Did flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

[PeterPilot]

That's an old picture Sarge. So was the Pentagon wall as strong as what the Phantom hit? If the plane penetrated 2 or 3 rings of the Pentagon, how could that piece bounce backwards to put it on the lawn?

No part of the Official Conspiracy Theory you promote honors the laws of physics as we know them. It's a bullshit story and we all know it. Some people get paid to promote a bankrupt conspiracy theory for the last 20+ years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's an old picture Sarge. So was the Pentagon wall as strong as what the Phantom hit? If the plane penetrated 2 or 3 rings of the Pentagon, how could that piece bounce backwards to put it on the lawn?

No part of the Official Conspiracy Theory you promote honors the laws of physics as we know them. It's a bullshit story and we all know it. Some people get paid to promote a bankrupt conspiracy theory for the last 20+ years.

you are the one claiming a plane at speed hitting a reinforced wall would leave lots of large debris. and you still havent explained where the passengers went if the plane didn't hit the wall?

 

[rightwinger]

If the plane penetrated 2 or 3 rings of the Pentagon, how could that piece bounce backwards to put it on the lawn?

Any piece of that aircraft that could not penetrate the Pentagon bounced back.
Where else can they go?

 

[candycorn]

Simple question. Yes or No.

I already know who won't be answering. This is a public poll. I will even give the idiot response of I don't know.

Yes.

What kind of idiot thinks otherwise?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it was a missile where is the blast damage? What did they do remove all the explosives and widen the body by about 500 percent?

 

[luiza]

Thinking that it was not Fake is the type of thing you expect Flat Earthers to believe .

But if you can show how they successfully sprayed the plane with a shrinking solution then I could give a minute to somebody wanting to expand .

Concentrate your time on what material and information was coincidentally lost as a result of this Fake operation .
The equivalent of , Follow The Money .

 

[Faun]

There was aircraft debris at the Pentagon, but there was no debris from a transport category aircraft like 77. What debris was there was from a relatively small aircraft. Have you ever seen the landing gear from a 757? The engines? None of that was there.

April Gallop US Army was working very near ground zero there that day. She managed to get her son out of the day care and they both exited the building through the rubble. She commented that she saw no sign at all of passengers, baggage, airliner seats, jetfuel or anything else.

The Fox News reporter early on scene elaborated on the fact that there were no signs that an airliner had crashed there, and pointed out that the building front did not collapse until after he had arrived.

There was no airliner at the Pentagon. That's why the FBI took surveillance cameras from numerous civilian buildings nearby.

No landing gear??

Why lie?

 

[candycorn]

But the article itself was reporting the conspiracy theories but strongly supported the position that it was highjacked airliners that hit the twin towers and the Pentagon as well as the one crashed into that Pennsylvania field.

Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

Cheers.

 

[Faun]

No,it was a missile

 

[candycorn]

One engine part NOT from a Boeing, and tiny landing gear parts NOT from a Boeing were recovered. For the simple minded observer, he believes they were Boeing parts when they were not. Simple minded and well indoctrinated observers make up 80% of the American populace. That doesn't make me happy, but in my old age I've learned to accept it.

Never happened.

 

[Faun]

Here are some photos of a crashed Boeing, in this case in SFO. Nothing resembling that at the Pentagon. You want me to believe that the piece of aluminum with AA paint job was shredded by the building impact and then somehow bounced back out into the yard. You are easily fooled rightwinger.

photos from Asiana crash in San Francisco - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

What solid wall did that plane crash into at about 400 MPH?

 

[candycorn]

There weren't any dude. There was no Boeing there, no airliner. Something struck but it sure as hell wasn't AA77

Painted pieces are stage props meant to fool the very gullible public. When airliners crash on flat terrain like that those massive engines and landing gear assemblies stick out like sore thumbs.

Clearly you’re dying for attention which is why you are broadcasting such bizarre views. Your being here means, almost certainly, that daytime TV is no longer booking the craziest among us.

I will ask you to tell us about the lightpoles outside of the pentagon. Five were knocked down. What did it?

What I’m specifically asking you about is this: Why add that to your to-do list if you are going through the trouble of “staging” a plane wreck. If a commerical jet crashes, you expect of find:

Wreckage (which was found)
Bodies (which were found)
Luggage (which was found)
Radar tracking of the aircraft (which there was)

These are 100% fundamental to every crash of a commerical jet (outside of the black holes of radar of which Washington DC is not included).

What you don’t find at every wreckage site is five downed light poles. In the case of the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, there were five downed light poles.

I’m not asking you to go off on some bizarre rant about the poles themselves--we’ll get to that--but for right now, I’m asking you this. Why would someone include sabotaging these light poles in their to-do list?

 

[Faun]

Clearly you’re dying for attention which is why you are broadcasting such bizarre views. Your being here means, almost certainly, that daytime TV is no longer booking the craziest among us.

I will ask you to tell us about the lightpoles outside of the pentagon. Five were knocked down. What did it?

What I’m specifically asking you about is this: Why add that to your to-do list if you are going through the trouble of “staging” a plane wreck. If a commerical jet crashes, you expect of find:

Wreckage (which was found)
Bodies (which were found)
Luggage (which was found)
Radar tracking of the aircraft (which there was)

These are 100% fundamental to every crash of a commerical jet (outside of the black holes of radar of which Washington DC is not included).

What you don’t find at every wreckage site is five downed light poles. In the case of the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, there were five downed light poles.

I’m not asking you to go off on some bizarre rant about the poles themselves--we’ll get to that--but for right now, I’m asking you this. Why would someone include sabotaging these light poles in their to-do list?

2 rows of light posts. Something a missile is incapable of striking.

 

[candycorn]

2 rows of light posts. Something a missile is incapable of striking.

Yeah, it’s like the Zapruder film that puts a clock to the shots Oswald fired (here is where they say they don’t believe that either).

I’m sure there will be some exotic explanation involving shaped charges and teh close examination of a light pole being hit by a plane with a healthy sprinkling of “everybody[one] knows”. My question is this...why add it to the in-box of things you have to do?

If you’re going to make up a story, just say the plane came in at a steeper angle and missed the poles.

 

[PeterPilot]

candycorn

Such stale old claims you and Faun offer. These matters were settled years ago. There was no Boeing at the Pentagon.

 

[candycorn]

candycorn

Such stale old claims you and Faun offer. These matters were settled years ago. There was no Boeing at the Pentagon.

Your surrender is accepted

 

[PeterPilot]

Your surrender is accepted

The truth and facts stand on their own. They do not need your understanding to stand alone. There was no Boeing, no AA77 at the Pentagon, whether your fragile mind grasps it or not.

 

[candycorn]

The truth and facts stand on their own. They do not need your understanding to stand alone. There was no Boeing, no AA77 at the Pentagon, whether your fragile mind grasps it or not.

So what took down the light poles and damaged the generator?

 

[PeterPilot]

So what took down the light poles and damaged the generator?

A flying object that was NOT a Boeing, not AA77.

I'm not certain whether it was a drone-modified A-5 or a missile of some sort, It was recorded on the parking lot camera, but the quality is so poor that one cannot tell exactly what it is. But what it was NOT is painfully obvious. It was NOT an airliner.

There is a reason the FBI seized so much surveillance camera footage from civilian buildings in the area, and that reason was secrecy, to hide the fact that AA77 did not hit there.

Correction candycorn , A-3 was the type some theorize struck the Pentagon, not A-5

Douglas A-3 Skywarrior - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[candycorn]

A flying object that was NOT a Boeing, not AA77.

I'm not certain whether it was a drone-modified A-5 or a missile of some sort, It was recorded on the parking lot camera, but the quality is so poor that one cannot tell exactly what it is. But what it was NOT is painfully obvious. It was NOT an airliner.

There is a reason the FBI seized so much surveillance camera footage from civilian buildings in the area, and that reason was secrecy, to hide the fact that AA77 did not hit there.

So now you’re saying 2 aircraft hit the building?

What would be the purpose of the second aircraft? Why would it be necessary to take down light poles?