A cruise missile slammed into the Pentagon on 911

Martin Timothy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWj-dUOWNzI
Reporter says a cruise missile struck the building!

http://disclose.tv/viewVideo.php?video_id=44286

The missile strike which must have come from high level classified sources, is at 1 minute 09 seconds of the above 3m 42s video, which also has footage of a cruise missile in American Airlines livery being loaded onto a B52 Bomber!



Another version of the same photo without the AA paint, turned up in a 2003 Joe Vialls story titled..

CIA False Flag Attack on Kuwaiti Shopping Mall
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mi...showtopic=29892

The bystander's eyes in the upper shot have been blacked over proving the photo has been shopped, however it could have been done to confuse the fact that the AA paint has been shopped out of the lower shot! As well the actual missile that hit the building had a pointier nose than the one above, which does however illustrate that "they" have no qualms about disguising attack drones and missiles as civilian aircraft!

Looks like the cruiser had a device that homed in on the laser spot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE

Only minutes after the strike, a television reporter says there is nothing to indicate a plane struck the Pentagon.



The highlighted object in the small pic, which is the first frame in the only officially released footage of the Pentagon strike, resembles the nosecone on the cruiser and the streaking object in the moving video above!



Above is a shot of an aerial launch of a Russian CH 55 cruise missile, from a TU 160 aircraft.


Pentacon.com

Now we must consider whether the plane climbing above the Pentagon, similarly launched the missile that hit that building.



It seems it did, a cruise missile on the test range.. looks exactly like the Pentagon strike.



Above N644AA2 Flght 77, the aircraft "they" say struck the building.


Pentacon.com

This is the latest mystery plane, it is thought to be the same aircraft seen climbing over the Pentagon during its approach!



Above, from Pentacon.com, a computer animation of the flyover compiled from the testimony of numerous eye witnesses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III, former head of all intelligence says: "I do know that the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft, no way, the press is saying what they have been told to say, the stories about 9/11 are false."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c

911 Commission member says missile strike, then quickly corrects himself.



The previous mystery plane pictured over the White House at 9:44 am on 11 September 2001, was a highly modified E-4B Boeing 747 operated by the National Airborne Operations Center.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld7fn2qykv4

This video shows no plane impact accompanied the explosion!

patrickk

This footage with witness reports proves finally once and for all the commercial plane did not crash into Pentagon but rather flew over and either bomb or missile caused explosion .But this video concentrates on witness reports and key witness the taxi driver with pole number 1 which he even claims off camera says attack was planned .It would be funny only this attack on 9/11 was not funny many people died innocently .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&feature=player_embedded

Di0genes

patrickk wrote: »

This footage with witness reports proves finally once and for all the commercial plane did not crash into Pentagon but rather flew over and either bomb or missile caused explosion .But this video concentrates on witness reports and key witness the taxi driver with pole number 1 which he even claims off camera says attack was planned .It would be funny only this attack on 9/11 was not funny many people died innocently .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&feature=player_embedded

As has been pointed out already.


Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

fontanalis

Di0genes wrote: »

As has been pointed out already.


Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)

Maybe it was a missile with a hologram disguising it?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/your_friday_dose_of_woo_and_now_for_some.php

patrickk

Di0genes wrote: »

As has been pointed out already.


Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)

Very impressive listing but fact is there are police officers in this youtube video who all are 100% sure they saw commercial flight go north on flight path of Citgo station and one police officer in south park saw a commerical flight not fighter jet go over Pentagon and over his head in south park.Also these 3 officers have been told to not talk to media since these interviews took place especially roosevelt cop in south park on the opposite side of explosion zone of pentagon.I would call that very interesting indeed.If not interesting it is convenient for the official line .

Di0genes

patrickk wrote: »

Very impressive listing but fact is there are police officers in this youtube video who all are 100% sure they saw commercial flight go north on flight path of Citgo station and one police officer in south park saw a commerical flight not fighter jet go over Pentagon and over his head in south park.Also these 3 officers have been told to not talk to media since these interviews took place especially roosevelt cop in south park on the opposite side of explosion zone of pentagon.I would call that very interesting indeed.If not interesting it is convenient for the official line .

Yeah I'm more than familiar with the pentaconned team.

It was just after 9:30 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and Walter, then a senior correspondent for USA Today Live, the newspaper's television division, was stuck in traffic across the street from the Pentagon, listening to National Public Radio updates about the terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center earlier that morning. He knew that if he didn't reach work soon, somebody else would get the choice assignment of flying to New York to cover the deadliest sneak attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. "I was getting upset because I was stuck," Walter says.
He rolled down a window to get some fresh air. That's when he noticed the American Airlines passenger jet arcing down from the sky. "I saw the jet bank and watched as it dove down toward the Pentagon. . . . I saw it crash," he recalls. "It exploded. The wings folded back, and it went right into the Pentagon. All the people around me started panicking, and when everyone said it hit the Pentagon, it registered that it was another terrorist attack."
Walter ran out of his car and waited for a USA Today photographer to show up to take pictures. Scattered pieces of wreckage lay strewn across the lawn and several light poles had been knocked down by the jet in a diagonal line pointing to the smoldering southwest wall of the building. "I saw pieces of the wreckage," he says. "There were people taking pictures of themselves with pieces of the wreckage. The next morning, I was interviewed by all the network shows."
Those interviews made Walter probably the most well-known eyewitness to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, which is why, a little more than five years later, in November 2006, he found himself hosting a barbecue for a group of eager young men who were making Loose Change, a documentary about the terrorist attacks. After getting a telephone call from a self-described 9/11 researcher named Russell Pickering, Walter invited Pickering and Dylan Avery, the film's director, to his house in Fairfax, Virginia.
They showed up with a couple of other people Walter had never spoken with: Craig Ranke, a fast talker with wild eyes, and Aldo Marquis, a heavyset guy who didn't talk much. The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation.
That was weird, he thought. And increasingly, so was the conversation itself. Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn't listen to anything that contradicted this notion.
"I understand why people have certain feelings about this government," Walter says. "There are things this administration did that I'm not pleased with, but facts are facts. I was on the road that day and saw what I saw. The plane was in my line of sight. You could see the 'AA' on the tail. You knew it was American Airlines."
Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios.
"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."

Unfortunately, their film, The PentaCon, doesn't provide any evidence of this. What it does show is a series of interviews Ranke and Marquis have filmed over the past few years on location in Arlington, Virginia, usually within a stone's throw of the Pentagon building. They've interviewed Pentagon police officers, journalists, gas-station employees, local residents, a boat captain and several Arlington National Cemetery gravediggers, all of whom believe they witnessed an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.









The fact that all those eyewitnesses and many more believe they saw the jet hit the Pentagon—which happens to be both the official version of what happened that day as well as the accepted truth among most conspiracy theorists—doesn't bother Ranke and Marquis.

If you actually watch the video and listen to the witness statements none of the people interviewed believe anything other than United 77 hit the Penatgon.

Where some might find contradictory eyewitness accounts a normal outcome of an intense, traumatic event, Marquis and Ranke view any eyewitness statement placing the plane on the north side of the gas station as clear evidence that the NTSB data is phony and further proof that the military was behind 9/11. They seized on Lagasse's e-mail as a smoking gun. Marquis and Ranke interviewed the manager of the gas station while Avery and Pickering filmed background shots of the Pentagon from a small hill next to the gas station. The manager claimed that one of her employees, Robert Turcios, had also seen the plane on the north side of the station. Marquis and Ranke couldn't believe their ears.

In the clip, Lagasse also makes repeated references to the fact that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon—and didn't see any plane fly away from the area. When reached at the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA)—the official name of the Pentagon police agency, where he's now a lieutenant—Lagasse groaned when he heard the names Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis and said he couldn't comment without permission from a press officer.
Chris Layman, a PFPA spokesman, said the agency now prohibits officers from speaking directly to the media, but he sent the Weekly a brief, written statement saying the Pentagon "was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:37 a.m., killing all 64 passengers and crew and 15 Pentagon employees," that the event was "witnessed by hundreds of people," and while some "have their own theories," the "facts have been verified and are clear."
Marquis and Ranke also interviewed several Arlington National Cemetery employees after receiving permission to bring cameras to the facility. The cemetery is next to the Pentagon. In footage in The PentaCon, several employees state the plane was flying on the north side of the CITGO gas station. More important, all of them—who without exception believe the plane struck the Pentagon—claim the plane started to bank in the sky just before they saw the explosion. To the filmmakers, that banking motion, along with the plane's location north of the CITGO station, proves that the aircraft actually flew over the Pentagon, not into it.
The Researcher's Edition of The PentaConalso includes an interview with Keith Wheelhouse, who was at Arlington National Cemetery on 9/11 to bury his brother-in-law. In the interview, Wheelhouse tells Marquis and Ranke that he saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. He also claims to have seen a second plane that seemed to be shadowing the first one. But Marquis and Ranke apparently don't believe Wheelhouse saw the crash because, their film notes, a line of trees partially obscures the view of the building from the location where he claimed to have been standing.
Another witness Marquis and Ranke suspect is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign to trick people into thinking the plane that actually flew over the building at the precise moment someone ignited an explosion was actually a second plane shadowing the phantom American Airlines jet.
USA Todayeditor Joel Sucherman backs the second-plane claim and also appears in The PentaCon. "I'm very confident that what I saw was a jet passenger airplane, silver, the 'AA' on the tail," he says, adding that he also saw a second plane that was "much higher in the sky than the passenger jet was."
Also included in the film is a tape-recorded telephone call with USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan. "Yeah, there was another plane off in the distance," Narayanan says. "It was a jet; it was definitely a jet."
* * *

How witnesses who saw a second plane high in the skies above the Pentagon could possibly be part of a conspiracy to fool the public into thinking that a plane that nobody saw fly over the Pentagon actually crashed into a building is a question that is as ridiculously convoluted and inherently illogical as the very theory embraced by Marquis and Ranke. In fact, other than a few interesting interviews with people who saw a plane fly on one side of a gas station when the official data places it on the other, ThePentaCon includes no evidence of anything whatsoever, just a lot of questions and innuendo set to an ominous hip-hop beat.

Among the "suspicious coincidences" that Ranke and Marquis have "exposed," none is as instructive as the fact that several USA Today employees—Walter, Sucherman and Narayanan, to name a few—rank among the "supposed" eyewitnesses to the Pentagon plane crash. The obvious fact that so many USA Today workers were near the Pentagon that morning because they drive past the building on their way to work every morning is something that apparently doesn't impress the Citizen Investigation Team.

http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/1


A pair of delusional conceited idiots.

Dude111

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE PAID WITNESSES?? (I reckon almost all of them)

thebiglad

Dude111 wrote: »

HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE PAID WITNESSES?? (I reckon almost all of them)

Perhaps someone should check whether all 104 have since died in suspicious circumstances.

Wouldn't be a cover up with 104 potential leaks able to walk around:p

fontanalis

Dude111 wrote: »

HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE PAID WITNESSES?? (I reckon almost all of them)

I "reckon" you should go into crime fighting. Old murders would be solved in an instant.

humanji

A little less of the sarky comments, please.

patrickk

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah I'm more than familiar with the pentaconned team.








If you actually watch the video and listen to the witness statements none of the people interviewed believe anything other than United 77 hit the Penatgon.







http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/1


A pair of delusional conceited idiots.

they might have believed it hit the pentagon but didnt see it hit because they had natural reaction of turning their back on Pentagon and run away in those last few seconds .The irrefutable witness is police officer in the south park who he said defintely saw a commercial liner just fly over the pentagon noone can take that witness apart .All it takes sometimes in life is one witness to seal an argument and that police officer is only one who has come forward with that sighting .I doubt if he was seeing things very hard to mix up a fighter get with a commerical airline slight bit bigger I would think .

seannash

Martin Timothy wrote: »

Only minutes after the strike, a television reporter says there is nothing to indicate a plane struck the Pentagon.

i really hate when people throw this out there.what you watched was an edited version of the full report.

he was reporting on the claim of an eye witness saw it land short of the pentagon.


here is the full report which shows the full context of the report

early in the report he says he saw alot of debris too.

Di0genes

patrickk wrote: »

they might have believed it hit the pentagon but didnt see it hit because they had natural reaction of turning their back on Pentagon and run away in those last few seconds .

Thats pure speculation on your part.

The irrefutable witness is police officer in the south park who he said defintely saw a commercial liner just fly over the pentagon noone can take that witness apart .

Except er the police officer himself.

From the article quoted wrote:

In the clip, Lagasse also makes repeated references to the fact that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon—

All it takes sometimes in life is one witness to seal an argument

So all the witnesses are wrong except the one that agrees with you and even he's wrong.

and that police officer is only one who has come forward with that sighting .I doubt if he was seeing things very hard to mix up a fighter get with a commerical airline slight bit bigger I would think .

Yeah. Because the plane flew so low it clipped light posts over an eiht lane freeway packed with morning commuters.

Hence we know it was a 737




fighter jets don't have the wing span of a 737 so it could not have done the damage created by United 77.

humanji

patrickk wrote: »

they might have believed it hit the pentagon but didnt see it hit because they had natural reaction of turning their back on Pentagon and run away in those last few seconds .The irrefutable witness is police officer in the south park who he said defintely saw a commercial liner just fly over the pentagon noone can take that witness apart .All it takes sometimes in life is one witness to seal an argument and that police officer is only one who has come forward with that sighting .I doubt if he was seeing things very hard to mix up a fighter get with a commerical airline slight bit bigger I would think .

That's a bit of an odd conclusion. Lots of people say they say the plane hit, but can't be trusted. 1 says he saw that it didn't hit and must be telling the truth. Why is is more likely that over 100 people are lying/wrong, and 1 must telling the truth?

caseyann

humanji wrote: »

That's a bit of an odd conclusion. Lots of people say they say the plane hit, but can't be trusted. 1 says he saw that it didn't hit and must be telling the truth. Why is is more likely that over 100 people are lying/wrong, and 1 must telling the truth?

100 are likely to be either bought off or scared off,while always will be one who wont

Di0genes

caseyann wrote: »

100 are likely to be either bought off or scared off,while always will be one who wont

You mean the one who publicly stated in the interview he thought a plane hit the pentagon. Doh!

TalkieWalkie

Here is the truth.. flightpath, poles, the lot. Other 7 parts on YT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk

Or Full 121 minutes. 200,000 views in 15 or so days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

PirateShampoo

That video is completely flawed.

Few issues off the top of my head.

1, it compares non comparable crashes as an example for the pentagon crash. How is a aircraft that skidded off a run way comparable to 1 that slammed into a building.

2, have you any idea how much metal is in a aircraft engine? Its a jet engine there is hardly any weight in them yet tries to say that they didn't cause enough damage. Of course they didn't, they would of disintegrated on impact.

PirateShampoo

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Or Full 121 minutes. 200,000 views in 15 or so days

July 15 2009

TalkieWalkie

PirateShampoo wrote: »

That video is completely flawed.

Few issues off the top of my head.

1, it compares non comparable crashes as an example for the pentagon crash. How is a aircraft that skidded off a run way comparable to 1 that slammed into a building.

2, have you any idea how much metal is in a aircraft engine? Its a jet engine there is hardly any weight in them yet tries to say that they didn't cause enough damage. Of course they didn't, they would of disintegrated on impact.

A 121 minute is "completely flawed" because of your 2 flawed points ? lmfao

PirateShampoo

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

A 121 minute is "completely flawed" because of your 2 flawed points ? lmfao

Yes, if he is selling me bull**** in the first 5 mins then why would i continue to watch the other 116 minutes?

TalkieWalkie

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Yes, if he is selling me bull**** in the first 5 mins then why would i continue to watch the other 116 minutes?

Best stick to the unflawed official version then:rolleyes:

rameire

everything is flawed as its only 81 min.

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Best stick to the unflawed official version then:rolleyes:

Perhaps as a courtesy you could lay out what you feel are the flaws in the United 77 crashes into the pentagon. Not (sic) "unflawed" just the flaws.

Please don't link up yet another video, but please explain exactly what you feel are the flaws in the "official" version.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

(sic) "unflawed"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unflawed

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unflawed

The word Talkie Walkie is looking for is "flawless".

Perhaps instead of engaging in tedious pedantry you could actually point out the "flaws" in the idea that United 77 hit the pentagon.

That'd require you to up your game from insinuations about jews though I suppose.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

The word Talkie Walkie is looking for is "flawless".

Unflawed and flawless mean the same thing.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Perhaps as a courtesy you could lay out what you feel are the flaws in the United 77 crashes into the pentagon. Not (sic) "unflawed" just the flaws.

Please don't link up yet another video, but please explain exactly what you feel are the flaws in the "official" version.

I am not out to convince anyone of what I think happened, I have given up on that. And that goes for all CT's I am just here to share information for all of us to benefit and all hopefully arrive at the truth. As you asked so nicely though, I'll give my thoughts one more time.

It is so blatantly obvious to me it was an inside job and the main reason for this is that history does indeed repeat itself. It's happened before and will inevitably happen again.
Avoiding everything else that happened that day.... Take a look at the thread on American false flag wars, most if not all wars/invasions America has ever been involved in have been false flag and if you don't agree with that FACT then you must at least agree to some of them as they are common knowledge. We know very well what they are capable of
Look at what happened since 911, the invasions of Afgan and Iraq all based on more lies that have been proven to be lies, again and again. Resulting in the slaughter of millions of innocent lives !!

Would you suggest they they are capable of doing something like this but the evidence suggests that they didn't do it this time ? :rolleyes:

Can you honestly say you take the word of or trust the Elites "official version" of anything, knowing what they are capable from history ?

Obviously the impact hole, 16 feet across, it's to small, no impact marks from the wings or engines or vertical stabilizer and no drag marks on the ground from the belly of the plane or the engines.
These points alone should cause everyone to question the original version.

Why would they not shoot down a plane that was heading toward the pentagon ? (please don't give me the answer that you hears from the proven liars).

Why don't they release the footage from the plane hitting the pentagon ? again.. (please don't give me the answer that you hears from the proven liars)

We know the part that the part of the pentagon that was hit was conveniently under construction at the time, meaning there far less staff in that area at the time. Isn't that nice... My point being, It would have been simple to place parts of a plane inside that part of the building prior to the missile striking.


You posted something on page 1 about 140 witnesses this that and the other. Well, where are they ? it's just words, excel or not.
This video I posted a while ago contains actual witness, police men, pilots etc making their statements on film. Many individuals who don't know each other and all their versions are the same.

Why not watch it ? How can you make an informed judgement without looking at all the evidence ???

The simple answer is... you cant, and you shouldnt try.

I find it hard to believe that you come here only to try debunk some of these theories. If that were the fact.. I would think it quite sad.
No, you are here for truth but the truth seems so scary to you so you are desperately trying to come up with ways to avoid facing up to it which is quite sad too but at least you are on the right path.

Good luck

Unflawlessness

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Obviously the impact hole, 16 feet across, it's to small, no impact marks from the wings or engines or vertical stabilizer and no drag marks on the ground from the belly of the plane or the engines.

There are. One wing even hit a generator on the lawn outside the pentagon.

Why would they not shoot down a plane that was heading toward the pentagon ? (please don't give me the answer that you hears from the proven liars).

How? The Pentagon has been equipped with missile and anti aircraft defences exactly twice. During the Cuban Missile Crisis and on the anniversary of 9/11 on 09/11/02.

Why don't they release the footage from the plane hitting the pentagon ? again.. (please don't give me the answer that you hears from the proven liars)

What footage? Why exactly are you convinced the footage would have contained footage of the plan.

We know the part that the part of the pentagon that was hit was conveniently under construction at the time, meaning there far less staff in that area at the time. Isn't that nice...

What are the odds of them hitting that side?Ohhhh say one in five?

My point being, It would have been simple to place parts of a plane inside that part of the building prior to the missile striking.

So they blew up the plane. Before 9/11 And then painstakingly placed debris, body parts, DNA evidence etc, around the building and none of the thousands of people who work in the building didn't notice.

You posted something on page 1 about 140 witnesses this that and the other. Well, where are they ? it's just words, excel or not.

The document links to the original sources. Indeed theres another witness at least a friend of mind e-mailed me on 12/01 she was stuck on traffic and witnessed the plane crash.

Do you understand how would it work? How could they fake a 737 flying across a 8 lane freeway at 9am?

This video I posted a while ago contains actual witness, police men, pilots etc making their statements on film. Many individuals who don't know each other and all their versions are the same.

All of whom think a plane hit the pentagon, miss that part?

Why not watch it ? How can you make an informed judgement without looking at all the evidence ???

I watched it several years ago. It's been around awhile. It's nonsense.

The simple answer is... you cant, and you shouldnt try.

Oh diddums.

I find it hard to believe that you come here only to try debunk some of these theories. If that were the fact.. I would think it quite sad.
No, you are here for truth but the truth seems so scary to you so you are desperately trying to come up with ways to avoid facing up to it which is quite sad too but at least you are on the right path.

Good luck

Unflawlessness

Thats pretty desperate going for the pity and sneering attitude towards people who mock the pentacon.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Why would they not shoot down a plane that was heading toward the pentagon ? (please don't give me the answer that you hears from the proven liars).

Could you tell us what that large gray area just to the south south east. of the pentagon is?
The one with the runway pointed in the direction of the Pentagon?

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

There are. One wing even hit a generator on the lawn outside the pentagon.

No it didn't.

Di0genes wrote: »

How? The Pentagon has been equipped with missile and anti aircraft defences exactly twice. During the Cuban Missile Crisis and on the anniversary of 9/11 on 09/11/02.

They could have shot it down from fighter jets. If they werent off on a training mission that day :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

What footage? Why exactly are you convinced the footage would have contained footage of the plan.

They admitted to having the footage but in the interest of national security they cant release it. :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

What are the odds of them hitting that side?Ohhhh say one in five?

:rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

So they blew up the plane. Before 9/11 And then painstakingly placed debris, body parts, DNA evidence etc, around the building and none of the thousands of people who work in the building didn't notice.

It could have been at out of service plane. DNA can easily and had been before, falsified. They say they have DNA evidence ? have you seen it t? they are proven liars remember :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

The document links to the original sources. Indeed theres another witness at least a friend of mind e-mailed me on 12/01 she was stuck on traffic and witnessed the plane crash.

She witness a plane and a crash. She was most likely threatned. :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you understand how would it work? How could they fake a 737 flying across a 8 lane freeway at 9am?

If you did actually watch the documentary you stated you did, you would know that there was indeed a plane there. I have stated this. Did you just lie when you said you watched it ? :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

All of whom think a plane hit the pentagon, miss that part?

THINK :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

I watched it several years ago. It's been around awhile. It's nonsense.

There's the LIE

Di0genes wrote: »

Oh diddums.

Indeed

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats pretty desperate going for the pity and sneering attitude towards people who mock the pentacon.

Thats pretty desperate cohersing a moderator to come along and give out to me :rolleyes:

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Could you tell us what that large gray area just to the south south east. of the pentagon is?
The one with the runway pointed in the direction of the Pentagon?

Sure.
That would be the Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.

Why do you ask ?

You are aware that flight 77 is said to have come from Washington Dulles International Airport right ? :rolleyes:

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Sure.
That would be the Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.

Why do you ask ?

You are aware that flight 77 is said to have come from Washington Dulles International Airport right ? :rolleyes:

So then aeroplanes approach the pentagon all the time?
So plane would never be instantly shot down if they where close to it?

You are aware that invalidates your point entirely right?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

So then aeroplanes approach the pentagon all the time?
So plane would never be instantly shot down if they where close to it?

You are aware that invalidates your point entirely right?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

8:20: American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 with 58 passengers and six crew members, departs from Washington Dulles International Airport in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia, for Los Angeles. Five hijackers are aboard.


8:50 to 8:54 (approx.): Hijacking begins on Flight 77

8:52: The F-15s at Otis Air National Guard Base are airborne. Still lacking an intercept vector to Flight 11 (and not aware that it has already crashed), they are sent to military controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13.

8:54: Flight 77 deviates from its assigned course, turning south over Ohio.

8:56: The transponder on Flight 77 is turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft is lost. During radar blackout Flight 77 turns east, unnoticed by flight controllers. When primary radar information is restored at 9:05, controllers look futilely for Flight 77 west of its previous position.[6] Flight 77 travels undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east toward Washington, D.C.

9:32: Controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control in Virginia observe "a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed", referring to Flight 77.

9:33 to 9:34: Tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport tells Secret Service operations center at the White House that "an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us," referring to Flight 77. The White House is about to be evacuated when the tower reports that Flight 77 has turned and is approaching Reagan International Airport.

9:35: Based on a report that Flight 77 had turned again and was circling back toward the District of Columbia, the Secret Service orders the immediate evacuation of the Vice President from the White House.

9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon and starts a violent fire. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

Considering 2 planes had crashed into the twin towers, one would think they'd be alerted when another plane veers off course for almost 45 minutes. Ya'd think they'd scramble a few fighter jets to check it out no ?
Isnt the pentagon the most heavily protedted building in the world ? Doesnt it have it's own missile launchers ? Radar system ?

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Considering 2 planes had crashed into the twin towers, one would think they'd be alerted when another plane veers off course for almost 45 minutes. Ya'd think they'd scramble a few fighter jets to check it out no ?

That's not quite the whole of the story. They had no idea where the was until 5 minutes before it crashed.

When the transponder went off, the first plane had only just crashed 10 mins previously.
I think there might have been a bit of confusion going around.
They had no way of know that there were other hijacked planes, let alone that the planes where hijacked at all.

So by the time the SS were informed of a possible threat they had three minutes to act on a plane they couldn't find?

How long do you think it takes to scramble a fighter?
How many do you think there on the runaway , fuelled armed and ready to go?

Or should they have just fired at anything in the air without trying to confirm that the planes where hijacked at all?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Isnt the pentagon the most heavily protedted building in the world ? Doesnt it have it's own missile launchers ? Radar system ?

No it doesn't. Why do you think it does?

The facts are planes are not automatically fired upon if they get near the pentagon.
In fact you can see in from your window if you get the right flight into Washington.

Overheal

Di0genes wrote: »

What are the odds of them hitting that side?Ohhhh say one in five?

"The fact that the attack targeted the one portion of the building that was mostly vacant is all the more remarkable considering the approach required by the aircraft blamed for the damage. The jetliner alleged to be American Airlines Flight 77 approached the capital from the northwest, flying over the White House before swooping down on the Pentagon. Instead of attacking the huge building in a direct fashion, the jet executed a 320-degree descending spiral to its east, south, and southwest, losing seven thousand feet before leveling out at nearly tree-top height as it made its final approach from the southwest. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/location.html

I also think the Taliban might have bothered to scout the pentagon, and have been at least aware that construction was ongoing in that section.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

That's not quite the whole of the story. They had no idea where the was until 5 minutes before it crashed.

When the transponder went off, the first plane had only just crashed 10 mins previously.
I think there might have been a bit of confusion going around.
They had no way of know that there were other hijacked planes, let alone that the planes where hijacked at all.

So by the time the SS were informed of a possible threat they had three minutes to act on a plane they couldn't find?

How long do you think it takes to scramble a fighter?
How many do you think there on the runaway , fuelled armed and ready to go?

Or should they have just fired at anything in the air without trying to confirm that the planes where hijacked at all?


No it doesn't. Why do you think it does?

The facts are planes are not automatically fired upon if they get near the pentagon.
In fact you can see in from your window if you get the right flight into Washington.

Because it does.

December 20, 2004

It should surprise no one that the first test in two years of the "Star Wars" missile defense system fizzled Wednesday when a "kill vehicle" never left its silo in the Marshall Islands. The startling thing would have been if the $85-million test had succeeded.

Ever since President Reagan called for this ill-conceived system in March 1983, his conservative acolytes -- including President Bush -- have been determined to make it a reality despite widespread evidence of its impracticality. Two decades later, it has still gone nowhere despite Bush's rash promise that he would have a limited system in place by the end of 2004.

The government has spent about $130 billion on the program and is slated to invest $50 billion more over the next five years. Yet the only tests that have succeeded were rigged; the missiles being intercepted were equipped with homing devices, something a real attacker probably wouldn't be considerate enough to include. The most recent test before Wednesday's, on Dec. 11, 2002, failed when a warhead didn't detach from its booster rocket.

In the wake of the latest fiasco, Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, claimed the test didn't represent a failure of the system, simply a glitch. This is like a repairman telling you there's nothing wrong with your car just because it won't start, that it simply has a mechanical problem.

The Bush administration, though, isn't budging. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who headed a commission in 1998 warning about missile threats from North Korea and Iran, says a defense is vital. It isn't. As Greg Thielmann, the director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research during Bush's first term, has written in Arms Control Today, Rumsfeld contorted the evidence in 1998 to create a North Korean and Iranian missile threat to the United States where none existed, just as he would later do on the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

It's unfathomable how Bush can continue to talk about the need for spending cuts while embracing one of the least successful and costliest military research programs in recent memory.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/20/opinion/ed-missiles20

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Because it does.

i completely miss the point of how that refutes or answers king mobs question, can u explain more

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No it didn't.

Yes it did



Thats the generator there on the right,

They could have shot it down from fighter jets. If they werent off on a training mission that day :rolleyes:

You do understand that this was the USA circa the year 2000, not Britain circa 1940. There aren't ready rooms filled with fighter pilot jockeys about to leap into action when they here "bandits at ten o'clock". They don't keep fully armed, hot, ready to fly at a moments notice fighter jets on the tarmac 24/7. And that it takes a lil more then 15 minutes to make a plane capable of flying never mind loading and armed weapons systems.

Here

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

Actual audio tapes of the conversation between NORAD and FAA officials on the day.

Please point out where they could have acted differently.

They admitted to having the footage but in the interest of national security they cant release it. :rolleyes:

And you find this difficult to believe because?

:rolleyes:

It's a five sided bulding. The odds of them hitting that side are one in five.

Do you need help with the maths or something?

It could have been at out of service plane. DNA can easily and had been before, falsified. They say they have DNA evidence ? have you seen it t? they are proven liars remember :rolleyes:

Okay.

“Summary Presentation of damage to Pentagon and location of bodies found inside.“ (PC download)


All but five Pentagon victims identified

Profile: Armed forces DNA Identification laboratory

Forensic feat IDs nearly all Pentagon victims

Please point out where they're lying. Remembering of course all but one of the bodies or partial remains of passengers were found and returned to the families, who are all satisfied.

Here's an interesting article about DNA recovery at the WTC

http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/LATimes.htm



Meanwhile at the pentagon over 8,000 people worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

Are you calling all those people liars?

The following approach was applied to the recovery of Pentagon Incident fatalities: When a victim was located, work in the area was halted to protect the body, personal belongings, and evidence. An FBI evidence team (one of several on constant standby in front of the collapse) would document the site and gather evidence. If physical extrication was required, a Rescue Squad from the assigned US&R task force was given this task. The next step in the process was a Military Mortuary Team who collected and removed the victim from the building.

All the debris removed from the building was spread out by the heavy equipment, and (on the signal of the IST US&R Specialist) the equipment would stop and Canine Search Teams from the US&R Task Forces would deploy across the material in search of any scent indicating human remains. Then US&R Search Team members would conduct a physical search for remains, crawling and walking over all the debris. Finally, after being searched three or more times, the debris would be loaded into trucks with skip loaders, where it would be taken to one of the Pentagon parking lots to be further combed for human remains and evidence by the FBI, ATF, Military units, and the Arlington Police Department.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

She witness a plane and a crash. She was most likely threatned. :rolleyes:

No I still have the e-mail she sent me on Sept 12 2001 letting me know she was alright. You think they intimidated every witness who disagrees with your POV

If you did actually watch the documentary you stated you did, you would know that there was indeed a plane there. I have stated this. Did you just lie when you said you watched it ? :rolleyes:

You do realise that the rollyeyes simile is not a piece of punctuation?

I've watched the documentary. It's nonsense.

THINK :rolleyes:

Okay say and witnessed a plane hit the pentagon and publicly stated thats what happened.

There's the LIE

What lie.

Thats pretty desperate cohersing a moderator to come along and give out to me :rolleyes:

Seriously not a piece of punctuation. And I have no idea what you are blithering on about.

Di0genes

Overheal wrote: »

"The fact that the attack targeted the one portion of the building that was mostly vacant is all the more remarkable considering the approach required by the aircraft blamed for the damage. The jetliner alleged to be American Airlines Flight 77 approached the capital from the northwest, flying over the White House before swooping down on the Pentagon. Instead of attacking the huge building in a direct fashion, the jet executed a 320-degree descending spiral to its east, south, and southwest, losing seven thousand feet before leveling out at nearly tree-top height as it made its final approach from the southwest. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/location.html

I also think the Taliban might have bothered to scout the pentagon, and have been at least aware that construction was ongoing in that section.

Firstly just a point. The Taliban didn't fly a plane into the pentagon Al Qaeda did.

As to the path. Atta wasn't exactly the best pilot in the world. He entered DC airspace too fast, a 737 can't turn on a dime, he saw the pentagon, executed a steep banking turn that allowed him to face the building, accelerate towards it before crashing into it.

Don't believe me here's an Italian pilot with 27 years flight experience, including as a fighter pilot

http://www.911myths.com/html/giulio_bernacchia.html

Another expert!

Explaining how''s it's plausible.

As to the idea of scouting the building beforehand. Thats nice and all, but I doubt the pentagon advertises when it's undergoing construction.

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Because it does.

You understand that the star wars missile defence system was designed to stop nuclear missiles which were pretty much entering US airspace from space, and isn't in any way applicable to a passenger jet being used as a missile don't you?

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Isnt the pentagon the most heavily protedted building in the world ? Doesnt it have it's own missile launchers ? Radar system ?

SAM and other anti aircraft weapons have been deployed outside the pentagon only twice in it's 60 year history.

During the Cuban missile crisis, and on the 1st anniversary of 9/11.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/

For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday -- a precaution that comes amid a heightened alert status on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

The decision to arm the portable Stinger missile launchers was made Tuesday morning by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon officials said. A senior administration official told CNN that Rumsfeld recommended the move and the president signed off on it after a discussion about the "rules of engagement," meaning under what circumstances would U.S. military officials be authorized to launch the missiles.



A Pentagon statement said the decision to arm the portable Stinger missile launchers was "not a response to any specific threat," but "a prudent precaution to increase the radar and air defense posture in the National Capital Region.

That's changed since then.

The air defense system for Washington is unique, and many of its operations are classified. Unveiled in January 2003, the system was created to track all flights and to intercept aircraft that do not follow strict protocols. It replaced the fighter patrols that guarded the nation's capital beginning Sept. 11, 2001, a defense that was costly and did not provide federal authorities with the tools to investigate whether there were patterns in the violations.


The defense system includes a no-fly zone that bars most air traffic from a ring that extends 16 miles from the Washington Monument -- the major exception being commercial flights to and from National Airport. A larger restricted zone, the D.C. Air Defense Identification Zone, extends to about 50 miles from Washington and requires pilots to identify their aircraft, activate identification beacons and stay in two-way radio contact with air controllers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35440-2004Jul7.html

You see fighter patrols over the capital only started after sept 11 2001.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Because it does.

No where in that article is there anything about a missile defence system around the pentagon.

The only time the words "missile" and "pentagon" are close is "Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency".
This isn't referring to an agency which manages the Pentagon's missile defence, This is made perfectly clear by the context of the article.

But rather it's an agency under the command of the Pentagon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency

So it's obvious you just googled the words "Pentagon" "Missile" and "defence" without bother to check the article.
Top notch research there....

aidan24326

Di0genes wrote:

You do understand that this was the USA circa the year 2000, not Britain circa 1940. There aren't ready rooms filled with fighter pilot jockeys about to leap into action when they here "bandits at ten o'clock". They don't keep fully armed, hot, ready to fly at a moments notice fighter jets on the tarmac 24/7. And that it takes a lil more then 15 minutes to make a plane capable of flying never mind loading and armed weapons systems.

You're not quite right about this part. They DO in fact routinely send fighter jets up to check on commercial aircraft that have strayed off course or aren't responding for one reason or another. It's not that unusual. And that particular area of the country has several airforce bases. The US military themselves admitted they can have fighter jets in the air in about 15 minutes.

CTs aside, I suspect that in the confusion they didn't know where these planes were, how many there were etc. But I do believe there's a strong possibility that flight 93 was shot down, and that the story of passengers overcoming the hijackers was probably concocted. Shooting it down would have been the only option at that stage given what had already happened.

Di0genes

aidan24326 wrote: »

You're not quite right about this part. They DO in fact routinely send fighter jets up to check on commercial aircraft that have strayed off course or aren't responding for one reason or another. It's not that unusual. And that particular area of the country has several airforce bases. The US military themselves admitted they can have fighter jets in the air in about 15 minutes.

No sorry. A classic example would be the Payne Stewart death incident.

On October 25, 1999, a month after the American team rallied to win the 1999 Ryder Cup in Brookline, Massachusetts, and four months after his U.S. Open victory at Pinehurst No. 2, Stewart was killed in the depressurization of a Learjet flying from Orlando to Dallas, Texas for the year-ending tournament, The Tour Championship, held at Champions Golf Club in Houston that year. Stewart was planning to stop off in Dallas to discuss building a new home course for the SMU golf program.[3] The last communication received from the pilots was at 9:27 AM EDT, and the plane made a right turn at 9:30 AM EDT that was probably the result of human input. At 9:33 AM EDT the pilots did not respond to a call to change radio frequencies, and there was no further contact from the plane. The plane, apparently still on autopilot and angled off-course, was observed by several U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft[4] as it continued its flight over the southern and midwestern United States. The military pilots observed frost or condensation on the windshield (consistent with loss of cabin pressure) which obscured the cockpit, and no motion was visible through the small patch of windshield that was clear.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators concluded that the plane suffered a loss of cabin pressure and that all on board died of hypoxia. A delay of only a few seconds in donning oxygen masks, coupled with cognitive and motor skill impairment, could have been enough to result in the pilots' incapacitation. The NTSB report showed that the plane had several instances of maintenance work related to cabin pressure in the months leading up to the accident. The NTSB was unable to determine whether they stemmed from a common problem - replacements and repairs were documented, but not the pilot discrepancy reports that prompted them or the frequency of such reports. The report gently chides Sunjet Aviation for the possibility that this would have made the problem harder to identify, track, and resolve; as well as the fact that in at least one instance the plane was flown with an unauthorized maintenance deferral for cabin pressure problems.

According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with an F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, about an hour and twenty minutes (9:33 EDT to 9:52 CDT - see NTSB report on the crash) after ground controllers lost contact. The plane continued flying until it ran out of fuel and crashed into a field near Mina, South Dakota, a town ten miles (16 km) west of Aberdeen, South Dakota after an uncontrolled descent. The five other people aboard the plane included Stewart's agents Robert Fraley and Van Ardan, and pilots Michael Kling and Stephanie Bellegarrigue, along with Bruce Borland, a highly-regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus golf course design company.

It took an hour and twenty minutes to send an aircraft to investigate Payne Stewart's plane, and it was a Lear Jet with it's transpoder on, flying a level and straight course.

In fact if you look into it further the first F-16 wasn't even armed, it was diverted from war games nearby.

This was in 1999.

While I don't doubt the US Military respond to a suspicious aviation incident is dramatically faster today. The Payne Stewart incident gives us a decent yardstick for reaction time pre 9/11.

CTs aside, I suspect that in the confusion they didn't know where these planes were, how many there were etc.

You may have missed the vanity fair piece I quoted above.

But I do believe there's a strong possibility that flight 93 was shot down, and that the story of passengers overcoming the hijackers was probably concocted.

So the phonecalls from United 93 and black box recordings were faked? The eyewitnesses who saw it crash, and didn't see a fighter in the area, are lying?

Shooting it down would have been the only option at that stage given what had already happened.

Unless the passengers who learnt of the fate of the other hijacked planes, took matters into their own hands.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Are you calling all those people liars?

Nope. Im calling these liars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

Di0genes wrote: »

What lie.

This lie

Di0genes wrote: »

I watched it several years ago. It's been around awhile. It's nonsense.

If you did watch it you would have known that many of the witnesses seen the plane fly over the pentagon and it was on a different flight path than the official version.

This is the last im posting on this old false flag OP, there is no helping some sleepers. Anyone who thinks the official version of 911 is all above board, take another look at the clip above.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This is the last im posting on this old false flag OP, there is no helping some sleepers.

Dramatic exits are so much easier than trying to address points that might challenge your world view, aren't they?

Suppose there is no helping some sleepers.....

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Nope. Im calling these liars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

So lets be clear, the people who who spent months painstakingly going through the evidence, ensuring it was properly identified, are all telling the truth, it's just the government faked it, and then none of these 8,000 people noticed?

This lie

Um I've noticed you've avoided missile defences and witnesses and damage the lawn.

I have watched the documentary.

If you did watch it you would have known that many of the witnesses seen the plane fly over the pentagon and it was on a different flight path than the official version.

You do remember the hundred plus witnessses I quoted. And you do remember that none of the pentaconned witnesses claim that it flew over the pentagon?

Names please.

This is the last im posting on this old false flag OP, there is no helping some sleepers. Anyone who thinks the official version of 911 is all above board, take another look at the clip above.

RUN AWAY. RUN AWAY. :rolleyes:

bonkey

If civility is too much to ask for, you will all leave.

aidan24326

Di0genes wrote: »

So the phonecalls from United 93 and black box recordings were faked?

I'm not saying they were faked, I don't know. However you seem to think they just wouldn't do such a thing. That's where we disagree. As for the black box recordings from United 93, have you ever heard them? Do you know exactly what's on it?

The eyewitnesses who saw it crash, and didn't see a fighter in the area, are lying?

As I recall some witnesses did see another plane in the area at that time. I don't know that they shot it down, but I do think it would have been quite possible. And the whole story of the American heroes rushing the cockpit did sound a bit like a movie script to me.

MandragonHU

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

Oh yes they did..

This is from http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/an

Few weapons are capable of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete seen in the Pentagon attack, this brilliant white fireball is typical of the plasma type reaction of a tactical "Bunker Busting" thermonuclear warhead.



Pentagon witnesses claim to have heard whooshes, smacks, etc..

Rick M: "we heard a sound like a missile,"

Joel Sucherman: "Almost like a heat seeking missile was locked onto its target,"

Micheal DiPaula: "It sounded like a missile,"

Richard Benedetto: "Sounded like an artillery shell,"

Tom Seibert: "Sounded like a missile."



Diagram shows the thermonuclear warhead vaporized seven layers of especially reinforced concrete, before exiting on the inside of C Ring!

Professor David H. Edwards, "after I boarded the Orange Line [Metro Line] train, a young man and a young woman, both in their early twenties and wearing backpacks, burst into the subway car shouting and exhibiting extreme excitement and agitation.

They addressed the entire car, which was mostly empty except for me and perhaps three or four other men in suits. The young people yelled, "we were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon! We saw it, we saw it!"

One of the men sitting closer to them must have asked for clarification, because they reiterated the same information several times, saying repeatedly, "a missile, we saw it, a missile, it flew right into the Pentagon, I can’t believe it.. now it’s on fire, there’s smoke!"

Lon Rains was convinced a missile hit the Pentagon by the way it sounded and how fast it flew in, he stated, "at that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left, in fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion, the next thing I saw was the fireball, I was convinced it was a missile, it came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

In a Parade Magazine interview, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, made his infamous slip of the tongue, "here we’re talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.