Re: Pentagon Witnesses Vs. Physical Evidence

From: lensman1955 (lensman1955_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: 30 Aug 2004 02:49:02 -0700

Bango Skank <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message news:<Xns9554D8C941139spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
> http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/eyewitness-accounts-flight77.htm
>
> Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. Monday 17 Jun 2002
> author: Gerard Holmgren ( gerardholmgren@hotmail.com )
<article snipped for space>

I'd just like to know, why? We know two passenger jets hit the Towers.
We know a passenger jet hit the ground. But for this one case suddenly
we have a passenger jet swooping down low, missing the building by
feet, and a mysterious military jet firing a missile and actually
hitting the building. Why go through all that trouble? If you had
crazy people who were willing to fly passenger planes into buildings,
why put your last crazy person into a military jet? (Not to mention
that you needed some crazy person to fly F77 into a low path that just
missed the Pentagon.)

Also, having brought up the idea that the passenger jet missed the
Pentagon, you would then have to account for it. Saying; "I don't
know, but it didn't hit the Pentagon." is a serious flaw in your
reasoning.

As far as physical evidence is concerned. No one has shown me a
picture of the building post-impact that wasn't covered in smoke and
haze. They say that the pictures show half the hole and we have to
extrapolate (sp) i.e. "guess" what the rest like. That would be fine
if the hole were exactly round, but they're assuming it is without any
evidence of it.

And, while we're on the subject of "physical evidence." I keep hearing
that "no 757 parts were taken out of the Pentagon." First off, were
you there throughout the entire process of bringing out debris that
you can say; "That's not a 757 piece and that's not a 757 piece."
Furthermore, I have to consider that after crashing into reinforced
concrete (And when was the last time THAT happened? To differ with the
opinions of some people here, not all buildings are created equal.)
but after crashing into the building and burning for quite awhile, I
doubt if anything was immediately recognizable as a specific part from
the plane without substantial analysis.

I think to prove your case, you would have to have something that
could be clearly pointed to as a piece of a military jet as opposed to
a passenger jet. Or you would have to show evidence of two impacts
(missile/jet). Simply stating (over and over again) that "this impact
doesn't look like a passenger jet to me." simply doesn't suffice.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pentagon Witnesses Vs. Physical Evidence
    ... We know two passenger jets hit the Towers. ... > We know a passenger jet hit the ground. ... > crazy people who were willing to fly passenger planes into buildings, ... > As far as physical evidence is concerned. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pentagon Witnesses Vs. Physical Evidence
    ... We know two passenger jets hit the Towers. ... >> We know a passenger jet hit the ground. ... > the Pentagon, then where is the plane and all those passengers? ... >> As far as physical evidence is concerned. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pentagon Witnesses Vs. Physical Evidence
    ... We know two passenger jets hit the Towers. ... > We know a passenger jet hit the ground. ... but it didn't hit the Pentagon." ... Or you would have to show evidence of two impacts ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Final Evidence: No 757 Hit The Pentagon
    ... >> um, if passenger remains were found, then it had to be a passenger jet ... DNA identification. ... They were identified by routine forensic methods. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast