9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

how would Andy Runy know if it was an inside job or not?

Originally posted by SiberianTiger DON'T TAKE this this in the wrong way, but if you just sawall that evedence what especially what Andy Runy said, and still believe 9/11 was NOT an inside job YOUR an ABSOLUTE STUPID PERSON!! [edit on 3-3-2005 by SiberianTiger]

WOW I'm impressed. You can call people stupid. What a way to make a point. [edit on 3/3/05 by Skibum]

Look at how the video explains about forcing people to accept chip implants for the NWO and right after 9/11 Andy Runey on 60 Minutes tries to subliminaly make people accept chips. (LOOK AGAIN AT the Film if you didn't see it)

Skibum What are your thoughts on all this.Just want to get your opnion on this and debate from there. Do you firmly believe that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? What FACTUAL evidence leads you to believe this? Do you think that they are hiding anything? I just want to see where you are at here and go from there.

If your talking to me I don't believe it was an 757 I think it was a Global Hawk, I think they remote controlled it in to Pentagon to "Kill many birds with one stone." 1. Pave the way form a controlled World War III, 2. Bring in The New World Order (One World Socialist Totalitarian Order) in descise as "The War On Terror." [edit on 3-3-2005 by SiberianTiger] [edit on 3-3-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SMR Skibum What are your thoughts on all this.Just want to get your opnion on this and debate from there. Do you firmly believe that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? What FACTUAL evidence leads you to believe this? Do you think that they are hiding anything? I just want to see where you are at here and go from there.

For the most part we could just go back through the thread and answer any questions, from both arguements. Not sure how factual you will accept it to be, But my evidence isn't found on the net. My beliefs stem from being an eyewitness myself, talking to several eyewitnesses personally who,either saw the crash themselves or were involved with the rescue and cleanup. Yes, I believe it was a 757. The only reason I say believe and not know is because before that day, I couldn't tell between a 757 or a 707 or a 737 but in hindsight I have to say it was a 757. But I know how you feel about eyewitnesses, considering how you like to dismiss the testimonies of many in order to cling to the testimony of one or two who say it sounded like a missile and whatnot. You will say it was a hologram or mass hysteria in order to stay with your theory. I guess that is your perogative.

Please Consider this.... www.scam.com... www.scam.com... www.911inplanesite.com... The links and information in this message header seem to me to be misleading and a possible product of cover-up material when viewed in conjunction with the information from these two links. This is the first rule of this Message Board- By using this message board, you agree to the following: 1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. Is there going to be an adjustment here? [edit on 3-3-2005 by Pumice]

There is no denying that a missle struck the pentagon. Scroll up on the first page and look at the pics. There is no wing damage marks or and major jet fuel burns. Jet fuel is extremely flammable, just look at the stills of when the planes hit the twin towers. Notice the huge amount of fire that spreads within seconds? Not at the pentagon, the fire is put out within minutes. I happen to know for a fact that jet fuel cannot be put out easily, it burns at an alarming rate and is super hot. Notice the very small neat little hole put in the wall? Can an aircraft of its size do this without making wing holes??? The concrete would have dented a little before the wings snapped off but nope not at the pentagon. There were tapes such as the Sheradon hotel tape which clearly showed the "plane" hitting the building. Within seconds the FBI snatched the tapes from all buildings with cameras pointing at the sky. A very loud supersonic boom was heard. But a 757 can only go 590mph MAX before it breaks appart. The footage of the aircraft hitting the pentagon clearly shows the "plane" hits the pentagon at a ridiclous rate. I know how fast 530mph is and that was not 530mph it was clearly over 700mph. Around the cruising speed for a missle. The U.S's missle defence plan can't even shoot down a slow missle so they could have easily let the missle pass through. Now lets think here for a second....did a 757 really fly around 2 feet off the ground at over 700mph? I wonder how thats possible. The firemen at the scene said clearly that it was not a plane crash, there was no evidence of a plane hitting the building. As for the wreckage, a lot of it looks like missle parts. Now the 757 rims are a mystery. As for the object that was blown several meters away, (sorry I forget what the object was), have you ever seen a grenade blow up? It can blow crap away with a lot of force. This was like a giant grenade except with a bigger bang. OK...if a plane had hit lets think what would of happened. Ripped up grass from flying at 2 ft above the ground, a large hole, and the pentagon is concrete! How could a 757 puncture through the many walls it did?! Honestly...concrete! Seems kind of odd dosen't it? Now what really happened from the missle. Small puncture, loud boom, several walls destoyed. I would have to say that the missle was carrying a smaller payload than usual....but that can be explained. If a terrorist missle was to reach the U.S, it would have to make room for a lot of fuel. Considering the lack of technology it seems that this all works out. What really happened? Only the U.S government knows and until they release infromation on the crash/missle, then we not will know what truely happened. Think about it.

Notice the very small neat little hole put in the wall? Can an aircraft of its size do this without making wing holes??? The concrete would have dented a little before the wings snapped off but nope not at the pentagon.

See, another case in point. Yet another person who is obviously mistaking the c ring punch out picture for where the plane initially struck.

This is not where the plane struck. This is. another view. Not exactly a nice neat hole, is it?

Are you SURE he is talking about THAT hole,or is that your assumption? He made very good points in his post and I see,another case in point,that a rebuttal cant be made by those who disagree.

Notice the very small neat little hole put in the wall?

When he says stuff like this its not much of an assumption.

Perhaps,but without asking him,you dont really know if that is the hole he speaks of. Assuming it is,it is yet another mistake made by many. I think I need to make a sig image with that image stating it is NOT the impact hole

He made very good points in his post and I see,another case in point,that a rebuttal cant be made by those who disagree.

Its not even worth a rebuttal. There are several wrong statements in it. Speed of the plane is just one of them, the buidling burned for longer than a few minutes that he claimed. Also that he bases his theory off of the wrong picture. Besides the fact all of has been rebutted at least half a dozen times throughout the thread, why waste time typing it out again. [edit on 4/3/05 by Skibum]

But you just did it Im giving you a hard time dude At this point,yes,alot of new people will come in and NOT read the entire thread and repeat what we have already said.You kinda have to give them a break,but also tell them to read the thread. I think at this point,all that can be done is argue ones opinion and thoughts of all this.Not many new findings come about,but when they do,it helps. Like the thread I made about the DNA.It kinda ties into this and brings new light. If anything,new info about WTC will come about more often that Pentagon articles. Good debate though

Originally posted by SMR But you just did it

Im giving you a hard time dude

At this point,yes,alot of new people will come in and NOT read the entire thread and repeat what we have already said.You kinda have to give them a break,but also tell them to read the thread. I think at this point,all that can be done is argue ones opinion and thoughts of all this.Not many new findings come about,but when they do,it helps. Like the thread I made about the DNA.It kinda ties into this and brings new light. If anything,new info about WTC will come about more often that Pentagon articles. Good debate though

Your right, I guess I could have been nicer. Can't disagree with anything you just said. Have a good one. I'm sure we will chat again.

About my last post, I was just bored and expressing my opinons, personally I have no clue if a plane or missle struck.

Originally posted by dirtjumper About my last post, I was just bored and expressing my opinons, personally I have no clue if a plane or missle struck.

In that case, i suggest that you try to read through the topic a bit first.

Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear

No, the landing gear strut of the image appears to be from the LEFT landing gear of a Boeing 757. 69.57.144.30... See image. www.gruporisa.com... Images of the landing gear of a Boeing 757 www.airliners.net... perso.wanadoo.fr...

This thread being created and posted by someone using the name CatHEARDER, sayed it all.