911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[rightwinger]

" According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77"


The individual who wrote this is a Zionist Traitor. Nobody is that stupid. Flight 77 never got near the Pentagon. It was a cruise missile. There was no plane wreckage, but there has been plenty of Chosen PhotoShopping.

The light poles really are a "smoking gun" as to just how ridiculous the Traitors' BS here is. If the wing clipped some of those poles that have no mark or bend at all, then the engines of the 757 would be ....

IN THE GROUND

What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage? Were they photoshopped too?

What about the dead bodies still strapped in their seats? Were they photoshopped also?

 

[Faun]

The 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..

Sounds to me like you're a Zionist fraud; trying desperately to steer honest folks away from the truth.

 

[Faun]

" According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77"


The individual who wrote this is a Zionist Traitor. Nobody is that stupid. Flight 77 never got near the Pentagon. It was a cruise missile. There was no plane wreckage, but there has been plenty of Chosen PhotoShopping.

The light poles really are a "smoking gun" as to just how ridiculous the Traitors' BS here is. If the wing clipped some of those poles that have no mark or bend at all, then the engines of the 757 would be ....

IN THE GROUND

What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage? Were they photoshopped too?

What about the dead bodies still strapped in their seats? Were they photoshopped also?

Crash test dummies.

Oh, sorry -- that would be truthers.

 

[LaDexter]

"What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage? "

I am completely convinced that you will lie until the end of time about this issue, because that is what your rabbi told you to do... NOBODY saw any plane wreckage, because it was not a plane...


"What about the dead bodies still strapped in their seats? Were they photoshopped also?

What about a video of the actual 757 flying into the Pentagon, why can't the American people see that? All we've seen is the actual cruise missile...

 

[rightwinger]

"What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage? "

I am completely convinced that you will lie until the end of time about this issue, because that is what your rabbi told you to do... NOBODY saw any plane wreckage, because it was not a plane...


"What about the dead bodies still strapped in their seats? Were they photoshopped also?

What about a video of the actual 757 flying into the Pentagon, why can't the American people see that? All we've seen is the actual cruise missile...

You dodged the question
Dead bodies and human remains from AA 77 were recovered inside the pentagon. They did not come from a cruise missile

 

[LaDexter]

Dead bodies "were recovered" because your chosen rear says so...

Video of the 757 please...

Start the Jeopardy! music

 

[SAYIT]

Is it just my imagination or do most of these 9/11 CTs end (or begin and end) with "the Jooos did it!"?

"In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...z8KHiP4tI_4IZGlW6DV9qw&bvm=bv.124272578,d.dmo

 

[LaDexter]

Indeed, just think of the conspiracy of saying the Levites took Midianite Moses up Mt. Sinai to off him and replace him with a Levite who needed 40 days to grow a beard...

 

[candycorn]

Is it just my imagination or do most of these 9/11 CTs end (or begin and end) with "the Jooos did it!"?

"In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj3w7WX4qDNAhUUT1IKHVNTACMQFggsMAM&url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html&usg=AFQjCNHz3Uj1z8KHiP4tI_4IZGlW6DV9qw&bvm=bv.124272578,d.dmo

Almost all do.

 

[Wyld Kard]

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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.

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.

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.

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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

Please refer to post # 14.

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".

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.

Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?

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.

And there you have it.

3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.

Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77”

s

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

 

[rightwinger]

Dead bodies "were recovered" because your chosen rear says so...

Video of the 757 please...

Start the Jeopardy! music

Yes, dead bodies were recovered

Those who recovered them will live with the horror the rest f their lives. The family of the dead mourned the remains and sought solace


You laugh at them and call them suckers...you are a despicable human being

 

[ranfunck]

Holy shit there is a lot of paid government **** wads around here. You **** wads make it clear why you are here. You are all a peace of shit. They must pay you well to stick up for there bs story's **** off

 

[Faun]

Holy shit there is a lot of paid government **** wads around here. You **** wads make it clear why you are here. You are all a peace of shit. They must pay you well to stick up for there bs story's **** off

Hey, it pays the bills ya know.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.

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.

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.

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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

Please refer to post # 14.

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".

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.

Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?

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.

And there you have it.

3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.

Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77”

s

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Actually it does make sense. There are flight manifests with the suspected terrorists names on them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png
Hani Hanjour’s flight school attendance was documented:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf
Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not leaving the airspace:
Photo by Craig Ranke
We know the light poles were knocked down moments before the explosion because one hit a taxi cab
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3...Bjo/zreD66gO7_o/s1600/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.JPG

There were no reports of poles blocking traffic during the busy rush-hour times before the attacks.

Quite clearly you and your horde of twoofers cannot explain away. Its very simple. Come up with a violable explanation for the wreckage. How did it get there? Plane tires are not “small” amounts of wreckage as you stated earlier.

How did they get there?

Explain the tracking of the flight into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.

Explain how a missile hit 4 light poles and a large transformer before exploding in the Pentagon.

Very simple, all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Instead of just calling people names…why not explain how these things happened? And just so you know, the real knock-out punch is yet to come.

 

[candycorn]

Cmon guys, defend your thesis.

 

[LaDexter]

If a 757 hit a street light pole with its wing, its engine would be 5 feet IN THE GROUND.... and the pole would be dented or bent, and many of the poles are not bent or dent at all, because they were sucked out of the ground by the wake of the missile...

 

[Wyld Kard]

Your ignorance is really starting to bore me.
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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

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.

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.

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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

Please refer to post # 14.

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".

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.

Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?

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.

And there you have it.

3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.

Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77”

s

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Actually it does make sense. There are flight manifests with the suspected terrorists names on them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png
Hani Hanjour’s flight school attendance was documented:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf
Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not leaving the airspace:
Photo by Craig Ranke
We know the light poles were knocked down moments before the explosion because one hit a taxi cab
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3...Bjo/zreD66gO7_o/s1600/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.JPG

There were no reports of poles blocking traffic during the busy rush-hour times before the attacks.

Quite clearly you and your horde of twoofers cannot explain away. Its very simple. Come up with a violable explanation for the wreckage. How did it get there? Plane tires are not “small” amounts of wreckage as you stated earlier.

How did they get there?

Explain the tracking of the flight into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.

Explain how a missile hit 4 light poles and a large transformer before exploding in the Pentagon.

Very simple, all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Instead of just calling people names…why not explain how these things happened? And just so you know, the real knock-out punch is yet to come.

Actually it does make sense.

Of course it does to someone like yourself. After all you were just gullible enough to accept the spoon-fed garbage as truth, and didn't think twice about questioning it.

FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact

all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Yeah like the government has NEVER lied or NEVER withheld information from the American people about what really happened on 9/11. Facts you say? That's laughable.

WOT on Earth?: 9/11 Commission Report: a 571 page FRAUD. updated!

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?

Please refer to post # 14.

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".

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.

Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?

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.

And there you have it.

3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.

Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77”

s

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Actually it does make sense. There are flight manifests with the suspected terrorists names on them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png
Hani Hanjour’s flight school attendance was documented:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf
Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not leaving the airspace:
Photo by Craig Ranke
We know the light poles were knocked down moments before the explosion because one hit a taxi cab
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3...Bjo/zreD66gO7_o/s1600/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.JPG

There were no reports of poles blocking traffic during the busy rush-hour times before the attacks.

Quite clearly you and your horde of twoofers cannot explain away. Its very simple. Come up with a violable explanation for the wreckage. How did it get there? Plane tires are not “small” amounts of wreckage as you stated earlier.

How did they get there?

Explain the tracking of the flight into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.

Explain how a missile hit 4 light poles and a large transformer before exploding in the Pentagon.

Very simple, all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Instead of just calling people names…why not explain how these things happened? And just so you know, the real knock-out punch is yet to come.

Actually it does make sense.

Of course it does to someone like yourself. After all you were just gullible enough to accept the spoon-fed garbage as truth, and didn't think twice about questioning it.

FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact

all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Yeah like the government has NEVER lied or NEVER withheld information from the American people about what really happened on 9/11. Facts you say? That's laughable.

WOT on Earth?: 9/11 Commission Report: a 571 page FRAUD. updated!

See, here we go again. No mention of how the wreckage got there, no mention of the ATC viewing the flight path and no mention of the poles.

Defend your thesis, if you can...

 

[LaDexter]

Still waiting for the CHOSEN here or in the "US media" to show the video of the 757....

 

[rightwinger]

Dead bodies "were recovered" because your chosen rear says so...

Video of the 757 please...

Start the Jeopardy! music

Videos?

Who needs videos if you have the remains of passengers who were on that 757

Are you going to tell the families of those dead passengers that the remains they buried and mourned are fake? Are you really that despicable an individual?