What did hit the Pentagon?

[BBKing]

If it was written in the bible it would of been accepted without any argument.

Not by me, I'd like to point out.

[Stuartbe]

Nor me !

I wonder - is it only the us militery that have access to all the evidence ? Where is the report from the crash investigators ?

[BBKing]

I wonder - is it only the us militery that have access to all the evidence ? Where is the report from the crash investigators ?

That's a good question actually, the NTSB site merely says
"Please note: information regarding the investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 will be released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead investigative agency. The Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the FBI, as described in the September 13 Press Advisory."

So the investigation is being done by the FBI with NTSB help, which I suppose is logical because it's a criminal act rather than an aircraft crash, thus the course of events is better assessed by criminal investigators rather than air crash investigators.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh dear, another paranoid conspiracy theory based on, well, nothing, really.

Starting with a recording of Hitler isn't the greatest beginning, then going into a bunch of quotes from "eyewitnesses" who reportedly saw "a small aircraft" or a "missile" (like they're not distinguishable!) and then claiming that their "it wasn't Flight 77" theory is backed up because a bunch of security camera videos *haven't* been realeased hardly offers any credible proof.

For a slightly less hysterical (and somewhat more believable) opinion see: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I am usually not swayed by conspriracy theories but I have followed this one closely and I beleive the evidence puts the Pentagons turn of events into doubt.

I urge you to read the following three links. They are not sensationalist and are very, very good.

You might change your mind.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...temoins_en.htm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...le/trou_en.htm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...missile_en.htm

[JediMaster]

WOW...

Never seen any of these Images or sites B4.

I agree 100% that there are a LOT of unanswered questions.

Planes ?? NO... But what it was & by who we will NEVER know

File it next to JFK, Dianna & the rest of these cases (Jill Danda & more)

Any more images or Vids? The 225MB one failed on that site I would love more info

First of all it happen 1 hour later that the twin towers, next what else could it be?

What a pile of cr@p.

God bless America, land of the paranoid. Like all good conspiracy theories, it contradicts itself and uses those same contradictions as evidence of its credibility. For goodness sake, what do these people think it was? A small commuter jet or a missile? Or does the fact that so many 'eyewitness' stories contradict merely show how difficult it is to accurately recall something that happened so fast?

What a waste of webspace.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

First of all it happen 1 hour later that the twin towers, next what else could it be?

Who knows? but I doubt it was a passenger jet.

Originally Posted by Chris T

What a pile of cr@p.

God bless America, land of the paranoid.

Actually it's from a French site.

it contradicts itself and uses those same contradictions as evidence of its credibility

The official line contradicts itself too. I personally find the evidence compelling.

For goodness sake, what do these people think it was? A small commuter jet or a missile?

Unlikely to be a small jet. Did you see the photgraphs of the perfectly round hole that penetrated 3 rings of the building. A missile of some sort? possibly.

Doubtful to me that it would be a passenger jet could make such a hole. We are told by the Pentagon that the plane disintegrated on impact, yet we are to believe that the nose of the plane was strong enough to penetrate 3 rings of the building and form a perfectly round hole all the way through?

I find that most unlikely.

What a waste of webspace

In your opinion, I think it's very good.

OK, so how about a motive for this attack?

Look at the wider context here. On 9/11, we know for a fact that three airliners were hijacked by Islamist extremists. Two crashed into the World Trace Centre, watched by dozens of TV cameras. One crashed in a field, heard by several witnesses who were on the phone with passengers of that plane. A fourth airliner was also hijacked (unless anyone can explain what happened to Flight 77, which is still missing ) but because there is not the same weight of evidence surrounding it, there is room for the usual suspects to shout 'Government conspiracy!'. It is utterly ridiculous, especially on a day when we already know that three (count 'em) planes had already been hijacked with the intention of crashing them into high-status buildings.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

OK, so how about a motive for this attack?

Look at the wider context here. On 9/11, we know for a fact that three airliners were hijacked by Islamist extremists. Two crashed into the World Trace Centre, watched by dozens of TV cameras. One crashed in a field, heard by several witnesses who were on the phone with passengers of that plane. A fourth airliner was also hijacked (unless anyone can explain what happened to Flight 77, which is still missing ) but because there is not the same weight of evidence surrounding it, there is room for the usual suspects to shout 'Government conspiracy!'. It is utterly ridiculous, especially on a day when we already know that three (count 'em) planes had already been hijacked with the intention of crashing them into high-status buildings.

Not to mention the fact that it makes absolutely no sense that the government would want to cover up a missile/small jet attack. What are these people thinking? People in the government thinking it would be too embarrassing to admit to a missile attack, so they made up an attack with a large airliner, as this nicely coincided with other events on that day?

What utter rubbish...

[BBKing]

Doubtful to me that it would be a passenger jet could make such a hole. We are told by the Pentagon that the plane disintegrated on impact, yet we are to believe that the nose of the plane was strong enough to penetrate 3 rings of the building and form a perfectly round hole all the way through?

What do you expect an aircraft travelling at several hundred MPH colliding with a virtually immoveable object to do, bounce off? Disintegration sounds likely to me, based on what generally happens to planes in conjunction with solid objects.

The nose thing (and yes, I know the US authorities mentioned it first, they were stone wrong, too) is a total straw man - if one uses ones brains you get this:

1) there's a hole
2) the nose of an airliner colliding with a solid object is unlikely to be in a fit state to do anything afterwards.
3) something must have caused the hole
3) hang on, there are two energetic circular heavy solid objects hung off 757s travelling at 45 degrees to the outer wall that past accidents have proved take some stopping. To whit, the engines.

As mentioned earlier, one of the other sites on this subject is definitely erroneous when talking about turbofan engines.

I read those pages many moons ago and concluded the authors know very little about aircraft design and construction (probably as little as the press and most US government officials, which is why I don't trust any of them).

[Edited to sound a little less personal, wasn't intending to be]

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris T

OK, so how about a motive for this attack?

Look at the wider context here. On 9/11, we know for a fact that three airliners were hijacked by Islamist extremists. Two crashed into the World Trace Centre, watched by dozens of TV cameras. One crashed in a field, heard by several witnesses who were on the phone with passengers of that plane. A fourth airliner was also hijacked (unless anyone can explain what happened to Flight 77, which is still missing ) but because there is not the same weight of evidence surrounding it, there is room for the usual suspects to shout 'Government conspiracy!'. It is utterly ridiculous, especially on a day when we already know that three (count 'em) planes had already been hijacked with the intention of crashing them into high-status buildings.

Well I think the motive has already been established.

and you obviously point out that three (counting 1,2,3 yes 3) other planes were hijacked on the same day etc.

and because of these facts you accept what the US government tell you about what happened to the Pentagon when the evidence puts those turn of events into some doubt at the very least. You're a spin doctors dream.

What happened at the pentagon is worth questioning, and if there is some doubt that what happened there is different to what was told it should be questioned.

There is no doubt the Pentagon was targeted as part of a co-ordinated attack but targeted by what? I don't know.

But just becuase I don't know does not mean I have to accept what US officials are saying.

When the Pentagon was hit everybody immediately though it was by a plane. Two planes had hit the trade centre, one had crashed, what else could it be????

Once it was reported as a plane that's the story that they stuck with. What if what hit the Pentagon was something scary'er. A more sophisticated weapon. A weapon that could penetrate tens of metres of reinforced concrete. Wouldn't it be better to stick with the story of a plane, a credible story that every one would believe rather than admit the Pentagon was a victim of a sophisticated missile attack?

In regards to flight 77. Flight no.s and passenger manifests could easily be created.

When you look at the photographs I do not believe that a plane that has already hit the ground then into the building could make a hole like the one in photographs.

You believe what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by danielf

Not to mention the fact that it makes absolutely no sense that the government would want to cover up a missile/small jet attack. What are these people thinking? People in the government thinking it would be too embarrassing to admit to a missile attack, so they made up an attack with a large airliner, as this nicely coincided with other events on that day?

What utter rubbish...

These are the same people that think Dark Skies got cancelled because it was blowing the whistle on a genuine aliens-among-us cover-up.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I urge you to read the following three links. They are not sensationalist and are very, very good.

And I urge you to go back and read the link that I posted and the other comments where all of these points (which are, BTW, simply French re-hashes of American conspiracy sites) are addressed and explained.

Originally Posted by Chris T

These are the same people that think Dark Skies got cancelled because it was blowing the whistle on a genuine aliens-among-us cover-up.

You mean it *wasn't*? Damn...!!!

ADDENDUM: Anyway, it's a well known fact that programmes like Dark Skies, The X-Files et al are actually a cleverly designed psychological campaign to prepare us for the fact that the aliens are already here, but the government doesn't want to admit it outright because if people aren't innured to the subject by TV they might panic...!

<Grams: Twilight Zone Theme>