Instead of trying to fill in the narrative with exciting A-3 Skywarriors, and Global Hawks, a need incidentally brought on by the fact that the Pentagon won't release the videos, why not focus on the less exciting fact that whatever hit the Pentagon, shouldn't have been able to hit it at all?

That's all I'll say.

No one else has a problem with the fabricated DNA results??? I guess they IDed Ms. Olson too.

They pulled this same b.s. at the WTC!

The way the planes were guided into the buildings is obvious from this reconstruction (I don't buy the missile idea), but this raises are more important point.

I worked on the GPS project when it was classified (at STC Technologies, Harlow, Essex UK) and from what I understand from being the project librarian (I read everything) is that the military version of GPS has a resolution of about 1cm, whereas the public version has a randomized value added to it to make its resolution about 100 meters.

This is the main reason that the EU (European Union) is working on its own system.

Anyone who has ever seen the pictures of a guided missile turning a corner will know what I mean.

The 9/11 "bombers" had to do only one thing when they got into the cockpit of the aircraft, and that was reprogramming the guidance system to have new GPS co-ordinates.

Modern aircraft "fly by wire", so you just pop in new co-ordinates into the aircraft's computer and - hay presto - the aircraft goes to there.

BUT!!!!

This was KNOWN when the GPS system was set up. In the Bills that created it by the US houses there is provision for the system to be turned off.

The PRESIDENT of the USA has the right (and indeed the responsibility) to turn off the GPS system if it is being used to attack the USA or her allies.

So why did he sit there and suck his teeth when he heard about the first hit? Why didn't anyone say "you should switch off GPS mister president?"

(Normal planes won't crash, they just go "bing bing bing" at the pilot and flash "NO GPS" and the pilot has to revert to flying the plane himself).

Why was the Pentagon hit at all?

road66, are you someone famous in the truth movement?

"are we in worse trouble than we think?"

We may be running out of time. The damn has to break before there's another attack and Patriot Act #3 is passed slapping a gag order on all of us!

I want to see the real video of flight 77 hitting the pentagon. I actually don't care what hit the pentagon, there are more important issues like the demolition of the towers etc...

Jon:
Why was the Pentagon hit at all?
and
I'm staying out of this thread. Makes me sick.

Because the the DoD 'misplaced' a couple of trillion bucks, which Donald Rumsfeld announced, oddly enough, on Monday Sept. 10th. Although a big news item that evening, it disappeared the next morning.

Guess which department of the Pentagon suffered heavy casualties?

It would also explain why a couple of people smelled cordite.

Brian, I lean towards the Arab hijackers as being patsy drug traffickers in-training.

I think the real airliners were swapped for carefully modified & precision-guided drones that took off from very close to their targets. This way NORAD had nothing really to intercept.

Anon..
Ah, Alan, how did they ID the passengers...

I don't know?

Drones hit the targets that day (read Operation Northwoods. They were capable of this 40 years ago).

There were no real people on the drones, and thus any DNA results did NOT come from the crash sites.

To S King. Why don't you and your friend Terrance go watch your "Snuff" movies and leave us normal folks alone. I am sure you would find that more stimulating than trolling this page.

Eyewitness account at Pentagon suggests Global Hawk hit Pentagon.

Fri., July 7, 2006

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0607/20060707_Fri_Piper.m3u

http://www.erichufschmid.net/EyewitnessToFlight77.html

One of the people who helped pick up scraps talks about what he saw

Sam, who had been an emergency medical technican, was driving near the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

When he was in front of the Pentagon, traffic began to slow down. Sam noticed an airplane in the distance. He knew about the attack on the WTC, and he pulled over and got out of his car. He saw a second airplane high up in the air above the Pentagon. Then the first airplane crashed into the Pentagon.

Sam walked onto the grass to help the survivors, but he didn't find any bodies or luggage. He joined the people who picked up scraps.

He noticed that something was strange about the airplane accident and the behavior of some of the federal agents. During the following years Sam discussed the issue on the Internet. He recently heard about me (Eric Hufschmid), and decided to contact me. Here is his story, along with discussions on other subjects:

Sam's description of the airplane and the scraps supports the theory that a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon.

This video doesn't recreate anything physical or real. The fragile aluminum wings of a plane hit light posts and a truck without being damaged! How stupid can anyone be?

Didn't that larger hole on the first floor occur 10 minutes AFTER the Pentagon was hit?

This film is non-sense.

Guess which department of the Pentagon suffered heavy casualties?

The accounting department. The place where people & records were that could have exposed Rummy/Cheney as those who stole the missing $2.6 trillion!

Can we see ANY other security camera? Why hold them back if a sh!tload of cameras caught it on tape? Oh yea, national security...

It's called violating a scene of mass murder & hiding the evidence.

Anon..
Ah, Alan, how did they ID the passengers...

I don't know?

As I said, my best guess given the available data is that it wasn't a 757, but I wouldn't testify in court either way. ;)

I think the only conclusion one can come to re: what hit the Pentagon is informed INconclusion, and I'd say at this point I'm more in agreement with MediaPuppet and others who say that there's much more damning evidence in MANY other areas of 9/11 research, from the many fallacies of the NIST report on WTC 7 to the quashed investigations prior to 9/11 and how much foreknowledge.

Unfortunately, the MSM focuses on the Pentagon (and the CD of the Twin Towers), because of their sensationalistic nature.

In the case of the Pentagon, it seems like a trap (whether just distraction or a setup for some future "evidentiary release" legit or not, who knows?), and with regards to CD, none of the MSM have really approached that angle with any depth, instead falling back on the whole "tinfoil hat" (cue X-Files theme).

Since the Pentagon is the 'hot topic', it can't be ignored, but nor should it be embraced to closely, as I think it's got a stinger primed.

Plane wings are destroyed by ducks' feathered asses. Even "safety poles" would jack-up wings.

But - using the Sherlock Holmes technique (eliminate the impossible) - it would be lots more hassle to ground the planes and shoot the passengers, rather then just break into the cockpit and reprogram one device. It's much easier to arrange to brainwash a few blokes, give them the key to get into the cockpit and enter 20 digits into a computer.

GPS was the easist way to get three of the four planes to hit.

Anon:

I'm not going to debate the "drone vs. Flight 77" issue, because it's one of those issues that I don't think can be proven CONCLUSIVELY, IMHO, emphasis on H. See my first post in this thread.

I just offered my observations from a couple of other studies re: the crash, and neither side is going to 'win me over', until I see more verifiable evidence.

And for the record, I agree that the DNA evidence is suspect, but that doesn't conclusively prove anything.

There's better issues to talk about, even regarding the Pentagon, such as the aforementioned $2 trillion+ that Rumsfeld announced had disappeared on Monday Sept 10th, 2001.

"One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when (edited for bias :) ) struck."

From:
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/06/flight-of-capital.html

Certainly suggests that, regardless of whether it was a Globalhawk or Flight 77, we've got an answer as to 'cui bono' (and it's just one of many).

"This page was generated by curiosity and is only "roughly" accurate. The point of it is to demonstrate the random probability of about 80% of the evidence outside the Pentagon being covered in lettering when in reality only about 1.7% of the entire aircraft actually has lettering. It is also worth mentioning that the pieces outside were not scorched."

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/088.html

Ah, Alan, how did they ID the passengers that exploded & smashed through the Pentagon @ 530 mph? All 235 plane seats gone, but body parts remained???

Why is it that so many people feel compelled to answer the questions of what happened that day? There is enough evidence to prove that the official story is a lie. Is that not all we need?

Speculation on what hit the Pentagon, or how the events of that day were pulled off is a complete waste of time and will only prolong the truth.

I admit it's very possible that a passenger airliner hit the Pentagon. It's also very possible that the reason they won't release the countless other videos they have of the plane in full view crashing, is because it's not a Boeing 757 and therefore not Flight 77.

Either way I agree with Alex Jones that this is not a direction we need to focus our efforts. There are plenty of other smoking guns that are indisputable and this is very muddy water indeed.

Were official photographs of 9-11 altered, manipulated, retouched, or otherwise faked?
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
__________---

I'm staying out of this thread. Makes me sick.

- Hani Hanjour could not have flown back from the Kentucky/Ohio border to D.C.

- Hanjour could have not made that incredible maneuver in a B-757 to hit the renovated section of the Pentagon.

- A B-757 would NOT make a hole the size of a missile in the Pentagon.

- 80 videos of whatever hit the Pentagon are being withheld for no damn good reason except to cover-up. The only video released looks like an A3 Skywarrior!

- There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that smashed into the Pentagon @ 530 mph. The fictitious DNA results were made to bolster the official story.

Ops, I wanted to say "as everyone KNOWS".

Those derogatory comments are very silly, given that half of the 911 truth movement doesnt speak about the no-757 at the pentagon theory.
That Mike Wilson seems to be, judging to his link to WTC7 and stuff, "one of us".
He links Alex Jones as well, who as everyone says considers flight77 a trap.

YouCrazyDiamond. The cunjoror's trick ... hit the buildings near the top to draw the collective eye away from the true crime. If the plane impacted from the side, why did the building fall DOWN?
Brian Butterworth | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 9:16 pm | #
______________________________________________________________________-

My contention is that not a single well trained physicist missed that ‘trick’ with the disappearing angular momentum.

I watched it over and over again, amazed that the top did not topple over and fall down and away from the side of the tower.

I mentioned it that day (9/11) to a professor and he just shrugged. And since we talk a good deal, I donÂ’t think he is so much lost in the Myth today, as much as he is not yet sure that his voice will matter.

The ‘shock & awe’ tactic along with a lot of well scripted propaganda, etc. worked pretty much as expected.

Except that in my case:

“The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.”

Why was the Pentegon hit? Because it was required to allow the US security services to get a big budget? Why did one plane not hit the White House? Because the president is a pussy. Why did three towers fall at the WTC? Because they were brought down by controlled explosions, the aircraft hit was just a "stageshow".

The M1 motorway in the UK (the first built, during the cold war) was had mines built into it, so if we were ever invaded it could be easily destroyed to stop it being used as a landing strip.

It seems quite possible to me that the three WTC buildings that fell were built with the same requirements.

If the pentagon hadn't been hit, then the NORAD stand down wouldn't have been as obvious, so it showed they didn't think ahead in the planning.

• most of the debris shown was from the trailer and generator.
• Impact hole was too small.
• Engine shown was wrong engine, from a different type of plane (a long-range fighter jet engine)
• No bodies found... or in Penn.
• flight path was beyond a 757 software capability (same with WTC 2)
• Eyewitnesses claim no plane.
• Eyewitnesses claim explosion.

All of this is reviewed in detail on st911.org

But Alex Jones may be right - best to put this on the back burner for now...

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT TOPICS -

Namely, Steven E. Jones upcoming CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THERMITE AND THERMATE.

If WTC is PROVEN to be a controlled demolition...
GAME OVER FOLKS!!!

WE WIN.

Oh yeah, check out my article:

911 DEMOLITION CONCLUSIVE

on my website ealchemy.org

All I know is that hijacking of planes is not a new phenomenon.

The Pentagon cannot claim they were taken by surprise.

They cannot explain how a plane got through, but the fact one did and caused casualties gave the event the flavour of 'Pearl Harbour' - the unprovoked attack on the 'greatest military force in the world'.

The fact the pilot had to complicate his 'act of terrorism', to hit that particular part of the Pentagon, is downright bizarre. You're mad as hell, ready to suicide and you see the Pentagon coming up ahead. You're amazed you got so far, you don't if you'll make it...doing fine, god must be on your side, all the Pentagon leadership are where ? Heck you don't know, how could you cause most harm..

The Pentagon leadership has some explaining to do. Plane/no plane - surely the first task is to get them to explain themselves and not let them dodge the issue.

cormorant:

No plane hit the 3 story building you mentioned. For all we know Thermate charges demolished this one as well. Not to mention the fact that it could have been made of rice paper for all the article described. Nice find, government shill.
Wumpus | 07.10.06 - 10:25 am | #

Wumpus, sorry. I should have written TOUNGE IN FUCKING CHEEK for dimwits like you.
Also, those who toss around the phrase "government shill" make me suspect you particularly.

Eyewitnesses can be wrong - see the shooting of Jean Charles Menendez - eyewitnesses reports (taken at the time by broadcasters) turned out to be wrong.

This clip is PATHETIC, LAUGHABLE.

Anybody that has ever seen a landing of a large commercial plane knows it descends at a fucking ANGLE AND THERE IS
NO WAY IT COULD HAVE FLOWN PARALLEL TO THE GROUND LIKE THAT.

re the animation:

Why all the work to create this animation when there are 80+ videos that would show what happened at the pentagon that day.

I saw the movie "Shrek", but I do not count it as proof or evidence.

Release all the videos. Save the cartoons for the movies.

This clip is PATHETIC, LAUGHABLE.

Anybody that has ever seen a landing of a large commercial plane knows it descends at a fucking ANGLE AND THERE IS
NO WAY IT COULD HAVE FLOWN PARALLEL TO THE GROUND LIKE THAT.

What is it with the SHOUTING? How can you state that "no way it could have flown parallel to the ground like that". I've been to lots of airports and watched planes land and they do it just like that! Is there some different physics at work in the US of A?

Look at the video animation again. He claims that the circled portion is the tail section, but when you continue to look at that section after the 'plane' has crashed into the pentagon the 'thing' he calls the tail section can still be seen above the box that gives out tickets.

What is it with the SHOUTING? How can you state that "no way it could have flown parallel to the ground like that". I've been to lots of airports and watched planes land and they do it just like that! Is there some different physics at work in the US of A?
Brian Butterworth | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 1:35 pm | #

The pilots who are landing their commercial jet liner aren't flying 400-500 mph and aren't hitting objects on the ground while flying 10 feet above the ground, either.

But - using the Sherlock Holmes technique (eliminate the impossible) - it would be lots more hassle to ground the planes and shoot the passengers, rather then just break into the cockpit and reprogram one device. It's much easier to arrange to brainwash a few blokes, give them the key to get into the cockpit and enter 20 digits into a computer.
GPS was the easist way to get three of the four planes to hit.
Brian Butterworth | Homepage |07.10.06 - 12:40 pm | #

It's very possible that most of the passengers that day (or even some flights themselves) were imposters or non-existent. Once again, these techniques were called for in Operation Northwoods, over 40 years ago.

I've been to lots of airports and watched planes land and they do it just like that!

Brian Butterworth | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 1:35 pm | #

Oh really! Well that's a first. What world do you live on?

You do know what parallel means. I guess you don't.

"If WTC is PROVEN to be a controlled demolition...GAME OVER FOLKS!!!"......Thats right, CHECKMATE!

Everyone, please please please do not fall into the trap that 90% of the 9/11 truth movement is falling into:

"80 videos of whatever hit the Pentagon are being withheld for no damn good reason except to cover-up."

Specifically, it is likely that alot MORE Pentagon videos will be released by the Department of Defense, and the only reason they weren't previously released was that the first videos were released in response to a SEPARATE foia request.

Please read the background facts here:

Flight77.info

George.

P.S. I am agnostic about what hit the Pentagon. But we CANNOT fall into this basic trap. Please read the story at Flight77.info

The purpose of the Pentagon hit was mainly:

To better be able to sell the 9/11 scam as an act of war, thereby making it pretty much exempt from any real criminal investigation. And if you want to start wars acts of war from the "enemy" are very helpful. Most people would interpret an attack on the US Military HQ as an act of war without any questions.

To send Congress a message. This could have been you guys, so behave, don´t ask any questions and pass anything we need. The anthrax scam was along the same lines.

Any real terrorists loose over NYC would of course have attacked the stock exchange for maximum economic damage. The scam worked better by attacking the WTC, remember how Bush and co. went on and on about how many nations had lost people in the attack. This ploy was to defraud international support for the attack on Afghanistan.

And of course any real terrorists would have hit the towers low, both to maximize casualties and this would also seem to be the only logical way of downing those towers by planes. Almost nobody is dumb enough to try to fell a tree by chopping off its top.

Why are some people so AFRAID ABOUT THE
SO CALLED PENTAGON TRAP.

You can't CHANGE LAWS OF MATH (16 FT HOLE COMPARED TO 125 FEET WING SPAN)
AND PHYSICS(FLYING PARLLEL TO THE GROUND
AND PULLING OF HIGH G MANOUVERS ONLY MILITARY JETS CAN PERFORM).

So stop worrying.

@anon:
Plane wings are destroyed by ducks' feathered asses. Even "safety poles" would jack-up wings.

wow but not hardened steel box columns? maybe they should've constructed the wtc1&2 out of ducks' feathered asses and the planes might've bounced right off! hmmm, does anybody know what the composite plastic nosecone of a boeing 757/767 is made of?
__________-

Funny how all the no-planers scream that witnesses were all confused . . . until they find someone that supports their case, then suddenly it's headline news about how the EYEWITNESS saw a GLOBAL HAWK!

Funny thing though is that a google search of "Samuel Danner" and Pentagon or 9/11 turns up nothing.

Who'd have guessed? This smells like the other story that popped up in 2005, I think, where someone claimed they were riding the metro at the time and had seen a couple of people get on the train and say that it wasn't a jet but was something else.

That was, until people pointed out that there would have been no view of the Pentagon from the train stop.

You can see the hypocrisy and the desparation of the no-planers as they grab at the one witness who is somehow so very different tfrom the dozens and dozens of others who contradicted him, the ones that they swept under the rug and relegated to 'confused' and 'no to be trusted,' because they didn't say what the no-planers wanted them to say.

Almost nobody is dumb enough to believe that a 757 can fly feet off the ground at 500+ mph. No one who claimed to have witnessed this wonderplane whizz by at full throttle reported any hearing damage and they just drove stoically on after that plane went right over their cars. :)

@anon:
Plane wings are destroyed by ducks' feathered asses. Even "safety poles" would jack-up wings.

wow but not hardened steel box columns? maybe they should've constructed the wtc1&2 out of ducks' feathered asses and the planes might've bounced right off! hmmm, does anybody know what the composite plastic nosecone of a boeing 757/767 is made of?
__________-
james ha | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 2:22 pm | #

James, both the planes wings & the ducks' bodies get dameged/destroyed in an accident.

The drones at the WTC got destroyed AS THEY PENETRATED INTO THE TOWERS. They left their outline in the colums. You know this, stop your cartoon plane nonsense.

Why was the Pentagon hit at all?

I agree. Several people don't. I'm tired of trying to help people to focus on those things that don't make us sound crazy Â…

... focus on the less exciting fact that whatever hit the Pentagon, shouldn't have been able to hit it at all?

Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 11:15 am | #
_________________________________________________________________----

Show people the truth ... how did the WTC buildings collapse.

Show people the truth ... why was the Pentagon hit.

Confuse people with speculation ... what hit the WTC towers.

Confuse people with speculation ... what hit the Pentagon.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The case won´t get anywhere until the authors of the official fable are forced to discuss it. It won´t get anywhere until the MSM is forced to cover it. It won´t get anywhwere until the congress rubber stamps are forced to stop ignoring it. It's as simple as that.

And since any discussion and coverage by these three above factions will eventually lead to their incarceration and/or execution - well we're pretty much stuck aren't we.

All I was saying it that it is POSSIBLE to fly a plane at 400mph+ almost parallel to the ground because a) it has to be travelling that fast to have any lift - this is how aircraft stay in the sky and b) GPS plus fly-by-wire allows anything that is physically POSSIBLE (remember Sherlock Holmes).

There is a HUGE amount of difference between an expert witness and a eye-witness. The former is someone who can evaluate the evidence, the latter is someone who happens to be there when it happens.

Can you really tell the difference between a gunshot and a car backfiring? Don't you THINK that it's both.

Please believe me, I don't doubt for one moment that the whole thing was a set-up by the Neocons. Hell, they call it the "Twin Towers" don't they - an odd thing to call it when three fell down - but I can see that there is no evidence for anything other than an aeroplane causing the hits because a missle is nothing but a GPS controlled aeroplane with a bomb in the front!

The Pentegon was designed to take missile hits - the above ground structure is nothing but a shild to protect the inner, underground bunker. It seems reasonable that an aeroplane hitting this outer shild would only leave a small hole, as the wings on an aeroplane are (by design) quite light.

I personally think that there is enough evience against Bush and Blair as it is, why invent more than is necessary? It only allows your goverment to go "oh, we told you so" at some point later and undermine the rest of the case against them, which is very strong.

Funny how all the no-planers scream that witnesses were all confused....You can see the hypocrisy and the desparation of the no-planers as they grab at the one witness who is somehow so very different from the dozens and dozens of others who contradicted him,

you don't see me saying that anyone is confused or any one eyewitless has any more or less credibility than another.
what you should see me saying is that the images of ua175 hitting and entering wtc2 that we all saw on tv and were recorded for posterity were phony images of an almost 767 behaving in an un-material-like manner, and that the fuselage in the street photo that geniusbot was so enamored of was beyond ridiculous. i have said nothing more and nothing less.
__________-

Come on, any real terrorists loose over the Pentagon would dive into its roof, maximizing damage and casualties. Why on earth would they even try an impossible stunt like hitting it at the ground level? Think folks.

Real Player - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/allinthemind.ram

There's an interesting segment about "conspiracy theories" at 20m12s

Now; why did those alleged terrorists at the Pentagon want to minimize damages and casualties? Why on earth would they want this? Think.

Why did the alleged terrorists at the towers carefully try to minimize casualties? Since they were supposedly murderous and crazed fanatics why didn´t they hit the towers low, trapping the maximum number of people and having the smoke do the rest? Think.

You've been fed childish fairy tales by pathological liars. Those fables are so silly that the authors and their media lapdogs can´t even discuss them. Hello? :)

Nine-eleven is basically a question of official truth by decree. We were told right after the events to believe the official story OR ELSE.

There's plenty of evidence that the Neocons planned it. They wrote books about it. "The Power of Nightmares" covered it quite well. And even pop groups have been making records about it over here for 15 years to my knowledge (Shamen, "In Gorbochev we Trust").

There are two good points raised above, and I'll just stick in my twopen'th.

First: there are questions of FACT and there are questions of INTERPRETATION. Trying to work out if a picture or photo or video or phonecall is fake is impossible to do with conjecture. It's your opinion and not a fact. Pointing out that there should be more evidence is helpful, restating your conjecture is not.

Second: the simple fact that there has been a SINGLE lie is enough to require a full, impartial, public enquiry with unlimited scope. Why? Because has been a principle of democratic goverment since it was invented in ancient Athens that the truth upheld and seen to be upheld.

I'm just can't believe that George W Bush sat there for all those minutes with no one going (as they always did in my mind) "your options are this mister preseident" or "you must decide about this right away mister presendent" or even "do you want me to phone President Putin, mister president".

Why was there a media blackout? Why was it called the "Twin Towers" when three fell?

On the day that is the calling number for the emergency services?

I suspected the whole thing started with Kenneth Starr...

http://www.jp-petit.com/Divers/PENTAGATE/illustrations/747_amoche2.jpg

http://www.jp-petit.com/Divers/PENTAGATE/illustrations/747_amoche.jpg

"It's physically impossible to fly a 757 at 530 mph. feet off the ground." is another good example. I don't doubt that it's something you would do if you wanted to either a) use the plane again or b) land safe and sound. But there's no law of physics that states that it's impossible, becuase Thrust SSC managed 763 mph. Using a fly-by-wire system you could guide the plane just like a missile. It's not impossible. If was impossible then a missle couldn't do it too, as they share the same physics!

Brian, it's about wing size and speed.

Please stick with a 757. The question here is whether the official story is true or not but not about whether missiles can fly or not.

My point being is why does it matter if it was a missle or an aircraft? Both are equally awful for your own goverment to blast at a building! It doesn't matter which is true, the question is one of premediation, not method. If you can have a full enquiry the truth will out.

People have already died to keep a multinational company in business? It does not matter HOW, surely, what matter is that those who started it STOP it. Only then will the truth be knowable, and human rights be refound.

You can´t have a full enquiry because then the entire administration and much of its agencies would be incarcerated/executed for high treason. That's why they simply ignore the case and refuse to discuss their fables. Who would do the enquiry anyway? The criminals themselves?

Blob, "official stories" are never true by definition. It wouldn't need to be "official" if it wern't a "story" in the first place. If you start with "the absolute truth" then the other end is an "official story".

The problem is what consitutues "proof". I don't have the resouces to get a 757 and reconstruct the pentegon and then to throw one at the other and see what happens. Or recreate the three WTC building events.

So I have to go on the evidence that there is. And whilst it is definitly improbable that the story about the aircraft is 100%, it seems to me that the hole in the ground for the last plane was quite unlike Lockerby and consistant with an unwise but not impossible move.

Can a plane crashing into a steel frame building cause it to collapse in a controlled way? Not on your nelly. Why? Because Brighton's West Pier has been rusting in the sea for about 125 years and has been set on fire and it's ballroom is still there. That looks more like proof to me than statements about aircraft physics that can easily be refudiated by the Guiness Book of Records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Pier%2C_Brighton

It's the mommy of all catch-22's I guess.

They can´t keep the lid on the affair and it'll blow up sooner or later but this can´t happen because then they'd be history.

Blob,

For Bob's sake, only US citizens have any power over the US goverment, we can't do anything from outside - your consitution was speficially designed to stop our kind from meddling in your affairs!

As for Blair, he will fall soon. Perhaps that will make things easier. Perhaps not.

Brian, PROOF is constituted by accumulated evidence. The evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon is meager at best and riddled with physical impossibilities. But so is the whole 9/11 official story. It is built on miracles and impossibilities just like other fairy tales.

Another point about the difference between opinion and fact.

When you vote for a politician, in a democracy, it's your opinion that makes you vote one way or another.

But when you listen to a politician speak, what he says must be a matter of fact. It is not for him to have opinions, it is for his electorate to have them and for him to represent these by acting accordingly and accouting for himself IN FACT.

(her is you like, obviously)

If you see a statue of Justice she has her eyes covered - because justice must be blind - and holds a scale in one hand - to balance the facts - and the sword to deliver punishment. Are these still around to remind us!

Blob,

I'm not doubting that there are doubts - of course there are - but they cannot be facts without evidence. No one thing will be a clincher, but when the evidence is contadictory and does not provide unrefutable proof then it is a bad thing to argue about, because it misses the bigger picture.

I'm not sure where the bigger picture ends - in Afghistant or Gaza or Pakistan or China or Greenland. But the point about the flaws in the evidence are tiny compared with the continued deaths on all sides.

The bigger picture is that at least two hundred thousand people have dided so far, and it's not going to stop the slaughter by arguing about things that you don't have the facts for.

Surely?

The US supreme court has just declared the so called war on terror illegal. This won´t change anything because the excutive branch of government simply ignores the judicial one at will and uses the legislative branch as a rubber stamp. In other words it's a totalitarian system with mock elections.

" "If WTC is PROVEN to be a controlled demolition...GAME OVER FOLKS!!!"......Thats right, CHECKMATE!"

Except there's no evidence.
All the 9/11 Truth | 07.10.06 - 6:50 pm | #
____________________________________________________________--

By what standards do you claim this to be so?

IÂ’m a physicist and a chemist and my claim is that once the other physicists and chemists and people in the appropriate engineering sciences take an honest look at the work that has been compiled to date, they will side with Dr. Jones et al. in the analysis and will join him in demanding the release of evidence, etc.

In this sense the work of Dr. Jones et al. is “proof” enough and a huge first step towards ending this nightmare. Nobody should be able to tell you otherwise without addressing the “Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports and Investigate the Controlled-demolition Hypothesis” that is nicely described in his paper.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

And if I’m not mistaken there is more “proof” on the way in this analysis.

For the moment, however, the “Myths – with a capital M” live on.

LetÂ’s change that, eh?

My point being is why does it matter if it was a missle or an aircraft?

it matters because we were told. not only that it was an aircraft, but precisely which aircraft.

what amazes me is that someone did a search of the BTS data on airlines for 9/11 and discovered that neither AA11 nor AA77 were in use that day
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
and no one has found that to be significant!
__________

Brian, if you can prove to me that a 757 can fly at 530 mph. feet off the ground at full throttle without causing nearby witnesses any hearing damage, without ruffling cars it supposedly passed right over and without leaving a wake of broken windows in the inhabitated area it supposedly passed right over - I'll pay you $1000 right away.

"habeas corpus"

All the truth, since you consider eyewitness reports at the pentagon PROOF that a 757 hit the building you can´t really disregard the testimony of Police and firefighters at the WTC. You can´t have it both ways.

Furthermore the WTC witnesses didn´t catch the explosions out of the corner of their eyes. They were at work right at the scene. The firefighters are highly trained people. They can be trusted to recognize explosions.

Blob, yeah yeah, you said that. And I explained that I could not prove it any more than you can contradict it. What I learnt working on GPS military developmement makes me more expert than you in my eyes. "Impossible" is very negative and hard to prove. Thus:

can it be a plane? Yes
can it be a missile? Yes
was it not a plane? Don't know
was it not a missile? Don't know

Was it impossible it was a plane? No
Was it impossible it was a banana? Yes

As should underline this who debacle, "two wrong's don't make a right".

Anyway, if it had been me, I would have programmed the planes flight control computeter by some software backdoor days before! :-) Much easier than having to hush up whoever launched the missiles...

Brian, a 757 going at full throttle creates horrendous noise and stupendous pressure. If you think this is impossible then just go to the next airport and try to get near such an aircraft revving its engines. You won´t experience full throttle but still best of luck.

Please note, also, that I do heartily encourage those that are interested in the Pentagon problem to push onward with the quest for evidence.

It should hopefully become relevant in the not too distant future.

And who knows, maybe youÂ’ll stumble across something that the FBI and others forgot to clean up, etc.

Not like you have not done so already, but you know how it is with evidence.

I say the government should be required to run a live demonstration of an empty 757 flying into a depopulated, “recently renovated” portion of the Pentagon under the same conditions as for the event of 9/11.

Then weÂ’ll really see what that event will look like, and weÂ’ll be able to make comparisons to the event of 9/11.

Yes, any event that is physically possible should be possible to re-enact.

Now; if I asked you guys who believe that fire can down steel skyscrapers to invest in my company whose purpose it would be to corner the demolition market by setting fires randomly to such structures - would you really bite? Guess not. Your faith isn´t real.

Why are people still going to great expense by pulling steel buildings down with explosives since fire had a 100% success rate on 9/11? Think.

And with regard to remote control of a 757 for such a demonstration as I described above, if a computer flight control system can not recreate that flight path into the Pentagon then no human would be able to do it.

I base this on the technology used in the space shuttle for flight control and so I would expect this also exists and has evolved in fighter aircraft, etc.

It's because nobody is really dumb enough to try this. They may believe that fire is able to collapse steel buildings but they do so only because they've been ordered to believe it. It only runs as deep as that. They would never put this faith to practical or commercial use.

"Brian, PROOF is constituted by accumulated evidence. The evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon is meager at best and riddled with physical impossibilities."

Too bad you can't demonstrate that it's "riddled with physical impossibilities." Any attempt to would be even more hilarious than this thread has become so far.

BTW, here's some eyewitness testimony you obviously never knew existed:

and someone who knows something about flying:

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

There's lots of good resources that will help you see that what you don't know you don't know isn't doing you any bit of good at all:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

And watch out for these fakes:

http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

These links will help you be serious about the attacks of 9/11.

blob is definitely a disinfo agent.

A few smallish fires causing the collapse of the WTC buildings? I don't think so.

Besides which, how do you account for the rather quick and nicely symmetric collapses of the WTC buildings?

I've experienced just-subsonic aircraft approaching both at Air Shows (Red Arrows, Harriers etc) and also experience low-flighing training flights in Cornwall, and you don't get much incoming sounnd until after the plane is overhead.

A stalled plane falling makes a different sound to a high speed aircraft because you're going to see it before you hear a lot of the approaching sound.

And how do you account for the observtion that "molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" of the WTC buildings?

All the truth, this is really tired.

Now why don´t you explain how you on the one hand find the witness testimony at the Pentagon proof of the offical story but totally disregard testimony of explosions at the WTC. And do explain how that 757 managed to pass silently and without any pressure right by and over those witnesses. Since they report no hearing loss and their cars weren´t ruffled in the least that wonderplane must have been silent going full throttle at 530 mph.. Cause - effect.

All the 9/11 Truth, it's not PROOF is it? It's joined-up opinion, not proof. Shouting PROOF makes your argument weaker, not stronger. Liars shout, the truth need only be whispered.

Brian, did those planes pass right over you, basically feet above you and were they 757's at 530 mph? Remember, we´re discussing that 757 and the official story.