9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Read the OP again Roger. Tell me what Catherders post has to do with the media. Try to stay on topic. One more time. Read the OP and THEN give me your opinion what YOU think hit the Pentagon. DO you think you are capable of doing this?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt One more time. Read the OP and THEN give me your opinion what YOU think hit the Pentagon. DO you think you are capable of doing this?

I have read and looked at all the SUPPOSED evidence posted. There is no real evidence of what hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Actually, there is more evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon...than there is evidence of a missile, or hologram, or flyover, or any of your odd conspiracy theories. Please show us any evidence of anything OTHER than flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Anything....

Originally posted by gavron Actually, there is more evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon...

As stated their is no real evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. Most of the evidence has not been released, so stating there is more evidence then something else is being dishonest.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 No evidence? You must have totally missed this great catch from someone completely proving that plane was what hit that building and who flew it... just take a look round and round she goes

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 No evidence? You must have totally missed this great catch from someone completely proving that plane was what hit that building and who flew it... just take a look

I never stated that post as fact. Please be adult enough not twist or misquote my post. Let me show you some very basic facts you cannot debate. 1. There are no actual photos or videos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. 2. There are no official reports matching parts and debris found to AA77. 3. The FDR found questions the official story. 4. No complete CVR transcripts released. [edit on 27-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

can you link to the picture of where the large heavy engines on the plane wings impacted the wall and caused damage... seams you left them out of your fairytale ...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 No evidence? You must have totally missed this great catch from someone completely proving that plane was what hit that building and who flew it... just take a look

I never stated that post as fact. Please be adult enough not twist or misquote my post. Let me show you some very basic facts you cannot debate. 1. There are no actual photos or videos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. 2. There are no official reports matching parts and debris found to AA77. 3. The FDR found questions the official story. 4. No complete CVR transcripts released. [edit on 27-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

First of all. You need to look up "adult" and "immature." I have never seen anyone overuse and misuse any words soooooo much in my life. Calling people immature does nothing to help your case and when it is the first thing you throw out to someone who is simply not buying what you are selling...well it loses it's meaning completely. Please share with us the reason for posting that article then if you know it is false.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 First of all. You need to look up "adult" and "immature." I have never seen anyone overuse and misuse any words soooooo much in my life.

Well if you are going to act immature, like ignoring the facts i post then you deserve to be called immature.

Please share with us the reason for posting that article then if you know it is false.

As usual you show you did not read my post. I have stated many times that i post information i find in research, now i know research is strange concept for some people but try to keep up.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 First of all. You need to look up "adult" and "immature." I have never seen anyone overuse and misuse any words soooooo much in my life.

Well if you are going to act immature, like ignoring the facts i post then you deserve to be called immature.

Please share with us the reason for posting that article then if you know it is false.

As usual you show you did not read my post. I have stated many times that i post information i find in research, now i know research is strange concept for some people but try to keep up.

So first of all you say I am immature because I ignore facts? That is not immature, that is just stupid. There are other insults you know. Nothing about it in any way related to my level of maturity, sorry. You then insult me by saying research is a strange concept? That is mature? Wow! So you admit that you knowingly began a thread based on a lie?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 So you admit that you knowingly began a thread based on a lie?

No, there is no evidence the OP is based on a lie. Calling me a liar is mature ????????

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 So you admit that you knowingly began a thread based on a lie?

No, there is no evidence the OP is based on a lie. Calling me a liar is mature ????????

So, you think it is true then? I am not calling you a liar. If you could stop calling people immature for a second and read, I was asking a question. There is a big difference between asking a question and calling someone a name. I just want to be clear on why you posted it. Just because it was information you found? Why did you not post everything you saw on tv and read in the paper every day as well then? Why this specific article? Do you belive it or not? I really just want to understand what you are trying to accomplish because bringing people together under the truth does NOT seem to be it.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 So, you think it is true then? I am not calling you a liar.

I have not been able to verify all the information. Its tough becasue most of it is from foreign media. Thats why i do not stand behind it all the way, just posted the information and add some of the information to information i already have.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Well I am just curious. What theory do you subscribe to? F77 did NOT hit the pentagon, or a vietnam vet flew the plane into the building?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Well I am just curious. What theory do you subscribe to?

I do not subscribe to any theory, i am looking for the truth by doing research, FOIA request, and e-mails.

Ive gone quite far into this thread, but Ive a question so forgive me if its already been answered. Id like to know how the wings folded into the fuselage when the "plane" hit the pentagon while the wings on the planes cut through the WTC towers like a hot knife through butter? Are the wings different on each plane? Is the building (the pentagon) designed and protected from huge wings full of fuel but not the fuselage? Sorry again if its already been answered.

Completely different construction and materials. You're comparing a steel building to a reinforced concrete building. The concrete building will be much stronger.

reply to post by Zaphod58 So why did the fuselage go through the pentagon wall if it was reinforced then?

Because there is no wall in the world that will completely stop that much mass, especially when you're talking about such a small impact area, that's less than about 10 feet thick. The Pentagon wall is only about 18" thick.

reply to post by thesneakiod Yeah I would still like a reasonable explanation for the wings as well. If they did fold up, where did they hit the building before "folding up?" That little white scuff mark sure ain't it. This explanation just presents more questions. The fusulage penetrated a wall the wings could not so they penetrated the plane that was penetrating the reinforced wall that they could not penetrate?