Plane Hits Building...

Hey Audio Guy,

Check out this link:

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

T.S.,

thanks for the link. I have seen that video before and we have debated the topic here @ AA.org several times. I just wanted to "stoke the fires" a little...

HELL, even the 9-11 Commission itself admits that no evidence of a plane (or the alleged people on Flight 77) was ever found:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight77.html

quote:

Whether the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was Flight 77 is the subject of much question and controversy. Human remains of the people onboard Flight 77 were identified at Dover, but there is no public evidence that places the bodies at the Pentagon crash site.

The impact was 83 minutes after Flight 11 first went off course, and 58 minutes after the North Tower impact, and 40 minutes after the South Tower impact, yet the jet was not intercepted as it flew over the (normally) most heavily protected airspace in the United States, and in the world.

I had this dicussion with my mother a while ago, and she got so upset that I kept debunking her "evidence" that she started yelling and cutting me off. She kept saying that if the goverment was lying, they wouldn't leave info open like that to be debunked. I told her that experts and scientists can debunk lies, she delve into "Well, how do you know the experts are telling the truth, since none of us were there?" Eventually just said, "Well, you believe what you want to, I'll believe what I want to."

When I said, "Well then, you can say that about anything. Why do you believe anything since it could all be a lie?" she simply repeated the above line.


IT'S AMAZING what lengths of irrationality people will go to just to avoid questioning their "reality". She thought, "Oh, I saw a list of names of the people on the flight, some stories of the people and a funeral for them" was irrefutable evidence that it happened. Which is about as much of "strong evidence" as, "Many places named in the Bible are real, and it self-references it's stories, therefore it must all be true."

There are pics of the plane wreckage from the Pentagon along with lots of information surrounding the crash and some grainy video footage. I have personally posted links and pictures of all of that stuff before and I'm sure it's still around here somewhere.

Empty Purnata, your very own link talks about the eyewitnesses to the crash who saw the plane.

What do people get out this conspiracy theory? Is it comforting somehow? Make you sleep better at night?

quote:

IT'S AMAZING what lengths of irrationality people will go to just to avoid questioning their "reality".

Indeed.

Which link? Was the 9-11 Commission link invalid?

The damage caused by the "plane" that supposedly hit the Pentagon is not compatible with that of a plane (where is the wing damage?). There was never any evidence that a plane hit, nor were any bodies of the "passengers" ever found.



So let's see a BIG-ASS BOEING 757 hit a building, only caused a small hole barely bigger around than the fuselage, caused no wing damage, didn't even plow very far into the building, didn't disturb the lawn one bit, caused no smashed windows, and left no pieces of itself with no passenger bodies?

EP, here is a link to the original conversation: "Did Anybody See...?"

Here is the link that explains all of the evidence in the most detail: Above Top Secret

There are many conflicted accounts of what happened. Where are the families of these people who supposedly "died"? Where is the fund for them? Why did the goverment whisk off the debris so fast and not allow any inspection? Why do so many witnesses claim to have seen/heard a missle and a fighter jet? Why didn't Flight 77 leave the radar?

Most of all: WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE BODIES AND WHERE THE FUCK IS THE PLANE? Even the 9-11 Council admitted there is no proof a plane or any passengers were there. Where the fuck is the black box from the plane?

The damage done to the building is inconsistent with that of a huge-ass Boeing 757. So, you're telling me that a 200-foot wide, 150-foot long, 600,000-pound plane with 5,000+ gallons of volatile fuel only caused that little hole, didn't even disturb the lawn, and didn't even smash windows? GIMME A BREAK.

An object that big, flying 300+ mph, smack-dab into a building, even the steel-reinforced Pentagon (but 757 planes have titanium which can cut through concrete and steel), only caused that dent? Are you aware of the sheer FORCE of the explosion that a 757 would cause, flying into a building? Any surrounding video cameras in an 200-yard radius would have been knocked out by the sheer force (that's more force than an Amtrak smashing into a mountain).

Where is the wing damage?





The damage done is much more consistent with that of a missle.

Empty Purnata, did you read the links??? Because all of what you just said is clearly debunked. There are numerous photos of plane wreckage, pictures of the entry, an explanation of how it is exactly consistent with the dimensions of the plane, pictures of the damaged areas leading all the way up to the building, diagrams of how deep the plane penetrated, pictures from the first people on the scene, and explanation of the debris, and MUCH MORE.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:
Empty Purnata, did you read the links??? Because all of what you just said is clearly debunked. There are numerous photos of plane wreckage, pictures of the entry, an explanation of how it is exactly consistent with the dimensions of the plane, pictures of the damaged areas leading all the way up to the building, diagrams of how deep the plane penetrated, pictures from the first people on the scene, and explanation of the debris, and MUCH MORE.

Now THAT was a good attempt to prove it was a plane. It almost had me convinced, ALMOST.

Now, I am thinking it may have been some sort of plane, but I'm still unconvinced that it was specifically a 757. That hole is just way too damn small to have been a 757 (unless the Pentagon is made out of titanium that's 8 feet thick). Do you know how force would be behind a 600,000-lb vehicle traveling over 300 mph?

I don't see how anyone can ignore the lack of wing damage, and the fact that cameras weren't knocked completely out by the force (pretty damn strong cameras).

The panel found in the building debris wasn't all that convincing, it looked like it could have been from any type of commercial plane. And the video outline of the alleged 757 was kinda unconvincing (it hardly looked like a 757, it looked like a nearly transparent blur that can be made into anything, like an inkblot).


But I agree it may have been some form of plane. Whether or not it was the plane alleged, well.......that's the damndest Boeing crash I've ever seen if it was.

I would guess that there are certainly as many cameras in our nation's capital as in NYC. Where is the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon as we have with the WTC? The footage that has been released raises way more questions than answers. In fact, in my eyes, it suggests that there was NO plane.

Bottom line evidence for me is that without regard to what was found on the ground (which we have no clue about how it got there), the physical eviodence on the building itself is - to the lay eye - completely counter to a plane hitting it. Think about the way that the planes that hit in NY completely blew out the steel/metal etc. of the WTC along the full width of the plane (including the wings). Curious how brick is only charred but almost untouched looking with this plane.


Perhaps its much easier to sell the American people on another rogue plane as opposed to someone with a RPG or something in the nation's capital - or even worse, a wayward American missile.

All of that is cleared up and addressed in the link provided. The dimensions of the entry damage are exactly consisent with the dimentions of the plane. There is not only pictures of plane debris on the ground but also inside the building. There was MASSIVE destruction inside and outside of the building and (again) plenty of supportive photographs and EYEWITNESS accounts.

At a certain point, there is just no convincing people who want to hang on to this conspiracy theory for whatever reason. The government could release video footage and play the recordings from the Black Box and people would STILL think it was fake. I, for one, am glad they have not gone that grisly route. Again, what are you all getting out of hanging on to these conspiracy theories in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary?

I am greatly disturbed by this and I think its promotion is a slap in the face to all of the people who lost family members on that flight. (Flight 77 Passengers and Crew) It must feel for them how it feels for those who lost family members in the Holocaust who have to hear some yahoo talk about how the Holocaust never happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

At a certain point, there is just no convincing people who want to hang on to this conspiracy theory for whatever reason.

Similarly, in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, why people passively consume what they are fed by the government (a group that is known to do anything for political gain) is beyond me.

At some point, if one is a critical thinker, thay have to ask the serious question: who benefitted by 9/11? Our president had zero political leverage and extremely weak popular support prior to 9/11. The public realized that, for better or worse, the Supreme Court put Bush in office NOT the American people. Beyond that, the Bush & Co. were quite public and clear about their plans for the Middle East. Juxtapose the two, along with Bush's intimacy with the Saudi royals, and 9/11 is an all too convenient tool to set the geo-political stage to accomplish his pre-established objectives and manufacture politcal support at home.

I guess the bigger question is do you believe that Bush - or the government - could/would manipulate/contrive events to achieve their objectives? In light of the cavalier way that Bush contravenes the Constitution and the law - why not?

I agree. Which is why my information is not force fed to me by the government and why I do not pass along that kind of information to others.

Edited to respond to your additions: Bush & Co are certainly capable of a lot of things. But that does not negate the truth of the matter and the cold, hard evidence in front of you from a multitude of sources. Just because they can, doesn't mean they did.

The biggest and most important question is whether one is more concerned with finding the truth or hanging on to fantasy.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

Edited to respond to your additions: Bush & Co are certainly capable of a lot of things. But that does not negate the truth of the matter and the cold, hard evidence in front of you from a multitude of sources.

WHAT EVIDENCE? You see a picture with some "stuff" on the ground and are told that it is airplane parts - and that is evidence? You assume alot. You assume that the debris came from the plane. You assume that the debris was actually ever even there (folks can do wonders with digital photography these days you know). The fact of the matter is that the planes that hit the twin towers acted radically different than whatever hit the Pentagon. The fact of the matter is that (despite this occuring in probably one of the most photographed and monitored cities on Earth) there is no clear photographic evidence to confirm the plane hitting the Pentagon. The fact of the matter is that the "footprint" of whatever hit the Pentagon seems to not be consistent with what we saw hit the WTC.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that Cheney authorized anything that came into the capitol perimeter to be shot down. Either 1) why did this get through? or 2) why couldn't this be a mistaken missile? You know the govt./military has been known to make a mistake every now and then! bsm

Now you can choose to believe whatever you wish. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will have questions - PARTICULARLY in light of the fact that there were strong incentives for all of that to occur - by a group who has proven not to be above lying, manufacturing evidence, and sacrificing American life for their objectives.

quote:

The biggest and most important question is whether one is more concerned with finding the truth or hanging on to fantasy.

Perhaps some have a more robust sense of truth than others. The photograph posted above that shows that the brick above and to the side of where the plane fuselage supposedly struck the Pentagon seems to inject a degree of uncertaintly about the established story. The "evidence" that your conspiracy site purports to explain this is absolutely nonsensical in spots. (Beyond that, there are many more sites out there which confirm questions about what happened at the Pentagon.) Why one would swallow that random source 'hook, line and sinker' is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

I am greatly disturbed by this and I think its promotion is a slap in the face to all of the people who lost family members on that flight.

I think it is a far greater "slap in the face" to the families of those who perished for there to be legitimate questions about what happened to their loved ones.

quote:

It must feel for them how it feels for those who lost family members in the Holocaust who have to hear some yahoo talk about how the Holocaust never happened.

Wow - you really reached for that one!

Woah. Somehow, I edited your post instead of posting under my own name. Give me a second to correct that.

HUNT THE BOEING

quote:

WHAT EVIDENCE? You see a picture with some "stuff" on the ground and are told that it is airplane parts - and that is evidence?

Please do actually read the information provided. It's not just some "stuff" on the ground. It is very clearly plane parts (seats, wheels, parts of the bulkhead, etc) in some cases with the AA paint pattern still visible.

quote:

You assume alot. You assume that the debris came from the plane. You assume that the debris was actually ever even there (folks can do wonders with digital photography these days you know).

Lord Have Mercy. You're one of those who will never believe no matter who have right in front of your won eyes. Yes, everything right down to the EYEWITNESS accounts and pictures from numerous news agencies could be completely manufactured. So could everything you see all around you everyday. Maybe I'm no even really a human being responding to you. I might be some kind of government Special Ops automated program. Okay, MBM. At some point, you have to face facts.

quote:

The fact of the matter is that the planes that hit the twin towers acted radically different than the plane that hit the Pentagon.

That is not so. From the site:

In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.

The same type of "liquification" occured in the WTC plane crashes and is apparent is the video footage. Which is also linked to on the page I provided so you can see with your own eyes.

quote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no clear photographic evidence to confirm the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Yes, there is.

quote:

The fact of the matter is that the "footprint" of whatever hit the Pentagon seems to not be consistent with what we saw hit the WTC.

This is not Looney Toons. Planes do not enter buildings leaving a perfect outline of the wings and then come to a stop just inside so that sufficient photographs can be taken before they explode. The "footprints" match. The problem is people seem to have a skewed perception of what the damage to the top of the towers looked like before they collapsed.

quote:

Fuerthermore, the fact of the matter is that Cheney authorized anything that came into the capitol perimeter to be shot down. Either 1) why did this get through? or 2) why couldn't this be a mistaken missile?

Ahhhh, I see. And 64 passengers and crew members just happened to be riding on this wayward missile that was suddenly launched from god knows where?!?! And an American Airlines plane was quickly rushed out to the scene so that EYEWITNESSES would see it and think that was what they saw?? And then American Airlines jet parts were scattered throughout the tangled wreckage so that all the pictures taken of the crash site would corroborate the plane theory?

You have to suspend a whole lof of reasonability to hang on to this conspiracy theory that there was no plane.

quote:

Perhaps some have a more robust sense of truth than others. The photograph posted above that shows that the brick above and to the side of where the plane fuselage supposedly struck the Pentagon seems to inject a degree of uncertaintly about the established story. The "evidence" that your conspiracy site purports explains this is absolutely nonsensical in spots. Why one would swallow that 'hook, line and sinker' is beyond me.

Yes. You're right. The missile carrying 64 people is much more plausible. What was I thinking?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

I think it is a far greater "slap in the face" to the families of those who perished for there to be legitimate questions about what happened to their loved ones.

What ahppened to their loved ones is crystal clear. It's only people like you and AG and Empty Purnata who keep digging up from their graves to say they never existed.

quote:

quote:

It must feel for them how it feels for those who lost family members in the Holocaust who have to hear some yahoo talk about how the Holocaust never happened.

Wow - you really reached for that one!

THAT IS NOT A REACH! You all are the ones saying the plane didn't even exist! When it not only existed, but everybody on the damn thing died. Don't try to spin that crap around on me as some kind of blasphemous stretch.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

This is not Looney Toons. Planes do not enter buildings leaving a perfect outline of the wings and then come to a stop just inside so that sufficient photographs can be taken before they explode.

Uh, that's quite precisely what happened in NYC.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

You all are the ones saying the plane didn't even exist!

I never said it never existed. Quite the contrary. I just said it never hit the Pentagon.

For example, say Cheney's order to shoot down all incoming planes was actually executed on this plane. Is it so implausible, in the panic of 9/11, for someone (Rove?) to manufacture the story that that flight hit the Pentagon as opposed to was shot down by American planes? Can you understand the extraordinary political risks associated with a president - already with the shakiest of politcal footings - being responsible for killing other Americans?

Is that so implausible?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
I never said it never existed. Quite the contrary.

I'm sorry. My grasp of English must be tenuous. I was not aware that when you said, AND I QUOTE: "In fact, in my eyes, it suggests that there was NO plane," you actually meant "Yes, there was a plane and it was shot down by a missile and crashed into the building" (which, by the way, I don't particularly have a problem with people believing because it doesn't require them to ignore the proof that a plane did indeed crash into the Pentagon).

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
I never said it never existed. Quite the contrary.

I'm sorry. My grasp of English must be tenuous. I was not aware that when you said, AND I QUOTE: "In fact, in my eyes, it suggests that there was NO plane," you actually meant "Yes, there was a plane and it was shot down by a missile and crashed into the building" (which, by the way, I don't particularly have a problem with people believing because it doesn't require them to ignore the proof that a plane did indeed crash into the Pentagon).

Frenchy - your powers of comprehension and discernment are waning fast. Either stop drinking, or start!

Here is a scenario:

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

It was shot down . . . somehwere.

A missile was purposefully shot into the Pentagon to manufacture the more politically feasible/digestible scenario that was force fed America.

OR

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

In the process of shooting it down one missile errantly hit the Pentagon.

Tis you who should pick up a drink (and a clue).

quote:

Here is a scenario:

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

It was shot down . . . somehwere.

A missile was purposefully shot into the Pentagon to manufacture the more politically feasible/digestible scenario that was force fed America.

The plot gets thicker by the minute! So now we have TWO missiles! We shoot down the plane for some reason. And then we go on to shoot our own selves at the Pentagon. And then presumably clean up the "real" crash site of the plane and litter the Pentagon with the bodies and fuselage. This sounds reasonable to you?? THIS? sounds better and more realistic than a plane ran into the Pentagon?

quote:

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

In the process of shooting it down one missile errantly hit the Pentagon.

Weee! Now we have a Smart Missle that is bright enough to shoot down the plane but WOOPS! slams into the Pentagon as well and then reignites!

You're right. I do need a drink. I need a drink to make sense of this bunk.

Frenchy - I bet you believe that there were WMD's in Iraq! (P.S. you also seem to have gone to the Constructive Feedback School of Reading!)

He who has no facts, responds with personal attacks.

Would you like to clarify your own statement in Red (about how there was, ya know, NO PLANE), or are we just gonna remain below-the-belt and completely irrelevant from this point forward?

Frenchy - you are incredible. I'll post the scenarios again. Perhaps this time you'll READ them.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

Here is a scenario:

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

It was shot down . . . somehwere.

A missile was purposefully shot into the Pentagon to manufacture the more politically feasible/digestible scenario that was force fed America.

OR

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

In the process of shooting it down one missile errantly hit the Pentagon.

To be clear - there was a plane. It just didn't hit the Pentagon as the scenarios above suggest - AGAIN.

To be clear, AGAIN, how does that jibe with your previous statement that there was no plane?

MY issue, as I said, is with people who claim there was no plane at the Pentagon (which is what you, Empty Purnata and Audio Guy said). Shall I highlight your own words for you AGAIN or are we crystal clear now?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
Frenchy - you are incredible. I'll post the scenarios again. Perhaps this time you'll READ them.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

Here is a scenario:

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

It was shot down . . . somehwere.

A missile was purposefully shot into the Pentagon to manufacture the more politically feasible/digestible scenario that was force fed America.

OR

There was a plane.

It approached the Capitol.

In the process of shooting it down one missile errantly hit the Pentagon.

To be clear - there was a plane. It just didn't hit the Pentagon as the scenarios above suggest - AGAIN.

Not jumping on eiher bandwagon but if one were to use your example, then that would leave wreckage of a large plane somewhere. Given the fact that missiles don't destroy planes it would be even more difficult to "hide evidence".


catch

quote:

Not jumping on eiher bandwagon

Oh please, catch. Just come right out and say you're on my side.

quote:

Originally posted by ocatchings:

Not jumping on eiher bandwagon but if one were to use your example, then that would leave wreckage of a large plane somewhere. Given the fact that missiles don't destroy planes it would be even more difficult to "hide evidence".

They used a thermonuclear device that completely evaporated it.

Ok you win
I'll accept your theory


catch

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

quote:

Not jumping on eiher bandwagon

Oh please, catch. Just come right out and say you're on my side.

Frenchy - darling - do you understand anything about politics? Do you understand that a weak president shooting down an American plane would be political suicide? What if they shot the plane down and it really didn't have any "terrorists" on it? They made a mistake and thought a plane that was returning to land was in "attack mode" and shot it down. Who knows? Do you know anything about Dick Cheney that would lead you to believe that he would NOT shoot down an American plane?

If the primary objective is to create the political platform to execute their objectives in the Middle East, then this certainly fits in with that.

IMO - manufacturing all of the "evidence" about Iraq was no greater task. If they did it there, why are you so sure that everything happened the precise way you were told about 9/11??? With the government, when is what they tell you the precise truth?

BTW - I bet you haven't eaten chicken for months for fear of the bird flu!

So, in other words, darling, you can't justify your initial statement and have resorted to talking shit again?

There was never a shred of evidence about WMD in Iraq, which is why none were found. Unlike here, where we have eyewitnesses and a multitude of photographic proof.

And I don't know where you are getting this idea that I forumlate my opinion based on government press releases. The independent information is out there for anyone to see.

But all of that shit is neither here nor there, as you still haven't responded regarding the very first thing to come out of your trap which kickstarted our entire back and forth.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

The independent information is out there for anyone to see.

Yeah - just like the WMD's!

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

But all of that shit is neither here nor there, as you still haven't responded regarding the very first thing to come out of your trap which kickstarted our entire back and forth.

Frenchy - what are you talking about? Are you in some twighlight zone or something?

There is no irrefutable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. If you have it, show it.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that something else hit the Pentagon.

What is confusing about these facts?

Oh for fuck's sake. You are hopeless. The evidence has been presented numerous times in comparison to your wild, ever-changing theories without a single photograph or anything, really, to back it up. In any event, I won't divert any more attention away from your thermonuclear evaporation devices and phantom missiles.

Frenchy - get help. Next you'll be telling me that we actually did walk on the moon.

quote:

Frenchy - get help.

MBM - Bite me.

As an example of an extensive government cover-up, there is the case of TWA Flight 800 from July 17, 1996. Over 30 witnesses claim to have seen an object shooting up in the air and hitting Flt 800 just before it exploded, similar to the imagery we've all seen from the first Gulf War (scud missiles flying UP).

Government agencies, including the F.B.I. and NTSB, vehemently denied any existence of a missile that could have hit the plane. However, lots of Americans, including relatives of those killed in the TWA explosion, believe some form of this theory (being accidentally hit by a Navy missile). The government's denials were made less believable after they and the media attempted to portray Pierre Salinger (once a respected member of the Kennedy Administration and correspondent for ABC News in Paris) as a raving lunatic.

Kristina Borjesson worked for CBS at the time and was assigned to the story. After "collaborating with other reporters including The Press Enterprise's David Hendrix, she collected proof of official lies. Scientific tests showed that a residue found inside the cabin had the same ingredients, in the same proportions, as rocket fuel (the National Transportation Safety Board said it was glue)."

She was so disillusioned with the government lies, and so shunned by her peers in the industry, that she left reporting altogether and edited a collection of stories (Into the Buzzsaw) that other journalists had written (very memorable news items) that had also been eaten up by the buzzsaw of government mendacity and media complicity.

Because of the many instances of the government doing wrong and then it being found out about years later, logically speaking, you have to know that this is not at all implausible, as MBM said.