911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[HereWeGoAgain]

All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building. Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.

The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure. Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side. If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings. There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon. The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide. The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.

I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck. The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side. The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.

I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation. The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that. Who did what? I don't know. Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation. The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated. We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will. The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be.

I really don't care. Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business. Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.

Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:

1. Explain the 757 wreckage at the Pentagon
2. Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out
3. Explain the light poles being knocked down

I cant believe you actually need these things explained to you.

I don’t, I know how they got there.
If you have a different version of events though, you need to account for the physical evidence. Twoofers are incredibly deficient in doing so.

So the government has never planted evidence.....
Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?

 

[phoenyx]

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
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.
**

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

Why do virtually all OCT believers think that those behind 9/11 would confess after a little time had gone by -.-? I find CIT's explanation to be quite plausible, which is why I quote it. Sorry I didn't reinvent the wheel for you, but I just didn't see the need. I, like CIT, are not claiming to "know" whether or not the small amounts of debris was planted by hand. We both find it hard to believe that such a small amount of wreckage would be present after the Pentagon attack, given the fact that a 757 had allegedly just crashed into the Pentagon. That being said, CIT has always felt that the primary case for the airplane not hitting the Pentagon following a south of the Citgo gas station trajectory is because of all of the witnesses that have it flying a -North- of the Citgo gas station trajectory. Also, I found myself to be quite impressed with Pilots for 9/11 Truth's work in discovering that both the 9/11 Commission report flight data, and the NTSB data not only don't concord with the physical damage along the south of citgo flight path, but don't even concord with each other.

 

[Dale Smith]

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
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.
**

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

Why do virtually all OCT believers think that those behind 9/11 would confess after a little time had gone by -.-? I find CIT's explanation to be quite plausible, which is why I quote it. Sorry I didn't reinvent the wheel for you, but I just didn't see the need. I, like CIT, are not claiming to "know" whether or not the small amounts of debris was planted by hand. We both find it hard to believe that such a small amount of wreckage would be present after the Pentagon attack, given the fact that a 757 had allegedly just crashed into the Pentagon. That being said, CIT has always felt that the primary case for the airplane not hitting the Pentagon following a south of the Citgo gas station trajectory is because of all of the witnesses that have it flying a -North- of the Citgo gas station trajectory. Also, I found myself to be quite impressed with Pilots for 9/11 Truth's work in discovering that both the 9/11 Commission report flight data, and the NTSB data not only don't concord with the physical damage along the south of citgo flight path, but don't even concord with each other.

There is no fucking way a plane hit the Pentagon. They confiscated all the cameras that could prove a plane hit and all they have ever release was a few frames that does nothing to dispel those that doubt the official story.

 

[phoenyx]

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
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.
**

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

Why do virtually all OCT believers think that those behind 9/11 would confess after a little time had gone by -.-? I find CIT's explanation to be quite plausible, which is why I quote it. Sorry I didn't reinvent the wheel for you, but I just didn't see the need. I, like CIT, are not claiming to "know" whether or not the small amounts of debris was planted by hand. We both find it hard to believe that such a small amount of wreckage would be present after the Pentagon attack, given the fact that a 757 had allegedly just crashed into the Pentagon. That being said, CIT has always felt that the primary case for the airplane not hitting the Pentagon following a south of the Citgo gas station trajectory is because of all of the witnesses that have it flying a -North- of the Citgo gas station trajectory. Also, I found myself to be quite impressed with Pilots for 9/11 Truth's work in discovering that both the 9/11 Commission report flight data, and the NTSB data not only don't concord with the physical damage along the south of citgo flight path, but don't even concord with each other.

There is no fucking way a plane hit the Pentagon. They confiscated all the cameras that could prove a plane hit and all they have ever release was a few frames that does nothing to dispel those that doubt the official story.

The biggest problem with believing that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon or even explode before getting there or above it is, where did it go after it approached the Pentagon? CIT believes it flew over the Pentagon and continued on, perhaps landing at Reagan National. The main problem is that while there are certainly a good many witnesses stating that it -approached- the Pentagon, there is only one witness that may have seen it come from the other side (his name currently escapes me). Here are some articles from CIT that get into the theory of the flyover...

The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed

The Pentacon - Smoking Gun

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Especially when you look at the damage supposedly caused by jets hitting the world trade centers and of course the collapse of building seven which didnt even get hit by anything.

 

[phoenyx]

When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.

View attachment 80430

I can certainly agree with that. For one, there are several reports suggesting that the plane wasn't as large as a 757. My issue is, what happened to the plane approaching the Pentagon? Did it explode in mid air before hitting the Pentagon, or perhaps when it was over the roof? Or did it fly over the roof as CIT believes? I suppose it's not that important; we can focus on the simple fact that there is so little damage (and from the wrong direction) at the Pentagon.

 

[Dale Smith]

When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.

View attachment 80430

I can certainly agree with that. For one, there are several reports suggesting that the plane wasn't as large as a 757. My issue is, what happened to the plane approaching the Pentagon? Did it explode in mid air before hitting the Pentagon, or perhaps when it was over the roof? Or did it fly over the roof as CIT believes? I suppose it's not that important; we can focus on the simple fact that there is so little damage (and from the wrong direction) at the Pentagon.

And what about the incredible 270 degree turn to hit the least populated part of the Pentagon where naval intelligence was trying to figure out where the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Rumsfeld said could not be accounted for the day before.....but nothing to see here, folks...move along.

 

[phoenyx]

When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.

View attachment 80430

I can certainly agree with that. For one, there are several reports suggesting that the plane wasn't as large as a 757. My issue is, what happened to the plane approaching the Pentagon? Did it explode in mid air before hitting the Pentagon, or perhaps when it was over the roof? Or did it fly over the roof as CIT believes? I suppose it's not that important; we can focus on the simple fact that there is so little damage (and from the wrong direction) at the Pentagon.

And what about the incredible 270 degree turn to hit the least populated part of the Pentagon where naval intelligence was trying to figure out where the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Rumsfeld said could not be accounted for the day before.....but nothing to see here, folks...move along.

That line sounds a lot like the one in 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory, heh heh . I agree, it sounds mighty convenient to just lose a few trillion dollars on 9/11 -.-...

 

[candycorn]

So the government has never planted evidence.....
Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?

Well, you answered that question yourself sort of. I invite you to consider this question. If Mr. Big came to you and said, “I want you to stage a scene of 757 airliner crash” what would be the first 6 or 7 things you’d “stage”? If it were me it would be the tires, the wings, luggage, bodies and probably some very descriptive pieces of personal memorabilia such as a name tag from a stewardess as the proverbial smoking gun. I think it’s safe to say that anyone asked to “stage” a crash site would do the same thing because you’re working from a script at that point and we’ve seen crash sites before. Again, never have we seen a crash site of a plane where the pilot was attempting to 1) hit a building and 2) max thrusted the engines to optimize damage.

Secondly, if you were told to stage the scene of a 757 airliner crash, why in the world would you put any wreckage 30-50 yards from the building?

As the conspiracy theory goes, this had to be planted or landed there when whatever hit the Pentagon exploded. Anyway, if you were tasked with the “set up”, why would you risk having someone carry this out there where all of these folks would have an opportunity to see you plant evidence?

The fact is you wouldn’t. Presumably the powers that be that asked you to stage the event had access to the inside if wreckage is “planted” there too…so why even allow anyone with a Nikon a chance to catch one of your perps in the act planting wreckage?

Obviously, you feel there was a cover-up and I guess no amount of evidence would flip you on that. But it violates the law of plausibility that you would A) stage so little wreckage when you “know” what a scene is supposed to look like and B) have your operatives plant it so far away from the building in broad daylight.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So the government has never planted evidence.....
Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?

Well, you answered that question yourself sort of. I invite you to consider this question. If Mr. Big came to you and said, “I want you to stage a scene of 757 airliner crash” what would be the first 6 or 7 things you’d “stage”? If it were me it would be the tires, the wings, luggage, bodies and probably some very descriptive pieces of personal memorabilia such as a name tag from a stewardess as the proverbial smoking gun. I think it’s safe to say that anyone asked to “stage” a crash site would do the same thing because you’re working from a script at that point and we’ve seen crash sites before. Again, never have we seen a crash site of a plane where the pilot was attempting to 1) hit a building and 2) max thrusted the engines to optimize damage.

Secondly, if you were told to stage the scene of a 757 airliner crash, why in the world would you put any wreckage 30-50 yards from the building?

As the conspiracy theory goes, this had to be planted or landed there when whatever hit the Pentagon exploded. Anyway, if you were tasked with the “set up”, why would you risk having someone carry this out there where all of these folks would have an opportunity to see you plant evidence?

The fact is you wouldn’t. Presumably the powers that be that asked you to stage the event had access to the inside if wreckage is “planted” there too…so why even allow anyone with a Nikon a chance to catch one of your perps in the act planting wreckage?

Obviously, you feel there was a cover-up and I guess no amount of evidence would flip you on that. But it violates the law of plausibility that you would A) stage so little wreckage when you “know” what a scene is supposed to look like and B) have your operatives plant it so far away from the building in broad daylight.

If you think this is damage caused by a 757 there's no hope for you.

If you think building seven collapsed because it caught fire you're a moron.

 

[candycorn]

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
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.
**

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

I find CIT’s explanation to be quite plausible,

Which is why your “movement” never got anywhere. Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony.

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Photo by A J

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

 

[candycorn]

So the government has never planted evidence.....
Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?

Well, you answered that question yourself sort of. I invite you to consider this question. If Mr. Big came to you and said, “I want you to stage a scene of 757 airliner crash” what would be the first 6 or 7 things you’d “stage”? If it were me it would be the tires, the wings, luggage, bodies and probably some very descriptive pieces of personal memorabilia such as a name tag from a stewardess as the proverbial smoking gun. I think it’s safe to say that anyone asked to “stage” a crash site would do the same thing because you’re working from a script at that point and we’ve seen crash sites before. Again, never have we seen a crash site of a plane where the pilot was attempting to 1) hit a building and 2) max thrusted the engines to optimize damage.

Secondly, if you were told to stage the scene of a 757 airliner crash, why in the world would you put any wreckage 30-50 yards from the building?

As the conspiracy theory goes, this had to be planted or landed there when whatever hit the Pentagon exploded. Anyway, if you were tasked with the “set up”, why would you risk having someone carry this out there where all of these folks would have an opportunity to see you plant evidence?

The fact is you wouldn’t. Presumably the powers that be that asked you to stage the event had access to the inside if wreckage is “planted” there too…so why even allow anyone with a Nikon a chance to catch one of your perps in the act planting wreckage?

Obviously, you feel there was a cover-up and I guess no amount of evidence would flip you on that. But it violates the law of plausibility that you would A) stage so little wreckage when you “know” what a scene is supposed to look like and B) have your operatives plant it so far away from the building in broad daylight.

If you think this is damage caused by a 757 there's no hope for you.
View attachment 80487

How was it supposed to look?

 

[candycorn]

In fact HereWeGoAgain, I realize it will do nothing but for what it’s worth; you can even see where the engines hit:

The generator on the right with the gash taken out of it (on fire) and the yellow circle high lighting the place where the port engine made contact with what looks like a helipad outside of the building.

But again, what was it supposed to look like???

 

[phoenyx]

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
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.
**

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

I find CIT’s explanation to be quite plausible,

Which is why your “movement” never got anywhere. Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony.

The physical evidence doesn't help your case either. Here's an excerpt of an article from Truth and Shadows, a site that I respect a lot...
**
The plane is alleged to have hit a newly renovated and reinforced part of the building that had only minimal staff present. Had any other part of the building been hit, thousands would have been killed. As it was, the death toll in the building was 125.

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact. Most windows were not even broken, although the upper floors did collapse about 20 minutes after the crash.

**There was no damage to either side of the 20-foot hole where the fuselage would have hit although there was a “hole” about 90 feet across at ground level – not wide enough to accommodate a plane with a 124-foot wingspan (As Massimo Mazzucco points out in September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, the plane is supposed to have hit at a roughly 42-degree angle, which would have extended the width of the contact betweeen the plane and the wall from 124 feet to 160 feet). There was no damage to the grass, which should have been gouged by the engines dragging on the ground.

All of this is physically impossible, plain and simple. The wings of a 757 can’t hit a concrete building at more than 500 mph without leaving a mark. And they certainly won’t be vaporized by exploding jet fuel.

There is NOT ONE piece of wreckage that has been positively tied to Flight 77. The engines, virtually indestructible, were not recovered, although it is claimed that an engine “core” was from one of the 757 engines. There were no bodies, no seats, no pieces of luggage. There were a couple of pieces of fuselage but they were big enough that one person could pick them up. There’s no proof it came from that plane.

Are you still willing to buy the idea that the plane was incinerated in the explosion? Can the energy exist to blow a plane into small bits of metal while simultaneously penetrating 310 feet into the Pentagon? The problem there is that photos of the damaged Pentagon clearly show offices with their side wall sheared off. Visible are wooden desks with computers on them and other office furniture. There’s even a wooden stool with an open book sitting on top of it just a foot or two from the ripped off wall. The heat was intense enough to vaporize the plane but not hot enough to set office furniture or books on fire.

The thing that seals the deal for me is just looking at the photos. Keep in mind the dimensions of the plane. And the opening in the building was about 75 feet wide after the upper floors collapsed, and about 90 feet at ground level (less than 20 where the fuselage would have hit).

Oh, I almost forgot. The Pentagon, one of the most secure buildings in the world, was hit supposedly without one clear image being captured on a security camera. According to theWashington Times, the heli-pad, which is very near where the impact happened, is under 24-hour surveillance. They also report that the FBI has admitted it has 83 different videos of the crash. But all that has been released are five non-sequential frames that are totally inconclusive.

The Times also reported that the FBI confiscated footage recorded by cameras at a nearby Sheraton hotel, and from the Citgo gas station right across the street within minutes of the crash. The gas station attendant told the newspaper that the video footage would surely have shown the impact...**

Source: How we know an airliner did not hit the Pentagon | Truth and Shadows

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Photo by A J

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???

Cruise missile.....no doubt about it.

Problem with the the cruise missle fantasy-

where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

So the government has never planted evidence.....
Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?

Well, you answered that question yourself sort of. I invite you to consider this question. If Mr. Big came to you and said, “I want you to stage a scene of 757 airliner crash” what would be the first 6 or 7 things you’d “stage”? If it were me it would be the tires, the wings, luggage, bodies and probably some very descriptive pieces of personal memorabilia such as a name tag from a stewardess as the proverbial smoking gun. I think it’s safe to say that anyone asked to “stage” a crash site would do the same thing because you’re working from a script at that point and we’ve seen crash sites before. Again, never have we seen a crash site of a plane where the pilot was attempting to 1) hit a building and 2) max thrusted the engines to optimize damage.

Secondly, if you were told to stage the scene of a 757 airliner crash, why in the world would you put any wreckage 30-50 yards from the building?

As the conspiracy theory goes, this had to be planted or landed there when whatever hit the Pentagon exploded. Anyway, if you were tasked with the “set up”, why would you risk having someone carry this out there where all of these folks would have an opportunity to see you plant evidence?

The fact is you wouldn’t. Presumably the powers that be that asked you to stage the event had access to the inside if wreckage is “planted” there too…so why even allow anyone with a Nikon a chance to catch one of your perps in the act planting wreckage?

Obviously, you feel there was a cover-up and I guess no amount of evidence would flip you on that. But it violates the law of plausibility that you would A) stage so little wreckage when you “know” what a scene is supposed to look like and B) have your operatives plant it so far away from the building in broad daylight.

If you think this is damage caused by a 757 there's no hope for you.
View attachment 80487
If you think building seven collapsed because it caught fire you're a moron.
View attachment 80488

 

[LaDexter]

where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?

Ask W, Netanyahu, Cheney, Rove, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or Hillary, because all the NeoCons know....

 

[BuckToothMoron]

where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?

Ask W, Netanyahu, Cheney, Rove, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or Hillary, because all the NeoCons know....

So you clearly don't. I bet you just hate people who point out the obvious failings in your fantasy. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's time to live in reality.

 

[phoenyx]

where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?

Ask W, Netanyahu, Cheney, Rove, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or Hillary, because all the NeoCons know....

So you clearly don't.

Invoking Rule #14 from Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress Truth:
**14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely**

Those us who don't believe one of the official narratives as to what happened on 9/11 have never claimed to have all the answers. But just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean that the official story is thus true by default. Notice I said "official narratives", not official narrative. That's because the official story doesn't even agree with -itself- on some key points, such as the flight path taken by the aircraft that approached the Pentagon...



Or for those who prefer technical points in text:
Technical Paper Outlining Anomolies Found in NTSB Data