What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[Nono]

Quote by: Pro I really can't swallow that bush intentionally allowed 5000 us citizens to be carved up so he could play soldier.

Not so he could play soldier (he did that during Vietnam, remember?) but so he could implement his vision of What's Right: establishing absolute US control of the world's biggest oil pump (pretty important these days what with the Chinese and Indians getting so uppity and thirsty); lining the pockets of his business cronies (which he doubtless views as "right" because they're his friends); hastening Rapture (which I'm sure he sincerely views as his due because -- make no mistake -- George is right up at the top of the Lord's List of Lists).

Sure he can jerk off wearing a flight suit on an aircraft carrier -- that's one of the perks of office -- but war (continuous war, as we're beginning to see) is the only means at his disposal of wielding American power now that the Chinese are holding the nation's purse strings.

When you're that far into The Ideological Dream, large numbers of deaths are simply the regrettable means to an end that you absolutely know to be right. You, Pro, are too young to remember the "sacrifice" that Nixon told people was so urgently necessary in Vietnam. In the end it was a horrifying bloody waste, just as the Iraq thing is.

[Nono]

Quote by: Vic There are several problems with the "it was a missile" theory ...

I find myself in the unaccustomed position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Mr.V.

[Whodoe!]

OK – so I shouldn’t be sarcastic about an outrageous conspiracy theory because it could effect my credibility to debate a conspiracy theory that has no credibility. I get that. Really, I do.

Then from a serious standpoint, if Bush can arrange the disasters of 9/11 to justify a war for global domination (Coco-Cola does a better job at global domination than governments, by the way) then how does he fail at arranging other, simpler, conspiracies? Why didn’t we find “evidence” of WMDs and of a relationship between Iraq and OBL? Because he doesn’t want us to? Does this fold into another insidious plan to destroy his own credibility so he can pursue yet another evil purpose?

[Milton Bradley]

The fuselage of the aircraft claimed to have hit the Pentagon is grossly larger than the damaged part of the building. The nosecone would not fit in the one story hole at the base of the Pentagon.


To think you could crash an airliner that size into a stain 40 feet in circumfrence is laughable.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton Bradley To think you could crash an airliner that size into a stain 40 feet in circumfrence is laughable.

So then obviously these people had all ingested halucinagens earlier in the day.

A stain 40 ft in circumfrence???

[Mr.Vicchio]

They had been doing construction on that wing of the Pentagon... Oh, Wait.. that couldn't have anything to do with off coloration from teh rest of te building now could it?

[Paul]

In ALL the pictures that I have seen of the the Pentagon since AA Flight 77 disappeared or ['thecrash into the Pentagon'???] I have not seen any evidence of a Boeing 757 wreckage. Maybe I'm blind. Has anyone seen the wreckage of AA Flight 77 for the sake the passengers and crew members on that Boeing 757?

Peace be with you, Paul

[Prometheus]

Sonart-- Thanks for that. Apparently someone around here knows how to search for evidance to back up thier claims.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Prometheus Sonart-- Thanks for that. Apparently someone around here knows how to search for evidance to back up thier claims.

:)


Yeah, its always easy to provide links when you tout the official government story.


Nevermind when those pictures were taken.


The official pictures provided by the media immediately after the crash look somewhat different that those Sonart provided. Something tells me those pictures werte taken well after the cleanup crews had been on the scene. (Note the building has collapsed over the impact zone.) That damage was not made by the impact.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The official pictures provided by the media immediately after the crash look somewhat different that those Sonart provided. Something tells me those pictures werte taken well after the cleanup crews had been on the scene. (Note the building has collapsed over the impact zone.) That damage was not made by the impact.

Post some pics yourself then. Compare them side by side. I mean seriously, you can do a lot in photoshop, but it's stupid to think that the gov altered the photos when the press was taking photos also. Comparing them is way too easy.

[Chris]

Quote by: Paul In ALL the pictures that I have seen of the the Pentagon since AA Flight 77 disappeared or ['thecrash into the Pentagon'???] I have not seen any evidence of a Boeing 757 wreckage. Maybe I'm blind. Has anyone seen the wreckage of AA Flight 77 for the sake the passengers and crew members on that Boeing 757? Peace be with you, Paul

try the snopes link.

[Chris]

Quote by: Milton Bradley :) Yeah, its always easy to provide links when you tout the official government story. Nevermind when those pictures were taken. The official pictures provided by the media immediately after the crash look somewhat different that those Sonart provided. Something tells me those pictures werte taken well after the cleanup crews had been on the scene. (Note the building has collapsed over the impact zone.) That damage was not made by the impact.

try the snopes link. Also do you have any photos that differ Sonart's to back up your claim?

Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers. Below is a photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:

[Sonart]

Quote by: Paul I have not seen any evidence of a Boeing 757 wreckage. Maybe I'm blind. Has anyone seen the wreckage of AA Flight 77 for the sake the passengers and crew members on that Boeing 757?

Fer Chrissakes, Paul...
What's this?...



or this?...



or this?...



or this?...



What's up with these people? Mass hallucinations? Or these people?

Get a grip and get a life.

.

[Nono]

The idea that a "nose cone" won't "fit" into a hole and all that stuff ...
What do you think happens when an airliner (which is not nearly as massive, in the physics sense, as it looks) flies into a huge (and truly massive) building? It gets blown to smithereens, that's what, leaving only the more substantial components (such as the landing gear in Sonart's picture) in one piece.

And here's a question for you: Why not an AA 757? Why is that version of events so uncongenial to you?

[Milton Bradley]

I must say that I do not have any links handy that reflect my particular take on the story. I formed my opinion on the many existing 9/11 threads in this forum, and from the governments reaction to the event.

Quote by: Nono The idea that a "nose cone" won't "fit" into a hole and all that stuff ... What do you think happens when an airliner (which is not nearly as massive, in the physics sense, as it looks) flies into a huge (and truly massive) building? It gets blown to smithereens, that's what, leaving only the more substantial components (such as the landing gear in Sonart's picture) in one piece. And here's a question for you: Why not an AA 757? Why is that version of events so uncongenial to you?

1)The eye winess accounts.

2)The surveilance tapes confiscated from the business accross the street from the Pentagon. The convenient coincidences surrounding the "official story" The missing A-10 that not only was lost just prior to the event, (in most unusual circumstances in the age of satelites, and GPS systems) but has yet to be found. The A-10 would require only a coat of silver, or white paint to fit the eye witness testimony perfectly.

3) The size of the actual damage to the building in the earliest photos of the event. (no I cannot locate the theread at this time, but it is linked in a Volconvo thread somewhere around here)

4) The few bits of metal on the ground near the impact site do not reflect other siomilar plane crash sites. (in my personal opinion)

5) These remain the only crashes in the history of US aviation since the inception of the Black Box recorders that the FAA has yet to provide the damning evidence to support their claims. All we have to go on is what they tell us. No proof has been offered whatsoever.

6) these are four of the least talked about FAA investigations of all time.

7)Seemingly no Press interest in these investigations. (compared to any other air crash you care to cite as an example.

8) All of my governments actions, and comments on the event since 9/11.

[Scott]

I was looking around for a Pentagon thread where I could post these pictures. This is an old one but it's the first one I came across.

This is a picture of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon. If this picture isn't doctored, it closes the whole case.
http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution...agon_Video.jpg

This one is a little sharper.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg

It's too narrow to be the nose of a 757.

The shadow line can be seen on the underside of the nose. It's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon.

Has this been discussed on any other threads?

Whether the government released a doctored picture is debatable but why would the government doctor a picture to make it look like the nose of a plane that's obviously not the nose of a 757?

[Gods_Mercenary]

4) The few bits of metal on the ground near the impact site do not reflect other siomilar plane crash sites. (in my personal opinion)

You know of other crash sites where a plane was deliberately flown at high speed at a building built like a small mountain?

[shawmutt]

Quote by: oranged People don't listen if you over use Sarcasm Vicchio. I think it was the missil, too.

People don't listen anyway, might as well have fun with the kooks. If a rational person makes a convincing argument that person is a shill, or part of the conspiracy. Eventually the list of shills becomes so great the conspiracy collapses under its own weight.

This has been thoroughly debunked again and again. This American Life has an excellent episode on the mentality of conspiracy theorists. They are sick and twisted individuals who have a tentative grasp on reality at best. They don't care about the people involved in the tragedies, they only care about feeding their conspiracies until they are bloated and dying.

The episode is #338, The Spokesman If you have 20 minutes or so, listen to Act one (starting at 9 minutes and ending at 30 minutes). Absolutely kooky folks.

[Scott]

I'd like to hear some opinions on the pictures I posted.

[ZNFYRH]

Bad pics, Scott.

Too blurry for accurate and pertinent analysis.