47 votes

What the Pentagon should have looked like on 9-11

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This topic sure hit a nerve

This topic sure hit a nerve with the trolls.

Definitions

Troll Definition Used - Anyone who logically disagrees with my position that a small personal aircraft flying as slowly as physically possible with dropped fuel and landing on a wood and aluminum building should look the same as a 747 flying at the maximum possible speed with full fuel directly into the side of a concrete and steel reinforced building like the Pentagon.

Am I right?

Eric Hoffer

Was the Destruction of the Death Star an Inside Job?


http://youtu.be/2dvv-Yib1Xg

For you guys, it probably was. LOL.

SteveMT's picture

The Galactic Empire believes that it was R2D2's fault.

After all, that little droid stole the plans. Do you agree?

Would have looked like...

Had a plane hit it. Passenger airliners have a wing span of 90 plus feet, luggage, people, no evidence of any of these necessary elements at this site. But I guess it was all for our own good.

30 eyewitnesses say the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmNv3XabI2g

+1 thats what i call

+1 thats what i call jounalism, always question, find the facts, to debunk, or corroborate

Thanks for posting

Aluminum is so bouncy, HAHAHA

the trolls have been assigned to this pentagon issue because of this newly released documentary blowing the official story completely away, even an unwitting whistle blower. Gotta watch! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmNv3XabI2g

Youtube clips

wont get one far. One would be able only to parrot "I know the truth. I have a youtube link - he said this and she said that." There were many detailed studies in scientific and engineering journals regarding this matter. Idle talk is good for general public.

somebody please

open a window. I smell Troll farts. Liberty first,? HA!

Very poor argument

Did you even watch the video? (Here is the full version by the way). You call detailed, video-recorded, on-site interviews with actual eyewitnesses "he said... she said." These people were there. They are very lucid, and with regard to the flight path, they are unanimous and certain about where they saw the plane fly. Not only are those eyewitnesses -- they are the eyewitnesses who were in the absolute best locations to answer this questions out of the entire witness pool. There is no he said she said. These highly credible and well-placed witnesses prove that the plane flew on the north side of the station and did not hit the light poles or Pentagon. People saw it fly away.

Liberty_First doesn't believe anything without...

an official government stamp of approval, for example, the official report said the jumbo jet and all it's passengers vaporized when it hit the Pentagon. In the history of aviation, there's not another known crash site on land where vaporization has occurred, but that doesn't matter to Liberty_First and the rest of the mindless lemmings running for the cliff.

Liberty_First should move his tin shack to the base of the levees in New Orleans and wait for the next category 5 hurricane, but don't worry, the US Corps of Engineers say the levees are safe.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

okay-okay

You believe in god's miracles so you are free to believe in anything else. I am not going to waste energy on speculations and projections. That only dumbs human's mind down. One would think he knows something, but in fact, he does not.

First of all you're trying to

First of all you're trying to use witnesses who specifically say they SAW A PLANE and tell you it's flight path, to try and prove it wasn't a plane, which makes no sense to me. Secondly, over 100 eyewitnesses saw it HIT the Pentagon as I have documented in this thread already. You should also provide some evidence of the claim "People saw it fly away."

this pro has been assigned

to all pentagon topics. Read his sad comment history too.

Yeah read my comment history

Yeah read my comment history and then read constitutional. You will see my comments are on the issues in the debate and backed with links to the evidence to support them.

Then look at constitutional's comments and you will see nonsense and insults with nothing but one youtube video link to back up anything. This kid is a booger eater who has no interest in truth or having an intelligent discussion, I don't think it's possible of him. I'll take the "pro" comment to mean you feel intellectually inferior to me and you should. I got pimples on my ass smarter than you.

25 Select eye witness reports

That's pretty good evidence. And... you can't even remember that airplanes have wings. Everyone benefits from your ignorance and disinformation sites being exposed and shut down. That's why we are here, Tiger, to corrall around the truth away from criminals like you! go help tyranny somewhere else, the lines are drawn and we will continue to root you out no matter how many times you change your name. LOVE

Yeah I know, 25 witnesses to

Yeah I know, 25 witnesses to the flight of the PLANE path is "pretty good" evidence, that those 25 people saw a fucking PLANE you goddamn moron. If 25 witnesses are "pretty good" then the over 100 witnesses that saw the PLANE hit the Pentagon is outstanding evidence, and the 26 witnesses that specifically stated it was an American Airlines plane makes it even more clear then, by your own logic. You are too stupid to even realize how fucking stupid you are.

Like I told your dumbass before go back to eating boogers and stfu, you add nothing to this site and don't belong here.

Sorry, Tiger

You've been EXPOSED! Go try to find a way to rationalize your life to others, WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM. Airplanes have wings and so does FREEDOM, you stinky little TROLL!

Uhh...

You do realize he's the rational one here right?

Just checking.

Eric Hoffer

No he doesn't, he doesn't

No he doesn't, he doesn't have the brain power to. You might as well argue with a mentally handicapped child. I mean look at his comments, there's not a drop of rationality or intelligence in anything I've seen this booger eater post.

if rational means...

that airplanes don't have wings.

Why

does the Pentagon not have cameras around its perimeters?

If it does then why wasn't any discernible footage of the crash released?

I think the anomalies on 9-11 and the response of the feds is the reason why its perfectly legitimate to question their story.

Whereas the real cranks and crackpots are the ones that believe everything the gov't tells them.

Here's a little bit of info

Here's a little bit of info about the videos.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
http://web.archive.org/web/20080208102217/http://www.flight7...

Of course it's perfectly legitimate to question anyone and especially the governments stories. I've done that, that's why I started researching it years ago. And so after researching about the Pentagon on 9/11 I came to the conclusion that AA flt 77 was used by hijackers to crash into the Pentagon. I came to that conclusion off of the evidence, not because it was the gov't story. I believe the same thing that Alex Jones, Bill Marshall, and Ryan Dawson do about the Pentagon, not exactly what you could call "crackpots...that believe everything the gov't tells them."

If you have some evidence to the contrary that no one has provided here, then lets hear/see it.

Interesting

I have an extremely difficult time believing this. The Pentagon should be one of the most secure buildings in the country. That means having video cameras on the exterior of the building which feed into a central location, the kind of surveillance system that other important federal buildings have.

It's almost impossible to conceive that the FBI collected at least 56 videos that were of no use in understanding how the attack took place. That doesn't add up. Why collect videos that don't even show the attack?

The greatest anomaly of the day was that for approximately 3 hours the US government was shockingly derelict in its duty to "provide for the common defense." Trillions of dollars spent between "defense" and "intelligence gathering" could not thwart 19 men. The failure of the general government to perform its primary function was quietly forgotten while the country honored heroic first responders.

Does seem like there should

Does seem like there should be a clearer video than what they have shown, I agree. But I have no evidence that there is other than my feeling that there surely should be. And even if there is, how can you not expect it to show a plane? Every single witness (over 100 people) said it was a plane of some sort, not one said it was anything else. So I would only expect that a clear video would show a plane as well since that is what every single eyewitness saw.

I totally agree the greatest failure of the day was the complete absence of defense in a country that spends more on defense than the whole rest of the world combined.

all obvious gov disinfo

par for course TROLL!

Wrong

You say: "First of all you're trying to use witnesses who specifically say they SAW A PLANE and tell you it's flight path, to try and prove it wasn't a plane, which makes no sense to me."

As anyone who has watched National Security Alert knows, there WAS a large plane on the scene. As you know, I am not arguing against that (in fact I am arguing FOR it), nor am I arguing that there was a drone or missile on the scene.

Here's what I actually said earlier in this thread, and what the video proves: "There was a large plane on the scene, but according to the witnesses it flew nowhere near where it HAD TO BE to hit the light poles and cause the directional damage to the building. It could not have and did not hit the building and was seen flying away by multiple eyewitnesses such as Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr."

The interview with Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is featured in National Security Alert, as anyone who has watched it knows, as is other related evidence, so calling on me to "provide some evidence" is more deceptive doubt-casting by you.

Frequently Asked Question >> What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

So one witness who "thinks"

So one witness who "thinks" he saw a "second" plane is enough evidence to you, to outweigh the over 100 witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Twenty six of which specifically stated an American Airlines plane.

Slight discrepancies on the exact flight path by eyewitnesses is to be expected. I provided scientific refutation to that theory. It doesn't even compare in weight of evidence to all that which supports that AA flt 77 hit the Pentagon anyway.

So what are you arguing then did hit the Pentagon then, and what evidence do you have that supports that belief?