The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

see my post edit above -

I am not disputing it at all - but just wanted to highlight the issue of eyewitness bias, say for things like a car crash, massacre, robbery etc.

Just the statement you said about 100 witnesses I felt compelled to sort of rebut that - not the idea of the 100+ witnesses to the Pentagon thing.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Informer1958

Richard Gage, your hero...

Box boy!

a reply to: auroraaus

One of the things I have been misquoted on....


An eyewitness account not backed by physical data has no context.

a reply to: neutronflux

Given the mass amount of evidence in question there shouldn't be an issue in that regard.

I honestly don't see how all of it could be faked. If it was, it would have taken YEARS to formulate and carry out and include hundreds if not thousands of people into the conspiracy (that is the conspiracy of the destruction of the pentagon)

Twin Towers though, for me, is another story and this thread is about the Pentagon hey.

a reply to: auroraaus

That's PTSD and I'd even suggest that many of those close to the event have not yet fully recovered from the effects of that day. Now we still try to determine finer detail from the memories of people who were on the ground to witness something that happened in a period of 1-2 seconds so it's no surprise that their accounts will vary in those finer details but the larger details like it was a plane and it hit the building are beyond doubt as there is physical evidence to corroborate the accounts.

a reply to: Pilgrum

I don't think any one could ever recover from that. It's one thing to watch live on the other side of the world what was happening in NYC but another to have it right there in your face.

My argument about bias was just me being pedantic and nit-picking of a statement (possibly to deflect a bit of a flame war happening, worked huh!)

Naughty Aurora.

a reply to: auroraaus

Your good! There is are huge difference between rationally and rightfully questioning Vs. right out implying individuals lied and pushing a narrative with no proof!

Thank you for being respectful.

Note: it's ok to point out a lie for a lie if you can create a structured and credible argument. But you cannot say individuals are lying to just say they are lying. For the no jet theory to fly, it's not the government that has to lie. It's civilians and individuals that were traumatized by the events. From the people that saw flight 77 hit from the highway, to the people that survived, to the first responders coming upon a mass causalities event, to the people recovering the bodies.

I guess what is discouraging is the fact people make money off conspiracy books and websites? Yet, how has the money been use to legally fight the "obvious" lies of the government? A real battle to correct and retract reports supposedly full of lies and pseudoscience?

a reply to: neutronflux

Many people would do and say (and write) anything for a quick buck. Or to create so much disinformation that ends up muddying the waters for those who are asking thoughtful questions in the narrative. And we know that happens for purposes of deflection.

As OP created this thread, it was an interesting angle indeed. Tying in the Kursk tragedy that happened almost a year earlier, it has the makings of a excellent thriller! And in itself raised questions more so, in my opinion, of the Kursk than say, the Pentagon crash.

a reply to: neutronflux

For the no jet theory to fly, it's not the government that has to lie. It's civilians and individuals that were traumatized by the events.

Excellent wording and to the point.

The same goes for NYC.

originally posted by: auroraaus

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

You too need to start what hit the pentagon, if anything did. Because of obfuscation by the pentagon, and withholding of video/photographic record, it cannot be proved what hit the building. Judging from crash debris, it appears it was something single engine, NOT a 757.

Can a single engine plane really cause so much debris and destruction? Did you not see how far the plane/craft/thing went through the building? I highly doubt a single engine plane could have enough power to plow that hard and fast through the Pentagon (of all places! You would think it had extra reinforced bits too!) and cause the resulting massive fire/s.

Thank you, you raise a very good point. Whatever penetrated through those several rings of the pentagon, assuming some flying object actually did that, it was not an airliner. No ordinary civilian airplane, single or multiengine, could have done that. A highly modified and strengthened craft might have, or perhaps some sort of missile might have.

The only reason I say single engine is because the pictures showed the debris from only 1 engine, not two. Same with landing gear debris.

Most all of the casualties were those congressional auditors in the building conducting an audit of missing pentagon funds. Mission Accomplished in that regard. The building was rigged with explosives, whether an aircraft hit it or not.

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not quoting somebody else saying the debris was inconsistent sir. I myself am saying that. I've seen wrecked airplanes before, many times. Whatever might have struck the building, it was NOT an airliner.

I do not trust or believe the statements of known liars such as work in the US government or anywhere else. Known liars are not to be believed.

a reply to: Informer1958

Anybody being honest with himself knows the official story cannot be true.

But you're right, social pressures make people tell lies or remain silent.

Look what happened to Kevin Ryan early on. He worked for Underwriters Laboratory which works closely with the insurance industry. He knew instantly that the story of fires weakening the steel to cause free fall collapse could not possibly be true, and said so publically. He was fired for his heresy.

a reply to: Salander

I agree.

When the Pentagon was hit by what, I remember watching the first video reports live on TV, and did not see any airplane debris in front of the Pentagon.

Furthermore I remember seeing a small entry hole, not big enough to a commendate a huge airliner with a beam in the middle of the hole still intact.

No plane hit the Pentagon. I agree there was an explosion, we can only "assume" there was detonators place in the Pentagon in my "opinion".

How ironic that the explosion was in the section that was being renovated, many different contracting firms coming and going.

a reply to: Informer1958

I happen to think that something hit the pentagon, but it was clearly way too small to be an airliner. But that is just speculation on my part. It's entirely possible that nothing flying hit the building.

a reply to: Salander

I happen to think that something hit the pentagon, but it was clearly way too small to be an airliner. But that is just speculation on my part. It's entirely possible that nothing flying hit the building.

Exactly, I was thinking the same thing.

The rest could have been manufactured, all on the need to know basis.

a reply to: Salander

Look what happened to Kevin Ryan early on. He worked for Underwriters Laboratory which works closely with the insurance industry. He knew instantly that the story of fires weakening the steel to cause free fall collapse could not possibly be true, and said so publically. He was fired for his heresy.

Kevin Ryan has a BS in chemistry.

He worked in the water testing section and had nothing to do with testing the steel from 911.

a reply to: D8Tee

Kevin Ryan has a BS in chemistry.

He worked in the water testing section and had nothing to do with testing the steel from 911.

And yet, he was fired for speaking the Truth.

a reply to: Salander

Most pictures of inside the Pentagon probably won't ever be released - because DoD are quite secretive and you would have to agree in some aspect this is logical given its the HQ of one of the most powerful organisations in the world.

Are you referring to the hole from the facade? The building collapsed a bit inwards that would make the main hole appear smaller. It was measured around 100ft wide. The facade was reinforced and I think Kevlar was involved somewhere too.

A few pages back there was a discussion about the engines, notably how small the engines actually are underneath their hooding and bits.

Please forgive me, I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet so I am not sure I am even conveying my thoughts properly!

a reply to: Informer1958

And yet, he was fired for speaking the Truth.

If you were read what his actual claims were, you would see why what he said does not mean anything, it was a strawman argument.