911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[phoenyx]

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evidence admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation. Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself. Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.

You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect. In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.
3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.
4- Get them to listen to the information.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

 

[candycorn]

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evidence admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation. Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself. Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.

You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect.

Given your minutes here I can see why you can't see it.

In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
Ridiculous ideas deserve to be ridiculed.

2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.

We know why...

Ignorance; willful or otherwise. Here is an example. Twoofers often refer to the Pentagon as having secure airspace and being heavily defended. Neither is the case. If you make the allegation once, you're forgiven. If you make it over and over, your ignorance is willful.

3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.

Done ad nauseum

4- Get them to listen to the information.

Is there a punch line to that joke? Get a twoofer to listen to iron clad evidence???? You'd do better teaching your dog how to bark in Spanish.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

Haven't been paying attention. If you can't account for the physical evidence, you're nowhere.
You haven't...so you're nowhere.

 

[phoenyx]

You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect.

Given your minutes here I can see why you can't see it.

You're welcome to attempt to show evidence to the contrary.

In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get [people to] listen to you less, if at all.

Ridiculous ideas deserve to be ridiculed.

You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?

2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.

We know why...

Careful candy, your arrogance is showing ...

Ignorance; willful or otherwise. Here is an example. Twoofers...

Apparently you've learned nothing from my attempt to show you how to discuss things with those who disagree with you. It's all right there in my first point, though perhaps I should have added not to make ad hominem attacks, which is even -worse- then what I mentioned in my first point...

3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.

Done ad nauseum

Yes, I know the drill. candy has investigated her own beliefs and found them to be valid .

4- Get them to listen to the information.

Is there a punch line to that joke? Get a twoofer...

The punchline is in your own words; please, refer to point 1. Failure to do so will keep on getting you cut off. I'm making it obvious for you, but many will simply shut you out without making it clear as to why.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

Haven't been paying attention.

I've noticed.

 

[candycorn]

You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?

Change minds? When did you get the idea I was trying to do any such thing.

When you have the physical evidence on your side.
When you have logic on your side
When you have numbers, what you do is this: You simply present your case and its obvious to any who come across who is being an honest broker, and who is not. Physical evidence trumps any eye-witness (pro or con). So I rely on it. You rely on eye-witnesses that agree with your view point and dismiss those who do not. It's just about the textbook definition of being a cheap hack. Sorry. But that is the truth.

2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.

We know why...

Careful candy, your arrogance is showing ...

Can't help it. Look at who I'm dealing with....

Ignorance; willful or otherwise. Here is an example. Twoofers...

Apparently you've learned nothing from my attempt to show you how to discuss things with those who disagree with you.

Boy, there is nothing you can teach me on any subject, especially 9/11.

3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.

Done ad nauseum

Yes, I know the drill. candy has investigated her own beliefs and found them to be valid .

**** off little man. I presented photographs that were admitted into physical evidence in Federal Court. You've presented 6 y/o cherry-picked eyewitness testimony.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

Haven't been paying attention.

I've noticed.[/QUOTE]

If Faun wishes to entertain him/herself by playing with you that is her/his business. I deal in facts and physical evidence. You've run from it from day one--just like every other twoofer. And as a result, all of the hemming and hollering from the conspricary consortium you guys tried to mobilize for 15 years has just resulted in a mountain of ridicule and you guys are bunch of outcasts who have to write mea-culpa letters and let everyone know you were full of shit.

Dylan Avery (one of the Makers of Loose Change) Admits He Was Wrong

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

Confessions of an Ex-Truther

Just 3 of many. There are no new investigations, nobody is donating money to the "causes", nobody believes what you're selling any longer past the "that's interesting" stage and once they get a whiff of physical evidence... you're not that intersting any longer.

 

[phoenyx]

You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?

Change minds? When did you get the idea I was trying to do any such thing.

I guess I was expecting too much of you. So is your goal to simply shut people up if they disagree with you, by insulting them? This is Donald Trump's general strategy anyway...

When you have the physical evidence on your side...

When you can actually show that -your- side has any solid physical evidence, then we can talk about physical evidence.

When you have numbers, what you do is this: You simply present your case and its obvious to any who come across who is being an honest broker, and who is not.

What do you mean by "numbers"? Anyway, if what happened at the Pentagon was so obvious for everyone, we wouldn't be arguing about what happened almost 15 years after the event.

You rely on eye-witnesses that agree with your view point and dismiss those who do not.

All of the eye witnesses that were in an excellent vantage point and CIT was able to film all agree that the plane passed north of Columbia Pike in the cases of Paik and Morin, and north of the Citgo gas station in the case of the rest.

2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.

We know why...

Careful candy, your arrogance is showing ...

Can't help it. Look at who I'm dealing with....

Someone who points out your flawed reasoning? I know candy, it can be rough ;-)...

Ignorance; willful or otherwise. Here is an example. Twoofers...

Apparently you've learned nothing from my attempt to show you how to discuss things with those who disagree with you.

Boy, there is nothing you can teach me on any subject, especially 9/11.

I'm really going to have to spell it out for you I guess. What I'm trying to teach you is some manners. Some simple respect for your opponent's beliefs.

3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.

Done ad nauseum

Yes, I know the drill. candy has investigated her own beliefs and found them to be valid .

**** off little man.

Not sure I'll ever be able to teach you some manners. I guess I can keep trying -.-...

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

Haven't been paying attention.

I've noticed.

If Faun wishes to entertain him/herself by playing with you that is her/his business. I deal in facts and physical evidence.

You deal only with what you already believe is true. As Mark Twain once said:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Dylan Avery (one of the Makers of Loose Change) Admits He Was Wrong

Interesting, I'm surprised Dylan would scale back his view to it just being a coverup instead of some in government actively being involved in 9/11. That being said, I'm not wholly surprised. Dylan never actively accused anyone in government of being involved, only suggested it could be the case with many of the issues he brought up.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

I've gone over this guy with someone else (Faun perhaps), he's got more then a few skeletons in his closet, and could easily have been blackmailed into changing his mind...

Confessions of an Ex-Truther

I'd never heard of this truther before. It's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. In the article above he states:
**There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?**

He wrote that article in 2008, but even then, I believe that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had started up. Currently, they have over 2,500 architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into 9/11:
AE911Truth Petition Signers

As for physicists, Steven Jones, a well known physicist, presented evidence against the official story 3 years before 2008:
**On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. **

Source: Steven E. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just 3 of many.

Right now, all I see is 3, 2 of whom I'd never even heard of before they became OCT believers.

There are no new investigations,

I think we should examine the word 'investigation' for a second here. Google defines it as:
"the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research."

Now, what we do in forums may not be considered an investigation per se, since it may not be formal or systematic, but we are certainly examining evidence, and researching the subject. Clearly we don't have subpoena powers, or anything like that, but when we aren't too busy insulting each other, some of us here are in fact furthering our knowledge of what happened on 9/11.

nobody is donating money to the "causes",

Perhaps not to the "causes", but perhaps to some very valid causes ...

 

[candycorn]

You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?

Change minds? When did you get the idea I was trying to do any such thing.

I guess I was expecting too much of you. So is your goal to simply shut people up if they disagree with you, by insulting them? This is Donald Trump's general strategy anyway...

When you have the physical evidence on your side...

When you can actually show that -your- side has any solid physical evidence, then we can talk about physical evidence.

When you have numbers, what you do is this: You simply present your case and its obvious to any who come across who is being an honest broker, and who is not.

What do you mean by "numbers"? Anyway, if what happened at the Pentagon was so obvious for everyone, we wouldn't be arguing about what happened almost 15 years after the event.

You rely on eye-witnesses that agree with your view point and dismiss those who do not.

All of the eye witnesses that were in an excellent vantage point and CIT was able to film all agree that the plane passed north of Columbia Pike in the cases of Paik and Morin, and north of the Citgo gas station in the case of the rest.

2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.

We know why...

Careful candy, your arrogance is showing ...

Can't help it. Look at who I'm dealing with....

Someone who points out your flawed reasoning? I know candy, it can be rough ;-)...

Ignorance; willful or otherwise. Here is an example. Twoofers...

Apparently you've learned nothing from my attempt to show you how to discuss things with those who disagree with you.

Boy, there is nothing you can teach me on any subject, especially 9/11.

I'm really going to have to spell it out for you I guess. What I'm trying to teach you is some manners. Some simple respect for your opponent's beliefs.

3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.

Done ad nauseum

Yes, I know the drill. candy has investigated her own beliefs and found them to be valid .

**** off little man.

Not sure I'll ever be able to teach you some manners. I guess I can keep trying -.-...

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

Haven't been paying attention.

I've noticed.

If Faun wishes to entertain him/herself by playing with you that is her/his business. I deal in facts and physical evidence.

You deal only with what you already believe is true. As Mark Twain once said:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Dylan Avery (one of the Makers of Loose Change) Admits He Was Wrong

Interesting, I'm surprised Dylan would scale back his view to it just being a coverup instead of some in government actively being involved in 9/11. That being said, I'm not wholly surprised. Dylan never actively accused anyone in government of being involved, only suggested it could be the case with many of the issues he brought up.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

I've gone over this guy with someone else (Faun perhaps), he's got more then a few skeletons in his closet, and could easily have been blackmailed into changing his mind...

Confessions of an Ex-Truther

I'd never heard of this truther before. It's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. In the article above he states:
**There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?**

He wrote that article in 2008, but even then, I believe that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had started up. Currently, they have over 2,500 architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into 9/11:
AE911Truth Petition Signers

As for physicists, Steven Jones, a well known physicist, presented evidence against the official story 3 years before 2008:
**On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. **

Source: Steven E. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just 3 of many.

Right now, all I see is 3, 2 of whom I'd never even heard of before they became OCT believers.

There are no new investigations,

I think we should examine the word 'investigation' for a second here. Google defines it as:
"the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research."

Now, what we do in forums may not be considered an investigation per se, since it may not be formal or systematic, but we are certainly examining evidence, and researching the subject. Clearly we don't have subpoena powers, or anything like that, but when we aren't too busy insulting each other, some of us here are in fact furthering our knowledge of what happened on 9/11.

nobody is donating money to the "causes",

Perhaps not to the "causes", but perhaps to some very valid causes ...

Nothing new to comment on. Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.

 

[phoenyx]

Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.

May want to take a look at this helpful FAQ article from CIT...
Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

 

[candycorn]

Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.

May want to take a look at this helpful FAQ article from CIT...
Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

None of that explains how it got there in the first place. Which, of course, means AA77 hit the Pentagon.

 

[phoenyx]

Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.

May want to take a look at this helpful FAQ article from CIT...
Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

None of that explains how it got there in the first place. Which, of course, means AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I believe it refutes your "ofcourse" notion and morphs it into a 'might' at best. And this is before examining the slew of evidence against it, evidence which has been presented by groups such as CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Did you actually read the article? I've decided to post the article here, in order to more easily discuss its points by introducing the ability to quote them...

**
This is pretty much the extent of the semi-recognizable pieces photographed inside and outside of the building:

Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:

Photos allegedly taken inside of the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event:

Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.

This evacuation was discussed by multiple first responders, such as Lt. Robert Medairos, the Arlington County Police Department's "first incident commander at the scene," and Eileen Murphy, Head Nurse of the Minor Surgery Clinic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic, who was inside the Pentagon at the time of the explosion (alleged impact). You can view and read their testimonyhere.

In fact, first-responder Derek Spector of the Arlington County Fire Department reported that there were multiple evacuations. Speaking at a press conference two days after 9/11, where he was introduced by Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher as "Emergency Medical Technician Derek Spector" who was "one of the first arriving company officers," Spector said:
REPORTER: Derek, we know you guys are trained to do two things: put out fires and save lives. How frustrating was it for you as an individual to have this fire continue to burn?

DEREK SPECTOR: I think it wasn't so much the frustration of it continuing to burn. The frustration that we had was that we had to keep evacuating the structure because we had more reports of more planes and-- and possible, uh-- somebody trying to continue to do, uh, more damage to the Pentagon, and that kept-- kept withdrawing us from the scene and we-- that was probably the most frustrating thing about the whole thing.

On September 11, 2010, 9 years after the attack, the National Geographic Channel (NatGeo) aired a special which contained never-before-seen footage documenting the evacuation(s).



In addition to the relatively small number of parts depicted above, there was also a significant amount unrecognizable debris that has been cited as proof that plane crashed. The image below shows quite a bit of debris in small pieces strewn all over the helipad area. (Click image to view higher resolution version.)

However, even if some of this unrecognizable debris did originally come from a plane or planes, which has not been proven, the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyoverproves that this debris did not come from AA77, N644AA, or any other plane crashing into the Pentagon, and therefore must have gotten there some other way.

As it turns out, it would have been rather simple for this debris to have been dispersed during the explosion, as there were renovation construction trailers that were right in front of the alleged impact point and next to the helipad which were obliterated during the attack.

In light of the evidence proving that the plane did not hit the building it is reasonable to hypothesize that the unidentified, unrecognizable little pieces of debris were blown out from these trailers.

**

 

[candycorn]

Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.

May want to take a look at this helpful FAQ article from CIT...
Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

None of that explains how it got there in the first place. Which, of course, means AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I believe it refutes your "ofcourse" notion and morphs it into a 'might' at best. And this is before examining the slew of evidence against it, evidence which has been presented by groups such as CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Did you actually read the article? I've decided to post the article here, in order to more easily discuss its points by introducing the ability to quote them...

**
This is pretty much the extent of the semi-recognizable pieces photographed inside and outside of the building:

Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:

Photos allegedly taken inside of the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event:

Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.

This evacuation was discussed by multiple first responders, such as Lt. Robert Medairos, the Arlington County Police Department's "first incident commander at the scene," and Eileen Murphy, Head Nurse of the Minor Surgery Clinic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic, who was inside the Pentagon at the time of the explosion (alleged impact). You can view and read their testimonyhere.

In fact, first-responder Derek Spector of the Arlington County Fire Department reported that there were multiple evacuations. Speaking at a press conference two days after 9/11, where he was introduced by Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher as "Emergency Medical Technician Derek Spector" who was "one of the first arriving company officers," Spector said:
REPORTER: Derek, we know you guys are trained to do two things: put out fires and save lives. How frustrating was it for you as an individual to have this fire continue to burn?

DEREK SPECTOR: I think it wasn't so much the frustration of it continuing to burn. The frustration that we had was that we had to keep evacuating the structure because we had more reports of more planes and-- and possible, uh-- somebody trying to continue to do, uh, more damage to the Pentagon, and that kept-- kept withdrawing us from the scene and we-- that was probably the most frustrating thing about the whole thing.

On September 11, 2010, 9 years after the attack, the National Geographic Channel (NatGeo) aired a special which contained never-before-seen footage documenting the evacuation(s).



In addition to the relatively small number of parts depicted above, there was also a significant amount unrecognizable debris that has been cited as proof that plane crashed. The image below shows quite a bit of debris in small pieces strewn all over the helipad area. (Click image to view higher resolution version.)

However, even if some of this unrecognizable debris did originally come from a plane or planes, which has not been proven, the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyoverproves that this debris did not come from AA77, N644AA, or any other plane crashing into the Pentagon, and therefore must have gotten there some other way.

As it turns out, it would have been rather simple for this debris to have been dispersed during the explosion, as there were renovation construction trailers that were right in front of the alleged impact point and next to the helipad which were obliterated during the attack.

In light of the evidence proving that the plane did not hit the building it is reasonable to hypothesize that the unidentified, unrecognizable little pieces of debris were blown out from these trailers.

**

So now you agree all of those photos you posted above are of wreckage (i.e. Physical evidence) outside the pentagon on 9/11?

 

[phoenyx]

Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.

May want to take a look at this helpful FAQ article from CIT...
Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

None of that explains how it got there in the first place. Which, of course, means AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I believe it refutes your "ofcourse" notion and morphs it into a 'might' at best. And this is before examining the slew of evidence against it, evidence which has been presented by groups such as CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Did you actually read the article? I've decided to post the article here, in order to more easily discuss its points by introducing the ability to quote them...

**
This is pretty much the extent of the semi-recognizable pieces photographed inside and outside of the building:

Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:

Photos allegedly taken inside of the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event:

Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.

This evacuation was discussed by multiple first responders, such as Lt. Robert Medairos, the Arlington County Police Department's "first incident commander at the scene," and Eileen Murphy, Head Nurse of the Minor Surgery Clinic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic, who was inside the Pentagon at the time of the explosion (alleged impact). You can view and read their testimonyhere.

In fact, first-responder Derek Spector of the Arlington County Fire Department reported that there were multiple evacuations. Speaking at a press conference two days after 9/11, where he was introduced by Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher as "Emergency Medical Technician Derek Spector" who was "one of the first arriving company officers," Spector said:
REPORTER: Derek, we know you guys are trained to do two things: put out fires and save lives. How frustrating was it for you as an individual to have this fire continue to burn?

DEREK SPECTOR: I think it wasn't so much the frustration of it continuing to burn. The frustration that we had was that we had to keep evacuating the structure because we had more reports of more planes and-- and possible, uh-- somebody trying to continue to do, uh, more damage to the Pentagon, and that kept-- kept withdrawing us from the scene and we-- that was probably the most frustrating thing about the whole thing.

On September 11, 2010, 9 years after the attack, the National Geographic Channel (NatGeo) aired a special which contained never-before-seen footage documenting the evacuation(s).



In addition to the relatively small number of parts depicted above, there was also a significant amount unrecognizable debris that has been cited as proof that plane crashed. The image below shows quite a bit of debris in small pieces strewn all over the helipad area. (Click image to view higher resolution version.)

However, even if some of this unrecognizable debris did originally come from a plane or planes, which has not been proven, the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyoverproves that this debris did not come from AA77, N644AA, or any other plane crashing into the Pentagon, and therefore must have gotten there some other way.

As it turns out, it would have been rather simple for this debris to have been dispersed during the explosion, as there were renovation construction trailers that were right in front of the alleged impact point and next to the helipad which were obliterated during the attack.

In light of the evidence proving that the plane did not hit the building it is reasonable to hypothesize that the unidentified, unrecognizable little pieces of debris were blown out from these trailers.

**

So now you agree all of those photos you posted above are of wreckage (i.e. Physical evidence) outside the pentagon on 9/11?

You do realize their were 2 sets of photos, right -.-? I'll quote it again, this time bolding some of the text for emphasis:

**
Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:

**

So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11, but it immediately points out how that is not solid evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon:
**
Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**


The pictures -below- those pictures were in a different category though:
**Photos allegedly taken inside of the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event:

**

Rob Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has added to this:
"...these pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i havent found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)."

Source: Wheel Hub at Pentagon - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

 

[candycorn]

So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11,

Thanks for wasting everyone's time to eventually admit what we all knew all along.

Now plausibly explain how the wreckage got there (and inside the Pentagon)

 

[phoenyx]

You do realize their were 2 sets of photos, right -.-? I'll quote it again, this time bolding some of the text for emphasis:

**
Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:

**

So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11,

Thanks for wasting everyone's time to eventually admit what we all knew all along.

I never stated that -none- of the pictures allegedly showing debris from Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11 weren't in fact taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. I -did- say that -some- of it is of questionable origin though, and I brought that up as well, but you snipped all that part out. You think if you snip out all the information that doesn't fit your narrative that it'll just go away ?

Now plausibly explain how the wreckage got there (and inside the Pentagon)

I've already done that numerous times. In fact, a plausible theory as to how the debris got there is right after the point that you snipped my message off. Let's put that little bit of conversation you snipped of mine into context:

=======
So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11, but it immediately points out how that is not solid evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon:
**
Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**
=======

 

[candycorn]

I never stated that -none- of the pictures allegedly showing debris from Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11 weren't in fact taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. I -did- say that -some- of it is of questionable origin though,

Finally, we're getting somewhere. I knew if you were in danger of losing your audience, you'd play ball... Happens every time.


Okay so finally you agree that the pictures show wreckage of a plane

And

You finallly admit that the picutres THAT YOU POSTED are from the Pentagon on 9/11/01

You disagree that the wreckage is from AA77.

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

 

[phoenyx]

I never stated that -none- of the pictures allegedly showing debris from Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11 weren't in fact taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. I -did- say that -some- of it is of questionable origin though,

Finally, we're getting somewhere. I knew if you were in danger of losing your audience, you'd play ball... Happens every time.

Whatever -.-

Okay so finally you agree that the pictures show wreckage of a plane

The pictures that most resemble wreckage from a plane are the ones that were allegedly taken inside the Pentagon, not outside. Outside of the Pentagon, all you can see are pieces so small that a single individual can pick them up; a very convenient size to plant them at the scene as well. For all we know, some of those pieces never even touched the ground, simply being carried through for a photo op.

You finallly admit that the picutres THAT YOU POSTED are from the Pentagon on 9/11/01

These ones, to be precise:

These pictures were put up by CIT, hardly a bastion of the official conspiracy theory, and they tend to be pretty meticulous in their research.

You disagree that the wreckage is from AA77.

Definitely.

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.
**

 

[candycorn]

How many times do I have to repeat myself

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Please refer to post # 14.

I'll explain it like this. According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77. The attack aircraft, flew in at treetop level, clipping light poles on the highway overpass, and smashing into the Pentagon's west wall. Meanwhile AA77, approached on a slightly more northerly trajectory, flying over the Pentagon and disappearing behind a blinding flash and fireball.

Take it or leave it makes no difference to me. But it is more plausible then the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" which is nothing more then an "Official Lie".

Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?

So I guess you're content on believing the spoon-fed garbage that Hani Hanjour as inferior of a pilot as he was supposedly pulled off "high-risk" maneuvers in a Boeing 757 no less, that experienced pilots can't even do and crashing the plane into the Pentagon leaving no evidence to support the claim.

And there you have it.

3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.

Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77”

s

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Actually it does make sense. There are flight manifests with the suspected terrorists names on them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png
Hani Hanjour’s flight school attendance was documented:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf
Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not leaving the airspace:
Photo by Craig Ranke
We know the light poles were knocked down moments before the explosion because one hit a taxi cab
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3...Bjo/zreD66gO7_o/s1600/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.JPG

There were no reports of poles blocking traffic during the busy rush-hour times before the attacks.

Quite clearly you and your horde of twoofers cannot explain away. Its very simple. Come up with a violable explanation for the wreckage. How did it get there? Plane tires are not “small” amounts of wreckage as you stated earlier.

How did they get there?

Explain the tracking of the flight into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.

Explain how a missile hit 4 light poles and a large transformer before exploding in the Pentagon.

Very simple, all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Instead of just calling people names…why not explain how these things happened? And just so you know, the real knock-out punch is yet to come.

Actually it does make sense.

Of course it does to someone like yourself. After all you were just gullible enough to accept the spoon-fed garbage as truth, and didn't think twice about questioning it.

FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact

all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.

Yeah like the government has NEVER lied or NEVER withheld information from the American people about what really happened on 9/11. Facts you say? That's laughable.

WOT on Earth?: 9/11 Commission Report: a 571 page FRAUD. updated!

See, here we go again. No mention of how the wreckage got there, no mention of the ATC viewing the flight path and no mention of the poles.

Defend your thesis, if you can...

Do you really believe it would be difficult to stage a scene with wreckage?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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:

1. Explain the 757 wreckage at the Pentagon
2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out
3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

I cant believe you actually need these things explained to you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!

That could very well be the white trim around the lettering.

 

[candycorn]

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:

1. Explain the 757 wreckage at the Pentagon
2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out
3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

I cant believe you actually need these things explained to you.

I don’t, I know how they got there.
If you have a different version of events though, you need to account for the physical evidence. Twoofers are incredibly deficient in doing so.