Re: Detailed Examination of Pentagon 911 Witnesses

From: lensman1955 (lensman1955_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: 5 Sep 2004 04:08:36 -0700

"C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message news:<Xns955A754FBFC00spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
> lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
> news:633b063b.0409040715.b229bff@posting.google.com:
>
> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9559DEE6D5362spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
> >> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409031816.32d969d8@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> >> > news:<Xns95598BEBE8C6Dspamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
> >> >> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
> >> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409021727.599319c@posting.google.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Bango Skank <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:<Xns9555DA7AA3F52spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
> >> >> >> Sir Cumference <radiodaze@this.not> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:0emdncVF38zASq7cRVn- gg@gbronline.com:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > lensman1955 wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 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.)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Musta paid that AA pilot a lot of money to do that, and I guess
> >> >> >> > all the passengers and rest of the crew as well. And if the AA
> >> >> >> > plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is the plane and all
> >> >> >> > those passengers? Oh, we know the conspiracy nut-case answer,
> >> >> >> > they were all part of the conspiracy. Yea right.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The more likely answer is that they are dead.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Duh, that's what happens when a 757 crashes into the pentagon at
> >> >> > 400+ mph.
> >> >>
> >> >> Except it didn't happen.
> >> >
> >> > Bull***!
> >>
> >> Top-notch refutation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > When it comes to conspiracy nuts, especially this one, there is
> >> >> >> > no reasoning, just point to some photos and seeing things that
> >> >> >> > aren't there.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are you ever going to back up this claim?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I doubt it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL, just review the doper site. Just about every claim has been
> >> >> > disproven.
> >> >>
> >> >> So you posted proof to my website?
> >> >>
> >> >> You suck at lying.
> >> >
> >> > Bull***! I posted proof, disproving the doper site, maybe if you
> >> > didn't have so many threads pertaining to the same subject you'd have
> >> > seen it.
> >>
> >> Erm, refresh my memory. What claims did you disprove?
> >>
> >> ; )
> >>
> >> I think a lot of people notice by now that the motif for 757 defenders
> >> is to claim you have proven something, but never actually show the
> >> proof. It's getting really tiresome.
> >
> > I think their point is that, like the "moon-landing hoax" theory, the
> > "missile/jet" theory is way to complicated and intricate to actually
> > work in real life.
>
> I don't see what's so complicated about it.
>
>
> > We are asked to believe that 19 terrorists couldn't
> > enter this country under false identification, hijack four planes and
> > run three of them into buildings (one into a field in PA).
>
> Actually, you are asked to believe that by your government. Except, they
> were already in this country, in some cases training at air force bases.
>
> NORAD, the military, the intelligence agencies and law enforcement just
> didn't seem to notice. Somehow.
>
> Why would they run into a field, by the way?
>
>
>
> > But we are
> > asked to believe that a 757 could fly incredibly close to the ground,
>
>
> Erm, no. That's the government's claim, again. 100 feet is not incredibly
> close to the ground, for a 757.

And you think 100 feet would have provided cover for the killer jet?

> > just barely missing the Pentagon and providing cover for a killer
> > jet/missile flown by a suicidal pilot.
>
> Supposition on your part again. There was no need for a suicidal pilot.

Ah, so it was a remote controlled killer jet that was able to do this
without anything going wrong!

>
> > Furthermore, we are then
> > expected to believe no one saw this humongous jet plane leave the area
>
> When they just witnessed a huge explosion?

Actually, I would think the great big explosion would cause people to
look in that direction whereupon someone should have spotted a great
big 757 flying away.

>
>
> > and fly to some nearby airport where the passengers and crew would
> > have to be gathered up and incarcerated until they could be killed at
> > a later date. It would have had to be a public airport, 757s need a
> > lot of runway and (explosion a few miles away not withstanding)
> > SOMEONE would have noticed a large group of people being rounded up
> > and led off by a group of military types (or men in black if you
> > prefer.)
>
> Again, this is your theory. Why couldn't the plane be flown over the ocean
> and destroyed?

If you had a crew that was willing to fly their plane over the ocean
and let it be destroyed, why wouldn't they just fly it into the
Pentagon. (Unless you're going to raise the "radio controlled
passenger jet" argument again. "That trick never works!")

>
> > In short, your theory is a house of cards that just can't hold up.
>
> Actually, that's your theory, as you just wrote it. Mine is that no 757 hit
> the Pentagon. It's a much simpler theory, and more likely to be true than
> your scenario.

But there was a 757, having decided it didn't hit the Pentagon, the
next question is; what happened to it?

>
>
>
>
>
> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
>
> ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
> New Online Video Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
>
>
> --
> http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
>
> Virgin Message Board
> http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
> action=intro
>
> Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
> http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Quantcast