Baa baa Baron you are full of bull
Champing off the the govt line
Like a false flag govt shill

One story for the Pentagon
One for the WTC
Another about the physics that only sheeple believe.

You buggered up the quote, Woody, stew for brains.  IF you want to be understood, learn how to quote and then comment. It is basic internet stuff.

**

Bobby. wrote on Feb 25^th, 2014 at 2:18pm:


The nutjobs are not discussing anything they are preaching nutjob theories and ignoring everything that debunks their nutjob theories, it is a one way street with the nutjobs.

If you were discussing it you would have explained the plane debris at the Pentagon, how many times do i have to ask, the nutjobs act like Sgt Shultz, i see nothing.

Click on images when you have clicked on this link-
https://www.google.com.au/#q=pentagon+plane+debris

" The nutjobs are not discussing anything they are preaching nutjob theories and ignoring everything that debunks their nutjob theories, it is a one way street with the nutjobs.

If you were discussing it you would have explained the plane debris at the Pentagon, how many times do i have to ask, the nutjobs act like Sgt Shultz, i see nothing.

Click on images when you have clicked on this link-
https://www.google.com.au/#q=pentagon+plane+debris "

baronvonrort

many blessings

I like your link



yup looks like a 757 imprint alright

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

Summary

Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the debris from the crash:

There was no aircraft debris.
There was insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner crash.
There was an absence of aircraft wreckage that should have survived a jetliner crash, such as pieces of wings and tail.
The absence of signs of bodies, seats, and luggage in photographs of the crash site prove that the attack plane wasn't Flight 77.
Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.

Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.

Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.

Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.

Summary

Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the damage to the Pentagon's facade:

There was only one impact hole measuring no more than 18 feet across.
The impact hole was at most 65 feet across.
Standing columns remained where heavy 757 parts should have obliterated them.
The hole was too small to accommodate wing ends and tail.
Claim 1 is based on the selective presentation of photographs in which fire retardant spray obscures the entire first floor. Claim 2 is based on the fallacy that the distance between the expansion joints bounding the collapsed region of the facade marked the maximum extent of impact punctures. Post-crash photographs clearly show impact punctures extending over twenty feet to the right and to the left of the expansion joints.

Claim 3 is based on the confusion of hanging sections of the second floor for columns. Claim 4 is true, but consistent with the crash of a 757 whose wing ends and tail are too light to puncture the Pentagon's walls.

so wow and yes this is your link

please post more because you are a very good

truth bringer subconsciously delivering truth

all the while muttering nutjoberisms

carry on regardless

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

" It does actually, of the fuselage, the wings have broken off you retard "

pastafarian

many blessings

well then show is your evidence of the wings

luggage and passengers

or did everyone get incinerated ?

a plane with no wings ie : fuselage is called a missile

you are forgiven

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

The luggage and the passengeres are further in the building. Pieces of the wings can be seen in front of the hole

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 25^th, 2014 at 9:04pm:



WEll there is evidence of it.