|
the REAL truth
04-02-2005
03:34 PM ET (US)
|
and Oliver its pentagon P-E-N-T-A-G-O-N, not pentagone
|
|
the REAL truth
04-02-2005
03:19 PM ET (US)
|
You are all ignorant. The Pentagon was, indeed, hit by a jet airliner. There is proof, and you choose not to believe it. All of your photos are misleading bull shit. Take, for example, the photo from "Spot the Boeing". I believe it is number 7, where the questions asks you to find the impact hole. Well, i found it. The picture has a stream of water from a 4 and a quarter inch hose leading across the screen to the "supposed" area we should be looking for the hole. Well, look at the picture below it, the truck has not moved. The hole is in front of the truck the hole time, covered partly by the stream of water in the first picture. Look directly in front of the truck, you can easily see the edges of the hole. And why wasnt there any debris? Well, for one there was, but why so little? Because the pentagon is made of several feet of CONCRETE! A boeing is designed to be able to hold pressure but be thin and light enough to fly. Thats about 3-4 inches. And why was the hole so small? Well, the plane came in on an angle for one, and two, the wings. If the fuesalage is to thin to make a large impact, then the wings holding FUEL would have broken off and caught fire.
I'm tired of wasting my time with ignorant ass holes. I apologize if you take offense to my words, but I am a survivor and I DO NOT appreciate it when people say that the government would do that to our own people. And if you dont believe me, then here is the truth.
/m96http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...gger.com/2002/03/14
|
|
truth seeker
04-30-2002
05:00 PM ET (US)
|
You know I think most all of the people that support the theory that flight 77 hit the Pentagon are fools and are just buying into this whole terrorist attack plot. You all might as well get the bio-chip implant right now, because as far as I'm concerned you fools have allready sold your souls and accepted the mark of the beast in your minds!
You just don't want to believe that the government is Evil!
Fools, all of humanity is lost except for those who live for and who've given there life to God.
I suppose you also believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK as well! A child can tell that a 200,000 lb. plane DID NOT crash into the Pentagon. Also did it ever occur to you that the same people who build the remotely-controlled drones we fly in Afganistan also build the planes that crashed into the WTC towers.
Wake-up AMERIKA your being lied to and duped by the best on earth, Satan himself.Ask God into your hearts and forget about the foolish ways of man. What really matters is saving your soul from eternal damnation in HELL! GOD BLESS you all
|
|
riverhead
04-27-2002
11:12 PM ET (US)
|
|
|
Laurent
03-13-2002
06:32 PM ET (US)
|
In order to get a logical explanation one must answer this question :
Why are there no impact holes in the Pentagon walls ?
Pictures of the building before collapse don't show any.
Even if the plane disintegrated _inside_ the building it must have made
a hole at least of its diameter :
- the plane main core is 3.5 meters wide
(http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/product.html) and
shoud have left a hole of at least this size since the whole plane is
said to have entered the building. 3.5 meters is more than a whole
floor high !
- the two reactors (around 2 meters diameters) much more solid should
have left two holes spaced apart of about 7 meters around the
central one.
I'd actually like to see them (things would be much simpler) but I fail to.
BTW, wings leave no trace since they are very light and cannot
penetrate the solid structure of the building.
|
|
Oliver
03-13-2002
06:58 AM ET (US)
|
William,
How do you know that ? ( camera rate and engine location )
Thank you for giving us all your information sources.
Logical demonstation is the only maner to stop the French
polemic.
Thank you very much.
|
|
william gray
03-13-2002
06:01 AM ET (US)
|
Oliver,
The camera in question does not take 12 images a sec.and in the foreground there are parking lot ticket machines that obscure the view. The tail is visible in one shot and there are numerous shots of aircraft wreckage on the grounds. In addition, at least one of the plane's engines was recovered between the first and second rings of the building.
|
|
Oliver
03-13-2002
05:05 AM ET (US)
|
Sorry William.
There is 60 meters visible in front of the pentagone on each picture.
In the very bad case : with a camera which takes 12 images / second and with a plane at 800 Km / hour, the plane get 20 meters / image. ( it's probably less than that )
At least, there are 3 ( 60 / 20 ) pictures with the whole plane visible.
Where are they ?
The plane is 13 meters high, ( half pentagone high ) and 42 meters long and hit the pentagone directly. it's a big rectangle isn't it ?
My only question is definetly : why can not we see one of the 3 images with the plane or its trace, and then stop clearly the French polemic ?.
Thoughts to the victims again.
|
|
William Gray
03-13-2002
01:59 AM ET (US)
|
Sorry Folks...but if you bother to examine the photos close enough the tail fin of Flight 77 is indeed visible in the first shot. Then there are the pics of parts of the plane on the grassy area in front of the building along with those on the highway in front of the building. Then there are the hundreds of people who witnessed a B-757 airliner with American Airlines colors hit the building. I dont know what French idiot dreamed up all this crap but it isnt true. American Airlines Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon on September 11.
|
|
Oliver
03-12-2002
11:29 AM ET (US)
|
yes, but there is something strange here on BBC site :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ame...1861000/1861977.stm
We can see 2 pictures of the crash in the same second ( 17:37:19 ). The first one is before the crash, the second is during the crash. There is no trace of the plane.
Of course there is an explanation : a plane flying at 400 km per hour get 110 meters in one second. Plus, at that speed , photos are not very clear.
But, on that picture we can see approximately 60 meters in front of the crash hole ( the pentagone is 24 meters high ). The plane is 38 meters long. So, even if the photos are not very clear, the plane is 13 meters high so that we should see a kind of shadow on one of the 2 pictures. But there is not.
All of this could be false if the camera takes only 1 image / second. Do you realy believe that a camera responsible for security at pentagone takes only 1 image / second ?.
if not, there are certainly images with the plane or its shadow. Where are they ? Remember that the grass area just in front has no dammage after the crash : the plane hit directly the pentagone in the air .
Note that if the camera tooks 24 images / second. Even
at 800 km per hour speed, the plane get approximatively 10 meters per image. ( it's 38 meters long and 13 meters high )
My only question is : why can not we see an image with the plane or its trace when the whole world now knows that a camera recorded the scene ?
There is certainly a response.
Thoughts about the victims.
|
|
maveness
03-11-2002
06:14 PM ET (US)
|
So the people who actually saw a plane crash into the Pentagon were all hallucinating? I don't think so.
|
|
not an idiot
03-10-2002
04:04 PM ET (US)
|
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.
Is this person a supposed expert on airplane crashes? Where is the comparison to other instances of airplanes crashing full speed into an immobile structure?
As far as this person's juvenile interpretation of the situation: the plane in fact completely penetrated 2 of the rings of the pentagon and partially penetrated a third.
The reason you see very little remains of the airplane is that airplanes are engineered to constitute as little material as possible. They are strong enough to hold together in flight, takeoff, and landing, and no more.
The reason you see no wings after the crash is because wings are fuel tanks. When a fuel tank with tons of jet fuel explodes, you won't see it anywhere.
This makes a mockery of the death of hundreds of innocent people, and the hundreds of people who risked their lives to find survivors of a real-life nightmare.
Believe it or not, there were people on that flight who are now missed by their families and loved ones. How does this conspiracy theory address this fact?
|
|
EarthMonkey
03-10-2002
01:23 PM ET (US)
|
It is no secret that our government lies a blue streak to us. And when it's not lying, it's covering up. Look at all the reasons for why it would be good for the Bush administration to fake a terrorist attack: Oil, power, money. Look at Enron. Look at the fact that Karzi worked for Unocal. There is no plane in any of those photos. Even mere moments after the allege "attack". This alarms me; I hardly even thought of it before today. But looking at all of the pictures available, it's obvious to me that there is no plane. No plane wreckage. Very little damage for a supposed plane strike. Check out: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm . Logic will prevail, and we Americans will have to open our eyes to our government's deceit.
|
|
Dustin Balser
03-08-2002
02:53 PM ET (US)
|
Why would someone cover up a truck bomb at the Pentagon? You can explain one airliner being shot down in PA by claiming the passengers brought it down in a scuffle. But how do you explain a SECOND (or first, depending upon the order) being shot down? You tell everyone it crashed into the pentagon and disintegrated. That way, no one looks for it.
|
|
Dustin Balser
03-08-2002
02:50 PM ET (US)
|
Matthew...in the CNN video you cited, did you notice the date and time on the security clock? 5:37 pm, September 12.
|
|
Matthew Conroy
03-08-2002
04:09 AM ET (US)
|
Seen on TV, now on your browser:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html
This seems far from conclusive. I see no plane in this
version, nor did I see one on TV.
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
2562
(Unique:
1726
) / Subscribers:
0 | What's this?
