This Is What Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11

[eots]

they were called giants but depicted with serpent heads

The first race of giants mentioned in the canon is perhaps also the most enigmatic. The relevant passage runs thus:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days -- and also afterward -- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4, NIV throughout except where noted otherwise)

It has been argued that the portion of v. 4 that mentions the Nephilim should stand on its own, apart from the rest of this passage (cf. Westermann, p. 366). Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand who the Nephilim are, exactly, without some sort of context, even if we must put them in a context that is fraught with its own problems of interpretation.

But first, why should we look at the Nephilim at all? Why should they be considered giants, and thus included in this paper? The answer can be found in Number 13:32-33, which is the only other explicit reference to the Nephilim in the canon. In this passage, the Hebrew spies tell their desert-wandering comrades what they found in Canaan:


"...All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

Flying Chariot Ministries - Genesis Re-Revisited

 

[Godboy]

they were called giants but depicted with serpent heads

The first race of giants mentioned in the canon is perhaps also the most enigmatic. The relevant passage runs thus:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days -- and also afterward -- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4, NIV throughout except where noted otherwise)

It has been argued that the portion of v. 4 that mentions the Nephilim should stand on its own, apart from the rest of this passage (cf. Westermann, p. 366). Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand who the Nephilim are, exactly, without some sort of context, even if we must put them in a context that is fraught with its own problems of interpretation.

But first, why should we look at the Nephilim at all? Why should they be considered giants, and thus included in this paper? The answer can be found in Number 13:32-33, which is the only other explicit reference to the Nephilim in the canon. In this passage, the Hebrew spies tell their desert-wandering comrades what they found in Canaan:


"...All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

Flying Chariot Ministries - Genesis Re-Revisited

So what you are saying is theres nothing in the bible that talks about reptile guys? Yeah, i thought so. Its always about lies with you.

By the way, you are a freak for believing in lizard men.

 

[eots]

they were called giants but depicted with serpent heads

The first race of giants mentioned in the canon is perhaps also the most enigmatic. The relevant passage runs thus:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days -- and also afterward -- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4, NIV throughout except where noted otherwise)

It has been argued that the portion of v. 4 that mentions the Nephilim should stand on its own, apart from the rest of this passage (cf. Westermann, p. 366). Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand who the Nephilim are, exactly, without some sort of context, even if we must put them in a context that is fraught with its own problems of interpretation.

But first, why should we look at the Nephilim at all? Why should they be considered giants, and thus included in this paper? The answer can be found in Number 13:32-33, which is the only other explicit reference to the Nephilim in the canon. In this passage, the Hebrew spies tell their desert-wandering comrades what they found in Canaan:


"...All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

Flying Chariot Ministries - Genesis Re-Revisited

So what you are saying is theres nothing in the bible that talks about reptile guys? Yeah, i thought so. Its always about lies with you.

By the way, you are a freak for believing in lizard men.

your argument does not hold water there are many brilliant minds that have searched for the hidden meaning and origin of story's in the bible..endless books have been written on the subject and if taken in context and compared to other ancient text of the time there is a compelling argument to be made.for the so called lizard people...the spiritual questioning and beliefs of people alone are not a reflection of intellect or sanity..in fact most often the very opposite...to say there is not talk of serpents/reptiles/giants in the bible or Sumerian text etc etc and that its a lie is ludacris...I never said if I believe it..only that these belief's or theory are founded in a Intelligent and sincere examination of ancient history and text far to involved to go into in a short post if you choose to explore the origions of the annunaki gaints is completly up to you
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2l93v4v0g]YouTube - Reptilian & Annunaki History[/ame]

 

[Terral]

Hi Goatboy:

I rest my case. Nothing he ever says should be taken seriously.

That is what they said about John the Baptist . . . too. Just keep scoffing and mocking . . . If 'you' confused knew my true identity, then you would . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Godboy]

Hi Goatboy:

I rest my case. Nothing he ever says should be taken seriously.

That is what they said about John the Baptist . . . too. Just keep scoffing and mocking . . . If 'you' confused knew my true identity, then you would . . .

GL,

Terral

They were probably right to not take John the Baptist seriously either. Making biblical comparisons is not going to help you here.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

are you talking about the lone exit hole?
it is said that was caused by the front landing gear
and a Boeing 757 is mostly light weight aluminum that wouldn't take much punishment at all
i believe that a Boeing 747 lost a huge section of its shell midflight a few years ago without hitting anything

Yes I am referring to the exit hole. The exit hole is circular.

According to this image of the exit hole, how could landing gear make that exact circular cut?

Furthermore, what from the landing gear was responsible for the burn markings on the outside of the building above the exit hole?

Also, I would like for you to link me to where it states the landing gear made that, very fine, circular cut on exit. I would greatly appreciate it.

To add, look at the image of the pentagon frontal damage. Those vertical cuts look very precisely made, on both sides. The cut on the left is flush through the entire building. Obviously, that does NOT look like impact damage from a 757 commercial jet airliner.

What do you think?

What was capable of making that cut?

THAT landing gear

and all it takes to make a circular hole is a blunt force impact in the center of it

When a blunt object impacts a wall, a hole is made, but the hole will not be uniform. The hole will take the shape of the impacting object. This hole is clearly uniform.

Is that picture of the landing gear, outside?

What about the burn markings above the exit hole?

What about the front damage, with that flush cut through the building?

Did you intentionally miss these questions?

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

Did you intentionally miss these questions?

Stop asking STUPID questions cuckoo and simply post 'your' pictures of AA77 crashed ANYWHERE . . .

GL, because none exist,

Terral

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

Did you intentionally miss these questions?

Stop asking STUPID questions cuckoo and simply post 'your' pictures of AA77 crashed ANYWHERE . . .

GL, because none exist,

Terral

I never posted ANYTHING suggesting AA77 crashed ANYWHERE.

What are you referring to?

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

I never posted ANYTHING suggesting AA77 crashed ANYWHERE.

What are you referring to?

I am referring to all of these silly questions (here). The 'single' C-ring hole (pic) was created by the third bomblet that went "BOOM" in the Defense Intelligence Office.

See my explanations in this blog entry letter to Bill Veale (April Gallop Attorney).

GL,

Terral

 

[eots]

wow how much more circular could that hole possible be !!

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

I never posted ANYTHING suggesting AA77 crashed ANYWHERE.

What are you referring to?

I am referring to all of these silly questions (here). The 'single' C-ring hole (pic) was created by the third bomblet that went "BOOM" in the Defense Intelligence Office.

See my explanations in this blog entry letter to Bill Veale (April Gallop Attorney).

GL,

Terral

Silly questions?

If you are who you claim you are, then you are more wise than to say such a thing.

 

[eots]

Hi Joe:

I never posted ANYTHING suggesting AA77 crashed ANYWHERE.

What are you referring to?

I am referring to all of these silly questions (here). The 'single' C-ring hole (pic) was created by the third bomblet that went "BOOM" in the Defense Intelligence Office.

See my explanations in this blog entry letter to Bill Veale (April Gallop Attorney).

GL,

Terral

Silly questions?

If you are who you claim you are, then you are more wise than to say such a thing.

agreed

 

[DiveCon]

Yes I am referring to the exit hole. The exit hole is circular.

According to this image of the exit hole, how could landing gear make that exact circular cut?

Furthermore, what from the landing gear was responsible for the burn markings on the outside of the building above the exit hole?

Also, I would like for you to link me to where it states the landing gear made that, very fine, circular cut on exit. I would greatly appreciate it.

To add, look at the image of the pentagon frontal damage. Those vertical cuts look very precisely made, on both sides. The cut on the left is flush through the entire building. Obviously, that does NOT look like impact damage from a 757 commercial jet airliner.

What do you think?

What was capable of making that cut?

THAT landing gear

and all it takes to make a circular hole is a blunt force impact in the center of it

When a blunt object impacts a wall, a hole is made, but the hole will not be uniform. The hole will take the shape of the impacting object. This hole is clearly uniform.

Is that picture of the landing gear, outside?

no, that is INSIDE the pentagon

What about the burn markings above the exit hole?

HELLO, McFly, there was a MASSIVE FIRE

What about the front damage, with that flush cut through the building?

that was caused by the COLLAPSE of the building, not the actual plane crash

Did you intentionally miss these questions?

i skipped them because HELLO, they are too fucking STUPID

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

Silly questions?

Yes for the umpteenth time!!! Start your own topic about "what happened at the Pentagon" and lay out all of your evidence like I did in the OP of this Thread. These readers are looking for 'answers' and not a long list of your silly questions confused . . .

If you are who you claim you are, then you are more wise than to say such a thing.

One of these days I will stumble upon a post from Joe that actually includes evidentiary support for what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[kyzr]

This thread is nothing short of moronic. Its an insult to the innocent victims who died at the hands of Islamic terrorists. There is no credible reason for an "inside job" that would require the cooperation of hundreds of patriotic Americans.

Take off your aluminum foil hat and admit that terrorists caused 9/11 as KSM and OBL say they did.

 

[eots]

This thread is nothing short of moronic. Its an insult to the innocent victims who died at the hands of Islamic terrorists. There is no credible reason for an "inside job" that would require the cooperation of hundreds of patriotic Americans.

Take off your aluminum foil hat and admit that terrorists caused 9/11 as KSM and OBL say they did.

oh shut the fuck up you babbling idiot

 

[Terral]

Hi Kyzr:

This thread is nothing short of moronic. Its an insult to the innocent victims who died at the hands of Islamic terrorists. There is no credible reason for an "inside job" that would require the cooperation of hundreds of patriotic Americans.

Take off your aluminum foil hat and admit that terrorists caused 9/11 as KSM and OBL say they did.

Simply go back to the Opening Post (link) and 'quote >> anything' and write your rebuttal using whatever Kyzr considers to be "credible evidence." The 'morons' confused around here are the Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES who believe the Official Cover Story LIES (like you = ).

GL,

Terral

 

[Joe_Penalty]

THAT landing gear

and all it takes to make a circular hole is a blunt force impact in the center of it

When a blunt object impacts a wall, a hole is made, but the hole will not be uniform. The hole will take the shape of the impacting object. This hole is clearly uniform.

Is that picture of the landing gear, outside?

no, that is INSIDE the pentagon

What about the burn markings above the exit hole?

HELLO, McFly, there was a MASSIVE FIRE

What about the front damage, with that flush cut through the building?

that was caused by the COLLAPSE of the building, not the actual plane crash

Did you intentionally miss these questions?

i skipped them because HELLO, they are too fucking STUPID

I mean has anyone on these boards ever heard of the SOCRATIC METHOD?

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

Silly questions?

Yes for the umpteenth time!!! Start your own topic about "what happened at the Pentagon" and lay out all of your evidence like I did in the OP of this Thread. These readers are looking for 'answers' and not a long list of your silly questions confused . . .

If you are who you claim you are, then you are more wise than to say such a thing.

One of these days I will stumble upon a post from Joe that actually includes evidentiary support for what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 . . .

GL,

Terral

So basically, what you are stating is I CANNOT challenge points made by other posters in this thread?

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

So basically, what you are stating is I CANNOT challenge points made by other posters in this thread?

Sure! Go for it. Present 'your' thesis, claims and evidence, so somebody can begin formulating 'informed conclusions.' Questioning people to death confused is throwing effort after foolishness . . .

GL,

Terral