Sorry everyone. It was a plane that hit the Pentagon. I have many friends who were actually working there that day. This garbage about no plane parts being found...the plane engine was found in the courtyard. So unless they strapped a plane engine to a missile, the theory bogus.
@ewva314 It was probably a smaller commuter type plane that was painted and with all the markings to appear to be a AA commercial jet. The plane probably had a missile attatched to the belly and fired jusr a second before impact like the two planes that hit the towersm you can vlearly see a large blast projectile before the intitial impact!
So to sum up on the truthers vs shills debate, one side now has 1000s of architects, engineers, actors, sportsmen, politicians, and millions of citizens, as well as the laws of physics, common sense, and what their eyes and ears tell them....the other side is a few abusive people who exist only on the internet, with several usernames, whose only answers to normal questions about 9/11 are filled with 'twooftard, asstard, lol, lmfao, twoofie' etc etc, geeeee i wonder which side is most believable?
The "So called Jew-ish of Isreal" are only Jew-ish. THEY ARE NOT THE JEW! It were the Jew-ish who sold the Hebrews into slavery. The DNA evidence is all there. The Jew-ish had no idea the Science of DNA Testing would be coming. The Zionist are not Jew nor Hebrew, and DNA Testing proves it so. The people in Israel are nothing more than Khazars/Scythia/Turks/Pharisees. The European Church and USA has been fooled. Hitler was right about the Zionist and the Bankers! 9/11 = 100% Inside Job.
After reviewing several other plane crash photos, I think we built the pentagon put of the wrong material. We should have used DIRT instead of reinforced concrete. It appears to be much stronger. The planes didn't penetrate the dirt at all (except for Flight 93).
@ coolkid684. when a plane flys low to the ground the rushing air beneath it will creat a pocket of air that prevents it go lower cause of the upward force. and the max speed for a 757= Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h). why does the info provided by the goverment display a higher airspeed beyond the max flightspeed at grndlvl for a 757. combine these facts and we know what happend
@blackjerryboymetal First of all, Dummy is your mother that gave birth to a mass follower like you. Muslin me? LOl, if anything I’m against religions, media, morons and government a brazilian that lived in Brazil, US and Europe.
History, Mao, Stalin, OO No THEY ARE DICTAROS and America is Free. FREE MY ASSHOLE. What about Pearl Harbour, or the the northwoods document?
What a joke, a few kids with knifes bringing down a multi million dollare security sisten.
The found DNA, but not a huge orange box, first time in history that a plane crash and the black box disintegrated, ops I mean 4 planes and 8 black boxes in the same day! Isn't that Interesting?
Hum, a plane crashed a huge bulding and it came down like sand, yet another plane crashed the pentagon and made a little holl.
Oh? Then why is it that footage is released all over the internet with the twin towers in it, but they won't release the footage of the "plane crash" at the pentagon, and the only things you CAN see are ONLY FIVE TINY PICTURES?
hmm it hought that too no tapes. Ive had people messaging me saying the pentagon has NO security cameras because they arent visible on google earth or any photos.
Oh fine im a mad suicide terrorist ill just merrily drive my bomb packed truck there and detotanate it eh?against the pentagin wall and kill lots of people?
Safe in the knowledge there are no cameras.
Well that would explain it but I dont beleive it for an instant
I can't beleive after years of proving with facts this was all a set-up , people still refuse to beleive it.
In my mind they are a waste of skin and should be taken off this earth.
They fight to discredit what's actually real. /boggle
Just plain stupid.
Professional engineers, scientists, builders, firemen,policemen,ambulance workers... can prove, have proved and yet you idiots still refuse to beleive.
WTF is wrong with your heads, seriously. Major case of Denial?
1 camera of piss poor quality captures a white trail and an explosion. This is the most protected building in the world with cameras everywhere. Plus 80+ cameras from businesses around the building were all confiscated never to be shown ? Why ? In every plane crash that has ever happened, there are body parts, luggage, and the nearly indestructible engines and landing gear are all found close to the point of impact, but this is not what we see here. Looks more like a missile strike to me.
all of you guys ,that are still 2 stupied to see that it wasnt a plain,ask your beloved goverment,to release some actual video were it shows a plain gowing threw the pentagon.
There is no doubt there was NO PLANE, a missile maybe, but no plane. Shanksville crash site looked like kindy kids constructed it. Eye witnesses were paid media personnel. US Gov simply needed a reason to invade and seize control of the oil supply. They hail 911 activists as the highest of patriots, with priority in the new world order. You will see in time.
6 lamp posts, over 100 feet apart, were taken out by the planes wings. also, the pentagon was structurally upgraded for a close-proximity nuclear detonation during the cold war: extremely thick steel reinforced concrete along with internal reinforcements mean an airplane wing is not going to penetrate. during impact the wings would fold back and disintegrate (thus all the debris found outside). you are enemies of truth, allies to terror. i wipe my ass with the koran every day.
the pentagons walls are made to with stand immense power upon collision, hence why the damage was minimal.
also how sure are you that the hole made was the exact measurement you state?
also it is ridiculous to claim that the 757 didn't make the hole due to the measurement you stated, yet claim a tomahawk cruse missile made the impact, where as if it did, it would of had to of had being launched from either some kind of fighter jet, which would of made headlines flying over America or a sub.
"his was not a cruise missile ... , the 5th of a side of the pentagon would be gone, not just have a hole"
You can't explain anything to these Truther -- teenage civilian pussies who have never seen a missile & have no clue how one works.
Missiles blow shit OUTWARD. Whatever hit the Pentagon knocked everything INWARD -- including over a hundred feet of reinforced concrete columns on the 1st floor. About the same width as the wings of a 757.
It's not impossible. to fly faster then 500mph at that altitude if you put theaircraft into a dive with the throttles open. It's not good for the aircraft but I don't think the terrorists were worried about that.
as a active duty marine and a father and a grandfather who also were, i can tell you this was not a cruise missile. the closest any of you seeing what a cruise missle is what you see on spike or the military channel. even there, you can see what happens, a MASSIVE explosion. now, a missle that big woul have done more than put a hole through a building, the 5th of a side of the pentagon would be gone, not just have a hole.
The point about David Icke's findings about 9/11, is that what I said about him doesn't isn't even affected by who he is. I said he called the FBI a set of questions about 9/11 and he didn't get answers. It could have been anyone who asked the same questions, so it doesn't matter who said it.
There you go AGAIN. This is easy to understand and you're rerouting every single thing to comply with your no-conspiracy theory without independently weighing all the evidence.
omg wat a stupid idea of cause it was a plane they had radar of it heading towords the pentergon wat is the point in saying all that shit just let the people who died rest in peace ffs
They had it on radar? Where your proof? You're belief is based on claims with no evidence. If you can explain at least how windows on the Pentagon magically deflected a passenger jet flying at over 500mph then we can start talking.
There are numerous large Airports in DC that were tracking the plane. In fact, it would have been more newsworthy, if they all said they didn't pick up any plane on radar.
A missile on the other hand, would have left a launch signature visible to the thousands of radar stations within a 500 mile radius. All you need to do is find one airport radar inquire why a missile popped out of no where and not originate from an airport.
Did you know that Cheney took complete control of the nations defences that day? Obviously if he was notified of a missile signature he wouldn't do anything.
Cheney doesn't control the private airports or private airplanes whom each have their own radar system.
Even if Cheney did control the national defenses at that time, how do you silence ever single military vehicle, ship and plane that are equipped with radar that would have picked up an object that did not originate from an airport.
Not a peep from anyone to the public. Now that's a huge conspiracy.
So your saying just because the whole radar dish system and all that is somewhat unknown for how it works, that somehow discredits the entire conspiracy argument. What nonsense. You obviously haven't considered the tremendous amount of evidence of every other area of the events.
Let's stop again at the Pentagon explenation. We were told that a 757 slammed into the pentagon at a speed exceeding 500 mph. So how is it possible given the extreme kinetic energy that just a 16-foot hole was left?
I am saying, that at least one radar system would have picked up the launch signature or at least would have noticed that a plane or "missile" didn't originate from an airport.
A plane is basically an elongated tube. It would have compacted on impact similar to crushing a soda can.
The wings were full of fuel and most likely disintegrated. Obviously I wasnt there, but the answers I just gave you are plausible without the need to create a conspiracy.
Ridiculous. So you're basically admitting you believe the entire Pentagon explanation at face value, without question. YOU believe a 757 left a 16-foot hole with absolutely no damage done to the rest of the building the plane would have hit. And NO, the plane wouldn't just disappear and fold up like a crushed soda can. That's the biggest joke I've heard in a long time. "Basically an elongated tube"? If you're talking about a plane with NO WINGS. To suggest two 5-ton engines just disappeared...
....without any damage to the building literally at all, then that really says something to your critical thinking skills. You've been given the evidence but you're just adhering to the first explanation you were given and you're rerouting evidence around it. Flight 93 didn't have parts strewn all over the place. All you have to do is see the pictures to see there was nothing definitive. (I'm sure both engines and the black box just vaporized. Yeah, good one) Conspiracy "theorists"....
Oh and let's not forget that the passports to all the alleged hijackers were found and "identified" the very next day. Now how is it possible that the Shanksville crash of flight 93 left the plane vaporized on impact (or turned to dust or whatever, based on what we were told) and yet the passport to that hijacker was somehow found and unscathed? How is is possible that virtually the whole plane disappeared, including the black box, yet the passport magically turned up?
That's easy to refute. The whole plane didn't "virtually" disappear. There were parts strewn all over the place.
Why do CTers always focus on what we don't know? It's because you can never prove a negative. And since it's impossible they feel the right to insert their own conclusion.
...don't focos on what we don't know. We point out what is inconsistent with an explanation. The very fact that we're called "theorists" as if the official explanation is automatically more valid is a ludicrous way to think. Every side in every case needs to be tested and no side is exempt.
Ok, let's take the south tower crash. In photographs, the plane clearly didn't match the color scheme of an American Airlines jet, and you can clearly see an attached object to the fuselage.
A missile, a small unmanned aircraft, it could have been either one. The theory is that a Global Hawk unmanned plane slammed into the Pentagon, which would account for the signature and all the warnings about a plane getting closer and closer to the Pentagon.
And it would be great if you can have a valid argument instead of throwing unneeded words and saying "conspiracy theorists" do this and that. Honestly.
The real plane and the drone could very well have been switched mid-flight...
....and it's logical how it could have been done. The technology for unmanned flight control from ground stations has been around since even the 1970s. The theory of the Global Hawk accounts for the smal engine found at the Pentagon -- which was WAY too small to be part of the 757 thank you. Can I stick to one point? Give me a break, there are mountains of inconsistencies regarding what we were told and I've already pointed several of them out. How do you suppose the towers fell at free-fall...
....because it's possible they didn't want to damage their own building by the damage of a full-sized passenger jet. It's a viable possibility. Get this. That portion of the Pentagon was then used for Homeland Security. So you can see the insiders didn't want to damage their area of the building to be used.
The very fact that the evidence suggests a 757 jet didn't hit the building leaves the question of WHY up to anyones imagination and it's not the important question at hand.
That portion was not used for Homeland security. My wife and most of the people that I know work at the Pentagon. That part was the Logistical side of the pentagon.
I mean how could it have been Homeland Security when that didn't even come into effect until after 911.
I said it was GOING to become that after 9/11. The framework for the agency was announced in the document Project for the New American Century, where it was said that a bunch of actions will be taken, including adding a part of government, to combat terrorism, and all that is needed is a "New Pearl Harbor". This was written a year to the MONTH of 9/11. So they were basically admitting they they're waiting for something to be used as a pretext to invade countries and put in place changes.
You didnt say it was GOING to be used. You said it was THEN used for Homeland security. Besides, the Pentagon is houses the 5("Penta" hint hint) branches of Military, There are no civilian agencies operating there. Army Airforce, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard in case you didnt know.
Kinda silly to say what you said when all I have to do is look down and read it.
Yes, "try" to stick to one point otherwise each point you bring up, I may bring up two and visa versa and then it just becomes two people throwing points past each other.
So if the Global Hawk and Plane were switched, what method did they use to "hide" the actual plane from radar?
You don't seem to get the point. In the first place the evidence suggests a 757 DIDN'T hit the building, so it cancels out the need to give reasons why. The fact is established and WHY is up for grabs and isn't needed since the fact that insider activity is going on is already established by the fact that we were TOLD a 757 hit when clearly it didn't.
You're looking at this with a completely polarized view. If you looked at the building without being told yet was it supposedly was, you would no doubt assume a 757 didn't cause that. But since you were told that, you're designing your viewpoint based on this bias implanted into your mind and I think you're unable to just look at it for what it was and decide whether or not a plane hit it.
Most people? Most people do absolutely no research, so what good is their viewpoint?
That is a good point Camreen.There is a susceptibility to believe what is most popular. However, I think the counter is also true. That people with a predisposed agenda will also design their viewpoint to fit their conclusion.
Just to prove my point, Look at the theme of all Conspiracies, they all point to the government as being sadistic, murderous and evil. Even if truthers were correct, the only thing they could prove would be that the official story is false, yet they go much further.
You're generalizing again, which is yet again hypocritical. The fact that you imply ALL conspiracies are false and full of trash is a logical fallacy in itself. It's bad to automatically assume all conspiracies are false and likewise to automatically agree with them. Unfortunately there are many conspiracies and the truth is this country is really run by the Federal Reserve, and under it's powers leaves the serious possibility of corruption and therefore coverups.
One thing to consider is Operation Northwoods: a declassified government document that uncovers the fact that officials within the government were involved in a program to create coverstories and create catalysts to launch consflicts for their own gain. Why is it that a training mission to assassinate Castro happened on the SAME DAY as the Kennedy assassination? Why is it that the Warren Commission was lead by war criminals from the Vietnam War?
So I'm giving an overlay of the possibility of government activities being not what they seem and there has been evidence of this leaked out and even admitted in the past century and today. Another example - what evidence has there been to suggest the Gulf of Tonkin incident? None. Even former Secretary of Defence McNamara said that it was a "mistake", and other former officials admit it never happened to begin with.
So I think we have consider all of this and ask again if it's possible that 9/11 could have been a false flag operation also. We have countless incidents of suspicious conduct in the government and people jus throw it away or at most use it as dinner table topics. Why was Father Bush planning to have dinner with the brother of the guy who attempted the Reagan assassination? Was it just a wild coincidence?
So my underlining point to all of this is that not everything we are told can be true.
Again, this isn't an argument over who's football team is better, this is a question of objective facts, therefore arguing as if there is a "winner" is ridiculous. People don't theorize of conspiracies because they "want" to or are acting to make the government look bad, people believe them because they came to the truth and it just happened to be a conspiracy.
Why is it that the word "conspiracy" is alway brought with automatic denial. If something was a conspiracy then it just is.
You dont give facts, you surround yourself with conjecture. This would be extremely simple if CTers only gave facts because we could either verify or falsify those claims.
I call it conspiracy theory because of the methodology used in arriving at your conclusion. Science would go no where, if it were conducted this crudely.
Give me one testable fact that supports any of this conspiracy theory. I am only asking for one.
You're just not listening to me. I've listed seemingly millions. Okay, let's start over again with what I said about the Pentagon "crash". So we are told flight 77, a 757 passenger jet, hit the Pentagon. Yet no footage or pictures to date have been produced, even though countless security cameras from various places were pointing at the "crash" site. Not only that but no wreckage has been positively identified as flight 77, and the visible damage to the building is COMPLETELY inconsistent.
You aren't proposing a testable fact, you are asking a question. Now, this question can produce conjecture why they haven't shown video or provided "you" with positive identification, but whatever you decide, it's still conjecture not a fact.
Regardless, I have seen pictures of plane parts at the Pentagon. Am I to conclude they were put there by someone else?
You're making this sound like a calculus equation. Okay, all I'm saying is based on the scene and physical damage to the building, and every aspect of that part of 9/11, that all of this points in the direction of a 757 NOT hitting the building.
And how does that iconic piece of "wreckage" prove anything? That easily could have been planted there. That piece were you see the "American Airlines" logo with jagged edges... It's completely unscathed and simply isn't credible.
You still haven't provided any facts. All you've done is stated that you dont "think" a plane hit the Pentagon. And if your theory is to have more credibility than the official story, you need to provide converging facts from multiple sources. The official story has done this.
Instead what you've done is give interpretation of separate, uncorrelated individual events. You have given no positive proof about what did happen.
There you go again accusing me of providing no facts. You're just refusing to examine them to realize they're facts. And where is your evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon? As far as I can see you haven't presented anything that suggest one did.
No facts? That's all you know how to say. I'm sorry but I've provided the facts many times and you just won't listen to anything. This isn't my problem, it's yours.
If the 9/11 Commission is trustworthy then why did it fail to even mention WTC7?
Mountain of evidence? There you go again. There has been NO evidence that suggests flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This isn't a matter of egsaggeration, it's just a fact. That piece of "wreckage" on the lawn and others are completely inconsistent with the nature of how they reported the "crash". We were told the plane VAPORIZED. There is no evidence and maybe if you looked at what has been presented, you would realize this, but like always you don't because you feel you're automatically right.
I haven't chosen to be a "conspiracy theorist". It just happened because I used my brain and that's what came out. Instead of doing an investigation, you feel you have the conclusion from the start and you're searching for evidence to support it. You're not giving the argument a fair hearing because you're not letting it, and you're therefore fooled into thinking there other side has nothing to privide.
Again, I didn't say nothing hit the Pentagon, I said it's possible it was a Global Hawk.
If there is no physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon, then you can't defend an argument that says it does. That is unless the plane's wings, engines, luggage, passengers, the black box, all disappeared the millesecond before the plane struck.
You haven't presented a story yourself of how the scene matches what we've been told. Why was there a 16-foot hole at impact instead of a hole that remotely resembles the silouette of a 757. And why have no engines been found?
If you provide absolutely no proof that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon, then either you believe that nothing hit it or you have absolutely no idea what hit it. Which means you are in no position to refute anything.
Look at the first video on my Profile Page. If those aren't plane parts, then what the heck are they?
Well you're providing NO PROOF that a plane hit the Pentagon. So what if there are some plane parts in the distance on the lawn. That doesn't prove they were actually from flight 77 and the easily could have been placed there. The lack of evidence in the impact area alone is a serious blow to the theory that a 757 hit. All I'm saying is based on what we have, chances are a 757 didn't hit the building. Something else could have hit, but again, based on what we have, a 757 MOST LIKELY didn't hit.
That's not how it works. You first make a positive claim, and then back up that claim with proof.
For example, If I make the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon, I need to show some evidence. I then show photos of plane parts as evidence that a plane hit.
Now you are making the claim that those plane parts were put there by someone else, and then you provide proof that it wasn't.
Otherwise your claim is unsubstantiated and completely conjecture. This is exactly how a court operates.
I'm saying the scene was easily framed with false plane parts. If those pieces were used in a court case then they would have to be forensicly tested. Just because some scraps are on the lawn is not enough to suffice the theory given the fact that no wreckage was found at the actual impace site.
For instance if a giant hole was carved out of a garage by who know's what, and someone says it was a car because a few nuts and screws were nearby, but no car parts in the actual site, then....
....you can't conclude that a car made the hole. Then someone might argue "Well you don't have evidence that something else did, and you don't say what DID make the hole?", but that's beyond the point. The point is little suggests a car made the hole so you can't conclude it did. That's what I'm saying with the Pentagon case. My "evidence" comes in the form of logic, and just because I can't positively say what DID hit doesn't mean it proves a 757 DID hit. See what I'm saying?
Well I can say that your logic is severely flawed. Using your analogy, if I (the gov.), made a hole in a garage, and my entire purpose was to convince you that a car did it, I would have left a lot more than a couple of nuts and bolts.
Why else would I spend so much time concocting a conspiracy, other than to make you think what happened, actually happened.
Well we have witnesses who saw a plane, plane parts strewn all over, flight records of it taking off, radar stations that tracked the plane, passenger records, passenger remains found and identified, two other planes that coincidentally crashed into other buildings on the same day almost at the same time, voice recording of the pilot and individual conversations of the passengers.
Do you even have one shred of evidence that any of this is untrue? I don't want conjecture, give me proof.
Well if you watch Loose Change or many of the other documentaries, they go over this. Actually no passengers were found and identified at the site. Not one. And just because a couple of planes hit the twin towers doesn't confirm that they were the planes that they were claimed to be. It's been shown that they were in fact military jets based on the attachments on the fuselage from pictures. Whitnesses say the plane didn't have windows.
What you call "evidence" may just seem to be evidence at first glance, until you realize it's all been proven false based on all the information. Go out a read Alice and Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. It's a 500-page book that goes over all this. Can you confidently call something evidence when you haven't heard the claim against it? Just because I'm not a human encyclopedia doesn't discredit the argument that it was an inside job. What's available serves that purpose.
I have read almost everything surrounding 911, even the points brought up by "loose change", given my background in engineering, can say that most of what they say is laughable.
You don't even have to look at the individual points, just look at the entire conspiracy as a whole, it's filled with so many contradictions, and an endless need to create conspiracy after conspiracy to keep the story afloat, makes me wonder if I am the only one that wasn't in on it.
Just look at the EXPLANATION as a whole. I don't think it appropriate to not include the collapse of building 7 whatsoever in the Commission Report. Do you? I don't see why the $100,000 linked with Mohammed has "little significance" (as the report said), do you?
Don't even start with all the left out questions and contradictions in the official 9/11 explanation. Good lord. What I call laughable is to think a 757 hit the Pentagon to leave a 16-foot hole and no damage aside.
This is unbelievable straighforward stuff and you're overthinking this by miles. Since it's apparent that all of the four "hijackings" that day were connected, and that the Pentagon crash was part of it, then should the entire explanation be in question with the ridiculous explanation we've been given? Oh I don't see ANY holes...HMMMM.
All you have to do is look. A 757 with twin 6-ton engines. Given the extreme kinetic energy, no imprint appeared whatsoever. Now THAT is a hole. Honestly.
That HOLE that you keep referring to isn't the entry hole it's the EXIT hole. Most of the mass of the plane was concentrated in the middle of the plane. I would expect that mass to be compacted as it crashed into the pentagon and continue until there was enough resistance to either displace it or stop it.
In fact, the energy was displaced when that mass punched through the last wall and dispersed into an open section between the buildings.
Like I already said seemingly countless times. The Pentagon "crash" first came into the picture with a 16-foot hole in the outer wall of the building, until about 20 minutes when a 70-foot portion of wall collapsed. Either way is completely inconsistent with the physics involved with a 757 flying with that extreme kinetic energy. So we have NO ENGINES, NO BODIES, and the wreckage in the impact area somehow all vaporized. If that isn't crazy then I REALLY don't know what is.
The engines did not vaporize, in fact most CTers dont dispute this, their argument is the engine remains that were found did not come from 757 engines. Which is completely false.
There were bodies, and they were identified. There are even photos of the bodies at the site. Of course, you believe every single piece of evidence that is presented is a massive cover-up. How convenient.
The destruction at the Pentagon is consistent with a large mass impacting it from the outside. The collapse of the building and the area damage is similar to the size of an airplane, where most of the damage is found from front then lessens to the back. It follows the trajectory.
A missile on the other hand, will make an extremely small entry hole, yet, the damage from the epicenter of the explosion would be equal in all directions.
This is not consistent with the damage at the Pentagon.
I don't WANT to believe it was a conspiracy. The belief stems from simple facts that lead to a conspiracy. Nobody is TRYING to believe it was a conspiracy. People do because they looked at the evidence and figured it out. Similarly no one WANTS to run in the street when a car is coming. They just don't because they figured out it would be better not to.
So you see, it's just a matter of evaluating evidence for what it is and drawing conclusions, and that's what you're not doing.
You're self inflicting skepticism unknowingly and I can't stress that enough. Just look at the evidence for WHAT IT IS. Sheesh.
We have OPERATION NORTHWOODS.
We have the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
We have CHENEY IN CONTROL OF ALL PENTAGON OPERATIONS given the previous points.
It's extremely straight forward and you just have to connect the dots. You are just searching for information according to your current belief and you're creating a picture according to this.
Research the wargame exercises being conducted on 9/11 which are strikingly similar to the events that took place that exact day. They are known as:
Operation Northern Vigilance
Vigilant Warrior
Vigilant Guardian
Global Guardian
Is it, by any chance, just an sheer unbelievable coincidence that on the same day as 9/11 military exercising happened to have taken place involving smashing airplanes into buildings and hijackings? Perhaps they were done to intentionally confuse??? PERHAPS?
It's a common practice for making an inside job. People assume "oh well that explains why there was no response" while not knowing the ridiculous chances of the two coinciding at the same time. That's where they dupe people.
It also happened with the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which launched the Vietnam War.
The critical thinking skills of a 10-year-old is all that's needed to figure out the rediculousness regarding what we've been told about the Pentagon crash. And since that was connected with all the other elements of 9/11, it nearly confirms it was an inside job.
Why was Mineta's testomony of Cheney rejecting orders to stop the "plane" removed from the C-Span website and government sources? It's all consistent with a COVER-UP. The sheer scale of edited information speaks volumes.
The problem is you dont understand the difference between conjecture and facts and how misleading conjecture can be. Why Cheney rejected the orders is complete conjecture. I would assume it was because amid all the confusion, they did not want to shoot a plane that they were not 100% sure was hijacked.
Thats the rational response, or you can believe Cheney wanted to protect a missile in Pennsylvania so it could blow up some trees. Apparently Cheney cares more about trees than people.
All of these questions were sent to the FBI by a man named David Icke (who wrote the 500-page book on 9/11) and he was met with no answers. And all of these questions were left out of the 9/11 Commission Report even after request.
Is this indicative of a transparent, crystal clear explanation? I don't think so. For you to dismiss all of this indicates you've done inadequate research and you're lying.
Are you talking about David Icke, the man who believes he talks to Spirits, and said in a TV interview that he believes that "He is the Son of God." He also believes in the Reptilian-humanoid theory, that these creatures have integrated themselves into our highest level of government and are controlling the world by use of a Shadow government. These are only a few of his crazy ideas.
I would have been more surprised if the FBI took him seriously.
So have you read the book or not? What he says about the reptilian-humanoid theory is completely unrelated and irrelevant.
And no, the 16-foot hole I am talking about is the impact hole. Even then the non-conspiracy thoerists can't make up their mind about how the clear cut hole was created as the "exit". Once again, you're suggesting that the twin 6-ton engines vaporized, which speaks for itself as far as the "It-wasn't-as-inside-job-at-all" argument goes.
Besides, is everything you believe purely based on popular belief? Because you seem to have a habbit of automatic criticism to any idea currently rejected by mainstream thinking. Honestly, have you read ANYTHING by David Icke, or is your negativity purely rooted in unbased skepticism?
Regarding David Icke, anytime you evaluate evidence, you must consider the source.
As a rule of thumb, I try not to take anyone seriously who thinks they are the Son of God. However, I could be a reptilian who is trying to obfuscate you.
There are seemingly an endless stream of fundamental questions unanswered to this day.
If the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was a devout Muslim about to commit suicide, then why was he reported to love attending strip clubs and loved pork? Why was his flight school shorty bought by the CIA before attending?
Why were the flight tickets purchased the DAY BEFORE 9/11 if they meticulously planned the biggest hijacking in history? Why did Atta get onboard just 6 minutes before take-off?
"Why did Atta eat pork and attend strip clubs? Are you seriously trying rationalize the behavior of a mass-murdering fanatic? Supposedly, the Qur'An teaches that all life is valuable, and muslims follow the ten commandments, yet somehow these devout fundamentalist rationalized that it is not only ok to murder innocent people, but that God actually commands them to do this.
If you can make that huge leap in interpretation, eating pork and looking a boobies is a walk in the park.
This is just unbelievable obvious. If you look at this without a bias, you will easily realize a 757 did not take part in WHATEVER happened. The sheer coincidence of ever anomoly lining in place completely destroys the explanation. How can anyone be positive when no wreckage has been linked with the actual plane, no bodies were recovered, no real footage has been released, and that Congressman Mineta testified that Cheney told a "young man" to call off warnings that "still stand".
...speed when there would have been massive resistance from the floors of the building completely undamaged? And if the fires that "weekened" the steel were raging so fiercely, then how did firefighters easily manage to travel the adjavent stair shaft? From video you can clearly see a fireball shoot out the other side of the building when the south tower was hit.
Again, the building just fell at free-fall (the speed of gravity itself pulling down at object from that height).
It was clearly a controlled demolition and the fact that you suggest it wasn't takes a blow to your credibility and I know you have done absolutely no research relating to suggest that. YOU suggest the building fell at free-fall speed from weekened steel and collapsing floors... What you don't explain is how such massive resistance would have slowed down the succession of floors collapsing, and in video you clearly see none of that at all, and what you see it a perfect, symmetrical collapse.
This one is easy to answer and you can confer with any engineer. Sky risers are built using the same concept as a suspension bridge. It's a series of torsion and tension forces that are displacing weight along trusses, just like a bridge.
The net force across the suspension must equal zero, or it will experience stress at the weakest point. If that weakest point breaks, the entire system fails. Think about house of cards, which can displace a lot of weight because its based on the same concept.
That's simply not true. The towers weren't built like suspension bridges, not in the least bit. The towers were supported by a steel shell and strong central support shafts. What we were told is that the "steel weekened" due to the fire from the jet, and that's purely bogusness. Give me a break. Even NIST tested this and they concluded it's not possible, but rerouted their explanation to cover it up.
Confir with any engineer? What's your definition of "any"? I suppose the 800 engineers part of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth don't exist? I'd like to see some video of one of your "experts" explaining away all the 9/11 anomolies.
On top of all this, the buildings were DESIGNED to take on multiple plane hits. Not only that but a steel-famed skyscraper in Madrid was raging with fire for over 24 hours and it didn't fall down.
If I was the leader of the United States, I would definitely want to spend million on a missile to shoot into a friggin government building. Makes perfect sense to me. But you all jump to conclusion that it was a missile. I have seen the shape of whales before, and they...
Continued.. look very similar in size and shape to the hole made in the pentagon. Its flippers would have been easily knocked off on impact the the ground in front of the building. Can you see any similarities? I know I can. What else would it be, either that damn million dollar secret made US missile, or a much more economically feasible full grown male humpback whale. I am a marine biologist, the same way you are a scientist looking at accurate information. And I do not mistake my whale holes.
Sure looks like a missle to me hit the pentagon. Cause there sure would be more damage to that building if a huge commercial airliner crashed into it. Defiante cover up by the government. We will never know the truth. But I am one of those believers in the conspiracy theories about the whole 9-11 events.
of course something is fishy, the pentagon has more cameras on it than any other building on the planet. fact.
they release one crappy video where you can't see anything? no debris? i'm not the kind of person who asserts conspiracy theories but damn the gov't sure didn't give us much in the way of proof.
Assuming that you're human, you have got to be one of the stupidest I've ever come across. When I saw this I was not surprised, but offended that there are people like you who want to stir more fear and hatred against this country than there already is. This was merely speculation based off what facts you could find off your wikipedia and google searches. You were not there. Your not a forensic scientist. Just some punk kid looking for a good laugh using a "conspiracy" as plausible deniability.
maybe just maybe genrobs84 he is seeking truth and answers. i for one am very glad to see people not accepting what the media feeds us as truth. i'm not saying a plane didn't or did hit the pentagon. but ASSUMING that you're a human with logic could you explain to me why we only see an explosion and no aircraft from the one camera that showed the impact. i've seen the vids with what looks like a missle tip flying in but still don't say with certainty that it was. hotel vid showed no aircraft....
Better yet they never say where they went. PLUS animations produced by people supposedly "debunking" this don't even show the wings falling off. Now how the hell can the wings have fallen off when supposedly poles were hit by the "wings" just yard in front of the building itself.
People who go with the official explanation with no questions asked are idiots. Plain and simple.
Cite those experts that have debunked it, I haven't been able to find any, though I looked hard and wide.
I have addressed what happened to the engines, you ignored it and kept asking this question. I must assume you think you're in court, trying to bluff the jury into believing your lies. This is not the case, I have told you what happened to them and you ignored it, therefore you are wrong.
Isn't it funny how I've been saying for two days now that the rotor didn't come from a 757 engine, and yet you're still claiming it's too small for a 757 engine and that it is therefore not from a 757?
It's actually downright hilarious.
The assertion that there is no evidence of a 757 is a lie. The assertion that Bush would have insisted upon it's release is a speculation and an opinion, nothing more.
The 757 APU? I do find it very funny why you haven't even addressed that possibility. You still seem to 'think' (a highly inappropriate verb for you) that rotor came from an engine, even though I've told you otherwise how many times now? 10?
Sorry everyone. It was a plane that hit the Pentagon. I have many friends who were actually working there that day. This garbage about no plane parts being found...the plane engine was found in the courtyard. So unless they strapped a plane engine to a missile, the theory bogus.
ewva314 4 months ago
@ewva314 Right on dude :)
LunatikTokyo 2 months ago
@ewva314 It was probably a smaller commuter type plane that was painted and with all the markings to appear to be a AA commercial jet. The plane probably had a missile attatched to the belly and fired jusr a second before impact like the two planes that hit the towersm you can vlearly see a large blast projectile before the intitial impact!
Allanlegacy43 1 month ago
i think it was a missle that hit the pentagon
codename672 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So to sum up on the truthers vs shills debate, one side now has 1000s of architects, engineers, actors, sportsmen, politicians, and millions of citizens, as well as the laws of physics, common sense, and what their eyes and ears tell them....the other side is a few abusive people who exist only on the internet, with several usernames, whose only answers to normal questions about 9/11 are filled with 'twooftard, asstard, lol, lmfao, twoofie' etc etc, geeeee i wonder which side is most believable?
wellifthemediasaysit 5 months ago
Haha you saddo, the plane crashed. Face it?
shane22shane 5 months ago
lovin the javelin vid at the end lol
DominatingNA 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "So called Jew-ish of Isreal" are only Jew-ish. THEY ARE NOT THE JEW! It were the Jew-ish who sold the Hebrews into slavery. The DNA evidence is all there. The Jew-ish had no idea the Science of DNA Testing would be coming. The Zionist are not Jew nor Hebrew, and DNA Testing proves it so. The people in Israel are nothing more than Khazars/Scythia/Turks/Pharisees. The European Church and USA has been fooled. Hitler was right about the Zionist and the Bankers! 9/11 = 100% Inside Job.
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
i had this video but lost the file whats the name of it the video
supershellbullet 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supershellbullet Go to Keepvid.com and copy and paste the URL of this video on the site and you will be able to get it in HD.
bam10333333 10 months ago
SO your AN EXPERT ON WHAT A 757 DOES TO BUILDINGS ? IT WAS A PLANE AND I HAVE THE VID TO PROOVE IT.
gladheateher4now 1 year ago
@gladheateher4now
You can't spell "you're" or "prove", I doubt you were anywhere near Washington, DC. Probably closer to West Virginia.
markespo1 11 months ago
@gladheateher4now No it wasn't. And stay in Canada and shut up.
The10man1 10 months ago
After reviewing several other plane crash photos, I think we built the pentagon put of the wrong material. We should have used DIRT instead of reinforced concrete. It appears to be much stronger. The planes didn't penetrate the dirt at all (except for Flight 93).
infoseeker264 1 year ago
the way the government is kinda makes you want to revolt right
lukesnow1 1 year ago
c'mon ppl would the goverment make it this easy? this would have been convincing if that was the actual spot the plane hit. watch screw loose change
jmn1228 1 year ago
@ coolkid684. when a plane flys low to the ground the rushing air beneath it will creat a pocket of air that prevents it go lower cause of the upward force. and the max speed for a 757= Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h). why does the info provided by the goverment display a higher airspeed beyond the max flightspeed at grndlvl for a 757. combine these facts and we know what happend
dogsofwarclan 1 year ago
@dogsofwarclan also the rush of air would be very noticeable by nearby eyewitnesses youd think it it was indeed the official theory aircraft.
Not a single eyewitness reports it.
zenoist2 11 months ago
I cant fucking believe there were no witnesses that say what really crashed there?
Quake4and6 1 year ago
they got away with murder and i dont mean the terrorists
peacemungerhere 1 year ago 7
i totally agree
tiggerfantigger 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal No even James Bond would do that, For what I see you believe in Santa Claus, so you may as well believe in James Bond.
By the way, 10 years went by and WHERE TAHT FUCK IS all the people that can explode everything?
Wake up puppet!
Driftaway1000 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal First of all, Dummy is your mother that gave birth to a mass follower like you. Muslin me? LOl, if anything I’m against religions, media, morons and government a brazilian that lived in Brazil, US and Europe.
History, Mao, Stalin, OO No THEY ARE DICTAROS and America is Free. FREE MY ASSHOLE. What about Pearl Harbour, or the the northwoods document?
What a joke, a few kids with knifes bringing down a multi million dollare security sisten.
Driftaway1000 1 year ago
The found DNA, but not a huge orange box, first time in history that a plane crash and the black box disintegrated, ops I mean 4 planes and 8 black boxes in the same day! Isn't that Interesting?
Hum, a plane crashed a huge bulding and it came down like sand, yet another plane crashed the pentagon and made a little holl.
Even my dog would doubt all that!
Driftaway1000 1 year ago
The Image in the video is miss leading, When you showed the image against the model.
You cannot compare information from an Angled image with and angled model. It will always be a problem.
packstack15 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal Show me 1 picture of charred bodies please concerning pentagon crash. I can't find any.
Lowfun 1 year ago
WAKE UP AMERICA Everyday you should be emailing, writing letters to your house of reps and DEMAND answers YOU PAY THEIR WAGES!!!!!!!!!
MsBigBeat 1 year ago
Oh? Then why is it that footage is released all over the internet with the twin towers in it, but they won't release the footage of the "plane crash" at the pentagon, and the only things you CAN see are ONLY FIVE TINY PICTURES?
STSJozzy 1 year ago
these people have WAY too much time on their hands and need to get a life.
it desentigrated (cant spell that) you dumb fuck and this video is a piece of shit
fuck you
scatman765 1 year ago
@BRUMBRUM98able what's point 5?
plonsdrums 1 year ago
hmm it hought that too no tapes. Ive had people messaging me saying the pentagon has NO security cameras because they arent visible on google earth or any photos.
Oh fine im a mad suicide terrorist ill just merrily drive my bomb packed truck there and detotanate it eh?against the pentagin wall and kill lots of people?
Safe in the knowledge there are no cameras.
Well that would explain it but I dont beleive it for an instant
zenoist2 1 year ago
I can't beleive after years of proving with facts this was all a set-up , people still refuse to beleive it.
In my mind they are a waste of skin and should be taken off this earth.
They fight to discredit what's actually real. /boggle
Just plain stupid.
Professional engineers, scientists, builders, firemen,policemen,ambulance workers... can prove, have proved and yet you idiots still refuse to beleive.
WTF is wrong with your heads, seriously. Major case of Denial?
Lowfun 1 year ago
1 camera of piss poor quality captures a white trail and an explosion. This is the most protected building in the world with cameras everywhere. Plus 80+ cameras from businesses around the building were all confiscated never to be shown ? Why ? In every plane crash that has ever happened, there are body parts, luggage, and the nearly indestructible engines and landing gear are all found close to the point of impact, but this is not what we see here. Looks more like a missile strike to me.
giptonsilly 1 year ago
Weve got tons of videotapes proving the plane hit but we dont want to instantly and totally discredit truthers on this.
Its pathetic!
Instead well throw in lots of arguments otherwise.
Those tapes are sacrosanct and nobody will see them.
Nice one dickheads, by not releasing the tapes you are admitting your guilt 100%.
zenoist2 1 year ago
@zenoist2 I say you got no tapes proving a plane hit the pentagon because a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
It's insanely obvious yet people say it's true.
I am once again blown away by the pure stupidity of mankind.
Everywhere you turn on this stuff its an obvious set-up. Almost like they wanted people to know it was set-up, that's how sloppy it was.
Maybe they want people to riot to claim marshal law?
either or 9/11 = inside job. clearly.
If you disagree, commit suicide cause your dumb
Lowfun 1 year ago
You people are crazy
GravDiga 1 year ago
all of you guys ,that are still 2 stupied to see that it wasnt a plain,ask your beloved goverment,to release some actual video were it shows a plain gowing threw the pentagon.
arredondoisaac 1 year ago
There is no doubt there was NO PLANE, a missile maybe, but no plane. Shanksville crash site looked like kindy kids constructed it. Eye witnesses were paid media personnel. US Gov simply needed a reason to invade and seize control of the oil supply. They hail 911 activists as the highest of patriots, with priority in the new world order. You will see in time.
OlBlueshound 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6 lamp posts, over 100 feet apart, were taken out by the planes wings. also, the pentagon was structurally upgraded for a close-proximity nuclear detonation during the cold war: extremely thick steel reinforced concrete along with internal reinforcements mean an airplane wing is not going to penetrate. during impact the wings would fold back and disintegrate (thus all the debris found outside). you are enemies of truth, allies to terror. i wipe my ass with the koran every day.
Dragonbreezing 1 year ago
Proof of wing damage at the Pentagon:
Watch v=9S0SgHX918A
xxBIGKING2xx 1 year ago
the pentagons walls are made to with stand immense power upon collision, hence why the damage was minimal.
also how sure are you that the hole made was the exact measurement you state?
also it is ridiculous to claim that the 757 didn't make the hole due to the measurement you stated, yet claim a tomahawk cruse missile made the impact, where as if it did, it would of had to of had being launched from either some kind of fighter jet, which would of made headlines flying over America or a sub.
DoubleCUnit 1 year ago
It seems to me that time lapse video showed the ignition aviation fuel, rather than the detonative explosion of a missile.
JasonJason210 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"his was not a cruise missile ... , the 5th of a side of the pentagon would be gone, not just have a hole"
You can't explain anything to these Truther -- teenage civilian pussies who have never seen a missile & have no clue how one works.
Missiles blow shit OUTWARD. Whatever hit the Pentagon knocked everything INWARD -- including over a hundred feet of reinforced concrete columns on the 1st floor. About the same width as the wings of a 757.
Photos of this damage:
Tinyurl (dot) com/3yu2hz
BlazingFerret 1 year ago
The much quoted 500mph is IMPOSSIBLE you all realise?
its to do with aircraft cruising speed at altitude and the fact the air is a lot denser at sea level.
The jet engines cannot physically push this amount of air through.
It makes the whole pentagon scenario impossible as explained by officialdom.
zenoist2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The much quoted 500mph is IMPOSSIBLE you all realise"
Too bad aerospace engineers say you're a liar:
tinyurl (dot) com/ysjpnu
How come the Truthie Sheeple never bother to check anywhere except crazy-ass conspiracy sites? Too stupid to use Google, even?
BlazingFerret 1 year ago
@zenoist2
It's not impossible. to fly faster then 500mph at that altitude if you put theaircraft into a dive with the throttles open. It's not good for the aircraft but I don't think the terrorists were worried about that.
JasonJason210 1 year ago
@JasonJason210 The plane was flying straight and level just before the collision.
It was hardly in a dive.
The 500mph is wrong.
Either its a different plane or a slower speed.
zenoist2 1 year ago
@zenoist2 NO PLANE
MsBigBeat 1 year ago
It's a picture of the WRONG hole
Aluminum alloy, titanium and steel hitting heavily reinforced concrete at 500 miles an hour does THIS:
watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
It wasn't an airplane that hit the pentagon.
85Tourist 2 years ago 4
this kid is right
irvinncontreras543 2 years ago
The kid is wrong.
Alaskaslim 2 years ago
the government beams voices in kids heads to program them!
pandadust1 2 years ago
Great video! =)
Oabular 2 years ago
The plane hit at an angle, not as shown in this video.
J444123 2 years ago
this video is very well put together
codysellers44 2 years ago 2
as a active duty marine and a father and a grandfather who also were, i can tell you this was not a cruise missile. the closest any of you seeing what a cruise missle is what you see on spike or the military channel. even there, you can see what happens, a MASSIVE explosion. now, a missle that big woul have done more than put a hole through a building, the 5th of a side of the pentagon would be gone, not just have a hole.
KLsemperFi7 2 years ago
The point about David Icke's findings about 9/11, is that what I said about him doesn't isn't even affected by who he is. I said he called the FBI a set of questions about 9/11 and he didn't get answers. It could have been anyone who asked the same questions, so it doesn't matter who said it.
There you go AGAIN. This is easy to understand and you're rerouting every single thing to comply with your no-conspiracy theory without independently weighing all the evidence.
camreeno360 2 years ago
If you are not a structural engineer you are not qualified to vouch for the legitimacy of the impact of the crash.
Radeo 2 years ago
omg wat a stupid idea of cause it was a plane they had radar of it heading towords the pentergon wat is the point in saying all that shit just let the people who died rest in peace ffs
hollybush2007 2 years ago
They had it on radar? Where your proof? You're belief is based on claims with no evidence. If you can explain at least how windows on the Pentagon magically deflected a passenger jet flying at over 500mph then we can start talking.
camreeno360 2 years ago
There are numerous large Airports in DC that were tracking the plane. In fact, it would have been more newsworthy, if they all said they didn't pick up any plane on radar.
A missile on the other hand, would have left a launch signature visible to the thousands of radar stations within a 500 mile radius. All you need to do is find one airport radar inquire why a missile popped out of no where and not originate from an airport.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Did you know that Cheney took complete control of the nations defences that day? Obviously if he was notified of a missile signature he wouldn't do anything.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Cheney doesn't control the private airports or private airplanes whom each have their own radar system.
Even if Cheney did control the national defenses at that time, how do you silence ever single military vehicle, ship and plane that are equipped with radar that would have picked up an object that did not originate from an airport.
Not a peep from anyone to the public. Now that's a huge conspiracy.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
So your saying just because the whole radar dish system and all that is somewhat unknown for how it works, that somehow discredits the entire conspiracy argument. What nonsense. You obviously haven't considered the tremendous amount of evidence of every other area of the events.
Let's stop again at the Pentagon explenation. We were told that a 757 slammed into the pentagon at a speed exceeding 500 mph. So how is it possible given the extreme kinetic energy that just a 16-foot hole was left?
camreeno360 2 years ago
I am saying, that at least one radar system would have picked up the launch signature or at least would have noticed that a plane or "missile" didn't originate from an airport.
A plane is basically an elongated tube. It would have compacted on impact similar to crushing a soda can.
The wings were full of fuel and most likely disintegrated. Obviously I wasnt there, but the answers I just gave you are plausible without the need to create a conspiracy.
And yes, the radar discredits the theory
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Ridiculous. So you're basically admitting you believe the entire Pentagon explanation at face value, without question. YOU believe a 757 left a 16-foot hole with absolutely no damage done to the rest of the building the plane would have hit. And NO, the plane wouldn't just disappear and fold up like a crushed soda can. That's the biggest joke I've heard in a long time. "Basically an elongated tube"? If you're talking about a plane with NO WINGS. To suggest two 5-ton engines just disappeared...
camreeno360 2 years ago
....without any damage to the building literally at all, then that really says something to your critical thinking skills. You've been given the evidence but you're just adhering to the first explanation you were given and you're rerouting evidence around it. Flight 93 didn't have parts strewn all over the place. All you have to do is see the pictures to see there was nothing definitive. (I'm sure both engines and the black box just vaporized. Yeah, good one) Conspiracy "theorists"....
camreeno360 2 years ago
Oh and let's not forget that the passports to all the alleged hijackers were found and "identified" the very next day. Now how is it possible that the Shanksville crash of flight 93 left the plane vaporized on impact (or turned to dust or whatever, based on what we were told) and yet the passport to that hijacker was somehow found and unscathed? How is is possible that virtually the whole plane disappeared, including the black box, yet the passport magically turned up?
camreeno360 2 years ago
That's easy to refute. The whole plane didn't "virtually" disappear. There were parts strewn all over the place.
Why do CTers always focus on what we don't know? It's because you can never prove a negative. And since it's impossible they feel the right to insert their own conclusion.
Start from what we do know, then work from there.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
...don't focos on what we don't know. We point out what is inconsistent with an explanation. The very fact that we're called "theorists" as if the official explanation is automatically more valid is a ludicrous way to think. Every side in every case needs to be tested and no side is exempt.
Ok, let's take the south tower crash. In photographs, the plane clearly didn't match the color scheme of an American Airlines jet, and you can clearly see an attached object to the fuselage.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Can you stick to one point at a time? This is a common tactic used by CTers. It's a game of whack-a-mole with you guys.
Can you at least address why no radar civilian or military did not pick up the launch signature of the cruise missile?
Spectre11B 2 years ago
A missile, a small unmanned aircraft, it could have been either one. The theory is that a Global Hawk unmanned plane slammed into the Pentagon, which would account for the signature and all the warnings about a plane getting closer and closer to the Pentagon.
And it would be great if you can have a valid argument instead of throwing unneeded words and saying "conspiracy theorists" do this and that. Honestly.
The real plane and the drone could very well have been switched mid-flight...
camreeno360 2 years ago
....and it's logical how it could have been done. The technology for unmanned flight control from ground stations has been around since even the 1970s. The theory of the Global Hawk accounts for the smal engine found at the Pentagon -- which was WAY too small to be part of the 757 thank you. Can I stick to one point? Give me a break, there are mountains of inconsistencies regarding what we were told and I've already pointed several of them out. How do you suppose the towers fell at free-fall...
camreeno360 2 years ago
I will be more than happy to address all of your questions. I just want to thoroughly analyze your hypothesis.
Can you finish this sentence: The government used a Global Hawk instead of the commercial planes used at the WTCs because.....
Spectre11B 2 years ago
....because it's possible they didn't want to damage their own building by the damage of a full-sized passenger jet. It's a viable possibility. Get this. That portion of the Pentagon was then used for Homeland Security. So you can see the insiders didn't want to damage their area of the building to be used.
The very fact that the evidence suggests a 757 jet didn't hit the building leaves the question of WHY up to anyones imagination and it's not the important question at hand.
camreeno360 2 years ago
That portion was not used for Homeland security. My wife and most of the people that I know work at the Pentagon. That part was the Logistical side of the pentagon.
I mean how could it have been Homeland Security when that didn't even come into effect until after 911.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
you wouldn't be talking about it if you were actually working in the pentagon
limosince2007 2 years ago
I never said I worked at the Pentagon.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
I said it was GOING to become that after 9/11. The framework for the agency was announced in the document Project for the New American Century, where it was said that a bunch of actions will be taken, including adding a part of government, to combat terrorism, and all that is needed is a "New Pearl Harbor". This was written a year to the MONTH of 9/11. So they were basically admitting they they're waiting for something to be used as a pretext to invade countries and put in place changes.
camreeno360 2 years ago
You didnt say it was GOING to be used. You said it was THEN used for Homeland security. Besides, the Pentagon is houses the 5("Penta" hint hint) branches of Military, There are no civilian agencies operating there. Army Airforce, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard in case you didnt know.
Kinda silly to say what you said when all I have to do is look down and read it.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Yes, "try" to stick to one point otherwise each point you bring up, I may bring up two and visa versa and then it just becomes two people throwing points past each other.
So if the Global Hawk and Plane were switched, what method did they use to "hide" the actual plane from radar?
Spectre11B 2 years ago
You don't seem to get the point. In the first place the evidence suggests a 757 DIDN'T hit the building, so it cancels out the need to give reasons why. The fact is established and WHY is up for grabs and isn't needed since the fact that insider activity is going on is already established by the fact that we were TOLD a 757 hit when clearly it didn't.
camreeno360 2 years ago
It's your assertion that it wasn't hit by a plane, most people have already decided that it was.
And quit using opinions as facts.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
You're looking at this with a completely polarized view. If you looked at the building without being told yet was it supposedly was, you would no doubt assume a 757 didn't cause that. But since you were told that, you're designing your viewpoint based on this bias implanted into your mind and I think you're unable to just look at it for what it was and decide whether or not a plane hit it.
Most people? Most people do absolutely no research, so what good is their viewpoint?
camreeno360 2 years ago
That is a good point Camreen.There is a susceptibility to believe what is most popular. However, I think the counter is also true. That people with a predisposed agenda will also design their viewpoint to fit their conclusion.
Just to prove my point, Look at the theme of all Conspiracies, they all point to the government as being sadistic, murderous and evil. Even if truthers were correct, the only thing they could prove would be that the official story is false, yet they go much further.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
You're generalizing again, which is yet again hypocritical. The fact that you imply ALL conspiracies are false and full of trash is a logical fallacy in itself. It's bad to automatically assume all conspiracies are false and likewise to automatically agree with them. Unfortunately there are many conspiracies and the truth is this country is really run by the Federal Reserve, and under it's powers leaves the serious possibility of corruption and therefore coverups.
camreeno360 2 years ago
One thing to consider is Operation Northwoods: a declassified government document that uncovers the fact that officials within the government were involved in a program to create coverstories and create catalysts to launch consflicts for their own gain. Why is it that a training mission to assassinate Castro happened on the SAME DAY as the Kennedy assassination? Why is it that the Warren Commission was lead by war criminals from the Vietnam War?
camreeno360 2 years ago
So I'm giving an overlay of the possibility of government activities being not what they seem and there has been evidence of this leaked out and even admitted in the past century and today. Another example - what evidence has there been to suggest the Gulf of Tonkin incident? None. Even former Secretary of Defence McNamara said that it was a "mistake", and other former officials admit it never happened to begin with.
camreeno360 2 years ago
So I think we have consider all of this and ask again if it's possible that 9/11 could have been a false flag operation also. We have countless incidents of suspicious conduct in the government and people jus throw it away or at most use it as dinner table topics. Why was Father Bush planning to have dinner with the brother of the guy who attempted the Reagan assassination? Was it just a wild coincidence?
So my underlining point to all of this is that not everything we are told can be true.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Again, this isn't an argument over who's football team is better, this is a question of objective facts, therefore arguing as if there is a "winner" is ridiculous. People don't theorize of conspiracies because they "want" to or are acting to make the government look bad, people believe them because they came to the truth and it just happened to be a conspiracy.
Why is it that the word "conspiracy" is alway brought with automatic denial. If something was a conspiracy then it just is.
camreeno360 2 years ago
You dont give facts, you surround yourself with conjecture. This would be extremely simple if CTers only gave facts because we could either verify or falsify those claims.
I call it conspiracy theory because of the methodology used in arriving at your conclusion. Science would go no where, if it were conducted this crudely.
Give me one testable fact that supports any of this conspiracy theory. I am only asking for one.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
You're just not listening to me. I've listed seemingly millions. Okay, let's start over again with what I said about the Pentagon "crash". So we are told flight 77, a 757 passenger jet, hit the Pentagon. Yet no footage or pictures to date have been produced, even though countless security cameras from various places were pointing at the "crash" site. Not only that but no wreckage has been positively identified as flight 77, and the visible damage to the building is COMPLETELY inconsistent.
camreeno360 2 years ago
You aren't proposing a testable fact, you are asking a question. Now, this question can produce conjecture why they haven't shown video or provided "you" with positive identification, but whatever you decide, it's still conjecture not a fact.
Regardless, I have seen pictures of plane parts at the Pentagon. Am I to conclude they were put there by someone else?
Spectre11B 2 years ago
You're making this sound like a calculus equation. Okay, all I'm saying is based on the scene and physical damage to the building, and every aspect of that part of 9/11, that all of this points in the direction of a 757 NOT hitting the building.
And how does that iconic piece of "wreckage" prove anything? That easily could have been planted there. That piece were you see the "American Airlines" logo with jagged edges... It's completely unscathed and simply isn't credible.
camreeno360 2 years ago
You still haven't provided any facts. All you've done is stated that you dont "think" a plane hit the Pentagon. And if your theory is to have more credibility than the official story, you need to provide converging facts from multiple sources. The official story has done this.
Instead what you've done is give interpretation of separate, uncorrelated individual events. You have given no positive proof about what did happen.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
There you go again accusing me of providing no facts. You're just refusing to examine them to realize they're facts. And where is your evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon? As far as I can see you haven't presented anything that suggest one did.
No facts? That's all you know how to say. I'm sorry but I've provided the facts many times and you just won't listen to anything. This isn't my problem, it's yours.
If the 9/11 Commission is trustworthy then why did it fail to even mention WTC7?
camreeno360 2 years ago
You call asking for proof, analogous to a calculus equation?
We both know that something hit the Pentagon. What was it?
The official story has provided a mountain of evidence which you've "CHOSEN" not to believe and you are entitled to this stance.
Unless your stance is that nothing hit the Pentagon, you need to provide an alternate theory and then provide "PROOF"
This proof should be collaborative, meaning it should be verifiable from multiple sources. The official story does this.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Mountain of evidence? There you go again. There has been NO evidence that suggests flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This isn't a matter of egsaggeration, it's just a fact. That piece of "wreckage" on the lawn and others are completely inconsistent with the nature of how they reported the "crash". We were told the plane VAPORIZED. There is no evidence and maybe if you looked at what has been presented, you would realize this, but like always you don't because you feel you're automatically right.
camreeno360 2 years ago
I haven't chosen to be a "conspiracy theorist". It just happened because I used my brain and that's what came out. Instead of doing an investigation, you feel you have the conclusion from the start and you're searching for evidence to support it. You're not giving the argument a fair hearing because you're not letting it, and you're therefore fooled into thinking there other side has nothing to privide.
Again, I didn't say nothing hit the Pentagon, I said it's possible it was a Global Hawk.
camreeno360 2 years ago
If there is no physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon, then you can't defend an argument that says it does. That is unless the plane's wings, engines, luggage, passengers, the black box, all disappeared the millesecond before the plane struck.
You haven't presented a story yourself of how the scene matches what we've been told. Why was there a 16-foot hole at impact instead of a hole that remotely resembles the silouette of a 757. And why have no engines been found?
camreeno360 2 years ago
If you provide absolutely no proof that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon, then either you believe that nothing hit it or you have absolutely no idea what hit it. Which means you are in no position to refute anything.
Look at the first video on my Profile Page. If those aren't plane parts, then what the heck are they?
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Well you're providing NO PROOF that a plane hit the Pentagon. So what if there are some plane parts in the distance on the lawn. That doesn't prove they were actually from flight 77 and the easily could have been placed there. The lack of evidence in the impact area alone is a serious blow to the theory that a 757 hit. All I'm saying is based on what we have, chances are a 757 didn't hit the building. Something else could have hit, but again, based on what we have, a 757 MOST LIKELY didn't hit.
camreeno360 2 years ago
That's not how it works. You first make a positive claim, and then back up that claim with proof.
For example, If I make the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon, I need to show some evidence. I then show photos of plane parts as evidence that a plane hit.
Now you are making the claim that those plane parts were put there by someone else, and then you provide proof that it wasn't.
Otherwise your claim is unsubstantiated and completely conjecture. This is exactly how a court operates.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
I'm saying the scene was easily framed with false plane parts. If those pieces were used in a court case then they would have to be forensicly tested. Just because some scraps are on the lawn is not enough to suffice the theory given the fact that no wreckage was found at the actual impace site.
For instance if a giant hole was carved out of a garage by who know's what, and someone says it was a car because a few nuts and screws were nearby, but no car parts in the actual site, then....
camreeno360 2 years ago
....you can't conclude that a car made the hole. Then someone might argue "Well you don't have evidence that something else did, and you don't say what DID make the hole?", but that's beyond the point. The point is little suggests a car made the hole so you can't conclude it did. That's what I'm saying with the Pentagon case. My "evidence" comes in the form of logic, and just because I can't positively say what DID hit doesn't mean it proves a 757 DID hit. See what I'm saying?
camreeno360 2 years ago
"My "evidence" comes in the form of logic,"
Well I can say that your logic is severely flawed. Using your analogy, if I (the gov.), made a hole in a garage, and my entire purpose was to convince you that a car did it, I would have left a lot more than a couple of nuts and bolts.
Why else would I spend so much time concocting a conspiracy, other than to make you think what happened, actually happened.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Well we have witnesses who saw a plane, plane parts strewn all over, flight records of it taking off, radar stations that tracked the plane, passenger records, passenger remains found and identified, two other planes that coincidentally crashed into other buildings on the same day almost at the same time, voice recording of the pilot and individual conversations of the passengers.
Do you even have one shred of evidence that any of this is untrue? I don't want conjecture, give me proof.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Well if you watch Loose Change or many of the other documentaries, they go over this. Actually no passengers were found and identified at the site. Not one. And just because a couple of planes hit the twin towers doesn't confirm that they were the planes that they were claimed to be. It's been shown that they were in fact military jets based on the attachments on the fuselage from pictures. Whitnesses say the plane didn't have windows.
camreeno360 2 years ago
What you call "evidence" may just seem to be evidence at first glance, until you realize it's all been proven false based on all the information. Go out a read Alice and Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. It's a 500-page book that goes over all this. Can you confidently call something evidence when you haven't heard the claim against it? Just because I'm not a human encyclopedia doesn't discredit the argument that it was an inside job. What's available serves that purpose.
camreeno360 2 years ago
I have read almost everything surrounding 911, even the points brought up by "loose change", given my background in engineering, can say that most of what they say is laughable.
You don't even have to look at the individual points, just look at the entire conspiracy as a whole, it's filled with so many contradictions, and an endless need to create conspiracy after conspiracy to keep the story afloat, makes me wonder if I am the only one that wasn't in on it.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Just look at the EXPLANATION as a whole. I don't think it appropriate to not include the collapse of building 7 whatsoever in the Commission Report. Do you? I don't see why the $100,000 linked with Mohammed has "little significance" (as the report said), do you?
Don't even start with all the left out questions and contradictions in the official 9/11 explanation. Good lord. What I call laughable is to think a 757 hit the Pentagon to leave a 16-foot hole and no damage aside.
camreeno360 2 years ago
This is unbelievable straighforward stuff and you're overthinking this by miles. Since it's apparent that all of the four "hijackings" that day were connected, and that the Pentagon crash was part of it, then should the entire explanation be in question with the ridiculous explanation we've been given? Oh I don't see ANY holes...HMMMM.
All you have to do is look. A 757 with twin 6-ton engines. Given the extreme kinetic energy, no imprint appeared whatsoever. Now THAT is a hole. Honestly.
camreeno360 2 years ago
That HOLE that you keep referring to isn't the entry hole it's the EXIT hole. Most of the mass of the plane was concentrated in the middle of the plane. I would expect that mass to be compacted as it crashed into the pentagon and continue until there was enough resistance to either displace it or stop it.
In fact, the energy was displaced when that mass punched through the last wall and dispersed into an open section between the buildings.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Like I already said seemingly countless times. The Pentagon "crash" first came into the picture with a 16-foot hole in the outer wall of the building, until about 20 minutes when a 70-foot portion of wall collapsed. Either way is completely inconsistent with the physics involved with a 757 flying with that extreme kinetic energy. So we have NO ENGINES, NO BODIES, and the wreckage in the impact area somehow all vaporized. If that isn't crazy then I REALLY don't know what is.
camreeno360 2 years ago
The engines did not vaporize, in fact most CTers dont dispute this, their argument is the engine remains that were found did not come from 757 engines. Which is completely false.
There were bodies, and they were identified. There are even photos of the bodies at the site. Of course, you believe every single piece of evidence that is presented is a massive cover-up. How convenient.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
The destruction at the Pentagon is consistent with a large mass impacting it from the outside. The collapse of the building and the area damage is similar to the size of an airplane, where most of the damage is found from front then lessens to the back. It follows the trajectory.
A missile on the other hand, will make an extremely small entry hole, yet, the damage from the epicenter of the explosion would be equal in all directions.
This is not consistent with the damage at the Pentagon.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
I don't WANT to believe it was a conspiracy. The belief stems from simple facts that lead to a conspiracy. Nobody is TRYING to believe it was a conspiracy. People do because they looked at the evidence and figured it out. Similarly no one WANTS to run in the street when a car is coming. They just don't because they figured out it would be better not to.
So you see, it's just a matter of evaluating evidence for what it is and drawing conclusions, and that's what you're not doing.
camreeno360 2 years ago
You're self inflicting skepticism unknowingly and I can't stress that enough. Just look at the evidence for WHAT IT IS. Sheesh.
We have OPERATION NORTHWOODS.
We have the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
We have CHENEY IN CONTROL OF ALL PENTAGON OPERATIONS given the previous points.
It's extremely straight forward and you just have to connect the dots. You are just searching for information according to your current belief and you're creating a picture according to this.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Research the wargame exercises being conducted on 9/11 which are strikingly similar to the events that took place that exact day. They are known as:
Operation Northern Vigilance
Vigilant Warrior
Vigilant Guardian
Global Guardian
Is it, by any chance, just an sheer unbelievable coincidence that on the same day as 9/11 military exercising happened to have taken place involving smashing airplanes into buildings and hijackings? Perhaps they were done to intentionally confuse??? PERHAPS?
camreeno360 2 years ago
Funny you should mention the exercises taking place that day. The exact same thing happened with the London bombings.
zenoist2 2 years ago
It's a common practice for making an inside job. People assume "oh well that explains why there was no response" while not knowing the ridiculous chances of the two coinciding at the same time. That's where they dupe people.
It also happened with the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which launched the Vietnam War.
camreeno360 2 years ago
I really have no need to talk beyond this, so it would be great if you can not respond beyond here.
camreeno360 2 years ago
The critical thinking skills of a 10-year-old is all that's needed to figure out the rediculousness regarding what we've been told about the Pentagon crash. And since that was connected with all the other elements of 9/11, it nearly confirms it was an inside job.
Why was Mineta's testomony of Cheney rejecting orders to stop the "plane" removed from the C-Span website and government sources? It's all consistent with a COVER-UP. The sheer scale of edited information speaks volumes.
camreeno360 2 years ago
The problem is you dont understand the difference between conjecture and facts and how misleading conjecture can be. Why Cheney rejected the orders is complete conjecture. I would assume it was because amid all the confusion, they did not want to shoot a plane that they were not 100% sure was hijacked.
Thats the rational response, or you can believe Cheney wanted to protect a missile in Pennsylvania so it could blow up some trees. Apparently Cheney cares more about trees than people.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
All of these questions were sent to the FBI by a man named David Icke (who wrote the 500-page book on 9/11) and he was met with no answers. And all of these questions were left out of the 9/11 Commission Report even after request.
Is this indicative of a transparent, crystal clear explanation? I don't think so. For you to dismiss all of this indicates you've done inadequate research and you're lying.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Are you talking about David Icke, the man who believes he talks to Spirits, and said in a TV interview that he believes that "He is the Son of God." He also believes in the Reptilian-humanoid theory, that these creatures have integrated themselves into our highest level of government and are controlling the world by use of a Shadow government. These are only a few of his crazy ideas.
I would have been more surprised if the FBI took him seriously.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
So have you read the book or not? What he says about the reptilian-humanoid theory is completely unrelated and irrelevant.
And no, the 16-foot hole I am talking about is the impact hole. Even then the non-conspiracy thoerists can't make up their mind about how the clear cut hole was created as the "exit". Once again, you're suggesting that the twin 6-ton engines vaporized, which speaks for itself as far as the "It-wasn't-as-inside-job-at-all" argument goes.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Besides, is everything you believe purely based on popular belief? Because you seem to have a habbit of automatic criticism to any idea currently rejected by mainstream thinking. Honestly, have you read ANYTHING by David Icke, or is your negativity purely rooted in unbased skepticism?
camreeno360 2 years ago
Regarding David Icke, anytime you evaluate evidence, you must consider the source.
As a rule of thumb, I try not to take anyone seriously who thinks they are the Son of God. However, I could be a reptilian who is trying to obfuscate you.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
There are seemingly an endless stream of fundamental questions unanswered to this day.
If the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was a devout Muslim about to commit suicide, then why was he reported to love attending strip clubs and loved pork? Why was his flight school shorty bought by the CIA before attending?
Why were the flight tickets purchased the DAY BEFORE 9/11 if they meticulously planned the biggest hijacking in history? Why did Atta get onboard just 6 minutes before take-off?
camreeno360 2 years ago
"Why did Atta eat pork and attend strip clubs? Are you seriously trying rationalize the behavior of a mass-murdering fanatic? Supposedly, the Qur'An teaches that all life is valuable, and muslims follow the ten commandments, yet somehow these devout fundamentalist rationalized that it is not only ok to murder innocent people, but that God actually commands them to do this.
If you can make that huge leap in interpretation, eating pork and looking a boobies is a walk in the park.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
This is just unbelievable obvious. If you look at this without a bias, you will easily realize a 757 did not take part in WHATEVER happened. The sheer coincidence of ever anomoly lining in place completely destroys the explanation. How can anyone be positive when no wreckage has been linked with the actual plane, no bodies were recovered, no real footage has been released, and that Congressman Mineta testified that Cheney told a "young man" to call off warnings that "still stand".
camreeno360 2 years ago
...speed when there would have been massive resistance from the floors of the building completely undamaged? And if the fires that "weekened" the steel were raging so fiercely, then how did firefighters easily manage to travel the adjavent stair shaft? From video you can clearly see a fireball shoot out the other side of the building when the south tower was hit.
Again, the building just fell at free-fall (the speed of gravity itself pulling down at object from that height).
camreeno360 2 years ago
It was clearly a controlled demolition and the fact that you suggest it wasn't takes a blow to your credibility and I know you have done absolutely no research relating to suggest that. YOU suggest the building fell at free-fall speed from weekened steel and collapsing floors... What you don't explain is how such massive resistance would have slowed down the succession of floors collapsing, and in video you clearly see none of that at all, and what you see it a perfect, symmetrical collapse.
camreeno360 2 years ago
This one is easy to answer and you can confer with any engineer. Sky risers are built using the same concept as a suspension bridge. It's a series of torsion and tension forces that are displacing weight along trusses, just like a bridge.
The net force across the suspension must equal zero, or it will experience stress at the weakest point. If that weakest point breaks, the entire system fails. Think about house of cards, which can displace a lot of weight because its based on the same concept.
Spectre11B 2 years ago
That's simply not true. The towers weren't built like suspension bridges, not in the least bit. The towers were supported by a steel shell and strong central support shafts. What we were told is that the "steel weekened" due to the fire from the jet, and that's purely bogusness. Give me a break. Even NIST tested this and they concluded it's not possible, but rerouted their explanation to cover it up.
camreeno360 2 years ago
That simply is true. Sky risers are built on the same principle as suspension bridges.
Why exactly is it bogus that the steel could not have been weakened?
Spectre11B 2 years ago
Confir with any engineer? What's your definition of "any"? I suppose the 800 engineers part of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth don't exist? I'd like to see some video of one of your "experts" explaining away all the 9/11 anomolies.
On top of all this, the buildings were DESIGNED to take on multiple plane hits. Not only that but a steel-famed skyscraper in Madrid was raging with fire for over 24 hours and it didn't fall down.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Name one Engineer that has put forth "peer review" material. I'd like to see his work.
A design is only as good as the model tested. It was never tested to withstand a 757 Jetliner, so the claim was incredulous.
Remember what I said about CTers jumping to different points. They all do this when they don't want to answer a question that they don't like.
So how did they switch the Global Hawk and plane in flight????
Spectre11B 2 years ago
If I was the leader of the United States, I would definitely want to spend million on a missile to shoot into a friggin government building. Makes perfect sense to me. But you all jump to conclusion that it was a missile. I have seen the shape of whales before, and they...
MonopolyBag 2 years ago
Continued.. look very similar in size and shape to the hole made in the pentagon. Its flippers would have been easily knocked off on impact the the ground in front of the building. Can you see any similarities? I know I can. What else would it be, either that damn million dollar secret made US missile, or a much more economically feasible full grown male humpback whale. I am a marine biologist, the same way you are a scientist looking at accurate information. And I do not mistake my whale holes.
MonopolyBag 2 years ago
Sure looks like a missle to me hit the pentagon. Cause there sure would be more damage to that building if a huge commercial airliner crashed into it. Defiante cover up by the government. We will never know the truth. But I am one of those believers in the conspiracy theories about the whole 9-11 events.
Woulduliketofeelme 2 years ago
Great video !!!! great job!!! i subscribe !!!!
sattanhellsing 2 years ago
dude if a tomahawk did that poor hole they launched something a little bigger if you want it to be a missile
pacogimanes 2 years ago
of course something is fishy, the pentagon has more cameras on it than any other building on the planet. fact.
they release one crappy video where you can't see anything? no debris? i'm not the kind of person who asserts conspiracy theories but damn the gov't sure didn't give us much in the way of proof.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago 5
Assuming that you're human, you have got to be one of the stupidest I've ever come across. When I saw this I was not surprised, but offended that there are people like you who want to stir more fear and hatred against this country than there already is. This was merely speculation based off what facts you could find off your wikipedia and google searches. You were not there. Your not a forensic scientist. Just some punk kid looking for a good laugh using a "conspiracy" as plausible deniability.
genrobs84 2 years ago
maybe just maybe genrobs84 he is seeking truth and answers. i for one am very glad to see people not accepting what the media feeds us as truth. i'm not saying a plane didn't or did hit the pentagon. but ASSUMING that you're a human with logic could you explain to me why we only see an explosion and no aircraft from the one camera that showed the impact. i've seen the vids with what looks like a missle tip flying in but still don't say with certainty that it was. hotel vid showed no aircraft....
youblong 2 years ago
i near pissed myself at the title of this vid. very funny. damn fishy that pentagon crash.
passycot 2 years ago
apparently the pentagon has less video surveillance then the average 7/11 because the video released could be anything.
steveclapper 2 years ago 2
i love how the pentagon has more cameras in it then any other place in the world, and they have no footage of the crash
thatskool101 2 years ago
people say the fukin plane was goin so fast that the planes wings fell off and i think thats complete bullshit
thatskool101 2 years ago 5
Better yet they never say where they went. PLUS animations produced by people supposedly "debunking" this don't even show the wings falling off. Now how the hell can the wings have fallen off when supposedly poles were hit by the "wings" just yard in front of the building itself.
People who go with the official explanation with no questions asked are idiots. Plain and simple.
camreeno360 2 years ago
Couldn't have been a 757. Flat out.
koolkid684 3 years ago
" What missing second rotor? There was just one APU, "
You are assuming that it was an APU. But that THEORY has already been debunked by experts. I think you're wrong.
And --it ANY CASE it leaves the question: WHERE ARE THE TWO MUCH LARGER ENGINE ROTORS THAT WOULD HAVE SURVIVED BEING --as they were --TITANIUM/ALLOY.
lennhart 3 years ago
Cite those experts that have debunked it, I haven't been able to find any, though I looked hard and wide.
I have addressed what happened to the engines, you ignored it and kept asking this question. I must assume you think you're in court, trying to bluff the jury into believing your lies. This is not the case, I have told you what happened to them and you ignored it, therefore you are wrong.
McHrozni 3 years ago
" Even that single rotor was actually traced to a 757 "
That is simply NOT true.
Secondly --a 757 has TWO such engines both of which are TITANIUM/STEEL ALLOY.If one survivied the fire, so would have the other one.
lennhart 3 years ago
You mistook some debris for engines. ONLY ONE ROTOR WAS PHOTOGRAPHED. It is about one third or one half the size of a 757 engine.
Had there been ANY evidence connecting a 757 to the Pentagon crash, Bush would have INSISTED upon its release,
He did not!
The burden of proof remains with you to prove your assertion.
lennhart 3 years ago
Isn't it funny how I've been saying for two days now that the rotor didn't come from a 757 engine, and yet you're still claiming it's too small for a 757 engine and that it is therefore not from a 757?
It's actually downright hilarious.
The assertion that there is no evidence of a 757 is a lie. The assertion that Bush would have insisted upon it's release is a speculation and an opinion, nothing more.
McHrozni 3 years ago
Comment removed
lennhart 3 years ago
" And, by the way, the Rollys-Royce denied that part would fit into the Global Hawk engine, or that it is a part of that. "
Good...we can rule out Rolls just as we must rule out 757. That is until Rolls has a change of heart and decides to tell the truth.
But ---it did come from somewhere! The question is where?
lennhart 3 years ago
The 757 APU? I do find it very funny why you haven't even addressed that possibility. You still seem to 'think' (a highly inappropriate verb for you) that rotor came from an engine, even though I've told you otherwise how many times now? 10?
McHrozni 3 years ago
THERE ARE NO ARAB NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY LIST.
Why is that?
Were there no Arabs on the flight?
Indeed, at least two Arabs from flight 77 were interviewed AFTER 911 by several media including the BBC,
The Washington Post reported that HANI HANJOUR --said to have piloted 77 into the Pentagon --WAS NEVER ON THE FLIGHT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A TICKET.
lennhart