Why does it matter if the plane flew north or south of the gas station?
Obwon
Why does it matter if the plane flew north or south of the
gas station?
Posted: 21 Nov 2009 09:27 PM PST
I'm going to use this blog to highlight some of the more
important questions we have answered on the FAQ page of
CitizenInvestigationTeam.com.Although it's usually pretty
obvious to most that it is impossible for a plane north of
the gas station to hit the downed light poles, people
sometimes have trouble understanding why this proves it
could not have hit the building.Hypothetically, there isn't
Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
Obwon <Ob...@real.com> wrote:
Wow, looks like finally we have definitive proof that Bush planned this
thing after all.
To the streets! No justice no peace!
Obwon
<Iv...@borscht.com> wrote:
>In article <53eig552t2qffb9tb...@4ax.com>,
> Obwon <Ob...@real.com> wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter if the plane flew north or south of the
>> gas station?
>>
>> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/citizinvestigationteamblog/~3/ghiEcTBiEh4/why-does-it-matter-if-plane-flew-north.html
>>
>> Posted: 21 Nov 2009 09:27 PM PST
>> I'm going to use this blog to highlight some of the more
>> important questions we have answered on the FAQ page of
>> CitizenInvestigationTeam.com.Although it's usually pretty
>> obvious to most that it is impossible for a plane north of
>> the gas station to hit the downed light poles, people
>> sometimes have trouble understanding why this proves it
>> could not have hit the building.Hypothetically, there isn't
>
>Wow, looks like finally we have definitive proof that Bush planned this
>thing after all.
>
>
>To the streets! No justice no peace!
Real jump to conclusion there! But it is worthy of note,
for those interested, that although it usually takes cranes
and many flatbed trucks to remove planes from crash sites
(see flight 800) the jet that struck the pentagon seems to
have simply disappeared into thin air. Although the hole
on the outside of the building, seems to show that only the
fuselage penetrated the building, the damage to the columns
inside the building, seem to show the plane traversing the
area, with it's wings intact and almost fully spread out.
To accomplish this, the wings would have to have folded
back against the fuselage, then spread wide again, after
the craft passed through the outter wall.
Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
Obwon <Ob...@real.com> wrote:
Except for the parts that didn't.
Give it up.
Obwon
<Iv...@borscht.com> wrote:
I will when you point me towards the picture of the cranes
and flat bed trucks removing the aircraft from the building.
I hardly think it's possible that the media would have
falied to treat us to such a sight, confirming of the
official story it would have been. But the damage to the
Pentagon shows that the entire aircraft was fully inside the
building moving forward with wings fully extended, damaging
columns as far apart as the wingspan of the intact aircraft.
Since the outer wall shows no entry point for these wings,
it, it has to be that they folded back against the
fuselage, then re-extended themselves, once the craft was
inside the building. Also the nose seems to have retained
its configuration until the craft came to a rest, just
after the nose poked through the inner wall of "C" ring.
Which is why it's important to know when those pictures of
that hole were taken. Obviously, if the craft did no
further damage, it must have come to rest. So then why
isn't the wreckage seen plugging or emerging from this hole?
How, when and/or why, did they conceal the removal of all
the debris before the picture was taken? Can you name these
"parts that didn't" as you claim?
Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
Obwon <Ob...@real.com> wrote:
You don't need them when the plane disintegrates and burns.
There's your plane, bro. Give it up.