COMMENTS:
Thats been around since 2001.
By the way, they are blast resistant windows.
^over 2 inches thick.
If anyones interested in seeing what happens to a plane when it hits a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph, look here...
youtube . com / watch ? v = mTa9JzRlxRQ
Eh hem...where's the wings? - and where's the damage to the soft limestone covering on the walls from the wings impacting?
Ye canna change the laws of physics Captain! lol!
YOu can see the limestone damage.
Those dark verticle stripes betweem the windows on the ground floors would normally be covered with limestone.
Where are the wings? - in tiny little pieces.
^^^HA HA HA!^^^
Great! I got an answer out of him at last, and what a pathetic attempt it was, could it have been anything else?
Pure and utter self delusion in all it's inglory, someone shake him awake!
He proved it to himself you see!
Ye canna change the laws of physics Captain! lol!
Where’s the cam footage of a plane hitting the building, why isn't any video shown? It seems so easy then to dismiss any arguing if camera footage is available, it doesn’t make sense.
by isay on Sat Sep 30, 06 2:17pm
[+]
Seeing as they a)recovered parts of the 757 and b)identified the victims using DNA it seems ludicrous to base any kind of "doubt" on analysis of photographs that you are not qualified to analyse.
Accepting speculation over physical evidence is not a good place to start.
"...on analysis of photographs that you are not qualified to analyse."
by wideheadofknowledge
You don't need qualifications to analyse photos bozo so I'll analyse all I like -
I notice though how you qualify yourself to analyse your own cherry picked photos from 9/11 whenever it suits you - except of course when you come across a photo like this that you can't debunk no matter how much you would love to, so you should take your own advice and practice what you preach, hypocrite.
I will pass worthless comment on any and every photo you care to drag up, Ken.
Doesn't change the fact that your comments are just as worthless AND yours are refuted by solid, physical evidence.
Quick question: Where did the remains of the victims that were identified using their DNA come from?
"Quick question: Where did the remains of the victims that were identified using their DNA come from?"
by wideheadofknowledge
Interesting you should ask that, did you know NMoI that the ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene in New York was, according to you conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified.
DNA is destroyed by such heat, which is quite remarkable, because according to you official conspiracy theorists, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.
That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft.
You see, you loonies have somehow concocted the idea that it was a huge commercial airliner half full of passengers that disappeared into that comparatively tiny hole (maybe they’ll be telling us next that it was black hole, it’s enormous gravity sucked the whole plane including it's wings, engines and 40 foot high tail rudder that left no mark above the hole) either in that photo up there.
And to prove this unlikely premise, you point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you’ve swallowed or are trying to sell at any particular time.
'...and the missile that hit this building...' -Donald Rumsfeld
Got indigestion WHoK yet?
Your blathering ignorance is boundless. Passengers HAVE been positively identified using DNA from the WTC rubble.
Whether you know this and are deliberately lying or you truly are ignorant of this information is inexcusable for someone supposedly interested in the truth.
Dr. Charles Hirsch, the Chief Medical Examiner for NYC reported in 2002 that 33 victims from Flight 11 and 12 victims from Flight 175 had been identified.
Your excuses are wearing thin, Ken.
By the way - if you're going to copy and paste someone elses words verbatim at least have the decency to cite them.
Ken, did you watch that video I provided. Showing the 500mph jet practically dissapearing on impact with a reinforced concrete wall? NO? Didn't think so.
The evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon far outweighs any other scenario.
1. The pentagon lawn covered in small silver debris, some of which identifiable as coming from a 757 - with AA lettering
Source - (geocities . com / osram007 / photos / WTCtable3f . jpg)
2. Big chunks of aluminium debris on the lawn and helipad
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / yardparts . html)
3. Aluminium debris painted with the AA green primer inside the building
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / parts . html)
4. Huge holes in the Pentagon wall - These holes are roughly 25 feet high and 90 feet wide (on the ground floor), 16 foot wide on the second floor.
Source - Full extent of damage - (oilempire . us / graphics / hole11 . jpg)
5. 10-12 foot hole/damage corresponding to the right engine
Source - (pentagon . batcave . net / r01750r-_2a . jpg)
6. 10-12 foot hole/damage coresponding to the left engine
Source - (silvereagletaphouse . com / pentagon-1 . jpg)
7. Superficial limestone damage and broken windows(inches thick) corresponding to the left wing
Source - (perso . orange . fr / jpdesm / pentagon / damage / aileGauche1 . jpg)
8. A huge dent and limestone damage corresponding to the right wing
Source - (911review . org / images / pentagon / 356243--2 . jpg)
9. 89 PEOPLE saw a big airliner hit the Pentagon. 2/3 that didn't. None of which described a Global Hawk or a missile.
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / analysis / witnesses . html)
10. Bodies
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / humanremains . html)
11. Knocked down lamp posts that were not in a straight line...
Source - (thepowerhour . com / images / lamp1 . JPG)
12. The landing gear from a boeing 757 - the strongest part of the 757
Source - (whatreallyhappened . com / PENTPLANE / landinggear002 . jpg)
13. Various engine pieces from a 757
Source - (911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / compressor . html)
Source - (thebiggestsecretpict . online . fr / nwo / inside_pent_engine_remains . jpg)
14. Non profit experts confirming that these engine parts match those used by the RB211 757 RR engines. Which are too big to match those used by the Global Hawk.
Source - (aerospaceweb. org/ question/ conspiracy/ q0265. shtml)
15. Tyre rims and rubber identified as coming from a 757
Source - (whatreallyhappened . com / PENTPLANE / aedrive6 . jpg)
16. A hole on the AE drive on the back wall of the open plan ground floor. With the wheel rim and silver debris. Something a missile could not have done by the way.
Open plan - Source (pentagon . batcave . net / A000-2 . jpg)
Wheel rim - Source (pentagon . batcave . net / trou1_grande--1 . jpg)
17. Internal column damage corresponding to to an object the size of a 757
Source - chapelhill . indymedia . org / uploads / impact-internal-1-big . jpg
Source - e-bias . com / images / orange1 . jpg
89 people saw a large, silver airliner slam into the Pentagon.
Nobody saw anything that resembled a missile or a global hawk.
This is one of those (many) things which you silly shills are avoiding;
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo, video, or anything else.
and I'll repeat this nice and big since you seem to have problems reading it NO MENTION OF THE WORD "FIRE", YOU'RE IMAGINING IT!
Now please hurry and respond with some FACTS to back your bullshit!
Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
One source I found states that at:
"8:46:26 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower"
So, different sources, different times.
FIND SOME SOLID PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS.
"The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)"
One possibility is unsynchronized clocks.
You can do better than this, Loveynice.
Lovelynice, at least try and stay on topic.
You can post all your bullshit lads, but the truth is in the photo, you've been caught out here like rabbits caught in the headlights.
Unlike you - the camera never lies.
Ye canna change the laws of physics wolf.. no wide...oh yes...Captain! lol!
Sings - Ba da ba ba bahhh - I'm lovin' it.
Yee ha!
Ken, I'll repeat, did you watch that video I provided? Showing the 500mph jet practically dissapearing on impact with a reinforced concrete wall? NO? Didn't think so.
Seen it YEARS ago, and it proves absolutely NOTHING, it hits a 60 foot thick SOLID concrete block, and doesn't produce a neat hole in the middle of it - BUSTED!
It proves that when you fly a plane into concrete as 500 mph, there is little left of the plane, except lots of little pieces.
And it was actually a 5ft thick concrete block.
And yes it does create a hole in the concrete.
You may want to watch it again.
Of course, the walls of the Pentagon are not that thick, hence a more pronounced hole, and larger pieces of debris.
Just to clear something up, that neat hole ken likes to go about, was actually the best part of 90ft wide(ground floor), and 25ft high.
For scale, the windows were just over 2 metres tall.
I have read the statement of a woman coroner ivestigator that was at the pentagon crash site. She picked up pieces of human body parts and flesh. She also picked up a flight attendants aviation pin still attached to a part of the uniform among other things. This also said that any conspiracy theorist that doesn't believe the AA 757 full of passengers didn't hit the Pentagon, they are welcome to come at talk to her face to face, because she's got something she wants to say to them!
{ One possibility is unsynchronized clocks
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Oct 01, 06 8:23am}
Not true. The times are EXACT, accurate, and verifiable, based on atomic clocks and accepted OFFICIALLY. Now please address the question.
WTC 1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
Please hurry up and address this anomaly.
{I have read...
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Sun Oct 01, 06 4:21pm}
Yes, yes, so what? Where's the exact quote, link, source or ANYTHING to back your storytelling? Also YOU FAILED to address the provision of evidence that the alleged "body parts" were anything other than from workers at the Pentagon. The aviation pin itself is no more credible than that silly indestructible passport.
{ best part of 90ft wide(ground floor), and 25ft high.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sun Oct 01, 06 12:27p}
Which is still way smaller than the 150ft wingspan of a 757/767 passenger plane. As I said before, the photos of the plane parts showed a turbine that was TOO SMALL for a 757/767.
Show us a REAL VIDEO of a REAL PLANE hitting the Pentagon.
{o, different sources, different times...
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Oct 01, 06 8:21am}
Not true. The times are EXACT, accurate, and verifiable, based on atomic clocks and accepted OFFICIALLY. Now please address the question.
WTC 1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
Please hurry up and address this anomaly
It proves that when you fly a plane into concrete as 500 mph, there is little left of the plane, except lots of little pieces.
And it was actually a 5ft thick concrete block.
And yes it does create a hole in the concrete.
You may want to watch it again
by wolf_nipple_chips
Eh... I think you may want to watch it again, go on - look at it again and tell me that block was five foot thick - why are you trying to lie your way out of everything - it's beyond pathetic at this stage - and IT DOES NOT CREATE A HOLE!!! LIAR!!!
Here's the link folks - and you'll see for yourself what a blatant liar the nipple is remember he just stated it made a hole and the solid concrete block it hit was just 5 foot thick, still off the scale in comparison with the pentagon wall, but also off the scale as to the concrete blocks actual thickness, which is a several times multiple of 5 feet -
youtube . com / watch ? v = mTa9JzRlxRQ
He was obviously banking on me forgetting what I saw years ago and not bothering to view the link - that's what I have to deal with with these guys folks!
It's worth it though to get the truth out, I can sleep at night, and I won't have the need to call a priest at my deathbed. ;o)
Can this get any more absurd - I just reposted HIS link to prove HIM wrong! LOL!
WELL? have you looked at it nipple?
1) Was the block just 5 foot thick?
2) Did it create a hole?
Sssssh everyone, let's see what he posts first..... he may admit he got it wrong - but don't bank on it...
It really is like talking with a five years old, or an extremely immature 40 year old.
Search for some other footage of it Ken, it does make a hole. There is a 20 minute documentary available.
Or are you suggesting that the plane just vaporised? Surely not!
It may be little more than five foot thick, but it certainly isn't 60 foot, as you suggested. The lengh of the plane was 63ft.
Lovelynice said. "Which is still way smaller than the 150ft wingspan of a 757/767 passenger plane. As I said before, the photos of the plane parts showed a turbine that was TOO SMALL for a 757/767. "
I'm afriad the turbine has been confirmed by non profit experts as coming from the RBS 211 RR Engine. See aerospace . org
Regarding the wingspan, it was 124ft, and the damage to the concrete slabs to the left and right of the hole reflect this.
And Ken, I don't really understand why your frothing at the mouth about this one non-point, when I clearly stated afterwards that the pentagon walls were thinner.
I'm wondering Ken, would it be possible for you to show me the pictures you must have of some of the missile pieces? Perhaps a few eye witnesses who saw a missile?
Ken, are you suggesting that the plane in that video just vaporised?
{Regarding the wingspan, it was 124ft,
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 3:16am}
Not according to YOU, they don't. You've contradicted yourself.
{ best part of 90ft wide(ground floor), and 25ft high.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sun Oct 01, 06 12:27p}
so how big was the hole? Make up your mind aND ALSO PROVE IT.
What the hell are you going on about?
Lovelynice said "Not according to YOU, they don't. You've contradicted yourself.
Errrr, what? I said the wingspan was 124ft - not at any point did I say different.
Firstly, your comment doesn't even make sense. "not according to you they don't"?????
What kind of English that? Your refering to the wingspan of the plane as "they"???
As I've also said all along, the actual hole was 90 odd feet. But the damage extended furthur to the left and right. For example, those dark verticle stripes betweem the windows on the ground floors would normally be covered with limestone.
Where's the contradiction? More importantly, where is your medication?
Stop lying nipple, so I'm going to ask you again to answer the question please, you provided the link and it most certainly is NOT '...a 20 minute documentary ....' nipple
1) Was the block just 5 foot thick? - YES or NO?
2) Did the 10 second video link you provided show the plane making a hole in the 16 foot thick block? YES or NO?
...and why haven't you provided a link to this 20 minute documentary?
Provide it please, I want to blow that one out of the water too, lol!
BTW....just a little clarification folks because no doubt in his desperation nipple will use this as a distraction to take away from his own inadequacy at addressing my questions - I meant to type '16' foot thick wall earlier and not '60' foot, just a crosswire typo ;o)
I answered your question ken. I admitted it was more than 5ft, and also said, how it wasn't anywhere near 60ft as you first suggested.
Ken, are you suggesting that the plane in that video just vaporised?
Just to get back to the point (something that ken diverts from quite a bit).
The hole in the pentagon was 90ft wide(ground floor) and 25ft high(first floor).
There is also clearly furthur damage to the limestone wall either side of this hole - Those dark verticle stripes betweem the windows on the ground floors would normally be covered with limestone.
The wingspan of the 757 was 124 ft and the damage reflects this.
Kenneth, are you suggesting that the plane in that video just vaporised?
The hole in the pentagon was 90ft wide(ground floor) and 25ft high(first floor). -Nipplie
~Can you believe the lies this guy is trying to REVIVE - it has long been established that that was NOT the size of the hole made by the initial impact - which was at most 14 feet across - those the dimensions you quote are NOT of a hole but of a wall and roof collapse.
You better retract that lie if you want your comments to be taken seriously, I can't believe you tried to pull that one, just shows the dead end you have reached on this one - and your credibility as if it couldn't take any more of a pummeling took a big self-inflicted one here.
"There is also clearly furthur damage to the limestone wall either side of this hole - Those dark verticle stripes betweem (between - Ken;o) the windows on the ground floors would normally be covered with limestone." -NippLie
LOL^^^
Utter nonsensical scraping the limestone barrel - even a five year year old wouldn't try to cite that ballsology as evidence, I'm really having to dumb down here folks to this guys level, he really is going down in flames with these latest nonsense claims and lies.
Give the man enough rope and he'll hang himself. ;o)
"The wingspan of the 757 was 124 ft and the damage reflects this."
-NippLie
He's gone the full fruitloop now, reviving long debunked nonsense about the dimensions of the hole from years ago, most OCT's don't dispute the dimensions of the hole anymore, the biggest hole now is the one in your credibility as a blogger on the subject, just like neothe1 when he lost the plot, looks like you are going or have already gone down the same road.
If you were going down in flames with your previous claim,you've crashed now!
The damage in that photo is most certainly NOT consistent with a 757 smashing into it, and any neutral observer K N O W S this, you are only fooling YOURSELF at this stage, making your own reality, delusionary in other words.
CRASH!!!! LOL!
Say good bye to whatever credibility you had, that's if you ever had any in the first place NippLIE
Ciao!
"those the dimensions you quote are NOT of a hole but of a wall and roof collapse. "
Actually no. Funnily enough, your wrong.
14ft across hey ken?
Let look at some window for scale.
The windows are 1.5 metre/ 5 feet in width.
The windows are 2.1 metres/roughly 6ft high.
Looking at that picture, do you think that hole is the equivalent of just under three windows width?
Come on Ken, it ain't hard.
This picture will give you a better idea of the total width...
oilempire . us / graphics / hole11 . jpg
The cars in this ballots picture are on the far left.
Ken, I'll repeat, are you suggesting that the plane in that video we were discussing, simply vaporised?
Remember Ken, the windows are 5ft wide. But of course you knew that right?
...and by the way, the gap between each window is another five feet.
How many windows can you count above the hole in that picture? (of course taking into account that we can only see part of the hole).
I think you'll find it's about seven or eight.
Right Ken, here comes the hard bit.
7 multiplyed by 5 equals = 35
now do the same for the 5 foot gaps in between windows...
7 multiplyed by 5 egual = 35
Your total is 70ft.
"those the dimensions you quote are NOT of a hole but of a wall and roof collapse. "
Actually no. Funnily enough, your wrong.
14ft across hey ken?
Let look at some window for scale.
The windows are 1.5 metre/ 5 feet in width.
The windows are 2.1 metres/roughly 6ft high.
Looking at that picture, do you think that hole is the equivalent of just under three windows width?
Come on Ken, it ain't hard.
This picture will give you a better idea of the total width...
oilempire . us / graphics / hole11 . jpg
The cars in this ballots picture are on the far left
Nipplie
~ to which i repeat seen as in his delusionary denial he mustn't be even reading my debunkings of his nonsense -
The hole in the pentagon was 90ft wide(ground floor) and 25ft high(first floor). -Nipplie
~Can you believe the lies this guy is trying to REVIVE - it has long been established that that was NOT the size of the hole made by the initial impact - which was at most 14 feet across - those the dimensions you quote are NOT of a hole but of a wall and roof collapse.
You better retract that lie if you want your comments to be taken seriously, I can't believe you tried to pull that one, just shows the dead end you have reached on this one - and your credibility as if it couldn't take any more of a pummeling took a big self-inflicted one here.
~ This guy has been neothe1-ised, has lost all credibility and has resorted to nonsense and gobbledy gook, won't even respond to questions or acknowledge comments now.
The power of that photo montage has obviously blitzed him.
He's obviously trying to bury my previous debunkings with spam -
"There is also clearly furthur damage to the limestone wall either side of this hole - Those dark verticle stripes betweem (between - Ken;o) the windows on the ground floors would normally be covered with limestone." -NippLie
LOL^^^
Utter nonsensical scraping the limestone barrel - even a five year year old wouldn't try to cite that ballsology as evidence, I'm really having to dumb down here folks to this guys level, he really is going down in flames with these latest nonsense claims and lies.
Give the man enough rope and he'll hang himself. ;o)
...and
"The wingspan of the 757 was 124 ft and the damage reflects this."
-NippLie
He's gone the full fruitloop now, reviving long debunked nonsense about the dimensions of the hole from years ago, most OCT's don't dispute the dimensions of the hole anymore, the biggest hole now is the one in your credibility as a blogger on the subject, just like neothe1 when he lost the plot, looks like you are going or have already gone down the same road.
If you were going down in flames with your previous claim,you've crashed now!
The damage in that photo is most certainly NOT consistent with a 757 smashing into it, and any neutral observer K N O W S this, you are only fooling YOURSELF at this stage, making your own reality, delusionary in other words.
CRASH!!!! LOL!
Say good bye to whatever credibility you had, that's if you ever had any in the first place NippLIE
Ciao!
~ This guy has been neothe1-ised, has lost all credibility and has resorted to nonsense and gobbledy gook, won't even respond to questions or acknowledge comments now.
The power of that photo montage has obviously blitzed him.
Look at it again folks -
"The hole in the pentagon was 90ft wide(ground floor) and 25ft high(first floor)." - Nipplie
^^LOL^^^
The sad thing is he beLIEves his own lies, how sad.
I need make no further comment (o:
Ken, are you claiming that the windows were not 5 feet wide?
Ken, are you also claiming that the plane in that video we were discussing, simply vaporised?
Keep up the spin ken.
Are you actually going to answer my questions this time ken?
Clearly ken is denying that the windows were 5ft across.
If he is capable of denying simple facts like this, no wonder he has little grasp on reality.
Yes, clearly he is denying simple facts. The man really is a retard.
Still incapable of answering the question ken?
No evidence whatsoever of a gigantic commercial airliner smashing into the Pentagon in the clearest photo to emerge thus far, deal with it.
How many windows can you count above the hole in that picture Ken?
"No evidence whatsoever of a gigantic commercial airliner smashing into the Pentagon"
Except of course for the engine pieces, the landing gear, the wheel rims, the tyres, the AA silver metal, hundreds of fragments of smaller metal, the identified victims, the 89 witnesses who say the plane hit, the holes in the wall corresponding to the different parts of the plane, the downed lamp poles and internal column damage corresponding to a object the size of a 757.
What do you have again ken?
^Don't forget the DNA identified remains of the passengers too....
...and STILL no videos released of what REALLY hit, apart from the unauthorised release of a video that clearly shows a small craft with a white vapour trail moving at immense speed which proves what we already know - that definitely no gigantic airliner hit the Pentagon.
Care to comment on that? 
Sure, check the second link on my user page.
Care to comment on that because it explains the released video quite nicely?
Did you watch the video Ken?
|
