The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

And there are a lot of of eyewitness accounts that say it was not a airliner.

a reply to: everyone

Yes, I was aware of that and it makes me very suspicious of those lightpoles.

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: neutronflux

And there are a lot of of eyewitness accounts that say it was not a airliner.

Eyewitness accounts backed by what supporting evidence?

Eyewitness accounts contracted by other individuals seeing a passenger jet hit the pentagon which is backed by physical evidence.

Discredit the radar and flight data which supports a passenger jet flew into the pentagon.

Discredit flight 77 passenger and crew DNA / remains ended up at the pentagon because flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

Discredit the pilot of an airborne aircraft who identified a silver passenger jet and watched it hit the pentagon from the air.

Discredit light poles hit by flight 77.

Discredit the numerous photos and videos of passenger jet wreckage on the pentagon lawn.

Discredit the photographs and documentation of passenger jet wreckage inside then pentagon. (Are you going to say the pictured fan disc from an engine was to small without stating which fan disc it is from a multistage turbofan jet with multiple fan discs of varying sizes?)

a reply to: firerescue

the pentagon had no internal walls on its two lowest floors? is that seriously what you just said?

show me the exact blueprint/outline/photograph of the pentagon you are personally looking at to support the crazy statement you just made.

if the plane slammed into the ground first, it WOULD NOT penetrate several walls and leave a punch out hole.

if the plane flew STRAIGHT INTO the building just a few feet off of the ground like the pentagon video clearly shows, this denotes an absolutely impossible aviation maneuver.

you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: facedye

Going to produce the quotes of your own words from past posts that proves you answered my directed questions to you asking how passenger DNA ended up at the pentagon and dirtect requests to prove eyewitness accounts of passenger jets are falsehoods?

Or just start ranting about mental stability?

a reply to: facedye

Shut up is not an answer to how flight 77 wreckage and passengers DNA ended up at the pentagon, nor proving eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon are falsehoods.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

IIB do you mind if I PM you about your talking points and previous thread on this?

I have some sensitive inquiries here that I feel would be best answered through a private exchange.

Facedye and AAC.... Awesome work if this was a boxing match it would be a TKO

a reply to: facedye

No need to ask to PM.

a reply to: everyone

I get the feeling you're talking about CIT. I seem to recall CIT going out of fashion something on the order of debunked as hoaxsters. It's been a while. Why'd they leave the forum again?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I read through your thread from 2007 (you posted it a few pages back), and it seemed to me the argument was that all of the poles, except lightpole 1, could have been in place on the ground before the Pentagon was hit because they weren't all that visible from the highway and who would think anything of it even if someone did notice one while driving by.

But lightpole 1 allegedly hit Lloyd England's cab, and he claims that he and another man removed it from his windshield, so obviously it wasn't that difficult to move with two people (225 pounds IIRC). So conceivably it wouldn't have been too cumbersome to move into place...especially if the pieces were tucked into the bushes next to where his cab stopped, prior to that morning.

I didn't see where this theory was debunked in that thread but perhaps I missed something.

Honestly, it's been ages since I've read I recall long debates in CIT threads, etc and it got to where they'd deflect and try to talk about other things. Eventually I made my own thread after I got sick of being ignored (like with the other No Planer debunker threads I made).

A pole once knocked down and laying there is a whole other animal than one that is erect with the light and juice and all.

What if's about poles stashed where Superman puts his cape still don't account for the construction job involved in the whole affair.

Nice topic ! S&F

And again, the same few people you can find in numerous other treads, attacking every possibility to derail the debate/conversation or theory put forward by other people.

Best to ignore them and continue the debate on a healthy and normal level. I think most agree.

Here are some details i wan't to contribute. I think most will be covered but i have to admit i skipped a few pages duo lack of time.

Here we go :


1.The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.

NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission – gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.

2. How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

3. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale bio-terrorism emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue?

4. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally – including but not limited to “put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.

Initial reports on these trades, such as Profiting from Disaster and Suspicious Trading, were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks. The German firm, Convar, recovered financial data from hard drives recovered from Ground Zero although the Commission published this FBI briefing on trading in which agents expressed a lack of knowledge and doubt about the data recovery long after the data was transmitted to the FBI.

5. The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. This action made no sense at all.

6. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a “war on waste” after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

I can keep going for a while, but the point is clear.

This should not be a debate about a missile, plane or anything at this point. Many people lost there lives and many scars did not heal. How in the world can anyone justify the secrecy, lie's and mistakes occured before, at or after that point in history. America went to war on this matter, wich has proven to be a very convinient mistake for the nation's influence in the middle east. Still, not a soul inside the goverment has been accountable for any action, or no action for that matter.

WAKE UP !

a reply to: Convincedotherwise

Andrews didn't have alert fighters. It would have taken longer than an hour and 20 minutes to arm them from the time the word came down to start.

On the missing $2.3T, people love to repeat that we only found out about it the day before, but that isn't true.

March 2000, 18 months before 9/11:

March 05, 2000|JOHN M. DONNELLY | ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

articles.latimes.com...

originally posted by: Convincedotherwise


5. The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. This action made no sense at all

It's just a list of truth movement talking points? Quoted item above proves you have not put forth the effort to do real research.

The removal of WTC debris took several months and was meticulously removed out of fear the slurry wall would fail.

The meticulous removal of the debris and steel by engineers, demolitions experts, firefighters, and law enforcement resultsed in hand searching for victims and evidence as needed. Steel samples were retained to conduct metallurgical, weld, and floor connection analysis and tests.

Were there no WTC metallurgical, weld, floor connections studies published?

At ground zero, the steel and debris were segregated and shipped to staging areas.

At the staging area, steel was retained as needed. The WTC debris placed on conveyors and hand picked for human remains, personal items, and evidence.

Dedicated law enforcement spent 100's of man hours hand searching debris. 19,000 pieces of human remains were recovered alone. 6,000 that could fit in test tubes.

Keep pushing the false narratives......

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: neutronflux

And there are a lot of of eyewitness accounts that say it was not a airliner.

Can you produce a source to those eyewitnesses? Because I certainly did not hear nor read that anywhere. There were a couple that thought it was a private jet, I don't think any eyewitnesses said it was a missile. Care to provide that source of "a lot" of eyewitnesses?

Here is a link to what eyewitnesses reported seeing. Show me in there where a lot did not see an airliner. Please keep in mind.. not seeing it simply because the airliner was not in their LOS doesn't mean it wasn't there. The # who DID see it is what is important:

Eyewitness Reports

I want to start the post as a reply to my claim that I read in the 9/11 Commission that the plane hit the ground first before plowing into the Pentagon. I was mistaken and actually read that in the snopes.com debunk of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Link

As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by the New York Times, the plane still hit not “just the ground floor” but between the first and second floors:

To be honest, I’d be happy with either credibility casualty on this one. If you don’t want to believe that Snopes got their info from a relabel source, then we can then assume snopes is not a reliable source. On this point, I’m good with either. Snopes is a joke. But snopes implies it got it’s info from a NY Times article. I didn't look too hard for the NY Times source because I’d rather decrepit Snopes and we all know the 9/11 Commission was a joke when a member outwardly claimed they were set up to fail.

But still moving on. Let’s talk about those damn light poles. Because it seems that all Pentagon conspiracies are always met with, “Yeah, but what knocked those light poles down?"

The biggest witness to the light poles being hit by plane impact is the man by the name of Lloyd England. Seemingly sweet and nice old man. But he was used in all this. And he even admitted it. There is so much wrong with the Lloyd England angle that it could be it’s own thread. Let’s start with this: Lloyd England’s wife worked for the FBI.

Lloyd England was a cab driver who claimed that he was driving on the interstate next to the Pentagon when he heard a plane and then a light pole crashed into his car window. He claimed he fought with the car to get it to stop and then got out. He says that a man in a white van that didn’t say anything the entire time came over and helped him pull the pole out of his car. A car that didn’t have a scratch on the hood. Just the hole in window. But Lloyd’s story starts falling apart on further review.



Watch the entire video to fully grasp what happens at around 13 minutes 40 seconds of this video. You can hear what Lloyd had to say when he didn’t think the investigator’s cameras were recording. For those that do not have video capabilities. Lloyd says, “Do you know what history is? His Story. It’s not truth. It’s his story. This is too big for me man, it’s a big thing. This is a world thing happening and I’m just a small man. This is a thing for the people with money.” The investigator gets him to clarify and says, “Meaning they’re doing it for their own reasons and they just used you?” He replies, "yes, I was used, I didn’t want to be part of this.” He then goes on to admit that “they” drove across the highway together that morning and set it all up and started to take different pictures.

Now why did this Lloyd England admit to a staged event when he thought he was off camera? Because these independent journalists proved to him that his car was in two different places. His car was parked in a different location at first. Proved through pictures attached. Then when reports of witnesses seeing a different flight path his car was moved to a different location.

Here in the second photo. What a beautifully staged photo op with Lloyd looking at the Pentagon.



Here you can see Lloyd’s car in an entirely different location. He's in the background with the hat on. If you notice the cobblestone bridge with the road signs. But also look at the road markings. You can see that his car isn’t in the same lane either.



Now look at this photo. This is the second location of Lloyd’s car that day. Notice where the light pole is leaning on the gird rail.



In the similar angle the white saturn hasn’t shown up yet and that pole leaning on the guardrail doesn’t look like it’s there anymore.



To repeat, after the investigators showed that Lloyd was in two places that day (which he continued to deny over and over until they showed him the proof). He began to get flustered. Then after the camera was turned off is when he started to reveal some secrets. If you watch the video you will see how different he was on and off camera.

So again, logic can easily lead us to believe that Lloyd England was used to support the entire Light Posts falling lie. Then after all the witnesses came out (including Pentagon Officers) claiming the flight path was different in the morning. They moved Lloyd’s car to different location for photo op.

But if you take Lloyd completely out of the picture. Let’s just focus on the light poles themselves.







Where are the divots in the grass? Where is any damage in the soft grass that would have been there if a commercial airliner flying at 500 mph smashed into the almost 300 pound metal light pole slamming them back into the grass? There is no ground damage. To me, they look like they were just laid there.

Let’s look for a second what a 10 pound bird can do to a Plane nose and wing. Are we to believe that a 300 pound metal pole wouldn’t damage the wing more then a ten pound bird, which would immediately alter the planes trajectory if it hit the wings?





Let’s entertain something with an open-mind for a second.

Let’s look at this subject independent of a certain litigation. Let’s only deal with evidence of the Pentagon crash that cannot be explained away by planting evidence. Even if you do not believe anyone planted evidence, for the sake of my point, just consider it. If we take that single possibility out of the equation what concrete evidence is there to support OS?

What can be planted?

Light poles.
Airplane parts.
Airplane black box.
False witness reports.

CONT'D

AAC

What is left to analyze? Well, quite a lot if you have an open mind.

Let’s keep in mind that we wouldn’t even have gotten the crappy video of the Pentagon attack if the Government didn’t have to show proof in court of the attack to convict.

Here are just a few of the reasonable “why’s" with the official story that should be dealt with outside of possible planted evidence.


1. Why were all sensor cameras turned off that morning?
2. Why were the 85 cameras that could have shown evidence confiscated by FBI. And then deemed classified for national security?
3. The video released shows an object flying perfectly parallel with the ground for over 200 meters. Just imagine that with your logical mind. Imagine a plane that you’ve been on coming in for a landing. But instead of bouncing off the ground a few dozens times rapidly before catching traction, the plane perfectly stays elevated and hovers above the airstrip without touching the ground for over 200 meters. Does your mind allow that to process? If you said no, you’re blessed.
4. The last punched out hole in the Pentagon of inner building was almost a perfect circle 12 feet in diameter. And they claimed a wheel rim or something made that perfect destruction. So then why was the brick wall 15 feet away from that huge blast without a scratch? Can a huge metal object bust through a wall leaving a 12 foot gaping hole and then not even leave a scratch on a wall 15 feet in front of it? These things are all illogical.
5. Where are the bodies?
6. Where is the seats, cushions or luggage?
7. Why is there not even a scratch on the lawn in front of Pentagon where the alleged airliner flew parallel with the ground for over 200 meters?


Now, what evidence was there that an airplane hit the Pentagon that day if you also take away all the evidence that could have been planted there?

None that I have seen yet.

Regarding the witnesses that claimed they saw the Jet fly on the other side of the gas station. Those witnesses were police officers and workers in the area. Others claim they saw the plane pull up over the Pentagon at the last second and fly over. It would look something like this.



Oddly enough, there were credible witnesses to seeing a plane in that restricted airspace over the White House during that time. Secret Service witnessed the plane and also CNN reported on it over the white House around the time the Pentagon attack.



The Whitehouse is just about 5 miles from the Pentagon. In the direction a flyover plane would be headed. Now, reports have surfaced that this plane was a DoD strategic communications plane. But all I’m saying is that this plane fits into the timeline of witnesses and the “flyover” theory.

If naysayers want to put this story to rest they need to answer the questions regarding suspicion that cannot be explain away with planted evidence. The burden falls on the government to prove this because they confiscated all the evidence that could put this entire subject to bed.

I'll end with this. I assert that it is impossible for the Pentagon to be attack by that commercial jet for the simple reason of how long it was hovering over the ground without leaving a mark before crashing into the building.

For a commercial jet to pull of such a miraculous stunt, it would need more than a half mile of leveled surface to remain level with the ground as long as it was before impact. Considering the highway was only a quarter of a mile away and we all witness the plane in the video remain parallel with the ground for over 200 meters, there is no way a big jet dove down and then level out that fast without slamming into the Earth. Period. There just isn’t that much space between the Pentagon and the highway to pull that off.


AAC

Did anyone else see the footage on anon news? The footage that looks like it's taken from a secure entry parking camera? To the left of the area where plane impacted. Not sure if linking that here is allowed.

Can't say I saw anything in the footage that looked like a plane. Could the theory of a rocket instead of a plane be plausible?

EDIT:

youtu.be...

It does show something white, that appears to be very close or sliding across the grass. I don't see any discernible colours that would match the plane.