• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

Anders Lindman said:
Remember there ARE live eyewitnesses seeing a big fat airliner with the American Airlines logo on the tail, making a steep dive, and then folding back its wings in the shape of a dart, thereby penetrating the stern Pentagon structure!!! :rolleyes::boxedin::duck::jaw-dropp:faint:
Click to expand...
1. Source.
2. Why would the conspirators possibly make their plane do that?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Remember there ARE live eyewitnesses seeing a big fat airliner with the American Airlines logo on the tail, making a steep dive, and then folding back its wings in the shape of a dart, thereby penetrating the stern Pentagon structure!!! :rolleyes::boxedin::duck::jaw-dropp:faint:
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the testimony of those witnesses. Got them? There of course are plenty of eye witnesses who saw exactly what DID happen, namely a large jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. There was also physical evidence and DNA of the passengers found in the building. But that was all planted, wasn't it?

So, all evidence points to a passenger Jet crashing into the Pentagon. So, your cute little posts aside, do you have any evidence something else happened? No? Incredulity? Yea, that's what I thought.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
The evidence shows that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. Our not knowing what happened to the passengers doesn't make that evidence go away.
Click to expand...

My friend, there is exactly zero evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. You are posting links to material already judged 'delusional' by the courts. Even the 'leaders' of 911Truth assert a 757 hit the Pentagon. So that leaves you out there on Fantasy Island with the kooks from P4T and CIT. Why don't you take a little trip back to reality?
 
NoahFence said:
FOLDED ITS WINGS!?!?!

did someone stundie that, or was he kidding?
Click to expand...

No, there was a genuine witness account that claimed that the wings folded back as the fuselage broke through the wall. Of course, they'd have had to hit the walls to make them fold back, so we'd expect extensive damage to the walls anyway. Since there's photographic evidence that the wings damaged the walls, and a 90 foot section of the facade collapsed (indicating that the truther lie about a neat 16-foot circular hole and no other damage is just that, a lie), none of this is particularly anomalous or implausible.

Dave
 
Anders Lindman said:
The news anchor said that the plane folded back its wings at impact and became like a piercing dart, and that's why the hole in the Pentagon was so small. LMAO. :D
Click to expand...

1: he isn't a news anchor. He is a reporter for USA Today, a newspaper.

2: yes he said the wings folded backwards as they hit the structure, what is 'funny' about that?

It is quite obvious in photos that the 'hole' in the ground floor is 90 feet wide slightly less than the wingspan of the aircraft. If he was incorrect about the size of the hole and was taking conspiractor's word for it, so what? Given the smoke and confusion of the day its quite understandable if he did not get a first hand clear view of the size of the 'hole' himself.

There is a basically round 'hole' at the second floor about 16-20 feet in diameter which corressponds well to the size of the fuselage and is located the correct distance above the wing impact to indicate a 757.

The Pentagon I suppose you will now compare to the WTC towers and point out that no folding back of the wings was observed there.

Apples and oranges comparison of course but I leave it to you to figure out why.
 
Last edited:
IIRC this reporter is the only one who reports the wings folding back.

Nevertheless there are many witnesses who report the plane HIT the Pentagon. None of them describe it hitting an upper floor or that they thought it would hit an upper floor. The only reports that include such detail as to where on the building it hit say that it hit low down, at the base of the wall.

There was no "small hole" as the conspiracy adherents are prone to state.
there were no indications of or witnesses to a 'fly-over' despite some conspiracy adherents desires to contend such a thing.

There is no evidence of an explosive detonation either in or outside the wall of the Pentagon and the physical damage and conflagration is consistent with impact from a large fast fuel laden aircraft despite conspiracy adherents wish to contend otherwise.
 
NoahFence said:
Grumman for one.....
Click to expand...

The F-14 is a fighter jet. I'm curious about which jet liner, or large passenger jet has wings that sweep back. The largest variable geometry wing aircraft I know of is the TU-160 BLACKJACK, a Russian strategic bomber which is not likely to be mistaken for an American Airlines passenger jet. Tu 22 BACKFIRE also has VGW's and is of similar size but is also not likely to be mistaken for an airliner. The other aircraft with VGW's are much smaller so would not be candidates for a fake jet liner.

So what aircraft has this variable geometric wing feature and looks anything remotely like an airliner?
 
Craig4 said:
The F-14 is a fighter jet. I'm curious about which jet liner, or large passenger jet has wings that sweep back. The largest variable geometry wing aircraft I know of is the TU-160 BLACKJACK, a Russian strategic bomber which is not likely to be mistaken for an American Airlines passenger jet. Tu 22 BACKFIRE also has VGW's and is of similar size but is also not likely to be mistaken for an airliner. The other aircraft with VGW's are much smaller so would not be candidates for a fake jet liner.

So what aircraft has this variable geometric wing feature and looks anything remotely like an airliner?
Click to expand...

The only one I could think of was the F-14!

Passenger jets? I don't think any do. The Concorde had funky wings but that thing sleeps with the fishes now.
 
clear evidence huh? then bring it to ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, BBC, PBS, or Al Jazeera.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
I'm having a busy work week so I won't be able to do any serious posting for a few days.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but when did you even START doing any serious posting? Clearly your aim here is to just pop up and spam utter B.S.

ETA: Oh my GOD did you link to KillCLOWN?! Wow... you... need... help!
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
He HAD one...that's why he couldn't afford a decent television!
Click to expand...

You know, that struck me as odd too. With that huge honking satellite dish you would think they would have gotten him a nice wall-size plasma screen to watch himself on.You know that the jihad business is hitting on hard times when all the Sheik gets is a 1980's tube set :(
 
BCR said:
You know, that struck me as odd too. With that huge honking satellite dish you would think they would have gotten him a nice wall-size plasma screen to watch himself on.You know that the jihad business is hitting on hard times when all the Sheik gets is a 1980's tube set :(
Click to expand...

As a direct to home TVRO that honking satellite dish is also 1980-1990 vintage.
 
Friends, Romans, countrymen...

Truthers, such as the jolly lads posting in this thread, seem to me far from interested in considering evidence or rebuttals to their posts. It's all about spreading seemingly plausible ideas to the masses. Self-important li'l anarchists, each sad one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom