PLURIBUSUNUM.NET ROUND TABLE
Welcome to the PluribusUnum Round Table If you cannot be constructive and contribute in an intelligent way then please do not post here. Everyone has an opinion and we respect yours so we ask that you respect the opinions of others as well. You are welcome to post your opinion on any subject concerning current affairs but please keep it clean and please do not attack others. You may disagree with others just please do not be malicious in your postings and responses. |
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Forum |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 2) |
| Author | Comment |
Ashley
 IP: 69.151.28.113 Apr 29, 06 - 5:40 PM |
The Pentagon
Now I'd like to address the official government story about the Pentagon: A Boeing 757 skidded off the lawn and crashed into the Pentagon and incinerated upon impact. There are several things wrong with this story. First, the air maneuvers. Hani Hanjour allegedly executed a 330-degree turn at 530 MPH, descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes to crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the ground floor of the Pentagon. Russ Wittenburg, a certified Air Force pilot who flew two of the planes allegedly used on 9/11, told WingTV that Flight 77 could not possibly have flown at the speeds which the government has claimed without going into a high speed stall. Second, the lawn at the Pentagon. You only have to look at the photos to realize that whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off of the lawn. If Flight 77 had skidded across the lawn before hitting the Pentagon, it would have left an enormous gash in the lawn. Instead, there is nary a mark on the grass. Third, the light poles. On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet en route to Houston to pick up George Bush Senior clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby Airport. The wing ripped off upon impact, scattering debris over 100 yards. And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, without damaging either the wings or light poles themselves. Fourth, the remains of the plane in and around the Pentagon. There were none. If flight 77 vaporized upon impact, it would be the first time in aviation history. That is exactly what the government would have us believe happened. Fifth, why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757? Why is there no damage where the wings, or the vertical stabilizer, or the engines, would have slammed into the building? Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact? A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high, has a 124 foot wingspan, and weighs almost 100 tons. Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into a 16 foot hole, without leaving any wreckage? And as for the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole, approximately six feet in diameter, found on the other side of the C Ring, three rings from the impact. For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete. The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of light-weight carbon, which would crumple upon impact. So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon, smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and leave another 16 foot hole? A cruise missile. And is it merely coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section that was recently being reinforced to withstand that very same kind of attack? More evidence and clips from the film "Loose Change 2nd Edition" can be found here: www.loosechange911.com by clicking the "Evidence" link and then the "Pentagon" link. I'd like to hear your take on this as well. |
|
The GYPSY
IP: 69.92.156.86 May 1st, 2006 - 5:45 AM |
Re: The Pentagon
I do have an opinion on this subject based on personal knowledge. Anyone, such as myself, who has ever visited Washington, DC has at some point during the visit been to the Pentagon. I can make this as simple as possible.... That side of the Pentagon does not have enough lawn between surrounding structures and landscape features to have allowed a Jet to skid in without damage to those self same features. If you study the photos of the impact they are more consistant with a "BLOW OUT" not "CRASH IN." I beleive that what happened on 9/11 will continue to be a point of speculation and investigation for years to come. I do not beleive that we have totally been told the truth about the "HIT" to the Pentagon. 
|
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Forum |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com
