Hmmm. Pentagon. Plane? MISSILE??

[phoenyx]

I have family that live in northern VA,local news interviewed people that saw a plane from the highways,parks in the area other buildings,there are thousands of people moving around in that area all the time ,let alone in the morning rush .

At 500 mph things happen fast.it was a plane.

I have family bla bla bla it was a plane. Do some research see how fast a jet airliner can do at ground level.

So all those private citizen that never came home that night ,just what? Never existed.

Take your meds it was a plane.

And what private citizens would those be?
Any interviews with the family members?

There are some, yes, as can be seen in the following article from David Ray Griffin, who definitely isn't someone who believes in the official story:
Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners

The thing is, just because some people may have boarded the 9/11 flights doesn't mean that those people ended up dying where the official story has them dying. Radar can be fooled in a way, and planes may have been swapped. Pilots for 9/11 Truth's documentary 9/11: Intercepted goes into how this could have been done in depth. It can be seen here:

Phone calls are easily fabricated.

Well, not -that- easily, but yes, it can be done, and that's what David Ray Griffin is suggesting. However, that doesn't mean that relatives getting those phone calls didn't believe they were who they said they were. And it also doesn't mean that family members didn't actually die; they may have simply been killed elsewhere.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The actual live footage of 911 makes that "story line" 100% truth. But your CHOSEN job here is to lie and obfuscate that truth, so have at it...

Surely you arent calling this evidence?

laDexter is suggesting that there's little if any solid evidence that a plane actually crashed there.

And he'd be right.
If you look at the whole of the so called terrorist attack it looks fishy.
Three buildings fall in there own foot print? Thats nuts and highly unlikely.

 

[phoenyx]

The actual live footage of 911 makes that "story line" 100% truth. But your CHOSEN job here is to lie and obfuscate that truth, so have at it...

Surely you arent calling this evidence?

laDexter is suggesting that there's little if any solid evidence that a plane actually crashed there.

And he'd be right.

I agree .

If you look at the whole of the so called terrorist attack it looks fishy.
Three buildings fall in there own foot print? Thats nuts.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I know that a lot of people here think it does...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

thats because they only see what they WANT to see when it comes to 9/11 the fact it hits to close to home for them.they never have any answers for this link here,the wackiest and most loony tune 9/11 conspiracy theory of them all.


Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories
So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11 (and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs) is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they “hate our freedoms.”

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the Internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks (linked to the CIA), the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The daunting task of analysis
Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories

 

[phoenyx]

If you look at the whole of the so called terrorist attack it looks fishy.
Three buildings fall in there own foot print? Thats nuts.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I know that a lot of people here think it does...

thats because they only see what they WANT to see when it comes to 9/11 the fact it hits to close to home for them.they never have any answers for this link here,the wackiest and most loony tune 9/11 conspiracy theory of them all.

Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories

I certainly think your point has some merit. However, I don't think you're going to persuade them by just pointing out that link. My personal strategy is to try to get them focused on the evidence. It can be hard for them to do that, especially if it runs contrary to their beliefs, but I believe that examined closely enough, it becomes clear that official stories concerning 9/11 don't even concord with themselves sometimes, so they become forced to choose between conflicting official narratives, such as what flight path the aircraft took to the Pentagon (NTSB version, 9/11 Commission version, or damage path version).

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If you look at the whole of the so called terrorist attack it looks fishy.
Three buildings fall in there own foot print? Thats nuts.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I know that a lot of people here think it does...

thats because they only see what they WANT to see when it comes to 9/11 the fact it hits to close to home for them.they never have any answers for this link here,the wackiest and most loony tune 9/11 conspiracy theory of them all.

Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories

I certainly think your point has some merit. However, I don't think you're going to persuade them by just pointing out that link. My personal strategy is to try to get them focused on the evidence. It can be hard for them to do that, especially if it runs contrary to their beliefs, but I believe that examined closely enough, it becomes clear that official stories concerning 9/11 don't even concord with themselves sometimes, so they become forced to choose between conflicting official narratives, such as what flight path the aircraft took to the Pentagon (NTSB version, 9/11 Commission version, or damage path version).

My hunch was right.I just KNEW as soon as i saw this thread brought back up to the top again after it had died down a week later that beyond a doubt it would be YOU that resurrected it a week later.

yep you are the same as i once was where I wasted my valuable time on the net going back and forth with all these paid shills such as candyass and sayit and others on 9/11 ignoring the advise of others when they told me -Dude you should be more concerned about whats going on now rather that worry about 9/11.That is over with. why dont you worry about whats going on now?"

It took me a couple years before i finally understood what they told me two years ago,they were right and I later regretted not listening to them. I really hate to see you making the SAME mistake I made when i also like you,was too ignorant to listen to them when i should have.

I know i sound like a broken record here though but the truth cannot be repeated enough on this-I eventually understood from someone else 9/11 is the same as the JFK assasssination,done and over with and same as that,the real killers are going to get away with it and there is nothing that can be done about it so why bother talking about WHO was behind it when we need SOLUTIONS to do something ABOUT IT?

 

[phoenyx]

...I agree that the plane that approached the Pentagon was smaller then a 757, but I think that's about as far as we agree on that point. ...

Corroborated eyewitness testimonies that were gathered and recorded for posterity on the day of the incident cannot be ignored or discounted, particularly when what they "corroborated" flew in the face of the official narrative from the get-go. That's true, because we can reasonably preclude such accounts from the list of likely fabrications.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I strongly believe that atleast one of the alleged eyewitnesses that day was a plant: Lloyd England. CIT actually made an entire documentary of him, which can be seen here:

Obviously, those who may have sought to fabricate eyewitness testimony in order to prop up the official storyline wouldn't have conjured up accounts that fatally contradicted it!

Based on the NTSB data, the RADES data and the physical damage near and at the Pentagon, not to mention Lloyd's own contradicting account, I simply can't agree with you there. It's not that I think they -wanted- to mess up their own case, it's just that I think their coordination in their deception must have been pretty bad.

Don Wright, Steve Patterson, and Omar Campos all saw the plane hit the building.

Don Wright says he saw a commuter plane, two-engined, and was 2 miles away from the building. He also apparently elicited strange behavior when questioned about the direction it was going, according to CIT. Steve Patterson claims he saw a small commuter plane, holding 8-12 passengers. A little more on him:
**Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon .‚.‚. I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.**

Omar Campo
Campo, Omar – 9/11 Wiki

Perhaps most importantly: he said he was near a building next to the Pentagon, and the only buildings near the Pentagon on the west side were on the -north- side, in the general location of the Arlington cemetary. This guy wasn't a south of Citgo flight path witness, he was a north of Citgo flight path witness, and if the plane flew in from north of Citgo, it couldn't have crashed into the building due to a number of reasons.

Moreover, the plane that they and several others described bore a striking resemblance to the one pictured in my previous post (BTW, the Lockheed Jetstar has a long and storied history of government service, including stints as Air Force 2).

Could be...

...As to the passengers on the 4 planes alleged to have crashed on 9/11, I believe that Phil Jayhan's work on the subject is the most persuasive:
Phil Jayhan: The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What Happened to the Passengers? - Golden Age of Gaia

I think it may not be quite the same as your own theory, but I think the differences are minor.

The thing that bothers me most about the BTS data anomalies is that they only involve the American Airlines jets - this despite the fact that those flights allegedly originated from different airports. The Bureau can only report what's been reported to it. If, for whatever reason, AA chose or was advised not to report on various aspects of the "hijacked" aircraft, then we'd expect the missing/incomplete data to apply to its planes only, which is exactly what we see on the relevant BTS reports. I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm just a bit leery of using those data anomalies as a foundation for the claim that Flights 11 and 77 never actually took off on 9/11/01.

It's not just that. There's a lot of stuff. Here's a thread with some good information... The state of the 9/11 truth movement

On a peripherally related note, there was a huge stink raised a couple of years ago over some perceived anomalies in the FBI's crime stats for 2012. It turned out that those anomalies were due to the fact that the Sandy Hook killings were reported by the Ct. State Police instead of the Newtown Police Dept. - a fact that left egg on the faces of quite a few conspiracy theorists.

There's a lot of reasons why Sandy Hook wasn't what we were told. I actually started a thread about it shortly after it occurred, can be seen here:
The Sandy Hook Killings [W:24]

Anyhoo, as you rightly pointed out, the differences between my beliefs and those of Jayhan are pretty much academic. He doesn't deny that the passenger lists for 11, 175, and 77 were legit. He simply posits a different means for the doomed passengers' rendezvous with Flight 93. It's basically the same idea.

Cool .