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.

Exactly

Most would have given up but he continues to push his position.

Why, Eric? Because your second-hand accounts on 9/11 are more truer than our second hand accounts?

Eric, why don't you present your argument to Richard Gage and let me know what he tells you. He's much more educated on the subject at hand than I, however, he shares the same conclusion as I do.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS???

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Push?

Push? You make it sound like I'm at your door trying to convert you to Mormonism or something. Have you yet heard the good word Myke? Nice job trying to call it "my" position like no one else holds it.

Why, Eric? Because your second-hand accounts on 9/11 are more truer than our second hand accounts?

Well, yes, the witnesses, testimony, and structural evidence, including wreckage from a plane, do kind of point to my point here being the more true one. Glad you noticed.

Eric, why don't you present your argument to Richard Gage and let me know what he tells you. He's much more educated on the subject at hand than I, however, he shares the same conclusion as I do.

If he's more educated on the subject than you are and is still wrong, how does that help me at all here? I don't really see the point. What's his cell phone? I'll give him a call. In the mean time, could you call Ben Bernanke and ask him to stop printing money and debasing the currency? I'd really appreciate it.

shares the same conclusion as I do.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS???

That depends on how easily you're taken in by illogical reasoning and scary looking physics equations.

Totally unrelated, but I have an excellent investment opportunity for you, only open for a limited time, shoot me an email with your credit card numbers and address and we'll get started today!

Eric Hoffer

Dude, planes melt, remember?

:)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

uhhhhh

And YOU realize that that photo is also AFTER the roof collapsed? Before that, there was a 20 foot wide hole that penetrated through all the layers. Good luck trying to find those photos on Google. Even in the photo the OP provided, where are the wing impact points??? Was this a folding plane??

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagonxox30.jpg

Considering what we know today about drone use, one must consider hindsight in these circumstances.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

It's pretty simple unless there were

two HUGE engines are parts thereof along with HUGE wing parts laying around the pentagram no 767 hit it.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

startling

bump

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

I agree -- Careful

First, there is a pretty significant difference between reinforced (and extra thick) concrete walls and a wood-based structure. Secondly, unless the plane went in at an angle - the wings have been sheared off by the flimsy structure, no gap for the wings.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

No wings, no scares from the

No wings, no scares from the wings, no wreckage from the wings,

What part of NOT A PLANE don't you understand?

Relax....look again

My point was that in the photo linked there were no wings, no scars from wings, no wreckage from the wings in the photo of an obvious plane crashed into a tiny wooden structure. The photo actually runs counter to 9/11 truth because of that. I'm trying to help.

I'm not sure a plane hit the pentagon either, I'm with you, but the photo makes your claim look stupid. Hence, shouldn't be used.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

The part

Where there was wreckage from the plane?

Eric Hoffer

I believe that was construction materials...

.........for the construction that "coincidentally" was going on EXACTLY where the "plane" hit.

Please look up the term, "Cognitive Dissonance"

We all suffer(ed) from it.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

?

Do you also suffer from blindness? There are plane wreckage photos all over the place.

You're bringing up cognitive dissonance, and I'd say you're definitely suffering from it here.

Eric Hoffer

"You're bringing up cognitive dissonance"

and I'd say you're definitely suffering from it here."

And now he's diagnosing patients. Brilliant.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Hmm

You do notice that I wasn't the one who brought up cognitive dissonance right? It also doesn't take an expert to notice that when you show someone solid evidence and they look away like a 2 year old and yell, "No!" that you're not dealing with logical behavior.

Eric Hoffer

I must be

since I see NO irrefutable proof of a plane other than some debris that could have EASILY been planted there prior to flying a drone into the building.

I'm only gonna ask this one more time, where are the wing impact points!? Did they also melt like the ENTIRE plane that crashed in a field?

You must have an entertaining theory of how Building 7 just fell, don't you?

I'm not here to fight with you, even though some may prefer it, but rather trying to point out that there are some very unconvincing pieces of selective photographic evidence to sell the official story. Even members of the 911 Commission have come forward that the investigation was full of holes (No pun intended).

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

LOL

Quick! Illogical arguments failing! Switch to Building 7!

Eric Hoffer

Sorry bud but calling what you deem illogical is your fault

not mine.

Here's my logic: There was a round hole, no wing impact points, no engine impact points. Plane apparently melted but left the odd plane-looking debris scattered. Considering my knowledge of drone use, I can only assume this may have been the "plane" in question. Since that particular area of the building was closed off for "construction" I can also assume debris may have been easily moved into those chambers to be later scattered by an explosion.

Your logic: Ignore all of what I just mentioned because something looks like a wheel from a plane and because they said so?

If you think your logic is not a Fail then you're right, you ARE a winner.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Ooh, logic

If I can show you anything resembling damage from engine impact points, will you concede? Is that the only point that is really sticking here?

As for melted, I'm assuming you're being facetious. There was plane debris scattered all over the place. I can understand it being "odd looking" as it had just nailed a concrete and steel building at high speeds. I'll refute your point about the debris being easily scattered, as it was found on scene in the rubble itself which had to be pulled out and sorted through by on site responders who were digging through the wreckage.

Are you seriously under the impression that my position that it was a plane comes from only one wheel and because some indeterminate "they" instead of a reputable party said so? Because I'd thought that was one example amidst a plethora of photos, and that such a thing would be obvious to anyone reading the thread, but if you really need this explained out slowly and for me to post every single image of wreckage I can find, I'll copy and paste from other threads in this conversation.

Straw manning my argument doesn't make MY argument a fail there guy.

Eric Hoffer

nice to see

that a government Troll finally knows what a straw man argument is after being called out for using one so many times. . Just because you don't believe that airplanes have wings doesn't necessarily make you a troll, you could be a computer designed not to understand the word wings, so hold on, I'm gonna crash you....ehem...WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings WingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWingsWings somebody call the geek squad!

It's easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled. ... Ah Mark Twain,

Never ceases to amaze me

how many people still feel they have to be condescending to someone who differs in opinion, such as yourself. And I really get tired of people redirecting the conversation into areas they're more comfortable with.

In short, YES, show me engine AND wing impact points and then I will gladly adjust my set of beliefs about this particular incident.

You are very quick to assume that what you are saying should be obvious to people reading this thread yet clearly it seems to be quite evenly split amongst opinion. Perhaps you need a bit of practice in accepting people's right to their opinions even if you do not agree with them.

I already give you that much, but you don't have to be so arrogant. That way of behaving is getting a bit old.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Careful with the comparisons

A plane crash at low speed leaves lots of chunks of debris. At high speed, the plane is shredded into tiny pieces.

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon. I'm just not surprised, if it was a plane, that nothing is left.

The tell-tale piece of the puzzle is the engines. They don't disintegrate. I'm not aware of published reports documenting the engines found at the Pentagon. Then again, I haven't really looked that hard.

I dont know if the engines

I dont know if the engines are really "tell-tale". in this video an f-4 Fantom is crashed at 500mph into a steel reinforced concrete wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RV_ba...

see what happens

I can't tell what happened

to the engine on this fighter plane by watching the video.

You haven't looked that hard?

I suggest you look harder. 9/11 wss the catalyst for our "war on terrorism" and the virtual police state we now live under. There is no excuse for anyone not having looked REALLY hard at WTC 7 and the pentagon.

Let me be clear...

I haven't looked that hard FOR SERIAL NUMBERS ON THE ENGINES. I have spent far too much time chasing down details of the events of 9/11. I've run into many dead ends, as well as many surprising facts. I have the opinion, after untold hours, days, weeks, years of research that 9/11 was a conspiracy of people inside and outside of our government to let/make the attack happen.

However, I have NOT spent much time searching for data on the serial numbers of the engines from the Pentagon.

ecorob's picture

Well intended point, the truth that hurts...

Respectfully, no excuse for not knowing.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.