Have a look at this and tell me it wasn't a plane that hit

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Finally, some common sense. Thanks for the link. It is excellent.

Interesting site!

For me it can go either way. There's lots of evidence For the 757 hitting. And some showing that it could have been a missile! All depends on what site you look at!

This is nothing new. This is just the same bs that the conspiracy theorists put out, with a few words changed around. Ive seen the same photos 10 times, with 10 different things highlighted, showing how it can, and cannot have been a plane.

Same place but a more permanent link
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html

Bush put all that stuff there....he had Cheney help him haul it up there in the back of his pickemup truck.

i think tont blair sent some by post as well

I must be out of touch.

Who's saying that it wasn't an airplane that slammed into the Pentagon...in the face of all those who saw one do just that???

It wasn't a place that hit

thanks

I aim to please

Sorry to sound daft but the wings fell of before it hit the building? I am trying to visualize this.

Now...I'm not doubting a 757 hit the pentagon, but what I really want to know is how did the nose of this aircraft punch such a large hole...but the engines which each weight 10 times as much as the cabin not make a scratch...anywhere...I'm sure there is a scientific and very reasonable answer to this...Just waiting to hear it.

Boeing 757 weight statistics:

Weight (Empty): 127,800 lbs
Weight (Loaded): 255,000 lbs

We are talking about a jet airplane, fully loaded...approximately 250,000 lbs. slamming into a building at approximately 500 mph.

That should be explanation enough.

the most damning evidence concerning the pentagon is not WHAT hit the pentagon but "WHY"-- after the second plane hit the wtc all doubt was removed of whether or not it was anaccident or terrorist attack yet with an airforce base 10 minutes away the nations heart of defense cannot defend itself "38 MINUTES" after it had been confirmed an unkown number of planes had been hijacked

Sorry, double post

I had two friends who saw the airplane that flew into the Pentagon. One was in an office building across the river from the Pentagon. The other was on the freeway that passed by the building. I talked to them several years apart, but their story remained the same. A mid-sized twin engine airliner with two under wing engines. Coming into the building fast.

Some facts should be noted. This side of the Pentagon had just been reenforced to prevent damage from a truck bomb. So when the plane hit, the strenthened outer walls pealed back the wings against the sides of the plane. And the 500 mph momentum sucked the wings and the rest of the airliner into the hole punch by the foreword part of the plane. The same thing happened in 1945, when an B-25 Mitchell bomber got lost in fog and crashed into the Empire State Building. The impact hole in the side of the ESB was basicly round. With one engine going straight through the building and out the other side. While the other engine went down an elevator shaft.

removed accidental double post

there is another interesting clue revealed by the flight paths of the hijacked airplanes-- although it is not apparent until you overlay the paths with a map of airports or airforce bases--
*******************************************************************
There is a network of military bases and airports on the East Coast laid out in triangles with a side of roughly 100 miles

compare it to the flight paths and you notice an interesting anamoly

link

What would you have had them do general? Shoot down every jet flying into Washington?

It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to understand what happened? You want to make everything into this huge whacko conspiracy. It is silly Sunofone.

Terrorists trained for months to fly jets. Then they put into action a plan which succeeded quite well. It wasn't 100 percent but it worked well. They slit the throats of innocent airline attendants, slit the throats of pilots and copilots and slammed 2 jets full of scared innocent people who just wanted to get to their destinations into SkyScrapers full of innocent people. Then they slammed one into the Pentagon. And they would have slammed one into the White House had it not been for the brave people on that particular jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.

You really do sullen the memories of all those victims with your outrageous conspiracy theories. But go right ahead. Sometimes we all need a little humor.

please give me a link to your proof of people having their throats slit-- with all the available evidence it is you that sullens the memories of the victims by allowing their murderers lies to go unchallenged--

Here you go:

DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Terrorists slit throats
of 2 AA stewardesses
Flight attendants 'were trying to stop them
from getting inside the cockpit'

Posted: September 11, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Paul Sperry
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Terrorists who hijacked
American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston
on Tuesday morning slit the throats of two
female flight attendants who tried to bar
them from entering the cockpit,
an American Airlines employee told
WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview.
The terrorists then forced their way into
the locked cockpit and
commandeered the Boeing 767 to New York, where they slammed it into one
of the World Trade Center towers.
The flight, carrying 81 passengers, was bound for Los Angeles.
A third stewardess aboard
the nine-crew flight – Madeline Amy Sweeney – used her cellphone,
or possibly the plane phone, to alert
Michael Woodward, her superviser back at
Logan International Airport, about the hijacking
and murders.
The terrorists were armed with razor-tipped knives that looked like box cutters, she relayed.

Source

so your "reason" for NOT accepting the witness testimony of multiple firefighters concerning "secondary devices or detonators" lies in the article put forth by world net daily? your only reason for ignoring the video evidence of bldg 7 imploding in on itself and denying the lunacy of the pentagon being struck 38 minutes after it was known terrorists had hijacked an unkown number of planes-- now other than taking their word for it what kind of cooberating evidence did you take into account in making this rationalization

Under the same "theory"...why can you see where the engines impacted the WTC? Again I do not doubt that a 757 hit the pentagon...I was in arlington nat'l cemetery when it happened and I saw the plane....I just want to know why the engines didn't make holes...

Removed for jumping the gun.

I was gonna pull up the 'Speaker of The House' for saying he didn't doubt the 757, when I remembered him posting he had seen the plane a month ago. Doh!!

Edit: When you say you saw the plane, given Arlington National cemetery's proximity to the Pentagon, it must have been pretty low, right? Must have been travelling pretty fast, right? How can you say with certainty that it was a commerical 757 jet? Just asking.

Here ya go again, this is from Snopes:
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards
long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards
high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the
hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that
it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy
that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the
building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the
plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and
second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building
between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles.
It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per
hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three
rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward
rom the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the
building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers
to evacuate all injured employees.

Source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The are called...eye-witnesses...that means they saw what happened. Plus flight 77 with 60 passengers never returned. 2+2=4...except in the whacko conspiracy world where it equals....13.

This is one I think I have an answer for. You cant shoot down a plane over a populated area like 395 rush hour traffic, Arlington, shirlington, or any of the other cities the plane crossed. The fire burned for days in that area (thick black smoke for days) and this was on a building made to take some punishment. if it went down in sone of the residential areas entire blocks would have been destroyed with loss of life to the general public. The pentagon was atleast a military target that faired far better against the plane.


I wonder why though the videos that were confiscated from the hotel, gas station and who knows where else never surfaced. especially if they show a plane.

And why did they think that a plane would be heading for the pentagon anyway? The terrorists had turned off the transponders so no one even knew for sure where they were or if they were hijacked.

Yes it was low...yes it was going fast...I live right across the river from Ronald Regean Int Airport...I'd say I know what a Plane looks like.

I forgot to comment on robbo1331's original post, but I wanted to say: The fact that the thread he links to, is still active since 2004, and is 144 pages long, shows that it is far from accepted that the Pentagon official story is true. It may well have been a plane that hit, but what we have been told about the incident is without a doubt, not the whole truth.
This is inconsistent with the five stills released, as well as the initial images of the damage to the Pentagon. There was no damage to the ground in front of the building and the lawn was pristine.

That the flightpath of Flight 77 was extremely unusual and the final turns so complex, that the (amateur) pilot went out of his way to hit the only part of the building that had been recently reinforced and was mostly empty due to the renovations, suggests an inside job if you ask me. No other explanation for that. Also not possible given Hanjour's capability.

Norman Mineta's testimony before the commission is interesting. He talks about a young man who kept informing Cheney of the planes distance to the Pentagon, ie 'the plane is 30 miles out..... then plan is 20 miles out' etc. At 10 miles the man asked Cheney if 'the orders still stand'. I have heard an interview with someone else who said he reacted angrily by saying 'Of course the orders stand....'. Mineta concludes that the orders must have been to shoot down the plane. If this is the case, why was the man questioning the orders? So either the plane was shot down (at the last possible moment - would explain the refusal to release CCTV footage) and the man was showing inexperience by questioning the orders or it was allowed to hit the Pentagon, and the man was confused, so questioned the orders for this reason.

Planes are still tracked by radar even with the transponder off. You just get less info.

Check this site out. You should be convinced the 'official' story was a lie.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html

I find it so strange that certain 9/11 sceptics could possibly put so much effort into researching the events, and come back with nonsense. There is so much that defies laws of physics, laws of nature, logic, common sense, probabilty, among other things.

I find it strange that you believe such drivel! The core? The core is rivetted. Do you have any idea how much weight there is on just one floor of a skyscraper? I don't..but reason suggests it is massive. Multiply that weight times 10. The first impact and ensuing fire of unmeasurable heat left the upper floors without sufficient support. Once that part of the building collapsed...every floor above came down with terrific force to occupy that space. But it just kept on going...and going...and going.

Have you even stopped to contemplate how a demolition crew could wire the tallest buildings in NYC to come straight down like that...without anyone noticing? Without anyone talking? Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having said, 'Three men can keep a secret...if two of them are dead'.

And you people want us to believe that GWB is a 'genius' for setting all this up...and a dolt and complete bumbling fool....all at the same time. This is getting so ridiculous. And you people are just more and more laughable as one pathetic effort after another to frame the government for this gets loonier and loonier.

I know it was a bowing, but Why do people belive were the only intelegent life in the unviverse? i mean theres millions of millionf of light years of space, and we have only been around two millions years, what if some thing had our intelegence, and resorces, but had been around for a billion years!

or a Gazillion years!!!!

OK. One question. What possible motivation could anyone have for wanting to frame the Government??!! What is the point of that?!

We keep going over the same arguments again, and again, and unless your brain is like a sieve, I see no reason for your memory loss and persistance, unless you have a vested interest in defending the 'official' story. Either that or you're a crank!

For the sake of argument I will explain some of these things to you again.

How can the buildings collapse in a pancake fashion as you describe, at approximately 10.something seconds? This is near the speed of objects in freefall, subject to gravity. It cannot happen. Each floor would slow the descent! OK? Got that? Good. Now for that matter why do the floors instantly turn to dust? From the top down? I just watched the collapse again, and I swear, those responsible are just taking the pi$$ and laughing at what they pulled off.

The fact that one of the towers falls at an angle, above the point of impact, means there could not possibly be the weight to cause the rest of the building below to crumble.

The fire wouldn't have been immeasurable. It would have been somewhere between hot and the maximum temperature jet-fuel can burn. Which is below the temperature necessary to melt steel, incidently. (Don't tell me it weakened the steel, because the buildings could not have fallen straight down, if that was the case, and the core would remain standing to quite a height).

A demolition crew could have easily wired the core with explosives during the times the building was evacuated and during the power-downs. Mr Marvin Bush was also running security of the buildings, let's not forget. Don't forget the dodgy goings-on on the stock market just prior to the attacks, and WTC landlord Larry Silverstein re-insuring the buildings for $3.5 billion, to include cover against terrorist attacks, just months before the 9/11!! Then he claims twice, for 2 separate attacks!!! $7.2bn. Lucky guy.

You call us Conspiracy Theorists, I take it you are a Coincidence Theorist?

Because Benjamin Franklin said something, that makes it a Universal Truth, right? Oh and I have said before, Bush just reads what's on the page or what's on the screen, so no-one is bestowing any title of genius on him.

Instead of using words like 'laughable', and 'pathetic' as a way of making others look silly, maybe you would like to point to any assertions made, that you would place these labels on?

See here and never darken my doorway again with your nonsense.

Actually, that reminds me have you seen any of these videos? Myself and others have directed you to them many times.

You honestly believe that would be enough time to wire the entire building? And that nobody would notice all of these explosives around or the all the drywall removed to expose the structural components that the explosives would have to be attached to?
Good page on this here
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

If you can call being on the board of a company doing security running security. He also had left the company in 2000.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html


Now this one is funny. I say funny because it appears you think he can take that money and spend it any way he pleases. If you look at everything, it really doesn't look like Silverstein will make much if anything from the insurance.
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
It appears he will get less than 5 billion but it is supposed to be used to rebuild. It is estimated that it will cost 8 billion to rebuild. Negative 3 billion doesn't sound like such a great deal to me. And at the same time he owes 120 million a year in rent. He also tried to buy less insurance at first. Only 1.5 billion but his lenders objected and a 5 billion figure was discussed which led to the ultimate 3.5 billion in coverage. Hardly seems like he was out to make a profit destroying the buildings when he tried to buy as little insurance as possible and had to be talked up from a lower amount.
And why should a policy covering terrorism be unusual? There had already been an attack on the towers in 1993.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

nice dude.

i wish i had the attention span to do stuff like that. anyways, yea, ill believe you.

Lol thanks ^^

So you believe there were explosives in there? Then why would they use the planes initially, why not just set the explosives off?

I dno, you got me there mate.

Well, let's just think for a second..... If explosives were used as the main method of attack, culpability would fall a lot more on the side of those responsible for the security of US citizens. They would be blamed a lot more heavily, than for a 'surprise' attack, that 'no-one could have imagined'. This kind of attack makes everyone feel vunerable, makes everyone feel we are not safe anywhere and we need protecting.....

I was going to say Theatrics...