*DAMN R6 Forum

http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf (http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf)

Just found this..... don't respond with flames, its not intended to bash our government. This video made me think alot and I thought you guys would appreciate watching it too.

Later

Hmm, it is interesting, though doesn't really fill a number of gaps.

If that wasn't the 757, where did the 757 they claimed crashed into the building go to? And I'm not clear what alternate plot they are suggesting...did they find bits of the smaller plane...if it was a missle or bomb, who launched of set it?

www.911uncovered.com
it's all there, undeniable evidence.

Im currently in shock after reading and watching those links... Im going to go watch them about 6 more times before even thinking about posting my reaction......

This one answers most of the questions pritty well.

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14 (http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14)

Ditto.

So what is all of this suggesting? One can posulate theorys and compile circumstancial evidence until the cows come home but it will still amount to just that. What is the reason behind this action? Is this suggesting that the government of the United States attacked and killed over two thousand of it's own citizens in order to fight an extremely un popular way abroad, kill the good opinion which much of the world held us in, all so Haliburton can get the contract for building Iraq, and we can power our S.U.V's?


Oh, and I checked out some of the qoutes from the video and found matching ones. I was just curious.

There are many questionable events that surround 9/11, too bad the U.S. media sold out the American people a long time ago.

nothing new here in those conspiracy theories. But as a wise man said once : "there is no smoke without fire" ...... Another one said also " when the wise man points the moon, the idiot stares at the finger"

FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME  ;D

Movie is freacky. Makes alot of good points....i let my mom watch it and she freacked out too.

If you have ever been to an airshow, you know the distinctive roar of a military jet and the sound and force that its thrusters emit. Needless to say, missiles make very similar sounds and it would have been very apparent to people within miles of the Pentagon that something very bad was about to happen.

As for this thing being a commuter plane, all I have to say is that a commuter plane wouldn't have been able to penetrate that far into the Pentagon nor would it have been able to shake the other side of the Pentagon as it did that morning - I was watching NBC live when Jim Miklaszewski reporting from the Pentagon when the impact happened, and the building was shaking.

What the fuck?

Maniac we cant do shit....

First of all, I'd like to see a comment about the event from somebody other than a common person off the street, or a news reporter.  When they have some random john doe saying "It was a missile! And a commercial plane couldn't possibly have penetrated that deep into the pentagon", I don't find it very convincing.  If they can't get a ballistics specialist to plea their case, I'd say they don't have much of one at all.  And if it was a military jet, who is to say the government is behind it anyway?

Second, one of the questions I'd ask myself is: If the US government really did do this, were those Bin Laden videos fake? Was he lying when he admitted to being involved with the attacks?  

Or does al queda really not exist - was it invented by the US government, who then invaded Afghanistan as a cover-up?

If Al Queda really doesn't exist, then who is responsible for the dozens of terrorist attacks over the last decade, including the ones in Spain?

Wow this sounds like a huge conspiracy - For the past ten years, the US government has been attacking its own embassies, allied countries in Europe and Africa, and even its own military headquarters.

We've uncovered the biggest scandal of the century!

Oh, except for when they staged the moon landing.  

Our Government has one rule, No one person knows everything. And the funny thing is, as much as we (the people) believe we know, we are COMPLETELY wrong. I can only imagine the things we dont know. We only know what we hear. Most of us have heard the saying "Believe half of what you hear and less of what you read". Who knows what the populous knows, Did Aliens land here, does terrorism exist, did we land on the moon, soo many questions, so few answers. We dont know cause most would freack out. I like my life simple so I try not thinking about it.

I have to say that the Pentagon video was much more compelling than what Bronton (oh wow, typo, but i like it, so im going to leave it) put up.  No comment on the Pentagon video, except  :o

However, i do believe the twin towers were taken down by the planes crashing into them.  The site seems to fixate on one piece of evidence, that in my guesstimation would be air being put under such pressure (caused by the collapsing floors above) that it explodes out the sides of the building.  And also, if there -were- shaped charges in the building, the plane crashing into them would have, in my thinking, very thoroughly demolished them.  To get the towers collapsing, and make it look "believable" it would've had to start collapsing from the damaged area where the plane hit, an area that was doused in flaming jet fuel for almost an hour.

But, i guess thats just ruling out the "demolition charge" theory on things.  As to what Gabe said about the U.S. making up Al-Queda, well, we did, actually, kinda -train- Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets...so i guess you could say we did make Al-Queda...in a round about sort of way.  (That was an attempt at a little humor) now then.  FLAME ON!!

Not the only one either... hell how about Saddam Hussain (although not actually a terrorist) or other such activities....

first of all, long wolf, you only found the Pentagon video so compelling because it had music and moving images. the site i put up goes through all of the pentagon attack, as well as the world trade center attacks. and i, personally, believe it. not because i'm gullible, not because i'm distrusting of the US government, but because the evidence is real. it's right in front of us, you're presented with images of sequencial demolition charges going off down the sides of the WTC towers 1, 2, and also 7. there's even a video of the owner of WTC 7 building admitting that the building had been destroyed, and watching the video you can see the same charges going off. as far as the pentagon, i'm sure it's strong, so even if it could not penetrate too far into the building, the width of the damage is just far too small to be a commercial jet. also, the hole all the way through those levels is still unexplained...i think the only thing that would have gotten that far back is a missile. and since you can see the WTC planes firing missiles into the building facades, it doesn't seem so farfetched. i know it must be a huge shock to those who trusted in their government, but there are some things that you just can't look past. this is, as far as the overwhelming amount of evidence would point out, the most fucked up thing i've ever heard of, even when i never trusted our government in the first place. the media is owned by the government, and the not only are the people of the united states, but all over the world, ass raped. of course, we'll probably never know exactly who is responsible, but it certainly was something to do with our own government.

Bronto, dont assume to know how i think or why i think things.  Not only is it wrong, but its fairly insulting =P

And perhaps part of the reason i wasnt as convinced by the link you put up is beacause my computer doesnt have the proper stuff to run WMVs, so most of the site was a little broken animation icon =(

If someone could PM me links to get that, id be happy to go visit that site again.

I think some of you guys need to get off the crack pipe and get back to reality.  If you honestly believe any of this "evidence", you are insane.  Hell, those videos and pictures could be doctored.  Did you ever think of that?  OMG, say it isn't so!  Somebody on the internet would doctor photos and video for a nice conspiracy site!  Wow, un-fucking believable!

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.[/size]

long wolf, maybe if you had actually seen the site i mentioned, you could have enjoyed it for what it is instead of hardly anything at all. you would have also noticed that i am correct when i say both the evidence from the flash video and the site i posted is quite the same. so i am sorry i assumed you were attracted to things that tickled your animal senses, i should have just said flat out that you are an idiot.


spike, please view the evidence with a clear mind, without speculating on the motive for one's government to attack their own like this. it is far too soon for anyone to even fathom what this was all for, and it just goes to show that there is too much we don't know about. i can't help but think that the united states has evolved into a country whose foundation is built of secrets and lies.

btw, on the site i posted there is proof that the US was planning to do something like this for a reason to attack cuba, so this whole 9/11 thing is very suspicious.

ps; gs, i like you as a person, but you even have to admit that you have suspicions. this doesn't rouse one thought as to what has really happened to us? i would love for you to be right gs, but it's very hard given the evidence...and it is evidence.

I have suspicions of many things in the Bush Administration, but the 9/11 attacks are not one of them bronto.

From what I've heard about you GhostSniper, I look forward to some disagreements in the future, but here I agree. This is just a pathetic conspiracy theory attempt. It is about as important as being able to fold up a $20 into the images of the pentagon on fire and the twin towers with the plane holes.

who said anything about the bush administration? call me crazy, but wouldn't it be a damn shame if it turned out that whoever orchestrated these attacks also rigged the florida vote for bush ;D?

some of you are saying that these images are edited and that it's all a hoax. well, i'm open to all suggestions, so it's possible you can sway my opinion. if you believe this is true, you can do this for me: provide me with unedited, unadulterated counter evidence (if the source is a major news company or anything released by the government, i'd appreciate it if you could find me a copy from a more obscure news source, or better yet, world news source). i've already got evidence swaying me in one direction, so why don't you just bring me on back?

Maybe Elvis and Tupac were coming home in their alien space craft and crashed into the Pentagon...

These links provide fascinating theories, i have to admit... but i hardly believe that this was the way things went like. First of all why would someone (not a terrorist) make the world economy almost collapse and make many airtransport companies shut down? Why would someone intentionally kill more than 3000 people? Why would someone destroy the pentagon, considered till then one of the most safe facilities in the world? If it were the government itself, do you really think they would have wanted to look like idiots seeing that their headquarters were attacked? I don't think so. I mean there might be some other shit behind all this but not this amount of shit. There might have been things not said to prevent a bigger collapse even in other branches of economy. But to this i don't believe. It just amuses me. Actually i'd kind of like this conspiracy theory to be true just to get the feeling that this world has still the power to amaze me. It would be horrible i know but still ...  cathartic. Just like a thunderstorm, dangerous but beautiful. Too bad this theory is 99,9999999999999999999% wrong - the fake Bin-Laden tape was quite a piece of evidence though ... could be doctored or he might have had plastic surgery  ;D  

Come on Life is beautiful and the human being despite its many flaws is not and has never been this close to evil(l). So let's just blame it on the terrorists they're responsible and as far as i've seen or heard i'll stick to the official 9/11 theory.

Bush               ::)

http://www.imh.com.sg/ (http://www.imh.com.sg/)

Here is the scenario:
Jamie is getting tried for murder, you have a knife with his blood on it, and video surveilence that shows him leaving the place. You cant just say that these items were planted, you have to give me proof.

Same goes for this. Give me proof that the pictures were doctored.
I personally dont think this video is trying to proove anything except for the fact a 747 did not go into the Pentegon building. Again, you may need to explain some of the quotes that were double checked and have matched other descriptions.

Let me start off by saying that i was so fucked up when i first saw this. I watched it again and it's fucking joke there were no missiles they were PLANES. People were calling on their cell phones to family and 9-11 before they crashed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Also a plane was found in a rural area 20 miles away form the Pentagon, it was going to try and hit it again. All this crap that the video shows is ignorant and should of never been made.

if those pics and vidoes are not doctored, it is certainly very disturbing...

I think GS's quote says it the best. btw, I have some pic's of Santa Claus delivering presents with Big Foot in july, they are real ya know. 8)

how about you show us those pics

[sarcasm]

(http://www.footballculture.net/fans/images/mls.jpg)

There's santa... Oh and there's bigfoot getting the presents at a football game in mid-july.

Santa's not wearing his red suit though (cause who really wears a suit like that in July), so you might have trouble finding him.

And bigfoot appears to have shaved a little, but he's in there... you can see him can't you?

What's that? You can't see him? The picture isn't clear enough?

Oh... well then you can just take my word for it if you can't see it clearly in the picture. You can trust me! After all, I'm some random person on the internet that you'll never meet. I absolutely care that the information I give you is 100% reliable.

[/sarcasm]

yes i see him, he's sitting right between georges double-U and Ossama. They seem to have a good time together...

Its just the fact that they never pulled any plane wreckage out of the pentagon that fools me.

JOIN NK04 TODAY!

all these people saying "i'm not going to believe it, i'm just going to eat the story i'm fed because there's no way anyone would do something like this", it happened ok, so there are people who do this kind of thing. taking a closer look at the images and the facts, it appears that the nature of which it happens is something other then what we have been made to believe. and it is true that the government controls the medie, it is true that the government lies constantly and keeps secrets from us, it is true that the government has planned something similar to the theory presented here before, it is true that these same images we see on this site are the same as the orignials, and it is true that we will believe in anything, truth or not.

i asked for counter evidence from those who are skeptical of this theory and you ignored me. why is this? if you believe something is true, why not stand by it? some of you are having fun with the [sarcasm] tags i see ;), but in all seriousness i would love for you all to prove this evidence false.

bronto, someone posted a link to a blog that refutes the claims step by step.

My proof is my uncle. He used to work 2 building over from the WTC. He got a clear veiw of the second plane crashing into the WTC. He said it was a Regular air plane. He didnt see any missles.. or anything else that would support this threaory

bondo i read that and quickly dismissed it
1) the guy writes for NY times
2) question #2, the man states "The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building." when you can clearly see the ground in front of the building is practically unscathed.
3) the man contradicts himself so fucking hard it hurts. question number three, he states "eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building." (in defense of a question asking why there were no debris, in which he also provided this measily image as evidence http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Pentdebris.jpg)

the contradiction:
question number 5, in response to a question as to why the wings caused no damage this man says "Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.".

so basically, without reading past question number 5, this man says that the Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour flew over the freeway, managed to level itself to an angle that would allow the plane to skid on the lawn without losing too much speed, and not even leave a mark on the soft ground, then somehow completely enter the building, but leave it's wings behind without any debris?

all i can say is this man is clinging desperately to believe something that's just plain wrong.




oh, that site the idiot linked that crappy image (looks photoshopped too, pretty weak) to had some pretty interesting stuff, such as this list of questions to why 9/11 happened the way it did http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11BasicQuestions   i would like to see these answered truthfully to the people they are directed to lol




harvey, i believe your uncle saw what anyone would have seen: plane fly into building. but if he could rewind and view it again a few more times from a good angle (assuming he didn't already have one), he would have seen what the video presents upon closer look. i don't know how any of you can say that this is fake, i have looked at videos from many sources and they are all the same. are you trying to say that your eyes decieve you when you watch 4 explosions before the first plane makes contact, and one undeniably obvious pre-explosion before the second plane makes contact? don't ask how or why one would do such a thing, because it can be done and i'm sure there are reasons. how and why come after we choose to believe in what's right, what's true. would you rather see what you are told to see, or would you like to see for yourself? just watch closely please.

omg, Harvy, they got to your uncle too! :o

Bronto stop trying to support a bullshit lie get over it.

maniac i'm not going to verbally pwn you because i know you're just a half wit, but i will allow you to present me with the counter evidence still, if you would like to put forth a decent argument. otherwise, i will pay no mind to anything you say in this thread, since it's probably going to be some inane attempt to defend something you really don't understand. 20 bucks says you didn't even read my full post or anything on this thread for that matter.

Ok, after examining the evidence from the video,  I have concluded that the plane was most likely a Boeing 757.  In the video it says that area of the Pentagon was "days from completion", so some things may not have been done yet, and hazardous materials may have been lieing around.  About the plane smashing a neat hole into Ring E, think of the plane as a mini-nuke.  It could have set of some explosions inside the Pentagon because it had so much fuel.  Also, about the Pentagon wing collasping 20minutes after impact, it was probably by the fact that the supporting steel beams couldn't hold on the pressure any longer just like WTC.  When the video says something about little fire damage and intact windows, the Pentagon has probably been bomb proofed, bullet proofed, and fire proofed to the max.  Another theory I have for the hole being punched, there could have been a munitions room or somethinng around there.  The only thing I can say about the absence of "large" plane debris is probably because the feds confiscated a lot of it or it was hidden in the Pentagon during the crash.  Another thing is when the video has quotes about the flight instructors saying the hijackers couldn't fly; the hijackers could have been trying to cover it up by lieing and deceiving to make sure no one got suspicious.


Those are my quick points.

the hole in front of the building is far too small to have taken in a whole 757, at most it would have taken everything but the wings. so where are the wings. we see images of the building being hit and directly after it is hit and there are no wings left outside, not even debris.

this cover up shit isn't fucking new guys. anyone remember flight 800 crashing off the coast of long island, NY? well i live there, and a friends family was on their boat in the bay with a video camera, they taped a light shooting up into the sky and intercepting the plane, then it went down into the ocean. they contacted the coast gaurd with the evidence and it was confiscated.

Yeah I remember that too....

http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html

the set of pictures below the first shows that the huge smoke clouds were from a fucking dumpster set on fire. also, another image shows unbroken glass right near the direct point of impact.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/9.jpg
gee look at all them windows. musta been a pretty weak plane huh?

First of all i read every thing in every thread that i post in. Two you it would be wise for you to take you're words back unless you want a 20 dollar hole in you're pocket. I have evidence that it is fake because my cousin was out on the street in New York when it happened. Right when he saw the the first plane he ran to his car and drove home and called me.

yes, we all have the same evidence on video. we can even rewind it and play it again. did you even watch the videos on the site i posted? you see planes go into the buildings, yes, but you also see the building facades explode before the planes make contact. of course it'd be very hard for someone to see that down on the street, when it was unexpected.

(http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/b-pelouse_pentagon.jpg)
(http://www.webpan.com/msauers/911/WTCimages/pentagon.jpg)
(http://www.poems2u.com/911/pentagon6.jpg)
(http://www.bouwman.com/911/Pentagon/Pentagon.jpg)

Nice manacured lawn considering it was a plane crash. So are all these pics doctored? You have to offer proof that these pictures were doctored to misconceive the masses. You just cant have faith that they are not doctored. These facts are not religious texts, they must be prooved and dismantled with reason. Just because y'all say they are doctored dosent mean they are doctored.

Well, there is the reasonable question of when those pictures were taken if they are real. Were they taken minutes after it happend, hours...or days? The amount of visual evidance can change drastically over time.

Here you go conspiracy theorists, quotes from people actually inside the Pentagon and other assorted goodies:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

back to same point, those are pictures taken inside a building (could be anywhere in any building, could be wreckage brought days later, could be anything, really...), and quotes from Pentagon's people (like i'm gonna believe what those guys said !!!!).

i guess it always comes to what you want to believe.

An airliner firing a missile into the WTC seems unrealistic to me, but the Pentagon thing is definitely weird. Wich makes me think about those towers again, and looking at the pictures, it sure raises a hella lot of questions

Thank you Ass for ripping this apart by using proof and logic instead of "it coulnt be" statements. This is what I am trying to say, you need to provide some evidence to your views, you cant just say something and expect it to be true.

I was merely throwing more crap out there for you people to digest, I wasn't trying to make any points or disprove anything.

Another conspiracy theory accusing the US Government of spreading this rumor:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hunthoax.html

Forget JFK, we should all drive around the arizona and nevada desert and find those goddamn aliens.  

Pffft, weather balloon my ass, those were little green men!

ty assassin, this looks good. at least we know that a plane did actually hit the building. a 757, fuck no. damn all you fools if you think that was a 757, the damage is way too small, the hole would not fit the wings, yet there were no wing debris left outside. the comparison of the landing gear is no proof. i'll get my brother to check that one out, he's good with commercial aircraft, all planes have landing gear. so seeing that it was likely to be hit by an aircraft, most likely the small craft that people explained in interviews, but now my question is why the hell are we told that it was a 757? why lie about it? GS, wouldn't the pentagon have that plane shot down in a heartbeat if their airspace was invaded and there was no response from the plane?

I have to say I was much more convinced by Sin's page than by the others. The use of specific qoutes from inside the pentagon coupled with pictures from inside made it seem much more believed. I still can't believe a plane could punch such neat holes, but it is true that the pentagon must be re-inforced everyway possible to a ridiculous degree. As for firing missles into the Towers, what would be the point? You're piloting a massive bomb into them to start with, why send missles?

i was also wondering.  

In my skepticism of the conspiracy theories, I'm not just saying "it couldn't be" and closing my mind. My response is asking questions of those of you who are convinced of foul play that need to be answered if the theory is to believed.

One I've seen no answer for is, if it wasn't the 757 that was said to have hit the pentagon...where did the 757 whose passengers died and are gone, go to. If not the Pentagon it had to go elsewhere...it didn't vanish into thin air.

We've never crashed a 757 into the Pentagon before so it is impossible to say "it couldn't have done this or that." We have no idea how much or little the crash could do.

Q: Where is the jet fuel? Just --
Plaugher: We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So --
Q: Where is that? What ring is that, or corridor --
unfortunately, that last question was chosen not to be answered. i like the way a shit load of extremely flamable aircraft fuel gathers in a neat little puttle around the NOSE of the aircraft, and not a single spark from this explosion touched it.



"Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.
He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said." (Washington Post, 11 septembre 2001)



"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.
I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane." (L. Rains, Space News)


"The crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed Tuesday. The report confirms the eyewitness account of two Hampton Roads residents who were near the Pentagon that day and said they saw a second plane flying near the doomed passenger jet.
A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington 'at an unusual angle,' said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman.
Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane 'to let us know where it's going,' McClellan said. But, he said, there was no attempt to intercept the hijacked airliner. 'A C-130 obviously goes slower than a jet,' McClellan said. 'There was no way he was going to intercept anything.' The C-130 pilot 'followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,' he said. 'He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball.'
In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said. 'It was very hard to get any information out,' McClellan said." ("C-130 crew saw Pentagon strike, official confirms", Terry Scanlon et David Lerman, Daily Press, 17 octobre 2001)



"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target. Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows.
Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.
Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.
At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way. 'That is not the radar data that we have seen', Fleischer said, adding, 'The plane was headed toward the White House.'" (CBS, 21 sept. 2001)



"They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them." (Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine, Friday, Oct. 12, 2001)


"It is easy to imagine an infinite number of situations ... where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out." - Theodore Olson, Procureur G?n?ral, 18 mars 2002. ("This president thinks our ignorance is bliss", Richard Reeves, 22 mars 2002)

I like the way you and everyone else supporting this theory pretend to be experts on the subject, when obviously you are not.  I think part of the reason this is not a widely accepted viewpoint is that the entire case, from what I've seen, is based on speculation.

I'm not just saying "it could'nt be" and closing my mind.  I'm just not saying "it must be" and jumping right on the boat like you.

Read this, and tell me the following:

- how did Rumsfeld know the was going to be another event ?

- something hits the Pentagon, 2 planes did already the WTC, and Rumsfeld gets out of the building to check was going on !!! Dont you think he should have gone in a safe place ASAP ? Would you take a chance ? unless of course you know its over...

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APrecallpentagon.html

gabe, i am no expert, and i don't hesitate to tell you that. what i said there was based on the interview that i had just given you, it's not like i pulled that out of my ass. the fuselage and the wings of the plane are nowhere to be found. these are the two places where the fuel would have been. yet somehow, it survived the crash and ended up by the nose, but no sign of the pieces that contained it. if they had been destroyed, surely the fuel would have caught maybe a spark or two, no?

given the situation, all we can do is speculate. those who disagree with this are also speculating. only a few people know the truth, and those people have all the solid evidence...they confiscated everything that would threaten to reveal truth, all we have are images. if they could take those away, i'm sure they would, because it's easy to see that what we are being told is not what actually happened.

no one, especially not myself, is pretending to be an expert. what i am doing is giving you facts and obvious speculations based on visual evidence. why would you try to insult me for this?

how about it was shot down by the military before reaching Washington. Its a possibility, a crazy plane heading to DC....

i also wonder what the deal with that is bondo, i want to look into that. but it really doesn't make me believe that it wasn a 757, our government is the authority on what goes on in our physical world...i imagine it's quite easy to trick us.

I'm not much of one for conspiracy theories, but if in fact the hijacked 757 did not hit the Pentagon, it was in all probability shot down.  And while we all can all rationalize such an action, I can understand the government attempting to provide some alternate explanation (perhaps even as extreme as a missile fired at its own building) in order to give some comfort to the victims' families.  Can you imagine the public outcry over the US shooting down a passenger plane?  People would find that hard to accept, even if it did save lives.

Possibly, the Pentagon was attacked by a second smaller plane, perhaps a private plane also hijacked, and when the 757 was successfully intercepted, the government tried to paint the smaller plane as the original Boeing.  Maybe they got one but missed the other...

See - a conspiracy theory where the government actually has people's best interests in mind!

I question this theory - why would the government fire a missile into a building holding some of the most important military figures in the country?  A bit risky if you ask me, especially if they were already planning to go to war in Iraq (which I guess is debatable).

EXACTEMUNDO!!!!!

Damnit Loud, if you start having the conspiracies actually reflect positively on the political structure you screw everything up.  ;D Though I think most of us would say that the government has a duty to release information to the public and that the moment they feel we aren't capable of handling the truth, democracy has taken a step back. A well informed public is essential to true democracy. This is apropos to nothing really, just a random wandering of my mind.

Hey btw.

What I was trying to make people do is offer up some type of evidence counter evidence to their claims. That was my real issue, I wasnt debating the legitimacy to the theory.

this a zoom on the pentagone where the boeing hit the building, before it collapsed.

http://www.pentagate.info/article17.html

http://www.pentagate.info/article16.html

Now the boeing had the 2 reactors on its wings. Where are the wings ? Even if they went inside the building, the wingspan of this aircraft is 124 feet !!! Check the entry whole, there is no freanking way its that wide.

Im guessing the official explanation for that would look somthing like this

|quote| ... no comment ... |/quote|

or perhaps...

|quote| the terrorists was extreamly intelligent unlike us so during the journey they sawed the wings of and pulled them into the plane thus making the 747 look more like a missile and cause more damage. we must go invade iran to make sure they never attack us" |quote|

I hope they have something bigger than shoulder fired missiles.  A stinger isn't going to make a 757 tumble out of the air.



Anyway, we're never going to know what happened on 9/11.  It's going to become one of those closed-open mysteries.  Everyone thinks they know what happened -- didn't we watch it on TV all day?  But we really don't know what happened.  In large part this is do to the secrecy surrounding our response to the attacks.  I find it remarkable that we could suppose that an American missile impacted the pentagon. Remarkable, but not improbable. But I've seen no reason to think this is so.

I have always been a skeptic about what happened on the flight that crashed into Penn state.  I know that if I was the decision maker on 9/11 and I knew there was one more hijacked plane in the air and it was headed for D.C. or the nuke reactions in Penn state, I'd order it shot down.

Expect to find new things out fifty years from now.

I heard  the instructors claimed the terrorist didn't want to learn how to land!  But OBVIOUSLY they went to flight school to learn at least how to glide into buildings and die an explosive heinous death.

I think ghostsniper was the second shooter.

Nope, I actually liked JFK....not that I was alive at the time he was assasinated.  Personally, I think Frank Sinatra and the boys in organized crime were responsible for his assasination.[/size]