Complete Proof (NEW, never seen): Pentagon

in theory, yes it sounds good... but that exact info contends your inertia theory on how the hole got to the other side of the pentagon

i can prove that the second link of info does not apply to the Pentagon [supported w/ rocket hitting wall] b/c look how much debris explodes from the initial contact, MUCH like when the planes hit the WTC... look at the picture sequence below.. there is NO debris... ANYWHERE... not even on the lawn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xblackdogx

in theory, yes it sounds good... but that exact info contends your inertia theory on how the hole got to the other side of the pentagon

i can prove that the second link of info does not apply to the Pentagon [supported w/ rocket hitting wall] b/c look how much debris explodes from the initial contact, MUCH like when the planes hit the WTC... look at the picture sequence below.. there is NO debris... ANYWHERE... not even on the lawn

---

Wait for the dust to settle before you look for debris.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hunthoax.html

I don't agree with the counter theory these people portray though.

That doesn't go with your definition of reality [the rocket hitting the concrete]. You're changing your story each post.

That picture shows firemen at the scene already watering down and i barely see any debris all over the lawn.

I will show you a pic of the world trade center, did it take time for it to "settle" befor debris was present, no. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction = debris flying in the opposite direction just as the rocket has shown w/ your link

THERE IS NO DEBRIS IN THE VIDEO OF THE HIT = whatever hit it, did not hit like the rocket = where is the plane... any pics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xblackdogx

That doesn't go with your definition of reality [the rocket hitting the concrete]. You're changing your story each post.

That picture shows firemen at the scene already watering down and i barely see any debris all over the lawn.

I will show you a pic of the world trade center, did it take time for it to "settle" befor debris was present, no. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction = debris flying in the opposite direction just as the rocket has shown w/ your link

THERE IS NO DEBRIS IN THE VIDEO OF THE HIT = whatever hit it, did not hit like the rocket = where is the plane... any pics

---

Your kidding right? So as soon as the plane hit there should be debris laying there? Big difference between the twin towers and the pentagon. Twin towers were basic construction while the Pentagon is reinforced concrete. It went through how many of these rings while the twin towers had an open floor design.

One hell of an explosion...kind of like what a plane with big fuel reserves would create.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Your kidding right? So as soon as the plane hit there should be debris laying there? Big difference between the twin towers and the pentagon. Twin towers were basic construction while the Pentagon is reinforced concrete. It went through how many of these rings while the twin towers had an open floor design.

One hell of an explosion...kind of like what a plane with big fuel reserves would create.

---

No, what I'm saying is that the fireball should be a huge outward motion of debris, not that it should be laying on the floor. And once again, since the Pentagon is reinforced concrete [much like the rocket example you pointed out] it should be that much more of a reason that debris should be in the video of the Pentagon crash. Are you saying that the similarities in YOUR link [concrete] do not apply for the Pentagon crash?

You see i keep on asking this question....OK if the plane going in at the Pentagon at a 45 degree angle <stay with me>-hitting the pentagon nose first then the right wing with massive titanium engine slams into the pentagon completely destroyed leaving no trace of it, then the left side wing with massive titanium engine hits it completely shedding it off leaving no trace of a wing, engine--Well if the plane is going at a 45 degree angle slams into the pentagon the left side wouldnt have hit the whole building because the wings are slanted backwards so where is the damaged wings n engine..

Another one, if the plane hit the pentagon on the first floor wouldnt the engines drag on the ground and if the engines drag on the ground going 400mph how come it did not break off

And why did the alleged hijackers take an extreme maneuver to strike the portion of the pentagon that was nearly empty, when they couldve hit right in the middle, or even the whitehouse.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xblackdogx

No, what I'm saying is that the fireball should be a huge outward motion of debris, not that it should be laying on the floor. And once again, since the Pentagon is reinforced concrete [much like the rocket example you pointed out] it should be that much more of a reason that debris should be in the video of the Pentagon crash. Are you saying that the similarities in YOUR video [concrete] do not apply for the Pentagon crash?

---

It's like your looking for an airplane to be parked in someones office. The rocket is hitting a concrete barrier equivilant to that used for nuclear power facilities. That is even stronger than what the Pentagon had going. The Pentagon plane basically dissolved as it was passing through the rings.

I may just be really tired and missing the point but with the towers the plane went through a open floor space came out the other side as debris

So wouldnt the same type of plane hitting a reinforced concrete structure not make it through???? especially a harden target like the pentagon although im not sure about the structure, its gotta be one tough building....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Here's some more good reading but only this time it deals with reality.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

---

funny that proves that a hijacked plane dident fly into wtc..... the building is still standing WOW look at that....and another thing look at those pics they dont look simular to the flight 93 crash........and so they say they called on cellphones CELL PHONES DID NOT WORK ON PLANES IN 2001, MORE SO JUST BECAME RECENT TECHNOLOGY OF 2004 thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

You see i keep on asking this question....OK if the plane going in at the Pentagon at a 45 degree angle <stay with me>-hitting the pentagon nose first then the right wing with massive titanium engine slams into the pentagon completely destroyed leaving no trace of it, then the left side wing with massive titanium engine hits it completely shedding it off leaving no trace of a wing, engine--Well if the plane is going at a 45 degree angle slams into the pentagon the left side wouldnt have hit the whole building because the wings are slanted backwards so where is the damaged wings n engine..

There were pics of engine wreckage and as far as the wings....aluminum...dust!

Another one, if the plane hit the pentagon on the first floor wouldnt the engines drag on the ground and if the engines drag on the ground going 400mph how come it did not break off

Beats the hell out of me but not enough to substantiate a scandal.

And why did the alleged hijackers take an extreme maneuver to strike the portion of the pentagon that was nearly empty, when they couldve hit right in the middle, or even the whitehouse.....

---

The Whitehouse was suppose to be someone elses gig. As for the first part, who knows what was going through their minds....kind of glad I don't!:stoned: