I Think Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon

Well, you can´t be 100% sure of the veracity of those pictures or whether they were taken at the Pentagon at all. What's the original source?

A 100 ton plane would leave dozens of tons of wreckage, engines made of steel and titanium, large tail and wing sections etc. Now, where is all that? Why can´t they just take reporters to the warehouse where this has supposedly been kept (if a 757 hit the Pentagon) and just display all this stuff? All the parts are stamped with a unique identification number. So, it's no doubt from which airplane certain parts originate.

They want you to believe that a 757 crawled along the ground into the Pentagon at 500+ mph. ! It came over that 6-8 lane highway, cleared a hill and then leveled out in a very small space to crawl along the ground into the Pentagon ! Come on.

However; you are quite right in that the evidence for complicity is overwhelming even without the Pentagon. And I understand your reasoning for not focusing on the Pentagon segment of the 911 official fable. But all that accumulating evidence just isn´t getting the case any traction. We're just running in place. The mass media ignores it, congress ignores it, the authors of the official fable just continue ignoring the discussion. So; what to do? How is it possible to keep up a meaningful debate if one side, the govt. side, constantly refuses to join that discussion? Even though their fable has been taken apart.
 
Since the beggining I have always tried to compare known constants with the known evidence taken from 9/11.

With that being said, what we do know is that a plane cannot perform some of the manuevers mentioned in the official version of the story. Ask any pilot what the hardest thing to do in a plane is. They will tell you its landing. Why? Well its simple. What does a plane want to do naturally once its obtained the necessary velocity? Lift! The faster the plane is going the more lift the plane has. As a matter of fact, planes are outfitted with flaps, elevators, and ailerons... all are features of design added to counteract the effects of lift.

Knowing this I find it very hard to believe a jet powered aircraft weighing several thousands of pounds was able to maintain such an altitude without crashing. At its present velocity (someone may be a bit better at the math then I am) the plane would be looking at some several thousand pounds of lift.

Now lets apply these two factors with what we know about todays modern aircraft(jetliners specifically). The cockpit is full of one thing. Electronics. Computers, gauges, lights, alarms, monitors, ETC. All of which are there to assist the pilot in flight. Notice I mentioned alarms. These are pretty straight forward. They sound off when something is going wrong or some other malfunction has occured. This can be anything from engine failure to low altitude warnings.

According to our official version Hani Hanjoor(spelling) was the hijacker that piloted flight 77 into the pentagon. Long story short, he went to flight school in florida and was a terrible pilot. According to the official report, he piloted the plane from altitude, performed a 280 degree descending turn at 500+MPH immediately lined up with the west wall of the pentagon, dropped the plane to an altitude of 2 feet(the underbelly of the plane being at about knee-waist high), flew over the highway(completely missing the 3-foot high guard rails, but knocking over 5 light poles), and then crashed into the pentagon. All the while, the planes alarms would have been going nuts. Passengers on the plane im sure were not sitting quitely, other hijackers had to have been shouting orders or whatever. Im sure the activity and confusion on that plane would have been enough to cause most people to have a nervous breakdown. Yet, somehow Hani managed to perform amazing feets of flight that not only would test the limits of the most seasoned pilots, but the plane aswell.

Some reports even state the plane skidded on the lawn and then into the pentagon. Clearly this can be ruled out, as there was absolutely zero evidence (photos taken moments after the crash, and newly released security camera footage) that the plane skidded along lawn before impacting the pentagon.

I could go on and on with this shit...

Ultimately it comes to this. If "they" had evidence that would put any "conspiracy" theory immediately to rest. "They" would release it. Especially considering the current state of affairs in this country. However, this is not the case. "They" dont have evidence to disprove our theories. "They" never will...Why? because we stumbled on the truth. We have known the truth for the last 5 years now. Instead, were labled as "conspiracy theorists" Tin-foil hat wearing crazies. They dont attack our position with facts, instead they look to attack us personally and confuse/re-direct others into the same line of thinking.
 
I'm with Mike Ruppert on this one insofar as discussing physical evidence goes. I see the physical evidence as sort of "extra" but not "definitive" proof of conspiracy. I'm not a scientist so I have no way of knowing if a plane hit the pentagon or if airliners and fire can cause buildings to collapse. I can, however, research PNAC and The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brzezinski where they basically come out and admit that a 911 type event was essential to maintaining US hegemony. When put against the background of the history of the CIA, the Northwoods document, Bush/Cheney connections to big oil/defense contractors/bin ladens, and the apparant peaking of world oil production, all of this evidence paints a pretty convincing picture that the people that had most to gain from 911 are the people running the financial sectors, not religious fanatics. Indeed, the elite have gotten everything they want since 911, while the Islamic world has been subject to the worst kinds of brutality. That isnt to say that the pentagon raises serious questions. How did a plane even penetrate the most important military target in the country? What was Cheney talking about when he said "the order still stands" to the radar operator in the bunker as told by Norman Minetta? Why were the video tapes from the adjacent hotel and gas station confiscated by the FBI minuetes after the attack? How would they have known where the incriminating videos were so quickly and have the presence of mind to seize them during a supposed suprise attack of a horrific nature, particularly when we are asked to believe that they were totally inept up until 911? I'm not saying the physical evidence is not damning. It is. But only when it is viewed in combination with the other evidence having to do with means, motive, and opportunity.
 
My personal opinion is that the scientific evidence, although very debatable, should be used because just because people needed it to happen doesnt mean they made it happen. So you've got to prove they made it happen and not just that they picked up lemons off the ground and made lemonade-you've got to prove they made the lemons.

Some would say thta Ruppert doesn't go some places because they're debatable (explosives in the WTC, what hit the Pentagon) yet he still proves 9/11 was an inside job. Crossing the Rubicon was 500 pages. If the guy who made Loose Change had Ruppert's mentality (not to say that it's a bad one), that documentary would need to be 3-4 hours just to prove 9/11 was a govn't op rather than 1-2 using "debatable facts"
 
I agree we need to prove that they made it happen. Its just harder, in my opinion, to prove the "how" as compared to the "who" and "why". Lately I've been getting more and more bold about talking about 911 truth with my customers (bartender), friends, and families. I live in San Francisco so everyone already has an anti-Bush stance but they mostly accept the "blowback" theory for 911. Maybe they even know that we trained Bin Laden in Afghanistan and they think that he turned on us. But now as more and more information comes out about other failures in the administration, particularly
Iraq, the economy, gas prices, Katrina, they are more willing to believe the 911truth information. It's difficult for me, not being a scientist or even having a very firm grasp on physics or chemistry, to articulate why steal doesnt melt in fires caused by jet fuel fires. I do tell people about building 7 and suprisingly many people still don't know about it. Building 7 to me seems like the one piece of physical evidence that points to and inside job. I will mention the Pentagon but I usually stick to the fact that I don't believe a non military aircraft would be allowed to approach the Pentagon without being shot down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top