911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

Of course, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...

That's not quite accurate but the 9/11InsideJobs and Dale Smiths (and a who's who of paranoid and anti-Semitic loons) agree with you. So maybe, just maybe, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Don't you guys ever get tired of Rule #5 -.-? In case you missed it:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.**

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney

If you don't want to discuss the evidence, why participate in this conversation?

Good idea.

Tell us how the wreckage from flight 77 (i.e. evidence) got into the Pentagon and on the Pentagon lawn. Explain the physical evidence. If you can.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, yes, I understand: you have has stated that the the alternatives offered for the wreckage, light poles and ATC tracking are not plausible and you are always right as to what is plausible, nothing to see here folks

Well, thanks for the capitulation.

You're welcome. Now if you would just go away to celebrate your "victory", perhaps I could actually get some serious discussion done here...

Just because I'm batting 1.000% against twoofers doesn't mean I can't be struck out. You just ain't got the stuff.

Fine by me. Why don't you wait for someone who has the "stuff" and just let me carry on with people who are actually willing to discuss the evidence?

Except you’re not.

I’ll just keep reminding the board of that.

I can picture you on the Titanic. Someone tells you that it hit an iceberg. Chunks of ice are found on the deck and inside the first compartments to flood. Your question is this; “What color was the ice berg?” Some say white some say blue and some say it looked black reflecting the sea/ship. You scream “A-HA!!!! The ice found on the deck and in the compartment was white.” Eye witnesses say it was black. Obviously the ice on the deck and the compartment came from somewhere else!!!!”

Meanwhile, the hole in the ship is there. Water is pouring in. And your worried about what a few people said the color of the iceberg was.

 

[candycorn]

Basically, you're being [insult removed]. And you obviously know this...

Never argue with someone who knows they are right -.-...

A better rule would be for you to stop proving the “other side” is correct. You do it every time.

 

[candycorn]

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

Of course, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...

That's not quite accurate but the 9/11InsideJobs and Dale Smiths (and a who's who of paranoid and anti-Semitic loons) agree with you. So maybe, just maybe, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I’d be worried if Dale agreed with me.

 

[candycorn]

I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?

Which, of course, didn't keep you from claiming he was tortured

Reminds me of what Jon Stewart said once. Fox News can be wrong 100 times, but the one time that -he- says something that's uncorroborated, it's the end of the world -.-

but not only was your assumption incorrect, Moussaoui was so impressed with America's justice system he felt compelled to express his admiration.

And you, ofcourse, believe Moussaoui's word in this case unconditionally since it favours your own point of view -.-. He said a lot of -other- things too, things that did -not- paint the U.S. court system in such a favourable light, but I see you are willing to overlook those statements.

There is nothing new in any of your arguments

Never said there was. The issue shouldn't be whether my arguments are new, but whether they have merit.

Now you are being obtuse

I'd say you're the one who doesn't get it. What does it matter if the arguments are new if they have merit? Think about it for a little bit.

I already told you the "facts" you are posting are not just old, they have been thoroughly thrashed, bashed, trashed and otherwise discredited on 100 other threads here.

Ah, SAYIT has spoken. Well, you know what they say: never argue with someone who knows they're right

[insults removed]

Seriously, why are you even bothering? If you're not here to discuss the evidence, you are definitely wasting your time, and mine.

Your mean to tell me that you’ve come across A defendant who has been arrested, arraigned, tried, and convicted by our system of justice and he doesn’t like our system of justice? Call 60 minutes…seriously…that is front page news!!!!

The standard of proof accepted by millions of jurors, thousands upon thousands of judges, thousands of thousands of defense attorneys is light years removed from the mountain of physical evidence for which you cannot plausibly account.

Those are the facts; now back to the spin.

 

[candycorn]

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”. No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet). So its fun to speculate. The reason usually proffered by Twoofers for the “why” is to get the Patriot Act passed and fund the Military Industrial Complex. For the Pentagon in-particularly, the excuse was to hamper an investigation into a supposedly missing horde of money. So lets go with that absence a better excuse.

Cruise missiles mentioned above are out. The light poles disqualify them. Another plane being flown into the Pentagon with AA77 as some sort of “cover” is another “theory” (if you wish to extend the definition of cartoon out that far). The only reason this cockamamie theory is tossed out is to lamely try to account for the light poles. Yes, some Twoofers do acknowledge the they cannot ignore physical evidence and have to try to come up with something that would explain it.

At this strange nexus of “we’ve got to account for the evidence” and “we need to promote the narrative that the attacks were done for the powers that be to get carte blanche to draw up laws and fund a war machine”, the Twoofers lose sight of not only sanity but reality.
And again, the physical evidence shows us how. One would have to wonder why the powers that be didn’t simply increase the attack vector to clear the poles and decrease the likelihood of crashing into the ground short of the target?. I mean, does it matter if it is a linear hit on the accountants or one that comes in at 45 degrees? The linear hit means you have to pay people to stage light poles, a cab driver, destroying a generator, etc… A 45 degree hit removes those conspirators from the equation. Or, if you have a cruise missile, just fire the missile and blame it on Al Queda also. If the reason for hijacking was to scare the public into supporting a war in the middle east…having a bunch of terrorist with cruise missiles would scare me a lot more than hi-jackers….and it gets rid of any number of conspirators and patsies needed to pull off the conspiracy.

 

[phoenyx]

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.

And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.

Ok.... if you think it can be proven that the pole could not have pierced the windshield without hitting the hood -- prove it.

I never said that I could personally prove it. I'm just saying that your notion that "no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen" depends on 2 premises which -you- have certainly not proven:
1- That things the light poles were knocked down as narrated by the official story and
2- Assuming they were not knocked down as narrated by the official story, that there is no research done or that will be done in the future that could prove that this was the case.

If you can prove either of these, you'll have a case. Otherwise, you're simply speculating and passing it off as fact.

There's nothing in this regard I feel obligated to prove.

Nor should you feel any such obligation. I'm just saying that if you can't prove something, you might want to quit acting like you actually have proof for your assertions.

All of the circumstantial evidence conveniently falls in Lloyd England's favor.

You can state the sky is purple too, but I won't believe you if you don't offer proof.

There were 5 poles knocked down, he claims one speared his car.

Yes, he does indeed claim this. And we certainly have photographs of a light pole near his car and him standing nearby as well. What we -don't- have is any evidence that the light pole was ever actually spearing his car. Another thing- look at the scratch mark that leads to the light pole below:

Notice how it must have been made before the car beside Lloyd's was in position? It can only mean that the pole was dragged -towards- Lloyd's cab, rather than away from it. We also have evidence that the scene of the crime was isolated, which is a good thing if you want to avoid any witnesses discovering the truth.

You have no evidence other than your imagination to prove he's lying.

You love making speculative assertions as if they were facts. I suggest you quit making them unless you have actual -proof- for them.

The damage to his vehicle is consistent with his account.

Hardly. From CIT's Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm, starting at around 45 minutes in:
**
Craig Ranke: And now we get to look close at the interior and see if there's anything here, because Lloyde claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab, so a lot of people figured well, you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So, now we know for a fact, the floorboards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time, there's only a minor puncture in the back seat, very minor, so the pole certainly didn't go through it. Ofcourse, even if it had, it'd be strange, because the pole, the top part of the pole was bent, so, if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that they'd have been able to lift the pole out at all.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation, and a pole did spear his windshield, and he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking over the the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you, and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab.**

The windshield was smashed in.

A light pole is hardly the only thing that could do that.

His dash appears dented in the middle where he claims it rested

His dash would have been decimated, not dented. Remember how heavy Lloyd said the thing was? Think of the weight of that thing falling on his car, not slowly, but quickly.

and there's damage to the back seat where the tip could have wedged, holding the back end up off of the hood.

Let's assume for the moment that that's how it was. You ever wonder how they could have pulled this pole out of the car without damaging either the hood or the dash?

I admit it's strange that his first thought was to remove it when an explosion just occurred at the Pentagon and the building was ablaze; but I don't account for such strange behavior in others like that since I have no fucking clue what was going through the man's mind at the moment. Especially given how close he had just come to being impaled and could only thank G-d at that moment that he could remove the pole as opposed to being decapitated by it.

How do you account for this: "And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well." And yet, no damage...

His word his golden.

Why do you believe his word is golden?

Yours? Not so much. Don't take it personal ... he was there. You weren't. He experienced it. You didn't.

He was there, but all the evidence I've seen suggests he was lying concerning the pole. The irony is that despite the evidence that he was there, he denies it! The most likely reason as to why is because CIT made it clear that he was the only witness that clearly corroborates the flight path that goes south of the Citgo gas station. All the other witnesses that were in a good position to know clearly put the plane on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station.

 

[Indofred]

As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories,

Prove a plane did hit the pentagon.
Pictures will do very nicely.

Nice scrap metal pictures.
How about one of an aircraft hitting the building?

 

[Indofred]

And now, just for fun ... for our reality-deprived friends...

cc: Indofred; phoenyx; Wildcard

The we see the video, with no sight of the photoshopped aircraft in it.

 

[Faun]

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.

And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.

Ok.... if you think it can be proven that the pole could not have pierced the windshield without hitting the hood -- prove it.

I never said that I could personally prove it. I'm just saying that your notion that "no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen" depends on 2 premises which -you- have certainly not proven:
1- That things the light poles were knocked down as narrated by the official story and
2- Assuming they were not knocked down as narrated by the official story, that there is no research done or that will be done in the future that could prove that this was the case.

If you can prove either of these, you'll have a case. Otherwise, you're simply speculating and passing it off as fact.

There's nothing in this regard I feel obligated to prove.

Nor should you feel any such obligation. I'm just saying that if you can't prove something, you might want to quit acting like you actually have proof for your assertions.

All of the circumstantial evidence conveniently falls in Lloyd England's favor.

You can state the sky is purple too, but I won't believe you if you don't offer proof.

There were 5 poles knocked down, he claims one speared his car.

Yes, he does indeed claim this. And we certainly have photographs of a light pole near his car and him standing nearby as well. What we -don't- have is any evidence that the light pole was ever actually spearing his car. Another thing- look at the scratch mark that leads to the light pole below:

Notice how it must have been made before the car beside Lloyd's was in position? It can only mean that the pole was dragged -towards- Lloyd's cab, rather than away from it. We also have evidence that the scene of the crime was isolated, which is a good thing if you want to avoid any witnesses discovering the truth.

You have no evidence other than your imagination to prove he's lying.

You love making speculative assertions as if they were facts. I suggest you quit making them unless you have actual -proof- for them.

The damage to his vehicle is consistent with his account.

Hardly. From CIT's Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm, starting at around 45 minutes in:
**
Craig Ranke: And now we get to look close at the interior and see if there's anything here, because Lloyde claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab, so a lot of people figured well, you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So, now we know for a fact, the floorboards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time, there's only a minor puncture in the back seat, very minor, so the pole certainly didn't go through it. Ofcourse, even if it had, it'd be strange, because the pole, the top part of the pole was bent, so, if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that they'd have been able to lift the pole out at all.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation, and a pole did spear his windshield, and he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking over the the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you, and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab.**

The windshield was smashed in.

A light pole is hardly the only thing that could do that.

His dash appears dented in the middle where he claims it rested

His dash would have been decimated, not dented. Remember how heavy Lloyd said the thing was? Think of the weight of that thing falling on his car, not slowly, but quickly.

and there's damage to the back seat where the tip could have wedged, holding the back end up off of the hood.

Let's assume for the moment that that's how it was. You ever wonder how they could have pulled this pole out of the car without damaging either the hood or the dash?

I admit it's strange that his first thought was to remove it when an explosion just occurred at the Pentagon and the building was ablaze; but I don't account for such strange behavior in others like that since I have no fucking clue what was going through the man's mind at the moment. Especially given how close he had just come to being impaled and could only thank G-d at that moment that he could remove the pole as opposed to being decapitated by it.

How do you account for this: "And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well." And yet, no damage...

His word his golden.

Why do you believe his word is golden?

Yours? Not so much. Don't take it personal ... he was there. You weren't. He experienced it. You didn't.

He was there, but all the evidence I've seen suggests he was lying concerning the pole. The irony is that despite the evidence that he was there, he denies it! The most likely reason as to why is because CIT made it clear that he was the only witness that clearly corroborates the south side flight path. All the other witnesses that were in a good position to know clearly put the plane on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station.

LOL

I'm not obligated to prove anything because his account is part of the official record. The burden of proof falls upon you to prove he's lying; in the face of all the circumstantial evidence found at the scene.

And as you've done all along, you offer nothing but your imagination in a failed attempt to inject doubt as evidence. That's not evidence.

You point to a scratch on the ground. It's going from right to left, toawrds the shoulder of the road, which actually does support England's claim since his car is also facing the same shoulder. Seems evidence to me that it wasbeing dragged off of the highway before being left where it appears in that photo. What that scratch also shows is that the pole was not dragged onto the street, which counters your imagination that the car and pole were waiting off the side of the road to be staged.

There's no evidence to suggest the dash board "would have been decimated," as you suggest. That's your imagination again.

There's no evidence Lloyd falling while holding up the pole would have damaged the hood of his car, as you suggest, as he never said at what point of the pole extraction that occurred. It could have happened after pulling the pole out. It could be the other gentleman helping him was holding that end up when England fell. Thd point is you have no idea. You have no proof. You have your imagination. That's it. Nothing which proves England is lying.

As far as the claim the pole couldn't have been wedged in the back seat because it wasn't punctured... that is not an accurate description based on the evidence. CIT took pictures of the back seat and there's a gap between the back rest and the back seat, where the pole appears to have wedged itself...

 

[Faun]

And now, just for fun ... for our reality-deprived friends...

cc: Indofred; phoenyx; Wildcard

The we see the video, with no sight of the photoshopped aircraft in it.

And of course, that's not the same video which created the images I posted. This is...



So that makes one wonder why you switched the video? Willful ignorance or deception?

 

[Faun]

As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories,

Prove a plane did hit the pentagon.
Pictures will do very nicely.

Nice scrap metal pictures.
How about one of an aircraft hitting the building?

I see no evidence those pieces did not hit the building.

 

[hadit]

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”. No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet). So its fun to speculate. The reason usually proffered by Twoofers for the “why” is to get the Patriot Act passed and fund the Military Industrial Complex. For the Pentagon in-particularly, the excuse was to hamper an investigation into a supposedly missing horde of money. So lets go with that absence a better excuse.

Cruise missiles mentioned above are out. The light poles disqualify them. Another plane being flown into the Pentagon with AA77 as some sort of “cover” is another “theory” (if you wish to extend the definition of cartoon out that far). The only reason this cockamamie theory is tossed out is to lamely try to account for the light poles. Yes, some Twoofers do acknowledge the they cannot ignore physical evidence and have to try to come up with something that would explain it.

At this strange nexus of “we’ve got to account for the evidence” and “we need to promote the narrative that the attacks were done for the powers that be to get carte blanche to draw up laws and fund a war machine”, the Twoofers lose sight of not only sanity but reality.
And again, the physical evidence shows us how. One would have to wonder why the powers that be didn’t simply increase the attack vector to clear the poles and decrease the likelihood of crashing into the ground short of the target?. I mean, does it matter if it is a linear hit on the accountants or one that comes in at 45 degrees? The linear hit means you have to pay people to stage light poles, a cab driver, destroying a generator, etc… A 45 degree hit removes those conspirators from the equation. Or, if you have a cruise missile, just fire the missile and blame it on Al Queda also. If the reason for hijacking was to scare the public into supporting a war in the middle east…having a bunch of terrorist with cruise missiles would scare me a lot more than hi-jackers….and it gets rid of any number of conspirators and patsies needed to pull off the conspiracy.

As usual, the simpler answer is the most plausible. That is the problem with CT's, they grow in complexity over time while the most plausible answer doesn't.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???

Nope. Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact. Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph. It simply disappears.

But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves. This small section is absorbing energy. 2. They never show the wall after impact.

 

[Faun]

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???

Nope. Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact. Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph. It simply disappears.

But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves. This small section is absorbing energy. 2. They never show the wall after impact.

Of course the wall moves... it was designed to move and absorb the energy of the plane.

The salient aspect of that video shows a plane traveling at high speed into a concrete wall is turned into "dust." Offers valuable clues as to why there wasn't much remaing of flight #77.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???

Nope. Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact. Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph. It simply disappears.

But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves. This small section is absorbing energy. 2. They never show the wall after impact.

Of course the wall moves... it was designed to move and absorb the energy of the plane.

The salient aspect of that video shows a plane traveling at high speed into a concrete wall is turned into "dust." Offers valuable clues as to why there wasn't much remaing of flight #77.

That's fine for a 10 foot wall, but the outside wall of the Pentagon cannot move, only break.

 

[Faun]

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???

Nope. Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact. Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph. It simply disappears.

But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves. This small section is absorbing energy. 2. They never show the wall after impact.

Of course the wall moves... it was designed to move and absorb the energy of the plane.

The salient aspect of that video shows a plane traveling at high speed into a concrete wall is turned into "dust." Offers valuable clues as to why there wasn't much remaing of flight #77.

That's fine for a 10 foot wall, but the outside wall of the Pentagon cannot move, only break.

The Pentagon wall did not fare as well...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???

Nope. Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact. Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph. It simply disappears.

But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves. This small section is absorbing energy. 2. They never show the wall after impact.

Of course the wall moves... it was designed to move and absorb the energy of the plane.

The salient aspect of that video shows a plane traveling at high speed into a concrete wall is turned into "dust." Offers valuable clues as to why there wasn't much remaing of flight #77.

That's fine for a 10 foot wall, but the outside wall of the Pentagon cannot move, only break.

The Pentagon wall did not fare as well...

My point made.

 

[SAYIT]

Nope. Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact. Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph. It simply disappears.

But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves. This small section is absorbing energy. 2. They never show the wall after impact.

Of course the wall moves... it was designed to move and absorb the energy of the plane.

The salient aspect of that video shows a plane traveling at high speed into a concrete wall is turned into "dust." Offers valuable clues as to why there wasn't much remaing of flight #77.

That's fine for a 10 foot wall, but the outside wall of the Pentagon cannot move, only break.

The Pentagon wall did not fare as well...

My point made.

Only if your point is the less flex in the wall the greater (or more instantaneous) the damage to the plane.

 

[candycorn]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence. In my mind, as they are no doubt reading this…as the smoke from their joints disappears and the dim lights of momma’s basement illuminates their waaaaay aftermarket screens…I can see Dale and that 9/11 inside job dope screaming “Don’t go full retard” at Feenix here…..

CIT (Phoenix’s messiah) had dubbed Mr. England as “The First Accomplice” http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=10

While Phoenix has treaded very lightly into divulging just how sick and twisted the plot is in his mind, eventually he’d get there. Lets move him there now; shall we? Good.

You can see from his writing below, that is where he is going. Because he has to debunk Mr. England since it blows his asinine theory out of the water. And you see him trying to do that below.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab.**


He was there, but all the evidence I've seen suggests he was lying concerning the pole. The irony is that despite the evidence that he was there, he denies it! The most likely reason as to why is because CIT made it clear that he was the only witness that clearly corroborates the flight path that goes south of the Citgo gas station. All the other witnesses that were in a good position to know clearly put the plane on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station.

The reason that someone like old Terral/EOTS and the other more experienced conspiracy kooks would never do that is because they see the follow up question forming in the distance like a hurricane.

So, phoenyx, do tell us why the conspirators would ever include Mr. England in this diabolical plan? Why would they want to put him on the payroll, make him available to questioning from Skanke or whatever his name is from the CIT, not have “coached him” on what to say when/if asked?

Certainly, they didn’t need to have a cab involved in a plane crash; there have been hundreds of crashes that didn’t involve a cab or light poles so it wasn’t essential to the trigger event.
Certainly they didn’t need for him to put voice to what the cab obviously shows; the flight path in the 9/11 Commission report is dead on balls accurate.
Certainly they didn’t need to have a loose end like him giving testimony out of school.
Certainly they could have had any number of people corroborate the flight path that goes through the poles and hits the generator as well (in fact, why didn’t CIT ask anyone else???)