Getting 911 correct - simple question

[PredFan]

9-11 truthers are low life scum
That is a compliment

Based on ZERO evidence they mock the victims of 9-11 and tell their families they are fools for believing the buried the remains of their loved ones

Lots of people died on 9/11 and lots of people died at the OKC bombing and the official story was a lie about that as well.

Lol, really? Who bombed the Murrah building then? I can't wait to hear this. I'm getting tired of this Pentagon argument.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Is this a 757 or a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon on 911???

Yeah that's, uh, that's a 'theory' there. Here's another...

 

[PredFan]

So what this thread reveals - like so many before it - is that Truthers misrepresent, twist, and manufacture "facts" while ignoring anything that contradicts their various (and often opposing) theories.

All that is left to do is determine why they spend so much time chasing and posting their silliness when, as Skylar often notes, it was much easier to just crash a 757 into the pentagon than any of their absurdly convoluted explanations.

What do they gain or hope to accomplish? What is their motivation? Their agenda?
Where's the beef?

These people just like to think there's this giant conspiracy and they think they are the lone voices of reason. Makes them feel important. Sad really.

 

[Dale Smith]

Intercept with what?
The plane was tracked from takeoff to impact on radar.

Wings were stripped off on impact with a masonry building. You think wings will cut through bricks?

So, where are the wings??????/ They should be laying down by the hole that was allegedly left by the impact..........wings are pretty damn big.........they should be whole as they should have been sheared off on impact......

LOL

Ripped to shreds

Then there should be an ungodly amount of aluminum "shreds" surrounding the scene if that was the case. I, on the other hand, beg to differ...... because the way that plane wings are attached, it would have sheared them off in two distinct pieces. They are lightweight and due to the alleged speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon? It would have caused them to break off the plane like a twig....it's called "physics".

Don't you know that was planted there by the cabal? Or the Illuminati, or....umm.....The Jews? Something like that.

C'mon, Predfan.....do you REALLY believe the official story and that NO jet fighters were able to be scrambled to prevent the Pentagon from being hit even after they allegedly had the plane on radar and were watching it approach for over 30 minutes?

I defended the official story for 11 years. I wouldn't even look at anything that might change my view. I took the challenge of watching "Loose Change" just so I could debunk it only to find out that Building Seven (that was hit by no plane" fell right into it's footprint in freefall fashion just like WTC 1 and 2. Hell, watching that live on TV should have set off my bullshit . detector but like all of us, we were horrified about the events of that day. I have done a lot more reading and researching INCLUDING the Popular Mechanics explanation of the freefall of the twin towers but they leave out the details of how both towers were constructed.

 

[PredFan]

So, where are the wings??????/ They should be laying down by the hole that was allegedly left by the impact..........wings are pretty damn big.........they should be whole as they should have been sheared off on impact......

LOL

Ripped to shreds

Then there should be an ungodly amount of aluminum "shreds" surrounding the scene if that was the case. I, on the other hand, beg to differ...... because the way that plane wings are attached, it would have sheared them off in two distinct pieces. They are lightweight and due to the alleged speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon? It would have caused them to break off the plane like a twig....it's called "physics".

Don't you know that was planted there by the cabal? Or the Illuminati, or....umm.....The Jews? Something like that.

C'mon, Predfan.....do you REALLY believe the official story and that NO jet fighters were able to be scrambled to prevent the Pentagon from being hit even after they allegedly had the plane on radar and were watching it approach for over 30 minutes?

I defended the official story for 11 years. I wouldn't even look at anything that might change my view. I took the challenge of watching "Loose Change" just so I could debunk it only to find out that Building Seven (that was hit by no plane" fell right into it's footprint in freefall fashion just like WTC 1 and 2. Hell, watching that live on TV should have set off my bullshit . detector but like all of us, we were horrified about the events of that day. I have done a lot more reading and researching INCLUDING the Popular Mechanics explanation of the freefall of the twin towers but they leave out the details of how both towers were constructed.

Sorry man, I can't be with you on this. You have been debunked many times over. I always keep an open mind but I refuse to allow people to throw shit in the opening.

 

[Dale Smith]

9-11 truthers are low life scum
That is a compliment

Based on ZERO evidence they mock the victims of 9-11 and tell their families they are fools for believing the buried the remains of their loved ones

Lots of people died on 9/11 and lots of people died at the OKC bombing and the official story was a lie about that as well.

Lol, really? Who bombed the Murrah building then? I can't wait to hear this. I'm getting tired of this Pentagon argument.

It was a black op with cut-out Timothy McVeigh that had been "sheep dipped" as the patsy. I personally met with Brigadier General Benton Partin, an explosives expert, that proved scientifically that an ANFO bomb couldn't have done that type of damage. General Partin was sent to Beirut in 83 when the Marines were bombed to investigate it. The amount of ANFO required to cause that type of damage would have made the air unbreathable for at least an hour due to the ammonium in the air. Rescuers were on the scene trying to pull out bodies within minutes. They were puled back when two other bombs that did not explode had to be removed and this is in FEMA's own documents. ATF and FBI agents were stepping over bodies to remove files and paperwork while placing plastic sheets over file cabinets. OKC police officer Terry Yeakey was one of the first responders and observed all of this and had documented what he saw. He refused to sign off the official version in his report so they suicided him after torturing him. Here are the documents and sworn affidavits by witnesses.

 

[Dale Smith]

LOL

Ripped to shreds

Then there should be an ungodly amount of aluminum "shreds" surrounding the scene if that was the case. I, on the other hand, beg to differ...... because the way that plane wings are attached, it would have sheared them off in two distinct pieces. They are lightweight and due to the alleged speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon? It would have caused them to break off the plane like a twig....it's called "physics".

Don't you know that was planted there by the cabal? Or the Illuminati, or....umm.....The Jews? Something like that.

C'mon, Predfan.....do you REALLY believe the official story and that NO jet fighters were able to be scrambled to prevent the Pentagon from being hit even after they allegedly had the plane on radar and were watching it approach for over 30 minutes?

I defended the official story for 11 years. I wouldn't even look at anything that might change my view. I took the challenge of watching "Loose Change" just so I could debunk it only to find out that Building Seven (that was hit by no plane" fell right into it's footprint in freefall fashion just like WTC 1 and 2. Hell, watching that live on TV should have set off my bullshit . detector but like all of us, we were horrified about the events of that day. I have done a lot more reading and researching INCLUDING the Popular Mechanics explanation of the freefall of the twin towers but they leave out the details of how both towers were constructed.

Sorry man, I can't be with you on this. You have been debunked many times over. I always keep an open mind but I refuse to allow people to throw shit in the opening.

We can agree to disagree because I didn't believe it either for over a decade. The truth will eventually come out.

 

[Faun]

So, where are the wings??????/ They should be laying down by the hole that was allegedly left by the impact..........wings are pretty damn big.........they should be whole as they should have been sheared off on impact......

LOL

Ripped to shreds

Then there should be an ungodly amount of aluminum "shreds" surrounding the scene if that was the case. I, on the other hand, beg to differ...... because the way that plane wings are attached, it would have sheared them off in two distinct pieces. They are lightweight and due to the alleged speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon? It would have caused them to break off the plane like a twig....it's called "physics".

Don't you know that was planted there by the cabal? Or the Illuminati, or....umm.....The Jews? Something like that.

C'mon, Predfan.....do you REALLY believe the official story and that NO jet fighters were able to be scrambled to prevent the Pentagon from being hit even after they allegedly had the plane on radar and were watching it approach for over 30 minutes?

I defended the official story for 11 years. I wouldn't even look at anything that might change my view. I took the challenge of watching "Loose Change" just so I could debunk it only to find out that Building Seven (that was hit by no plane" fell right into it's footprint in freefall fashion just like WTC 1 and 2. Hell, watching that live on TV should have set off my bullshit . detector but like all of us, we were horrified about the events of that day. I have done a lot more reading and researching INCLUDING the Popular Mechanics explanation of the freefall of the twin towers but they leave out the details of how both towers were constructed.

As always, you’ve been duped.

By yourself.

Building #7 did not collapse in free fall. It actually went down in two stages. First the inner core fell, and then about 7 seconds later, the outer shell followed. None of which was precipitated by the hallmark series of explosions of a controlled demolition.

There is no conspiracy delusional dale can pass up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are pathetic.

So, the nose of the "757" made THIS HOLE???

LOL!!!!!

Interesting, where are the wings and engines?

Aluminum burns and the wings would fold back on impact. They have pictures of the engines inside the Pentagon, because with higher mass, they travel farther.

How did the engines get inside? There are no holes in the outer ring for them to enter.

 

[ranfunck]

If the wings folded back what happened to them there is no picks of them

View attachment 171026

I don't see wings from a 757 all I see is parts from a blown up cruise missile

 

[Soupnazi630]

like I said, you can't prove jack

yeah we know YOU cant prove jack shit it was not an inside job,no need to advertise it to us all.

yes he can and so can many others it HAS been proven and you have been proven a fool

 

[Soupnazi630]

I notice the paid shill posted a funny here like his bosses tell him when he cant counter evidence in videos.LOL

There are no paid shills here boy.

The term paid shill is what fools like you throw out when evidence proves you to be an idiot.

The video has no evidence and is fictional.

 

[Soupnazi630]

here is ANOTHER paid shill posting a funny knowing he cant counter these facts in this video and is backed up against the wall with nowhere to run.LOL

No here is another person schooling you and proving what an uninformed fool you are believing in fictional videos.

The facts prove you wrong

 

[Soupnazi630]

A cesna takes a 30 degree approach on landing and landing speed is 30 to 60 knotts. This 747 would have had to come in at 1 to 5 degree approach at 500 miles per hour, sorry it can not happen. The PA flight wnet head long into the ground at a high rate of speed it did not manage a 1 to 5 degree approach and remain steady at that appraoch for over a mile. Good fucking luck accomplishing that. There are flight similators out there if you can do it I will kiss your ass!

It was not a 747,
it was a 757 which is completely different.

Yes it can happen and the specifications on the plane from boeing prove absolutely it can happen.

Kiss away boy you lost.

Only an idiot would believe that the Pentagon was hit by a 757....Lloyde England, (the cab driver whose taxi that showed the front windshield busted but no damage to the hood) admitted when he thought that he wasn't being recorded that this thing was bigger than all of us.

Wrong.

The evidence proves conclusively it was hit by a 757.

You have no evidence to the contrary and even such a quote as you reference proves.................nothing.

BTW there is no such thing as a shill.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! The Pentagon could only produce those few frames??? The FBI confiscated all the cameras from businesses as "evidence" but never released the footage? HOLY shit, how fucking stupid are you????

a pesky fact these shills cover their ears and close their eyes on because they can only sling shit in defeat like the money trolls they are knowing you handed their ass to them on a platter and took them to school just then.

Just give it up boy you are SO immature.

The only one schooled and proven wrong is you and dale and all the other conspiracy retards.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Only an idiot would believe that the Pentagon was hit by a 757

the UNDERSTATEMENT of the century.

Wrong.

The facts prove a 757 hit the Pentagon and the only fools are you and your friends and you know it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

A cesna takes a 30 degree approach on landing and landing speed is 30 to 60 knotts. This 747 would have had to come in at 1 to 5 degree approach at 500 miles per hour, sorry it can not happen. The PA flight wnet head long into the ground at a high rate of speed it did not manage a 1 to 5 degree approach and remain steady at that appraoch for over a mile. Good fucking luck accomplishing that. There are flight similators out there if you can do it I will kiss your ass!

It was not a 747,
it was a 757 which is completely different.

Yes it can happen and the specifications on the plane from boeing prove absolutely it can happen.

Kiss away boy you lost.

Only an idiot would believe that the Pentagon was hit by a 757....Lloyde England, (the cab driver whose taxi that showed the front windshield busted but no damage to the hood) admitted when he thought that he wasn't being recorded that this thing was bigger than all of us.

Oh well, if a cab driver said it then it must be true.

He was defeated and lost the argument like you always do


Actually, the car damage is more damning than anything Lloyde England tried not to say. I mean this huge light pole falls on the cab but does no body damage? What are the odds. eh?

you are making far too much sense for the troll to comprehend.HEE HEE

 

[Soupnazi630]

That isn’t the crash site.

Even the outer ring shows no damage from wings or engines.

People seem to believe that passenger jets have the same maneuvering skills of a fighter jet when it's really just a bus with wings. The naysayers want us to believe that an amatuer pilot with questionable flying skills could fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn and fly a foot off of the ground and create a hole that doesn't fit the dimensions of said 757....so move along you "whack-jobs"......nothing to see here because gubermint would never, EVER lie!

An amateur pilot has a target the size of the Pentagon
I could hit it with ten minutes practice

Holes do not match the size of the object that hit it. There is a blow out effect

Yet there was a computer and paper next to the hole that wasn't even disturbed. The fact that they have refused to show actual footage of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon when it is surrounded by cameras or released the cameras that were confiscated from businesses surrounding the Pentagon that would corroborate the official story speaks volumes to me.

as always,USMBS resident troll WRONGwinger,gets his ass OWNED by you.HEE HEE.

Wrong your friend is the only one who got owned

 

[Soupnazi630]

You know, considering the complete destruction of the outer ring, with a hole punched in ring number 2, it would take more than just one cruise missile to do that kind of damage. And, if there were 2 or more cruise missiles fired, there would be multiple explosions. There weren't.

Don't forget y'all, the Pentagon is made from reinforced concrete, is 5 stories tall, and those rings are wide as well.

So, this hijacker was able to fly just off the ground sans one wing (as that is the official story)

Only an idiot would believe that the Pentagon was hit by a 757....Lloyde England, (the cab driver whose taxi that showed the front windshield busted but no damage to the hood) admitted when he thought that he wasn't being recorded that this thing was bigger than all of us.

Wrong.

The evidence proves conclusively it was hit by a 757.

You have no evidence to the contrary and even such a quote as you reference proves.................nothing.

BTW there is no such thing as a shill.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! The Pentagon could only produce those few frames??? The FBI confiscated all the cameras from businesses as "evidence" but never released the footage? HOLY shit, how fucking stupid are you????

Dude, Why in the hell would a gas station have their cameras pointed at the pentagon or the sky? Their cameras were pointed at their places of business. You're *assuming* that for no particular reason.....a gas station would have its security camera pointed not at their gas pumps or at their merchandise inside the stores. But at a building across the freeway, or pointed uselessly into the sky.

Your explanation of events is, as always, stupidly complicated, wildly elaborate, and doesn't make a lick of sense.

The 'cruise missile' explanation is just awful. Again, why wouldn't they simply crash the plane? They clearly had no problem killing people. It would inflict horrific damage. And it wouldn't require your insanely complicated, horrendously improbable conspiracy cover up.

Cameras at the Pentagon would be focused for building security. Their purpose is to thwart anyone trying to illegally enter the building perimeter
They would not pick up an aircraft flying at 500 mph until the last instant

Planes can't fly at 500 MPH at low altitude without breaking up which is why planes start their descent 30 minutes before landing.

You are a prove liar that is NOT the official story.

You are also as stupid and uninformed on this subject as you are about the Oklahoma bombing as there is no rule or science which precludes aircraft from flying at 500 MPH without breaking up.

The fact is there is no difference between flying that fast at ground level or at thousands of feet.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You know, considering the complete destruction of the outer ring, with a hole punched in ring number 2, it would take more than just one cruise missile to do that kind of damage. And, if there were 2 or more cruise missiles fired, there would be multiple explosions. There weren't.

Don't forget y'all, the Pentagon is made from reinforced concrete, is 5 stories tall, and those rings are wide as well.

Thank you dumb ass you have just proven that a plane did not hit the pentagon you is a cruise missile is specifically made for punching through reinforced concrete. So you are trying to say that a plane made out of very light weight aluminum can penetrate trough more reinforced concrete than a cruise missile that is laughable. Your handler is going to be pist off about that one. Fucking dumb ass

Yes they can moron and that is scientific fact.

Your simply an uneducated shill who knows nothing about physics

 

[Soupnazi630]

You know, considering the complete destruction of the outer ring, with a hole punched in ring number 2, it would take more than just one cruise missile to do that kind of damage. And, if there were 2 or more cruise missiles fired, there would be multiple explosions. There weren't.

Don't forget y'all, the Pentagon is made from reinforced concrete, is 5 stories tall, and those rings are wide as well.

So, this hijacker was able to fly just off the ground sans one wing (as that is the official story)

Cameras at the Pentagon would be focused for building security. Their purpose is to thwart anyone trying to illegally enter the building perimeter
They would not pick up an aircraft flying at 500 mph until the last instant

Planes can't fly at 500 MPH at low altitude without breaking up which is why planes start their descent 30 minutes before landing.

Planes do not break up at 500 mph
They routinely fly at that speed

Planes break up when they hit a solid object
Like the Pentagon

Planes can fly that fast at high altitudes because the air is thinner.

Planes fly at high speeds due to thrust from the engines
In addition, a plane moving from a higher altitude to a lower altitude will accelerate due to the forces of gravity plus the thrust of the engines

I am going to go with the opinions of experienced pilots that say that planes cannot fly at over 500 MPH at ground level without breaking up if it's all the same to you.

Experienced pilots do not say any such thing you dumbass