9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by jimmyx people believe 9/11 was a conspirecy simply because the government refuses to release ALL information surrounding it.

The government has nothing that counters all the independent evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. It never did. It never will. Even if it wanted to. Just because you believe - without a stitch of supporting evidence - that the government is "hiding" something is totally irrelevant. Your beliefs are not evidence.

"...when selected evidence is held back from the public, someone is lying.

Fortunately, rational people understand that the government does not have anything that would disprove the massive, independent evidence demonstrating that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. And rational people understand that your statement, "when selected evidence is held back from the public, someone is lying," has to be demonstrated, not asserted without evidence. We note none of you have done so in 7 years.

therefore, until the government releases all evidence of the 9/11 debacle, they will not be trusted.

That is entirely your own problem of the inability to think logically. Only YOU can change that - if you choose to THINK rationally. But the majority of you 9/11 Deniers cannot get out of the hold of your religious beliefs about 9/11.

I have to say I disagree with the above for two reasons. The first being, in the event that they have no damning evidence,why not release the security camera from the hotel overlooking the entire scene as proof of such? It still hasn't been released and one must wonder why if they, and "they" being at the least some extension of our government didn't have something to hide. The other reason is there is a great amount of evidence supporting the once deemed "wild" theory that the two towers were a controlled demolition situation including but not limited to testimony from firemen and recordings from the cb radio conversations between units inside the buildings siting explosions prior to the collapse, factual evidence gathered about the actual temperature degradation limits of the steel used to structually support the the two towers (as well as tower no.7 ofcourse), and even footage of the collapse where windows seemed to blast out (as if due to explosions) in levels several down from the actual collapsing head of the buildings all the way to the bottom. And lets not forget one monumentally obvious fact people, ONE tower droping STRAIGHT down from structural integerity damage due to a plane impacting high up seems unlikely but THREE? no leaning, no massive collateral damage was incurred by any of the surrounding buildings. That in and of itself is very hard to over look. As I stated in a previous post I believe its quite safe to say that if in even one of the events we chalk up to being part of the 9/11 attack we can find fault or suspicious actions taken by our government then we very safely infer complicity in the others. What about the Cell phone calls made that we have run studies on since and found virtually impossible in not just the time frame alloted but the context. The footage of a laser being painted on the twin towers moments before and up to the impact? And my favorite the inadvertant bbc broadcast stating the no.7 building had collapsed way before it actually had, and by testimonial accounts, how empty no.7 was even before the impending "structural integerity collapse"? There is plenty the government could not cover up and I ask why these things would be blanketed with an official story that when people take the time to pick apart realize is not accurate,is not consistent with that which the government is trying to infer actually took place? they arent idiots clearly so why go through all that? at the least you have to surrender to the point that when your lied to , you start to wonder what else you may have been lied to about. And make no mistake people whatever the real story is, there isnt enough of what actually happen in the official story to even slightly substantiate fractions of the governments side of what apparently took place under their nose without them knowing....paleeeze!

I've been told the plane locked onto the beacon at the Pentogon Heloport which is right where it skidded before impact. Seawolf

Originally posted by jthomas The government has nothing that counters all the independent evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Please show me this so called evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Because as far as i know most of the evidnece has not been released so you cannot have any real evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jimmyx people believe 9/11 was a conspirecy simply because the government refuses to release ALL information surrounding it.

The government has nothing that counters all the independent evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. It never did. It never will. Even if it wanted to. Just because you believe - without a stitch of supporting evidence - that the government is "hiding" something is totally irrelevant. Your beliefs are not evidence.

Very true. When the investigation is completed and the reports are released, the precious evidence that Ct'ers are wanting will be released. Then they will wonder why they even doubted the official story in the 1st place

Originally posted by gavron the precious evidence that Ct'ers are wanting will be released. Then they will wonder why they even doubted the official story in the 1st place

Well too bad i have douments and evidnece from the government that questions the official story, when i post it the believers will wonder why they stood by the official story when there was no evindece to support it to begin with. [edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by DJAghetto its probably a drone...

Aurora?? i read that we invested heavily in the drone tech??? maybe the billion everyone thinks was set aside for the supersonic plane is really drone tech....

coincidence?? FROM washington post "After Sept. 11, 2001, "mini" drones have created big business for small Washington area companies, those that make them and those that load them with tiny cameras and sensors. Since the terrorist attacks, unclassified spending on drones of all sizes has jumped nearly fivefold, from $364 million in fiscal 2001 to $1.67 billion in fiscal 2006, according to the Pentagon. And the number of drones rose from 100 to more than 2,000. "It's practically become a retail business, because it's easy for a small company to come up with a small drone," said James Jay Carafano, a senior military affairs fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "So many of these companies have dual-use technologies that can be tailored for just about any kind of mission." www.washingtonpost.com... maybe the aurora spyplane is all just a coverup for the aurora company bulding drone planes and drones that can crash into our buildings and pentagon with tiny bits of metal to make it look like a larger plane....where is the majority of the evidence from the penagon... this is a well laid out argument but wheres the beef????

washington post quote..aurora BAI Aerosystems Inc. assembles the miniature planes for the military on its factory floor in Easton. In Manassas, Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. is developing a pilotless plane with a similar mission, only this one looks like a trash can with fins and takes off like a helicopter.

washington post.... why is this, cause now investors see the possibilities?? Since the terrorist attacks, unclassified spending on drones of all sizes has jumped nearly fivefold, from $364 million in fiscal 2001 to $1.67 billion in fiscal 2006, according to the Pentagon. And the number of drones rose from 100 to more than 2,000.

washington post Unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, date back to the 1940s, when the Air Force and Navy used them to test radiation levels after nuclear blasts. But they were not used extensively for reconnaissance during combat until the end of the Vietnam War and then again at the start of Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

Not that I know much about drone tech,but It was debated early on (not sure if the topic was ruled out as plausible) that it may have been a smaller plane flown in on remote by the now infamouse "other" plane that some pentagon personnel and witnesses to the event claim was in the vicinity of the pentagon at the time of the impact. It is possible a smaller plane was used which would explain the lack of remains of the huge engine casings the alleged airline jet would have left behind on impact or before. I have seen footage of larger scale planes flown by remote and it isnt as far out a possibility to me as some theories although the missile theory seems a bit more plausible based on the security cam photos which we have had time to analyze. I would have to say at this point despite all the information for and against the official story I lean torwards the missile theory and a secondary explanation being a drone or remotely flown smaller aircraft with what to me seems like premeditated staging done by some party involved which I would presume have ties if not direct association with the american military. I mention the staging because of the light poles that were downed and the lack of people in the wing impacted the day of the attack. Seems a bit too coincidental given the other "coincidental" occurances across the board that day. Like: 1.The lack of fighter squadrons available for responce. 2.The announcement of tower no.7 "collapsing" before anyone actually saw it collapse. 3. The similarities between the towers (the two and no.7) collapsing and how a controlled demo might appear. 4. How many cellular calls were able to be made from thousands upon thousands of feet up in the air when such types of calls are highly unlikely at anything past a thousand or two typically. 5.Lastly, The number of people in the pentagon incident as well as the two towers site whom submitted accounts of things which oppose the official story (such as explosions being heard in the two towers by firefighter units ,witnesses at the pentagon seeing a second plane in the vicinity, as well as pentagon cops stating the plane which hit the pentagon (if thats what it was) approached from a different flight path from the official story). I cant say I know anything for certain but I can say that what we have been told thus far seems to have numerous holes and the official story hasnt been defended as well as a story which is in actuality the real thing should be by facts alone. One could say ofcourse that only means that its plausible that not enough facts have been released and thus the defense of the official story hasnt been fully excercised however why would you let the official story's credibility deteriorate when evidence supporting it would help to solidify the thoroughness of not only the people whom conducted the intial and ongoing investigations as well as the government itself.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx Please use paragraphs. It makes baby jesus cry when you dont use paragraphs.

I spoke with a gentleman who is a retired military intelligence analyst who now works for a private contractor. He was at CIA headquarters on 911 and he said that they were told to "shut up and color." I asked him what he thought about all the "911 conspiracy" stuff... making the statement that while some of the questions and "evidence" are very compelling.... some of it is so far fetched that it makes the conspiracy theorists look like loons. His response was... "if you had a true conspiracy to cover up, what would be the easiest way to discredit it?" A good point. Throw in a few wacko sounding red herrings, and the whole barrel starts to stink. The credible evidence is easily overshadowed. I asked him what he personally thought about the situation. He said that the American public will never know the truth, because they would not WANT to know the truth. There are so many questions surrounding 911, and so many far-fetched "theories" that it will probably never be sorted out. I fully believe that 30-40 years from now that evidence will come to light that shows that, at the least, the administration looked the other way, knowing that any incident would serve their goal of an oil-war. But these wackos that try to say that NO planes hit the towers, or the Pentagon, are either high, or they are shills for the folks who are covering up the real truth... just throwing out more red herrings. Keep in mind though, that just because some of the theories are complete cr@p, that it doesn't make all of them wrong. There are a lot of "connected" and intelligent people, in, and connected to, the government and the administration that DO have suspicions.

OK.Not a bad argument at all but the jet engines are what still get me.You show so much as a peice of scrap metal as if there they are,but really there much bigger.Theres also no sign of there impact.Outside the hole there are windows completely in tacked.Jet ingines or wings would have taken care of that.

so how in every other plane crash there is a good amount of the plane still intact. im pretty sure the entire plane didnt go in and just disapeer. sure its easy to leave chunks of a plane around, send a small plane or other object into it while having bombs go off to make it look like it was a plane. the only video you can find showing a "plane" is def to small to be a plane.

To me, the 2 photos of the hole tell the whole real story. You are telling us that an airliner, wings, engines and tail section went through that one hole without so much as knocking out, or damaging ONE BRICK on either side of the hole? That is utterly unbelievable! Where is the damage that the wings and engines would have caused? Where is the damage that the taller tail section would have caused? Please explain to me why there is NO damage on either side of the hole. And why didn't you give a reason why there is no wing/engine damage? Instead of putting a caption about the lack of damage to the wall, you highlight pieces of wreckage, why? It just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. And, as Judge Judy always says...If it doesnt make sense, then it probably isnt true! IMO those 2 photos of the hole totally refute every other argument you have made that it was an airliner.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS I think you're very close to the real truth there. All the nuclear weapons, missiles, fake planes, holograms etc theories really are working to the advantage of someone out there who likes it that way. What's the odds that the enemy was grossly underestimated in terms of how much damage they could do with limited numbers in a single attack? No buildings had to come down - reprisal was guaranteed.

I can somewhat accept conspiracy about JFK assassination, though I don't think it happened. But there you just need 1 or 2 hit men to do the job and it possible to cover it up forever. BTW, up to day nobody came up with any evidence of so called "truth" about JFK. So I think it was deranged Oswald who did it alone. In case of 911, Conspiracy Theorists throwing at us such a complex plot or multiple plots that contradict to each other, that it would take thousands of people to accomplish. Starting from reporters, FBI, firefighters, FAA, CIA, NTSB, Army, Air force, etc. and ending up with private citizens who are all ordered to lie, shut up or die. But as they say if two people know the secret, it's not a secret anymore. It's not a Hollywood movie. Such things simply don't happen in real life.