The "P" Hole
This is a nicely done montage of different photos of the Pentagon hit before the "collapse", showing a good view of the overall damage to the facade:
(click to enlarge)
That hole in the second story is 17.5 feet wide, if we assume 12 foot floor heights.
I see several anomalies here that are inconsistent with a 757 hit (seen better in the enlarged version).
A couple of big anomalies are the lack of marks from the impact of the huge 757 tail section, and that windowless section on the right hand side that simply looks bombed out on the first and second floor. A third big anomaly is the square hole on the second floor with the center piece dangling down.
See how many others you can spot!
UPDATE: This is what you need to believe to have the official story work:
One problem is this:
The bent column marked above would have (officially) been hit by one of the strongest parts of the plane, the wingroot (and possibly the engine depending how exactly you line it up), and it makes little sense that other columns would be blown away but not this one. This is even more nonsensical when the (official) angled trajectory of the plane means that the right (starboard) wingroot would hit before the other wingroot, meaning a bigger impact and theoretically causing significant impedance to the entry of the plane.
Of course there are lots of other things that don't make sense here, but that won't stop the shills from saying that 'of course a Boeing 757 hit here, it's ridiculous to think otherwise'.
I do like the original picture I posted because it takes away the plane that is so often super-imposed on these images and forces you to think about what would cause this damage. I am curious if someone took this picture around to people and polled them as to what happened, how many would say a plane crashed there.
(click to enlarge)
That hole in the second story is 17.5 feet wide, if we assume 12 foot floor heights.
I see several anomalies here that are inconsistent with a 757 hit (seen better in the enlarged version).
A couple of big anomalies are the lack of marks from the impact of the huge 757 tail section, and that windowless section on the right hand side that simply looks bombed out on the first and second floor. A third big anomaly is the square hole on the second floor with the center piece dangling down.
See how many others you can spot!
UPDATE: This is what you need to believe to have the official story work:
One problem is this:
The bent column marked above would have (officially) been hit by one of the strongest parts of the plane, the wingroot (and possibly the engine depending how exactly you line it up), and it makes little sense that other columns would be blown away but not this one. This is even more nonsensical when the (official) angled trajectory of the plane means that the right (starboard) wingroot would hit before the other wingroot, meaning a bigger impact and theoretically causing significant impedance to the entry of the plane.
Of course there are lots of other things that don't make sense here, but that won't stop the shills from saying that 'of course a Boeing 757 hit here, it's ridiculous to think otherwise'.
I do like the original picture I posted because it takes away the plane that is so often super-imposed on these images and forces you to think about what would cause this damage. I am curious if someone took this picture around to people and polled them as to what happened, how many would say a plane crashed there.
posted by spooked at 10:34 PM
78 Comments:
we are supposed to believe that a 757 hit the pentagon right there?
that section remained standing for a good 20 minutes before just sort of falling over into a heap.
a 757 - ya right.
Looks like it should to me if a 757 hit it.
What SHOULD it look like, Mr Aircraft Expert?
I'm sure that if this photo was shown to 1,000 people who didn't know that it is supposed to depict a building that had just been impacted by a B757
aircraft, none would have a strong feeling that a plane had just crashed into it and it's unlikely that more than a few would even speculate that was the case.
As the famous conspiracy analyst "Dulce Decorum" would say about AA FL77: "Wherdy Go?".
Looks like it should to me if a 757 hit it.
Hey 7:44, what did the *757* do, bounce right off?
Why didn't it destroy the front of the building? Where did the pieces of the supposed *757* go?
Looks like it should to me if there was an explosion inside there, not a 757 hitting it at top speed.
""Looks like it should to me if a 757 hit it.""
that's because you are shilltarded.
Brilliant repartee. No wonder the Troofer side of the aisle has convinced the world of the righteousness of their cause.
Keep pressing, boys.
Shilltarded! Yup.
No body parts, no luggage, no seats, no blood, no engines, no wings, tail, or fuselage.
No AA FL 77 scheduled to fly from Dulles on 9/11, and no B757 crashed into or in front of the Pentagon.
Next.
Good summary, anon @ 5:13.
"...been hit by one of the strongest parts of the plane, the wingroot"
But the wings are fragile, thin aluminum!
So you are saying as far as the WTC is concerned, the wings and aircraft are weak little things but at the Pentagon it is a robust, beasty machine.
You are soooo fucked up.
7:52, almost a nice try!
there is no evidence of a real 757 having hit the pentagon and no evidence of real 767s having hit the WTCs.
you are soooo shilltarded!
7:52, almost a nice try!
there is no evidence of a real 757 having hit the pentagon and no evidence of real 767s having hit the WTCs.
you are soooo shilltarded!
So you are saying as far as the WTC is concerned, the wings and aircraft are weak little things but at the Pentagon it is a robust, beasty machine.
I never said that the wingroots of a plane are weak little things-- anywhere. I've said the wingtips are relatively flimsy.
It might help if you actually went back and read what I wrote.
S, 7:52 is simply trying to manipulate your words into a distraction from the issue of this post:
there is NO evidence of a real 757 having impacted the pentagon as the mcmedia said.
if 7:52 actually believed that a 757 really did impact the pentagon then 7:52 would not hesitate to explain why there was no evidence of such.
right, 7:52?
Yes. Aside from AA debris, DNA from the passengers and hundreds of eyewitnesses to corroborate...
... there is no evidence of a plane having hit the Pentagon.
Honestly, it doesn't matter. There could be video of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon and you'd still dismiss it like you do the planes in New York.
Ever ask yourself why the gubmint took time to fake the Twin Tower crashes but couldn't be bothered with the Pentagon?
Odd.
if there was actual video of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon then this wouldn't be an issue.
unfortunately there are photos of the section of pentagon that were supposedly hit by 757 AA77 and there is no evidence of such.
"hundreds of eyewitnesses"?
are you sure there weren't tens of thousands of eyewitnesses?
odd.
if there was actual video of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon then this wouldn't be an issue.
LOL. That's such bullshit. There IS video of the events in New York and you people don't believe it. No point in trying to sound rational now.
And you're comparing photos of the Pentagon on 9/11 to... what exactly? What are you basing your "no evidence" claim on? The last time a plane hit the Pentagon, was there MORE than just pieces of it left? Oh wait. It's never happened before. Yet you folks magically know what exactly to expect.
And remind me why there should've been tens of thousands of eyewitnesses....
oh 10:17 you are almost there!
but not quite.
There IS video of the events in New York and you people don't believe it. No point in trying to sound rational now.
this is a post about the pentagon event - is there any video of supposed 757 vs. pentagon?
not.
however there are 4 videos of one 767 vs. WTC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljegR44iRWY
i believe it!
not.
The last time a plane hit the Pentagon, was there MORE than just pieces of it left? Oh wait. It's never happened before.
well that at least is true: It's never happened before.
so let's see ANY evidence that this 757 vs. pentagon event was true and then maybe we can have a discussion about it - until then you are simply grasping at invisible official straws.
beat it shilltard.
http://tinyurl.com/339cgv
.... For anyone with an actual brain who would like to see the evidence of Flight 77.
For those lacking the organ who still want to check it out, keep in mind, there are two pages.
Have fun explaining it all away.
For anyone with an actual brain who would like to see the evidence of Flight 77.
http://tinyurl.com/339cgv
is that really supposed to be considered evidence of a 757 hitting the pentagon?
as if!
why is there always some fool *eyewitness* who says:
"the wing of the 757 bounced right over me!"
or:
"hey the 757's engine was skimming the ground!"
or even:
"i saw the faces of the terrified passengers looking out of the little oval windows!"
but when we look at a simple photo of the outside of the pentagon there is no real evidence of any 757 hitting the pentagon?
11:01 you should try to have fun explaining the LACK of evidence.
get out of town shilltard!
when we look at a simple photo of the outside of the pentagon there is no real evidence of any 757 hitting the pentagon?
11:01 you should try to have fun explaining the LACK of evidence.
get out of town shilltard!
I give you two pages of evidence, and you link to ONE photo!?!?!!?
Is it all that shocking to you folks that you're not even taken seriously by the rest of the truth movement?
I'll play your game though.
http://tinyurl.com/35lmfh
Oops!
Here's another one:
http://tinyurl.com/2l3eqh
Sorry. May wanna keep your eyes closed. Here's a 3rd:
http://tinyurl.com/2r2d7w
Oh my God, another!!
http://tinyurl.com/38wprk
WILL THE MADNESS EVER END?!!?!?!!?
http://tinyurl.com/2o2uh8
OMG sword of a shill!
http://tinyurl.com/35lmfh
what is that - a water cooler?
http://tinyurl.com/2l3eqh
what are these - water coolers?
http://tinyurl.com/2r2d7w
that one is just too funny!
http://tinyurl.com/38wprk
is this a photo of the water cooler from a different angle?
dude you are too much!
why is there no real evidence of a 757 at the pentagon where the mcmedia said a 757 impacted?
the section of the pentagon that the alleged 757 impacted did not even fall over until 25 minutes later!
are you effin high or are you effin shilltarded?
WILL THE MADNESS EVER END?!!?!?!!?
http://tinyurl.com/2o2uh8
what is that, part of your garage sale?
will the madness ever end?!?!
shilltarded!
How come Shilltard @12:08-12:16 posts several photos of assorted little pieces of aluminum scrap but none of these little pieces of aluminum scrap show up in the officially released pentagon photo of the official 9/11 pentagon event?
LINK
the photo linked @2:32a is a photo of the very first responders to the pentagon event - they managed to put the small fire out before they departed the scene - subsequent to their departure a section of the pentagon fell over and a trailer full of fuel/oil mix was ignited which produced a prodigious amount of black smoke which the mcmedia then promoted as being an "attack on the u.s. by 19 evil arabs, via AA77".
unfortunately for the military/media, photos were being taken the entire time. these photos reveal that there was no real 757 debris anywhere in the vicinity.
these photos reveal that there was no real 757 debris anywhere in the vicinity.
that is, other than the photos of the stupid little aluminum scrap water coolers and soda-pop cans that 12:08-12:16 has posted.
hey 12:16....an explosion is not a collapse and a soda-pop can water-cooler is not a 757!
get out of town shilltard!
Actually, there was video fakery for the Pentagon hit:
http://pentagonhit.blogspot.com/2007/08/pentagon-video-fakery.html
It just took them five years to do it, and they only came up with one crappy video.
I don't think this event at the P was ever meant to be a media centerpiece of 9/11, like what happened in NYC, where dozens and dozens of cameras caught the event.
Meanwhile, the physical hole produced at the Pentagon is the biggest evidence for what happened there, and not one shill here has managed to explain the anomalies of the hole.
There are of course tons of "debunking sites" for the Pentagon, but they all ignore the blatant hole problem.
See? Exactly my point. You don't like the evidence, so you ignore it. The video is faked. The pieces are just scrap.
It doesn't matter to you that they are from an airplane and even have the AA logo on them, no.... It's still not evidence of anything in your mind.
You just go on posting and reposting the same single photo because apparently it's the one OFFICIAL photo from that day.
It's mind boggling to see just how religious you people are in this no-plane thing. You deal the same way with the physical evidence from that day as the Creationists deal with dinosaur fossils.
Exactly my point, you ignore the physical evidence and everything that goes against the official story.
The official story is much more like a religion than skepticism, as at least skeptics are open to other ideas. I have my own theories, but I have always been open to changing my mind as new evidence comes along.
:)
Here's something that would make me change my mind about no planes-- a photo of one piece of a tail section from one of the four planes, preferably in place from where it landed after the crash.
That should be easy for the Pentagon, where the tail clearly didn't go in, and must have broken off and very large pieces of which must have been lying around. There is no reason to think that any tail section broke into thousands of unrecognizable pieces, so that argument won't cut it. Tail sections invariably survive plane crashes.
What physical evidence am I ignoring?? Speculation of what you think should've happened is not physical evidence. Physical evidence isn't what's NOT at the scene, it's what IS at the scene.
And these aren't typical plane crashes Spooked, and you know it. You all obsess over the tail section as though it's the holy grail of evidence.
You clutch to it because their absence allows you to go on believing there were no planes despite endless accounts of other plane wreckage, passenger DNA, eyewitnesses, etc....
You dismiss all of them because "there was no tail section". It's insane.
IF a plane had crashed at the Pentagon, some of the passengers would have been in the rear of the aircraft. The remains of their remains would have been strewn all across the unfruited but pristine, Pentalawn.
No such blood, guts, gore (or Babs parts), fingers, legs, arms, clothes, watches, jewelery, luggage, pillows, overhead lights, overhead storage areas, airplane TOILET, nor anything except for SHILL-made propaganda was found, yet SHILLS continue to spread the Big Lie that AA FL 77 FLEW and crashed on 9/11, right on target at the Pentagram.
Do the Shills realize they're lying or is it simply a matter that their job is to lie?
hey 8:32, are you saying that is not a photo of a water-cooler and a soda-pop can?
If you are referring to the links I provided, I do not see what could possibly be construed as either a water cooler or a soda can.
And to whoever wants the blood and guts, here ya go:
http://tinyurl.com/2u8w3w
http://tinyurl.com/2rtzcj
I'm sure you will classify it as "shill made" so you can go on believing what you need to to feel important, but the fact is, you guys have nothing. Not even an alternative explanation.
Just the same old speculation.
And the map of remains found. It looks like 80 percent of the remains were found in a pile where the exit hole was made. Are you kidding me? It looks like someone dumped a can of remains in one spot.
"Here's something that would make me change my mind about no planes-- a photo of one piece of a tail section from one of the four planes, preferably in place from where it landed after the crash."
You still don't fucking get it. Those planes were flying at 750 feet per second. There isn't going to BE any "tail section" landing anywhere after the crash. Not at that speed. Not at that velocity. Not with that mass. It ain't going to be there. It will never happen that way. Asking for a "tail section" in that manner is no different than asking for the tail section of that F-4 that was shot into the concrete wall at Sandia. I suppose a plane never impacted that, either, since there is no tail section.
Hey! How about a diagram, like your Shanksille diagram, of what the planes SHOULD have done at the WTC!!!!! I'd PAY for some of that!
11:26am-- yep, you're right of course. No tail EVER survived any plane crash into a hard surface at high speed! (/sarcasm)
Actually I do believe for the Sandia crash, the tail broke off (along with the wingtips) and we just haven't seen pictures of the broken off tail.
And like I said, show me some pictures of a tail section (or recognizable fragments) from ANY of the four flights-- all four of which tails surely did not enter their respective impact holes-- and I'll change my mind.
And there still are anomalies for this hole that the official story supporters have not addressed.
The question is-- isn't there even some explanation for why:
1) there is a lack of a tail mark?
2) that two story section on the right side that is smashed up?
3) why the fuselage ramming through that upper floor couldn't dislodge that center column completely?
4) the odd impact into the large generator and fence that can't be explained by a 757 wing/engine impact?
etc etc
What is the explanation for why there are no human remains seen in any of the photos of the bombed-out Pentagon
section?
What is the explanation for how FL 77 could have crashed anywhere if it never took off?
Don't you SHILLS have any self-respect or is the money THAT good? If so, maybe I'll sign on. What's a few more lies from a dishonest, illegitimate regime?
what is that an egyptian mummy?
http://tinyurl.com/2u8w3w
did this guy get blown up when they exploded his office?
is that the remains of his office around him?
http://tinyurl.com/2rtzcj
you are still apparently shilltarded because after the explosion these firetrucks put the fire out and the wall hadn't even fallen over yet.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/images/journal/PENT04.jpg
there is no 757 wreckage anywhere.
It's the remains of a human being you sick fucking retard!
And keep posting that picture over and over like it was the only one taken that day. Keep ignoring the airplane wreckage and debris. Keep living in your sick little world.
How do pictures of a couple poor fried people prove that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon?
The shiny debris on the lawn with AA painting on it is more convincing, frankly. Except, the problem (apart from all the problems noted above) is that there just is NOT ENOUGH DEBRIS!
Show me where the rest of the plane is!
So first it was "there's no evidence Flight 77 crashed" and now it's "there's not ENOUGH evidence Flight 77 crashed"....
Tell ya' what. As soon as you get done moving your goal-posts, why don't you explain to us in rational, logical, scientific thought just what exactly SHOULD have been left over from a plane slamming into a concrete building at 750 feet per second.
And do your best to steer clear of the tail section. It's proof of nothing.
Keep ignoring the airplane wreckage and debris.
unfortunately the photo with 2 firetrucks was taken first and there is no wreckage anywhere in it.
the wreckage and debris was obviously placed there at a later time.
you are the sick fucking shilltard for pretending that debris came from a 757 that supposedly hit that section of the pentagon that didn't even fall over until a 1/2 hour later.
the ASCE pretended to explain just how the 757 did hit the pentagon but there *explanation* does not work.
ASCE pentagon building performance report
as if.
No one questions that people died as a result of the explosions inside the Pentagon.
SHILLS have to play little games because we were told that a plane crashed there and that's a lie.
SHILLS can't explain how a plane that wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11 and didn't take off, could possibly be suspected of having crashed at the Pentagon.
SHILL games are usually painfully childish but the SHILLS here are
obviously painfully stupid, in addition to being venal and childish.
Who pays these clowns? A PR firm that has a contract from the CIA?
"...rational, logical, scientific thought..."
From this crew?? From Mr. Rabbit Wire and kerosene and the fools who back him up?? From Mr. Foot on a Pavers "absolute proof" that the WTC were brought down by demolitions?? Mr Technical Drawings of how Shanksville should have looked like?? From Mr Nuclear Weapon brought the WTC Down?
"...rational, logical, scientific thought...". Now *that* was funny!
No wreckage and the pentagon wall didn't even fall over until 1/2 hour later.
There is no evidence that B. Olsen called husband-liar from FL 77.
One more huge reason why we know (the SHILL Brigade knows it too) that no plane crashed at the Pentagon.
It was a hoax operation, just like in
Mainhattan.
SHILLS - what a bunch of sick losers.
So first it was "there's no evidence Flight 77 crashed" and now it's "there's not ENOUGH evidence Flight 77 crashed"....
Tell ya' what. As soon as you get done moving your goal-posts, why don't you explain to us in rational, logical, scientific thought just what exactly SHOULD have been left over from a plane slamming into a concrete building at 750 feet per second.
And do your best to steer clear of the tail section. It's proof of nothing.
You MIGHT notice that the people who said there was no evidence of flight 77 and not enough evidence are different people. *I* said there wasn't enough evidence-- by which I was referring to plane debris.
You STILL have not refuted one of the anomalies I noted.
Also, you have not provided one other example besides 9/11 where the tail of a plane fragmenting into unrecognizable pieces. It's not like 9/11 was the only time a plane crashed into something hard.
SPOOKED,
What evidence do you believe supports the theory that a plane crashed at the Pentagon?
You STILL have not refuted one of the anomalies I noted.
Because the anomolies are in your head. They are anomolies to you only because you don't see what YOU, personally, expect to see.
Also, you have not provided one other example besides 9/11 where the tail of a plane fragmenting into unrecognizable pieces. It's not like 9/11 was the only time a plane crashed into something hard.
Just so it's an apples to apples comparison, show me pictures of the last time an airliner flew into the Pentagon. I'd hate to compare this situation to a plane crashing on the runway on approach at a fraction of the speed. You do understand how unique the events of 9/11 were, correct? You do understand that it's disingenuous to compare them to typical crashes, correct?
Why is there no 757 debris in front of the wall that didn't even fall over for 30 minutes?
And why did the wall remain standing for that 30 minutes? The windows weren't even broken!
Hit the road 11:24.
SPOOKED,
What evidence do you believe supports the theory that a plane crashed at the Pentagon?
The prima facie evidence of witnesses and the various plane parts that were photographed around the Pentagon.
That being said, as I indicated, I don't find this evidence convincing for the various reasons I've mentioned. There is also the fact that the witnesses give bizarre conflicting accounts about the plane striking the building and recently it has emerged that witnesses don't even agree WHERE the plane came from.
11:24 PM-- so the 9/11 plane crashes were so totally unique that we can't compare them to anything?
Why isn't a plane crashing into the ground at high speed comparable?
But your logic might work if you at least had some explanation for what happened-- for instance to the 20 foot tall tail.
You can't just wave it all away by saying it was so unique we can't to understand it.
Harry Potter waved his magic wand and spirited the all of the remains of the 757 away.
Oh, except for the part that looks like a water cooler and didn't show up until several hours later.
You're right, Spooked. Thank you for showing me the light.
It's obvious that the tail section, upon hitting the building traveling at 750 per second should've completely stopped, snapped off as a whole, and laid intact for all to see.
How could I have been so blind....
Parts of the tail-fin, at the very least, should have been visible after the fact.
But there weren't even any parts of it evident.
Nor was there even the slightest mark on the pentagon wall which didn't even fall over until a good 30 minutes later.
You should just shut your shillhole.
9:35 PM-- exactly.
Shillhole, indeed.
I will say that in the interest of the truth, that some congress-critter claimed to have been to the Pentagon shortly after 9/11, and claimed that they showed him the broken off tail section.
Sorry, I have no idea where I read this, but nonetheless, I distinctly remember reading this.
So, maybe the tail section DID break off en masse, but no one ever bothered to photograph it and present it as evidence for flight 77 crashing there.
Or, the guy was lying about seeing the tail section.
Or, the Pentagon people were lying and showing him some fake debris.
Problem is, none of these explanations make much sense.
Please explain what should've kept the tail section from entering the whole created by the rest of the plane.
Why should any of it remain on the outside of the building when it has that kind of momentum behind it?
Are you suggesting that photographers should've run in to the burning building, Nikons ablazin', to photograph the INVINCIBLE TAIL SECTION?
In retrospect, maybe they should have. It would've forced you guys to come up with a different, although no less retarded, "smoking gun".
@9:59:
maybe the tail section DID break off en masse, but no one ever bothered to photograph it and present it as evidence for flight 77 crashing there.
sorry my friend but this photo was the very first photo taken at the pentagram after the explosion that day and there is NO 757 debris, including the massive tail-fin, evident anywhere.
@11:49:
Why should any of it remain on the outside of the building when it has that kind of momentum behind it?
sorry my friend but photos of the wall that the alleged 757 tail-fin allegedly impacted reveal NO marks from this alleged 757 tail-fin.
if you think that any part of a 757 entered into the pentagram building then you should be prepared to point out exactly where it did so.
anything less is just more shilltardiness.
First, it's the PentaGON. If you expect to be taken seriously, at least try to get the name of the building right.
Secondly, I would like to see you back up your assertion that the photo you're so in love with was the first taken at the scene. I'd also like to know what portion of the PentaGON is in the photo.
Please explain what should've kept the tail section from entering the whole created by the rest of the plane.
Is this really so hard to understand? It doesn't fit-- it would be far to tall to fit in the hole-- by at least 12 feet.
I would like to see you back up your assertion that the photo you're so in love with was the first taken at the scene. I'd also like to know what portion of the PentaGON is in the photo.
it is among the very first photos taken because there are only 2 firetrucks and there is not yet an army of people milling around, plus the wall has not fallen over yet.
you can tell it was the wall that was supposedly hit by the alleged 757 because that chainlink fence is right there.
notice that there is not a single piece of debris from a 757 anywhere around there and the lawn is unscarred.
oddly enough the so-called eyewitnesses to the suppoed 757 claimed that it scraped and bounced across this lawn.
ya right!
a little bit later in the day those 2 green firetrucks left, the wall fell over, a trailer full of fuel/oil mix caught on fire producing a huge cloud of black smoke, some other (red) firetrucks showed up and dozens of people started milling around there including donald rumsfeld who later claimed to be a hero because he supposedly pulled other people out of the inferno.
ya right.
anything else you want to know there, 8:37?
did you think that people did not pay attention to every detail of 9/11?
My last comment should be: "It doesn't fit-- it would be far TOO tall to fit in the hole-- by at least 12 feet."
And again notice the wall above the hole has no signs of the tail crashing into it.
And also reference the second to last picture in the post which shows a scale plane next to the pentagon wall that it supposedly hit. Notice how the engines would have to be inches off the ground to achieve anything LIKE the hole that was produced.
I should also note the tail problem also extends to the wingtips, as the hole from side to side is 100 feet at most, and a 757 wingspan is 150 feet. Meaning the wings wouldn't fit in that hole. I don't think they broke off, folded inwards, and went in the hole-- though that has been proposed.
The wingtips AND TAIL are missing-- and can't have gone in the hole.
And again notice the wall above the hole has no signs of the tail crashing into it.
What hole? That wall didn't even fall over until 30 minutes later.
a little bit later in the day those 2 green firetrucks left, the wall fell over...
.... When did those fire trucks leave?
Gee....
That's not another one of those green fire trucks is it?
How'd all that debris get there I wonder??
10:34 that is a different green firetruck - the other 2 have already left after putting the first fire out. notice all the pentagon big-wigs in shirtsleeves that weren't out there before.
i also wonder how "all that debris" got there, since it wasn't there in earlier photos.
mabe it was magic debris that only appears for photo ops, like that cloud of smoke did.
10:30 the wall hasn't fallen over yet so not even 30 minutes have elapsed since the pentagon first exploded.
notice that those trucks are not spraying any water.
look at the photo @12:02 and you see the 2 green trucks and no 757 debris anywhere.
the magic debris and the magic cloud of smoke in 10:34's photo did not show up until later.
Oh. Different green fire trucks. Of course.
....
Dude. Never go into law.
The green firetruck @10:34 is a different green firetruck from the ones @12:02, when the wall hadn't fallen down yet and the magic debris hadn't shown up.
Dude. Get out of town.
In other words, this is what you have to believe to stick to your story. You cannot prove that the green fire trucks are different. You just know that the two in your photo left and two other ones showed back up.
It's kinda cute in a way. Like a kid believing in Santa Claus.
Well the green truck in your photo is a different type of truck than the green trucks in the 1st photo, which doesn't show any red trucks, nor does it show the gang of shirt-sleeve guys nor any 757 debris.
Obviously the 1st green trucks were replaced with other trucks.
What is your point anyway, that there was nothing amiss?
Post a Comment
<< Home