See other 9/11 Articles
Title: I saw a plane's tail sticking out of the Pentagon on 911
Source:
cnn, fox, msnbc
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: me
Post Date: 2007-02-14 22:30:26 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 805
Comments: 34
After the crash into the Pentagon I saw this scene on TV. It lasted about one to two seconds. I have NEVER seen it again. This was shown as the nation was "terrorized" by the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and was apparently used to implant an image into the mind of the public. Has anyone seen this? It is my first hand account. I don't remember what channel it was on.
Poster Comment: Above
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#2. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
I didn't see that. but this is what I heard on the radio, national network news. They had an eye- witness who must've spent at least 30 seconds explaining his story. they aired this guy right after it happened. He said he saw a commercial jet liner flying and the guy said it was as if the pilot saw the pentagon a little late and turned his jet wildly in order to hit it. and in the turn towards the pentagon and the dive downwards he ended up putting the wings nearly perpendicular to the ground when it actually hit the pentagon. you know it is propaganda when they have 1 witness go on and on like that. I think they expected the hole to occur from 1'st to 5'th floor and so they had to paint an image that the jet flew in with wings perpendicular to the ground. then later the official story was changed to say the plane went in with wings parallel to the ground. Quite a big change. and of course we never heard from that original witness again.
I'm not the one who knows the answer to that question. BAC is. I saw on another thread that BAC did admit that the initial hole was more narrow than the tips of the wings and the top of the tail of the jetliner. and he even had an explanation as to how the wings and the tail left no imprint in the pentagon's outer skin. Something about super-hard concrete made with a special and unique process used nowhere else that caused the fuselage (which is the hollow balloon part of the jet) to punch right in as picture above says, but the wings (strong part of the jet) just instantly disintegrated into mist and didn't even leave a mark on the concrete. That is really amazing. I'm sure BAC knows the answer to your questions (he's a genius).
#6. To: Red Jones (#5)
I know what you mean, he's NEVER been wrong. Just like Rush Limbough who says all the Bilderbergers died a long time ago.
lol
And the explanation for that is that those portion of the wing and tail with no fuel bladder lacked the mass needed to penetrate the outer wall of the structure. Those portions of the plane shattered on impact and covered the area downrange from the impact with small pieces of wreckage (as seen in the photos). It is false to say the outer portions of the wings and tail left no imprint on the pentagon's outer wall. These photos clearly show damage to the outer facade in those areas. And this is a distortion of what I've said too. Why do you find it necessary to keep distorting what I've said, Red? As I've pointed out to you several times now, the portions of the wing that contained fuel had enough mass to penetrate the outer wall. That is why there are winged shaped holes on both sides of the hole where the fuselage hit (the circled hole in the photo above). You keep claiming that the wings of the jet disintegrated and didn't leave a mark, despite being shown photos proving that wrong over and over. Believe me, Red, that dishonesty is not going unnoticed by any visitors to this forum. No, Red, you are the one who claims to be the summa cum laude.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Red Jones (#2)
#5. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, BeAChooser (#4)
Replies to Comment # 5. I'm sure BAC knows the answer to your questions (he's a genius).
#12. To: Red Jones (#5)
Something about super-hard concrete made with a special and unique process used nowhere else that caused the fuselage (which is the hollow balloon part of the jet) to punch right in as picture above says, but the wings (strong part of the jet) just instantly disintegrated into mist and didn't even leave a mark on the concrete.
#17. To: Red Jones, ALL (#5)
I saw on another thread that BAC did admit that the initial hole was more narrow than the tips of the wings and the top of the tail of the jetliner.
and he even had an explanation as to how the wings and the tail left no imprint in the pentagon's outer skin.
Something about super-hard concrete made with a special and unique process used nowhere else that caused the fuselage (which is the hollow balloon part of the jet) to punch right in as picture above says, but the wings (strong part of the jet) just instantly disintegrated into mist and didn't even leave a mark on the concrete.
I'm sure BAC knows the answer to your questions (he's a genius).
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.