9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Mouth

Originally posted by diggs Also, if 77 crashed at the Pent, where did the tail section go?

Ok, The tail is not there. where were the tails from the WTC crashes? Possibly obliterated? Burned?

The tails from the WTC crashes left a noticeable gash in the WTC's facade. If 77's tail was obliterated, why didn't it leave a mark on the 3rd story wall?

Why would whoever planned these attacks NOT use flight 77 and 93 for their targets, when they already hijacked them? So you are saying that these planes were hijacked, and then flown somewhere else, and a missle then hit the pentagon (or whatever), and all these government agencies had to take part in the cover up, blah blah blah. It just is a little far fetched for me. Where did the planes go then? How do you account for the missing passengers?

How would I know why the wouldn't crash them, where they took them, and what they did with the passengers?

Well, lets take your little maps as truth for a second, since you did. ATC tracked these planes (apparently besides flight 77). So, therefore, if they knew where flight 93 was at all times, then it crashed (or was shot down) where they claim, right? Edit: WHy did you leave the part out about providing a similar impact? Is there one? do we know of another airliner hitting a building at full speed? [edit on 2/6/06 by Mouth]

Originally posted by MouthUMM no apologies at all. First off, where did they get this information? They did not give sources themselves. Oh, OK. So, we have to take what the media says as face value?? Even so, the airport a few miles away from the penagon would notice a "UFO" about to hit the pentagon.

LoL! I knew your response would be something like that! I'm surprised you didn't ask who wrote that article and what is their credentials on radar or something stupid like that. On your first question, why don't you email Seattle Times and ask them? Funny, you ask me to provide you evidence that 77 lost radar contact and when I do from a credible news source, you then blast the news source. How can we provide you proof that 9/11 was an inside job if you kept closing your eyes to the evidence we provide you? What a coincidence that both news services describe 77 losing radar contact:

On the ground, air traffic controllers watching Flight 77's progress westward suddenly lost touch with the plane, which disappeared from radar screens and cut off radio contact. seattletimes.nwsource.com...

I guess they two news services were "in on it" to help us conspiracy theoriest, aye Mouth?

You forgot to answer a lot of my questions: 1) If 77's tail was obliterated, why didn't it leave a mark on the 3rd story wall? 2) How would I know why the wouldn't crash them, where they took them, and what they did with the passengers?

Originally posted by MouthWell, lets take your little maps as truth for a second, since you did. ATC tracked these planes (apparently besides flight 77). So, therefore, if they knew where flight 93 was at all times, then it crashed (or was shot down) where they claim, right?

After 93 turned off it's transponder, how did they know it was still 93? You've heard of plane swapping, right? You did read the multiple witnesses who saw different planes around the Shanksville site and who the FBI didn't want their testimony, right?

WHy did you leave the part out about providing a similar impact? Is there one? do we know of another airliner hitting a building at full speed?

What do you mean?

Originally posted by diggs You forgot to answer a lot of my questions: 1) If 77's tail was obliterated, why didn't it leave a mark on the 3rd story wall?

Again, is there an example of an airliner impacting a building over 500 mph? No. There isn't. I mean, a plane coming in at that speed and smacking into a reinforced steel wall, I really doubt there is much of remains.

Originally posted by diggs 2) How would I know why the wouldn't crash them, where they took them, and what they did with the passengers?

Well, if you did, then this conversation would be moot, right?

Originally posted by diggs After 93 turned off it's transponder, how did they know it was still 93? You've heard of plane swapping, right? You did read the multiple witnesses who saw different planes around the Shanksville site and who the FBI didn't want their testimony, right?

where did flight 93 go then? Why the charade? It just seems so out there, so pointless....

Originally posted by diggs What do you mean?

Exactly what I wrote.

Look, for almost 5 years now, people have been scrutinizing the pics from 9/11, trying to figure out what happened. From alot of the information given, I do believe that the government did cover up some stuff. However, it just doesn't make any sense for these people to use planes for the WTC buildings, and then hijack 2 more to make it "seem" that they crashed, only to make them disappear... Does that honestly make ANY sense? "Ok guys. here is the plan. Lets crash two planes into the WTC buildings, and then hijack two more, and make it look like they crashed, and instead shoot a missile (or fly ANOTHER plane) into the pentagon, and fly these passengers" [where it is documented from flight 93 that one of the passengers during a 911 call said they were "going down"] "to a secret location. That'll teach those darn Americans!" It is just so ridiculous.

Originally posted by Mouth

Originally posted by diggs1) If 77's tail was obliterated, why didn't it leave a mark on the 3rd story wall?

Again, is there an example of an airliner impacting a building over 500 mph? No. There isn't.

Yes, two. The impacts into the WTC 1 & 2 and they left gashes from the tail.

I mean, a plane coming in at that speed and smacking into a reinforced steel wall, I really doubt there is much of remains.

So when the tail was obliterated against the 3rd story wall, it wouldn't have even left a mark on the wall? Also, if not much remains of the plane after smacking that wall at that speed, how did they manage to recover all of the passenger's bodies?

Originally posted by diggs 2) How would I know why the wouldn't crash them, where they took them, and what they did with the passengers?

Well, if you did, then this conversation would be moot, right?

You didn't answer my question. Also if I did seem to know, you wouldn't believe me anyways even if I posted a link to a credible news service.

Originally posted by diggs After 93 turned off it's transponder, how did they know it was still 93? You've heard of plane swapping, right? You did read the multiple witnesses who saw different planes around the Shanksville site and who the FBI didn't want their testimony, right?

where did flight 93 go then? Why the charade? It just seems so out there, so pointless....

Answer my questions instead of side-stepping them and for the last time, how would I know where they took it? Just because it all seems too complicated for you to understand doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. It's just merely too complicated for you to understand.

Originally posted by diggs What do you mean?

Exactly what I wrote.

Please clarify then.

Originally posted by MouthHowever, it just doesn't make any sense for these people to use planes for the WTC buildings, and then hijack 2 more to make it "seem" that they crashed, only to make them disappear... Does that honestly make ANY sense?

No it doesn't unless you understand the motives as why they wanted the pentagon hit.

As to your #2 question, umm, I can't answer that. uhhh, umm, uhh. isn't it pretty rhetorical? you don't know what happened to them. you claim that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, but you can't explain its disappearance. so, uhh, wait, whats the point here? Too complicated to understand? Don't insult my intelligence. I am trying to have a debate here. I am not the smartest person in the world, but I know I am head and shoulders above the general public. I want answers. So do you. I don't know everything about 9/11 at all, and you are probably much more versed in it than I am, I am just asking questions. Can you please post a good shot of the outer wall of the pentagon after impact? I don't want to search for it, and you probably have it on hand.

Originally posted by diggs No it doesn't unless you understand the motives as why they wanted the pentagon hit.

You do know their motives? Please explain.

Originally posted by Mouth As to your #2 question, umm, I can't answer that. uhhh, umm, uhh. isn't it pretty rhetorical? you don't know what happened to them. you claim that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, but you can't explain its disappearance. so, uhh, wait, whats the point here?

" umm,... uhhh, umm, uhh. uhh," If you want to have a serious debate, please leave these childish expression out of it. My 2nd question about recovering the bodies, you say not much would remain of the plane after smacking into the reinforced building yet they said all the passengers were found there. Doesn't that seem to contradict what you said? And why wouldn't the tail leave breach marks in the masonry of the 3rd wall? This is called physical evidence.

Too complicated to understand? Don't insult my intelligence. I am trying to have a debate here.

Saying something couldn't happen that was because it "seems too complicated" doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. I don't know of a conspiracy that wouldn't be complicated to some extent.

Can you please post a good shot of the outer wall of the pentagon after impact? I don't want to search for it, and you probably have it on hand.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Leave your comments to that in that thread if you wouldn't mind.

Originally posted by Mouth

Originally posted by diggs No it doesn't unless you understand the motives as why they wanted the pentagon hit.

You do know their motives? Please explain.

The best motive I've found that makes perfect sense to me is here. And that motive also explains to me why a 757 wasn't used because they needed something extremely accurate to hit that exact spot they wanted to. Note that I believe bombs were placed inside which I feel did the most damage. If they used some kind of missile to accurately hit that spot, I don't think it did most of the damage, but was just needed to have something seen flying into the building. [edit on 2-6-2006 by diggs]

Originally posted by diggs If you want to have a serious debate, please leave these childish expression out of it.

Childish expressions? I am sorry, but it was a STUPID question to begin with. There is no answer, because if someone KNEW WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM, then there would not be a point for discussion, would there?

Originally posted by diggs My 2nd question about recovering the bodies, you say not much would remain of the plane after smacking into the reinforced building yet they said all the passengers were found there. Doesn't that seem to contradict what you said?

Could they not have been the bodies of the people in the pentagon? Are you able to identify who was who? this does not contradict what I said.

Originally posted by diggs And why wouldn't the tail leave breach marks in the masonry of the 3rd wall? This is called physical evidence.

maybe as the plane hit the wall, it caused the nose to angle slightly up, forcing the rest of the plane to impact in the same spot. Probably not, but hey, who knows? I sure as hell don't, and obviously no one else does, since this debate is still going on.

Originally posted by diggs Saying something couldn't happen that was because it "seems too complicated" doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. I don't know of a conspiracy that wouldn't be complicated to some extent.

Shouting "Conspiracy!!!" doesn't mean that happened either. Saying that there were plane swappings and other things hit the pentagon without explaining what happened to the original planes themselves doesn't really back up your story. Since you don't know, how are you credible?

All I want to know is (in regards to the witnessess) why didn't anyone describe hearing a very loud noise (which is why Airline directors wear earplugs when the plane is just backing up) which would've caused most, if not all, people to cover their ears and the do the "natural" reaction of closing their eyes. Also, with that in mind, how can someone see anything going 500 MPH "in front of them"? Those eff up footages couldn't catch whatever after the first seg but we are to believe that some "HUMAN EYES" caught it in it's entirety? Sure.

Originally posted by MouthChildish expressions? I am sorry, but it was a STUPID question to begin with. There is no answer, because if someone KNEW WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM, then there would not be a point for discussion, would there?

Which question of mine was stupid?

Could they not have been the bodies of the people in the pentagon? Are you able to identify who was who? this does not contradict what I said.

No, they said they found all the passenger bodies and even marked where they found their bodies on a chart. How could bodies on board survive yet hardly anthing of the plane?

maybe as the plane hit the wall, it caused the nose to angle slightly up, forcing the rest of the plane to impact in the same spot. Probably not, but hey, who knows? I sure as hell don't, and obviously no one else does, since this debate is still going on.

Well it's pretty obvious it didn't hit the wall since there are no marks on the 3rd story. Kind of puts a "hole" in your theory that a 757 with a tail crashed the way we were told.

Shouting "Conspiracy!!!" doesn't mean that happened either. Saying that there were plane swappings and other things hit the pentagon without explaining what happened to the original planes themselves doesn't really back up your story. Since you don't know, how are you credible?

So I'm not credible because I don't know where they took the original plane?

I am watching the loose change second edition right now. Jesus. Umm, well, I think I am going to start retracting my statements, and start apologizing. Sorry. Mouth

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya All I want to know is (in regards to the witnessess) why didn't anyone describe hearing a very loud noise (which is why Airline directors wear earplugs when the plane is just backing up) which would've caused most, if not all, people to cover their ears and the do the "natural" reaction of closing their eyes.

Some who "saw" the plane couldn't hear it???

Also, with that in mind, how can someone see anything going 500 MPH "in front of them"?

I especially like the witnesses who said they saw "people's faces" in the windows! So much for witnesses.

Originally posted by Mouth I am watching the loose change second edition right now. Jesus. Umm, well, I think I am going to start retracting my statements, and start apologizing. Sorry. Mouth

Does that mean you're starting to understand why us CT's feel the way we do about 9/11?

Originally posted by diggs How would I know why the wouldn't crash them, where they took them, and what they did with the passengers?

If you want to continue your claims that anything but those planes were used in the events of 9/11 ,you should provide facts and evidence of such. since you are stating that no planes were used, then mabye you should provide evidence of what happened to those planes and the passengers. You'd thinkg that after 5 years, theese missing people (which is kind of hard to be missing, since their body parts and dna were found at the crash sites), someone would have seen them or heard from them.

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by diggs How would I know why the wouldn't crash them, where they took them, and what they did with the passengers?

If you want to continue your claims that anything but those planes were used in the events of 9/11 ,you should provide facts and evidence of such. since you are stating that no planes were used, then mabye you should provide evidence of what happened to those planes and the passengers. You'd thinkg that after 5 years, theese missing people (which is kind of hard to be missing, since their body parts and dna were found at the crash sites), someone would have seen them or heard from them.

Ok, my evidence of where the planes are is a place some other than were our gov't told us they crashed. How's that? There you go again Wiz, taking some thing we say and running with the rest. I never said the passengers weren't killed somewhere else. Also, who said they found their DNA at the crash sites again?

mouth, you should really look into the loose change readers guide. then youll be able to retract your retracting. there are valid points made by Ct's, but don't take everything they put out as Gospel. i used to, and BOY what a mistake that was [edit on 2-6-2006 by blatantblue]