OK, 9/11 skeptics. Explain to me why I should believe AA 77 hit

[unschooler]

the Pentagon. Based on the photos I've seen, the damage there looks pretty suspicious indeed. I also think it's odd, odd, odd that no film of this alleged crash has been released (yes, I know about the Moussaoui trial, but why was it not released on 9/12 long before Moussaoui was arrested if it's legit?). Finally, I wonder why on earth Donald Rumsfeld felt it was safe to go back into his office on the undamaged side of the Pentagon after what had just happened in NY. Wouldn't he have feared another plane would hit, this time on the east side?

[petgoat]

1. I'm No Pentagon Scholar But I Can Articulate These Points

on the flight 77 side:

1. Simplicity. Witnesses saw an AA plane, damage is not inconsistent with a 757.

2. Holding the securicam tapes can be explained by Pentagon
reluctance to release footage of a successful attack on the USA
military to inspire wet dreams among young muslim men. Just as they
don't want to give them pictures of dead GIs.

3. If the assertion that the engine parts do not match the 757 were
true, don't you think we'd all be "google experts" on compressors and
turbine blades?

4. John Judge says his stewardess friend saw the wreckage.

On the other side you've got what?

1. Holding the securicam tapes suggests there was no 757.

2. Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

3. The color of the fireball in the leaked frames is wrong.

4. The assertion that they identified all the passengers from DNA but
the plane was vaporized in the fire sounds very doubtful.

5. The report from the civilian engineers cited on another thread
must hypothesize that both wings were clipped off (the tight wing by a
generator and the left by hitting the ground) to explain the lack of
exterior damage outside a 120-foot zone.

6. Barbara Honegger supposedly promised evidence of a bomb--I haven't
seen that yet.

7. Shouldn't the exhaust blast from the jet engines have blasted cars
all over the highway and rolled those cable reels into the next
county?


Note that if Mr. Judge's assertion that the Pentagon was protected by
SAMs is true, then the failure to deploy them shows complicity right
there.

[unschooler]

2. I can't imagine there are no SAMs around the Pentagon. However,

given its proximity to National Airport, I also would expect a major reluctance to use them.

[unschooler]

3. I the damage consistent w/a 757? If so, I'm convinced. The

photos I've seen have not convinced me so far.

[WoodrowFan]

4. the question that keeps coming back, ok, one last time..

Jesus f-in Christ, how many times do we have to go through this.

Ok, for the umpteenth time..

-hundreds of eyewitnesses (including at least one DU member) saw the plane hit and many identified it as an American Airlines flight.
-bodies recovered at site were identified as passengers
-wreckage of the plane and luggage were found at site.
- the Hole and damage consistent with a 757 hitting it despite what that BS film claims.
- NO ONE saw a missile, period.

The SAMs on the Pentagon are not only an urban legend, but they wouldn’t stop an airliner coming at you, just damage it. Anyone who thinks the Pentagon would be ready to shot down an airliner has no bleeping clue how close it is to National Airport.

The Pentagon is surrounded by highways and Arlington Cemetery. The roads were full of rush hour traffic. Usually rush hour drivers don’t spend their time taking photos of the Pentagon. Remember there are what, two films of the 1st plane hitting the WTC despite the fact that lower NYC is also full of tourists. And the Pentagon is removed from the tourist area, they’d all be on the Mall taking photos not down on the river taking photos to satisfy the professional paranoid.

Jeesuz, even some of the tin foil heads realize that “did plane really hit the Pentagon” is a foolish question.


http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

photos from an eyewitness..
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

more eyewitness photos
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

more witnesses
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49414&mesg_id=49701


Finally, bye bye.

[unschooler]

6. I wasn't aware I'd ever "been through this" before. Silly me.

[spooked911]

5. Are you addressing skeptics or official conspiracy theorists?

There are significant reasons to think something besides a Boeing 757/flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and there are many many threads on this board discussing this. There's no reason to go through this again, as there have been so many threads on this already. Just look here, for instance:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49980&mesg_id=49980


In my opinion, I think the Pentagon hit was a hoax staged to look like a American Airlines jet hit there, but was done with explosives.

[Old and In the Way]

7. It would be good to have all the 9/11 threads organized.

WTC/77/93 and War Games....some enterprising individual with time on their hands to catalog it....or better yet, make the archived forum available for research. Lot's of fascinating info collected over the years..

[MercutioATC]

8. If you find things suspicious, this is the link you need to see:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

It's a report written by civilian civil engineers who specialize in reinforced concrete structures who actually examined the site (no wild theories based on smoke-obscured photos).