The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn't staged.

Anybody watch the discovery channel last night on extreme surgeries.

The one patient worked at the pentagon the day it was hit, she was burned, her face was deformed, and she couldn't use her hands, they were wrapped up like she had little mittens on. But it was because they were burned so badly, she now can't use her finger's she picks things up with her wrists, her whole bottom part of her face is a wreck, her lip is turned out, it was really sad.

I say this because I wasn't sure if the pentagon attack was staged before, and now after seeing those few people on the extreme surgery last night it broke my heart, these people will never be the same again, they won't be able to use the extremities they once could before. Sad...

Edit: wanted blue blinky light beside the headline...

[edit on 5-8-2004 by TrueLies]

My company had people working at the Pentagon that day. Elevator Mechanics to be exact, who were also outside after the plane hit and saw the wreckage.

I have spoken to one of them recently, he said it was being said all over the building just minutes after impact, "a plane hit us".

Regardless if it was staged or not, The U.S. allowed the attacks to happen. We stood down and did nothing.

Originally posted by mrmulder
Regardless if it was staged or not, The U.S. allowed the attacks to happen. We stood down and did nothing.

Any proof, or just speculation?

www.fromthewilderness.com...

Please, if we would have shot that plane out of the sky over a heavily populated area such as DC, the conspiracies would be that there were never any terrorsits on board, not that it 'did not crash' into the Pentagon.
I beleive however we did fully realize the threat and destory that filght in PA>? It is a good story of heroism, buthte dark side would be we took care of it. We got caught with our pants down. Bottom line.

After 9/11 a small single engine aircraft buzzed Macdill AFB and (did a touch and go i beleive or at least was that low), home of CENTCOM, before plowing itself into a building in downtown Tampa.

Now, my logic is no questions asked, but then there would be a couple of dead politicians like the guy with the broken transponder a few months back.

You know, there's a big difference between shooting a plane down and intercepting it. That's all I'm going to say.

Originally posted by mrmulder
You know, there's a big difference between shooting a plane down and intercepting it. That's all I'm going to say.

Very true! During the Cold War, the USAF would routinly intercept Russian TU-95 strategic bombers over the Bering Straight and shadow them untill they returned to Russian airspace without ever fireing a shot. They took photos on these missions. During peacetimes it is very rare to shoot at an intercepted aircraft, If any force is used it is usually in the form of forcing the plane to land and then detaining passengers and crew unharmed.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

I don't think there ever was a question as to whether or not the pentagon was hit or that the whole thing was staged.

The question has always revolved around WHAT hit it.

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by mrmulder
You know, there's a big difference between shooting a plane down and intercepting it. That's all I'm going to say.

Very true! During the Cold War, the USAF would routinly intercept Russian TU-95 strategic bombers over the Bering Straight and shadow them untill they returned to Russian airspace without ever fireing a shot. They took photos on these missions. During peacetimes it is very rare to shoot at an intercepted aircraft, If any force is used it is usually in the form of forcing the plane to land and then detaining passengers and crew unharmed.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

How do you force an intercepted aircraft to land when the hijackers on board don't care if they die. I would think if you just fly beside it that they don't care and would just continue on the same flight path. If you get in front of it wouldn't they just plow thru since they are prepared to die and take as many lives with them as possible?

I may be completely off on how the "interception" works, so anyone is welcome to enlighten me.

Well you probably can't but the reality is FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under ANY emergency conditions. So regardless if the military aircraft couldn't get the commericial jet to land or risk shooting it down we would've at leat known that our government tried on 9/11. In this case they did not.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by Gools
I don't think there ever was a question as to whether or not the pentagon was hit or that the whole thing was staged.

The question has always revolved around WHAT hit it.

A Boeing 757-200 clearly hit the building. In addition to the radar tracing, a parking lot security cam caught a glimps of it striking the ground before it hit etc. Not to mention all the witnesses

Originally posted by mrmulder
Well you probably can't but the reality is FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under ANY emergency conditions. So regardless if the military aircraft couldn't get the commericial jet to land or risk shooting it down we would've at leat known that our government tried on 9/11. In this case they did not.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Then in this case you would have to prove that the figher jets had enough warning and time to get in the air and attempt the intercept. I know there is speculations and theories, but so far I've seen no proof of there being enough time to scramble any intercepting fighter jets.

Originally posted by mrmulder
Regardless if it was staged or not, The U.S. allowed the attacks to happen. We stood down and did nothing.

Mrmulder is Bang on
Why did the Pentagon seize the video taps from the surrounding area stores, gas stations and videos from the pentagon cameras and keep them from public view?
And say it was for security reasons after all they showed the twin Towers over and over
Why did the pentagon cover the lawn with sand? Why is there no flight recorder?
Why was there no luggage? Why were there no bodies?
Why haven�t the pentagon released any footage of the crash?


[edit on 5-8-2004 by Sauron]

Nobody knew the planes were highjacked until they were crashed. We have little proof other than the cell phone calls from the flight that hit shanksville that they were highjacked. It would have been nearly impossible to figure they were highjacked until they crashed. Its obvious the Pentagon was hit by an airplane. I've met a guy who works at the Pentagon and he saw the damage first hand. Photos were all over the news. A radio tower was hit by the plane before the plane hit the Pentagon. And then of course theres the witnesses. Whether or not the a secretive goverment organiztion actually commendeered those planes is open to speculation but theres no denying the Pentagon was hit and that terrorists could have done that easily if they truly did manage to highjack the plane.

Originally posted by mpeake

Originally posted by mrmulder
Well you probably can't but the reality is FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under ANY emergency conditions. So regardless if the military aircraft couldn't get the commericial jet to land or risk shooting it down we would've at leat known that our government tried on 9/11. In this case they did not.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Then in this case you would have to prove that the figher jets had enough warning and time to get in the air and attempt the intercept. I know there is speculations and theories, but so far I've seen no proof of there being enough time to scramble any intercepting fighter jets.

Here are two link to the timeline of Flight 93 and Flight 175:

If you follow read them carefully you'll see that the government had more than enough time to scramble jets after the second plane hit the WTC's.

Flight 93
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Flight 175
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Originally posted by Sauron
Mrmulder is Bang on
Why did the Pentagon seize the video taps from the surrounding area stores, gas stations and videos from the pentagon cameras and keep them from public view?
And say it was for security reasons after all they showed the twin Towers over and over

Because there were no classified materials in the Twin Towers.

Why did the pentagon cover the lawn with sand? Why is there no flight recorder?
Why was there no luggage? Why were there no bodies?
Why haven�t the pentagon released any footage of the crash?

Did you do any research prior to posting that?

All of your questions have been answered. Look in the 9/11 superthread and it should clear up any misconceptions that people might have.




[edit on 5-8-2004 by Sauron]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Gools
I don't think there ever was a question as to whether or not the pentagon was hit or that the whole thing was staged.

The question has always revolved around WHAT hit it.

A Boeing 757-200 clearly hit the building. In addition to the radar tracing, a parking lot security cam caught a glimps of it striking the ground before it hit etc. Not to mention all the witnesses

That video is still in contrversoy by not only the critics but others as well.

Did you ever think that maybe they truly di not knowhow may other planes there were out there?Where do you scramble too? do you suddenly shadow every flight there is? Intercepting another 'milatary' craft is one thing, or if there are 'known' terrorists on board making demands.

9/11 was not a recon mission by Soviet or similar aircraft, was not a hijacked jet demanding a place to land..This was murder, plain and simple.

The Cell phone store is bogus
MIRACLES AND WONDERS Last week, USA Today reported a joint effort between Qualcomm and American Airlines' to allow passengers to make cellphone calls from aircraft in flight. According to the story, the satellite-based system employs a "Pico cell" to act as a small cellular tower.
"It worked great," gushed Monte Ford, American Airline's chief information officer. "I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear."
Before this new "Pico cell," it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph.
www.nypress.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> more



[edit on 5-8-2004 by Sauron]