911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...

candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?

You were insulted by the truth?

No, I was insulted because you're insulting a group I associate with, mainly truthers. Perhaps you're not aware, but "Twoofer" is an insult. Some people who don't believe the official story don't even like to be called truthers, but almost all of those who disagree with the official story agree that it is not an insulting term per se.

And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong. Tangle with the physical evidence and give us some plausible reasons for it’s existence.

 

[phoenyx]

You deal in cherry picking eye witness testimony (sometimes done years after the eye witnessed the event).

Hardly. CIT has compiled a master list of just about every witness to the plane approaching the pentagon under the sun:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Furthermore, it has filmed most of the witnesses who had the best vantage points to determine the aircraft's flight path in its final moments and made more then one documentary based on their filmings. The one it recommends people see first is National Security Alert, which can be seen below:



It's OCT supporters who constantly cherry pick, picking only the accounts that concord with the OCT and ignoring most if not all of the rest.

So to sum up the Position of CIT, the bottom should suffice.

View attachment 80013

Everything that doesn’t support eyewitness testimony is faked apparently.

According to your little graphic there, even some witnesses had to be "plants or confused about what they saw".

Your graphic has 7 points, I'll go over them one by one as to whether I agree:
1- True.
2- The generator was damaged, but there's no solid evidence as to what damaged it. One of the official flight paths (there's actually more then one) has the plane missing the generator completely, as was illustrated by a video from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
3- There was very little debris at the Pentagon at all in the photos that show the fire and rescue workers. Later, we got some pictures of some alleged plane parts, but their authenticity is highly questionable.
4- The hole in the Pentagon was caused by -something-, but all strong evidence points towards something other than a 757, let alone AA77.
5- The chain of custody of the DNA is not known. Perhaps it came from the passengers from Flight 77, but who collected it and where it was collected is unknown.
6- Same as #5.
7- Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...

candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?

You were insulted by the truth?

No, I was insulted because you're insulting a group I associate with, mainly truthers. Perhaps you're not aware, but "Twoofer" is an insult. Some people who don't believe the official story don't even like to be called truthers, but almost all of those who disagree with the official story agree that it is not an insulting term per se.

And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong. Tangle with the physical evidence and give us some plausible reasons for it’s existence.

Sadly, you are arguing with a bunch of people who have a result they want to believe, and then try to muster the "evidence" to fit their needs. You can show them all the evidence in the world, and they will still not believe you.

 

[phoenyx]

Your insults are so transparent that it’s hard to be enthused to discuss these subjects with you.

My insults should be crystal clear.

Finally something we agree on.

I must admit I’m curious as to why you even bother to post in this conspiracy forum at all, as you seem to have so little interest in actually discussing the evidence.

Because, so far, I’ve given you attention that you cannot garner in real life.

I don't suppose you could spare me your 'generosity'?

Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it. I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.

...I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:

Not interested.

A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?

[insults removed]

I'll let you in on something candy- in a discussion, when one person is more interested in insulting another person then in actually listening to what they have to say, one gets the impression that their -real- goal is not to try to understand the other party, but rather to shut them up. Call it the Trumpian way to resolve disagreements- insult them enough in the hope that they just go away, therefore making it unnecessary to actually have to address the points the person makes. Are you a fan of his?

 

[phoenyx]

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11. How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day? Is this announced ahead of time? Why would it be announced if it were? If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.

Imagine that. What questions do you still have concerning 9/11?

 

[phoenyx]

And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.

Feel free to try to prove my own beliefs wrong as well. I must say, though, that insulting me tends to get me to respond with less words, or to simply not respond to you at all.

 

[candycorn]

And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.

Feel free to try to prove my own beliefs wrong as well. I must say, though, that insulting me tends to get me to respond with less words, or to simply not respond to you at all.

Nah, thats the evidence and your impotence toward explaining it junior.

 

[candycorn]

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11. How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day? Is this announced ahead of time? Why would it be announced if it were? If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.

Imagine that. What questions do you still have concerning 9/11?

See those question marks up there…those are called questions.

 

[phoenyx]

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11. How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day? Is this announced ahead of time? Why would it be announced if it were? If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.

Imagine that. What questions do you still have concerning 9/11?

See those question marks up there…those are called questions.

Laugh . Yes, I had seen those questions, but you had said that "people who -had- legitimate questions", and I was thinking that perhaps you had thought they were answered now.

Here are some theories in place of known answers:
1- Some of those involved in 9/11 were part of the drills. The drills were not only going on on the same day, they were part of the 9/11 operation.

2- The only way the planes could have gotten through to the Pentagon was by making it impossible for anyone to contact someone in a position to authorize a shoot down. From what I have read, I believe Vice President Cheney was in charge of the drills and he also had the ability to stop them and shoot down the planes. I believe he may have been asked what to do, but had given orders that he was not to be disturbed. This is my best guess as to his conversation in front of Mineta wherein a "young man" asked him "Do the orders still stand" as the plane approaching the Pentagon was only a few miles out from the Pentagon and he stated: "Ofcourse the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?". Moments later, the plane arrived at the Pentagon and the Pentagon was in flames.
Do The Orders Still Stand?

 

[candycorn]

phoenyx

A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?

If the video showed what you thought happened on 9/11…we’d have something worth discussing.

It doesn’t of course.

That you’re dead set against stating what you think happened it’s a sign that you’re interested in something else other than debate and rebuttal.

 

[candycorn]

And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.

Feel free to try to prove my own beliefs wrong as well. I must say, though, that insulting me tends to get me to respond with less words, or to simply not respond to you at all.

Beliefs take of a cartoonish air when they are not backed up by anything except “they’re all lying”. Physical evidence whispers louder than your shouted lies.

 

[phoenyx]

Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it. I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.

...I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:

Not interested.

A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?

If the video showed what you thought happened on 9/11…we’d have something worth discussing.

I've got to ask, did you actually see the video? It was only 5 minutes long by the way...

That you’re dead set against stating what you think happened it’s a sign that you’re interested in something else other than debate and rebuttal.

I'm not interested in posting long detailed theories so that you can then ignore them and/or insult me for having bothered. I'm still not even sure if you took 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the video -.-

 

[candycorn]

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11. How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day? Is this announced ahead of time? Why would it be announced if it were? If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.

Imagine that. What questions do you still have concerning 9/11?

See those question marks up there…those are called questions.

Laugh . Yes, I had seen those questions, but you had said that "people who -had- legitimate questions", and I was thinking that perhaps you had thought they were answered now.

Here are some theories in place of known answers:
1- Some of those involved in 9/11 were part of the drills. The drills were not only going on on the same day, they were part of the 9/11 operation.

And here you go. Unproven allegation that has no basis in fact.

2- The only way the planes could have gotten through to the Pentagon was by making it impossible for anyone to contact someone in a position to authorize a shoot down. From what I have read, I believe Vice President Cheney was in charge of the drills and he also had the ability to stop them and shoot down the planes. I believe he may have been asked what to do, but had given orders that he was not to be disturbed. This is my best guess as to his conversation in front of Mineta wherein a "young man" asked him "Do the orders still stand" as the plane approaching the Pentagon was only a few miles out from the Pentagon and he stated: "Ofcourse the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?". Moments later, the plane arrived at the Pentagon and the Pentagon was in flames.
Do The Orders Still Stand?

Another total fallacy on your part. Seriously shit-brains…do you think everyone has lived your small life? I’ve flown into RNA before. You can look out the window and see the Pentagon right there literally a hundred yards (or less) from your seat and tray in the upright position. “The only way planes could have gotten through….” BULLSHIT. Hundreds of planes “get through” to the Pentagon a day. Look up “flying over the pentagon” on youtube for the only evidence you seem to believe.

My questions were about drills happening on the same day. Turns out we have drills (announced and otherwise) quite often. That 9/11 happened on the same day (a Tuesday) far removed from a holiday—is not that unusual. That we had naval vessels that had SAMs on them and they were not used…nobody ever offered an explanation for that. Likely because nobody remembered the last time we had a hijacking much less one that was being used as missile. Also there is the question of launching a SAM in the most heavily traveled airspace in the nation, whether ground damage would be “worth” the shoot down, etc…

Further, your cartoonish assumption that our military is ready for anything 24/7 is simply not the case. No military on earth is, was, or ever has been.

 

[phoenyx]

Beliefs take of a cartoonish air when they are not backed up by anything except “they’re all lying”.

We can agree on that anyway

 

[phoenyx]

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11. How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day? Is this announced ahead of time? Why would it be announced if it were? If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.

Imagine that. What questions do you still have concerning 9/11?

See those question marks up there…those are called questions.

Laugh . Yes, I had seen those questions, but you had said that "people who -had- legitimate questions", and I was thinking that perhaps you had thought they were answered now.

Here are some theories in place of known answers:
1- Some of those involved in 9/11 were part of the drills. The drills were not only going on on the same day, they were part of the 9/11 operation.

And here you go. Unproven allegation that has no basis in fact.

I -said- they were theories, though I do believe there is some strong evidence backing them up. That being said, I'm not all that keen on sharing that information with you. You seem to like soundbites more then long treatises, so I think I'll keep my posts soundbite length for you.

2- The only way the planes could have gotten through to the Pentagon was by making it impossible for anyone to contact someone in a position to authorize a shoot down. From what I have read, I believe Vice President Cheney was in charge of the drills and he also had the ability to stop them and shoot down the planes. I believe he may have been asked what to do, but had given orders that he was not to be disturbed. This is my best guess as to his conversation in front of Mineta wherein a "young man" asked him "Do the orders still stand" as the plane approaching the Pentagon was only a few miles out from the Pentagon and he stated: "Ofcourse the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?". Moments later, the plane arrived at the Pentagon and the Pentagon was in flames.
Do The Orders Still Stand?

Another total fallacy on your part. Seriously shit-brains...

And this is where you shoot yourself in the conversational foot. If you -want- to kill our discussion, just keep on going with these Trumpian insults.

 

[candycorn]

Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it. I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.

...I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:

Not interested.

A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?

If the video showed what you thought happened on 9/11…we’d have something worth discussing.

I've got to ask, did you actually see the video? It was only 5 minutes long by the way…

Saw 4 seconds of it, Realized it has been seen here dozens of times before. Realized it would not explain “WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED” which was the question posed to you… Thus I wasn’t interested in it.

That you’re dead set against stating what you think happened it’s a sign that you’re interested in something else other than debate and rebuttal.

I'm not interested in posting long detailed theories so that you can then ignore them and/or insult me for having bothered. I'm still not even sure if you took 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the video -.-

And thusly, our conversation comes to the same end that all 9/11 Twoofers does. You cowering from explaining yourself and me basking in the victory of yet another debunked Twoofer. Don’t feel too bad…you’re just another piece of wreckage left in the wake. I have enjoyed the batting practice sessions you have pitched so admirably.

So it goes…

For the record;

Nobody asked you for long detailed theories. Ever. Not once.
You were asked to come up with plausible explanations for 3 pieces of physical evidence only. You haven’t come close.

Since you won’t post what you think happened: Here is the CITs’ explanation:

 

[phoenyx]

...I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:

Not interested.

A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?

If the video showed what you thought happened on 9/11…we’d have something worth discussing.

I've got to ask, did you actually see the video? It was only 5 minutes long by the way…

Saw 4 seconds of it...

That explains it -.-

Realized it would not explain “WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED” which was the question posed to you…

Actually, your original question was -why-:
"Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”.

I didn't realize that you'd morphed that to 'what'.

I'm not interested in posting long detailed theories so that you can then ignore them and/or insult me for having bothered. I'm still not even sure if you took 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the video -.-

And thusly, our conversation comes to the same end [insults removed]...

Indeed. How could it end any other way with all your insults? There's only so much abuse anyone is willing to take...

 

[Faun]

Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ...

That's right. Do you?

I trust those who make the most sense.

I'm sure we all think that we trust those who make the most sense, laugh .

The government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts.

Do you -really- have to insult the people you're talking to? I consider myself a card carrying truther; "twoofer" is clearly an insult -.-. Anyway, we clearly disagree as to what is more believable...

Which span from a missile hit it, to a military plane hit it while flight #77 cleared over the Pentagon, to bombs were planted inside, to passengers from flight #77 were taken elsewhere and possibly killed. All sorts of wide-eyed stories when the official story is most plausible and most consistent with the surviving evidence.

For the record, I'm not sure if an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not. I definitely don't think Flight 77 or even a 757 hit it though, and certainly not along the south side flight path. I definitely believe explosives were used inside the Pentagon. As to what happened to Flight #77, I've seen some theories that I think are quite plausible, but they are theories. Anyway, no need to remind me of what you think is most plausible, I think that's been well established (the official story), think we should concentrate on why we disagree.

but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed,

What evidence do you have that that picture of a wheel hub actually came from the Pentagon?

I actually could show you but I feel we're at the point -- there is no point. In the vein of candycorn's pre-determined wisdom, no matter what I show you, you will just bounce to your next excuse denial. You don't accept pretty much anything I can show you and likewise, I don't accept pretty much anything you have shown.

If you really feel there's no point, what's the point of you participating in this thread? You don't think you'll persuade me by saying that you're right and I'm wrong now do you? Our only hope of coming to any kind of agreement is by discussing the evidence.

So you won't accept evidence from the government

I won't -blindly- accept evidence from the government, no. But I will certainly examine it. After all, if it's coming from the government, it's an entity that can be held to account for lying. How are you going to hold some anonymous photographer to account? You don't even know who they are.

No one is asking you to?

I'm referring to the wheel hub. Show me a government web site that states that it is a photograph gathered by a government agency.

It's obviously your decision what you will or will not believe. Personally, when I see plane parts scattered at the scene of a purported plane crash

From CIT's FAQ question on the matter:
**Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**

Source: Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

and I see damage to a building somewhat resembling the shape of a plane

From another author whom I trust:
**I believe that any reasonable person who is willing to look at the evidence (photo and otherwise) will have to conclude that there was not enough damage to the Pentagon for it to have been hit by a Boeing 757. Not enough damage to the building but apparently enough to vaporize the plane.**

Source:
HOW WE KNOW AN AIRLINER DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON | Truth and Shadows

and I see an image that appears to be said plane

Another article from the same author as above:
DOCTORED PENTAGON VIDEO PROVES 9/11 COVER-UP AND INSIDE JOB | Truth and Shadows

which also matches the description from many witnesses ....

I can certainly agree that many witnesses saw an aircraft approach the Pentagon. That being said, the flight path all of the witnesses of the plane who were in the best position to know which flight path it took all state that it came from North of the Citgo gas station. As to Lloyd England, he has never claimed to see the aircraft, despite a light pole allegedly knocked down, allegedly by AA77, allegedly spearing his car.

There's no point because no matter what I say, you will come up with some denial. Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government. That's an example of how twisted your logic becomes in the face of evidence.

I showed a photo of a wheel hub, photographed at the scene of a plane crash. The most obvious answer, since plane wheel hubs would not be found at that location otherwise, is that it came from the plane which crashed into the building. You don't believe that, which is your prerogative, so all you can do is come up with denial after denial in vain defiance of the evidence.

Deniers say it isn't from a 757.

Show pictures of the wheels of a 757 for comparison purposes and deniers will demand proof the government took that picture.

Point out it doesn't matter who took the picture, it's still of photo of a wheel hub among the debris of a crashed 757; and deniers while claim the photo is photoshopped.

Point out there are multiple pictures of it and no evidence of photoshopping; and deniers will claim it was planted.

Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77, so the entire debris field of AA77's remains would have to had to been planted; and deniers deny the photo was taken among the that debris at the Pentagon.

Show them proof that the photo was from the AA77 crash site at the Pentagon; and deniers will insist you show them the serial number on the hub.

Point out there are no distinguishable writings remaining that that piece of debris; and deniers cream themselves with joy that they just proved (in their minds) that flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

So what's the point of showing you proof that the picture was taken at the crash site? You still won't accept it and you'll simply move on to the next phase of your denial.

Again, and this can't be stressed enough ... candycorn nailed you early on by pointing out you will reject all of the evidence and claim it was either fake or not proof.

So what's the point of showing you proof?

 

[Faun]

Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ...

That's right. Do you?

I trust those who make the most sense.

I'm sure we all think that we trust those who make the most sense, laugh .

The government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts.

Do you -really- have to insult the people you're talking to? I consider myself a card carrying truther; "twoofer" is clearly an insult -.-. Anyway, we clearly disagree as to what is more believable...

Which span from a missile hit it, to a military plane hit it while flight #77 cleared over the Pentagon, to bombs were planted inside, to passengers from flight #77 were taken elsewhere and possibly killed. All sorts of wide-eyed stories when the official story is most plausible and most consistent with the surviving evidence.

For the record, I'm not sure if an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not. I definitely don't think Flight 77 or even a 757 hit it though, and certainly not along the south side flight path. I definitely believe explosives were used inside the Pentagon. As to what happened to Flight #77, I've seen some theories that I think are quite plausible, but they are theories. Anyway, no need to remind me of what you think is most plausible, I think that's been well established (the official story), think we should concentrate on why we disagree.

but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed,

What evidence do you have that that picture of a wheel hub actually came from the Pentagon?

I actually could show you but I feel we're at the point -- there is no point. In the vein of candycorn's pre-determined wisdom, no matter what I show you, you will just bounce to your next excuse denial. You don't accept pretty much anything I can show you and likewise, I don't accept pretty much anything you have shown.

If you really feel there's no point, what's the point of you participating in this thread? You don't think you'll persuade me by saying that you're right and I'm wrong now do you? Our only hope of coming to any kind of agreement is by discussing the evidence.

So you won't accept evidence from the government

I won't -blindly- accept evidence from the government, no. But I will certainly examine it. After all, if it's coming from the government, it's an entity that can be held to account for lying. How are you going to hold some anonymous photographer to account? You don't even know who they are.

No one is asking you to?

I'm referring to the wheel hub. Show me a government web site that states that it is a photograph gathered by a government agency.

It's obviously your decision what you will or will not believe. Personally, when I see plane parts scattered at the scene of a purported plane crash

From CIT's FAQ question on the matter:
**Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**

Source: Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

and I see damage to a building somewhat resembling the shape of a plane

From another author whom I trust:
**I believe that any reasonable person who is willing to look at the evidence (photo and otherwise) will have to conclude that there was not enough damage to the Pentagon for it to have been hit by a Boeing 757. Not enough damage to the building but apparently enough to vaporize the plane.**

Source:
HOW WE KNOW AN AIRLINER DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON | Truth and Shadows

and I see an image that appears to be said plane

Another article from the same author as above:
DOCTORED PENTAGON VIDEO PROVES 9/11 COVER-UP AND INSIDE JOB | Truth and Shadows

which also matches the description from many witnesses ....

I can certainly agree that many witnesses saw an aircraft approach the Pentagon. That being said, the flight path all of the witnesses of the plane who were in the best position to know which flight path it took all state that it came from North of the Citgo gas station. As to Lloyd England, he has never claimed to see the aircraft, despite a light pole allegedly knocked down, allegedly by AA77, allegedly spearing his car.

Among the gems plucked from this is the following claim from CIT...

...the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyover proves that this debris did not come from AA77...

Other than a few witnesses saying they recall a plane flying in from north of the Citco station, what evidence is there that that's where the plane flew?? I'm not aware of any physical evidence supporting a "north side approach."

None.

 

[phoenyx]

There's no point because no matter what I say, you will come up with some denial.

You're certainly optimistic, laugh .

Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

It's your absolutes that are squelching this discussion. You have the arrogance to claim there is "zero physical evidence to support your claims", and yet I see that time and again you ignore piles of evidence, including the physical kind, that contradicts the official story.

To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government.

You yourself have stated that you don't trust the government, so we are the same there. That being said, I'd rather get evidence from the government then from anonymous sources, and I imagine you'd feel the same way. The government can be held to account. If you don't know the source of information, how can you hold them to account for providing false information?

I showed a photo of a wheel hub

Indeed.

photographed at the scene of a plane crash.

You've shown no evidence that it was photographed at the scene of the pentagon plane crash. Barring that, it's just a wheel hub at what looks like a plane crash somewhere.

Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77

There's no solid evidence that any of the debris came from flight #77.