9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

If this was done by remote control then it could be plane, it WAS a plane. Disinfo?

Originally posted by Samblack Yah I don't know how much proof these conspiracy theorist's need to convince them it was a plane.Personally I don't think anything will convice them.And as far as alluminum goes I've seen it disinegrate in common bonfires in my backyard.

How much proof do you need that their are a lot of qustions about what happened that day. So tell me about burning aircraft grade aluminum in your backyard, along with all the other material thats on an aircraft. [edit on 5-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ANOK See this is where you are getting confused, just because we believe the hole is too small it doesn't mean we think the hole should be bigger. In fact in reality I don't think there would be a hole at all, not punched all the way through the building. It's obvious from your posts you really don't understand the argument at all. The point we are making is if the plane was supposed to have made that hole then it wasn't a 757 that did it. A 757 would not have made a neet 16' hole through reinforced concrete. But a missile would...

It's not a contradiction, it's your inability or refusal to understand.

Speak for yourself. it's a two part argument. one being that there couldn't have been a hole at all, and the other that the hole was too small. If you are going to claim that the CT side isn't arguing the hole is too small, then you haven't been reading very much here. But depending on the counter argument, you guys will jump from one story to the other. My ability to misunderstand? YOU are the one claiming that the hole could only be made by a missle and not by a 757. Please don't kid me about who refuses to understand. This isn't about understanding, this is about you wanting to believe something so badly, you simply decided already what happened. There is no scientific basis for your claims that only a missle could make such a hole or that a 757 is not capable of penetrating the building. Although the opposite has been scientifically proven. So my so called lack of understanding is based on engineering analysis (not of my own of course) and many accredited scientists and institues such as Perdue university. I suppose yours is based on prison Planet.

Originally posted by snoopy Speak for yourself. it's a two part argument. one being that there couldn't have been a hole at all, and the other that the hole was too small. If you are going to claim that the CT side isn't arguing the hole is too small, then you haven't been reading very much here. But depending on the counter argument, you guys will jump from one story to the other...

LOL, you love to put everyone in a pigeon hole don't ya, you are not seeing 'CTers' changing their story you are seeing people with different opinions. I've been reading and posting on 9-11 threads before you even thought about joining ATS, you need to go back and read without shutting out anything that doesn't agree with the government. Pls show me the science that explains that a 757 could have made that hole, because what you have said so far has nothing to do with science at all. What you said about the wings liquefying is total nonsense, and shows you really don't understand physics, and you're trying to tell me you have scientific proof that a 757 could make that hole? Scientific proof? Show it to me instead of keep telling me what you believe with nothing to back it up. And no I don't need prison planet to tell me how to think, not that there's anything wrong with prison planet. If you have a problem with what they say then show me the evidence that refutes it. All you've given us so far are empty words, and un-scientific opinion. Gleamed from where is a mystery cause you never seem to provide anything to back up your claims. Most people are starting to wake up and realize the truth. Who's side you on?

Originally posted by ANOK LOL, you love to put everyone in a pigeon hole don't ya, you are not seeing 'CTers' changing their story you are seeing people with different opinions. I've been reading and posting on 9-11 threads before you even thought about joining ATS, you need to go back and read without shutting out anything that doesn't agree with the government.

Pls show me the science that explains that a 757 could have made that hole, because what you have said so far has nothing to do with science at all. What you said about the wings liquefying is total nonsense, and shows you really don't understand physics, and you're trying to tell me you have scientific proof that a 757 could make that hole? Scientific proof? Show it to me instead of keep telling me what you believe with nothing to back it up. And no I don't need prison planet to tell me how to think, not that there's anything wrong with prison planet. If you have a problem with what they say then show me the evidence that refutes it. All you've given us so far are empty words, and un-scientific opinion. Gleamed from where is a mystery cause you never seem to provide anything to back up your claims. Most people are starting to wake up and realize the truth. Who's side you on?

Clearly you are making a paint by numbers argument. hence making claims that I dismiss anything that isn't by the governemnt. Yet I have never ever once shown any support for the government. And yes I have seen people make both arguments. Your argument directly contradicts half of the CT movement. How do you account for that? As for the science, I will do you one better: www.abovetopsecret.com... It has the links to the perdue testing as well as hundreds of pictures of the plane. Now I kindly ask you to show scientific testing and evidence that proves only a missle could have created that hole. You claimed it, now let's see some scientific backing. So far you have called the work of these acredited experts nonesense. So please tell us what your cridentials are that make you worthy of calling these scientists full of nonesense. Any moron on the internet can call something nonesense. But for it to actually be nonesense, one would need to be able to prove why. Liewise anyone can say only a missle can cause such a hole. but for it to be true, one must provide scientific evidence proving so. So do you have a PHD in physics? Because the people you are saying are full of nonesense do. You think it's me making this claims, but I don't have the cridenntials to do so. The experts do, so again, what is your expertise to make these claims, and please provide the scientific explination for the physcisists findins being nonesense. Waking up to the truth? Are you sure the truth isn't simply what you want to believe? Because there has been nothing truthful about it yet. let me ask you this. Let's pretend it was a missle, explain the following: The 757 plane remains in the Pentagon. The bodies of the people from flight 77 The belongings of the people on flight 77 The 1000s of people who were there not seeing a missle how a missle hits multiple poles not in a straight line, or how they would knock them over at the time of impact without anyone noticing and how people would mistake a plane for hitting them. how would they pull off such an elaborate plane on pure luck that no one would capture it on tape and that none of the 1000s of people there would see it or realize it was a missle. How all those people could mistake a cruise missle for a commercial jet. I am looking for truth, so please provide the truth. I mean afterall, since you are only looking for truth, you certianly wouldn't want to prey off of small anomylies in someone elses theory without providing one of your own. Or let me guessL You're just asking questions? Let's skip any such cop outs, shall we?

ANOK, Snoopy: ANOK is right and Snoopy has no “PLANE” case at all. Can Snoopy provide one picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11? No. If you will pay carefully attention, then you will see the futility of Snoopy’s “PLANE” Theory from my arguments to him on my “Tomahawk Missile” Thread ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ):

Snoopy to ANOK >> Speak for yourself. it's a two part argument. one being that there couldn't have been a hole at all, and the other that the hole was too small . . . But depending on the counter argument, you guys will jump from one story to the other.

Everyone should look at the actual pictures taken on 9/11 and weigh the evidence. Pic #1 www.worldnewsstand.net... ). Look at the four pictures on the right for signs of any 100 ton Jetliner?? Look over the cars in the first pic for clearance for a Jetliner 125’ wide and 155’ long and almost 50’ tall?? Note the second floor has yet to fall with the initial damage and hole centered on the first floor only. The fire is coming from inside the West Wedge wall, but there is no sign of any PLANE anywhere. Why? The second photo shows the cable spools just right of the original first floor hole, as the second floor is still standing with the fire blazing inside the second story windows. Where is Snoopy’s 100 ton ghost Jetliner? Look at the bottom picture (cranes in front of Pentagon) and note the trajectory of the Missile angling from the right to the left. Note the black soot on the walls of the D Ring and C Ring in the background. This site shows the Missile trajectory angle more precisely ( www.freedomfiles.org... ) in the 13th pic from the top (arrows and “trj.” Pointing at ‘hole’). Someone please inform Snoopy that this 8’X8’ hole in the back wall of the C Ring could not have been made by a 100 ton Jetliner impacting the exterior E Ring, when no substantial damage was inflicted on the D Ring standing between them. Note carefully that the trajectory angle is perfectly straight and the red line matches the flight path of the Tomahawk Missile exactly. While the Missile exploded in the E Ring, the inertia and the explosion itself propelled the disintegrating Missile Debris forward along the same flight path straight through the D and C Ring walls like a shot gun. Any 100 ton Jetliner crashing into the Pentagon along this trajectory would have created an immense hole in the West Wedge wall to carry the E Ring debris along this same path. 100 tons times 500 miles per hour equals enough Newtons of force to open a hole in all three Rings, which this evidence in no way supports. Remember that even the exterior E Ring wall sustained a hole only 16’X20’ from the original Missile Attack and the subsequent fire caused the floors of that section to eventually collapse.

Snoopy To ANOK >> My ability to misunderstand? YOU are the one claiming that the hole could only be made by a missle and not by a 757. Please don't kid me about who refuses to understand.

ANOK is right and Snoopy has no case at all. What does the evidence say? Pic #2 >> www.worldnewsstand.net... The only part of the West Wedge wall to suffer second story damage from the original Missile explosion is confined to the area of the small circle above and to the left of the spools. Note carefully the three columns (in orange) leaning back in our direction away from the blast zone of the Tomahawk Missile. If Snoopy’s ghost Jetliner created this hole, then why are the cable spools still in place and untouched? The top of the second floor is only about 20 feet high, but the Jetliner’s height is almost 50 feet high from the landing strip to the top of the tail. How did Snoopy’s Jetliner sequeeze between the top of those cable spools and the bottom of the second floor highlighted in red??!! Do any of our ATS Investigators see any sign of 100 tons of Jetliner in this picture? However, a Tomahawk Missile would have exploded just inside the building and caused the columns to bend back away from center of the blast, just like the facts clearly show.

Snoopy To ANOK >> This isn't about understanding, this is about you wanting to believe something so badly, you simply decided already what happened. There is no scientific basis for your claims that only a missle could make such a hole or that a 757 is not capable of penetrating the building. Although the opposite has been scientifically proven.

Snoopy has deluded himself into believing a 100 ton Jetliner could have impacted the Pentagon. What does the evidence tell you? Pic #4 >> www.worldnewsstand.net... Look at the bottom picture of the fireball coming from the now enlarging hole in the West Wedge wall and try to convince us that a Jetliner 125 feet wide is hiding inside the Pentagon. The top picture shows the second floor still intact, which excludes the possibility that 100 tons of Jetliner passed into the building. If that were the case, then over 60 tons of aluminum should be present inside the Pentagon, which NONE of the facts in this case supports. These pictures look exactly like the Pentagon was struck by a Missile Attack.

Snoopy To Anok >> So my so called lack of understanding is based on engineering analysis (not of my own of course) and many accredited scientists and institues such as Perdue university. I suppose yours is based on prison Planet.

Snoopy’s statements here are massively exaggerated to prop up his “PLANE” Theory that NOBODY here can prove from the evidence. Pic # 7 >> www.worldnewsstand.net... This close up picture of the West Wedge wall before the second floor collapsed show no room whatsoever to accommodate 100 tons of Jetliner, even if someone happened to find one inside the Pentagon. The debris behind the untouched spools has been ejected out of the building, instead of being carried by 100 tons of Jetliner going in the opposite direction. The PLANE Theory has a ZERO chance of probability in light of the facts in this case. If Snoopy had one shred of evidence to prop up his theory, then we would be looking at that instead of all his “talk, talk, talk” that amounts to nothing at all. GL finding his Phantom Jetliner, Terral [edit on 6-10-2006 by Terral]

What would make these theories of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon more believable would people who were actually witnesses to the event saying that they didn't think it was a plane. Actually if we could get at least 2 or 3 people who were there and saw a missle or something other than a plane, we might actually consider something else. I am not talking news footage of someone who wasn't there who "there is no debris..blah blah blah." I am talking people who were on the ground who say "you know...I just don't think it was a plane." Were any of you there...you who completely believe that it wasn't a plane? Do you know anyone who was there that day who say "gee I dont' think it was a plane?" If you do, some of us might actually consider it. I actually know someone who was there and he is convinced it was a plane. The irony of it is, he was on his way back in from smoking a cigarette and decided that he needed to have another he just wasn't going back to his office just yet. While outside the plane hit. I am sorry, from the first page of this post and his recount of the event, I am going with a plane. Common sense is telling me to. As a matter of fact, I just got an email from him. I told him about what I have been reading here this afternoon and his comment was this "YES, a plane did hit the Pentagon. I know, I’ve heard it all."

Hi Jab:

Jab >> What would make these theories of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon more believable would people who were actually witnesses to the event saying that they didn't think it was a plane. Actually if we could get at least 2 or 3 people who were there and saw a missle or something other than a plane, we might actually consider something else.

That is like a homicide detective saying, “Hey, if three people will just tell me who the murder is, then we can all go home.” What a crock! People lie about this stuff every day. If that is truly your attitude, then why even become an ATS member in the first place? The whole concept of Above Top Secret is ONLY SOME PEOPLE KNOW THE TRUTH! They cover the truth with every kind of smokescreen tactic known to mankind and the rest of us are left to our own devices. The key for this and EVERY ATS Investigation is to follow the EVIDENCE. That means accurately identifying the real evidence that becomes part of the investigation. I cannot even find a single picture of Flight 77 in ANY pictures of the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. Can you? Why not allow someone to tell you the tooth fairy did it. Eventually three people will agree and your case is solved! Good grief . . .

Jab >> I am not talking news footage of someone who wasn't there who "there is no debris..blah blah blah." I am talking people who were on the ground who say "you know...I just don't think it was a plane."

That is what we have from the CNN Reporter ( thewebfairy.com... ) on the scene just minutes after the original attack.

Jab >> Were any of you there...you who completely believe that it wasn't a plane? Do you know anyone who was there that day who say "gee I dont' think it was a plane?" If you do, some of us might actually consider it.

Heh . . . How many homicide detectives are on the scene when the crime takes place?? Thank God they do not have your attitude. 100 tons of Jetliner does not crash into anything and simply vanish into thin air. The PLANE Theorists simply have no physical evidence to support 60 tons of aluminum melting and somehow vaporizing along with wings, tail section, seats, cargo, landing gear, etc.. However, a Missile detonating inside the Pentagon would give us all the appearances on display in every single picture we have on file as evidence. Why are the PLANE Theorists holding onto an IMPOSSIBLE explanation, when one well placed missile answers all the questions?? The answer is that many ATS members have too much invested in the PLANE Theory, even though they have no physical evidence to place Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon.

Jab >> I actually know someone who was there and he is convinced it was a plane. The irony of it is, he was on his way back in from smoking a cigarette and decided that he needed to have another he just wasn't going back to his office just yet.

If your friend had a camera or recorder, he would have the only picture of Flight 77 on the planet anywhere near the Pentagon. Of course, he would still have no 100 tons of Jetliner on the pristine Pentagon lawn or hidden inside the building. I am simply amazed that so many people can be led into believing this PLANE Hoax without a single photo placing Flight 77 on the scene.

Jab >> While outside the plane hit. I am sorry, from the first page of this post and his recount of the event, I am going with a plane. Common sense is telling me to.

Heh . . . You are coming out here to talk about common sense, instead of showing us ‘your’ evidence that supports your PLANE Theory. Where is the PLANE???? Yet another ATS member has made a huge investment in the Official DoD Cover Story, even with no evidence at all. And this is done under the guise of ‘common sense.’ Now I have heard it all!

As a matter of fact, I just got an email from him. I told him about what I have been reading here this afternoon and his comment was this "YES, a plane did hit the Pentagon. I know, I’ve heard it all."

If anyone on earth was in possession of ‘the evidence’ that placed Flight 77 on the Pentagon lawn or inside the building, then we would all be looking at that and in full agreement. You and your friend carry around that ‘opinion,’ but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the ‘evidence’ in this case. Next time bring your ‘evidence.’ GL, Terral

Thanx Terell good post... Snoopy, a link to Catherders thread? Is that all you can come up with? Yeah I see a lot of words in your post, but again it's a whole lot of nothing BTW Catherder has been de-bunked to death on ATS, sry try again...You're not getting up early enough, ask for a pay raise

Terrel said....

That is what we have from the CNN Reporter ( thewebfairy.com... ) on the scene just minutes after the original attack.

Yes the "famous" Jamie McIntyre report, of course CT'ers never used the FULL report....

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

transcripts.cnn.com... And....

...had a camera with me. I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage, a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene.

transcripts.cnn.com... In other words, Jamie McIntyre has been misquoted by CT'ers for five years now.

Wow Terral...ok. When you show me a picture or a video tape of a missle...I will believe you, fair enough? (Maybe it is on page 125 of this thread and I missed it...) I'm open to hear other sides of the story. I simply made a suggestion that might make people believe the "no plane" theory. I would be more willing to believe it if there was someone who saw something different. Wow...sorry I made that mistake. I don't have evidence. I have been reading all of yours and everyone elses. I am making a conclusion based on what everyone has brought to the table (and let me say...I am seeing no missle pics...where are the missle pics????). I do have a dear friend who is not a liar (and is really not stupid) who says a plane hit it, he was friggen there. (I really don't expect you to believe him....cuz even if he did have a pic, you would spend another 200 thread pages deciding whether or not the pic was legit. sorry but its true...you would) My friend and the evidence provided within this thread and other threads within this site lead me to the conclusion that a plane hit the pentagon. I could be wrong....as can you, unless you have that missle pic??? There are hundreds of people saying they saw a plane....everyone is lying? Did the government gather them around and say "ok, you all saw a plane and flash the little pen looking thing while the government agent wore his special sunglasses." (oh wait....he flashes the pen first, then tells them what to remember...yeah yeah... that's right.) I am trying to understand what kind of smoke screen could be used to make all those people believe something that is not true. I am coming across as a bitch, I know that, but I just got slammed for asking a very simple request in the midst of all this....evidence and debunking. But sheesh, you all argue about whether something is or isn't debunked...how the heck is someone supposed to know...seriously? I have seen on this website many instances of people arguing about whether or not something has been debunked. I can't even keep up. I found myself taking notes earlier just to make sure I knew who debunked who. I finally said f*** it....I can't. I can't provide you with a video or pics...I don't have any. However, I have seen pics of plane pieces (but those can't possibly be real..right?) Hey...you got any missle pieces pics??? I asked if there are any people who saw something different than a plane, I got crapped on. It is a reasonable request. Were any of you there? Do you know anyone who was there? What is wrong with that question? You wouldn't be disregarding what people say they saw if someone said "It wasn't a plane". So are there any people that saw something different? Is it not possible for someone to have seen something different or someone knowing of someone? Explain what smoke screen is used to make all those people see a plane? (shoot i bet it was on page 125 of this thread as well.) I got the sarcastic analogy of a homicide detective having my attitude. Alright fine, a homicide detective is going to ask people if they saw anything, notepad in hand. (Umm...I just asked if anyone saw something different) Over 100 witnesses say that Joe Blow did it, guess what...he is going to be arrested. Why because it is more probable than not, that all of them are not lying. You know what else? The detective wouldn't even need a damn body as long as they are missing long enough. If they have enough people saying that Joe Blow shot his wife, dumped her in the everglades and 6 massive gators ate the body as they all sat in horror watching, it would be enough. I am still trying to understand the whole smoke screen thing. I am sorry, maybe I give people too much credit Also, is it possible for people to not fall for the smoke screen that was actually there? Or was it brainwashing? Are some people immune to brainwashing? I am sorry if I seem dumb, but I am really trying to understand.

Terral won't give up.He want's it to be a missle.

Taking the PLANE VS MISSILE aspect of this thread I must say that the discourse has become childlish..I mean: some support A PLANE THEORY while some argue stating A MISSILE THEORY.... so i've got a question, or maybe two: 1. Why, on earth, nobody referred to the links I provided??? If they were analysed, just tell me: yo, man, refer to page blablabla and get lost for a while... ;] and come back learned a bit... 2. Can't we supposedly say that this was A MISSILE inside A SMALLER THAN 767 B. PLANE?? As to SNOOPY: I'm still waiting for your comments to my recent posts....well, EVERYONE'S INVITED ...otherwise I'll give up counting this thread to another bullshit threads. tough words, I know, but I have no other way to provoke you, SORRY, donn't wanna waist my time to have nothing in return. so take a challenge /FT

Originally posted by Terral That is what we have from the CNN Reporter ( thewebfairy.com... ) on the scene just minutes after the original attack.

interesting link. then I went to thewebfairy.com... If that is real , I will have to take a closer look at it in my archive video files.

as to pentagon site I really ecourage you to have a look at www.911studies.com... and the next pages. aspecially about pentagon. then you can start or stop basing on the photos we'd like to.

Hi Jab:

Jab >> Wow Terral...ok. When you show me a picture or a video tape of a missle...I will believe you, fair enough?

Heh . . . No. Look at the Topic Title of the Thread Starter. A Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is 100 tons of component parts, while my Tomahawk Missile is about 1 ton. We are supposed to be seeing typical jetliner debris like this: Other Jetliner Crashes >> www.worldnewsstand.net... About one ton of the DoD’s own missile EXPLODED inside the Pentagon to make them look like a VICTIM. What do you expect them to do?? Would they gather up the itsy bitsy pieces and say, “Hey, there is our Missile!” Please . . . However, I wanted to thank you for making my case of how ridiculous the “PLANE” Theory really is in light of all the evidence. People who are willing to swallow this “PLANE” nonsense are perfectly willing to ask “Where is the Missile?,” even though their case depends on 100 tons of Jetliner showing up somewhere in the evidence. The DoD can easily hide 1 ton of missile debris, especially when everyone is looking for 100 tons of Jetliner. Do you know what? We all got over Santa Claus by the first or second grade, but if you want to continue believing in this “PLANE” Theory, then please be my guest. However, while I can show you 1000 pictures of Santa Claus, I cannot find one picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon. Can you? GL, Terral [edit on 7-10-2006 by Terral]

Terrel said:

However, while I can show you 1000 pictures of Santa Claus, I cannot find one picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon. Can you?

In 1982, Air Florida flight 90 crashed into the 14th street bridge and ended up in the Potomac (about a mile or so from the Pentagon by the way). However, there are no pictures of that flight anywhere near the bridge. Using your logic, appearantly Flight 90 didnt crash either.

Terral I just put a link that shows 100s of pictures of the wreckage. If you are looking for a picture of the plane in flight, than that is a poor argument. You are claiming that unless something is caught on film it therefore does not exist. This would mean that before the advent of film that nothing existed. perhaps you would care to show a picture of your missle near the Pentagon? I mean if you require pictures for proof, then where are yous? You say that due to lack of pictures my case has no merit, but then the same should hold true for yours. So please show us the pictures of the missle. Signs of a 100 ton jetliner? What would those signs be? A cartoon punchout the shape of a plane like in bugsbunny? Clearly you have no unedstanding of how high speed impacts work. It has been explained by scientsts why this cartoon theory does not work in the real world. What's more ironic is you choose only the shots where debre and wreckage is obscured. yet if you look in the link I provided, you find tons and tons of debre from the plane. On the other hand, not one sign of your ghost missle you claim. Perhaps someone should inform you that a missle explodes and does not simply punch out holes. The hole you are refering to was made by the landing gear of the plane. as to be expected. The reason for the scattered damage is due to the liquification of the plane which then flows in a liquid type of motion finding the paths of least resistence. But of course you think it's supposed to work like the cartoons where the plane enters whole, undamaged and continues through as one big peice.An absurd notion, but your claim is absurd anyways. it matches the flight path of a tomahawk missle? How do you know this? Please explain exactly how it fits the path of a tomahawk missle. Please explain how that path includes a magic missle that zig zags and hits the light poles as well and then continues on that path. I am sure your explination sounds pretty interesting to you, but you are simply just making it up. I am sure that in your mind that is what it seems like should happen. But in phsyics and reality it simply does not work that way. nobody can prove the plane theory? Contrare, everyone has proven it. The only thing unproven is the missle theory. And your same technique to discredit it discredits your own theory. Only there are plane parts from flight 77 to refer to and there are 1000s of witnesses to back it up. Your thoery on the other hand is 100% conjecture with no evidence other than what you jsut made up and does not hold up scientifically. you can make claims such as "not one shred of evidence" but you are simply denying the evidence. You are simply ignoring what you don't want to see. The evidence is so overehwlming that it is undeputed. yet there is nothing to support your thoery but conjecture. Some of us don't have the luxory of closing our eyes and ignoring what we don't want to see. So please explain how the 1000s of people there that day were fooled into thinking a tomahawk missle was a 100ton commercial plane. please explain how they managed to get all of the remains and passengers from flight 77 onto the scene without being seen. And of course it could not have all been planted later since it was there from the beginning and even caught on the security camera being ejected onto the lawn. And explain how the missle hit all the lightpoles which were not in its path. Explain how the missle simply punched a hole rather than blowing up.

Jab The people who claimed it wasn't a plane were people descibing it as something other than a plane. For example people who said it was like a missle. But this is just web sites taking their quotes out of context. On the aniversary CNN talked to a lot of thes epeople who were reporters who made this claim and they said that they absolutely saw a commercial plane and that they were jsut trying to describe the effect of it. Just thoguht I would add that since a lot of these misquotes are what have fueled the missle theory. The rest of it is a psychological desire for there to be some big expciting diabolical plot. Unfortunately life just isn't always that excisting.

Originally posted by ANOK Thanx Terell good post... Snoopy, a link to Catherders thread? Is that all you can come up with?

Yeah I see a lot of words in your post, but again it's a whole lot of nothing

BTW Catherder has been de-bunked to death on ATS, sry try again...You're not getting up early enough, ask for a pay raise

I am sorry you cannot read a lot of words. but if you look at the pictures there are the pictures of the plane parts that people keep claiming don't exist. And there is the link to the engineering studiesshowing how the plane liquified. And no it has not been debunked to death. thats just you not wanting to believe it so to you any posts that argue against it are seen as right and ones you don't want to hear are seen as wrong. So while you may feel it's been debunked, it certianly hasn't. Not to mention the thread was not the point, the link and the pictures in the OP are. So try again my friend.