QUOTE
First of all: let me start with the guy talking about what he saw happen at the pentagon. "It was *like* a cruise missile *with wings*."
When you take *all* of what he said, he was talking about the plane, and then in that part, he was making a comparison to how it was used. They dont show the part that shows that he was talking about an actual plane though. Might be a licensing thing. I dunno why but they just dont. Note the *like* and note the *with wings*. All cruise missiles have wings.
About the "no wreckage nor evidence of a 757"...
This guy obviously hasnt researched the topic very well.
Check out : http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Furthermore... this guy is implying that a 757 did NOT hit the pentagon. The airport tracked its path, were they in on the conspiracy? What happened to Flight 77 and the people on board? Furthermore, if it was a conspiracy, the US gov would try to NOT have any evidence what so ever, no possible doubt what so ever, fill the minds of conspiracy theorists... so why would they use something other than a 757 at the pentagon and claim it was a 757? It doesnt make sense. Me? If I was setting up a conspiracy like he's implying, I'd use a 757.
When you take *all* of what he said, he was talking about the plane, and then in that part, he was making a comparison to how it was used. They dont show the part that shows that he was talking about an actual plane though. Might be a licensing thing. I dunno why but they just dont. Note the *like* and note the *with wings*. All cruise missiles have wings.
About the "no wreckage nor evidence of a 757"...
This guy obviously hasnt researched the topic very well.
Check out : http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Furthermore... this guy is implying that a 757 did NOT hit the pentagon. The airport tracked its path, were they in on the conspiracy? What happened to Flight 77 and the people on board? Furthermore, if it was a conspiracy, the US gov would try to NOT have any evidence what so ever, no possible doubt what so ever, fill the minds of conspiracy theorists... so why would they use something other than a 757 at the pentagon and claim it was a 757? It doesnt make sense. Me? If I was setting up a conspiracy like he's implying, I'd use a 757.
I've actually found a link with more pictures of debris recently. Its in the other 9/11 thread.
QUOTE
As for the damage not corresponding to the claim that the 757 hit the pentagon: Well, we all saw the explosion in the video... why does he think that a missile or a bomb which causes that kind of an explosion WOULD leave that damage but a 757 wouldnt. Anyway, the pentagon had undergon a remodelling and the walls were strengthened and constructed to resist as much damage as possible, and hold some debris, as I've mentioneed in the other thread, from blowing through from an explosion, structural stress, etc.
Tail/wingsection damage: Simple really. You really expect something like that to break through the reinforced walls of the pentagon, instead of just snapping? They truely arent that strong.
As for the whole security camera question... I think he's made a pretty good argument for why the security camera tapes shouldnt be released at all.
No hole big enough to accomodate a 757? Sure there is. The fuselage is the part of the plane that wont snap, and that hole was plenty big. Theres even a hole in the pentagon wall that shows the exit point of one of the severed engines.
"Military veterans called our radio show and agreed that a 757 could not have caused this damage. What could have? A bunker buster bomb."
First of all, many more agree that a 757 COULD cause this damage. Second of all, a bunker buster bomb wouldnt cause this damage. Why? Well, first of all, let me see, its a bomb. It gets dropped from a plane. It doesnt skid across the surface of the Earth. Second of all, it couldnt have been planted there, because it wouldnt have created the holes through those rings of the pentagon, yet left such damage on the innerhole of the pentagon, that is, assuming it was not placed at the outer most wall. Obviously it couldnt have been placed at the outer most wall, because, well, first of all, this guy already managed to disprove that, and second of all, it wouldnt have caused the damaged to the other layers that was actually caused.
Ahh, there he answered the question of where Flight 77 went. "It could be sitting at the bottom of the ocean!"
Yeah, that seems likely. The US is behind 9/11, and instead of using Flight 77 to hit the pentagon, they risk using a bomb and having people question it. Seems likely, especially since they would have to get rid of flight 77 anyway, right?
Ahh, there we go. They actually are low enough to show the "That was not AA. That was not AA." lady. Notice how FAR away she is from the WTC. A minimum of more than 1 km... yet she has more credibility than the pictures SHOWING the plane to be AA and the people closer to it that identify it as AA?
About the firemen. Well, lets use common sense here. The fireman couldnt have been in visual range or had any direct line of sight with the bomb, could he? If he did, he'd be dead and wouldnt be able to write about it. He heard an explosion, and thought it was a bomb. Obviously when a building is collapsing, there will be quite a few instances where it sounds like a bomb goes off.
Ahh, more firemen... talking about how it was *like* the buildings that are taken down with controled demo charges. Again, I ask, if there was bombs, how did the plane hit within a few floors OF the bombs? They've got to take their first breath in the real world... there were no bombs.
They appeared to come down like a controlled demolition, huh? I guess the guy should look at a close up of the collapse. It is clearly tilted towards the imact point.
"Ladies and gentlement. So far we have seen that we have been decieved---"
Yes, by the host of the video.
Ok, so far, in the video, the guys talking about un undercarriage and a flash of light. I've dealt with the flash of light already somewhere... it happens right where and when the tip of the plane hits the tower. Its expectable. The undercarriage? Tilt your head to the left and you'll notice that it pretty much disappears. It seems to be an illusion by the sun, just like the "devil face" in the smoke. The undercarriage being attached to the plane would be enough reason to ground the plane at the airport... and an undercarriage would clearly be seen by many people at the airport that inspect the planes. Also, I wonder where the wheels would be if theres an undercarriage there... I wonder how the plane took off with a missing wheel. It is a combination of the gear cover opening and the sun most likely, if not just the sun and the artifacts of the enlarging of an image.
Oh yes, suddenly, the guy brings *missiles* into the story. The plane now launched a missile, as if the plane itsself wasnt enough. Funny... what would be easier... adding a bomb to the inside of a plane, or completely remodeling the plane and some how, miraculously passing plane checkups and flying with it, and taking the chance that someone would notice?
Now I'm at the point where he's saying the plane was military, and therefor could pass security checkups without questioning the pod. Sure... but, other than the fact that it looks like an AA 757 which isnt a big deal, the pod is clearly on *both* sides of the plane, and, if you look carefully, looks like the gear doors being opened. And if it is a military plane, it bears the question... what happened to the actual AA plane with the passengers on board? They had to destroy it to keep the coverup covered... so that means they had to either rig it to explode, which they didnt since theres no reports of planes exploding mid air, or they hijaked it, turned off its transponder, and switched it with the militaryplane. Now, why not use the actual AA plane to fly it into the WTC instead of the military plane? They could even have used both!
Omfg. Now I just pity the guy. "The flash was to the RIGHT of the fuselage!"
So what? Steel beams dont cover ALL the WTC, theres windows in between. Its very possible and probable that the plane didnt align directly with the steel beam.
Flash before the plane hits the North Tower? BS. It hit the tower, and caused the flash. Now he's playing on the fact that the camera is too far away to actually tell whether the plane hit the tower and caused the flash, or if the flash was caused first, and then the plane hit. But, since we know that the flash is the result of the plane hitting the tower, its evident that thats the case here.
Bush's comment: Oh yeah, thats, thats a pretty strong piece of evidence, since at no time did he actually leave the classroom to see the video. The earliest oppertunity he had must have been after at least the second tower... and even I managed to confuse them at first and mistake the 2nd plane for the 1st.
Tail/wingsection damage: Simple really. You really expect something like that to break through the reinforced walls of the pentagon, instead of just snapping? They truely arent that strong.
As for the whole security camera question... I think he's made a pretty good argument for why the security camera tapes shouldnt be released at all.
No hole big enough to accomodate a 757? Sure there is. The fuselage is the part of the plane that wont snap, and that hole was plenty big. Theres even a hole in the pentagon wall that shows the exit point of one of the severed engines.
"Military veterans called our radio show and agreed that a 757 could not have caused this damage. What could have? A bunker buster bomb."
First of all, many more agree that a 757 COULD cause this damage. Second of all, a bunker buster bomb wouldnt cause this damage. Why? Well, first of all, let me see, its a bomb. It gets dropped from a plane. It doesnt skid across the surface of the Earth. Second of all, it couldnt have been planted there, because it wouldnt have created the holes through those rings of the pentagon, yet left such damage on the innerhole of the pentagon, that is, assuming it was not placed at the outer most wall. Obviously it couldnt have been placed at the outer most wall, because, well, first of all, this guy already managed to disprove that, and second of all, it wouldnt have caused the damaged to the other layers that was actually caused.
Ahh, there he answered the question of where Flight 77 went. "It could be sitting at the bottom of the ocean!"
Yeah, that seems likely. The US is behind 9/11, and instead of using Flight 77 to hit the pentagon, they risk using a bomb and having people question it. Seems likely, especially since they would have to get rid of flight 77 anyway, right?
Ahh, there we go. They actually are low enough to show the "That was not AA. That was not AA." lady. Notice how FAR away she is from the WTC. A minimum of more than 1 km... yet she has more credibility than the pictures SHOWING the plane to be AA and the people closer to it that identify it as AA?
About the firemen. Well, lets use common sense here. The fireman couldnt have been in visual range or had any direct line of sight with the bomb, could he? If he did, he'd be dead and wouldnt be able to write about it. He heard an explosion, and thought it was a bomb. Obviously when a building is collapsing, there will be quite a few instances where it sounds like a bomb goes off.
Ahh, more firemen... talking about how it was *like* the buildings that are taken down with controled demo charges. Again, I ask, if there was bombs, how did the plane hit within a few floors OF the bombs? They've got to take their first breath in the real world... there were no bombs.
They appeared to come down like a controlled demolition, huh? I guess the guy should look at a close up of the collapse. It is clearly tilted towards the imact point.
"Ladies and gentlement. So far we have seen that we have been decieved---"
Yes, by the host of the video.
Ok, so far, in the video, the guys talking about un undercarriage and a flash of light. I've dealt with the flash of light already somewhere... it happens right where and when the tip of the plane hits the tower. Its expectable. The undercarriage? Tilt your head to the left and you'll notice that it pretty much disappears. It seems to be an illusion by the sun, just like the "devil face" in the smoke. The undercarriage being attached to the plane would be enough reason to ground the plane at the airport... and an undercarriage would clearly be seen by many people at the airport that inspect the planes. Also, I wonder where the wheels would be if theres an undercarriage there... I wonder how the plane took off with a missing wheel. It is a combination of the gear cover opening and the sun most likely, if not just the sun and the artifacts of the enlarging of an image.
Oh yes, suddenly, the guy brings *missiles* into the story. The plane now launched a missile, as if the plane itsself wasnt enough. Funny... what would be easier... adding a bomb to the inside of a plane, or completely remodeling the plane and some how, miraculously passing plane checkups and flying with it, and taking the chance that someone would notice?
Now I'm at the point where he's saying the plane was military, and therefor could pass security checkups without questioning the pod. Sure... but, other than the fact that it looks like an AA 757 which isnt a big deal, the pod is clearly on *both* sides of the plane, and, if you look carefully, looks like the gear doors being opened. And if it is a military plane, it bears the question... what happened to the actual AA plane with the passengers on board? They had to destroy it to keep the coverup covered... so that means they had to either rig it to explode, which they didnt since theres no reports of planes exploding mid air, or they hijaked it, turned off its transponder, and switched it with the militaryplane. Now, why not use the actual AA plane to fly it into the WTC instead of the military plane? They could even have used both!
Omfg. Now I just pity the guy. "The flash was to the RIGHT of the fuselage!"
So what? Steel beams dont cover ALL the WTC, theres windows in between. Its very possible and probable that the plane didnt align directly with the steel beam.
Flash before the plane hits the North Tower? BS. It hit the tower, and caused the flash. Now he's playing on the fact that the camera is too far away to actually tell whether the plane hit the tower and caused the flash, or if the flash was caused first, and then the plane hit. But, since we know that the flash is the result of the plane hitting the tower, its evident that thats the case here.
Bush's comment: Oh yeah, thats, thats a pretty strong piece of evidence, since at no time did he actually leave the classroom to see the video. The earliest oppertunity he had must have been after at least the second tower... and even I managed to confuse them at first and mistake the 2nd plane for the 1st.
ha lol
