Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I wonder whether some of that wreckage might have come from the aircraft described by eyewitness Steve Patterson as a "commuter jet".candycorn said:Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?...
Great question.rightwinger said:Hate to ask...but where did the people go?
Great question.rightwinger said:Hate to ask...but where did the people go?
I assume you're ready to point us to the mountain of evidence that supports your belief(s) in that regard?
Well, what the hell are you waiting for? Let's see it!All my evidence points to they were killed when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon...
Why, to Arlington,Va., of course, and to a 5-sided grave marker inscribed with the names of ALL of the victims from the Pentagon attack, ... beneath which lie the remains of only 25 positively identified individuals -- where else?!rightwinger said:...Where does your evidence point to?
Well, what the hell are you waiting for? Let's see it!All my evidence points to they were killed when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon...
Why, to Arlington,Va., of course, and to a 5-sided grave marker inscribed with the names of ALL of the victims from the Pentagon attack, ... beneath which lie the remains of only 25 positively identified individuals -- where else?!rightwinger said:...Where does your evidence point to?
There are two types of individuals here.
1. Patriotic Americans who notice the truth that the 757 couldn't possibly be the small object in the video that smashes right through steel reinforced concrete at 400 mph
2. Traitors who know "the cause of Greater Israel" did it, believe it was "God's Will," and will shout down and deny for eternity...
BTW - many of the light poles are intact, NOT BENT AT ALL, because what sucked them out of the ground was the suction of the vacuum behind the missile. A wing would have bent the crap out of those poles....
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.
I wonder whether some of that wreckage might have come from the aircraft described by eyewitness Steve Patterson as a "commuter jet".candycorn said:Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?...
Then again, I guess it could have been from the one characterized by eyewitness Donald Wright as a "commuter plane, twin engine...".
Of course, there's also the distinct possibility it could have come from the "20 passenger corporate jet" spoken of by eyewitness Steven Gerard.
Not to discount the "small commerical aircraft" seen by D.S. Khavkin... OR the "mid-size plane" witnessed by Meseidy Rodriguez, mind you.
However, the plane described by Pentagon groundskeeper Omar Campos as a "business type jet, white up top and blue downstairs" with "United States of America" markings on it, ... now THAT one seems like a very good candidate to me!
Hey, come to think of it, I suppose it might well have been all of the above.
ABC - Pentagon attack eyewitness describes Flight 77 as a commuter plane
You forgot the part about A-RABS dancing in the streets of NJThe CHOSEN are absolutely obsessed with covering up 911, to the point of planting easily discredited "conspiracy theorists" who then "lose" the debate (they do the same thing with the tens of billions of taxdollars for the Global Warming hoax too)
Any "truther" articulating anything other than this is a FRAUD of a truther.
1. Only one plane, a 767 cargo plane, was used on 911, the one we saw hit the South Tower
2. A US made bunker buster cruise missile hit the Pentagon
3. NOTHING happened in Shanksville - a ditch was dug, some metal junk tossed in the ditch was set on fire
4. The north Tower blows up from inside
Anyone saying "no planes" or one was hijacked etc. is a Zionist FRAUD of a truther..
LOL!!!
Not a Trump supporter, sorry.
But we do know who was celebrating 911 in real time...
Here's Netanyahu saying "911 is very good for Israel" nevermind those unchosen victims...
And here are the Mossad dancing right after the 767 cargo drone hit the South Tower...
911 dancing israelis - YouTube
The more you get smart with me, the more truth you open up about you...
Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?First you guys can start with a plausible explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
After you explain that... The lightpoles that were knocked down will be the next hurdle. Explain how a missile would hit the light poles and the transformer, knocking it off it's moorings. Keep in mind that when a missile hits something; it explodes. How would a missile hit 5 objects THEN explode?
Plausible (i.e. believeable) explainations are required to be written by those who are presenting the argument.
I will need a good chuckle around then so I'll look in on it around 3PM MST today.
Your ignorance is really starting to bore me.
First you guys can start with a plausible explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
Since you believe so much that a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, please point out the "plane" in the following image. Take as much time as you need.
People claim that the "plane" was sticking out the side of Pentagon after impact, and yet there is not one picture or even video for that matter to validate the claim.
There was wreckage found at the Pentagon, that much you're right, but not from an American Airlines Flight 77. There was no fuselage, no tail section, no vertical stabilizer, no wings , no major identifiable parts from a Boeing 757 of any kind EVER recovered from the site. If a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, there would be a hell of a lot more wreckage then just a few scraps of metal, but we're all supposed to drink the Kool-Aid like you have and pretend that it did happen.
Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else. Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.It certainly possible that Flight 77 was switched when contact was initially lost and, whatever replaced it and struck the Pentagon, was not the plane that left Washington Dulles that morning.Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
In other words, sounds really implausible.
After you explain that... The lightpoles that were knocked down
As the official story has it, the "plane" flight 77 hit several light poles as it was bearing down on its target. The thin aluminum wings hit these light poles, knocked them down, and the "plane" continued on its attack with no interruption. The problem is, it isn't that easy.
A plane going 500mph a few feet off the ground would make it almost impossible to fly, even for an experienced pilot, the ground effect alone, would create a huge problem. The topography of the area creates another problem, there are raises and dips in the ground level. For the plane to "hug" the ground would create another huge problem.
That said, this "plane", (piloted by someone who had trouble flying a one-engine Cessna),kept control of the "plane" after hitting 5 light posts.
Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.
As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot? You’re right. What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers? They crash. Exactly what Hani did.
Back to the drawing board you go.
Please refer to post # 14.Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?
Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else. Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.
In other words, sounds really implausible.
Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.
As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot? You’re right. What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers? They crash. Exactly what Hani did.
Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?First you guys can start with a plausible explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
After you explain that... The lightpoles that were knocked down will be the next hurdle. Explain how a missile would hit the light poles and the transformer, knocking it off it's moorings. Keep in mind that when a missile hits something; it explodes. How would a missile hit 5 objects THEN explode?
Plausible (i.e. believeable) explainations are required to be written by those who are presenting the argument.
I will need a good chuckle around then so I'll look in on it around 3PM MST today.
Your ignorance is really starting to bore me.
First you guys can start with a plausible explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
Since you believe so much that a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, please point out the "plane" in the following image. Take as much time as you need.
People claim that the "plane" was sticking out the side of Pentagon after impact, and yet there is not one picture or even video for that matter to validate the claim.
There was wreckage found at the Pentagon, that much you're right, but not from an American Airlines Flight 77. There was no fuselage, no tail section, no vertical stabilizer, no wings , no major identifiable parts from a Boeing 757 of any kind EVER recovered from the site. If a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, there would be a hell of a lot more wreckage then just a few scraps of metal, but we're all supposed to drink the Kool-Aid like you have and pretend that it did happen.
Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else. Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.It certainly possible that Flight 77 was switched when contact was initially lost and, whatever replaced it and struck the Pentagon, was not the plane that left Washington Dulles that morning.Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
In other words, sounds really implausible.
After you explain that... The lightpoles that were knocked down
As the official story has it, the "plane" flight 77 hit several light poles as it was bearing down on its target. The thin aluminum wings hit these light poles, knocked them down, and the "plane" continued on its attack with no interruption. The problem is, it isn't that easy.
A plane going 500mph a few feet off the ground would make it almost impossible to fly, even for an experienced pilot, the ground effect alone, would create a huge problem. The topography of the area creates another problem, there are raises and dips in the ground level. For the plane to "hug" the ground would create another huge problem.
That said, this "plane", (piloted by someone who had trouble flying a one-engine Cessna),kept control of the "plane" after hitting 5 light posts.
Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.
As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot? You’re right. What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers? They crash. Exactly what Hani did.
Back to the drawing board you go.
Please refer to post # 14.Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?
Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else. Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.
In other words, sounds really implausible.
I'll explain it like this. According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77. The attack aircraft, flew in at treetop level, clipping light poles on the highway overpass, and smashing into the Pentagon's west wall. Meanwhile AA77, approached on a slightly more northerly trajectory, flying over the Pentagon and disappearing behind a blinding flash and fireball.
Take it or leave it makes no difference to me. But it is more plausible then the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" which is nothing more then an "Official Lie".
Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.
As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot? You’re right. What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers? They crash. Exactly what Hani did.
So I guess you're content on believing the spoon-fed garbage that Hani Hanjour as inferior of a pilot as he was supposedly pulled off "high-risk" maneuvers in a Boeing 757 no less, that experienced pilots can't even do and crashing the plane into the Pentagon leaving no evidence to support the claim.
