Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[jimd3100]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBa1VwKjUw8

case f**king closed!

Case Closed? Hardly. The person in this video is Gen Stubblebine. He is asking what hit the pentagon. That's what we are all asking. That Hardly closes the case, but lets take a look at who this person is who wants you to call all the witnesses at the scene liars and put forth the idea a missile hit the building, and that a plane didn't. As I said, I don't think this helps the truth movement.

1. Gen Stubblebine was head of Army Intelligence he is a spook.
2. Gen Stublebine is in the Army Intelligence hall of fame.
3. Gen Stubblebine sits on the board of several WORLDWIDE DEFENSE contractors.
4. Gen Stubblebine receives money from HOMELAND SECURITY and is part of instituting it's infrastructure.
5. Gen Stubblebine is working for the NEW WORLD ORDER and has been involved in mind experiments (mkultra anyone?)involving government intelligence agencies.
6. Gen Stubblebine is NOT part of 911 truth

You wont see Gen Stubblebine on the lecture circuit talking 9/11 truth. And you wont find him talking of the WTC. So ask yourself, why would a super spook like this want to promote the idea of no plane hit the building and want you to call the witnesses who saw what happened there liars? I think the answer is obvious. Here is just a few examples to prove the points I made, that you were not supposed to see.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206131007/http://canadiansub.com/Board.html      Read his bio on a CANADIAN DEFENSE COMPANY......notice the last sentence of it.."and is one of the two designers of AEGIS, a major Homeland Security private initiative."

If This IS the AEGIS they speak of it is about as NWO as you can get......

http://www.aegisworld.com/

"AEGIS
Aegis is a London based, privately owned, British security and risk management company with overseas offices in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kenya, Nepal and the USA.

We have substantial experience and a world-wide client-base, including governments, international agencies and the multinational corporate sector. We are a registered and active UN contractor, a major security provider to the US government and security advisor to the Lloyds Joint."
 
You don't really think he spends his HOMELAND SECURITY money fighting the NWO do you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1613/is_200307/ai_n9091297

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1613/is_200311/ai_n6631977

you might find the 5 to 5:30 part of this clip interesting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB3Qpe_7wuA

NWO minion who makes money from wars and works for Homeland Security cares about your health. Well, he is a fraud in that as well, do your own research if you care to find out, I wont be baited into that irrelevant distraction I am here to talk about the pentagon and outing the NWO members such as Stubblebine himself. NOT defend them.

[Dig]

Case Closed? Hardly. The person in this video is Gen Stubblebine. He is asking what hit the pentagon. That's what we are all asking. That Hardly closes the case, but lets take a look at who this person is who wants you to call all the witnesses at the scene liars and put forth the idea a missile hit the building, and that a plane didn't. As I said, I don't think this helps the truth movement.

I probably should have been more specific.  Case closed that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon (that was something that was being debated.  I take it you are not saying that a 757 did hit the pentagon, correct?).  At least 100 people saw a plane (could have been unmanned or a missile made to look like a plane), the reports vary on what kind of plane. But the hole, the debris inside and out, and the blasts definitely point to a non 757 situation.  In addition, it being flight 77 adds even more to be skeptical about due to the flight path, the manifesto, etc.  I totally agree, that we do not know what did hit the pentagon, was everything preplanned explosions or was it something else.

As far as Stubblebine, he is a bit eccentric:

Crazy Rulers of the World- 3 Hours

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6708686897899858973
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5724678809113331882
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7393537672114286344

[jimd3100]

I probably should have been more specific.  Case closed that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon (that was something that was being debated.  I take it you are not saying that a 757 did hit the pentagon, correct?).  At least 100 people saw a plane

Well, since every witness who was there described a plane hit the building what plane was it? It was THE PLANE.

On 9/11 you got to watch a plane fly into a giant building. Heck that's easy,(you are lead to believe)the building is huge all you have to do is aim it and BAM! (of course they actually flew over several states, but most people are mindless couch potatos)But you don't see ANYTHING at the pentagon. Because if you did, you would see one of the great airshows in history, a 757 making a 330 degree turn while dropping thousands of feet then flying 500 mph a few feet off the ground while knocking over lamp posts on the way to hitting the ground floor of the pentagon. How the f**k did he do that!! Who was that?!?! ooops...turns out there is a whole bunch of facts that PROVE Hani Hanjour could NOT do that. Which is smoking gun proof that these planes were not piloted by these so called terrorists. And that's why they LOVE it when Mike Walter and the rest of the witnesses are called liars, and love it when "911 truth" says it was a missle(that no one saw) or a fly over or any other theory.....anything but what really happened.

[ManMs0808]

           Now, Al-Sakka is saying that Nawaf-al Hazmi was the veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the pentagon, and might answer one of the 9-11 mysteries!!! Al-Queada is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to forment a strategy of tension around the world.

[jimd3100]

           Now, Al-Sakka is saying that Nawaf-al Hazmi was the veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the pentagon, and might answer one of the 9-11 mysteries!!!

No...I would say it was a nice try, but frankly it wasn't. Just rather pathetic.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/281107Fly.htm

So, if they want defend their fairytail of what happened they need to be more creative and somehow make it convincing that Chuck Yeager was a member of Al Qaida and piloted the plane then somehow walked away unscathed.

[johndoraemi]

Speculation does not help.

There's no sin in admitting we don't know what happened at the Pentagon.  It happens to be the truth.  They have hidden the evidence, which we must demand.

Credibility is established from citing facts, not theories.  When you list the known, factual evidence that they are suppressing, this shows that the cover up is real.

When you spend an hour and a half embellishing your theory of what did and didn't hit wherever, you make us look like fools.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Image counts.  Presentation counts. 

Crimes of the State Blog

[cover fire hero]

As I posted in another thread...

 What's more odd to me is the apparent lack of video evidence around such a secure building. I mean come on! The Pentagon is all about security.

Yukihisa Fujita brought up that important point in front of the Japanese parliament stating, "there were 80 security cameras at the Pentagon but they refused to release the footage." http://youtube.com/watch?v=7t-dZiNE9NI&feature=related

Michael Moore also brought this up, "We've never seen the plane hit the Pentagon... there must be 100 video cameras surrounding the Pentagon atleast if not more. And so there's footage of that plane hitting the Pentagon from numerous angles and yet we've never seen the footage. Why is that? That's been my question now for 3 and a half years." http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUoZx3CBfcY

Within minutes of the crash, the FBI confiscated CCTV footage from all of the establishments in the immediate area, and they refuse to show us any of that footage. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ8_Qy0zp8

Remember, the day before 911, 2.3 trillion went missing from the Pentagon. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU That's a lot of moola. You do the math.

[jimd3100]

5 lightpoles were knocked out of the ground, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

every witness(and there are lots)are on record  as seeing what impacted the pentagon said a plane flew into it, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

the flight and crew of flt 77 dna were supposedly recovered at the pentagon site, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

the National guard pilot of a c-130 was told to track an AA flight and he claims to have watched it go toward the pentagon and then a huge cloud of smoke arose...what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

if it was rush hour traffic in a very congested area how could the perps know that no one would have a camera and capture what really hit the pentagon what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

what happened to the plane Captained by Burlingame, where is it, and what happened to the passesngers, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

why would the government put forth one of it's most notorious spooks to try to fan the flames that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, even though he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, is a member of the NWO and makes money from wars and Homeland security?
 http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg60287#msg60287
flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

what could have caused the damage at the pentagon according to witnesses who were there? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

what could cause the "truth movement" damage and help the perps by the "truth movement" accusing average americans and witnesses of being liars and mass murderers? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

if planes were used on 9/11 and something happened at the pentagon and it hit the one side farthest away from the top military and civilian leaders, and the one side where auditors were looking over the books trying to find the trillions of dollors lost, and the one side where it had just been refurbished for an impact, why wouldn't "Al Qaida" take the easiest route, and hit the most important part of the building as opposed to the least important and hardest part to hit? On the other hand, if planes were used on 9/11 and it was an inside job, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

what could be one of the best distractions away from yet another smoking gun of 9/11 being an inside job, in that a hijacker(hani Hanjour) was such a terrible pilot that he couldn't rent a single engine cessna in August of 2001 but a month later was one of the worlds greatest pilots and performed amazing feats at the pentagon, why wouldn't the perps want everyone to see what an incredible pilot the person was when it's a proven fact he wasn't, and why would it benefit them to draw attention away from this fact? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could

[Weston White]

Compare the damage sustained to the Pentagon to that of WTC1 and WTC2, it just does not add up now does it.

The light poles could have been prior removed and then planted at the time of occurrence or the light poles could have been planted with explosives to detonate at the time of occurrence.

The original coroner reports claimed there were no bodies to be found from the crash as well there were little to no plane parts on scene; as well many of the plane parts were not identifiable or did not belong to that make/model of aircraft.

If the traffic was so congested then why are there only a few cars in the photos? You would except hundreds of vehicles backed bumper to bumper, right? Funny thing is on the opposite sie of the free way that is the case, at least in some of the photos, as in other photos they look very staged, only the taxi cab and the white car next to it and all other lanes and directions of travel there are no cars at all, it appears as if that entire section of roadway was closed down and then setup for the "official story".

"the National guard pilot of a c-130 was told to track an AA flight and he claims to have watched it go toward the pentagon and then a huge cloud of smoke arose...what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - A lying piece of non-American scum works for me.

"what happened to the plane Captained by Burlingame, where is it, and what happened to the passesngers, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - There are several possibilities, there was no plane or passengers at least in reality, perhaps flight 77 could have something to do with the Cleveland Hopkins Airport bomb threat reports, the plane could have been crashed else where. (I think they realized that it would have been very risky to get an actual plane to hit that precise target and/or if they allowed the actual aircraft to his that precise target it would have caused massive damage to the Pentagon and risked their own lives and/or lost whatever type of evidence, reports, etc., they store within the Pentagon and they (the key players) would not stand for that, i.e. Rumsfield was in his nearby office at the time.)

"every witness(and there are lots)are on record  as seeing what impacted the pentagon said a plane flew into it, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - Originally, several witnesses gave different statements but were reported to have been pressured to change their story; as well many of the witnesses have conflicts of interest and their testimony would bear no weight in a court of law.

"why would the government put forth one of it's most notorious spooks to try to fan the flames that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, even though he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, is a member of the NWO and makes money from wars and Homeland security?
 http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg60287#msg60287
flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - I think this is your backwards logic at work here.

"what could cause the "truth movement" damage and help the perps by the "truth movement" accusing average americans and witnesses of being liars and mass murderers? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - This does not make any sense to me, I am not sure what your point is.

"if planes were used on 9/11 and something happened at the pentagon and it hit the one side farthest away from the top military and civilian leaders, and the one side where auditors were looking over the books trying to find the trillions of dollors lost, and the one side where it had just been refurbished for an impact, why wouldn't "Al Qaida" take the easiest route, and hit the most important part of the building as opposed to the least important and hardest part to hit? On the other hand, if planes were used on 9/11 and it was an inside job, what could explain this? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - This does not make any sense to me, I am not sure what your point is.

"what could be one of the best distractions away from yet another smoking gun of 9/11 being an inside job, in that a hijacker(hani Hanjour) was such a terrible pilot that he couldn't rent a single engine cessna in August of 2001 but a month later was one of the worlds greatest pilots and performed amazing feats at the pentagon, why wouldn't the perps want everyone to see what an incredible pilot the person was when it's a proven fact he wasn't, and why would it benefit them to draw attention away from this fact? flt 77 hitting the pentagon could"
 - This does not make any sense to me, I am not sure what your point is.

[Biffa]

Very interesting about Stubblebine Jimd. Just confirms to me that this is a red herring.

[abbadon]

if a plane hit the pentagon where is the debrie? ever seen a crashsite? alot of junk everywhere including bags, seats, cloathings, engines scatterd across a big area. at pentagon? just a few scraps and nothing more. any logic saying a plane A passanger plane hit pentagon? No logic at all and nothing that proves a 757 hit pentagon. The jet fuel alone cant melt the engiens, not by a long shoot maybe if god did it.

Look what happed to WTC 1,2 and 7 just because of two planes *lol* logic? no

[Biffa]

There are pictures of debris on this 911 debunking site, including of engine parts, consistant with those of a 757 engine.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

[Weston White]

Wow, you sold me a few scraps of metal, a few components, a wheel, and a rotor. Hey say now brown cow, where is that (12ftx155ft) floor mainframe that supposedly was the cause of making that 13x13 foot entry and exit hole? …And do I really need to ask you what happened to the wings and the engines? I mean we all know that these components made it inside WTC1 and WTC2 during their impacts without any trouble, surely the crash into the Pentagon would have been a much easier task (being that it was a comparably weaker structure then the WTC1 and WTC2). Hence, why is there only one small tiny hole? It does not make any sense if in fact a plane (757) was used to incite the damage.


•   There are about 626,000 parts in a 757. About 600,000 bolts and rivets fasten those parts together. The length of all wires in the twinjet is about 60 miles (100 kilometers). http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_facts.html
Where are these things at? The fire was almost completely extinguished in the first 10 minutes.

[Biffa]

Don't get me wrong if I seem rude.

So your not buying the photographs of engine parts. Yet you still ask 'where are the engines'?. Ok, moving on...

You question the whole mass of the whole 'mass of the plane vs the size of the impact hole'. For that I reccomend that you take a good read of this well argued essay. It is clearly the result of a long discussion by those symapthetic to 911 truth.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

(not only does it refute this argument by considering the structure of the aircraft, physics and so forth, there are yet more photographs of 757 parts)

'# Review the facts
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.'

Now then, what source do you have for saying that the parts of the aircraft that where discovered where form a diferent aircraft model?

You make up a load of speculative bullshit about light poles being removed and then replaced, or fitted with explosives. Credible eyewitnesses become 'lying pieces of non-American scum'.

These eyewitnesses changing their story is no doubt some Loose Change bullshit. I have no time for their rubbish frankly, they twist everything and f**k with the facts constantly. A bunch of ameteurish pinheads who have done no great favours for the credibility of 911 Truth.

You have a guy promoting this red herring, (good job Jimd) who has some serious NWO credentials, which you dismiss out of hand. etc.

[abbadon]

one thing is that the roof top above the hole didnt fall until later on. so if there is a part the tail section would have been ripped off, but there aint a backpart, or anything close to a wing, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7OLK769bno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4&feature=related

1 wheel of how many?
80 tons vaporized?

and if there was a 757 why havent FBI released ANY vids from the security cams?
Biffa you said somethign about facts?

[Biffa]

Oh wow. I guess all those eyewitnesses, have red faces now huh?

How about all the recovered 757 parts?

The human remains?

How about the complete demolition of these kind of points linked to in my last post?

I guess you saw that cartoon when you where a kid though where the man leaves a perfect man shape when he runs through the wall? Also, a NWO shill told you the 'truth', so ignore the facts and evidence and carry on...

[abbadon]

Oh wow. I guess all those eyewitnesses, have red faces now huh?

How about all the recovered 757 parts?

The human remains?

How about the complete demolition of these kind of points linked to in my last post?

I guess you saw that cartoon when you where a kid though where the man leaves a perfect man shape when he runs through the wall? Also, a NWO shill told you the 'truth', so ignore the facts and evidence and carry on...

strange that some eye vitness said it sounded like a missle, some heard 2 explosions.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

know how a crash site really looks like? it dosnt leave 7 parts as total.
why is the vid of a crash dated on the 12th? 1 day after... and if there is an aircraft on that vid showing on your liked site it would have been flying 2feet above ground, know what turbulence is?
Oh forgot to mention why was ther eonly 1 explosion?  2 fuel tanks, first the one tot he right exploded then the one to the left. But there is only one? abd what about the fuel? look at wtc 1 and 2 shouldnt there be a much bigger explosion just than the small "poof"
And why does an air traffic controler say that it wasnt a civilian aircraft but an military one?

no need to slander it will only make you look dumb. have you seen the untouched cable spools infront of the impact site? 

never thought of a small comuter plane?

[Biffa]

But they found parts of a 757. And there are photographs of it.

Dozens of eyewitnesses back up that it was a 757.

The line of argument about the impact hole has been well and truly refuted.

So precisely why do you think it wasn't a 757? Why was it not possible? And how do you explain the above. It seems people go on speculation, and cherry pick bits of distorted of explainable info. whilst ignoring the above.

Your crash site point, consider the difference between a plane that hit hard ground, compared with one that gets buried inside a building.

Wouldn't a 'small commuter plane' (contrary to the physical evidence and eyewitness reports) have to fly 2 feet off the ground also?

[abbadon]

how many parts? 1 wheel of how many? do the math, look up on what the wheels is made of.
eyewitnesses said it was also NOT a 757 so that rulles out eyewitnesses..
contradiction..

refuted? where show me it that explains just 1 small hole that dont even fit a 757.
explain that the cable spools wasnt even touched infront of the impact area.
there are pics of planes hitting a building and even passangers surviving those hits.
and what about the lack of luggage?
why where the windows at the wings inpact still not broken?

plane crashes into a concrete building in brazil, alot of debrie not 5-7 parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP5OK_ugI3I

still nothing of what you are saying bunks the info i showed you or even asked you, your just going in loops about it and not debunked anything.

http://911exposed.org/DebrisStaged.htm

[Biffa]

eyewitnesses said it was also NOT a 757 so that rulles out eyewitnesses..
contradiction..

No it doesn't.


Eye Witness Testimony

'Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.


"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001 '

A plane hit the Pentagon.

According to your theory, that plane could only be 13ft accross its wingspan, so it could fit through the hole. A pretty shit plane then?

[abbadon]

The aircraft "appeared to hold about 8 to 12 people" and "sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter", explained Steve Patterson to the Washington Post, on September 11.

Tom Seibert, a network engineer at the Pentagon, told the Washington Post: "We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom."

There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank", explained U.S. Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn, director of military support, to CNN. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern.

Just after the attack, Mike Walter, journalist at USA Today, explained to the Washington Post and CNN that "it was like a cruise missile with wings".

Danielle O'Brien, air controller at Washington's Dulles airport, from where American Airways flight 77 took off, explained that the craft that hit the Pentagon had the speed and maneuverability of a "military plane". Her account was published on the ABCnews site and used on the National Air Traffic Controllers Association site.

"I saw what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon."

Samuel Danner (electrical engineer for AmTrak), was involved in the clean-up at the Pentagon crash site and inspected the debris at the site. He said, "It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. (There were only seven made as of 9/11/01 and two were missing at the time.)

Danner is a former pilot. He said the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was very quiet with one engine near the back. He also saw a second plane overhead and wonders if it was controlling the plane that hit the Pentagon. He walked the lawn and picked up small pieces of debris with others. He did not see any bodies from the aircraft.
The engine configuration reminded Danner of an older Boeing 727, which has a turbine jet engine located on the back of the plane above the fuselage. "That was the only engine I saw," Danner said, "there was none affixed to any fore or aft wings.





so you said something about eyewitnesses?

[Biffa]

‘We heard what sounded like a missile’, big deal, I doubt the impact and explosion of a plane would sound tremendously different to a missile (can’t believe I have to point that out tbh).

‘The aircraft "appeared to hold about 8 to 12 people" and "sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter", explained Steve Patterson to the Washington Post, on September 11.’

Got the link for those quotes? But still a plane you see. I’m sure that a fighter or smaller passaner plane would still have a far greater wing span than 13ft, thus contradicting your earlier logic re the impact hole.

Its a psyop - cointel, call it what you like. Further clues - honey pot, red herring. As is the supposed CD of the twin towers in my opinion.

This was promoted by 'bedroom activists' like Dylan Avery, and NWO shills like Stubblebine. I notice for example, that Alex Jones has spotted it (the pentagon) for the red herring that it is for years and has said as much.

We have them NOW. See the Sibel Edmonds, CIA Tapes sticky threads for starters. You have all you need there to get most of them behind bars, with that only being the tip of the iceberg due to current gag orders and a timid MSM.

[abbadon]

nice reply *claps hands* so still coming up with nothing. your nothing than a troll and your vague attempts to try to make your point have failed and to add your attempt to insult me just proves your very narrovminded and have a close mind not open to critical though of your own. just a sheep one of many.

[Biffa]

Last resort call him a troll. I knew it would lead to this which is why I'm out of this thread. Where have I slandered or insulted you, are you Dylan Avery?

[Biffa]

And no I'm not a sheep, I was genuinely interested in your eyewitness quotes, asked for a link to them (a simple ask) but you spat the dummy out.

I haven't insulted you at all. In fact you have insulted me by calling me a troll.

I made the point that even a fighter plane of smaller passenger jet (i.e. your quotes) would not fit through a 13ft hole. You don't get it though. You argued earlier that it couldn't be a 757 because the wingspan was greater than 13ft! So which is it?

[abbadon]

nice read about the 1 engine and the 1 wheel and some debrie found in the area.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm


eyewitnesses:
http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=90745
http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1fa23_pentagon-eyewitness-omar-campos_news

A3 sky warrior hit pentagon?
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm

some debunking the official story:
http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view2777166.html


did it fly over the pentagon? no 757 hit pentagon.

[AlexStratus]

You guys (Biffa and jimd3100) are very good at what you do.  I won't call you trolls cause I am no sure exactly what a troll is in this context. But I can explain why a 757 could not have hit the pentagon with facts that are as irrefutable as the fact that a building cannot collapse at a rate of 10 floors per second without explosive assistance.  The short answer is "ground effect".  This is rarely mentioned because few people other than pilots are aware of this law of aerodynamics. However, if you suspend your dedicated belief that a 757 flew into the penatgon you can understand why it could not.  The Long Answer: Every pilot knows what ground effect is whether they fly a C5 Galaxy, a 747, F-16, a cessna 210, or a helicopter.  Here is a short story to dramatically illustrate ground effect: Chuck Yeager had a theory that at high speed level flight, it would be impossible to hit the ground.  He tested his theory in typical Yeager style out on the dry lake bed in a jet.  He cranked it up to a high subsonic speed and pushed it downward gradually until he was about 50 to 75 feet above the ground and he continued to push forward on the stick until it was fully deflected (forward or down) and he could not get below 50 feet AGL, even with full stick deflection.  This is due to ground effect which is the result of the air beneath the wings that is compressed by the flow of the over the top and bottom of the wings pushing downward against the ground and holding the plane away at a distance approximately equal to the wingspan of the aircraft.  The same is true with a 757 or any other airplane.  With a wingspan of over 100 ft. it would be impossible to fly a 757 below 100 feet AGL at 500 or 400 mph.  Whatever hit the Pentagon was flying parallel to the ground, evidenced by the damage to the holes n the rings and lack of damage to the ground outside.  Whatever hit the Pentagon HAD to have a very small wingspan. 
That is not the only proof based on irrefutable laws of physics but it is one of the best.  However, because the average person has never heard of ground effect let alone experienced it themselves, it is not mentioned in general public forums.
Yes I am a pilot and I feel ground effect everytime I land and take off.  That is why approach speed is important. You cannot get down to the ground unless you are below a specific airspeed which is a small amount above stall speed or minimum control speed which in a 757 I believe about 120 knots (approach) and 100-110 knots pre flare and 90 full flap post flare pre reverse thrust.
I encourage everyone not to engage with anyone arguing FOR 757 hitting Penatgon.  It is an impossible scenario and anyone promoting it is at least ignorant and at worst a disinfo agent wasting your time.
If I was wrong in my assessment  of the 2 people at the beginning of this post, I apologize but I will not acknowledge any further responses from either regardless of explanations in this thread or any other topics.  In other words, you are shit-listed. 

[abbadon]

Very nice information there AlexStratus, never thought of it but i recall the same effect on any flight simulator that when flying horizontally in high speed the plane wants to pull up rather than down  and its impossible to force the plane down if not your diving from a high altitude but not horizontally.

[Biffa]

Well thats all very interesting.

No, neither me or Jim are trolls. Consider that Jim is the moderator of this sub-forum, and had made some very important contributions if you care to look through the stickied threads.

I know he can speak for himself, but I mean, you have check out the CIA tapes stickied thread.

Ok, so as I say, I'm going to take a back seat in this discussion. But consider also that Alex Jones said:
(paraphtase)
'the whole question of what hit the Pentagon could be a honey trap to discredit the movement. By witholding the tapes and only realeasing ambiguous footage, this could be designed to make this the whole focus of the truth movement, and then when when the controversy reaches a crescendo, they could release a tape (real or otherwise) of a 757 hitting the Penatgon, and destroy the credibility of the movement'.

That made an impression on me. Given that this is Jones' website, I don't think me and Jimd should qualify as trolls, particularly in light of what we know about Stubblebine. However I cannot argue with what you say there AlexStratus, so I don't know.

[Weston White]

Nevermind the Wings, Tail, engine, and that was a very good point one rim was located, right? So what about the others? one piece of landing gear was located, right? so what about all of the other pieces of landing gear? What about the 8 tons of forged steel, aluminum, ceramic, etc.  engine parts? We are talking about forged steel components used to support massive stresses PSI. I think most of these missing items could handle 10 or so minutes of fire, don't you?


http://physics911.net/missingwings

A home experiment

One of the authors made a simple home experiment to determine for himself just what the burning properties of kerosene might be. Here are the steps of the experiment:

1. Prepare a wheelbarrow (or other wide container made of steel) by removing all debris and cleaning the interior surface of all residue.

2. Pour in enough kerosene to cover the bottom of the container to a depth of one centimeter or slightly less.

3. Add a crumpled ball of aluminum foil, an empty pop or beer can, and any pieces of old aluminum you can find, such as lawnmower parts, aluminum door hardware or panels, etc.

4. Set the kerosene ablaze and wait a minute for maximum temperature to be reached.

5. Record which items survived the fire, as well as the degree of damage to each.

What do you observe? (See end of article for answer.) *


* Results of Home Experiment

If you tried this experiment at home, you may well find the paint burned off the outside of your container. However, the aluminum machine part, the door hardware, the crumpled aluminum foil and, yes, even the pop can will be untouched - except lettering on the can may partially disappear.

[Weston White]

Independant presidential candidate Karl Schwarz told that "...there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks - but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury..."

Here the article from www.tomflocco.com:

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.

The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.

The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation....

(snip)

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that

a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact,
b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, C-Ring hole in the Pentagon on 9-11

c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and

d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify and they have been strangely gagged from speaking out.

One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."

Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole [pic below]; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck. No reporters or independent aircraft experts have been permitted to examine any of the recovered aircraft parts and no subpoenas have been issued to hear public grand jury testimony from the "movers."...

Full article at: http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110&mode=&order=0&thold=0


This interesting piece of investigation again brought up that picture with the blue tarp I was aware of shortly after the 9/11 which I recognized on the FEMA-photo-site but failed to save it. Later I couldn't find it anymore.

The problem of "investigating deeper" into the 9/11 is that there seems to be such an interlocked involvement of many levels. Everyone "inside" seems to have profiteered on different goals:

The U.S.Govt. with their connections to the Oil-and Military complex needed the public legitimation for War for keeping up the economy and the US-Dollar (You may call it the "Pearl Harbor"-syndrome). They did simply "let it happen"..

The Banksters had a war going on anyhow - as the European banks were in constant competition with their U.S. colleagues. One reason for possible involvement in the 9/11 could have been the ongoing whitewashing of Gold for the purpose of "injecting" ongoing, new "undeclared" amounts of Gold into the market (from former Eastern Countries and the Phillipines) for the artificial supression of Gold-prices...

The Secret-Services - as the arm of the banksters - could have been involved anyhow together with criminal elements of "syndicates" (from East and West) for preparations on ground...

Some states' interests - beside the U.S.Govt. - as Israel e.g. who could "convince" the "proxy" U.S. to fight for them as a barter for their disclosure about what really happened, not speaking about how much there was any involvement on official levels...

...and last but not least there seems to be a bunch of "individuals" - simply profiteering from foreknowledge, blackmailing and "small jobs" connected with everything around the happenings on that day...

It's a tangled web, as we use to say, but most possibly this "web" will be torn apart completely by cutting out relevant and important parts of the whole, dark fabric.

No more "Spidermen"...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=73062

[Weston White]

Oh wow. I guess all those eyewitnesses, have red faces now huh?

How about all the recovered 757 parts?

The human remains?

How about the complete demolition of these kind of points linked to in my last post?

I guess you saw that cartoon when you where a kid though where the man leaves a perfect man shape when he runs through the wall? Also, a NWO shill told you the 'truth', so ignore the facts and evidence and carry on...

A few parts, several of which are reportedd to have not belonged to a 757.

The original Coronor reported no bodies from the crash were located on scene, no DNA, there is no evidence that a single body was removed from the airplane crash, only reports of a few military personal that were working inside the Pentagon were located and found to be deceased, then later that changed to hundreds (IIRC).

[Weston White]

Biffa, any relation to Hiram Abiff? lol   

[Weston White]

Aircraft may be affected by a number of Ground effects, aerodynamic effects due to a flying body's proximity to the ground.

One of the most important of these effects is the Wing In Ground effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately twice a wingspan's length off the ground or other level surface (such as the sea). The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at a height of one half the wingspan length above the ground. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing, but it has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft whose planform has been adapted to take advantage of it, such as the Russian ekranoplans. The first to give scientific description of the ground effect and to provide theoretical methods of calculation of air cushion vehicles was Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in his 1927 paper "Air Resistance and the Express Train".

Wings create lift through the generation of a high(er) pressure area below the wing and a low(er) pressure area above the wing according to Bernoulli's principle; this is what contributes to the lifting force. The air under the wing, since it is of higher relative pressure, tends to flow outwards towards the wing tip from wing root. The low-pressure air above the wing tends to flow inwards from the wing tip towards the wing root. At the wingtips, outward-flowing air from beneath the wing "rolls over" to meet the inward-flowing air from above the wing, resulting in wingtip vortices.

Wingtip vortices are a major cause of induced drag, which refers to any drag created as a side-effect of generating lift. Reducing this form of drag leads to a number of widely-used design considerations found on many aircraft. Gliders, for instance, use very long wings with a high aspect ratio in order to reduce the size of the wingtip in relation to the size of the wing as a whole, thereby reducing the contribution of induced drag. Other aircraft sometimes include winglets to actively disrupt the airflow over the tip, to the same end.

The phenomenon of 'wing in ground effect' is caused by the ground 'interrupting' the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the performance of the aircraft while it is experiencing the ground effect.

Factors affecting 'wing in ground effect'
Factors affecting 'wing in ground effect' are numerous, and may include the wing's area, its chord length, and its angle-of-attack as it nears the surface, as well as the weight, speed, and configuration of the aircraft, and wing loading (aircraft weight per unit-area of wing).

'Wing in ground effect', often described as a 'cushion', is thought to be an increase in air pressure which occurs below a wing when it comes into close proximity with the ground. 'Wing in ground effect' begins to be noticeable (to both the pilot and an onlooker) when the aircraft is within 1-1.5 times the length of its own wingspan from the ground. 'Wing in ground effect', however, only becomes extremely pronounced, where lift can momentarily increase by as much as 40%, when the plane is within about half its wingspan distance from the ground. Due to the effect of spoilers and high wing loading, this effect is only dramatically noticed in smaller, less complex aircraft, usually weighing less than 12,500 lbs. Ground effect is a major factor in aircraft "floating" down the runway, and is the reason that low-wing aircraft have a tendency to float more than the high-wing varieties.

'Wing in ground effect' during take-off is thought to be a cause of many aircraft accidents. A small plane loaded beyond gross weight capabilities may be able to take off under ground effect, thanks to the 'artificially' low stall speed due to the decreased induced drag. But it may not be able to climb beyond a certain point. Once the pilot climbs out of ground effect wingtip vortices will form, the wings will stall, and the aircraft will suddenly descend - usually resulting in a crash.

(Note that the ground effect cushion does not of itself reduce wing vortices; rather, on leaving ground effect the pilot of an overloaded aircraft must increase the angle of attack to keep flying. This action will increase drag to the point where ultimately a crash may occur).

Full Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft


Could somebody that is familiar with this formula figure out what the approximate height should be?

Wingspan: 124'10"
Width of Cabin: 24'
Width of engines: 8'x2(16') (IIRC?)
Wing area: 1994sq ft.
Total Weight: 221,000 lbs.

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101


Here is my attempt but I am not sure what to and what not to account for so I will take out everything that might cause a conflict:

1498(total wingspan)-288(total cabin width)-192(total width of both engines)=1018 inches or 84.833 feet

1018/2=509 inches or 42 foot ground effect height (plus dimensions of the plane itself).

* Although in actually ground effect comes into play once the plane is within 1-1.5 times its own wingspan from the ground (which would be also assuming the worst case: 84.83-127.25 feet above ground level), I used the 1/2 wingspan which increases the planes natural lift ability by 40%. As noted in the ground effect theorem and as mentioned ground effect would cause a new (or inexperienced) pilot duress (i.e. Hani Hanjour).

[jimd3100]

Just after the attack, Mike Walter, journalist at USA Today, explained to the Washington Post and CNN that "it was like a cruise missile with wings".

This is just one example of your incredibly horrible bias and inability to do any type of reasonable research. You see here you use an edited quote of Mike Walter to support evidently a missile hitting the pentagon. When in reality he is a witness to the event, and plainly says he saw a huge jet, an American Airlines jet to be exact. When this is pointed out to you "no planers" and yes..that is what you are, pentagon no planers.....you then jump to the opposite side of the argument and go to the preposterous and outrageously irresponsible claim that he is in fact part of the conspiracy and a mass murdering liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_liaBfg2U&feature=related

[jimd3100]

The downed light poles serve to validate the events as having occurred they way the government states, they include the added element of drama and excitement, adding to the psychological impact of the incident as a whole, really, talk about time there was this cab driver who almost got killed by a flying piece of a light pole that was clipped and throw down by the passing aircraft just seconds before it crashed.

They knew they needed visual aids to sell the Pentagon tragedy because there was going to be nothing else there expect a damaged building, they needed outside distractions, hence the light poles and the damaged taxi cab… notice that the only damage do the taxi cab it to the windshield, though the driver himself was not even scratched.

As far as the method of damage to the Pentagon I think one of five things occurred which caused the damage the building:

1. They used a Globalhawk packed with spare aircraft parts and triggered explosives.
2.  The white military craft seen circling the Pentagon after the explosion was the plane that was seen coming into the Pentagon at a low altitude for the purpose of launching a missile into it and then pulled up and was covered by the explosion from the missile hit. After which it then circled around and came back over the Pentagon.
3. The was a second plane, (perhaps a stealth fighter jet, otherwise another commercial airliner type of aircraft, though smaller in size), both planes flew low at the Pentagon simultaneously at opposing angles, the white military craft from the gas station and the smaller aircraft in-line to launch a missile into the Pentagon, both pulled up, during the explosion the military craft stayed and the one armed with the missile pulled up and flew off at an sharp angles (the brightness of the explosions forced witnesses to recoil and close their eyes so they missed the planes flying off). Aircraft parts were already planted within the Pentagon.
4. The construction equipment positioned out front of the main entry hole, namely the large generator was used to conceal the missile or explosives; this explains why a portion of the generator appears to have a chunk of it removed.
5.  There was two planes the white military craft served as a distraction while a armed jet flying at a high altitude launched a laser guided missile into the Pentagon using the marking on the lawn to ensure precision results were obtained on the first try.

* In any case planted explosives were positioned and ready to be remote detonated upon command and the released footage was image worked and is meaningless other then to submit as evidence citing conspiracy and premeditation upon the part of our government.


My thoughts on the light poles, they were removed during the night (perhaps even earlier if the pole numbers match up the ones that are logged as actually being there with the municipal yard records) . They poles were loaded up into a truck of van of some sort and forcibly damaged they were then taken back in the early morning hours and positioned along the railing of the passing street where they would otherwise have normally been or they may have even been left were they were to lay after being struck by the passing plane, with exception to pole # 1 (which was to be positioned in front of the taxi cab). After pole #1 was positioned after the cab was in place, the damage to the vehicle was then done manually by smashing out the windshield and smashing up the dashboard. Notice that all of the poles fell forward, except one, which fell backwards, which is also the only one that hit a vehicle (the taxi cab)… and yet we have another violation of physics taking place that the Pentagon.

And here we have a perfect example of someone who supports the 9/11 debunkers who say, it was a giant conspiracy involving thousands of people. We have planted lightpoles, which means someone planted them and no one saw this. Of course you have no evidence of this it's just something you made up, but in your eyes, that's good enough. Of course we do have evidence that they were knocked over by a plane as dozens of witnesses have said. But since your ego wont allow you to consider that you could be wrong, this is dismissed, because protecting your fragile ego is more important than the truth, which makes you irrelevant. And for some reason you want to claim LLoyd England is involved in the crime of the century. He has to be according to you since he is the elderly black cab driver who had the lightpole crash through his windshield. He drove this cab in this area for 30 years, which evidently means nothing to you. And what did he gain? Well, I'd say nothing according to this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4111-2004Feb1?language=printer

Which makes you rather pathetic to accuse this poor guy of being a mass murderer. I guess I've been wasting time going after the CIA and the whitehouse, when we have this dangerous elderly cab driver on the loose....

[jimd3100]

You guys (Biffa and jimd3100) are very good at what you do.  I won't call you trolls cause I am no sure exactly what a troll is in this context......................................If I was wrong in my assessment  of the 2 people at the beginning of this post, I apologize but I will not acknowledge any further responses from either regardless of explanations in this thread or any other topics.  In other words, you are shit-listed. 

Good. That saves me allot of trouble as well. Now go help Stubblebine "out" us dis info agents sherlock.

[Weston White]

This is just one example of your incredibly horrible bias and inability to do any type of reasonable research. You see here you use an edited quote of Mike Walter to support evidently a missile hitting the pentagon. When in reality he is a witness to the event, and plainly says he saw a huge jet, an American Airlines jet to be exact. When this is pointed out to you "no planers" and yes..that is what you are, pentagon no planers.....you then jump to the opposite side of the argument and go to the preposterous and outrageously irresponsible claim that he is in fact part of the conspiracy and a mass murdering liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_liaBfg2U&feature=related

Is there not different takes of him making these various statements? One of each that support what is said on both sides of the argument ("it appeared to be a missile with wings" and "it was a plane, not it was not a missile, yes it was a plane, definitely ")?  If so is that not a little contradictory? Why the need to re-interview him until he "gets his story straight"? Or are you claiming that somebody actually chopped his interview up to mean something other then what he actually said (if so why did he use such words as missiles and the like and how did they get it to match the movement of his lips and make it so that it is as he was speaking fluidly)?

[jimd3100]

Is there not different takes of him making these various statements? One of each that support what is said on both sides of the argument

No there's not. There are edits. Is it really that hard for you to face reality. He was there and saw a big jet hit. Now you have to call him a mass murdering liar.

[abbadon]

This is just one example of your incredibly horrible bias and inability to do any type of reasonable research. You see here you use an edited quote of Mike Walter to support evidently a missile hitting the pentagon. When in reality he is a witness to the event, and plainly says he saw a huge jet, an American Airlines jet to be exact. When this is pointed out to you "no planers" and yes..that is what you are, pentagon no planers.....you then jump to the opposite side of the argument and go to the preposterous and outrageously irresponsible claim that he is in fact part of the conspiracy and a mass murdering liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_liaBfg2U&feature=related

I never said a missile hit pentagon, i was just showing your friend that the eyewitnesses contradict them selfs. But it seems you dont even bother reading others posts and like others said there is no use wasting time on people like you. why ain't you in iraq fighting the evil al-quaida?
I dont really believe what people say, hell people believe in a god and satan.
Facts speak much better for them selfs, tho planted ones sucks.
And believing a plane that is a 757 hit pentagon well i could just believe in fairies and santa clause.