Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 Nope!

www.redicecreations.com...

That is probably some of the best evidence I have every seen on 9/11 and the Pentagon.

Let's just forget about the whole Twin Towers for a second and focus on the Pentagon's plane crash.

No doubt, I'm glad people are still awaking up to this horrendous and deliberate day but this has been out for several years now unless I'm missing something.

The interview with the eyewitnesses, is considered GREAT but quite old.

But again, glad people are still getting turned on to this information but not sure a million threads on the same topic is necessary.


Please tell me if I'm overlooking something. Thanks!

Originally posted by ItIsMe
www.redicecreations.com...

That is probably some of the best evidence I have every seen on 9/11 and the Pentagon.

Let's just forget about the whole Twin Towers for a second and focus on the Pentagon's plane crash.

It's just incredible how much energy the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will expend chasing down rat holes looking for these conspiracy stories, and yet won't lift a finger to look at all the evidence showing that a plane really hit the Pentagon. Namely, the gigantic collection of eyewitnesses who specificlly saw the plane hit the Pentagon:

Pentagon eyewitnesses

Here's the interesting part- this list isn't coming from the gov't but from a 9/11 conspiracy website. Their take on it is that the attack was staged, but they believe this "no planes" bit is deliberate disinformation to make the rest of the 9/11 truth movement look silly by association. That makes YOU a gov't shill, in case you hadn't noticed.

I have heard one theory quiet a bit, and i could see it to be true, and that is that part of the pentagon had all the documents and plans of this "terrorist Attack" so they had to blow it. Making it seem like there was never realy anything significant there in the first place. seems likley to me.

Uh-huh.

Because a paper shredder just would not have been complicated enough.

I tend to (perhaps foolishly) overlook subjective evidence (eye-witnesses) and just focus on objective evidence. People's memories of an event can easily become distorted or manipulated.

Originally posted by DEATHHAWK008
I have heard one theory quiet a bit, and i could see it to be true, and that is that part of the pentagon had all the documents and plans of this "terrorist Attack" so they had to blow it. Making it seem like there was never realy anything significant there in the first place. seems likley to me.

Really? That seems likely to you? If you had top secret papers and unlimited resources to destroy them would you really pick the "fake a plane into the building" method? Don't forget - you have unlimited resources and you must absolutley gaurantee the destruction of the documents.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by DEATHHAWK008
I have heard one theory quiet a bit, and i could see it to be true, and that is that part of the pentagon had all the documents and plans of this "terrorist Attack" so they had to blow it. Making it seem like there was never realy anything significant there in the first place. seems likley to me.

Really? That seems likely to you? If you had top secret papers and unlimited resources to destroy them would you really pick the "fake a plane into the building" method? Don't forget - you have unlimited resources and you must absolutley gaurantee the destruction of the documents.

yeah it seems likely, it puts up the illusion of a terrorist attack does it not? They blow up some suff they realy didnt want anymore with c4 or a missile or what ever did it say it was a plane blame it on the terrorists, go to war, yeah sounds about right to me.

reply to post by ItIsMe


ATS member CatHerder already examined this in great detail.

There is NO doubt that an American Airlines Boeing 757, operating as flight 77 on 11 September, 2001, took of from Dulles Airport (KIAD) with original destination Los Angeles (KLAX), and was hijacked, and intentionally flown into the Pentagon in a wanton act of terrorism.

The most substantial, well researched thread on this topic is HERE.




[edit on 19 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by DEATHHAWK008

yeah it seems likely, it puts up the illusion of a terrorist attack does it not? They blow up some suff they realy didnt want anymore with c4 or a missile or what ever did it say it was a plane blame it on the terrorists, go to war, yeah sounds about right to me.

Ok, you have a whole heap of paper, CD's, photos, tape, videos and you absolutely, positively need to completely and with absolute certantity destroy every last single one of them without any chance of anyone ever seeing them at any time. Now your choices are:

A) Carefully collect them and with painstaking resolve slowly and methodically feed them into a high temperature incinerator and then collect all the ash and residue and run that through the incinerator and repeat this process until all matter has either been reduced to a small basket of ash or...
B) Put them in a building and then blow up some of the building next to a busy highway in a major metropolitan area inviting local firefighters to help in the search and rescue.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I tend to (perhaps foolishly) overlook subjective evidence (eye-witnesses) and just focus on objective evidence. People's memories of an event can easily become distorted or manipulated.

...and yet photos and video can't likewise be distorted or manipulated HOW, exactly?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I tend to (perhaps foolishly) overlook subjective evidence (eye-witnesses) and just focus on objective evidence. People's memories of an event can easily become distorted or manipulated.

...and yet photos and video can't likewise be distorted or manipulated HOW, exactly?

I never said video or photographs couldn't be distorted.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I tend to (perhaps foolishly) overlook subjective evidence (eye-witnesses) and just focus on objective evidence. People's memories of an event can easily become distorted or manipulated.

In which case, you can safely ignore this topic. Because the majority of CIT's evidence is taking the parts of eyewitness statements they agree with, and leaving out anything they disagree with.

I want you to take a good look at this family. They were on flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. You disgrace their lives and dishonor yourself by denying this horrible american tragedy. They were the Falkenbergs. They had names, lives, feelings, bills, education, social security numbers ect. They existed.

Enough already, your beating a dead horse buddy.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by ATLien]

for sure ist a bunker buster the hit the pentagone

I've got a stack of old files here with a few bits and pieces that I wouldn't mind the Inland Revenue not seeing if you get my drift.

Obviously I'm not the US government so my resources are a bit smaller. I'm thinking either I buy a paper shredder or...

No. I'm going to hijack a plane and fly it into my office. It just seems so much simpler, somehow.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I never said video or photographs couldn't be distorted.

All right, since eyewitnesses accounts aren't acceptable, and since you're admitting that photos and video can be distorted, and since physical evidence like aircraft wreckage and black boxes can be manufactured, just what evidence WILL you accept that shows it was a passenger jet that hit the pentagon, and that you won't simply brush off as being suspect?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I never said video or photographs couldn't be distorted.

Photographs and videos can be distorted, though, I think it's a little easier for eye-witness testimonies to be distorted than it is to distort photographs, since there are experts out there that can run various tests and check the veracity of photographs and videos. I would be more convinced in the eye-witness testimonies if they weren't heterogeneous, because as we know, some reported seeing things other than a 757; a person even attested to seeing a Global Hawk drone. Still, regardless of what people think they saw, I don't think the evidence - i.e. the two-window-width hole through three of the Pentagon's rings, the pristine lawn, the discrepancy in the flight path with the black-box, the disintegration of the two titanium engines and general lack of wreckage, not to mention apocryphal video footage, point to a 757, but that's just my opinion.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I would be more convinced in the eye-witness testimonies if they weren't heterogeneous, because as we know, some reported seeing things other than a 757; a person even attested to seeing a Global Hawk drone.

There's only one person who ever reported seeing a global hawk, and his own son is saying the guy is making it up and he never was anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11. There were people who reported additional aircraft, like the C-130 that controllers asked to follow flight 77 and report on its intentions, but all witnesses saw either an actual plane approach the Pentagon, or specifially saw it hit.

I invite you to prove me wrong.

Still, regardless of what people think they saw, I don't think the evidence - i.e. the two-window-width hole through three of the Pentagon's rings, the pristine lawn, the discrepancy in the flight path with the black-box, the disintegration of the two titanium engines and general lack of wreckage, not to mention apocryphal video footage, point to a 757, but that's just my opinion.

...but since there were many eyewitnesses who specifically saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon, it necessarily trumps all these perceived abnormalities these conspiracy web sites are embellishing. If these conspiracy web sites you're getting this information from is genuinely arguing over what should or shouldn't happen to a window when the aircraft hit the building, that's an act of desperation more than it is anythign else.

...and you didn't answer the question- what evidence showing the Pentagon was hit by a passenger jet *would* you accept as legitimate, and that you wouldn't simply brush off as being faked?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by GoodOlDave]