflew the Pentagon could be seen saying another attack was feared; they certainly had enough time to do so. If they planned to have a 757 overfly the Pentagon and land at the airport behind it, they certainly would have made a plan for the witnesses of the landing. They have ways of taking care of any potential witness that they missed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

The fact that we don't read testimonies of witnesses of the landing at the airport behind the Pentagon doesn't mean a 757 didn't land there. You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but your position is very weak.

You also have no credibility because you tap danced around this question I asked you in post #47 instead of addressing it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-5.html#post4913373

 

They faked the light poles to make it look like a 757 flew in from that angle. Here's the info that candycorn keeps ignoring.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

Start watching this at the 5:00 time mark for more on the light poles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSX4p6i1qR4

There's a short summary of it at the bottom of this article.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

They could easily have taken down the real light poles before daybreak and had the prepared ones covered by green tarps ready-to-place. Your insisting that the light poles debunk all the other evidence is pretty lame.

Candycorn-

When are you going to address the issue I asked you to address? Here it is again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-5.html#post4913373

 

And all your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) has been disproven. Just posting sites from known (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up nutjobs doesn't cut it.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You can't tell from that picture exactly how long it is. Did you notice it is a FISHEYE lens which distorts images?

That may be your opinion, but it is still retarded. Apparently you are still in denial that the security cameras are not only low resolution, but done through a fisheye lens. I also showed you a professional forensic examination of the video that corrects for the fisheye and uses 3d modeling of the event to verify it happened that way. Why is it you ran from addressing that video? Oh right. You have to rely on what OTHERS feed you to say in order to have an opinion.

The very fact your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) sites use STRAIGHT LINES when addressing the image taken through a fisheye lens shows just how dishonest and full of (*)(*)(*)(*) they are. You should really try and find some more reputable sites.

When you start with bull(*)(*)(*)(*), any ASSumptions made from the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is going to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*). This statement is a PRIME example. You don't believe a 757 hit the Pentagon, so based on that belief, you believe everyone ELSE who says differently is a plant regardless of their background. Classic rationalization used when dealing with paranoid delusions.

You will never find a large group of witnesses who agree 100%. BTW, if they are ALL plants, wouldn't they all say the same thing? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Well, you can if you are dishonest.

Why do you continue to run away from the fact that even though the witnesses don't agree 100%, NONE of them fit your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories?

And yet NONE of them agree with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) stories and you've already called them plants. Which is it?

What are you trying to say?

Wrong yet again. The actions of the FAA are well documented. Flights weren't grounded until 9:45. Your silly speculation is worthless in the face of the facts.

So show us the dead bodies. Oh wait. You're making all this (*)(*)(*)(*) up, so it doesn't work. A 757 going the speed everyone saw wouldn't be able to change course to land at RIA without breaking apart. It would still have to overfly the national mall at low level. Thousands upon thousands of people at the mall would have their eyes on the Pentagon due to the explosion, yet NONE of them saw this 757 a few hundred feet off the ground going full speed.

In other words, your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theory defies the laws of physics and every shred of common sense.

Your position is non existant. Your excuses for no witnesses have been proven pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*), yet you insist they are true. Now you're trying to claim a 757 made a 260 degree turn in several hundred feet going 530 miles an hour. A fighter jet can't make that turn. Did you even bother to look at the relation of the flight path to RIA in relation to the angle of the jet? I bet not.

I did address it, and if tap dancing is a sign of credibility, yours is completely shot. You have yet to address numerous issues with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that would have to be true in order for your theories to even be plausible, yet you insist on running away or making excuses a three year old wouldn't believe.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-5.html#post4913373

I wouldn't call these posts "Addressing it".
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-8.html#post4917123
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly it doesn't matter. Witness testimony is considered secondary to the evidence when it differs materially from the evidence. In this instance, the scant handful of witnesses who got it wrong are proven wrong by all the other witnesses AND the evidence of the crash.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-9.html#post4926302
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-12.html#post4937137

You didn't answer the question I asked. You sidestepped the question. The issue is that Hannibal told a blatant lie in post #41. Here's the lie.

I asked Hannibal in post #118 to show us exactly where in the article and/or the video he got the idea that only two people were in a position to see the plane. He still hasn't answered because he knows he's cornered.

Here's the info.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

Now please finally answser the question. What do you think of Hannibal's telling a blatant lie? Also, what do you think of the way he avoids my questions?

It's pretty clear you people don't even believe your own arguments. You pro-official version posters here know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do.

The witnesses in the video clearly say they saw the 757 on a path that differs from the official version. Objective truth-seekers don't try to obfuscate clear info. They consider it along with all the other info. Trying to obfuscate clear info is a disinfo tactic.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

 

Completely irrelevant to the fact that you offer nothing but made up fantasy plausible scenarios with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

 

Scott,we can almost smell your desperation.....saying we know 9/11 was an inside job

Pure horsecrap

 

I answered it perfectly. Focusing on whether there are 2 or 13 witnesses instead of what they are saying (and more importantly what they are NOT saying) is childish. You still have yet to address the fact the few are seriously outweighed by the many who were in a much better position to see the angle.

Sounds like what you do all the time. Do we now get to call you a blatant liar? I've asked you to repeatedly explain how a 757 can pass right by the National mall with thousands of people outside, yet not ONE of them saw a very low flying 757. As for the "blatant lie", you have yet to prove all 13 were in a position to see the plane all the way to the Pentagon. Some of them clearly weren't.

You have yet to prove he is lying and he has answered your questions. That is more than you can say, isn't it.

You already got your ass handed to you on this point as well. Glutton for punishment? You can't even begin to explain the gaping holes in your own theories, yet you go right on blindly preaching them. So how about addressing the flight path the 757 would have had to take and why nobody saw it? Pretending it can make a radical turn that would have ripped the wings off at that speed doesn't cut it. Pretending the MSM has blocked it all doesn't even come CLOSE to cutting it. Pretending all witnesses are plants doesn't cut it. None of your sorry assed excuses are even possible, much less plausible.

Back to the drawing board for you. Truthers have had over ten years to try and come up with a single shred of real evidence. So far all we have is paranoid delusions and wild flights of fancy.

Yup. They sure did. Where is it written the 13 are right and the other 100+ are all wrong? Where is it written that the 13 are more right than all the other physical evidence that shows something completely different from the 13 but in line with the rest of the witnesses? And WHY didn't any of the 13 see a 757 flying AWAY from the Pentagon? If these 13 are somehow telling the truth, why are they calling your theories bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

Which is why you are clearly neither an objective truth seeker nor someone looking for the truth. You have bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories you can't defend, yet you insist they are true. You dismiss the vast majority of evidence for the stupidest of reasons that can't even be true. How is that seeking the truth? How is that even being honest?

You mean all that info you dismiss because it makes a mockery of your theories? Yeah, we see how you run from the truth and embrace the bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Thank you for clarifying your tactics. Now that you've exposed yourself, what now?

 

I noticed that only two were in the position to see what they claim to years ago. LaGasse's (sic) cruiser (for example) is not parked where he claims it was. The video tape from the Citgo shows him parked at an entirely different pump than he says he is on the CIT interview. Is he a liar? I doubt it, probably just confused in the excitement. Either way, it puts him out of the sight line he says he had. By the way - he insists he saw the passenger jet impact the Pentagon. 10 of the others have similar problems, IIRC.

Of course, I could still be wrong. Show us in your own words why we should believe 13 over 100. And zero witnesses to a flyover.

 

What the numerous video security cameras have recorded and are not released by the FBI (only the five unsharp frames till so far)
Always lots of secrecy from the side of the system, same as with JFK (he was the president that spoke about secret societies), TWA800, and many other historical events.

 

WHAT 'numerous video security cameras'?

 

You can always spot the seriously misinformed truthers when they whip out this old tired lie. The FBI released all relevant video tapes YEARS ago.

 

Scott, I have another question for you. You claim all 13 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon instead of 2 as Hannibal claims. If all 13 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon, why didn't any of them see the plane fly away as you claim? You have 13 witnesses you swear are telling the truth while everyone else is lying, yet they don't agree with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theory. Why is that?

 

Polished is the word usd to describe the finish on AA jets, you can keep crying about the how they words mean the same thing, but the reality is nobody uses the word burnished when they mean polished.

The point being is there is a high possibility that a smaller aircraft was painted in the AA paint scheme and flown into the Pentagon at 500+ mph.

 

The tissue may have been collected by some civilians, but FBI was in charge of recovery, meaning they supervised and oversaw every aspect of the recovery. They then handed any tissue found over to the military.

The only one lying are you Ozians, in an attempt to derail this thread

 

There is zero possibility of that, given the preponderance of evidence.

 

Calling names won't prove your point, nor will it change the fact that you are wrong about the military handling and testing the DNA of the ill-fated passengers of AA77.

 

You are wrong, AFDIL did all of the DNA testing

 

I guess you folks just aint gettin it. An operation of this magnitude, uses manipulation of the evidence as the main means by which the operation is carried out.

If all you have is information passed out by government, then all testing carried out by independant sources will bases it's conclusions on that info.

 

In other words, the sum total of 10aces evidence is his own paranoid delusions that all the evidence was tampered with. Way to go 10aces!

 

Explain how this all powerful, all controlling government allows you to post on the internets.

 

Yup tampered with.