That's right - cuz your conspiracy theory is full of holes. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

It was cut with a torch - plain as day. Look at the discoloration from the torch. Look at how it is cleanly separated from the base all the way around. You can honestly tell me you think a hit from the top would shear it clean and even all the way around - below the angled bolt reinforcements? C'mon Frank.

A normal break. Breaking at the weakest point - the walls.


Reinforced at the bottom:



The FDR data (released years after the event) is bogus Frank. It puts the plane 400 FT above the Pentagon at the point of impact. See the vid done by pilotsfor911truth.org. Listen to the follow up inquiries to the NTSB.

No - more like the middle, where it was cut in two by the wing.

The breakaway base will (usually) break wherever it's designed to break, and the better the quality control, the cleaner the break line will be.

OK, Phil.......... I didn't want to admit it, but George Bush did it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you keep on with the conspiracies, you're bound to get one right someday. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Frank

LOL GW Must have been at our School too, because that's how the one I hit broke.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

So it broke in the reinforced area which was meticulously quality controlled so as to produce aesthetically pleasing (except for the heat discoloration) breaks when hit by an aircraft - of which the FBI has 85 videos - but refuses to release a single frame which shows an airplane...for 'national security' reasons.

Ok wait - I didn't want to admit, but Tim Osman did it.

Proof

Note: Missing frames and backward time travel on superimposed time stamps are common occurrences in Officialdom. To question such things would be...

Preposterous. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/evil.gif" alt="" />

[img]So it broke in the reinforced area [/img]

You need to look at the picture of the broken one again - to see that there's no reinforcement - and that the walls are pretty thin there.

Then, you need to ask yourself why anyone would go to the trouble of torching one lamp post of many that were downed. Where are the pictures of the others and what evidence is there that they were also torched?

Frank

I didn't see anything that even looked REMOTELY torch cut in those photos. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

You need to look at the pictures of the Pentagon - to see that there's no 757.

Then, you need to ask yourself why anyone would go to the trouble of torching a lamp post of the five that were downed. Where are the pictures of the plane and what evidence is there that a 757 hit?

...that is the best photo I've seen - the others have similar uniform breaks. The breaks at the top seem to be pinched and twisted apart - with a jaws of life type a tool or something.

They have the discoloration like intense heat was applied. The one on the bottom looks like acetylene sut. I find it odd that they sheared so uniformally along that discolored line. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

If it was a jet why not release the images? All of you pro-patriot act folks have banked on the argument that if you have nothing to hide then its ok for all to be seen. Lets hold them to the same flame.

Looks like where it was dirty from being on the ground...they winched them onto the trailer, hence twisting? Not sure, just saying.

I will agree that hole doesn't look like an airliner went into the building from that angle.

I saw people on tv saying they saw it hit...but they were probably paid by the CIA since they didn't make a YouTube video about it.

If a 757 plane hit it - from the direction of the downed lightpoles - then every witness should easily confirm this fact.

But the fact is they don't. Many of the witnesses (maybe even the majority - never counted them myself), which include Pentagon police - independently corroborate that the plane that flew over them immediately before impact came over from a completely different approach (north of Citgo gas station).

You joke about which evidence is more credible - but have you examined it? Look at the interviews of actual Shanksville witnesses - how they were harassed, threatened, and maligned by the FBI and others when their stories didn't jive with what they were told actually happened.

In fact, the majority of those that have been approached for their video testimony have (according to researchers) refused on a basis of fear, not payoff.