911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

Actually shit brains, it’s 3 someones. A blue and white striped shirt proves it was not a member of the military. As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

And of course, here we go again with me asking you a question and you answering it with posting a link to a FAQ. I’m growing weary of your antics shit brains so I’ll just assume you’re saying they were planted.

We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:

So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:

1. Wreckage outside the pentagon: Planted
2. Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted
3. Light Pole 1: Planted
4. Lloyd England’s cab: Staged
5. Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll? Never explained
6. Why the Perps would make him available for interviews? Never explained
7. Light Pole 2: Planted
8. Light Pole 3: Planted
9. Light Pole 4: Planted
10. Light Pole 5: Planted
11. Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Faked
12. Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion
13. Bodies of civilians found inside the Pentagon: Planted.

About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon. Not you guys.

Lets talk Phone calls.

Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked. This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Care to explain that?

 

[Faun]

Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical, even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.

And I, ofcourse, am supposed to just trust you on your judgement ? Sorry, but I won't be so accomodating as that. This is all a moot point anyway. Regardless of whether or not the debris in question was photographed at the Pentagon (something which I've seen no evidence for), all of the other factors make it clear that it would have to have been planted evidence.

Well you could convince me you're not crazy if you could post a single piece of evidence that every eyewitness was lying or wrong.

Look, in your world, it may be fine to ask people to prove they're not crazy just because they don't agree with your viewpoint, but it doesn't fly with me. You don't want to introduce any more witnesses (I dealt with the 3 you -did- provide) and you don't want to take a serious look at the ones that CIT has provided other than Terry Morin's. If you're not willing to give your reasons why you -disbelieve- the testimony of all of CIT's witnesses other than Terry Morin's, there's really not much point in this discussion is there? Perhaps you're just looking for an easy way out of this discussion. If that's the case, feel free to leave. You can tell yourself us truthers were being unreasonable, or whatever other reason you want to give yourself.

Or a single piece of evidence that DNA from the bodies recovered didn't actually match passengers recorded on flight #77's manifest.

Your main problem in this discussion is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the evidence we have been provided with by the government is highly suspect. The DNA evidence is a very good example. Let's put aside for the moment that there was no chain of custody that I know of with it. I'll quote an excerpt from an article on the subject that I picked up just now (it's so easy to find this information, you just have to know how to google)...
**But the two most pertinent questions and anomalies in regards to the Pentagon and the 'official story' the public has been fed have nothing to do with investigating grand conspiracies or tracking down mis-represented evidence. They have to do with unreasonable suspensions in basic logic. The first is the fact that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and irreconcilable narratives.

To be explicitly clear, this is what the public has been told: On one hand, in response to the complaint that there is no verifiable plane debris to positively ID Flight 77, the government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm in tact enough for positive identification. How is this possible? And why is no one asking this question and shining light on what should be a most distressing and absurd fabrication?**

Source: The Pentagon | 911hardfacts.com

Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

I've given quite a bit of evidence on that front, actually. Namely, the tons of evidence that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. I know you don't accept it at the moment though, so we can continue to go over it if you wish. I snipped out the rest of your message, it was mainly insults anyway.

You've presented no evidence other than a handful of witnesses who claim something that a hundred other witnesses did not claim; something which defies logic and the physical evidence. Oh, and by the way.... denials are not evidence. And denials are all you have. Some are quite delusional, like the two photos of the same Pentagon wall you think are different because the lighting is different. And you didn't deal with the witnesses I offered earlier.... you denied they saw what they said they saw. More denials.

As far as your claim that I gave you no reasons for why I dismissed the CIT witnesses... You're lying again.

Why do you keep lying if truth and reality were actually on your side?

In fact, I gave you multiple reasons.... most importantly, the field of debris rejects any notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon; and that is their claim. Secondly, Many of them never gave public interviews prior to CIT recording them, which they did many years after 9.11. Thirdly, their claims contradict all of the other witnesses who said they saw the plane flying up either Columbia Pike or 395.

Taking all of that into consideration leads me to conclude they are at best, wrong... or at worst, lying.

 

[Faun]

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?

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies.

Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

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.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Why did you just completely ignore what I said? Truth & Shadows portayed the 20 foot hole in the C-ring as though it were the entry point in the E-ring. That's a bald-faced lie. Not only did you repeat that bald-faced lie in this forum, you openly expressed your trust and respect for that organization.

An apology from you for trying to deceive the forum and a repudiation of Truth & Shadows is what I expected. Instead, you blatantly ignored my accusations that you repeated their lie and simply slithered onto something else.

 

[candycorn]

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

What would be quite investing was when our resident Twoofer said that a plane flying right over the Pentagon landed at Reagan—flew through an explosion which is really hard to do but then landed; seeing how they’d be flying in the opposite direction. Perhaps it was one of those airplanes with the backward wings????

Slap some AA paint on that puppy and you’ve got a cruise missile or 3rd plane or whatever CIT wants to call it apparently.

The hilarious thing (well, one of them) is that if you listen to other twoofers, they are appalled at CIT and this “flyover” theory. One such moron named Phil Jahan who claims that none of the events happened or something as equally stupid…said this:

Just got done reading your extremely harsh words against both me and the forum members here at the loose change forums. I left a reply there, my first in months, and the first time I have taken the time to search over there what people like you and Aldo the asshole speak about me and the great people at the forums here.
[omitted due to USMB rules]
Neither of you guys are welcome here, ever again, until you make complete and total retractions, declaring that the biggest reason that "Jayhan" didn't look into any of your "pet theories" was because Aldo the asshole kept coming here declaring himself and you the "motherfucking authorities" and that we, as a forum were nothing but asstard gumwads.... To have thought that I made peace with you two retards, and then to go to the loose change forums and see all your harsh words against both myself and all the very good and honorable people of this forums, nearly 7000 of them, made me want to puke.

 

[Faun]

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

What would be quite investing was when our resident Twoofer said that a plane flying right over the Pentagon landed at Reagan—flew through an explosion which is really hard to do but then landed; seeing how they’d be flying in the opposite direction. Perhaps it was one of those airplanes with the backward wings????

Slap some AA paint on that puppy and you’ve got a cruise missile or 3rd plane or whatever CIT wants to call it apparently.

The hilarious thing (well, one of them) is that if you listen to other twoofers, they are appalled at CIT and this “flyover” theory. One such moron named Phil Jahan who claims that none of the events happened or something as equally stupid…said this:

Just got done reading your extremely harsh words against both me and the forum members here at the loose change forums. I left a reply there, my first in months, and the first time I have taken the time to search over there what people like you and Aldo the asshole speak about me and the great people at the forums here.
[omitted due to USMB rules]
Neither of you guys are welcome here, ever again, until you make complete and total retractions, declaring that the biggest reason that "Jayhan" didn't look into any of your "pet theories" was because Aldo the asshole kept coming here declaring himself and you the "motherfucking authorities" and that we, as a forum were nothing but asstard gumwads.... To have thought that I made peace with you two retards, and then to go to the loose change forums and see all your harsh words against both myself and all the very good and honorable people of this forums, nearly 7000 of them, made me want to puke.

I know there were a couple of witnesses who said they saw a second plane. A prop plane following a jet airliner. But I'm not aware of a single witness claiming they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon. Meanwhile, there's a slew of witnesses who said they saw a jet fly directly into it. Which matches the videos... which matches the lamp posts... which matches Lloyd England... which matches the debris found... which matches the direction of the debris.

 

[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.

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

Maybe the Sugar Plum fairy took the plane to the land of Cottoncandy. I can't image the stuff you see at night when you close your eyes, such vivid imagination.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

Actually shit brains, it’s 3 someones. A blue and white striped shirt proves it was not a member of the military. As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

And of course, here we go again with me asking you a question and you answering it with posting a link to a FAQ. I’m growing weary of your antics shit brains so I’ll just assume you’re saying they were planted.

We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:

So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:

1. Wreckage outside the pentagon: Planted
2. Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted
3. Light Pole 1: Planted
4. Lloyd England’s cab: Staged
5. Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll? Never explained
6. Why the Perps would make him available for interviews? Never explained
7. Light Pole 2: Planted
8. Light Pole 3: Planted
9. Light Pole 4: Planted
10. Light Pole 5: Planted
11. Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Faked
12. Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion
13. Bodies of civilians found inside the Pentagon: Planted.

About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon. Not you guys.

Lets talk Phone calls.

Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked. This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Care to explain that?

I just stumbled on to this thread. I thought all the 911 deniers had retired to a cabin in northern Idaho, and were prepping for a zombie invasion. But since I am new, would one of you guys tell me your theory on who and why is responsible for 911?

 

[candycorn]

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

What would be quite investing was when our resident Twoofer said that a plane flying right over the Pentagon landed at Reagan—flew through an explosion which is really hard to do but then landed; seeing how they’d be flying in the opposite direction. Perhaps it was one of those airplanes with the backward wings????

Slap some AA paint on that puppy and you’ve got a cruise missile or 3rd plane or whatever CIT wants to call it apparently.

The hilarious thing (well, one of them) is that if you listen to other twoofers, they are appalled at CIT and this “flyover” theory. One such moron named Phil Jahan who claims that none of the events happened or something as equally stupid…said this:

Just got done reading your extremely harsh words against both me and the forum members here at the loose change forums. I left a reply there, my first in months, and the first time I have taken the time to search over there what people like you and Aldo the asshole speak about me and the great people at the forums here.
[omitted due to USMB rules]
Neither of you guys are welcome here, ever again, until you make complete and total retractions, declaring that the biggest reason that "Jayhan" didn't look into any of your "pet theories" was because Aldo the asshole kept coming here declaring himself and you the "motherfucking authorities" and that we, as a forum were nothing but asstard gumwads.... To have thought that I made peace with you two retards, and then to go to the loose change forums and see all your harsh words against both myself and all the very good and honorable people of this forums, nearly 7000 of them, made me want to puke.

I know there were a couple of witnesses who said they saw a second plane. A prop plane following a jet airliner. But I'm not aware of a single witness claiming they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon. Meanwhile, there's a slew of witnesses who said they saw a jet fly directly into it. Which matches the videos... which matches the lamp posts... which matches Lloyd England... which matches the debris found... which matches the direction of the debris.

I imagine they saw lots of planes given they are in DC. We were at National Harbor a few months back riding the large ferris wheel after a dinner at McCormick & Schmicks…musta been 40 planes coming and going.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

What would be quite investing was when our resident Twoofer said that a plane flying right over the Pentagon landed at Reagan—flew through an explosion which is really hard to do but then landed; seeing how they’d be flying in the opposite direction. Perhaps it was one of those airplanes with the backward wings????

Slap some AA paint on that puppy and you’ve got a cruise missile or 3rd plane or whatever CIT wants to call it apparently.

The hilarious thing (well, one of them) is that if you listen to other twoofers, they are appalled at CIT and this “flyover” theory. One such moron named Phil Jahan who claims that none of the events happened or something as equally stupid…said this:

Just got done reading your extremely harsh words against both me and the forum members here at the loose change forums. I left a reply there, my first in months, and the first time I have taken the time to search over there what people like you and Aldo the asshole speak about me and the great people at the forums here.
[omitted due to USMB rules]
Neither of you guys are welcome here, ever again, until you make complete and total retractions, declaring that the biggest reason that "Jayhan" didn't look into any of your "pet theories" was because Aldo the asshole kept coming here declaring himself and you the "motherfucking authorities" and that we, as a forum were nothing but asstard gumwads.... To have thought that I made peace with you two retards, and then to go to the loose change forums and see all your harsh words against both myself and all the very good and honorable people of this forums, nearly 7000 of them, made me want to puke.

I know there were a couple of witnesses who said they saw a second plane. A prop plane following a jet airliner. But I'm not aware of a single witness claiming they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon. Meanwhile, there's a slew of witnesses who said they saw a jet fly directly into it. Which matches the videos... which matches the lamp posts... which matches Lloyd England... which matches the debris found... which matches the direction of the debris.

I imagine they saw lots of planes given they are in DC. We were at National Harbor a few months back riding the large ferris wheel after a dinner at McCormick & Schmicks…musta been 40 planes coming and going.

Hmmmm, that is very suspicious, you at National Harbor just 15 years after 911, and riding the Ferris wheel....Aha...gotcha, it was Candycorn who planned and carried out the whole thing, and now we have rock solid, undeniable proof!

 

[candycorn]

Rebuttal To CIT Claims About What 'Did Not' Hit The Pentagon

They got me!

 

[SAYIT]

...Twoofers reject reality. They literally invent any nonsense that comes to mind, despite any supporting evidence and dismiss actual evidence as fake. And since 100% of the evidence we review is either photographic or video, it's regrettably too easy to dismiss ALL evidence as being tampered with. But hey, if Twoofers want to reside within their own demented bubble of delusion, all the rest of us can do is shake our collective heads and laugh at them.

Which begs the obvious and most fundamental question of the entire (and long defunct) 9/11 CT Movement ... WHY?

Why do these people persist when their facts and theories have been so thoroughly and routinely debunked?
Why do they continue to spew the same silly half-truths and outright fabrications?

It is legit to pick at the NIST report but a whole 'nuther thing to post obviously bogus pix and facts in a lame attempt to avoid admitting their life's focus was nuttin but a wabbit hole.

I, for one, have dealt with enough of them to know the vast majority of those who still remain - the stragglers and clean-up crew - have malicious and/or nefarious agendas they will not or can not abandon and that arguing the details of 9/11 with them is like playing Whac-A-Mole.

Perhaps it is as simple as the general dissatisfaction with livin' in the USA of so many Trumpettes or that expressed by LaLaDexter's constant charge of "The CHOSEN" conspiracy or 9/11'sJob (and Pauli's and a dozen other knuckle-draggers) claim that "the Jooo did it!"

I guess it doesn't really matter why ... it is clear that even when faced with the point-by-point deconstruction of their "cause" they just can't let go.

I believe it is best explained by the words of former 9/11 CT "royalty" Charlie Veitch, once one of Britain’s leading conspiracy theorists, a friend of David Icke and Alex Jones and a 9/11 'truther':

“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy [theory] that it was a controlled demolition,”
“This [letting go] is hard, you know, because I’ve hung on to these ideas for years now,”
“Ego made me vulnerable.”
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

 

[SAYIT]

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?

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies. Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

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.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

So why do you Twoofers lie if facts and reality were indeed on your side?

So I googled 'Truth & Shadows' (and it's editor Craig McKee) and found it to be an obscure blog operated by even more obscure contributors. That anyone would publicly admit to finding it a site they "respect a lot" says much about the need of that individual to plumb the fetid bowels of the Internet to find "validation" for their preconceived conclusions.

Onebornfree's 9/11 Research Review: Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows" Blog: Yet Another Fake 9/11 Photo!

 

[candycorn]

...Twoofers reject reality. They literally invent any nonsense that comes to mind, despite any supporting evidence and dismiss actual evidence as fake. And since 100% of the evidence we review is either photographic or video, it's regrettably too easy to dismiss ALL evidence as being tampered with. But hey, if Twoofers want to reside within their own demented bubble of delusion, all the rest of us can do is shake our collective heads and laugh at them.

Which begs the obvious and most fundamental question of the entire (and long defunct) 9/11 CT Movement ... WHY?

Why do these people persist when their facts and theories have been so thoroughly and routinely debunked?
Why do they continue to spew the same silly half-truths and outright fabrications?

It is legit to pick at the NIST report but a whole 'nuther thing to post obviously bogus pix and facts in a lame attempt to avoid admitting their life's focus was nuttin but a wabbit hole.

I, for one, have dealt with enough of them to know the vast majority of those who still remain - the stragglers and clean-up crew - have malicious and/or nefarious agendas they will not or can not abandon and that arguing the details of 9/11 with them is like playing Whac-A-Mole.

Perhaps it is as simple as the general dissatisfaction with livin' in the USA of so many Trumpettes or that expressed by LaLaDexter's constant charge of "The CHOSEN" conspiracy or 9/11'sJob (and Pauli's and a dozen other knuckle-draggers) claim that "the Jooo did it!"

I guess it doesn't really matter why ... it is clear that even when faced with the point-by-point deconstruction of their "cause" they just can't let go.

I believe it is best explained by the words of former 9/11 CT "royalty" Charlie Veitch, once one of Britain’s leading conspiracy theorists, a friend of David Icke and Alex Jones and a 9/11 'truther':

“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy [theory] that it was a controlled demolition,”
“This [letting go] is hard, you know, because I’ve hung on to these ideas for years now,”
“Ego made me vulnerable.”
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

I think it’s to get attention they can’t garner in real life. I mean, have you ever met a truly serious conspiracy theorist who was anything other than a loon? They had one of the moon landing deniers who had some 30 years at NASA or whatever it was. They went down his resume and it was impressive. The next clip showed his home in the New Mexico desert which was a trailer that had lawn furniture in it.

 

[wihosa]

Ok, I'm a no planer, but this really is a no brainer. Let's examine the facts.
Anyone who payed attention during high school physics will remember Newtons Third Law; For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that in a collision between two objects both receive equal impact force, at which point it becomes a test of material strength. Guess what, steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

An object of less density and less mass can never penetrate an object of greater density and greater mass.

Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel.

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.

I know it's hard to come to grips with the fact that we were duped, but the whole event was a staged fake.

THERE WERE NO PLANES!

 

[wihosa]

This is just one of the impossibilities that happened on 911. How about the fact the buildings turned to dust before they hit the ground. Virtually no items used by office workers were recovered from ground zero. No desks, no computers, no chairs, no lamps, no filing cabinets, no sinks or toilets, no phones, no lamps. There should have been hundreds of these, crushed maybe but still recognizable. They weren't there. Neither were 1500 people, not even enough for DNA matching. Curiously little bits of people were found all around the area even on top of neighboring buildings. Pieces smaller than a finger nail. From an accidental collapse? Ridiculous, you have to put on your blinders to believe this.

 

[wihosa]

Don't forget that at the time they were built the Twin Towers were literally the strongest buildings ever built. The idea that they could be knocked down by the comparative equivalent of a mosquito strike is ( this is for you Say It) silly!

 

[candycorn]

This is just one of the impossibilities that happened on 911. How about the fact the buildings turned to dust before they hit the ground. Virtually no items used by office workers were recovered from ground zero. No desks, no computers, no chairs, no lamps, no filing cabinets, no sinks or toilets, no phones, no lamps. There should have been hundreds of these, crushed maybe but still recognizable. They weren't there. Neither were 1500 people, not even enough for DNA matching. Curiously little bits of people were found all around the area even on top of neighboring buildings. Pieces smaller than a finger nail. From an accidental collapse? Ridiculous, you have to put on your blinders to believe this.

Bodies turn to ash when they are burned. Ash, being light is capable of spreading across entire states if elevated enough.

 

[Faun]

Ok, I'm a no planer, but this really is a no brainer. Let's examine the facts.
Anyone who payed attention during high school physics will remember Newtons Third Law; For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that in a collision between two objects both receive equal impact force, at which point it becomes a test of material strength. Guess what, steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

An object of less density and less mass can never penetrate an object of greater density and greater mass.

Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel.

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.

I know it's hard to come to grips with the fact that we were duped, but the whole event was a staged fake.

THERE WERE NO PLANES!

And everybody watching it live... what... all hallucinated the same thing at the same time?

 

[wihosa]

So a fire in the building turned it into an incinerator? After a body is cremated there are still bones that didn't burn, which contain DNA. There was not even DNA for 1500 people.
Body parts, very small body parts were found, not ash.

 

[hadit]

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.

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.