What pentagon plane? If it was a boeing there would be alot more damage and all the shit around the pentagon (cars etc.) would have been blasted out of the way.
ummm.... you mean if it was a missle cars would have been blased out of the way... and a missle would not leave jet engines on the ground too .... someone needs to look things up.
No, it would look exactly as it looked And there's not a single proof that it was a car instead of a plane
There weren't any jet engines. No, it's a Boeing. If you have ever watched a video of a low-flying boeing, there is on I think of San Fransico or something where the airport is near a highway, and the plane came in too low, about 30 or 40 metres above the highway, and the cars got picked up and smashed everywhere. Now imagine that except 10 metres above the ground. Shit would have flown everywhere Looks like someone needs to look things up.
"The undamaged lawn" conspiracy theory. "Here's what you would expect the lawn to look like if a plane had crashed on it..." Ah well, lets see.. Because the plan crashed into the building, not the lawn. Duh.
I think you are referring to jet blast. Can you please provide an actual link to something concrete supporting your theory of jet blast. I've seen what jet blast will do, and what you describe is not the result of jet blast. What you are describing has never happened. To the best of my knowledge jet blast typically only occurs at ground level.
that movie "screw loose change" has fully exposed the the lies in the loose change movie, and in edition 1 and 2 and it is using the 3 remake "loose change the final cut" and still busted that movie to bits. AGS you need to spend 3 hours to watch this movie, it is an eye opener to how you as a sheeple was conned by loose change and AJ thanx to whoever posted that movie, it clears a lot of things up, and exposed loose change for the crap it is.
Mythbusters tried to make a car get blown away by a jet blast at ground level, but couldn't do it. I think it'd take the right circumstances. But blowing away cars (plural) and smashing them everywhere. Not likely. Even the light in the loafer types you'd expect in San Fran 747's have about 50% more thrust than a 757, so this video is not quite a 1-1 comparison.
brb i need to find the link to a test with a fire truck being blown away by jet blast, but i have more to see of that movie yet, In a staged demonstration, a United Airlines plane's jet wash blasts a truck several hundred feet into the water at San Fransisco Airport. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh_oX9q6TMk
but, but but what about {insert the next lie}? debunked. rinse, repeat. but, but but what about {insert the next lie}? debunked. rinse, repeat. but, but but what about {insert the next lie}? debunked. rinse, repeat. but, but but what about {insert the next lie}? debunked. rinse, repeat. but, but but what about {insert the next lie}? debunked. rinse, repeat. .... and so the vicious cycle of assault with moonbattery continues Do any of you CT's ever question the actual conspiracy?
i just found this 6 minute movie that has the security movie, (not just 5 frames) and is very well done, and worth watching, time for the moonbats to go burry thier head in the sand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
So who suggest that the plane crashed into the lawn except the Truther's? Yes there were, stop lying. Lorien made a post about it, read it. Care to tell which cars that would be smashed? Also, there was one smashed truck if I remember it correctly. It did (Maybe not exactly as much as your fantasy required). And that sounds like it comes from someone that couldn't possible have been objectively researching the arguments from the Debunker's side.
I wonder if "scriptor409" is a DP member? If there were not so many videos, including live TV coverage of planes hitting the WTC, we would have moonbats trying to tell us that planes never hit the WTC either. It's never ending.
Yet still, after all this time, the most important building (except possibly the White House) all we get to see is 5 shitty frames? Astonishing. Oh I know we got some crap hotel footage the other month but lets actually see what hit that building. Otherwise the conspiracy theorists will never stop. My guess is that the reason we ain't seen no proper video footage is because it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Also, if our unsung hero hijacker that couldn't even fly a Cessna did manage to bring the Boeing round it is physically impossible to fly a Boeing at less than 100 feet at 400 MPH due to downwash sheet reaction. Google it you brainwashed zombies.
We did. Really? Than what was it? And what happen to flight 77 and everyone on board then? God forbid you actually look at the security camera images. You can clearly see a plane, nose tail and smoke trail. He was able to fly the Cessna. He just could not land it. Though that was not what he was there to learn. WTF are you talking about? You mean this hogwash? What amazes me most about this stuff is the fact that none of these goofy terms or explanations never existed prior to 9/11. Yeah, google "downwas sheet reaction". Nothing but 9/11 conspiracy bs. Talk about brain washed.
It's a factor caused by the dynamics of the plane mate. You still carry on believing the BS mate, you are beyond help.
That's another 747, though. Not a 757, also, that is under optimal situations - right behind the plane and in the wash stream. Move that firetruck, 20 or 30 feet back, and 30 or 40 feet underneath and nothing will happen.
I believe what I have experienced. I'm learning to fly. I'm telling you, it's hogwash. Lets also not forget that cars, fire trucks and other such land borne vehicles do not as of yet fly. Seems to me the plane was a bit higher up than they were. Jet blast ocurrs at ground level.
I'm glad someone caught that! Keep in mind also that not only was this staged under ideal conditions, but the engines where taken to FULL POWER. I'm sorry, but in flight, at any altituide, jet blast is just not going to occur, at least not as the conspiracy theorist would like us all to believe.