pentagon missile

[toad]

A plane seems far more logical to me then any kind of missile. I'm not sure if any of you have witnessed any kind of missile impacting a solid target, but the amount of damage it creates is substantial. Far more then a plane would supposedly do. Also lets assume there is a conspiracy, a missile would require far more people to be involved, logistically speaking, then there would be needed to pull this off, it would be far easier to hire some Muslim extremist to pull of this jihad. In my opinion the real conspiracy involving the entirety of 9/11 is; perhaps instead of holograms/missiles/planting explosives, maybe they just paid off some extremist to perpetrate something some of them long to execute, and that is jihad. It would seem far easier, less of a chance of mistakes, and cheaper, to not only allow them into our territory, but to apply them with the necessary resources to pull this off, it wouldn't be hard, and there would be less people involved, and the less people involved the less chance of the secret being leaked. Too many people run away with tiny details and the speculation just fractals off into incredible theories. If you're the US gov't or some rogue entity of malicious individuals, and you want to create a reason to suspend certain civil liberties and give rise to an excuse to go to war, you would want to make sure this goes off without a hitch, and without leaks, using missiles and other things that some purpose, greatly raise the odds of failure and exposure. I think this could've all been done much simpler.

But who knows, maybe the stars aligned and these jihadist actually pulled something off at the right time, in the right conditions, things of this nature certainly do happen. The grandness of this event has cause a vast amount of scrutiny, and speculation as it should, but we all know appearances can be deceiving.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Great post toad. Occams razor in action. The simplest explanations is usually the correct one.

[Eagle]

[QUOTE=EYES WIDE OPEN;361566]

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

airspace against a plane yes, but not a missile(low flying) and as far as the damage on the street goes it to could be cause by a missile.

There is no way you could have read the paper I posted in under 4 mins. Have you already dismissed new ideas before you have read them?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

I can create a paper on how to bake a cake but it dosent mean that can actually bake.

What convinced you it is an unsound paper? What did it get wrong?

Do you know who Kevin Ryan is?

what it got wrong is that even after all these years it is still trying to convince us that it was a plane

Which part of the science is wrong? If you dont want to get into specifics, can you show me what evidence convinced you it was not a plane please.

I do not refute the possibility, i refute the "Official" story, I refute that planes that crashed into the towers caused thier complete collapse, I refute to believe "experts" that contradict hands on experianced people who testified that it was "Pulled", and I refute going to war against a third world country terrorist that had the means to infiltrate and distroy key property in the US to include Tower #7.

[Eagle]

Posted by toad (here)
A plane seems far more logical to me then any kind of missile. I'm not sure if any of you have witnessed any kind of missile impacting a solid target, but the amount of damage it creates is substantial. Far more then a plane would supposedly do. Also lets assume there is a conspiracy, a missile would require far more people to be involved, logistically speaking, then there would be needed to pull this off, it would be far easier to hire some Muslim extremist to pull of this jihad. In my opinion the real conspiracy involving the entirety of 9/11 is; perhaps instead of holograms/missiles/planting explosives, maybe they just paid off some extremist to perpetrate something some of them long to execute, and that is jihad. It would seem far easier, less of a chance of mistakes, and cheaper, to not only allow them into our territory, but to apply them with the necessary resources to pull this off, it wouldn't be hard, and there would be less people involved, and the less people involved the less chance of the secret being leaked. Too many people run away with tiny details and the speculation just fractals off into incredible theories. If you're the US gov't or some rogue entity of malicious individuals, and you want to create a reason to suspend certain civil liberties and give rise to an excuse to go to war, you would want to make sure this goes off without a hitch, and without leaks, using missiles and other things that some purpose, greatly raise the odds of failure and exposure. I think this could've all been done much simpler.

But who knows, maybe the stars aligned and these jihadist actually pulled something off at the right time, in the right conditions, things of this nature certainly do happen. The grandness of this event has cause a vast amount of scrutiny, and speculation as it should, but we all know appearances can be deceiving.

Did you miss the fact that that part of the Pentagon had just been reinforced to prevent such an attack? a plane could not have done that much damage, especially to reinforced walls and windows

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

[QUOTE=Dig;361576]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

airspace against a plane yes, but not a missile(low flying) and as far as the damage on the street goes it to could be cause by a missile.

There is no way you could have read the paper I posted in under 4 mins. Have you already dismissed new ideas before you have read them?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
why is this still an issue? from day one footage you can see it isnt a plane, from the security cameras from across the street(that were confiscated),

First of all, its NOT clear from the footage what hit the pentagon.
I feel the videos that are being withheld are being done so to distract the truth movemnt and keep the redundant debate regarding the Penatgon going for ever which will achieve nothing.
The real question I think is not what hit it, but that it was allowed to hit it. The most secure airspace in America was hit when the whole world already knew that it was under attack.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)


I have seen videos that tried to duplicate the speed and low altitude to do it and the jets would not, could not get low enough to hit the Pentagon. The aerodynamics of the speed and jet would not allow it to happen. The debris field on the lawn alone is enough for any thinking person.

The following link is for those that have an open mind and do not have me on ignore:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...timeter_92.pdf
This paper is on of the 3 or 4 that convinced me that it was not a missile and that a jet could indeed execute the moves required.
Whu will have the guts to challenge themselves to read it?
Remember, the paper came from this site:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Before you all go and call me a defender of the official story - you should check out who co-edits the site.

My only aim is too try and sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11. Conjecture will not bring justice for the families.

I can create a paper on how to bake a cake but it dosent mean that can actually bake.

What convinced you it is an unsound paper? What did it get wrong?

Do you know who Kevin Ryan is?

what it got wrong is that even after all these years it is still trying to convince us that it was a plane

Which part of the science is wrong? If you dont want to get into specifics, can you show me what evidence convinced you it was not a plane please.

I do not refute the possibility, i refute the "Official" story, I refute that planes that crashed into the towers caused thier complete collapse, I refute to believe "experts" that contradict hands on experianced people who testified that it was "Pulled", and I refute going to war against a third world country terrorist that had the means to infiltrate and distroy key property in the US to include Tower #7.

I agree with you 100% I am also pleased to see you are willing to accept the possibility that it was a plane.

[toad]

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by toad (here)
A plane seems far more logical to me then any kind of missile. I'm not sure if any of you have witnessed any kind of missile impacting a solid target, but the amount of damage it creates is substantial. Far more then a plane would supposedly do. Also lets assume there is a conspiracy, a missile would require far more people to be involved, logistically speaking, then there would be needed to pull this off, it would be far easier to hire some Muslim extremist to pull of this jihad. In my opinion the real conspiracy involving the entirety of 9/11 is; perhaps instead of holograms/missiles/planting explosives, maybe they just paid off some extremist to perpetrate something some of them long to execute, and that is jihad. It would seem far easier, less of a chance of mistakes, and cheaper, to not only allow them into our territory, but to apply them with the necessary resources to pull this off, it wouldn't be hard, and there would be less people involved, and the less people involved the less chance of the secret being leaked. Too many people run away with tiny details and the speculation just fractals off into incredible theories. If you're the US gov't or some rogue entity of malicious individuals, and you want to create a reason to suspend certain civil liberties and give rise to an excuse to go to war, you would want to make sure this goes off without a hitch, and without leaks, using missiles and other things that some purpose, greatly raise the odds of failure and exposure. I think this could've all been done much simpler.

But who knows, maybe the stars aligned and these jihadist actually pulled something off at the right time, in the right conditions, things of this nature certainly do happen. The grandness of this event has cause a vast amount of scrutiny, and speculation as it should, but we all know appearances can be deceiving.

Did you miss the fact that that part of the Pentagon had just been reinforced to prevent such an attack? a plane could not have done that much damage, especially to reinforced walls and windows

This is the kind of damage I would come to expect to see when a reinforced building is hit by a massive plane, descending quickly, fully fueled and a low angle, which in essence is a missile. A conventional missile would have done substantial lateral damage, but why would you need a missile? Like I said it could've been done much easier, much cheaper, and with less people involved.

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Great post toad. Occams razor in action. The simplest explanations is usually the correct one.

Thanks. Occams Razor actually stats that; among competing hypothesis the one making the fewest new assumptions is usually the correct one, people often reduce that down to say that something that is simple is usually correct, which is not always the case. Just thought I would throw that out there.

[Eagle]

Posted by toad (here)

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by toad (here)
A plane seems far more logical to me then any kind of missile. I'm not sure if any of you have witnessed any kind of missile impacting a solid target, but the amount of damage it creates is substantial. Far more then a plane would supposedly do. Also lets assume there is a conspiracy, a missile would require far more people to be involved, logistically speaking, then there would be needed to pull this off, it would be far easier to hire some Muslim extremist to pull of this jihad. In my opinion the real conspiracy involving the entirety of 9/11 is; perhaps instead of holograms/missiles/planting explosives, maybe they just paid off some extremist to perpetrate something some of them long to execute, and that is jihad. It would seem far easier, less of a chance of mistakes, and cheaper, to not only allow them into our territory, but to apply them with the necessary resources to pull this off, it wouldn't be hard, and there would be less people involved, and the less people involved the less chance of the secret being leaked. Too many people run away with tiny details and the speculation just fractals off into incredible theories. If you're the US gov't or some rogue entity of malicious individuals, and you want to create a reason to suspend certain civil liberties and give rise to an excuse to go to war, you would want to make sure this goes off without a hitch, and without leaks, using missiles and other things that some purpose, greatly raise the odds of failure and exposure. I think this could've all been done much simpler.

But who knows, maybe the stars aligned and these jihadist actually pulled something off at the right time, in the right conditions, things of this nature certainly do happen. The grandness of this event has cause a vast amount of scrutiny, and speculation as it should, but we all know appearances can be deceiving.

Did you miss the fact that that part of the Pentagon had just been reinforced to prevent such an attack? a plane could not have done that much damage, especially to reinforced walls and windows

This is the kind of damage I would come to expect to see when a reinforced building is hit by a massive plane, descending quickly, fully fueled and a low angle, which in essence is a missile. A conventional missile would have done substantial lateral damage, but why would you need a missile? Like I said it could've been done much easier, much cheaper, and with less people involved.

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Great post toad. Occams razor in action. The simplest explanations is usually the correct one.

Thanks. Occams Razor actually stats that; among competing hypothesis the one making the fewest new assumptions is usually the correct one, people often reduce that down to say that something that is simple is usually correct, which is not always the case. Just thought I would throw that out there.

Believe it or not it would take less people to fire a Missile then you expect. a plane could not penatrate the first ring and into the second unless it was carrying explosives, the fuel is carried in the wings and would not cause a huge gaping hole, the fuel would burn intensely and nobody could be around it for awhile and yet people were everywhere immediately afterword and in suits . I could go on but I will not argue the point further, keeping it simple applies to the theory but not to the Goverment.

[toad]

Posted by Dig (here)
Believe it or not it would take less people to fire a Missile then you expect. a plane could not penatrate the first ring and into the second unless it was carrying explosives, the fuel is carried in the wings and would not cause a huge gaping hole, the fuel would burn intensely and nobody could be around it for awhile and yet people were everywhere immediately afterword and in suits . I could go on but I will not argue the point further, keeping it simple applies to the theory but not to the Goverment.

Perhaps the only reason we see pictures of people in suits there 'immediately afterward' is because the fire was so hot no one was around to take photos until the heat had subsided? Why would the gov't or whoever is pulling these strings want to execute an overly complex scheme when they could accomplish the same thing with less. Launching a missile at the Pentagon would require more people to be involved then say if someone just paid some terrorists to hijack a plane and smash into the Pentagon. The black soot from smoke and flames seems to emanate quite aways away in each direction and seems to have been hot enough to leave quite a bit of residue. Missiles explode and do not normally burn, and to say a plane such as the one that could have very well hit the Pentagon is incapable of creating a huge gaping hole is quite ignorant. Almost as if their is some kind of conclusive evidence to support such a claim. We're making lots of assumptions here, but given the nature of this incident and the evidence we have, assumptions are about all we're left with.

[Eagle]

Posted by toad (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
Believe it or not it would take less people to fire a Missile then you expect. a plane could not penatrate the first ring and into the second unless it was carrying explosives, the fuel is carried in the wings and would not cause a huge gaping hole, the fuel would burn intensely and nobody could be around it for awhile and yet people were everywhere immediately afterword and in suits . I could go on but I will not argue the point further, keeping it simple applies to the theory but not to the Goverment.

Perhaps the only reason we see pictures of people in suits there 'immediately afterward' is because the fire was so hot no one was around to take photos until the heat had subsided? Why would the gov't or whoever is pulling these strings want to execute an overly complex scheme when they could accomplish the same thing with less. Launching a missile at the Pentagon would require more people to be involved then say if someone just paid some terrorists to hijack a plane and smash into the Pentagon. The black soot from smoke and flames seems to emanate quite aways away in each direction and seems to have been hot enough to leave quite a bit of residue. Missiles explode and do not normally burn, and to say a plane such as the one that could have very well hit the Pentagon is incapable of creating a huge gaping hole is quite ignorant. Almost as if their is some kind of conclusive evidence to support such a claim. We're making lots of assumptions here, but given the nature of this incident and the evidence we have, assumptions are about all we're left with.

“Ignorance” as you would like to mention, is believing in what the media has told you, not accepting inconsistencies in the story, and we still having this discussion.

[modwiz]

Reading this thread only reinforces the concept of the Earth vibrating into two different dimensions for me. There truly does seem to be two very distinct kinds of humans. Each has quite a few variables, but I can see a bifurcation area. The demonstration of people who can look at the damage at the Pentagon and see two very different scenes is just stunning to me.

[toad]

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by toad (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
Believe it or not it would take less people to fire a Missile then you expect. a plane could not penatrate the first ring and into the second unless it was carrying explosives, the fuel is carried in the wings and would not cause a huge gaping hole, the fuel would burn intensely and nobody could be around it for awhile and yet people were everywhere immediately afterword and in suits . I could go on but I will not argue the point further, keeping it simple applies to the theory but not to the Goverment.

Perhaps the only reason we see pictures of people in suits there 'immediately afterward' is because the fire was so hot no one was around to take photos until the heat had subsided? Why would the gov't or whoever is pulling these strings want to execute an overly complex scheme when they could accomplish the same thing with less. Launching a missile at the Pentagon would require more people to be involved then say if someone just paid some terrorists to hijack a plane and smash into the Pentagon. The black soot from smoke and flames seems to emanate quite aways away in each direction and seems to have been hot enough to leave quite a bit of residue. Missiles explode and do not normally burn, and to say a plane such as the one that could have very well hit the Pentagon is incapable of creating a huge gaping hole is quite ignorant. Almost as if their is some kind of conclusive evidence to support such a claim. We're making lots of assumptions here, but given the nature of this incident and the evidence we have, assumptions are about all we're left with.

“Ignorance” as you would like to mention, is believing in what the media has told you, not accepting inconsistencies in the story, and we still having this discussion.

I never said I didn't accept inconsistencies in the story, there are holes in just about every story. The events of this day were massive, and impacted us all deeply. I would expect such inconsistencies. I've never said anything about the media, but just cause they are the media doesn't mean they lie all day about everything. I'm highly skeptical in nature, I could careless what the media is telling me, I make judgments based on the things I see and the evidence I have in front of me. I used to believe this very same missile theory along time ago, but over time and after countless hours debating theories of all shapes and sizes, I just don't see it anymore, it makes lil sense, and the evidence. what lil of it there is, suggests otherwise to me.

Posted by modwiz (here)
Reading this thread only reinforces the concept of the Earth vibrating into two different dimensions for me. There truly does seem to be two very distinct kinds of humans. Each has quite a few variables, but I can see a bifurcation area. The demonstration of people who can look at the damage at the Pentagon and see two very different scenes is just stunning to me.

We are all very different, past experiences, the knowledge we attain threw out life all plays into the objective nature of humanity. This very subject, affected us all in so many ways, it is no surprise many of us feel very deeply about certain things regarding it.

[modwiz]

Posted by toad (here)

Posted by Dig (here)

Posted by toad (here)

Posted by Dig (here)
Believe it or not it would take less people to fire a Missile then you expect. a plane could not penatrate the first ring and into the second unless it was carrying explosives, the fuel is carried in the wings and would not cause a huge gaping hole, the fuel would burn intensely and nobody could be around it for awhile and yet people were everywhere immediately afterword and in suits . I could go on but I will not argue the point further, keeping it simple applies to the theory but not to the Goverment.

Perhaps the only reason we see pictures of people in suits there 'immediately afterward' is because the fire was so hot no one was around to take photos until the heat had subsided? Why would the gov't or whoever is pulling these strings want to execute an overly complex scheme when they could accomplish the same thing with less. Launching a missile at the Pentagon would require more people to be involved then say if someone just paid some terrorists to hijack a plane and smash into the Pentagon. The black soot from smoke and flames seems to emanate quite aways away in each direction and seems to have been hot enough to leave quite a bit of residue. Missiles explode and do not normally burn, and to say a plane such as the one that could have very well hit the Pentagon is incapable of creating a huge gaping hole is quite ignorant. Almost as if their is some kind of conclusive evidence to support such a claim. We're making lots of assumptions here, but given the nature of this incident and the evidence we have, assumptions are about all we're left with.

“Ignorance” as you would like to mention, is believing in what the media has told you, not accepting inconsistencies in the story, and we still having this discussion.

I never said I didn't accept inconsistencies in the story, there are holes in just about every story. The events of this day were massive, and impacted us all deeply. I would expect such inconsistencies. I've never said anything about the media, but just cause they are the media doesn't mean they lie all day about everything. I'm highly skeptical in nature, I could careless what the media is telling me, I make judgments based on the things I see and the evidence I have in front of me. I used to believe this very same missile theory along time ago, but over time and after countless hours debating theories of all shapes and sizes, I just don't see it anymore, it makes lil sense, and the evidence. what lil of it there is, suggests otherwise to me.

Posted by modwiz (here)
Reading this thread only reinforces the concept of the Earth vibrating into two different dimensions for me. There truly does seem to be two very distinct kinds of humans. Each has quite a few variables, but I can see a bifurcation area. The demonstration of people who can look at the damage at the Pentagon and see two very different scenes is just stunning to me.

We are all very different, past experiences, the knowledge we attain threw out life all plays into the objective nature of humanity. This very subject, affected us all in so many ways, it is no surprise many of us feel very deeply about certain things regarding it.

Oh yes they do.

Today, the 48th anniversary of the criminal killing of our 35th president and there still is not a single newperson in a 24 hour constant news cycle that will doubt the official single shooter, Warren report official version of the assassination and someone wants to think that the media does not lie all day, every day. It's their freakin' job and they would lose it if they didn't.

Caution: Rectal yoga being practiced by some posters.

[Kindred]

Posted by dark skies (here)
this might seem strange but bear with me on this


the hole in the pentagon wasnt big enough for it to have been a plane so must have been a missile right.
r

I'll simply provide this video to answer your question...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZxLf6mTg-io

[DouglasDanger]

Let me add a what if..
what if the thing that hit the pentagon did not do what it was suposed to...
from what video i have seen it was not a normal missle, to large, it was not a 747/727 plane, to small,
what is nearly the size of a small plane yet designed to destroy entire cities, and could have malfunctioned because of miscalculated debree in its path that would affect its function?( aka hitting light poles)....

IMHO the pentagon and the area around it was suposed to be gone, why else would cheney head to a nuklear bunker as rumors tell he did...

P.s. Take this last bit with a grain of salt.. four went missing from the kursk.... there is still one missing and I believe it will be the catalyst for WW3 to officially start by claiming it came from Iran and it is written that it will be blown out of the sky by isreal's newly implemented missle defence system..

[Eagle]

Posted by DouglasDanger (here)
Let me add a what if..
what if the thing that hit the pentagon did not do what it was suposed to...
from what video i have seen it was not a normal missle, to large, it was not a 747/727 plane, to small,
what is nearly the size of a small plane yet designed to destroy entire cities, and could have malfunctioned because of miscalculated debree in its path that would affect its function?( aka hitting light poles)....

IMHO the pentagon and the area around it was suposed to be gone, why else would cheney head to a nuklear bunker as rumors tell he did...

P.s. Take this last bit with a grain of salt.. four went missing from the kursk.... there is still one missing and I believe it will be the catalyst for WW3 to officially start by claiming it came from Iran and it is written that it will be blown out of the sky by isreal's newly implemented missle defence system..

I would agree with your observation, not as big as a 747 but much bigger than a Criuse Missile. I do not know what it is but it was packed with explosives, and if it had malfunctioned, be very greatful.

[WhiteFeather]

Granite Bunker Missile, I say no more. Lets view the surveillance cameras, Ohh that's right there wasn't any cameras around the nerve center of The USA. Only One. And it didnt show a plane, not even close to a plane. If i may interject further, everything was a lie. WTC 7 Is The Gem Of It All. And the fact that jet fuel isn't close to being hot enough to melt steel. The explosions give it away, this is the clue. The explosions.

If you must know the truth of 911, i present it here peeps. *****5 Stars Easy*****

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OsRFGn_9Vw0

[Guaxini]

hi everybody, i'm new around here

anyone seen this video? https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ld7fn...D065388E9E238B
or this one? https://youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

its clear for me that something went wrong that day and is much more clear to me that US government (mom and dad) don't have major discussions in front of their kids (all the people in america).

sorry if i hurt someone, not my intention..just making a point.

[Guaxini]

no it wasn't a lie, it happened xD china back then had major investments in banks based in the twin towers, and the euro was gettin to big i mean BIGGER then the dollar or other currency to keep up..what im trying to say is that someone crash the world economy and it all happen in the USA. OOOUH and of course blame the middle east the muslins lol serious? for what? oil?! sorry, sorry to bring peace and democracy sorry.. LOL face it you can't handle it.. the european crusades had their end long time ago, but after many centuries they are back. USA crusade in the XXI century A.C .


PS- GOD BLESS AMERICA..

[Precog]

The answer really is quite simple. There were a number of cameras that covered that area which record 24/7. If the video footage were to have a plane hitting the Pentagon it would not have been destroyed because it would support the story we were told. That would have kept most people from ever questioning 9/11. No plane could have made it through that much concrete.

[mosquito]

I like to think of myself as an open, questioning person, so I'm prepared to examine the evidence once again and look at the links Eyes wide open has provided.

What I see is in no way conclusive - debris which could come from a 757, debris which could come from a 767......

For me, there are several things which stand out :

Where is the tailplane ? I'd appreciate hearing from an experienced air crash investigator as to the likelihood of the vapourisation of the entire fuselage following a forward impact.

The neatly burned hole and the depth of penetration of the "plane". Now I don't know for sure, but I very much doubt that Boeing fit their planes with high-explosive armour peircing warheads, the nose cone (to my knowledge) is filled with avionic equipment. These planes aren't designed to destroy buildings, they're designed to fly passengers in comfort (ha bloody ha) and safety. I'd like to hear from an aeronautical engineer.

The flight recorders didn't show anything useful ?????? F*ck off, pleeeeeease !!!!

The real clincher for me is the impounding of the evidence. How difficult would it be for the FBI to release a few more seconds video footage to prove the point ? Not very.