Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[yanaar]

smears smears, I am not a no planer, nor is anybody else, just because they come to the conclusion that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon. And I am not incorrect about the hole although of course there was damage outside the area of the small hole, but then there was a large explosion so one would expect to see damage. Explosions cause damage whether jet fuel, pure kinetic energy, missile or bombs - or any mix of these - they all cause damage.

as for Shanksville, care to show me the plane??? was it in the garbage hole they dug - nope, so where was it? hence 1 missing plane at Shanksville, presumably because it was (a) shot down and disintegrated in mid-air or (b) never there.

I tend towards (a) but do not discount (b) as it is still a possibility. (however, this is not really the thread for Shanksville).

jmid3100 accused me of being a no-planer too.   

[jimd3100]

however, a cruise missile, especially a DU tipped one, is capable of making a 12 by 16 foot hole, an allegory to this would be bullet holes in people's walls, they are generally a few multiples the diameter of the actual bullet

.

But this is a fairy tale since no one saw a missile they all saw a plane. And the first floor is damaged no matter how many times you say it was a hole.

the hole at the back caused by the penetrator warhead of the missile plus debris, remember a very major contributor to damage from missiles that the pentagon scientists factor in is the kinetic energy of the missile and missile parts, so much so that all planned future weapons systems will operate without explosive warhead and purely utilise kinetic energy of impact as being the destructive force of the weapons system. The Navy's planned rail gun is a classic example.

Planes flew into buildings except for the mentally challenged "No Planers" who agree with you that it was invisible missiles. Any witnesses? no

What did the witnesses see? now that is a tougher question

No it's not tough, unless you refuse to face reality. They ALL saw a plane, and some describe flt 77 to a T. Actually more witnesses are on the record as seeing a plane 1 plane..at the pentagon, than witnesses at the WTC who report bombs.

there is the flyover theory, holograms, diversions, I simply do not know, but the flyover theory fits the bills best and explains the plane seen north of the gas station. the proximity to the airport explains why this plane would not be noticed flying away as it would look the same in altitude and direction as any other plane taking off from reagan airport. However, there is not as much evidence as I would like so I do not spend my time promoting this.

Very stupid. Planes fly directly over the pentagon all the time huh? What incredible BS.

As for witnesses, clearly some were tricked/fooled/duped - that is the very definition of a psyops deception event - which 9-11 undoubtedly was. One or two may be plants and 'in on it', however, for the most part they were duped in some way IMHO.

Uh, are you aware that you gave no explanation as to how hundreds of people were "duped" immediately on the spot. How about this theory...maybe they all said there was 1 plane because there was 1 plane? Too complicated?

There are too many ways to fool witnesses, there are too many ways to threaten witnesses, there are too many ways to bribe witnesses, there are too many ways to have MK Ultra victims strategically placed as witnesses.

Yea, thats right. There are to many witnesses who described what happened immediately to have all been duped bribed threatened instantaneously. In short this makes no sense.

do not forget that 68 witnesses to JFK's assassination were murdered, falling down stairs, strange car crashes, suicides and so on. Indeed so much so that for a decade or more there have only been two witnesses who could provide any details of what happened still alive, and both of them have lived in fear and have kept quiet, changing testimonies etc.

Over hundred on the spot immediately told what they saw, and you want to pretend they were "operatives' when it can be proven they were just citizens.

What is more most people know about all these JFK witnesses being bumped off, so there is plenty of reason to believe that eyewitnesses who saw something other than the official story would feel they had every incentive to keep quite and stay alive.

They were on TV Immediately telling what they saw, it was rush hour traffic, it just happened, so there was no "official story" this is really stupid.

As for the taxi driver, I do not know for sure - nobody does, he fits the typical profile of an Mk Ultra victim

No he fits the profile of an elderly cab driver who drove a cab in the same area since 1959.

Now that is remarkable,  what are the odds? say at most Icke sold 30,000 copies of that book in the USA (likely an overestimate), that makes the odds 1 in 1000 - quite a coincidence.

So people who have D Icke books are mK Ultra mind control victims huh? You have lots of theories that make no sense I see.

Also if he reads Icke books he is the kind of person who is well aware that the government will kill him if he provides evidence contrary to what he has been told (or programmed) to say.

Oh, I thought the book meant he was a mind control victim. So they busted out his windshield in broad daylight in front of everybody in order to have an old black guy "be in on it" and he's still alive because they are nice and don't want to hurt the old fella. Yea, this makes lots of sense. The extremes you go to to try and promote an invisible missile that no one saw. Maybe no one saw it because it didn't happen? Ya think?

Whether he is a scared guy who keeps his mouth shut in order to live a long life, or a victim of the evil MK Ultra program, either way there is plenty of reason to see why he might lie

.

Yea, if you have no common sense and a wild imagination. Yea, he's a victim all right, got his car f**ked up and now has people like you calling him a lier, because he ruins your missile fantasy.

There is also plenty of ways he could have been duped in some way by a flyover - that gives three plausible explanations as to why his testimony could be in doubt - none of which makes him culpable or a traitor - just another victim of the filth who perpetrated 9-11.

He's a victim of internet hoaxes that you promote, and was almost killed on 9/11.

I do not spend too much time promoting any of this as there is little to be gained, anyway looking at the poll most people on this board seem to believe it was a missile or drone that hit the pentagon - in fact only yourself and jimd so far believe that flight 77 hit the building - but I admit it is a small cross section so far.

Maybe you haven't noticed, so I will spell it out for you. I do not care what "the majority" say. You have no evidence and no witnesses for your different fairy tale scenarios.

However, you pushed me on the point so I gave you my opinion on the matter. I do not have all the answers but from a physics point of view the plane hitting the pentagon theory simply does not sufficiently explain what occurred.

All the physical evidence and witnesses say you are wrong.

And as nearly every no plane at pentagon/flyover/cruise missiles person on this very long thread has pointed out - if a plane did hit why not just release footage of it doing so - 60 - 70 cameras with a view of the incident as a minimum - they loved showing us WTC attacks for days after - why no images at all of the impact or even the plane's approach at the pentagon.

Maybe they should just come out and say the planes were remote controlled. Why would they want to show what a great pilot Hani Hanjour was when we have folks like you walking around saying "9/11 was an inside job, the pentagon was hit with a missile!" They just love that s**T.

it just does not add up if flight 77 hit as they say it did.

Keep helping Stubblebine he loves you.

[jimd3100]

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.

The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked.html

http://www.google.com/patents?id=UEJ9AAAAEBAJ&dq=patent+7,142,971+B2

[revolutionary_suicide]

i voted a military drone painted like an AA aircraft but to me it could be a cross between this option and a guided missle.
perhaps a guided missle with added props and effects dressed up to appear as a plane.. although this theory doesnt account for the lack of aircraft damage at the pentagon.. but then what happened with the lamp-post-pole-i-cant-think-of-the-name-of-those-things-right-now-THINGS that supposedly were leveled across the trajectory of the alleged plane.. to me it seems theres sufficient evidence that explosives were used but also significant evidence suggesting that SOMETHING flew into the building.. only the FBI's security tapes will tell.

[shirteesdotnet]

But this is a fairy tale since no one saw a missile they all saw a plane. And the first floor is damaged no matter how many times you say it was a hole.

Im coming into this debate late, but I recall several eyewitnesses saying they saw a missile wiz by near Shanksville, PA before the crash there. That should count for something.

I could believe the planes were controlled remotely as well. One of my brothers worked for Boeing in the "advanced weapons systems" division and showed me some videos I wasnt supposed to see right around the 911 events.

[MikiQuick123]

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.

The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked.html

http://www.google.com/patents?id=UEJ9AAAAEBAJ&dq=patent+7,142,971+B2

That might explain the various descriptions of aircraft given by people on 9/11.
"Master and slave" remote technology comes to mind.

They may not be lying or mistaken about what they saw and when. Flight 93's remote control might have been defeated by the pilots or it might have malfunctioned.

That may have prompted a shoot down. It's almost insulting to see a company brag about getting patents on technology they have probably had for years.

Maybe it's a patent for the "new and improved" version of it?

[Hetware]

That might explain the various descriptions of aircraft given by people on 9/11.
"Master and slave" remote technology comes to mind.

They may not be lying or mistaken about what they saw and when. Flight 93's remote control might have been defeated by the pilots or it might have malfunctioned.

That may have prompted a shoot down. It's almost insulting to see a company brag about getting patents on technology they have probably had for years.

Maybe it's a patent for the "new and improved" version of it?

It seems more likely that the passengers and crews were neutralized with nerve agent, and the planes were under automated guidance.  FMC components may have been replaced with compromised units.   UAL 93 was probably shot down because it was delayed so long that they couldn't stave off the legitimate military response any longer.

[MikiQuick123]

It seems more likely that the passengers and crews were neutralized with nerve agent, and the planes were under automated guidance.  FMC components may have been replaced with compromised units.   UAL 93 was probably shot down because it was delayed so long that they couldn't stave off the legitimate military response any longer.

There was no legitimate response to any of the events that day. Why any different with this? Time doesn't seem so much an issue to me as does the total lack of action. Let's say it was time in the air, if they had the plane under control why did they fly for so long?
Now if the plane was not completely under control it would explain the turn to a
more remote area where it could be shot down without cameras recording it.
If the crew was neutralized, then the RC malfunctioned. If they were all not asleep or dead then the RC may have been defeated. Just a guess.

[Hetware]

There was no legitimate response to any of the events that day. Why any different with this? Time doesn't seem so much an issue to me as does the total lack of action. Let's say it was time in the air, if they had the plane under control why did they fly for so long?
Now if the plane was not completely under control it would explain the turn to a
more remote area where it could be shot down without cameras recording it.
If the crew was neutralized, then the RC malfunctioned. If they were all not asleep or dead then the RC may have been defeated. Just a guess.

I'm working on Tarpley's model that Bush was not a witting accomplice before the fact.  Two things happened just after Air Force One left the tarmac in Sarasota.  WTC 2 collapsed, and Flight 93 went down.  Going off of what Christopher Bollyn has uncovered, it is likely that the command and control systems were compromised by the perpetrators.  That was used to "blind" the FAA and NORAD.

This is where I look to find the weak link:

Monte R. Belger, FAA Deputy Administrator

[MikiQuick123]

Even with the war games and the system being compromised
it is hard to overlook the fact everyone knew there were hijacked jets in the air after the towers were hit, yet flight 93 continued to fly unimpeded.

The order to scramble fighters would not have waited on the FAA once the real situation was broadcast on every channel. Electronics notwithstanding, some things were obvious that day. And yet, no interceptions and no one to account for it?
The base near me was on alert and one of the mech. crew chiefs said the pilots were ready to bolt from the ready room as they watched the TV and....nothing.
I find it hard to believe they never got the order to go. I find it easier to believe they got a no-go. That is where Cheney, I believe comes in.


P.S. Bollyn and Tarpley make some brilliant and intriguing connections in this.

[Hetware]

Even with the war games and the system being compromised
it is hard to overlook the fact everyone knew there were hijacked jets in the air after the towers were hit, yet flight 93 continued to fly unimpeded.

The order to scramble fighters would not have waited on the FAA once the real situation was broadcast on every channel. Electronics notwithstanding, some things were obvious that day. And yet, no interceptions and no one to account for it?
The base near me was on alert and one of the mech. crew chiefs said the pilots were ready to bolt from the ready room as they watched the TV and....nothing.
I find it hard to believe they never got the order to go. I find it easier to believe they got a no-go. That is where Cheney, I believe comes in.


P.S. Bollyn and Tarpley make some brilliant and intriguing connections in this.

Did you follow the link in the previous post?  It will take you to an article about Cheney's behavior.  What I am saying is that Cheney may well have been the one who lost the window of opportunity when Bush regained control of the military.

[MikiQuick123]

Did you follow the link in the previous post?  It will take you to an article about Cheney's behavior.  What I am saying is that Cheney may well have been the one who lost the window of opportunity when Bush regained control of the military.

I didn't go to the Cheney link before, but I see what you're saying here now.
That he missed the window of opportunity with UA 93. That's where the "legitimate military" response comes in. We won't know without an honest investigation.
They can say whatever they want since there are no recorded calls.
Even the logs are disputed.
But the fact that someone is lying remains indisputable.

[n0b0dy]

Because they are on a plane

Sorry but that is not a very convincing answer.

I have never been on a plane so you will have to excuse my ignorance. I have been given the impression that the only times passengers on a plane wear belts is taking off, landing and poor weather conditions. As the plane was not taking off, about to land and the weather was good, why were the passengers wearing belts?

Assuming that the hijackers had planned the events in advance. I think it may be safe to say that they dealt with the passengers the same way in all four planes. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. As we know that on one of the planes the passengers were all made to go to the rear of the plane. Would it be to much to consider that the same thing happened on all the planes. If so then why would the passengers be wearing belts?

From what I am aware of, there were military personnel on the plane that hit the Pentagon. Are we to accept that these brave soldiers instead of dealing with the hijackers (that were heavily armed with plastic knives and box cutters) instead put on thier safety belts?  hmmm

[Hetware]

Assuming that the hijackers had planned the events in advance. I think it may be safe to say that they dealt with the passengers the same way in all four planes. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Actually, there is no compelling evidence to support the presence of human hijackers on the flights.  The only basis for the stories about hijackers is the phone calls which are of very questionable authenticity.

Edit to add: IIRC passengers on commercial aircraft are encouraged to keep the seatbelts fastened unless they get out of their seats.  The fact that some of the passengers might have still been in their seats after impact is not that hard to accept if we consider that the front of the plane punched a hole in the facade and the rest of the fuselage followed through.

[markshark4]

jmid3100 accused me of being a no-planer too.   

lol


Just to clarify, what exactly qualifies somebody as a "no-planer"?

A. If you think that remote control drones flew into the twin towers instead of 767's are you a "no-planer"?

B. Or do you have to LITERALLY believe that no planes at all went into the twin towers, it was just a hologram or tv fakery?

I don't know ... but to me one seems a little more wacky than the other.

Please be gentle with your answer jmid3100.

[DAVIDE MTL]

JMID  do you seriously think a plane hit the pentagon? I didn't have time to read all the posts but are there people here who actually believe this? I thought it was obvious for everyone here, no plane hit the pentagon, planes did hit the twin towers and there was no plane crash in shanksville, the only reasonable debate I see here  is whether it was a missile or explosive that damaged the pentagon

[jimd3100]

JMID  do you seriously think a plane hit the pentagon? I didn't have time to read all the posts but are there people here who actually believe this? I thought it was obvious for everyone here, no plane hit the pentagon, planes did hit the twin towers and there was no plane crash in shanksville, the only reasonable debate I see here  is whether it was a missile or explosive that damaged the pentagon

How much research have you put into this? And watching a "truth" movie and not confirming any of it is not research. How many people saw a missile? 0. How many report a plane as hitting? All of the witnesses. How do you explain that? No witness had to be concerned with telling "the official story" because there was no official story. The witnesses interviewed immediately after it happened had no idea what the governments position was, because it was still happening. There are over 100 witnesses on the record.  They are not all plants, mistaken, or whatever excuse you want to make. What evidence is that a missile hit? none, What evidence is there that a plane hit? All of the evidence.
There were no engines or evidence recovered from a plane? Oh really? What's this then?
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/wr-eng.html

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Now you show me evidence of a missile. Because Lamp poles being knocked over means it wasn't a missile. Now you have to claim everything is planted and everyone is mistaken, except for the people who were there and support your theory, which there are none BTW, and the evidence that supports your theory which there is none.
BTW I also don't need to try and explain where flt 77 went, while you do.
And how do you think those planes flew into the towers? Terrorist hijackers? Or remote control? Well, Hani Hanjour doing his maneuver at the pentagon proves remote control doesn't it? Why do I want to dismiss that, and the witnesses who confirm it, and the evidence that confirms the witnesses for a fairy tale? I don't. I would like to hang them with their own ridiculous explanation.
The evidence and official story say flt 77 flew into the first floor of the pentagon, and evidently Hani Hanjour is one of the worlds great pilots. We can prove he wasn't so this would seem to strongly suggest the reason people on 9/11 could fly airplanes that they never flew before over several states straight into their target would be by remote control. The perps would rather have you talk about invisible missiles and "no plane" theories. I don't care to help them. Why would you?

[DAVIDE MTL]

When a plane crashes it's obvious, your pictures prove nothing, could have easily been planted,have you read pilots for truth site http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/, the manouvers by the supposed hijacker were impossible to do according to the experts, witnesses saw a plane, well there could have been a plane in the area but it sure didn't hit the pentagon, I don't have any evidence of a missile, I said that would be a reasonable debate whether it was an explosive or missile, where's your evidence of a plane in shanksville,

[Biggs]

there is a good point there, the alleged manoeuvres of flight 77 were not only impossible for Hani Hanjour but also for a Boeing 757 which by the laws of physics should have broken up doing those speeds near ground level and those turns.

BTW - not all witnesses said they saw a plane hit the pentagon, many did, but many saw a plane followed by an explosion and assumed the plane hit.

However, I accept there are no witnesses on record who saw a missile.

[yanaar]

there is a good point there, the alleged manoeuvres of flight 77 were not only impossible for Hani Hanjour but also for a Boeing 757 which by the laws of physics should have broken up doing those speeds near ground level and those turns.

BTW - not all witnesses said they saw a plane hit the pentagon, many did, but many saw a plane followed by an explosion and assumed the plane hit.

However, I accept there are no witnesses on record who saw a missile.

Who'd have seen a missile?  Everyone's attention was upon the noise of the plane and the blast of the explosion.  I mean, that mother must have been noisy as heck so close to the ground roaring in towards the Pentagon.  Then a blast.  Two and two were added together, and five was the result.

AJ says he doesn't know what happened at the Pentagon.  It's all conjecture at this point anyway unless new unexpected and decisive evidence surfaces.

[jimd3100]

When a plane crashes it's obvious, your pictures prove nothing, could have easily been planted,

Actually they have to be planted, otherwise you're wrong. 

have you read pilots for truth site http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/,

Yes, and I'm not very impressed

the manouvers by the supposed hijacker were impossible to do according to the experts,

If you believe hijackers flew planes into buildings then it wasn't really an inside job was it? Uh...that's kinda the point.

witnesses saw a plane, well there could have been a plane in the area but it sure didn't hit the pentagon,

Yes, there may have been a plane in the area, and witnesses said it flew into the pentagon...does it sound like she is describing a missile? What does it sound like she is describing? Yea, I know...she's "in on it" too.  BTW notice her and the reporter both heard other explosions. Sounds like a good witness, but I guess I got duped huh?
http://www.dailymotion.com/Ashoka_lc/Pentagon/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

I don't have any evidence of a missile, I said that would be a reasonable debate whether it was an explosive or missile,

No evidence for a missile? I wonder why? It doesn't matter what evidence I present, because you just say it's planted, because after all everybody is "in on it".

where's your evidence of a plane in shanksville

This is a pentagon thread, and with each new post you reveal your no plane beliefs hence the term no planer.

And BTW folks, just because you fell for the  "9/11 truth believes a missile hit the pentagon" BS doesn't make it true.

Professor Steven Jones is gathering evidence of thermite that could lead some folks going to the gallows. Jones wouldn't even be in the truth movement if it were not for Jim Hoffman and his research. Hoffmans research is what got Jones interested in 9/11 and they have worked together. Jim Hoffman is one of the best, top notch 9/11 researchers there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman
I have come to the same conclusion as he does on the pentagon issue. By doing research. Try it, after your done watching your nifty movies, and taking as gospel everything in them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/attack/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

[jimd3100]

there is a good point there, the alleged manoeuvres of flight 77 were not only impossible for Hani Hanjour but also for a Boeing 757 which by the laws of physics should have broken up doing those speeds near ground level and those turns.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion backed by nothing presented as a fact.

BTW - not all witnesses said they saw a plane hit the pentagon, many did, but many saw a plane followed by an explosion and assumed the plane hit.

Yea, the people that saw the plane hit, and then the people that assumed it hit because the plane was not around and no one saw it fly away. How about a little common sense?

However, I accept there are no witnesses on record who saw a missile.

So why keep believing in this then?

[yanaar]

You are do damned closed minded about any other perspective than your own here jmid3100.  Even AJ says he doesn't know what happened at the Pentagon.  It's speculation from here on out.  Witness reliability.... bahhhh.... I've been fighting with you on this one for three months.  Pentagon insider's thwarted 77. 

[jimd3100]

You are do damned closed minded about any other perspective than your own here jmid3100.  Even AJ says he doesn't know what happened at the Pentagon.  It's speculation from here on out.  Witness reliability.... bahhhh.... I've been fighting with you on this one for three months.  Pentagon insider's thwarted 77. 

Yes, you blab on about how closed minded I am when I've done the research and you keep harping on how the military saved us on 9/11...I get it, your evidence for your story is overwelming

[yanaar]

Yes, you blab on about how closed minded I am when I've done the research and you keep harping on how the military saved us on 9/11...I get it, your evidence for your story is overwelming

TWO PLANES DIDN'T HIT TARGET.  WHO DO YOU THINK DID THAT? 

[jimd3100]

TWO PLANES DIDN'T HIT TARGET.  WHO DO YOU THINK DID THAT? 

Tell the people who had loved ones die at the pentagon that it wasn't hit

[yanaar]

Tell the people who had loved ones die at the pentagon that it wasn't hit

I know.  That's the hard part.  What happened that people died?

[DAVIDE MTL]

Jimd
I mentioned the plane in shanksville cuz you keep on labeling people no planers, so for the record I believe no 757 hit the pentagon, I don't know what hit the pentagon, I believe 2 planes hit the towers, I don't believe a plane went down in shanksville, So I guess I'm a 2 planer, no planer, don't know planer if you must label people

your reply to my question is hilarious

have you read pilots for truth site http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/,

Yes, and I'm not very impressed

what kind of an answer is that, if you by the fact that the pictures of the parts of a plane found at the site prove beyond a doubt that a 757 hit the pentagon then you do impress easily, I tend to give more credence to the experts, as for your witnesses I seen the vids of people who saw planes and of others who said they saw a missile with wings, why do you take the testimony of one over the other? One thing could settle this arguement, have the pentagon release any one of their 100 cameras surrounding the most protected building on earth, why is it they can't  hmmmmm

[jimd3100]

 

the fact that the pictures of the parts of a plane found at the site prove beyond a doubt that a 757 hit the pentagon then you do impress easily,

It takes more than that to impress me, it takes the witnesses who said those parts would be there, in other words it's confirmed.

 

as for your witnesses I seen the vids of people who saw planes and of others who said they saw a missile with wings, why do you take the testimony of one over the other?

Very easy, because both are really describing a passenger plane, one is edited and the other is not. Your own witness is actually a witness for the passenger jet that left it's wreckage there.

Your "it was like a cruise missile with wings" is edited, and you fell for a lie. Unless you are talking about another witness lets see it, because there are none. Here is what the unedited clip of your witness looks like....so, some "truthers" clip the following video at the 34 to 40 second mark and presto! There is your "missile with wings" witness. So you fell for that lie and are now on here promoting it. This is called DisInfo and it's done for a reason, you are being manipulated, and not by me, I am not lieing or trying to manipulate you, which is why I'm fighting you folks on this because this is how you kill a truth movement.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jqaz_pentagon-eyewitness-mike-walter_news


 

One thing could settle this arguement, have the pentagon release any one of their 100 cameras surrounding the most protected building on earth, why is it they can't  hmmmmm

Because it is more beneficial to have you believe a lie than the truth. Like it would make a difference, we both know you'd say it was fake.

[DAVIDE MTL]

It takes more than that to impress me, it takes the witnesses who said those parts would be there, in other words it's confirmed.

 
Very easy, because both are really describing a passenger plane, one is edited and the other is not. Your own witness is actually a witness for the passenger jet that left it's wreckage there.

Your "it was like a cruise missile with wings" is edited, and you fell for a lie. Unless you are talking about another witness lets see it, because there are none. Here is what the unedited clip of your witness looks like....so, some "truthers" clip the following video at the 34 to 40 second mark and presto! There is your "missile with wings" witness. So you fell for that lie and are now on here promoting it. This is called DisInfo and it's done for a reason, you are being manipulated, and not by me, I am not lieing or trying to manipulate you, which is why I'm fighting you folks on this because this is how you kill a truth movement.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jqaz_pentagon-eyewitness-mike-walter_news


 Because it is more beneficial to have you believe a lie than the truth. Like it would make a difference, we both know you'd say it was fake.

How could I fall for a lie if I'm telling you I don't know what hit the pentagon, what am i promoting? I'm asking for proof, you don't have anything substantial. you're falling for the lie. watch the last 5 minutes of this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4648624627192508186
you say It is more beneficial to have us believe a lie than truth??? what in God's green earth are you talking about??? They want us to believe their bogus story, point finale. I like the way you don't answer my question by saying what you think I would think of a tape,the obvious answer is because flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.
 

[yanaar]

How could I fall for a lie if I'm telling you I don't know what hit the pentagon, what am i promoting? I'm asking for proof, you don't have anything substantial. you're falling for the lie. watch the last 5 minutes of this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4648624627192508186
you say It is more beneficial to have us believe a lie than truth??? what in God's green earth are you talking about??? They want us to believe their bogus story, point finale. I like the way you don't answer my question by saying what you think I would think of a tape,the obvious answer is because flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.
 

I've had this same argument with jimd3100.  He won't give in.  He's convinced that a plane went through that hole at the Pentagon, despite the lack of significant plane crash debris.

[markshark4]

JMID  do you seriously think a plane hit the pentagon?

Eye witnesses & crash debris prove that a plane hit the pentagon IMO.

You should rephrase your question, do you seriously think a 757 hit the pentagon?

I'm guessing that people who voted Other on this poll think that a remote control drone & cruise missile hit the pentagon.

The govt. could debunk this pretty easily IMO, with pics of the six ton steel & titanium engines or by releasing all of the camera footage.

Why won't they???

I've heard plenty of reasons why they won't release all the evidence, but the two main theories are:

A. Flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon

or

B. To keep people talking about the pentagon and discredit 9/11 Truth



I could be wrong, but another possible reason is that they don't want to show the unbelievable maneuvers that Hanjour could've never executed at 400+ mph.  Thereby giving more credence to automated assistance.

Or ... it would show the plane not flying right into the pentagon, but instead going out of its way to do a 270 degree cork screw turn so it just happen to hit the one and only side of the pentagon that was under renovation for bomb blasting with far less people inside.

Weren't all 4 planes at an abnormally LOW occupancy too?  Like less the 50%, this is odd because airlines almost always overbook flights and have at least an 80% occupancy.



Do any of the eye witnesses talk about how LOUD the plane was?  Because the sonic blast from a 100 ton 757 flying that low at 400+ mph over cars on the freeway would be DEAFENING!  Conversely, a military craft would be much more quiet.


US Army Col. Donn de Grande-Pre seems pretty sure that a commercial aircraft did not hit the pentagon.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html


Were all four black boxes retrieved and was independent verification allowed?

 

[Biggs]

interesting point, at least one of the witnesses described the noise as a 'whoosh' - which does not fit a commercial jetliner almost breaking the sound barrier and indeed doing speeds and moves that should have seen it break apart.

a military craft or missile however can do these turns at such low altitute and speed and will make - one would expect- a 'whooshing' sound.

[Hetware]

interesting point, at least one of the witnesses described the noise as a 'whoosh' - which does not fit a commercial jetliner almost breaking the sound barrier and indeed doing speeds and moves that should have seen it break apart.

a military craft or missile however can do these turns at such low altitute and speed and will make - one would expect- a 'whooshing' sound.

Saying it don't make it so.  The plane could have handled all of the maneuvers described.  There were simply too many witnesses who saw the plane to believe there was no large commercial-type aircraft involved.  In view of the irrefutable fact of the presence of the aircraft, the Pentagon no-planers had to come up with the Rube Goldberg flyover with the light pole banditos and the army of aircraft wreckage litterbugs. 

As a relative of mine, who works for  the DOJ put it when I told her 9/11 was an inside job: "Don't tell me this bullshit.  My coworker saw the godamn f**king plane!"  I had, of course, never been suckered into the no-plane delusion.  Nonetheless, it has been artfully employed to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement in the community it needs to reach them most.

None of my coworkers who knew General Maude personally, and worked directly with him and his staff ever expressed doubt that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 

I know what my brother told me when I told him that I believe 9/11 was an inside job.  He said "I know it happened.  I saw it on TV.  I know Arabs hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings."  I asked him if he had seen the Arabs.  He said "No, but I saw the planes, and these psychos who say there were no planes are nuts".  Then I told him that the no-planers are disinfo.  That's when he started to listen a bit.

[jimd3100]

How could I fall for a lie if I'm telling you I don't know what hit the pentagon, what am i promoting?

You just promoted that witnesses saw a missile with wings. The witness actually saw a passenger jet which proves my point.

I'm asking for proof, you don't have anything substantial.

All the witnesses saying it was a plane is substantial wether you admit it or not. And when I show you the physical evidence you claim it is planted, and the only way you would know that is if...oh wait, you wouldn't know that, you would prefer it to be so you can continue to refuse to believe a passenger jet hit, which means you are not really interested in proof.

you're falling for the lie. watch the last 5 minutes of this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4648624627192508186

If you think CIT and pilots for truth are good sources for info you are not much of a researcher

you say It is more beneficial to have us believe a lie than truth??? what in God's green earth are you talking about??? They want us to believe their bogus story, point finale. I like the way you don't answer my question by saying what you think I would think of a tape,the obvious answer is because flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.

yes, we both know you would say it was fake, and the perps are quite happy with 9/11 truth saying a missile hit the pentagon and other ridicules things backed up by nothing but BS artists and disinfo shills.

Why don't you and others start paying attention to real 9/11 researchers, top notch scientists who are gathering information and science to bring those responsible for justice instead of stupid disinfo movies put out by self promoting BS artists?
http://stj911.org/

Jim Hoffman has done more for 9/11 truth than me or you, and has been through this disinfo game. 9/11 truth has been very successfully hammered with disInfo BS as would be expected in a case such as this. It's 2008 now and it's time you wised up. Hoffman has already been thru it all and you can learn from him and his experiances. He spells it out on this appearance he made in 2007 on a radio program. It's time for you and others to wise up about the pentagon.

Hoffman and Steven Jones are working together. These are not flakes, and kooks. You might want to listen to them
Who is Jim Hoffman? Hoffman has disputed the "No Crash" theory concerning The Pentagon and in an interview with Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on conspiracy theorists, stating, “This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”  And he's right as usual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman

Here he is on a radio program in 2007, explaining how DisInfo has entered into 9/11 truth. You can learn from him. Or perhaps you think you know all there is to know on the subject?
Scroll to the bottom to click on the mp3 webcast.
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=186639

 

[jimd3100]

I could be wrong, but another possible reason is that they don't want to show the unbelievable maneuvers that Hanjour could've never executed at 400+ mph.  Thereby giving more credence to automated assistance.

Hence all the DisInfo. We can easily point out that the pilot of this plane had to be one of the best in the world. And then we can show that he never ever flew a 757 and was in fact a horrible pilot on a single engine cessna. They would prefer we not go into that, and don't want to help out with a video.

[jimd3100]

In view of the irrefutable fact of the presence of the aircraft, the Pentagon no-planers had to come up with the Rube Goldberg flyover with the light pole banditos and the army of aircraft wreckage litterbugs. 

LOL

[yanaar]

interesting point, at least one of the witnesses described the noise as a 'whoosh' - which does not fit a commercial jetliner almost breaking the sound barrier and indeed doing speeds and moves that should have seen it break apart.

a military craft or missile however can do these turns at such low altitute and speed and will make - one would expect- a 'whooshing' sound.

I'm wondering if you have a source, Biggs.  

[Biggs]

I'm wondering if you have a source, Biggs.   

none to hand, my records/files of such things got wiped by cointel virus attack some time ago (and dumbo here did not back them up adequately - doh!!), however, I have seen several times people call into very serious doubt the ability of the plane to cope with the turns at such speed. These include a Boeing worker and several pilots, many of whom thought it impossible that the plane could cope with drag at such a low altitude and such high speed. Some of whom thought it absurd that anyone could think otherwise as the top speed of a 767 or similar at ground level is more like 300mph or so, and not the nearly 500 that is alleged.

However, although I still lean towards the missile theory due to the nature of the damage, a military plane painted up like  a passenger jet could have done those manoeuvres at that speed so I still find that a distinct possibility.

 

[yanaar]

none to hand, my records/files of such things got wiped by cointel virus attack some time ago (and dumbo here did not back them up adequately - doh!!), however, I have seen several times people call into very serious doubt the ability of the plane to cope with the turns at such speed. These include a Boeing worker and several pilots, many of whom thought it impossible that the plane could cope with drag at such a low altitude and such high speed. Some of whom thought it absurd that anyone could think otherwise as the top speed of a 767 or similar at ground level is more like 300mph or so, and not the nearly 500 that is alleged.

However, although I still lean towards the missile theory due to the nature of the damage, a military plane painted up like  a passenger jet could have done those manoeuvres at that speed so I still find that a distinct possibility.

Sorry to hear you were virus attacked... arghhh.... !   I agree wholeheartedly with this post.  Thanx.