Pentagon Strike

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

seen it a while ago but just stumbled on it again tonight.

give it a look.

That really makes you think, ive always wondered what happened to the plane

yeah i know......its a shame that the words kinda go a little too quick in some parts, but other than that its good.

i knew most of that a while ago but its easier to understand and get your head around when its presented like that.

I didnt watch it but i think i've seen it a while ago. Though it does sound like a lot of bs. (the video that is)

id be interested in hearing a counterreply to this video.

[quote43d5af2beb="CoMpFrEaK"]I didnt watch it but i think i've seen it a while ago. Though it does sound like a lot of bs. (the video that is)[/quote43d5af2beb]
Why? They back what theyre saying up, cant argue with the pictures

[quote368dd57c1a="CoMpFrEaK"]I didnt watch it but i think i've seen it a while ago. Though it does sound like a lot of bs. (the video that is)[/quote368dd57c1a]

have a look at this

http//www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

its probably the most well known site about the Pentagon "attack"

you have to scroll to the right as opposed to up and down but its worth it.

The sideways scroll thing is kind of cool.

this really is a load of bs, even though it seems to present a a good point and back it up. When this came out I saw numerous sites that just disproved a lot of what the video said. I guess that just sounds stupid that I am willing to believe some things on the internet but not others, it's just that this video seems too ridiculous to me.

are they implying that a bomb hit the pentagon??

[quote0d69dbff23="EatChex89"]are they implying that a bomb hit the pentagon??[/quote0d69dbff23]
Yeah, they're implying that it wasn't a plane but a MISSLE! OMFG!!!!111!1

[quote458477ab3a="Batman"][quote458477ab3a="EatChex89"]are they implying that a bomb hit the pentagon??[/quote458477ab3a]
Yeah, they're implying that it wasn't a plane but a MISSLE! OMFG!!!!111!1[/quote458477ab3a]


o

well they do have a point. being that the plane has no wreckage.

Interesting, but what about all the people that died as a result of the crash? This would have been too big of a cover-up...

What happened to the wings of the plane? There was no wreckage of them and no mark in the building

just because they say there were no wings doesnt mean it's true.. I'm not fighting either way but this is the internet folks.

Wait a minute, not everything on the internet is true? You mean my penis won't grow 3 inches overnight!?!?!?

[quote6bca3fbefb="Batman"]Wait a minute, not everything on the internet is true? You mean my penis won't grow 3 inches overnight!?!?!?[/quote6bca3fbefb]
'

no that part is true

I'm selling pills that will do that for you, $59.95 a bottle.

Ingredients sugar cube[/size6bca3fbefb]

Disclaimer any actual penis growth is purely coincidental[/size6bca3fbefb]

[quoteafc401865d="tonydanza92"]just because they say there were no wings doesnt mean it's true.. I'm not fighting either way but this is the internet folks.[/quoteafc401865d]
You dont see it in any pictures though, thats what im going by

lot of wreckage

where is the wreckage though?

show me a picture of the wreckage.

there are no wings, no marks in the building like there would be if a plane hit it, no dents in the ground, all video footage has been confiscated by the FBI and never released, there is a huge whole in a wall that looks about maybe 9 feet high and is basically a perfect circle.

its one thing to say i/we are left wing conspiracy nuts, its another to be so close-minded to think that its not possible that there could be a cover-up.

http//rense.com/general32/phot.htm

i dont think that a single one of those pictures (besides the perfect circle in the wall) proves that they were taken in the Pentagon....i mean who is to say that those pictures werent taken from somewhere else?

i know they have come from other sites and news organisation etc, but that still doesnt prove anything.

is it just me who finds it a bit strange that there is not ONE SINGLE PIECE of the plane OUTSIDE of the building itself?

[quote96dd26e7af="liquidskin"]http//rense.com/general32/phot.htm[/quote96dd26e7af]
Where are the wings though? They left no mark on the building so the debris couldnt have been inside, it wouldve had to have been outside

[quote045e5f4142]Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th. [/quote045e5f4142]
This seems like a pretty airtight deduction.

but what i was trying to say was, even in NY, parts of the plane landed away from the WTC......but not a single piece of that "plane" at the Pentagon landed outside the building......meaning that every last part of that plane went into the building, without touching the ground and without leaving anything on the outside of the building.

thats bullshit to me.

Well, most of the plane would be expected to be in the building. There would be little wreckage to be expected outside, as the plane smashed right into the building and would not have broken apart while it was outside.

why wouldnt it have broken outside of the building?

it did hit the building though right? surely if a plane flying at supposedly 530mph and 2 feet above the ground hits a building the size of the Pentagon, it would leave even a little bit of debris on the outside, instead of basically being engulfed.

[quotef7a8ff7b78="theysayjump"]why wouldnt it have broken outside of the building?

it did hit the building though right? surely if a plane flying at supposedly 530mph and 2 feet above the ground hits a building the size of the Pentagon, it would leave even a little bit of debris on the outside, instead of basically being engulfed.[/quotef7a8ff7b78]

Wrong. Planes traveling at 500+mph, when impacted against concrete walls, DO get englufed, as opposed to the WTC planes which hit mostly glass and steel, allowing debris to shoot out different ways instead of just being inside the building.

Here's a video http//gprime.net/video/planevsconcretewall.php

Notice how the WHOLE plane, except for the tips of the wings (which did not come in contact with the concrete), just poofed into dust. Since the Pentagon was obviously much larger than a 757, there was no part of the plan that could've been unimpacted in one way or another. Hense why much of the plane was basically turned into dust upon impact.

nice video comppimp, that is the best argument yet

Problem with that video is that you'll notice the wings are still intact going through the wall. Where were they in the pentagon. Also you're video doesn't show the hole it left. Did it punch a nice hole through there?

Why would the FBI be so quick to confinscate videos of this?

the wings did not go through, they were totally destroyed except for the tips where the wings didnt hit the wall

pay attention to the video

[quote64604524ac="J4320"]Why would the FBI be so quick to confinscate videos of this?[/quote64604524ac]

That must be the dumbest question ever. Think about what you asked and then ask yourselves again what the job of an FBi agent is.

I'm too lazy and at work so i didn't read everything. What is the motive again?

- It can't be to cover up the shooting down of a plane since they didn't need to do that (why would it have to hit the Pentagon as opposed to the fields like in Pennsylvania?)
- It can't be to 'fake' an attack to scare/piss people off since the WTC was enough.

[quoteb2370735cc="good2speed"][quoteb2370735cc="J4320"]Why would the FBI be so quick to confinscate videos of this?[/quoteb2370735cc]

That must be the dumbest question ever. Think about what you asked and then ask yourselves again what the job of an FBi agent is.[/quoteb2370735cc]

So true. lol

[quoteb9b4220c80="good2speed"][quoteb9b4220c80="J4320"]Why would the FBI be so quick to confinscate videos of this?[/quoteb9b4220c80]

That must be the dumbest question ever. Think about what you asked and then ask yourselves again what the job of an FBi agent is.[/quoteb9b4220c80]

Well thanks for bashing me. wink

I was trying to make a point. If it was what they say it was, than there should be no reason to confinscate(sp?) the video. They didn't confinscate the videos of the planes crashing in 9/11.

It isn't the dumbest question ever.

[quote8b626d2c8b="J4320"][quote8b626d2c8b="good2speed"][quote8b626d2c8b="J4320"]Why would the FBI be so quick to confinscate videos of this?[/quote8b626d2c8b]

That must be the dumbest question ever. Think about what you asked and then ask yourselves again what the job of an FBi agent is.[/quote8b626d2c8b]

Well thanks for bashing me. wink

I was trying to make a point. If it was what they say it was, than there should be no reason to confinscate(sp?) the video. They didn't confinscate the videos of the planes crashing in 9/11.

It isn't the dumbest question ever.[/quote8b626d2c8b]

Im sure they did confiscate whatever video of th WTC crash. That was NYC way too many tourists had footage of that. I'm sure the people also went to the new station before even contcating authorities. These guys made thier money off the ffotage that is replayed forever. The problem with the Pentagon was no one was even close to filming except for the higway cam and the gas station cam. The FBi knew of these locations and it made it a lot easier for them to seize the videos. The FBI would've love to have confiscated all the video of the WTC crash and released whatever video they felt was acceptable but they didnt have the capabilities nor the resources to do so.

[quote02a614226c="good2speed"][quote02a614226c="J4320"][quote02a614226c="good2speed"][quote02a614226c="J4320"]Why would the FBI be so quick to confinscate videos of this?[/quote02a614226c]

That must be the dumbest question ever. Think about what you asked and then ask yourselves again what the job of an FBi agent is.[/quote02a614226c]

Well thanks for bashing me. wink

I was trying to make a point. If it was what they say it was, than there should be no reason to confinscate(sp?) the video. They didn't confinscate the videos of the planes crashing in 9/11.

It isn't the dumbest question ever.[/quote02a614226c]

Im sure they did confiscate whatever video of th WTC crash. That was NYC way too many tourists had footage of that. I'm sure the people also went to the new station before even contcating authorities. These guys made thier money off the ffotage that is replayed forever. The problem with the Pentagon was no one was even close to filming except for the higway cam and the gas station cam. The FBi knew of these locations and it made it a lot easier for them to seize the videos. The FBI would've love to have confiscated all the video of the WTC crash and released whatever video they felt was acceptable but they didnt have the capabilities nor the resources to do so.[/quote02a614226c]

Well okay then. And also, what's so bad about having a video a plane crash into a building? Why do they want it confinscated?

[quote41051480af="J4320"]
Well okay then. And also, what's so bad about having a video a plane crash into a building? Why do they want it confinscated?[/quote41051480af]


Well they want to be the first people on the scene to view the events. They view the video to recount what may or may not have happened. I believe they didnt release the video to the public due to respect for the dead and their families. They know if they hand it to the the press then they'll play it over and over again. I think thats disrespectful. Imagine if your parents worked in that section of the Pentagon and you had to watch the video over and over again. I cant imagine all those who had family in the WTC. Must be trying to imagine where the palne struck and how close their family was. That would make me throw up.

[quote82d25d1e22="Batman"]Interesting, but what about all the people that died as a result of the crash? This would have been too big of a cover-up...[/quote82d25d1e22]


that is a good question... maybe if someone were to look up more information of 9/11... its kind of scary if you think about it, it may or may not be bs... but it was interesting to watch

[quoteb49e0df0b1="good2speed"][quoteb49e0df0b1="J4320"]
Well okay then. And also, what's so bad about having a video a plane crash into a building? Why do they want it confinscated?[/quoteb49e0df0b1]


Well they want to be the first people on the scene to view the events. They view the video to recount what may or may not have happened. I believe they didnt release the video to the public due to respect for the dead and their families. They know if they hand it to the the press then they'll play it over and over again. I think thats disrespectful. Imagine if your parents worked in that section of the Pentagon and you had to watch the video over and over again. I cant imagine all those who had family in the WTC. Must be trying to imagine where the palne struck and how close their family was. That would make me throw up.[/quoteb49e0df0b1]

I'd rather know what really went on before I could settle over my parent's death if I were in that situation.

[quote176b8ce6fe="J4320"]
I'd rather know what really went on before I could settle over my parent's death if I were in that situation.[/quote176b8ce6fe]


I'd take people for face value. If the say my parents died from a helicopter crash and there bodies were mutilated but they had dental records which identified them as being part of that crash Id belie ve it. I wouldnt need to go find video evidence of them falling to their deaths or even go to the location of the accident. Let the dead rest in peace.

[quoteb09693434e="good2speed"][quoteb09693434e="J4320"]
I'd rather know what really went on before I could settle over my parent's death if I were in that situation.[/quoteb09693434e]


I'd take people for face value. If the say my parents died from a helicopter crash and there bodies were mutilated but they had dental records which identified them as being part of that crash Id belie ve it. I wouldnt need to go find video evidence of them falling to their deaths or even go to the location of the accident. Let the dead rest in peace.[/quoteb09693434e]

See, well that's the difference of people. If the people who want to know what really happened want to see the videos, let them watch it. The people who don't want to know don't have to watch the videos if they don't want to.

[quote6af5cfce99="J4320"]
See, well that's the difference of people. If the people who want to know what really happened want to see the videos, let them watch it. The people who don't want to know don't have to watch the videos if they don't want to.[/quote6af5cfce99]

Thats really a morality question. And your not just limiting it to the families who lost someone who want to view it. In fact there will be more people who werent involved in any way who will view it. I'd rather not have to turn the tv on 7 years from now and by happensatnce they flash a plane flying into the building where my parents worked. That would bring across bad memories and I'd want to forget the past.

[quote5cb57af1e0="good2speed"][quote5cb57af1e0="J4320"]
See, well that's the difference of people. If the people who want to know what really happened want to see the videos, let them watch it. The people who don't want to know don't have to watch the videos if they don't want to.[/quote5cb57af1e0]

Thats really a morality question. And your not just limiting it to the families who lost someone who want to view it. In fact there will be more people who werent involved in any way who will view it. I'd rather not have to turn the tv on 7 years from now and by happensatnce they flash a plane flying into the building where my parents worked. That would bring across bad memories and I'd want to forget the past.[/quote5cb57af1e0]

I don't think that's any excuse as to why the FBI takes away videos like this.

[quote13a485bd8c="J4320"]
I don't think that's any excuse as to why the FBI takes away videos like this.[/quote13a485bd8c]

Its an investigation. they put up yellow tape and at a murder scene take photos of the crime scene but dont release it to the public because they need it for investigative purposes. Granted they didnt supress the tapes because of fear of leaked testimony or evidence whichshould have ben supressed for a trial. Since this evidence would never lead to a trial. I know that crime scene investigators close off crime scenes to the public a nd sometimes even to the media. This may differ depending on exaclty hwat the case would be. In this case I just believe the video was suppressed due to negative pr. First it would be bad to habve the families relive the final moments with graphic video. second I think it would be a mistake to realese the video for the simple fact that the enemy would have video coverage of their accomplishments((%%(%^$($#() You dont want these toads jerking off to video like this do you.

[quote5055e03c93="good2speed"][quote5055e03c93="J4320"]
I don't think that's any excuse as to why the FBI takes away videos like this.[/quote5055e03c93]

Its an investigation. they put up yellow tape and at a murder scene take photos of the crime scene but dont release it to the public because they need it for investigative purposes. Granted they didnt supress the tapes because of fear of leaked testimony or evidence whichshould have ben supressed for a trial. Since this evidence would never lead to a trial. I know that crime scene investigators close off crime scenes to the public a nd sometimes even to the media. This may differ depending on exaclty hwat the case would be. In this case I just believe the video was suppressed due to negative pr. First it would be bad to habve the families relive the final moments with graphic video. second I think it would be a mistake to realese the video for the simple fact that the enemy would have video coverage of their accomplishments((%%(%^$($#() [b5055e03c93] You dont want these toads jerking off to video like this do you.[/b5055e03c93][/quote5055e03c93]

No.

But still, I'd rather see what actually went on.

but they played phone calls from people on the planes to their family....they played them at the 9/11 commision. the families have heard those phone calls, but we are not allowed to hear those phone calls.

personally, i would be more distraught at hearing my wifes final last words to me, or anyone else, than seeing a plane crash into a building.

why would the FBI release those 5 pictures of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, but not release the actual video? i mean where is the difference?

and that video up top, if the plane did disintegratem then why did they find parts of the plane in the building?

you cant have it both ways....it either hit the building and disintegrated, or it hit the building and there should be debris lying around.

like ive said how many times now, why is there not a single piece of the wreckage on the outside of the building? no hole in the ground?

I still don't see why you'd expect to see debris outside. The plane crashed into the building and the debris would be inside.

for me its hard to imagine a plane of that size, flying at that speed to hit a building and not one part or peice of that plane is found outside building.

nothing hit the buildig then flew off outwards? no part of the wing or the fin on the top of the plane?

also, everyone saw the amount of fuel that was burnt when the plane hit the WTC, but at the pentagon, there was hardly any compared to the WTC.

[quotefbb0f48f7e="Batman"]I still don't see why you'd expect to see debris outside. The plane crashed into the building and the debris would be inside.[/quotefbb0f48f7e]

Well I'd expect to see debris. It is strange how there wasn't according to this video and that sidescroll site.

And also, what about that plane that was hijacked and supposedly crashed into the pentagon. If that plane never hit the pentagon, where is it?

That's because the plane was hijacked and crashed into the pentagon. It was a real plane, and real people died. This fact alone should be enough to prove that a commercial airliner crashed into the pentagon.

[quote578d99dd39="Batman"]That's because the plane was hijacked and crashed into the pentagon. It was a real plane, and real people died. This fact alone should be enough to prove that a commercial airliner crashed into the pentagon.[/quote578d99dd39]

Yes, I'm leaning more towards the fact that it did hit the pentagon. But it could have been something else for all we know.

is there actually any proof of the plane, a plane, ANY plane hitting the Pentagon?

[quote5f52d6d096="theysayjump"]is there actually any proof of the plane, a plane, ANY plane hitting the Pentagon?[/quote5f52d6d096]

... god

[quotec0fcd6f558]PENTAGON
9/11 casualties
Spc. Craig Amundson, 28, Fort Belvoir, Va.
Melissa Rose Barnes, 27, Redlands, Calif.
(Retired) Master Sgt. Max Beilke, 69, Laurel, Md.
Kris Romeo Bishundat, 23, Waldorf, Md.
Carrie Blagburn, 48, Temple Hills, Md.
Lt. Col. Canfield D. Boone, 54, Clifton, Va.
Donna Bowen, 42, Waldorf, Md.
Allen Boyle, 30, Fredericksburg, Va.
Christopher Lee Burford, 23, Hubert, N.C.
Daniel Martin Caballero, 21, Houston, Texas
Sgt. 1st Class Jose Orlando Calderon-Olmedo, 44, Annandale, Va.
Angelene C. Carter, 51, Forrestville, Md.
Sharon Carver, 38, Waldorf, Md.
John J. Chada, 55, Manassas, Va.
Rosa Maria (Rosemary) Chapa, 64, Springfield, Va.
Julian Cooper, 39, Springdale, Md.
Lt. Cmdr. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.
Ada M. Davis, 57, Camp Springs, Md.
Capt. Gerald Francis Deconto, 44, Sandwich, Mass.
Lt. Col. Jerry Don Dickerson, 41, Durant, Miss.
Johnnie Doctor, 32, Jacksonville, Fla.
Capt. Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Alexandria, Va.
Cmdr. William Howard Donovan, 37, Nunda, N.Y.
Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn, 39, Springfield, Va.
Edward Thomas Earhart, 26, Salt Lick, Ky.
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth, 37, Vestal, N.Y.
Jamie Lynn Fallon, 23, Woodbridge, Va.
Amelia V. Fields, 36, Dumfries, Va.
Gerald P. Fisher, 57, Potomac, Md.
Matthew Michael Flocco, 21, Newark, Del.
Sandra N. Foster, 41, Clinton, Md.
Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, Neb.
Cortz Ghee, 54, Reisterstown, Md.
Brenda C. Gibson, 59, Falls Church, Va.
Ron Golinski, 60, Columbia, Md.
Diane M. Hale-McKinzy, 38, Alexandria, Va.
Carolyn B. Halmon, 49, Washington, D.C.
Sheila Hein, 51, University Park, Md.
Ronald John Hemenway, 37, Shawnee, Kan.
Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan, 40, Fla.
Jimmie Ira Holley, 54, Lanham, Md.
Angela Houtz, 27, La Plata, Md.
Brady K. Howell, 26, Arlington, Va.
Peggie Hurt, 36, Crewe, Va.
Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, 45, Burke, Va.
Robert J. Hymel, 55, Woodbridge, Va.
Sgt. Maj. Lacey B. Ivory, 43, Woodbridge, Va.
Lt. Col. Dennis M. Johnson, 48, Port Edwards, Wis.
Judith Jones, 53, Woodbridge, Va.
Brenda Kegler, 49, Washington, D.C.
Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, La.
David W. Laychak, 40, Manassas, Va.
Samantha Lightbourn-Allen, 36, Hillside, Md.
Maj. Steve Long, 39, Ga.
James Lynch, 55, Manassas, Va.
Terence M. Lynch, 49, Alexandria, Va.
Nehamon Lyons, 30, Mobile, Ala.
Shelley A. Marshall, 37, Marbury, Md.
Teresa Martin, 45, Stafford, Va.
Ada L. Mason, 50, Springfield, Va.
Lt. Col. Dean E. Mattson, 57, Calif.
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, 53, Fort Myer, Va.
Robert J. Maxwell, 53, Manassas, Va.
Molly McKenzie, 38, Dale City, Va.
Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley, 41, Springfield, Va.
Maj. Ronald D. Milam, 33, Washington, D.C.
Gerard (Jerry) P. Moran, 39, Upper Marlboro, Md.
Odessa V. Morris, 54, Upper Marlboro, Md.
Brian Anthony Moss, 34, Sperry, Okla.
Ted Moy, 48, Silver Spring, Md.
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, Flossmoor, Ill.
Khang Nguyen, 41, Fairfax, Va.
Michael Allen Noeth, 30, New York, N.Y.
Diana Borrero de Padro, 55, Woodbridge, Va.
Spc. Chin Sun Pak, 25, Lawton, Okla.
Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, Mingoville, Pa.
Maj. Clifford L. Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Va.
Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Columbia, Md.
Scott Powell, 35, Silver Spring, Md.
(Retired) Capt. Jack Punches, 51, Clifton, Va.
Joseph John Pycior, 39, Carlstadt, N.J.
Deborah Ramsaur, 45, Annandale, Va.
Rhonda Rasmussen, 44, Woodbridge, Va.
Marsha Dianah Ratchford, 34, Prichard, Ala.
Martha Reszke, 36, Stafford, Va.
Cecelia E. Richard, 41, Fort Washington, Md.
Edward V. Rowenhorst, 32, Lake Ridge, Va.
Judy Rowlett, 44, Woodbridge, Va.
Robert E. Russell, 52, Oxon Hill, Md.
William R. Ruth, 57, Mount Airy, Md.
Charles E. Sabin, 54, Burke, Va.
Marjorie C. Salamone, 53, Springfield, Va.
Lt. Col. David M. Scales, 44, Cleveland, Ohio
Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, Va.
Janice Scott, 46, Springfield, Va.
Michael L. Selves, 53, Fairfax, Va.
Marian Serva, 47, Stafford, Va.
Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, Naperville, Ill.
Antoinette Sherman, 35, Forest Heights, Md.
Don Simmons, 58, Dumfries, Va.
Cheryle D. Sincock, 53, Dale City, Va.
Gregg Harold Smallwood, 44, Overland Park, Kan.
(Retired) Lt. Col. Gary F. Smith, 55, Alexandria, Va.
Patricia J. Statz, 41, Takoma Park, Md.
Edna L. Stephens, 53, Washington, D.C.
Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, 52, Woodbridge, Va.
Maj. Kip P. Taylor, 38, McLean, Va.
Sandra C. Taylor, 50, Alexandria, Va.
Karl W. Teepe, 57, Centreville, Va.
Sgt. Tamara Thurman, 25, Brewton, Ala.
Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, Lemoore, Calif.
Willie Q. Troy, 51, Aberdeen, Md.
Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, 37, Nampa, Idaho
Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, 40, Houston, Texas
Meta L. Waller, 60, Alexandria, Va.
Staff Sgt. Maudlyn A. White, 38, St. Croix, Virgin Islands
Sandra L. White, 44, Dumfries, Va.
Ernest M. Willcher, 62, North Potomac, Md.
Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32, Newport, Ore.
Maj. Dwayne Williams, 40, Jacksonville, Ala.
Marvin R. Woods, 57, Great Mills, Md.
Kevin Wayne Yokum, 27, Lake Charles, La.
Donald McArthur Young, 41, Roanoke, Va.
Lisa L. Young, 36, Germantown, Md.
Edmond Young, 22, Owings, Md.[/quotec0fcd6f558]

[quote7f3538f7a6="theysayjump"]is there actually any proof of the plane, a plane, ANY plane hitting the Pentagon?[/quote7f3538f7a6]

Omg, it's so clear now! How could we be so stupid to think that a plane crashed into it! OMG! roll

wow, you people really DO believe everything your government tell you dont you?

still waiting for proof.

I really don't see anything that proves that a plane didn't crash into it. The wreckage is there, and the casualties are real.

the wreckage is where though?

ive still not seen one picture that proves a plane hit the Pentagon.

there are pics of debris or parts of a plane in a building, but it doesnt prove it was the Pentagon.

if someone will show me a picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon then i might believe that it happened.

[quotea1711af0d4="theysayjump"]the wreckage is where though?

ive still not seen one picture that proves a plane hit the Pentagon.

there are pics of debris or parts of a plane in a building, but it doesnt prove it was the Pentagon.

if someone will show me a picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon then i might believe that it happened.[/quotea1711af0d4]

just because you havent seen a pic of something particular doesn't mean it's not true

watching too many movies and reading too many conspiracy theories. Believe me I'd be the first to suggest that Bush let all this stuff happen just so he could go to war with Iraq. In fact you can make a great case that this was all preplanned just to get support for the war in Iraq. Really a great story wish I thought of it first. Oh ya thats right Bush is a moron and too stupid to think of a plan such as this. Plus I dont think hes clever or cunning enough to look so stupid when he found about the towers. I mean did you look at his face. Did confusion ever enter your mind. Did the thought of omfg this pres is retared and he wont know how to respond to this incident ever cross your mind. It did for me. Bottom line Bush is too much of an idiot to have all this preplanned. If you say not Bush but his administartion had their hands in it then Id have to disagree again and say his administration is too stupid to make it happen. Fact is these terrorists hijacked these planes and flew them into buildings killing many inncocent people. Now we all knew that Bush had aspirations of invading Iraq prior to 9/11. Will I deny that 9/11 promoted the invasion of Iraq and that Bush capitalized on America's fear to gain support for it , no. You know when your president you can go to war with any country without any public support for 60 days. And if your close to congress you can even get them to approve it after 60 days to keep it going. So basically he couldve went to war with Iraq without blowing up a single building or losing a single life

i wasnt trying to say that it was all down to bush and it was pre-planned.

i just think its fucked up that there is no proof that a plane hit the pentagon, but yet nobody questions that.

im not asying this is what happened, but this is an example

say that a missile was fired at the pentagon, killing lots of people inside. then a hijacked plane is heading for the pentagon also. they divert the plane, shoot it down somewhere remote and say that it was a plane that hit the pentagon, everyone on board the plane died at the pentagon and everyone that died inside the pentagon, died due to the plane crash.

like i said, thats just an example as to how a cover-up could happen, or how they could prove that people died in both crashes.

there are countless eyewitness reports of people who actually saw the plane hit the building. firefighters and rescue workers DID pull out the passengers and crew. why would these workers lie to protect the government? they are just average people like us, trying to get by. what about the light poles that were knocked down? id be the first to doubt what the government says, but in this case they have been honest with us. the only wrong they have done was allowing the 9/11 disasters to occur.

im just looking for proof that it happened.

after seeing that short flash film, and looking at other sites about what happened at the pentagon, ive not found any proof that a plane hit it.

thats all im asking for.....show me proof and ill shut up.

Yeah I find it kind of odd that there wasn't any debris from the plane like a wing or something.

the tv age. Everyone wants proof. Just saying it happened is not good enough. Did people need video footage of the Titanic going down. Did a missile hit the titanic because I dont belive in the whole iceberg malarky. I mean come on where's the ice ,, dont see any ice there. Show me some ice then Ill believe you. It was obviously the Germans with their subs who did a premptive strike on an English vessel. I mean if you cant see it then your blind. The damage on the titanic shows a crater similar to that of a missile and that if ice broke it then it would have gotten budged but wouldnt have sunk.

the tv age. Everyone wants proof. Just saying it happened is not good enough. Did people need video footage of the Titanic going down. Did a missile hit the titanic because I dont belive in the whole iceberg malarky. I mean come on where's the ice ,, dont see any ice there. Show me some ice then Ill believe you. It was obviously the Germans with their subs who did a premptive strike on an English vessel. I mean if you cant see it then your blind. The damage on the titanic shows a crater similar to that of a missile and that if ice broke it then it would have gotten budged but wouldnt have sunk.


LOL I could make a video similar to the one you posted and make my claims sound almost as believable

ummm....there are pics of the titanic going down.

[quote5091f1323d="theysayjump"]ummm....there are pics of the titanic going down.[/quote5091f1323d]

Really? I never knew that. Lol, good comeback.

[quote3e42dd2954="theysayjump"]ummm....there are pics of the titanic going down.[/quote3e42dd2954]

but wheres the ice?


sorry for double post

well the iceberg is in the water obviously.....i dont think they can fly yet.

i dont see why eyewitness reports such as http//urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm arent sufficient.

[quote1971dae5cf="theysayjump"]well the iceberg is in the water obviously.....i dont think they can fly yet.[/quote1971dae5cf]

what iceberg. Thats what the govt wants you to believe. There was never an iceberg

so what other theories are there about what sunk the titanic then?

[quotef0b1fe11fc="liquidskin"]i dont see why eyewitness reports such as http//urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm arent sufficient.[/quotef0b1fe11fc]

and why cant the people who say otherwise be enough?

are there any conflicting reports about what happened when the planes flew into the WTC? i havent heard any, everyone is quite clear on what happened there.

so why are there different stories about the pentagon?

Jesus, talk about being hard-headed.

The only "different stories" about the Pentagon strike is people saying "oh, it sounded like a missle". Let's analyze that statement. These are AVERAGE CITIZENS that are making these claims, who have never heard what a REAL missle sounds like (atleast not that can make that much damage). Would that seem credible to you? That's like a supermarket worker looking at a white powder saying "oh, this looks like anthrax". Please.

Just because there isnt pics/vids of debris outside doesnt mean that there wasnt a single piece outside of the building. Even if there wasn't, everything would be inside the building since the plane was traveling so fast. It's easy to imagine a normal object traveling at "normal" speeds hitting a wall and breaking into a ton of pieces outside of that wall, but we're talking about a 757 going at 500+ MPH. That much mass, with that much speed, will go straight in and start to disintegrate. Depending on location of other pieces and what it came in contact with after impacting the first main concrete wall, its possible that there was some debris inside the building from the plane (as the pics show).

About the fuel. The reason the amount of fuel burnt at the WTC seemed more than at the Pentagon is because theres no way in hell firefighters couldve reached up there to put it out faster. Which is why when the Pentagon was on fire, they got that under control much quicker since they obviously had access to actually put the fire out.

I agree with good2speed 100%. In today's world, some people like theysayjump want video. Others dont just want one video, they want multiple sources, with multiple angles, facing multiple directions in relatonship to the sun.

Just face the facts. Four planes were hijacked by middle eastern terrorists. Two of them hit each of the WTCs. One was crash landed in Penn. because of brave Americans trying to take back control of the plane, which inturn saved countless more lives. And the last one crashed into the Pentagon. If you still don't want to believe it, fine, but for your own sake, these conspiracy theorys are starting to sound crazy.

What he said. D

[quote1c03eb1dd9="Batman"]What he said. D[/quote1c03eb1dd9]

[quotebf5fba0ce0="comppimp"]Jesus, talk about being hard-headed.[/quotebf5fba0ce0]

so im hardheaded for thinking that this might be possible, but everyone else who thinks "oh no its not possible, the government would never cover up something like that" are not hard-headed?

[quotebf5fba0ce0="comppimp"]The only "different stories" about the Pentagon strike is people saying "oh, it sounded like a missle". Let's analyze that statement. These are AVERAGE CITIZENS that are making these claims, who have never heard what a REAL missle sounds like (atleast not that can make that much damage).[/quotebf5fba0ce0]

and you know they are "average citizens" how? lets face it, how many people average or not, HAVE heard a missile flying overhead? probably not very many. and how many people have heard a plane flying overhead? probably a vast majority of this country. now im sure that a plane and a missile both sound different, dont you think that even the most moronic people would be able to tell the difference? i had never heard a gunshot before i moved here, but i can tell the difference between that and a car backfiring.

[quotebf5fba0ce0="comppimp"]Just because there isnt pics/vids of debris outside doesnt mean that there wasnt a single piece outside of the building. Even if there wasn't, everything would be inside the building since the plane was traveling so fast. It's easy to imagine a normal object traveling at "normal" speeds hitting a wall and breaking into a ton of pieces outside of that wall, but we're talking about a 757 going at 500+ MPH. That much mass, with that much speed, will go straight in and start to disintegrate. Depending on location of other pieces and what it came in contact with after impacting the first main concrete wall, its possible that there was some debris inside the building from the plane (as the pics show).[/quotebf5fba0ce0]

so a plane flying at the same speed as those in NY, hits a building but disintegrates, only leaving debris inside the building it hits, but the ones in NY have parts of the planes found away from the crash site? doesnt add up to me.

[quotebf5fba0ce0="comppimp"]About the fuel. The reason the amount of fuel burnt at the WTC seemed more than at the Pentagon is because theres no way in hell firefighters couldve reached up there to put it out faster. Which is why when the Pentagon was on fire, they got that under control much quicker since they obviously had access to actually put the fire out.[/quotebf5fba0ce0]

when i was talking about the fuel, i didnt mean about why was it on fire, i meant on impact, a lot more fuel burned away in NY, than it did (according to those 5 pictures of the "plane" on impact with the pentagon) at the pentagon.

as soon as the planes hit the WTC, there were huge explosions, fire and smoke rising way up into the air......at the pentagon it was a little bit of an explosion (compared to WTC) with some fire and not as much smoke as there was at the WTC.

[quotebf5fba0ce0="comppimp"]Just face the facts. Four planes were hijacked by middle eastern terrorists. Two of them hit each of the WTCs. One was crash landed in Penn. because of brave Americans trying to take back control of the plane, which inturn saved countless more lives. And the last one crashed into the Pentagon. If you still don't want to believe it, fine, but for your own sake, these conspiracy theorys are starting to sound crazy.[/quotebf5fba0ce0]

thats a matter of opinion.

Ugh... I remember getting into deep arguments. Individually quoting all of those parts sucks. It takes so long.

yup, 3 tabs and bitch.

[quoteba6719c1c5="J4320"]Ugh... I remember getting into deep arguments. Individually quoting all of those parts sucks. It takes so long.[/quoteba6719c1c5]
Bringing back memories of Evolution VS. Creationism?

Well I've done my share of debating in the C VS E forum.

I actually agree with theysayjump. I don't see anything saying that a plane DID hit, other than the government's word. Plus, a cover up is EASY there. Think about it. The people who died in the "plane" were actually working on the wing at the time and thats why they found "bodies" in the hole. Oh, and I think it is pretty clear in the video that it was definately not a 757 even if it was a plane. That in and of itself is evidence of a Government LIE.

OH and to add fuel to the fire

http//www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

What do you think of that? Did conspiracy theorists make ALL that up and photoshop everything?

[quotef55c5dde02="theysayjump"][quotef55c5dde02="comppimp"]Jesus, talk about being hard-headed.[/quotef55c5dde02]

so im hardheaded for thinking that this might be possible, but everyone else who thinks "oh no its not possible, the government would never cover up something like that" are not hard-headed?[/quotef55c5dde02]

I never said the government would never cover up something like that. I am simply stating facts as to why the government doesn't have to cover up anything, since theres nothing to cover up.

[quotef55c5dde02="comppimp"]The only "different stories" about the Pentagon strike is people saying "oh, it sounded like a missle". Let's analyze that statement. These are AVERAGE CITIZENS that are making these claims, who have never heard what a REAL missle sounds like (atleast not that can make that much damage).[/quotef55c5dde02]

[quotef55c5dde02="theysayjump"]and you know they are "average citizens" how? lets face it, how many people average or not, HAVE heard a missile flying overhead? probably not very many. and how many people have heard a plane flying overhead? probably a vast majority of this country. now im sure that a plane and a missile both sound different, dont you think that even the most moronic people would be able to tell the difference? i had never heard a gunshot before i moved here, but i can tell the difference between that and a car backfiring.[/quotef55c5dde02]

You'd be suprised how similiar a plane and a missle sound, especially considering the witnesses that heard that "missle" weren't relatively close to it, or else they would've actually seen it.

[quotef55c5dde02="theysayjump"][quotef55c5dde02="comppimp"]Just because there isnt pics/vids of debris outside doesnt mean that there wasnt a single piece outside of the building. Even if there wasn't, everything would be inside the building since the plane was traveling so fast. It's easy to imagine a normal object traveling at "normal" speeds hitting a wall and breaking into a ton of pieces outside of that wall, but we're talking about a 757 going at 500+ MPH. That much mass, with that much speed, will go straight in and start to disintegrate. Depending on location of other pieces and what it came in contact with after impacting the first main concrete wall, its possible that there was some debris inside the building from the plane (as the pics show).[/quotef55c5dde02]

so a plane flying at the same speed as those in NY, hits a building but disintegrates, only leaving debris inside the building it hits, but the ones in NY have parts of the planes found away from the crash site? doesnt add up to me.[/quotef55c5dde02]

The difference is the places that hit NYC impacted against glass (at first)then steel. The outcome is completely different than a plane hitting multiple layers of military-grade solid concrete walls.

[quotef55c5dde02="theysayjump"][quotef55c5dde02="comppimp"]About the fuel. The reason the amount of fuel burnt at the WTC seemed more than at the Pentagon is because theres no way in hell firefighters couldve reached up there to put it out faster. Which is why when the Pentagon was on fire, they got that under control much quicker since they obviously had access to actually put the fire out.[/quotef55c5dde02]

when i was talking about the fuel, i didnt mean about why was it on fire, i meant on impact, a lot more fuel burned away in NY, than it did (according to those 5 pictures of the "plane" on impact with the pentagon) at the pentagon.

as soon as the planes hit the WTC, there were huge explosions, fire and smoke rising way up into the air......at the pentagon it was a little bit of an explosion (compared to WTC) with some fire and not as much smoke as there was at the WTC.[/quotef55c5dde02]

How can you say you aren't talking about fire if your point is that "a lot more fuel burned away in NY"? The explosions weren't as big at the Pentagon for simply reason of concrete walls. This is a MILITARY BUILDING we're talking about here, not some glass/steel building as the WTC was. It was designed to suppress explosions in the event of one, lowering the amount of damage. Add to the fact that the fire crews got there in a hurry, and got control of the blaze makes it seem that there was very little fire/smoke, which in the link below shows otherwise.

[quotef55c5dde02="theysayjump"][quotef55c5dde02="comppimp"]Just face the facts. Four planes were hijacked by middle eastern terrorists. Two of them hit each of the WTCs. One was crash landed in Penn. because of brave Americans trying to take back control of the plane, which inturn saved countless more lives. And the last one crashed into the Pentagon. If you still don't want to believe it, fine, but for your own sake, these conspiracy theorys are starting to sound crazy.[/quotef55c5dde02]

thats a matter of opinion.[/quotef55c5dde02]

What's a matter of opinion? That there were four airplanes hijacked? That two of them crashed into the WTC towers? That another was diverted by Americans which fought the terrorists and didn't allow them to hit another target? Hopefully it's none of the above, and it's that I think you're crazy.

Here's a site with even more proof http//www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

P.S. This is my last reply towards theysayjump's messages in this thread. He obviously is one of those people that needs a DVD-quality video of something to believe it happend.

Well put.

so in an initial impact of a 757, the fuel will burn away differently depending on the type of building it hits?

and when i said thats a matter of opinion, i didnt edit out the part that i was referring to....which was

[quoteee08f12216="comppimp"]And the last one crashed into the Pentagon. If you still don't want to believe it, fine, but for your own sake, these conspiracy theorys are starting to sound crazy.[/quoteee08f12216]

and the only people who were close to it are the ones who said it was a plane? so everyone else who said it was a missile or something were too far away to know what they were talking about, especially since none of them have seen or heard a missile before.

wouldnt it make more sense that if a plane hit glass and steel (WTC), it would engulf the plane, as opposed to re-inforced concrete walls (pentagon)? you said yourself it was designed to withstand those kind of attacks, but to me it doesnt look like it withstood it very well.

and once again, in the pictures that were released of the impact, the amount of fuel that burned away compared to the amount of fuel that burned away in NY, was not very much. im not talking about it going on fire, im talking about the actual moment of impact and how much burned away.

like i said how many posts ago, im not saying this is what happened, but when presented with that flash video, and numerous other sites and pages, i have still not seen any proof to say otherwise (that it was a plane).

i havent looked at that page you posted but i will, and if it proves me wrong then i will say so.....all i asked for was proof, i wasnt trying to be a dick about it. just throwing out there for discussion.

It is possible...

[quotebb3c151812="irishjayhawk"]OH and to add fuel to the fire

http//www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

What do you think of that? Did conspiracy theorists make ALL that up and photoshop everything?[/quotebb3c151812]

ok... so we can safely rule out the possibility of a rocket or something other than a Boeing 757 hitting the pentagon. fine, case closed.
BUT, from the above info (from that same site dismissing the "missile" issue) we can argue, with TONS of FACTS that the JEWS were involved in 9-11... don't you guys think that's MORE important than what hit the pentagon? fuck the pentagon, we are being lied to every day, doesn't that bother anyone? we're spending billions on a war that shouldn't be! people are dying who shouldn't die! SHIT!

Hasek.