I present to you a challenge

Greetings fellow ATS'ers

External Link

The link above is a list of eye witness testimonies to the events that occurred at the pentagon on September 11, 2001. All have been confirmed at all of them have a source.

None of them say they saw a "missile" or "cruise missile" hit the building. Not one.

So I am presenting the community at ATS a challenge...

Show me more eye witness testimonies that say something other than a plane hit the building. There are about 100 testimonies on that page. Show me over 100 people who say they saw a missile hit the building.

Please do - and if you can't live up to the challenge... sit and think for a very long time how stupid your missile theory is. Then you should consider going out and apologising to everyone who lost a family member or friend at the pentagon.


[edit on 30-7-2006 by shanemcbain]

Ok, well we'll start with this. Have a read. Doesn't prove anything but might show how the accounts might not prove anything either.

members.iinet.net.au...

It sounds like the guy is gropeing for somethingto support his theory. Thats never a good sign.

Claiming that because eyewitnesses did see the plane..but didn't see it hit the Pentagon is indicative of no plane hitting the Pentagon is reaching too far. Those witnesses also didn't see a plane quickly divert direction to miss the Pentagon, or fire a missile and fly passed the building either.

Interesting, I have never even questioned the "fact" that a plane might not have crashed in to the pentagon on that morning. Im gonna need more convncing.

You do realize a plane and a missile can hit the pentagon at the same time? The Pentagon said everything vaporized, then explain how a Boeing created the final exit hole(too tiny for any Boeing) while vaporizing. They carried away something under a tarp, why would they need to hide something if it was just a Boeing? If you seriously think the government can't get people to give false statements then you need to take off those rose colored glasses you are wearing. I believe both a missile and a plane hit the Pentagon, that to me explains the damage seen. Boeing's are designed to crumple, not penetrate through reinforced concrete over and over again and then just disappear.

"It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War - a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit" - Phillip Thompson
"For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off" - Terry Morin
"A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere" - Don Perkal
"Most people knew it was a bomb" - John Bowman
"It smelled like cordite, or gun smoke" - Gilah Goldsmith
"I knew it was a bomb or something" - Mike Slater

I think that the only reinforced wall was the exterior wall.
The only other wall was the exit wall that was normal construction. The first 3 'rings' shared a common floor space.

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I believe both a missile and a plane hit the Pentagon, that to me explains the damage seen.

But why for heaven's sake would they do that?
For the sake of argument, let's presume there was indeed an conspiracy.
And let's presume they wanted to fake a terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the WTC in order to start a war in the Middle East and/or Afganistan with the support of the American people. What would they gain extra by launching a missile to inflict further damage to the Pentagon? If you want to fake a terrorist attack wouldn't it be sufficient to crash an airliner in the Pentagon? And why would you hide the evidence of such a crash? Seems to me the more scrap of the plane is scattered across the crashsite, the better. And why needlessly make the plan more complex by adding a missile to it? Makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
You do realize a plane and a missile can hit the pentagon at the same time? The Pentagon said everything vaporized, then explain how a Boeing created the final exit hole(too tiny for any Boeing) while vaporizing.

The final exit hole could easily have been (and imo, was) created by an explosive charge.

This would be MUCH easier than sending a freaking missile in with the plane (unless a missile was included for other reasons), and would accomplish the same job. LaBTop posted this suggestion earlier if I'm not mistaken, point being to secure cooperation from some military branch (Navy, was it?) that was lagging behind in the whole coup thing by destroying important property located there. If I remember correctly, Navy officers made up most of the casualties from within the Pentagon, as well. Keep in mind that the section of the Pentagon hit was under construction and scarcely populated, so not much else was lost or really affected at all.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

The final exit hole could easily have been (and imo, was) created by an explosive charge.

So, you honestly think that they crashed a plane into the building and then also set off explosives?

What purpose could that possibly serve? Don't you think they could have destroyed what the needed without the escessive explosives?

Do you people think that perhaps the "government conspiracy" has some sort of explosive fetish?

Is it that the CT'ers have an explosives fetish.



Hmmm.

I got an idea, instead of looking at just eyewitnesses and speculation, we consider the fact that a plane hit the pentagon.

www.911myths.com...

A 757 hit the building.

Get over it.

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey

They carried away something under a tarp, why would they need to hide something if it was just a Boeing?

Maybe they didn't need to hide anything. Maybe it was a tent.

www.911myths.com...


No, it's definitely a tent.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So, you honestly think that they crashed a plane into the building and then also set off explosives?

Regardless of what did or did not hit the building, this does appear to me as to have been the result of an explosive charge:



If you have something to add, something of RELEVANCE, preferably logical and maybe even scientific, then I would be appreciative.

What are you even trying to say?

Relevance?

Please explain how posting links to images of the 757 debris is irrelevant to this topic?


Great evidence there.

You think it looks like explosives.

Case closed.

But really, I wonder why a hole caused by a 757 full of jet fuel exploding inside a building looks like there was an explosion.


Beats me, they must've planted bombs.

Riiiiiiight.



[edit on 3-8-2006 by LeftBehind]

surley a plane full of jet fuel as you just remarked would have blown the place sky high is it plausible that it would? Where as in my little knowledge of missiles (except what iv seen in documentarys) that seems to me to look pretty much like a missle attack

[edit on 4-8-2006 by jonlewi5]

FOR THE LAST TIME! It wasn't a missile. It was a military drone. There was aircraft wreckage found at the Pentagon.