911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
**
American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.**

Source: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

As for the first request, this was entered into evidence during the trial of the 20th hijacker Zacharias Mousaui:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200030.jpg

This means that his counsel agreed to it being legitimate evidence listed as evidence from AA77.

Here is a picture of a 757 wheel and the hub found at the Pentagon in the wreckage:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg

Here are other pictures of the wreckage:

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg

Again, how did the wreckage get there spread out over hundreds of square yards inside and outside the Pentagon?

2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out

I never said that an aircraft of some type didn't explode in the general vicinity of the Pentagon. That doesn't mean it was a 757.

Then you'll have to explain the DNA of the passengers being found at the Pentagon.

3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

The best theory I know of is that the downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

Impossible as there were no reports of the barriers to traffic flow reported on the busy roads around the Pentagon that morning.

The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon.

The important thing to remember is that opinions do not replace physical evidence.

We know 5 light poles were knocked down the morning of 9/11/01. We know this because of the absence of poles missing, poles in the road in 2 instances, and a pole hitting a taxi cab that morning.

We know a generator was struck on the path to the Pentagon as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/generator_fence2.jpg

In all truth, the physical evidence is beyond conclusive that the only explanation for the light poles, the generator, and the damage is that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon exactly the way the 9/11 Commission Report describes.

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathstillmissespoles.jpg

 

[LaDexter]

Except, of course, that all of the above bullshit is Zionist cover-up stuff, and it wasn't a plane, because if it was a 757

1) it couldn't fly 400mph at ground level
2) where the nose hit on the first floor would put the engines of the plane IN THE GROUND
3) all videos show a CRUISE MISSILE, not a plane

other than that...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

EEGGAAADDSS!!! Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject? You partook also as a detractor. Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner. When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted. It just isn't there. I only look at the facts. The explanations are for others.

We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.

What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon. Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.

Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design. Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.

That is simply not true.

if you are replying to agent candyass as I am guessing you are,congrats for being ignorant.Thats what this agent wants is attention and just here to troll and waste your time and like the dupe you are,you take his bait and make his handlers happy for taking his bait by replying to him.well done.

All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.

The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.

I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.

I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.

I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.

and dont forget,same as the JFK assassination,anybody who gave a version different than the governments and gave reports that did not go along with their version of events ended up dyiny in mysterious ways.One caller who survived for instance,came on alex jones show and said she heard explosions going on in the basement before the towers collapsed and she even said if she dies,dont believe the version the media prints,that she would never take her own life and how convient for them that she committed suicide after that.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.

The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.

I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.

I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.

I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.

Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:

good luck on finding that here.anytime they are cornered and cant refute facts,I have never seen one that was capable of NOT insulting a truther knowing they cant refute facts and evidence resorting to calling them twoofers and all other childish names.

 

[Dale Smith]

Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
**
American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.**

Source: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

As for the first request, this was entered into evidence during the trial of the 20th hijacker Zacharias Mousaui:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200030.jpg

This means that his counsel agreed to it being legitimate evidence listed as evidence from AA77.

Here is a picture of a 757 wheel and the hub found at the Pentagon in the wreckage:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg

Here are other pictures of the wreckage:

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg

Again, how did the wreckage get there spread out over hundreds of square yards inside and outside the Pentagon?

2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out

I never said that an aircraft of some type didn't explode in the general vicinity of the Pentagon. That doesn't mean it was a 757.

Then you'll have to explain the DNA of the passengers being found at the Pentagon.

3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

The best theory I know of is that the downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

Impossible as there were no reports of the barriers to traffic flow reported on the busy roads around the Pentagon that morning.

The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon.

The important thing to remember is that opinions do not replace physical evidence.

We know 5 light poles were knocked down the morning of 9/11/01. We know this because of the absence of poles missing, poles in the road in 2 instances, and a pole hitting a taxi cab that morning.

We know a generator was struck on the path to the Pentagon as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/generator_fence2.jpg

In all truth, the physical evidence is beyond conclusive that the only explanation for the light poles, the generator, and the damage is that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon exactly the way the 9/11 Commission Report describes.

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathstillmissespoles.jpg

84 confiscated cameras and yet there hasn't been one video that shows a bus with wings making that incredible 270 degree turn that knocked over lamp posts while skimming mere inches over the grass (as to not disturb it) by a pilot that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna plane....seriously? What are the odds? Any wreckage that we were allowed to see was minimal and could easily be planted with minimal effort. Where are the wings? Why don't we see them because the hole that was made certainly didn't have the width of wings....where are they and where is the film footage of impact? I do not need to prove that this was a farce, I am the one needing solid proof that this actually happened and I haven't seen shit as far as visual evidence goes. and there were 84 cameras surrounding the scene of this event that can dispel the conspiracy that this was a missile in lieu of a plane.......waiting........(yawn)

 

[Wyld Kard]

It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.
Once again the gullible idiots are WRONG!

 

[HUGGY]

There was little to no "wreckage" at the Pentagon......
People saw the jet that fly over the Pentagon took a different path that couldn't have taken down any light poles. The taxi driver that was involved in the photo-op where they moved a lamp post from his cab 's front window admitted that this incident was over his head and that he shouldn't even be involved in this.....want me to post his testimony?

Here ya go.......

There was wreckage. You have to account for how it got there. We're waiting.

Air traffic controllers tracked it into the Pentagon. But not leaving. You have to account for that.
We're waiting.

Lastly, the light poles had to have been knocked down by something. Obviously a missile could not do that, hit the transformer, and then explode. You have to account for the light poles.
Again; we're waiting.

Your move.

The whole event was staged in advance...show me footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.....your move. I just gave you eye-witness account of a man that was involved that had to play his part and was scared shit-less. The burden is on you to prove it happened and all we have is corporate media claiming it did....that and your beloved "gubermint".

Well, it couldn't have been staged in advance since the light poles would be blocking traffic. No reports of such were made on the busy highways outside of the Pentagon.

Air traffic control happens in real time. That could not have been staged.

Are you stating that someone placed multi-hundred pound wheel rims and tires in the Pentagon prior to the attack? And nobody would have said anything about this either before or in the 15 years after?

Words have meanings. Just saying "they're lying" or "they did it" only meanst that you have zero proof. When you have the facts on your side, the evidence does the talking for you. Which is why, almost universally, your interactions end up with you having to call people names. If you can, defend your thesis. If you cannot, I suppose we can look forward to more internet links and other distractions...

Your job is to:

• Explain how the wreckage got there
• Explain how ATCs tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not out of it
• Explain how a supposed missile took out 5 light poles and a transformer THEN exploded in the Pentagon.

A 747 rim which is heavier than a 777's comes in at slightly over 150 lbs. One person could easily roll one into place.

With the entire press corps covering the scene?

That would be a gross overstatement. As I recall the press was excluded from "the scene" for some time right after whatever happened there. You do understand that many of us were actually paying attention that day and not just rolling out of our cribs to a bowl of Cocoa Puffs.

 

[Dale Smith]

There was wreckage. You have to account for how it got there. We're waiting.

Air traffic controllers tracked it into the Pentagon. But not leaving. You have to account for that.
We're waiting.

Lastly, the light poles had to have been knocked down by something. Obviously a missile could not do that, hit the transformer, and then explode. You have to account for the light poles.
Again; we're waiting.

Your move.

The whole event was staged in advance...show me footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.....your move. I just gave you eye-witness account of a man that was involved that had to play his part and was scared shit-less. The burden is on you to prove it happened and all we have is corporate media claiming it did....that and your beloved "gubermint".

Well, it couldn't have been staged in advance since the light poles would be blocking traffic. No reports of such were made on the busy highways outside of the Pentagon.

Air traffic control happens in real time. That could not have been staged.

Are you stating that someone placed multi-hundred pound wheel rims and tires in the Pentagon prior to the attack? And nobody would have said anything about this either before or in the 15 years after?

Words have meanings. Just saying "they're lying" or "they did it" only meanst that you have zero proof. When you have the facts on your side, the evidence does the talking for you. Which is why, almost universally, your interactions end up with you having to call people names. If you can, defend your thesis. If you cannot, I suppose we can look forward to more internet links and other distractions...

Your job is to:

• Explain how the wreckage got there
• Explain how ATCs tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not out of it
• Explain how a supposed missile took out 5 light poles and a transformer THEN exploded in the Pentagon.

A 747 rim which is heavier than a 777's comes in at slightly over 150 lbs. One person could easily roll one into place.

With the entire press corps covering the scene?

That would be a gross overstatement. As I recall the press was excluded from "the scene" for some time right after whatever happened there. You do understand that many of us were actually paying attention that day and not just rolling out of our cribs to a bowl of Cocoa Puffs.

You were way ahead of the curve. I degfended the official story for 11 years and wouldn't even consider any information that could cause me to stop and think. My watershed moment was when Snowden revealed that the Patriot Act was written well in advance of 9/11 and the mechanisms for the spy grid ewas already in place, that was when the scales fell from my eyes and I have dedicated the last 4 years and over 17,000 hours of research and reading. I am not the same person that I use to be. Learning that you had lived a lie your whole life will do that to someone. You are obviously "awake" and were long before I was but I have been trying to make up for lost time.

 

[candycorn]

And all those dozens (if not hundreds and thousands) of people involved in this airtight conspiracy have maintained complete 100% radio silence during the ensuing 15 years?

Quite astonishing...seeing as how there have been how many books (not just interviews given) written by disenchanted political wornks in the last 8 years...

 

[Likkmee]

The whole event was staged in advance...show me footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.....your move. I just gave you eye-witness account of a man that was involved that had to play his part and was scared shit-less. The burden is on you to prove it happened and all we have is corporate media claiming it did....that and your beloved "gubermint".

Well, it couldn't have been staged in advance since the light poles would be blocking traffic. No reports of such were made on the busy highways outside of the Pentagon.

Air traffic control happens in real time. That could not have been staged.

Are you stating that someone placed multi-hundred pound wheel rims and tires in the Pentagon prior to the attack? And nobody would have said anything about this either before or in the 15 years after?

Words have meanings. Just saying "they're lying" or "they did it" only meanst that you have zero proof. When you have the facts on your side, the evidence does the talking for you. Which is why, almost universally, your interactions end up with you having to call people names. If you can, defend your thesis. If you cannot, I suppose we can look forward to more internet links and other distractions...

Your job is to:

• Explain how the wreckage got there
• Explain how ATCs tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not out of it
• Explain how a supposed missile took out 5 light poles and a transformer THEN exploded in the Pentagon.

A 747 rim which is heavier than a 777's comes in at slightly over 150 lbs. One person could easily roll one into place.

With the entire press corps covering the scene?

That would be a gross overstatement. As I recall the press was excluded from "the scene" for some time right after whatever happened there. You do understand that many of us were actually paying attention that day and not just rolling out of our cribs to a bowl of Cocoa Puffs.

You were way ahead of the curve. I degfended the official story for 11 years and wouldn't even consider any information that could cause me to stop and think. My watershed moment was when Snowden revealed that the Patriot Act was written well in advance of 9/11 and the mechanisms for the spy grid ewas already in place, that was when the scales fell from my eyes and I have dedicated the last 4 years and over 17,000 hours of research and reading. I am not the same person that I use to be. Learning that you had lived a lie your whole life will do that to someone. You are obviously "awake" and were long before I was but I have been trying to make up for lost time.

Good for you. Now to get the other semi-literate flag waving chimps in Duh L00N Star State to wake up. Let me know when the Shrubs are torn down and in the burn pile. AHEM
That would be a sign.

 

[phoenyx]

Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
**
American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.**

Source: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

As for the first request, this was entered into evidence during the trial of the 20th hijacker Zacharias Mousaui:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200030.jpg

This means that his counsel agreed to it being legitimate evidence listed as evidence from AA77.

And his counsel was infallible? Moussaoui himself certainly didn't think so:
**On February 6, 2006, Moussaoui shouted "I am al-Qaeda. They do not represent me; they are Americans," referring to his attorneys while being escorted from the courtroom in front of 120 potential jurors.[25]**

Source: Zacarias Moussaoui - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me evidence that that part was actually photographed at the scene of the crime, let alone that it came from a 757.

Here is a picture of a 757 wheel and the hub found at the Pentagon in the wreckage:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg

Again, show me evidence that it's a picture taken from the scene of the crime. As to the comparison to the wheel of a 757, I'm not so easily persuaded; I'd want an expert on airplane wheels to take a look at it.

Here are other pictures of the wreckage:

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg

I believe that some of those pictures were definitely legitimate photos of the scene of the crime, but show me evidence that any of it came from a 757.

Again, how did the wreckage get there spread out over hundreds of square yards inside and outside the Pentagon?

Again, I haven't said that the Pentagon wasn't hit by -something-. That doesn't mean it was a 757.

2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out

I never said that an aircraft of some type didn't explode in the general vicinity of the Pentagon. That doesn't mean it was a 757.

Then you'll have to explain the DNA of the passengers being found at the Pentagon.

From what I have read, there is no chain of custody for this alleged DNA from the alleged passengers on AA 77, and certainly no identified body parts from any of the alleged 9/11 victims who were on any of the 4 planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11:
Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes

3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

The best theory I know of is that the downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

Impossible as there were no reports of the barriers to traffic flow reported on the busy roads around the Pentagon that morning.

From what I have heard, there was only one downed light pole that was using a usually busy road, and it was in fact cordoned off. The road used by one Taxi cab driver, Lloyd England. He's the only witness to actually claim to have not just seen a light pole get downed, but for it to allegedly smash into his cab. CIT went down to investigate him. I believe their findings were very revealing, and can be seen in the documentary they did on him here:


As to the other poles, the link I provided previously suggests that contrary to what you were suggesting, they were not on roads that the public used regularly and could have easily been cordoned off. Did you take a look at it? Again, it can be seen here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1

The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon.

The important thing to remember is that opinions do not replace physical evidence.

Physical evidence can certainly be quite important. The thing is, the physical evidence you have provided to suggest that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is flimsy at best. And it pales in comparison to the evidence that not only did a 757 not crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that actually approached the Pentagon didn't approach it from the path that the official story needs in order for the damage done to the Pentagon to have actually been done by a plane at all, let alone a 757.

We know a generator was struck on the path to the Pentagon as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/generator_fence2.jpg

I'm just curious, did you know that the site that picture came from is a site that definitely doesn't believe in the official story? That being said, I know that they -do- support the official story when it comes to a 757 hitting the Pentagon. The only thing that picture suggests is that something damaged the generator. I see no evidence that a 757 hit it.

In all truth, the physical evidence is beyond conclusive that the only explanation for the light poles, the generator, and the damage is that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon exactly the way the 9/11 Commission Report describes.

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathstillmissespoles.jpg

Are you aware that the above picture is actually stating that, according to all the eyewitnesses who were in the best position to see the final flight trajectory of the aircraft approaching the pentagon, there is no way that the plane could have hit light poles because its flight path passed north of the citgo gas station?

 

[phoenyx]

All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.

The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.

I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.

I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.

I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.

Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:

good luck on finding that here.anytime they are cornered and cant refute facts,I have never seen one that was capable of NOT insulting a truther knowing they cant refute facts and evidence resorting to calling them twoofers and all other childish names.

I've now mapped out this entire thread- it seems both sides aren't always that civil with each other. I've only just begun here, but already, I've found some discussion I consider to be worthwhile. While I find it's good to talk with people on my own side of the 9/11 fence, I frequently think that it's even more to talk to those who disagree. The reason is simple- you tend to learn more from those who disagree with you then from those who agree with you.

 

[phoenyx]

Except, of course, that all of the above bullshit is Zionist cover-up stuff, and it wasn't a plane, because if it was a 757

1) it couldn't fly 400mph at ground level
2) where the nose hit on the first floor would put the engines of the plane IN THE GROUND
3) all videos show a CRUISE MISSILE, not a plane

other than that...

I'm not that keen on talking of zionists. I have a vague idea of what they are, but I think it frequently distracts from things about 9/11 that are far more concrete. As to your 3 points, I agree with the first and the second. As to the third, I'm not so sure about that one. As can be seen in the following 5 minute documentary, I think it's clear that whatever is in the 5 frame video isn't a 757, but what it is, exactly, is far less clear...

Pentagon Strike mentions this as one of many points:


Bu a more in depth analysis of the flaws behind labelling the blur in 5 frame video as a 757 can be seen here:

 

[candycorn]

Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
**
American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.**

Source: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

As for the first request, this was entered into evidence during the trial of the 20th hijacker Zacharias Mousaui:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200030.jpg

This means that his counsel agreed to it being legitimate evidence listed as evidence from AA77.

And his counsel was infallible? Moussaoui himself certainly didn't think so:
**On February 6, 2006, Moussaoui shouted "I am al-Qaeda. They do not represent me; they are Americans," referring to his attorneys while being escorted from the courtroom in front of 120 potential jurors.[25]**

Source: Zacarias Moussaoui - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me evidence that that part was actually photographed at the scene of the crime, let alone that it came from a 757.

Here is a picture of a 757 wheel and the hub found at the Pentagon in the wreckage:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg

Again, show me evidence that it's a picture taken from the scene of the crime. As to the comparison to the wheel of a 757, I'm not so easily persuaded; I'd want an expert on airplane wheels to take a look at it.

Here are other pictures of the wreckage:

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg

I believe that some of those pictures were definitely legitimate photos of the scene of the crime, but show me evidence that any of it came from a 757.

Again, how did the wreckage get there spread out over hundreds of square yards inside and outside the Pentagon?

Again, I haven't said that the Pentagon wasn't hit by -something-. That doesn't mean it was a 757.

2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out

I never said that an aircraft of some type didn't explode in the general vicinity of the Pentagon. That doesn't mean it was a 757.

Then you'll have to explain the DNA of the passengers being found at the Pentagon.

From what I have read, there is no chain of custody for this alleged DNA from the alleged passengers on AA 77, and certainly no identified body parts from any of the alleged 9/11 victims who were on any of the 4 planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11:
Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes

3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

The best theory I know of is that the downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

Impossible as there were no reports of the barriers to traffic flow reported on the busy roads around the Pentagon that morning.

From what I have heard, there was only one downed light pole that was using a usually busy road, and it was in fact cordoned off. The road used by one Taxi cab driver, Lloyd England. He's the only witness to actually claim to have not just seen a light pole get downed, but for it to allegedly smash into his cab. CIT went down to investigate him. I believe their findings were very revealing, and can be seen in the documentary they did on him here:


As to the other poles, the link I provided previously suggests that contrary to what you were suggesting, they were not on roads that the public used regularly and could have easily been cordoned off. Did you take a look at it? Again, it can be seen here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1

The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon.

The important thing to remember is that opinions do not replace physical evidence.

Physical evidence can certainly be quite important. The thing is, the physical evidence you have provided to suggest that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is flimsy at best. And it pales in comparison to the evidence that not only did a 757 not crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that actually approached the Pentagon didn't approach it from the path that the official story needs in order for the damage done to the Pentagon to have actually been done by a plane at all, let alone a 757.

We know a generator was struck on the path to the Pentagon as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/generator_fence2.jpg

I'm just curious, did you know that the site that picture came from is a site that definitely doesn't believe in the official story? That being said, I know that they -do- support the official story when it comes to a 757 hitting the Pentagon. The only thing that picture suggests is that something damaged the generator. I see no evidence that a 757 hit it.

In all truth, the physical evidence is beyond conclusive that the only explanation for the light poles, the generator, and the damage is that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon exactly the way the 9/11 Commission Report describes.

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathstillmissespoles.jpg

Are you aware that the above picture is actually stating that, according to all the eyewitnesses who were in the best position to see the final flight trajectory of the aircraft approaching the pentagon, there is no way that the plane could have hit light poles because its flight path passed north of the citgo gas station?

Well, obviously, the pictures are all form the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01. As the evidentiary hearing ZM’s trial attest. It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything. Instead, you have convinced us you’re just another cheap 9/11 lunatic twofer with no legs to stand on.

Again, you need to come up with plausible answers to why:

The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.

 

[candycorn]

Except, of course, that all of the above bullshit is Zionist cover-up stuff, and it wasn't a plane, because if it was a 757

1) it couldn't fly 400mph at ground level
2) where the nose hit on the first floor would put the engines of the plane IN THE GROUND
3) all videos show a CRUISE MISSILE, not a plane

other than that...

I'm not that keen on talking of zionists. I have a vague idea of what they are, but I think it frequently distracts from things about 9/11 that are far more concrete. As to your 3 points, I agree with the first and the second. As to the third, I'm not so sure about that one. As can be seen in the following 5 minute documentary, I think it's clear that whatever is in the 5 frame video isn't a 757, but what it is, exactly, is far less clear...

Pentagon Strike mentions this as one of many points:


Bu a more in depth analysis of the flaws behind labelling the blur in 5 frame video as a 757 can be seen here:

Hasn’t been here a week and already blaming the jews.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[hadit]

And all those dozens (if not hundreds and thousands) of people involved in this airtight conspiracy have maintained complete 100% radio silence during the ensuing 15 years?

Quite astonishing...seeing as how there have been how many books (not just interviews given) written by disenchanted political wornks in the last 8 years...

I think that is the most damning piece of evidence against the whole conspiracy theory because the effort required to keep secrets rises exponentially as more people are in on it. Usually, the theory grows over time to include ever widening groups of people, until it collapses from sheer ridiculousness.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.

The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.

I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.

I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.

I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.

Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:

good luck on finding that here.anytime they are cornered and cant refute facts,I have never seen one that was capable of NOT insulting a truther knowing they cant refute facts and evidence resorting to calling them twoofers and all other childish names.

I've now mapped out this entire thread- it seems both sides aren't always that civil with each other. I've only just begun here, but already, I've found some discussion I consider to be worthwhile. While I find it's good to talk with people on my own side of the 9/11 fence, I frequently think that it's even more to talk to those who disagree. The reason is simple- you tend to learn more from those who disagree with you then from those who agree with you.

Just remember,there ARE paid shills on the governments payroll trolling this thread.Candyass is their biggest cash earner. He makes up lie after lie and goes around trolling at several message boards,not just this one night and day.

when people feed trolls like him,its very stupid to reply to them because thats what their handlers who send them here to troll,WANT you to do,waste your time on them. they are just here to derail any truth discussion there is.

You dont seem to understand that they KNOW just as well as me and you do that it was an inside job.Its easy to tell because they make bible long posts full of lies after lie that has been shot down over the years.Thats how it is easy to spot them.

they defend ALL government version of events like 9/11 no matter how absurd the official version is. They even defend the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin. Now the ones that do that,it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see they are a paid shill on the governments payroll.

the ones that are just in denial and dont want to believe their government would do such a thing,they just throw one liner insults and then run off.

I have encountered those types as well who they can accept the fact that the CIA killed JFK,yet when you list pesky facts that 9/11 was an inside job,they only see what they want to see and cover their ears and eyes refusing to watch videos that cant be debunked.they do this-

the CIA killing JFK they can handle since it was so many years ago,I will at least TRY and reason with those kind because eventually they accept it the CIA did 9/11 since they have no answer for the question-if they could kill JFK,why do you not look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well? they get stumped everytime. Now THOSE kind of people,I have no beef with posters replying to.Just the ones like candyass who defend ALL the versions of the government such as JFK no matter how absurd it is.

Some people over the net can accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK since like I said,it was so many years ago and just one person,but 9/11 hits too close to home for them since it was much more recent and involved them murdering over 3000 americans.by all means discuss it with those types.


the more and more you feed the shills,the more and more you please their handlers since you are doing what they want you to do,waste their time on them.I can only say it so many times-

Like I said,the people that are just in denial on this,the ones who CAN accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK,but cant accept it that they did 9/11 as well since 9/11 hits much closer to home with them,by all means DO go ahead and discuss it with those types because EVENTUALLY they do come to their senses they did 9/11 as well. Dale Smith used to be one of those people who couldnt grasp that but eventually he woke up after 10 years or so.

Its the paid trolls that defend the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin such as candyass does,to reply to THOSE kind of posters is just being plain stupid because if they defend the warren report that oswald killed JFK like he does, WHY on earth would you expect candyass to ever be convinced the CIA did 9/11 as well? think about that for a second.


I really really hope you dont ignore that advise.

 

[candycorn]

And all those dozens (if not hundreds and thousands) of people involved in this airtight conspiracy have maintained complete 100% radio silence during the ensuing 15 years?

Quite astonishing...seeing as how there have been how many books (not just interviews given) written by disenchanted political wornks in the last 8 years...

I think that is the most damning piece of evidence against the whole conspiracy theory because the effort required to keep secrets rises exponentially as more people are in on it. Usually, the theory grows over time to include ever widening groups of people, until it collapses from sheer ridiculousness.

I understand there being questions to 9/11 but what is not in question is the planes hitting the 4 locations, the passengers on the planes, the destruction caused by the 4 planes, the physical evidence we all saw with our eyeballs….

If you want to talk about how the 9/11 perps happened to coordinate their attacks with a drill going on…sure. Go ahead. But when your only argument is to accuse everyone of being on the take or lying…it’s just crazy.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The whole event was staged in advance...show me footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.....your move. I just gave you eye-witness account of a man that was involved that had to play his part and was scared shit-less. The burden is on you to prove it happened and all we have is corporate media claiming it did....that and your beloved "gubermint".

Well, it couldn't have been staged in advance since the light poles would be blocking traffic. No reports of such were made on the busy highways outside of the Pentagon.

Air traffic control happens in real time. That could not have been staged.

Are you stating that someone placed multi-hundred pound wheel rims and tires in the Pentagon prior to the attack? And nobody would have said anything about this either before or in the 15 years after?

Words have meanings. Just saying "they're lying" or "they did it" only meanst that you have zero proof. When you have the facts on your side, the evidence does the talking for you. Which is why, almost universally, your interactions end up with you having to call people names. If you can, defend your thesis. If you cannot, I suppose we can look forward to more internet links and other distractions...

Your job is to:

• Explain how the wreckage got there
• Explain how ATCs tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not out of it
• Explain how a supposed missile took out 5 light poles and a transformer THEN exploded in the Pentagon.

A 747 rim which is heavier than a 777's comes in at slightly over 150 lbs. One person could easily roll one into place.

With the entire press corps covering the scene?

That would be a gross overstatement. As I recall the press was excluded from "the scene" for some time right after whatever happened there. You do understand that many of us were actually paying attention that day and not just rolling out of our cribs to a bowl of Cocoa Puffs.

You were way ahead of the curve. I degfended the official story for 11 years and wouldn't even consider any information that could cause me to stop and think. My watershed moment was when Snowden revealed that the Patriot Act was written well in advance of 9/11 and the mechanisms for the spy grid ewas already in place, that was when the scales fell from my eyes and I have dedicated the last 4 years and over 17,000 hours of research and reading. I am not the same person that I use to be. Learning that you had lived a lie your whole life will do that to someone. You are obviously "awake" and were long before I was but I have been trying to make up for lost time.

See thats why I got done saying why I DO encourage posters to discuss it with people like you who ten years ago,you DID accept it that the CIA killed JFK but could not believe they did 9/11 as well incredibly because if i had met you over 10 years ago i would have asked you when you were a loyal Bush dupe like I was for about three years after 9/11,I would have asked you three years later after I woke up,i would have said to you-Dale listen to yourself.

You can accept it that the CIA killed JFK but you cant accept it that 9/11 is an inside job. whats up with that warped logic of yours? I would have asked you that because you would have been stumped and you would not have been taken in so long as you were had i met you back then and asked you that question that stumps them everytime and they cant get around.

as I said in my earlier post,there are far too many similiaritys in both cases a couple examples being the protection was lowered,nobody in government got fired for their alleged incompetence,the media put out reports that did not go along with witness testimonys,but the biggest one that you could not have dodged me on is and they never can get around is WHY is is that the same thing happened in 9/11 that happened with JFK,that people who gave versions different than the government version of events ended up dying in VERY mysterious ways?

I would have had you stumped MAJOR big time back then and would have woke you up much sooner,several years sooner than you did.

btw way you do know that there are far more serious problems by our government that we need to worry about than 9/11 right? 9/11 is the least of our problems we have to worry about from our government right now.the false flag operations going on against us such as orlando for one are far worse things we need to be concerned about at the moment.9/11 is done and over with.