Does anyone have a good 'No Plane Hit the Pentagon' debunker link?

[WilliamPitt]

Not trying to start an argument. A friend wants the other side of the debate. Thanks in advance.

[jackstraw45]

1. Just ask..where are the people from Flight 77?

I'm sure their relatives would like to know.

I haven't found ANYONE on the conspiracy side who can answer that question.

[Veggie Meathead]

4. Have any of these relatives seen the remains of their loved ones

as normally happens in plane crashes? Or has the black box from Flight 77 been recovered that could shed some light on how and why this plane was allowed to enter airspace that is heavily guarded at all times?

[RivetJoint]

10. Is it really?

and before 9-11, the Pentagon airspace was heavily guarded by what?

[Mandate My Ass]

22. Of course it's guarded....from unansweredquestions.org

John Judge has visited the Pentagon numerous times and was informed by security of the various ways the Pentagon protects itself from threats from the air.

And I was taken, by the head of security at the Pentagon, into the Pentagon building. I was walked through the area where the Joint Chief's have lunch and I was taken out to the grounds in the parade area where we were going to be. And he said, "You can't come up any further than this wall." Well the wall was at the end of an area that doesn't come up to the steps. And I said there had been a Supreme Court decision in the 1970's that demonstrations could come all the way up to the steps. And he said, "You can't do that now because we are on delta alert." And I said, "What's that?" And he said, "It's our highest form of alert." And I said, "Why are you on alert?" And he said, "We're getting bomb threats every day from the Muslims." And he said, "And we have this constant alert and you can't come any closer for security reasons." And then he pointed up at the top of the building and he said, "We have radar up there watching to see if any planes are coming into the building." And he said, "We have photographic equipment and look at the skies with the videos and we're going to be taping your demonstration." And I said, "That's nice, can we get a copy?" This was the late 1990's. Did they go back to sleep? They have the equipment to know something's coming.


In addition to that, my parents used to take me to lunch during the day in the center area of the Pentagon in the courtyard in the middle. And I remember asking my father when I was young what certain things were there. And there were surface to air missile batteries in that area that defend the building. It's also the case after the Piper Cub that flew into the Whitehouse hit that a surface to air missile battery was built on the Whitehouse lawn in order to protect that building.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/transcript.shtml#john

[kiahzero]

55. Or maybe they lied about the security measures (n/t)

[I_Hug_Trees]

62. All I know

is that I don't trust this administration. I would not put anything past them. Look what they are doing to Kerry.

[TomNickell]

72. You still haven't answered the question.

Where are the people on the plane? Where is the plane?

There were no bodies, because they burned up.

Why is this hard?

[RH]

84. The Flight 77 black box was recovered

The autopsy positively identified the remains of 58 of the passengers.

Airliners from National Airport fly over the Pentagon every day of the week.

[Spider Jerusalem]

115. "seen the remains"? You can't possibly be serious.

A passenger jet striking a massive structure of heavy reinforced concrete and going through not one but two (or was it three) ten-foot thick walls doesn't leave much in the way of identifiable human remains. Especially not after the fuel goes up. Any remains wouldn't be shown to the families of those who died...."Excuse me, Mrs Smith. We want you to look at this charred bit of meat and bone. Does this look like your husband?"

[RH]

126. Steady on, lest you start

another myth, one about a Mr Smith alleged (by an official disinformation agent) to be aboard Flight 77 albeit that no Mr. Smith appears in any database anywhere.

:scared:

[hang a left]

6. I don't know why people think this is a solid argument.

Because I think it is pretty weak. I can think of lots of ways to eliminate people. Just because there isn't anyone who knows definatively what they did with those people and their bodies is not proof that a plane is what struck the pentagon.

[DrWeird]

25. So let me get this straight.

The government hijacked the plane. "Eliminated" the passengers and crew. Hid the plane somewhere. Blew up the Pentagon with explosives. And then made up a story about a hijacked plane ramming the Pentagon.

Is that the theory?

[hang a left]

32. Well it wouldn't be the first time the "government" was cooking up schemes

If you haven't seen and read the Operation Northwoods planning document you should. Here it is:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.p...

Here's a bit that might expand your imagination:

>>
a. An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area.

At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.

The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being (sic) transmitting on the inter-national distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.

The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.<<

[RH]

144. That's the trouble.

...the expansion of imagination.

Too bad that the facts don't fit.

:eyes:

[Mr Blond]

43. Yes, that's the story...

...AND they just happened to do it on the same day of the attacks on the Twin Towers that WERE televised to the entire world.

LOL!!!

[John BigBootay]

47. No. The REAL theory involves teleportation. n/t

[Nordic]

50. yes, and it's just plain silly

but a result, I suppose, of the distrust toward our lying government

[milkyway]

8. To disprove the government version of 9/11, it is not necessary to give a

complete version of what actually did happen on that day. I'm skeptical about this claim as you are, but it is not incumbent on those that are trying to show that the government's version is deliberately inaccurate to provide an entire new set of events. If they can provide hard evidence that the Pentagon could not have been hit by the jet the government says it did, their case does not fall apart simply because they do not provide an alternative explanation. (Of course, we could then speculate the government must have destroyed the jet with the passengers aboard by shooting it down or crashing it into the Atlantic. This is getting too far "out there" for even me).

[RH]

85. The event was witnessed

by people with nothing at all to do with the governemnt.

Not one of those there to see for themselves has since been known to have the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[philb]

147. That there was complicity by officials at Pentagon has been documented

by testimony to the 9/11 Commission and other evidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

[OneBlueSky]

well, that's not quite true . . .

there have been several theories about what happened to the passengers . . . one of them is included in the article "Flight of the Bumble Planes" . . .

http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

now, I don't know if this is what happened . . . but I do know that there's no way a 757 hit the Pentagon . . . the hole in the wall was way too small . . .

[LoZoccolo]

18. OK then that goes back to the question...

...if they were going to kill all these people anyways, then why didn't they just fly flight 77 into the Pentagon?

(Probably because this flight 93 theory was thought up as a response to a criticism of a flight 77 theory, to solve a specific problem with that, and therefore misses the complete big picture.)

[hang a left]

24. Because maybe, just maybe

they didn't want the immense damage that would have been done to the pentagon had a 757 loaded with jet fuel actually hit it.

[Djinn]

58. according to a pilot friend of mine it was

a bloody hard target to hit - given it's size and the spped of the aircraft. Not saying I don't beleive it happened - I've suspended all theories on everything that happened that day - all I know is that we'll probably never know what exactly happened and at who's bidding.

[RH]

86. That's not a problem,

because there is nothing to prove that anybody intended to hit the Pentagon anyway.

[GR]

11. See The New Pearl Harbor...

They were never on the plane....the boarding gate was changed at the last minute...

Only one person supposedly called from that plane, the right wing nut case blonde married to the Solictor General...Barbara Olsen...

Where are their bodies? No body parts in the crash...

I'm not saying it's conclusive but it should be investigated, not covered up as it has been.

[RivetJoint]

21. So where are the people?

[hang a left]

23. It has been addressed, look up the thread.

Show me one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon on 9-11.

[RivetJoint]

28. You do realize

that hundreds of planes into and out of National Airport pass within a few hundred yards of the Pentagon every single day, right? They did so on the morning BEFORE the plane "crashes" happened as well. Just because no one was taking pictures of them, that doesn't mena they were not there.

[hang a left]

34. You do realize....

that every video of this unsubstantiated event has been confiscated and has NEVER been released.

[RivetJoint]

40. Every?

You mean every KNOWN video, don't you? ANd what about people who SAW the plane crash into the Pentagon, have they all been "disappeared?"

[hang a left]

54. What about the people that made statements that is did not sound

like a plane is made a swish souund and appeared to be a missle. There are quite a few of those out there and interviewed at the scene.

[RH]

94. Ask them.

Whatever it sounded like you wont find one of them who does not believe that Flight 77 hit the building.

[TrogL]

140. Have you ever heard a missile?

Not on TV, live. I doubt it.

How close have you been to a landing jet aircraft?

I used to play a game with my kids. We would park at the end of a runway where the view of the approaching aircraft was blocked by a shopping mall. I'd listen for the approaching aircraft on the scanner so I knew when it was coming over. The kids never heard a thing. Then I'd point up at the huge aircraft so close you could almost touch it and they'd scream.

On another thread there's an animation claiming an aircraft flying over a road would blow the cars off. We didn't feel a thing.

[MrSandman]

143. Too many Firefox reruns...nt

[hang a left]

56. There are very few quotes, I will say again from eyewitness that

actually observed this 757 hit the pentagon. There are equally the same eyewitness reposts that state that they thought it looked and sounded like a missle. Look I am willing to keep an open mind here. But there are too many conflicting statements that were made immediately after the crash and have since been doctored.

[RH]

87. There were hundreds of quotes.

Dozens of people saw the actual impact.
Hundreds saw it fly in.

No witness said they saw a missile.

:puke:

Which statement was doctored?

Please substantiate.

[Satchel]

124. Who knows?

Well, certainly someone does....I think they are in the White House.
A plane could disappear into the ocean fairly easily.

[TA]

2. Hi Will, Thy this

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

[BootinUp]

9. How ridiculous

:eyes:

The phenomenom they should be talking about is why people always see a conspiracy for no good reason.

[GR]

13. Read The New Pearl Harbor And See If Your Views Change...

He only asks that you read it with a 30% open mind. It's devastating...

[BootinUp]

31. No thanks

My nose already detected this is nonsense. But if some choose to believe a conspiracy its no big deal to me.

[Djinn]

59. and Harvey Oswald killed kennedy

like I said I havn't subscribed to LIHOP or MIHOP or anything else I just wont rule anything out - how you can claim this is definetly "conspiracy" is strange, given the amount of historical "tinfoil" theories have turned out to be fact.

[H2O Man]

64. That's actually a comparison

that supports the plane hitting the Pentagon. The crowd in Dealey Plaza heard -- and in several cases saw -- things on the grassy knoll and at the picket fence that remain one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that at very least some of the shots came from there. The Warren Commission's "theory" requires that one ignores all of these witnesses.

There was a group of people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Those who insist that this did not happen have theories which require that one ignores all of these witnesses.

It is not inconsistent to believe both groups of witnesses.

[Djinn]

65. if some witness' say

a plane did hit and some say it didn't (btw I have no idea on all this - I don't trust govt's anyway so whether the events of 9/11 happened as per official story or not makes zero difference to me) then how is it not inconsistent to beleive both?

[H2O Man]

69. well, that's an easy one......

if there is a car crash on a city street, the police always speak to those who saw the accident. They are the witnesses. The people who didn't see the crash are - by definition - not witnesses. They can be described as "by-standers," etc .... but not witnesses.

Plenty of people saw the plane hit. All of the news medias that covered the Pentagon found numerous witnesses. I watched the tv the whole day .... MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc .... there were witnesses who saw it, and by-standers who did not. But there was no one who claimed that there was anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Again, all the conspiracy "theories" require that you believe the plane in question, along with the passengers, simply disappeared.
That is another example of their "theory" requiring one to suspend critical thinking.

[Djinn]

79. going on what I've read here

and in other threads there are witness who said they saw something hit the building but NOT a plane - they are not "not witnesses"

As for "requiring one to suspend critical thinking." I view the belief that a minimally trained (or even highly trained) person was able to hit a tiny low lying target with a passenger plane at high speeds also requires some suspension.

I don't know it just seems there are questions with teh official story - not saying the plane didn't hit just that I'm not believing anything or anyone at the moment

[RH]

89. Name one.

Which witness said they saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

83. You're kidding right?

Witness's ONLY say they saw a plane? One of the first LIVE interviews was a man saying it looked like a missle with wings. Also, as for the WTC. There were plenty of people reporting explosions and stating it was NOT Ameican Airlines, people who were actually there in New York. Hell. a Fox News reporter who said he saw the plane hit the tower said it was not a commercial airliner. As for the question, where are the people. Do you happen to have a flight list for those particular flight on that particular morning? How do you know for fact anyone got on any of those flights?

[RH]

90. That's crap.

Mike Walter spoke figuratively of a missile with wings.

Mike Walter has no doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

We know for a fact that people got on the flight because they were seen to do so. Tickets to fly were sold. Flight 77 was a regular flight. It flew from Washington Dulles every day of the week.

[RH]

88. The question does not apply.

No witness ever said that a plane did not hit.

[BootinUp]

102. I can't think of a motive for faking

a plane crash into the pentagon on the same day as the WTC towers were hit by airliners. The Federal government wouldn't bomb the pentagon anyways. We know the plane was hijacked, and there is no other crash site. It seems perfectly reasonable that you can not see large pieces of the aircraft after a crash like that.

And a 300+ mile per hour aircraft at very low altitude is fast enough to make eyewitness accounts vary considerably.


Just my humble opinion of course. :)

[nostamj]

3. detailed debunking from snopes...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[WilliamPitt]

5. Perfect. Thank you.

[wettap]

7. Did you ask this person...

...what happened to the plane that DIDN'T hit the Pentagon?

That usually will shut the tin-foil hat types up.

[GR]

15. Read The New Pearl Harbor...

It explains this...

[nostamj]

20. save your money

it's the same nonsense you've read here a million times without an iota of substantiation... (as far as the 'no pentagon plane' """theory""" is concerned)

[bpilgrim]

145. read it here, online, for FREE ;->

THE NEW PEARL HARBOR
Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin
foreword by Richard Folk

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

peace

[WoodrowFan]

103. does it start with "once upon a time"

fairy tales usually do and The New Pearl Harbor is most certainly a fairy tale.,

bye bye.

[Czolgosz]

19. The tin-foilers will tell you the plane

that didn't hit the pentagon was shot down and cleaned up so you wouldn't know that we shot down our own citizens. I'm not saying that happened, I'm just saying that's what the tin-foil-hat will tell you.

[wettap]

48. For sure. The tin-foilers do not need proof...

... only proof that "something" happened.

And where did this "cleaned up" crash that did not occur at the Pentagon occur? The bodies? The wreckage? The quiet employees who suddenly feel the need to speak out? Hve they all been eliminated?

Roswell? Area 51? Alien abductions with big metal hoobahoobs stuck up their butt?

They love to talk about outrageous examples of wild theories, but when it comes to proof.... silence.

Oh please.......

[RH]

97. It worse than that.

When you realise how much of the reality they have to ignore to maintain the fantasy, that's when it really gets to be ...:scared:

[tridim]

12. No wreckage, no bodies,

No black box, no damage to the Pentagon lawn, a small hole in the outer wall, several undamaged, undisturbed cable-spools directly in front of the crash site, FBI confiscated video from private security cameras, several eye witnesses saying it wasn't a large plane, a 747 flying at 500mph, 2 feet off the ground by a hijacker with no flight training, etc, etc, etc.

There are too many gigantic oddities that remain unexplained for me to believe the official explanation. The facts simply do not back up the story. Believe what you want, but I don't buy it.

[RivetJoint]

17. Well at SOME point

before impact it had to be 2 feet of the ground...it was crashing. It was not FLOWN at two feet above the ground. Some will believe whatever the want...I know two people who SAW the plane crash into the Pentagon; I choose to believe them.

[hang a left]

26. Yeah, sure you do. n/t

I know three people that DIDN"T SEE a plane. :eyes:

[RivetJoint]

29. Good for you!

[tridim]

30. Could you pinpoint a 757 strike at the base of the Pentagon?

Because you have as much experience flying 757's as the alleged hijacker did. A trained 757 pilot couldn't even pinpoint the strike at the base of the structure without damaging the ground, it's impossible. If, as you suggest the plane was dropping from the sky there would be a crater. The pictures I've seen show no damage to the surface under the first floor. Something entered the Pentagon horizontally, and strait and fast enough that it pierced the subsequent walls on the same horizontal plane.

[RivetJoint]

33. Sigh!

You're right, we shot a missle at it. Sorry !

[hang a left]

36. You were in on it too!? n/t

[tridim]

38. Care to debunk my explanation?

Over and over I offer explanations that make sense to any logical, thinking person. Nobody ever debunks them, they just sigh and give up.

For gawd's sake ARGUE about it if you think it's bunk!

BTW, I never said it was a missile. I just said it couldn't logically have been a 757 flown by an untrained hijacker.

[RivetJoint]

41. Look at the debunker links

They are much more believable than the tin-foil "theories."

[RH]

99. We did ARGUE.

Do you not have the faintest awareness that every one of these arguments was already done to death, here and elsewhere, more than two years ago?

:eyes:

[RH]

92. Wrong wrong wrong.

The black box was found. Flight information was recovered.

The autopsy identified passengers.

The cable spools were disturbed and damaged.

The Washington Post "commuter jet which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people" report was written by a reporter who had never even spoken to the witness, Steve Patterson, who has no doubt that Flight 77 hit the building.

Flight 77 was a B757, not a 747.

[Czolgosz]

16. The snopes stuff makes some sense, but it doesn't

answer all the questions (nor does it have a super-cool sound track):
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.html

[WoodrowFan]

121. please tell me

you don't believe this crap./

[OneBlueSky]

45. nope . . . doesn't answer the questions . . .

[nostamj]

51. ultimately, you people are just sad...

just SAD. the wings snapped off. fusilage disintgrated... heavily reinforced building. uh, sorry. facts. you can't stand facts. kills your CT buzz.

DAMN those eyewitnesses! DAMN them! they ALL work for bushco!

sad... your energy and passion *could* go into legitimate inquiry into what happened... you know... the kind that's being done by the widows, Kyle Hence, Paul Thompson, etc etc etc...

[BeFree]

67. Sad?

Hell yes we are sad. Sad because people like you waste our time trying to mislead the citizen's investigation.

From reading your comments over time, j, I've come to the conclusion that you would prefer we just shut up, take boosh's word for what happened and leave it all up to folks like you who can't explain what really happened.

Show me a picture that proves a 757 hit the pentagon. You can't, can you? Snopes can't, boosh can't, nobody can. Prove me wrong.

[TomNickell]

71. Yes, sad.

Can you prove that the Earth is Round?

That mosquitos carry malaria?

That 2+2 = 4?

Try it.

[BeFree]

74. Hello, Tom

I can prove lots of things, so can you.

But you can't prove a plane hit the pentagon.

Believe me, I wish someone could prove it did.

I'd even believe boosh, if he could show me proof. But he can't, can he?

[RH]

98. Look at the electricity generator.

One end of it was completely demolished by the starboard engine and on the roof of the object was a scape mark from a flap track fairing under the passing wing. The 30 ton generator was pushed towards the Pentagon by the impact. A tree that had stood behind it was also completely destroyed.

Not one of the No Boeing tribe has ever provided any sort of alternative explanation of that damage.

[Endangered Specie]

106. Show a picture that proves it didn't.

The burden of proof is on the CTs.

[demodewd]

116. re:burden of proof

The burden of proof is on us all..including you.

[tngledwebb]

117. Why are you not just SAD?

You might be, I don't know. And who are you to decide where others direct their energies/passions? I certainly wouldn't presume to give you advice. But regardless of Flt 77, pods, WTC collapse, etc, which part, if any, of the Official Conspiracy Theory gives you pause? Our ATC here has some minor quibbles over one or two issues. What about yourself?

[The Straight Story]

81. How big is the tailfin in this photo (from over 500' give or take)

[jmcgowanjm]

122. When a Defense starts with "As everyone knows", you know it's a lie

Nothing is absolute.

And all the MIHOP people have to show is
pics of the Pentagon after it was hit
and before the section collapsed.

Like here:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hang a left]

27. I just would like to see the videos that were confiscated.

Wouldn't that put an end to the theory.

[RH]

114. ...all assertions are true in some sense,

false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true false and meaningless in some sense.

Here's the proof:

http://www.flat-earth.org/society/about.html

[H2O Man]

35. Two things:

(1) How about all of the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon? Where they all part of the conspiracy?

(2) Where did the plane & passengers go?

Watch a tape of MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox on the morning of 9-11. There is no doubt the plane hit the Pentagon.

[hang a left]

37. If you could link me I will gladly take a look.

But I have heard very different witness accounts. I have also read witnesses changing their original statements.

[Veggie Meathead]

39. Did the NTSB do an investigation of the Flight 93 and Flight 77

accidents, as required by law? Does anyone have any links to NTSB's reports, if any? Wouldn't that clear up all our questions?

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Not available, because the FBI are still investigating it

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&key=1

However, this timeline refers to many eyewitnesses (and complete cockups over scrambling armed fighters).

[hang a left]

53. I have never read that before.

It does seem thoroughly documented. The reports of the C130 flying directly over flight 77 could certainly account for why the videos at the hotel and the gas station were confiscated. I wonder if anyone ever tried to speak to the employess of the hotel to find out what the recording of their security camera showed them.

What this timeline doesn't address is the very small hole in the pentagon visible immediately after the crash and before the roof caved in. It also doesn't address the lack of wreckage on the lawn in front of the pentagon.

Also there were very few eye witness accounts to the plane actually striking the pentagon. I have read other accounts of people that describe what hit the pentagon as a "missle". You would think that there would be more.

As well as it appears that no one can get or keep their story straight. I can see how a "missle hit the pentagon" theory could be floated to distract from the C130. Either way it is MIHOP, as far as I am concerned. We may never know what actually took place on 9-11. But I think alot of us understand the "why".

[RH]

96. Who

described what hit the pentagon as a "missile"? Do you have the name of one person who was there to see, who believes that Flight 77 did not hit the building?

Dozens of people saw the plane hit the building. How many do you need? Cars on Washington Boulevard were backed up in a traffic jam directly beside the Pentagon lawn. People further away, in Pentagon City, Rosslyn, and at the Navy Annex also had a direct view of the event.

[bobbyboucher]

42. I sure would like to see some video of the plane, at any time

around DC. You know, maybe a tourist shot of that banking turn around the capitol. Or that gas station video. Any of them would be nice.

There sure are alot of "tin-foil hat" accusations going on around here. Not real surprising though. It is the old "stand by".

[AP]

46. On 9/11 the news stations interviewed eyewitnesses who were on the bridge

and saw the plane descend. I think I was watching CNN. One woman said that she was crossing the bridge, looked over, and looked right at the jet. She said that she could see through the windows and see that nobody was in the seats at the front of the plane and everyone was huddled in the back. Other eyewitnesses were certainly standing around her out there when she was interviewed. Nobody said that she was lying. The interview was outside. It seems like people pulled over in their cars and were standing by the road watching the Pentagon burn and the news crew must have pulled up to them.

It would have been quite a feat for the secret government to get their people out there and planted all over the streets in Arlington ready to lie to the press wherever they chose to stop.

[Djinn]

61. on a totally unrelated note

I had to stare for a while at your sig photo AP (not being American the link between Pug and elephants not immediately springing to mind) before I realised it wasn't a conservative acknoledging he was a dickhead!

[Nordic]

49. snopes had it

it was posted somewhere here yesterday

[hang a left]

57. Snopes had what?

picture of the plane hit the pentagon. Got a link?

[Radius]

73. French vulture feeding(profiting) from our dead..

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Edit:spelling

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. Pentagon: Hunt the Boeing and test your perceptions....link

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high.


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?





The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building.

You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

The photograph below shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf.

Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?





The two photographs below were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.


Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?





Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?





How did you do?

Did you find the Boeing? Can you still defend the official version of events?

Well done! Remember to get in touch with master of illusion, David Copperfield. He'll be glad to hear from you!

You found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing, for example):

If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal

[The Straight Story]

95. 14.9 yards

That is roughly 45 feet. How tall is the pentagon? See post 81. Perhaps with all this data we can figure out the height of the tail in the pic.

[RH]

100. The Meyssan book

was published about three million years ago.

For a serious response consult the archives. There is really nothing more to say that was not said before.

One of Meyssan's pet points was that a plane could not possibly have hit the building because it would have hit the lamp poles on Washington Boulevard.

Conversely this therefore proves that a Boeing did hit the Pentagon; Meyssan was absolutely wrong:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[AlFrankenFan]

60. Doesn't some Bush official have a piece of the plane that hit it?

That should be enough.

[Jester_11218]

63. Debunk this photo! What hit this?

Scroll to the bottom. No wing damage on the lawn, on the object if front of the building, or anywhere.

What crashed?

Scroll to bottom!

http://tvnewslies.org/html/911_in_plane_site_video.html

[TomNickell]

66. Gee, Thanks Will! (II)

Here we go again. Hundreds of posts of total Bullshit. Any innocent happening to this board, convinced all Dems are utter fools.

Crap like this doesn't need debunking.

It is self-debunking.

Encouraging serious people to take the time to figure out arguments against total nonsense does nothing but validate the nonsense.

Like trying to argue with a Flat Earther or a Scientific Creationist. Or a Paranoid Schizophrenic.

[TeeYiYi]

77. How do you debunk this photo ? . . .

The damage doesn't match a 757. It was more likely a small military-type plane. IMO

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." " ~ air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html



TYY

[bobbyboucher]

78. He doesn't debunk, he ridicules and then

flees.

[RH]

93. Talk to Tom Horan.

n/t

[nostamj]

80. yup

hopeless. and time to have it moved to the 9/11 forum

[patrick862]

68. i can give one piece of evidence.

A naval rotc instructor I had in college lost a friend in the Pentagon that day.

[WarIsPeace]

70. Half of NYers Believe US leaders "Consciously Failed" to act on 911

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.

Clearly half of new yorkers are crazy. Perhaps they should all be thrown in the freedom cage?

[Zan_of_Texas]

75. I'm agnostic on what hit the Pentagon. But....

I'm not agnostic on the extraordinary fact that the country that spends the most on defense IN THE WORLD had the HEADQUARTERS OF ITS MILITARY hit by plane or missile, and did not mount a defense.

If there is one safe building in the entire world, it should have been the Pentagon.

And, come on, it's not like there wasn't a warning.

Don't count the PDB in August presented to Bush. Don't count the 8 foreign governments who tried to warn the U.S. Don't count the flight controllers. Just count the minutes that went by between the first WTC attack and the Pentagon attack.

What exactly were the NORAD and various military bases DOING? Exactly, in detail, WHAT WERE THEY DOING!?

Where do I apply to get my portion of a refund for the $400 billion this country spends on defense every year?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

91. Bravo!

I have asked those same questions many times. For a country that is suppose to have the most sophisticated weapons and surveillance in the world how did a plane or anything hit the pentagon? Especially since it was apparent after the second plane hit TWC that there was a deliberate attack.

[Satchel]

125. I think it's obvious

I think the government orchestrated the attacks, I think there's enough evidence.

[WoodrowFan]

129. I think it's obvious

that you have no clue how to weigh evidence. bye bye

[NashVegas]

76. The FWIW Department

1. By the time the "Find the Boeing in the Pentagon" site first went up, every hardcore conspiracy theorist had already weighed in on every angle. Funny how with all the crackpots spouting their crap from September 11 through Dec. 01/January 2002, when the page first appeared, no one had ever even suggested such a thing. CS theories generally start with one small grain and steamroll from there. The Boeing theory took 3 months and emerged fully formed like Athena.

2. The page, when originally published, was the sole English language page on an otherwise 100% French-written site. Furthermore, it was not linked to anywhere from within the site's visible pages. This tells me the page was not written originally to be a part of the site's publication, but was purely there to freak people out, preferably Americans.


I am of the opinion this so-called conspiracy theory is purposeful disinformation, and have been from the first day I saw it.

[RH]

101. You may well be right.

The No Boeing nonsense was fluffed up around and about the same time that information was extracted from the Flight 77 black box.

Sure as hell did a good job to distract from that particular story!

:argh:

[stickdog]

82. I don't know that I've ever seen a Flight 77 debunking site that I'd

recommend. But I would say that "no plane hit the Pentagon" is one of the weakest, least compelling arguments in the LIHOP/MIHOP arsenal.
IMHO, it's "popularity" relative much stronger arguments (like :wtf: were Chimpy. Rummy & Myers doing between 9:05 EDT and 9:45 EDT on 9/11?) is the result of purposeful disinfo/misinfo.

[Emillereid]

104. The idea that anomalies that undermine the official version of the

Pentagon strike have to account for flight 77 or the passengers is off mark -- in science one can point to evidence that undermines an accepted theory without offering an alternative, plausible theory. In fact, that's how theories come down all the time. Anomalies/evidence arise that punch holes in a theory or that the theory can't account for. I'd say there are some damn good questions left unanswered by the official account -- that should be subject to a thorough and complete examination -- not a commission cover up. The answers to what really happened might take years. That's ok, as long as we keep asking the hard questions honestly. And nothing, no matter how shocking, should be off the table of probable solutions -- not with this administration!

[Bolo Boffin]

105. I think the 9/11 commission addresses the questions they asked

very well.

A list of the questions the 9/11 commission didn't ask, or provided no record of asking, might do the amateur investigation of this event some good.

[tngledwebb]

119. What would those be?

Or did the Commission answer all the really important questions and only leave a few pebbles unturned? Do you have any of your own to ask?

[RH]

127. That's VERY disappointing.

Bolo open heartedly invited serious questions so I open a response eagerly, hoping thus to discover a useful list of issues that were not addressed and what do we see instead?

Prove positive, presumably, that everything was already covered!

Or is it rather the case that most of those those who reject the Commission report never actually bothered to read it?

[Endangered Specie]

107. some things

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6%5F48/national%5Fnews/12279%2D1.html
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/14%5FAPboxes.html


http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

[WoodrowFan]

108. thank you

those are wonderful links, especially the eyewitness accounts. Anybody who continues to doubt is obviously brain dead or brain washed.

[Endangered Specie]

109. Perhaps a good quantity of both.

The parts not dead, might as well be ;)

[geek tragedy]

111. Great links.

However, this kind of thing is a religion for some people. They're the equivalent of wingnuts who still claim that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam and Osama were secretly married. They just don't use their brains, much like the people who still maintain that the Bible is literally true despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Their attitudes towards infidels is confirmation of this.

This missile stuff is incomprehensibly stupid.

[RH]

110. here

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

[Endangered Specie]

130. Excellent link.

Funny how debunker links tend to be alot heavier on the math and science elements eh? and not full of fancy animations and music.

[MrSammo1]

112. Sheeple Science

If you believe that a jet's wings can fold and it's vertical stabilizer duck down........there are plenty of government sites out there. But none of them explain how a 757 can fit into a small hole.

[RH]

113. It doesn't have to fit if it turns to dust

Here's how:
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mov

[MrSammo1]

134. Doesn't look like dust to me?

It could explain why you believe the Pentagon lie?

Jets never turn to dust! Just like steel buildings don't fall at free fall speeds without explosives clearing a path to the ground.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

I see the jet going clear through that ten foot wall! Those wings were slicing the wall quite nicely! Just as Newton's law would predict! Just as was proved at the WTC twice!

[RH]

136. You are wrong.

"Damage to the target was relatively minor, as shown in Fig. 7, indicating that the major portion of the impact energy was absorbed in moving the target and not in producing structural damage. The face of the target was scarred where the aircraft fuselage struck, but only superficial damage was influicted over this region."

http://911-strike.com/f4crash.pdf

If you think you know better, take it up with Sandia.

[tngledwebb]

118. Many links abound, but all

'Debunker' links I've seen fail utterly to convince. The Perdue study, the Snopes page are laughable. The DOD site itself is very interesting in what it leaves out. For Alt CT theory, Google 'Killtown' which contains a number of links. Read The New Pearl Harbor and check the references in the back.

[RH]

120. Do you have any evidence

to substantiate that they fail utterly to convince?

Or is this only about the opinion of one particular person?

The witnesses who were there to see for themselves would seem to be convinced enough. How do you explain that? A few thousand cunningly disguised government disinformation agents all on a special assignment?

[MrSammo1]

135. none

None of the debunker sites deal with any of the physical inconsistencies. All they do is rely on hearsay, with some Sheeple Science thrown in!

[RH]

137. Inconsistencies?

In which respect, please, is it inconsistent that five lamp poles were felled?

In 2002 I pointed out that five lamp poles fell because Thierry Meyssan had ignorantly complained that it was incnsistent that all the lamp poles were still stood up.

So which is it then? Make my day. Were the lamp poles damaged or were they not damaged? Should the lamp poles be damaged or should they not be damaged?

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[MercutioATC]

139. "Hearsay"?

The ASCE report is hearsay and the ramblings of people with no technical experience who didn't even view the site are reliable?

Have you read the ASCE report? It deals with your "inconsistencies" pretty thoroughly. What specific aspects of the report's conclusions do you disagree with and why?

[soundfury]

123. SNOPES SUCKS

A quote from the Snopes site:

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:

Other "eyewitnesses" said the plane hit the ground before crashing into the Pentagon as well.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html

So where are the skid marks, the damage, the evidence of where the plane hit the lawn?

http://www.govsux.com/penta-lawn.htm

-----------------------------------------------------
Some say the plane when right into the Pentagon ( like Snopes).

Some say it vaporized upon impact, either way, how did this
BIG shiny chunk of the plane escape with no sings of fire damage?

This piece looks cut out and dented but no fire damage or paint damage.

Not even a scratch, explain the physics of that.

[RH]

128. It did indeed hit the ground before the building

in as much as the port engine nacelle clipped the corner of a steam vault while the other engine slammed straight, full face into a 30 ton electricity generator and then into a tree behind it.

That damage is perfectly evident if only you care to look for it. Contrary to persistent assertions the grass in that vicinity was also scorched. This is apperent in photos taken from above but not in the early photos from Washington Boulevard simply because of the low, narrow, foreshortened angle of view.

I have proposed an explanation of the debris issue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=19494&mesg_id=19717&page=

[DulceDecorum]

133. If memory serves,

the deputy chief Penta-firefighter
in an address at a conference,
said very clearly,
and STRESSED the point
that the plane never hit the ground.

[Endangered Specie]

131. Eyewitness accounts.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[FighttheFuture]

132. I posted this while back...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2265159#2265249

[WoodrowFan]

138. a great link

here are numerous eyewitness accounts. one man took pictures from the road only seconds after the impact. Further proof that CTers are deluded.

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/pole_reports.htm

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

[tngledwebb]

141. Been there, done that but ....

not enough info, your selected photos and stories do not give any evidence that proves the Official Conspiracy delusions re lampoles or Boeing crash, at all. Try googling Killtown and its related links for better photos etc.

[RH]

142. delusions re lampoles ?

:crazy:

What "delusion" re lamp poles?

[philb]

146. That there was complicity by officials at Pentagon has been documented

by testimony to the 9/11 Commission and other evidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41194#41196

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

[philb]

148. Does anyone think this doesn't at minimum document LIHOP?

If so, how do you explain the large amount of testimony and reports that indicate LIHOP at minimum and 9/11 Commission deliberate disinformation in their report?

[libertypirate]

149. This is a no brainer....

Where are the wings?

Where were the wings when we watched the WTC plane hit?

Are we to believe from visual evidence that the wings of airplanes are stronger then the walls at the Pentagon, and WTC?

While taxiing in an airplane as it's lining up for take-off ever see the wings bouncing up and down; flex?

What makes the aluminum that allows them to be lightweight and flexible strong enough to penetrate steel and concrete?

We should have seen at the very least the ends of the wings either plastered on the outside walls, or flapping their way to the ground. Nope didn't happen so either they are stronger then steel (like a hot knife through butter) or some bullshit has been shoveled in front of our eyes.

I hope that this helps