Photos : Inside the Pentagon

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3

Photos : Inside the Pentagon
Topic Started: Jul 14 2009, 12:02 AM (1,775 Views)
scott75	Sep 21 2009, 11:37 AM Post #51
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	SmokeTrail Sep 20 2009, 05:14 PM Strange part about this is the fact that the grass around the site is not even scorched. The intense heat would sure have burned the grass. Funny how that jet made a perfectly round entry too. That and the fact that the nose on a jumbo jetliner would have been destroyed on impact you can destroy one of those things severly with an axe or sledge hammer. SPreston has mentioned what probably made the fairly round holes over at ATS; I believe he said it was a 'wall breaking kit', used by the military.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


SmokeTrail	Sep 21 2009, 04:58 PM Post #52
Posts: 7 Group: Members Member #1,377 Joined: 09/18/09	That makes sense. I know no jet liner done that.
Posts: 7 Group: Members Member #1,377 Joined: 09/18/09


ULTIMA1	Sep 25 2009, 01:43 PM Post #53
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	scott75 Sep 21 2009, 11:37 AM SPreston has mentioned what probably made the fairly round holes over at ATS; I believe he said it was a 'wall breaking kit', used by the military. Are you talking about the entry or exit hole? The exit hole is almost perfectly round and we know the nose of the plane did not make it past the initial wall. So what caused the exit hole? Edited by ULTIMA1, Sep 25 2009, 01:44 PM.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


roundhead	Sep 25 2009, 02:00 PM Post #54
Posts: 39 Group: Members Member #781 Joined: 08/01/08	We know a plane didnt make the exit hole, we also know a plane didnt make an entrance hole either.
Posts: 39 Group: Members Member #781 Joined: 08/01/08


ULTIMA1	Sep 25 2009, 02:15 PM Post #55
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	roundhead Sep 25 2009, 02:00 PM We know a plane didnt make the exit hole, we also know a plane didnt make an entrance hole either. Again, So what made the exit hole?
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


noeffects	Sep 25 2009, 05:07 PM Post #56
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


scott75	Sep 25 2009, 05:15 PM Post #57
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Quote: scott75 Sep 21 2009, 11:37 AM SPreston has mentioned what probably made the fairly round holes over at ATS; I believe he said it was a 'wall breaking kit', used by the military. Are you talking about the entry or exit hole? The exit hole is almost perfectly round and we know the nose of the plane did not make it past the initial wall. So what caused the exit hole? The wall breaking kit; it makes fairly round holes like that. Edit- I see noeffects beat me to it, laugh :-). Edited by scott75, Sep 25 2009, 05:19 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


noeffects	Sep 25 2009, 06:46 PM Post #58
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Its christian name is Mr. Rapid Wall Breaching Kit...
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


ULTIMA1	Sep 25 2009, 09:58 PM Post #59
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	scott75 Sep 25 2009, 05:15 PM Quote: scott75 Sep 21 2009, 11:37 AM SPreston has mentioned what probably made the fairly round holes over at ATS; I believe he said it was a 'wall breaking kit', used by the military. Are you talking about the entry or exit hole? The exit hole is almost perfectly round and we know the nose of the plane did not make it past the initial wall. So what caused the exit hole? The wall breaking kit; it makes fairly round holes like that. Edit- I see noeffects beat me to it, laugh :-). So the official story that says the hole was caused by the plane or part of the plane is wrong. Edited by ULTIMA1, Sep 25 2009, 10:01 PM.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


scott75	Sep 25 2009, 11:38 PM Post #60
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	ULTIMA1 Sep 25 2009, 09:58 PM scott75 Sep 25 2009, 05:15 PM Quote: scott75 Sep 21 2009, 11:37 AM SPreston has mentioned what probably made the fairly round holes over at ATS; I believe he said it was a 'wall breaking kit', used by the military. Are you talking about the entry or exit hole? The exit hole is almost perfectly round and we know the nose of the plane did not make it past the initial wall. So what caused the exit hole? The wall breaking kit; it makes fairly round holes like that. Edit- I see noeffects beat me to it, laugh :-). So the official story that says the hole was caused by the plane or part of the plane is wrong. Yep.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


ULTIMA1	Sep 26 2009, 05:56 AM Post #61
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	So thanks for agreeing with me that the official story has a lot of wrong parts.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


scott75	Sep 26 2009, 10:26 AM Post #62
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	ULTIMA1 Sep 26 2009, 05:56 AM So thanks for agreeing with me that the official story has a lot of wrong parts. No problem. The main problem is convincing official story supporters and, ofcourse, the "hoffmanites", for lack of a better term. I'm still working on that :-p.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


ULTIMA1	Sep 27 2009, 03:50 AM Post #63
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	scott75 Sep 26 2009, 10:26 AM ULTIMA1 Sep 26 2009, 05:56 AM So thanks for agreeing with me that the official story has a lot of wrong parts. No problem. The main problem is convincing official story supporters and, ofcourse, the "hoffmanites", for lack of a better term. I'm still working on that :-p. Well i jst call the people that still believe the official story, The BELIEVERS. Its hard to get them to accect or admit to facts and evidence that does not go along with the official story becasue they want to live in a safe fantasy world and do not want to handle the reallity of life.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


Duffman1013	Sep 27 2009, 08:01 AM Post #64
Posts: 50 Group: Members Member #1,269 Joined: 08/06/09	The first (and really only) time I checked the site, Hoffman had an essay written out detailing every little aspect of "the crash". The only thing I kept thinking in my head was NoC. NoC. NoC. Aldo and Craig have already proven (to me, anyhow), that the official story couldn't be true. Hoffman's contention is that the landing gear and various other underbelly parts, being heavier and more dense (like Hoffman's head), continued on via laws of conservation of energy, to produce the punch-out hole. However, I haven't seen any photographs of any underbelly parts, plane parts, my grandma's antique chippendale bureau, or anything else that doesn't look like building material. In fact, I think the landing gear and other very dense plane parts and Hoffman's brain, were identified to be inside the building, at least following the official story. But, then again, who am I to judge, I just think NoC. One more thing... are there any pictures of the opposite side of the hole, as in the exterior wall of B ring? I wanna see the scorch marks. Or skid marks. Maybe there is a sign that says "April Fools!" Edited by Duffman1013, Sep 27 2009, 08:04 AM.
Posts: 50 Group: Members Member #1,269 Joined: 08/06/09


scott75	Sep 27 2009, 12:14 PM Post #65
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	ULTIMA1 scott75 Sep 26 2009, 10:26 AM ULTIMA1 Sep 26 2009, 05:56 AM So thanks for agreeing with me that the official story has a lot of wrong parts. No problem. The main problem is convincing official story supporters and, ofcourse, the "hoffmanites", for lack of a better term. I'm still working on that :-p. Well i just call the people that still believe the official story, The BELIEVERS. Its hard to get them to accect or admit to facts and evidence that does not go along with the official story because they want to live in a safe fantasy world and do not want to handle the reallity of life. You could say that more for the official story believers; the hoffmanites are more complicated. Edited by scott75, Sep 27 2009, 12:23 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 27 2009, 12:21 PM Post #66
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Duffman1013 The first (and really only) time I checked the site, Hoffman had an essay written out detailing every little aspect of "the crash". The only thing I kept thinking in my head was NoC. NoC. NoC. Aldo and Craig have already proven (to me, anyhow), that the official story couldn't be true. Hoffman's contention is that the landing gear and various other underbelly parts, being heavier and more dense (like Hoffman's head), continued on via laws of conservation of energy, to produce the punch-out hole. However, I haven't seen any photographs of any underbelly parts, plane parts, my grandma's antique chippendale bureau, or anything else that doesn't look like building material. In fact, I think the landing gear and other very dense plane parts and Hoffman's brain, were identified to be inside the building, at least following the official story. But, then again, who am I to judge, I just think NoC. I've lost interest in pursuing the Hoffmanites for the most part; Q24, who got me to expend the most effort in countering their claims, gave up the discussion after making a rather insulting remark towards my reasoning. When I posted my counter to Victoria Ashley's critique of CIT over in a forum she frequents, it was deleted only a few hours after I posted it, with a note from the moderator that they don't allow such conversations. Recently, they shut down a thread that had someone defending CIT's theories as well. Yesterday, I responded to someone over at prison planet, asking him why he disagreed with CIT/PFT's take on things. No response as of yet. Duffman1013 One more thing... are there any pictures of the opposite side of the hole, as in the exterior wall of B ring? I wanna see the scorch marks. Or skid marks. Maybe there is a sign that says "April Fools!" Laugh :-p. Edited by scott75, Sep 27 2009, 12:23 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3