A theory about the Pentagon "attack".

[Cascadian]

Does anybody believe that Flight 77 REALLY crashed into the Pentagon? If so then where was the plane wreckage? Hasn't anybody considered that thought? My guess is that Flight 77 was escorted by warplanes towards the Atlantic Ocean and then when it was far away from the coastline shot down by our planes. Then afterwards, a fighter shot a couple of missles at the Pentagon building. That is just a bit of what I think happened. You can your own angle or view on this.

John

[BlueEyedSon]

1. There is a Sept 11 forum for this kind of thing.

[laruemtt]

5. where is it?

it's not under "archived" anymore.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Here (link):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[laruemtt]

11. thanks.

sometimes it seems like things keep moving on this board!

[henrik larssonisking]

2. as a newbee

but a long time watcher, i dont really want to comment to much on this, but living in DC area, and being in alexandria on 911, the plane hit the pentagon.

[bryant69]

3. That's crazy talk

Around here we don't cotton to people stating the obvious. Gets in the way of all the conspiracy theorists. Besides if it's obvious it's probably a deception.

Welcome to DU.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[henrik larssonisking]

6. thanks

no idea what wreckage was found or if it burned up, would suspect that it would be classified as is all debris in terrorist attacks. But if you live in DC theres a good chance you know of someone who saw the plane fly low over the area. its not like the pentagon is hidden away.

[ladjf]

10. I have not heard of one citizen reporting to have seen the

plane at low level prior to hitting the pentagon.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. The News Reports Were Full Of Such Interviews

Check the archives of the national networks. I saw AT LEAST 5 witnesses who were on the expressway that said the plane flew right over their heads at treetop level, then boom!

The witnesses were there. You just didn't hear the interviews. ABC, NBC, CNN, et al. Check their web archives.
The Professor

[henrik larssonisking]

14. expressway

Though i heard of the attack on the pentagon whilst on the street in alexandria, my father in law was driving past and saw the plane go in, so though i aint gonna convince the conspiracy theorists, for me thats good enough.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. It'd Be Good Enough For Me, Too

I only know what i saw on TV. And i saw at least 5 people interviewed who said the plane went right over their cars. They were there. I wasn't. I have to believe multiple eyewitnesses.
The Professor

[theboss]

16. The plane went over my apartment building

This is nonsense.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Another Witness

Thanks, Boss. I didn't know you were there at the time. Now, not only have i seen eyewitnesses on TV, but i (sort of) know someone who was there, too! That's good enough for me.
The Professor

[theboss]

25. Actually, I wasn't there; the manager of my complex told me

But I lived about two miles due south of the Pentagon, on a perfect angle with the impact site. The plane would have had to go over my street to hit the building the way it did.

My friend's mom worked at the Gannett Building in Arlington, which has a view of the Pentagon. People in her office said they saw the plane too.

Also, all but one of the passengers' bodies on the plane were identified by a large task force of military and civilian experts:
http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm

[ladjf]

24. Might seem like nonsense to you because you saw it.

There's so much lying going on that it's impossible to tell who is telling the truth. Had I seen the plane fly over my house and into the Pentagon, I would no longer doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ladjf]

28. Well, OK. A plane hit the building. I don't think that makes

much difference anyway other than if it wasn't a plane, it would have been another case of administrative lying.

I do notice that on the subject of the Pentagon hits accounts, if anyone posts something questioning any aspect of the official version, about a dozen poster jump on the questioner with an uncommon zeal, trying to make them feel like conspiracy idiots. Sometimes I suspect that the rebuters have a hidden agenda.

[bryant69]

30. Yep. We're all out to get you

And make you look stupid. I was just talking to Karl Rove and he complimented me and other DU posters for our attempts. Together we can keep America from finding out waht really happened.

I mean it's not like anybody could honestly disagree with your theories, so we must be on the take. Or secret Repukes, maybe.

[DulceDecorum]

38. Published Eyewitness Testimony.

The next day, the Pentagon was back in business. We took a hit but no one wavered. Our nation needed us.

We went to see firsthand the damage, the aftermath of this tragedy. No one could believe the catastrophic damage to the Pentagon - it was horrible. A whole "wedge" had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building. There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123004570

BRIGADIER GENERAL ARTHUR F. "CHIP" DIEHL III
Retired Jan. 1, 2005.
Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III is Deputy Director of Engagement, Plans and Policy Directorate, Headquarters U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. As Deputy Director, General Diehl is responsible for building and maintaining military-to-military bilateral relationships with 22 countries in the commands area of responsibility. Additionally, he is responsible for the guidance and sustainment of more than 70 coalition partners supporting the global war on terrorism and Operation Enduring Freedom.
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5226

Accounts like that
are the reason why a certain scriptwriter had to came up with this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-13-rumsfeld-sept11_x.htm

But please do not discount the heroism shown on that day.

Others were luckier. Some, such as Michael Petrovich, 32, an Army specialist, reacted swiftly. He threw a computer out of the window, then jumped though. He suffered second-degree burns. Paul Gonzalez, 46, a budget analyst, smashed a hole in the wall and crawled out. He was pulled to safety by Donald Rumsfeld who, although ordered by the secret service to leave the Pentagon, had refused.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/watt16.xml

Yeah.
Smashed a hole in the Pentawall.
Crawled out.
Into the waiting arms of Herr Rumsfuhrer.
For more on Paul Gonzales see:
http://news.bellinghamherald.com/special-pub/remember/109368.shtml
http://www.livejournal.com/users/gigglecam/1854702.html
And that that Rummladenstory came from a genuwine eye-witless
who is just as reliable as Judith Miller of the New York Times.

[tngledwebb]

64. Odd, isn't it.

Similar posts showed up fast and furious on election 2004 forums when the stolen vote issue heated up. Posters attacked using the internet 'conspiracy theory' label, and with the same M.O.- ie self syled 'experts' with a chronic refusal to answer direct questions and blind trust in MSM etc. Humorless and dismissive too.

[spooked911]

98. "What Really Happened" Believes Flight 77 Hit the Pentagon

And the mad at people who say it was something else.

However they think the Israelis were behind 9/11.

[tngledwebb]

68. The plane did NOT fly over my building.

I saw it fly into the P-gon though.

[spooked911]

97. would you mind if we passed on a few questions to him?

Like--
How good a view did he have of the plane? Was it definitely a Boeing 757? Could he see American Airlines markings? What happened when it hit the Pentagon? Did it go straight in? Did it hit the ground? Did the explosion look like the one in the security camera video?

If you wouldn't mind asking him-- I'm sure many of us would love to hear what he has to say.

[ladjf]

21. They must have been brief and perhaps obscure interviews

as I was a total news freak at the time and saw nothing of that sort. I'm not saying that the interviews don't exist. But, even if it was a plane that hit the building, who can explain the perfect 340 degree turn made at almost tree top level, out of sight of the Pentagon till the last moment when it rolled out perfectly aligned to hit the building? Pretty good airmanship from a Cessna pilot. And what about the Hercules 130 overhead that was "watching" the event at the request of the FAA and was the same plane that saw the the crash in Pennsylvania? That is an amazing coincidence.

The truth? Who knows? Many people do. But, not us. For whatever the reasons, vital information has been withheld from us. How about the interviews with the FAA done the next day? Have you ever heard one word of those transcripts? Probably never, since the tapes were destroyed due to the lack of storage space. Does that sound legitimate to you?

[ProfessorGAC]

29. I Thought The Subject Was Whether A Plane Hit The Bldg.

As to the turn, i guess i could accept that since these guys were all Saudi, (assuming that to be true), we really don't know how many SAF pilots could have been recruited. Just because we have a record of some guys going to flight school, doesn't mean that the ones for which there are no such U.S. records, didn't already know how to fly a jet.

The actual backgrounds of the suspects is not fully known. Atta, yes. A few others, yes. But, we don't know any more about most of these guys than the information given us by the Saudis. I wouldn't trust the veracity of that info.

So, the super tight turn (if that really happened), could have been because the pilot at the time was someone who didn't need to go to a flight school in FL. He already knew how to fly. That's how i would SPECULATE this question could be answered.
The Professor

[tngledwebb]

69. No, a subject can be a starting point for discussion.

Unless you thought this was the Oxford Debating Club. This is a forum for open-minded folks with questions about 9/11. Is that not you?

[tngledwebb]

62. Have you met the Magistrate and the ATC?

They're professionals like you, and seem to have similar level of credulity vis a vis MSM reporting.

But anyone who really wants to understand the inaccuracies and omissions in the various 'eyewitness' reports should do so, asap.

Try the MSM reports first, then google Killtown, or read the New Pearl Harbor, or best of all review the four years of lively ongoing debate right here on the DU 9/11 forum.

Then come on back and tell us your thoughts.

[MercutioATC]

63. Funny how the professionals on this forum have issues with the CTs...

Think about it. The people with the most firsthand knowledge of the elements involved find major holes in the various conspiracy theories. Pliots, engineers (yes, even ATCs)...

Is it because they're ALL "bushco apologists" as one poster here likes to claim or could it be that they understand a few things that laypersons don't?

No, our opinions aren't any more valuable than anybody else's, but some people here DO have a better understanding of the mechanics of the issues and are able to better understand the misrepresentations made by prominent CTists like Eastman. Eastman isn't intentionally misrepresenting things (I don't think). He just has no clue as to what he's talking about much of the time.

[tngledwebb]

65. And once more for the record-bs bs and more bs...and don't forget

that I have better expertise than you and all other pros, if you review my stated credentials.

But whatever I or you or anyone else does for a living, or says they do, we will be judged solely on the CONTENT of our posts. Ces't tout.

Note for newbies and skeptics- Eastman is not my pick. Google Killtown, read the New Pearl Harbor, read DU 9/11 forums. Get the big picture, get a parallax view. Compare and contrast with official and MSM stories. Take your time and the pieces will start to fall in place.

[Abe Linkman]

66. And remember, poison girls...

when it comes to crazy conspiracy theories, the most bizarre one of all is the Official Conspiracy Theory. It's been long-proven to be a lie; yet curiously, it is still being promoted here by a few people (one of whom is former cop...who knows a thing or two about phony evidence, setting up patsies, hiding/witholding evidence, perjury, and whatever else it takes to get more citizens into the criminal justice system) as not only being viable, but a truthful account of what happened on 9/11.

The Official Conspiracy Theorists operate here the same way as a flat earth believer would: despite the fact that our knowledge has advanced to the point that we've long ago learned that the Earth isn't flat and therefore their notion is one that is no longer valid, they still try to insist on their false opinion as being something worthy of serious consideration.

THEY ARE intentionally misrepresenting "things".

[tngledwebb]

75. Agreed.

Permission to amend as follows:

Some parts of the OCT ARE true. It IS true that bloodthirsty and perhaps insane terrorists/evildoers did commit the biggest mass murder in history to create chaos and war in the Middle East.

The terrorists WERE well funded, technologically and militarily sophisticated, and had planned the operation far in advance, from within our US borders, without being noticed.

These evildoers are still at large, committing further acts of terrorism on a daily basis, and are public enemy number one for the world and for the future of democracy in America.

They do have vast resources and a huge network of supporters and still have ready access to WMD's.

Proceed with caution.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

54. Look at a few of these, then.

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

[tngledwebb]

70. Thanks for posting that.

The whole site should be a book of revelations for 9/11 skeptics, but not exactly in the hoped for way.

[alexisfree]

20. there was no f*ing plane.

[henrik larssonisking]

22. father in law

whos my father in law to believe the conspiracy kooks or his own lying eyes.

[DulceDecorum]

36. Oh the horror!!!

Arlington, Va. (Sep. 12, 2001) -- A piece of debris is embedded in a tree close to the site where a hijacked commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines FLT 77 was bound for Los Angeles from Washington Dulles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. U.S. Naval photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass.




Arlington, Va. (Sep. 12, 2001) --Twisted wreckage and debris litter the grounds of the Pentagon following the deadly Sep. 11 terrorist attack in which a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines FLT 77 was bound for Los Angeles from Washington Dulles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. U. S. Naval photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass.

Blood -- dead bodies everywhere!!!
Plane wreckage -- Oh, I had hardly bear to look!

[WoodrowFan]

46. he's obviously part of the plot!

Your FIL must be one of (looks around) THEM!! He's part of the plot, along with the rest of the hundreds of eyewitnesses as well as all of the local fire departments and hospitals!

Seriously, welcome to DU, :hi: just ignore the CTers!

[tngledwebb]

84. And you can ignore the 9/11 skeptics. Ignoring the CT'ers means

ignoring you and yours, permanent adherents to the BushCo MSM fairy tales.
Btw, what part, if any, of the events of 9/11 ever gave you cause for doubt?

And did you ever apologise for saying you would PAY to see a fellow DU poster hit in the head with a sledge-hammer merely because his world view re 9/11 didn't correspond with your own? Hmmm?

[Abe Linkman]

49. Did you mean "coincidence" kooks?

Disinformation agent wannabes? Or, the Flat Earth crowd that knows better, but still insists (wink wink) that the Official Conspiracy Theory isn't the Fairy Tale that knowledgeable people figured out it is - a long, long time ago?

I've got news for you:

1.) The Earth isn't flat.

2.) The bush Administration's lies and crimes are NOT limited to just stealing elections and starting illegal wars.

3.) If you do some reading here, and elsewhere, then you too will quickly learn that almost everything you've been told about 9/11 by the corporate media and by the bush Administration, is a lie.

[spooked911]

99. Could you please ask him a few questions for us?

Like--
How good a view did he have of the plane? Was it definitely a Boeing 757? Could he see American Airlines markings? What happened when it hit the Pentagon? Did it go straight in? Did it hit the ground? Did the explosion look like the one in the security camera video?

If you wouldn't mind asking him-- I'm sure many of us would love to hear what he has to say.

Thanks!!!!!

[Sweet Pea]

73. Well I'M convinced now!

Rarely have I seen such a succinct, to-the-point and technically cogent analysis of the facts of this case in such an unimpeachable and absolutley brilliant presentation.

[DulceDecorum]

82. Then you haven't seen Bunnypants in action,

and HE,
Captain Bunnypants,
backs up YOUR acount to the max.

There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead.
-- Washington DC, May 11, 2001.

Sweet Pea,
if you are indeed desirous of seeing
"a succinct, to-the-point and technically cogent analysis of the facts of this case in such an unimpeachable and absolutley brilliant presentation"
then I suppose the statement uttered by Cheney to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy.

"Fuck yourself,"
said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6025-2004Jun25.html

Mr. Cheney happens to be an expert on this subject.
His harem which consists of four girlfriends and a thumb,
which fact explains at least one of his foibles.

Moreover, Mr. Cheney is no natural politician. When he joined the Bush campaign, its organisers had planned some traditional meet-and-greet events, only to be told by his minders that
"Mr Cheney does not like to shake hands".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,951432,00.html

However, it seems that all that Mr. Cheney
wants us to know about September 11, is -- NOTHING.

On Meet the Press on Sept. 19, 2002, Moderator Tim Russert asked Dick Cheney about a charge made by then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle "that you called him several times and urged him not to investigate the events of Sept. 11."
"Tom's wrong," the vice president said. "I think in this case -- well, let's say a misinterpretation. What I did do was work, at the direction of the president, with the leadership of the Intelligence committees to say, 'We prefer to work with the Intelligence committees.'"
http://www.alternet.org/story/17816

We are therefore convinced that there is something being hidden from us
and we wonder as to the apparent culpability of a certain cave-dweller.

[seatnineb]

41. Like my aunty......

Yeah.........

My aunty was there ............it was so close to her car that she could read the numbers under the wing!

Damn conspiracy theorists don't know what they are talkin about......

[spooked911]

55. are you serious? I can't tell.

[seatnineb]

89. I was just making it up my friend.......

Having said that........

You see how easy it is to make such statments on such a forum.......

When you are anonymouse.........

Or even when you are not........

The example I used was inspired by a certain 70+year old woman who goes by the name of Christine Patterson......

She claimed AA77 passed over her car when she was stuck in traffic in front of the Pentagon......

She said she saw the numbers under the wing.......

But at that point we are told that aa77 was travelling at 300...400..500mph


I don't believe witnesses like this for a minute.......

[The Magistrate]

91. Good To Know You Just Make Things Up, Dear....

It simplifies matters tremendously....

[DulceDecorum]

94. And that is why the * Administration HATES leaks.

West Wing aides "hit the ceiling" when the idea of using the office to plant disinformation with overseas journalists was reported by the New York Times on Tuesday, several officials said. Bush was in Asia on a week-long mission, and one senior official said WHOEVER LEAKED THE STORY "did a tremendous disservice to the president" by raising questions about the administration's credibility when he was overseas.
http://foi.missouri.edu/osi/pentagondisinfo.html

See,
it makes it so much harder to get a good lie going.

[seatnineb]

102. You just sound relieved........Maggy o' dearest.....

[The Magistrate]

103. If You Say So, Sir

Lord knows you would never make anything up....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[spooked911]

96. Okay, I suspected you were but just wanted to double check.

Your points are all good. I remember hearing about that woman too.

[impe]

72. Oh really

I work in Arlington, didn't see a plane or even feel a rumble.

[tngledwebb]

23. Suggestion-

Let others talk about whatever they want. This is not a grand jury, Congress, or even the Oxford Debating Society, it is ole D.U. where freedom of speech is not only allowed but encouraged.

And folks 'round here don't cotton to folks who attempt to dispute various lines of inquiry simply by throwing the 'CT' epithet at 'em. Labels, to put it bluntly, don't mean shit.

Especially since last November when MSM was first out of the gate in labeling the stolen election issue just a crazy internet conspiracy theory. What are YOUR thoughts on that CT, if any?

[bryant69]

27. In other words

"Get in line." You make my own point for me, by trying to bully me into agreeing with you.

You can debate whatever you like--but obviously if you express certain opinions you are going to take grief. One opinion that will get you grief is saying that we were attacked on September 11th by Islamic Terrorists and that, while Prsident Bush's failure to prepare for an attack he was warned about is terrible, he didn't actually plan or allow September 11th to happen.

As for the stolen election, that was 2000, not 2004.

Bryant

[Abe Linkman]

32. Sorry, bryant, but those AREN'T opinions. They're proven to be untruths.

It has been long proven that the Official version of 9/11 is a lie.

There is enough evidence already to prove that the 2004 election was not legitimate.

So, it's time to move on to NEW ideas and opinions that are based on evidence.

You can have the opinion that the Earth is flat, but not many people will want to have a discussion with you. See, that wouldn't even be an OPINION. That would be a belief in a falsehood.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tngledwebb]

109. Good post with excellent links.

Good start for newbies passers-by and 9/11 skeptics of tomorrow.

[tngledwebb]

34. Missed the point. ( And where's the 'bullying' in my post ?)

I'm for live and let live, and let everyone have their say, no matter how absurd on first blush. Whatever one believes about 9/11, or one or two stolen elections, labeling those beliefs doesn't mean shit.

Folks shouldn't give you grief for supporting the 'OBL did it' aka the official 9/11 CT, even if you are a small group on this forum.
But, if your arguments or your evidence don't gel, or if your posts seem consistently evasive and obtuse, you are fair game for hard questions from opponents.

And when those questions are also avoided, some folks may suspect a different agenda. But 'OCT'er is about as harsh a label as you're going to hear from the skeptics.

[The Magistrate]

45. A Group That Grows Larger, Mr. Web

One thing it is interesting to note is that, whenever these things appear in more populous precincts, the great majority of those who chip in do so in opposition to the peculiar views promulgated by the handful like yourself.

Your own suggestion that persons who disagree with you on this matter may rightly be suspected of having some ulterior motive for doing so is also an interesting one. It is in fact a staple of this place that those who believe the wildest of nonsense accuse any they have not convinced to share their peculiar views of being supporters of the current regime, rightists, and what not.

Such accusations are, it ought not to be necessary to point out, are violations of the rules under which discussion on Democratic Underground is conducted.

"Children make the best opponents at Scrabble, as they are both easy to beat and fun to cheat."

[tngledwebb]

61. Another OCT defender misses the point.

And also missed that my post wasn't addressed to him. And writes a long, nonsensical and irrelevant reply.

Funny, sad or merely ... :boring:?

I'm going to go with :boring:, in the deja vu sense.

[The Magistrate]

78. You Know, Dear

This is a public forum, and anyone may reply to anything in it.

What is irrelevant about pointing out that the poor conduct you dismiss allegations of is routinely engaged in by yourself as well as others on your side of the debate?

"Martyrdom is the only way a man can become famous without ability."

[tngledwebb]

79. And once more for the record-bs bs and more bs...and meaningless.

n/t

[The Magistrate]

88. Oh My, Mr. Webb

Where ever would we be without your formidable forensic skills? The place would not be the same without the ornament you provide it....

"No matter how your day's gone, Jack, you're always a pleasure to conversate with."

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

100. My Usual Feedings Have Proceeded Nightly, Ma'am

Why do you ask...?

[Cascadian]

4. But where was the plane wreckage?

There should have been some traces of the plane in which it did not.


John

[DrGonzoLives]

17. How dare you!

Posting eyewitness testimony and such. We can't be having that here.

[henrik larssonisking]

19. oops, guess i need to be spanked ;)

[DulceDecorum]

35. Many of the eyewitnesses talk of lime green paint

and that lime green paint PROVES that a Boeing 757 built before July 2000 did NOT hit the Pentagon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=20583&mesg_id=20583

All your base
are belong to us.

[tngledwebb]

40. Eyewitnesses, know any? I do, and they didn't see Flight 77.

Or maybe you merely read about them in the funny papers, or maybe on the internet, of all the places.

And you still credit, in AD 2005, US MSM and its hundreds of hard hitting investigative reporters?

And what the Bush regime tells us, vis their official investigations?You Ok with that? Is it- Well, yes they lied about Iraq and the WMD's and taxes and S.S. figures and even Enron, but that's about all?

[tngledwebb]

81. Got a pic?

Photos,links etc?

[LARED]

83. What does not having a picture of flight 77

impacting the Pentagon prove?

Someone please explain the constant implication by the CT'er, that a lack of photographic evidence in anyway fortifies their position.

[tngledwebb]

86. Was anyone talking to La Red there?

You got a pic tho? Just one of your top ten? No piccie,no playee.


(I can't find one at present, I'm doing some special lexus nexus searches on sites not usually available to the general public.)

[LARED]

92. Was the question to hard? (n/t)

[tngledwebb]

108. How many times can an OCT'er evade a question, miss a point,

respond with the irrelevant? How many devils can dance on the head of a pin?

For newbies and skeptics of tomorrow, please go and search out every photograph you can taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. Then, if you have the interest, get back to the above poster and have a chat about the value of said photographic evidence. Google Killtown for a quick start.

I'm too busy researching on various Nexus Lexus links not available to the general public.

[LARED]

111. It's a simple question, why do you avoid it?

In case you missed the question, let me restate it.

Someone please explain the constant implication by the CT'er, that a lack of photographic evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon in anyway fortifies their position it did not hit the pentagon.

[tngledwebb]

112. Issue is not the LACK of evidence that a Boeing hit the Pentagon.

The issue is the PRESENCE of a great deal of photographic evidence that a Boeing DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

Anyone who has reviewed these numerous photographs and still claims evidence of a Boeing either needs a new eyeglass prescription, or is a complete fool, or has another agenda.

[MercutioATC]

113. Perhaps they're not basing their opinion solely on photographic evidence?

There's no evidence of a fighter, a missile, or shaped charges, either. Are those who adhere to these theories blind, fools, or do they have another agenda?

[LARED]

114. Well, you're still avoiding the question, but

you are wrong about the presence of any photographic evidence that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. If you had any, it would have been provided a long time ago.

Also, exactly what type of logic or reasoning tells you that lack of photographic evidence strengthens your position that something other than flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Never mind that there is quite a bit of photographic evidence that flight 77 did indeed impact the Pentagon, but you believe it is tainted. Your choice.

But you can't have it both ways and be rational. If you don't like the available evidence and choose to ignore it, you can't then wave your arms in the air and say you have photographic evidence that a Boeing did not hit the Pentagon without producing it.

[Last Lemming]

7. Interesting, haven't heard that

and the Pentagon hit is a great place to open a discussion with people unfamiliar with the 9/11 debacle--just a wee little hole--not much room there for a plane--no plane parts--etc

It is a good point about what happened to the plane--people have it zooming over the Pentagon and then speculate a landing at the airport just beyond. But has anyone checked for a ghost landing similar to the one in Cleveland?

[seemslikeadream]

9. The new 9/11 forum is called September 11 and is here

under Politics & Issues Forums
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[dweller]

12. take a look at this

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm


saw the link yesterday here.

dp

[WoodrowFan]

42. totally debunked

try snopes and get a clue.

and no, Snopes has not been "debunked" itself, except in the sense that creationism has "debunked " evolution.

[seatnineb]

43. Is this another one of your hit and run posts, Woodruff........?

[meppie-meppie not]

47. my understanding is that it has not been "totally debunked" and a

patronizing and condescending attitude to another has no place in any discussion.

[WoodrowFan]

51. your "understanding"

this has been discussed over and over.

I'll be brief

hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the plane hit
wreckage of the plane was found
remains of the passengers and their possessions were found
the damage at the Pentagon fits what the many eyewitnesses saw, despite the lies on that piece of crap flash file.

the idea that Flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon deserves as much respect in "discussion" as the idea that the earth is flat and is circled by the sun.

bye bye

[Abe Linkman]

52. Good example of "junk science"

More BS from the Flat Earth crowd. About as persuasive as Commander Bunnypants himself. Rumsfeld was more credible whenever he stated that a missile had struck the Pentagon.

[meppie-meppie not]

56. I want you to post those "hundreds" of eyewitness accounts and when you

reach 201, with name's and addresses I will take what you say as gospel. Wreckage of the plane was found? show me. Remains of the passengers..hmmm..it was so hot supposedly that it melted things to molten metal but human tissue doesn't burn? ok. It is only in your estimation that the issues surrounding UA77 don't merit respect for consideration in a "discussion"...hmmmm..move over God, looks like you've got some competition. ;-)

[exploited]

31. Nobody doubts that two passenger jets hit the WTC

Plenty of video to prove that.

There would have been plenty of video frames generated at the Pentagon from all the security cameras showing the "aircraft" hitting the building.

Why have only 4 or 5 (cgi "enhanced") frames been released to the public? Why were all security videos from businesses in the surrounding area confiscated?

Surely they can't use the old national security defense to hide the evidence. It seems that all this speculation about conspiracies and a dishonest government are only enhancing national INsecurity. Your government must want it this way.

[LARED]

37. If so then where was the plane wreckage?

Please view this and tell me where the wreckage is?

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg

For more see here

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

[Abe Linkman]

39. False analogy, but it does point out the fallacy of claiming a 757 crashed

The issue is whether or not there is evidence that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon. The government released the film showing the Sandia experiment, and the jet can be seen prior to the crash and as it hits the building. There is no such evidence for the alleged crash at the Pentagon. If there was, we'd have seen it by now.

The Sandia video has been published here many, many times, and it IS interesting to see, but it only undermines claims that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. The Gov't has failed to release any video images of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon, because no such thing happened.

[LARED]

48. AA, it's an excellent analogy

The issue is not whether there is evidence that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. That fact has been established for a long time. So outside of your incessant chattering that there is no evidence, is there some point to the above post other than the usual twisting of peoples words?

The issue is that the question posed was where did the all the pieces of flight 77 go. The answer is that most of it would up in little bitty pieces in and outside the Pentagon. The video shows an aircraft crashing into a very solid object at a high rate of speed. Very similar to flight 77. The aircraft in the video obviously breaks up into little bitty pieces just like flight 77 did. Two planes, under similar condition have similar outcomes. In order for it to be a false analogy there needs to be a difference between the planes or walls that affect the little bitty pieces outcome.

He's a challenge for AA, care to explain why you think it's is a false analogy?

[Abe Linkman]

50. In order for it to be a good analogy, you'd need to show a B757 crash...

into the Pentagon. In the case of the Sandia experiment, there's little question about whether or not a plane crashed into the wall. It's a small jet, but never mind about that. The size of the plane is not so important as the fact that we know a plane actually did crash into the wall.

If we had a photo of the Sandia site AFTER the crash, it would be helpful, but even if we did have such a photo, it wouldn't prove your analogy is a good one. In order to use photographic evidence to make an anlogy, you need photographs. You don't even show one. You only show a video of a small, single engine plane crashing into a building, as part of an experiment.

What you are doing is trying to prove a point with only half of the needed factual evidence to prove your point. The video image of the attack jet at the Pentagon does show a small jet, but you are trying to claim that a large B757 crashed there.

If you could provide photographic evidence of a large plane crashing into a building AND a photo of the results of it, and if that photo looked like what we see in the photos of the Pentagon, THEN, you'd have something. If you've ever seen any of the photos of the plane that crashed into the apartment building in the Netherlands (the Isareli plane), that's the kind of evidence that you need if you want to make an analogy with the Pentagon. Plane crashes of large jets leave evidence that a jet plane crashed. At the very, very least, you
see engines, and nearly always other identifiable aircraft pieces, too.

It's not the worst attempt at making an analogy, but then, you never claimed to have a degree in Philosophy, did you? They must not include the subject of logic as a course requirement for engineering majors, at Drexel.

[LARED]

57. This is one of the reasons I love this forum

Where else can you find someone that actually believes flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon who feels at ease providing lessons in logic.

:):)

[Abe Linkman]

58. Thank you for recognizing the futility of attempting to prove me wrong.

Using logic, it's very easy to figure out that no large airliner crashed at the Pentagon. A good primer for someone such as yourself is the book titled: "Nonsense", by Robert Gupta

Once you become a little more skilled in how to THINK critically, analyze logically, and recognize fallacious reasoning, I'm sure that you'll quickly come to realize that lying about 9/11 is no different than any of the other many lies told to the world by bushco.

Thanks for providing the link to that Sandia experiment. It's been a while since I've seen it. About the only things it has in common with the Pentagon hit are the size of the jet and the angle of the approach.
The Sandia plane would probably fit in the Pentagon video images.

"lared" -- honestly, now. Were you trying to make a subliminal statement that you have changed your opinion and now agree that the Pentagon attack jet was a small jet? Is THAT why you used the Sandia video?

[LARED]

60. This is no need to prove you wrong.

And again thank you for the keeping up the level of irony up to standard

The best line is this;

Once you become a little more skilled in how to THINK critically, analyze logically, and recognize fallacious reasoning,

Once again this admonition from a guy that actually believes (you really believe this?) flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is just too funny. Also on a somewhat personal note, let me thank you for improving my abilities to discern illogic, fallacy and non-crtical thought.

AA, you're the best, never change.

[Abe Linkman]

67. There is no need for me to gloat about your support of a bizarre CT

If it makes you feel good to support the idea that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon, have at it. When you do so publicly, be sure and remind people that you claim to be an engineer from Drexel.

[LARED]

74. Gloat to your hearts content

If you truly believe something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon and you insist upon calling this to the attention of those that might visit this forum don't let me dampen the show

Enjoy, I know I do.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

104. The BUSH version of the Pentagon attack is not supported by evidence

There's simple explanation for that: there is no evidence to support the BUSH version.

[The Magistrate]

105. Just Keep Telling Yourself That, Mr. Linkman

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again till it becomes the steady hum of background in your mind, and the stilling of conciousness becomes the portal of the inner light....

"Whatever get's you through the night...it's alright, alright."

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

59. Do You Honestly, Ma'am

Suppose that every person who disagrees with you on this matter is a supporter or dupe of the right...?

[DulceDecorum]

76. Do YOU honestly, missy,

Suppose that every person who disagrees with YOU on this matter is a conspiracy theorist or kook...?

[The Magistrate]

80. Well, Ma'am

That depends on the degree and nature of the disagreement.

Regretably, there are a few who take such extraordinarily peculiar views of these events, and who conduct themselves while debating them in such a manner, that it is difficult to avoid the discourteous conclusion that one is dealing with persons who occupy a distant and lonely booth in the carnival of life....

"A stroll through the lunatic asylum will show conclusively that faith proves nothing."

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

87. You Know Better Than That, Ma'am

We have crossed words before, after all, on different matters than this, of course.

You know any attempt to paint me as a rightist of any stripe is a falsehood, in addition to being a violation of the rules of this place.

You also know of my strenuous opposition to the invasion of Iraq, and the degree of my knowledge of various distinctions within the Arab and Islamic political and religious spheres.

The argument you offer here rather illustrates my point above. You make the assumption that my having drawn the conclusion that the attacks several years ago on the continental United States were in fact executed by al'Queda means that my views on some other matters must accord with certain other things that have been oficially stated. Your own views seem to be a mirror of that; clearly, you imagine that anything officially stated is, by that very fact, false. This is a predisposition you bring to the matter, and so your examination of it will be aimed not at discerning what actually happened, but at supporting the view you began with. That my own views are at great odds with some official positions, and roughly in accord with others, is owing to their having been arrived at by open-minded consideration of events, informed by my own knowledge of life and the ways of this wayward world.

[DulceDecorum]

93. The lady doth protest too much.

That reply went:

Straight down the crooked lane,
And all round the square.
-- John Bartlett (1820–1905).

[The Magistrate]

101. Ah, Well, Ma'am

The other day upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
Oh how I wish he'd go away....

"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see...."

[WoodrowFan]

106. the other day upon the stairm (revised)

The other day upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I think he's from the CIA....


seems more fitting for the tinfoilers.

[The Magistrate]

107. Not Bad, Sir!

Not bad at all....

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.