Have to laugh at "new evidence" direct from "911-truther" central. I do genuinely wonder at the alarming disparity being shown to clear and forehead-slapping obvious deception in fake "missile footage", then these same people subsequently claim that the "evil US Gubment" are the ones doing the deceiving.
<MOD ALERT> Derogatory comments, insults, name-calling, etc. that are, or appear in the judgement of moderators intended to be, directed personally at other forum members are not permitted. This forum is a place for 'respectful debate' - other forum members should not be regarded as the subject of the discussions. Members must not attack or harass (by repeated personal attack, accusation, baiting, trolling, posting/demanding personal information, etc.) other members in discussion threads even if they believe their attack/insult to be 'true' or 'fact'. CONTINUED ATTACKS AND PERSONAL RIDICULING WILL RESULT IN THREAD BANS.
"Note: The prop plane Rick refers to was a military C-130 "Gofer 06" airborne from Andrews Air Force Base. Gofer 06 was vectored by ATC to follow Flight 77. ATC recording below:"
For interested viewers, this link comprehensively proves that a plane struck the Pentagon: https://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com
All planes have identifying numbers: Also, see the vid posted ea, where the CNN reporter says he could see no evidence that a plane hit the building. And then that white streak which could be a missile but certainly is not a Boeing. https://www.bitchute.com/video/U3NGYntHcKPz/
Thank you for your amazing insight, that point was not disputed. This must be hard to understand, but people, especially reporters get creative. There is a very good reason there was no "evidence" of a plane, as it entered the building at over 500mph and disintegrated into a billion pieces. It's a Boeing. Posting faked footage is not helpful in a quest to say that the Plane was fake.
Ibid. Damage to the Pentagon "Section Summary: It is a common misunderstanding that AAL77 left only a "small hole" in the Pentagon facade, that it punched through 6 reinforced walls, and left a slightly smaller hole in the C-Ring wall. This is a totally false assertion. For a complete composite of the facade damage, click and enlarge the first two images below. There and in the following section you will find extensive wide spread damage from the fuselage, engines, wings, even the vertical stabilizer. Further down take note of the construction of the Pentagon. Only the outer wall was constructed with reinforcing. The C-Ring "punch out" wall was plain brick and nothing more. Also note that the area AAL77 impacted; the bottom and second floors, is open space the entire distance between the outer E-Ring and the inner C-Ring with no dividing walls lower than the third floor. It can therefore clearly be seen that AAL77 did not penetrate 6 reinforced walls, but only 1; the outer most wall. Damage to the Pentagon Façade:"
ibid. Damage to surroundings; Section Summary: Many do not realise the surrounding damage that occurred at the Pentagon crash site. Below shows the result of the final seconds of AAL77's approach, where it hit a number of ground objects, including trees, motorway signs, 5 hollow street-light poles, an industrial generator, and more. This damage is only consistent with a large, and wide object, of the dimensions of a Boeing 757. Those who acknowledge this damage but still favor conspiracy theories baselessly claim this wide spread damage was "staged" or "planted" post-crash. Needless to say, no evidence has ever been provided to support this claim, nor to explain how this staging managed to avoid the gaze of hundreds of flocking onlookers who were filling the areas around the Pentagon. On a final note for the damage to the surroundings, it is often said among conspiracy theorists that had an aircraft hit these light poles, it should have ripped the aircraft's wings off and/or sufficiently upset the aircraft trajectory. It should be noted that light poles on roads are designed with breakaway bases so that in the case of an accident the pole imparts little force back on the vehicle, reducing the damage to the vehicle and reducing harm to the passengers. The following video demonstrates just how easily these poles break away, and provides an example of why AAL77 hitting these light poles would not result in any significant damage to the airliners wings, or deviation from its flight path.
All those pics you posted prove nothing. Now why have you avoided that CNN reporter's statement? And you still haven't addressed what I raised in #274 about Rumsfeld ignoring the events in New York to sit down and conduct his regular 9.30 am briefing, as if nothing had happened. Or Cheney's outburst: "Of course the orders still stand! Have you heard anything to the contrary?" What orders?
Yes they do, they also prove no amount of evidence will suffice. Hundreds of eye-witnesses and you've ignored them all! Did you not understand my response. The plane disintegrated into a billion pieces at 500+mph why would there be "evidence of a plane". The guy at Shankesville said something similar and after the same daft observations qualified it. The problem is that conspiracy theorists will deliberately cherry-pick segments like this to create a false narrative. Apologies I genuinely missed your reply. How dare he go back to work and show those damn terrorists! What the hell is your point here? Rumsfeld went to work so "no plane"? Really? So a video, made and endorsed by 911-truth, is not good enough to convince you that it was a damn plane!? A “stand down” order was issued, not to shoot down the planes | 911facts.dk
Thanks, I've not seen that video before, and 20 years ago I've watched many many videos and other facts related to the strike at the Pentagon. That it was not possibly a Boeing airliner was established maybe 18 years ago, but that video shows it clearly. That was not taken from the nearby hotel surveillance videos that the FBI confiscated the same day, but apparently from an airborne platform of some sort. I would disagree with the lady about it being a Scud. I may be wrong but wasn't scud some sort of Russian missile, ballistic in nature? What that video looks like is a cruise missile, flying the low flat trajectory. Air Launched Cruise Missile or Sea Launched Cruise Missile. Another problem is that the early images from the Pentagon, as mentioned by the Fox reporter at the beginning, showed a few aircraft parts, but from a very small plane. Small single turbine engine, and at least one small aircraft type wheel. Because of the poor quality of the video it is hard to say for sure that what we saw was without wings. The parking lot video from the Pentagon, shown many years ago, corroborates this one you showed, but did suggest it could have been a small drone type aircraft.
So, at no stage did you consider that it was a faked video? Totally wrong trajectory, the impact explosion shape is NOTHING like the actual one. The impact area is very small, nowhere near that of the actual plane.
Let me clarify my comment on "winged aircraft" I'm referring to commercial type aircraft not drones or cruise missiles.
If you remember the Pentagon "parking lot video" which was released fairly early, maybe 2004 or so, it offered the chance to calculate scale because precise dimensions were available. The location of the camera was known, and the precise distance to the point of impact was known. Orthographic drawing and projection were possible. So one person did exactly that with the known dimensions, and then overlaid the exact known dimensions of a 757 at the point of impact. The result was that the only possible conclusion was that whatever the Pentagon Parking Lot Video showed flying across the lawn, it clearly was much too small to be a 757. I don't know exactly what it was, but it is very clear what it was NOT.
"Orthographic" huh, wow. The only problem is, it wasn't. The only footage shows exactly what would occur. First 3 words was all you needed to type.
It was clearly fake/doctored old TV footage. What alarms/annoys/irritates is that not one so called "911 truther" has highlighted this first and most obvious example of deception.
Nope. It's dead easy when performed correctly. Explain how you can wave away that big list just above. From your tone, you are suggesting that you have some relevant experience. The problem is, that if you did, you would know your sources are hogwash. The crash zone is perfectly consistent with a 757, as is the security video. No amount of inept "truther" videos will change that.
(from post #332) There no shadow of a plane under where you say there's a plane. Let's not forget about the issue of no parts with the serial number of the plane which was flight 77 having been found. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-3#post-1074216313
