Originally posted by Vykromond
example: you look at the BBC news and ABC news articles i posted and say "This has no proof or backing" but then you look at another BBC news or ABC news story that is in line with the offical story and assume it has backing. i do not understand, did you just not think and notice you were doing this or something?
---------
here, i worked on a little peice of evidence for you
first off, i downloaded the fpur pentagon impact frames from the AP:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...anim-gif.photo
second, i took the first two frames, magnified them and in frame one you can see the projectile (the AP article even says so too), and in frame to, the projectile is GONE, it has already hit and exploded, this proves that the object in frame one, is in fact the object in question.
now take a good look at the object that went into the pentagon, i traced it for you since everyone i show it too says they cant see anything (bad vison)
remember, even the link from the associated press has the caption "Plane" for frame one, they saw the plane, and the object i traced is the projectile, since it IS GONE in frame two, because by then it has impacted.
Here is frame one, without my trace:
Here is frame one with my trace because most people seem to be blind:
Comment